Somalis: U.S. strike kills suspect in '98 embassy bombings (1 Viewer)

[Vader]

Somalis: U.S. strike kills suspect in '98 embassy bombings

KISMAYO, Somalia (CNN) -- A U.S.-led airstrike in Somalia has killed the suspected orchestrator of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa, Somali officials said Wednesday.

However, U.S. officials would not confirm that al Qaeda's Fazul Abdullah Mohammed had been killed or American involvement in the airstrikes.

Backed by U.S. air support, Ethiopian and Somali government forces battled Islamist fighters and al Qaeda operatives Wednesday in the southern town of Dhobley near the Kenyan border, according to Col. Abdirizaq Afgadud, a senior Somali military commander, and Abdirashid Hidig, a lawmaker.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/10/somalia.strike/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice has been served!!!

The world now has one less terrorist to worry about.

:applaud:july_4th:

 

[jujuman13]

Except they did not kill this AQ guy.
They now admit to killing some otherwise innocent herdsmen.
Although they try to mitigate this by suggesting that these herdsmen were possibly (NOT definitely, NOT probably) giving shelter to some AQ operatives, but there again without one single shred of evidence.
Putting out stories like this, only to have to backtrack is incredibly stupid, all it serves to do is to deepen distrust in whatever Government says.
They really must do better with their claims.
Either be accurate or say nothing.

 

[Makhno]

Justice has been served!!!

The world now has one less terrorist to worry about.

I'm sure the families of the 30 or something victims killed in this idiotic attack would agree with you . . . :roll:

 

[Vader]

I'm sure the families of the 30 or something victims killed in this idiotic attack would agree with you . . . :roll:

What you and juju fail to realize is that those people aided and abedded a terrorist asshat. Therefore, there were guilty of aiding terrorism. At the very least THEY MADE THEMSELVES TARGETS by providing aid and comfort to known terrorists.

As usual ... you two terrorist symapthizers need to stop supporting murderers and start recognizing who is really at fault here.

:shock:

 

[Morrow]

I never really understood the use of air strikes to kill someone. Knowing when and where to hit requires people, even if they are local informants, on the ground. Wouldn't a sniper be a lot more effective? I suppose not as safe for the sniper.

 

[Vader]

I never really understood the use of air strikes to kill someone. Knowing when and where to hit requires people, even if they are local informants, on the ground. Wouldn't a sniper be a lot more effective? I suppose not as safe for the sniper.

Yes, it would be, but it's difficult to find a sniper capable of blending into such an enviornment.

Additionally, sending somebody on such a mission is almost certainly sending them to their death. The cold war is over now so such suicide missions are really not common practice in the present day ... except in extremist-dominated islamic countries.

:doh

 

[Makhno]

What you and juju fail to realize is that those people aided and abedded a terrorist asshat. Therefore, there were guilty of aiding terrorism. At the very least THEY MADE THEMSELVES TARGETS by providing aid and comfort to known terrorists.



:shock:

Ahem, they were suspected, of aiding him . . .

And no, they did not make themselves targets; the killing of civilians is never justified.

As usual ... you two terrorist symapthizers need to stop supporting murderers and start recognizing who is really at fault here.

More doublethinking nonsense.

 

[Red_Dave]

Yes, it would be, but it's difficult to find a sniper capable of blending into such an enviornment.

Additionally, sending somebody on such a mission is almost certainly sending them to their death. The cold war is over now so such suicide missions are really not common practice in the present day ... except in extremist-dominated islamic countries.

:doh

Why not help the somali government take them out thus reduceing civillian causualties?

 

[Vader]

Why not help the somali government take them out thus reduceing civillian causualties?

It's been tried. The people in the countries have been indoctrinated with hate for so long that they are not able to see past it.

Morever, people in these countries are often not willing to undertake such missions. This is to be expected because their religon governs so much of thier lives.

I wouldn't want to be asked to do something of this type.

:roll:

 

[Red_Dave]

It's been tried. The people in the countries have been indoctrinated with hate for so long that they are not able to see past it.

Morever, people in these countries are often not willing to undertake such missions. This is to be expected because their religon governs so much of thier lives.

I wouldn't want to be asked to do something of this type.

:roll:

I doubt the somali government has been indoctrinated into islamism. Surely the fact its been fighting a war against the islamic courts union would prove otherwise? Even if the bombing of somalia was not an apalling waste of life its at least a tactical error. Killing civillians only fuels the enemys arguments.

 

[PoliticalActivist]

Oh Damn 1998?? Geez 9 years ago. This is 2007 not 1998. According to my global map that I made the United States government is involved in 10 different countries, and there's no way that none of you can tell me that Bush don't think he's a GOD. What is the purpose of the United Nations, and why the UN don't oversee these other countries conflicts and Wars?

These so-called air strikes do not mean that they are hitting the right targets,
but to me it shows how the US plays the hoping game, and in most cases the hoping game costs many innocent people their lives. Are we going to be the country that say to other countries.....start **** and we will fight for you?

This is what it seems like is happening in the White House to me.

