The Empire Strikes - "US Launches Air Strikes in Somalia"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

So, does that give Cuba, Russia, Serbia, Somalia, and all the other countries who accuse us having terrorists in the USA the right to declare a "War on Terror" and launch strikes on Miami, New York, and Los Angeles?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_af/somalia_2;_ylt=AlL4oRTy0CNmxAhnTP85ulIE1vAI

WASHINGTON - The U.S. launched a military airstrike in Somalia to go after a group of terrorist suspects, defense officials said Monday.

"It was a deliberate, precise strike against a known terrorist and his associates," one U.S. military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the record.

He gave few other details, except to say the targets were believed staying in building known to be used regularly by terrorist suspects.

In the strike early Monday, Somali police said three missiles hit a Somali town held by Islamic extremists, destroying a home and seriously injuring eight people.

The strike follows one last year in which the U.S. shelled suspected al-Qaida targets in Somalia, using gunfire from a U.S. Navy ship off the shore of the lawless East African nation.

[babylonsister]

1. They've been just itching to bomb someone. I am thoroughly disgusted.

Did they even hit their supposed targets, and did they ask permission first? Was there collateral damage?

[Crooked Moon]

7. is this not obama's stated doctrine?

he has said he would send troops into pakistan to take out terrorist targets, even against the will of, and without the permission of, the government.

[babylonsister]

9. Did these people pose 'a direct threat ' to us?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/20/the-quot-obama-wants-to-bomb-pakistan-quot-lie.aspx

The "Obama Wants to Bomb Pakistan" Lie


Last night John McCain accused Barack Obama of, among other things, having "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." This is a lie.

The basis for it is a foreign policy address Obama made last August, in which he said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Obama was clearly referencing a New York Times story from the previous month, describing how the administration had actionable intelligence about senior al Qaeda leaders, and planned a snatch-and-grab mission, but aborted it at the last second. As the Times reported, "The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda."


Further in the same spech, Obama offered a little more detail about the kind of anti-terrorist mission he envisions:

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same.


There is nothing in Obama's speech, or any other Obama speech, about "bombing" Pakistan. Both implicitly and explicitly, he called for small, Special Operations-type incursions.

Meanwhile, you know who is coming closer to "bombing an ally"? The Bush administration, whose determined prosecution of the war on terror McCain continues to tout. The Washington Post reported -- as it happens, the same day McCain made his smear -- that the CIA launched Hellfire missiles at an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. As the Post noted, "Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval."

So, to review: Obama did not call for bombing Pakistan, ever. Meanwhile the Bush administration is undertaking air attacks against targets in Pakistan. Is this wildly irresponsible? I suppose you could make that case. But McCain isn't interested in an argument about the merits of striking al Qaeda against the costs of undermining Pervez Musharraf. He's just interested in lying about what Obama said in order to portray him as a foreign policy novice.

--Jonathan Chait

[Crooked Moon]

11. He stated:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

[Winterblues]

25. Well you obviously did not listen to him during the last debate.

He said without ambiguity that he would act on reasonable intelligence that said bad guys were operating within another country and it did not matter whether that cou8ntry was agreable to it or not...It is a form of assassination which was illegal until Bush* doctrine of pre-emptive action took effect.

[bdamomma]

16. we will pay.

sadly.:(

[Angela Shelley]

34. There´s nothing sad about paying for intentional destruction.

Sad is when innocent people are blown up by a missile, which was pointed directly at them without them having a clue.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. If it's election time, it must be time to nail bin laden....??? hmmm

[BoneDaddy]

3. If it was a legitimate terror target

I have no problem with it.

[Echo In Light]

4. "Terror target?" You mean Florida?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. So, you'd have no problem with Cuba bombing "legitimate targets" in Miami?

[Echo In Light]

8. No.Def not my point. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

[BoneDaddy]

13. Somalia is not Florida

If it was in the grip of warlords, extreme civil unrest and was training terrorists, I would say yes. Somalia is incredibly unstable and has some major, legitimate terrorist issues.

If you want to question whether it was a legitimate target, sure, I understand that. But if it was, again, I do not have a problem with it.

[Echo In Light]

18. The US has known terrorists in Florida, hence the "target" quip

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1364

[Echo In Light]

23. How America Determines Friends and Foes, by Chomsky

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040314.htm

[Mudoria]

26. Chomsky??

:rofl:

[BoneDaddy]

31. Again, I have no problem with eradicate people who

are plotting terrorist actions against others. I am not apologetic about it. How that is determined and by whom would be suspect, but Clinton and Obama both would have to make that determination as well. Not everything Bushco does is "evil" and if this was a training camp or an arms depot, I cannot disagree.

