Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Attackers Tweet As They Assault UN Development Program Compound

timothy posted about a year ago | from the live-tweet-hardly-seems-the-term dept.

Social Networks 240

Koreantoast writes "In another interesting example of the increasing use and sophistication of social media by non-governmental organizations, the Somali-based Islamic insurgency al-Shabab live tweeted their latest attack, a suicide assault against a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) facility in Mogadishu which left 15 dead. During the event, they denounced UNDP, tweeting during the attack that the UN is 'a merchant of death & a satanic force of evil, has a long inglorious record of spreading nothing but poverty, dependency & disbelief' and proceeded to mock newly appointed UN Representative Nicholas Kay who is to arrive in Somalia later this month. Also of note is their initiation of communications with various press entities including the AP, BBC and IHS Janes through Twitter. Hat tip to Foreign Policy magazine for the story."

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Given the UN's track record in Africa... (5, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44062031)

I have to say, I can understand how they would view the UN in such a way. The UN's policies are pretty firm in their pushing of dependence, which is unsurprising given the way the wealthier and more influential nations are able to control it.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44062073)

It's clear the spreading of disbelief is the real motivator here. Kill in the name of God.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44062115)

It's worked for them so far.

Disbelief AND the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062125)

I feel the it's clear the motivator is what Sponge Bath said AND the over-reaching, freedom-quashing, anti-free speech tactics of the UN.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (4, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#44062629)

It's clear the spreading of disbelief is the real motivator here. Kill in the name of God.

Exactly. When I read this: "a merchant of death & a satanic force of evil, has a long inglorious record of spreading nothing but poverty, dependency & disbelief", for a moment I thought they were talking about their brand of radical Islam.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#44063017)

You know...when are we in the western world, going to finally have enough of these 'peace loving' islamic asshats, and just start stomping them...HARD?

They don't seem to want to play nice with the rest of the world, and frankly isn't everyone about to start getting tired of going out of our way to be some tolerant of those that show absolutely no tolerance to anyone different than they are?

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44063299)

Because that's so 1 dimensional, only a child could realistically hold such a position? People are complicated, motivated by millions of factors, even within the self-reproducing shared values known as a religion. The indiscriminate justice you advocate is, by every conceivable metric, millions of times worse than anything this small subset of Muslims has ever done.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44063327)

Why not starting at home? Someone had no tolerance for their beliefs, their way of life and their resources, and are invading them, with armies, global economy or/and factories. They just fight back the best they know, after the damage was done. But at home you have your big quota of religious extremists and people in power that see foreigners as tools with no rights, that even push their own governors on them to get easier to become even richer.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063371)

You know...when are we in the western world, going to finally have enough of these 'peace loving' islamic asshats, and just start stomping them...HARD?

Probably about the same time they start stomping...HARD...on the 'child loving' christian asshats. I mean, Christians are all "think of the children,' but whenever you hear about a pedophile, it's always a priest or some FLDS fundamentalist.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063103)

Strange how enemies view each other the same way.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44062639)

You're kind of a "one issue guy", aren't you?

Go UN (0)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#44062851)

I hate the UN as much as anyone, but at least they are aggressively killing Islamic and Muslim people for us.

Re:Go UN (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063019)

If they are, they're doing a piss poor job of being "aggressive".

Re:Go UN (-1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44063329)

That is to say you have exactly zero distinguishing characteristics with the Muslims you hate other than a label? Good to know.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44063263)

Is easier to believe in gods or devils than that complex multinationals controlling governments and international organizations to make money from them, or in intangible things like having a future or freedom.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44063273)

It's clear the spreading of disbelief is the real motivator here. Kill in the name of God.

It's really about pursuit of power, as in: They who are not in power want to be and will use any means to achieve their ends, including corrupting interpretation of their own "faith" to achieve these ends. It really isn't anything about spreading the good word of the Prophet, who would probably be outraged at the practices these people engage in, recruiting people to become suicide attackers/bombers.

Never attribute to religion what greed and malice can easily explain.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062145)

How about their track record anywhere?

