If you're in a room and you count 29 other guys sitting around, get the hell out of there. Also, another word to the wise --- skip the wedding.

So what's with this "30" enumeration, anyway? Code for something? Very odd and a big stretch for co-inky-dinks.

organizers are suggesting all weddings be conducted and perhaps even consumated within 100 meters of the Presidential Palace or as close to the the US Embassy as they can possibly get.

OK, at 30 scalps per airstrike, given the Afghan population of 33,609,937, assuming, say, 1000 airstrikes per year, we're easily looking at another 1100 years plus of pouring money into this absurd "war" and/or extracting drugs from their country's narco economy. This is either good or bad depending on which side you're usually on.

These results duly factor in, and cancel out, "x"= the mindless intonations of the invaders who insist "staying as long as it takes to get the job done" and "y" the Afghan tribal and ethnic factions centuries old tradition of fending off invaders to the last man standing.

REUTERS - A Yemeni airstrike killed 30 al Qaeda militants planning an attack on Yemeni and foreign oil targets, a security official said on Thursday.

The airstrikes were in the eastern province of Shabwa, said the official, who asked not to be identified. The attacks took place as the militants were gathered for a meeting, he said.

The official said initial reports that two top al Qaeda members in the Arabian peninsula had been killed could not be verified.

"We are still unsure if two of the top leaders have been killed or not. One of them is the Saudi al Qaeda member Nasser al Weheshi," he added, declining to say whether more strikes would take place on Thursday.

Yemen's Supreme Security Committee issued a warning to citizens in the province of Shabwa not to aid the militants.

On Monday, Yemen said its security forces and warplanes last week foiled a planned series of suicide bombings. About 30 al Qaeda militants were killed in those airstrikes with 17 arrested in Abyan and in Arhab, northeast of the capital Sanaa.

Salon.com, By Glenn Greenwald, December 26

Each time the U.S. bombs a new location in the Muslim world, the same pattern emerges. First, officials from the U.S. or allied governments run to their favorite media outlet to claim -- anonymously -- that some big, bad, notorious, "top" Al Qaeda leader "may have been" or "likely was" killed in the strike, and this constitutes a "stinging" or "devastating" blow against the Terrorist group. These compliant media outlets then sensationalistically trumpet that claim as the dominant theme of their "reporting" on the attack, drowning out every other issue.

As a result, and by design, there is never any debate or discussion over the propriety or wisdom of these strikes. After all, what sane, rational, Serious person would possibly question a bombing raid or missile strike that "likely" killed a murderous, top Al Qaeda fighter and struck a "devastating blow" to that group's operationg abilities? Having the story shaped this way also ensures that there is virtually no attention paid to the resulting civilian casualties (i.e., the slaughter of innocent people); most Americans, especially journalists, have been trained to ignore such deaths as nothing more than justifiable "collateral damage," especially when a murderous, top Al Qaeda fighter was killed by the bombs (besides, as Alan Dershowitz once explained, "civilians" in close enough proximity to a Top Terrorist themselves may very well bear some degree of culpability). The adolescent We-Got-the-Bad-Guy! headline also ensures there is no attention paid to the radicalizing effect of these civilian deaths and our attacks for that country and in the region.

Yet over and over and over, it turns out that these anonymous government assertions -- trumpeted by our mindless media -- are completely false. The Big Bad Guy allegedly killed in the strike ends up nowhere near the bombs and missiles. Sometimes, the very same Big Bad Guy can be used to justify different strikes over the course of many years (we know we said we killed him four times before, but this time we're pretty sure we got him), or he can turn up alive when it's time to re-trumpet the Al Qaeda threat (we said before we killed him in that devastating airstrike, but actually he's alive and more dangerous than ever!!). Just like the "we killed 30 extremists" claim or the "we got Al Qaeda's Number 3" boast, this is propaganda in its purest form, disseminated jointly by the U.S. Government and American media, and it happens over and over, compelling a rational person to conclude that it's clearly intentional by both parties.

In the last week alone, this pattern just asserted itself -- twice -- with regard to the air strikes in Yemen. The first set of strikes, it was immediately leaked, was allegedly aimed at "the presumed leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Qaaim al-Raymi," yet it turned out he was not among the dozens of people killed, though "U.S. officials believe one of his top deputies [unnamed] may have been killed." Then, after a second set of strikes on Thursday, it was claimed that "a Yemeni air raid may have killed the top two leaders of al Qaeda's regional branch," and an American Muslim preacher linked to Nidal Hasan, "the man who shot dead 13 people at a U.S. army base [Anwar al-Awlaki] may also have died."

Dozens killed in Yemen air strike on al-Qaeda suspects

December 24

BBC - At least 30 suspected al-Qaeda militants have been killed by an air strike in a remote mountainous area of Yemen, security officials say.
An unnamed official told reporters the strike took place as dozens of militants gathered in Shabwa province, east of the capital, Sanaa.
Two senior al-Qaeda commanders in the Arabian peninsula could be among the dead, he said.

Al-Qaeda has carried out frequent attacks in Yemen in recent months.
The Saudi government has recently expressed its concern about the resurgence of the movement in the region.

'Planning attacks'

AFP news agency quoted the security official as saying Saudis and Iranians had been at the suspected al-Qaeda meeting.
"We are still unsure if two of the top leaders have been killed or not," Reuters news agency quoted him as saying.

more

Glenn Greenwald for Salon December 26

Each time the U.S. bombs a new location in the Muslim world, the same pattern emerges. First, officials from the U.S. or allied governments run to their favorite media outlet to claim -- anonymously -- that some big, bad, notorious, "top" Al Qaeda leader "may have been" or "likely was" killed in the strike, and this constitutes a "stinging" or "devastating" blow against the Terrorist group. These compliant media outlets then sensationalistically trumpet that claim as the dominant theme of their "reporting" on the attack, drowning out every other issue.

As a result, and by design, there is never any debate or discussion over the propriety or wisdom of these strikes. After all, what sane, rational, Serious person would possibly question a bombing raid or missile strike that "likely" killed a murderous, top Al Qaeda fighter and struck a "devastating blow" to that group's operationg abilities? Having the story shaped this way also ensures that there is virtually no attention paid to the resulting civilian casualties (i.e., the slaughter of innocent people); most Americans, especially journalists, have been trained to ignore such deaths as nothing more than justifiable "collateral damage," especially when a murderous, top Al Qaeda fighter was killed by the bombs (besides, as Alan Dershowitz once explained, "civilians" in close enough proximity to a Top Terrorist themselves may very well bear some degree of culpability). The adolescent We-Got-the-Bad-Guy! headline also ensures there is no attention paid to the radicalizing effect of these civilian deaths and our attacks for that country and in the region.

Yet over and over and over, it turns out that these anonymous government assertions -- trumpeted by our mindless media -- are completely false. The Big Bad Guy allegedly killed in the strike ends up nowhere near the bombs and missiles. Sometimes, the very same Big Bad Guy can be used to justify different strikes over the course of many years (we know we said we killed him four times before, but this time we're pretty sure we got him), or he can turn up alive when it's time to re-trumpet the Al Qaeda threat (we said before we killed him in that devastating airstrike, but actually he's alive and more dangerous than ever!!). Just like the "we killed 30 extremists" claim or the "we got Al Qaeda's Number 3" boast, this is propaganda in its purest form, disseminated jointly by the U.S. Government and American media, and it happens over and over, compelling a rational person to conclude that it's clearly intentional by both parties.

More at the Salon link with many source links.