US Forces Undertake Two African Raids, Capture Embassy Bombing Figure 229
CNN reports that two separate U.S. military operations have taken place this weekend in Africa; the first in Tripoli, the second in Somalia. "In the earlier raid, U.S. forces captured Abu Anas al Libi, an al Qaeda operative wanted for his role in the deadly 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. In the second raid, a team of U.S. Navy SEALs in southern Somalia targeted the top leader of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group linked with al Qaeda." According to the report, it's unclear for now whether the second of these attempts was successful. Unsurprisingly, the Libyan raid has raised the ire of the interim government there, which has objected to the U.S. arrest and removal of al Libi (to an undisclosed placed outside of Libya) as a kidnapping.
And we're reading about it here why? (Score:2, Insightful)
News for Nerds? Really?
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:5, Interesting)
More bullshit superpower propaganda lies, from the United Snakes.
Two Failed U.S. Raids
Yesterday two U.S. raids attempted to abduct a man in Libya and a man in Somalia. The raid in Libya did get the target but already has some bad impacts for the Libyan government. The raid in Somalia, by so called elite SEAL forces, failed completely.
The raid in Libya caught [libyaherald.com] one Abu Anas Al-Libi, accused in connection with the bombing of a U.S. embassy in Kenia some 15 years ago. It also killed some 15 Libyan soldiers. The man, one Abu Anas Al-Libi, has lived away from Libya and came back after U.S. and NATO forces waged war against the Libyan government under Ghaddafi. He seems to have lived quite openly [nytimes.com] in the capitol Tripoli:
The raid will surely lead to some controversies [libyaherald.com]:
The various gangs that are the now the major powers in Libya will see this raid as (another) attack on Libya's sovereignty. Some major blowback against the interim government and other targets can be expected. There was already a tribal response against the government but the only mentioning of it is buried deep in the 25th paragraph of the NYT version [nytimes.com] of the story:
Some "coincidence" ...
The botched raid in Somalia was on a beach house allegedly used by the local Al Shaabab jihadists. The raid was first reported [garoweonline.com] by locals and then by the Al Shaabab itself:
There was a lot of confusion [reuters.com] about this raid and it took nearly a day until the U.S. confirmed that it forces had been beaten back. At one time the NYT and Fox News said that a senior Shabaab boss was killed while NBC said he was captured and AP said he was not found. This reminds one of all the propaganda claims made about the Bin Laden raid. This time though we will immediately know for sure as the book about this SEAL raid
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about posting the source for your bullshit?
Might it be Moon of Alabama?
The same site running stories about how Iran is not enriching uranium, but rather is producing nanodiamonds?
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/11/on-nuclear-iran-allegations-nanodiamonds-aint-nuclear-bombs.html [moonofalabama.org]
Do you really think we are that stupid?
You must think we are complete idiots.
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:4)
Hint: Try to scroll to the end of the post.
Re: (Score:2)
I did. It seems the poster was right about the source even without reading the link. Good guess?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How about posting the source for your bullshit?
Might it be Moon of Alabama?
Maybe CNN?
But the mission didn't go as planned. A fierce firefight broke out, and the Americans had to withdraw -- not knowing if the person they were trying to get was dead or alive.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/05/world/africa/somalia-us-shabaab-raid/index.html [cnn.com]
The Libyan interim government called the U.S. capture a kidnapping and has requested an explanation from Washington about the raid,
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/us-forces-africa-terrorist-raids/ [cnn.com]
(Nice URL there CNN: :"US Forces Africa Terrorist Raid".)
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's the libyan government who is claiming they had no indication of the raid, not somali. somali government couldn't really give a crap about it anyways since they were not in control of the area where the raid happened.
the libyan raid on the other hand in any normal case should have been done by libyan government - libyan police could have arrested the guy - but then there would have been all kinds of nasty paperwork to do for an extradition, need for proof and all that jazz.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24420767 [bbc.co.uk]
as it stands technically USA kidnapped the guy(they had no authority to detain him). the guy was living openly with his family in libya - yet US government officials say it's the superb work of their intelligence offices that caught him. currently usa also says that he is being held under "law of war" - no quotation what that is(we all know it certainly doesn't mean prisoner of war status!).