 

[Vader]

I doubt the somali government has been indoctrinated into islamism. Surely the fact its been fighting a war against the islamic courts union would prove otherwise? Even if the bombing of somalia was not an apalling waste of life its at least a tactical error. Killing civillians only fuels the enemys arguments.

The Somalian governemnt backed the strike. The appreciated our assistance in dealing with their enemies.

 

[Vader]

Oh Damn 1998?? Geez 9 years ago. This is 2007 not 1998. According to my global map that I made the United States government is involved in 10 different countries, and there's no way that none of you can tell me that Bush don't think he's a GOD. What is the purpose of the United Nations, and why the UN don't oversee these other countries conflicts and Wars?

These so-called air strikes do not mean that they are hitting the right targets,
but to me it shows how the US plays the hoping game, and in most cases the hoping game costs many innocent people their lives. Are we going to be the country that say to other countries.....start **** and we will fight for you?

This is what it seems like is happening in the White House to me.

In this case, we had a common enemy.

 

[Red_Dave]

The Somalian governemnt backed the strike. The appreciated our assistance in dealing with their enemies.

How does that defeat my argument that civillian causualties should have been limited?

 

[Vader]

How does that defeat my argument that civillian causualties should have been limited?

Those people chose to associate with a known terrorist. The provided him with aid and comfort. Therefore, they were guilty of supporting terrorism. Because of this fact, the really cannot be considered "civilian" casualties.

They because terrorists when they provided material aid to a terrorist.

 

[Red_Dave]

Those people chose to associate with a known terrorist. The provided him with aid and comfort. Therefore, they were guilty of supporting terrorism. Because of this fact, the really cannot be considered "civilian" casualties.

They because terrorists when they provided material aid to a terrorist.

That had nothing to do with your previous statement but nevermind.

So one can be guilty by asociation? or "gulity by postcode" so to speak? Im sure those living next door to you [if aplicable] do things they shouldnt but that doesnt make you guilty.

Even if that made sence morally it doesnt tactically. Hence why islamists are useing the recent bombings in there properganda. If those whoose homes and cattle where destroyed by the bombings where not sympathetic to the terroists they will be now.

 

[Vader]

That had nothing to do with your previous statement but nevermind.

So one can be guilty by asociation? or "gulity by postcode" so to speak? Im sure those living next door to you [if aplicable] do things they shouldnt but that doesnt make you guilty.

Even if that made sence morally it doesnt tactically. Hence why islamists are useing the recent bombings in there properganda. If those whoose homes and cattle where destroyed by the bombings where not sympathetic to the terroists they will be now.

Have you stopped to consider that some of those people, whoose homes were damaged in the strike, were and probably still are providing material aid and support to the terrorists that were hiding there?

 

[Red_Dave]

Have you stopped to consider that some of those people, whoose homes were damaged in the strike, were and probably still are providing material aid and support to the terrorists that were hiding there?

I think the key word here is "some" and "probably" what evidence is there of this?

If ,by some misfortune, you lived next door to a terroist would it be ok to kill you because you might have been giveing them assistance?

 

[Vader]

I think the key word here is "some" and "probably" what evidence is there of this?

If ,by some misfortune, you lived next door to a terroist would it be ok to kill you because you might have been giveing them assistance?

If I lived next door to a terrorist, I would report him to the authorties so that he couldn't hurt anybody.

The people of whom we speak chose to invite the terrorists to dinner. They knew who he was and they could've reported him to the authorities. If not that, they could've ask him to leave the area.

They chose to allow him to remain in the area. I am sorry for their loses; however, the consequences of aiding a terrorist must be perfectly clear.

Remember... they had a choice ... and they chose to house a terrorist.

 

[Red_Dave]

If I lived next door to a terrorist, I would report him to the authorties so that he couldn't hurt anybody.

The people of whom we speak chose to invite the terrorists to dinner. They knew who he was and they could've reported him to the authorities. If not that, they could've ask him to leave the area.

They chose to allow him to remain in the area. I am sorry for their loses; however, the consequences of aiding a terrorist must be perfectly clear.

Remember... they had a choice ... and they chose to house a terrorist.

Well thats all based on the assumption that

[A] They knew: many of those effected by the bombing where nomads
Those living nearby didnt alert the authorities: The U.S must have got the information somehow
[C] There where authorities to alert that would do something: We are talking about southern Somalia.
[D]Those concerned knew they where going to be bomed.

 

[Vader]

Well thats all based on the assumption that

[A] They knew: many of those effected by the bombing where nomads
Those living nearby didnt alert the authorities: The U.S must have got the information somehow
[C] There where authorities to alert that would do something: We are talking about southern Somalia.
[D]Those concerned knew they where going to be bomed.

[A] --- I am sorry for the nomads..... but in warfare innocents always get hurt.

After giving this some thought, I don't think it would've mattered either way. Bombing his house is safer and less risky than sending troops in to arrest him. Although, I prefer a less violent solution, I don't think it was safe or feasible to send the "police" to arrest him.

[C] You have a good point here. I doubt the authorties would do anything.

[D] I don't agree with you here because even the somalis know what happens to terrorists. They chose to harbor a terrorist knowing that is was a bad idea.

:2razz: