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

kowloon

Can always run at them with a plank with a nail in it, that'll put the $hits up those pesky extremeists!!

Did i mention its a poison nail?:D

Sand

No No No thats not what i said , I said a Special operations team

Yeah, they tried that before - didnt work out so great.

Sand you also mentioned that to the military civilians are collateral damage in order to achieve there objective.

No, I didnt. I said civillian deaths were a terrorist objective, hence the tube train bombings or the madrid bombings and so on. Military forces do not target civillians as a rule and tend to investigate and punish those who do.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Military forces do not target civillians as a rule .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52526195&postcount=41

Frederico

Sand wrote:

Yeah, they tried that before - didnt work out so great.



No, I didnt. I said civillian deaths were a terrorist objective, hence the tube train bombings or the madrid bombings and so on. Military forces do not target civillians as a rule and tend to investigate and punish those who do.

If you are in the military and you kill some civilians and there's a furore about it then you _may_ be investigated and _may_ be punished. The reality is, you can nearly always class it as "collateral damage" or "we were fired upon". So unless you commit a Haditha style bloodbath, then chances are you can get away with popping civilians for fun.


I forget which city it was, but some insurgents took out a US Bradley (troop tank type thing). Within a short time there was Iraqi kids and teenagers and whatnot crawling all over it, there was also an Iraqi camera crew and reporter there. About a minute later, wham, missiles started pounding the scene from a US chopper. The guy doing the report actually died of his wounds later on and there was alot of casualties. Official American military line "we were trying to stop looting", later changed to "we were fired upon".

Anyhow, the US military are pathological liars, whats new, and I can't wait till they win the war on terror - so theres no more terrorism.

Gurgle

Sand wrote:

Eh, no. If someone picks up a gun and starts shooting, they are no longer civillians, uniformed or otherwise.

Yes, but they are now armed and dangerous civilians and can justifiably be shot to protect the unarmed and innocent civilians. Possesion of a gun does not make you a soldier.

Sand wrote:

Someone wearing a nurses uniform wouldnt be a civillian by your definition.

facetious
disingenuous

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.

A soldier operates as an aiming device for his gun as well as it's trigger mechanism. This allows the possibility of choosing not to shoot if the person at the lethal end of the barrel clearly poses no threat.

No bomb has yet been developed which can make this distinction.

sovtek

Sand wrote:

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

In an opposing universe.

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

I suppose so when it gets to that stage.

All theyre required to do is not to deliberately attack civillians, to only attack what they believe to be valid military targets.

NO that is not all they are required to do. Read the relevant part of the Geneva Convention.

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

Ignoring it and apologizing for it ain't gonna make it go away.

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.

that previously referenced quote is coming to mind again.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

The other two options I can think of are a helicopter gunship in the same manner as the Israelis do things,

...because that works so well :rolleyes:

Zambia

Sand wrote:

Yeah, they tried that before - didnt work out so great.

If your quoting the Mogadishu operation portrayed in Black hawk down , then that was actually a success according to the men who went and did it. There objective was a load of high ranking warlord staff who they catured and took. Yes they lost men but that happens in warfare. At least every shot taken was a decision by someone with eyes on knowledge of the threat in front of them. The USD does not have the right to kill civilians in a country that is not at open war with them , for the sake of keeping its own men safe. At the time there was no uproar over how many somalias died that day as there was no indiscriminite fire. That we know of.

Sand wrote:

No, I didnt. I said civillian deaths were a terrorist objective, hence the tube train bombings or the madrid bombings and so on. Military forces do not target civillians as a rule and tend to investigate and punish those who do.

And I said the exact opposite civilian deaths are not a terrorist objective in the larger scheme of things. Case in piont the IRA killed civialians to further the cause of of united Ireland not "just to kill civilians". The Madrid bombings where an attempt to push spain out of the conflict in iraq, which they did. As a good case in piont no more civilians in spain have been targeted by Al Queda.

The US killed 27 civiians trying to kill three bad guys in this case.

