US strikes on al-Qa'ida chiefs kill 70+ nomads

[itsbob]

oops!!! oh well, ya gotta kill a few nomads if ya wanna get rid of Al Qaeda....

I wonder how many new Al Qaeda we created that night? This not the way to beat terrorists. We can't keep creating more than we kill.

The herdsmen had gathered with their animals around large fires at night to ward off mosquitoes. But lit up by the flames, they became latest victims of America's war on terror.

It was their tragedy to be misidentified in a secret operation by special forces attempting to kill three top al-Qa'ida leaders in south-ern Somalia.

Oxfam yesterday confirmed at least 70 nomads in the Afmadow district near the border with Kenya had been killed. The nomads were bombed at night and during the day while searching for water sources. Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Kenya has acknowledged that the onslaught on Islamist fighters failed to kill any of the three prime targets wanted for their alleged role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.​

The weakminded are the first to believe in propaganda and side with the enemies cause..

 

[PsyOps]

As much as I would like to blame Clinton the blame goes back farther, at least back to Carter. Every President since could have done more, heck I thik W can do more.

In the context of my argument, the left has championed two things in their agenda: 1) Blame Bush for everything and 2) Apologize for Clinton's complete incompetence in dealing terrorism; especially in light of the number of attacks that occurred during his reign. We are paying for his lack of response to the problem. The left is oblivious (for political reasons) to this.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Invade Iraq under false pretenses? There were no false pretenses. We invaded because we had intelligence that said Iraq was producing WMD's in violation of a UN treaty. We later found out that the intelligence was wrong. Have you ever acted on information only to find out later it was flawed? That's not false pretenses. Get your terms straight.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Apologize for Clinton's complete incompetence in dealing terrorism; especially in light of the number of attacks that occurred during his reign. We are paying for his lack of response to the problem.

The "right" needs got get away from that. First, your doing the exact same thing that you want the left to stop doing, blame everything on someone else. It's childish and really something only kinds in elemetary school do. Second, there have been plenty of attacks under Bush so I don't really see how it's even relevant. Third, some things just happen, and there is not much you can do to stop it. We should spend more time deciding how to fix things and try and prevent things than blaming them on someone else. Wether Dole was in office or Clinton, 9/11 was going to happen. Of course all of this recincilliation and working together does not fit in the big parties agendas of dividing the country into two camps inorder to cound votes all year.

 

[Roughidle]

Alot of finger pointing and none seem to be in the direction of the terrorists.

 

[Penn]

One idea, involving diplomacy/negotiations on the talk news shows, that I thought was interesting, was that we - the west - need to ask the Middle Eastern nations, ie, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, etc. the question:

"Do you really want to see a nuclear armed Iran??"

Since Syria and Iran seem to be the biggest perpetrators who are dividing the many sects, the Sunnis and ####es, and others, thereby making it much more difficult for Iraq to come together as a country, maybe it's time for these surrounding nations to take a bigger stand in how the region evolves.

 

[Bustem' Down]

One idea, involving diplomacy/negotiations on the talk news shows, that I thought was interesting, was that we - the west - need to ask the Middle Eastern nations, ie, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, etc. the question:

"Do you really want to see a nuclear armed Iran??"

Since Syria and Iran seem to be the biggest perpetrators who are dividing the many sects, the Sunnis and ####es, and others, thereby making it much more difficult for Iraq to come together as a country, maybe it's time for these surrounding nations to take a bigger stand in how the region evolves.

Because we are like welfare. It's much easier for them to sit and let us take care of it.

 

[PsyOps]

The "right" needs got get away from that. First, your doing the exact same thing that you want the left to stop doing, blame everything on someone else. It's childish and really something only kinds in elemetary school do. Second, there have been plenty of attacks under Bush so I don't really see how it's even relevant. Third, some things just happen, and there is not much you can do to stop it. We should spend more time deciding how to fix things and try and prevent things than blaming them on someone else. Wether Dole was in office or Clinton, 9/11 was going to happen. Of course all of this recincilliation and working together does not fit in the big parties agendas of dividing the country into two camps inorder to cound votes all year.

You’re missing the basis of my point. It wont be much longer before the first 100 hours of the democrat rule is up, then they will start their hearings and secret meetings to push for impeachment proceedings. I’m fed up with the “Bush lied” agenda. Whenever appropriate, I will raise the incompetence of Clinton that got us in this position to begin with. Americans have become all too forgetful about what went on during those years. This has nothing to do with wanting the left stop doing it (they will never stop BLAMING Bush). This has to do with complete and utter foreign policy failure that no one wants to talk about (apparently even you Bustem).

