Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

US bombs Somalian village!

MixBotMixBot Posts: 8,656 Automated Account
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6243459.stm

Have these fucking cunts (and before anyone screams I'm referring to the government, not the people) completely forgotten the concepts of 'territorial integrity', 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'slaughter of innocent civilians' to name but a few? At least in Iraq they could claim they were at war with it.

Does this mean any nation that sees Bush as the enemy has the right to bomb Washington DC and not be called a terrorist?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Sadly not surprised at all. What bothers me much more is that there are people stupid enough (and most of them living in the US) to believe that this was a fair reaction.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you overlooked what Somalia's "interim President" Abdullahi Yusuf said ?
    "The US has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,"

    The "interim President" has given them a right.

    There are some who believe that is a mandate/representation/will of the people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    F F S
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well the US backs the transitional govt and they are at war with the islamists.....

    But it is difficult to justify this kind of attack where civillian casualties are impossible to avoid, but of course they wouldn't use ground troops after previous incidents.......

    Are you equally condemnatory of the Ethiopians?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Well the US backs the transitional govt and they are at war with the islamists.....

    But it is difficult to justify this kind of attack where civillian casualties are impossible to avoid, but of course they wouldn't use ground troops after previous incidents.......

    Are you equally condemnatory of the Ethiopians?


    the transitional government is the same oen htat has been unable to form a working government for years, within a year or 2 the UIC has actually restored some order and got the warlords and weapons out of the capital and the average person was able to live semi-normal lives in some regions

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Courts_Union

    this 'interim government' has never been voted into power, it's just they aren't muslim so the US government supports them, the islamic courts were a far lesser evil
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why the surprise? They've been doing these in loads of countries for years, Yemen has had strikes, as has Somalia in the past.

    These people we're fighting are different (they're muslim), so the US cant be expected to play by the existing rules.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Have these fucking cunts (and before anyone screams I'm referring to the government, not the people) completely forgotten the concepts of 'territorial integrity', 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'slaughter of innocent civilians' to name but a few? At least in Iraq they could claim they were at war with it.

    Does this mean any nation that sees Bush as the enemy has the right to bomb Washington DC and not be called a terrorist?
    The US has an appalling history when it comes to international laws. Perhaps they should be changed to 'International Laws That Only Apply To The USA When They Bloody Feel Like It'. They obviously don't want to change their ways judging by their latest actions either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    The US has an appalling history when it comes to international laws.

    Same as every other country then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why do people still bang on about 'international law' as if it means anything?

    The only thing that really matters is whether the action in question was justified or not.

    personally I would say it is not because of the unavoidable civillian caualties...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    International law actually means a lot to about 75% of nations on earth- at least on principle.

    It's only warmongering cowboys and pariah states such as the US (and to our great shame, Britain of late) that have decided the many treaties and conventions they have signed regarding the use of force, territorial integrity or the Geneva Convention of Human Rights suddenly don't apply.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    International law actually means a lot to about 75% of nations on earth- at least on principle.

    It's only warmongering cowboys and pariah states such as the US (and to our great shame, Britain of late) that have decided the many treaties and conventions they have signed regarding the use of force, territorial integrity or the Geneva Convention of Human Rights suddenly don't apply.

    :lol:

    That's the most amusing thing I've ever heard. Complete bollocks, but funny.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh yeah? Care to enlighten us?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Shame the US didn't send their troops back in to Mogadishu for another arse whipping. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Oh yeah? Care to enlighten us?

    Shall we start on the non-existent Geneva Convention of Human Rights? Its got nothing to do with Human Rights its about regulating the laws of war - the right to life et al have no place in it.

    Shall we talk about the territorial integrity of Serbia when NATO forces (not just US and UK moved in) and also that its not just US/UK involved in Iraq either - something you perhaps might want to acknowledge http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

    Frankly there must be an awful lot of pariah states out there. Iceland must be pretty bored about being the only non-Pariah out there (if we ignore their actions during the Cod War).

    I could go on, but you get the drift. Still as I said I found it amusing
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Shall we start on the non-existent Geneva Convention of Human Rights? Its got nothing to do with Human Rights its about regulating the laws of war - the right to life et al have no place in it.
    Forget the confusion oh lord and master.

    Now that we are clear on that, could you remind us how the illegal kidnapping of enemy combatants, their torture and incarceration in clandestine concentration camps across the world (amongst other things) that the US has happily embarked in, with Britain looking the other way and allowing for its citizens to be taken to and be kept in such places, sits with Geneva Convention?
    Shall we talk about the territorial integrity of Serbia when NATO forces (not just US and UK moved in)
    We can if you want.
    and also that its not just US/UK involved in Iraq either - something you perhaps might want to acknowledge http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
    Who were the instigators though? Which permanent members of the UNSC spat in the entire organisation and went to war without authorisation? Which two countries falsified documentation and lied to their own pairlaments and to the UN in an attempt to get clearance for their war?
    Frankly there must be an awful lot of pariah states out there. Iceland must be pretty bored about being the only non-Pariah out there (if we ignore their actions during the Cod War).
    Some states are more pariah than others. The US and Britain rank at the very fucking top of the list at the moment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    'territorial integrity'

    Like that of an Embassy, you mean?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    International law actually means a lot to about 75% of nations on earth- at least on principle.

    It's only warmongering cowboys and pariah states such as the US (and to our great shame, Britain of late) that have decided the many treaties and conventions they have signed regarding the use of force, territorial integrity or the Geneva Convention of Human Rights suddenly don't apply.

    Rubbish.

    International Law means fuck all to most countries, and as the US is the world hegemon they can obviously get away with it because everyone else has to pander to their needs.

