U.S. strike targets al-Qaida in Somalia

[The Avon Lady]

Good job, America (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_re_af/us_somalia)! :up:

[Camaero]

:rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:

[Konovalov]

I guess that when you want to make absolutely certain you use the AC-130. :dead:

[The Avon Lady]

I guess that when you want to make absolutely certain you use the AC-130. :dead:
It reminds me of the pray and spray SAW Bunnies back in my Delta Force 1 and 2 MP gaming days. :p

Fond memories! :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

More details: 2 attacks - not 1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_re_af/somalia).

[The Avon Lady]

Looks like Al Qaeda's having a bad hair day (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/09/jordan.shootout.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest).

[Oberon]

Wonder if they're planning an air strike here, I've seen six helicopters fly over within the past hour, four Sea King lookalikes (not sure of their make) and two AH-64s. :hmm:

Anyway, good shooting A/C-130, there's not a lot in the world that can survive one of those visiting your home. Looks like this may be the beginning of longer ops in Somalia, apparently there's a carrier on the way to join the warships on the coastline.

Course, this isn't going to do a great deal in favour of how other countries view the US, but that's never bothered the US Government before.

EDIT: There goes another two Apaches....or the same two from earlier.

[Schatten]

Course, this isn't going to do a great deal in favour of how other countries view the US, but that's never bothered the US Government before.
The Somali government (as it is) supported the airstrikes, they don't want the Islamic Courts and/or Al Qaeda running around in their boonies with time to regroup after spending the time and effort to knock them out of Mogadishu. The Ethiopeans, who have ground troops in Somalia and the Kenyans both supported it and gave intel to the US to plan the strikes; they're both right next door and are sick and tired of what Somalia has become, especially since it's right on their doorstep.

I find it strange that people say that using the US using military force to assist countries which want the help, and with neighboring nations that provided support for the strikes will somehow bring down our image in the world. They wanted the assistance, we gave it to help stabilize a region in turmoil. Hmmm, isn't that what we did in the Balkans in the early '90s? But since that was destabilization in Europe's backyard I guess it was okay, but when we do it elsewhere we're being bullies. Sort of ironic don't you think?

[Letum]

Am I the only one a little unnerved by the zealous* enthusiasm and lack of cinicism some people appear to view these American attacks?


*edit*
*English meaning only, Im not makeing historical comments here!

[Oberon]

Yeah, but it's just fuel for the fire for some peoples, isn't it?

Naaah, just bomb away US, I've given up trying to figure out what's right and wrong in this crazy world. 'sides, I have no say, no matter what I vote for, things I don't think are wise will happen, just as things that I think are wise'll happen.

So long as an A/C-130 gunship doesn't tear away my ceiling, or a jihadist doesn't knock on my door, then that's about the limit of it.

I know that a picture of an ostrich will get posted at some point, but what do such people want? Every citizen in the western world to pick up an M16 and march for the Holy Land? Naah, not for me thanks guv...I'll use my M16 to defend my house and the land around it. Hell, if I could build a castle I would. :D An Englishmans home and all that :lol:

And Letum, I've long since given up trying to critisise the US's actions, it doesn't achieve anything and only creates a flame war between left and right. I'll sit back in my bunker with a flame extinguisher and lob in the occasional missile, then dig my way out when its all over.

[SUBMAN1]

After reading some of the negative news reports, I am beginning to think that a large part of the rest of the world is a bunch a ninnies and is scared that they will get bombed because the US took action or something.

As the Islamists know all too well, the only way to fight fire is with fire. Seems that all they get is praise and sidestepping when they do it, and the US gets ridiculed when they try and stop it??? Maybe its time to have the US pull out of the rest of the world and let the Western nations that do the ridiculing get overrun. Then we can come back and liberate them and be the hero's once again.

-S

[geetrue]

I know that a picture of an ostrich will get posted at some point, but what do such people want? Every citizen in the western world to pick up an M16 and march for the Holy Land? Naah, not for me thanks guv...I'll use my M16 to defend my house and the land around it. Hell, if I could build a castle I would.



