Newsflash: US airstrikes in Somalia
Via Reuters Africa, we continue to kill the terrorists before they kill us at home. And the MSM continues to use ghost quotes around the word “terrorist.” Because that would be a subjective value judgment. And of course the MSM doesn’t engage in those.
The U.S. military targeted suspected “terrorists” in a strike launched early on Monday in Dobley, Somalia, a senior U.S. military official said.
The official, who declined to be named, told Reuters: “We launched a deliberate strike against a suspected bed-down of known terrorists.”
He said it was too early to know what damage had been inflicted, including whether any people were injured or killed in the strike launched overnight Washington time (early morning GMT). The official declined to give details on the type of weapon used.
This was the fourth U.S. air strike on Somalia in 14 months.
***
Update: Allahpundit has more context and and news that the US is “confident” the target was hit.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Gateway Pundit
» John McCain's Mother and Daughter Abused By Leftist (Video)JustOneMinute
» Now The Surge Is Succeeding?Little Miss Attila
» Well, You Know: G.W. Bush Didn't Vet His VP, Either.Stop The ACLU
» Call Obama (Uh-bama) a WAAAAH!bulance!JustOneMinute
» Boys Will Be Boys?Redstate
» The Maverick Does It His WayWeekly Standard
» A Shrum Victory at Last?
Well,GET SOME!
Just two missiles? You got my hopes up. I was hoping for some Mk82 action.
I can’t believe they use quotes for “Terrorists” but won’t use quotes for “Journalist”.
Fixed it for ‘em.
Here’s hoping our guys got some of them. In my book the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
Tick, tick, boom. Deep six’em all.
I’m surprised the msm didn’t say we struck a “bed and breakfest” in Somalia.
or a bed and breakfast,,, sheesh.
No, not ON Somalia, ON “terrorists”…..
Terrorists are cowards. BTW, our American Revolution was fought by patriots wearing uniforms, carrying weapons and engaging the British armed forces, not innocent civilians. The British burned New London, CT in a cowardly act. I refuse to blend terrorists with our brave men who fought for our freedoms honorably.
A suspected “Reporter” heard from an “undocumented” official that refused to take credit for leaking the story to the “Press”.
Let’s link a couple of conversation for the sake of discussion.
If the US were to have shot the guy in Las Vegas, given what we know about him and what he had, would they have shot a terrorist, “terrorist”, or person? How would you describe the sitaution?
Futhermore, if the US were to bomb the guy in Las Vegas, what level of collateral damage would be acceptable to eleminate this threat? Let’s say they bombed the whole hotel. How many other people who have to had been in that hotel before you say “That’s just too many”?
just to play along with a lame hypothetical…..
If Rosie were the headline act at the Hotel, then take the collateral damage. its worth it. and the bonus being all the Racin was destroyed to save thousands…..
So not only is it suspected, but after you already question whether or not they are terrorists, you have to tack on some more grammar to further confuse the issue. Great.
I agree with MrVIBEMAN, they’re “journalists”.
I won’t say suspected “journalists” because quite frankly I’m not even that convinced.
As to mpChops, the United States has a willingness to police itself which renders the scenario moot. If these countries were willing to involve themselves in police actions against terrorists in their midst, we wouldn’t have to bomb anything. So the answer is: We wouldn’t bomb Las Vegas because Las Vegas would happily go in and get the terrorists.
AJMonntana,
Dismissing it as a lame hypothetical is weak. It’s a combination of two events that have recently occured. Yes, it involves critical thinking, as you cannot simply comment on events that have already happened. If you’re not up for the challenge on a Monday morning, fine, but don’t denigrate the scenario.
Terrorist - noun - a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
People in this country (which includes Las Vegas last time I checked) who fall into that category are arrested by our fine Law Enforcement Officials, with good reason.
NeoCon is correct, it’s hypothetical because it doesn’t happen in this country. It doesn’t get to the point where we need to get the military involved.
AJ, I like that Rosie is so vocal. Everytime she opens her mouth another fence sitting independant becomes conservative.
And in Ecuador, it looks like they bagged a baker’s dozen of the FARC types.
Hugo is simply livid…
He’s threatening war.
Some more….
The question isn’t one of authority, which is why I didn’t specify the military whether it be the military or the FBI. It’s about the classification of threats and the actions that should be taken once that threat has been classified.
If it were today, MOVE would have probably been classified as a terrorist organization. They were bombed. In Philadelphia. By the Philadelphia Police. Yes, bombed. There are arguments on whether that action was neccessary, as children were utimately killed because of that. At what point is bombing justified, and what level of threat needs to be perceived?
Saying ’suspected’ anything gives me pause. It leaves wiggle room for the reader to believe the people targeted were not actual terrorists. I would prefer that we bomb terrorists, period. Not alleged terrorists, or purported terorists.
Words have meaning, and I agree with #4 Boomer - the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
In terms of policy, my hope is that it will be consistent. When terrorists are identified we should whack them, especially when those Governments will not act. Kind of like what happened recently in Waziristan, Pakistan.
This policy is not naive, nor does it demonstrate in-experience. Besides Pres Bush has said, “If a country is too timid to act. We will.”
I think zyzzyg hits on a good point, and one that I was attempting to articulate.
Killing terrorists is one thing. Killing suspected terrorists is another thing. And targeting suspected terrorists is still another thing. And then there’s targeting suspected terrorists camp.
As the phrases get longer, the colatoral damage and uncertanty rises.
