US kills two top leaders of terror group that attacked Kenya mall
Source: NBC
A senior U.S. military official has confirmed that a military drone attack Monday afternoon killed two top leaders of the al Qaeda-linked terror group that massacred civilians at a Nairobi, Kenya mall last month.
The official said that the attack on a single vehicle in southern Somalia had killed two leaders of al Shabaab, including its most important explosives expert, a man named Anta. The official did not identify the second man killed.
A car carrying the two leaders was struck by Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator, said the official, who contended that no one outside the vehicle was killed.
Earlier, witnesses told al Jazeera said the strike happened near the town of Jilib, about 70 miles north of al-Shabaab's former stronghold of Kismayo near the Kenyan border.
Read more: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213615-us-kills-two-top-leaders-of-terror-group-that-attacked-kenya-mall?lite
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)
appropriate response.
When al-Shahab disarms and subjects itself to civil courts, then drone strikes will be off the table for these bastards, and not a second before.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Can't argue with that logic.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Why you think the US dropping drones on people who attacked a soft target on a different continent in a struggle that has nothing to do with us is an "appropriate response" is not surprising. I guess we are the world's policeman after all.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of Somalia, Kenya, etc.
It's the entire planet vs Al Shahab.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And profits, too.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Please tell us so we can spend our "Peace Dividend" on social programs.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and cannot threaten to topple or overthrow governments in the region.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And the war without end can keep making profits for the likes of, oh, I don't know, Bush and Cheney's cronies without end.
Here's something you might want to read:
Perpetual War: How Does the Global War on Terror Ever End?
by Jeremy Scahill
Published on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 by TomDispatch.com
(This epilogue to Scahill’s bestselling book, Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield, is posted with the kind permission of its publisher, Nation Books.)
On January 21, 2013, Barack Obama was inaugurated for his second term as president of the United States. Just as he had promised when he began his first campaign for president six years earlier, he pledged again to turn the page on history and take U.S. foreign policy in a different direction. “A decade of war is now ending,” Obama declared. “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”
Much of the media focus that day was on the new hairstyle of First Lady Michelle Obama, who appeared on the dais sporting freshly trimmed bangs, and on the celebrities in attendance, including hip-hop mogul Jay-Z and his wife, Beyoncé, who performed the national anthem. But the day Obama was sworn in, a U.S. drone strike hit Yemen. It was the third such attack in that country in as many days. Despite the rhetoric from the president on the Capitol steps, there was abundant evidence that he would continue to preside over a country that is in a state of perpetual war.
In the year leading up to the inauguration, more people had been killed in U.S. drone strikes across the globe than were imprisoned at Guantánamo. As Obama was sworn in for his second term, his counterterrorism team was finishing up the task of systematizing the kill list, including developing rules for when U.S. citizens could be targeted. Admiral William McRaven had been promoted to the commander of the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and his Special Ops forces were operating in more than 100 countries across the globe.
After General David Petraeus’s career was brought to a halt as a result of an extramarital affair, President Obama tapped John Brennan to replace him as director of the CIA, thus ensuring that the Agency would be headed by a seminal figure in the expansion and running of the kill program. After four years as Obama’s senior counterterrorism adviser, Brennan had become known in some circles as the “assassination czar” for his role in U.S. drone strikes and other targeted killing operations.
When Obama had tried to put Brennan at the helm of the Agency at the beginning of his first term, the nomination was scuttled by controversy over Brennan’s role in the Bush-era detainee program. By the time President Obama began his second term in office, Brennan had created a “playbook” for crossing names off the kill list. “Targeted killing is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes that sustain it,” noted the Washington Post.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/10/29-2
CONTINUED...
I know there are a lot of words involved, but that means there's a lot to learn there.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that objects to drone strikes on terrorists moreso than they object to the famine being imposed by al Shahab on hundreds of thousands of Somalis.
It's the "just close your eyes, click your heels three times and there's no need to worry about any bad guys" mentality.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Being one you describe as having the "just close your eyes, click your heels three times and there's no need to worry about any bad guys" mentality.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)problem, not ours to fix, just move on, nothing to see here.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)The U.S. isn't imposing the famine. People are objecting to the U.S. ACTION.
We are bombing people virtually at random in conflicts where we have no involvement.
No one is clicking any heels at all. They're more likely trying to figure out how the fuck they're going to pay their bills.
Pay their bills -- over here -- not in Somalia.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)even if it helps stop the famine over there.
It's pretty close to paleocon isolationism/AmericaFirstism.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)Questioning a drone strike in an African conflict in no way involving the U.S. is not isolationism.
It's many things, but calling it isolationism is way, way too much of a stretch.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is an isolationist thing to say.
For one, there's a UN effort underway to stabilize the region. Two, the conflict there has increased piracy around the horn of Africa. Three, having multiple countries (including Kenya and Ethiopia) in Africa de-stabilized by a religious war is something that concerns us; Four, Al Shahab is affiliated with Al Qaeda, having sworn allegiance to Al Zawahiri.
Oh, and it's a gigantic humanitarian crisis, with famine, etc. Which may be of concern to some people.
Also, there is literally no down side to drone strikes against al shahab. The only objections are from the portion of the left that reflexively opposes any exercise of power, military or otherwise, by the United States.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)If it doesn't involve the U.S., it doesn't involve the U.S.
Determining what does and doesn't involve the U.S. is a matter of determining what is and isn't in the national interest, not "isolationism."
Not being "Isolationist" suddenly requires involving the the U.S. in anything and everything.
That position fails reductio ad absurdum.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)seas in any way implicates US interests?
Ditto regional stability in Africa?
And it's your position that mass famine in Africa is not something that's in our interest to address?
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)Your question again contains a false assumption based on the position you have taken in this thread. Nice try, though.
Your question also assumes that these matters should be addressed (solely, apparently) through drone strikes.
And of course I disagree with that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There are lots of bozos of various stripes willing to shoot a machine gun at infidels. People who can lead them effectively are much rarer.
The ground troops fighting al Shahab are from the African Union, especially Kenya and Ethiopia.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)[center]*******[/center]
Yet, as Obama embarked on his second term in office, the United States was once again at odds with the rest of the world on one of the central components of its foreign policy. The drone strike in Yemen the day Obama was sworn in served as a potent symbol of a reality that had been clearly established during his first four years in office: U.S. unilateralism and exceptionalism were not only bipartisan principles in Washington, but a permanent American institution. As large-scale military deployments wound down, the United States had simultaneously escalated its use of drones, cruise missiles, and Special Ops raids in an unprecedented number of countries. The war on terror had become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/10/29-2
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Brought up Scahill's latest in reply to someone who assured me the government will stop with the warmongering the moment the terrorists are defeated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=634432
Which is to say, "never" or "the day democracy is restored to the United States of America." This Nov. 22, it's going on 50 years of never.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Waronterra, global and forever!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)under way to defeat them.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)about something. I guess...they always do...
Oh I know...it's all Obama's fault.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Matter of fact, I hope he has more faults like this in the future with terrorist leaders.
I'll take these faults over the baggers faults any fucking day.
Mz Pip
(27,452 posts)Thank you President Bush.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)A senior U.S. military official has confirmed that a military drone attack Monday afternoon MURDERED two top leaders of the al Qaeda-linked terror group.
the drone strikes are every bit as vile and illegal as the attack on the mall.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Each side perceives the other as the terrorists. Journalism is supposed to report facts, not take sides.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Objective reality has to trump implausible relativism.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)While on the other hand, Geek, you put it just as it needs to be said.
It's not like Shahab attacked the military, which would STILL make them acceptable targets, they attacked MALL SHOPPERS.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The drones target terrorists and there are enough precautions in place to prevent abuse. However, some believe that President Obama uses his iPad to unleash indiscriminate drone strikes at women and children whenever he has spare time.
Drones have been a massive antidote against terrorism and a lot of the people on the ground who complain are not just innocent victims.
Response to cosmicone (Reply #44)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
Turbineguy
(37,361 posts)are the responsibility of the terrorists. Nobody chooses to stand next to a terrorist. Most of them have no choice, the terrorists use them because it makes for good PR. It's an old game from Ho Chi Minh putting anti-aicraft batteries on top of hospitals to Arafat putting weaponry in school playgrounds.
For Al Qaeda innocent victims are just grist for the mill.
That said, bad intel is no excuse for us either. But there's still a difference. We do not want to kill innocent bystanders. A death cult like Al Qaeda doesn't give a shit.