Why not? I would go if they feed you everyday ... lol

We could call it the "Last Crusade"


The History of the Crusades: The Crusades of the Middle Ages were an almost continuous series of military-religious expeditions made by European Christians in the hope of wresting the Holy Land from the infidel Turks. From 1096 until nearly 1300, Crusaders, traveling in great armies, small bands, or alone, journeyed into the Orient to wage war against the Moslems, who had become a serious threat to Christianity. Although many went for worldly gain, it was religious faith that inspired thousands upon thousands of these "soldiers of the Cross." When the Crusades began, Europeans were still living in the so-called Dark Ages; before they were ended, the West stood upon the threshold of the modern era. The Crusades were not wholly responsible for his progress, but none will deny that they hastened the development of our modern world.

[Oberon]

Oh....oh...alright, but only if I get to play Sean Connerys character.

"Junior! Junior!"

"We called the dog Indiana!"

[baggygreen]

Maybe its time to have the US pull out of the rest of the world and let the Western nations that do the ridiculing get overrun. Then we can come back and liberate them and be the hero's once again.

-SWhy bother liberating em? They'll only be abusing you again in another few years, n you'll be the worst people in the world again..:damn:

[The Avon Lady]

The History of the Crusades: The Crusades of the Middle Ages were an almost continuous series of military-religious expeditions made by European Christians in the hope of wresting the Holy Land from the infidel Turks. From 1096 until nearly 1300, Crusaders, traveling in great armies, small bands, or alone, journeyed into the Orient to wage war against the Moslems, who had become a serious threat to Christianity. Although many went for worldly gain, it was religious faith that inspired thousands upon thousands of these "soldiers of the Cross." When the Crusades began, Europeans were still living in the so-called Dark Ages; before they were ended, the West stood upon the threshold of the modern era. The Crusades were not wholly responsible for his progress, but none will deny that they hastened the development of our modern world.
Wake up world, Christians included. You are being had!
Why the Crusades Were Called

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem in 1099, according to journalist Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, was the "starting point of a millennial hostility between Islam and the West." Islamic scholar and apologist John Esposito is a bit more expansive - he blames the Crusades ("so-called holy warriors") in general for disrupting a pluralistic civilization: "Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to centuries-long series of so-called holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust."

Maalouf doesn't seem to consider whether "millennial hostility" may have begun with the Prophet Muhammad's veiled threat, issued over 450 years before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, to neighboring non-Muslim leaders to "embrace Islam and you will be safe." Nor does he discuss the possibility that Muslims may have stoked that "millennial hostility" by seizing Christian lands - which amounted to two-thirds of what had formerly been the Christian world - centuries before the Crusades. Esposito's "five centuries of peaceful coexistence" were exemplified, he says, by the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638: "churches and the Christian population were left unmolested." But he doesn't mention Sophronius' Christmas sermon for 634, when he complained of the Muslims' "savage barbarous and bloody sword" and of how difficult that sword had made life for Christians.


PC Myth: The Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world

Wrong. The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. A few examples: Early in the eighth century, sixty pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time, the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies - except for a small number who converted to Islam; and Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay. Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the anti-religious tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of others, even their own children.

Brutal subordination and violence became the rules of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews to be stamped with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of Saint Theodosius, killing many more monks. Other monasteries in the region suffered the same fate. Early in the ninth century, the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christian cities. More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In reaction to this persecution of Christians, the Byzantines moved from a defensive policy toward the Muslims to the offensive position of trying to recapture some of their lost territories. In the 960s, General Nicephorus Phocas (a future Byzantine emperor) carried out a series of successful campaigns against the Muslims, recapturing Crete, Cilicia, Cyprus, and even parts of Syria. In 969, he recaptured the ancient Christian city of Antioch. The Byzantines extended this campaign into Syria in the 970s.

In Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever - and Muslims must wage war to regain control over it. In 974, faced with a string of loses to the Byzantines, the Abbasid (Sunni) caliph in Baghdad declared jihad. This followed the yearly jihad campaigns against the Byzantines launched by Saif al-Dawla, ruler of the Shi'ite Hamdanid dynasty in Aleppo from 944 to 967. Saif al-Dawla appealed to Muslims to fight the Byzantines on the pretext that they were taking lands that belonged to the House of Islam. This appeal was so successful that Muslim warriors from as far off as Central Asia joined the jihads.

However, Sunni/Shi'ite disunity ultimately hampered Islamic jihad efforts, and in 1001 the Byzantine emperor Basil II concluded a ten-year truce with the Fatimid (Shi'ite) caliph.

Basil, however, soon learned that to conclude such truces was futile. In 1004, the sixth Fatimid caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-hakim (985-1021), turned violently against the faith of his Christian mother and uncles (two of whom were patriarchs), ordering the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. He moved against the Jews with similar ferocity. Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. In 1009, al-Hakim gave his most spectacular anti-Christian order: He commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches (including the Church of the Resurrection). The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, rebuilt by the Byzantines in the seventh century after the Persians burned and earlier version, marks the traditional site of Christ's burial; it also served as a model for the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al-Hakim commanded that the tomb within be cut down to the bedrock. He ordered Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks (and for Jews, heavy blocks of wood in the shape of a calf). He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that they accept Islam of leave his dominions.

The erratic caliph ultimately relaxed his persecution of non-muslims and even returned much of the property he has seized from the Church. A partial cause of al-Hakim's changed attitude was probably in increasingly tenuous connection to Islamic orthodoxy. In 1021, he disappeared under mysterious circumstances; some of his followers proclaimed him divine and found a sect based on this mystery and other esoteric teachings of a Muslim cleric, Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Darazi (after whom the Druze sect is named). Thanks to al-Hakim's change of policy, which continued after his death, the Byzantines were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1027.

Nevertheless, Christians were in a precarious position, and pilgrims remained under threat. In 1056 the Muslims expelled three hundred Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. When the fierce and fanatical Seljuk Turks swept down from Central Asia, they enforced a new Islamic rigor, making life increasingly difficult for both native Christians and pilgrims (whose pilgrimages they blocked). After they crushed the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and took the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV Diogenes prisoner, all of Asia Minor was open to them, and their advance was virtually unstoppable. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk emir Atsiz bib Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered three thousand people. The Seljuks established the sultanate of Rum (Rome, referring to the New Rome, Constantinople) in Nicaea that same years, perilously close to Constantinople itself; from there they continued to threaten the Byzantines and harass the Christians all over their new domains.

The Christian empire of Byzantium, which before Islam's wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse including southern Italy, North Africa, the Middle East, and Arabia, was reduced to little more than Greece. It looked as if death at the hands of the Seljuks was imminent. The Church of Constantinople considered the popes schismatic and had squabbled with them for centuries, but the new emperor Alexius I Commenus (1081-1118), swallowed his pride and appealed for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about: It was a response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help.

- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131/sr=1-1/qid=1168414044/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1410328-2591853?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Robert Spencer
What? They didn't tell you any of this in history class? What? That's not the story you were told by Hollywood when you watched last years screen farce "Kingdom of Heaven"? I am shocked, utterly shocked, I tell ya! :roll:

[baggygreen]

But Avon Lady, we cant upset the delicate sensibilities of the liberals! Especially with the truth - they'll just shout out louder to try and prove that they're still right:damn:

[flyingdane]

Am I the only one a little unnerved by the zealous* enthusiasm and lack of cinicism some people appear to view these American attacks?


*edit*
*English meaning only, Im not makeing historical comments here!

Yep" maby so. :hmm:

[U-533]

The History of the Crusades: The Crusades of the Middle Ages were an almost continuous series of military-religious expeditions made by European Christians in the hope of wresting the Holy Land from the infidel Turks. From 1096 until nearly 1300, Crusaders, traveling in great armies, small bands, or alone, journeyed into the Orient to wage war against the Moslems, who had become a serious threat to Christianity. Although many went for worldly gain, it was religious faith that inspired thousands upon thousands of these "soldiers of the Cross." When the Crusades began, Europeans were still living in the so-called Dark Ages; before they were ended, the West stood upon the threshold of the modern era. The Crusades were not wholly responsible for his progress, but none will deny that they hastened the development of our modern world.
Wake up world, Christians included. You are being had!
Why the Crusades Were Called

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem in 1099, according to journalist Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, was the "starting point of a millennial hostility between Islam and the West." Islamic scholar and apologist John Esposito is a bit more expansive - he blames the Crusades ("so-called holy warriors") in general for disrupting a pluralistic civilization: "Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to centuries-long series of so-called holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust."

