US Bombs Somlalia

HelterSkelter

How can the US get away with acts like this? They believe "al Qaeda terrorists" are operating in an area in Somalia so they launch an airstrike resulting in the deaths of 27 civillians. Using the "Al Qaeda" term seems to give them a licence to do whatever they want with no questions asked, by the media in particular. In my mind this is the equivalent of the British Army bombing areas of Dublin back in the days of the IRA's UK bombing campaign. How acceptable would that have been? This reasons for this attack sound very similar to the excuses used by the British Army for Bloody Sunday?

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

US Targets 'Terror Chief'
Updated: 16:46, Tuesday January 09, 2007

The US has confirmed it carried out an attack in Somalia in response to the "presence of al Qaeda terrorists".

Reports suggested that the US had been hunting Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, one of the FBI's most wanted men.

He has been connected to the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 250 people.

The US did not comment on the reports. But it did admit to launching a strike on Sunday.

Local officials in Somalia said 27 civilians were killed on Tuesday and others were killed on Monday in US attacks.

Hundreds of Islamists are hiding out in southern Somalia after being flushed out of Mogadishu by Ethiopian and Somali government.

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "Very clearly, the US government has had a concern that there are terrorists and al Qaeda affiliated terrorists that were in Somalia.

"We have a great interest in seeing that those individuals not be able to flee to other locations."

It was Washington's first overt military intervention in Somalia since a disastrous peacekeeping mission that ended in 1994.

President George Bush has frequently indicated that the US has the right to hit terrorist targets in other countries.

A senior Somali government official said an AC-130 plane fired on the remote village of Hayo late on Monday.

US warplanes also killed between 22 and 27 people in another strike in Hayo on Tuesday.

US Ethiopian and Kenyan intelligence officials say the Islamists hid a handful of al Qaeda members, including suspects

in the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a 2002 hotel bombing on the Kenyan coast.

InFront

There's a BBC link here

What did Saddam die for?
Is there not an irony here? They need to be peacekeeping, not declaring a war.
This must be Bush's New Years Unresolution.

HelterSkelter wrote:

In my mind this is the equivalent of the British Army bombing areas of Dublin back in the days of the IRA's UK bombing campaign.

That is exactly what this is like. Except imagine there is already a civil war going on there so the place is even more messed up.

Sometimes these bizzare American acts, apart from being violent and sickening, are almost funny in a way that sometimes something happens that is so frustrating, despite the terrible human ramifications, all you can do is let out a little laugh.

Sand

Sometimes these bizzare American acts, apart from being violent and sickening, are almost funny in a way that sometimes something happens that is so frustrating, despite the terrible human ramifications, all you can do is let out a little laugh.

Wouldnt that interpretation depend on whether the people killed were militants or out and out civillians? The BBC link claims the US were targeting Islamist fighters, specifically a group connected with the embassy bombings. If they were militants then surely it makes sense to kill them before they kill you? Again, in this case.

Theres a contradiction between the two links btw - Sky News says 27 civillians were killed, the BBC quotes a local MP saying that 27 people died, mostly civillians.

In my mind this is the equivalent of the British Army bombing areas of Dublin back in the days of the IRA's UK bombing campaign. How acceptable would that have been?

The government of the Irish Republic assisted Britain in defeating the IRA and retained unchallenged control over its territory. Somalia might be nominally a US ally, but its government does not have unchallenged control over its territory. Hence, the situations are not similar.

mike65

The Somalia government has given the attack its okay though I realise they might'nt have had much choice.

Here are the thoughts of Ayman al-Zawahiri
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6233799.stm

Mike.

InFront

Sand wrote:

Wouldnt that interpretation depend on whether the people killed were militants or out and out civillians? The BBC link claims the US were targeting Islamist fighters, specifically a group connected with the embassy bombings. If they were militants then surely it makes sense to kill them before they kill you?

I wouldn't trust the US Army in the accuracy of their bombings tbh. If just one civilian died, it was an act of unwarranted murder at the hands of the American authorities.
I don't think that the extremists are planning on killing me, or you. I don't think the killing of men on either side, USA or Al Qaeda are justified, even on the basis of a potential threat to your security.
If I think someone in my street is going to rob my car I don't incapacitiate him, I tell the police I'm worried about this character or I keep an eye on my car. How can the USA be sure they were killing terrorists? Do they have the right to kill all terrorists?

And of course civilians got hurt, but they seem pretty okay with that.
The BBC have said that 19 Somali civilians are thought to be dead.