Response to Turbineguy (Reply #74)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)the drones are actually better for innocent people than 2000 lb bombs dropped from a mile up ... or a nuke.
The main difference is that there are mechanisms in place to limit the number of innocent casualties. It is not perfect but the system is there. One can hardly say that about our terrorist enemies who think killing more innocents is better.
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)Tell that to their families while you're at it. See if they concur.
And just because drones kill fewer than high altitude bombs, or nukes (OMG!!), might I remind you that we're not at war any more and haven't been for many years? Extrajudicial killing is what's going on. The rest of the world might rightly call that murder. And as for the system that's in place for limiting innocent casualties... well, I hope that makes you feel better because it's total baloney.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=shooting+innocent+civilians&oq=shooting+innocent+civilians&gs_l=youtube.3...4217.11788.0.12118.27.25.0.1.1.0.291.3543.1j23j1.25.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.gqJi6yQiMq4
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Grab one's ankles with sweaty palms and pray that the terrorists would be gentle?
Send Inspector Clouseau to the terrorist havens and have him yell, "Stop in thhhh name of the law?"
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It's like they believe if we just keep to ourselves, the terrorists will go away and leave us alone. Pathetic madness.
Response to cosmicone (Reply #124)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Lack as in none, nil, zilch, zippo, nyet, nada?
Response to cosmicone (Reply #179)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who don't favor letting Al Shahab do whatever the fuck it wants.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Most of the planet takes the side of the US and the UN and the governments of Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya against Al Shahab. Sorry y'all can't join us in that.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #145)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)than letting thousands of children starve and having a civil war rage out of control.
Remind me to never give a fuck what you and your friends think about anything of importance.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)so there!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and send in the Black Friday brigade to clean 'em out.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)I know people who would travel to Kenya for a good Black Friday sale too
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to give birth.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)or was it Kansas
I think Indonesia might have been in there someplace as well
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You see, the Obama administration is behind all the birther rumors, which are simply a bunch of fiction to keep people busy. But the REAL problem is that he has a good old regular US birth certificate, just like most normal white people do.
And that's the problem. You know they don't come out all that dark, and normal people don't come out all that white. So, since his mother was white, they just put "white" on his birth certificate. And THAT is what they are hiding.
Because if it got out that he was legally actually a white person, then it would totally destroy his claim to be the "first black president". All of his black supporters and self-hating white supporters would turn on him!
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)my brain is now leaking out of my ears
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Once your brains have fully leaked out, it all makes sense, though.
Mz Pip
(27,452 posts)Compared to what those poor people in that mall suffered, death by drone strike was quick and painless.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)Or are you against them being killed at all?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)al Shahab, al Qaeda, etc except sending them a polite request to turn themselves into local authorities, or absent that, sending a polite request to the nearest police officer (even if they are 1000 miles away) asking them to arrest the bulk of the enemy army.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Should read:
"A senior U.S. Military official has claimed that a military drone attack Monday afternoon killed extrajudicially two individuals believed to be top leaders of the al Qaeda - linked terror group, although no evidence was provided to support this belief."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, then again, two dead terrorists bothers you more than dozens of innocent men, women, and children in a shopping mall, as you failed to express such outrage at the actions of Al Shahab, only at them getting their just rewards.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm simply in favor of due process for criminals.
When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City he was tried, convicted and executed for the crime of mass murder. We didn't just pull up to his car at a stop light and machinegun him to death.
We killed two individuals in Somalia on the suspicion they were senior al Qaeda members. Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. If we have the capacity to nab Bin Laden from his stronghold in Pakistan, we can nab two Somali thugs and put them on trial.
You're smart enough to know it's not a question of ignoring the innocent victims and coddling the bad guys, so why do you make such a ridiculous accusation? The issue is of due process for the accused, and of the counterproductive nature of a U.S. drone policy that generates more "terrorists" than it kills.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)The choices seem to be to let them go, kill them with bombs or to send people in to capture them.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then we need to follow our Constitutional guidelines on how we do so.
We are not at war with Somalia, therefore rules of war do not apply. Period.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)No action to get them then?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)about the law.
It is not the case that the US needs to declare war in order to use military force. Not under US law, not under international law. In the case of Al Shahab, the entire United Nations is working to defeat it militarily.
It's one of those silly rules that the pacifist left invents--essentially trying to claim that anything that offends Noam Chomsky's sensibilities is illegal.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)UN peacekeeping forces are the way to enforce UN resolutions.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)their use per se evil and counterproductive.
But massive troop deployments, no problemo.
P.S. There can't be peacekeepers in the absence of peace. First the bad guys have to be defeated, then peace can be kept.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Here are my problems with drones:
* The accuracy of a drone strike is only as good as the human intel that identifies the target. The human intel is often bad or absent, therefore we frequently use "signature strikes" to target unknown individuals who appear to be acting like they might be "terrorists." When this practice errs and results in the death of innocents, we simply define all the innocents as "militants" if they are of military age. Contrary to apparently popular opinion on DU, I believe it is not acceptable to kill a bunch of villagers and hope God sorts out the good from the bad.
* The government can claim that anyone killed by a drone strike is a high-ranking [insert organization here] member without providing a scrap of evidence or justification other than the statements of anonymous "senior officials." This is so bad that killing "al Qaeda's #2 man" has become a running joke, given the sheer number of "#2 men" supposedly killed this way.
* Drones are most often justified with the need to take retaliative action against "terrorists" in places where it's not convenient to attempt to capture them (i.e. on the "battlefield"
. This justification makes some sense in the context of traditional wars, where it is indeed difficult to conduct law enforcement operations on an actual battlefield (i.e. ground being actively fought over by opposing forces). What is unacceptable is that the Administration has declared that the entire world, including United States soil, to be conceptually a "battlefield" in the "war on terror" even in the absence of an actual battle. Coupled with the extremely nebulous definition of "terrorist", this allows for the use of military power anywhere against anyone the Administration tags as a "terrorist". Drones make this very, very easy.
* Many sources have confirmed that the use of drones against "terrorists" embedded within the populations of targeted regions has hardened those populations against the United States. The psychological effects of silent, omnipresent, all-seeing drones hovering over villages and randomly striking members of the community cannot be disregarded. I would grow to hate any country that did that to my community, regardless of how many bad guys were taken out. The way we use our drones is without question swelling the ranks of al Qaeda and associated groups.
* I don't trust the CIA and the Pentagon when they tell us that drones are being used conscientiously, nor do I believe their claims about those killed by drone strikes, because a mountain of evidence has shown that these organizations routinely lie to the public.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Let's take these in order:
1.
This is the case for any use of lethal force, whether it be artillery barrages or SWAT team maneuvers. Do you have evidence that ground fighting produces fewer civilian casualties?
2.
I don't see how this is an argument against using drones. (A) it has nothing to do with how effective drones would be at killing the bad guy; (B) it applies to non-drone uses of lethal force (snipers, aircraft bombs, etc).
3.
. This justification makes some sense in the context of traditional wars, where it is indeed difficult to conduct law enforcement operations on an actual battlefield (i.e. ground being actively fought over by opposing forces). What is unacceptable is that the Administration has declared that the entire world, including United States soil, to be conceptually a "battlefield" in the "war on terror" even in the absence of an actual battle. Coupled with the extremely nebulous definition of "terrorist", this allows for the use of military power anywhere against anyone the Administration tags as a "terrorist". Drones make this very, very easy. I thought we were past the "Obama claims he can drone people in the US for robbing a liquor store" hype. While the nebulous nature of the so-called GWOT is problematic (indeed the Obama admin has called for transitioning away from that paradigm), Somalia is indisputably a war zone, with Al Shahab a warring party. So, this is really not a valid objection to the drone strike in question.
4.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but how does this distinguish drones from other forms of military intervention? The backlash in Iraq to the US, in Palestine to the Israelis, in Chehenya to the Russians have nothing to do with drones. It's military intervention and death of civliians that causes this blowback, not the instrumentality of that intervention and death.
5.
Yes, they lie about drones. They also lie about ground combat, body armor for troops, air strikes, and just about everything else they do.