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we have the answer to a lot of questions here:
Two years after Libya’s revolution, government struggles to control hundreds of armed militias [washingtonpost.com]
Two years after the Arab Spring revolution that toppled longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi, and one year after the assault on a U.S. compound in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others, Libya’s fragile government has little control over the nation’s security.
Even minor disputes escalate into frequent gun violence on the streets. Kidnappings and armed robberies are increasing, and government officials and others have been assassinated with guns and bombs. Militants and arms smugglers easily cross poorly protected borders shared with Niger and Chad.
The Libyan government doesn't in fact have anything like full control over the country of Libya. If a senior al Qaida member was living openly, he probably had militias around to protect him. It is doubtful that the Libyan government would have been able to do much. He probably would have either had warning in time to flee, or the government would have had a real battle on its hands.
The forces that captured him would have done so under the authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress. The US is at war with al Qaida, and the Libyan government doesn't have control over its territory. So it is probably better to say he is captured rather than kidnapped. Being held under the Law of War would mean he isn't in the judicial system, but can be held as a Prisoner of War. To qualify for all the rights, privileges, and protections of the Geneva Convention, such as preparing your own food and not be subject to interrogation, you have to conduct war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Al Qaida doesn't do that.
Now it is only a question of time till protesters start claiming he is innocent and should be released.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to say this is one of your better posts. Very nice work threading the fallacy so nicely.
The guy is unlikely to be 'innocent' but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be given a fair trial and every chance to show himself so if he is.
Nor have I seen anything to suggest that his capture was anywhere near important enough to offset the hostility this sort of action generates. It was a 15 year old crime, why couldnt it wait another 2 or 3 years? Keep a long eye on him but dont say anything to anyone, let him thi
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to be an ass, but beyond the cute and cuddly propaganda, Libya didn't have a government (as in something that governs) since Gaddafi. This is simply because Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other.
Gaddafi unified Libya because his political agenda has been "every tribe has its own militia and is largely autonomous, but to outsiders we're Libyans first". He maintained this by careful balance of both financial and military incentives, tribes that followed him in a more loyal fashion got much better financing, access to military gear and luxury goods. At the same time his secret police was hard at work figuring out who was on who's side. But each tribe got extreme amount of freedom in its own affairs, down to having its own army, police, and often legal framework.
After he was overthrown, this central control system broke down and now there's no Libya - instead there are approximately 150 small autonomous regions now which largely maintained their own armies from Gaddafi times, and care very little for what current "government" wants (in quote marks because it doesn't really govern anything).
As a result, destabilization of "Libyan government" is an oxymoron. You can't really destabilize something that is completely unstable in the first place. Will tribes use this as an extra excuse when they need to? Sure. Would they have done the same thing and use another of myriad of excuses, or just tell government to fuck off instead as they did before this incident on countless occasions? Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
"Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other."
And the same can be said of most countries, if not all. It's hardly unique to Libya. Governments still exist.
The fact is the US served as the air force for the rebels to enable them to set up a democratic government and now the same US just knocked it around like the proverbial stepchild, in full view of th
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if is outside the judicial system, he can't be given a fair trial, which means he can't be proven to be guilty, which means he's innocent as far as the law is concerned. And that, of course, means he should be released.
Alternatively, we could accept that he's guilty if someone powerful says so, but that has an obvious downside: how do you know you're not next?
Oh well. The US gave up due process with
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Unfortunately you are overlooking a key piece of information: his status is determined under the Law of War, not under criminal statue. He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war, just as the Germans were in WW2 - at least until the conflict is over. No trial is necessary since it isn't a question of criminal law. That doesn't mean that he can't be tried, either for war crimes or criminal offenses under ordinary criminal law. Perhaps that will happen at some future date.
