Speaking of choosing company... All of us have paid taxes to support some incredibly questionable and incredibly deadly moves. Whether you support the Iraq conflict or not (just for example) we are all implicated in the immense civilian casualties. And ditto for whatever civilian casualties took place recently in Somalia. I'm not even suggesting it's not a good cause in this case, or the "right" thing to do, but we shouldn't be lecturing anybody on "choosing their company." I love our country, but from the 1770's* onwards, we've effectively accepted (if not relished) having a lot of blood on our hands. * = please disregard my entire post due to the crucial import of the exact start date of our nation. Thank you for your tolerance and patience.
You could always move abroad if you don't like the idea of paying taxes to a government that you don't agree with. And considering that the actual United States as we know it today was not even formed till the the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, I don't know how you can say since "1770"
yes, that couple that had just gotten married really had it coming! what if some of the warlords we are now supporting were the ones responsible for 'blackhawk down'? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625_pf.html Many of the warlords have their own agendas, Somali officials said, and some reportedly fought against the United States in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead. "The U.S. government funded the warlords in the recent battle in Mogadishu, there is no doubt about that," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told journalists by telephone from Baidoa. "This cooperation . . . only fuels further civil war." i wont post it, but here's a good article from last summer as we were starting to get involved there. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13008291/site/newsweek/
For some reason, all these things make me think of what happened in new Jersey when we tried to save the deer by killing off the wolves. The deer overran the place and wound up eating all the wildlife. There was also that Simpsons episode where Homer introduces one species after another to try to solve an ecological problem.
That video of killing terrorists was awesome. Those cowards tried to run into Mosques and got blown the F up. Then their tunnel system got blown the F up, and they start running out and get picked off one by one. Oh, but I'm sure they were innocent 'newlyweds' who just happen to be hiding out in a tunnel in a terror camp... lol. The professionalism of the military speakers on that video was great. Anyone who says they don't try to avoid collateral damage is proven wrong by that video.
Nobody said that don't try and avoid collateral damage. However that doesn't change the fact that innocents were killed.
tj has a hard time following moderately complex reading material when he is distracted by war p*rn. He confuses reports that a newlywed couple were killed in the Somalia strike yesterday with video of an entirely unrelated attack that occurred much earlier. It's probably hard to concentrate with one hand working feverishly under his desk while he tries to use the mouse and type with other.
The fact that TJ believed the video he saw was the one from the Somalia attack and has shown to have been wrong will probably dicate an even earlier exit than usual for him. He has been disappearing once facts are brought in that don't go his way, and doesn't usually return. He does sometimes last longer in a thread than this, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's done in this one.
I did not confuse the video with the Somalia incident. Nice try though. The argument that the liberals would try to make wouldn't change -- that innocents were killed. Sorry, but if innocent people are hiding in a tunnel in a TERROR CAMP, then they are not innocent. ENGAGE. DIRECT HIT.
They weren't in a tunnel in a terror camp. You might be thinking of the video or something else. There was a village that was hit. Once again you don't know what you are talking about.
So Ethiopia, a country 20 years ago had starving people with flies on their faces, is leading the war on terror? They destroyed the Islamic court in weeks. Maybe we should hire them as muscle in Iraq.
This will be fun, a full day's worth of posts for me to reply to. It's too bad you're worried about what the world thinks about us. Let the world think what they like. The terrorists in Iraq certainly don't think we're arrogant assholes. They think we're soft and care too much about individual life. I didn't say it was cool.... it is a wonder to watch though. Read your next line, it's a known risk. Unless these "innocents" were being taken hostage then it was a conscious choice. no, it doesn't make it alright. it is always unfortunate when somebody dies that doesn't deserve it. there could have been children included with the 30 or so that were killed. would they have had a choice? probably not... but this is collateral damage. it is something you want to keep to a minimum, but to have let the targets go because there were innocents around could have proven far deadlier in the long run. Did you really compare me to osama? If you are referring to this line by him "This is why the American people are not innocent. The American people are active members in all these crimes." then yeah, we are all "guilty". We are Americans. If you don't like that fact, then leave. If I had time, and the desire, I'm sure I could go read your post's and find an equally irrelevant Osama quote to compare it to. However, we do see along the same lines. When you begin to question if you should take a shot or not... you will be the one who ends up dead. Ask any of the guys coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan, or talk to some Vietnam vets. Do what you need to do to ensure your survival. oh, and I don't see along the same lines as Osama... I'd rather have 72 virgins now. It’s unfortunate about that. But neither you nor I know one important thing, could he have been a terrorist? Does this surprise you? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Personally, I don't approve of this strategy. It usually ends bad all the way around (see Iran)... but it shouldn't surprise anyone that we have resorted to these tactics. That article did have some interesting info in it... I liked this quote by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counterterrorism official, "Everything is tactical with this administration: catching a guy, catching a guy. I don't see that anyone has thought about the strategic issue of losing support." And I'm very disturbed by the fact that so many people are afraid to admit the realities of war. Innocent people die. It’s tragic that these people probably had nothing at all to do with it, but so go the sorrows of war.
