WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States on Monday used precision missiles to strike a "known terrorist target" in southern Somalia, a U.S. military official said.
The strike near Dhoobley, which is close to the Kenyan border, was aimed at a "facility where there were known terrorists" affiliated with East African al Qaeda operations, according to the official.
News agency reports from the region are saying civilians were killed in the attack, but the official said the United States still is collecting post-strike information and is not yet able to confirm any details about casualties.
The U.S. military official described Monday's strike as "very deliberate" and said forces tried to use caution to avoid hitting civilians.
"We woke up with a loud and big bang and when we came out we found our neighbor's house completely obliterated as if no house existed here," a resident of the town, Fatuma Abdullahi, told The Associated Press. "We are taking shelter under trees. Three planes were flying over our heads."
Clan elder Ahmed Nur Dalab told AP that said a senior Islamic official, Hassan Turki, was in town Sunday to mediate between his fighters and a militia loyal to the government. Turki's forces took over Dhoobley last week, AP reported.
In early 2007, Somali troops and their Ethiopian allies drove out a radical Islamic group to which Turki is allied that had taken over much of southern Somalia, AP reported. The Islamic forces have fought to regain power. Somalia has been mired in chaos since 1991, when warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other.
The United States conducted similar strikes in southern Somalia in January 2007 against al Qaeda targets, hoping to kill some of the militants suspected in the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
U.S. officials later confirmed they did not believe they achieved that goal.
Or we could just stick our head in the sand and pretend that terrorism will just go away.
People complained that when we went into Iraq we overcommitted a ton of troops to a cause that had nothing specifically to do with terrorism. So now, we do a precision missle strike against a group that deals specifically with terrorism and people are still complaining?
Quote: The strike near Dhoobley, which is close to the Kenyan border, was aimed at a "facility where there were known terrorists" affiliated with East African al Qaeda operations, according to the official.
If this is true ten we did the right thing. Kill terrorist wherever they are is a good thing.
I don't give a damn what others think. We need to protect ourselves from terrorist wherever the hide. They don't care if we play nice or not. They are out to get us, so we need to get them. It is as simple as that. I think many in this country have forgotten how we felt after 911. We should not change our stradegy simply because time has past since the last attack.
The problem isn't going after the terrorist, the problem is we basically are just declaring war on everyone.
Bombing a country, regardless of the reason is declaration of war. There's terrorist cells in the US, do we go drop bombs on Los Angeles? There's cells in England, did we bomb London?
The problem with this "war" is the enemy doesn't have a home, they don't have any designated place we can look for them. In most wars, when you possess the majority of the opponents land, they surrender. In this war, the only way to winning is to completely kill the enemy. Problem is, the enemy keeps recruiting and moving. and meanwhile we keep making enemies along the way.
You just can't bomb a residential neighborhood because there's some terrorists that live there, it makes us no better than the opponent we are fighting.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Or we could just stick our head in the sand and pretend that terrorism will just go away.
Is there a page in some handbook that includes these non-sensical phrases?
You can't just drop bombs places wherever you feel because you're so absorbed in your own affairs that you ignore the lives of others. That's why we have the national security problems we have in the first place - imposing our will in self-interest without thought of it's ramifications.
Quote: There's terrorist cells in the US, do we go drop bombs on Los Angeles?
No. We can just drive into that neighborhood and arrest/ and or kill them.
Quote: There's cells in England, did we bomb London?
We don't have to. We are allies and they will take care of them, with or without our help.
Quote: The problem with this "war" is the enemy doesn't have a home
They may not have a home but they are allowed to roam unchecked in certain countries. If these countries are unable or unwilling to take care of the problem we should.
If we had terrorists in this country leading attacks on Canada and we chose to ignore it, would Canada have the right to bomb their bases in our country? I would say yes.
Since 911 we have bombed countries and have had ground missions in countries with permission of said countries. It's not always cut and dry.
We know there are many terrorist hiding in Pakaistan. We are trying to work with their government with varying levels of success. We are not just indiscriminately bombing every country. We do bomb those countries who won't work with us. I'm fine with that.
