The W
Views: 99894595
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.10.14 1642
The W - Current Events & Politics - The United States bombed Somalia on Wednesday night Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.65
Pages: 1
(366 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (18 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 70 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.84
The coverage of this incident displays everything that is wrong with everything.

from the BBC:


    Aden Hashi Ayro, al-Shabab's military commander, died when his home in the central town of Dusamareb was bombed.

    Ten other people, including a senior militant, are also reported dead.

    A US military spokesman told the BBC that it had attacked what he called a known al-Qaeda target in Somalia, but refused to give further details.

    Al-Shabab, considered a terrorist group by the US, is the military wing of the Somali Sharia courts movement, the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), until Ethiopian troops ousted them in 2006.

    The group has since regrouped and is in effect in control of large parts of central and southern Somalia.

    'Scorched earth'

    An al-Shabab spokesman, Mukhtar Robow Adumansur, told the BBC that Ayro was killed along with another militant commander in the attack.

    Locals said it happened at about 0300 (0000 GMT).

    "We heard a huge explosion and when we ran out of our house we saw balls of smoke and flames coming out of house," Dusamareb resident Nur Geele told the BBC.

    "The house was totally destroyed to the ground, also other houses nearby," local elder Ahmed Mumin Jama said.

    Dr Ahmed Mahdi at Dusamareb Hospital told the BBC's Somali Service that he was treating eight civilians, including women and children, for burns and shrapnel wounds.

    One of the women has since died, bringing the death toll so far to 11.

    He said identifying the dead would prove difficult as the al-Shabab villa and surrounding mud houses and trees were now scorched earth.

    Ayro received training in Afghanistan in the 1990s and was an instrumental military figure as the UIC took control of Mogadishu in the second half of 2006, says the head of the BBC's Somali Service Yusuf Garaad.

    The US says al-Shabab is part of the al-Qaeda network, although correspondents say it is impossible to accurately establish those links.

    Al-Shabab leaders say it is a purely Somali movement and they deny any involvement with al-Qaeda.

    'No longer safe'

    Mr Robow warned that there would now be revenge attacks by the al-Shabab.

    "This incident will cause a lot problems to US interests in the region and the governments who support the US, by that I mean its allies who are puppets," he said, referring to Ethiopia which backs Somalia's interim government.

    "I am letting the citizens of the US and the allies know they are not going to be safe in this area."

    In its annual report on terrorism published on Wednesday, the US said al-Shabab militants in Somalia, along with al-Qaeda militants in east Africa, posed "the most serious threat to American and allied interests in the region".

    Al-Shabab has been at the forefront of a guerrilla insurgency against the government and its Ethiopian allies since early 2007.

    In recent weeks, they have briefly captured several towns in central and southern Somalia before withdrawing.

    The US has launched several air strikes against suspected extremist targets in Somalia in recent months.

    It has an anti-terror task force based in neighbouring Djibouti, and has accused Somali Islamists of harbouring those responsible for the 1998 attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

    The Islamists denied this.

    Somalia has not had an effective national government since 1991.


The Associated Press, The New York Times, Reuters, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post all have similar stories.

Did you know the US military was performing airstrikes in Somalia? This story treats it like a foregone conclusion, something that isn't even worth questioning. Every story I see leads with the al-Qaida guy who died, and makes no mention of the distinct possibility that an overwhelming majority of Americans had/have absolutely no idea that the US military was even in combat operations in this part of the world. (I did; that doesn't make the media's treatment of this incident any less disgusting.)

(EDIT: To clarify what I meant by, "the al-Qaida guy who died," which I realize now came out after this version of the story was written, here is what The New York Times reported:


    U.S. Airstrike Kills Top Qaeda Agent in Somalia
    By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
    nyt
    NAIROBI, Kenya - Aden Hashi Ayro, one of Al Qaeda's top agents in East Africa and the leader of the Islamist comeback in Somalia, was killed Thursday morning by an American airstrike, according to Somali officials.

    Mr. Ayro was one of the most feared and notorious figures in Somalia, a short, wispy man believed to be in his 30s who had gone from lowly car washer to top terrorist suspect blamed for a string of atrocities, including ripping up an Italian graveyard, killing a female BBC journalist and planning suicide attacks all across Somalia.


