Somalia: The U.S. War on Terror Expands

Last week I asked how long U.S. troops off the coast of Somalia could stay offshore. Well, as of today they are also in the air above Somalia, as an Air Force AC-130 gunship (according to a Fox TV host just now, a well-known "killing machine, destroying everything in its path") has "launched a strike against suspected Al Qaeda members in Somalia," saith Fox News, leaving "casualties on the ground, but it is not clear if any are suspected terrorists." Well, at least for sure it got some of the people who might have been in or near their path.

[Hat tip to commenter Guy Montag in the previous Van Halen comment thread.]

Comments

[Guy Montag]

Tipping hat back. TY

Now how long before Weigel wakes up and calls for the resignation of the entire civilian chain of command for doing the mission?

[SGT Fury and his Howling Comma]

AC-130s get who they aim at.
Collateral damage is quite minimal.
American Exceptionalism-you gotta love it-objectively we ARE better than everyone else.
Good riddance to the al qaedas-enjoy the virgins guys!

[Guy Montag]

You can run, but you will just die tired.

[Pro Libertate]

Brian,

How about them Gators?

[Guy Montag]

Pro Libertate,

Looks like OSU didn't do much running in that game. Not much passing either.

They appeared to have redeployed to the locker room before half time.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I just can't get used to an attack designation on one of those lumbering C-130's.

Years ago somebody sent me this, which is alleged to be an AC-130 throwing off decoy tracers to confuse heat seeking missiles. More than likely it's a KC-130, which is a mid size transport aircraft.

The video is kind of cool.

[jb]

Now, the proper role for the US army in regional conflicts is to act as the air force of one of our regional allies. If I had any confidence that we or the Ethiopians had any fricking clue what we were doing in Somalia, I'd be thrilled. But this administration (and Ethiopia's government as a whole) is so incompetent I'm just worried we've already screwed up.

[josephdietrich]

Collateral damage is quite minimal.

Yes, we usually only kill a few innocent bystanders in our drive-bys. But that's the sacrifice a few third-worlders need to make in order for us to keep our special ops troops out of the line of fire.

[wayne]

"Yes, we usually only kill a few innocent bystanders in our drive-bys. But that's the sacrifice a few third-worlders need to make in order for us to keep our special ops troops out of the line of fire."

Glad to see that you get it.

[Godfrey]

At least we're back to killing the people that actually attacked us. And it's not even an election year.

[Vox Populi]

So many words...so little thought. One must wonder: if I continue to babble the sentiments of main-stream media and the garbled web of lies they rant, will I truly be respected with my neck of red? KILLING is not a sports game. And as far as the supposed "people that actually attacked us" garbage, they died in a jet-fuel fire, and any other involved parties conspiring with them, foreign AND domestic, is still debatable and far from definite. Maybe our military should kill white Americans for the attack in OKC...please, don't get all flustered, I only sound as idiotic and shallow as you ( 'cept, I'm pretending )

[kwais]

Vox,
Are you serious? The people that flew the planes into the buildings were acting on the behalf of an organization known as Al Qaida.

That organizations has as one of it's planks to kill Americans wherever they can.

If someone claims to be a member of Al Qaida, I think that they are fair game for the US military wherever they are.

Tell me where I am wrong.

[cinnabob]

Since there's no real govt in place right now, I think this is a wise bit of opportunism on the part of the US military.

Had we not taken a shot at these folks when we had it, and had one of them gone on to get more widely known and lethal like Zarqawi, my guess is many of the same naysayers would be griping that we didn't take the shot. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Eric]

Besides, the expiration date on those bombs was February of '07. We couldn't just let them sit around and go to waste.

Good thing we found those al Qaida bases in time.

[Madscribe]

If someone claims to be a member of Al Qaida, I think that they are fair game for the US military wherever they are.

Yeah, let's just trash all jurisprudence and start killing people willy-nilly without due process, investigations, or evidence presented of imminent danger requiring emergency military action (not vengeance killings for acts nearly a decade ago) just based on claims.

I have no love or sympathy for Islamic terrorists (or ANY religious fascists, Christian, or otherwise), but it seems so easy for Americans to just slaughter brown-skinned people on the basis of "suspicion," without any sort of due process whatsoever. Like all those "suspected insurgents" (meaning women, children, and elderly men) that we always kill in Iraq ...

[yuri]

Kwais -- Vox Populi was referring to an attack by a respectable American Republican, Tim McVeigh, in Oklahoma City. Guess we do have to start killing everybody whose name begins with Mc. I am sure George Bush would agree (if Dick permits him).

[McWhossein]

From Canada Free Press:

"In early 2005, Rohrabacher publicly announced that he was looking into the evidence set forth in the book, The Third Terrorist, which documents the sworn testimonies of twenty-two-(22) eyewitnesses who implicated a Middle Eastern terrorist cell aiding and abetting Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the plot to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Building. The Third Terrorist, written by the foremost authority on the facts of the bombing, former investigative reporter and bestselling author of the most comprehensive book about the terrorist attack, details evidence presented by Ms. Davis but not acted upon by the U.S. Justice Department, evidence that has been unscathed by intense scrutiny and earned the endorsements of a number of credible former intelligence officials. The problem, however, is that Congressman Rohrabacher failed to address the most academic and compelling facts of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil until that time, opting instead to pursue a long disregarded theory of a neo-Nazi connection - a theory that was not only dispelled, but labeled as "hyperbole" and a "dry hole" by a sitting Oklahoma Judge who heard the related testimony during the trial of bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols over 2 years ago.

Evidence presented by Ms. Davis in her book and offered directly to the Congressman is so compelling that it could easily make a prima facia case for Middle Eastern involvement in the bombing. The evidence uncovered by Ms. Davis offers detailed witness accounts of a former Iraqi Republican Guardsman identified as Hussain Al-Hussaini being seen in the presence of Timothy McVeigh prior to the bombing, getting our of the bomb-laden Ryder truck the morning of April 19, and fleeing the Murrah Building in a vehicle identified and pursued by the FBI in an all-points-bulletin issued for Middle Eastern terrorists. More significantly, two federal court rulings establish that this Iraqi soldier has no provable alibi for the morning of the bombing. Overwhelming and fully substantiated evidence developed by Ms. Davis was deliberately sidestepped by the congressman as she predicted in an interview with the Northeast Intelligence Network almost a year ago."

[Sam Franklin]

If someone claims to be a member of Al Qaida, I think that they are fair game for the US military wherever they are.

Tell me where I am wrong.

Correction: if you can prove that someone claims to be an Al Queda member, then they are fair game.