Maalouf doesn't seem to consider whether "millennial hostility" may have begun with the Prophet Muhammad's veiled threat, issued over 450 years before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, to neighboring non-Muslim leaders to "embrace Islam and you will be safe." Nor does he discuss the possibility that Muslims may have stoked that "millennial hostility" by seizing Christian lands - which amounted to two-thirds of what had formerly been the Christian world - centuries before the Crusades. Esposito's "five centuries of peaceful coexistence" were exemplified, he says, by the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638: "churches and the Christian population were left unmolested." But he doesn't mention Sophronius' Christmas sermon for 634, when he complained of the Muslims' "savage barbarous and bloody sword" and of how difficult that sword had made life for Christians.


PC Myth: The Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world

Wrong. The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. A few examples: Early in the eighth century, sixty pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time, the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies - except for a small number who converted to Islam; and Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay. Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the anti-religious tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of others, even their own children.

Brutal subordination and violence became the rules of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews to be stamped with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of Saint Theodosius, killing many more monks. Other monasteries in the region suffered the same fate. Early in the ninth century, the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christian cities. More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In reaction to this persecution of Christians, the Byzantines moved from a defensive policy toward the Muslims to the offensive position of trying to recapture some of their lost territories. In the 960s, General Nicephorus Phocas (a future Byzantine emperor) carried out a series of successful campaigns against the Muslims, recapturing Crete, Cilicia, Cyprus, and even parts of Syria. In 969, he recaptured the ancient Christian city of Antioch. The Byzantines extended this campaign into Syria in the 970s.

In Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever - and Muslims must wage war to regain control over it. In 974, faced with a string of loses to the Byzantines, the Abbasid (Sunni) caliph in Baghdad declared jihad. This followed the yearly jihad campaigns against the Byzantines launched by Saif al-Dawla, ruler of the Shi'ite Hamdanid dynasty in Aleppo from 944 to 967. Saif al-Dawla appealed to Muslims to fight the Byzantines on the pretext that they were taking lands that belonged to the House of Islam. This appeal was so successful that Muslim warriors from as far off as Central Asia joined the jihads.

However, Sunni/Shi'ite disunity ultimately hampered Islamic jihad efforts, and in 1001 the Byzantine emperor Basil II concluded a ten-year truce with the Fatimid (Shi'ite) caliph.

Basil, however, soon learned that to conclude such truces was futile. In 1004, the sixth Fatimid caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-hakim (985-1021), turned violently against the faith of his Christian mother and uncles (two of whom were patriarchs), ordering the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. He moved against the Jews with similar ferocity. Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives. In 1009, al-Hakim gave his most spectacular anti-Christian order: He commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches (including the Church of the Resurrection). The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, rebuilt by the Byzantines in the seventh century after the Persians burned and earlier version, marks the traditional site of Christ's burial; it also served as a model for the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al-Hakim commanded that the tomb within be cut down to the bedrock. He ordered Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks (and for Jews, heavy blocks of wood in the shape of a calf). He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that they accept Islam of leave his dominions.

The erratic caliph ultimately relaxed his persecution of non-muslims and even returned much of the property he has seized from the Church. A partial cause of al-Hakim's changed attitude was probably in increasingly tenuous connection to Islamic orthodoxy. In 1021, he disappeared under mysterious circumstances; some of his followers proclaimed him divine and found a sect based on this mystery and other esoteric teachings of a Muslim cleric, Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Darazi (after whom the Druze sect is named). Thanks to al-Hakim's change of policy, which continued after his death, the Byzantines were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1027.