Hooray!
)

That the government continues to kill innocent civilians worldwide - Democrats and Republicans alike have approved it every single step of the way, for decades - is nothing new. The media is, in theory, in a position to change this, though. Instead, the important questions are, as usual, not asked, and it is simply accepted as unquestionable truth that the US has the right to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants to do it.

The media - worldwide, not just in the US - is completely complicit in the "terrorism" of which the US is guilty - of course, in the name of fighting "terrorism." It's outrageous that nobody at any level with access to the people that can answer these questions has even thought to ask, "Why weren't the American people told of these attacks before they were performed?"

In the US, the mainstream media is perhaps the single most reactionary body in the entire country. There is nothing proactive, preventative or protective about this kind of reporting. All it does is subtly convince people to accept a constant state of war and the atrocities that come with it. Five years and hundreds of thousands of lives - if not millions - after the latest round of killing was started by Bush and his Democratic lapdogs, the media is still afraid to call bullshit and tell it like it is.

The Democrats have to decide between two people who claim to oppose an Iraq occupation that they've supported every time they've had a chance to do so. The Republicans have already decided on someone who doesn't even lie about his support for the killing. Meanwhile, the US ups its death toll - innocent civilian and otherwise - in a part of the world completely removed from the discussion. The mainstream media doesn't say a word.

Disgusting.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 1.5.08 2356)
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.01
The fact that we are doing this sort of thing is indeed old news and has been going on for some time around the world.

My favorite definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result. This doesn't work, it helps breed more nut cases. Hasn't worked for the Israelis very well either.

We can't just do nothing but we have got a find a way to stop this cycle.



Perception is reality
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 min.
Last activity: 3 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.04
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    It's outrageous that nobody at any level with access to the people that can answer these questions has even thought to ask, "Why weren't the American people told of these attacks before they were performed?"
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they know the answer they'll get: we didn't feel like letting their target know in advance he was gonna get attacked.

Do you really think that at a hypothetical time when the USA citizenry would be asked "hey, we have this intel that the main al-Qaeda guy in Somalia is in this house tonight - should be bomb it?" the majority are gonna say "naw, leave him be?"
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    That the government continues to kill innocent civilians worldwide - Democrats and Republicans alike have approved it every single step of the way, for decades - is nothing new. The media is, in theory, in a position to change this, though. Instead, the important questions are, as usual, not asked, and it is simply accepted as unquestionable truth that the US has the right to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants to do it.
I would be VERY surprised if we did this without full cooperation from Somalia, and perhaps Ethiopia as well. As for the innocent civilians, I'm sorry that their houses may have been too close to the target, and I'd hate to say that 8 or 9 innocent lives on that life may be worth if it it saves thousands by helping bring stability to Somalia, so I won't. I'm glad I'm not the guy making those decisions and I still don't have a lot of qualms about letting the military leaders (up to and including the Commander-in-Chief) make them for on my behalf.



Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 450 days
Last activity: 410 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.10
    Originally posted by CRZ
    I would be VERY surprised if we did this without full cooperation from Somalia, and perhaps Ethiopia as well.

For what it's worth, there's hardly any government in Somalia. The Transitional Federal Government only has control of Puntland, a region in northern Somalia, and small pockets around Mogadishu.

I can't figure out exactly where Dusamareb is. I think it's in Galmudug, a region that the TFG doesn't currently have control of. In the northern part of the state, separatists in Somaliland seem to be doing a pretty good job of making their own country (albeit with no international recognition).
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 104 days
Last activity: 40 min.
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    That the government continues to kill innocent civilians worldwide - Democrats and Republicans alike have approved it every single step of the way, for decades - is nothing new. The media is, in theory, in a position to change this, though. Instead, the important questions are, as usual, not asked, and it is simply accepted as unquestionable truth that the US has the right to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants to do it.

    The media - worldwide, not just in the US - is completely complicit in the "terrorism" of which the US is guilty - of course, in the name of fighting "terrorism."