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44062885)

Well, that's certainly problematic as well.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062263)

I'm surprised more people haven't stopped to think about what the UN's (and indeed, other world authorities) policies actually do to developing countries. These attacks would not have happened unless something was going on that they found objectionable enough to kill over. A google search turns up a particularly informative book on the subject entitled Looting Africa. [ukzn.ac.za] (Large PDF)

Apparently not everyone is happy when you hand their national resources over to a foreign company.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44062367)

"These attacks would not have happened unless something was going on that they found objectionable enough to kill over. "

many use the ancient writings of a madman in a holy book to use as their justification to kill.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062415)

many use the ancient writings of a madman in a holy book to use as their justification to kill.

Come on, the words of Adam Smith or Karl Marx aren't that old to be called ancient.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

polar red (215081) | about a year ago | (#44062423)

western money has an influence on whether these book gain or lose following. for example, no meddling in the middle east since the 40's would certainly have had a beneficial effect.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062609)

western money has an influence on whether these book gain or lose following. for example, no meddling in the middle east since the 40's would certainly have had a beneficial effect.

France and Britain started meddling in the middle east right after the Great War.
The 1940's was already to late.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (2)

polar red (215081) | about a year ago | (#44062891)

I think it started much earlier still, I am guessing the Romans already did that. But removing the influcence of the last 70-80 years alone would have been marvellous.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44062623)

All "holy books" call for violence. Except for one, Buddah does not call for it in any instance.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (5, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#44063001)

All "holy books" call for violence. Except for one, Buddah does not call for it in any instance.

And yet, Buddhists have committed and still commit violence [wikipedia.org] in the name of their religion. People are funny creatures, aren't they?

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44063231)

Yes they are, they find justification to kill each other all anywhere they can find it.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (5, Informative)

gsgriffin (1195771) | about a year ago | (#44063435)

You are mistaken. The Bible records violence (ancient...thousands of years ago), BUT the guidance it gives for followers of Christ (which is in the New Testament) is DEFINITELY not violence. The overwhelming guidance, instruction and command is to LOVE. It goes so far as to command "LOVE YOUR ENEMY". Unfortunately, too many followers of Christ don't fully understand this and fall into an Old Testament view of how they should behave.

If people really studied what the New Testament is calling people to do, you wouldn't find anything objectionable. It is all about, love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control, forgiveness, repentance, humility, etc... What is wrong with any of that? Nowhere in the New Testament (again, the instructions for followers of Christ today) does violence upon anyone even come into the picture. Read it before making blanket statements.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44062481)

I'm gonna hafta side with Lumpy on this one: many African dictators and warlords are simply crazy. Several countries were put into severe straits by the imperialism of the 19th century, which has created a vicious cycle. The most notorious is the Congo Free State, which was abused by Belgians acting without governmental authority; the atrocities committed then are more than sufficient, on their own, to explain continued horrors like the LRA and the Rwandan genocides.

Between the extremism of religion and the blood-soaked historical canvas, there are far more poisonous elements in sub-Saharan Africa than present-day economic exploitation. The innate holism of many African cultures makes this somewhat more of a problem than in analytical Western European cultures where we are taught to question authority.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063131)

Solution: pull the UN and other nanny state promoting NGO's out of all of Africa and stop all aid. No more free food to be used by despots or to make sure there is an even larger generation of starving kids and no more donated clothing like T-shirts for the losers of some championship game to allow their own textile industries a chance to develop. The population will eventually come down to a sustainable level and they will eventually sort their own shit out.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (3, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44062485)

> These attacks would not have happened unless something was going on that they found
> objectionable enough to kill over.

I think it more likely that these attacks would have been differently justified. That or these attacks would have been different attacks. The group is a militant group with a clearly larger agenda than opposing the UN.

That said, the best propaganda does have some truth to it. If there wasn't some sentiment already in this direction, then these attacks would be pointless. I am reminded of the talk of newspeak and the idea that big brother being good could be so ingrained in a language that to even say the opposite would seem, on its face, wrong. Just try to replace the UN with the Redcross or Doctors without Borders, and a lot less of us will be sitting here saying "well they have a point..."

