×

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!

US Forces Undertake Two African Raids, Capture Embassy Bombing Figure

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the target-rich dept.

United States 229

CNN reports that two separate U.S. military operations have taken place this weekend in Africa; the first in Tripoli, the second in Somalia. "In the earlier raid, U.S. forces captured Abu Anas al Libi, an al Qaeda operative wanted for his role in the deadly 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. In the second raid, a team of U.S. Navy SEALs in southern Somalia targeted the top leader of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group linked with al Qaeda." According to the report, it's unclear for now whether the second of these attempts was successful. Unsurprisingly, the Libyan raid has raised the ire of the interim government there, which has objected to the U.S. arrest and removal of al Libi (to an undisclosed placed outside of Libya) as a kidnapping.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

229 comments

And we're reading about it here why? (2, Insightful)

Temkin (112574) | about 6 months ago | (#45050991)

News for Nerds? Really?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#45051003)

More bullshit superpower propaganda lies, from the United Snakes.

Two Failed U.S. Raids

Yesterday two U.S. raids attempted to abduct a man in Libya and a man in Somalia. The raid in Libya did get the target but already has some bad impacts for the Libyan government. The raid in Somalia, by so called elite SEAL forces, failed completely.

The raid in Libya caught [libyaherald.com] one Abu Anas Al-Libi, accused in connection with the bombing of a U.S. embassy in Kenia some 15 years ago. It also killed some 15 Libyan soldiers. The man, one Abu Anas Al-Libi, has lived away from Libya and came back after U.S. and NATO forces waged war against the Libyan government under Ghaddafi. He seems to have lived quite openly [nytimes.com] in the capitol Tripoli:

His brother Nabih told The Associated Press that just after dawn prayers on Saturday, three vehicles full of armed men approached Abu Anas’s home and surrounded him as he parked his car. The men smashed his window, seized his gun and sped away with him, the brother said.

The raid will surely lead to some controversies [libyaherald.com]:

CNN said that the Libyan government knew the raid was being carried out. This has been denied today by the government, which has posted a statement on its Facebook page, saying it knows nothing about the reported seizure. It went to to say that it had contacted the US “for clarification”.

The various gangs that are the now the major powers in Libya will see this raid as (another) attack on Libya's sovereignty. Some major blowback against the interim government and other targets can be expected. There was already a tribal response against the government but the only mentioning of it is buried deep in the 25th paragraph of the NYT version [nytimes.com] of the story:

The capture of Abu Anas also coincided with a fierce gunfight that killed 15 Libyan soldiers at a checkpoint in a neighborhood southeast of Tripoli, near the traditional home of Abu Anas’s clan.

Some "coincidence" ...

The botched raid in Somalia was on a beach house allegedly used by the local Al Shaabab jihadists. The raid was first reported [garoweonline.com] by locals and then by the Al Shaabab itself:

Sheikh Abdulaziz Abu Musab, spokesman for Al Shabaab’s military wing, confirmed the raid and disclosed in a recorded press statement that the militants “repelled a midnight raid by white infidel soldiers”.

Abu Musab said: "We fought back against the white infidel soldiers with bombs and bullets, and they ran back to their boats. One member of Al Shabaab was killed and the white infidel soldiers failed their mission. We found blood and equipment near the coast in the morning,” he added in a recorded press statement posted on militant websites.

There was a lot of confusion [reuters.com] about this raid and it took nearly a day until the U.S. confirmed that it forces had been beaten back. At one time the NYT and Fox News said that a senior Shabaab boss was killed while NBC said he was captured and AP said he was not found. This reminds one of all the propaganda claims made about the Bin Laden raid. This time though we will immediately know for sure as the book about this SEAL raid has already [duffelblog.com] been written (/snark).

But what is obvious is that this attack by SEAL personal by boat was somehow detected and responded to with heavy fire. The SEALs were said to had to call in helicopters and they had to retreat under fire.