So if we end up bombing say 50% of the countries in the world. What does that make us. Besides dead folks, because eventually it will all come back to bite us, we don't have the resources to fight everywhere.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: We do bomb those countries who won't work with us. I'm fine with that.
So if we opted not to work with another country in regards to their national security problems, would it be justified for them to bomb us?
I think it essentially boils down to an ideology -- a lot of people believe that America is better than every country and has the right to act as it pleases for its own needs.
Quote: Bombing a country, regardless of the reason is declaration of war. There's terrorist cells in the US, do we go drop bombs on Los Angeles? There's cells in England, did we bomb London?
No, because the United States and England will actively seek out the terrorist cell themselves and remove it. What about the countries that do nothing? Should we just sit by idle and hope for the best? We had a chance to kill Bin Laden himself several times before 9/11, yet because of similar thinking we left him alone to continue to plot several attacks leading up to 9/11. If news were to come out that Bin Laden was among those killed, would you be in favor of this strike?
Quote: The problem with this "war" is the enemy doesn't have a home, they don't have any designated place we can look for them. In most wars, when you possess the majority of the opponents land, they surrender. In this war, the only way to winning is to completely kill the enemy. Problem is, the enemy keeps recruiting and moving. and meanwhile we keep making enemies along the way.
Which is why we don't just recklessly bomb whoever and wherever we want throughout anywhere in the middle east. I'm sure they are taking some sort of "risk/reward" consideration before missle strikes like this. I highly doubt we bombed the house of two trainee suicide bombers. It was more than likely a larger group of high level "officers".
Quote: You just can't bomb a residential neighborhood because there's some terrorists that live there, it makes us no better than the opponent we are fighting.
And you can't just sit around and hope for them to just dissappear either. The alternative is to just wait around until they kill a couple thousand citizens.
If 50% of the countries of the world are letting terrorist who's main mission is the destruction of the US go unchecked, then we would already have lost.
We don't have enough ground forces to take on the world, but we do have pleanty of bombs and missles to attack terrorist training camps. I think that if some of these counties get tired of bombs dropping on their soil they might be a little pickier on who they let run wild.
Question... Do you have a problem with us attacking Afganistan? How about Yemen? If the Somalia camp was working on chemical weapons would you still think it's wrong to attack them?
Quote: We do bomb those countries who won't work with us. I'm fine with that.
So if we opted not to work with another country in regards to their national security problems, would it be justified for them to bomb us?
I think it essentially boils down to an ideology -- a lot of people believe that America is better than every country and has the right to act as it pleases for its own needs.
We aren't bombing villages in Afghanistan we bomb caves in the mountains(at least to my knowledge), and we have worked with their government on the issues.
Did we try diplomatic approval with Somalia, or did we just decide this on our own. That's what I'm against.
If we talked to the government and either got stonewalled or got their approval I'm fine with the bombings, as long as they take care and precision in avoid collateral damage. if we just decided this is what we want ot do because we are the USA, then it's wrong.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 03/03/0803:52 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: If we talked to the government and either got stonewalled or got their approval I'm fine with the bombings, as long as they take care and precision in avoid collateral damage. if we just decided this is what we want ot do because we are the USA, then it's wrong.
I would agree with you here. We should (and do) work with many countries first. I don't know where we stand with Somalia but I assume it's not good. I don't even know if Somalia even has a stable government.
Quote: We aren't bombing villages in Afghanistan, and we have worked with their government on the issues.
A government we put into place by ousting the last one. We are doing the same thing in Iraq.
The question is, CAN we talk to the Somalia government about this and try to work something out? Perhaps they would be the first ones to tip them off... Somalia is in chaos... who knows who is loyal to whom over there.. I don't and I doubt anybody on this board really does...
MOGADISHU, Somalia - U.S. aircraft attacked a house in a southern Somali town before dawn Monday, targeting terrorism suspects as an Islamic group with links to al-Qaida appears to be gathering sway again in this lawless African nation.
Residents and police in Dobley said at least eight people, including four children, were seriously injured when the home was destroyed by the raid, which was confirmed by U.S. officials.
The U.S. military has staged several attacks on suspected extremists in Somalia over the past year amid fears the Horn of Africa country could become a haven for terrorists.
