US Forces Undertake Two African Raids, Capture Embassy Bombing Figure

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.

Comments

And we're reading about it here why?

[Temkin]

News for Nerds? Really?

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

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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 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 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:

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 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 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 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

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

[LifesABeach]

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?

[the eric conspiracy]

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

Do you really think we are that stupid?

You must think we are complete idiots.

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

[phantomfive]

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?

[phantomfive]

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?

[Zumbs]

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

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

[AmiMoJo]

That's the BBC is reporting it 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?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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?

[Eunuchswear]

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?

[Eunuchswear]

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

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/

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

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

[interval1066]

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?

[Eunuchswear]

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?

[Eunuchswear]

Well, actually he's a Kunt. But he's so dumb he thought he was a Kurd.

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

[amiga3D]

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?

[benjfowler]

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?

[cold fjord]

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

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

[AmiMoJo]

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?

[gl4ss]

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

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?

[Eunuchswear]

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?

[Eunuchswear]

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?

[Eunuchswear]

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?

[budgenator]

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

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

[gaspyy]

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?

[cold fjord]

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

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?

[_Sharp'r_]

Yeah, but don't worry, we'll get the guys responsible for Benghazi in another 13-14 years or so at this rate... they have to pick them up in order of their terrorist acts, of course...

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the GP was implying that the Somali government informed Al Shabaab of the raid, which led to the raid's failure.

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

[Arker]

I have to say this is one of your better posts. Very nice work threading the fallacy so nicely.

The guy is unlikely to be 'innocent' but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be given a fair trial and every chance to show himself so if he is.

Nor have I seen anything to suggest that his capture was anywhere near important enough to offset the hostility this sort of action generates. It was a 15 year old crime, why couldnt it wait another 2 or 3 years? Keep a long eye on him but dont say anything to anyone, let him think he was forgotten, take a tourist flight to a jurisdiction that would happily extradict him and never make it out of the airport. All legal and beyond reproach.

Instead the young and fragile democratic Libya for which our armed forces and taxpayers served as midwife is reeling from instability after being put in about the worst position any government can be, thoroughly embarrassed, shown to be impotent to enforce any kind of law and order quite dramatically.

 

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

[ahabswhale]

Yeah, US news sources are totally full of shit but news from Al Shabaab is totally trustworthy. I don't trust US news sources either but you're a fucking idiot if you believe anything that Al Shabaab says. This report is probably the most accurate one you're going to get: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24420767. On a final note, any news that comes out immediately after an event is usually total bullshit no matter who it comes from. It takes a while before enough information is developed from multiple sources to piece together something that resembles the truth.

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

[phantomfive]

Well the, whose is it?

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

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Cecil Rhodes

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

[Eunuchswear]

This report is probably the most accurate one you're going to get: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24420767

Uh, that's a DOD press release, and it confirms everything that Al-Shaabab said.

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

[ultranova]

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

Well, if is outside the judicial system, he can't be given a fair trial, which means he can't be proven to be guilty, which means he's innocent as far as the law is concerned. And that, of course, means he should be released.

Alternatively, we could accept that he's guilty if someone powerful says so, but that has an obvious downside: how do you know you're not next?

Oh well. The US gave up due process with the War on Drugs, made it official with the opening of Gitmo, and has now made it the standard procedure. I guess Stalin won the Cold War afterall.

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

[Eunuchswear]

Nah, can't be that.

If it were, how does the Cape to Cairo railway get into the plan.

(Frankly, if there were a Cape to Cairo railway in the plan I'd be for it. I have no shame).

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

[Eunuchswear]

Yeah, but don't worry, we'll get the guys responsible for Benghazi in another 13-14 years or so at this rate... they have to pick them up in order of their terrorist acts, of course...

Well, the guys responsible for Benghazi were the Greeks in around 525BC, so good luck gettiin them in 13-14 years.

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

[Eunuchswear]

Slashdot should post Kim Kardashian's butt as a source file for my 3d printer!

[ fill in boring Slashdot memes here - hot grits, petrified and so on. In Soviet America Kim Kardashian is Nathalie Portman! ]

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

[MaskedSlacker]

Because sometimes they're the same person? (Seinfeld anyone?)

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

[MysteriousPreacher]

And if the general finds himself unable to leave his armchair for the mission (dinner coming, a scheduled masturbation marathon), the United States will find some actual military type person to do the getting?

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

[ahabswhale]

Uh...no it does not and it's not a DoD press release. I don't think you read it very carefully but this is /. so I don't know why should I expect any different. Or maybe subtleties are lost on you.

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

[omtinez]

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 Turd-ish. :)

FTFY

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

[malkavian]

Winning would be getting in, achieving the objective and getting out without making an international incident out of it, or giving the opponent a chance to stir things up and look strong (they didn't capture a leader, just a soldier who was glad to die for the cause, and will now be in 'heaven' with his fourty virgins, or whatever is promised).. The eyes of the world suddenly look America's way (hot on the heels of the international disbelief that the USA can be held to ransom internally by a hard line faction within its own government, almost shutting it down totally). The US is currently looking VERY incompetent on the international stage. This is bad for diplomacy, and the negotiating stance (and possible alliances).
The losses for the US in this are actually pretty staggering if you take into account that their "successful" mission cost the country far more than they could ever hope to gain (a pyhrric victory), and the "failed" mission just makes them seem inept and ineffective.. The world's most highly funded military pushed back by a few guys who are portrayed almost as frothing at the mouth backwards sheep-herders with cheap guns and no real military knowledge and funding that doesn't amount to a drop in the ocean compared to what's been spent on gearing up the US squad.
It's pretty damning really.
And no, I don't hold the military guys in lesser regard because of this.. I put it squarely in the hands of the politicians who thought it would be a good idea. You know, the same kind of people who are currently so patriotic about their country, they're willing to see if crash and burn because they're not getting their own way.
Maybe that's not the real truth, but that's pretty much the international perceived view.. And that's not something any country wants..