The US military and their contractors often skip the proof part, do their killing, end up killing non-Al Queda brown people and then simply excuse themselves with a selfserving invocation of "collateral damage." Skipping the proof like they do is evil and it is why US military cointractors are, for the most part, evil goons. Cuz they help accomplish the evil.

The problem is ppl like you, Kwais.

[Guy Montag]

So, how long before some editor in some publication designates the casualties in this action as "African-Americans"?

Yours Truly,

Evil Goon in Arlington, VA

[cinnabob]

Evil goon? And here I thought I was a scientist studying psychiatric disorders in Maryland. I think you have a very limited view of just how many different jobs the military contracts out.

[Guy Montag]

cinnabob,

I for one welcome the new title to add to the one that Time Magazine annointed me with a few days ago.

Time to put on a suit and do a little Defense Financial Management magic.

Very respectfully,
Guy Montag
Evil Goon
Time Magazine Person of the Year

[cinnabob]

Guy,

Lucky for you. I tried putting that Time PotY thing on my CV, only to get a cease and desist letter saying that they didn't mean to include me.

[Sam Franklin]

Evil goon? And here I thought I was a scientist studying psychiatric disorders in Maryland. I think you have a very limited view of just how many different jobs the military contracts out.

I understand. I have worked making weapons for a US military contractor myself. Back b4 the wholesale slide into evil occasioned by the wriong-headed military response to 9/11 and The Iraq War.

I understand that not all contractors are created equal as far as sinfulness. The kind of contractors I am primarily referring to are people like kwais, of whom you can read at the stuff that Tim Cavanaugh here at HnR and his hometown paper wrote about him this summer (I googled, but couldn't find it easily, Jennifer may be able to help you track that stuff dow if curious bcs she got the hat tip on it).

As you move away from the battlefield, the evil gets more diffuse -- such that you might not even refer to it as evil, sitting there 8in Bethesda, but perhaps veniality. Even US taxpayers are somewhat responsible (but don't blame me -- I ran to Canada (at great personal sacrifice) to avoid funding the evil with my labors).

You should consider changing careers, cinebob, because of what the US military has become, but your case is less urgent than that of a loud mouth direcet collateral damage inflicter like kwais. There may be sacrifice for you, but self sacrifice is good penance.

Unjust war is a sin. I really believe that.

[Guy Montag]

cinnabob,

That's what you get for putting it on stuff with your real name attached 🙂

Sam Franklin,

What some cheese with that whine before you continue your surrender efforts and attack Kramer the next time he visits your cage?

Frankly, Franklin, I do not appreciate being downgraded to half-evil by the likes of you as I am still an Army Aviatior in the reserves.

Very respectfully,
Guy Montag
Full Evil Goon
Time Magazine Person of the Year

[cinnabob]

Sam Franklin,

I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of the situation here. Wrong headed military response to 9/11? You do realize that the three aQ guys we are targetting in Somalia, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and his aides Abu Talha al Sudani and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, are wanted in connection with the '98 embassy bombings. You remember, when in their efforts to kill Americans, aQ killed a whole bunch of brown skinned foreigners as well? Your vocalized ignorance seems to be the greater sin here.

[MarkD]

Whereas dying when Al Quaeda blows up an embassy is not a sin, just bad luck?

[Sam Franklin]

I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of the situation here. Wrong headed military response to 9/11?

The first and worst mistake was not scrambling the air defenses a lot sooner. A lot of the other mistakes flowed from the mistake of sleeping at the switch.

It is not a sin if you kill those guys you mentioned by name.

It is a sin for ppl like loudmouth kwais to kill people who have never met the people you mentioned by name. It is a sin to do the killing. It is arguably a worse sin to come out here in public and try to get others to support the sin.

[Guy Montag]

cinnabob,

Sounds like he is in the Madscribe/Clintonista school on this one. We should be more understanding with the terrorists and offer them every chance at a fair trial.

Of course, if they get convicted under that system it is only because racists convicted them.

[Guy Montag]

Oops! I forgot about the 'its all our own fault' aspect.

[:-]

Terrorists kill thousands.
Reason blames America.
Film at eleven.

[joe]

Actually, Guy, the Clintonista school involves aerial assaults on known Al Qaeda bases. You might remember those - you found an excuse to denounce them at the time.

Am I right?

I bet I'm right.

[joe]

I've been on a lot of threads where people have said loony things about the war on terror.

This is the first time I've ever seen the hawks come of best.

[cinnabob]

Sam Fraklin,

While you could go back quite far looking for the first mistake (the original sin), there's a very apparent natural break with a distinct mistake in Iran in '79. There have been many subsequent under Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. There has certainly continued to be mistakes following 9/11, but just because you are now paying attention doesn't make them greater nor absolve the earlier ones.

I'd have to say that are current involvement in Somalia, rather than being a new mistake, is an attempt to partially atone for two earlier ones.

Your sin is your vocalized and willful ignorance.

Your sin is falsely accusing your neighbor.

Your sin is pride.

My sins are not the ones you claim for me.

My sins are forgiven.

[thoreau]

Guys, don't argue with Sam. It's not worth it.

As to Somalia: If there are in fact Al Qaeda members there, I don't have a big problem with supporting local forces fighting against the Al Qaeda members and allied militias. (Insert all necessary disclaimers about taking care to avoid civilian casualties, yadda yadda.) I just hope we go in and then get out. Staying and trying to sort out Somalia's problems is something that no outsider can or should do.

[kwais]

""I've been on a lot of threads where people have said loony things about the war on terror.

This is the first time I've ever seen the hawks come of best.""

hahaha, we have our days.

[kwais]

Guy Montag,
We should have a club called the evil goon club. Of course, there would be a number of requirements. But Sam Franklin can annoint you full goon with no questions asked.

[cinnabob]

"Guys, don't argue with Sam. It's not worth it."

Somewhat tardily, I see that. I wash my hands of him.

[Ken Shultz]

I appreciate the calls for decorum, etc., but considering Iraq, I also appreciate the practicalities of the ol' hit and run too.

...If only Iraq had been more like Panama.

[cinnabob]

...If only the Falklands had been more like Grenada.

[Sam Franklin]

ha ha ha, collateral damage is a big joke. "insert disclaimers to indicate that we don't take it as a joke."

I didn't say all wars are unjust. I don't think all wars are unjust. However, the killing described on this thd is collateral damage, pure and simple and should really have been avoided.

I didn't expect those of you who make your living from military spending to get that (it would be like trying to explain global warming to Bailey). I am pretty disappointed in joey bee, tho. this idea that yesterday's killing was payback for the Iranian hostage taking in 1979 is nonsense. if Carter or reagan had wanted to declare war on Iran, I would have been all for it. that is not what yesterday's killings were about.