In Somalia, the Navy SEAL team emerged before sunrise from the Indian Ocean and exchanged gunfire with militants at the home of a senior leader of the Shabab, the Somali militant group.

...
The SEAL team was forced to withdraw before it could confirm that it had killed the Shabab leader, a senior American security official said. Officials declined to identify the target.

On wonders what the Obama administration wants to achieve with such raids. The case for the guy snatched in Libya is fifteen years old. To bring him to court and prove his guilt will be costly. The blowback that this raid will create in Libya will only add to the severe problems the "western" friendly interim government there already has.

Likewise the botched raid in Somalia. Not only will it create further trouble with Al Shaabab but it will also incite Somalian nationalists against such a breach of Somali sovereignty. It also shows that twenty years after the Blackhawk Down failure even the most elite U.S. forces have little luck in successfully operating there.

These raids make little sense. They are driven by some silly concept of revenge, they scare off no one from joining Al-Qaeda or its affiliates while they create more and more future enemies. In this sense both raids are massive failures.

 

 

  Posted by b on October 6, 2013 at 09:58 AM | Permalink [moonofalabama.org]

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#45051127)

How about posting the source for your bullshit?

Might it be Moon of Alabama?

The same site running stories about how Iran is not enriching uranium, but rather is producing nanodiamonds?

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/11/on-nuclear-iran-allegations-nanodiamonds-aint-nuclear-bombs.html [moonofalabama.org]

Do you really think we are that stupid?

You must think we are complete idiots.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (3)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 6 months ago | (#45051189)

Hint: Try to scroll to the end of the post.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#45051477)

I did. It seems the poster was right about the source even without reading the link. Good guess?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#45051271)

The nano-diamond hypothesis is upheld. This is why US/UK stopped barking up that tree. Moonofalabama - and b - are critical to having called that bluff.

Go back to your social-media spin job for USAF or Shin Bet, where they can school you better than this....

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (2, Informative)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051327)

How about posting the source for your bullshit?

Might it be Moon of Alabama?

Maybe CNN?

But the mission didn't go as planned. A fierce firefight broke out, and the Americans had to withdraw -- not knowing if the person they were trying to get was dead or alive.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/05/world/africa/somalia-us-shabaab-raid/index.html [cnn.com]

The Libyan interim government called the U.S. capture a kidnapping and has requested an explanation from Washington about the raid,

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/us-forces-africa-terrorist-raids/ [cnn.com]

(Nice URL there CNN: :"US Forces Africa Terrorist Raid".)

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#45051531)

Hmmmm....

The paper said a senior Somali government official confirmed the raid, saying, "The attack was carried out by the American forces and the Somali government was pre-informed about the attack."

- Al Shabaab leader believed killed by U.S. commandos: NYTimes [reuters.com]

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#45051737)

it's the libyan government who is claiming they had no indication of the raid, not somali. somali government couldn't really give a crap about it anyways since they were not in control of the area where the raid happened.

the libyan raid on the other hand in any normal case should have been done by libyan government - libyan police could have arrested the guy - but then there would have been all kinds of nasty paperwork to do for an extradition, need for proof and all that jazz.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24420767 [bbc.co.uk]

as it stands technically USA kidnapped the guy(they had no authority to detain him). the guy was living openly with his family in libya - yet US government officials say it's the superb work of their intelligence offices that caught him. currently usa also says that he is being held under "law of war" - no quotation what that is(we all know it certainly doesn't mean prisoner of war status!).

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#45052117)

I think we have the answer to a lot of questions here:

Two years after Libya’s revolution, government struggles to control hundreds of armed militias [washingtonpost.com]

Two years after the Arab Spring revolution that toppled longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi, and one year after the assault on a U.S. compound in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others, Libya’s fragile government has little control over the nation’s security.