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

[corbettw]

Yes, this is news for nerds. Some of us actually give a shit about what happens in the wider world, too.

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

[khallow]

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.

Welcome to asymmetric warfare and propaganda. Either one on its own would explain this.

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

[LifesABeach]

Oh dear little A/C, your's is a common A/C problem, this is blog is on technical news. A/C, you need to go to the fox-news blog, it caters, to well, people like you.

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

[AK Marc]

Someone who has his sympathies lie with the US servicemen and their families is apparently traitor.

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

[cold fjord]

Unfortunately you are overlooking a key piece of information: his status is determined under the Law of War, not under criminal statue. He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war, just as the Germans were in WW2 - at least until the conflict is over. No trial is necessary since it isn't a question of criminal law. That doesn't mean that he can't be tried, either for war crimes or criminal offenses under ordinary criminal law. Perhaps that will happen at some future date.

In summary, he can be held indefinitely, and it is perfectly legal and correct to do so.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Well, if is outside the judicial system, he can't be given a fair trial, which means he can't be proven to be guilty, which means he's innocent as far as the law is concerned.

Actually, there's an entire body of law, common called the Law of War, codified in the UCMJ and large number of international treaties (such as the Geneva Conventions). Under those laws, the actions of the US were perfectly legal. The only thing a fighter caught out of uniform, or otherwise breaking the laws of war, is required to have is a field-expedient trial and a humane execution on the spot. "Innocent" is not much of a concept in the laws of war, and "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't exist.

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

[ultranova]

Unfortunately you are overlooking a key piece of information: his status is determined under the Law of War, not under criminal statue. He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war, just as the Germans were in WW2 - at least until the conflict is over. No trial is necessary since it isn't a question of criminal law. That doesn't mean that he can't be tried, either for war crimes or criminal offenses under ordinary criminal law. Perhaps that will happen at some future date.

It is convenient when you can declare wars on abstract concepts and use those an excuse to kidnap and hold people indefinitely, yes. But it doesn't solve the problem: how do you know you're not next? Mere innocence won't protect you, since you'll never get to plead your case. So how will you keep the beast you've unleashed from turning on you?

But, for the sake of the record: The German war prisoners in WW2 were kept without trial for two reasons: 1) they weren't actually guilty of anything besides having lived in a country with conscription and a Nazi regime when said regime decided to go to war, and 2) there were hundreds of thousands of them, so it was not possible to arrange hearings for them all. Also, WW2 had a clearly defined and foreseeable end, after which they were let go - except those held by the Russians, who stayed in the camps for a long, long time. Stalin agrees with you in this too, comrade.

In summary, he can be held indefinitely, and it is perfectly legal and correct to do so.

In that case, it is also legal and correct to hold you indefinitely, should someone with a high enough position decide so. Perhaps you think you'll get lucky, or perhaps you think you'll be rewarded for licking their jackboots from early on. But I wouldn't count on that. A lot of Stalin's fanclub ended up in the gulags, after all.

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

[AHuxley]

He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war. That never ending war on a tactic again vs war country again? :) Criminal law is really what you want to quote as at some point you get into the legality of "prisoner of war", conflict with a "country" and Red Cross visits, law reform and the press.

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

[Luckyo]

Not to be an ass, but beyond the cute and cuddly propaganda, Libya didn't have a government (as in something that governs) since Gaddafi. This is simply because Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other.

Gaddafi unified Libya because his political agenda has been "every tribe has its own militia and is largely autonomous, but to outsiders we're Libyans first". He maintained this by careful balance of both financial and military incentives, tribes that followed him in a more loyal fashion got much better financing, access to military gear and luxury goods. At the same time his secret police was hard at work figuring out who was on who's side. But each tribe got extreme amount of freedom in its own affairs, down to having its own army, police, and often legal framework.

After he was overthrown, this central control system broke down and now there's no Libya - instead there are approximately 150 small autonomous regions now which largely maintained their own armies from Gaddafi times, and care very little for what current "government" wants (in quote marks because it doesn't really govern anything).

As a result, destabilization of "Libyan government" is an oxymoron. You can't really destabilize something that is completely unstable in the first place. Will tribes use this as an extra excuse when they need to? Sure. Would they have done the same thing and use another of myriad of excuses, or just tell government to fuck off instead as they did before this incident on countless occasions? Yes.

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

[Luckyo]

If you want to be an utter dick about it and turn things on their head, then let me throw you another claim that is just as idiotic as yours:

When these US servicemen perform an act of terrorism on foreign soil, those who sympathize with them are terrorist sympathizers. Not sure how their families got drawn into it as they weren't a part of it in any shape or form.

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

[AHuxley]

Re 'will do for much of the conflict"
Did you miss the optics of "California governor signs law defying cooperation with NDAA indefinite detention" and AB351?
http://rt.com/usa/california-ndaa-ban-law-612/
http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues/ndaa/ seems a few States are considering aspects of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

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

[cold fjord]

I doubt that will have any meaningful effect as most "nullification" laws don't.

I doubt that much will come of it anytime soon anyway since the norm has been to use ordinary criminal law inside the US and the Law of War outside it when dealing with al Qaida. The only way I could see this having much impact would be during an internal insurrection unless there was a huge, undetected al Qaida attack being plotted in the US. That is huge in terms of numbers of attackers, not necessarily in body count. Of course with the Obama administration driving toward the cliff while strangling the economy, who can say what will happen. Perhaps it is all part of a Cloward-Piven Strategy.

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

[AK Marc]

So you wouldn't have any sympathy for someone who just found out their family member is a terrorist?

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

[Luckyo]

I prefer sympathizing with families of the victims.

