US Somali air strikes 'kill many'

Byrnzie

Tuesday, 9 January 2007, 10:59 GMT

US Somali air strikes 'kill many'


The US is carrying out further air strikes in southern Somalia against Islamist fighters, who the US believes include members of an al-Qaeda cell.

The targets were reported to have been tracked by aerial reconnaissance and then attacked by a US gunship launched from a US military base in Djibouti.

The US says Somali Islamists sheltered al-Qaeda operatives linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa.

The Somali transitional government says many people were killed in the raid.

The air strikes took place a few days after the Union of Islamic Courts, which had taken control of much of central and southern Somalia during the past six months, was routed by soldiers from Ethiopia and Somalia's transitional government.

Location of militias and US Navy patrols
The US accused the Islamists of having links to al-Qaeda - charges they denied.

Witnesses told the BBC Somali service that the town of Afmadow was being bombed on Tuesday.

Afmadow is 250km north of Ras Kamboni, close to the Kenyan border, which was hit by air strikes on Monday afternoon.

"My 4-year-old boy was killed in the strike," Mohamed Mahmud Burale told the AP news agency from near Afmadow.

The US has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

Somali interim president
Abdullahi Yusuf


US fears Somali 'terror' ties
Fact file: AC-130 gunship

AP says three other civilians have been killed but these reports have not been independently verified.

There has been no official confirmation from the Pentagon that the air strikes took place, but correspondents say a statement is expected within hours.

"So many dead people were lying in the area. We do not know who is who, but the raid was a success," interim government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told AFP news agency about Monday's raids.

"The target was a small village called Badel where the terrorists were hiding. And the gunship did hit on the exact target," he said, adding that Somali and Ethiopian troops were nearby.

Another village, Hayo, was also targeted.

The bombing is the first overt military action by the US in Somalia since 1994, the year after 18 US troops were killed in Mogadishu.

The attack was carried out by an Air Force AC-130, a heavily-armed gunship that has highly effective detection equipment and can work under the cover of darkness.

After fierce fighting, Ethiopian and Somali forces said on Monday that they were on the verge of capturing Ras Kamboni, one of the Islamist's last strongholds, where many fighters were dug in.

Many other Islamist fighters are in hiding across the country.

Somalia's interim President Abdullahi Yusuf backed the US action.

"The US has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," he said in Mogadishu, a day after entering the city for the first time since the Islamists withdrew.

The BBC's Adam Mynott in Nairobi says the attack seemed to be an opportunistic attempt by the US to destroy an al-Qaeda cell that they had been tracking for some time.

HAVE YOUR SAY
"They can all leave us alone, we Somalis already have a full plate when it comes to wars"
Maheran Man, Melbourne, Australia

The cell is accused of responsibility for the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, and Dar Es Salaam, in Tanzania.

More than 250 people died in the two attacks.

The US also holds the same group responsible for attacks on an Israeli aircraft and Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya in 2002, in which 15 people died.

Meanwhile, the US military said on Tuesday it had sent an aircraft carrier to join three other US warships conducting anti-terror operations off the country's coast.

Byrnzie

Good old Uncle Sam at it again. I wonder what the real reasons behind this latest aggression are? I wonder if the fact that the targets were Islamists had anything to do with it? Was this attack backed by international law or is the U.S again acting unilaterally and illegally?

"The US says Somali Islamists sheltered al-Qaeda operatives linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa."

I wonder if the U.S will ever be held to account for bombing a medical facility in Sudan in 1998, the consequences of which have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands?
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980824/1998082416.html

even flow?

Send in the troops! Send in the troops!

miller8966

Cause the world would be alot safer with islamic fundamentalists in charge

Byrnzie

miller8966 wrote:

Cause the world would be alot safer with islamic fundamentalists in charge

What, safer than with Bush at the helm you mean?

mammasan

miller8966 wrote:

Cause the world would be alot safer with islamic fundamentalists in charge

No it wouldn't but that doesn't mean that the way we are currently attempting to stop Militant Islamic Fundamentalism is working. Brute military force is not the answer.