Even minor disputes escalate into frequent gun violence on the streets. Kidnappings and armed robberies are increasing, and government officials and others have been assassinated with guns and bombs. Militants and arms smugglers easily cross poorly protected borders shared with Niger and Chad.

The Libyan government doesn't in fact have anything like full control over the country of Libya. If a senior al Qaida member was living openly, he probably had militias around to protect him. It is doubtful that the Libyan government would have been able to do much. He probably would have either had warning in time to flee, or the government would have had a real battle on its hands.

The forces that captured him would have done so under the authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by the US Congress. The US is at war with al Qaida, and the Libyan government doesn't have control over its territory. So it is probably better to say he is captured rather than kidnapped. Being held under the Law of War would mean he isn't in the judicial system, but can be held as a Prisoner of War. To qualify for all the rights, privileges, and protections of the Geneva Convention, such as preparing your own food and not be subject to interrogation, you have to conduct war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Al Qaida doesn't do that.

Now it is only a question of time till protesters start claiming he is innocent and should be released.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051435)

The same site running stories about how Iran is not enriching uranium, but rather is producing nanodiamonds?

Zero points for reading comprehension, Eric.

The claim is that Iran is enriching uranium (as they say themselves) and producing nanondiamonds (which would be why they are working with an expert in the production of nanodiamonds).

And, or, not. The basics of logic. Maybe they escape you,

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

benjfowler (239527) | about 6 months ago | (#45051473)

Them's fighting words.

Maybe you need to take a step back from the keyboard and take a time out.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051871)

Them's fighting words.

Maybe you need to take a step back from the keyboard and take a time out.

Why?

Because you can't rebut the argument?

What are you going to do, leap out of the screen and strangle me?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#45051141)

On wonders what the Obama administration wants to achieve with such raids.

My current hypothesis is that Obama's foreign policy is a mix of 'gut feeling,' manipulation by other parties, and random chance.

In this case, the Kenyan government probably asked for help, Obama's gut feeling was to feel sorry for them and help them (it's just police work, right?), and didn't pay any attention to the list of people to be captured. Some people in the Kenyan (or even US) government decided it was a good chance to go take him out, and added the guy in Libya to the list.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#45051259)

My current hypothesis is that it isn't "Obama's".

Why credit the character, and not the author, of the sitcom?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051549)

oh really?

>>a mix of 'gut feeling,' manipulation by other parties, and random chance

Is that the current take by all of the people overcome with Obama derangement syndrome? None of the end of the world scenarios that they've been shouting about for the past sic years have come to happen, so it must just be blind luck?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 6 months ago | (#45052007)

And distracting the people from the government shutdown is a pretty good secondary benefit.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (4, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#45051155)

On wonders what the Obama administration wants to achieve with such raids.

Since Obama is Kenyan he was just looking for any excuse to help out the Kenyan government. We can see a parallel here in that Bush invaded Iraq solely because he is Kurdish. :)

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051175)

How is it US propaganda when even the summary talks about how one wasn't completely successful and the other caused friction in Libya?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (5, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#45051249)

That's the BBC is reporting it [bbc.co.uk] too. I first heard about it on BBC radio where the report was that unknown forces, either US or French, got their asses kicked and had to flee after Al Shaabab got wind of the attack and prepared for it. Equipment and blood found on the beeches.

It's hard to see how the US claim that Anas al-Liby is "lawfully detained" can be true either, since clearly they didn't have authorization to kidnap him from Libya and they won't reveal where he is. He would be either in a POW camp or civilian prison, but they won't say where he is which seems to be code for "we took him somewhere to be tortured", going by past activities.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (3, Interesting)

benjfowler (239527) | about 6 months ago | (#45051495)

Interesting how while the enemy lost a guy, they still painted it as a victory overall.

So how do you define 'winning' and 'losing' in this situation?

Like with terrorism in general, they win by not losing; we lose by not winning.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#45051591)

The US mission failed in its objective and the attack was repelled with minimal losses. We don't know if any US forces were killed, but it seems that one was at least injured.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051895)

Interesting how while the enemy lost a guy, they still painted it as a victory overall.