The government of the Irish Republic assisted Britain in defeating the IRA and retained unchallenged control over its territory. Somalia might be nominally a US ally, but its government does not have unchallenged control over its territory. Hence, the situations are not similar.

I think the OP was talking about it being similiar to bombing Dublin (or say, Drogheda) in the 1980s because a lot of IRA guys hung out there.

DadaKopf

It's a diversion tactic to take attention away from Iraq.

Gurgle

Sand wrote:

Wouldnt that interpretation depend on whether the people killed were militants or out and out civillians?

Obviously theres a world of difference between militants/terrorists and civilians.

But how exactly does a falling bomb know the difference?
How do the guys cleaning up the bodies know the difference?

Terrorists don't keep precise records of their membership lists, they don't issue ID cards, they don't wear uniforms or dog-tags. That makes it pretty easy to count the bodies and announce that you've killed 27 terrorists. The HR officer from the 'battalion' you hit isn't going to publish a report that only 3 of them were members of their organization.

Colonel Sanders

America will continue to take this action in third world countries as the rest of the world will ignore whats going on as the bottom line is the majority of leaders of western countries do not care what goes on in these places.

I wonder would the USA take the same action if they suspected a bunch of terrorists were sheltering in somewhere like France or Germany or another western coutry?

Victor

Colonel Sanders wrote:

I wonder would the USA take the same action if they suspected a bunch of terrorists were sheltering in somewhere like France or Germany or another western coutry?

Not a bombing, but
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/9652933?view=Eircomnet

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

HelterSkelter

Sand wrote:

The government of the Irish Republic assisted Britain in defeating the IRA and retained unchallenged control over its territory. Somalia might be nominally a US ally, but its government does not have unchallenged control over its territory. Hence, the situations are not similar.

So who exactly did Charles Haughey (allegedly) buy all those guns for?

Zambia

I fail to see why millions are spent training Special Operations Forces like the Delta force , Green Berets , Rangers and SAS. When if they have to get someone they flyover the area and release cannon fire on the surrounding village. Killing innocent civilians who could not indicate america on a map.

I commend the attempt to subdue the Terrorists but it shows the war on terror is to prevent US cilviilan deaths , not civilian deaths in general.

Gurgle

Zambia232 wrote:

the war on terror is to prevent US cilviilan deaths , not civilian deaths in general.

I think you're being a bit generous. There wasn't much effort to prevent US civilian deaths when hurricane Katrina hit.

Lets be honest - the war on terror is to prevent economic damage.

HelterSkelter

Gurgle wrote:

I think you're being a bit generous. There wasn't much effort to prevent US civilian deaths when hurricane Katrina hit.

Lets be honest - the war on terror is to prevent economic damage.

I often wonder if the war has a dual purpose, the primary and most obvious purpose to take control of oil producing countries in the middle east and secondary it is a war against Islam.

Zambia

Gurgle wrote:

I think you're being a bit generous. There wasn't much effort to prevent US civilian deaths when hurricane Katrina hit.

Aye this is true , as bad as the bush administration was , it did not have a gunship unload a cannon into the civilian population.

Lets not go off topic but the "Well those people didnt have that much before" comment by Barbara Bush ...Classic

But back on topic

Colonel Sanders

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No and neither did the innocent civilians they killed.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

"At first do no harm"

sovtek

Here's a summarized history of the whole conflict. Basically sheds a lot of doubt on Al-Queda in Somolia.

http://www.counterpunch.org/naylor01092007.html

Sand

I don't think that the extremists are planning on killing me, or you.

They dont really discriminate whatsoever though, do they? Take a look at the victims of the tube train bombings. Just a random group of people who were murdered in a premeditated act designed to kill as large a group of random people as possible. Whose to say you or I mightnt be killed by one of their spectaculars - afterall, the vast, vast majority of the people killed in the embassy bombings carried out by this particular cell were bystanders. 250 odd killed, 4000+ wounded.

How can the USA be sure they were killing terrorists? Do they have the right to kill all terrorists?

Yeah, if some group is planning to bomb and kill them they tend to have the right to shoot back, especially in the absence of any meaningful authority within that territory that can be asked to investigate/arrest & try the threat.

And of course civilians got hurt, but they seem pretty okay with that.

Any military action, even peacekeeping missions, allow for the possibility of civillian casualties. Theres no indication the US went out there to kill civillians, and if the track record of the group involved is anything to go by their elimination probably saved more lives in the long run.