[Sam Franklin]

Panama was an unjust war, too.

Fortunately they went easy on the killing.

WWII, Grenada, the Gulf War, Kosovo: just wars (going back into Iraq soon after Saddam gassed the Kurds in '91 would have been just, too)

Vietnam: on the borderline between just and unjust

WWI, Korea: I really have no idea.

You are dealing with Sammy Franklin here, not Cindy Sheehan.

[cinnabob]

In for a penny...

" U.S. ground forces have been active in Somalia from the start, a senior military intelligence officer confirmed. "In fact," he said, "they were part of the first group in."

These ground forces include CIA paramilitary officers who are based out of Galkayo, in Somalia's semiautonomous region of Puntland; Special Operations forces; and Marine units operating out of Camp Lemonier in Djibouti.

The presence of U.S. airpower in Somalia became public knowledge yesterday when CBS News reported that an AC-130 fixed-wing gunship carried out a strike against suspected al-Qaeda members in southern Somalia. Unmanned aerial drones kept the targets under surveillance while a gunship operated by the U.S. Special Operations Command flew from its base in Djibouti to the southern tip of Somalia.

America supported Ethiopia and the UN-recognized secular government of Somalia because of the ICU's ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The ICU is led by al-Qaeda ally Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys. The ICU gave refuge to three al-Qaeda terrorists believed responsible for the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, which claimed the lives of twelve American diplomats and 212 Africans. The ICU operated seventeen terrorist training camps inside Somalia. Finally, some one thousand foreign fighters came to Somalia to train or teach at those camps.

Ethiopia intervened when the ICU began a push to eliminate Somalia's transitional federal government from its stronghold in the south-central Somali city of Baidoa.

Pajamas Media previously reported that Ethiopia's use of helicopter gunships capable of targeting the Islamic Courts Union's ground forces was a decisive factor in the army-to-army fighting against the ICU. A senior military intelligence source says that some of the gunships earlier described as Ethiopian were in fact U.S. aircraft. This has been confirmed by Dahir Jibreel, the transitional government's permanent secretary in charge of international cooperation, who said that U.S. planes and helicopters with their markings obscured have been striking targets since December 25."

-from Pajamas Media

[joe]

Well you see, Sam, when I say "We should have been fighting Al Qaeda, not wasting our time in Iraq," I meant "We should have been fighting Al Qaeda, not wasting our time in Iraq."

I wasn't just throwing that out there as a an excuse to argue against Iraq. I actually think we need to fight against Al Qaeda; it's not just an excuse. When military means are the most appropriate, that's what we should do.

Disappointed? If you thought I would join the Raimondo crowd in reflexibe denunciation of every action we take against foreign terrorist grouops, then I guess you'll have to live with your disappointment.

[Sam Franklin]

who said that U.S. planes and helicopters with their markings obscured have been striking targets since December 25.

That doesn't sound moral or legal. It sounds like a sneak attack done under a false flag.

[Sam Franklin]

Well you see, Sam, when I say "We should have been fighting Al Qaeda, not wasting our time in Iraq," I meant "We should have been fighting Al Qaeda, not wasting our time in Iraq."

Well, I guess we have a fact issue.

You (apparently) believe that the people killed yesterdy were active Al Queda.

I believe that they were killed with reckless indifference as to whether they were Al Queda, and I don't trust the US military at this point to tell me any different.

If the facts are what you say, joe, then I take back what I sed on this thd.

If the facts are as I say, then I would hope for a reciprocal courtesy on your part.

i think the burden is on the US government on this point to prove that they really are doing more Al Queda damage than collateral damage. Given the past few years, and the enormous budget of the US military, I hope you can see why I am taking a skeptical stance here. Especially vis-a-vis ol' (let's deport the welfare recipients) guy named kwais.

[Guy Montag]

joe,

Actually, Guy, the Clintonista school involves aerial assaults on known Al Qaeda bases. You might remember those - you found an excuse to denounce them at the time.

Am I right?

I bet I'm right.

You are great at losing bets.

At the time I said something to the effect of "it's about time we started hitting that stuff" and was telling the midol factory complainers that they did not have enough information to criticize the decision.

Plenty of info to criticize it with now!

FTR, I was not criticizing the mission in the Balkans either, just the bad tactics forced on the military.

[Guy Montag]

Brian Doherty,

Actually, there has been a US presence very close to Somalia since right after 9/11. A brand new military base was built near there. Not sure if it is accurate to say "War on Terror Expands" as its official designation has been 'Global War on Terror' for quite some time, but it is not a horrible inaccuracy.

That just reminded me to see what else has been posted this morning. I am guessing that David Weigel had his home machine send his stories in for him on a timer to give the appearance of being awake, since he has not yet called for our surrender and the impeachment of every politician with an R or a D behind their name.

[Sam Franklin responds further]

If this blog entry had said that president Bush was working with Congress to draft an appropriate declaration of war against Somalia, and working out, in public for the voters to see, the details of what the scope and objectives of that war should be, then I would not be complaining.

If tomorrow the war declaration came out and said:

"the US now declares war against Somalia. the US isn't looking for political power or influence in this nation, but we need to eliminate Al Queda there. Accordingly, this declaration remains valid only so long as the US refrains from controlling the government of Somalia, and only so long as collateral damage remains under 50% of the total damage. The c in c can fight this war or not as he chooses -- he is the decider on that."

Again, I would be all for that. now there is a wonderful, realistic, sincere war declaration.

Notice, joe, how different my approach is to what is actually happening.

[Sam Franklin responds still fu]

i see that Dave W. (Weigel) is also suggesting that Congress debate a new war resolution.

Tim Cavanaugh was correct when he worried that ppl might confuse us.

[Some James]

I don't want to get into the debates over whether this was a "good thing" or "bad thing", because I think it's too early to know.

Thinking about it, the timing is probably best, because it's hitting the group while they're down and after they outwardly reached to Al Qaeda for support. It's better than attacking when the Islamists were the defacto government, and it's better than waiting until a new government forms (if that happens), since it would look like we requested their permission, which could reduce their control of things.

Still there's plenty of bad that could happen. Of course, there could be innocents killed, or the whole attack could have been wrong. The attack could prevent any stability from coming to Somalia. Plenty of other bad too, but it's early yet.

Also, the long-repressed military-tech-nerd in me likes that they used the cheap, reliable AC-130 rather than some newfangled multibillion-dollar auto-decoy-remote-attack-drone-robot-altitude-bomber.