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062307)

Murder is not an appropriate response to having feelings of political unrest, and I'm pretty certain that policy is not set from the UNDP Mogadishu facility.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44062915)

What you call murder, they probably call war. Can't pretend they don't perceive a significant threat from the UN, even if the UN never fired a shot.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year ago | (#44062607)

I have to say, I can understand how they would view the UN in such a way. The UN's policies are pretty firm in their pushing of dependence, which is unsurprising given the way the wealthier and more influential nations are able to control it.

If I had Karma, you would have it all.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year ago | (#44063055)

Unfair to the UN and unfair to wealthy nations. If they didn't do anything at all, the poorest people in the world would be much worse off and literally millions of people would have died of starvation and disease. Helping countries with corrupt governments (almost all of Africa) or no government at all (such as Somalia) is a more difficult problem than you think and in every place where Islamic radicals operate they make that problem much more difficult.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44063393)

Treating nations and organizations as a whole is unfair, like bombarding an entire city because an isolated terrorist is hidden in a particular building. But when those small components in big organizations or countries does massive damage, you blame the whole deal. If that is wrong, then you had been very deep in the wrong side for decades.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44062731)

I can understand how they would view the UN in such a way

Yeah, but compared to the Islamist militias, they're generally a lot lest rapey and murdery.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44062981)

By your logic, we shouldn't fight back against burglars, since they could be worse, raping and murdering instead of just burgling. And if they move in and take over your finances and tell you how to run your household, hey, at least they're not raping and murdering you.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44063127)

I think a better analogy might be having a bad boss who you don't like. And then one day, a new guy tries to come in and replace this boss. Only the new guy is John Wayne Gacy. And you're pretty sure he's going to kill you and bury you in an unmarked grave if he gets in. In that situation, it may be better to stick with the old boss.

Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (1)

stdarg (456557) | about a year ago | (#44063433)

Since the UN doesn't go around taking over wealthy, stable countries (which would be more profitable), that's a stupid analogy. They're not burgling houses. They're like the cops who go into a violent area of the city and try to prevent crime.

Your line of thought is more like people living in a ghetto who buy into the "no snitch" program because they hate cops more than each other.

Everyone modernizes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062065)

So the nuts can use social networking too. Heck of a lot faster than mailing your insane manifesto to news organizations.
Crazed cowards with a smartphone are still crazed cowards.

Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062081)

I don't understand why we continue to deal with these folks as if they are adults and human.

Withdraw all troops. Withdraw all support. Stop all 'aid' of any sort.

And cut them off from the rest of the world too.

Whenever they grow the fuck up we can deal with them in a diplomatic way again.

Yeah, alot of innocent people would be hurt by doing it this way... But so far it doesn't look like that would matter much. Just change which innocent people were getting killed.

At the very least it would save a fuckton of money. And stop civilized people from being killed who were trying to help.

Re:Why... (2)

doconnor (134648) | about a year ago | (#44062129)

The people engaging in these attacks represent a minority of the people who live there.

Re:Why... (5, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44062161)

And the people who live there aren't doing a fucking thing about it are they? Do you think they don't know who it is?

Why is it they I'm guilty for standing aside and watching a crime against humanity, but they are absolved?

If they had such a problem against it, they'd do something about it. They do not. They are only slightly different than the ones actually perform the bombings.

Re:Why... (1)

doconnor (134648) | about a year ago | (#44062257)

I'm sure some of them try do something, although I'm sure some of them are dead now. Do we abandon them?

Of course, most people just go with the flow. Do you condemn them for being human?

Despite this setback conditions in Somalia are improving. Pretty good for the most lawless place in the world.

Re:Why... (3, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#44062261)

This is exactly my thoughts. If the people do want the help then they should help themselves first by trying to eliminate these radical elements of society. Of course, you can crow all day about "innocent bystanders" and "the extremists are the minority" but the real question should be: Are they really? Are the majority of the people so in favor of aid that they would do something if it would help? I think the clear and resounding answer to that is "no". No they wouldn't, won't, and will not help because they simply don't care.

Re: Why... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062611)

Germany, early 20th century. Not very many madmen, initially. Yet they acquired power and then they managed to keep population in fear, didn't they? Many more examples before and after.