Now if you want to extend that argument to the US, as a terrorist organization, due to our actions in the world, I would not offer much of a defense. I just don't mind taking out people who would bring harm to others due to their political/religious insanity.

[Angela Shelley]

33. Once again evidence that although information

is available to the people, they still choose to believe that they are more powerful than others.

Did you read what you wrote? ... training camps ... arms depot ... eradicate ... taking out ... political insanity?

You have given a detailed description of the USA.

Please watch your step when entering the bunker.

[BoneDaddy]

37. I am not to sure of what you mean

by your first sentence. Do you think that I think I am more powerful than others? I assure I do not. This is what I struggle with. Many liberals approach situations like this from a perspective that because the US has acted incredibly irresponsibly, in particular, over the past 8 years, then it makes the terrorists the "good guys". It isn't that cut and dry or as naive as that.

[Angela Shelley]

39. Although I can still type, I am speechless when I read

messages stating that it´s in any way OK to simply "take out" those who are not deemed as beneficial to "our" plans. Yes, it´s that vocabulary which leads me to think that you think that the US military has the right to kill people in other countries, at will, just because they can.

"Incredibly irresponsible" is a harmless description of cold blooded murder. This is not an 8 year topic, this has been going on for decades.

"The terrorists" aren´t any better, but they are motivated to protect themselves from the US. "They" don´t hate our freedoms, "they" despise us for dropping bombs on and dispatching missiles towards innocent people whenever "we" see the necessity.

If you are struggling with this issue, then I hope your struggle will be over soon. It´s much easier to understand the daily news once you realize that killing innocent people and supposed terrorists is a crime, one which other countries will not accept forever.

[BoneDaddy]

40. So what should be done

with terrorists who plan on destroying others due to their political/religious agenda?

Whether you like it or not, there are people, for varied reasons, who want to cause as much damage to the United States and other Western nations. I think that BushCo exploited this for their own agenda but because we disagree with Bush does not mean that terrorists do not exist.

What should be done, in your eyes, with terrorist training camps then?

[Angela Shelley]

42. We could start by keeping our own

"terrorists" within our own borders ... see Blackwater, see CIA ... and doing away with our own "terrorist training camps" and stop funding other training camps around the world.

Whether I like it or not, the USA has funded, initiated and motivated terror around the world for the longest time. We do (still) have the right to learn from history and demand that this activity be stopped.

Once the USA wakes up and realizes that the title of Superpower is wishful thinking, things will change.

The US government should concentrate on crime reduction and safety within the borders, and not blame all of the problems on "foreigners". For example, the damage done to the US through predatory lending is higher than any terrorist activity has ever been or ever will be. I would bet that more US citizens have committed suicide because of financial problems in the past 5 years than soldiers who were active in Iraq have.

The internal problems in the US are causing the downfall of society, not the external terrorists.

[BoneDaddy]

43. I do not disagree with many of your points

at all. I do think that you are a bit unfair to put the entirity of society's failings at the doorstep of the US. As much as you are correct in not blaming all of the problems on "foreigners" I think it is, likewise, incorrect to blame the US for the majority of the world's ills.

This is my problem with the "liberal" argument, and I am a liberal for the most part. It supposes that if the US was to behave responsibly, then all the powermongers, tyrants, "evil" doers of the world will suddenly fall into line and behave equally responsible. I don't think that is the reality.

Hopefully, with a Democrat in the office for next year we can begin to address our image and position in the world. For many people, how we behave after the election will determine so much. But Clinton or Obama will still have to deal with those people in the world who still want to cause America harm. What should they do if their intelligence points to a nuclear, chemical program run by people who are clearly our enemies?

I do not like having to use force or bombs to make us safer, but I think that in some cases it is an appropriate response.

[Angela Shelley]

44. Well, we do have some talking to do,

about the concept of "enemies",

but unfortunately, I have to log off.

I´ll catch you tomorrow for further interesting discussion. :-)

[BoneDaddy]

45. Thanks Angela

Be well...ty for a good convo.

[ShaneGR]

50. I don't entirely agre with you, but

I appreciate you having rational discussion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Florida harbors terrorists and is in the grip of a terrorist state.

Which trains terrorists to kill other people.

I question the "legitimacy" of any group, or country, or person, setting out to kill other people. Even for the inevitable "good reason" they always have for doing so.

