Breaking on CNNI: The 3 suspected al Qaeda high value targets still alive in Somalia

[maddezmom]

A senior U.S. official denies that al Qaeda terrorist Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a suspect in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, was killed in a U.S. airstrike on Somalia.
http://www.cnn.com /

will look for another link

Senior U.S. official in Kenya: Mohammed not dead
NAIROBI, Kenya (CNN) -- Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a suspect in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, was not killed in raids in Somalia this week as Somali officials have claimed, a senior U.S. official in Kenya told CNN's Barbara Starr. (Posted 8:24 a.m.)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/11/thursday/ind...

Official: Top Somalia al-Qaida not dead


NAIROBI, Kenya - None of the top three suspected terrorists in Somalia were killed in a U.S. airstrike this week, but Somalis with close ties to al-Qaida were killed, a senior U.S. official in the region said Thursday.

A day earlier, a Somali official had said a U.S. intelligence report had referred to the death of one of the three senior al-Qaida members believed responsible for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa. But U.S. and Ethiopian troops in southern Somalia were still pursuing the three, the U.S. official said Thursday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_af/somalia...

[aquart]

1. Gosh, we're just so good at what we do.

[Tight_rope]

46. Yes...we seem to be great at fucking up...Just look who's in charge!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. shit.

60 dead civies according to somali legislator on BBC yesterday. He was PISSED. Apparently, they invited US forces to come and ARREST the AQ suspects. The US took that invite as an opportunity to show boy george as having big guns.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

5. As our media talks about Donald and Rosie

[maddezmom]

7. reports are in the 100's today

http://www.sharewatch.com/story.php?storynumber=291747

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. i can't begin to even describe how I feel about this

this is insane. This president is insane.
we much impeach

[lonestarnot]

61. Kill kill kill, death, destruction and misery, that is all we are fit for any more.

[sabra]

3. And how many moderate muslims have now become more

radicalized because of the attack?

[papau]

16. Shock and Awe doesn't win hearts and minds, get us new friends?? - Who

knew??

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[tanyev]

4. Go kill a lot more!

We're bound to get the right ones eventually!

[leesa]

6. Has this idiotic approach EVER worked?

Have we ever killed even ONE terrorist by bombing?

How is this different from terrorism?

[acmavm]

8. Nope. Remember Shock and Awe? Of the approximately

120 first air strikes that were intended to hit 'high value' targets at the start, not one air strike killed one target. Lots of dead civilians though.

[DemCrusher]

32. Kosovo re-dux.

Al Zarqawi, does that ring a bell? You know, that Iraq thing that needs to be solved according to the dems. Plus, I recall many prominent dems lauding praise upon Clinton for his Kosovo policy of fighting from 30, 000 feet. And, if you can't see the difference between indiscriminate acts of terror, as in 9/11, and dropping a bomb to kill people who commit these acts, then you do have some serious issues to work out. Hey, just a thought.....

[LynnTheDem]

35. Sure hope you get yourself informed on FACTS soon!

Bye!

[maddezmom]

36. here is another thought

[ReadTomPaine]

43. Laying Iraq at the feet of Democrats is particularly ridiculous. Iraq is all yours.

Bombings and indiscriminate attacks of this nature aren't very effective or efficient when it comes to targeted strikes. Such tactics have their uses, but this isn't one of the better ones. I had a feeling you'd be playing puppet with the dead and mentioning 9/11 before long, and you didn't disappoint.

Unlike your hero, Clinton caught the people responsible for the first WTC attacks and he did it in short order. His judgments on these matters and others lead to concrete results and victories despite all the Republican efforts to stop him at the expense of our national security and the well being of our allies. The towers fell under the watch of the GOP despite all the warnings and urgings they received to prevent it and the advantage of knowing that it happened before. It was Bush's responsibility to protect us from such attacks and bring those responsible to justice and he has done neither. In fact, he's barely tried.

The only thing Bush has to show for his 'efforts' is world ridicule, thousands more dead Americans and a bill your great grandchildren will still be paying. To put it simply for you, he's a failure and he's taking the rest of us down with him.