It is not a concious choice to be near the terrorists. Criminals live in your city, probably in your neighborhood. You aren't choosing to be near them. It just happened. If the police decided to bomb them, it would be ashamed that you got killed. I certainly hope someone wouldn't be silly enough to say that it happened because you chose to be near the criminals. I understand that innocent civilians will die in war time combat. I am not even saying that the U.S. shouldn't have gone after these terrorists. I am saying that the innocents who died because of that didn't have it coming because of anything of their choosing. It isn't irrelevant. Your logic for why it is ok for innocents to die is the same. [/QUOTE]
I don't think I have ever seen such a large collection of idiotic statements in one post before. There's no consistency, glaring naivety, defensive posturing, logical flaws and a wondrous amount of spite. Sheesh.
the way I read the attack, the deceased were running (rightly so, from the gunfire) through the forest and swamps. not in a neighborhood. until all details are released as to whom each of the deceased was, neither you nor I can say if they deserved it. it's pretty unlikely to happen though. you're right, they didn't have it coming, and I thought I made it clear that I agree with you. it is unfortunate that they were killed, if indeed they were innocent. no, he wants us all dead. I don't want them all dead. I would prefer us to do it cleanly and not kill anybody that isn't necessary. you really shouldn't speak about yourself like that... it's not healthy. sheesh.
from that bastion of lib-queda pigism, the drudgereport. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e629d56a-a18b-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html Somalia strike ‘missed al-Qaeda targets’ By Andrew England in Cairo Published: January 11 2007 18:40 | Last updated: January 11 2007 18:40 The controversial US air strike in southern Somalia missed all three top al-Qaeda members Washington alleges are hiding out in the country, a senior US official said on Thursday. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said eight to 10 “al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists” were killed in Monday’s attack, but gave no details. On Tuesday the Pentagon confirmed that an AC130 aircraft was used to target “the principal al-Qaeda leadership in the region”. The attack marked the first overt US military intervention in the Horn of Africa nation since its doomed invasion in the 1990s. The strike was criticised by the European Commission, as well as the Arab League which claimed it had killed “many innocent victims” and demanded that Washington refrain from further attacks. There were no accurate casualty figures. Washington’s main accusation against a Somali Islamist movement was that it was sheltering three al-Qaeda members wanted in connection with the 1998 US embassy attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and 2002 attacks in Kenya. The air strike was launched after an Ethiopian-led offensive forced the Islamists to abandon their major strongholds and flee south towards Somalia’s border with Kenya. Ethiopia, an important US ally in the region, deployed thousands of troops into its Muslim neighbour and backs the weak Somali transitional government. The Islamists alliance, which had controlled much of southern Somalia before Ethiopia’s offensive, denied having any links to terrorism Observers say the US strike and the presence of Ethiopian forces in Somalia could increase the unpopularity of the Somali administration and help stoke a potential insurgency. But a more immediate concern is attempting to ensure that the transitional administration, which has little legitimacy or credibility among many Somalis, begins a process of genuine reconciliation. If not, the country is likely to remain in chaos and violence, observers say. The 15 years of lawlessness was a key reason for the US to consider Somalia a potential haven for terrorists. Faction leaders defeated by the Islamists have already begun moving back to Mogadishu, and the government was forced to abandon a plan to disarm clan militias. “Ethiopia has to withdraw, the US has to stop its engagement and the government’s leadership has to offer real reconciliation which it is extremely reluctant to do and is very difficult to achieve,” said one western diplomat. “What is hindering this is the presence of Ethiopian troops and, more importantly, the arrogance of the government.” Since it was formed two years ago at an UN-backed conference, divisions have racked the government, which is led by Abdullahi Yusuf, the president and a veteran warlord. Before Ethiopia launched its offensive, it had little influence outside of the central town of Baidoa and it is deeply unpopular among the important Hawiye clan that dominates Mogadishu, the capital. The 275-member parliament and the government are supposed to represent Somalia’s complex clan system, but Hawiye claim that Ethiopia and its allied Somali faction leaders handpicked its representatives, including the prime minister. The administration’s security is dependent on the presence of Ethiopian forces and it has few means of generating revenue – the European Commission, the UK, Sweden and Norway fund MPs monthly sitting allowances ranging from $1,000 to $1,500. Donors also provide financing in other areas, including establishing a new police force, transport and refurbishing buildings. The debate among donors is whether to pour more funds into the administration in the hope that it produces benefits and encourages the government to broaden its base or whether its support should be dependent on conditions. Days before its air strike, the US announced it would provide $40m to Somalia in political, humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance. Other diplomats want to see a more cautious approach. “We want to say you must address the political situation or we will not stand by you, we must use the stick and carrot,” said one western diplomat. Another diplomat said it was time the international community took risks in a bid to make the transitional institutions effective. “We have no option but to give the transitional government our support and take a leap of faith that it will deliver,” he said.