"As we have repeatedly said, we will continue to pursue terrorist activities and their operations wherever we may find them," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in Washington.
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters that "the action was to go after al-Qaida and al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists," suggesting it may have been designed to hit more than one person. Like Whitman, Johndroe declined to provide any details.
One U.S. military official said the target was believed to have been staying in a building known to be used regularly by terrorist suspects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the record.
A radical Islamic movement that ruled much of southern Somalia in 2006 took over Dobley last week, led by senior official Hassan Turki. Turki, who is rarely seen in public, is on U.S. and U.N. lists of suspected terrorists for alleged ties to al-Qaida. His fate after the strike was not known.
People in Dobley, a town about four miles from the Kenyan border, said the sound of explosions shook them awake before dawn Monday.
"When we came out we found our neighbor's house completely obliterated as if no house existed here," Fatuma Abdullahi told The Associated Press. "We are taking shelter under trees. Three planes were flying over our heads."
The Islamic movement, the Council of Islamic Courts, seized control of much of southern Somalia, including the capital, Mogadishu, in 2006. But in early 2007, troops loyal to the U.N.-backed interim Somali government and the allied Ethiopian army defeated the Islamic group.
The Islamic council now appears to be re-emerging.
On Monday, fighters linked to the group overran Bur Haqaba, a hilltop town about 35 miles from the provincial capital of Baidoa in the south. The group released prisoners from jail and killed a police chief before retreating, witnesses said.
Last month, Islamic fighters briefly took over Dinsor in southern Somalia, killing nine soldiers, police said.
The United States has repeatedly accused the Islamic group of harboring international terrorists linked to al-Qaida and allegedly responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
America has been concerned Somalia could become a breeding ground for terrorist groups, particularly after the Islamic militants briefly gained control of the south and Osama bin Laden declared his support for them.
The U.S. sent a small number of special operations troops to help the Ethiopian force that drove the Islamic movement into hiding, and a Navy warship shelled suspected al-Qaida targets. U.S. warplanes staged at least two airstrikes in January 2007 in an attempt to kill suspected al-Qaida members, Pentagon officials have said.
The U.S. Navy still patrols Somalia's 1,880-mile coast, which is the longest in Africa. Somalia is near key shipping routes connecting the Red Sea with the Indian Ocean and piracy is rampant in the waters offshore.
The U.S. has avoided sustained military action in Somalia since it led a U.N. force that intervened in the early 1990s in an effort to fight famine. That mission led to clashes between U.N. forces and Somali warlords, including a battle in Mogadishu that killed 18 American soldiers.
Somalia has been ravaged by violence and anarchy since warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991, then turned on each other. The current government was formed with U.N. help in 2004, but it has struggled to assert any real control. AP.
Quote: So if we opted not to work with another country in regards to their national security problems, would it be justified for them to bomb us?
Way to generalize it.
If we allowed groups of citizens to convene that would plan to attack and kill large groups of civilians within say Mexico, and Mexico asked us to do something about it, and we said no ... would you be all that angry if Mexico launched an attack to take out those camps?
Quote: I think it essentially boils down to an ideology -- a lot of people believe that America is better than every country and has the right to act as it pleases for its own needs.
You don't think every country in the world operates with that ideology??
Quote: If news were to come out that Bin Laden was among those killed, would you be in favor of this strike?
If we could kill bin Laden, but it would also kill your kid and three of your neighbor's kids...would you be in favor of such a strike?
I'm not mocking your question...it's a valid one. But I think in pondering it you see numbers instead of humans with loved ones.
A lot of the hatred for our country comes from those loved ones, and those numbers continue to grow. We are not fighting terrorism, we are spreading it.
Quote: If we could kill bin Laden, but it would also kill your kid and three of your neighbor's kids...would you be in favor of such a strike?
I would want to know why my kids were hanging out with Bin Laden.
Quote: I'm not mocking your question...it's a valid one. But I think in pondering it you see numbers instead of humans with loved ones.
Yes, and the US is going to GREAT lengths to try and remove collateral damage out of it ...
You can spin that question around and ask: Would you prefer we did nothing and wait until said terrorist NOT killed in the attack runs off to kill your kid and the kids of a several dozens of other people?