[John]

I agree with you Some James. It remains to be seen how good this is. It may be very good depending on who they killed. That said, there have been enough missions like this that were billed as a big deal that turned out to be either hitting low level flunkies or the outright wrong people to get too excited.

As far as the people who object to it, the U.S. had numorous opportunities to kill or capture Bin Ladin in the 1990s and never did it because of concerns that we couldn't actually just kill anyone and if we captured him we couldn't get a conviction. More than anything else, that thinking gave us 9-11. Al-Qada is at war with the U.S. and will kill any U.S. citizen anywhere in the world given the opportunity. We need to treat them the same way. If this raid in fact got the right guys, it is a very good thing.

[joe]

Sam,

It would be a shame if noncombatants were killed in these strikes.

It would be even worse if they weren't actually Al Qaeda targets at all - like the "warlord payback" intel we've believed too often in Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, we need to disrupt al Qaeda operations. We are at war with those people, and they with us.

We have an ongoing, relevant force authorization in place, the one Congress voted on the week after 9/11. Why would we declare war on Somalia? We aren't at war with Somalia.

I'm all for declaring war on Al Qaeda, though.

[Guy Montag]

Of course, I was in a meeting when David Weigel posted his latest call for surrender on January 9, 2007, 10:20am.

Now Sam, how about you go back and review the history of this war declairation nonsense you keep harping about before you run out of cheese.

[joe]

"the U.S. had numorous opportunities to kill or capture Bin Ladin in the 1990s and never did it because of concerns that we couldn't actually just kill anyone and if we captured him we couldn't get a conviction"

Myth. Nobody who actually knows anything about our operations during the 1990s has said anything of the sort, though it's become a popular talking point among Republicans.

[Sam Franklin]

We have an ongoing, relevant force authorization in place, the one Congress voted on the week after 9/11. Why would we declare war on Somalia? We aren't at war with Somalia.

we are committing acts of war in Somalia that compromise the autonomy of Somalia.

Your definition of "at war with" is way too narrow. Anyway, if Pelosi and Reid use the war resolution that I helpfully drafted for them above, then I assume we would all be on the same page much more than we are right now.

the war declaration is about accountability for mistakes. Your saying its a "shame" and T's saying "we take collateral damage seriosly" doesn't cut it anymore. It is not 2004. Time to say what needs to be said, clearly, concisely and right in the force authorization.

Why on Earth is a smart person like you assuming that more than half the dead people from yesterday were Al Queda? It would be like believing Bill Clinton when he said he did not have sex with that woman. You are getting played by the military and the media here, joe. Part of me thinks that you know that.

[Guy Montag]

Sam,

If more folks like you were around to supplort Mrs. Lincoln in the 1860s then we would be two nations now.

joe,

Yes, this thread is amazing. I was saving that one up for you but had to use it on a target of opportunity!

[Sam Franklin]

If more folks like you were around to supplort Mrs. Lincoln in the 1860s then we would be two nations now.

I have taken the position here at HnR, both repeatedly and recently that the Kentucky resolutions should have been followed at South Carolina's seccession respected. I think that would have helped both long run race relations, and also maximized political freedom, especially in the area of federalism.

Most recently you can find me singing this tune in the thd about how states rights may have helped race relations at certain post-bellum periods.

So maybe you are surmising correct here. It is hard to tell.

[joe]

Guy,

And yet, my position on ending your beloved Iraq Debacle hasn't changed one iota.

How can that be? Is it possible that there might be some other argument, beyond an eagerness to hug terrorists, motivating the two thirds of Americans who agree with me about Iraq?

[joe]

Sam,

Perhaps the military was operating based on bad information, though it's pretty easy to figure out why you are so eager to assume that it is.

If so, shame on them, but that doesn't change the necessity of waging war against Al Qaeda.

It's a tough intellectual position to be in, to know that it is necessary for our military to fight this fight, and to also know that the administration can be counted on to screw it up. It would be nice to have a belief system like yours, that allowed me to wrap all contradictions up in one big, satisfying denunciation of everything the government does. But not terribly responsible.

[Sam Franklin responds to joe]

I wrote the freeking war declaration, joe. I don't here you complaining about anything I put in the war declaration.

You are complaining because I think the US is killing innocents more than Al Quedas, and you think the government is killing more Al Queda than innocents.

Under the current system, we have no way of settling this conflict (because the answer is considered as a military secret).

Under my proposed war declaration, we would have this info because the war would be contingent on it.

that is why you should support my proposal, even though you trust the military. What have you got to lose? (You have my vote to gain.) the worst that can happen under my proposal is that you could find out that I was correct about the degree of collateral damage, switch sides and join me. The best that could happen is that I (and the EU for that matter) would be forced to acknowledge that you were correct. It's all good, joe.

[joe]

"You are complaining because I think the US is killing innocents more than Al Quedas, and you think the government is killing more Al Queda than innocents."

Nope, you still don't get it.

Whenever there is a military operation, there will be uncertainty about whether the people killed were the targetted combatants, at least initially.

You either consider this uncertainty a reason to condemn the military operation, or you don't. If you actually support waging war against Al Qaeda, you don't denounce the actions of that war based on the supposition that some of the people killed might not have been combatants.

You aren't even complaining because there were civilians killed, because you have no way of knowing that. You are complaining because civilians might have been killed, and taking the possibility of a bad miss as a reason to renounce the entire operation.

The military would have done exactly the same thing if a war resolution had passed last week, and the possibility of killing civilians would have been exactly the same.

None of this: "Under the current system, we have no way of settling this conflict (because the answer is considered as a military secret).

Under my proposed war declaration, we would have this info because the war would be contingent on it..."

has even the remotest connection to your assumption that the people killed were noncombatants.

Also, by your logic, we should have declared war on Belgium in WW2, because we undertook military operations there. No, we should have done exactly what we did - declared war on Germany, and fought them where we found them, including in Belgium.

[thoreau]

joe, you mean well, but after a while you'll realize that you're banging your head against a brick wall.

[John]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764035,00.html

I won't waste space reprinting the entire article. It describes the numorous opportunities the CIA had to kill Bin Ladin in the 1990s and the offer from the Sudanese to turn him over that Clinton turned down. God you are boob Joe. I don't think I have ever known anyone to whom that word applies to quite so well.

[Sam Franklin]

Whenever there is a military operation, there will be uncertainty about whether the people killed were the targetted combatants, at least initially.

You either consider this uncertainty a reason to condemn the military operation, or you don't. If you actually support waging war against Al Qaeda, you don't denounce the actions of that war based on the supposition that some of the people killed might not have been combatants.