In summary, he can be held
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:4, Informative)
It is convenient when you can declare wars on abstract concepts and use those an excuse to kidnap and hold people indefinitely, yes. But it doesn't solve the problem: how do you know you're not next? Mere innocence won't protect you, since you'll never get to plead your case. So how will you keep the beast you've unleashed from turning on you?
But, for the sake of the record: The German war prisoners in WW2 were kept without trial for two reasons: 1) they weren't actually guilty of anything besides having lived in a country with conscription and a Nazi regime when said regime decided to go to war, and 2) there were hundreds of thousands of them, so it was not possible to arrange hearings for them all. Also, WW2 had a clearly defined and foreseeable end, after which they were let go - except those held by the Russians, who stayed in the camps for a long, long time. Stalin agrees with you in this too, comrade.
In that case, it is also legal and correct to hold you indefinitely, should someone with a high enough position decide so. Perhaps you think you'll get lucky, or perhaps you think you'll be rewarded for licking their jackboots from early on. But I wouldn't count on that. A lot of Stalin's fanclub ended up in the gulags, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the optics of "California governor signs law defying cooperation with NDAA indefinite detention" and AB351?
http://rt.com/usa/california-ndaa-ban-law-612/ [rt.com]
http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues/ndaa/ [tenthamendmentcenter.com] seems a few States are considering aspects of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that will have any meaningful effect as most "nullification" laws don't.
I doubt that much will come of it anytime soon anyway since the norm has been to use ordinary criminal law inside the US and the Law of War outside it when dealing with al Qaida. The only way I could see this having much impact would be during an internal insurrection unless there was a huge, undetected al Qaida attack being plotted in the US. That is huge in terms of numbers of attackers, not necessarily in body count. Of c
Re: (Score:2)
From welfare food cards, science, education, medical needs, too much heavy engineering maintenance, storm/flood bail outs, endless wars, banking support, foreign aid, countless illegal immigrants...to hidden internal ideology: the boondoggles and now legal insider trading is getting noticeable.
Once all that could be hidden as the "cold war" or wise investments by generational trusts, NGO's and very gifted career politicians
Re: (Score:3)
So if the Cuban government invades Miami, kidnaps the gusano terrorists there, takes them back to Havana, and holds them there indefinitely without a trial you're fine with that?
Re: (Score:3)
There are only two choices of status that should be possible here:
1. They are criminals. They can be captured, tried and executed for their crimes. Their protections would include right to a speedy and fair trial (note, not necessarily a civilian one).
2. They are enemy combatants. The can be killed when found. If captured they can be held until the end of hostilities. In this case, that probably means forever, so it's the equivalent of a life sentence. Their protections are to be treated as POWs under the G
Re: (Score:3)
The US, nor any other country for that matter, has EVER help prisoners of war or enemy combatants as criminals to go through our justice system. This is not about the presumption of innocence or right to a fair trial.
There never were nor will be trials for every enemy confronted in a war. Why would you ever expect or hope for such a thing? Unless something about war has changed, I'm not certain there are even valid charges to be brought against someone who is fighting you on non-US soil by our government
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like one of those people who comment on CBS articles linked from Drudge's website.
Anyway, eighteen months ago was merely staging for taking action, today. Have we all forgotten the five year plan (okay, so it has taken longer than that) for seven middle eastern countries that General Clark discussed a few years ago? Additionally, have we all forgotten that the real purpose of all of this is oil and oil/pipeline related corporate interests in these regions? It's no secret and it's no conspiracy. Pr
Re: (Score:2)
The same site running stories about how Iran is not enriching uranium, but rather is producing nanodiamonds?
Zero points for reading comprehension, Eric.
The claim is that Iran is enriching uranium (as they say themselves) and producing nanondiamonds (which would be why they are working with an expert in the production of nanodiamonds).