Nevertheless, Christians were in a precarious position, and pilgrims remained under threat. In 1056 the Muslims expelled three hundred Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. When the fierce and fanatical Seljuk Turks swept down from Central Asia, they enforced a new Islamic rigor, making life increasingly difficult for both native Christians and pilgrims (whose pilgrimages they blocked). After they crushed the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 and took the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV Diogenes prisoner, all of Asia Minor was open to them, and their advance was virtually unstoppable. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk emir Atsiz bib Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered three thousand people. The Seljuks established the sultanate of Rum (Rome, referring to the New Rome, Constantinople) in Nicaea that same years, perilously close to Constantinople itself; from there they continued to threaten the Byzantines and harass the Christians all over their new domains.

The Christian empire of Byzantium, which before Islam's wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse including southern Italy, North Africa, the Middle East, and Arabia, was reduced to little more than Greece. It looked as if death at the hands of the Seljuks was imminent. The Church of Constantinople considered the popes schismatic and had squabbled with them for centuries, but the new emperor Alexius I Commenus (1081-1118), swallowed his pride and appealed for help. And that is how the First Crusade came about: It was a response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help.

- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131/sr=1-1/qid=1168414044/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1410328-2591853?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Robert Spencer
What? They didn't tell you any of this in history class? What? That's not the story you were told by Hollywood when you watched last years screen farce "Kingdom of Heaven"? I am shocked, utterly shocked, I tell ya! :roll:

Let us be careful as to which type of so called "Christians" we are talking of here.
There are two kinds. Ones that are and ones that are not.

If you need an explaination I can provide.

[The Avon Lady]

Let us be careful as to which type of so called "Christians" we are talking of here.
There are two kinds. Ones that are and ones that are not.

If you need an explaination I can provide.
Please do. :hmm:

[STEED]

al-Qaida are evil and twisted and every opportunity America gets to hit them, go for it and hit them hard.

[The Avon Lady]

al-Qaida are evil and twisted
Al-Qaeda, Al-Shmaeda (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010993.php).

[U-533]

Let us be careful as to which type of so called "Christians" we are talking of here.
There are two kinds. Ones that are and ones that are not.

If you need an explanation I can provide.
Please do. :hmm:

A true Christian is one that has accepted Jesus Christ the son of God as their personal savior. They believe that Jesus died as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind and they have accepted this sacrifice as payment for their personal sins. Much like the Jewish sacrificing before their temple was over run by the Muslims.
The true Christian fallows the teachings of Jesus, allowing him to Lord of their life.
The true Christian believe there is but one way to the Father and that is through Jesus the living Son of God.


The other kind calls themselves "Christian" but believe they are accepted by God if they pay penitence, worship a certain way, confess sins to a man who gives absolution's, believe one can pray and pay dead people into heaven, and that Jesus is another of countless ways to heaven.

If you need more I can give but right now I gotta go to work.

Adios Muchachos:sunny:

[The Avon Lady]

U-533, all that is absolutely irrelevant to any points I made above. If you feel the need to discuss your rendition of true versus false Christians, why not try starting a thread on the subject?

What I stated is history related to anyone who affiliates themselves with Christianity in one way or another. And I did not exclude non-Christians from taking note of these historical lessons.

If it'll make you happy, some of us are definitely neither true nor false Christians. :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

Somalia update: good riddance to bad rubbish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_re_af/somalia)! :yep:

[U-533]

What I stated is history related to anyone who affiliates themselves with Christianity in one way or another. And I did not exclude non-Christians from taking note of these historical lessons.



OIC ... and I thought you were just lumping all the different so called "Christian Religions" under one church roof. :rotfl:

Under one church roof....:rotfl: :rotfl: ... OH some times I slay me..:rotfl: :rotfl: :sunny:

[Letum]

Somalia update: good riddance to bad rubbish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_re_af/somalia)! :yep:
Apart from the 30 civilian deaths, how do we know the the "non-civilians" killed in the attack where guilty of anything?

I don't think anyone should act as judge, jury and executioner if they are not being fired upon.