This interpretation of my remarks is flat out inconsistent with the war declaration I crafted above.

if you read the declaration you will see very clearly where I draw the line between acceptable collateral damamge and unjust war.

I do not draw that line where you say I draw that line.

You should draw the line where I have drawn it in he war declaration because it is drawn there in a sensible place.

Your binary approach (some collateral damage is acceptable = all collateral damage is acceptable) is what we have been using and it has just lead to lies and increased hostility. Even in Afghanistan.

[joe]

Your denciations are clear evidence that I'm on the right track, John.

[joe]

"Your binary approach (some collateral damage is acceptable = all collateral damage is acceptable)"

Bzzt. Try again.

[Sam Franklin]

Also, by your logic, we should have declared war on Belgium in WW2, because we undertook military operations there. No, we should have done exactly what we did - declared war on Germany, and fought them where we found them, including in Belgium.

There would have been nothing wrong with declaring war on Belgium when it became a Nazi stronghold. declaring war on a nation doesn't mean that you have to interfere with their autonomy. You can declare war on a nation and remain perfectly friendly with its government and co-operative with its army if such co-operation is consistent with the objectives of the war. Not only that, it is a nice way of explicitly acknowledging that, as a powerful nation, the US would not normally do what it did in belgium but for the Nazis. I don't think that Belgium would have minded such an explanation in the slightest.

Now, in WWII, the US had built up a lot of good faith and could afford to fudge on manners and procedure.

this ain't WWII and we don't have that storehouse of good faith. It got squandered when it turned out there were no wmd's. Now it is time to restock the storehouse. My war declaration above is a great first step in that direction.

[John]

Joe,

We had lots of chances to get Bin Laden in the 1990s. I show a credible source that says as much and you just ignore it. Typical. Why can't you admit that Bill Clinton ever made a mistake about anything? Is it that hard? You are really are amazing sometimes. There are mitigating circumstances surrounding Clinton's failure, namely that the country didn't understand the threat and wouldn't have supported a serious action against Al-Quada. You can't even see that because in Joe world all problems are the result of Republicans and Clinton administration were some sort of race of infallible beings from another dimension.

Shockingly, I actually agree with you in regard to Sam. We had a right to do it. Under international law, harboring terrorists or pirates in your territory is an act of aggression. If Somalia was allowing Al-Quada to operate within its borders the U.S. has every right to act in self defense and violate Somalia's sovereignty and take out Al-Quada. As you point out, there is also Congressional authorization for the military to act under domestic law as well. We don't need international authorization to act in self defense.

[Sam Franklin]

Shockingly, I actually agree with you in regard to Sam. We had a right to do it. Under international law, harboring terrorists or pirates in your territory is an act of aggression.

supposedly they learned to fly planes in the us. They certainly learned what they needed to know about airport and airline security in the US, living there, meeting there, living there, loving there.

you do not really mean what you say, John.

[Sam Franklin]

" living there, meeting there, living there, loving there"

should have been:

-- living there, meeting there, working there, loving there--

[John]

Sam,

I don't write international law, I just read it. The U.S. has sovereignty over its own land and if it finds terrorists within its territory it has the sovereign right to dispose of them as they wish. If country A allows terrorists to operate within its borders who attack country B, that is legally no different than using its army to attack country B. Al Quada has been declared by U.N. resolution to be a criminal terrorist organization that no country has a right to harbor. If Somalia was harboring Al Quada, the U.S. had the legal right to violate its sovereignty and strike Al Quada.

[Sam Franklin]

I don't write international law, I just read it. The U.S. has sovereignty over its own land and if it finds terrorists within its territory it has the sovereign right to dispose of them as they wish. If country A allows terrorists to operate within its borders who attack country B, that is legally no different than using its army to attack country B. Al Quada has been declared by U.N. resolution to be a criminal terrorist organization that no country has a right to harbor. If Somalia was harboring Al Quada, the U.S. had the legal right to violate its sovereignty and strike Al Quada.

If there was still an Al Queda individual in the US, which countries would you permit to airstrike in the US. Any country that has been had an Al Queda attack within its borders?

If some country that has experienced an Al Queda attack decides to do an airstrike within the US because of the Al Queda member, does the US get to defend against the airstrike or is the military supposed to stand down under the uinternational law you cite?

[John]

"If there was still an Al Queda individual in the US, which countries would you permit to airstrike in the US. Any country that has been had an Al Queda attack within its borders?"

They have a right to ask the U.S. to deal with Al Quada and try to control them. If the U.S. refused to do that, then they have a right to strike the U.S. If England came to the U.S. and said, these five guys in Seattle are members of Al-Quada and the U.S. refused to arrest or do anything to stop them from attacking England, then the English, yes would have a right to bomb Seattle to kill the members of Al Quada. It is a far fetched example but in principle it is true. Now, if the U.S. tried to get those guys and they disappeared, England would not have the right to just bomb the U.S. in hopes of getting them. Because it is U.S. territory, the U.S. gets first crack at controlling any terrorists within its borders and other countries cannot attack the U.S. unless the U.S. is flat out refusing to stop the terrorists or providing safe harbor for them. This is why the U.S. arrests Iranian militants who are fighting the Iranian government. You would think we would be sending these guys money. But, since these groups are internationally considered terrorists, if we did that, Iran would have a legitimate case to claim that we were waging war against them and have every justification to bomb us.

[Sam Franklin]

They have a right to ask the U.S. to deal with Al Quada and try to control them. If the U.S. refused to do that, then they have a right to strike the U.S. If England came to the U.S. and said, these five guys in Seattle are members of Al-Quada and the U.S. refused to arrest or do anything to stop them from attacking England, then the English, yes would have a right to bomb Seattle to kill the members of Al Quada.

I don't see any evidence that the Somali government wasn't trying to catch the Al Quedas killed in yesterday's strike.

Can the Brits bomb Seattle if they decide that the US government isn't trying hard enuf, despite assurances to the contrary?

And why are we talking about the Brits. Let's use an example where the country's friendship with the US is more equivocal. Certainly the us, spain and England are not the only places Al Queda has struck.

[thoreau]

I know I'll regret this, but...

I don't see any evidence that the Somali government wasn't trying to catch the Al Quedas killed in yesterday's strike.

I don't see any evidence that there is a Somali government. Oh, sure, there's a building where some internationally recognized guys meet. But I'm not sure what it is that they actually control at this point.

[John]

"Can the Brits bomb Seattle if they decide that the US government isn't trying hard enuf, despite assurances to the contrary?"