    The Democrats have to decide between two people who claim to oppose an Iraq occupation that they've supported every time they've had a chance to do so. The Republicans have already decided on someone who doesn't even lie about his support for the killing. Meanwhile, the US ups its death toll - innocent civilian and otherwise - in a part of the world completely removed from the discussion. The mainstream media doesn't say a word.


Did Jeremiah Wright move to Cambodia?

What's up with the scare quotes around 'terrorism'? I think there is a big difference between what al-Queda does and this particular operation. And, how would you deal with al-Queda?
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.35
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    The United States bombed Somalia on Wednesday night



No, the US bombed a piece of shit terrorist.

BIG difference.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 70 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.69
    Originally posted by CRZ
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they know the answer they'll get: we didn't feel like letting their target know in advance he was gonna get attacked.

    Do you really think that at a hypothetical time when the USA citizenry would be asked "hey, we have this intel that the main al-Qaeda guy in Somalia is in this house tonight - should be bomb it?" the majority are gonna say "naw, leave him be?"


So the only alternative to not telling the American people that the military their money funds is being used to drop bombs in East African countries is to tell them exactly when and where they will be dropping said bombs, and for whom the bombs are intended? Is that what Congress passed in regards to Iraq in 2002?


      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      That the government continues to kill innocent civilians worldwide - Democrats and Republicans alike have approved it every single step of the way, for decades - is nothing new. The media is, in theory, in a position to change this, though. Instead, the important questions are, as usual, not asked, and it is simply accepted as unquestionable truth that the US has the right to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants to do it.
    I would be VERY surprised if we did this without full cooperation from Somalia, and perhaps Ethiopia as well. As for the innocent civilians, I'm sorry that their houses may have been too close to the target, and I'd hate to say that 8 or 9 innocent lives on that life may be worth if it it saves thousands by helping bring stability to Somalia, so I won't. I'm glad I'm not the guy making those decisions and I still don't have a lot of qualms about letting the military leaders (up to and including the Commander-in-Chief) make them for on my behalf.


I wonder if a 12-year-old boy whose mother was just killed in a US airstrike for the sake of killing this "terrorist" might be more sympathetic to the "terrorist" message that the US is evil? No, that doesn't make any sense.

EDIT: Also, regarding this:

I would be VERY surprised if we did this without full cooperation from Somalia, and perhaps Ethiopia as well.

... wouldn't it be nice if the media told you whether or not that was the case, rather than leaving you to assume it?

    Originally posted by Corajudo
    Did Jeremiah Wright move to Cambodia?


I hate to address this, because it's really just not funny, but I feel like it's worth pointing out that if you take the number of times Barack Obama has discussed publicly the US bombing in public and multiplied it by infinity, you would still have fewer public speeches than he has made about Jeremiah Wright. That the media thinks this isn't worth pointing out is pretty ridiculous.


    What's up with the scare quotes around 'terrorism'? I think there is a big difference between what al-Queda does and this particular operation. And, how would you deal with al-Queda?


The reason for the quotes is that I've never encountered a definition of terrorism that encompassed al-Qaida and not the US military. It makes the word useless in the discussion.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    No, the US bombed a piece of shit terrorist.

    BIG difference.


From the story I already quoted:

Dr Ahmed Mahdi at Dusamareb Hospital told the BBC's Somali Service that he was treating eight civilians, including women and children, for burns and shrapnel wounds.

One of the women has since died, bringing the death toll so far to 11.

He said identifying the dead would prove difficult as the al-Shabab villa and surrounding mud houses and trees were now scorched earth.


(edited by TheBucsFan on 4.5.08 2127)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.35
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan


      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      No, the US bombed a piece of shit terrorist.

      BIG difference.


    From the story I already quoted:

    Dr Ahmed Mahdi at Dusamareb Hospital told the BBC's Somali Service that he was treating eight civilians, including women and children, for burns and shrapnel wounds.

    One of the women has since died, bringing the death toll so far to 11.

    He said identifying the dead would prove difficult as the al-Shabab villa and surrounding mud houses and trees were now scorched earth.