It's not that difficult for people with agenda to establish control if they have access to weapons (as opposed to the rest od the population), don't hesitate to use violence and know how to use propaganda, religious or otherwise. Religious propaganda or any other based on superstition(s) has worked very well since eons until these days, in many countries, regardless of how much the country is "civilized". The advantage is that you don't have to prove anything. It's one of the best con tricks ever invented by man.

Re:Why... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year ago | (#44063291)

The elephant in the room is Islam. It is a different proposition to be opposing say a communist militia in your country and opposing an Islamist militia. People who are thought from childhood to believe that Koran is a literal word of God cannot reasonably oppose Jihadists who are fighting infidels for the glory of Islam, because that is what God clearly orders them to do! This is the power of religion. When you have people fanatical enough to torture and murder young children in front of their parents for making an innocent joke mentioning Mohammad's name (as happened the other day in Syria) it is a scary force to oppose for ordinary unarmed people. The only way forward is for the civilized world to demand secularization of the government in Islamic countries (Turkey style) and reform of Islam, which unfortunately will mean conflict with Islam for a long time.

Re:Why... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#44062339)

I should add to that, I don't believe in going to destroy their country in a big invasion. I believe we should just leave them alone and let them kill themselves instead of trying to 'save them'.

These sort of problems resolve themselves fairly quickly without outside support. Evolution is a bitch.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062429)

Do you "do something about it" every time injustice occurs in wherever neck of the world you are comfortably posting from?

If not, you are only slightly different from people who perform suicide attacks.

(I bet that logic doesn't work here for some reason.)

Re:Why... (2, Insightful)

Afty0r (263037) | about a year ago | (#44062555)

That is absolutely absurd.

For example when you talk about "they" who do you mean? All of them?

Take, for example, drug-dealing in the West... now drug dealers have to conduct business in public and with the public, Al-Shabab do not and can remain relatively hidden during their planning and operations. What percentage of the population of Western Towns and cities do you think could accurately identify or name over 50% of their local drug dealers? I'm guessing it's in the region of a few percent - the other ninety-odd percent of people know little or nothing about it.

Your comments are actually harmful to this discourse, you haven't thought them through, and are labelling an entire population when it is, in fact, a minority.

Re:Why... (1)

higuita (129722) | about a year ago | (#44062707)

in Afghanistan, the world did nothing when a small group of religious troops start to take over, killing and controlling everything.
No one helped...they were just another group...
All other forces combined would defeat the talibans, but they all were broken apart with regional battles and war lords and one at time they were being defeated by the talibans. After some time the remaining war lords were too weak to defeat then.. and no one helped...

Internal resistance was getting weaker and weaker until most of the country was under their control and after that, none dare to even think about disagree with the talibans, they controled (almost) everyone... and again, no one helped...

With in "house" almost secure and several generations of people that only know how to fight and make war, they start to export their ideals and fight and a few years later you got the attack to the twin towers, the Madrid bombing, several bomb attacks in africa and asia and many radical Islamic movements all over the world... only then several countries decided to "help", in a war that still didn't end after all this years.

You know, helping in the right time might save a lot of trouble in the future. Not helping can make things even worst, as no one likes to feel abandoned.

In somalia there are external help and the Islamic radicals are losing ground... yet they use this suicide bombings as a way to try to regain power and force external public opinion to abandon the country. It also make everyone insecure and harder for any government to work/prevail , reducing the resistance to their attacks. Then any propaganda about the "good old islamic army", in a God send mission to save then is what local people want to ear and will increase their local support.

Finally, there is no need for local support to make terror attacks, and they can be easily hidden until is too late... just look at the Boston marathon bombing. No external support, 2 person attack, no one did anything until was too late. Take out the cameras and probably no one would know exactly who did that attack, opening the door for more attacks later.

Re:Why... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#44062733)

Of course the locals know that their neighbors are plotting to kill. The locals also know that if they stop their neighbor's plot, they'll be dead by the end of the week. They don't have body armor, helmets, tanks, bodyguards, or even so much as a solid front door. They are absolutely powerless against the people with guns, so we send in the UN troops. They're trained soldiers with all the equipment they need to do what the locals can't. That changes the game, and the locals now have to publicly pretend to hate the UN so they aren't seen as supporting the "invaders". Local chieftains are usually a more honest source of sentiment polls, because they have a bit more freedom to speak.