Depends on your interpretation of the end justifys the means.

sovtek

Zambia232 wrote:

If your quoting the Mogadishu operation portrayed in Black hawk down , then that was actually a success according to the men who went and did it. There objective was a load of high ranking warlord staff who they catured and took. Yes they lost men but that happens in warfare. At least every shot taken was a decision by someone with eyes on knowledge of the threat in front of them. The USD does not have the right to kill civilians in a country that is not at open war with them , for the sake of keeping its own men safe. At the time there was no uproar over how many somalias died that day as there was no indiscriminite fire. That we know of.

Nevermind that Somalia at the time was also being occupied...ie also not a good correlation.

The US killed 27 civiians trying to kill three bad guys in this case.

Alleged bad guys.

Frank Grimes

sovtek wrote:

Alleged bad guys.

Well they didn't get who they were looking for it seems:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2145150.ece
The FBI still have the main one listed as wanted too.
I'm sure the families of the dead will take comfort in knowing they weren't deliberately killed and died in order to defend "our" freedom.

Zambia

sovtek wrote:

Nevermind that Somalia at the time was also being occupied...ie also not a good correlation.

Alleged bad guys.

The corralation is merely between the use of an airborne cannon that fires either a 7.62 gatling gun or a 20mm bofors into a civilian area. Or a strike force of well trained operatives that is sent the same area to capture them.

So in answer to your question yes I dont mind that Somalia was occupied at the time.

Alleged ,,, granted I will give you the. Piont I am making is the method of dealing with the three men not their innocents or guilt.

Manic Moran

Zambia232 wrote:

The corralation is merely between the use of an airborne cannon that fires either a 7.62 gatling gun or a 20mm bofors into a civilian area. Or a strike force of well trained operatives that is sent the same area to capture them.

40mm bofors. Or maybe the 105mm howitzer. They have a few options.

SpecOps operations such as you advocate cannot be done on the fly as you evidently believe from watching too many Chuck Norris movies, particularly if the intelligence is time-sensitive. Have a think about just how much time and preparation is necessary to get a hit squad to a certain place without having its cover blown. An airstrike is much more feasible, and though it's easier to just drop a laser-guided 500lb bomb on the target, at least an AC-130 makes a smaller bang.

...because that works so well

Um.. it does. Israeli gunship strikes in the Gaza area are pretty common news items.

NTM

Sand

that previously referenced quote is coming to mind again.

That rather irrelevant quote from a medical oath? There is a point where you will support military action, and if youre honest with yourself you will accept that civillians will probably die as a result of that military action. You may for example not support the targeting of terrorist groups in anarchic regions of Somalia but maybe you support the defence of Darfur civillians by military forces. Or maybe you dont. Your "first do no harm" dogma would simply lead to paralysis for fear of making a mistake. Nice for camping out on the high moral ground, but not much else. Not even medical practice.

I suppose so when it gets to that stage.

Which should be about the next US presidential elections..

If your quoting the Mogadishu operation portrayed in Black hawk down , then that was actually a success....The USD does not have the right to kill civilians in a country that is not at open war with them , for the sake of keeping its own men safe.

I'm aware that it was nominally successful, but when I was referring to it not working so great I was referring to the impact on civillians of 18 hours or so of a firefight in their neighbourhood, with automatic weapons, grenades, RPGs, helicopters crashing and gunships strafing streets. AFAIK, theres no accurate body count for either Somali militiamen or Somali civillians for that day - I've seen figures that range from the high hundreds to the low thousands. Whats practically certain is that it would be miraculous if civillians werent killed with all that firepower flying around.

Again, that particular raid was intended to be a quick in and out, but it didnt work out that way. This doesnt bode well for your concept of a team of ninjas sneaking into and out of anarchic, heavily armed Somalia without being caught. Any time, absolutely any time at all military action is carried out you have to accept civillian casualties are practically inevitable.

And I said the exact opposite civilian deaths are not a terrorist objective in the larger scheme of things.

They are what terrorist operations seek though, to murder civillians. Sometimes military forces are targeted, but their stock in trade is people going to work, kids out shopping with their parents or families mourning their dead at rememberance cermonies. Civillians arent a valid military target. I cant really understand why people would try to claim civillians are valid military targets? My Lai was wrong because they targeted civillians, not because their overall objective (defeating the VC) was wrong.