To your second point… Of course there have been plenty of attacks under Bush, we are at war with those attacking us. Did you expect the enemy to crawl under a rock? So this begs the question: Do we accept attacks on Americans (acts of war should I have to remind you) and do nothing while more attack happen, or do we accept attacks on Americans while we are trying to eradicate this enemy in the midst of war?

To your third point… No, things don’t just happen. If you objectively look at the democrats track record on national security: Complete abject complacency to the terrorist problem in the 90s led to the autonomy of al Qaeda to launch all the attacks I mentioned previously. Now the dems want to create more complacency by abandoning Iraq knowing full well the consequences. What they want is unconscionable.

So, sometimes when you can identify the real blame and why you are blaming them you can solve the problem. It’s my opinion we have to rid ourselves of this mentality created by those who aim to undermine this war effort and put our entire national security at risk, all for political gain. As time goes on and this congress’s agenda becomes more and more clear you will see what I am talking about and blame will lie appropriately in their hands.

 

[forestal]

Sure we have, you just don't want to concern yourself with who's getting killed...

<table id="Table2" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" height="268" width="509"><tbody> <tr> <td style="height: 8px;" valign="top"> US Casualties By Calendar Year
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="height: 11px;" valign="top"> <table designtimedragdrop="82" id="dgYear" style="border: 1px none rgb(7, 55, 111); background-color: White; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" bordercolor="#07376f" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" rules="all"> <tbody><tr class="GridHeader" nowrap="nowrap" style="font-weight: bold;"> <td nowrap="nowrap">Year</td><td align="center" nowrap="nowrap">US Deaths</td><td align="center" nowrap="nowrap">US Wounded</td> </tr><tr class="GridItem"> <td align="left">2003</td><td align="right">486</td><td align="right">2408</td> </tr><tr class="GridItem"> <td align="left">2004</td><td align="right">848</td><td align="right">8002</td> </tr><tr class="GridItem"> <td align="left">2005</td><td align="right">846</td><td align="right">5946</td> </tr><tr class="GridItem"> <td align="left">2006</td><td align="right">824</td><td align="right">6372</td> </tr><tr class="GridFooter"> <td>Total</td><td align="right">3004</td><td align="right">22728</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

That's just it; we have not been attacked since 9/11, and the memory of nearly 3,000 people losing their lives - needlessly - is a faded one, at best.

Make no mistake about it: these people want to kill us, and they'd do it here in this country if they thought they could get away with it.

 

[forestal]

That would been the Central Intelligence Agency, under Ronnie Raygun, and Bush the Elder (and Wiser).

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 - At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term describing an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.​

Who created all those terrorists (to include the 911 perpetrators)?

 

[forestal]

So what's yer excuse?

The weakminded are the first to believe in propaganda and side with the enemies cause..

 

[forestal]

We also had alot of intel that said Saddam wasn't producing WMD's, but that wasn't part of the cherry picking.

Invade Iraq under false pretenses? There were no false pretenses. We invaded because we had intelligence that said Iraq was producing WMD's in violation of a UN treaty. We later found out that the intelligence was wrong. Have you ever acted on information only to find out later it was flawed? That's not false pretenses. Get your terms straight.

 

[dustin]

We also had alot of intel that said Saddam wasn't producing WMD's, but that wasn't part of the cherry picking.

Have you heard that the weapons may have been moved to Syria?

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

 

[PsyOps]

That would been the Central Intelligence Agency, under Ronnie Raygun, and Bush the Elder (and Wiser).

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 - At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term describing an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.​

Here are a couple of incorrect bits from this article… 1) Bin Laden did not leave Saudi Arabia to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden’s citizenship to Saudi Arabia was revoked due to his anti-government activities and kicked out of the country (a simple Wikipedia lookup on yours and Michael Moran’s part would have saved you this embarrassment). 2) Blowback is not a CIA code name for “describing an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators”. It is a term used to describe what happens when a weapon causes unintended consequences such as a gun backfire or shrapnel from a faulty grenade. I will grant this term may be used by the CIA to explain an operation that went wrong. Oh how easy it is (20+ years later) to use 20/20 hindsight to criticize that which was unpredictable at the time.

But back to the meat of the issue… If I give a gun to my neighbor so he can protect himself from someone he knows is trying to kill him and this neighbor decides to use this gun to commit murders throughout the neighborhood, did I create this criminal because I gave him a gun, in good faith, to protect himself?