Quote: If we could kill bin Laden, but it would also kill your kid and three of your neighbor's kids...would you be in favor of such a strike?
I wouldn't have to worry. If Bin Laden was near my kids, I'd kill him myself. The people around Bin Laden know who he is and what he has done. They know we are gunning for him and if we kill their family members, they are paying the price for their silence.
Quote: We are not fighting terrorism, we are spreading it.
When we weren't doing anything it didn't seem to stop them. Terrorism has been spreading like wild fire. They use excuses like our support for Israel and our Middle East policies, our hatered for Muslims. I think much of this is a load of crap.
They don't do squat for the Palestinians, our Middle East policies are not the best but we have defended Muslims from genocide in Serbia. They never mention that. They have said the West should be destroyed because of our values. I take them for their word. They have attacked other countries like France who are very sympathetic to their cause. It's about fanaticsim (sp) nothing more. They believe in a very misguided interputation of the Koran. Until we change our ways and become an Islamic nation we will still be the object of their hate.
They are no different then those who led the crusades. Something they still bring up to this day.
Quote: Bombing a country, regardless of the reason is declaration of war
Actually, a declaration of war is only issued when a majority of the United States Congress votes for it... But i see where you're going with that which brings me to...
Quote: the problem with this "war" is the enemy doesn't have a home
So how is a precision bombing against an enemy that you openly admit doesn't have an allegiance to a sovereign nation a definite declaration of war on the country where they operate?
Quote: You just can't bomb a residential neighborhood because there's some terrorists that live there, it makes us no better than the opponent we are fighting
First off, how does it make us no better than them? They choose to operate in those neighborhoods because they basically have innocent human shields. I don't see soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan walking around with innocent natives tethered to them so that insurgents and terrorists have to think twice about shooting at them. They also do this because they understand how Vietnam affected the way that our country has to wage a war. Not only do we have to deal with the enemy on a battlefield, we have to deal with our own public perception and opinion of the war. They know that even if they are killed in a bombing that somewhere thousands of miles away people in our own nation are going to condemn the action. They either get to operate untouched or they get to use their death as, what amounts to, a public relations move against the United States.
Also, you make it seem like we're sending in B-29's and carpet bombing the hell out of a residential neighborhood. We spend millions upon millions of dollars on missiles and technology to prevent innocent loss of life. I don't see the enemy doing that. They don't try and limit loss of life while waging their war against us... Again, how does this put us on the same level as them?
Quote: here's terrorist cells in the US, do we go drop bombs on Los Angeles?
I just think this is a terrible analogy. The city that this occurred near (and notice the word near.. not actually in the city) is so small that I can't even find statistical information on it. All that I could find was the fact that it isn't among the top 5 most populous cities in the country which means that it at least has less than 68,000 people. Comparing it to a city like LA is absolutely insane. It's not like we were dropping a bomb in the middle of Manhattan. This is a small city on the border with Kenya. It's not even near the capital of Mogadishu. But population aside, no we wouldn't bomb a terrorist group in LA... mainly because we have law enforcement here that would do the job. To insinuate that we would bomb anyone doing anything illegal in our own country doesn't have anything to do with terrorists in Somalia.
I'm not trying to pick on you but the notion that anything our government or military does is wrong is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Especially when it's a precision strike in a country that is KNOWN to harbor our main enemy in the war on terror. Some of the masterminds of the embassy bombings in 1998 were killed in Somalia after fleeing there once the bombings had taken place. I mean, this really doesn't seem like it should be that big of a deal. We'd all love to live in peace and get along but things like this need to be done in the world that we live in. I'd love it if many, many of my friends that I either went to high school with or met at college didn't have to go over and fight this war. But that's not the reality. The day that we send a couple of B-52s over to the Middle East and just bomb the hell out of a civilian population with no military objective behind it will be the day that I'll think "What the hell are we doing"... But unlike our enemy, we try to limit civilian loss of life and we don't use the killing of innocents to further our objectives.
Time and change will surely show How firm thy friendship O - HI - O
Quote: So how is a precision bombing against an enemy that you openly admit doesn't have an allegiance to a sovereign nation a definite declaration of war on the country where they operate?