That is the rub. What does harboring really mean? There is no definitive answer to what "harboring" means. I think in the case of Somalia, that the government was so bad that you could argue that if nothing else it had lost control of its borders and was incapable of controling Al Quada.

[Sam Franklin]

I know I'll regret this, but...

I don't see any evidence that the Somali government wasn't trying to catch the Al Quedas killed in yesterday's strike.

I don't see any evidence that there is a Somali government. Oh, sure, there's a building where some internationally recognized guys meet. But I'm not sure what it is that they actually control at this point.

If this is the reality (and it well may be), then the declaration of war I crafted above would dovetail nicely with the reality.

But john and I are on a different strand here. the question we are exploring is whether a less than diligent search for an Al Queda operative can be used to justify an airstrike (or machine gun attack for that matter) by a foreign country on US soil.

John's thing with the Brits was far-fetched, but if you weren't too busy getting ppl banned from here and there, T., then you probably caught the recent Myanmarr (sp?) thd. If the US stops handing requested "terrorists" back to Burma, then my understanding of John's understanding of international law is that Burma can send undercover military operatives to anytown USA to terminate the threats with extreme prejudice, and do collateral damage to boot.

I am no international law expert, but I refuse to believe international law truly dictates such a result.

[John]

"If the US stops handing requested "terrorists" back to Burma, then my understanding of John's understanding of international law is that Burma can send undercover military operatives to anytown USA to terminate the threats with extreme prejudice, and do collateral damage to boot"

In principle yes, if these guys really are terrorists. The question is who is a terrorist and who is a legitimate dissident. It is a really sticky international problem. Just because Mymar is a lousy government doesnt' give the U.S. the right to harbor people who intend to commit terrorist acts on its territories.

[Sam Franklin]

In principle yes, if these guys really are terrorists.

which brings us right back to the question of who really died in Somalia on Sunday. Not who was targetted. Who died?

That is why we need a declaration of war, especially one crafted as carefully as mine. that way we don't have to wonder who really died and whether the deaths were consistent with international law. under my war declaration we would know. There would be accountability on this important point. To me, that is what this discussion is about. Ppl who are reckless about this "who died" question are evil, especially when they are, like kwais, working in service of the enterprise that is putting the shrapnel through the victims.

[joe]

Sam,

The idea that we would declare war on a country on whose behalf we are fighting, and whose people we consider our allies, is insane.

The idea that another force resolution/war declaration could help clear the air, on the other hand, has a lot to recommend it.

John,

Accusations from you that I am biased towards Democrats are a good indication that I'm calling 'em straight. You're useful in that manner.

[John]

"John,

Accusations from you that I am biased towards Democrats are a good indication that I'm calling 'em straight. You're useful in that manner."

Please find one thread where at anytime you have ever criticized a Democrat for any reason because I have never seen it. I slam on Republicans all the time. I have never once seen you admit that any Dem has ever been wrong about anything. If you are so even handed, then please give examples. Or is it that you honestly beleive no Democrat has ever made a mistake? I think it is the latter which pretty much says it all about you.

[Sam Franklin]

In principle yes, if these guys really are terrorists.

On 2d thought, let's forget about Burma. Too many unresolved fact issues. Let's keep it real. here is a terrorist:

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

say Cuba and venezuela get together and bomb the prison where he is staying because they are (legitimately) concerned that the US will not punish this terrorist for his terrorism and might even release him.

You'd be cool with that john? joe? T.?

[Sam Franklin]

The idea that we would declare war on a country on whose behalf we are fighting, and whose people we consider our allies, is insane.

I don't want a military alliance with the government of Somalia. avoid foreign entanglements. It is possible to regard a foreign government as something less helpful than an ally and more helpful than an enemy.

the old conceptions of war don't fit modern reality. Better to change the conceptions than say ppl are crazy for recognizing the problem.

[John]

"say Cuba and venezuela get together and bomb the prison where he is staying because they are (legitimately) concerned that the US will not punish this terrorist for his terrorism and might even release him.

You'd be cool with that john? joe? T.?"

Depends. If the U.S. really plans to let the guy out and turn him loose on Cuba, then Cuba can do something about it and bomb him. If he is just in prison here, then he is not a threat to Cuba and they have no right to self defense and can't do anything. That is why the U.S. has to be really careful about who they harbor and support. Just because someone has the same enemies that we do, doesn't mean it is a good idea to let him into the country and support him. The other interesting example is how the US rolled over to Shin Fiegn and let them raise money here in the 1980s which they then used to terroize the UK. I think the UK had a legitimate right to demand the U.S. stop doing this and if we didn't to take matters into their own hands. That of course would never have happened for political reasons, but legally I think the UK had the right.

[joe]

"I don't want a military alliance with the government of Somalia. avoid foreign entanglements."

I was referring to your comment about declaring war on Belgium.

Don't throw out your shoulder patting yourself on the back for "recognizing a problem" that doesn't exist.

While you're at it, look up "Barbary Pirates" on Wikipedia, and stop pretending you're some sort of visionary for realizing that there are non-state actors we need to delcare war on.

[joe]

"You'd be cool with that john? joe? T.?"

Why are you asking me, Sam? You would have Cuba go to war against us even if we are NOT doing anything to protect him, but merely because he's on our soil.

[Sam Franklin]

Depends. If the U.S. really plans to let the guy out and turn him loose on Cuba, then Cuba can do something about it and bomb him. If he is just in prison here, then he is not a threat to Cuba and they have no right to self defense and can't do anything.

Clever answer. okay, smart guy:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/posada.arrest/

let's say the Cuban bombs rained down on Miami in March and April 2005, when US efforts to catch this terrorist were lax. Cuba would have been within its rights to drop carefully targetted bombs down on Miami at that time? Right?

[Sam Franklin]

While you're at it, look up "Barbary Pirates" on Wikipedia, and stop pretending you're some sort of visionary for realizing that there are non-state actors we need to delcare war on.

Either you are psychic or you have accessed my daily cache.

[John]

"let's say the Cuban bombs rained down on Miami in March and April 2005, when US efforts to catch this terrorist were lax. Cuba would have been within its rights to drop carefully targetted bombs down on Miami at that time? Right?"

It is all in the facts. If the U.S. really were harboring and sponsoring terrorists against Cuba, that is an act of war. I am not talking about helping people sign petitions against Castro. I am talking about harboring people who are sneaking into Cuba and blowing up police stations and killing people. If the U.S. really did do that, Cuba would have a right to defend itself and bomb the U.S.

[Skole]

Sam Franklin,

You truley are a crafty butcher.

[thoreau]

John and joe have united in an effort to explain warfare, law, and international relations to "Sam."

Truly the end times are near!