[coda]

44. He hit a camel in the ass, DemCrusher.

Does that ring a bell?

[Canuckistanian]

54. Kosovo was a NATO operation

ALL the NATO nations had to approve that mission.

Who approved this one?

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Isn't targeting civilian populations

a war crime?

[Nihil]

12. Yes but that's never stopped them in the past.

All of those "Special Forces" heroes should be named and filed for
future prosecution in the Hague for crimes against humanity.
(Can't strictly be a war-crime here as the US isn't at war with Somalia)

[Eugene]

11. Reuters: Al Qaeda suspects survive U.S. strike on Somalia (US official)

Al Qaeda suspects survive U.S. strike on Somalia
11 Jan 2007 13:31:01 GMT
Source: Reuters

NAIROBI, Jan 11 (Reuters) - A U.S. air strike on Somalia has failed to kill three
top al Qaeda suspects, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

"We are still in pursuit. We and the Ethiopians and everyone else wants to interdict
terrorists," said the official, who declined to be named.

The United States on Monday hit a village in southern Somalia in an attempt to take
out an al Qaeda cell accused of bombing two U.S. embassies in 1998 and an Israeli-
owned hotel in 2002.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11365088.htm

Also from Reuters...

Kenya detains wives of Somalia al Qaeda suspects

By Bryson Hull

2 hours, 13 minutes ago

NAIROBI (Reuters) - Kenyan police on Thursday interrogated two al Qaeda suspects' wives
caught fleeing Somalia, as mystery remained over whether their husbands survived a U.S.
air strike.

-snip-

A Kenyan counter-terrorism source said the wives and three children of two al Qaeda
suspects, wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and a 2002 hotel
blast on the Kenyan coast, had been arrested.

-snip-

Mohammed and Nabhan's wives and children were caught trying to cross into Kenya from
Ras Kamboni, on Somalia's southern tip, long thought by Western and east African
intelligence agencies to be the site of a militant training camp.

"They were arrested on Monday at Kiunga. They headed for Nairobi today in a police
chopper for questioning," the counter-terrorism source told Reuters.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070111/wl_nm/somalia_confl...

[xultar]

13. Buhwawawa!

[hippiechick]

14. How connvvveeeeeeeeeenient !!!

[Atman]

15. CNNI?

Not on CNNUSA! Of course not. They don't want those last few Bush war supporters to hear that they've been had AGAIN.

.

[demnan]

17. Who will stop Bush from starting WWIII?

Who will stop this mad man?

[DemCrusher]

34. Maybe Bin Laden...

Who will stop Bush? Maybe Bin Laden, maybe Kennedy, maybe Hillary, maybe Obama. These seem to be his enemies, not to mention Iran, N. Korea, Syria and so forth. I find it strange that the leader of a country under attack is the one you seek to stop but yet you ask not the question of who will stop Iran, N. Korea, Syria, and their assorted terror groups throughout the world. Maybe you're asking the wrong question about the wrong person? Hey, just a thought......

[BushOut06]

41. Stop these countries from doing WHAT?

None of those countries you mention has invaded another country in the last 50 years. And none of those countries have EVER directly attacked the United States. So what exactly are we supposed to stop them from doing?

[heavylynn]

18. Who didn't know that this would be just another opportunity to kill more and more

Islamic people?

[coalition_unwilling]

37. To kill more "terrorists disguised as children" n/t

[KittyWampus]

19. Well, GOP'ers were so kind about Clinton's attempts to get bin Laden

[jefferson_dem]

20. AP: Official: Top Somalia al-Qaida Not Dead

Associated Press
Official: Top Somalia al-Qaida Not Dead
By CHRIS TOMLINSON 01.11.07, 8:31 AM ET

None of the top three suspected terrorists in Somalia were killed in a U.S. airstrike this week, but Somalis with close ties to al-Qaida were slain, a senior U.S. official in the region said Thursday.

A day earlier, a Somali official had said a U.S. intelligence report had referred to the death of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed - one of the three senior al-Qaida members believed responsible for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa.