And, or, not. The basics of logic. Maybe they escape you,
Re: (Score:2)
It makes no difference. Success or failure, it means the US is going back to the core principles of justice, obtain evidence, capture and put on trial and present the evidence, thus proving the validity of laws. Bending international law (bending when there are no reasonable extradition laws) along the in unfortunate but acceptable as long as the pursuit of justice is the goal, that being proof of necessity of action in a court of law. This is far, far better than randomly firing missiles from drones and s
Re: (Score:3)
On wonders what the Obama administration wants to achieve with such raids.
My current hypothesis is that Obama's foreign policy is a mix of 'gut feeling,' manipulation by other parties, and random chance.
In this case, the Kenyan government probably asked for help, Obama's gut feeling was to feel sorry for them and help them (it's just police work, right?), and didn't pay any attention to the list of people to be captured. Some people in the Kenyan (or even US) government decided it was a good chance to go take him out, and added the guy in Libya to the list.
Re: (Score:2)
My current hypothesis is that it isn't "Obama's".
Why credit the character, and not the author, of the sitcom?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cecil Rhodes
Re: (Score:2)
Because sometimes they're the same person? (Seinfeld anyone?)
Re: (Score:2)
And distracting the people from the government shutdown is a pretty good secondary benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but don't worry, we'll get the guys responsible for Benghazi in another 13-14 years or so at this rate... they have to pick them up in order of their terrorist acts, of course...
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:5, Funny)
On wonders what the Obama administration wants to achieve with such raids.
Since Obama is Kenyan he was just looking for any excuse to help out the Kenyan government. We can see a parallel here in that Bush invaded Iraq solely because he is Kurdish. :)
Re:And we're reading about it here why? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the BBC is reporting it [bbc.co.uk] too. I first heard about it on BBC radio where the report was that unknown forces, either US or French, got their asses kicked and had to flee after Al Shaabab got wind of the attack and prepared for it. Equipment and blood found on the beeches.
It's hard to see how the US claim that Anas al-Liby is "lawfully detained" can be true either, since clearly they didn't have authorization to kidnap him from Libya and they won't reveal where he is. He would be either in a POW camp or civilian prison, but they won't say where he is which seems to be code for "we took him somewhere to be tortured", going by past activities.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The US mission failed in its objective and the attack was repelled with minimal losses. We don't know if any US forces were killed, but it seems that one was at least injured.
Re: (Score:2)
Winning would be getting in, achieving the objective and getting out without making an international incident out of it, or giving the opponent a chance to stir things up and look strong (they didn't capture a leader, just a soldier who was glad to die for the cause, and will now be in 'heaven' with his fourty virgins, or whatever is promised).. The eyes of the world suddenly look America's way (hot on the heels of the international disbelief that the USA can be held to ransom internally by a hard line fac
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you define 'winning' and 'losing' in this situation?
Like with terrorism in general, they win by not losing; we lose by not winning.
Welcome to asymmetric warfare and propaganda. Either one on its own would explain this.
Re: (Score:2)
But what is obvious is that this attack by SEAL personal by boat was somehow detected and responded to with heavy fire. The SEALs were said to had to call in helicopters and they had to retreat under fire.
Sounds like the SEALS ran in to the same problem as the French "Service Action" unit - Al Shabaab are seen by most Somalis as the legitimate government, foreign forces are invaders. If you hear funny noises in the night it might be Nazi parachutists so you tell the local bobby.
Re: (Score:2)
I sympathize with people, not ideas.
Al Shabaab are, like the Taliban, scum.