So how do you define 'winning' and 'losing' in this situation?

Did the operation achieve its aims.

Killing random people isn't how you measure success. Doing what you set out to do is how you measure success.

This isn't a game.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051283)

But what is obvious is that this attack by SEAL personal by boat was somehow detected and responded to with heavy fire. The SEALs were said to had to call in helicopters and they had to retreat under fire.

Sounds like the SEALS ran in to the same problem as the French "Service Action" unit - Al Shabaab are seen by most Somalis as the legitimate government, foreign forces are invaders. If you hear funny noises in the night it might be Nazi parachutists so you tell the local bobby.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051467)

Reading your posts I get a general sense of what direction you are thinking, but the actual destination is unclear. Could you clarify which side your sympathies lie with? Is it the terrorists or the Nazis?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051973)

I sympathize with people, not ideas.

Al Shabaab are, like the Taliban, scum.

The problem is that they are not isolated scum. Many Somalis, after repeated foreign invasion (recently US, Ethiopian, Kenyan) with the only periods of stability in the last 30 years provided by Al Shabaab and its predecessors (the "Islamic courts") are clearly happier with Al Shaabab than the guys who come in from the sea in boats and helicopters.

Re: And we're reading about it here why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45052063)

The US secured permission from the Somali "government" (for whatever value that word has in the world's foremost example of a failed state) before launching a raid to kill or capture a high value target who wields influence in Somalia, and then the US administration is surprised when the raid fails because the target was ready and entrenched. What do you think, Holmes? However could word of the raid have leaked out to the target? Surely not through the Somalis?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about 6 months ago | (#45051337)

Wrong; Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai was captured, the other raid as of right now its not clear if they captured the target. As for "lies", and the "United Snakes" comment; its clear where your sympathies lie, so, fuck off.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

gaspyy (514539) | about 6 months ago | (#45052099)

The second raid failed, it's pretty clear by now. What do you want, confirmation from the US government that the SEAL forces had to withdraw? You'll never hear it. They'll redefine 'success' and say the mission was successful.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 6 months ago | (#45051013)

Did the D.O.D. use Robots? Did they use Linux? Will this be in Battle Field 5? No? Yawn.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051167)

It's been changed to:

New for herds, stuff that flatters.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051171)

Asking the same question.
This might be relevant: " However, as of October 2013, the site is currently in "beta" for a new, controversial redesign that looks more like typical blog websites with the once elaborate comment system now replaced with a simpler one at the end."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot [wikipedia.org]

RIP SLASHDOT

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#45051343)

I appreciate reading about the nerd view on any subject. Slashdot could post a story about Kim Kardashian's butt or Justin Bieber's cough syrup chugging, and nerds would comment something insightful, informative . . . and funny on the subject.

Stuff That Matters (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 6 months ago | (#45051535)

News for Nerds? Really?

Forgetting the Stuff That Matters are we? Last time I checked geopolitics and military strikes affect nerds as much as they affect anyone else. Plus are you seriously going to claim that nerds have no interest in special operations warfare?

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45052083)

Terrorists are religion nerds wanting to change the world according to their vision so the news are suitable for a "News for Nerds" site.

Re:And we're reading about it here why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45052109)

Can we have the first ever 6 here? I am sick of this CNN bullshit on Slashdot, it isnt' what I come here to read.

WTF??? (-1, Troll)

mdm42 (244204) | about 6 months ago | (#45050999)

Jesus Christ, what the fuck does this have to do with tech news? Newsfornerds??? You gotta be kidding!

Re:WTF??? (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about 6 months ago | (#45051027)

Explanation's simple. It's click bait.

Re:WTF??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051209)

As opposed to a blond in a Mercedes, which is dick bait?

Re:WTF??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051341)

As opposed to a blond in a Mercedes, which is dick bait?

