NationStates Jolt Archive

About time.

I knew we had advisors with the ethiopians, but not any attack helicopters.

AQ-We're coming for ya



Report: U.S. airstrike targets al-Qaida in Africa
Pentagon won't confirm action by helicopter gunship in southern Somalia

WASHINGTON - A U.S. helicopter gunship conducted a strike against two suspected al-Qaida operatives in southern Somalia, but it was not known whether the mission was successful, CBS News reported on Monday.

The U.S. Air Force helicopter, operated by the Special Operations Command, flew from its base in Djibouti to the southern tip of Somalia, where the al-Qaida suspects were believed to have fled from the capital, Mogadishu, the network reported.

A Pentagon spokesman said he had no information on the report.

U.S. officials say that the United States received assurances from both the Ethiopian and Somalian governments in the last two weeks that should they obtain intelligence concerning the whereabouts of the three al-Qaida operatives they would pass it on to the United States.

The operatives are believed to be responsible for the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the 2002 attacks on Israeli tourists in Kenya and the attempted downing of an Israeli aircraft the same day.

The Ethiopian military swept into Somalia last month and removed the Islamic government that had harbored al Qaeda operatives. US officials emphasized to the governments what a high priority the whereabouts of these operatives have been to the United States.

We're the USA; We're everywhere.

Yes, even under your bed.

Our military leaders are fulfilling their promise to battle Islamists everywhere; the mission to exterminate religious fundamentalism has seen marked progress recently in Somalia, where the Christian Ethiopian government opened a proverbial can of "wh**p-a**" on the Muslims.

We're the USA; We're everywhere.

Yes, even under your bed.

We're better than visa, stronger than mastercard, with more punch than chuck norris.

Link please?

Our military leaders are fulfilling their promise to battle Islamists everywhere; the mission to exterminate religious fundamentalism has seen marked progress recently in Somalia, where the Christian Ethiopian government opened a proverbial can of "wh**p-a**" on the RADICAL Muslims.

Fixed it for you.

It's not muslims we're after. We are after Alqaida. Hadji. Jihaddi. AFghan Joe. Whatever you call him, it's islamic extremists.

As long as they're bombing legitimate AQ targets; kudos to them.

Somalia is basically pirate country with no semblance of a legitimate government, so there can't be even an "international incident" there. If an actual government, such as that of Ethiopia or United States, decides to attack, what happens to the irregulars is the same as to the frogs in the joke: "Two frogs walked on the road. The other said "Hey, watch for that ca*SPLAT*", to which the other "What ca*SPLAT*".

As long as they're bombing legitimate AQ targets; kudos to them.


I'm even more generous-as long as it's radical muslim. Help out the Somalis and the Ethiopians a little.

Link please?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/world/main2335451.shtml

Our military leaders are fulfilling their promise to battle Islamists everywhere; the mission to exterminate Islamic (i.e, competing forms of) fundamentalism has seen marked progress recently in Somalia, where the Christian Ethiopian government opened a proverbial can of "wh**p-a**" on the Muslims.

While Islamists are religious fundamentalists, not all religious fundamentalists are Islamist. While the United States government may be involved in military operations against Islamists (provided that we make the probably unfounded assumption that all Islamists are allied with al-Qaeda and its allies, thereby making all Islamists target of our operations against al-Qaeda and its allies), it is most definitely not on a mission to exterminate religious fundamentalism. To the contrary, the United States government is currently acting to support Christian forms of religious fundamentalism, as seen in its actions regarding abortion, "faith-based initiatives", gay marriage, scientific curricula in general and evolution in particular. The current actions are instead aimed at nullifying a competing form of religious fundamentalism.

About time.

I knew we had advisors with the ethiopians, but not any attack helicopters.

AQ-We're coming for ya



Report: U.S. airstrike targets al-Qaida in Africa
Pentagon won't confirm action by helicopter gunship in southern Somalia

WASHINGTON - A U.S. helicopter gunship conducted a strike against two suspected al-Qaida operatives in southern Somalia, but it was not known whether the mission was successful, CBS News reported on Monday.

The U.S. Air Force helicopter, operated by the Special Operations Command, flew from its base in Djibouti to the southern tip of Somalia, where the al-Qaida suspects were believed to have fled from the capital, Mogadishu, the network reported.

A Pentagon spokesman said he had no information on the report.

U.S. officials say that the United States received assurances from both the Ethiopian and Somalian governments in the last two weeks that should they obtain intelligence concerning the whereabouts of the three al-Qaida operatives they would pass it on to the United States.

The operatives are believed to be responsible for the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the 2002 attacks on Israeli tourists in Kenya and the attempted downing of an Israeli aircraft the same day.

The Ethiopian military swept into Somalia last month and removed the Islamic government that had harbored al Qaeda operatives. US officials emphasized to the governments what a high priority the whereabouts of these operatives have been to the United States.

Capital punishment for al-Qaeda. Gotta love it.

Hopefully we got 'em and made it hurt! :mp5:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/world/main2335451.shtml

Thank you.

To bad that Captain Poopy (what a hell of a name) could not do so.

Thank you.

To bad that Captain Poopy (what a hell of a name) could not do so.

*cough* It's Captain Pooby. And I agree, it irks me when people post a news story without any sources.

While Islamists are religious fundamentalists, not all religious fundamentalists are Islamist. While the United States government may be involved in military operations against Islamists (provided that we make the probably unfounded assumption that all Islamists are allied with al-Qaeda and its allies, thereby making all Islamists target of our operations against al-Qaeda and its allies), it is most definitely not on a mission to exterminate religious fundamentalism. To the contrary, the United States government is currently acting to support Christian forms of religious fundamentalism, as seen in its actions regarding abortion, "faith-based initiatives", gay marriage, scientific curricula in general and evolution in particular. The current actions are instead aimed at nullifying a competing form of religious fundamentalism.

The Abortion issue isn't just a religious one. Nor is the gay marriage issue. Bush is a Christian. What he is doing isn't Religious fundamentalism by far. He is the POTUS who is a Christian and has a Christian worldview.

On some things.

*cough* It's Captain Pooby. And I agree, it irks me when people post a news story without any sources.

It's pooby I tell ya! The almighty POOBinator!

WEll, not really. But I'm lazy and like you, the reader, to do some work.

The Ethiopian military swept into Somalia last month and removed the Islamic government that had harbored al Qaeda operatives.

Leaving aside the inaccuracy of refering to the UIC as the "government of Somalia" (it never controlled the west or the north), has there ever been any confirmation that they had "harbored al Qaeda operatives"? Last I heard, it was only the word of the US and Somali governments (every speech by Somali government representives about the UIC seemed to use the word "terrorists" several times per sentence), and had never been confirmed by independent media investigation.

And I still find it rather amusing that the US government is saying "These people harboured al Qaeda; now let's go and ask them for advice on how the Somali government should be run!" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513649)

Leaving aside the inaccuracy of refering to the UIC as the "government of Somalia" (it never controlled the west or the north), has there ever been any confirmation that they had "harbored al Qaeda operatives"? Last I heard, it was only the word of the US and Somali governments (every speech by Somali government representives about the UIC seemed to use the word "terrorists" several times per sentence), and had never been confirmed by independent media investigation.

And I still find it rather amusing that the US government is saying "These people harboured al Qaeda; now let's go and ask them for advice on how the Somali government should be run!" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513649)

Yes, that last bit is funny.

Apparently, it's long been known that they shelter the men responsible for the Kenyan Embassy bombings.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2762204

There are far more links than just this. It's old news.

Leaving aside the inaccuracy of refering to the UIC as the "government of Somalia" (it never controlled the west or the north), has there ever been any confirmation that they had "harbored al Qaeda operatives"? Last I heard, it was only the word of the US and Somali governments (every speech by Somali government representives about the UIC seemed to use the word "terrorists" several times per sentence), and had never been confirmed by independent media investigation.

And I still find it rather amusing that the US government is saying "These people harboured al Qaeda; now let's go and ask them for advice on how the Somali government should be run!" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513649)

Al Qaeda has had a presence in Somalia since the 1990s. It was Al Qaeda operatives that taught the Somali gunmen to use RPGs against helicopters, a tactic developed in Afghanistan while fighting the Soviets. It's not as simple as pointing an RPG in the air and shooting, it requires modifying the projectile to explode in flight rather than just on impact. The Al Qaeda operatives in Somalia convinced the average Somali that the UN forces were in the country to "burn the koran".

There was intel indicating that Al Qaeda operatives involved in the African embassy bombings were living in Somalia under ICU protection as well. The strikes were targeting them and Al Qaeda training camps near the Kenyan border.

And, instead of invading Somalia, and trying to do it the wrong way (as was done in Iraq), we trained the Ethiopians to do this - go in, invade, and kick al-Qaeda's ass.

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=41430&archive=true

We've evidently had this idea since 2003, when we started training the Ethiopian Army to do this job.

Now they're doing it. Funny, when they invade Somalia and kick ass indiscriminately, we don't see any bad press in Reuters about collateral damage.

And, when we get news of where exactly a few al-Q guys might be hiding, then we do airstrikes - no sons of Cindy Sheehan to worry about there.

And al-Q gets its butt kicked.

Wow, is this true or could this all be made up from the imaginations of the damned Americans. :p

I could of swore or been told on many occasions that the USA wasn't pursueing or had gotten off track of tracking down al-Queda. Where's all the posters who stated America isn't focused on al-Queda? :D

According to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, foreign fighters have been captured from countries including Britain and Canada:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6243459.stm

Now cue the British government crying for the return of these peace loving people, swallowing whatever pathetic excuses they give for being there. "We were here to study!"

I hope that they disappear to one of those CIA black sites, this country really doesn't need scum like that coming back.

WASHINGTON - A U.S. helicopter gunship conducted a strike against two suspected al-Qaida operatives in southern Somalia, but it was not known whether the mission was successful, CBS News reported on Monday.

And from the BBC...

"The US has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," he said in Mogadishu, a day after entering the city for the first time since the Islamists withdrew.

Hmmm.

According to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, foreign fighters have been captured from countries including Britain and Canada:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6243459.stm

Now cue the British government crying for the return of these peace loving people, swallowing whatever pathetic excuses they give for being there. "We were here to study!"

I hope that they disappear to one of those CIA black sites, this country really doesn't need scum like that coming back.

Over the last couple of days, turn coat Australians, and I use that term loosely, have been found overseas fighting for the jihad. One has been captured in Iraq and another was killed in Somalia.

Of course the families deny that's why they're there,the guy in Iraq claims he's looking for a wife :rolleyes:

Of course, foreigners have some value as prisoners. Rumor is that local Somalis who were fighting for the Islamists are being taken out into the desert on one-way trips.

Apparently, it's long been known that they shelter the men responsible for the Kenyan Embassy bombings.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2762204


Thanks for the link. It's still just "Somali authorities claim that...", however.

I'm perfectly willing to believe it's true, but I've been mildly annoyed by the fact the media simply pass along these claims second hand, without investigating by themselves. Which, admittedly, is easier said than done, but still...

Wow, is this true or could this all be made up from the imaginations of the damned Americans. :p

I could of swore or been told on many occasions that the USA wasn't pursueing or had gotten off track of tracking down al-Queda. Where's all the posters who stated America isn't focused on al-Queda? :D

You can't deny that we'd have more troops and equipment in Afghanistan patroling the border with Pakistan and killing Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters if we weren't wasting time, lives and money in Iraq.

You can't deny that we'd have more troops and equipment in Afghanistan patroling the border with Pakistan and killing Taliban and Al Quaeda fighters if we weren't wasting time, lives and money in Iraq.

You can't deny that training the Ethiopians to fight the ground war in Somalia for us isn't a good idea - better than sending our own guys.

Oh well done. Bugger national autonomy and other such niceties, let us all rejoice in another slaughter, brought to you by the world's premier house of ignorance.:rolleyes:

Oh well done. Bugger national autonomy and other such niceties, let us all rejoice in another slaughter, brought to you by the world's premier house of ignorance.:rolleyes:

Well, if we're killing certain al-Q militants, they blew up our embassy first...
and many here in the US criticize the current administration for not having killed them already... including members of the opposition party...
and Ethiopia doesn't need a radical Islamic state on its borders...
and the Islamic Court guys were a real treat...

Oh well done. Bugger national autonomy and other such niceties, let us all rejoice in another slaughter, brought to you by the world's premier house of ignorance.:rolleyes:

You mean you managed to pull this off? Well done!