These strikes on terrorists are common. If Hillary or Barack were president, they would have every one of the dinosaur media delay Prime Time evening programming for a special announcement to the American people. They would sit in the Oval Office to explain their heroic decision to take out terrorists that don’t exist outside of Afghanistan. Then all the looney left media will praise the Democrat Pres on his/her first military act as Commander in Chief. No praise to the military, that would be treasonist.
It doesn’t really matter what we call them, it’s just a matter of semantics. The main issue is whether taking them out advances our cause or not (I believe it does).
Incidently I tend to refer to them as “Somali warlords” for that part of the world. An appropriate term for violent small-scale megalomaniacs who live in dusty hell-holes and spend most of their time trying to seize control of a rival’s equally squalid neighborhood.
We are needed all over the world. Kurdish terrorists have killed about 53,000 people, and they should be a top priority for our military. Then we should move into Sri Lanka and Chechnya.
The MSM doesn’t have journalists anymore. People like that don’t fit into the political modes. They have commentators reporting the news to editorial writers. It must serve the Left or be not reported. To respond to ChiefRZ, most patriots didn’t wear uniforms. Many battles and skirmishes were fought by militia, fought in clothes they brought with them. There were atrocities on both sides, and civilians were targeted and killed. Hatred was seen on both sides. It was more of a civil war, than revolution. But, I’m glad the U.S. hit Somalia. Hit em again if you need to. Got my support.
mpChops: I’ll play.
You said: “If the US were to have shot the guy in Las Vegas, given what we know about him and what he had, would they have shot a terrorist, “terrorist”, or person? How would you describe the sitaution?
Futhermore, if the US were to bomb the guy in Las Vegas, what level of collateral damage would be acceptable to eleminate this threat? Let’s say they bombed the whole hotel. How many other people who have to had been in that hotel before you say “That’s just too many”?”
First, I’ll have to assume that the “guy in Las Vegas” is the man in the hospital suspected of having some alleged nefarious connection with the Ricin in the hotel room.
Second, let me address the second part first, and I think that my answer will illuminate the first part of the hypothetical. Your hypothetical tries to make a parallel between using force (bombing) overseas and using like force in the United States. I think this is why AJ, et. al., rejected the premise of the hypothetical. Since the operations in Somalia were conducted against terrorists operating in a country in which we had no lesser means of addressing the threat (i.e. Direct Action Units or other viable operational ground forces; according to open source information), other military means were neccessary to address the threat (i.e. NGF, Air Strikes, etc.). When these other means are used, the likelyhood of error or collateral damage increases because of the possibility of operator/techinal erros, flaws in intellegence/targeting, and a potential lack of confirmation of the appropriate targets being on site at the time of the operation. Good SOPs, training, and technology mitigate the risk, but they remain… All that being said, if the persons on site are the enemy and we reasonably believe that they are a continuing threat, then it is a decision, according to policy and ROE - there are no good options left because we have a distinct lack of options. That is unless you would advocate expanding military options/forces in Somalia, along with the attendant expansion of military personnel/resources, and of course gathering the political/popular support for those expansions… That is the cost of the increased fidelity with respect to collateral damage. Finally, On the MOVE incident, I believe the police were found guilty of using excessive force (which I believe is correct). That being said… it was ALSO bad planning and execution, looking at it from a purely operational standpoint.
Now, lets return to the U.S. - The government (both civil and military authorities) are restricted on the means and procedures that they may use to address various threats (criminal, terrorist, border security, etc.). Also, we have many more “ground forces” spread throughout the US that can react more quickly to address a particular threat. So, I think that the “if the US would have shot…” is a pretty big leap because we have multiple means of addressing the issue, far short of ’shooting first and asking questions later.’ If a higher level of response were warranted (presupposing we had accurate information that this person was indeed a terrorist with malevolent intent), then SWAT, FBI, etc. could address the issue with much greater fidelity and a far lower risk of collateral damage than bombing the whole hotel. Again, it comes down to the tools you have that allow you to specifically target an individual rather than an area target.
In conclusion, just to keep you from saying I didn’t answer the question of semantics at the start of your hypothetical, I would say that we don’t have enough information to make a definitive statement yet. Currently, I would say this is a person who is suppected of intent to commit terrorist acts. If more information on intent comes out that he did have intent to commit terrorist acts, then I think the proper term would be terrorist (no quotes). Also, MM’s point that the quotes are not needed goes to the fact the media uses quotes for things that the military experts say like terrorist, but not for things like “insurgent” or “freedom fighter” when the terrorists themselves are talked about.
There is one thing I have never understood about islamic terrorists. If Allah is so powerful, why not just put on some uniforms and meet us in a stand-up fight. You would be assured of victory.
Actually, I understand that type of BS all too well. It’s still fun to point out the flaws in their beliefs.
Chops, go pound your “moral equivalence”…
The two scenarios are not equal. No matter how you discount good argument, and acknowledge bad.
“Suspected” is used in the same mode as “alleged”. Bin Laden is a “suspected” terrorist who has done some “alleged” illegal activity, is the way the news protrays him. It’s all about covering yourself legally. So, bombing of a camp will always be full of “suspected” terrorists committing “alleged” terrorism. And, forget “clean war”. You will always have collateral damage. And, even if no such damage is done, those people will make sure a whole lot “was done”, to get sympathy in the news.
I’m (so far from) amazed that the MSM has added quotes around a very real threat known as terrorism… yet they have removed the quotes surrounding the word “marriage” when referring to gay “marriage.”
Can we just start calling the evening news the evening narrative?