[joe]

Sam,

First of all, I'll be accessing my own daily cache around 5:30 this evening, so don't worry.

Second, the Barbary Pirates episode - for the less-geeky than myself, it was the first time the US declared war, and the B.P.s were a non-state gang operating in the territory of a state that tolerated them - has been brought up frequently on political sites ever since September 11.

[sam franklin]

I am talking about harboring people who are sneaking into Cuba and blowing up police stations and killing people. If the U.S. really did do that, Cuba would have a right to defend itself and bomb the U.S.

The specific terrorist we are talking about here helped bomb an airplane in 1976 with dynamite (73 fatalities). Does that count? (he has done terrorism since, but nothing as spectacular.) Still I am thinking even just the one plane bombing should mark him as a terrorist for life. i hope u agree.

As far as "harboring": as of march / april 2005, the man had applied for asylum in the US when people began to spot him wandering free in South Florida. How is that not harboring?

Now some people say that the US government helped him escape from prison in venezuela in 1985, but I certainly don't expect a level headed guy like you to buy into that kind of crazy talk. Let's stick with what we know:

1. man blows up airplane.
2. man escapes from jail
4. man moves to South Florida and petitions US gov't for asylum.
5. man is seen in public, but not actively pusued by the US government.

that is where it stood in April 2005. yet I get the distinct feeling that if Castro had dropped even one bomb on Miami then you would have gone apoplectic. remember steps 1-5 really happened. I am not making up this story.

[John]

Sam,

If Castro had dropped a bomb, he would have been acknowledging the state of war with the U.S. If the facts are as you give them, and I have no reason to beleive they are not, the U.S. is being really stupid with this guy. They are waging war against Cuba and Cuba has a right to defend itself. That said, the U.S. isn't restricted in its means of continueing that war. If Cuba bombed Miami, the U.S. could then declare war and continue the war by other means, like turning Havana into a parking lot.

I will be the first one to admit that the U.S. is dangerously hypocritical on this issue. If we are going to call Muslims to account for supporting Hamas, we ought to also hold Irishman to account who helped the IRA in the 1980s or now. But fat chance of that ever happening.

[Sam Franklin]

I will be the first one to admit that the U.S. is dangerously hypocritical on this issue. If we are going to call Muslims to account for supporting Hamas, we ought to also hold Irishman to account who helped the IRA in the 1980s or now. But fat chance of that ever happening.

I don't fully agree with your latest responses, but I see some good intellectual integrity from you in this area and want to take the time for talking it out at such length with me.

i wish we knew more about who exactly was killed Sunday, as far AQ versus non-AQ, and also what the Somali government has been doing since June to police or not police its territory. If we all had certain knowledge about the true facts I have a feeling that me, u and joe would all agree about what should have been done and what was permissible.

because we don't have this knowledge, our competing fact inferences rush into to fill our respective knowledge vacuums and drive us apart.

I have to admit that the tenacity that john and joe showed on this thd has pretty much convinced me that they are making their best guesses and judgements in better faith than I thought at the beginning of the thd. thanks for that. I find it comforting. Makes me less cranky, too.

Sometimes that is as good as it gets.

[lunchstealer]

1. man blows up airplane.
2. man escapes from jail
3. ???
4. man moves to South Florida and petitions US gov't for asylum.
5. man is seen in public, but not actively pusued by the US government.
6. Profit!!!!!
and of course, 7. US notices (although only at the instigation of an NYT reporter who is subsequently harrassed by US govt), throws sorry bum in jail.
8. Dave W. Goes batshit insane over new stuff.
9. H&R commenters are amused, but unsuprised.
10. John and joe come together to fight Dave W.
11. lunchstealer, longtime waverer between agnosticism and atheism, begins to pray. Hard.

[Oh My Gawd!]

"it seems so easy for Americans to just slaughter brown-skinned people"

"The US military and their contractors often skip the proof part, do their killing, end up killing non-Al Queda brown people"

You ever watch The News Hour on PBS? If so, have you ever noticed that the honor roll for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan consists of a good many blacks and Latinos?

That's right, the military loves to kill brown people. Just like cops.

Or maybe blacks and Latinos are inherently homicidal.

Either way, what a load of diversity / coloreds as victims of American imperialism crock.

[Sam Franklin]

3. ???
4. man moves to South Florida and petitions US gov't for asylum.

these two things are steps 3 and 4. I am not clear on the relative timing of these two occurences. Don't think it matters. Sorry about the confusion.

[K. West]

You ever watch The News Hour on PBS? If so, have you ever noticed that the honor roll for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan consists of a good many blacks and Latinos?

Now which way does that really cut "o my gawd"?

[lunchstealer]

Sam, mostly I was taking the opportunity for a South Park reference.

OMG, Gotta go with K. West here. Using a bunch of blacks and latinos for cannon fodder (there's another good spot for a South Park reference) doesn't go a long way to counterbalance the idea that the US kills brown people.

[Oh My Gawd!]

"Now which way does that really cut "o my gawd"?"

It's an all volunteer military. What are you inferring? That brown skinned people have no other option but to volunteer or that they are inherently homicidal?

Please clarify.

[John]

"Gotta go with K. West here. Using a bunch of blacks and latinos for cannon fodder (there's another good spot for a South Park reference) doesn't go a long way to counterbalance the idea that the US kills brown people."

Perhaps brown people like to kill Americans.

[Sam Franklin responds to Oh My]

since K. West was a sockpuppet character I created (he looks and sounds just like Kanye in my imagination), I better respond:

I meant that using brown soldiers does not serve to sanitize racism that otherwise inheres in the military actions that a nation chooses to do and to forbear from doing.

Whether the brown people are put on the front lines because of some special strength bred into the race, because they have no where else to go or because they have been co-opted matters not. What matters is that their reasons for being on the front lines have nothing to do with the intentions of the white people (eg, Colin Powell) who put them there.

[Oh My Gawd!]

"I meant that using brown soldiers does not serve to sanitize racism that otherwise inheres in the military actions that a nation chooses to do and to forbear from doing."

I'm not looking to sanitize anything. You got OCD or something?

[Tim]

"I'm not looking to sanitize anything. You got OCD or something?"

Singling out people by race (eg. Sam Franklin) is the hallmark of a racist.

[K. West (aka Sammy)]

Singling out people by race (eg. Sam Franklin) is the hallmark of a racist.

But if you discriminate based on race, but are discreet about it, then the only racist is the person is the person who tries to call you on it.

[joe]

Every black person who ever used the term "brother" is now a racist.

Great logic you've got there.

[Timon19]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to join the Evil Goon Club.