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

[AHuxley]

Yes cold a "Cloward-Piven Strategy" like big spending issue will catch up one day.
From welfare food cards, science, education, medical needs, too much heavy engineering maintenance, storm/flood bail outs, endless wars, banking support, foreign aid, countless illegal immigrants...to hidden internal ideology: the boondoggles and now legal insider trading is getting noticeable.
Once all that could be hidden as the "cold war" or wise investments by generational trusts, NGO's and very gifted career politicians. Soon their will be stark USSR like options:
Flood the world with raw materials and hope the prices do not drop too much just to make ends meet.
Flood the world with war related products, hope peace will never break out, keep generational skilled staff in place and hope the export orders keep flowing.

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

[rtb61]

It makes no difference. Success or failure, it means the US is going back to the core principles of justice, obtain evidence, capture and put on trial and present the evidence, thus proving the validity of laws. Bending international law (bending when there are no reasonable extradition laws) along the in unfortunate but acceptable as long as the pursuit of justice is the goal, that being proof of necessity of action in a court of law. This is far, far better than randomly firing missiles from drones and shows a shift for the better from the US government. It might be hard and it might be costly but doing the right thing always has far better long term benefits.

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

[Seumas]

Don't worry, next month we'll start seeing controversial and divisive posts about religion and abortion. The month after that, we'll start seeing Buzzfeed-style "articles" and list-link-bait. The month after that, it'll be nothing but Ford-Sponsored Ford-Related Advert-Articles. You won't be able to tell Slashdot from Engadget, BoingBoing, or Buzzfeed.

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

[Seumas]

You sound like one of those people who comment on CBS articles linked from Drudge's website.

Anyway, eighteen months ago was merely staging for taking action, today. Have we all forgotten the five year plan (okay, so it has taken longer than that) for seven middle eastern countries that General Clark discussed a few years ago? Additionally, have we all forgotten that the real purpose of all of this is oil and oil/pipeline related corporate interests in these regions? It's no secret and it's no conspiracy. President Obama has stated this in recent speeches, including one before the United Nations?

"We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends upon the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy."

This has been and continues to be about ensuring both the flow of energy and the *control* of energy. Nothing about the statement above has anything to do with the well-being of Syrian citizens or peace or anything else. It is an imperialistic statement that they have energy and are pipelines for energy (Syria's primary benefit, since they don't have a lot of actual oil, themselves) and that we must maintain and control the flow of energy. Fuck the sovereignty of a nation. And, frankly, fuck any suggested "peace-keeping" intentions. Those are pretty things we trot out to the media to convince the American people that our intentions are righteous, when they're really the wrapping paper we couch our true intentions in.

Before we start buying this bullshit, let's remember the Gulf war and the whole "oh noes, this poor little girl testified before the UN about how evil Iraqi's are unplugging incubators and throwing babies into piles in the hallways of hospitals to die!". You know, the little girl that turned out to be the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador? The daughter that was coached and prepped on the acting gig as part of a war-justification-propaganda by the fucking despicable Hill & Knowlton for the war in the whole incubator bullshit was the turning point for the American public to get behind the military action?

And then, twenty years later, we're falling for that shit all over again when we're fed propaganda like "the Libyan soldiers are being given viagra so they can maintain erections so they can rape women and children in a terror spree against their own citizens!" or "Syrian soldiers are giving citizens tittie-twisters and really rough noogies!". I mean, come on -- can we not smell that bullshit a mile away? Are we really going to let ourselves be drummed into another bullshit series of military actions -- actions we were warned of by General Clark long ago and for purposes which our own president has laid out clearly at least twice in public speeches -- like this?

The only thing worse than those "bleeding heart bullshitters" are the braindead "yeah, we gunna get us in some fightin' billy joe bob! hurrah murrica!" types who will buy fucking anything, as long as we're convinced that we're the good guys and we're doing what we do purely because "we're the good guys". Sure, we want to believe we're the good guys. We even used to *be* the good guys. But now we're just the guys being fed bullshit and giving our permission for our government to act despicably.

Pull out my comment in another decade and tell me if I was wrong about how there is no honor in our (government's) intentions and actions here.

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

[Seumas]

I could do without the "nerd view on every subject", now that most of my fellow Slashdot nerds seem to have turned 50 years old and turned into their dads. It can often times be difficult to tell, these days, if you're reading Slashdot or commenters on an article that Drudge has linked to. There's more biased, ridiculous, political, bullshit rhetoric and name-calling here than there are on most shitty CBS articles, where people just sit around spewing racist bullshit and calling each other libtards and republithugs all day and coming together around the agreement that atheists should be killed so they can meet their maker.

The commentary on Slashdot used to be fairly compelling, but in the last few years, it has come to sound more like sitting around the table with my blue collar neighbors who think Obama is the antichrist, Saddam attacked the WTC, and people need to give up their freedoms so we can be safe from terrorists. Slashdot was the place you went for tech, even if it was political tech issues (ie, encryption, privacy, etc). Now it's the place you go to so you can hear old people piss and moan about $[opposing_political_party] and spew talking points from MSNBC and FNC.

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

[Seumas]

So we're going to start getting articles about maintaining prostate health and how to pay-down your mortgage, too?

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

[u38cg]

The US tries and knocks down your door and fails, you're the winner. Not that hard.

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

[sumdumass]

This seems to be a play out of the Clinton Hand Book. In the 90's, whenever something appeared to damage Clinton, he would have the military bomb an aspirin factor claiming it was an Al Qaeda training camp or launch Cruise missiles at Iraq for something they have been doing that we finally had enough of.

It usually worked at distracting the people too. People (generally political opponents) even started calling it wag the dog. Hollywood took the idea and made a movie out of it (or perhaps the movie fed the criticism). It might have been coincidence but it definitely was convenient.

