DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum al-Qaida Militant Leader Killed in US Airstrike

Good news for the good guys!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16557058/

Official: Bomb suspect killed in Somalia strike
Mohammed blamed for U.S. embassy attacks; U.S. activity likely to continue

Updated: 5:03 a.m. ET Jan 10, 2007
MOGADISHU, Somalia - The suspected al-Qaida militant who planned the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa was killed in an American airstrike in Somalia, an official said Wednesday.

“I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage,” Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president’s chief of staff, told The Associated Press. “One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead.”

Hassan said that American airstrikes in Somalia would continue.

“I know it happened yesterday, it will happen today and it will happen tomorrow,” he said.

Mohammed allegedly planned the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 225 people.

He is also suspected of planning the car bombing of a beach resort in Kenya and the near simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002. Ten Kenyans and three Israelis were killed in the blast at the hotel, 12 miles north of Mombasa. The missiles missed the airliner.

Mohammed is thought to have been the main target of an American helicopter attack Monday afternoon on Badmadow island off southern Somalia.

U.S. attack helicopters also strafed suspected al-Qaida fighters in southern Somalia on Tuesday, witnesses said.

The two days of airstrikes by U.S. forces were the first American offensives in the African country since 18 U.S. soldiers were killed here in 1993.

U.S. officials speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of its sensitive nature had said earlier that the strike in southern Somalia on Monday killed five to 10 people believed to be associated with al-Qaida.

More strikes under consideration?
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman on Tuesday spoke of one strike in southern Somalia, but would not address whether military operations were continuing. Other defense officials speaking to The AP on condition of anonymity suggested that more strikes were either planned or under consideration.

A Somali lawmaker said 31 civilians, including a newlywed couple, died in Tuesday’s assault by two helicopters near Afmadow, a town in a forested area close to the Kenyan border. The report could not be independently verified.

A Somali Defense Ministry official described the helicopters as American, but witnesses told The AP they could not make out identification markings on the craft. Washington officials had no comment on the helicopter strike.

Col. Shino Moalin Nur, a Somali military commander, told the AP by telephone late Tuesday that at least one U.S. AC-130 gunship attacked a suspected al-Qaida training camp Sunday on a remote island at the southern tip of Somalia next to Kenya.

Somali officials said they had reports of many deaths.

On Monday, witnesses and Nur said, more U.S. airstrikes were launched against Islamic extremists in Hayi, 30 miles from Afmadow. Nur said attacks continued Tuesday.

“Nobody can exactly explain what is going on inside these forested areas,” the Somali commander said. “However, we are receiving reports that most of the Islamist fighters have died and the rest would be captured soon.”

‘Principal al-Qaida leaders’
Whitman said Tuesday that the assault was based on intelligence “that led us to believe we had principal al-Qaida leaders in an area where we could identify them and take action against them.”

Somali Islamic extremists are accused of sheltering suspects in the 1998 embassy bombings. American officials also want to ensure the militants no longer pose a threat to Somalia’s U.N.-backed transitional government.

The U.S. military said Tuesday that the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower arrived off Somalia’s coast and launched intelligence-gathering missions over Somalia. Three other U.S. warships were conducting anti-terror operations.

U.S. warships have been seeking to capture al-Qaida members thought to be fleeing Somalia by sea after Ethiopia’s military invaded Dec. 24 in support of the interim Somali government. The offensive drove the Islamic militia out of much of southern Somalia, including the capital Mogadishu, and toward the Kenyan border.

President Abdullahi Yusuf, head of the U.N.-backed transitional government, told journalists in Mogadishu that the United States “has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.”

Rising anti-U.S. sentiment
Other Somalis in the capital said the attacks would increase anti-American sentiment in their largely Muslim country. Many Somalis are already upset by the presence of troops from neighboring Ethiopia, which has a large Christian population.

It was the first overt military action by the United States in Somalia since it led a U.N. force that intervened in the 1990s in an effort to fight famine. The mission led to clashes between U.N. forces and Somali warlords, including the battle, chronicled in the book and movie “Black Hawk Down,” that killed 18 U.S. soldiers.

Somalia has not had an effective central government since warlords toppled dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. The warlords turned on each other, creating chaos in the nation of 7 million people.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Its good to see we are still engaging enemies there. We never should have left after what happened in the early 90's. Pres Clinton backed out because it got ugly and was worried what people thought of him...this shows weakness and the terrorist swarmed. That is why we MUST continue strong in Iraq regardless what some want.
If we back out and pull troops we look the same as we did in Somalia.

Exactly. When we pulled out Osama declared it a victory and that the US was soft and could be defeated. Then the UN abandoned the mission. Then you started to see all the bombings ect.

Yea, I remember wondering wth, was we doing there. IIRC, the media put a bad spin on it. I wasn't as knowledgeable about Geo-politics, as I am now, and leaving that mess, was a bad move. We totally underestimated the enemy in that situation prior too the attacks.

