Somalia: another warfield for the US

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_re_af/somalia_280


MOGADISHU, Somalia - Helicopter gunships attacked suspected al-Qaida fighters in the south Tuesday after U.S. forces staged airstrikes in the first offensive in the African country since 18 American soldiers were killed there in 1993, witnesses said.
Witnesses said 31 civilians, including two newlyweds, died in the assault by two helicopters near Afmadow, a town in an area of forested hills close to the Kenyan border 220 miles southwest of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu. The report could not be independently verified.


there are a lot to do there that's true, but man,  Bush never learns. He's going to mess it all up again .... 

[Prometheus]

meh...... this single act is no less then other presidents would have done... no boots on the ground just planes in the air. its kinda hard fro bush to mess up planes in the air....

[andypa1]

are there any oil fields in samalia?

[Izzy]

are there any oil fields in samalia?

i didnt think so, but if America shows interest in the area there must indeed be oil or at least Leprechaun gold

Strange US forces can get involved for the boogeyman but....help the starving locals? - wot, are u mad?!?

[The Dog]

At least these were actual terrorists this time....  I don't care what country they're in.  If they are Al-Queda they need to die.  Simple as that.  Kill them before they kill us.

[SLCPUNK]

At least these were actual terrorists this time....  I don't care what country they're in.  If they are Al-Queda they need to die.  Simple as that.  Kill them before they kill us.

Yup.

[TAP]

At least these were actual terrorists this time....  I don't care what country they're in.  If they are Al-Queda they need to die.  Simple as that.  Kill them before they kill us.

Absolutely. It's possible to be 100% against the Iraq war and 100% for killing AQ wherever they lurk.....in fact it's the only position that makes any sense to me

[Axl4Prez2004]

At least these were actual terrorists this time....? I don't care what country they're in.? If they are Al-Queda they need to die.? Simple as that.? Kill them before they kill us.

Absolutely. It's possible to be 100% against the Iraq war and 100% for killing AQ wherever they lurk.....in fact it's the only position that makes any sense to me

Amen to what HannaHat and Tap1966 said.  Don't tell me our military couldn't launch pinpoint strikes on all these scumbag terrorists without having to send over to Iraq what amounts to be 100.000+ human bug-lights.  (that's a reference to the folks who think it's better our people get attacked over there and not over here)  Here's the deal, a million troops in Iraq wouldn't decrease the risk of a terrorist attack in the United States.  In fact, in time, it may just increase it.    

[Dr. Blutarsky]

At least these were actual terrorists this time....  I don't care what country they're in.  If they are Al-Queda they need to die.  Simple as that.  Kill them before they kill us.

Al-Qaeda are the ones who actually came to the US and killed our people. Terrorists should be hunted down and killed. Especially if they bombed an embassy or two.

[SLCPUNK]

Terrorists should be hunted down and killed.

That's right, too bad we didn't spend too much time doing that.

[The Dog]

At least these were actual terrorists this time....? I don't care what country they're in.? If they are Al-Queda they need to die.? Simple as that.? Kill them before they kill us.

Absolutely. It's possible to be 100% against the Iraq war and 100% for killing AQ wherever they lurk.....in fact it's the only position that makes any sense to me

 without having to send over to Iraq what amounts to be 100.000+ human bug-lights.? (that's a reference to the folks who think it's better our people get attacked over there and not over here)?

GREAT FUCKING POINT.  I absolutely HATE it when people say that shit about fighting us "over there" instead of here.  Um, its not fighting "US", its fighting kids who are dying for a bullshit war while we can still see Britneys pussy on the internet.  I would guess most of the people who say that are probably the same people who are for the war.....so long as THEIR kid doesn't have to go.  Assholes.

[Axl4Prez2004]

HannaHat, this is making me angrier by the second!  You mean people have seen Britney's privates and I haven't???  Am I the last one to see everything?   

Yeah, when ya first here the whole, "It's either fight 'em over there or fight 'em over here," it seems to make sense......but then your brain kicks in!  What the fuck?  How the hell does that stop terrorism over here? 

This is all a fucking mess.  I need Chinese Democracy. 

[Verse Chorus Verse]

From what I heard, Somalia's government asked the U.S. to attack Al-Qaeda over there, but that's just CNN, so I'm not sure.

[The Dog]

HannaHat, this is making me angrier by the second!? You mean people have seen Britney's privates and I haven't? Am I the last one to see everything?? ?

Yeah, when ya first here the whole, "It's either fight 'em over there or fight 'em over here," it seems to make sense......but then your brain kicks in!? What the fuck?? How the hell does that stop terrorism over here??

This is all a fucking mess.? I need Chinese Democracy.?

you ain't missing much.  I think Saddam being hanged was better looking then her chubby beaver 

[freedom78]

there are a lot to do there that's true, but man,  Bush never learns. He's going to mess it all up again .... 

This one is so very different from Iraq.  There's a government fighting a militant al-Qaeda backed Islamist force.  Keeping a friendly, anti-al-Qaeda government in power is different that knocking off a dictator  who didn't support al-Qaeda.

