|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 9, 2007 3:02:32 GMT -5
The U.S. military launched a strike against several suspected members of al-Qaida in Somalia, a government official said Monday night.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the operation's sensitivity, said at least one AC-130 gunship was used in the attack.
CNN, NBC and CBS first reported the military action. Citing Pentagon officials, CBS said the targets included the senior al-Qaida leader in East Africa and an al-Qaida operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
The same operatives are also believed responsible for a 2002 attack on Israeli tourists in Kenya and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli aircraft the same day, NBC News reported.
The 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 250 people. The 2002 attack on an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya killed 15.
The White House on Monday night would not confirm the incident. Air Force Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, said he could neither confirm nor deny the reports of an airstrike.
Meanwhile, the Bahrain-based U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet announced Tuesday that "due to rapidly developing events in Somalia," the U.S. Central Command has sent the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower to join three other warships in the coastal waters of Somalia.
It was not immediately clear whether any aircraft from those ships were involved in the attacks on the al-Qaida targets. It also was not clear whether any of the targets were killed.
The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, reported that one of the targets was embassy bombing suspect Abu Talha al Sudani. Somalia's deputy defense minister Salad Ali Jelle told reporters last week that al Sudani had led Islamic militiamen in a battle with government troops in which 10 people were killed.
AP 1-9
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 9, 2007 20:45:34 GMT -5
can we really afford to carry on with the war on terror and the two occupations we have going on right now? I'm thinking hell no!
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 10, 2007 11:02:08 GMT -5
wtf: can we really afford to carry on with the war on terror and the two occupations we have going on right now? I'm thinking hell no!
It's that reasoning that explains why it was an air attack. I doubt that anyone wishes to invade and occupy Somolia. Somolia is another area that's in Civil War. I have read that the US has quietly backed the "government" which is fighting against Islamist elements. The Somoli government only recently gained control of the Capital, so it's authority is limited to certain areas.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 10, 2007 15:17:24 GMT -5
wtf: can we really afford to carry on with the war on terror and the two occupations we have going on right now? I'm thinking hell no! It's that reasoning that explains why it was an air attack. I doubt that anyone wishes to invade and occupy Somolia. Somolia is another area that's in Civil War. I have read that the US has quietly backed the "government" which is fighting against Islamist elements. The Somoli government only recently gained control of the Capital, so it's authority is limited to certain areas. well I see your point about the occupation of somolia, but we really can't afford to be making no more enemies... Plus even them airstrikes cost a fortune... I'm starting to get the impression here we are trying to police the world, and I for one don't want that responsibility...
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 11, 2007 7:05:54 GMT -5
wtf: well I see your point about the occupation of somolia, but we really can't afford to be making no more enemies... Plus even them airstrikes cost a fortune... I'm starting to get the impression here we are trying to police the world, and I for one don't want that responsibility...
I'm not worried about making more enemies. That is inevitable anyway, no matter what we do.
Our resources are stretched. I don't think we can afford to occupy yet another nation. I'll second your notion about the cost of the airstrikes, that's a good point.
I wonder what gives you the impression that the US government views itself as the global enforcer? Could it be Panama? Or was it Granada, or The Balkans, or Haiti, or Iraq, et cetera and ect? I think I made my point.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 13, 2007 11:32:43 GMT -5
it was afganistan then iraq that is giving the impression we are trying to become a global enforcer... and the thought has entered my mind that perhaps they want to build up iraq now with more troops so they can march right into iran, what says you?
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 14, 2007 7:56:59 GMT -5
wtf: it was afganistan then iraq that is giving the impression we are trying to become a global enforcer... and the thought has entered my mind that perhaps they want to build up iraq now with more troops so they can march right into iran, what says you?
One could have gotten that impression before Afghanistan and Iraq. We have become the Global enforcer, until we get rid of the two dominant parties.
Your theory is very possible, but the Sunni vs Shi'ite aspect of this complicates the matter. The Balance of power has swung to the Shi'ites in Iraqand I doubt they would be very willing invade Iran, a Shi'ite state.
I'm more worried about Shi'ite factions getting real control of Iraq and joining with Iran, to combat US and UK meddling.
