USA commando raids in Africa - 6th Oct 13

Absolutely fantastic.
Thank you for your service!

The more of these Islamist terrorists they can take out the better.

Although this is pretty removed from South Africa (and I'm not sure of the specific politics in Libya), there have been increasing local reports of Al-Qaeda camps in SA, and also terrorists linked to them have used our country as a stopover, and also to gain fake passports (especially now again after the "white widow" saga).
This has compromised and disadvantaged the visas of the majority of innocent South Africans, who aren't even Muslims, let alone Islamists.

There are thousands of Somalis in our country, and there has been a history of urban terror by radical Islamists since the late 1990s (to which the state responded harshly, but they stopped it).
I just hope the Islamist immigrants don't start their nonsense here.

The last thing we need is a Boko Haram who attack churches and schools, like in Nigeria.

The ANC government has had moments of "anti-Imperialist" discourse, but behind the scenes they support the war on terror, probably realizing that Islamist groups are the greater threat to their state security.

On the other hand, I'd also like the US to keep their Christian extremists who encourage and inflame witch-hunts and homophobia (preaching the death sentence for gay people) at home.

PurpleDog UK

Soloprotocol
Somalia 2--- USA 0

The USA came out in the second half Hoping to level the score after a long range effort by Somali Legend Mohamed Aidid in the first half was enough to do the Damage, but a strong Somali performance boosted by a second half Wonder Strike by Boko Haram was enough to see the Game out.

The USA looked like a pale shadow of it's former self and was glad to hear the final whistle.

Very sarcastic but actually quite true.......
Question is - will there be another 'match'? Or have Somalia, a Fourth world country done enough to repel the strongest country on the planet.?

PDUK

I think the USA need to Sack their Manager...He's Rubbish...

reply to post by redshoes

In my view Al Shabib now poses a more significant threat to the international community than AQ ever did.

I don't honestly see the difference between them, personally. Al Shabab is a specific group while Al Qaeda always has been an umbrella organization/support structure for others all over the region. Not much has changed since everyone learned Al Qaeda had been around/related to the Mogadishu battle. Their first test of the conviction of US forces? It sure didn't improve from that point on though, true there.

I'd also very much agree with saying the African security organizations should have and still need to deal with what is in their own back yard. It IS a U.S. problem when it's out in the open seas, attacking peaceful international shipping. U.S. Shipping happens to be a fair % of that. On shore though?

Africa for Africans, is my motto. Not our fight.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Africa for Africans, is my motto. Not our fight.

I understand and sympathise with such sentiments.

But at what point does it become a moral responsibility to intervene?
If atrocities like those that Boko Haram are committing with increased regularity start becoming the norm across Africa is there a duty to protect those who are suffering if the means to provide that protection are available?
Does 'the west', or the US, sit back and watch from the sidelines as the whole continent descends into a bloodbath?

I'm not saying that will happen - I'd like to think that Africa can look after itself - but my point is do 'we' have a responsibility to protect those who are suffering and can't protect themselves?

If we do we have to face up to some honest but ugly truths; 'our' attempts at intervention have been pretty piss poor so far and have helped contribute rather than ease the problems, do we need to take a different approach?

I honestly don't know - I could ask numerous questions and I'm afraid to say I don't have any of the answers - but I'm certain what 'we' are doing at present isn't working and I'm not sure if standing idly by and allowing whole nations / regions etc descend into chaos is the right thing to do either.

Like I said earlier; there are very few black and whites in this world.

reply to post by Freeborn

I'd agree, it's simplistic to say at this stage: "Let's just ignore Africa".

I'm sure when US embassies are blown up, or, as we had in SA in the late 1990s, US businesses like Planet Hollywood or McDonalds are targeted that is very much the concern of the US.

We also provide materials for Anglo-American corporations and ten thousand mainly white South Africans (foolishly dismissed from the SADF under Mbeki's racist policies) fought as contractors in Iraq.

We provide markets and materials for your economies.

I'm sure even the ANC were told to reign in their anti-imperialist radicals, and there have been renditions from SA and a long-term support for the global war on terror.