Did you read what you typed here? You advocate the bombing of anyplace just because we "believe" and that is the word they always use, kind of like a disclaimer, that "if we are wrong, we believed"
Anyways, had you read on further you would have read where I replied to someone else about, how if we had discussed it with Somalia and their government knew we we would bomb this place should we have evidence of terrorists, then I'm fine with it. I'm just not fine if we decide to bomb foreign soil because we can. Kinda like sin now, ask forgiveness later.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 03/03/0805:38 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: We spend millions upon millions of dollars on missiles and technology to prevent innocent loss of life.
And it fails everytime.
Quote: I don't see the enemy doing that. They don't try and limit loss of life while waging their war against us... Again, how does this put us on the same level as them?
Do you think for half of a second that anyone in the world but delusional Americans believes that garbage? After the brutal terrorism with no regard for human life in Vietnam? While currently thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent people die as a direct result of our military? While we fund and arm the Israeli military, a group who has absolutely zero regard for civilian casualties and has been on record and such for a long time? While we fund Saudi Arabia and it's leaders, who pretty much fund terrorism as we know it? After we've funded religious nutjobs like bin Laden, calling their brutal acts of terrorism 'freedom fighting'?
Quote: Do you think for half of a second that anyone in the world but delusional Americans believes that garbage?
I do. I honestly believe the enemies of the u.s. understand that they don't need to win the battles with bullets, they need to win the battle of perception. Our enemies could care less about civilian casualties - in fact, they thrive on it. Yet we go balls to the wall to avoid innocent casualties, and when we fail, that's all you hear about......"u.s. kills 3 innocents", or some such b.s.
Quote:
After the brutal terrorism with no regard for human life in Vietnam?
First off, aside from a few examples I'm sure you'll cite, you need to keep in mind that the enemy in Vietnam did the same thing the enemy is now doing - they hid behind innocent people. Also, that war was over 40 years ago. Propaganda war ringing a bell? It seems to have worked wonders on you.
Quote:
While currently thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent people die as a direct result of our military?
You have a point. However, imagine how many would die if we didn't care. Imagine how many more u.s. soldiers would be alive if we didn't care. Goes both ways.
Quote:
While we fund and arm the Israeli military, a group who has absolutely zero regard for civilian casualties and has been on record and such for a long time?
Not sure I agree. Seems to me when Israel bombs a place, they get their mark (person, group of people, whatever). Yes, there are some innocents killed, absolutely. Tell me phil, when is the last time you heard of hamas targeting an Israeli military installation? When is the last time you heard of hamas, or palestinians, showing their faces? Please tell me, because it will be the first time I've heard of it. See, when your enemy is shooting rockets helter skelter at your cities, trying their best to kill as many innocents as they can, you tend to react. I know I would, and deep down, you know you would. The "bad" palestinians and hamas celebrate killing innocents. Israel doesn't. There's a big difference, my friend. Israel tries to avoid it, hamas relishes in it.
Quote:
While we fund Saudi Arabia and it's leaders, who pretty much fund terrorism as we know it? After we've funded religious nutjobs like bin Laden, calling their brutal acts of terrorism 'freedom fighting'?
Plain and simple, at the time, bin laden was doing what we wanted him to. No 2 ways about it. He then changed and started doing what we didn't want him to do (ummmm, attack us).
Funny, you approve of members of congress changing their minds about the iraq war - you hold them up us symbols of common sense, yet when it comes to the u.s. changing its collective mind about bin laden, you attempt to use that to put the country down.
Congress people voted FOR the war. Then they changed their mind and you were all excited about it - saying something to the effect of "That's good, they learned and they changed their mind", yet when we supported bin laden, then he attacked us and we changed our mind about him, you hold that up as yet another bad mark for the u.s.
Here it is - the u.s. does more than any country in the world, with the exception of israel, to avoid collateral damage. That is flat out indisputable. But then you harp about how "we aren't any better than any other fighting force.....".
Since, in your mind, we aren't any better than the terrorists (that intentionally target and kill innocent civilians), I would really love to see the u.s. armed forces take your approach - since we aren't better, we ought to use their tactics.