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

[Arker]

"Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other."

And the same can be said of most countries, if not all. It's hardly unique to Libya. Governments still exist.

The fact is the US served as the air force for the rebels to enable them to set up a democratic government and now the same US just knocked it around like the proverbial stepchild, in full view of their nation. Spin that however you want it, I dont think you can escape the conclusion that there had to be some very poor decision making involved in at least one end of the sequence, if not both.

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

[cusco]

So if the Cuban government invades Miami, kidnaps the gusano terrorists there, takes them back to Havana, and holds them there indefinitely without a trial you're fine with that?

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

[cold fjord]

Is there an on-going conflict between them and the Cuban government? I don't think there is. Besides, both the Cuban and US government control their own territory. Both have had people that the other wanted, were asked nicely for, and were denied for one reason or another. I don't see that changing anytime soon, at least as long as a communist government is in control of Cuba.

But to be more specific ... since Cuba has yet to be liberated as nearly every other communist country has been, I'm not sure that I see a downside to Cuban aggression in this instance. Viva la Revolución!

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

[kilfarsnar]

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.

Is the US War on Terror a war in accordance with the Geneva Convention?

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

[kilfarsnar]

The Authorization for Use of Military Force designated the perpetrators of 9/11 at the enemy. The "War against Terror" is symbolic language. There really shouldn't be any confusion on the point unless someone wants to be confused.

So, was Abu Anas al Libi one of the perpetrators of 9/11? The article says he is wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings. And how can you say that the War on Terror is symbolic language and then turn around and talk about how all of the US actions are legal because we are at war and the laws of war apply? Are we actually at war or is it symbolic language? Or is it the War on Al Qaeda? Does the Geneva Convention allow declaring war on a loose affiliation of religious fighters? Can we declare war on any group we want to, like the EFF or the NRA or the Boy Scouts and then have the laws of war apply?

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

[kilfarsnar]

It makes no difference. Success or failure, it means the US is going back to the core principles of justice, obtain evidence, capture and put on trial and present the evidence, thus proving the validity of laws.

Yeah, that'll happen.

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

[cusco]

Is there an on-going conflict between them and the Cuban government?

Yes, a number of them are wanted for spreading bio-weapons across the island (the first terrorist use of bio-weapons, predating the Rajneeshies by a decade), shelling a hotel full of European tourists, blowing up an airliner full of civilians, and dozens of (mostly failed) attempted assassinations. There's not really any doubt about their guilt, they boast about it publicly in their fundraising materials. Who are the Cubans refusing to hand over? They deported the last of the airline hijackers back during the Carter administration, when the US promised not to give them the death penalty. (They were reportedly happy to go to the relative comfort of US prisons after spending years in the Cuban jails.)

since Cuba has yet to be liberated

Ah. Not run by corporations, so it's not a real country? It's government isn't corrupt enough to be considered a viable state? What's your point?

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

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Here's your rifle. Thank you for volunteering.

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

[dave420]

Seeing as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, he is innocent. That pesky "due process" thing again. I know you hate it. I'm sure you'd have no problem if someone accused you of doing something, and then straight-up Navy-SEAL'd your ass out of your car on the way to work, right?

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

[cold fjord]

Based on your brief description I'm going to guess that all of those alleged incidents date from the 1960s and 1970s. Are any of the incidents that you list newer than 33 years old? If not, I'm not sure that really is an "ongoing" conflict.

I don't believe that all of the hijackers have in fact been handed over, although I could be mistaken. I seem to recall reading not too long ago about a released hijacker that was living there, and not really enjoying life. I wouldn't be surprised if I could find other instances, but it isn't a high priority.

Cuba is still run by a communist dictatorship. Very few countries that were communist still are communist. In the vast majority of cases they have either been overthrown by popular revolt or dissolved. It turns out that the proletariat isn't really interested in living that way.

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

[Quila]

There are only two choices of status that should be possible here:

1. They are criminals. They can be captured, tried and executed for their crimes. Their protections would include right to a speedy and fair trial (note, not necessarily a civilian one).

2. They are enemy combatants. The can be killed when found. If captured they can be held until the end of hostilities. In this case, that probably means forever, so it's the equivalent of a life sentence. Their protections are to be treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention, and not as criminals.

Pick one. Seriously both the administration and the opposition, pick one. If the people in Gitmo are illegal combatants as claimed, they should have been tried and then released or sentenced years ago.

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

[cusco]

1997. There's no statute of limitations on murder and terrorism anyway.

So since you personally disapprove of their type of government they have no international rights. How very special.

When was a communist government overthrown by popular revolt? In Nicaragua they were voted out of office and stepped down peacefully (unlike either their predecessors or their successors.) The USSR had an economic collapse, and withdrew from eastern Europe. Those communist parties lost elections and stepped down peacefully. China and Vietnam are still communist. Communist Vietnam invaded Cambodia in order to removed Pol Pot's government, then withdrew and let the country go its own way. Yugoslavia fragmented due to ethnic conflict, and capitalism was subsequently imposed by NATO. Afghanistan's communists were removed by the combination of foreign religious fanatics, mercenaries and warlords annoyed at the suppression of their opium trade. Any others come to mind?

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

[devman]

al Libi will probably stand trial in Federal court for his alleged involvement in the embassy bombings. He has an standing Federal indictment (over a decade old at this point) in the Southern District of New York related to those events.

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

[gordo3000]

The US, nor any other country for that matter, has EVER help prisoners of war or enemy combatants as criminals to go through our justice system. This is not about the presumption of innocence or right to a fair trial.

There never were nor will be trials for every enemy confronted in a war. Why would you ever expect or hope for such a thing? Unless something about war has changed, I'm not certain there are even valid charges to be brought against someone who is fighting you on non-US soil by our government.