The key question, as you briefly touched upon above, is what to do about a group like Al Shahab that is indisputably a military force that is beyond the reach of any civil law enforcement authority, and that can only be brought to justice after being defeated militarily. Sure, warrants and arrests are preferable, but they only exist where civil law enforcement has the power to actually enforce the law. Where arrests and criminal procedure are a factual impossibility, what alternative is there but military force?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I question the assumption that there must be a military response by the United States. I often see this point raised, with the implicit assumption that military action is a foregone conclusion and therefore drones are great because they are a defter touch than ground troops. "We MUST kill people, so it's better that we do it with drones than with armored divisions." In the context of the overwhelming majority of these instances, "ground troops" would involve some kind of covert strike force (e.g. SEALs) and it's debatable whether drones would do less damage. For example, a strike force on the ground would have much more reliable eyes and ears on the target. But honestly, I object the most to the idea that need for military response is a given.
Not a criticism specifically of drones, true. But those are the justifications used to support the use of drones: we're killing top al Qaeda figures. More often than not, those claims are bunk.
Perhaps not. My objection is to the entire drone program and especially the rules of engagement for drone strikes. There is also a problem with giving the CIA (a civilian organization) their own military assets and strike capability without sufficient oversight.
The Stanford University study addresses this question: http://www.livingunderdrones.org/download-report/
You are correct that it is the indiscriminate killing associated with military intervention that is the source of the problem. Drones are our current means of intervening because of the perceived political benefits, mainly that U.S. service persons are not exposed to risk.
Jeremy Scahill and others have discussed the counterproductive nature of our military adventures:
http://www.thenation.com/article/166265/washingtons-war-yemen-backfires
That is primarily a question for the UN Security Council. If military intervention is deemed necessary, then a UN force should be used. Details are situation specific. I do not believe that our current approach - using drone strikes to kill supposed leaders - is effective. It's sloppy, kills too many bystanders and has not proved to curtail "terrorist" activities.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also, close the underline tag, pronto!
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)It does what it suppose to do and that is eliminate the technical and leadership guys, leaving the untrained followers who are not as dangerous with out the expert bomb builders or effective leadership. It also demoralizes the rank and file as their leaders keep getting killed.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Tim McV was IN the US, not in Road Warrior Somalia.
Many Somali's run to the sound of gunfire with their AK-47's if they think their clan is under attack.
Things can go bad for a small team on the ground fast and they'd kill a LOT more Somali's trying to get in and out and maybe all die trying. 1 Hellfire to the bad guys known Suzuki while he is in it and away from civilians much better.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the entire Oklahoma panhandle while declaring their intent to overthrow the US government by conquest.
Arrest and prosecution are physical impossibilities.
The bin laden raid was planned for months and involved a stationary target with minimal armed personnel.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You are choosing the latter, which is a core Neo Con philosophy.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Court and been appointed a lawyer by now. They chose another path.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Al Shahab is a military threat to the entire region, so much so that the United Nations has called for additional military resources to be deployed to defeat it. It has always been legal for the community of nations to band together to defeat pirates, mercenaries, and rogue militias like Al Shahab. It's called collective self-defense, and it predates the UN charter.
You make the classic True Progressive mistake of assuming that offending your sensibilities is illegal.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)What a stupid post.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)But I am sure killing terrorist with drones in a sovereign nation will surely break their will this week, or next maybe. Or next year. Or maybe in a decade. Or if lucky half a century. Well one of these days.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)they have any objection to this.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)I am guessing they could protest but then they would be "dealt" with.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)has a problem with leaders/operatives of its main enemy (which occupies half the country) getting blown to bits?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Russia launched some attacks inside the USA? You tell me. I have been to enough countries that feel like they are hostage to US policy and the blowback they have to deal with.
The analogy about this so called war on terror is this. It is a cancer. Currently we have no cure for cancer. We treat it. But does treating a cancer make it "disappear" forever? No. We need to find the cause and the cure, or prevention. Playing the terrorist whack a mole game will never cure terrorism.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)by a terrorist army which launches terrorist attacks against Russia, maybe that question would be worthy of a response.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I'm always learning new things on the DU.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JI7
(89,260 posts)Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)While some of those factions have the backing of certain foreign powers who believe themselves sole arbiters on all things, that does not change the reality of the situation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)More importantly for this exercise, it is UN policy that nations work together to defeat and destroy Al Shahab.
It's amazing how many here get the vapors every time the US inconveniences terrorists.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...because they can't stop every crime.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)because we can just kill people we accuse of committing crimes.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Hellfire missiles are for enemy military forces that number in the thousands and occupy territory.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They are mass murdering criminals.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ergo, ripe targets.
They live by the sword, they die by it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That's the "Rule of Law" part, and it's why the drone campaigns are illegal under international law. We are making war without declaration.
I just don't understand the bloodthirst.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)
They are affiliated with Al Qaeda, swearing allegiance to Al Zawahiri.
There is an entire regional effort by the African Union to defeat Al Shahab.
With the full blessing of the world community and the United Nations
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/16/ban_declares_war_on_al_shabab
Perfect legal targets under US and international law. Not disputed by anyone with a shred of understanding.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Fact based argument thingy.....it's clearly pissing some people off!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to death on purpose by threatening to shoot any food aid distributors.
Would be really unfair to make them explain why droned terrorists are a worse outcome than starving children.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Lol, that is so 18th Century...
When was the last time anywhere a war started with a Declaration of War?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)
What I meant to get at is this:
The justification used for our extrajudicial killing of "terrorist" suspects is that it's impossible to use traditional law enforcement methods "on a battlefield." This is true, in the context of a traditional battlefield with two armed opponents fighting over contested ground, i.e. a conventional, actual war.
However such is not the case for the overwhelming majority of our drone strikes outside of Afghanistan. We are firing missiles at presumed "terrorists" in marketplaces, weddings, funerals and farmhouses while the erstwhile targets are going about their daily business. No firefights in sight. These places are "battlefields" only because our overly-permissive rules-of-engagement consider the "battlefield" to be the entire world at any time. Drones strikes are convenient more than they are necessary, and they kill as many or more civilians than they do "terrorists."
If we want to pretend that our drone strike victims are on a "battlefield" in a "war zone" then we should be required to acknowledge our involvement in an actual war and abide by the Geneva Conventions.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)I disagree, the strikes happen either in places where we are actively in combat like Afghanistan or in lawless places in the world where there is no alternative, ie Somalia, parts of Yemen that are out of govt control, and the lawless tribal parts of Pakistan like North Waziristan.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Just because we deem some place lawless should not give us carte blanche to act as we please.
The tribes of Waziristan certainly don't consider themselves lawless, btw. They just have decentralized authority.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)......to let terrorists set up a safe haven to plan attacks against the rest pf the world.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The argument always boils down to this:
"We need to kill The Terrorists no matter the cost."
1. "We need to kill": The assumption is that military means must be employed. However there is ample evidence to the contrary. The Red Brigades and the Bader-Meinhof Gang, both extremely dangerous terrorist organizations, were neutralized not by military force but by international law enforcement efforts. The troubles in Northern Ireland were not resolved until the attempts at a military solution were abandoned and a diplomatic solution implemented.
2. "The Terrorists": Much has been written about the (purposefully) nebulous definition of "terrorist" - it means precisely what the CIA and Pentagon wants it to mean on a case-by-case basis. With respect to places like Somalia and Yemen, we apply the term to local warlords and insurgents and imply that they are a direct threat to the United States. As Jeremy Scahill has noted, in the mid-2000's AQAP was excusively dedicated to removing the corrupt Saleh regime in Yemen. When the U.S. began to strike the Yemeni insurgents in an effort to prop up Saleh, we began inflicting so many civilian casualties that the focus of their hatred has shifted to include America. Even so the Yemeni insurgents present little threat to America, yet the incessant collateral damage from our strikes incites more and more Yemenis to take up arms and join AQAP. We're making more "terrorists" than we are killing.
3. "no matter the cost.": About those civilian casualties.... The "conventional wisdom" seems to be that while yes, we do tend to blast a half-dozen or so civilian men, women and children with each strike against "senior al Qaeda members," the terrible price is necessary because "we need to kill The Terrorists." Here the argument comes full circle. How do we know that some Yemeni "terrorist" was such a dangerous mastermind that his death was justified by the associated collateral murder of innocents? Because the CIA or the Pentagon says so? These are the same people who told us body counts were going to win the Vietnam War and who covered up a hundred My Lai's. As mentioned above, the anger and hatred generated by our drone program creates a dozen new recruits for each "terrorist" we kill. That alone makes the cost too high.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)So Italy and Germany, just like Somalia?