You can't deny that training the Ethiopians to fight the ground war in Somalia for us isn't a good idea - better than sending our own guys.

I never argued that it wasn't. I simply said that Iraq took troops and equipment that could have been better used elsewhere.

I never argued that it wasn't. I simply said that Iraq took troops and equipment that could have been better used elsewhere.

I think we need to look at strategies that don't involve sending US ground troops anywhere at all.

Well done the USA - kill innocent civilians trying to kill suspected AQ's

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13560795,00.html

With all the so-called intelligence used to find these people you then go and drop large bombs on them - subtle

I know you have forgotten the concept of fair trials etc, but lowering yourselves to the level of the terrorist can only be a negative move.

Well done the USA - kill innocent civilians trying to kill suspected AQ's

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13560795,00.html

With all the so-called intelligence used to find these people you then go and drop large bombs on them - subtle

I know you have forgotten the concept of fair trials etc, but lowering yourselves to the level of the terrorist can only be a negative move.

Can't help it if their only means of defense against advanced weaponry is to stand shoulder to shoulder with civilians.

Well, if we're killing certain al-Q militants, they blew up our embassy first...

Thats an abhorrent syllogism to predicate policy upon, and, in any case, I daresay an Islamic politician could mount a credible assertion that US "dollar imperialism" was the catalyst for Al Quaeda.

and many here in the US criticize the current administration for not having
killed them already... including members of the opposition party...

Given that this is a nation, and polity, that elected George W. Bush, twice, one might question why you brandish this in an argument...

and Ethiopia doesn't need a radical Islamic state on its borders...

As opposed to a mediocre, corrupt, US sponsored democracy....

and the Islamic Court guys were a real treat...

Regrettably ignorant of this as I am, it hardly strikes me as an objective comment....

Well done the USA - kill innocent civilians trying to kill suspected AQ's

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13560795,00.html

With all the so-called intelligence used to find these people you then go and drop large bombs on them - subtle

I know you have forgotten the concept of fair trials etc, but lowering yourselves to the level of the terrorist can only be a negative move.

An AC-130 gunship was used. It doesn't carry bombs. It shoots cannons. In war you don't give your enemy a trial, you blow him to shit and if some civilian supporters of terrorism live nearby, fuck them. That's what you get when you allow our enemies to shelter among you. The US has played way too nice.

Can't help it if their only means of defense against advanced weaponry is to stand shoulder to shoulder with civilians.

If someone you knew was innocently in a bank when it was robbed would you condone the police for shooting everyone in there? I doubt it

Innocent kids as young as 4 tut tut tut....shame

An AC-130 gunship was used. It doesn't carry bombs. It shoots cannons. In war you don't give your enemy a trial, you blow him to shit and if some civilian supporters of terrorism live nearby, fuck them. That's what you get when you allow our enemies to shelter among you. The US has played way too nice.


QFT. *nod*

If someone you knew was innocently in a bank when it was robbed would you condone the police for shooting everyone in there? I doubt it

Innocent kids as young as 4 tut tut tut....shame


Not a military scenario. You fail.

An AC-130 gunship was used. It doesn't carry bombs. It shoots cannons. In war you don't give your enemy a trial, you blow him to shit and if some civilian supporters of terrorism live nearby, fuck them. That's what you get when you allow our enemies to shelter among you. The US has played way too nice.

Or not.....

Whilst I am aware that the US neglects such notions as declarations of war, and moronically presupposes that a homogenous "Al- Quaeda" exists, I always thought a war necesitated a state to fight against....

In any case, how does an American, when complicit to a war designed to ameliorate the lives of "common Iraqis", then justify civilian casualties?

I've said it before, and I repeat myself; the USA deserves every body bag it recieves.

An AC-130 gunship was used. It doesn't carry bombs. It shoots cannons. In war you don't give your enemy a trial, you blow him to shit and if some civilian supporters of terrorism live nearby, fuck them. That's what you get when you allow our enemies to shelter among you. The US has played way too nice.

Cannons - equally as subtle

I doubt the locals had much choice as to who lived among them, but were obviously treated with contempt

If someone you knew was innocently in a bank when it was robbed would you condone the police for shooting everyone in there? I doubt it

Innocent kids as young as 4 tut tut tut....shame

Inadequate analogy.

The people who engage in asymmetrical warfare do so because they can't win a "stand up fight". That is, if US forces show up, there is no defense at all against a guided missile or a GPS guided bomb - there is only death.

The only possible defense they have is to be as close as possible to women and children and other non-combatants.

The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states that sheltering amongst non-combatants is no protection, and is in fact a war crime.

So, if we're talking actions that the legal end of the international community considers offensive, let's arrest any of the wounded Islamists we find in the target area and have them tried and hanged for war crimes.

Not a military scenario. You fail.

I'm not sure the Somalia case can be classed as 'military' (Does Somalia have an army to fight against?)

Can we call it a draw?

Regrettably ignorant of this as I am

Views on the UIC within Mogadishu itself were (and are), from what I've read, fairly mixed. On the one hand they imposed harsh Islamist laws, which didn't go down too well... but on the other they brought law, order and above all safety to a city which had been prey to constant fighting between rival warlords for fifteen years. For that reason, a part of the population at least was glad to have them around.

For some basic information, here's a BBC outline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6043764.stm) from December 28th last.

If someone you knew was innocently in a bank when it was robbed would you condone the police for shooting everyone in there? I doubt it

Innocent kids as young as 4 tut tut tut....shame

27 people were killed. That's very light for civilian casualties. There will never be a war where no civilians die. If given the choice I'd rather have them die than risk the lives of US citizens. If you don't like it, join Al Qaeda and find out what an AC-130 can do first hand.

I'm not sure the Somalia case can be classed as 'military' (Does Somalia have an army to fight against?)

Can we call it a draw?

Yes, the UIC had an army.

Or not.....

Whilst I am aware that the US neglects such notions as declarations of war, and moronically presupposes that a homogenous "Al- Quaeda" exists, I always thought a war necesitated a state to fight against....

In any case, how does an American, when complicit to a war designed to ameliorate the lives of "common Iraqis", then justify civilian casualties?

I've said it before, and I repeat myself; the USA deserves every body bag it recieves.

First of all, Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Iraq was a dumb move by Bush. One of many.

Second, if you're not in favor of fighting terrorists you deserve every terrorist bombing aimed at your people.

Or not.....

Whilst I am aware that the US neglects such notions as declarations of war, and moronically presupposes that a homogenous "Al- Quaeda" exists, I always thought a war necesitated a state to fight against....

Let's see...um...no. Were the colonists in America a recognised state when the Revolutionary War was fought? No. Was the Confederacy a recognised state when the War Between the States was fought? No. Were the Roundheads a recognised state when the English Civil War was fought? No.

Now, what's that definition of a war you have there?

In any case, how does an American, when complicit to a war designed to ameliorate the lives of "common Iraqis", then justify civilian casualties?

It's called war. Civilian casualties happen. They always have, and they always will.

I've said it before, and I repeat myself; the USA deserves every body bag it recieves.

Yes, because you disagree with US policies, you think young men deserve to die. People like you sicken me.

It's called war. Civilian casualties happen. They always have, and they always will.

Interestingly, blessed Chris has yet to find out that you can't stop terrorists from killing civilians by saying, "shame on you for killing civilians".

My question is simply why. The Ethiopians were doing a decent enough job to the best of my knowledge. No need to get involved in an already messy situation, regardless of one's stance on whether it was right or wrong.

England has had far more experience of terrorism than the USA will every have (hopefully)

Believe me, we do not support terrorism at all, but we didn't carpet bomb Belfast to kill the IRA

I'm just trying to say there are other options in these situations. I am trying to be reasonable and non inflamatory (and much prefer DCD when he is posting funny links) so please don't send the big nasty planes after me

27 people were killed. That's very light for civilian casualties.

Unless you happen to be one of those casualties, that is...


It's called war. Civilian casualties happen. They always have, and they always will.

[...]

Yes, because you disagree with US policies, you think young men deserve to die. People like you sicken me.

Much as I agree with that second statement, mightn't the first appear to contradict it slightly? I know you're not saying helpless Somali citizens "deserve" to die, but it's hypocritical to selectively brush deaths as "oh, well".

My question is simply why. The Ethiopians were doing a decent enough job to the best of my knowledge. No need to get involved in an already messy situation, regardless of one's stance on whether it was right or wrong.

Read back in the thread.

Which country has trained and supplied the Ethiopian Army for this exact job since 2003?

I've said it before, and I repeat myself; the USA deserves every body bag it recieves.
That is completely absurd. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and share collective responsibility for the war too. Yet I'm sure you won't suddenly claim we deserved the July bombings.

Unless you happen to be one of those casualties, that is...



<snip>

You know, you're right. The allies shouldn't have bombed Germany. Think of all the civilians who died in Dresden. France should still be a Nazi puppet state.

Read back in the thread.

Which country has trained and supplied the Ethiopian Army for this exact job since 2003?
Why would the USA need to involve itself if it had trained Ethiopia? Surely the point of training Ethiopia would be to make sure the USA doesn't have to be involved. Otherwise, to me, it makes little sense.

You know, you're right. The allies shouldn't have bombed Germany. Think of all the civilians who died in Dresden. France should still be a Nazi puppet state.

Don't be absurd. Regretting the death of innocent people and trying to minimise them doesn't mean "yay, nazism!".

You said the death of 27 people was negligeable. I pointed out it was not.

Now if you want to go into some interpretational delirium over that, knock yourself out.

Why would the USA need to involve itself if it had trained Ethiopia? Surely the point of training Ethiopia would be to make sure the USA doesn't have to be involved. Otherwise, to me, it makes little sense.

Maybe the area was too remote and/or heavily defended for the Ethiopians to take it before the head terrorists could escape. In a situation like that an airstrike makes sense.

Why would the USA need to involve itself if it had trained Ethiopia? Surely the point of training Ethiopia would be to make sure the USA doesn't have to be involved. Otherwise, to me, it makes little sense.

Well, in the overall battle, we seem to be letting the Ethiopians kill at will.

This includes allowing them to slaughter the non-foreign prisoners they capture. No Guantanamos here!

And as for the AC-130 attacks - well, you can't blow up a US Embassy and not expect a little payback...

Don't be absurd. Regretting the death of innocent people and trying to minimise them doesn't mean "yay, nazism!".

You said the death of 27 people was negligeable. I pointed out it was not.

Now if you want to go into some interpretational delirium over that, knock yourself out.

My point is that way more than 27 people died in air strikes to help free your country and help end Naziism. Nobody condems those casualties, but when liberating people from the oppression of radical islamists and trying to end Islamist terrorism suddenly 27 deaths is too great of a price to pay. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

My point is that way more than 27 people died in air strikes to help free your country and help end Naziism. Nobody condems those casualties, but when liberating people from the oppression of radical islamists and trying to end Islamist terrorism suddenly 27 deaths is too great of a price to pay. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I don't think many people see it as quite so clear-cut. There have always been people criticising the scale of civilian bombing in Dresden (which is in great part why the Dresden bombing is remembered), and it is legitimate to question the necessity of action leading to civilian deaths. Question it, discuss it, not necessarily condemn it on principle.

Just as it is legitimate to regret the killing of innocent civilians, and not just shrug it off as unimportant.

(Incidentally, in response to "liberating people from the oppression of radical islamists": as I pointed out, according to the BBC, many Somalis welcomed the order brought by the UIC, and as you no doubt know many are extremely hostile to the presence of their Ethiopian "liberators".)

Hence my initial comment. If you happen to be one of those 27 dead, or a member of their family, that death isn't exactly unimportant.

Maybe the area was too remote and/or heavily defended for the Ethiopians to take it before the head terrorists could escape. In a situation like that an airstrike makes sense.
It was in two locations near the Kenyan border, according to a recent BBC map, so that's more than possible if the US felt that Kenya could not defend its border.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42429000/gif/_42429309_somalia_hayo_map416.gif

Hence my initial comment. If you happen to be one of those 27 dead, or a member of their family, that death isn't exactly unimportant.

If you happen to be one of the dead, there are several possibilities:

1. You wake up in the afterlife of your particular belief (hopefully not in a bad place, which in any case is not the fault of the US if you wake up in Hell).
2. You wake up in some other afterlife, in which case you may be screwed because you believed the wrong shit, and that's not our fault, either.
3. You are really dead, and the atheists are right. So you can't tell the difference.