The Jihadists think global, and they have recruits from all over the world (including the USA) fighting in Africa.

Until now they have used SA more for indirect purposes, but these Jihadists are on the move, and if they can't be stopped here they may be in the US within a day's flight.

OK, support them and let them take over everywhere, but otherwise it is very short-sighted to say: "Oh let's ignore the whole continent".

It's clear that the terrorists have taken note of that attitude, and used it to their advantage in the past.

reply to post by halfoldman


Wise words.

Notwithstanding the moral obligation there are practical issues to be considered.

Can 'the west' simply abandon a whole continent and turn a blind eye to the possible spread of Islamic extremism throughout the length and breadth of the continent?
Considering Africa's links, (as you rightly point out there are strong links between South Africa, the UK and USA), to the rest of the world this would indeed be folly to the extreme.

But I understand Americans disillusionment with intervention policies.
It costs an enormous amount of resource both in monetary terms and more importantly in personnel.
I know here in the UK the general consensus is enough is enough; we've had enough of our people dying in foreign lands for a war no-one wants and has 'little to do with us' - I'm certain there's a growing sentiment in the USA as well.
They are castigated and demonised whatever they do; intervene and they are instantly accused of neo-colonialism, (something the UK in particular seems to fear), don't intervene and the self-same people accuse them of not caring / hypocrisy etc.
They truly are caught between a rock and a hard place - being the world's police is a thankless task and an unenviable position.

All this when many perceive the very fabric of American society is falling apart at home.

Again that has a certain resonance here in the UK.
We face unprecedented austerity cuts that are deeply affecting the most needy and vulnerable in our society and we are constantly told there is no money, we are skint - but at the same time we read about billions given abroad in aid and spent on wars which no-one wants.

But does any of that condone isolationist policies that could condemn literally millions to untold misery and suffering and may even be simply delaying an inevitable confrontation?

I could never imagine the UK completely abandoning South Africa in particular, but if it goes the same way as Zimbabwe who knows?
And if that happens then I dread to think how things could pan out.

Simply saying leave Africa to Africa is being simplistic and perhaps naïve and ignores the realities of the globalised world we live in.

reply to post by Freeborn


I think the question of moral obligation starts and stops with the question of past success to show we can accomplish it in the first place. Since I can hardly think of an example where it's actually worked outside of things like the post war Marshall plan or some of the enormous aid efforts after the Indonesian Tsunami?

I think the question, if motives are pure, becomes a quite different one. Do we have the right to intervene in a bad situation to attempt what, at best, we can admit is trial and error with as much chance of screwing it up for the worse as improving it?

Are we so above it all in those other nations, that we can determine it's fair to gamble their future on our possible failure ...with a track record, frankly, suggesting failure is likely?

I'd say not, before we even touch on the spending of money to accomplish it from our own wallets. That's secondary and if a ONE time cost for a high chance of success, I may feel very different.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The main difference is the organisational structure and capability of AS in deploying a significant amount of men and fire power to further their objectives. They are more heavily armed and more highly trained. It hasn't been an international issue much since AS have until recently focussed more on domestic and fundraising activities within their own territory, however early this summer the leadership of AS openly declared 'brotherhood' with AQ and began to adopt a more international aspect. MI5 estimate that there are currently approximately 200 UK citizens fighting and training in Somalia with AS. I haven't heard the numbers for US born or other 'Western' born members.

Another significant difference is the intelligence available about the leadership, finances and command and control structure of AS. AQ has been riddled with moles and leaks thanks to the efforts of Israel, Jordan and KSA intelligence services, who have been tracking AQ for years as part of their own domestic and international risk assessment. The same cannot be said to be true for AS at this point.

General reply to posts by Freeborn and Wrabbit2000,

I understand the isolationist outlook.

Many whites in SA, for example, also felt betrayed by the US after the Angolan War (they first encouraged it and then never pitched up) and the sudden support for a Marxist, erstwhile terrorist organization (the ANC was only taken off the US terror list in 2008), and deep questions on whether wasting their youths conscripted into fighting Marxism in the context of a global Cold War was really worth it.