[ASWnut101]

Somalia update: good riddance to bad rubbish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_re_af/somalia)! :yep:

Apart from the 30 civilian deaths, how do we know the the "non-civilians" killed in the attack where guilty of anything?


Their title maby?:lol:

But really, if they were so innocent, why were they moving around with the suspects? Of course, the only final way to know is through the DNA tests, but the Weps. Officer in the fron seat of that Apache or on the Spectre makes the final decision as to weather or not the people were legitimet targets. Enough visual intel was received to convince the W-O of who to target, and who to let live.

[ASWnut101]

sorry, i was editing while you posted. re-read my previous post.

[Letum]

Somalia update: good riddance to bad rubbish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_re_af/somalia)! :yep:
Apart from the 30 civilian deaths, how do we know the the "non-civilians" killed in the attack where guilty of anything?

Their title maby?:lol:

But really, if they were so innocent, why were they moving around with the suspects? Of course, the only final way to know is through the DNA tests, but the Weps. Officer in the fron seat of that Apache or on the Spectre makes the final decision as to weather or not the people were legitimate targets. Enough visual intel was received to convince the W-O of who to target, and who to let live.

They could be called anything, the titles or names make little difference!
Walking around with suspects means nothing because a suspect is only suspected of being guilty, that does not mean that they are.
Without a public trial, even in their absence, just dropping high explosives on them in a offensive action is against many international laws even if you do hit the people you intended to hit.

[ASWnut101]

Well, unless you wanted to see the aircraft land and deploy a platoon of lawyers and judges (now THATS a sight to see:p ), The W-O's have permission to fire if they see fit. If they were civies, then it they would just be named another 'casualty of war.' thats just the way it is.

[Letum]

Well, unless you wanted to see the aircraft land and deploy a platoon of lawyers and judges (now THATS a sight to see:p ), The W-O's have permission to fire if they see fit. If they were civies, then it they would just be named another 'casualty of war.' thats just the way it is.
What war?
Somalia is not in a state of internationally recognised war with the people who where killed in this attack.

International law doesn't allow you to kill civilian suspects if they are not an immediate danger, even if they are part of a civilian militia.

I can see why the EU&UN have voiced concerns.

*BIG EDIT*
err...it seams that as of the 27th of December Somalia is at war! My Somalian history is a few months out of date.;)
Disregard everything Ive said! :D
I don't give a toss if it's part of war. - may it end soon!:up:

err...this is a bit obscure, but does anyone know what Turkey's official position on this news is?

[Ducimus]

I guess that when you want to make absolutely certain you use the AC-130. :dead:

Oh yes. The amount of air to ground firepower on one of those is just unbeleivable. I knew a vietnam vet who flew on one. He showed me a photo album of those birds in action once. We're talking, they could easily mow down a forest like a weedeater cuts through overgrown grass in back yard.

Whatever was in the area that AC-130 hit in somolia is more then likely, not just dead, but torn to shreded meat.

[ASWnut101]

or in the case of its 105mm (or was it a 155mm) Howitzer, exploded out of existence. sorry for any graphic images in your heads, but more like a few hundred 'pieces' scattered over hundreds of feet.

[SUBMAN1]

al-Qaida are evil and twisted and every opportunity America gets to hit them, go for it and hit them hard.

A man who sees the world in a the right light! Too bad we are surrounded by ninnies who would rather roll over!

[SUBMAN1]

Somalia update: good riddance to bad rubbish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_re_af/somalia)! :yep:
Apart from the 30 civilian deaths, how do we know the the "non-civilians" killed in the attack where guilty of anything?

Their title maby?:lol:

But really, if they were so innocent, why were they moving around with the suspects? Of course, the only final way to know is through the DNA tests, but the Weps. Officer in the fron seat of that Apache or on the Spectre makes the final decision as to weather or not the people were legitimate targets. Enough visual intel was received to convince the W-O of who to target, and who to let live.