The Mercedes.

Re:WTF??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051237)

Nope, it's news and you're nerds.

Re:WTF??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051295)

Well, if we apply the logic from past threads about Russian/Iranian/Chinese military/cyber action, we can conclude this is typical Slashdot anti-American smear campaign.

Damn you Slashdot hatemongers!

Stuff That Matters (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 6 months ago | (#45051555)

Jesus Christ, what the fuck does this have to do with tech news? Newsfornerds??? You gotta be kidding!

Slashdot has NEVER been just about tech news. Last time I checked military strikes affect nerds too and it certainly falls under the heading of "Stuff That Matters".

I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | about 6 months ago | (#45051025)

... Why we support Al Qaeda in Syria. I am dreadfully bereft in reliable information. Can't trust the media. I don't have a conspiracy theory in my head but I strongly suspect what we were told lacks validity regarding 9-11, Syria, and the other recent military operations. Somewhere, it has to make sense that our government, not the left, not the right but the whole lot of them, wants to support these guys in Syria.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#45051111)

... Why we support Al Qaeda in Syria.

We don't. Al Qaeda is only one faction of the rebels fighting against the Syrian government. The US supports the more secular parts of the rebels.

The fear is that if we don't support the secular rebels, then Al Qaeda will gain the upper hand, and take over the government. And that is a real possibility, although to me the most likely scenario is that with Russian and Iranian support, Assad will win everything.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051205)

The US supports the more secular parts of the rebels.

In such a feeble and impotent way that both AQ and the Syrian government increase in power and your "allies" are weakened.

Just like always.

The US is the most powerful enemy of US interests that exists.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051227)

..The fear is that if we don't support the secular rebels, then Al Qaeda will gain the upper hand

From everything I've seen over the past couple of months, the secular rebels (as you call them) haven't had the upper hand (as you call it) for quite some time now. And the West knows this.
The West is tacitly supporting good Al Qaeda in Syria (so who cares if they're murdering Christians...they're not white anglo-saxon protestant ones..) whilst pretending to bloody the nose of naughty Al Qaeda everywhere else.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#45051361)

Actually Islamist groups make up by far the largest proportion of rebels in Syria. Conservatives estimates say two thirds of rebels are associated with radical Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda, in some way. It's hardly surprising because most people there are Muslims (notice how they are always saying "allahu akbar" on the civilian videos?) and because they are the ones supplying the weapons.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051941)

notice how they are always saying "allahu akbar" on the civilian videos?

American politicians also always end their civilian speeches by "god bless".

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#45051365)

It'll be fun for the US and Iran/Russia to try out try out our new high tech military toys in a proxy war...

IMO, they should just do that in New Mexico. Just pick some state, make it off limits to civilians, then fight over it instead. Who ever wins gets to host the next territory war.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051497)

t'll be fun for the US and Iran/Russia to try out try out our new high tech military toys in a proxy war...

High tech toys? Sarin is even older than the Kalashnikov.

(Bizarre - Firefox spellchecker digs Kalashnikov, but chokes on Sarin. Some kind of anti-WMD thing?)

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#45051575)

A Kalashnikov isn't that high tech, it's made mainly with stamped metal and wood. Sarin takes quite a bit more technology to create.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#45051639)

no sadly it doesn't, terrorists have literally made it in the kitchen sink as japan found out.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051645)

A Kalashnikov isn't that high tech, it's made mainly with stamped metal and wood. Sarin takes quite a bit more technology to create.

Well, Sarin is rather depressingly easy to make.

It's a bit harder if you want to stay alive while making it, but well within the capabilities of your average Japanese cult.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#45051627)

lies and propaganda from washington d.c. read regional news, Al Qaeda and affiliates make up the majority of the "rebels", they are slaughtering christian villages and even beheading women and babies. vile monsters, and yet on anniversary of 9/11 Obama announced we're arming those enemies of the United States and those criminals against humanity.