Part of the Global War on Islamic Killers...kill them where you find them. These gutless cowards go hide in a rat hole after murdering hundreds of innocent people. What good would 70 virgins be if you have no balls in the first place.

You mean we can actually "target terrorists",kill them ,get the job done,without invading nations,toppling governments,installing democracy's and nation building????
<img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Whoda thunk it!!!!?
<img src="/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

this is something for people who didnt even ******* know that we are still in africa <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Update...


U.S. hunts for key terrorists in Somalia By CHRIS TOMLINSON, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago



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 slain, a senior U.S. official in the region said Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

It's amazing what can be accomplished when you use the our military wisely to take down SPECIFIC TARGETS.

Outstanding!

We can in nations that will actually cooperate in letting us in to hunt for them... how many of those are there in the middle east?

So we need their "permission" to make strategic strikes? And unless they give us their "permission" we must invade the entire nation?

Hmmmm? I just don't see it that way......................

That's not exactly what I was saying Pit... What if we knew Osama was having tea at a cafe in Tehran today at 2:30 pm... what would we do about it? or what would you SUGGEST we do about it?

At this point in time? With our troop strength tied up in Iraq?

Let's put it this way,IF we weren't bogged down in Iraq,I'd say strategicly bomb the cafe'. Or,having a covert operative bomb the cafe'.

But as it stands,it would be far more difficult to do. Considering we don't have the troop strength needed at our disposal to handle the repricusions from the Iranian government that may follow such an act.

I think the world in general would stand behind us getting Bin Ladin wherever it had to be done. Strategic terrorist strikes would have been a very effective means of fighting the terrorists. And one that I felt was the very meaning of "the war on terror". But now? Who knows what the hell it "really" means.
<img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

LMAO, Pit.

You think we lack the manpower to bomb a cafe in Tehran?

Wow. You are so hopelessly delusion, it's pathetic.

It would take A plane with A bomb to accomplish this.

Appearantly you feel we have the boots to fight Iran too if they decide to attack us in Iraq? That was my point if you had bothered reading the post.

See,unlike this administration,you must consider the worst possible scenario and plan for it. IF we bombed a cafe' in downtownTehran,with soldiers embroiled in the middle of a civil war RIGHT NEXT DOOR,Iran may see that as the prime targets of its military. You have to have contingency plans in place for the possibility of this happenning. We simply don't have the troops necassary to fight them and what we've already bitten off at the same time.

I know we have one extra plane,don't be goofy. But what if Iran were to attack us in Iraq as retalliation? Then we would be waring with THREE countries at the same time. But that's right,I keep forgetting,you think we can whip the entire middle east at the same time!
<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

You crack me up sometimes. But I can use a good chuckle now and then.

You mean, like they are already? If they were to send armed forces over to try and greet us, they would get crushed ... just like the Iraqi troops did. If they snuck guerilla fighters over the boarded to covertly pick at us, cause random acts of terrorism and hope for unstability in the region ... then, oh wait, they're already doing that.

Iran is "sending them" or they're coming in "independantly"?

Believe me,if there was a shred of evidence the government of Iran was behind that,you'd have heard about it.

Nobody is "sending them".
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So you say they are guirilla fighters being "sent" into Iraq? Do you have ANY evidence to support that claim?

And IF we COULD do to them what we did to the Iraqi military,what happens in Baghdad while we're fighting the Iranians? How can we support the Iraqi government,try to keep the peace between Sunnis and Shias while we're fighting Iran?

You crazy guys and your ideas.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Hey, Pit.......got a question for you:

How do you eat and drink with your head in the sand?

That must be tough.

A mobilized Iranian military crossing into Iraq to come for us wouldn't make it 100 miles before being completely obliterated,.... and we wouldn't have to move more than a battalion of troops toward it, and even that would be more for "warm & fuzzies"..... and all of this is assuming we don't start hitting them until they cross the border.

See Gulf War I - Highway of Death.... and those were vehicles trying to get away from us as fast as they could.....and it was all air power. I think you grossly underestimate what a few US air squadrons can do.... and if you think Iran's Air Force poses us any threat at all, you're seriously mistaken.

There's one problem here fellas. It's not just their military. What about all the radical Shias? Haven't we learned ANYTHING from Iraq? You won't simply be facing the military of Iran. You'll also face all the Shias trying to bolster their side in the fight.

That's what some of this is now Mr. Sandman. Religious faction crossing into Iraq,not government. You're the one with sand in your eyes. And much as I figured,there's not ONE shread of evidence to indicate the government of Iran is sponsoring anything going on in Iraq. It's merely religious zealots,not their government. And as expected,you have no eidence to support your claims,merly more drivel.
<img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

And they have more than "scud missles". And in case you've forgotten,we couldn't even stop all the scuds from hitting Israel. Much less more sophisticated weaponry. It sounds great what you're saying. But ask an Israely just how great our "Patriot missle defense" weaponry is. It's pretty good about 70% of the time. Hell,ask someone who's actually operated the system who will give you an honest answer.