My point is that way more than 27 people died in air strikes to help free your country and help end Naziism. Nobody condems those casualties, but when liberating people from the oppression of radical islamists and trying to end Islamist terrorism suddenly 27 deaths is too great of a price to pay. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Yahtzee!

If you happen to be one of the dead, there are several possibilities:

1. You wake up in the afterlife of your particular belief (hopefully not in a bad place, which in any case is not the fault of the US if you wake up in Hell).
2. You wake up in some other afterlife, in which case you may be screwed because you believed the wrong shit, and that's not our fault, either.
3. You are really dead, and the atheists are right. So you can't tell the difference.
Then surely it would juts be OK to go round killing anyone?

Then surely it would juts be OK to go round killing anyone?

No, but if you want to, go ahead. That line of reasoning didn't get al-Qaeda very far now, did it?

That is completely absurd. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and share collective responsibility for the war too. Yet I'm sure you won't suddenly claim we deserved the July bombings.

Not in the slightest, since tha majority of the USA supported the invasion of Iraqm whereas Tony Blair flew in the face of British popular opinion when we followed.

First of all, Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Iraq was a dumb move by Bush. One of many.

Second, if you're not in favor of fighting terrorists you deserve every terrorist bombing aimed at your people.

The second point is an odd logical progression. I happen to agree with fighting terrorism, however I also like the enemy to be confirmed terrorists, and would use the minimum force requisite to the task.

In any case, are you dissassociating Iraq from the context of the war on terror? Thats moronic.

(Incidentally, in response to "liberating people from the oppression of radical islamists": as I pointed out, according to the BBC, many Somalis welcomed the order brought by the UIC, and as you no doubt know many are extremely hostile to the presence of their Ethiopian "liberators".)



Of course; any order is preferable to the anarchy that followed the overthrow of the Somali dictator in 1991. Many, but perhaps not most, are hostile to the Ethiopian soldiers because Al-Qaeda's second in command has urged them to coduct suicide attacks and resist their efforts to back the elected President of Somalia.

The second point is an odd logical progression. I happen to agree with fighting terrorism, however I also like the enemy to be confirmed terrorists, and would use the minimum force requisite to the task.

In any case, are you dissassociating Iraq from the context of the war on terror? Thats moronic.

You do need to kill the people that support terrorists, including their spokesmen, members of the organization that houses and trains them, etc.

The list gets long, but is finite. Having the Ethiopians chase them into a corner (and do most of the killing for us) is quite convenient.

The second point is an odd logical progression. I happen to agree with fighting terrorism, however I also like the enemy to be confirmed terrorists, and would use the minimum force requisite to the task.

In any case, are you dissassociating Iraq from the context of the war on terror? Thats moronic.

The only reason Iraq was viewed as part of the war on terrorism is because bush lied about them. Bush hinted that they were tied to 9/11, and blatantly said that they had WMD and plans to use them against the USA. It's moronic to believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror.

The only reason Iraq was viewed as part of the war on terrorism is because bush lied about them. Bush hinted that they were tied to 9/11, and blatantly said that they had WMD and plans to use them against the USA. It's moronic to believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror.

Ah, but now that a lot of them have migrated to Iraq for the fun, we might as well shoot at them...

The only reason Iraq was viewed as part of the war on terrorism is because bush lied about them. Bush hinted that they were tied to 9/11, and blatantly said that they had WMD and plans to use them against the USA. It's moronic to believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror.

A question then. Would Iraq have been invaded had 9/11 not occurred?

The only reason Iraq was viewed as part of the war on terrorism is because bush lied about them. Bush hinted that they were tied to 9/11, and blatantly said that they had WMD and plans to use them against the USA. It's moronic to believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror.

Well, Iraq is part of the war on terror now, I think that much is for certain.

A question then. Would Iraq have been invaded had 9/11 not occurred?

We'll never know, because someone flew some planes into some buildings.

A question then. Would Iraq have been invaded had 9/11 not occurred?

Probably. Evidence indicates that Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since the beginning of his presidency.

Probably. Evidence indicates that Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since the beginning of his presidency.

And you have this "evidence"? Well done. :rolleyes:

You do need to kill the people that support terrorists, including their spokesmen, members of the organization that houses and trains them, etc.

The list gets long, but is finite. Having the Ethiopians chase them into a corner (and do most of the killing for us) is quite convenient.

And how does a nation whose intelligence forces justified Iraq correctly discern them?:rolleyes:

In any case, those of us with a sense of something beyond the interests of the USA might suggest that the syllogism "It's harbouring Al-Quaeda" is amongst the least watertight ever used to justify unprovoked conflict.

Probably. Evidence indicates that Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since the beginning of his presidency.

I disagree. Bush did have "business" with Iraq, however I fail to believe that he would have invaded Iraq had the US not been attacked in 2001.

And how does a nation whose intelligence forces justified Iraq correctly discern them?:rolleyes:

In any case, those of us with a sense of something beyond the interests of the USA might suggest that the syllogism "It's harbouring Al-Quaeda" is amongst the least watertight ever used to justify unprovoked conflict.

Actually, the UIC has admitted that they are harboring al-Qaeda, sympathize with al-Qaeda, and share their goals.

You'll note that it's Ethiopia invading Somalia - not the US invading and taking over.

Ethiopia is dealing with rampant insecurity along its own borders - and responding to direct threats from the UIC that Ethiopia would be taken over next.

Should Ethiopia have just offered to surrender then, and avoid all this bloodshed?

And you have this "evidence"? Well done. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7980.shtml

Yeah, I guess I do.

I disagree. Bush did have "business" with Iraq, however I fail to believe that he would have invaded Iraq had the US not been attacked in 2001.

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

Actually, the UIC has admitted that they are harboring al-Qaeda, sympathize with al-Qaeda, and share their goals.

You'll note that it's Ethiopia invading Somalia - not the US invading and taking over.

Ethiopia is dealing with rampant insecurity along its own borders - and responding to direct threats from the UIC that Ethiopia would be taken over next.

Should Ethiopia have just offered to surrender then, and avoid all this bloodshed?

However, if Ethiopia does not have US support, I would be surprised, and, in any case, how does this conflict concern the USA?

Moreover, I question the tenebility of "if you support Al-Quaeda, we're coming to get ya" as a justification for invasion.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

And I trust an ex-administration politician with an agenda why?

However, if Ethiopia does not have US support, I would be surprised, and, in any case, how does this conflict concern the USA?

Moreover, I question the tenebility of "if you support Al-Quaeda, we're coming to get ya" as a justification for invasion.

You will note that the US is not invading.

You will note that the US is not invading.

Indeed not. You simply exploit the conflict by bombing innocent Somalians.... under the pretext of the aforementioned.

And I trust an ex-administration politician with an agenda why?

Because it's corroborated by other people's accounts. For instance Richard Clarke, who served under George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush claimed that Bush was always looking for a pretext to attack Iraq. Certainly 9/11 helped him by making Americans more succeptible to the idea that Iraq might be planning terrorism, but it wasn't Bush's reason for the invasion, only a tool used to push the "invade Iraq" agenda foreward.

Indeed not. You simply exploit the conflict by bombing innocent Somalians.... under the pretext of the aforementioned.

Gosh, we seem to have killed a large number of Islamic militants friendly to al-Qaeda who were in the process of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by hiding amongst civilians.

All legal.

About time.

I knew we had advisors with the ethiopians, but not any attack helicopters.

AQ-We're coming for ya



Report: U.S. airstrike targets al-Qaida in Africa
Pentagon won't confirm action by helicopter gunship in southern Somalia

WASHINGTON - A U.S. helicopter gunship conducted a strike against two suspected al-Qaida operatives in southern Somalia, but it was not known whether the mission was successful, CBS News reported on Monday.

The U.S. Air Force helicopter, operated by the Special Operations Command, flew from its base in Djibouti to the southern tip of Somalia, where the al-Qaida suspects were believed to have fled from the capital, Mogadishu, the network reported.

A Pentagon spokesman said he had no information on the report.

U.S. officials say that the United States received assurances from both the Ethiopian and Somalian governments in the last two weeks that should they obtain intelligence concerning the whereabouts of the three al-Qaida operatives they would pass it on to the United States.

The operatives are believed to be responsible for the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the 2002 attacks on Israeli tourists in Kenya and the attempted downing of an Israeli aircraft the same day.

The Ethiopian military swept into Somalia last month and removed the Islamic government that had harbored al Qaeda operatives. US officials emphasized to the governments what a high priority the whereabouts of these operatives have been to the United States.

a little disturbing....the country that has the largest intelligence network in the world and got WMD in Iraq wrong, bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan on wonky intelligence and now their going to attack a site with gunships based on the highly sophisticated intelligence networks of Ethiopia and Somilia...sounds like a recipe for a lot on innocents getting killed again.....ok if it turns out to be true but how often does that happen? really a callous disregard for lives that are not western...

Indeed not. You simply exploit the conflict by bombing innocent Somalians.... under the pretext of the aforementioned.

First of all, there was no bombing. Cannons were used, which is probably why only 27 civilians died. Second, the target wasn't innocent Somalis. It was Al Qaeda's operatives and facilities in Somalia.

Second, if you're not in favor of fighting terrorists you deserve every terrorist bombing aimed at your people.

So all those people involved in the peace process in Northern Ireland actually deserve to be blown to bits?

First of all, there was no bombing. Cannons were used, which is probably why only 27 civilians died. Second, the target wasn't innocent Somalis. It was Al Qaeda's operatives and facilities in Somalia.

"only 27 civilians" that makes you no better than the bombers, no regard for civilian lives.....those civilians are someone's family...

Interestingly, blessed Chris has yet to find out that you can't stop terrorists from killing civilians by saying, "shame on you for killing civilians".

Seems to be working in Northern Ireland, for the most part.

Seems to be working in Northern Ireland, for the most part.

You'll note that it doesn't work in the Middle East.

Perhaps you'll be happy, when the AC-X comes online in the next year or two.

It won't fire cannon shells - it will use a laser to burn down very specific individuals.

You'll note that it doesn't work in the Middle East.


Has it really been tried with a thousandth of the effort that has gone into blowing up shit and shooting at things?

Perhaps you'll be happy, when the AC-X comes online in the next year or two.

It won't fire cannon shells - it will use a laser to burn down very specific individuals.

Why would I be happy at human ingenuity coming up with yet another way to kill people?

Has it really been tried with a thousandth of the effort that has gone into blowing up shit and shooting at things?

Gee, we weren't blowing up shit, and they flew planes into some buildings.

How's that for a reaction?

So all those people involved in the peace process in Northern Ireland actually deserve to be blown to bits?

You were able to successfully negotiate with the IRA. How do you propose we negotiate with Osama Bin Laden when he's stated that he wants to kill about 4 Million Americans? Talk him down to one million maybe?

Bodies, in the future, the AC-130 will be the AC-X (in just a few years), and will be armed with this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/atl.htm

The ATL is not subject to direct attack by small arms or shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. In fact, it can be far enough away that its action is almost covert. The laser beam makes no sound and is not visible. The effect of the beam may not be easily associated with a presence of an aircraft several miles away!

No messy explosions, a beam about 10 cm wide (just hitting individual people), and no sound and no apparent aircraft in the vicinity.

"only 27 civilians" that makes you no better than the bombers, no regard for civilian lives.....those civilians are someone's family...

In war there are always civilian casualties. I'm sure you'd prefer that we just turn pacifist and allow terrorists to do whatever they want to us, but that ain't happening.

Gee, we weren't blowing up shit, and they flew planes into some buildings.

How's that for a reaction?

Al-Shifa? The conflict between Al Qaeda and the US didn't start on a cool clear day in September 2001.

Not that I am saying that the US struck the first blow, but just that oversimplification does nobody any favours.

You were able to successfully negotiate with the IRA. How do you propose we negotiate with Osama Bin Laden when he's stated that he wants to kill about 4 Million Americans? Talk him down to one million maybe?

Start by negotiating with more moderate members of his school of thought and attempt to get them to draw away grassroots support from the hardliners.

Start by negotiating with more moderate members of his school of thought and attempt to get them to draw away grassroots support from the hardliners.

Fine. Doesn't mean you stop killing the hardliners though.

We will continue to fight terrorism like there are no negotiations and continue to negotiate like there is no terrorism --Yitzhak Rabin

Al-Shifa? The conflict between Al Qaeda and the US didn't start on a cool clear day in September 2001.

Not that I am saying that the US struck the first blow, but just that oversimplification does nobody any favours.

Would you be offended then if we merely used the laser, and only hit Islamic fighters (people in combat)?