The U.S. government has become the biggest terrorist organization on the planet, in the pockets of large corporations whose lust for power and wealth knows no bounds or law or rights.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 6 months ago | (#45051135)

'Stupidity' might be it.

They may well be falling for the daft Arab notion that the enemy of their enemy (in this case, Iran) is their friend. Just ain't so!!

Frankly, I'm glad the neoliberals lost the argument for intervention in Syria. It's not our fight.

Besides, it's nice to see Muslim hypocrisy stand out for the whole world to see, when they don't lift even a finger to help their ummah bretheren in Syria. Saudi are demanding we take refugees and pay out loads of money. They're rich -- let THEM do it.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051243)

Besides, it's nice to see Muslim hypocrisy stand out for the whole world to see, when they don't lift even a finger to help their ummah bretheren in Syria. Saudi are demanding we take refugees and pay out loads of money. They're rich -- let THEM do it.

The vast majority of Syrian refugees are in neighboring countries (Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey).

The only real support for the rebels comes from countries in the region (Turkey, Saudi, Qatar).

So what the fuck are you talking about?

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 6 months ago | (#45051305)

Let's talk about your anger management issues.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051513)

I have no problems managing my anger, I direct it towards idiots and ignoramuses.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051551)

Is "ignoramuses" the correct plural form? "Ignorami"?

Nah.

4. ignorami
What ignoramuses think is the plural of ignoramus because it sounds better.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorami [urbandictionary.com]

Unsurprisingly?? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051093)

I'd rather say "understandably" or "unexpectedly", because the Libyan government has every right to be pissed off.

What happens when an elite Iraqi commando enters the US and "arrests" prominent terrorist and war criminal Donald Rumsfeld, killing 15 secret service agents in the process?

The way it's written, this is an insulting propaganda piece.

Re:Unsurprisingly?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051109)

Of course I meant to write "expectedly" or "as expected".

Wonderful post (-1, Troll)

hasanicon (3110021) | about 6 months ago | (#45051105)

Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful infomation. I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this certain information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck. lesbian free chat [freechatsexy.com]

Re:Wonderful post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051201)

Wow. That is incredible. I mean, we really crossed 3 million accounts on Slashdot... of course 90% of them are troll accounts now.

Denial (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#45051107)

It couldn't have been the USA. We're closed for business until further notice.

Re:Denial (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#45051217)

Ah, but just the other day . . . the Pentagon called back their furloughed civilian workers . . . I guess they were needed for something . . .

Re:Denial (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 6 months ago | (#45051263)

Maybe they want to go after the terrorists in D.C., that would be worth all the tax money taken from the American people.

Re:Denial (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051399)

It should be easy enough for them to find Obama - he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Although the last woman who tried to take out the threat was brutally shot down outside the Capitol building.

Re:Denial (3, Insightful)

BeerCat (685972) | about 6 months ago | (#45051559)

Seems like a pretty drastic way to break the budget deadlock.

Since paying DoD civilian employees was given a big thumbs up, it shows that there can be some agreement. Provided it is in a few, well defined, areas.

The next thing looming is the debt ceiling on the 17th. What better way to get it raised than "we urgently need to spend some $ on a quick military action". Bingo. Support given wholeheartedly "to retain the US military superiority" or somesuch, the debt ceiling is also raised. Job done.

Government Ire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051159)

Yeah, the Libyan government is so irate. Just like how Pakistan publicly bitches about drone strikes but behind closed doors couldn't be happier. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/pakistani-general-actually-the-drones-are-awesome/

Re:Government Ire? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#45051415)

Yeah, the Libyan government is so irate. Just like how Pakistan publicly bitches about drone strikes but behind closed doors couldn't be happier. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/pakistani-general-actually-the-drones-are-awesome/ [wired.com]

The Libyan government is the most liberal and pro western friendly government in the middle east. I do not know where you get this? ... you do know Ghadaffi is dead right and the rebels won?