They could be called anything, the titles or names make little difference!
Walking around with suspects means nothing because a suspect is only suspected of being guilty, that does not mean that they are.
Without a public trial, even in their absence, just dropping high explosives on them in a offensive action is against many international laws even if you do hit the people you intended to hit.
I'd say an AK-47 and hanging out with the bad guys is a pretty good indication of who they might be! :D Let the AC-130 be judge, jury, and executioner in that type of scenario. What you describe a tantemount to everyone being innocent regardless if they are mowing down the good guys!

-S

PS. Sorry if I am stepping on your toes, but I feel some posts in this thread are for people willing to roll over. Innocent people die in war, but that is part of war. The Star Trek future that everyone strives for is impossible for modern day man. Mans differences, greed, and quest for power will always get in the way of proper and right. In cases like this, nothing else can be done but to go ahead and fix what must be fixed.

[SUBMAN1]

I must leave this dicussion with the following quote:

"The strong have done what they could and now the weak must suffer what they must"

-S

[Schatten]

Plus air assaulting lawyers is definately against the Geneva Conventions...

[SUBMAN1]

Plus air assaulting lawyers is definately against the Geneva Conventions...

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Yahoshua]

*Radio crackle* "HQ THIS IS BRAVO COMPANY, WE NEED REINFORCEMENTS. WE'RE BEING OVERRUN!" *Radio crackle*


*Radio crackle* "Bravo company be advised, friendly Assault Lawyers are enroute for airdrop. ETA is 15 mins." *Radio crackle*

[Schatten]

:rotfl: :rotfl:

At the very least Yahoshua you'd have to drop leaflets warning the enemy that the deadly use of lawyers has been authorized prior to airdropping said lawyers. That way the enemy has time to retreat, surrender or kill themselves to spare themselves the pain all according to the niceties of international law...

[baggygreen]

In the unlikely event of any survivors from the first assault by the lawyers, we could launch a follow up strike against the targets with taxman, now armed with super dooper calculatorsand form upon form for income tax declarations!:rotfl:

[Schatten]

In the unlikely event of any survivors from the first assault by the lawyers, we could launch a follow up strike against the targets with taxman, now armed with super dooper calculatorsand form upon form for income tax declarations!:rotfl:

Now that's just mean...


...I like it!

:rotfl:

[Abraham]

Hmm, I don't want to sound too serious, but I would like to make clear that the strengthening of International Law is in the interest of the world community as a whole.

International Law has former Yugoslavian warmongers brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and often been locked up for years.
Stronger International Law would have made the Taliban government to suppress Al Qaida, instead of hosting it.
Stronger International Law would have provided Saddam Hussein with a fair trial and - most probably - a life sentence that would not have been so disputed (+ making a martyr of him).
This list can be made almost endless.

The best way to weaken International Law - and thus help the enemy - is using International Law when it suits you and forget about it when that suits you better.

Having said that, I don't want to say that the air attacks on Al Qaida suspects in Somalia are against International Law. The US declared a War on Terror, the attacks were supported by the provisional government and Somalia is a pretty lawless environment anyway. And I realise that fighting terror movements has sometimes to be done in inconventional ways.
But a bit of contemplation about the legal, diplomatic and political effects of such attacks is not a sign of weakness but of wisdom.

Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but I like to see International Law as a relatively young achievement of our civilisation, trying to grow in a hostile environment.
We should all care about it.

[The Avon Lady]

Plus air assaulting lawyers is definately against the Geneva Conventions...
Nonsense. Dropping lawyers into a war zone is one of the biggest humanitarian gestures anyone can do.

Parachutes are optional.

EDIT
Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer
OK. You get a chute. But just this once.

[The Avon Lady]

Hmm, I don't want to sound too serious, but I would like to make clear that the strengthening of International Law is in the interest of the world community as a whole.

International Law has former Yugoslavian warmongers brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and often been locked up for years.
Stronger International Law would have made the Taliban government to suppress Al Qaida, instead of hosting it.
Stronger International Law would have provided Saddam Hussein with a fair trial and - most probably - a life sentence that would not have been so disputed (+ making a martyr of him).
This list can be made almost endless.