The US killed 27 civiians trying to kill three bad guys in this case.

That figure has jumped all over the shop. The Somalis are now saying that 10 fighters linked to AQ were killed [not including the 3 the US were hoping to get] and 0 civillians.

Yes, but they are now armed and dangerous civilians and can justifiably be shot to protect the unarmed and innocent civilians. Possesion of a gun does not make you a soldier.

Good christ. Civillians have particular rights and protections in warfare. If somebody picks up a gun and takes part in a conflict, they are not a civillian. End of.

A soldier operates as an aiming device for his gun as well as it's trigger mechanism. This allows the possibility of choosing not to shoot if the person at the lethal end of the barrel clearly poses no threat.

No bomb has yet been developed which can make this distinction.

No bullet either. Human beings still retain authority over the targeting and release of bombs though decisions tend to be based more on trust in the accuracy of provided information given the person releasing the bomb often doesnt see the target.

But soldiers with rifles can miss, they can panick, bullets can ricochet or pass through bodies and walls and hit people behind their intended target. They can make errors in judgement like the US soldiers who shot Iraqis who they thought were attacking them when they were apparently only test firing assault rifles into the air, or indeed the US football star who was apparently killed by his own unit in friendly fire in Afghanistan. You can tear their judgement to shreds after the fact, but it highlights that civillians can be killed as a result of soldiers making a bad call in the split-seconds they have to evaluate a perceived threat.

Again, do not kid yourself about the risk of civillian casualties when *any* military action occurs.

Zambia

Manic Moran wrote:

SpecOps operations such as you advocate cannot be done on the fly as you evidently believe from watching too many Chuck Norris movies, particularly if the intelligence is time-sensitive. Have a think about just how much time and preparation is necessary to get a hit squad to a certain place without having its cover blown. An airstrike is much more feasible, and though it's easier to just drop a laser-guided 500lb bomb on the target, at least an AC-130 makes a smaller bang.

So what your saying is the US killed 27 innocents or (non proved combatants) because killing the correct three was just too hard.

Your flippancy is misplaced in this we all know if you dropped Chuck Norris in Somalia there would not be a tick left alive till you reached the Border to Kenya.

I do not percieve to know the time it takes for a special operations team to get to a location. if it takes to long then the target should go free, till they are in a position to do so.

I refuse to believe that you should kill innocents just because they are standing near someone who some goverment believes deserving of summary execution. These 27 people may have 2 parents (54) possibly at least one sibling (54+27= 81). So they have in one attack created 81 possible further terrorists.

If the British goverment killed 27 Irish citizens in an attempt to kill three suspected IRA members what would the result be worldwide, never mind just in Ireland?

Wompa1

I don't think America acts out of greed or evil like alot of posters here seem to be suggesting. I half agree with the person who said that the war is for two reasons, oil and a war on Islam, perhaps it is a war on Islam, Radical Islam for sure anyways but America hasn't got Oil from Iraq in over 10 years and still isn't getting Oil from Iraq, Of Course I'd imagine that will change if the region changes but I don't think it was the whole driving point of the war. As for Islam, they compare non-Islams to cows and justify the murder of non-Islams in Islamic regions simply for not sharing their beliefs..I think the word if Kufour, in honesty I saw that a long time ago and am a little to busy at the moment to look it up.
Anyhow I beleive the majority of Americans and yes even most in the U.S goverment are good people who are doing what they think is right for the world and I for one am greatful, because if they don't do it I don't think anybody will

I think this link is a tell of how American people are, their caring compasionate people, I don't think many other countrymen would bond together as well as American did during the attack on 9/11 and the memorys this audio stirs up reminds me why 'preemptive' strikes against Terrorists, like the one in Somolia are justified: http://www.mancow.com/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0yNjk1JnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzAyJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT05MA==&size=90

Victor

Of note, the 7th World Social Forum will be held from January 20 to 25, in Nairobi, Kenya.

The Americans attacking Somalia are Kenya based.

InFront

Zambia232 wrote:

I refuse to believe that you should kill innocents just because they are standing near someone who some goverment believes deserving of summary execution. These 27 people may have 2 parents (54) possibly at least one sibling (54+27= 81). So they have in one attack created 81 possible further terrorists.