No functioning police or courts or govt??
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Through airports in countries with functioning police and courts and governments.
If they stay in Yemen and Somalia, they do not threaten us.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....women and children because A.S. won't let aid groups in.
Leaving AQ alone in Afghanistan, how'd that work out on 9/11?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)However, the UN has the means to take action to protect the aid groups and should. You have not made the case that dropping Hellfire missiles on suspected "terrorists" will result in foreign aid reaching those starving people.
The attacks on 9/11 originated from within the United States. The al Qaeda operatives were in the country, taking lessons on how to fly commercial jet liners. FBI agents had identified many of them, and in one case an agent was rooming with one of the 9/11 perpetrators. Many efforts by the agents involved to communicate what they were learning up the chain of command were thwarted by the Bush Administration. The case cannot be made that military intervention in Afghanistan in, say, 2000 would have prevented 9/11.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...explicitly. Against exactly these sorts of people.
Maybe you should read it. Here. I'll even quote the relevant part for you.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)I'd say mass murdering criminals who live beyond the reach of the law are perfect military targets, ie heavily armed pirates and terrorist groups etc.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)lack of understanding. Doing the right thing is so passe these days. It's just hard. Hard work.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)I agree, doing the right thing and hunting down and eliminating key terrorists who live out of the reach of the law IS hard work.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)but playing whack a terrorist isn't working so well is it? How many number one and number two leaders have been killed in the last 12 years? Doesn't that tell you they ain't giving up so easy? Hey but it's fine, I can live with the "stupidity policy" on foreign affairs. Like watching a good sitcom.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....IS working well, it's leaves the rest ineffective.
Unless you rather we hunted down and killed them all?
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)No. I would rather we find the cause of it and try to work from that angle. Whack a terrorist, like the game whack a mole seems like fun, but it gets old quite quick.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)We know the causes of it, the root causes are poverty, corruption and govt mismanagement on top of a fairly militant version of Islam.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> Actually killing the tech guys and leaders..
> ....IS working well, it's leaves the rest ineffective.
... else you'd be bringing down all manner of crap on the heads of
the XBox Heroes and every "leader" in your government ...
But hey, nobody minds a little blowback every now & then do they?
No doubt there wouldn't be any further revenge attacks against random
"suspected terrorists" in foreign countries if the odd politician or uniform
was splattered by someone deciding that "killing the tech guys & leaders"
really *was* the way to win ...
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....all though I don't think they will have any drones heading this way soon.....
Nihil
(13,508 posts)... but Al Qaeda managed to get a couple of "drones" into NY & Washington
last time they tried ... and boy, some people have been shitting themselves
ever since ... (despite all manner of "Mission Accomplished" & "Team America
Fuck Yeah!" bravado).
Blowback: It's a real bastard when you're on the receiving end.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)That's what AQ is finding out...
mitchtv
(17,718 posts)keep it up, there's more where that came from
rollin74
(1,987 posts)
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)we are absolutely sure the people in question were guilty of the crimes they were accused of, to such an extent that a trial was not needed. We are also sure that no one but the guilty party died, and even if innocent people were killed it would right and proper with everyone here as long as we got the "guilty" guys who were fingered by our intelligence services who NEVER make mistakes.
And of course, we are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that we will suffer no blow back from the extra-judicial assassination military neutralization of these non-traditional combatants, and that these attacks will not result in more people being recruited for future asymmetrical warfare operations.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)So, between Hellfire missiles and doing nothing, Hellfire missiles are a vastly superior option.
Trials and criminal justice standards are not relevant when dealing with an ARMY.
Armies get attacked and killed, not arrested.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)So, if we kill innocent people and/or if our program provokes people to more terrorism, that would be the best possible outcome?
Here's a thought:
Stop illegally invading countries, committing war crimes and propping up dictators! I'm guessing that would go a LONG way to curbing people's thirst for our blood.
By the way, exactly which army are we fighting? I wasn't aware that uniformed soldiers were committing acts of terrorism now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for their own actions, instead choosing the evil United States as the reason why a Somali militia massacred people from several nations in a mall in Nairobi, Kenya. (singling out the non-Muslims, so I guess maybe under your appeasement paradigm people should stop offending al Shahab and just convert to radical Islam).
Here's a suggestion to you: pretend that your concern is stopping the 6,000 members of Al Shahab from inflicting death and destruction on the region in their attempt to impose Taliban-style regime.
Imagine that this--not bashing the US--is your goal.
What would you do? Send in Noam Chomsky to convince them to lay down their arms?
Al Shahab has 6,000 non-uniformed thugs under arms. Functionally they are an army though legally they are nothing but murderers.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Are you willing to see innocent people die for a tactic that now has a 10 year plus track record of EPIC fail?
If you illegally invade people's countries and start slaughtering people on the basis of fabricated evidence, why are you surprised that they get a tad Old Testament in their responses?
If some one claimed that terrorists lived next door to you, you would be okay with the government destroying your home and slaughtering your family as "collateral damage" to "get the bad guys"?
Also, the U.S. military and intelligence agency's have a LONG, well DOCUMENTED history of LYING about all sorts of things to justify their actions. The CIA backed drug traffikers, Mafiosos, dictators, butchers, and corporate crooks, and we are supposed to take their claims as gospel?
I am pretty damned sure I remember people having different opinions on this type of thing when the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate was doing it, but suddenly it's copacetic because a Democratic admin is doing it?
How is the CIA that overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala at the behest of Chiquita Banana any different than the CIA today?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to conquer the Horn of Africa, kill all non-Muslims, and force all other Muslims to convert to their strain of radical Islam.
That is not resistance to imperialism--it is imperialism.
This is all common knowledge, not CIA conjecture.
The United States is supporting the mandate of the United Nations: to decisively defeat Al Shahab and remove them as a threat to international peace and stability.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-kenya-attack-militants-kay-idUSBRE98N0A820130924
Nicholas Kay, U.N. special representative for Somalia, condemned the deadly attack on Westgate mall in Kenya, which the Islamist militant group has claimed responsibility for, and said that there was a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity to help bring peace to Somalia.
"Security remains the number one challenge, the control and defeating of al Shabaab is key to this," Kay told a Geneva news briefing. "The amount of money that we're talking about that's required for the extra effort in Somalia would be very small. But the cost of walking away would be very expensive."
I guess massacring people in a shopping mall wasn't enough for them to earn your disapproval or for you to admit that maybe letting them win is a bad idea.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they Hellfire missiles would be too good to whoever did that in that mall!
tblue
(16,350 posts)
I thought I'd accidentally landed in Freeperville. They love death, especially revenge killings.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....where unicorns and magic and hope keep bad men from doing bad stuff....
Kennah
(14,299 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Reply #30)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)appeaseniks who don't care an ounce for al shahab's past and future victims.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #183)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to Al Shahab?
Hug them into submission?
Sing Kumbayah at them until they sue for peace?
You claim there's a nonviolent way to stop them. What is it?
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)An inquiry into non-violent methods to deal with this situation is surely welcome.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But that didn't stop you from wagging your finger who think al shahab is an actual problem.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #192)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but don't have the honesty to admit it.
If you had a nonviolent solution, you'd just let us know what it is.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Our suspicions and accusations prove more than real evidence ever could.
(and because there are people here who really believe what I just wrote.)
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Very sad.
The ugly truth is that terrorism is the last weapon of the oppressed. It is the weapon wielded when there is no hope left and all that remains is the burning hunger for vengeance. When your enemy has reached that point, unless you are prepared to commit genocide, you have lost. And if you do commit genocide, everyone around you is going to move you to the top of their list of targets and your days are numbered.
Sooner or later, our allies are going to become very afraid of us, and the need to act on that fear will become an imperative.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They are not redressing injustice. They are radical fundamentalists seeking to spread their virulent strain of Islam by force.
They are terrorists, not freedom fighters. They kill other poor Muslims.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)but who do I believe?
One thing I learned a LONG time ago, the world is RARELY divided into black and white, good guys/bad guys.
U.S. corporations haven been exploiting African and Middle Eastern nations for decades, and then backing the dictators who allow them to rape the country. Then when people protest, they are crushed courtesy of U.S. tax dollars or U.S. corporate profits (see Nigeria for text book example).
This breeds merciless, extreme response. Then we get to brand them terrorists, and slaughter them with impunity. And our government justifies it by telling us they are only killing the bad guys, and bad guys don't deserve trials or due process. How are we SURE they are bad guys who don't get trials or due process? Well, our government, that NEVER lies, tells us so.