[BoneDaddy]

38. Okay, fair enough

So, let me ask you this. What should be done with terrorist groups across the world who plan on killing innocent men, women and children? Should they be allowed to plan, plot, stockpile, kill?

Please don't come back with a negative statement about the US, I am quite aware that we are hypocrites. I am asking specifically the question above.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. There are many options other than military.

First, "terrorism" is a tactic, not a movement, ideal, religion, or political party. The Drug Lords in Columbia, Mexico, Peru, (even the United States) use terrorism for their own ends. Yet we refrain from using the military to bomb Tijuana or Cali or Brooklyn to kill those "who plan on killing innocent men, women and children". In fact, in "fighting terrorism", our military has killed far more "innocent men, women and children" than the "terrorists" ever dreamed of.

Should we, for instance, bomb the corporate headquarters of Exxon, Haliburton, or any number of other corporations because, in effect, they are killing innocents?

Let me ask you this. How has "fighting terrorism" through violence worked so far?

[BoneDaddy]

47. Yes, it has

I am not advocating continuing to create situations that lead to continued hate between the US and the middle east. In fact I support opening the discussion with Iran and others. I never claimed it was my first option or my only option. I just voiced support for the use of force when needed. I still believe that too.

It must always be an option. To rule it out would be extremely foolish.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. legitimate infers legal

It is not legal according to international law.

[MaryCeleste]

12. Actually it is under some fairly narrow circumstance

along the line of hot pursuit or prevention of imminent attack. This does not seem to qualify

[The Stranger]

17. No, those circumstances involve being present when a crime is taking place.

And it only constitutes a defense to the crime you have committed.

So the action you take is still a crime, but you may be able to excuse it. Maybe.

[MaryCeleste]

19. I beleive you are mixing criminal law with international law

there are some differences.

[The Stranger]

22. "Hot pursuit" is not from criminal law?

What aspects of international law then?

[BoneDaddy]

49. I wasn't inferring that at all

When reviewing the definition I was more implying that legitimate was used as:
Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
and
Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

[The Stranger]

14. I'm sure you have no problem with it,

unless someone who doesn't like you decides what is "terror" and what is therefore a "legitmate target."

(Hint: That is what the law is for. That is why we have laws.)

[Winterblues]

27. So you believe the Bush* Doctrine of pre-emptive attacks is correct policy?

I do not. I believe we must be attacked first..To presume one guilty before any action is just not American IMO.

[BoneDaddy]

32. I hear what you are saying

and ideally I agree, but I don't think that is how the world works. It is much uglier. I guess what I am saying is that although I think GW Bush is a horrible person and president, that doesn't mean that terrorists are warm and fuzzy. There are some very evil folks in the world who have designs against the innocent others. I don't mind them being taken out.

[Javaman]

10. where, pray tell, was this launched from? nt

[warren pease]

15. My guess: fighter jets or light bombers launched from a carrier based in Diego Garcia. n/t

[MaryCeleste]

28. Several Options

- Submarine or surface launced Tomahawk
- B-52 (The B-2s are grounded)
- Carrier Aircraft (F-18)

My best guess is Tomahawk due to the location of the target.

[CJCRANE]

20. These strikes usually serve

as a distraction from something.

It's right there in the neocon media playbook between "Bin Laden tape" and "terror alert".

[Supersedeas]

24. wonder how well it serves the cause of freedom in that part of the world?

[CJCRANE]

36. Remember the last time they did this?

The last strike on Somalia was about a year ago...here's a newspaper report:

US strikes on Somalia 'missed target'
Friday, 12 January 2007

The US air strike in Somalia missed its main target of three senior al-Qa'ida members, American officials admitted yesterday, as concern continued to grow over the rising numbers of casualties from the conflict.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/us-strikes-on-somalia-missed-target-431803.html

[madokie]

21. This is so wrong

if you know where the sob's are go get them don't be taking innocent peoples lives too. I guess in bushworld there is no innocents, I don't know about anyone else but I am ready for this shit to stop. Here it is early on in 2008 and our country is running around the world bombing and killing, terrorizing the whole damn world. Who's the terrorist I wonder

[spanone]

29. the bu$h* regime strategy: war on so many fronts a warrior will have to be elected

[alfredo]

30. yep, they scored some dangerous women and children.

[Swamp Rat]

41. Yet another war crime committed by the Bushler regime.

[ShaneGR]

48. Was there even a press conference about this from the Lie House?

Haven't seen anything, not sure about the relevance of the target, I remember Clinton doing the same and the Republicans jumped up and down screaming wag the dog.