    And as for the Geneva Convention of Human Rights, domestically it has some relevance. Internationally, it's about as effective as a legless footballer.

    ETA:If I have to hear these American gits go on about Al-Qaeda once more I'll go mad, they're everywhere I tells ya, under your bed and all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Like that of an Embassy, you mean?
    I wasn't aware wedding party revellers, farmers and camels were responsible for the bombing of the Embassies...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6248669.stm

    An expert was saying elsewhere that the Hercules gunships used are by no means precision strike weapons. They 'sweep' entire villages, destroying everything and everyone in its path. In a nutshell, the US has got some 'intelligence' that some evil towelheads might be hidden in an area of Somalia and have decided to machine gun the flying fuck of anything that moves down there.

    I should imagine when we are old and want to impress and amaze our grandchildren we can tell them there was a time, when we were very young, that nations and governments actually tried to bring suspects to justice for whichever crimes they had commited instead of becoming judge, jury and executioner and shooting to kill anyone who just might be connected with a crime no matter how weak the evidence for such claims might be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is worth confirming that the Ac-130 is usually not described as a 'precision' weapon. Essentially the AC-130 is pretty close to a flying artillery weapon, and used on a village (most footage of strikes tends to focus on attacks on deserted remote roads from the first Gulf War) it's hard to imagine any precise targetting of weapons.

    Some footage seems to confirm this, with pretty sporadic and wide spread firing -

    (both of these links show actual attacks, but from a long way away in black and white - however it's wroth bearing in mind they are real attacks and the music on the first one is pretty insulting)

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7c445ff78f

    However other footage would suggest more precision - but still a pretty huge amount of blast damage:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8833ca228

    Given the towns were due to fall into Ethiopian troop hands according to local observers, one question people want to consider is why this strike has happened now - it's seems quite a hammer to use against fleeing forces.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC-130
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Bastards. Typical USA though, they have bombed LOADS of stuff over the last century. Looks like they are starting this one the same way! 7 years, countless innocents bombed. Add that to Israel's total (they may as well be one and the same) and look at it.

    Poor, poor Somalia. This is the LAST thing they needed in thier current state.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I wasn't aware wedding party revellers, farmers and camels were responsible for the bombing of the Embassies...

    I wasn't aware that the Embassy staff were doing anything which warranted their death either, so your point it what?

    "Territorial integrity" is meaningless, and not just for the reasons that seeker would want me to mention.
    I should imagine when we are old and want to impress and amaze our grandchildren we can tell them there was a time, when we were very young, that nations and governments actually tried to bring suspects to justice for whichever crimes they had commited

    Did you get those rose tints on prescription ;):p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wasn't aware that the Embassy staff were doing anything which warranted their death either, so your point it what?
    My point is that even though I should know better by now, I still believe that nations, even when ruled by governments as rogue as Bush's, should be better than terrorists and act differently.

    Nobody is defending the actions of Al Qaida. That doesn't mean that nations should sink to their level. I don't recall the British government bombing Dublin or sending gunships to destroy Catholic Belfast. The actions of the US government are simply inexcusable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I should know better by now

    :thumb:
    I still believe that nations, even when ruled by governments as rogue as Bush's, should be better than terrorists and act differently.

    Fighting "by the rules" means that you lose. It's why guerilla warfare has proved so effective.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    My point is that even though I should know better by now, I still believe that nations, even when ruled by governments as rogue as Bush's, should be better than terrorists and act differently.

    Nobody is defending the actions of Al Qaida. That doesn't mean that nations should sink to their level. I don't recall the British government bombing Dublin or sending gunships to destroy Catholic Belfast. The actions of the US government are simply inexcusable.

    Totally different - The Irish Government was anti the IRA and Belfast Catholics whether they like it or not are British subjects.

    That said I do remember the Spanish Government under Felipe González sending its agents across to France to murder ETA terrorists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_Antiterroristas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n

    I assume when you're talking about rogue states you view this as wrong and demand that the current Government deal with the PM who was involved in this...

    Or do all states do things to protect their people and interests...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Given the towns were due to fall into Ethiopian troop hands according to local observers, one question people want to consider is why this strike has happened now - it's seems quite a hammer to use against fleeing forces.

    That's when you do hammer them - it's a false morality to allow them to escape and regroup and continue to prolong the fighting...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fighting "by the rules" means that you lose. It's why guerilla warfare has proved so effective.
    Yes I can see how breaking the rules has really helped the US win its 'war on terror' and make the world a safer place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Totally different - The Irish Government was anti the IRA and Belfast Catholics whether they like it or not are British subjects.
    Are you trying to suggest that otherwise it would have been okay to bomb them?
    That said I do remember the Spanish Government under Felipe González sending its agents across to France to murder ETA terrorists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_Antiterroristas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n

    I assume when you're talking about rogue states you view this as wrong and demand that the current Government deal with the PM who was involved in this...
    I do, and those responsible for it are rotting in jail as they should.

    And I would think of it being even more wrong if the Spanish government had entered France and used a gunship to machine gun entire villages and herds of animals.

    I really do wonder what would the US have to do for you to utter a word of condemantion or even think they were wrong in doing it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What annoys me is the people they are bombings are only suspected to have al-Qaeda links

    Doesn't mean they're guilty, or that they are surrounded by innocent people who get killed just for being nearby at the time.

    I'd have no problems with the US sending in navy seals to round these people up and capture them and interview them and give them a trial but to simply murder them for being suspects makes me wonder who are the real Terrorists in the world.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    -
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    makes me wonder who are the real Terrorists in the world.
    Just now? I thought everyone knew the answer to that question since 5-6 years ago.
Sign In or Register to comment.