I see a LOT of dead children, who in my book are AUTOMATICALLY not "bad guys" killed by U.S. munitions (by the U.S. or U.S. proxies). Once you kill children, your morality is no different than the terrorists. "Oops, it was an accident" counts for shit, dead children are still dead. To parents, "why" is a meaningless question.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Al Shahab we should renew this conversation.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2013, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)
history of U.S. and corporate policy of exploitation of Africa, South America and the Middle East, drop me a line.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)However, that knowledge doesn't cause me to become an apologist for terrorist scum just because one of their many enemies is the US.
The US has had many victims in its history. You are incorrect in claiming that Al Shahab and its members are properly counted in those numbers.
I guess the enemy of your enemy gets your sympathy.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)for terrorism, and your accusation is highly offensive. I have not insulted you in the course of this conversation. In the course of two posts you have called me "appallingly ignorant" and a "apologist for terrorist scum".
Ad hominem attacks undermine your argument, and I would ask that you stop insulting me, and engage my arguments rather than call me names. If this is not possible, then we have no more to discuss.
I am not "apologizing" for terrorism by explaining its cause.
1) Terrorism is a conveniently flexible word, and gets applied to people for a variety of reasons. No argument that the group in question engages in terrorism as properly defined. However, so does the United States, we just refuse to admit it.
A major trait of terrorism is the commission of criminal acts outside the legal strictures of warfare. No question this is what Al Shahab has done. However, the U.S. has acted in violation of the Constitution (Congress has not declared war against any nation, and the AUMF does not absolve Congress nor empower the President to abrogate their Constitutional duties). Thus, the U.S. has no legal military grounds to violate other nation's sovereignty and kill its citizens. Also, the U.S. government has issued no arrest warrants that I have seen to arrest and extradite these people for trial and punishment if convicted.
Thus, the U.S., like the terrorists, is acting outside the legal strictures of both military and criminal law as defined and enforced by treaty (strictures the U.S. agreed to be legally bound to).
2) Believing that the government has told the truth about something, especially something they have been caught lying about repeatedly in the past, is damned foolish.
3) U.S. foreign policy of the last century is a major culprit in the rise of terrorism in the world.
4) Which came first, U.S.government/corporate imperial interventions, or terrorism?
The order of the universe is dictated by cause and effect. If the U.S. would stop exploiting other nations for their natural resources and cheap labor, you would see a substantial drop in terrorism directed at the U.S. This reality no way invalidates our need to arrest and try terrorists. But ignoring due process and moving straight to summary execution is not only terrorism by another name, it makes the U.S. no better than the terrorists.
I never had problems making this point when Bush was in office committing war crimes, however now that Obama is doing it, people suddenly objecting to calling a spade a spade.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to suit your own ideological agenda. Al Shahab's motives are not related to your objections to US foreign policy. Trying to exterminate all Muslims, starve the people of Somalia, and force everyone else to convert to radical Islam is not resistance to imperialism. It is imperialism of a different king.
This is nonsense bordering on gibberish:
1. The Constitution does not require Congress to declare war against a nation in order to authorize military force. That's just something you made up. Law is not a game of Calvinball wherein it means "it is illegal to take action which offends the sensibilties of the anti-American left at any given moment."
2. Al Shahab is fighting against the lawful government of Somalia. We are not violating Somalia's sovereignty by helping it quash a rogue militia/army whose goal is to conquer Somalia. The US is coordinating its efforts with Somalia's government. In fact, the United Nations is coordinating the international military response to al Shahab. So, your appeal to Somalia's sovereignty is a red herring.
3. There is no need to issue arrest warrants when dealing with a military opponent. Military opponents may be killed until they surrender. Then talk about arrest warrants becomes relevant. Not until then. Regardless of their criminal status, their status as military participants in a war means they are legitimate targets of armed force so long as they are participants. If they don't want to get shot or droned, their only option is to stop waging war.
This is the kind of moral equivalence horse shit that gives leftists a bad name:
The US action is legal, in accordance with both US law and is in support of the United Nations' mission in the area. Al Shahab murders civilians and has forced all food aid organizations out of the area, imposing famine on the area.
There is no room for differing opinions on this. You are simply wrong, factually and ethically, based on your ideological conviction that the United States is the source of all evil on Planet Earth.
If you get past your Great Satan theory of international politics, you will understand law and war much better.
Until then, I guess you're free to persist in your fact-free fantasy that terrorists are the way they are because Americans forced them to be that way, and that it's illegal to do anything to inconvenience terrorists if they amass in such numbers that civilian law enforcement can't touch them.
But those with responsibility in the real world have to actually address the problem of civil war and famine in Somalia, not soil themselves over being mean to terrrorist and wannabe conquerors.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Somalia was a British "colony".
Following WWII, Somalia gained independence, but only after Britain made sure to sow the seeds of war by handing over sections of Somalia to Ethiopia.
Somalia then spend the next 40 years as a pawn in the cold war between the US and USSR.
After the collapse of the Soviet empire in the early 90s, Somalia degenerated into civil war. Now, the humanitarian efforts to alleviate the famine and bloodshed by the UN at this time is certainly commendable. The problem was that this help still occurred against a backdrop of manipulation of African politics, policies and resources, meaning that many Somalis deeply distrusted the parties involved, so chaos continued.
Outside terror groups took advantage of the lack of any real government in Somalia to set up camp, and locals turned to terrorism for a variety of reasons.
Which brings us to the situation today, one in which raining "drones" down of the populace is NOT going to fix.
You keep looking at the problems in Somalia in isolation within the context of the last few years. Over a century has been spent screwing this country up by the West, and the solution to the problem will be long an complex, and will NEVER be resolved as long as the solution comes in the form of bombing the population (surgical strikes are BS) and outside parties selling weapons to the people on all sides.
We will never have peace in these regions until we stop exploiting the locals, stealing their resources and stop killing them.
But, let me get to one far more basic issue:
Our government has claimed that they killed the people responsible for a terrorist attack. Given how many times our government has lied about such things and continues to lie to THIS day. Why should we believe ANYTHING we are told about such situations.
We were told that Iraq had NBC weapons and that they were funding anti-US terror groups and were going to give them these weapons.
This was all a lie. Based on those lies, we killed 500,000 Iraqis, destroyed their government leaving anarchy and civil war, destroyed their infrastructure, squandered a trillion dollars and killed or maimed around 20,000 of our own soldiers.
All for a lie.
And now the government tells us that Iran is going to build a nuke and attack us (or our proxy Israel) and that this person or that person is a terrorist and we can kill them without trial.
And some people insist on believing this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Certainly, imperialism and exploitation created the circumstances on the ground.
But, right now, those circumstances include an army of fanatics called Al Shahab.
P.S. The government didn't say these were the mall attackers, just prominent Al Shahab thugs.
P.P.S. You apparently haven't been paying attention to what's been happening between Iran and the US (Bibi is pissed).
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)but anything the UN is trying to do is undermined by drone strikes. Do I support the UN's efforts to militarily defeat Al Shahab? Not while the U.S. continues to interfere and make the situation worse.
Thanks to decades of outsiders playing games with people lives and countries, there are no solutions now that don't get a lot of people killed.
But one tactic that does NOT work is sitting in a cozy bunker and flying drones in to attack targets you THINK might be bad guys, then lying about it when that turns out not to be the case.
The government didn't say these were the mall attackers, just prominent Al Shahab thugs.
And upon what do they base these claims, and again, why should I believe them? According to the government, Richard Jewel and Steven Hatfil were terrorists. except they weren't. The U.S. was attacked in the Gulf of Tonken, except it wasn't. The CIA never experimented on unsuspecting civilians with drugs, except when they did. Iraqis stormed into Kuwaiti hospitals and dumped babies on the floor to die, except they didn't. The U.S. government never sold weapons to Iran, except when they did. There was no illegal activity at Abu Ghraib, except there was. Our government, NEVER, EVER its black citizens as lab rats to study syphilis, except when they did precisely that.
How many times do you have to be lied to by a group before you stop believing what they say? I am usually good after three lies, a half dozen at most for people who are at least apologetic and contrite.
You apparently haven't been paying attention to what's been happening between Iran and the US (Bibi is pissed).
Yes, he is pissed, because he may not get his war and he has to redouble his efforts to get the lies out to provoke one.