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

Good old Uncle Sam at it again. I wonder what the real reasons behind this latest aggression are?

I saw bits of this last night - when the information was still new. There are a lot of interesting developments and possibilities going on here. A couple weeks ago (maybe 10 days), Ethiopia helped Somalia's president and armed forces "chase" islamic fundamentalists out of the capital city of Mogadeshu (sp?). Yesterday marked the first time Somalia's president stepped inside the capital in forty years. Then came the airstrikes. Ostesibly, we bombed al-Queda as they were on the run, I assume. But get this - Ethiopia is helping out - and geographically Ethiopia is between Somalia and the Sudan. We set up shop in Somalia (on the coast - just where we like it), Ethiopia allows us to move through, and we push into Darfur.

A massive political development in Somalia on the same day we launch air-strikes? I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a staging operation.

NCfan

Byrnzie wrote:

Good old Uncle Sam at it again. I wonder what the real reasons behind this latest aggression are? I wonder if the fact that the targets were Islamists had anything to do with it? Was this attack backed by international law or is the U.S again acting unilaterally and illegally?

"The US says Somali Islamists sheltered al-Qaeda operatives linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa."

I wonder if the U.S will ever be held to account for bombing a medical facility in Sudan in 1998, the consequences of which have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands?
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980824/1998082416.html

You would criticize the US no matter what we do. I mean, what are you trying to say here, that we just wanted to bomb some people for the hell of it? That is your mindset. You think the US just murders people for no good reason. Like our pilots were saying.. "hey guys, there's a four-year-old, let's kill that little fucker, that would be fun!".

Byrnzie

RainDog wrote:

I saw bits of this last night - when the information was still new. There are a lot of interesting developments and possibilities going on here. A couple weeks ago (maybe 10 days), Ethiopia helped Somalia's president and armed forces "chase" islamic fundamentalists out of the capital city of Mogadeshu (sp?). Yesterday marked the first time Somalia's president stepped inside the capital in forty years. Then came the airstrikes. Ostesibly, we bombed al-Queda as they were on the run, I assume. But get this - Ethiopia is helping out - and geographically Ethiopia is between Somalia and the Sudan. We set up shop in Somalia (on the coast - just where we like it), Ethiopia allows us to move through, and we push into Darfur.

A massive political development in Somalia on the same day we launch air-strikes? I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's a staging operation.

Makes sense. They certainly weren't doing it to help the Somalians on the ground, who they couldn't give a fuck about.

Edit: Check this out: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FLO20060606&articleId=2592

even flow?

NCfan wrote:

You would criticize the US no matter what we do. I mean, what are you trying to say here, that we just wanted to bomb some people for the hell of it? That is your mindset. You think the US just murders people for no good reason. Like our pilots were saying.. "hey guys, there's a four-year-old, let's kill that little fucker, that would be fun!".

As plausable as all the posts about the nasty Islamists in the world. It is the US military after all. Guess you have to not live there to realise what the world sees, eh!

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

You would criticize the US no matter what we do. I mean, what are you trying to say here, that we just wanted to bomb some people for the hell of it? That is your mindset. You think the US just murders people for no good reason. Like our pilots were saying.. "hey guys, there's a four-year-old, let's kill that little fucker, that would be fun!".

No. I didn't say that U.S forces just wanted to bomb some people for the hell of it. Try reading what i post.
As for criticizing the U.S no matter what you do. I've criticized the liars and muderers in the White House. Please explain how that equates to criticizing the U.S?

NCfan

mammasan wrote:

No it wouldn't but that doesn't mean that the way we are currently attempting to stop Militant Islamic Fundamentalism is working. Brute military force is not the answer.