We don’t create terrorists because of failed policies. We don’t have the luxury of knowing that policy going to fail, and the unintended consequences, ahead of time. And how convenient that you would predictably state that Reagan and Bush Sr created terrorists through their failed policy while purposefully ignoring the failed policies of Clinton. I don’t suppose all the bombings on the Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq, our maintained presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab nations during the 90s, all committed by Clinton, could have possibly incited any ire in these radicals to commit their acts of terror. Oh, and to use the left’s argument of 911, all the acts of terror I mentioned previously happened on Clinton’s watch and went without any real response.

So what creates more terrorists, going to war with them thus making them angry at us or doing nothing thus enabling them to grow and build their network of terrorist cells with autonomy allowing them to so easily commit such an attack like 911? If they already hated us because of Reagan’s and HW’s failed policies then certainly you have to concede that Clinton’s inaction on this new known threat enabled them to grow and become more powerful.

I do not blame Clinton, or Reagan or Bush Sr or W for creating terrorists. I blame the terrorists and their twisted ideology. I do blame an inept 3 decades (leading up to 911) of a complacent government (GOP and dems alike) for not acting on what turned out to be the biggest mess we face today. W. Bush inherited this mess. Now the democrats aim to return us back to those days of incompetence.

 

[PsyOps]

We also had alot of intel that said Saddam wasn't producing WMD's, but that wasn't part of the cherry picking.

Okay... So Bush had intel that said Saddam was developing WMD and intel that said he wasn't. Given the world that changed on 911 don't you think he has the choice of which to believe?

What if, just what if, he "cherry picked" the intel and believe those that said Saddam didn't have WMD and it turned out he did and handed them off to some terrorist organization and they were used. You'd be in the this room claiming Bush lied and "cherry picked" the intel to avoid going to war with Saddam and blaming him for the errant WMD.

Ever heard of "better safe than sorry"?

But this still doesn't answer the question how so many ALL OVER THE WORLD believed SAddam was armed with WMD right up to the war. (PLEASE READ UNR 1441).

 

[Ken King]

Here are a couple of incorrect bits from this article… 1) Bin Laden did not leave Saudi Arabia to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden’s citizenship to Saudi Arabia was revoked due to his anti-government activities and kicked out of the country (a simple Wikipedia lookup on yours and Michael Moran’s part would have saved you this embarrassment). 2) Blowback is not a CIA code name for “describing an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators”. It is a term used to describe what happens when a weapon causes unintended consequences such as a gun backfire or shrapnel from a faulty grenade. I will grant this term may be used by the CIA to explain an operation that went wrong. Oh how easy it is (20+ years later) to use 20/20 hindsight to criticize that which was unpredictable at the time.

Actually bin Laden left Saudi bringing money and to fight with the mujahdeen in Afghanistan sometime in 1980. When the CIA and ISI decided to train thousands of Muslims from around the world to fight in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was one of the key organizers in this effort. It wasn't until after the Soviets departure from Afghanistan, and after the first Gulf War that Osama was exiled for his support of Iraq and going against the ruling royalty.

As to using "blowback" to bescribe bin Laden I think it is highly appropriate. We trained the weapon and then it went faulty. There was never any intention on our part that it would be used against us.

 

[Larry Gude]

I have this mental picture...

As to using "blowback" to bescribe bin Laden I think it is highly appropriate. We trained the weapon and then it went faulty. There was never any intention on our part that it would be used against us.

...(ask my wife); Somewhere in Afghanistan, 1979. A CIA agent and Bin Laden discuss weaponry.

"Now see, once you've got the box cutter blade extended, you charge the tank and scream, real loud...are you paying attention? Quit taking notes. This isn't rocket science..."

 

[PsyOps]

Actually bin Laden left Saudi bringing money and to fight with the mujahdeen in Afghanistan sometime in 1980. When the CIA and ISI decided to train thousands of Muslims from around the world to fight in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was one of the key organizers in this effort. It wasn't until after the Soviets departure from Afghanistan, and after the first Gulf War that Osama was exiled for his support of Iraq and going against the ruling royalty.

As to using "blowback" to bescribe bin Laden I think it is highly appropriate. We trained the weapon and then it went faulty. There was never any intention on our part that it would be used against us.

I have been duly corrected. It was in 1994 that Bin Laden was kicked out of Saudi Arabia and stripped of his citizenship. Thank you.

This does not remove the fact that we are dealing with self-proclaimed radicals and not US-created ones. Forrestal would love nothing more than to accuse past GOP presidents (while ignoring the actions of those from his own party) of creating these terrorists.