Obama famously said "I don't oppose all wars...What I am opposed to is a dumb war."
War with Iran, a country three times the size of Iraq would be very dumb. But that doesn't stop people from lobbying for one.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Apparently you support the UN, but not if the US also supports the UN, or something like that. Incoherent at best.
Do you think the government just chose a couple of random guys in al Shahab's territory driving an SUV and blew them away for shits and giggles? Here's a little hint for you: guess who gets to drive SUVs in al Shahab-controlled territory.
You just claimed that the US government was trying to overhype Iran's nuclear capability in order to justify a war. Safe to say you're retracting that false claim?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Apparently you support the UN, but not if the US also supports the UN, or something like that. Incoherent at best.
it is pretty clear cut. I support the UN, but not while the U.S. is acting in a manner that undermines what they are trying to accomplish. If the U.S. stops kicking the hornets nest and support the UN, or doesn't support the UN, I am fine with it. Don't see why that is hard to understand.
By the way, you have yet to address the issue of pervasive U.S. deceit in these issues. I have asked why you persist in believing a government that has repeatedly lied about scores of important issues up to, and including war crimes, over our lifetime (and beyond).
You just claimed that the US government was trying to overhype Iran's nuclear capability in order to justify a war. Safe to say you're retracting that false claim?
Actually, I do. I conflated actions by the government in the past with actions by the current government, and for that I do admit error and apologize.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that you don't support the UN's stated goal of militarily crushing Al Shahab.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)If the UN is asking for drone strikes then I do NOT support that.
Again, you have ignored the question about pervasive lies told by the U.S. and why you believe them when they make claims about who are terrorists and why they should be killed without trial.
I think we have concluded our discussion.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that al shahab engages in terrorism of all sorts, including the deliberate starvation of civilians in the territory it controls.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)No, Somalia is as it has always been, a lawless land of competing clans who use violence to solve most problems.
The clans are accustomed to having no government at all ordering them around. For nearly all of the last few thousand years the clans answered to no one. European colonial powers arrived in the 19th century and established central government which didn’t really take, nor did similar efforts by previous conquerors. Once all the colonial powers were gone by 1960, the newly established Somali government began to come apart, a process that was complete by 1991, and no one has been able to get all the clans to submit to a new central government since.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)for fun and profit?
Britain, Italy and the U.S.
Next you'll tell me that the U.S. didn't profoundly damage the West Coast of Africa with slavery. since many of the tribes and clans were already fighting before we started buying up the combatants.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Since terrorism as a movement predates the USA I'd say terrorism.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)well over 100 years.
Before that, it was a hodge-podge of Sultanates, rather than a distinct country.
Terrorism under the word "terrorism", is pretty much a 20th Century concept and is the context of which I discuss the issue.
If the U.S. wants to stop terrorism, then it needs to stop subverting governments, selling weapons to pretty much anyone with money, and force its corporate entities to adhere to U.S. laws on wages, safety, and the environment even when they operate in other countries.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)So which of those issues do you think al Shabaab, the Taliban or Al Queda effects or cares about?
Specifically which of them cares even a tiny bit about "wages, safety, and the environment"?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I posed a set of questions for your to respond to. I have answered all of your questions, now please answer mine.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)
I said once you push a population to the point that they seriously take up terrorism, you have lost the conflict, and you are never going to win unless you withdraw, negotiate honestly or commit genocide.
Please point to an instance where terrorism was resorted to wholesale that was NOT in response to tyrannical government oppression or illegal invasion.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)population "pushed" into terrorism by the real bad guy in your eyes, the United States.
Not only is that nauseating pro-terrorist apologia, it is factually false.
Al Shahab, like the Taliban, are OPPRESSORS, not the oppressed.
They use terrorism because they think it will help their goal of conquest.
As much as this may shock you, the United States is not the source of all evil in the world. Your obsession with blaming everything on The Great Satan has caused you to tacitly endorse the cause of al Shahab, a medievalist group whose goal is conquest and oppression, not liberation.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in some children's fantasy book apparently.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"The ugly truth is that terrorism is the last weapon of the oppressed...
Terrorism is merely another tool for war that will be used when convenient to so so for the side that wishes to do so. (as per 'Inside Terrorism' by Bruce Hoffman).
We of course realize that the oppressed will use any tool available, and that terrorism is beneficial to them on a ROI scale, however it's a bit misleading to say (or imply) that terrorism is used by the oppressed alone. Both the German and the Soviet armies were guilty of amazing feats of terrorism-- Germany did so quite blatantly in the opening months of Barbarossa-- long before "there is no hope left and all that remains is the burning hunger for vengeance..." Flip side, Soviet Union was guilty of the same... long after their own victory was assured.
Terrorism is not the sole weapon, nor used solely by the poor, the oppressed or the hopeless-- it is merely another tool of war.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Once terrorism has reached the point of suicide bombers, you have lost the fight.
Yeah, it is easy to get soldiers to engage in terror tactics. It is another entirely to push people to the point that they will kill themselves just to get at you.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)I'd say just the opposite, "Once your armed struggle has turned to using suicide bombers, you have lost the fight"
Unless you can show me where that was a war winning tactic?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Years and years of bombing campaigns finally forced the UK to recognize Sinn Feinn and sit down and negotiate with IRA supporters and agree to deals they had always refused to agree to. Yes, there are the odd splinter group still out there (a bomb was found at Stormont in the last few days), but the terror campaigns have died down to almost nothing.
Terrorism worked for the Basque (ETA). After 40 years of bombings, kidnappings, etc, the Spanish government finally sat down a negotiated seriously and addressed their grievances in 2006. In 2011 a permanent cease fire was declared.
Terrorism worked for the ANC (via its military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe). When the government finally released Nelson Mandela and began to negotiate in good faith, the terrorism dropped dramatically.
Terrorism arguably worked for the PLO, because the they final led to the Olso Accords and recognition by Israel. Unfortunately, a new group rose up to replace the PLO when Israel continued to allow settlers to build in disputed lands.
I will modify my remarks about solutions to terror groups, which was that they can be defeated using only four tactics (previously three):
1) Sit down and negotiate with them and redress their grievances.
2) Withdraw from the conflict, which is just a constant source of fuel to the conflict.
3) Commit genocide. Kill every supporter of the terrorist group you come across.
I now add the 4th option that works: Arrest and try terrorists in court for their criminal offenses, granting them due process and legal representation. Trials must be seen as fair by the world at large, and not kangaroo courts (see UK prosecution of IRA members).
The last option assumes a functional government or government-like group with some credibility and willingness to follow due process, such as the UN and The Hague.
The U.S. criminal courts have VERY impressive track record for locking up terrorists after they are arrested and tried.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....I said once you are down to suicide bombers you have lost the military fight.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)because then the only choices available are the four I outlined, or some combination of the four.
Suicide bombing is the third world response to "shock and awe", just on different scales and different levels of personal involvement.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)No it's not......the US Air Force striking simultaneous command and control military targets is not at all like climbing on a bus or going into a pizza parlor and detonating a vest and killing lots of innocent civilians on purpose.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)No it's not......the US Air Force striking simultaneous command and control military targets is not at all like...
I said "Suicide bombing is the third world response to 'shock and awe"'
Saying that "a" is a response to "b" is not the same as saying "a" is like "b".
But let's set that aside, since there are some similarities
"Shock and awe" didn't kill any innocent civilians? Drones haven't killed innocent men, women and children either, right?
And somehow, sitting in a little room in Langley gunning down defenseless people with a murderous video game is noble and brave?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....if killing civilians by accident is on a par with killing them on purpose.
I don't think it is.
Was the USA evil for killing over 20,000 Frenchmen while bombing the D-day beach areas' in order to free the French from the Nazi's?
Or should we have said, "No, we'd like to help liberate you but we might kill some of you by accident so no, enjoy your life of Nazi slavery.."
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The U.S. is widely reported to "double tap" target with drones, i.e. send a second drone in ten or fifteen minutes after the first. This would be about the time rescue workers (fireman, paramedics, good Samaritans) are showing up, innocent people doing their job or trying to help, who die because the U.S. wants to be sure that they kill the person their questionable intelligence tells them are bad guys, and tells them where they are when they launch the drone.
Again, you are also conflating a WAR, with people in uniform, fighting other people in uniform, who work directly for a nation state and that nation state is DIRECTLY involved in hostile action against us, with a criminal act.