Ever since Obama foolishly started campaigning on the "let's bring them to justice and try them in courts of law" foolishness, US military policy has been hopelessly confused. Even he was quickly set straight when faced with reality about how idiotic such a statement was, and you no longer hear him talking about ridiculous solutions.

What would hte charges even be? you planned, on foreign soil where this planning was completely legal, to blow up a US embassy. You neither actually committed the act nor were present at the bombing. How do you plead for charges of murder even though we can't show you were doing anything illegal unless we convince the court our laws actually hold everywhere in the world?

US citizens or those acting on US soil are one thing. But this was neither and was an exercise of our military power. Don't confuse it with unrelated things like innocent until proven guilty.

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

[gordo3000]

it goes to show you how easy it is to beat back someone when they literally limit themselves to only the most difficult of tactics. The old way woudl have been to bomb the entire seaside area and call it a day. No americans in harms way, and we move along.

But for the last 30 years, that has been been a politically incorrect strategy. I'm not going to get into a long discussion of the ethics and relative value of human life along with the relative damage to our economy and international relations with each strategy, but literally the world seems to have forgotten what all out war looks like.

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

[Luckyo]

Governments exist where social contract between people and government allows them to exist. That typically requires, among other things, limitation on how fractured and numerically large autonomous regions are.

In Libya, the case is extreme to the point of absurdity. Few if any colonial countries come even close. If they had a chance to develop naturally, at best there would be a few tens of small countries formed from a few allied tribes, and even those would likely be unstable.

And mind you, US didn't serve as "air force for rebels". It tried that early on, only to find out that it was barely enough to stop Gaddafi from advancing. Rebels tribes were so bad at actual fighting due to Gaddafi's skilled work at denying them military training and tools, that they couldn't do anything on their own. It's not until Western special forces/mercenaries were firmly embedded in the command structure that rebels started to actually achieve victories. Before that, rebel advance was "drive forward in a cavalcade of trucks, get shot at, drive back".

In a perverse way, that ended up being a good thing for rebels themselves. As of typing this, the main factor keeping the country from sinking back into full on civil war is the clear demonstration of just how weak most of the anti-Gaddafi tribes actually are in terms of offensive military power. At the same time pro-Gaddafi tribes are largely disarmed and without Gaddafi lack guidance and leadership to become as formidable as they were before. So Libya now has an equilibrium of weakness, where everyone just rapes and pillages smaller villages of their neighbors and occasionally commits terrorism in bigger cities, but no one dares to attack the heartlands of other tribes because they know they are too weak to manage it successfully after experiences from civil war.

Re:WTF???

[benjfowler]

Explanation's simple. It's click bait.

Unsurprisingly??

[Anonymous Coward]

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??

[quantaman]

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.

A better metaphor would be Cuban commandos entering the US to arrest Luis Posada Carriles who committed a bunch of terrorist bombings in Cuba with support from the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and had some interactions with the CIA.

No one claims that Abu Anas ab Libi was a past or present member of the Libyan government, but he did have supporters in the Government and it's not certain how anxious they were to arrest him themselves.

The Somalia situation is a little different as I think the Somalia government still has trouble controlling portions of the country so foreign countries get a little more latitude in going in and carrying out policing operations within their borders, however the US probably has some kind of understanding with Somalia.

Re:Unsurprisingly??

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

that would be amazing! Here, take Cheney and Bush too while your here! Thanks! Do you need your parking validated?

Re:Unsurprisingly??

[phantomfive]

What happens when an elite Iraqi commando enters the US and "arrests" prominent terrorist and war criminal Donald Rumsfeld,

Celebration? Oh, oh, that was a rhetorical question.

Denial

[PPH]

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

Re:Denial

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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

Re:Denial

[slick7]

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

[BeerCat]

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.

Re:Denial

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Congress was going to give them back pay anyway, so they basically had their free paid vacations yanked.

Re:Denial

[buchner.johannes]

If you go to http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml you will see these blatant violations of international law are continuing as "Essential Services".

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[phantomfive]

... 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...

[benjfowler]

'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:Wonderful post

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Eunuchswear]

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.

Where's the mandate?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Eunuchswear]

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?

[wiredlogic]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Where's the mandate?

[Richard_at_work]

You can use that argument to support military action against any country that doesn't extradite to your country...

Re:Where's the mandate?

[Loki_1929]

I'm fine with that. You don't get to blow up civilians of the world's only superpower and get to sit in a failed state or other little junker country laughing at us. To allow that to happen is to invite a never-ending stream of would-be bin Ladens.

You notice you never see the leadership of one of these groups strapping bombs to themselves to die for their beliefs. Rather, they expect other, less educated, less well off people to die for their agenda. The world is full of less educated, less well off people who will fall for promises of riches in the hereafter and it always will be, so killing all of them means a never-ending fight where the poor and ignorant are slaughtered. If that's the plan - to just continually fight the masses of deluded poor people - we may as well move to nuclear weapons now. They'll get all the terrorists and potential terrorists in one fell swoop and we'll rather quickly exhaust the supply of willing participants.

I think the smarter alternative would be to only involve ourselves (politically, militarily, and otherwise) where all parties openly welcome us and where we know exactly who all those parties are and how stable (mentally and politically) they are, and then find and kill anyone who screws with us without regard for where they are (paying particular attention to the puppeteers). Honestly, if we knew this guy was at his beach house in Somalia, I don't understand sending US personnel there. Just level the place with a half dozen cruise missiles. Same thing with the guy in Libya. If he's got a nice house there, wait for him to come home (drone surveillance) and then level the place.

Make the message loud and clear: "We won't mess with you, but if you mess with us we will end you. We will not stop, we will not rest, and the second you do, your life will end." Dancing around with getting involved here and there and hitting this guy with a missile and that guy with SEAL ops is sending a mixed signal. Stop messing around where we aren't openly welcomed by stable, sane people and when someone decides to mess with us, obliterate them with absolutely overwhelmingly massive force. I think we'd quickly find a dwindling number of people willing to come after us.