    (edited by TheBucsFan on 4.5.08 2127)


I'd feel differently if you could assure me that none of the bombs he ever made, or none of the bombs that people he trained had never resulted in "collateral damage".

I would also think that the four foriegn aid workers whom his organization murdered in Somalia, and the ten Somalian police officers that he murdered between 2003 and 2006 would think that maybe his death would be a good thing.

(edited by StaggerLee on 4.5.08 1435)
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.07
There's no real cut-and-dry solution, is there? I just hope that it's not the kind of decision that is made lightly. I would feel a lot better about the people making these sorts of decisions if I knew that they had a hard time sleeping at night thinking about it.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 223 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.49
    Originally posted by Alex
    There's no real cut-and-dry solution, is there? I just hope that it's not the kind of decision that is made lightly. I would feel a lot better about the people making these sorts of decisions if I knew that they had a hard time sleeping at night thinking about it.


If you look at the before and after pictures of any President from the start of their terms to the end of their terms, be they Democrats or Republicans, I think it's safe to assume that none of these decisions are taken lightly and they all clearly weigh on these men for the remainder of their lives...
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 26 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.87
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by Corajudo
      What's up with the scare quotes around 'terrorism'? I think there is a big difference between what al-Queda does and this particular operation.
    The reason for the quotes is that I've never encountered a definition of terrorism that encompassed al-Qaida and not the US military.
Innocents are occasionally killed by the U.S. Military when the U.S. Military is attempting to perform operations. It is always a regrettable event that the U.S. Military makes every effort to avoid.

Innocents are occasionally killed by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda when said terrorist groups are attempting to kill as many innocents as possible. There is no regret on the part of terrorist groups when they murder innocents, as this is the intended goal of every terrorist operation. As just one example, when the terrorist group al-Qaeda rammed civilian airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York City, the intended goal of al-Qaeda was to murder as many innocent people as possible. The only regret the terrorist group al-Qaeda has regarding its actions that day is that they did not murder more innocent people.

Using the destruction of the World Trade Center and the murder of thousands of innocents on that day at the hand of al-Qaeda terrorists as just one example of terrorist activities: al-Qaeda made no effort to provide medical aid to the casualties created by their actions; al-Qaeda has not provided any financial assistance for the families of the innocents that they murdered; al-Qaida has not made any contribution towards the clean-up and rebuilding of the area that they destroyed. Likewise with the Ghriba Synagogue bombing, the Bet Israel Synagogue and Neve Shalom Synagogues bombings in Istanbul, Turkey, the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, etc., etc. The terrorists behind each of these mass murders have only one regret regarding their actions: that even more innocent people aren't dead.

The sole purpose of any and every activity undertaken by a terrorist organization is to murder as many innocent people as possible. Feel free to use that as your working definition.




http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 70 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.99
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
        Originally posted by Corajudo
        What's up with the scare quotes around 'terrorism'? I think there is a big difference between what al-Queda does and this particular operation.
      The reason for the quotes is that I've never encountered a definition of terrorism that encompassed al-Qaida and not the US military.
    Innocents are occasionally killed by the U.S. Military when the U.S. Military is attempting to perform operations. It is always a regrettable event that the U.S. Military makes every effort to avoid.

    Innocents are occasionally killed by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda when said terrorist groups are attempting to kill as many innocents as possible. There is no regret on the part of terrorist groups when they murder innocents, as this is the intended goal of every terrorist operation. As just one example, when the terrorist group al-Qaeda rammed civilian airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York City, the intended goal of al-Qaeda was to murder as many innocent people as possible. The only regret the terrorist group al-Qaeda has regarding its actions that day is that they did not murder more innocent people.

    Using the destruction of the World Trade Center and the murder of thousands of innocents on that day at the hand of al-Qaeda terrorists as just one example of terrorist activities: al-Qaeda made no effort to provide medical aid to the casualties created by their actions; al-Qaeda has not provided any financial assistance for the families of the innocents that they murdered; al-Qaida has not made any contribution towards the clean-up and rebuilding of the area that they destroyed. Likewise with the Ghriba Synagogue bombing, the Bet Israel Synagogue and Neve Shalom Synagogues bombings in Istanbul, Turkey, the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, etc., etc. The terrorists behind each of these mass murders have only one regret regarding their actions: that even more innocent people aren't dead.