Of course, in turn the fear-fueled displays of animosity towards the UN troops reinforces the radicals' belief that they're acting on the will of the people, so their plots get bigger and deadlier, so the UN sends in more troops, continuing the cycle.

There is no easy answer. Removing the UN troops leaves the radicals still armed and murderous. Adding more UN troops increases the risk, but also increases the equipment cost to the radicals for each plot. The gamble is whether the radicals run out of resources before too many innocent people die.

Re:Why... (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44062929)

You are guilty because some very well-meaning but strategically inept white people realised that the imperial powers that colonized Africa in the 19th century basically sold the entire continent guns without any attempt at training. Most of the time, they left afterwards.

And most of the time, these were not literally guns, but ideas: Christianity, capitalism, democracy, bureaucracy, self-determination... These are all very powerful tools that can be used to positive effect by a mind from the right culture, but at the time, no one realised that the cultural differences ran deeply enough that a generation or two of education and preaching was insufficient. The people who did draw the distinction were either so excited by science that they assumed the difference was fundamental (and so created Social Darwinism), quickly making the whole topic verboten. It was suppressed in the name of political correctness, which made it a little easier for highly motivated people to change their cultural makeup and succeed, but mostly did damage, as we were now ignorant of why everyone else continued to fail.

The key difference between the two cultures is an analytic mindset versus a holistic mindset; we break ideas down, they see them in context. There are advantages to both, although without any analytical skill whatsoever it becomes immensely hard to reason about whether or not you're being cheated on a deal or if it makes no sense that some random guy's arbitrary religious hate assertions are more reasonable than those of someone else. For most of human history, these kinds of reasoning simply haven't been necessary.

This is at least as devastating as the actual guns, not to mention all of the diseases, in the colonization of other far-off lands. (Oh, and the slave trade. Let's not forget that even tiny little Easter frickin' Island had its people stolen by the Peruvians for slavery.)

So. You are guilty because, in an ironic twist of fate, the academics who are trying to help get this mess fixed have no idea of how to appeal to the reason of the people around them. They feel so bad about the interventionalism of the past that they don't want to accept that the solution lies in education—a little closer to the bad kind [wikipedia.org] than most efforts—and would rather treat the symptoms, like stopping the LRA. If it's any consolation, most such activists are students who don't really know any better and are just victims of their own consciences.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063237)

Christianity has been in parts of Africa since the 1st century, not the 19th.

Re:Why... (1)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about a year ago | (#44063171)

I'm not defending the actions of the murderers, and I'm not defending the inaction of the bystanders who observe the crimes and do nothing. But, these reports might give you some understanding of their perspective and why they are mad. The UN has an absolutely terrible track record in Africa. They've been accused of widespread sexual abuse of children across multiple African countries by thousands of victims, across a number of years with virtually no action taken to stop the abuse. There are also numerous accusations of corruption and collusion with warlords. The UN as an organization has noble intentions, but the people on the ground are subject to some very human flaws when given too much power over the weak.

2002: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2002/05/06/Refugee-sex-scandal-triggers-UN-reforms/UPI-89771020662474/ [upi.com] - UN troops raped children in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea.

2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6195830.stm [bbc.co.uk] - Children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia, a BBC investigation has found

2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1538476/UN-staff-accused-of-raping-children-in-Sudan.html [telegraph.co.uk] - The UN said today that it would launch an investigation after the Daily Telegraph reported allegations that UN personnel have abused children in southern Sudan.

2011: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146874 [israelnationalnews.com] - An AP investigation found that food meant for starving Somalis is being stolen and sold in markets. UN's World Food Program unfazed.

Re:Why... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#44062189)

But I agree with the Anon Coward. The majority that live there want peace? Let them fix their own house then. Maybe some support but enough with trying to police the world. Quarantine the problem areas and let the supposedly peaceful majority take control then we can negotiate with them. You can't negotiate with people who are perfectly content to blow up 100 of their own people to kill a few infidels.