The best way to weaken International Law - and thus help the enemy - is using International Law when it suits you and forget about it when that suits you better.
That's all very nice and maybe academically true but when despotic totalitarian regimes get to vote on the measures along with democratic open societies, you wind up in the situation you're in today.

Hence the virtual worthlessness of the UN and its bastard children today.

It's time to call a spade a spade.

[Abraham]

Hmm, I don't want to sound too serious, but I would like to make clear that the strengthening of International Law is in the interest of the world community as a whole.

International Law has former Yugoslavian warmongers brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and often been locked up for years.
Stronger International Law would have made the Taliban government to suppress Al Qaida, instead of hosting it.
Stronger International Law would have provided Saddam Hussein with a fair trial and - most probably - a life sentence that would not have been so disputed (+ making a martyr of him).
This list can be made almost endless.

The best way to weaken International Law - and thus help the enemy - is using International Law when it suits you and forget about it when that suits you better.
That's all very nice and maybe academically true but when despotic totalitarian regimes get to vote on the measures along with democratic open societies, you wind up in the situation you're in today.

Hence the virtual worthlessness of the UN and its bastard children today.

It's time to call a spade a spade.
As you can see from my post, we both agree that the situation is far from perfect.
But when International Law doesn't function - mostly because it's purpousfully obstructed by evil forces - we shouldn't forget that these are incidents and that we owe a lot to International Law.

Just a few examples:
International Law sets the rules for diplomatic and consular contact between nations (that's why terrorists often try to attack diplomats);
International Law sets the rules for free shipping on the open sea and thus helped spreading international trade (here piracy is the enemy of International Law).
International Law requires nations to solve their problems through negotiations and not through violence (even rogue states often pay lip service to this principle, which shows the strenght of it).

And yes, International Law created - through the WW II Allies (!) - the United Nations, a far from perfect organisation, but the world would be a lot worse without it. Evidence of this is that no nation in its right mind would even consider leaving the U.N.

The fact is: International Law exists. It's just for us to devellop it or to neglect it - which would result in the rule of the strongest or the most unlawfull ones!

Btw. thanks for the parachute (is it properly folded?).
:D

[Letum]

I couldn't agrre more Abraham (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=214204)! Stronger, more universal adherence to int.law would solve a lot of things and prevent many more. Since the millenium some countries seam to have been completely disregarding it. Law and order, even on international scales, breeds peace and prosperity.
If only int.law has some more robust enforcement. There are several countries that should be held to account.

[U-533]

Abraham said:
And yes, International Law created - through the WW II Allies (!) - the United Nations, a far from perfect organisation, but the world would be a lot worse without it. Evidence of this is that no nation in its right mind would even consider leaving the U.N.

True ... but there are a few nations, not in thier right minds, that need to leave.

or at least seek help...

[Abraham]

I couldn't agrre more Abraham (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=214204)! Stronger, more universal adherence to int.law would solve a lot of things and prevent many more. Since the millenium some countries seam to have been completely disregarding it. Law and order, even on international scales, breeds peace and prosperity.
If only int.law has some more robust enforcement. There are several countries that should be held to account.

Well Letum, I think we often disagree. But criticism and different opinions - like yours - force me to think things over. And yes, it's not 'A Perfect World' we live in, were conflicts between nations are always dealt with according to the rules of international law. Nationa that don't have to take the responsability for their actions.
But in my view International Law is one of the youngest branches on the tree of Justice. And it brings benefit to all of us, far more than we often realise. That's why I can't stand simplistic judgements on such a complicated subject.

As a matter of fact certain facets of International Law are often highly politicised. Still, International Law gives nations in my opinion enough leeway to defend themselves properly, sometimes even in an offensive way, against agression. The suggestion of doing away with International Law is as shortsighted as the suggestion of doing away with general law a few centuries ago "because the State/ the King (or whatever) will always win."

One effect of adhering to International Law is that much more countries support the U.S. in it's War on Terror in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Many Allies, like Germany, France & Spain, feel the War on Terror in Afghanistan is properly legalised by the U.N. ...
(Just to show that the U.N. is not against the U.S. per se).