    The sole purpose of any and every activity undertaken by a terrorist organization is to murder as many innocent people as possible. Feel free to use that as your working definition.



The US has:

- Invaded another country on a lie, causing thousands of deaths in the process - deaths allowed because of a lie.

- Subsequently ignited a civil war that has killed more people than al-Qaida could ever dream of - I guess the importance of this is predicated on your definition of "innocents."

- Members of the US military have tortured captives - sometimes in government-sponsored manners, such as the now-infamous waterboarding; sometimes in manners that the government claims were not government-sponsored, such as the treatment of prisoners at Abu-Ghraib.

- Decided that the killing of this one "terrorist" is worth the dozen or so other "innocents" whose lives were also claimed - despite the obvious conclusion, that the deaths of these "innocents" are only going to make more people hate and distrust the American government, creating more "terrorists" in the process.

- Refused asylum to pretty much every single Iraqi that has asked for it after putting his or her life on the line to assist the US in its killings.

Using the destruction of the World Trade Center and the murder of thousands of innocents on that day at the hand of al-Qaeda terrorists as just one example of terrorist activities: al-Qaeda made no effort to provide medical aid to the casualties created by their actions; al-Qaeda has not provided any financial assistance for the families of the innocents that they murdered; al-Qaida has not made any contribution towards the clean-up and rebuilding of the area that they destroyed. Likewise with the Ghriba Synagogue bombing, the Bet Israel Synagogue and Neve Shalom Synagogues bombings in Istanbul, Turkey, the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, etc., etc. The terrorists behind each of these mass murders have only one regret regarding their actions: that even more innocent people aren't dead.


So...what is the US government doing to help Iraqis whose families the US military has killed off? Where is the apology for the hundreds and hundreds of thousands that are dead needlessly as a direct result of the US military?

(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.5.08 1610)
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 104 days
Last activity: 40 min.
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
Look, TBF, I hate to even respond, but you're being incredibly inconsistent. Downtown Bookie made the point that the U.S. Military is not a terrorist organization because they do not operate under the goal of killing as many innocents as possible. From your post, you're not really making the argument that the U.S. military is a terrorist organization. Rather, you're making the point that the POTUS, Congress and the U.S. government as a whole constitute a terrorist organization. And, you're drawing a moral equivalence between al-Queda and the U.S. government. Which, if that's your opinion, that's your opinion. But, when you make these types of arguments, you shouldn't be surprised when people look at you like you have about three working brain cells. Maybe I'm actually the one with three working brain cells, but I see a pretty huge difference between the the things you list as U.S. sponsored terrorist activities and the things listed by Downtown Bookie.

I think you do make a fair point asking the question if the killing of one individual terrorist is worth the lives of the innocents killed with him (and I'm purposely not using scare quotes around innocents or terrorists). The problem is that the terrorist organizations not only want to kill as many innocents as possible in their operations, but they also want as many innocents as possible to die when the terrorists themselves are targeted. I think that's another stark difference between them and the U.S. (not to mention the uniform thing), but YMMV.

It's certainly a tough issue. And, given what Israel has experienced for 60 years, there are obviously no good solutions. As others have posted in this thread, I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make these types of decisions.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 70 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.99
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    Look, TBF, I hate to even respond, but you're being incredibly inconsistent. Downtown Bookie made the point that the U.S. Military is not a terrorist organization because they do not operate under the goal of killing as many innocents as possible. From your post, you're not really making the argument that the U.S. military is a terrorist organization. Rather, you're making the point that the POTUS, Congress and the U.S. government as a whole constitute a terrorist organization.


I'm making the argument that there is no possible way for the US invasion of Iraq - and subsequent occupation - to have ended in anything but what it has resulted in: That result is the same as the result of flying planes into buildings. People that otherwise would not have died, and did not deserve to die (which is not to say anyone "deserves" to die) have died. The same is true of the bombing of Somalia.