Re:Why... (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#44062349)

The Germans involved in the Holocaust were a minority of the overall German population. But we bombed the crap out of the entire country anyways.

Re:Why... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44062383)

Yes. we bombed the shit out of berlin for days on end. Why? because that was the only way to stop the evil people. you had to kill others to get the evil people.

Why dont the UN just fire up gatling guns and mow down the whole frigging crowd attacking?

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062505)

>Why dont the UN just fire up gatling guns and mow down the whole frigging crowd attacking?

Because it would destroy the illusion of the UN as "good guys," and instead demonstrate that they're a murderous invading force.

Re:Why... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44062651)

You fight murderous forces with murderous forces, only a fool would try to do otherwise. Read the "art of war".

Re:Why... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year ago | (#44063117)

We didn't bomb them to stop the Holocaust, we bombed them to win the war. Germans started it by bombing the crap of civilian areas all over Europe at the beginning of the war, sinking civilian ships etc etc. It was that kind of war.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062495)

a minority of the people

So we can expect that this 'minority' will be held to account by the supposedly outraged majority?

The "it's just a minority" claim is the cliché go-to excuse of all apologists and I find it suspect.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063211)

That could probably be said for just about any conflict in history. The majority of Berliners were neither Nazis nor wehrmacht but no one took that into account during the battle of Berlin or the months of carpet bombing that preceded it.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062193)

Maybe you should also consider the fact that a lot of money flows through industrialists to a small elite able to control the politics there.

Re: Why... (0)

Gilmoure (18428) | about a year ago | (#44062725)

Um, there are resources in them thar hills and the corporations want them. Why do you hate AmeriCo?!!!

Mistake in snippet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062093)

His name is Nicholas Cage and he's coming to help bring salvation with Sean Connery

Nothing worse than trying to plan a raid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062095)

and then some noob comes along and splatters it allover Twitter #alluakbar

Re:Nothing worse than trying to plan a raid (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | about a year ago | (#44062265)

237 users +1 LIKE your Planned Embassy Raid

God (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062113)

God says...
regarding throat thenceforth indued pictures huge cogito
Right essence open hurts_my_head spoken realised heal
vaunt scholar tends harmonise scruple commandments createdst

What's a tweet ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062117)

Something to flood information like that ? flood [youtube.com]

I am now immune to dystopic fantasy (4, Interesting)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#44062121)

I am pretty sure that tweeting that you are suicide bombing a 'merchant of death' requires the OED to make a new notation on the irony page.

Re:I am now immune to dystopic fantasy (4, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44062187)

That's about as ironic as it raining on your wedding day.

Re:I am now immune to dystopic fantasy (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about a year ago | (#44062489)

I think you missed the irony in that post.

Re:I am now immune to dystopic fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062539)

Not when you realize they're condemning the UN for spreading death and then turning around and spreading death themselves. Hypocrisy is a form of irony.

Re:I am now immune to dystopic fantasy (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44062353)

I am pretty sure that tweeting that you are suicide bombing a 'merchant of death' requires the OED to make a new notation on the irony page.

well they're giving away gpl death.

Re:I am now immune to dystopic fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063455)

Yeah, because it's *impossible* that they honestly feel that they're just defending themselves from a hostile force.

How it probably went down in tweets (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062123)

starting 2 attack un compound lol #somaliinsurgency
just killed another 1! he wont go home 2 his family 2nite lol
guns empty, got 2 reload in the middle of fight #thirdworldproblems
bullet just smashed through bffs skull! wtf assholes #thirdworldproblems
just collected friends brain matter from wall, going 2 sell on ebay lol
just took bullet 2 arm lol eww feel blood running down past elbow
going in for suicide attack lol! brb

A couple of B-52 raids will take care of this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062133)

How much more do we need to see before it is fucking OBVIOUS
these people are savages who understand one thing and one
thing only ?

Bomb them into oblivion.

So what about the NSA ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062137)

So how come the NSA didn't prevent this terrorist attack ?
Aren't they supposed to be listening to all foreign communications ?