The problem is that they are not isolated scum. Many Somalis, after repeated foreign invasion (recently US, Ethiopian, Kenyan) with the only periods of stability in the last 30 years provided by Al Shabaab and its predecessors (the "Islamic courts") are clearly happier with Al Shaabab than the guys who come in from the sea in boats and helicopters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The second raid failed, it's pretty clear by now. What do you want, confirmation from the US government that the SEAL forces had to withdraw? You'll never hear it. They'll redefine 'success' and say the mission was successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to be an utter dick about it and turn things on their head, then let me throw you another claim that is just as idiotic as yours:
When these US servicemen perform an act of terrorism on foreign soil, those who sympathize with them are terrorist sympathizers. Not sure how their families got drawn into it as they weren't a part of it in any shape or form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer sympathizing with families of the victims.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, US news sources are totally full of shit but news from Al Shabaab is totally trustworthy. I don't trust US news sources either but you're a fucking idiot if you believe anything that Al Shabaab says. This report is probably the most accurate one you're going to get: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24420767 [bbc.co.uk]. On a final note, any news that comes out immediately after an event is usually total bullshit no matter who it comes from. It takes a while before enough information is developed from mu
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...no it does not and it's not a DoD press release. I don't think you read it very carefully but this is /. so I don't know why should I expect any different. Or maybe subtleties are lost on you.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the general finds himself unable to leave his armchair for the mission (dinner coming, a scheduled masturbation marathon), the United States will find some actual military type person to do the getting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff That Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
News for Nerds? Really?
Forgetting the Stuff That Matters are we? Last time I checked geopolitics and military strikes affect nerds as much as they affect anyone else. Plus are you seriously going to claim that nerds have no interest in special operations warfare?
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of shit fucking matters, but that doesn't make it reasonable to discuss on Slashdot. People come to Slashdot for selectivity.
People come to slashdot for the (relatively high) quality discussion and the takes on whatever topic is at hand. By keeping it mostly technology focused it makes the discussions on those topics a little deeper and generally better quality but there is nothing wrong with discussing important non-tech topics here and there. In fact mixing it up a little (emphasis on little) makes it a bit more interesting that it would be otherwise. If you don't like them then filter them out. There are 15 topics on the f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is news for nerds. Some of us actually give a shit about what happens in the wider world, too.
Unsurprisingly?? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather say "understandably" or "unexpectedly", because the Libyan government has every right to be pissed off.
What happens when an elite Iraqi commando enters the US and "arrests" prominent terrorist and war criminal Donald Rumsfeld, killing 15 secret service agents in the process?
The way it's written, this is an insulting propaganda piece.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather say "understandably" or "unexpectedly", because the Libyan government has every right to be pissed off.
What happens when an elite Iraqi commando enters the US and "arrests" prominent terrorist and war criminal Donald Rumsfeld, killing 15 secret service agents in the process?
The way it's written, this is an insulting propaganda piece.
A better metaphor would be Cuban commandos entering the US to arrest Luis Posada Carriles [wikipedia.org] who committed a bunch of terrorist bombings in Cuba with support from the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and had some interactions with the CIA.
No one claims that Abu Anas ab Libi was a past or present member of the Libyan government, but he did have supporters in the Government and it's not certain how anxious they were to arrest him themselves.
The Somalia situation is a little different as I think the Soma
Re:Unsurprisingly?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when an elite Iraqi commando enters the US and "arrests" prominent terrorist and war criminal Donald Rumsfeld,
Celebration? Oh, oh, that was a rhetorical question.
Denial (Score:5, Funny)
It couldn't have been the USA. We're closed for business until further notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but just the other day . . . the Pentagon called back their furloughed civilian workers . . . I guess they were needed for something . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like a pretty drastic way to break the budget deadlock.
Since paying DoD civilian employees was given a big thumbs up, it shows that there can be some agreement. Provided it is in a few, well defined, areas.
The next thing looming is the debt ceiling on the 17th. What better way to get it raised than "we urgently need to spend some $ on a quick military action". Bingo. Support given wholeheartedly "to retain the US military superiority" or somesuch, the debt ceiling is also raised. Job done.