But we're not talking about invading entire countries here.
Besides that the struggle against violent Islamism has been going for over a decade.
And yes, there have been successes and saved lives.
The urban terror campaign in SA was stopped in the late 1990s.
en.wikipedia.org...
We had a football World Cup in 2010 without incident in SA (although bombs that murdered 74 soccer fans were detonated in Uganda).
en.wikipedia.org...

The war on terror is not a conventional war.

OK, one could capitulate and ask these extremist groups what they really want.
Some would say release the political prisoners and get out of the "House of Islam".
But I'm not so sure.
Listening to some Islamist preachers on their brainwashing recruitment clips, it appears that many will not rest until the black flag is flying over every capital, including Washington.

Many people across the globe don't want to see that day.
Just a little help here and there will suffice in countries that are still stable.

Instead, there's already a tit-for-tat souring over South African and British visas, and it's all because some Islamist terrorists have used SA passports.
That's just the indirect damage to relations these people cause.

What we also don't need is gung-ho "machine-gun preachers" and extremist Christian missionaries from the US to raise further tensions, especially in traditional Muslim regions.

On the other hand, the daily killing of Christians by Islamist groups might understandably lead to unofficial interventions.
I'm not sure that's desirable either.

Nevertheless, if the US (or say France or the UK) know where a sleeper cell operates, for example, and the host country is unable or unwilling to take care of it efficiently, then an operation against those terrorists would be appropriate to save lives and investments.

06 Oct 2013 US special forces have carried out two separate raids in Africa targeting senior Islamist militants, American officials say. In Libya, US commandos captured an al-Qaeda [al-CIAduh] leader accused of the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Anas al-Liby was seized in the capital Tripoli.



Anas al-Liby: Anas al-Liby was one of the FBI's list of most-wanted. He was captured in eastern Afghanistan in January 2002.

Seriously... This is maddening...

More:

January 20, 2002- March 20, 2002: Al-Qaeda Leader Who Worked with British Intelligence Possibly Secretly Captured and Sent to Egypt
In January 2002, the Observer reports that Anas al-Liby, one of al-Qaeda’s top leaders, has been recently captured in Afghanistan. Al-Liby is considered one of bin Laden’s computer experts, and a long-time member of al-Qaeda’s ruling council. [OBSERVER, 1/20/2002] In early March 2002, the London Times mentions al-Liby’s capture as an established fact. [LONDON TIMES, 3/11/2002] Then, in late March 2002, the London Times and the Washington Post report that al-Liby has been recently captured in Sudan. Anonymous CIA sources and anonymous “senior administration officials” claim that al-Liby has been captured, but the Sudanese and US governments officially deny the arrest. The London Times says the arrest “has been kept a closely guarded secret.” Some senior officials who told the Post al-Liby had been arrested later change their account and say it was someone with a similar name. [LONDON TIMES, 3/17/2002; WASHINGTON POST, 3/19/2002; WASHINGTON POST, 3/20/2002] Al-Liby remains on the FBI’s most wanted list, with a $25 million reward on his name. It will later be lowered to $5 million. [LONDON TIMES, 5/8/2005] Al-Liby appears to have collaborated with British intelligence to kill Libyan leader Colonel Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi in 1996 and was allowed to openly live in Britain until 2000 (see Late 1995-May 2000; 1996). In 2003, it will be reported that al-Liby was captured in Sudan and then secretly deported to Egypt, where he is wanted for an attempted assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (see (Late 1995)). [SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY, 10/26/2003] In 2007, human rights groups will list al-Liby as a possible ghost prisoner still held by the US (see June 7, 2007).
Entity Tags: Anas al-Liby
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

reply to post by tracehd1


More likely target of opportunity

This mutt popped up on the radar, we wanted him for the embassy bombings in 1998

Had chance to grab him so operation was given a go

Sometimes circumstances and events dictate your actions ........

I wounder if Africa said they could do this?

American Terrorists attack Africa !