If it were truly possible to hit and kill without killing civilians or blowing up buildings?

If the only people afraid to go outside (for fear of being vaporized) were the terrorists?

Fine. Doesn't mean you stop killing the hardliners though.

I believe that is likely to mean an increase in support for the hardliners.

Honest question: Have we seen an increase or decrease in support for the hardliners since the beginning of the War on Terror?

Would you be offended then if we merely used the laser, and only hit Islamic fighters (people in combat)?

If it were truly possible to hit and kill without killing civilians or blowing up buildings?

If the only people afraid to go outside (for fear of being vaporized) were the terrorists?

I seem to recall that the existence of such precision death rays with no collateral dammage was rumoured during the Great War and the Russian Civil War.

Even with such precision tools there would likely still be cases like Jean Charles Menezes.

Troops might advance, but humanity will not.

I seem to recall that the existence of such precision death rays with no collateral dammage was rumoured during the Great War and the Russian Civil War.

Even with such precision tools there would likely still be cases like Jean Charles Menezes.

Troops might advance, but humanity will not.

Apparently not a rumor this time. It has already achieved "first light" at a power level greater than designed.

The optics used for focusing the beam are also used to identify the target - that is, you'll be looking right at someone's face before you burn his neck to a charred stump.

I believe that is likely to mean an increase in support for the hardliners.

Honest question: Have we seen an increase or decrease in support for the hardliners since the beginning of the War on Terror?

Increase due largely to the Iraq invasion. If not for Iraq, who knows?

Increase due largely to the Iraq invasion. If not for Iraq, who knows?

Does that not argue somewhat against your position?

Our military leaders are fulfilling their promise to battle Islamists everywhere; the mission to exterminate religious fundamentalism has seen marked progress recently in Somalia, where the Christian Ethiopian government opened a proverbial can of "wh**p-a**" on the Muslims.

Why are you even here?
I consider you to be a religious fundamentalist, but I don't promise to exterminate you.

Does that not argue somewhat against your position?

If Bush had been a little brighter and not attacked Iraq then the US would have still held a fairly good image abroad, the Afghanistan thing would have seemed justified, and the radical, but not yet violent Muslim leaders might have seen the wisdom in toning down their anti-US rhetoric. When he did invade Iraq he attacked a muslim country without provocation, and I think that's the main facto in raising the number of potential terrorists out there.

The training of Ethiopians means that they can do the majority of the work themselves, and the US won't have to get involved too much. But that still frees them up to take out some targets of oppurtunities here and there that are very important to the US.

Many people really really over estimate the Intelligence of any country. Even if they know a lot, there is still a lot that they don't know as well. It's perfectly reasonable that US intelligence would think that there were WMD's in Iraq. Even though Saddam got rid of them he didn't tell anyone about it, in fact he kept up the charade of having them so that other countries--and people in his own country--would still think that he had the ability to gas them if they fought him.

The US made the case for war with Iraq to the UN, and presented their findings that led them to believe Iraq still had WMD. A lot of the stuff was very very suspicious behavior. Also, we knew for a fact that Iraq used to have WMD, and it could not provide proof that it had destroyed them, only claims. Yes, US beliefs turned out to be incorrect, but their beliefs were warranted at the time--which is why the people of the US did support the war at the beginning. It seems reasonable to me, but Chris, if you think that 1000's of Americans deserve death because of it and you want to pretend to be a peace-loving person anyways, then that's your prerogative.

On collateral damage, nobody likes it. It's a horrible thing. I for one am glad that it's as small as it is. 45 years ago killing one person required leveling 10 city blocks. Now we destroy one house. Do I wish it only required killing 1 person, yes I do, am I sorry that those other people were killed as well? Absolutely, and I'm sure that everyone else feels the same way. If some people do seem nonchalant at times it is because that the amount of people that vehemently attack collateral damage drive war supporters in that direction. They get on the defensive and don't want to admit that it's a shame. Even if you think that pro-Iraq war people have no respect for non-caucasian life (or non-American, or any of the various claims I have heard) you should still acknowledge that people hate to have these innocent people die because it is those innocent deaths which leads to more terrorist recruits.

If you don't like it, join Al Qaeda and find out what an AC-130 can do first hand.

why are they my only options?

can i select the 'get better intellegence and make even a token effort not to kill civilians' option instead?

or is that too subtle for you Yankees?

It's pooby I tell ya! The almighty POOBinator!

WEll, not really. But I'm lazy and like you, the reader, to do some work.
I think this is the perfect opportunity to ask, what does it mean?

why are they my only options?

can i select the 'get better intellegence and make even a token effort not to kill civilians' option instead?

Token effort? We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do, it is normally colateral damage. And in the cases where it is not, the ones responsible are prosecuted. We go the extra step to make sure we DON'T KILL CIVILIANS!!!! That is what is hurting us right now.

or is that too subtle for you Yankees?

When did we send in the Yankees? Why wasn't that broadcasted on TV? Covert Ops?

Token effort? We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do, it is normally colateral damage. And in the cases where it is not, the ones responsible are prosecuted. We go the extra step to make sure we DON'T KILL CIVILIANS!!!! That is what is hurting us right now.


My. Fucking. Arse.

Whats the death toll in Iraq these days?



We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do

you sort of contradicted yourself there!! :rolleyes:

My. Fucking. Arse.

Whats the death toll in Iraq these days?

How many of them are caused by suicide bombers and paramilitary groups who are shooting at one another?



We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do

you sort of contradicted yourself there!! :rolleyes:

Prove the contradiction!

How many of them are caused by suicide bombers and paramilitary groups who are shooting at one another?


a minority.


Prove the contradiction!

you said the US doenst kill civilans and followed it with 'when we do'. do you or dont you?

a minority.

Seems to me that most of the civilians have been dying either by Iraqi hands or by foriegners who are trying to destabilize the country and not by the US.

you said the US doenst kill civilans and followed it with 'when we do'. do you or dont you?

I suggest you look at the context of what I written. I know reading comp is not your strong suit so do your best to understand what I wrote. I'll be here to help in case you need it.

27 people were killed. That's very light for civilian casualties. There will never be a war where no civilians die. If given the choice I'd rather have them die than risk the lives of US citizens. If you don't like it, join Al Qaeda and find out what an AC-130 can do first hand.

+1.

Watch some of the AC130 Guncam vids. The jihaddis on the ground didn't stand a chance-they couldn't see the bird, nor hear it. All the heard were shells incoming. They tried running, but they didn't get far.

Richly deserved.

Or not.....

Whilst I am aware that the US neglects such notions as declarations of war, and moronically presupposes that a homogenous "Al- Quaeda" exists, I always thought a war necesitated a state to fight against....

In any case, how does an American, when complicit to a war designed to ameliorate the lives of "common Iraqis", then justify civilian casualties?

I've said it before, and I repeat myself; the USA deserves every body bag it recieves.

WE already have declared war. It started in October of 2001 with busloads of Taliban fighters getting the VIP treatment to hell courtesy of the USAF.

Alqaeda does exist. Perhaps in your mind it's a creation of the FBI and NSA, along with things such as the ever elusive manbearpig and Jimmy hoffa.

We don't deserve any deaths, but they WILL happen. It's a fact-war=death/casualties/broken stuff.

We didn't start this war. If not for 9/11 we would all still be debating capitalism vs socialism, economic issues, etc.

Seems to me that most of the civilians have been dying either by Iraqi hands or by foriegners who are trying to destabilize the country and not by the US.But the US messed up the place and unleashed those forces that were under control or kept out of Iraq before. The US kindly let the foreigners in.

I suggest you look at the context of what I written. I know reading comp is not your strong suit so do your best to understand what I wrote. I'll be here to help in case you need it.You shouldn't complain about anyone's reading comp since your writing comp isn't any better really.

+1.

Watch some of the AC130 Guncam vids. The jihaddis on the ground didn't stand a chance-they couldn't see the bird, nor hear it. All the heard were shells incoming. They tried running, but they didn't get far.

Richly deserved.


and of course the children who died last night couldnt run far either. did they deserve it?
.

Alqaeda does exist. Perhaps in your mind it's a creation of the FBI and NSA, along with things such as the ever elusive manbearpig and Jimmy hoffa.
.

no, this one is on the CIA. as is saddam. they call it blowback, when their agents/actors turn on them

.We don't deserve any deaths, but they WILL happen. It's a fact-war=death/casualties/broken stuff.
.

thats exactly the justification al-Quaeda used to attack the US. They shrug their shoulders as flippantly as you and talk about casualties. But you are just a jumped up little twerp playing hardman from the anonomity of the internet.

We didn't start this war. If not for 9/11 we would all still be debating capitalism vs socialism, economic issues, etc.Oh yes you started this war. You warred against the people of the Middle East with economic and political means for at least 50 years. Any while you made friends among the illustrious line of regimes you certainly made lots of enemies among the ordinary people.
And the Iraq thing was planned way before 9/11.

But the US messed up the place and unleashed those forces that were under control or kept out of Iraq before. The US kindly let the foreigners in.

Oh brother is your head so far up you butt. If you truly think we kindly let them in, your dumber than I thought.

You shouldn't complain about anyone's reading comp since your writing comp isn't any better really.

Oh shut the hell up. Reading comprehension is different from spelling.

Prove the contradiction!

"We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do, it is normally colateral damage."

The US military is not killing civilians and the US military is killing civilians.

P&-P

You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.

Token effort? We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do, it is normally colateral damage. And in the cases where it is not, the ones responsible are prosecuted. We go the extra step to make sure we DON'T KILL CIVILIANS!!!! That is what is hurting us right now.



When did we send in the Yankees? Why wasn't that broadcasted on TV? Covert Ops?

Dadgum. I knew the Yankees had a decent baseball team, but Spec-ops too?

Talk about diversification.

Oh yes you started this war. You warred against the people of the Middle East with economic and political means for at least 50 years. Any while you made friends among the illustrious line of regimes you certainly made lots of enemies among the ordinary people.
And the Iraq thing was planned way before 9/11.

Same sorry song on a different day. Thank God I do not live in whatever universe you do.

"We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do, it is normally colateral damage."

The US military is not killing civilians and the US military is killing civilians.

P&-P

You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.

Again, reading comprehension skills.

"We are not the ones that are killing civilians and when we do, it is normally colateral damage."

The US military is not killing civilians and the US military is killing civilians.

P&-P

You can't get much more of a contradiction than that.

you are wasting your time with this k101 'hardman'. impervious to logic

Again, reading comprehension skills.

Elucidate if you will. You claim the US is not killing civilians, and then talk about how the US is killing civilians.

True or false: the US military kills civilians?

Oh yes you started this war. You warred against the people of the Middle East with economic and political means for at least 50 years. Any while you made friends among the illustrious line of regimes you certainly made lots of enemies among the ordinary people.
And the Iraq thing was planned way before 9/11.

And from the looks of it you're getting your ass kicked pal :D

Supposing all of this crap is true, you've just supported the intentional, AIMED massacre of 3,000 people. Congratulations! You are also a supporter of terror. Wow!

If so you would have had the moral superiority by going before the UN, whining, and possibly getting something out of it. Now everywbody hates Alqaeda and islamic fascists. Congratulations! You screwed up big.

But back to reality.

NO, we did not. If you want to get dirty, look at where the West-ME hatred started (One of their main whining points)-the Crusades. It was the west's response to the Muslim invasion of 'Christian Country' (The holy land).

ETA: if the muslim world considers flying airplanes into our buildings and terrorism acceptable, let's just nuke it till it glows and start over. We'll play fair.

I think this is the perfect opportunity to ask, what does it mean?


Pooby?


Well..really.... I don't know. But those little things people call packing peanuts are also sometimes called Poobies, and I needed a funny and easy to remember screenname.

a minority.




you said the US doenst kill civilans and followed it with 'when we do'. do you or dont you?

BS. NOT a minority. Iraqi Civilians are accidentally killed many times in normal military operations on BOTH sides. Take the elemination of Zarqawi in the dead of night. A whole family died because of the father's stupidity in harboring the most wanted man in Iraq. The US cannot be faulted for that. We won't risk our own people to save the family of an idiot who harbors terrorists. Terribly sorry.

And let us not forget the Sectarian violence, car bombs, and Iraqi jihaddis.