I've had enough of this "let's take the high road" crap when no one we fight does. Here's an idea - let's let the military do what they do: kill people and blow things up. In your opinion, and in the opinion of so many others, we creating more terrorists by attempting, very well I might add, to kill only terrorists, I suggest that the armed forces be allowed to do what they are trained to do.
After all, it wouldn't change your opinion of them, nor would it change the enemies opinion of us. What else are we supposed to do? Next, people will be saying "killing the enemy isn't nice - it makes us no better than them".
I say this somewhat facetiously/tongue in cheek. However, we are no where near as brutal as the enemy. And lastly, if you think bringing all our troops home and ceasing to send money to Israel will bring about peace, my friend, you need to put the drugs away.
Quote: We spend millions upon millions of dollars on missiles and technology to prevent innocent loss of life.
And it fails everytime.
Are you kidding me??
So you're saying that we should just save all our money and lob scud missles at whatever target we have, and we would still have the same number of innocent lives lost that we do now.
And there are plenty of cases where we've used precision strikes to kill targets and didn't have any innocent lives killed in the process ... you only hear about the ones where it didn't work perfectly.
Quote: "Working perfectly" means it hit the target +/- whatever the margin of error is.... Even if it does work perfectly, innocent people could get hurt
Aside from Israel, name me one country other than the u.s. that works harder at eliminating innocent casualties.
Another fact of war - people die. Doesn't mean it's not sad and bad, but it is what it is.
Quote: Aside from Israel, name me one country other than the u.s. that works harder at eliminating innocent casualties.
Aside from Israel? Aside from Israel?!
I hope I'm reading the context wrong...Israel has long been roundly condemned for it's absolute lack of concern for or prevention of civilian casualties.
Quote: Aside from Israel, name me one country other than the u.s. that works harder at eliminating innocent casualties.
Aside from Israel? Aside from Israel?!
I hope I'm reading the context wrong...Israel has long been roundly condemned for it's absolute lack of concern for or prevention of civilian casualties.
Okay, try this: Israel, hamas, and the palestinians - all aiming at a target. Who hits it?
And please, can you offer suggestions as to what I should be reading concerning Israel and palestine?
Quote: Okay, try this: Israel, hamas, and the palestinians - all aiming at a target. Who hits it?
They all do.
Israel has American guidance systems.
Hamas & the Palestinians do "guided bombs" the old fashioned way, they hand deliver them.
To the actual topic at hand.... I spent (wasted/lost) several months of my life in 1993 sitting off the coast of this god-forsaken country while helping shuttle food & supplies ashore. I even spent what felt like a full month off the coast of Kismayoo which is due south of the place that got hit, right on the coast. The group that relieved mine on station was the 'Black Hawk Down' group. I didn't like the skinnies then, I couldn't care less about them now.
That said, both sides of this argument are correct.
If we want to improve our relations with the world, we have to not just bomb other nations... it IS an act of war; unless the government of that sovereign nation has given us their approval. Of course, that is providing that there is actually a functioning government in place.
On the other hand, we made it pretty clear to the world our intentions: We WILL hunt down and persecute/kill/destroy these individuals anywhere we find them. If they are in your country, we already consider you a nation that harbors terrorists and thus we are already in a sort of state of war with you anyway.... so don't act all shocked and surprised when MOAB, Inc comes by to remodel your home.
Diplomacy is not an option in a case such as this for numerous reasons, and sending in ground forces (even a SpecWar unit) to task this is so far out of the question it isn't even a remote option. That leaves "Deliver Directly to the Stone Age" or "Keep Watching as They Prepare" as the only two options.
If you stick blindly with the one side, you are waiting to get hit. If you stick blindly to the other, you are war mongering.
There IS a balance, but sometimes the toughest choice is the correct one.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: Do you think for half of a second that anyone in the world but delusional Americans believes that garbage? After the brutal terrorism with no regard for human life in Vietnam? While currently thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent people die as a direct result of our military? While we fund and arm the Israeli military, a group who has absolutely zero regard for civilian casualties and has been on record and such for a long time? While we fund Saudi Arabia and it's leaders, who pretty much fund terrorism as we know it?
I am Osama Bin Laden and I approve this message.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