But U.S. and Ethiopian troops in southern Somalia were still pursuing the three, the U.S. official said Thursday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record to the media.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/11/ap3320676.htm...

[NRaleighLiberal]

21. Bizarro version of old SNL joke - "General F Franco is still dead"....

[Double T]

22. Oops, intelligence was WRONG AGAIN...........

what's a few MORE dead innocent civilians and their animals when the war on terror is involved. I think 'WE' need to understand who is creating the terror.

[xchrom]

23. so besides the lives lost -- how much did this fiasco cost in

dollars and cents?

this is our achilles hell -- the financial cost of our collective screw ups in our war on terrorism.

[Nihil]

29. Respectfully disagree

> this is our achilles hell -- the financial cost of our collective screw
> ups in our war on terrorism.

The real Achilles Heel is the fact that it only takes one distraught
person in search of revenge to really spoil your day.

They have lost a wife, a child, a husband, a sister, brother, fiancee
(or any combination of the above) in one of the uncountable "random death
from the sky" attacks for which the US forces have become renowned in the
Middle East.

That is justification for committing an equally random act of murder
(serial attacks on solitary targets or simply as many as possible in
one bang).

Unfortunately, it isn't the Bushes, the Cheneys or the generals of this
world that will receive this final act of despair, it is the John Smith
working in a mall, the Hiram & Daphne on holiday, the kids in the wedding
party that suddenly discover what it now means to be American.

You might as well replace the Stars & Stripes with concentric circles
as there is no more obvious marker for "target" in the world now.

[xchrom]

31. we'll agree to disagree.

lives have been lost to warfare since the beginning of time.

attrition and cost is what ruins empires.

[Nihil]

49. We agree in more than that

I totally agree that the dollar cost will count very heavily (although initially
disguised as it is the Halliburtons of this world that get the bulk of the dollars).

I also agree that lives *have* been lost to "warfare" for millenia.

Where we appear to disagree is that the US "bodyline" cost is currently hidden from
the bulk of the US public. Most US couch potatoes haven't even realised that there
have been over 3000 official US issue bodybags (sorry, "caskets") returned to the
mainland in the last few years. Most of the US "bomb the raghead bastards" supporters
of "shock & awe" are completely oblivious to the ruined lives that their gung-ho attitude
have created. Most of the US (as per voting statistics) simply don't give a shit that
their tax dollars are being spent on mercenaries, torture and corruption.

Attrition only costs "empires" when the plebs are given the truth and accept it as such.
At the moment, the non-US world can't see any indication that the US public have ANY conception
of the pain, suffering and simple murder that is being committed in their name.

Attrition & cost will surely bring down an empire but only when such costs are correctly
attributed to their cause: G.W.Bush and the PNAC clique.

[xchrom]

53. we agree in some respects.

but attrition and costs are real things -- no matter WHO they are attributed too.

like an avalanche -- they can and do bring down the good guys as well.

when you combine the costs of this war with our debt, deficit, consumer debt -- this ball is looking very, very difficult to stop.

and that's the costs UP TO NOW -- what will the costs be for replacing and repairing all the military equipment -- the costs for maimed vets?

and the costs of all that won't ever be placed on the rich{and even they probably don't have enough for this weight} -- they'll be placed -- once again on the vast middle.

remember all kinds of people in the ruling class were aware of these dangers -- even our side.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

24. Somali officials have claimed he is dead to stop the crazy Americans from bombing their country.

[Kagemusha]

25. Well isn't that an embarassment. A serious one

I was just yesterday reading an article that went along the lines of, if the 3 are dead, it justifies US and Ethiopian actions, but if not, it seriously impeaches what the US has been doing there.

And now I read that they're not dead...

[Az_lefty]

26. so, how many civilians did we kill to accomplish nothing?

just wondering...

[maddezmom]

27. reports in the 100's

http://www.sharewatch.com/story.php?storynumber=291747

[Roland99]

28. "Missed them by *that* much!"

[LynnTheDem]

33. So one day, when any remaining orphans grow up and attack us

for having murdered their entire village, will we still ask "why do they hate us?" ?