Take the elemination of Zarqawi in the dead of night. A whole family died because of the father's stupidity in harboring the most wanted man in Iraq. The US cannot be faulted for that. We won't risk our own people to save the family of an idiot who harbors terrorists. Terribly sorry.
.

if you arent willing to risk your own people fighting this war properly by not butchering children in their sleep, get the fuck out. you are not taking enough care to protect those you claim to be liberating.

unless there was a reason zarkawi and the hussein sons werent to be taken alive?

Al-quida, what a load of garbage, more pretext to justify 'American Terrorism'.

Elucidate if you will. You claim the US is not killing civilians, and then talk about how the US is killing civilians.

True or false: the US military kills civilians?

Not intentionally and when it is intentionally done, those responsible are punished. That is what I was getting at. We do not target them but it happens.

and of course the children who died last night couldnt run far either. did they deserve it?

Are we talking about the US Somali strike?

no, this one is on the CIA. as is saddam. they call it blowback, when their agents/actors turn on them



thats exactly the justification al-Quaeda used to attack the US. They shrug their shoulders as flippantly as you and talk about casualties. But you are just a jumped up little twerp playing hardman from the anonomity of the internet.

Umm the fact we exist is grounds for them attacking us.

It's a self-propagating conflict. If 9/11 WOULD NOT have happened..(revert to earlier post). We'd all be sitting around with mittens pinned to our smoking jackets talking about the benefits of homosexuality.

Some of the possible outcomes if the WOT continues:

America converts to islam
Alqaida dies
America rolls over and retreats
A few countries get nuked
Western countries get clobbered

ETc.

Oh, and don't forget we don't intentionally target civilians, but because AQ hides among them Civilians WILL die. Alqaida INTENTIONALLY targets civilians. Easier targets.

if you arent willing to risk your own people fighting this war properly by not butchering children in their sleep, get the fuck out. you are not taking enough care to protect those you claim to be liberating.

unless there was a reason zarkawi and the hussein sons werent to be taken alive?

We are risking our people, EVERYDAY in operations. That's enough. But we won't risk our own guys anymore than what is necessary. Someone higher up figured that it would be very hard to capture Zarqawi alive. Because of a stupid mistake by the father (harbor AZ) his kids are dead. That's really too bad, and I'm sorry for it, but it is NOT our fault. He should not have taken Zarqawi in. It's as simple as that. Did you know they also store weapons and munitions in Schools? Mosques? Their own homes? But of course! It's the fault of the evil bushco airmen when they bomb them! They should WANT to take the shrapnel so Jihaddi Daddy can live!

So SR are you willing to volunteer to go to Jihad Joe's house and drag him out? I certainly don't want to. Make the airforce work for their money.

The Jihaddis in Iraq use children as weapons. They don't mind using them to run ammo and rockets to insurgents. They use them to throw grenades,run in front of convoys, shoot Kalashnikovs, and in general be soldiers. They're intentionally killing their own kids. That's also the reason they have no problem with killing thousands of American citizens in buildings. If they insist on harboring wanted terrorists they WILL suffer the consequences. I don't want to bomb a home at night. I don't want to hear about 'collateral damage' WHO does? But the price of NOT doing it is much higher. We've suffered a lot of collateral damage ourself and it is one of the reasons we've started using Jdams.

It will be interesting to read, some years on, the sub rosa tricks we've played in the Somali war to prevent another Taliban coming to power.

It looks like at least in this way we've learned from past mistakes.

Go special forces, find the Islamic courts union / other militant religious maniacs and kill them all.

It will be interesting to read, some years on, the sub rosa tricks we've played in the Somali war to prevent another Taliban coming to power.

It looks like at least in this way we've learned from past mistakes.

Go special forces, find the Islamic courts union / other militant religious maniacs and kill them all.

Dude you are so gonna get flamed. :eek:

They're only doing it because of years of western imperialism and economic terrorism!

:rolleyes:

Well done the USA - kill innocent civilians trying to kill suspected AQ's

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13560795,00.html

With all the so-called intelligence used to find these people you then go and drop large bombs on them - subtle

I know you have forgotten the concept of fair trials etc, but lowering yourselves to the level of the terrorist can only be a negative move.
Just because it says "During U.S. attacks", it doesn't mean that the U.S. forces INFLICTED the casualties; it could have been terrorists just as easily.

How's this for collateral damage?

Mon 8 Jan 2007
Sniper celebrates with cigar after killing Taliban officer
JUDE SHEERIN
Scotsman.com

A ROYAL Marine sniper from Edinburgh has described marking his first kill with a cigar after "slotting" a Taliban commander from more than 1000 metres.

British troops fighting in southern Afghanistan are embroiled in some of the most intense combat involving UK forces since the Second World War.

Meanwhile, Nato-led troops and Afghan police killed two suspected Taliban militants and detained four others in the latest round of fighting, a police official said today.

Crackshot Royal Marine (45 Commando) sniper Dallas Turner, 27, was among the soldiers who described their dramatic stories in their own words.

He said: "We were down in Garmsir [southern Helmand] on December 21 and we were in full view of the Taliban front line.

"They were firing at us all day but we could see only their heads pop up from time to time moving about their positions.

"They were hiding in abandoned compounds in the suburbs. I fired three rounds from an Afghan National Police sangar [sentry post] but I didn't hit anyone.

"The next day they [the Taliban] were back at the same position and one walked into view from behind a wall.

"He was just standing there. It was beautiful. He was only exposed a few seconds.

"I didn't need to adjust my rifle sights as they were set right from the previous day.

"Just like in training, I breathed slowly, inhaled and pulled the trigger.

"The 338 calibre bullet travels at about 800 metres a second so it would have taken just over a second to reach him.

"He was hit full in the upper chest. It took him a couple of seconds to drop but I knew he was slotted [dead].

"If one of these big 338 rounds hits you in the chest, even from that distance, it will cause a lethal amount of damage.

"I just graduated from sniper school late last year after nine weeks' training.

"It was my first kill. I had a cigar afterwards. I didn't lose any sleep about it. He was a Taliban commander after all."

The Taliban militants were killed and captured after ambushing a joint Nato and Afghan patrol in Mizan district in Zabul province on Sunday, said Younis Akhunzada, the district police chief.

There had been no casualties among Nato or Afghan troops, he said. It is not known whether the troops were British.

Police also recovered four AK-47 assault rifles and two rocket-propelled grenade.

In a recent four day operation, codenamed Operation Clay, Royal Marine Commandos wiped out a vital Taliban training camp, killing dozens of fighters.

The force succeeded in securing a safe passage to a mountain dam - once the biggest source of electricity in the whole of Afghanistan.

In dramatic scenes caught on army cameras, the Marines engaged Afghan fighters as they waded through a river.

Only one Marine was injured after he was shot in the hand. Also on Sunday, a roadside bomb ripped through a vehicle in eastern Afghanistan, killing a woman, her two newborn babies and the children's grandmother.

The father of the twins and the vehicle's driver also were wounded in the blast.

The twins were born on Saturday and the family was taking them back to their village.

It was not immediately clear why the vehicle was targeted.

Militants usually use roadside bombs to attack Afghan and foreign troops on patrol.


news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=39472007

It will be interesting to read, some years on, the sub rosa tricks we've played in the Somali war to prevent another Taliban coming to power.

It looks like at least in this way we've learned from past mistakes.

Go special forces, find the Islamic courts union / other militant religious maniacs and kill them all.Funny. You're incredibly misinformed. The US is staying out of the UIC mess and went after some Al Qaeda operatives. The US has done NOTHING concerning the Somali war, that was the Ethiopians.

Just because it says "During U.S. attacks", it doesn't mean that the U.S. forces INFLICTED the casualties; it could have been terrorists just as easily.

From the video it looks like a shop with cars. Hopefully it was only terrorists and supporters inside, but it's wishful thinking.

Funny. You're incredibly misinformed. The US is staying out of the UIC mess and went after some Al Qaeda operatives. The US has done NOTHING concerning the Somali war, that was the Ethiopians.

I would put money on the US giving Ethiopia a little shove tward the Somali boarder.

Funny. You're incredibly misinformed. The US is staying out of the UIC mess and went after some Al Qaeda operatives. The US has done NOTHING concerning the Somali war, that was the Ethiopians.


We're actually in it as a backer of Ethiopia. We're giving them support and in turn they are eleminating the UIC (happily) and we are getting any AQ caught.

We're actually in it as a backer of Ethiopia. We're giving them support and in turn they are eleminating the UIC (happily) and we are getting any AQ caught.Nope.

Nope.

Erm, I think funding the warlords just prior to their eviction last June can be considered "not staying out of the Somalia war". Considering they probably bought shiny new toys with all that money....

Kudos to them on that whole 'weapons amnesty' thing. Brought in all of zero guns. Kudos.

I would put money on the US giving Ethiopia a little shove tward the Somali boarder.Probably not. Ethiopia is not very interested in a radical islamic state on its border, it being a predominately Christian nation. I think the thing that sparked off the intervention was the "missionaries" that started stirring up trouble in the places where muslims and christians had been living in peace in Ethiopia. It didn't take US pressure to get the Ethiopians to do anything.

Erm, I think funding the warlords just prior to their eviction last June can be considered "not staying out of the Somalia war". Considering they probably bought shiny new toys with all that money....

Kudos to them on that whole 'weapons amnesty' thing. Brought in all of zero guns. Kudos.Poor wording on my part. NG's post made it sound as though the US were responsible for the removal of the UIC, which is false, as the US is taking no action other than funding murdering bastards to get rid of the radical UIC and striking the people that are probably responsible for the Kenya bombings.

Poor wording on my part. NG's post made it sound as though the US were responsible for the removal of the UIC, which is false, as the US is taking no action other than funding murdering bastards to get rid of the radical UIC and striking the people that are probably responsible for the Kenya bombings.

Oh right. Fair enough.

Sound to me like someone decided to dust off the ol' Nixon Doctrine.

Bombing neutral countries because they might harbor an enemy that you haven’t even technically declared war on? That always ends well.
Sound to me like someone decided to dust off the ol' Nixon Doctrine.Indeed.

Bombing neutral countries because they might harbor an enemy that you haven’t even technically declared war on? That always ends well.How well?

How well?
Pol Pot well.

Just because it says "During U.S. attacks", it doesn't mean that the U.S. forces INFLICTED the casualties; it could have been terrorists just as easily.

That's like yelling "Food fight!" in a restaurant and then claiming no responsibility for the ensuing cake-throwing chaos.

That’s like yelling “Food fight!” in a restaurant and then claiming no responsibility for the ensuing cake-throwing chaos.
And firing a howitzer from a plane ain’t exactly the most accurate way to hit a building.

And firing a howitzer from a plane ain’t exactly the most accurate way to hit a building.

I see someone is a little unfamiliar with an AC-130 gunship. They can park a round either right ontop of their target or so close to it that it makes no difference.

Wow, I hadn't heard of that AC-X gunship. I guess I always hoped for something like that to be developed sometime.

With precision like that, augmented by good intelligence, the "war on terror" would have my full support.
(that and Royal Marine snipers :sniper:. But I do apologize for that smiley.)

Not this "wipe out 27 civilians to take down two suspects" crap. Unacceptable, I don't care what they "deserved".

I'm not saying I'm with the crowd flaming collateral damage in WWII, but today it happens way too often and way too much, without enough gained.

I see someone is a little unfamiliar with an AC-130 gunship. They can park a round either right ontop of their target or so close to it that it makes no difference.

there are a number of dead somali children who might disagree with that gung ho assessment

there are a number of dead somali children who might disagree with that gung ho assessment

If the target was near where they were it is not the gunship's fault. If they were hiding out near those chidren then the deaths are legally blamed on Al Qaeda and not on us.

Our military leaders are fulfilling their promise to battle Islamists everywhere; the mission to exterminate religious fundamentalism has seen marked progress recently in Somalia, where the Christian Ethiopian government opened a proverbial can of "wh**p-a**" on the Muslims.

Actually, Djibouti and Kenya are both helping to wipe out Islamo Fascism in Somalia as well. Uganda might help out too. Mostly because Al Qaeda said it wanted to take over their countries too once it had full control of Somalia.

If the target was near where they were it is not the gunship's fault. If they were hiding out near those chidren then the deaths are legally blamed on Al Qaeda and not on us.
And rightly.

Didn't it every occur to anyone that hiding near civilians is a tactic in order to make the U.S. look worse?

And rightly.

Didn't it every occur to anyone that hiding near civilians is a tactic in order to make the U.S. look worse?

Most of us do. Those on the far left do not understand this.

If the target was near where they were it is not the gunship's fault. If they were hiding out near those chidren then the deaths are legally blamed on Al Qaeda and not on us.