The proper analogy would be if the FBI used a drone to kill a mobster who they had been unable to arrest for whatever reason and blew up your house as well. I doubt you would really care what their "intentions" were if they killed your family in the process. Would you feel better because they didn't willfully murder your family while they acted in a reckless and illegal manner?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Really?
Firemen & paramedics? Rescue workers?
In a Taliban or AQ controlled camp or village high in the Hindu Kush, in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan?
They have none of those things.
The responder's would most likely be also Taliban & AQ.
(not a thumbs up to the double tap-don't think it's used much anyway)
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Also, how many innocent people are you willing to sanction killing just so the government can claim they may, or may not, have killed a person who may, or may not, have been a bad guy?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)
.....is the target in a village or a Taliban/AQ training camp? Doubt there are many 'innocents" in the latter and certainly no paramedics or firemen.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)If the police decided to attack a mobster in your neighborhood, explain your feelings in the following scenarios:
1) They take the guy, he is guilty as sin, but they also kill your six year old while she is playing in your back yard.
2) They takes out the mobster and his house, but they also kill your child and set fire to your house.
3) They miss the mobster, hit your house and kill your entire family while you are at work.
4) They hit the mobster, set fire to your house, then your family is killed by the "double tap" to make sure they got the mobster.
Revisit all of the scenarios above, but the mobster wasn't home and hadn't been for weeks.
Revisit all of the scenarios above, but the mobster wasn't really a mobster, just the victim of a neighbor who didn't like him and told the police he was a mobster.
Revisit all of the scenarios above, but the police attacking with drones were the Mexican Federal Police or the Royal Canadian Mounted police, not any U.S. police force.
Unless you are prepared to explain your TRUE feelings in each scenario outlined, we have nothing further to discuss. These are not questions of "it depends", these are NOT hypothetical situations, each of these scenarios have played out multiple times as a result of drone strikes.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)......a mobster in the US and subject to laws, police, courts and SWAT teams = Taliban/AQ leadership hiding out in the lawless areas of Pakistan and out of reach of all those things.
Also mobsters tend to want low profile and profit while a hardcore AQ fundamentalist Muslim wants maximum death and destruction to the West.
However if I lived in a village taken over by AQ and Taliban higher ups, I wouldn't be surprised when the drones arrived.
I would be glad it was the lone drone Vs. the indiscriminate artillery and air strikes the Pakistan military would be using to accomplish the same task.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I asked your feelings in a very specific set of scenarios.
Your family is dead. Your house is in flames. The person they attacked may, or may not be a bad guy.
Explain your feelings in the scenarios outlined above. If you do not wish to, then we have nothing further to discuss. I have explained myself, but you refuse me the same courtesy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lost WWII.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)1) Army fighting Army. Had the U.S. invaded Japan, they would have faced civilian suicide bombers, and then the options described below.
2) As I stated in an above post, once you get to the point of suicide bombing your only "victory" options are get out, negotiate in good faith or commit genocide. By using a nuclear weapon the U.S. demonstrated its willingness to commit genocide to accomplish victory, thus the Emperor, a "divine" personage to the Japanese people, decided that he didn't want to die, and surrendered. The Japanese obeyed their god and surrendered as well.
In today's world, outside places like North Korea, no such parallel exists. No one person, government or group command all the terrorist factions in the world.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)victory can be attained?
Or are you suggesting that everyone else in Somalia just surrender to or otherwise appease al Shahab's fanaticism?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Negotiate in good faith, or withdraw from the conflict.
Arresting terrorists and placing them on trial also works (see Bosnian-Serb crisis), as does prosecuting politicians for war crimes (ibid).
The last is now virtually impossible, since there is pretty much no government in Somalia. The UN might accomplish this in conjunction with military operations, but only if the US stops using drones attacks as recruiting tools for the terrorists.
There certainly may be other strategies out there that might be tried, but assassinating people via drone is NOT one of them.
Again, I have responded to your questions, you have refused to answer mine. Thank you for your time and attention, but the conversation is done.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Your claim essentially boils down to "the US military says the sun rises in the east, why should I believe them?"
Negotiate in good faith with those who wish to conquer the entire region and forcibly convert everyone? That's funny in a Neville Chamberlain kind of way.
Toodles.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)no matter how often I am lied to.
Cool!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)me how awful al Shahab is.
Nor does anyone else who's even modestly familiar with the region.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)organizations guilty of war crimes, terrorism and a myriad host of other felonies to engage in tactics which not only don't work, but make the situation worse, as long as they attack people you don't like.
Cool, whatever makes you happy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Whatever floats your boat.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)not "hate". I try not to "hate" anyone, with mixed success being human.
But trust must be earned, and you seem to have no problems trusting people who lie to you, or employing institutions with serious moral deficiencies as long as they attack/kill people you don't like.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to planet earth. Every government on the planet has serious moral deficiencies.
Why should I care about the purity of whoever dispatches Al Shahab thugs? It's not like a bunch of saints are lining up to shoot them.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)doing something about al Shahab.
Because, due process applies once people are in custody, and the only way you get al Shahab in custody is by invading Somalia and conquering them in battle.
Which, of course, is not what the "give that army due process" crowd wants. What they want is to do nothing that would actually interfere with al Shahab, because that would require doing stuff instead of yapping.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not active participants in military conflict.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Thank goodness for you. I am not of the bloodlust ilk. I believe in the rule of law, and I oppose the death penalty, yes, even for "terrorists."
OTOH, this story sounds too good to be true. I'm not convinced it all was so precise and tidy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Let me answer for that for you: No, you don't.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)America, Fuck Yeah
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pacificism and appeasement, fuck yeah!
Anyone who insists on putting an entire enemy army on trial is an advocate for letting that army kill to its heart content.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Fuck yeah! False dichotomies rock
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No one with two brain cells to rub together believes that putting the leadership of al Shahab on trial is an alternative to degrading its capabilities via military action.
They're a fucking army. They have 4-6,000 armed men. They occupy half a country.
Proposing a trial as a way to defeat an army is like proposing a sternly worded letter to stop the ocean.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Wow. The US can't capture 2 men and put them on trial. Yeah, Im not about to swallow that
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Armies are defeated and killed, not prosecuted.
After Al Shahab disarms itself and subjects itseslf to the jurisdiction of civilian courts, then intelligent people will talk about prosecutions as a viable way of dealing with them.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Either the US is a nation of laws or it is not
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I apologize if he has in fact
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)armed conflict. Courts have never had any role in such determinations.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And yes, terrorists have been tried
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If Al Shahab disbands and disarms, then trials are on the table.
Armies get shot at.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)What international law dictates that?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of thousands of men with assault rifles and RPGs who occupy half of an entire country.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to act with impunity so long as they amass sufficient numbers of armed members to make arrest possible.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Are you sure this whole point just doesn't feel truthy? Aren't you just pulling this shit out of your ass, much the way the Bush/Cheney administration pulled all the illegal combatant nonsense out of theirs?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Given that Al Shahab has formally joined the ranks of Al Qaeda, perfectly legal under US law.
Under international law, there's no obligation to use non-violent means to prevent active, illegal/non-privileged combatants from carrying out further attacks.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)...unilaterally without trial?
Or is the converse simply not obligated. More funny weasel wording.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bin Laden was a criminal. It was still okay to whack him.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Were they attacking someone with arms at that very moment?
Bin Laden was a criminal. It was still okay to whack him.
Was it?
Maybe the US just isn't a nation of laws anymore
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of a gun.
Belligerent status doesn't go away just because they let their guard down. Once you join the fight, you're a legal target until you affirmatively renounce your role in the fight and walk away.
It was legal to drop bombs on Japanese soldiers while they slept in WorldWar 2, and for the Japanese to drop bombs on American soldiers while they slept.
Don't want to get shot or droned? Don't go to war.
P.S. The United Nations says you're full of shit.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/16/ban_declares_war_on_al_shabab
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Are you confused? We are talking about alleged international criminals thought to be terrorists, not a conventional army in a conventional war that the country has declared war on (through congress). I say you're full of shit. You already knew that. You are bending over back wards to justify this with red herring nonsense.
BTW, funny how you moved the goalposts when I called you out on your BS
If they're armed and engaged on armed attacks, yes.
Haha. But now they aren't armed. They are like sleeping Japanese Soldiers during World War II (some of which were in fact taken alive). What is it?!?