Re:So what about the NSA ? (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#44062375)

Yes, but not to protect foreign interests, only to limit American rights.

Do I hear sirens?

Latest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062147)

live tweeted their latest attack, a suicide assault

Latest, or last?

Development? (0, Offtopic)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | about a year ago | (#44062195)

More like the UN Perpetual Conflict and Dependency Program, but that's the way the Order wants it. Africa will never be allowed to rise up as a super power.

Re:Development? (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44062279)

If the New World Order is trying to keep sub-Saharan Africa down, they're doing it wrong [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Development? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062417)

More like the UN Perpetual Conflict and Dependency Program, but that's the way the Order wants it. Africa will never be allowed to rise up as a super power.

Well, dependency is a powerful thing. Governments know this best, so it makes sense that the "world government" is so adept at exploiting this knowledge. An uncomfortable and shockingly obvious truth is that the US government also fosters dependency, especially among minority groups such as black people, through ever-increasing social programs. Of course, to point this out means you are racist and also hate poor people according to certain ultra-partisan groups, but that's a different matter. So we end up with the same result, and unfortunately* virtually all of the violence is manifest in the form of black-on-black. Even more sad is that the larger portion of these minorities actually willingly and cheerfully vote for the people pushing the hardest for the dependency-causing social programs that maintain the poverty and violence.

* It is unfortunate because it makes it too easy for the majority group to ignore the problems.

NSA +1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062213)

Thats one for the military-industrial-googleplex complex and nil for the intergrity-minded users, then.

dammit slashdot (3, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44062217)

I'll bet clicking on that Twitter link put me on some kind of list, and I needed to fly somewhere later this month!

Re:dammit slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062631)

A Twitter link Not Safe For Continual Existence With The Authoritath. In a related note, al-Shabab is now the official representative of the Tea Party movement in Africa.

Followed (5, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#44062239)

I assume they're already being followed by @ObamaDrone.

Please RT

Hmm (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#44062369)

"UN is 'a merchant of death & a satanic force of evil"

so we kill them all, muwahahaha.

Re:Hmm (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44062571)

it's more of "UN is stepping on our protection money racket.. erm.. taxes collection".

it's politics over there, not religion that is driving it. gangland/tribal politics. about taxing, about local monopolies, about local power.

Seriously? (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#44062377)

Whoever runs this Twitter account has better grammar and spelling than 99% of Americans.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062669)

That's how you know it's a real terrorist. They actually learn decent English.

captcha: dignity

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44062689)

Whoever runs this Twitter account has better grammar and spelling than 99% of Millennial Americans

FTFY

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062871)

Ah, so merely better than 95% of the older generation, then.

Their statement (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44062615)

a merchant of death & a satanic force of evil, has a long inglorious record of spreading nothing but poverty, dependency & disbelief

That's probably true, but killing peaceful workers probably isn't going to spread the message to the right people.

Crazy as hell (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44062627)

I wonder what those tweets looked like.

BigMo22
@alqaeda Allahu Akbar!1! #death2america

raghdbomber69
RT @alqaeda Allahu Akbar!1! #death2america

c4mil_jocky
getting ready 2 crash the gate. tell mom GFN #death2america

vick_from_tuscon
@c4mil_jocky kewl. pix or GTFO #death2america #NSA

I don't understand the use of Twitter (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#44062761)

After looking at the feed for this group, it contains a bunch of reporters trying to speak to them. Only on twitter would you see a member of the associated press type a message like this:

@natemook @HSMPRESS1 So in ur idea of journalism u ONLY speak 2 peep who don't kill/respect human rts? How do u expect 2understandextremism?

It reads like a teenager talking to equally less caring friends. Why has twitter of all things become such a figurehead over these kinds of communications? It seems asinine.

You could fund an insurgency with Youtube ads (1)

lew2048 (2571805) | about a year ago | (#44063351)

The primary sources of news will become the beneficiaries of the revenue stream, cutting out MSM middlemen.

The revolution will be twittered (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44063427)

Unless NSA avoids it. Too bad for the UN or other contries, by the way, if they detected it, decided not to warn (or even promoted it).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>