[jobycom]

38. Ya'll miss the point. Bush didn't care whether he got them or not.

This attack had three purposes.

First, to look tough on terror for the American people by illustrating that the "war on terror" was about more than Iraq, and that Bush was still fighting it worldwide. He wanted to frame Iraq as part of the big struggle, so that "winning" would be about something other than traditional definitions of winning--ie, forcing our will on Iraq and leaving it as a suburb of America. It's no accident it came on the eve of his speech to the nation.

Second, he wanted to scare the Somali people so that they would be afraid to harbor these people. He wanted to slaughter innocent civilians. More fear that way. He didn't really care whether he got the three people he claimed he was after. If they were his objective, a commando raid would have been more effective. He wanted to spill innocent civilian blood to make these villagers more afraid of us than they are of the terrorists.

Third, it was a warning to Somolia. Again, no accident it came on the eve of his speech. His message to Somalia was simple. You are our bitch. I can con the American people into sending more troops wherever, whenever I want. Do what we say, or you are next.

Bush did EXACTLY what he wanted to do. Murdering piece of shit. Human lives are just symbolism to him. If this were a real war on a tangible enemy located, you could almost justify his actions as ruthlessly necessary. But this is an Imperial oil war, nothing more. He is trying to secure oil fields.

[The Wielding Truth]

52. Seems so to more and more of us. Dictator 101.

[donkeyotay]

39. I despise that term "high value targets"

As if all the innocent people we just accidental killed were of low or no value. This war on terror is nuts. I had hoped on Sept 11th that the US was going to do some serious looking at our policies and goals, but instead we seem to have unleashed a mass psychosis.

So many false choices. It has never been a choice of getting tough or doing nothing. It's never been "with us or against us." It's about understanding what motivates other people - and it sure isn't that they hate us for our freedom. They hate us for our CIA and globalization policies. The world was ready to support us in combating the relatively few extremists and their ideologies on Sept. 12th, but george blew it. Now we are less safe, and broke to boot.

[0rganism]

40. which begs the question... exactly who did our military kill in Somalia?

C'mon, when AC130 gunships reduce an entire village to rubble and corpse chunks, I want to see some goddam names.

"It's now not even clear if the three were even in the region in the first place, the official said."

So why did we gib a whole village? Unfounded suspicion? Target practice? I'd like some answers, right about now.

[donkeyotay]

45. Exactly. Let's have their names listed along with pictures if you've got them

Send some concerned reporters over to do some bio's and get all sobby about it. Then some lawyers to sue bush's ass. Oh but wait, these were nobodies we killed while trying to get somebodies.

These were people, innocent-every one of them in the eyes of the law. We killed them and said oops, again. Why is this moral, acceptable? I am so sick of this eternal war, these goddamned lies. Where are you America? What's happened to this country that talked so much about honor and Jesus?

[Nihil]

50. Yeah right ..?

The people that were killed have probably *never* had a photo taken.
They were simply some peasants, minding their own business, wondering what that
plane was doing circling overhead when, suddenly, *splash* ... their children don't
have a father anymore ... or a donkey ... or a house ... or brothers & sisters ...

I pray that when these people take their justified revenge, they get the right targets
and don't end up hitting the kid of some poor anti-war protester.

[0rganism]

55. but that's how it always goes -- a few intended targets and a whole lot of collateral damage

when it comes to the cycle of violence, the poor anti-war protestor stands to lose just as much as the "right targets". On average, those who opposed the war will share the same burdens of sorrow and financial hardship as those who fervently supported it, and perhaps even some of those who designed it.

The poor anti-war protestors just won't get a cut of the economic gains enjoyed by the corporate suck-ups and war profiteers.

[Nihil]

60. I'd say it goes further than that ...

> when it comes to the cycle of violence, the poor anti-war protestor stands to lose just
> as much as the "right targets". On average, those who opposed the war will share the same
> burdens of sorrow and financial hardship as those who fervently supported it, and perhaps
> even some of those who designed it.