Put it this way: Exactly as much was accomplished with this bombing as would have been had this guy decided to strap a bomb to his chest and walk into a bank. He would be dead, and he would have taken several innocents with him. That act would probably be deemed disgusting and used to justify causing even more death with the US military.


    I think you do make a fair point asking the question if the killing of one individual terrorist is worth the lives of the innocents killed with him (and I'm purposely not using scare quotes around innocents or terrorists). The problem is that the terrorist organizations not only want to kill as many innocents as possible in their operations, but they also want as many innocents as possible to die when the terrorists themselves are targeted. I think that's another stark difference between them and the U.S. (not to mention the uniform thing), but YMMV.


And my original point was that the world's mainstream media refuses to address this question. It is treated simply as a given that the side the US has taken - that the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians is justified if a few hundred or even few thousand "terrorists" die as well - is automatically and unquestionably the correct position.

Where is the story asking the questions I raise, namely asking if it is OK that so few Americans (presumably) even know their country's military is in combat situations in East Africa? Nowhere.


    It's certainly a tough issue. And, given what Israel has experienced for 60 years, there are obviously no good solutions. As others have posted in this thread, I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make these types of decisions.


But you certainly have the power to hold those who do accountable when you vote.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.5.08 2353)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 min.
Last activity: 3 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.04
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Put it this way: Exactly as much was accomplished with this bombing as would have been had this guy decided to strap a bomb to his chest and walk into a bank. He would be dead, and he would have taken several innocents with him. That act would probably be deemed disgusting and used to justify causing even more death with the US military.
The guy they took out wouldn't hypothetically strap a bomb to his chest; he'd hypothetically order some other guy to do it. Then, he'd hypothetically do it again, and hypothetically again, and as often as he hypothetically could get away with it. So no, I don't see the moral equivalence that you're hypothetically arguing there, because I don't see the equivalence, period.
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    And my original point was that the world's mainstream media refuses to address this question. It is treated simply as a given that the side the US has taken - that the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians is justified if a few hundred or even few thousand "terrorists" die as well - is automatically and unquestionably the correct position.
I believe your *original* point was that the media was reporting the facts surrounding the Somalia bombing without taking an advocacy position - surely you KNOW how we all hate it when the media reports something objectively! But you've been all over the place in this thread since then. Your point appears to have morphed from Somalia through Iraq into...you're still trying to talk me into voting for Nader? I don't know.



MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1828 days
Last activity: 1747 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.00




(edited by MisterHenderson on 8.5.08 0939)


Reagan Calls Women "America's Little Dumplins!"
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.15
Bucsfan, what SHOULD the USA and other nations do when they have a location for a known terror leader?

dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.39
    Originally posted by CRZ
    I believe your *original* point was that the media was reporting the facts surrounding the Somalia bombing without taking an advocacy position - surely you KNOW how we all hate it when the media reports something objectively!


On the subject of the original point, the BBC (bbc.co.uk) (from whom the original story was quoted) in particular absolutely shouldn't be taking a stance in their reporting.

At most you could have expected them to do an 'In Depth' piece following up on the story, asking the question of whether bombing locations of suspected terror suspects is right given the potential for collateral damage.

As their primary responsibility is to the interests of UK citizens however (if you own a telly here, you HAVE to pay the BBC license fee), their resources were likely directed toward covering our recent local elections, London mayoral election, and the current credit crisis. Not that I'm saying these isues are more important to *me* (couldn't care less about most of em), but they are more important to the majority of people in this country.

Not wishing to pile on. I tend to agree it raises quite the moral dilemma, and I don't think we'll ever know whether some decisions taken saved more lives than they cost in the long run. In terms of simple reporting of facts though, leaving the reader to ask questions (as you did) I'm all for it.
Thread rated: 4.65
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Great tits cope well with warming
Next thread: Chrysler Offers Gas Price Protection with new vehicles
Previous thread: Fort Bragg Army Base poor barracks
(366 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Of course parents should worry. That's what parents are for. For my money, though, they should worry more about the pedophiles that the authorities don't know about yet and who have functioning gonads than a guy who doesn't match either criteria.
The W - Current Events & Politics - The United States bombed Somalia on Wednesday nightRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.131 seconds.