The thing is... we haven't come close to using our "brute force" to stop militant Islam. Yes, we invaded Iraq. But, our troops there are pussyfooting around. For instance, last year we surrounded the militant leader Al-Sadr. But after about a week of international outcry that our seige of Sader city was wreaking havoc on the population, we pulled back and let the fucker go.

Now, he has formed one of the largest militias in Iraq. He and his thugs are responsible for a large portion of the sectarian killings going on now - which is for the most part, the reason for the political and economic instability that is keeping the country from stabilizing.

And so now Sadr has used the US pullback as a massive propaganda victory. He knows he is untouchable by the US now. He uses this victory to show his followers that the US is weak, that we have no back-bone. This creates HUGE momentum for his cause and lifts morale and recruitment through the fucking roof.

In other words, we went from being able to kill that son of a bitch and most of his followers to letting him go, and therefore letting him create one of the largest and most destructive forces in Iraq that is tearing the country apart right now.

So, the case can be made that while we do have troops in the battlefield with the mission of defeating Islamic militants - our tactics are soft, and interpreted as weak by our enemies. And so people sream and shout that the US is brutal and our harsh military presence is only making things worse. But in reality, our military presence has been miss-used and is actually hurting our cause becuase we use too much restraint trying to appease everybody.

The case can be made that if we went in there and showed no quater to our enemies from the start, we may have defeated their will to fight. If we showed them that they had absolutely no chance to win - then we could have destroyed their morale and prevented this chaos from ever getting a foothold on the country. So, I guess I'm trying to say that it is plausible that brute military force can defeat militant Islam, but since we haven't used it so far we don't know.

The problem is Bush didn't have the balls to do this job like it should have been done.....

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

Makes sense. They certainly weren't doing it to help the Somalians on the ground, who they couldn't give a fuck about.

Edit: Check this out: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FLO20060606&articleId=2592

Interesting.

Still, there's some crazy mean-ass shit going on in Darfur. Even if the right and the left believe it needs to be stopped for different reasons - it still needs to be stopped, in my opinion. Personally, though, I have no detailed solution as to how.

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

The problem is Bush didn't have the balls to do this job like it should have been done.....

Get this. I agree with you. At the onset of this war, we should have openly anhilated Iraq. We should have reached our current death toll in the first few months. We should have let them know that WE are the last word on aggression.

But, then, I never supported this war; because I knew what it would take for "victory" - and in my opinion it wasn't worth it - and I knew that we as a country (not just Bush) don't have the "balls" to do it. So I knew from the beginning exactly where we'd be right now.

However, if Bush had been honest/open to what needed to be done, he never would have gotten support for this invasion - and we wouldn't be there right now. Bush didn't pussy-foot around - Bush sold us the only war we'd buy. Truth is, this is the only war we could get; and, damn-it, we were gettin' war come hell or high water.

Kann

NCfan wrote:

Yes, we invaded Iraq. But, our troops there are pussyfooting around. For instance, last year we surrounded the militant leader Al-Sadr. But after about a week of international outcry that our seige of Sader city was wreaking havoc on the population, we pulled back and let the fucker go.
[...]
So, I guess I'm trying to say that it is plausible that brute military force can defeat militant Islam, but since we haven't used it so far we don't know.

The problem is Bush didn't have the balls to do this job like it should have been done.....

I don't get it.
The US invaded Iraq despite international outcry, a large number of countries were against the unilateral invasion of the country, the un was against the invasion of the country.
Let's say the people protsting the siege of Sader city are the same who were protesting the invasion of Iraq. Why listen to them now? Invading Iraq was worse than anything that could have happen during that siege so why pay attention to the outcry on that issue?
It seems incoherent to me.

NCfan

RainDog wrote:

Get this. I agree with you. At the onset of this war, we should have openly anhilated Iraq. We should have reached our current death toll in the first few months. We should have let them know that WE are the last word on aggression.