Re: (Score:2)
If you go to http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml [usa.gov] you will see these blatant violations of international law are continuing as "Essential Services".
Oops: Obama bin bama not so peaceful (Score:2, Insightful)
And he got the Nobel peace prize . What a phoney prize.
Old wounds? (Score:2)
So what, he bombed two embassies back in '98? Just let it go guys, he's not worth holding a grudge for 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiousity... (Score:2)
Were the strikes based on the interviews with the suspect in the mainstream media [cnn.com] over the course of the last year since the attack occurred?
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff That Matters (Score:2)
Jesus Christ, what the fuck does this have to do with tech news? Newsfornerds??? You gotta be kidding!
Slashdot has NEVER been just about tech news. Last time I checked military strikes affect nerds too and it certainly falls under the heading of "Stuff That Matters".
Re: (Score:3)
... Why we support Al Qaeda in Syria.
We don't. Al Qaeda is only one faction of the rebels fighting against the Syrian government. The US supports the more secular parts of the rebels.
The fear is that if we don't support the secular rebels, then Al Qaeda will gain the upper hand, and take over the government. And that is a real possibility, although to me the most likely scenario is that with Russian and Iranian support, Assad will win everything.
Re: (Score:2)
The US supports the more secular parts of the rebels.
In such a feeble and impotent way that both AQ and the Syrian government increase in power and your "allies" are weakened.
Just like always.
The US is the most powerful enemy of US interests that exists.
Re: (Score:2)
The important part is that we continue to provide weapons, funding, and training to a lot of little rebel groups in critical places around the world, so that they and their enemies can both ultimately point the finger at the US for any failures they might encounter, which will ensure a plentiful and diverse population of future terrorists acting against the US and allow us to legitimately continue to scare-monger out own population into accepting all draconian measures that only fifteen years ago would have
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Islamist groups make up by far the largest proportion of rebels in Syria. Conservatives estimates say two thirds of rebels are associated with radical Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda, in some way. It's hardly surprising because most people there are Muslims (notice how they are always saying "allahu akbar" on the civilian videos?) and because they are the ones supplying the weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
It'll be fun for the US and Iran/Russia to try out try out our new high tech military toys in a proxy war...
IMO, they should just do that in New Mexico. Just pick some state, make it off limits to civilians, then fight over it instead. Who ever wins gets to host the next territory war.
Re: (Score:2)
I vote Texas!
Re: (Score:2)
At least it wouldn't be another proxy war against China. Those things never work out.
Re: (Score:3)
no sadly it doesn't, terrorists have literally made it in the kitchen sink as japan found out.
Re: (Score:2)
A Kalashnikov isn't that high tech, it's made mainly with stamped metal and wood. Sarin takes quite a bit more technology to create.
Well, Sarin is rather depressingly easy to make.
It's a bit harder if you want to stay alive while making it, but well within the capabilities of your average Japanese cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarin is a fair bit easier to make than Meth, but it's not easy to achieve a lethal concentration under open real-world conditions for any length of time. That's why Fatalites are disporportionatly the young or the elderly, sub-fatal casualties require intense care to survive the acute phase and when I got out of school there were indications of long-term nerve damage due to exposure. Chemical agents have no real military purpose and people who use them deserve a special place in the deepest pits of Hell.
Re: (Score:2)
lies and propaganda from washington d.c. read regional news, Al Qaeda and affiliates make up the majority of the "rebels", they are slaughtering christian villages and even beheading women and babies. vile monsters, and yet on anniversary of 9/11 Obama announced we're arming those enemies of the United States and those criminals against humanity.
The U.S. government has become the biggest terrorist organization on the planet, in the pockets of large corporations whose lust for power and wealth knows no bou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, U.S. news is saying that. get a clue
Re: (Score:2)
The unfortunate fact is that the only power in Syria capable of containing Al Qaeda at this point is Assad's government. The much-touted moderates have minimal operational capabilities and little support inside the country. The Al Qaeda affiliates between themselves and their local allies have the lions share of the opposition military. The Kurds are still skating delicately to get as much autonomy as possible out of the deal, but ultimately they will choose Assad over Al Qaeda, and they are the only signif
Re: (Score:2)
The unfortunate fact is that the only power in Syria capable of containing Al Qaeda at this point is Assad's government.