Well then, the so-called accuracy of the AC-130 is not as good as it was hyped to be then is it?

Or is it perhaps the fault of the gunners with a spray and pray attitude hmmm?

It must be one or the other since it's obvious what they were aiming for wasn't hit.

Well then, the so-called accuracy of the AC-130 is not as good as it was hyped to be then is it?

Or is it perhaps the fault of the gunners with a spray and pray attitude hmmm?

It must be one or the other since it's obvious what they were aiming for wasn't hit.
Or maybe it's the fault of the terrorists?

I see someone is a little unfamiliar with an AC-130 gunship. They can park a round either right ontop of their target or so close to it that it makes no difference.
So why did one US officials admit that the action was “not the most surgical event” (Source (http://www.channel4.com/news/) Click on ‘Al-Qaida targeted’–‘Watch the Report’)

How exactly does a manned, unautomated, gun inside a moving airplane ‘park a round... right on top of their target’?

Didn't it every occur to anyone that hiding near civilians is a tactic in order to make the U.S. look worse?

Oh, phew. So it's all PR, then?

See, for a minute, I thought the US was deliberately bombing civilians, but now I see that it was those evil, manipulative terrorists, forcing their hand again and making them look bad.

So why did one US officials admit that the action was “not the most surgical event” (Source (http://www.channel4.com/news/) Click on ‘Al-Qaida targeted’–‘Watch the Report’)

There's a difference between strategic and surgical.

How exactly does a manned, unautomated, gun inside a moving airplane ‘park a round... right on top of their target’?

I guess you do not realize just how far they do fire from and just how much training it take to park a round where they want it.

Not sure if these were posted b4...apologies if so...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/american_passpo.html
American Passports Found on Bodies of Al Qaeda Fighters in Somalia

January 05, 2007 2:46 PM

Alexis Debat Reports:

A senior official in the Somali government's new Ministry of the Interior told ABC News government forces had recovered "dozens of foreign passports," including several American passports, on the bodies of al Qaeda fighters killed in combat between forces affiliated with the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and Ethiopian forces in Somalia.

According to the same source, most of the foreign passports were Sudanese, Pakistani and Yemeni, but several American, British and Australian passports were also recovered.

The senior Somali government official told ABC News that the American passports found on the dead bodies near Baidoa, in Somalia, would be turned over to the American government.

I can understand Sudanese and Yemeni due to the geographical proximity, but the presence of Pakistani passports indicate that there is a lot of foreign fighter presence amongst the ICU ranks. The following from the same link clears all doubts.


Yesterday al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al Zawahri, issued an audiotape statement urging Muslims to join the fight for "jihad" in Somalia.
..
Last summer, a senior Pakistani intelligence official told ABC News that his government had collected information on the movement of dozens of al Qaeda militants from Pakistan to Somalia, a migration Pakistani officials believe is part of an elaborate al Qaeda operation not only to provide military and financial resources to the UIC but also to establish bases and training facilities in Somalia.

Last October, Yemeni authorities arrested eight foreigners, including three Australians, a British national, a German and a Dane, for running an al Qaeda-sponsored weapons and human smuggling network to Somalia.

There’s a difference between strategic and surgical.
Yes, and you were claiming that the AC-130 can “can park a round either right on top of their target or so close to it that it makes no difference”; what would be called a surgical strike. Back-peddle some?

I guess you do not realize just how far they do fire from and just how much training it take to park a round where they want it.
Are you going to tell me, oh General, or merely spout pompous statements?

Most of us do. Those on the far left do not understand this.

by hiding you mean living of course!

Oh, phew. So it's all PR, then?

See, for a minute, I thought the US was deliberately bombing civilians, but now I see that it was those evil, manipulative terrorists, forcing their hand again and making them look bad.

I believe his point is, it's working. Really well. Really well.
Actually, a great deal of terrorist strategy is based on making the U.S. look bad. Iraq was pretty helpful to their cause.

I guess you do not realize just how far they do fire from and just how much training it take to park a round where they want it.
Right, and I'm sure the military never, ever makes mistakes.

After reading this I couldn't help but feel this is honestly not a war against "terrorists" or al-Qaeda but rather christians from the US and Ethiopia attacking Muslims in Somalia. And why? Simply because they don't want a government(which brought peace and stability) based on Islamic law in Somalia. Sad, truly sad.

After reading this I couldn't help but feel this is honestly not a war against "terrorists" or al-Qaeda but rather christians from the US and Ethiopia attacking Muslims in Somalia. And why? Simply because they don't want a government(which brought peace and stability) based on Islamic law in Somalia. Sad, truly sad.You're just as misinformed as some others. The US isn't doing shit to oust the UIC.

You're just as misinformed as some others. The US isn't doing shit to oust the UIC.

and what are they doing there exactly?

and what are they doing there exactly?The Ethiopians have been relaying information on alleged Al Qaeda operatives that were responsible for the terror attacks in Kenya and so forth. The US have been striking at those.

Apart from that, the Horn of Africa has been a focal point of Operation Enduring Freedom. There's even Germans patrolling those waters.

Funny. You're incredibly misinformed. The US is staying out of the UIC mess and went after some Al Qaeda operatives. The US has done NOTHING concerning the Somali war, that was the Ethiopians.

Maybe it was just the ethiops, maybe it wasnt.

I'm leaning toward wasn't, but only time and the declassification of related info will tell.

I don't mean to suggest that it was US troops in disguise or something, but I imagine we gave the ethiopians any help they wanted.

The new government was quick to voice support for US special forces and air strikes in-country, I have a hard time believing this wasnt arranged beforehand.

After what happened in Afghanistan, the US has a strong interest in keeping muslim religious maniacs out of power in third world countries.

Maybe it was just the ethiops, maybe it wasnt.

I'm leaning toward wasn't, but only time and the declassification of related info will tell.

I don't mean to suggest that it was US troops in disguise or something, but I imagine we gave the ethiopians any help they wanted.

The new government was quick to voice support for US special forces and air strikes in-country, I have a hard time believing this wasnt arranged beforehand.

After what happened in Afghanistan, the US has a strong interest in keeping muslim religious maniacs out of power in third world countries.Indeed, but after what happened in Iraq, heck, after what happened in Somalia under the Clinton administration, I have my doubts as to there being any conventional warfare going on that the US is involved in with troops.

You're just as misinformed as some others. The US isn't doing shit to oust the UIC.

You keep saying this, but you ought not to because it is unreasonable and it is probably wrong.

There is good reason to believe the US is providing military assistance, which it is probably keeping hush hush, to the ethiopians and somali transitional government.

There is no good or reasonable basis for claiming with any certainty that this isnt the case.

You keep saying this, but you ought not to because it is unreasonable and it is probably wrong.

There is good reason to believe the US is providing military assistance, which it is probably keeping hush hush, to the ethiopians and somali transitional government.

There is no good or reasonable basis for claiming with any certainty that this isnt the case.Define military assistance. I'm stating that the US aren't involving troops, not that they aren't supporting the Ethiopians by indirect means.

Or maybe it's the fault of the terrorists?

Either the AC-130 on board weapons are so precise "it can land a shell on a guy's head", or it can't.

In this case, it couldn't. And like so much marketing hype that follows US military hardware, it's not surprising it doesn't live up to the promises.

Define military assistance. I'm stating that the US aren't involving troops, not that they aren't supporting the Ethiopians by indirect means.

I would imagine the US is providing intel, possibly weapons, money, logistical help, stuff like that. Sort of like how we succeeded in helping expel the soviets from afghan.

The speed with which the ICU collapsed and the immediate mention thereafter in the news of US SF ground toops and airstrikes tracking down other religious extremists in the country, along with the immediate and enthusiastic support of the new government toward that end makes me think there is a bit more to the story than can be reported.

After reading this I couldn't help but feel this is honestly not a war against "terrorists" or al-Qaeda but rather christians from the US and Ethiopia attacking Muslims in Somalia. And why? Simply because they don't want a government(which brought peace and stability) based on Islamic law in Somalia. Sad, truly sad.

Stop reading islamist websites and actually see the real world for once in your islamist life.

Indeed, but after what happened in Iraq, heck, after what happened in Somalia under the Clinton administration, I have my doubts as to there being any conventional warfare going on that the US is involved in with troops.US troops in Somalia? I bet its going to happen.

I expect bush to run his mouth about "al qaeda in somalia" being hit as "proof the war on terror is successful" blah blah blah during his state of the union address.

I honestly don't think it will win him any brownie points though.

If bush rambles on with his usual incoherant, fantasy bullshit about "pleased with the progress" in iraq &c., the democrats should get up and walk out.

If bush rambles on with his usual incoherant, fantasy bullshit about "pleased with the progress" in iraq &c., the democrats should get up and walk out.

That would be political suicide for anyone that does.

US troops in Somalia? I bet its going to happen.

I bet its not, the CIA might have some operatives in to help out the Ethiopians but troops would be unnecessary.

That would be political suicide for anyone that does.

You mean they'd lose the 28% that like bush? :rolleyes: oh dear me oh my. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I sincerely doubt the new democratic majority elected in disgust with GWB and the republican party would be committing "political suicide" by walking out, en masse, on the fink. :rolleyes:

They dont have the guts to do it, sadly, but it would be a grand statement.

Any dignity the state of the union address has is trashed if bush repeats his normal rambling BS about iraq and terrorism, walking out would drive that point home visually.

This coming of course from the same one who thinks soviestan reads "islamist websites" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I can understand Sudanese and Yemeni due to the geographical proximity, but the presence of Pakistani passports indicate that there is a lot of foreign fighter presence amongst the ICU ranks. The following from the same link clears all doubts.
There was a major cleric in Sydney on the news the other day talking about how many young Somalis from his neighbourhood wanna go over there and fight the Ethiopians. He's telling them not to, he says.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21026142-401,00.html
Prominent Melbourne-based Somalian cleric Isse Musse told The Australian last night that he was concerned about other members of his community turning to radical Islam and travelling overseas to join the jihad.

"We are worried about that because we don't want anyone to lose life for nothing," he said.

After reading this I couldn't help but feel this is honestly not a war against "terrorists" or al-Qaeda but rather christians from the US and Ethiopia attacking Muslims in Somalia. And why? Simply because they don't want a government(which brought peace and stability) based on Islamic law in Somalia. Sad, truly sad.

Considering the UIC is the illegitimate governing body, and it is time to back up the elected president, yeah its time for the Islamic overlords to step down.

Considering the UIC is the illegitimate governing body, and it is time to back up the elected president, yeah its time for the Islamic overlords to step down.
Elected?

No, you mean installed. Remember, the Baidoa gang meets in an old grain warehouse. Until a few weeks ago their guys didn't dare leave Baidoa, and before the current guy was installed by the Ethiopians, absolutely no one gave a shit about what they had to say. Including the Ethiopians.

The UIC was no more legit than any other gang, but say what you will, they ended a period of anarchy and arbitrary gangland rule in many towns, which is why they had their supporters.

Elected?

No, you mean installed. Remember, the Baidoa gang meets in an old grain warehouse. Until a few weeks ago their guys didn't dare leave Baidoa, and before the current guy was installed by the Ethiopians, absolutely no one gave a shit about what they had to say. Including the Ethiopians.

The UIC was no more legit than any other gang, but say what you will, they ended a period of anarchy and arbitrary gangland rule in many towns, which is why they had their supporters.

No. I mean elected. And yes, order was restored. Any order is preferable to the chaos that existed prior. And what was the cost of that order? 15 years of harsh Islamic rule. It's time to return to the people the freedom of a democratically elected government.

No. I mean elected.
By whom? The group that "controls" the capital now wasn't elected.

And yes, order was restored. Any order is preferable to the chaos that existed prior. And what was the cost of that order? 15 years of harsh Islamic rule.
Not necessarily. There've been plenty of debates before about this on NSG.

In short, the UIC is a Union of independent courts. Some courts are run by radical clerics, others by moderate ones. In some areas under their control people were punished for watching the World Cup, in others there were nightly showings of porn at the local cinema.

It's time to return to the people the freedom of a democratically elected government.
And I completely agree with you. I just don't think the Baidoa Gang are the people to do it. It's a "parliament" filled with former and current warlords and reps from the surrounding countries (particularly Ethiopia). There's nothing in that parliament that makes me think they'd do any better.

It's more likely to be the opposite. What I heard from Mogadishu and the other cities they conquered was that they reinstated the former warlords as leaders.