The difference being that "those who designed it" (at least at the strategic level) are fully
protected by the SS, have their own bunkers to hide in, have armoured cars to travel in and
have many, many people between them and the revenge-seekers, simply to act as defensive shields.

Anti-war protestors are the vulnerable ones in the malls, in the tourist-class lounges, in the
mass transit stations. The reprisals would have to be very tightly targetted to hit only the
ones who deserve it ... but I pray that (if it happens) it happens that way.

[0rganism]

56. a few pictures could change the whole outlook

It's to our great shame that the media has willfully censored itself into a cheerleading squad for rightwing policies. I wonder if images such as this one could get any airtime on a major network, let alone win a Pullitzer prize today:

[donkeyotay]

58. Even the BBC coverage shows a much more human face on Iraq

than our media does. Our media shows what is basically a generic scene of carnage over and over. (It mostly shows the street and smoking wreckage, not too much of people's faces of grief.) This is what happened with the Abu Ghraib story, too. Take a couple of repulsive pictures and saturate the air until the public turns away. "I don't need to see that."

Actually, I think we do need to see it. We need to see these poor people in Somalia and what we've done going after our "high-value targets" in our completely insane war that has destroyed our country. We also need to see the people of Iran before 35% of our public feels an irresistible urge to nuke them. Our country needs to wake from this nightmare. I've noticed the cable news this week - oh god, terrists at the Port of Miami, oh false alarm, never mind - and it just goes on and on. They don't even need an actual terror event to keep people terrorized. It's just become a way of life for us.

Some pictures are worth more than a thousand words. I'll never forget that one. Maybe there's another one of those that will slap us to our senses.

[Tight_rope]

47. Why Innocent Civilians of course

[nolabels]

62. That's what this story says

US strikes on al-Qa'ida chiefs kill nomads

By Anne Penketh and Steve Bloomfield
Published: 13 January 2007

The herdsmen had gathered with their animals around large fires at night to ward off mosquitoes. But lit up by the flames, they became latest victims of America's war on terror.

It was their tragedy to be misidentified in a secret operation by special forces attempting to kill three top al-Qa'ida leaders in south-ern Somalia.

Oxfam yesterday confirmed at least 70 nomads in the Afmadow district near the border with Kenya had been killed. The nomads were bombed at night and during the day while searching for water sources. Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Kenya has acknowledged that the onslaught on Islamist fighters failed to kill any of the three prime targets wanted for their alleged role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

The wanted men are Fazul Abdullah Moham-med, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan and Abu Taha al-Sudani, who were all supposedly sheltered by the Union of Islamic Courts during its short reign in Mogadishu.
(snip)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article21497...

[uppityperson]

42. The more shit that happens, the more people turn against bushites

a RW friend told me he was reserving total judgement until the results were announced, but was upset at this action. The tide is turning, but people will continue to suffer for some time. Damn them all.

[pinniped]

48. This the same FN BS they pulled with this mythical....

al-Zarqawi dude allegedly in Iraq.

"We didn't get him, blah, blah, blah."

Are these three mysterious dudes the new leaders of al-Qaeda in Somalia?

The BS meter is rising.

[Nihil]

51. Team America! Fuck Yeah!

The initial sequence in that film is so damn apposite these days.
Shoot the fuck out of whatever is around in the hope that you will
get the designated "bad guys".

It was supposed to be satire ... why did Bush take it as a strategy?

[spanone]

57. You mean all that talk in the media about Al Qaeda top terrorists being killed was wrong? Nevermind.

So who the hell did we KILL? And by the way, isn't that why we just hung Saddam Hussein, for killing?

[madmax]

59. Keystone Cops n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Gosh darn it, anybody surprised?

not me

[PaulaFarrell]

64. just some dead low-value civilians again n/t

[Ouabache]

65. SO did BUSH and Cheney at least hit a CAMEL in the ASS?

with this strike. I mean they violated the sovereignty of Somali territory without Congressional approval, didn't they? Will the liberal media point out that all they probably did was hit a camel in the ass with this gunship strike, the way they repeated over and over the right wing mantra about Clinton's missle strike against Osama 'only hitting a camel in the ass'?