Of course it's a bit weird, as I'm an Evil Goon working for Eviller Brown-Skinned Goons (who our government likes to shoot the shit out of, apparently) who haven't a hope of dropping a bomb in anger correctly, probably ever. Or something. Anyway, I sure am one Evil Goon.

Timon19,
Evil Goon - Akron, OH

P.S. The Somali transitional government (such that it is) and its Ethiopian bodyguards actually ASKED the US to do what it did. FWIW.

P.S.S. The AC-130 is a kick-ass spec-ops/close-air support beast with some of the most sophisticated fire control systems you'll ever see this side of a JDAM. Considering there's no-shit field artillery - including a 150mm Howitzer - on board, that's pretty awesome, and accurate.

Whoever said they saw a C-130 with the cool flare show, that was probably a regular C-130 or the Blue Angels maintenance a/c popping off a major flare program or doing a full flare jettison for training or an air show. It's pretty impressive, but useful when you're that low and slow and designed to pound tanks, APCs and troops.

[Timon19]

Err...105mm Howitzer.

[Oh My Gawd!]

"Every black person who ever used the term "brother" is now a racist.

Great logic you've got there."

Thanks! I have never worked with a black person who wasn't a racist and that list includes everyone from Gangster Desciples to the owners of professional sports teams.

Glad you're finally catching on.

[Sam Franklin]

The Somali transitional government (such that it is) and its Ethiopian bodyguards actually ASKED the US to do what it did.

They asked the US to cover up the markings on the helicopters. They asked the US not to reveal to its citizens how many of the dead were truly AQ? they want the US to jump into a civil war without a declaration of war back in the states?

Fuck'em then. they are as evil as kwais.

[Timon19]

Besides covering tail markings being SOP for spec-ops, if the Somali gub'mint really didn't want anyone to know, then why did their leader (or his spokesman) go on record with the BBC today and say "we asked them"? The World Service isn't exactly a secret club.

[Guy Montag]

And yet, my position on ending your beloved Iraq Debacle hasn't changed one iota.

BFD

Can the Brits bomb Seattle if they decide that the US government isn't trying hard enuf, despite assurances to the contrary?

Well, when the so-called finnians ('named' as if they were human) were going to invade canadia the USA welcomed the Royal Navy to sail up the Hudson and dispatch them from our own shores. Not unlike what the Sudan did in this case.

There is a good precident that if a nation can not take care of it's own trouble makers making trouble against a neighbor that an ally of the neighbor can be envited in.

What is the matter with all of you BA majors? You got 'real' degrees, not me. Don't you guys read Professor George F. Will at all?

[Sam Franklin]

U.S. Won't Say Who Was Hit In Somali Raid
Reports in Mogadishu that civilians, not al-Qaida, killed in weekend airstrike

By Karen Deyoung, Stephanie Mccrummen, The Post

Published on 1/10/2007 in Nation, World ? National News

Print This E-mail This Most E-mailed
Send Letter Send Correction Add To Cart
Increase Text Actual Text Decrease Text

Washington - Two days after the United States launched an airstrike against alleged al-Qaida terrorists in southern Somalia, U.S. officials declined Tuesday to provide details of who, or what, was hit.

In Mogadishu, the Somali capital, reports circulated that as many as 50 people, many of them civilians, were killed in the attack by a U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship. U.S. officials said they are fairly certain that at least one targeted individual was hit; they said they had no information about civilian deaths in the strike, which took place near the Kenyan border.

[:-]

From the AP Jan. 10
___________________

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who allegedly planned the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, was killed in a U.S. airstrike Monday, according to an American intelligence report passed on to the Somali authorities.

"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, told The Associated Press. "One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead."

If confirmed, Mohammed's death would be a major victory for the U.S. in its hunt for the 1998 embassy bombers. The strike was part of the first U.S. offensive in the African country since 18 American soldiers were killed there in 1993.

[wayne]

"Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who allegedly planned the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, was killed in a U.S. airstrike Monday..."

Thank God he had brown skin, else we would have had to let him go. We would probably have been forced to shoot some of our own brown-skinned soldiers just to meet the quota.

[wayne]

How brown must one be to qualify as sufficiently brown to warrant being brutallly murdered? Is Mario Cuomo "Italian brown" enough or is a darker shade required?

I have known a fair number of people from the Britis Isles who are pretty brown, Sean Connery for example.

In Iraq I have been quite surprised to see quite a few Iraqis with blue eyes and fair skin and blonde hair. No wonder we are losing over here. We obviously can't target these opponents of superior color.

[Guy Montag]

Timon19,

Welcome to the Evil Goon club. Will you be attending the first meeting of Evil Goon Reasonoids next week? Details in the Reasonoid gathering thread.

[Sam Franklin]

And how much collateral damage did the evil goons do?

Oh, that's right. We don't get to know that. It is a big secret. It doesn't matter. Because they are black. Because it might dampen Red America's zest for war. Proceed.

Hillary save us!

[Guy Montag]

Sam Franklin,

It is not a big secret, it is just none of your business. Now if you really want to know so badly you could rejoin the Evil Goon club. If you behave, and that is a BIG IF, then we will let you in on some of our confidential stuff.

Until then, run along and play with your nice friends and ready your stilts and clown suits for the next protest againse endangered dirt.

[wayne]

Hillary?

Have you looked into her evil, blue eyes? We need Maxine Waters, not Hillary.

[Sam Franklin]

Until then, run along and play with your nice friends and ready your stilts and clown suits for the next protest againse endangered dirt.

No, no, no. At this point the focus is who gets the White House next. Keep talking Guy. It gets me pumped and that gets my wallet open.

[Guy Montag]

Oh, in that case Mr. Franklin, ready your stilts and clown suits for the next CPUSA rally.

Yea, Al Sharpton got me to toss him some money too because I wanted him to keep talking.

[Timon19]

Guy,

I'm allowed in, even if I kinda sorta work for Brown-Skinned Evil Goons? I don't wanna rock the boat.

Unfortunately, due to my Ohio-ness and continually impending trip to Brown-Skinned Evil Goon Land which finally looks to be a go Friday (inshallah), I'm not going to be around for a few weeks.

Post the minutes of the meeting so I can keep up!

[Guy Montag]

Timon19,

What the hell does anybody's race have to do with anything?

Now I am beginning to suspect you need to hang out with Franklin and Fairbanks if race infects your every thought and expression.

[Timon19]

Guy,

You understand the Evil Goon part as sarcasm, but not the Brown-Skinned part?

Need to tune up the detector, eh?

[Guy Montag]

I guess I am just more color blind sensitive than most 🙂