You mean they'd lose the 28% that like bush? :rolleyes: oh dear me oh my. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I sincerely doubt the new democratic majority elected in disgust with GWB and the republican party would be committing "political suicide" by walking out, en masse, on the fink. :rolleyes:

Again that woulld be political suicide. You do not walk out on the biggest speech that is broadcasted on National Television. People will see that. You do not hand your opponets ammunition like that. If the dems did that, the Republicans can use it constently and it will succeed too. The conservative base (not the neo-cons) would be so energize, it'll be pathetic.

They dont have the guts to do it, sadly, but it would be a grand statement.

And an idiotic statement for walking out on something that they may not agree with. No, they'll sit in their chairs as it is the correct thing to do.

Any dignity the state of the union address has is trashed if bush repeats his normal rambling BS about iraq and terrorism, walking out would drive that point home visually.

Oh grow up hack.

This coming of course from the same one who thinks soviestan reads "islamist websites" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I guess you do not read his statements closely do you?

Considering the UIC is the illegitimate governing body, and it is time to back up the elected president, yeah its time for the Islamic overlords to step down.

He was not actually elected but is recognized as the legit governor of Somalia.

Bodies, in the future, the AC-130 will be the AC-X (in just a few years), and will be armed with this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/atl.htm

No messy explosions, a beam about 10 cm wide (just hitting individual people), and no sound and no apparent aircraft in the vicinity.

Apparently not a rumor this time. It has already achieved "first light" at a power level greater than designed.

The optics used for focusing the beam are also used to identify the target - that is, you'll be looking right at someone's face before you burn his neck to a charred stump.

Wow, I hadn't heard of that AC-X gunship. I guess I always hoped for something like that to be developed sometime.

With precision like that, augmented by good intelligence, the "war on terror" would have my full support.
(that and Royal Marine snipers :sniper:. But I do apologize for that smiley.)

Not this "wipe out 27 civilians to take down two suspects" crap. Unacceptable, I don't care what they "deserved".

I'm not saying I'm with the crowd flaming collateral damage in WWII, but today it happens way too often and way too much, without enough gained.

The ATL [Advanced Tactical Laser] is way more than a year or two off. First light is nothing really. Just means they've managed to get a laser working, period. Whoop-dee-doo. The biggest issue with that program will be targeting, which isn't an easy thing to pull off when you're talking about a laser being fired from a moving platform.

Right now, it's just a demonstration program, with a completion date set somewhere in the the next two years, but when it will reach the point where it can be fielded? That's another question. Believing otherwise is just buying into whatever hype Boeing, the prime contractor for the ATL program, is currently chucking out there.

You'll notice, too, that the globalsecurity web page on the program hasn't been updated in quite some time. That's because the program went black a little under a year ago (at the time, I was covering it for the magazine for which I used to work).


why are they my only options?

can i select the 'get better intellegence and make even a token effort not to kill civilians' option instead?

or is that too subtle for you Yankees?

Dadgum. I knew the Yankees had a decent baseball team, but Spec-ops too?

Talk about diversification.

Yup, Derek Jeter with a frickin' laser on his head. :p

But the US messed up the place and unleashed those forces that were under control or kept out of Iraq before. The US kindly let the foreigners in.

You shouldn't complain about anyone's reading comp since your writing comp isn't any better really.

Yeah, it's a real shame that there are terrorists in Iraq, instead of in our own countries...

Elucidate if you will. You claim the US is not killing civilians, and then talk about how the US is killing civilians.

True or false: the US military kills civilians?

All militaries kill civilians. In war, shit happens. You can stop trying to make it sound as though only it only happens when the US military is involved.

Al-quida, what a load of garbage, more pretext to justify 'American Terrorism'.

First, wtf is "Al-quida"?

And yes, the US is a giant terrorist state. That's so tired at this point that it's not worth a response.

And rightly.

Didn't it every occur to anyone that hiding near civilians is a tactic in order to make the U.S. look worse?

Of course. That's precisely why they do it.

You mean they'd lose the 28% that like bush? :rolleyes: oh dear me oh my. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I sincerely doubt the new democratic majority elected in disgust with GWB and the republican party would be committing "political suicide" by walking out, en masse, on the fink. :rolleyes:

They dont have the guts to do it, sadly, but it would be a grand statement.

Any dignity the state of the union address has is trashed if bush repeats his normal rambling BS about iraq and terrorism, walking out would drive that point home visually.

This coming of course from the same one who thinks soviestan reads "islamist websites" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Enough eyeroll smileys there? Well done. You've shown you can be condescending. Run along now.

By whom? The group that "controls" the capital now wasn't elected.


Not necessarily. There've been plenty of debates before about this on NSG.

In short, the UIC is a Union of independent courts. Some courts are run by radical clerics, others by moderate ones. In some areas under their control people were punished for watching the World Cup, in others there were nightly showings of porn at the local cinema.


And I completely agree with you. I just don't think the Baidoa Gang are the people to do it. It's a "parliament" filled with former and current warlords and reps from the surrounding countries (particularly Ethiopia). There's nothing in that parliament that makes me think they'd do any better.

It's more likely to be the opposite. What I heard from Mogadishu and the other cities they conquered was that they reinstated the former warlords as leaders.

Regardless of the semantics, the Union of Islamic Courts is not a legitimate governing body, and is not recognized as such. The government that controls the capital now may not have been elected, but they are still recognized as the legitimate governing body by the UN and the international community. As such, the UIC needs to be removed from power.

Again that woulld be political suicide. You do not walk out on the biggest speech that is broadcasted on National Television. People will see that. You do not hand your opponets ammunition like that. If the dems did that, the Republicans can use it constently and it will succeed too. The conservative base (not the neo-cons) would be so energize, it'll be pathetic.

And an idiotic statement for walking out on something that they may not agree with. No, they'll sit in their chairs as it is the correct thing to do.

Oh grow up hack.

I guess you do not read his statements closely do you?

The "conservative base" might or might not be "so energize (sic) it'll be pathetic," but they would have a very hard time winning votes in 2008 by whining about how the democrats left in disgust at the nationally-loathed president while he was trying to bullshit the nation in 2007.

Last I checked we have started voting on the basis of JawBush's policies, especially his iraq policies, instead of on the basis of whether congressman kowtow appropriately before His Highness.

An en masse walk out would be a shock, but it would be a necessary shock and demonstrate visually the new consequences of bush's usual rambling. For the sake of the country, the fool needs to be whipped into shape.

This again though taken with a grain of salt, since the poster believes soviestan "reads islamist websites." :rolleyes:

I got a bridge for sale, you know. :rolleyes:

All militaries kill civilians. In war, shit happens. You can stop trying to make it sound as though only it only happens when the US military is involved.

No, no, you've taken me completely out of context there. I was responding to AC2's claim that 'we aren't the one killing civilians, and when we do...' - thus the emphasis on specific mention of the US.

No, no, you've taken me completely out of context there. I was responding to AC2's claim that 'we aren't the one killing civilians, and when we do...' - thus the emphasis on specific mention of the US.

Okay, but the difference is intent. The US doesn't intentionally target civilians. Fuckhead terrorists, on the other hand, do.

Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post.

The "conservative base" might or might not be "so energize (sic) it'll be pathetic," but they would have a very hard time winning votes in 2008 by whining about how the democrats left in disgust at the nationally-loathed president while he was trying to bullshit the nation in 2007.

You'd be surprise at just how well a well constructed campaign on this issue could do.

Last I checked we have started voting on the basis of JawBush's policies, especially his iraq policies, instead of on the basis of whether congressman kowtow appropriately before His Highness.

Actually, corruption had more of a say in this past election than the Iraq War.

An en masse walk out would be a shock, but it would be a necessary shock and demonstrate visually the new consequences of bush's usual rambling. For the sake of the country, the fool needs to be whipped into shape.

It would be a disgrace to the democrats if they did what you want them to do.

This again though taken with a grain of salt, since the poster believes soviestan "reads islamist websites." :rolleyes:

He can't see past his religion. He is an islamist.

Okay, but the difference is intent. The US doesn't intentionally target civilians. Fuckhead terrorists, on the other hand, do.

Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post.

Yeah, but it all comes down to a question of how much collateral damage the powers that be consider to be acceptable.

Yeah, but it all comes down to a question of how much collateral damage the powers that be consider to be acceptable.

No, actually, it comes down to intent. Are you intentionally targeting civilians? If so, you're a fuckhead. End of story, really.

You'd be surprise at just how well a well constructed campaign on this issue could do.

Actually, corruption had more of a say in this past election than the Iraq War.

It would be a disgrace to the democrats if they did what you want them to do.

He can't see past his religion. He is an islamist.


I would be as surprised as I would be if a space alien landed on the washington monument and started eating tourists. Its also as likely.

Is that why people disapprove of bush so overwhelmingly and of his conduct of the war, because of congressional corruption?

It would be a disgrace to the nation to be subjected to another parade of bush's rambling garbage about how pleased he is with iraq. If he doesnt want to take the speech seriously and own up to his responsibility and accept ther eality of the situtation, he doesnt deserve the audience.

So now you're backpeddalling from "reads islamist websites" (in what? swahili? he doesnt speak arabic) to "can't see past his religion" but missing the obvious of "trolling" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You can see why just about anything you say needs to be taken with a big grain of salt, as it isnt coming from the most perceptive eyes, &c.

No, actually, it comes down to intent. Are you intentionally targeting civilians? If so, you're a fuckhead. End of story, really.

So Bomber Command during WWII were fuckheads?

I consider that as long as the attacking party knows there is a substantial chance of hitting civilians, their attack is "targeted at civilians."

A lot of apologists for various unsavorious like to claim that even though both sides kill civilians in droves, one side is fine because it "doesnt target them." This is a distinction without a difference and is despicable to assert.

I would be as surprised as I would be if a space alien landed on the washington monument and started eating tourists. Its also as likely.

Is that why people disapprove of bush so overwhelmingly and of his conduct of the war, because of congressional corruption?

It would be a disgrace to the nation to be subjected to another parade of bush's rambling garbage about how pleased he is with iraq. If he doesnt want to take the speech seriously and own up to his responsibility and accept ther eality of the situtation, he doesnt deserve the audience.

So now you're backpeddalling from "reads islamist websites" (in what? swahili? he doesnt speak arabic) to "can't see past his religion" but missing the obvious of "trolling" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You can see why just about anything you say needs to be taken with a big grain of salt, as it isnt coming from the most perceptive eyes, &c.

You know? Your partisan hackery is nice and you do a great job in espousing it. You have a point on Bush's approval rating but that is about all. Everyone listens to the garbage the President spouts at his State of the Union Address. It does not matter if you like the leader or not but out of respect, you listen to what he has to say regardless of how you feel. Disagree all you like, that is your right but to walk out on him is just shameful and it would sink the Democrats so low, it won't be funny.

I'll be back later.

Regardless of the semantics, the Union of Islamic Courts is not a legitimate governing body, and is not recognized as such. The government that controls the capital now may not have been elected, but they are still recognized as the legitimate governing body by the UN and the international community. As such, the UIC needs to be removed from power.

Wow, Neu Leonstein could prove to you the grass is green, and you'd still argue about what shade it was.

Legitimacy is not necessarily gained from international recognition. The first step is from the people in whose name you claim to rule. The UIC actually had widespread support, mainly due to their policies that led to stability and order, as well as great openings of their economy again. They gained their legitimacy from those people on the ground.

Regardless of the semantics, the Union of Islamic Courts is not a legitimate governing body, and is not recognized as such. The government that controls the capital now may not have been elected, but they are still recognized as the legitimate governing body by the UN and the international community. As such, the UIC needs to be removed from power.

But Saddam was the legitimate, recognised, 'elected' president of Iraq!

Are your morals always this flexible?

You know? Your partisan hackery is nice and you do a great job in espousing it. You have a point on Bush's approval rating but that is about all. Everyone listens to the garbage the President spouts at his State of the Union Address. It does not matter if you like the leader or not but out of respect, you listen to what he has to say regardless of how you feel. Disagree all you like, that is your right but to walk out on him is just shameful and it would sink the Democrats so low, it won't be funny.

I'll be back later.

Not partisan hackery, the republicans should walk out on him too.

The problem with bush isnt that he's a republican, its that he's a bad leader and a bad man and that his presidency diminshes the US.

If the president wants to blather garbage about something besides Iraq, he can, but too many people have died in iraq for him to continue his fantasy-land routine. If he doesnt have the decency to treat iraq with the real concern and honesty it deserves, he doesnt deserve to give a state of the union address.

So Bomber Command during WWII were fuckheads?
Oh yes, they were!

Regardless of what you think about the bombings itself, both Harris and LeMay were reported fuckheads.

I consider that as long as the attacking party knows there is a substantial chance of hitting civilians, their attack is "targeted at civilians."

A lot of apologists for various unsavorious like to claim that even though both sides kill civilians in droves, one side is fine because it "doesnt target them." This is a distinction without a difference and is despicable to assert.

It also hinges very heavily on your exact working definition of civilian and who is excluded from that classification: policemen? contractors working for the security forces? munitions workers? politicians? civil servants?

Oh yes, they were!

Regardless of what you think about the bombings itself, both Harris and LeMay were reported fuckheads.

You have mistaken an honest question about Cluichstan's beliefs for a rhetorical one.

You have mistaken an honest question about Cluichstan's beliefs for a rhetorical one.
So I have...

Not partisan hackery, the republicans should walk out on him too.

That would also be disrespectful and conduct of unbecoming.

The problem with bush isnt that he's a republican, its that he's a bad leader and a bad man and that his presidency diminshes the US.

Unfortunately,we have had worse presidents than this. In fact, he is more of an average president than a bad one.

If the president wants to blather garbage about something besides Iraq, he can, but too many people have died in iraq for him to continue his fantasy-land routine. If he doesnt have the decency to treat iraq with the real concern and honesty it deserves, he doesnt deserve to give a state of the union address.

To bad. He's is obligated by the Constitution to give it. Both parties will listen to it regardless of how they feel for that is political wise to do. To do otherwise would not be pretty for them politicly.

And rightly.

Didn't it every occur to anyone that hiding near civilians is a tactic in order to make the U.S. look worse?

9 years after the attacks they get bombed, and this should fall under the category of "human shields"? I kinda doubt that...

All I can say is find them, track them target them and KILL them all.:sniper:

All I can say is find them, track them target them and KILL them all.:sniper:

Whoa, calm down there, cool breeze.

There was a major cleric in Sydney on the news the other day talking about how many young Somalis from his neighbourhood wanna go over there and fight the Ethiopians. He's telling them not to, he says.

The Ethiopian PM now allegedly says that they have actually captured foreign fighters.

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/01/10/story_10-1-2007_pg1_1
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said in an interview published on Tuesday that nationals from Britain, Canada, Pakistan and Sudan were among those captured or wounded during the ouster of Somalia’s Islamist rulers

Politics aside, this has turned out to be a well planned and executed mission starting with the cooperation in terms of intel and guidance to the Ethiopians enabling them to smash through the ICU, blocking escape routes with Kenya and blocking sea routes with moving navy there, moving AC-130s to Djibouti and bombing the cornered fighters.

Politics aside...
If only it were possible.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,458633,00.html

We're better than visa, stronger than mastercard, with more punch than chuck norris.

You and I are unfit to speak of Chuck Norris or his -- errp! :eek: *round-house kicked*

I found this poem on another forum, I thought it was interesting. If anything, it gives a different view of the situation that most on here probably have.

Don't flame me, I don't agree with everything in it, just thought it was interesting.

Somalia Land of Islam
People of strong iman
Somalia graveyard of the crusaders
Who never learn from their past mistakes

They came in 93
To bring peace, justice and democracy
And were despatched in pieces
After they were exposed for their hypocrisy
Uranium and other resources was the motive

Now they are using proxies
Ethiopians and So called Somali’s
Puppets and traitors
Slaves once more
Like before
This time paid
To raid their own kind
No dignity or honour

US is clever
Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan
No more land invasions
Maybe they learnt their lesson
Not to mess with Muslims

Divide and conquer
Weaken and annihilate
Back to their old ways
Old tactics renewed
While the Muslims continue to
Fight with small arms
Hitting and running
And blowing up using their own bodies

US aware
Full of fear
Refusing to land troops
Coz they remember Black Hawk down

Mujahideen say
Crusaders welcome
To the land of glory and Islam
People full of dignity and Taqwa
Coz
Islam reached here before Medina

Ready to die in Jihad
Than submit and be humiliated
Motivated and ready

My dear Somali brothers
Forget the divisions of tribalism
Tool of jahaliyah and shaytan
West’s biggest weapon
More powerful than a nuclear bomb
More Somalis died
And many widows and orphans cried
Coz of tribalism

Leave this evil
And unite as brothers
Inter-marry and kill it for good
Unite and repel the occupation
Together
Otherwise u will be enslaved forever

Instead of walking
U will be kneeling
And bowing
To the US and its allies

Horn of Africa
Land of Islam
Able to inspire the ummah
And put fear in the hearts of the enemy

Your ancestors were mujihideen
Proud and noble
Live up to their glories
Against invaders like the Italians
Don’t collaborate or condemn your brothers
Islam brought order
While kufr and tribalism brings disorder

You’ve seen it in the past
Don’t make the same mistake twice
May Allah help u and give u the victory
Establish Islamic rule in state and society.
Ameen.

Oh yes, they were!

Regardless of what you think about the bombings itself, both Harris and LeMay were reported fuckheads.

In a interview/documentary Fog of War with Robert McNamara, McNamara he and LeMay discussed topic of bombing civilians, LeMay said if they lost the war they would tried as War Criminals for targeting civilians. So by LeMays own admission, they were fuck heads.

Okay, but the difference is intent. The US doesn't intentionally target civilians. Fuckhead terrorists, on the other hand, do.

Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post.

no difference, militants attack what they see as legitimate targets, either economic(WT), military(Pentagon), government(embassy's) and if civilians get killed it's collateral damage,they don't give a fuck....the US military attacks militants and they also don't give a fuck if civilians get killed, they just bring out that trusted cliche they were hiding among civilians to excuse it. The problem with that is they are supposed to be the good guys, it sells well to rabid americans screaming for blood but people around the elsewhere in the world it's hypocrisy.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/11/military/9_06_101_10_07.txt
U.S. special forces in Somalia, but no substantial buildup of ground troops planned, Pentagon officials say

By: PAULINE JELINEK - Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- U.S. special operations forces are in Somalia hunting suspected al-Qaida fighters, but Pentagon officials dismissed the idea they are planning to send any large number of ground troops to the African nation.

Here's a trivia question.

Who is the father of Hussein, the national security minister of the Somalian government (if you can call it a government, that is ;) ) ?

dp

Are we at war with Somalia now? This is just exasperating.

US troops in Somalia? I bet its going to happen.

I bet its not. you lose.

Are we at war with Somalia now? This is just exasperating.if Bush says "stay the curse"..

All I can say is find them, track them target them and KILL them all.:sniper:for now the best we can do is kiddnap their wives and children..

After reading this I couldn't help but feel this is honestly not a war against "terrorists" or al-Qaeda but rather christians from the US and Ethiopia attacking Muslims in Somalia. And why? Simply because they don't want a government(which brought peace and stability) based on Islamic law in Somalia. Sad, truly sad.

Yes. That's because the Somalian government based on Islamic law won't respect human rights and democracy. Don't forget that. :D

Yes. That's because the Somalian government based on Islamic law won't respect human rights and democracy. Don't forget that. :Dwait.. are you saying is that a "islamic-Law" Country cannot have a democracy.. cannot have a democratically elected President.

its the smily.. is it sarcasm?

wait.. are you saying is that a "islamic-Law" Country cannot have a democracy.. cannot have a democratically elected President.

its the smily.. is it sarcasm?

Not a sarcasm.

History told so. Countries with Islamic law never have a democracy. Islamic countries that have a democracy never use Islamic law in the government.

Not a sarcasm.

History told so. Countries with Islamic law never have a democracy. Islamic countries that have a democracy never use Islamic law in the government.
How'bout
Iran
Palestine
Lebanon

How'bout
Iran
Palestine
Lebanon

Hold on... Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. Get that one straightened out.

Hold on... Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. Get that one straightened out.

Theocratic republic. Just cause their religious doesn't mean the people can't (or don't) vote.

How'bout
Iran
Palestine
Lebanon

Iran - Not everybody can stand for elections. There clergy has to approve the candidates. That is not a real democracy. Better than nothing...but still it falls short of a democracy.

Palestine - it's not even a country :D

Lebanon - Nope. They have some weird electoral process and reservations stuff...to maintain the same percentage of representatives from the different groups. Like if a constituency is declared for Maronites then only Maronite candidates can compete in that area. If a shia from that area wants to compete, he cannot, due to this structure.

I would think Bangladesh, but even there emergency has been declared and the President has just resigned..

Btw, answering my own question, Hussein is the son of Aidid - the Mogadishu warlord.

Iran - Not everybody can stand for elections. There clergy has to approve the candidates. That is not a real democracy. Better than nothing...but still it falls short of a democracy..

Hence the theocratic in theocratic republic.

Lebanon - Nope. They have some weird electoral process and reservations stuff...to maintain the same percentage of representatives from the different groups. Like if a constituency is declared for Maronites then only Maronite candidates can compete in that area. If a shia from that area wants to compete, he cannot, due to this structure.

Also a republic.

Note that republics are not democracies, but employ democratic principles. Palestine is not strictly a country, but it is a Muslim state that has employed democratic elections.

Whoa, calm down there, cool breeze.

AS long as he's talking about Islamic militants we're cool.

Anyone else is a no-no.

Hold on... Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. Get that one straightened out.ok lets do it.

Get that one straightened out.
Can I say the people Iran has Democratically elected their Gov?

Of course I can.
..at the same time You cannot say the same for most of the US "friends" in the Region (with the exeption of Israel)

Iran - Not everybody can stand for elections. There clergy has to approve the candidates.answer this one:

can "everybody" stand for Presidential elections in the US ?

How'bout
Iran
Palestine
Lebanon
You can do better than that!

Malaysia, Indonesia, Yemen, Turkey (although they say the government is strictly secular there), Morocco and probably a few more I haven't thought of.

Are we at war with Somalia now? This is just exasperating.

No we are not at war with Somalia. We targeted Al Qaeda. Most notably those behind the Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Apparently we got him too.

How'bout
Iran

A joke there.

Palestine

I'll give you that one.

Lebanon

And this one to though that is still 100% up in the air because of Syrian intel agents still in country.

ok lets do it.

Get that one straightened out.
Can I say the people Iran has Democratically elected their Gov?

Of course I can.
..at the same time You cannot say the same for most of the US "friends" in the Region (with the exeption of Israel)

Iran is no democracy. Its a republic with a joke of an election system. It is not even a fair election. Hence why it is a joke to say what you just said.

answer this one:

can "everybody" stand for Presidential elections in the US ?

Yep. They just cry when their candidate loses.

Are we at war with Somalia now? This is just exasperating.

No, actually the Somali President says he's fine with the US dropping bombs on his country. (See here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/2007/January/africa/20070109-strikes-somalia.html).)

Iran is no democracy. Its a republic with a joke of an election system.

Which, I suppose, it why it allowed voters to vote against Ahmadinejad's supporters in the last election? Interesting "dictatorship", where voters are free to bring the Opposition party to power.

Which, I suppose, it why it allowed voters to vote against Ahmadinejad's supporters in the last election? Interesting "dictatorship", where voters are free to bring the Opposition party to power.

Its a joke because candidates are declared ineligable for posts because they do not agree with those who actually run the country. Or did you miss that little part?

Its a joke because candidates are declared ineligable for posts because they do not agree with those who actually run the country. Or did you miss that little part?

I'm well aware of that, and obviously it does make a mockery of Iranian democracy to a significant extent.

But it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. To claim that Iran is not democratic in any way is obviously absurd.

(Incidentally, when American or British people start criticising Iranian politics, I always wonder whether they know it was the US and the UK which overthrew the democratic Iranian government in the 1950s and set up a cheery little dictatorship in its place.)

About time.

I knew we had advisors with the ethiopians, but not any attack helicopters.

AQ-We're coming for ya



Report: U.S. airstrike targets al-Qaida in Africa
Pentagon won't confirm action by helicopter gunship in southern Somalia

WASHINGTON - A U.S. helicopter gunship conducted a strike against two suspected al-Qaida operatives in southern Somalia, but it was not known whether the mission was successful, CBS News reported on Monday.

Well, now we know. This glorious strike against the evil "AQ" managed to kill 70 nomads who were searching for water sources. None of the prime targets were killed.

Seriously, when will you people learn to stop believing anything you hear through the "official" administration-approved channels? They lie. Always. In fact, whatever they tell you is happening is the one thing you can be absolutely sure is NOT going on.