And, in terms of Somalia, the country needs a winner to its civil wars - not another bout of conflict which the Islamic courts faction has been promising. Hence, the fighting strenth of the group needs to be crushed now whilst they are on the backfoot and trapped on the Kenyan border. If they survive and carry on guerilla war it will not be to Somalias benefit.

That makes it pretty easy to count the bodies and announce that you've killed 27 terrorists.

Or to count the bodies and announce they killed 27 civillians, if it suits your purposes. Which is what has been claimed by some sources, but I dont think the US has claimed they killed 27 terrorists. The simple answer is nobody posting here knows how many civillians were killed and how many terrorists. Theres no magic ratio of deaths that makes civillian casualties "okay".

So who exactly did Charles Haughey (allegedly) buy all those guns for?

The more telling point might be who broke up the shipment, arrested Haughey and tried him? The British? Somalia barely has a government let alone a strong and independant judiciary and law enforcement agency that can combat terrorist cells within its territory. Pretending Somalia is "just the same" as France or Ireland is deluded to be honest.

I commend the attempt to subdue the Terrorists but it shows the war on terror is to prevent US cilviilan deaths , not civilian deaths in general.

Obviously, any countries citizens tend to take priority with the government that represents them but the vast majority of the victims of that cell werent even American.

"At first do no harm"

Wonderful argument. Carrying the logic forward you would ban any sort of surgical procedures?

A Dub in Glasgo

Those pesky civilians keep getting killed in our attempt to kill the people who kill civilians. Dog chasing tail.

purple'n'gold

simple, they can get away with what ever they like. They are the only show in town. There is no-one to stop them. Well maybe Russia or China, but they couldn't be arsed as long as it dos'nt impact on them. But wait a minute, maybe treble lock Ireland could intervene. Just a thought!

Gurgle

Sand wrote:

Or to count the bodies and announce they killed 27 civillians, if it suits your purposes. Which is what has been claimed by some sources, but I dont think the US has claimed they killed 27 terrorists. The simple answer is nobody posting here knows how many civillians were killed and how many terrorists. Theres no magic ratio of deaths that makes civillian casualties "okay".

'Terrorists' are armed civilians, otherwise they would be called soldiers. So if 27 non-uniformed people die, thats 27 civilians. Its possible that they were all involved in terrorist activity, or that none of them were.

Now lets apply 'innocent until proven guilty' to the above.

You can attack a suspected terrorist base with armed soldiers, have them shoot anyone with a gun. If a civilian is in possesion of a gun and shooting at you, you can count him as a terrorist.

Or you can drop a bomb and kill everyone who might be a terrorist.

One option is easy and low-risk for the attacking force.

The other option includes the possibility of killing terrorists and protecting the innocent.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Wonderful argument. Carrying the logic forward you would ban any sort of surgical procedures?

Actually its from the Hippocratic Oath.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Any military action, even peacekeeping missions, allow for the possibility of civillian casualties. Theres no indication the US went out there to kill civillians, and if the track record of the group involved is anything to go by their elimination probably saved more lives in the long run.

685000 to 3000. Saving lives doesnt seem to be their business.

Or to count the bodies and announce they killed 27 civillians, if it suits your purposes. Which is what has been claimed by some sources, but I dont think the US has claimed they killed 27 terrorists. The simple answer is nobody posting here knows how many civillians were killed and how many terrorists. Theres no magic ratio of deaths that makes civillian casualties "okay".

And neither do they... hence "at first do no harm"

The more telling point might be who broke up the shipment, arrested Haughey and tried him? The British? Somalia barely has a government let alone a strong and independant judiciary and law enforcement agency that can combat terrorist cells within its territory. Pretending Somalia is "just the same" as France or Ireland is deluded to be honest.

Pretending "we" didn't have something to do with the state it's in and then apologizing for the same group going in and willy nilly killing it's inhabitants is something worse than delusional IMHO.

HelterSkelter

Sand wrote:

The more telling point might be who broke up the shipment, arrested Haughey and tried him? The British?

Yeah, the Irish Government did, but they are also the same Government who stood aside and allowed Irish people to burn down the British Embassy.

Zambia

Sand wrote:

Obviously, any countries citizens tend to take priority with the government that represents them but the vast majority of the victims of that cell werent even American.