Re:Government Ire? (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051615)

The Libyan government is the most liberal and pro western friendly government in the middle east.

Am I missing a whoosh here?

Where's the mandate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051213)

We may be in a "conflict" with Libya, but as far as I know, we're not involved with Somalia yet, short of condemning piracy.

So who gave us the permission to go in and take these guys out? Seems like this will be an interesting news story over the next few days.

Regardless of what these guys did, nothing justifies walking into another country and taking military action.

Re:Where's the mandate? (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051609)

We may be in a "conflict" with Libya.

WTF!

The "Libyan" government are the "rebels" you helped put into power.

You're in "conflict" with them to the extent you're in conflict with the Iraqi or Afghani governments.

No wonder America always fucks up on the international stage if such influential people as Anonymous Coward don't know the players without a program

Re:Where's the mandate? (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 6 months ago | (#45051867)

Regardless of what these guys did, nothing justifies walking into another country and taking military action.

So we just sit around waiting for Interpol to pick them up?

Re:Where's the mandate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45052039)

No, you are right. Just don't come crying when some other organization takes out US terrorists on US soil.

Oops: Obama bin bama not so peaceful (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051221)

And he got the Nobel peace prize . What a phoney prize.

Re:Oops: Obama bin bama not so peaceful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051725)

And he got the Nobel peace prize . What a phoney prize.

Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how hard it is to sneak Cracker Jacks (TM) behind Michelle's back?

Old wounds? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 6 months ago | (#45051303)

So what, he bombed two embassies back in '98? Just let it go guys, he's not worth holding a grudge for 15 years.

Re:Old wounds? (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 6 months ago | (#45051523)

More like CIA bases, and since the CIA doesn't get public validation they nurse their private grudges. These operations should nicely rekindle things to create a long overdue retaliatory attack on US soil, which will really liven up some careers at Langley.

YOUR NSA WORKS !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051325)

Never mind that YOU are in the way !!

I wonder how the US would feel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051517)

If the italian governement "raided" and kidnapped the various air pilot or agent which did illegal action in italy (or killed people). I am guessing it would not be that happy.

U.S. Arms Al-Qaeda in Syria,Elsewhere Fights It (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#45051681)

Most of the world knows the "rebels" are Al Qaeda and Allied terrorist monsters slaughtering christians and other muslim sects, but right on the anniversary of 9/11 Obama announced he's arming them. Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution has a few words on what a person who arms and supports the enemies of the USA is to be considered, but "defense contractor" control and shareholder profits trump any old piece of parchment

Re:U.S. Arms Al-Qaeda in Syria,Elsewhere Fights It (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 6 months ago | (#45051819)

Most of the world knows the "rebels" are Al Qaeda and Allied terrorist monsters slaughtering christians and other muslim sects

Because we left the secular rebels twisting in the wind 'till our "friends" in Saudi and Qatar stepped up to the plate.

The current whining about the fate of the Christians makes me laugh after the Iraqi mess - just like in Iraq the Syrian Christians support the Ba'athist dictatorship because they are protected by the thugs in power. Then they learn the hard way that minorities that protect themselves by supporting dictators get screwed in the end.

Anyway, the "other muslim sects" have a few guys on their side, like Hezbollah and Iran, who are perfectly prepared to slaughter any Sunni (or Kurds, or Christians) they can find.

Suprised we've had no NSA tie-in! (1)

fsagx (1936954) | about 6 months ago | (#45051747)

How long before The Clapper [wikipedia.org] or one of the other tools [wikipedia.org] comes out to praise the NSA and blanket surveillance for locating these two?

The MIC is OFB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45051795)

The Military Industrial Complex is Open for Business during the shutdown, of course. But, Obama finds it necessary to throw a tantrum and go out of his way to erect barricades around open-air memorials so people can't go look at them.

The US is a country to be ashamed of, that's for sure.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...