Then again, I'm just tossing thoughts too.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 16, 2007 21:18:18 GMT -5
mercy this is one messed up situation...
how about this the establishment could of made sure the shi'ites got control of iraq, so when we invade iran we can say we don't hate them we gave them control of iraq... LoL ya never know!
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 17, 2007 3:17:14 GMT -5
wtf: how about this the establishment could of made sure the shi'ites got control of iraq, so when we invade iran we can say we don't hate them we gave them control of iraq... LoL ya never know!
Lmao, I wouldn't put it past the morons. Nor would I put it past the morons who keep re-electing the morons.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 17, 2007 21:33:43 GMT -5
me either!
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 17, 2007 23:48:27 GMT -5
Check this out Lee.
KHARTOUM, Sudan (Reuters) -- Sudan on Wednesday summoned the senior U.S. diplomat in Khartoum after it said American troops raided the Sudanese Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, violating diplomatic conventions, a foreign ministry spokesman said.
In Baghdad, U.S. spokesman Christopher Garver denied U.S. troops had raided the Sudanese Embassy, which is near the airport road where many bombs have targeted troops and convoys.
"Nine American soldiers in four military vehicles forcibly went into the embassy after overpowering the guards and searched the embassy offices inside," said Ali al-Sadig, Sudan's foreign ministry spokesman.
The embassy has been officially closed for more than a year after Sudanese diplomats were targeted in attacks by insurgents in an effort to get Arab states to withdraw diplomatic representation in Iraq.
But al-Sadig said two Sudanese guards still worked at the embassy.
Garver said he had no knowledge of any such raid.
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 17, 2007 23:50:13 GMT -5
I guess we can add The Sudan to our list of Clients. If it wasn't for terror, it would be to prevent genocide, another one of our favorite excuses to meddle in other nation's affairs.
The US government thinks it's the Mike Hammer of the world. Lmao
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 18, 2007 22:24:36 GMT -5
I guess we can add The Sudan to our list of Clients. If it wasn't for terror, it would be to prevent genocide, another one of our favorite excuses to meddle in other nation's affairs. The US government thinks it's the Mike Hammer of the world. Lmao I'll tell ya I wouldn't put it past them, and it needs to stop... how can we expect other countries to follow the rules when we are the first ones breaking all the rules? like north korea or iran for an example how can we tell them to knock their crap off when we just invaded a nation for darn reason? if you ask me north korea and iran has every right in the world to do whatever it takes to defend theirselves from anyone... I just don't get it!
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 19, 2007 10:08:40 GMT -5
There's a politics friend out of undernet. He says that iraq is the Republican boondoggle, Iran will be the Democrats. I'm like, on what basis do you make this prediction? He says it's a hunch, "all the buzzards fly in the same circle" is his words. "Just watch" was his confident summation on the subject. I have no reason to expect the Democrats to invade Iran. It would make no sense and would seriously further complicate the situation in Iraq was my response. He counters, you assume a solution is the goal, why? Well, good question. Looking at the results of decades of effort for so called peace, you wonder what the real goal of every side of this really is.
The US thinks it's version of Democracy is the superior way. To a degree it is superior. Still, that doesn't overrule the will of the culture and people in the relevant area. In other words, if a group of people prefer to live in trees and worship bovine, who are we to tell them they have to live the way we think is superior or best?
Jesus, now I'm rambling.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 20, 2007 21:36:57 GMT -5
There's a politics friend out of undernet. He says that iraq is the Republican boondoggle, Iran will be the Democrats. I'm like, on what basis do you make this prediction? He says it's a hunch, "all the buzzards fly in the same circle" is his words. "Just watch" was his confident summation on the subject. I have no reason to expect the Democrats to invade Iran. It would make no sense and would seriously further complicate the situation in Iraq was my response. He counters, you assume a solution is the goal, why? Well, good question. Looking at the results of decades of effort for so called peace, you wonder what the real goal of every side of this really is. The US thinks it's version of Democracy is the superior way. To a degree it is superior. Still, that doesn't overrule the will of the culture and people in the relevant area. In other words, if a group of people prefer to live in trees and worship bovine, who are we to tell them they have to live the way we think is superior or best? Jesus, now I'm rambling. LMAO you might be rambling but I totally agree, we are far from perfect to demand anyone lives like us... I'm thinking the politicians need to visit the poor and middle class areas of america more often myself... I really don't think they have a clue!
|
|