If there was a hostage situation in New york and six Non-US nationals where held hostage. Would the police treat the situation differently ..No

As I said before there is no excuse for the summary execution of innocents from the air whent there was no imminent threat to lives of other innocents.

Sand wrote:

Wonderful argument. Carrying the logic forward you would ban any sort of surgical procedures?

Killing 27 innocents from the air with an a gatling gun is not a surgical strike, this is not a weapon designed for that use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130_gunship

As I said before why did they not send a team in to eliminate these terrorists on the ground and be sure of the result.

Sand

'Terrorists' are armed civilians, otherwise they would be called soldiers. So if 27 non-uniformed people die, thats 27 civilians. Its possible that they were all involved in terrorist activity, or that none of them were.

Eh, no. If someone picks up a gun and starts shooting, they are no longer civillians, uniformed or otherwise. Someone wearing a nurses uniform wouldnt be a civillian by your definition.

Interestingly I see the BBC have now contradicted themselves as well as Sky News and are now claiming the Somali MP said 27 civillians were killed. And the Somali premier has now said no civillians were killed, that bodies have been recovered. An unamed US figure has claimed that the targeted trio werent among the dead, whilst the US ambassador has also denied that any civillians were killed. Seems to be lucky dip in terms of who or how many were killed.

Actually its from the Hippocratic Oath.

Wow, lucky thing I referenced the contradiction to surgery then isnt it. Fits all the better.

685000 to 3000. Saving lives doesnt seem to be their business.

Havent they got round to putting the figure at 6.85 million yet?

And neither do they... hence "at first do no harm"

All theyre required to do is not to deliberately attack civillians, to only attack what they believe to be valid military targets. The difference between terrorism and military action is that for terrorists, civillians are the target.

Pretending "we" didn't have something to do with the state it's in and then apologizing for the same group going in and willy nilly killing it's inhabitants is something worse than delusional IMHO.

Ah, white mans burden, version 2.0, new and more politically correct.

Yeah, the Irish Government did

So were agreed then. Great.

As I said before why did they not send a team in to eliminate these terrorists on the ground and be sure of the result.

So if they sent in ground troops there would be no civillian casualties? You should memo the Iraqis, theyd be very interested in your views. Any time military action occurs, the possibility of civillian deaths approaches inevitabilty given the firepower flying around and human beings ability to make errors and/or panick. And thats just the guys who dont deliberately shoot civillians.

Manic Moran

Zambia232 wrote:

Killing 27 innocents from the air with an a gatling gun is not a surgical strike, this is not a weapon designed for that use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130_gunship

AC-130 is actually a surprisingly accurate weapon. Anything designed for close air support of friendly troops has to be accurate, otherwise it runs the risk of hitting the very troops you're supposed to be supporting.

NTM

Zambia

Sand wrote:

So if they sent in ground troops there would be no civillian casualties? You should memo the Iraqis, theyd be very interested in your views. Any time military action occurs, the possibility of civillian deaths approaches inevitabilty given the firepower flying around and human beings ability to make errors and/or panick. And thats just the guys who dont deliberately shoot civillians.

No No No thats not what i said , I said a Special operations team not a whole scale invasion of Somalia...However there may be Civilian Casultys but not on the scale that occured unless you sent in a team of cuthroats. It stems from the fact that the US would rather kill several innocents on the off chance of a successful hit. Than risk their own men on the more certain ground option but the possiblity of losing one or two.

The iraq occupation is not a case to quote as that is an elongated occupation.

Manic wrote:

AC-130 is actually a surprisingly accurate weapon. Anything designed for close air support of friendly troops has to be accurate, otherwise it runs the risk of hitting the very troops you're supposed to be supporting.

Yes it is an accurate weapon I grant you that but not to this degree, if i wanted to shoot three scumbags standing outside the GPO. Do you think this is the weapon for the job?

Sand you also mentioned that to the military civilians are collateral damage in order to achieve there objective. Whereas terrorists target civilians as there objectives. I would say its not as black and white as that terrorists inflict civilian casualtys in order to pursue there overall objective like the military. so they to see civilians as collateral damage.

Manic Moran

Zambia232 wrote:

Yes it is an accurate weapon I grant you that but not to this degree, if i wanted to shoot three scumbags standing outside the GPO. Do you think this is the weapon for the job?

The other two options I can think of are a helicopter gunship in the same manner as the Israelis do things, or a UAV with Hellfires, as per the Yemeni strike, both of which also have their disadvantages compared to a Spectre: Speed, noise or sustainability.

NTM