Slashdot Mirror
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.
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:
The raid will surely lead to some controversies:
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:
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:
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..."
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.
It couldn't have been the USA. We're closed for business until further notice.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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."
Hint: Try to scroll to the end of the post.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
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
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.
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?
Yeah, but "lesbian free chat" is probably the high point of this discussion so far.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
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
You can use that argument to support military action against any country that doesn't extradite to your country...
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 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.
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.