But, then, I never supported this war; because I knew what it would take for "victory" - and in my opinion it wasn't worth it - and I knew that we as a country (not just Bush) don't have the "balls" to do it. So I knew from the beginning exactly where we'd be right now.

However, if Bush had been honest/open to what needed to be done, he never would have gotten support for this invasion - and we wouldn't be there right now. Bush didn't pussy-foot around - Bush sold us the only war we'd buy. Truth is, this is the only war we could get; and, damn-it, we were gettin' war come hell or high water.

Wow, I agree with you there too! I hadn't thought about it but it's so true... "Bush sold us the only war we'd buy". That hits the nail on the head.

Well, It's very unfortunate that we bullshited this thing in the begining and created one hell of a mess. But I think Iraq is important enough that we should support the attempt to send more troops (with the caveat that we let them do what troops do... kill the fucking enemy).

I'd give them about a year to show results (with the caveat that the Amreican people stand behind them this time). That means no talk of a pullout by our leadeship every other day. That means no mention of lies and blood-for-oil every other day. It means shut the fuck up for a while. Give this strategy a chance to work. Because the reality is that nothing can be done about the past. It is much more important for the future of the Middle East and the World that we get things right over there and create peace and stability.

searchlightsoul

miller8966 wrote:

Cause the world would be alot safer with islamic fundamentalists in charge

Apparently Mogadishu was a much safer place when they were in charge because they removed the warlords from the city.

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

But in reality, our military presence has been miss-used and is actually hurting our cause becuase we use too much restraint trying to appease everybody.

The case can be made that if we went in there and showed no quater to our enemies from the start, we may have defeated their will to fight. If we showed them that they had absolutely no chance to win - then we could have destroyed their morale and prevented this chaos from ever getting a foothold on the country. So, I guess I'm trying to say that it is plausible that brute military force can defeat militant Islam, but since we haven't used it so far we don't know.

The problem is Bush didn't have the balls to do this job like it should have been done.....

You think you've 'showed too much restraint' towards your enemies? You mean the Iraqi people? Those who are engaged in an insurgency against the occupying forces? So dya think the U.S troops should just massacre everyone? Or maybe evacuate and nuke the place?
Oh wait a minute! If you nuke Iraq then you'll destroy it's oil supplies! :rolleyes:

polaris

when are people gonna accept the fact that this military industrial complex is in full swing ... the only thing that ever added up and still continues is the fact that defence contractors NEED wars ... they don't survive in times of peace ... Eisenhower warned against it ... i hear the documentary "Why We Fight" explains it ...

we know full well that the US has played both sides of a dispute before - is it any wonder that the iraq invasion was bumbled?? ... those assholes know exactly what they are doing ... just look at the budgets being passed in congress for more military spending ...

if you don't think that there are people willing to cause mass suffering for the sake of making a buck - well, then you haven't been paying attention ...

IndianSummer

mammasan wrote:

Brute military force is not the answer.

its subtle force that usa is using, silly !!!

NCfan

Byrnzie wrote:

You think you've 'showed too much restraint' towards your enemies? You mean the Iraqi people? Those who are engaged in an insurgency against the occupying forces? So dya think the U.S troops should just massacre everyone? Or maybe evacuate and nuke the place?
Oh wait a minute! If you nuke Iraq then you'll destroy it's oil supplies! :rolleyes:

See here you go again. It's like you are TRYING to not think rationally when it comes to the United States.

Any reasonable person understands that the U.S. has let certain entities dictate the use of our military power. Be it the protest of other nations, the U.N. and even our own citzens, we have curbed our tactics to limit civilian death that will be instant news the world over.

But it is absolutely undisbutable that the rules of engagement in Iraq do not bring to bear the full might of American military power, absent nuclear weapons. This is simply indisputable fact. Why can't you acknoweldge this? Why do you feel you have to turn this into some sort of bullshit that becuase I make such an asertion you turn it around and talk about masacering people and nuking the place? Don't you want to have some sort of responsible dialouge with people with whom you disagree on this board?