Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Forces Undertake Two African Raids, Capture Embassy Bombing Figure

Posted by timothy on from the target-rich dept.

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.

46 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. And we're reading about it here why? by Temkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    News for Nerds? Really?

    1. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

      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. :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Zumbs · · Score: 3

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

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    6. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    8. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2, Informative

      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".)

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    9. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    10. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      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,

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    11. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    14. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Arker · · Score: 2

      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.

       

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    16. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by ahabswhale · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    17. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    20. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Seumas · · Score: 2

      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.

    21. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Arker · · Score: 2

      "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.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    22. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by cusco · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    23. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by Quila · · Score: 2

      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.

    24. Re:And we're reading about it here why? by gordo3000 · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Re:WTF??? by benjfowler · · Score: 2

    Explanation's simple. It's click bait.

  3. Unsurprisingly?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Unsurprisingly?? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Denial by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Denial by BeerCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
  5. Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    ... 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.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  7. Oops: Obama bin bama not so peaceful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  8. Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  10. Re:Old wounds? by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. Stuff That Matters by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Stuff That Matters by sjbe · · Score: 2

      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.

  12. Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

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

  13. Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  14. Re:Wonderful post by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  15. Re:I wonder how the US would feel by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  16. Re:Where's the mandate? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  17. Re:Where's the mandate? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  18. Re:I'm still fuzzy on the whole... by Seumas · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Didn't you know that US law rules the world? by Doghouse13 · · Score: 2

    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".