Re:Where's the mandate?

[T.E.D.]

Yup. That's why countries prefer to have extradition treaties.

Re:Where's the mandate?

[Richard_at_work]

Nice ramble, but tell me the last time POTUS or the Speaker or the Joint Chiefs picked up a weapon in anger rather than sending someone else to fight the actual battle? Someone else who is typically less educated, less well off than themselves?

Your stance sickens me, it truly does.

Re:Where's the mandate?

[Loki_1929]

I think you may be misunderstanding what "less educated, less well off people" means. A certain level of context comes into play there when we're talking about most of the rest of the world versus the Western countries. For the purposes of that comment, "less educated" would refer to individuals who've had little (less than 5 years) to no formal, useful education (centers for extremist religious indoctrination where no math, science, or arts are taught don't count). When you have someone who lacks the benefits of formal education, they have very little knowledge of themselves or the world around them and are vastly easier to manipulate.

When I say "less well off", I'm referring to people living in poverty. Not the US "I-can-barely-afford-my-apartment-and-2000-calorie-a-day-diet-for-me-and-my-three-kids" poverty, but rather the "I-have-no-money-and-live-in-a-shoddy-handmade-structure-and-three-of-my-kids-have-starved-to-death" poverty. US military members aren't poor and they at least complete high school. While not rich and not all walking around with doctorate degrees, they're vastly better off and better educated than the masses of people being recruited to die for Islamic extremists. we're talking this http://0.tqn.com/d/usmilitary/1/0/4/V/4/housing.jpg versus this http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/81518477-palestinian-refugees-live-in-a-shantytown-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QUZstEgSEzISlVU9i%2Bk2NM7I4BN20ZTyd4sqKm4demhVCrzgOzt9RaiIcVVEh90eoFKxaxDWC0%2BLBeZUYpfF0vk%3D and this http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/files/2013/06/Classroom.jpg versus this http://micconference.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/madrasa.jpg. Let's be honest about the differences.

As for my stance sickening you, I find it odd that you feel the need to call out self-defense as sickening, but apparently feel no such need to call out the brainwashing of uneducated, poor masses of people to die in futile attempts to advance the agendas of sick and twisted cowards by convincing them to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in the name of a god who wants to reward them for doing so. Perhaps you should reconsider what's actually sickening.

Oops: Obama bin bama not so peaceful

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Oops: Obama bin bama not so peaceful

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Oops: Obama bin bama not so peaceful

[Eunuchswear]

Hey, maybe he's a bad guy, but at least he's not Henry Kissinger.

(yes, the "peace prize" is a joke. This is not news. The "economics" prize is a joke too, Suck on it),

Re:WTF???

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Eunuchswear]

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?

Old wounds?

[Hentes]

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?

[misexistentialist]

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.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[benjfowler]

Let's talk about your anger management issues.

Thanks to breaking .tors and reading email

[Billly Gates]

The world is once again safe from the terrorists.

  Remember kids going to the Pirate Bay enables terrorists like these!

Re:WTF???

[Anonymous Coward]

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

The Mercedes.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[AmiMoJo]

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...

[VortexCortex]

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:Government Ire?

[Billly Gates]

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/

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:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Eunuchswear]

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:Government Ire?

[amiga3D]

That's because Al Qaeda is a threat to the generals as well.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Eunuchswear]

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

I wonder how the US would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I wonder how the US would feel

[Eunuchswear]

Since AC's language appears not to be English I suppose he's talking about:

The 1998 Cavalese cable car disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998)

And maybe the Abu Omar case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

Stuff That Matters

[sjbe]

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:Stuff That Matters

[Seumas]

A lot of shit fucking matters, but that doesn't make it reasonable to discuss on Slashdot. People come to Slashdot for selectivity. If they wanted everything under the sun, they'd go dick around on reddit.

Re:Stuff That Matters

[Seumas]

Slashdot was never the political water cooler. The only such events that were really covered were world-shattering events (usually US-centric, obviously), like 9/11. The internet is littered with places you can go discuss why $[not_my_party] suck balls and why $[my_part] are saviors of the world.

These articles have become more common, about a variety of topics, because of pure Slashdot click-bait desperation. The same thing that is driving the re-design of the site into something mirroring Buzzfeed and other link-bait driven quick-feed sites.

Re:Stuff That Matters

[sjbe]

Slashdot was never the political water cooler.

You must be new here. ;-) Seriously, slashdot is very much a political water cooler and has been for the better than a decade I've been reading the site. It's just that the topics here tend to be a little more focused on technology issues than other places most of the time. But not always and I can find plenty of examples in the last 10 years of topics that are political and not technology focused. Hell I count three on the front page as I type this. I don't mind a few world event type articles as long as they remain a relatively small percentage of the overall. A big part of the reason I still read this site is that there usually (even today) are some unusually insightful takes on whatever topic is being discussed and if that happens to be on something geopolitical here and there I'm ok with that.

Re:Stuff That Matters

[sjbe]

A lot of shit fucking matters, but that doesn't make it reasonable to discuss on Slashdot. People come to Slashdot for selectivity.

People come to slashdot for the (relatively high) quality discussion and the takes on whatever topic is at hand. By keeping it mostly technology focused it makes the discussions on those topics a little deeper and generally better quality but there is nothing wrong with discussing important non-tech topics here and there. In fact mixing it up a little (emphasis on little) makes it a bit more interesting that it would be otherwise. If you don't like them then filter them out. There are 15 topics on the front page right now and maybe 2-3 of them don't have a strong tech angle and that ratio seems about right to me.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Eunuchswear]

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

Stuff That Matters

[sjbe]

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".

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[cold fjord]

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...

[ColdWetDog]

I vote Texas!

Re:Government Ire?

[Eunuchswear]

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

Am I missing a whoosh here?

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[rubycodez]

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...

[rubycodez]

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...

[Eunuchswear]

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...

[Tyler Durden]

At least it wouldn't be another proxy war against China. Those things never work out.

Re:Wonderful post

[Eunuchswear]

Yeah, but "lesbian free chat" is probably the high point of this discussion so far.

Re:Government Ire?

[Eunuchswear]

What Generals?

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[benjfowler]

Mate, you need to calm down.

Suprised we've had no NSA tie-in!

[fsagx]

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

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

[Eunuchswear]

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.

Re:The MIC is OFB

[Eunuchswear]

The Military Industrial Complex is Open for Business during the shutdown, of course.>

Oh Rly? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/10/04/2324202/lockheed-to-furlough-3000-on-monday-layoffs-also-kicking-in

Re:Wonderful post

[Anomalyst]

So its a chatroom for guys in their mom's basements? Do not want.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Eunuchswear]

No I don't.

(Off: Noch ein Weißbier, bitte!).

Re:Government Ire?

[amiga3D]

Pakistani Generals. Try to keep up.

Re:Wonderful post

[I'm New Around Here]

Yeah, but "lesbian free chat" is probably the high point of this discussion so far.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate it when I'm in a chat room with my bros, talking about manly things like football and washing cars, and a group of lesbians join in. Acting like they are as macho as us men are. Hell, they don't even want to run around with a bunch of sweaty men throwing their balls around. And their take on a bikini or topless car was is enough to turn your stomach. Or would, if you aren't as manly as us men are.

So, in conclusion, I am glad there are chat rooms now that are lesbian free. It's just more natural that way.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Arker]

Because some politician who was thinking more about campaigning for the next job instead of performing the current one said 'Assad must go.'

We could go on and fill in some later details, 'red lines' and such rot, but it really all traces back to that one misstep. Which just couldnt possibly have been retracted because that would have embarrassed the person in question, better to kill a few million furriners than to embarass someone important don't you know?

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[budgenator]

Sarin is a fair bit easier to make than Meth, but it's not easy to achieve a lethal concentration under open real-world conditions for any length of time. That's why Fatalites are disporportionatly the young or the elderly, sub-fatal casualties require intense care to survive the acute phase and when I got out of school there were indications of long-term nerve damage due to exposure. Chemical agents have no real military purpose and people who use them deserve a special place in the deepest pits of Hell.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Arker]

The unfortunate fact is that the only power in Syria capable of containing Al Qaeda at this point is Assad's government. The much-touted moderates have minimal operational capabilities and little support inside the country. The Al Qaeda affiliates between themselves and their local allies have the lions share of the opposition military. The Kurds are still skating delicately to get as much autonomy as possible out of the deal, but ultimately they will choose Assad over Al Qaeda, and they are the only significant force not already engaged. If the moderate opposition are smart they will cut their own deal with Assad and unite the entire country against Al Qaeda before it's too late.

In this context, all the western 'support' for the syrian moderates has been worth no more, possibly less, than a kind word and a kiss on the cheek.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[phantomfive]

The unfortunate fact is that the only power in Syria capable of containing Al Qaeda at this point is Assad's government.

I don't know why you think this. Everything I've read suggests that Al Qaeda only can maintain territory where no one else is contesting it. The don't even have support of the citizens.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[phantomfive]

Well, if you're calling all the news a bunch of lies and propaganda, you must have some sources to back it up. I'd love to see them.

Re:Wonderful post

[Eunuchswear]

So, in conclusion, I am glad there are chat rooms now that are lesbian free. It's just more natural that way.

Well, you won the internets for today.

Re:Government Ire?

[Eunuchswear]

Pakistani generals in Libya? Please explain.

Out of curiousity...

[kenh]

Were the strikes based on the interviews with the suspect in the mainstream media over the course of the last year since the attack occurred?

Re:The MIC is OFB

[kenh]

Wasn't the operation of the military fully-funded by act of Congress, passed by the Senate, and signed into law by the President? Why are any military personnel on furlough?

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

[rubycodez]

It's worth repeating again and agin, some of these glassy eyed Obama supporters here are a bit dense when it comes to matters of their lord and saviour barack

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[rubycodez]

no, U.S. news is saying that. get a clue

AFRICOM

[Epicaxia]

Of the nine U.S. Unified Combatant Commands, AFRICOM (United States Africa Command) is the newest. Both W and Obama have expressed significant interest in expanding the role of U.S. operations in Africa, for purposes of counter-terorrism and a desire to improve stability (ironically, special operations forces are historically used to invoke instability in a nation-state). The Obama operations in Libya during its civil war was actually AFRICOM's coming-out party, its first chance to be a real boy.

Since then, AFRICOM has moved forward in supporting policy roles by expanding U.S. military facilities, particularly those supporting drone operations, on the continent. this implied that special operations were the next step--why just spy on a terrorist cell when you can try and capture it's leader, too?--so learning about these events is not a big surprise. However, the relative failure of these efforts (at least the Somalia operation--the Tripoli operation may or may not be a disappointment at the policy level, depending on how sincere their protests are) is something of a black mark on AFRICOM's plans. There is some serious head-scratching going on, I am certain, and the role of tactical operations is likely being re-evaluated.

Re:AFRICOM

[AHuxley]

Yes expect to see many more "lily pads" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Security_Location (host-nation facility with little or no permanent U.S. personnel presence) as AFRICOM expands.
The US can say its not expanding bases or sending troops. Just lots of regional 'invites' and 'friends' :)
The tactical operations side is getting interesting. The locals are no longer afraid. The idea that large scale use of Soviet small arms can hold tactical operations is something different.
What are the options? Death squads with a local faith based: divide and conquer backend with threats and endless alliances?
Soft arms embargoes that bypass local freedom fighters?

Re:AFRICOM

[Xest]

Is it really much of a big deal though? Even China which tends to keep it's forces in it's borders has started sending troops to support missions in Mali and Sudan, as well as being involved in anti-piracy work along Somalia's coast including at least one documented attack on Somalia proper as an anti-piracy action.

Asia has for decades been the manufacturing hub of the world as it offered plentiful resources and cheap labour. Now Asia is becoming wealthier where do you think it's looking to do what we in the West got Asia to do - act as cheap labour for us?

Africa is going to be the next battleground between East and West, that's why suddenly old colonial powers are interested in helping and suddenly give a shit about the countries it left behind there once more too when before they'd just leave them to rot.

I don't think there's anything surprising or unusually subversive about what's happening in Africa, it's largely just business as usual - the playing of the great game - extending to the next big thing. For that reason it makes sense for the US to have a specific organisational unit dedicate to military efforts there.

Whatever happened with these raids I wouldn't expect AFRICOM to change much, if anything funding will simply be increased to make sure they're backed up by heavier air power and surveillance next time.

Africa is too important, and actions there by everyone are only going to increase. Just as we had the Korean war, Vietnam, Cambodia et. al. post-World War II, followed by the Middle East in recent decades. Africa will be next as Syria's ability to matter has been all but destroyed even if Assad retains power, his nation will be third world and too poor to keep funding the likes of Hezbollah particularly well as all major commercial centres have been obliterated, and his chemical weapon threat against Israel is being dismantled. Iran appears to be coming in from the cold also, having seen how things end up in the middle east one way or another if you don't play ball. That's why focus there is decreasing in importance having had so much focus since the 80s relative to Africa.

This is also why things are hotting up with another set of competitors to the US, China, and European colonial powers in Africa - al Qaeda, affiliates, and similar.

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

[AK Marc]

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

Reagan and Bush did it in 1980 and 1985 (not counting the direct and indirect support of Al Qaeda around that time, as they were a known terrorist organization, but we hoped they hated the Russians more than us - unknowingly creating an enemy isn't the same as supporting one - it's worse).

So history has taught us that there is no terrorism by the Executive. If you object, then Reagan should have been impeached in 1981, and Bush should never have been voted in for his hand in the treasons committed by himself and the administration he was a member of. But no, the conservatives ignore the Constitution more than the liberals, but only whine about it when the liberals do it. If the conservatives were consistent, rather than irrational idealogues, then we'd not be in this position now. Obama wasn't the first, and the Republicans didn't care when it was on their watch, so caring now is a party issue, not a legal one. That's the problem with looking the other way when your side is the one cheating. You've then condoned the cheating for when the "other guy" gets in.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[AHuxley]

Re [Syria] and ... "The US supports the more secular parts of the rebels."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html
IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy has some analysis via telegraph.co.uk:
"10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda.."
"30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups."

Re:The MIC is OFB

[Eunuchswear]

I know they're close, but Lockheed isn't yet officially part of the US military.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Seumas]

The important part is that we continue to provide weapons, funding, and training to a lot of little rebel groups in critical places around the world, so that they and their enemies can both ultimately point the finger at the US for any failures they might encounter, which will ensure a plentiful and diverse population of future terrorists acting against the US and allow us to legitimately continue to scare-monger out own population into accepting all draconian measures that only fifteen years ago would have been unfathomable.

Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole...

[Xest]

"Actually Islamist groups make up by far the largest proportion of rebels in Syria."

But most of their members are easily swayed. They're only supporting the Islamist groups because they're the ones that have been most successful. You'll never switch the hard liners but many rebels aren't hard liners, they just want to stick with those who are most successful and hence least likely to get them killed . If you can strengthen the moderates to become the more successful force then many will switch back to them.

"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."

This is like saying someone who says "Jesus christ!" is a Christian and/or doesn't believe in secularism.

Didn't you know that US law rules the world?

[Doghouse13]

It's a worrying facet of law in the US, that it doesn't in general recognise territorial limits to its jurisdiction** (and that when the matter has been challenged in court, extraterritorial application of law has found to be perfectly legal). Whether a law is limited is down to a case-by-case examination. So - do anything, anywhere in the world, that's illegal in US criminal law, and the US will, in principle, charge you with it if it gets its hands on you - and will, and has on many occasions, do whatever it can "legally" get away with to get hold of "criminals" in order to bring them to trial (where "legally" is conveniently defined by the US, rather than some tin-pot, third-world country of no consequence, such as, say, China or Russia). Doesn't matter if what you did was perfectly legal in the country in question; US law doesn't care. Which comes down far too often of late to a US "might is right" approach - the US will do whatever it feels it can get away with. But then, no-one needed me to tell them that.

**Read, for example, the following Congressional research document: "Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law".

Re:Government Ire?

[amiga3D]

Dude, did you not see the link in the top post?

Echoes of Saddam

[Quila]

âoerepelled a midnight raid by white infidel soldiersâ.

That sounds like the Iraqi Information Minister, and is likely as truthful.

Re:Echoes of Saddam

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Versus the irreproachable veracity of the US Secretary of State at the time?

You make the mistake of thinking any side is better. They are all manifest evil. When the US says "Freedom and Justice", it is exactly as Oceana used "Love and Truth".

Re:Echoes of Saddam

[Quila]

And now we learn that they weren't fought back. They turned back because children were spotted among the fighters soon after the shooting began.

Standard tactic over there, using children as human shields.

Re:Echoes of Saddam

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Jew propaganda.

Everybody loves their children. Producing canards that they favor ideology over progeny is the first step in declaring them "other" and non-human.

Re:Echoes of Saddam

[Quila]

Unfortunately, it is a known, common tactic.