You don't know. Because again, you are pulling this out of your ass just like the Bush/Cheney admin did. This entire conflict (if you can even call it that), is not exactly precedented by traditional wars. International law hasn't quite caught up to justify these actions as permissible, despite you feeling personally that they are. It leaves you confused to bridge that gap between what you feel and what the law is. And the reality is that if the US is just satisfying revenge fetish and lashing out in a confused, bewildered state, without legal boundaries beyond what truthiness can ascertain, I would suggest it is not a nation of laws.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)army that is also a bunch of privileges allows them special privileges.
Sadly for you, international law does not grant special favors to terrorists.
Your anti-American sentiment is no substitute for actually knowing the law.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And again, no, you have not illustrated any international law that cites that it is permissible to fire upon people who are suspected of crimes--who may in fact be unarmed and non-aggressive at the time of killing, outside an actual theater of war--simply because they have passed some arbitrary numeric threshold of followers (all without a trial).
You have not done that. You can not do that. You will not do that. It does not exist outside of your ass.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is the fact that they're a militia engaged in a war of conquest. Every member of al Shahab in the territory Al Shahab has conquered is a legitimate military target 24/7/365.
I seriously wonder how someone could be so ignorant as to write the drivel you just offered, portraying leaders of a militia taking part in a civil war as poor widdle innocent victims just sipping their tea far removed from any violence when the mean old US oppressed them.
That they are also terrorists and criminal scumbags is not germane to that analysis.
You seem to have it in your head that a thousands of armed terrorists in one place are either suspected criminals, or an organized military fighting force, but can't be both. This is a fallacy.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)the international community in accordance with international law?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ban appealed for a temporary military surge of thousands of additional African troops into Somalia in order to deal a decisive military defeat to al-Shabab. The offensive would aim to deprive the Islamist militant group of the ability to freely recruit new followers and secure the taxes and investments necessary to underwrite its terrorist operations from Mogadishu to Nairobi, Kenya, where the group recently carried out a brazen attack against civilians at the upscale Westgate mall.
Citing the threat posed by a reinvigorated al-Shabab, Ban appealed to the 15-nation Security Council in a letter to provide financial and military support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), along with attack helicopters and other advanced logistical and intelligence equipment to help take the fight to al-Shabab strongholds in rural southern Somalia.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/16/ban_declares_war_on_al_shabab
You're playing Calvinball by now asking if the US has to declare war on Somalia in order to help Somalia's government defeat al Shahab. Idiotic, dishonest question.
Next?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Basically all your answers have been dishonest as well, but you know that.
So now we are to assume we are at war in Somalia without declaring war in Somalia...
Is it then safe to assume, in your view, that any and all countries that have any suspected terrorists in them are then a theater of war, in which the US can legally drone kill any suspected terrorist with no due process? Further, what country doesn't have some number of terrorists living there? Is the globe now one large theater of war?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Those are facts that no one disputes (not even you).
The United Nations is coordinating a MILITARY effort to DEFEAT AL SHAHAB.
That is also beyond dispute.
So, where the United Nations is helping lead the world community in its efforts to defeat a rogue militia that is engaged in a war of conquest, yes it is legal to kill the bastards in the theater of combat. Whether they're firing a gun or taking a dump.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)been proven entirely groundless?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)If you can pull out of your ass that its legal to kill suspected terrorists without due process in any country on the globe, at any time, for any reason, then you are just pulling things out of your ass to satisfy your fetish for revenge against bad guys
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)out your objection to a lawful attack on a vile terrorist militia/army was completely without merit.
The only people who talk about "any country any time any reason" are the hyperbole squad on the left and their counterparts who support the Paul family.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Is this some special exception or is it game on there too?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are legal per the 2001 AUMF. Obviously, still need to avoid civilian casualties.
But, bin Laden was legal hit.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The US can get permission from shady countries to do all kinds of illegal shit.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Unless you're back to trying to claim that stuff which offends your sensibilities is illegal per se under international law.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)not legal under international law.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)We're talking about killing mass murdering terrorists who are at large plotting and trying to execute armed attacks against the United States and the entire world community, not torturing people who are in custody and no longer a threat to anyone, and where there is rock solid international law on point, and has been for decades.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)So that only applies to killing those suspected of crimes without trials, and not torturing people?
That...or your grounds are groundless and all you are doing is justifying a revenge fetish against baddies. Im pretty sure that's where we are here
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sorry that you have such a sad over a terrorist being incapacitated.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Lets just admit you will make anything up to justify killing anyone anywhere
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of shit you made up and your ability to avoid any kind of intelligent discussion.
Last word is yours.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You then believe a trial of suspected terrorists would soothe the ruffled feathers of other terrorists world-wide?
If not, what *specifically* do you believe would be the terror-network response/responses of a U.S.-hosted trial involving Bib Laden, for example? What relevant actions do you think would be taken in response to the capture and illegal trial (as seen by the terror groups) of a network head?
Would this response of theirs be beneficent, as we duly follow the west's rule of law (of which, they do not recognize as valid or binding)?
(Unless of course, it's merely a semantic game of yours, ended with an irrelevant jade's trick (as you did just above). And if that is indeed the case, a position without premise, conclusion or support, then carry on-- you're doing a grand job of that! 
)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)(Although I got a post hidden by a jury for supporting drones last night)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)For those interested in learning something as apposed to chest beating.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/08/somali-fears-in-kenya-conflicts
"The final decision, taken precipitously, apparently surprised allies of Kenya, such as Ethiopia, which also has plans to intervene in Somalia. It is thought that both countries want to carve out zones of influence. Nairobi plans to set up a semi-autonomous region, Jubaland. A puppet government would be used to control resources and facilities, starting with Kismayo, a port used by smuggling networks with Kenyan links, according to a UN report published in July."
All with the support of the US government, of course. I'm not trying to tell anyone not to chest beat. Read the article, understand the situation, then chest beat your heart out.
Kaleva
(36,327 posts)
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Oh well. Too late now.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Tough luck for them that we shot back.
Mercy for the guilty is cruelty for the innocent, sometimes. Glad we avoided any innocent civilian casualties.
reddread
(6,896 posts)what a bunch of pro-killing, pro-extra-judicial death malarkey.
We are as far from peaceful civilization as we are from civilized justice.
ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL AUTHORITY.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Or is there a point wherein you think it's okay to use violence against an army/militia like al shahab?
reddread
(6,896 posts)defend our shores.
You speak for yourself,
I'll speak for myself.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)defeat Al Shahab?
reddread
(6,896 posts)that job is taken.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)you keep calling other posters out, implying racist yellow streaks.
what a pathetic existence.
unAmerican.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is indeed the high road.
reddread
(6,896 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)violence begets what?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)kiawah
(64 posts)n/t
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)We've heard time and time again that Al Shabaab and their ilk do not dread death.
Since they are so comfortable with killing and dying, then certainly it is life and pleasure that they dread far more.
I wish they had not been killed, I wish they had been apprehended.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)By who exactly?
Federal Marshals?
Interpol?
Pinellas County Sheriffs Office?
Unfortunately that part of Somalia is under control of some very bad armed men and their many follower's.
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)I don't see why something similar could not have happened here.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....is just like a warlord with 1,000's of armed followers in Somalia,
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)"stateless actors."
The bigger their organizations become and the more they enter the formal world of states and governments, a development I think is inevitable, the more easily they will be infiltrated, subverted and destroyed.
Time is not on their side; the enthusiasm they generate among the poor who can't seem to find a gainful place in the world, if it causes any concrete growth in these entities, will only serve as a poison pill.
Perhaps the terrorist is the pirate of the 21st century, worthy only of being hunted down and shot like a dog.
I still suspect that they dread life far more than death.
RZM
(8,556 posts)I seem to remember Mossad taking a different approach in the wake of the 1972 Olympics. Funny you didn't bring that up.
And Eichmann was one man hiding out in Argentina who was wanted so he could be called to account for his past crimes. Had he been a continuing security threat, as these al-shabab losers were, things might have been different.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)These 2 won't be killing anyone again.
Mysterysouppe
(68 posts)He claimed 22 on Dec. 8, 2011:
“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” the president responded sharply when a reporter noted Republican accusations. “Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that.”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-hits-back-with-bin-laden-killing-at-republicans-charge-of-appeasement-20111208
What is the grand total? Does anyone know?
Response to dlwickham (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Go get some more of these scumbags.