I don't know why you think this. Everything I've read suggests that Al Qaeda only can maintain territory where no one else is contesting it. The don't even have support of the citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html [telegraph.co.uk]
IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy has some analysis via telegraph.co.uk:
"10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda.."
"30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a sma
Re: (Score:2)
Because some politician who was thinking more about campaigning for the next job instead of performing the current one said 'Assad must go.'
We could go on and fill in some later details, 'red lines' and such rot, but it really all traces back to that one misstep. Which just couldnt possibly have been retracted because that would have embarrassed the person in question, better to kill a few million furriners than to embarass someone important don't you know?
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problems managing my anger, I direct it towards idiots and ignoramuses.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Al Qaeda is a threat to the generals as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistani Generals. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but "lesbian free chat" is probably the high point of this discussion so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but "lesbian free chat" is probably the high point of this discussion so far.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate it when I'm in a chat room with my bros, talking about manly things like football and washing cars, and a group of lesbians join in. Acting like they are as macho as us men are. Hell, they don't even want to run around with a bunch of sweaty men throwing their balls around. And their take on a bikini or topless car was is enough to turn your stomach. Or would, if you aren't as manly as us men are.
So, in conclusion, I am glad there are chat rooms now that are lesbian free.
Re: (Score:2)
Since AC's language appears not to be English I suppose he's talking about:
The 1998 Cavalese cable car disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998) [wikipedia.org]
And maybe the Abu Omar case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless of what these guys did, nothing justifies walking into another country and taking military action.
So we just sit around waiting for Interpol to pick them up?
Re:Where's the mandate? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can use that argument to support military action against any country that doesn't extradite to your country...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with that. You don't get to blow up civilians of the world's only superpower and get to sit in a failed state or other little junker country laughing at us. To allow that to happen is to invite a never-ending stream of would-be bin Ladens.
You notice you never see the leadership of one of these groups strapping bombs to themselves to die for their beliefs. Rather, they expect other, less educated, less well off people to die for their agenda. The world is full of less educated, less well off people
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't the operation of the military fully-funded by act of Congress, passed by the Senate, and signed into law by the President [huffingtonpost.com]? Why are any military personnel on furlough?
Re: (Score:2)
Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution has a few words on what a person who arms and supports the enemies of the USA is to be considered, but "defense contractor" control and shareholder profits trump any old piece of parchment
Reagan and Bush did it in 1980 and 1985 (not counting the direct and indirect support of Al Qaeda around that time, as they were a known terrorist organization, but we hoped they hated the Russians more than us - unknowingly creating an enemy isn't the same as supporting one - it's worse).
So history has taught us that there is no terrorism by the Executive. If you object, then Reagan should have been impeached in 1981, and Bush should never have been voted in for his hand in the treasons committed by himse
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth repeating again and agin, some of these glassy eyed Obama supporters here are a bit dense when it comes to matters of their lord and saviour barack
Re: (Score:2)
The US can say its not expanding bases or sending troops. Just lots of regional 'invites' and 'friends'
The tactical operations side is getting interesting. The locals are no longer afraid. The idea that large scale use of Soviet small arms can hold tactical operations is something different.
What are th
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really much of a big deal though? Even China which tends to keep it's forces in it's borders has started sending troops to support missions in Mali and Sudan, as well as being involved in anti-piracy work along Somalia's coast including at least one documented attack on Somalia proper as an anti-piracy action.
Asia has for decades been the manufacturing hub of the world as it offered plentiful resources and cheap labour. Now Asia is becoming wealthier where do you think it's looking to do what we in th