If the British goverment killed 27 Irish citizens in an attempt to kill three suspected IRA members what would the result be worldwide, never mind just in Ireland?

Those are two very good points.

Back in the rather innocent days of my Junior Cert, about 2001, I remember a history teacher (speaking of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence) saying 'guerilla warfare is the hardest method to beat, and it is also the most unreliable for victory'. You can interconvert the the words guerrila warfare and terrorism, they are one and the same.
Now if a middle aged history teacher can teach that to a classroom of yawning 14 year old boys, why can the most advanced military in the world not realise it?

From the Cold war to Iraq, Afghanistan to Vietnam, The USA has a shocking record of creating trouble for themselves. They are keeping true to form with Somalia. If there were ten men in the region who wanted to shoot an American before, there must be a hundred now. Nobody likes the warmonger. They will never realize this as long as they continue their offensive tactics on irrelevant nations.

When the last thread on Somalia began I said that I believed the USA would realize their culpability in the fighting in Somalia and true to form they would either ignore it completely or push for UN Peacekeepers to be sent to the region, especially after the "government" took control. Did anyone expect them to start bombing Somalis?
They hadn't even began indicating a significant enough Al Qaeda presence there to justify bombing. They are still doing nothing to prevent the flow of arms into Somalia, particularly across the Gulf of Aden. Is it not obvious how this is a disaster waiting to happen? Is it not asking for trouble?

As far as I am aware, the last time the USA had significant dealings with Somalia (after Somalia actually came to the UN looking for help) was to blandly vote for the 1992 resolutions and demanded it would not be followed up with a peacekeeping-security presence.
Now on the otherhand, they are pushing in the military, and doing nothing diplomatic whatsoever about those on the ground! It seems to be law without order or else order with no law.

Why did they initially reject the idea of sending in active peacekeepers?
Too expensive. Save face. War with Iraq was bloody
Why are they bombing the place now instead of promoting diplomacy?
Too expensive. Save face. War with Iraq was bloody

I think it's well overdue that Americans who are too lazy to realize what is going on with regard to their own foreign policy woke up and stopped being taken for fools, to be blunt. That that is an overly-optimistic thing to even desire about that country.

Originally posted by wompa1
As for Islam, they compare non-Islams to cows and justify the murder of non-Islams in Islamic regions simply for not sharing their beliefs

I wonder what the possibility of boards installing an automated reply to these statements are?
I have never hard of a Muslim refer to anyone of another religion (well maybe a particularly obstinate female) as "a cow". In fact in Al-Baqara, a chapter of the Qur'an which translates as "The Cow" we are assured that Christians and Jews who believe in the last day and do good deeds should have no fears of Allah. This forum is hardly for theology, interested though I just know you are. So the Qur'an is available here for your benefit and there is an article on Kafir here.

Victor

Wompa1 wrote:

America hasn't got Oil from Iraq in over 10 years and still isn't getting Oil from Iraq,

Ever hear of the "Oil for Food" program? The last oil out of Iraq before the 2003 invasion went to American customers.

Zambia

Wompa1 wrote:

I think this link is a tell of how American people are, their caring compasionate people, I don't think many other countrymen would bond together as well as American did during the attack on 9/11 and the memorys this audio stirs up reminds me why 'preemptive' strikes against Terrorists, like the one in Somolia are justified: QUOTE]

I do not dispute the caring nature of american people and i also have no problem with america taking pre-emptive action to eliminate its ememys. I in no way am an anti-war activist.

However imagine if Somalia went out brought a Gunship flew over a small town in Ohio and unleashed a wave of cannon fire killing 27 citizens and justified it by saying that three residents where feverant anti-Somalians. Oh and then justify it by saying did not trust the Ohio authoritys to arrest the three suspects.

As for saying that many other countrymen wouldnt bond like America did. Lets hope more countries are not put to the test like it.

I took the time to listen to this broadcast.

By the way what sort of a DJ is this minutes after the first plane crashs this twat plays the chilli peppers "Music is my Aeroplane".