Don't tell me our military couldn't launch pinpoint strikes on all these scumbag terrorists without having to send over to Iraq what amounts to be 100.000+ human bug-lights.  (that's a reference to the folks who think it's better our people get attacked over there and not over here)  Here's the deal, a million troops in Iraq wouldn't decrease the risk of a terrorist attack in the United States.  In fact, in time, it may just increase it.    

The argument that we can "fight them over there" has been disproved by the Madrid and London bombings.  Maybe our security is better, or luckier, but an attack on London is really no different than an attack on NYC. 

I love the idea of killing terrorists from our ships, but I think the doctrine of overwhelming air power to win a war is quickly fading.  Air force people love to think that they can win wars, but they can't.  If you go to war, you have to send in ground forces.  We tried the "bomb 'em into submission" stuff in Vietnam, and it didn't work.  I don't mean this in support of or against any particular war.  I just think this idea that you can win with bombs has had its chance, and failed.  Not that overwhelming air power HURTS, mind you.  I'd rather have it, than not, in war. 

[The Dog]

I think Axl4Prez was talking more about special ops pin point bombing then massive air war bombing.  If a special ops teams locates a terror camp and a cruise missle or two takes it out, its a lot less dangerous then sending in troops.  of course, as bill clinton knows, the former tactic doesn't gaurantee you success.

i think pulling forces to the outskits of the violence is the way to go.  let the iraqi govt and army and police try to hold the streets with quick striking, fast, mobile, heavily armed US forces as back up/support.

our guys should stop doing patrols and door to doors though.  thats their job now, not ours.

i agree with you freedom78 about air war though, its a dinosaur when you are talking about the war on terror.

[freedom78]

I think Axl4Prez was talking more about special ops pin point bombing then massive air war bombing.  If a special ops teams locates a terror camp and a cruise missle or two takes it out, its a lot less dangerous then sending in troops.  of course, as bill clinton knows, the former tactic doesn't gaurantee you success.

i think pulling forces to the outskits of the violence is the way to go.  let the iraqi govt and army and police try to hold the streets with quick striking, fast, mobile, heavily armed US forces as back up/support.

our guys should stop doing patrols and door to doors though.  thats their job now, not ours.

i agree with you freedom78 about air war though, its a dinosaur when you are talking about the war on terror.

I realize he meant very targeted strikes, and they do work.  But they can't be all you do, especially when there's a true terror STATE, like Afghanistan was.  Like you said, it's a dinosaur.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Terrorists should be hunted down and killed.

may not surprise you, but i disagree.
both on method and goal.

[freedom78]

Terrorists should be hunted down and killed.

may not surprise you, but i disagree.
both on method and goal.

I'm curious as to why you feel this way, and what you think should be done, instead.  Not trying to put you on the defensive or anything like that...just asking.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Terrorists should be hunted down and killed.

may not surprise you, but i disagree.
both on method and goal.

I'm curious as to why you feel this way, and what you think should be done, instead.? Not trying to put you on the defensive or anything like that...just asking.

Maybe i should clarify my thoughts.
I, without any doubt, disagree with the "killed" part. That's because i'm against death penalty.
Some people may think that this is a war. I think not. This is not a war. not a classic one at least. Therefore you cannot kill your enemy.

Then on the "hunt down".
If this is only one element of a global strategy against terrorism - education, crisis management, international tensions management - i agree with that i'll say.

If one person is known for having participated in criminal acts, then he should be arrested. normal.

But considering what GWBush and others may say. This state of mind " hunt them down and killem them all!" is with no doubts and stupid strategy. A strategy that has failed for 5 years.
And that can lead to atrocities like Guantanamo bay.
How can you gold prisoners people with NO JUDGEMENT?
That is against human rights. against democracy.

Thats what Yoda says

Above all ethical issues. We don't even know what terrorism is. Where does it start? When does terrorism become the real voice of poor and oppressed?

We had the same problem understanding what happened in the suburbs of paris last year. With the "riots".
Most of the political class failed to understand what was going on. They wanted to see violence and rage. And were dispelling any other side of the story.
When you only see the violence and do not want to see the reasons behind the violence, that is where you fail.
That is why Israel is in denial.
That is why the USA are failing.

As long as you see the devil everywhere, and classify every actions against you as " evil " - you will lose and fail to see the real shit.

The phrase " we must hunt terrorists and kill them all ", which is basically the US govt. method is wrong.

- it's to vague and vast: you dont see the limit of that thing. what is terrorism?
- it can escuse and give a reason to many illegal "terrorists" acts: guatanamo, lebanon war
- it clearly leads to excess
- it gives you a fake feeling of security and power. Just like americans needs to believe in Superman, a simple phrase like this gives that feeling that we all, and i'm sorry but americans first, need to survive: security and immortality.
- again, it is simple and makes you think the solution of this global problem is easy.

i dont know. maybe Bush is stupid. maybe not. Maybe he understood that people need simple phrase and simple explanation.