To talk about these things is great. But haven't you guys figured out that the problem runs much deeper than these middle eastern governments? It goes right to the heart of their religion as well. And that goes for Syria and much of the population of Pakistan as well. And I'm just talking about neighboring countries with Iraq.

So good luck with your theories. Because it appears Iraq has taught many people absolutly nothing.

Both British and American intelligence say otherwise. Why wouldnt they take advantage of a brilliant opportunity. Just a few guns and explosives here and there can turn the tide against us one street fight at a time. Just like we did in Afghanistan to the Soviets. If you were Iran wouldnt you take advantage of that situation? How could you not? IT doesnt get any easier than this to inflict wounds to your enemy.

Let's rehash this:

Bin Laden is having tea in Tehran, we know where, we know when.

Pit seems to think we couldn't take care of him because we are in Iraq. He thinks if all of our troops were back home, then we could take care of Bin Laden, having tea, in Tehran.

So, having troops close to a target is bad, and having them far away is good?

Pit, Iran isn't taking over Iraq, as long as our troops are there. Seriously, if Iran thought they even had a chance in taking over Iraq, with our troops there, do you think for a minute they would not have done that already?

See, pit, Iran knows full well what the u.s. military is capable of, and that's the only thing stopping them. They love how the u.s. military is embroiled in a tit for tat conflict right now. They love the u.s. media painting the u.s. as the bad people. They know full well that the u.s. public will/is deciding this war, and they are sitting on their hands, waiting.

I'm fairly certain if Iran thought they could invade Iraq, and even have a chance at winning/beating the u.s., they would have done so. I mean, we are the infidels, and killing infidels is their one goal. Why do you think they have not attacked Israel? Cause they don't want to, or cause they know what Israel would do to them?

Regardless, your hypothesis that we can't drop a bomb on Iran right now because our troops are too close is wrong. I bet our troops would value having an army coming after them - you know, people that wear a uniform - you know, people that our troops can take care of without getting clearance from 12 superiors - you know - actually fighting.

But, maybe I'm wrong.

Isn't this all just a mental exercize in futility? Doubtfull Ossama opts for tea in Tehran and even further doubtful we would drop a bomb. Now a covert ops involving a squad of spooks may be a little more realistic and with less incidental damage.

Why? Is he a coffee man? <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

and less likely to be an international incident that is also an act of war.

BINGO ! Besides he would be just as dead right?

Pit thinks our military wouldn't be a close target for them,yes


When you're target is "one man" why do you need your "military" there?


As I recall,Iran wasn't trying to take over Iraq BEFORE we got there. So exactly what is your point? And why should they try? They're too busy watching us waste our recources in a nation who was a non threat to begin with. They're just sitting back building up there weaponry and military while we expend ours. It's called sound strategy. But I can understand the confusion. We haven't seen sound strategy from our military since WW2 with the acception of the Gulf War.


The media painting us as "the bad people"??? Sorry,I missed that show. Do you mean the media saying "We're losing the war"? If so,many in the GOP are saying the same thing. Are they the media too? And as I mentioned,Iran wasn't attacking Iraq before we were there. So how is it "We stooped them" again?


There's only so many troops to go around arch. If we walk out of Baghdad to fight Iran.Baghdad and the Iraqi government falls. Which do you prefer? Because we don't have enough boots to do both. That's my point. We can't even stabilize Iraq with our troops. So now you're telling me we can stabilize Iraq AND fight Iran at the same time?

I mentioned that possibility earlier in a post. It could even be a Muslim spy within their borders. The less mess the better. And we don't need a troop build up or an invasion to do it.

Someone else brought up the scenario, you jumped on it. I was responding. Pretty simple, really.

For your own sake: accept, except. There is a difference, and no, I'm not the language police. Just a point for you, should you care.

Spelling errors occur, I know that, and I am guilty of it. But spelling errors are spelling errors..........

This was my first response to DC's question about bombing Terhan to get Bin Ladin arch.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yes, but you continued on with "we have troops there, and that would be bad", or something like that.

Face it, if Iran were to attack us in Iraq, we would, with no more troops there than we have now, dominate.

Planes, missiles - you know, those silly little things we have there now? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But just how much devistation would our troops take from that 30% of missles we miss incoming to Iraq? And,what about Syria? You think they'd sit still while the Shia lead Iranians invade Iraq?

And what about Baghdad? We won't need any troops to fight Iran? It's all going to be a video game war? So we can win a war with Iran and keep Iraq stable? How can you claim that when we can't keep Iraq stable now?

It would take a handful of men, not bombs and planes. Bombing a cafe in midday, endangering civilians in order to achieve an aim...that's terrorism.

Tough questions all of them but let's try to examine the situation.
In a previous post you posed the question as to whether Iran was trying to invade Iraq before our most recent conflict with Iraq[2002-present].
I believe that Iran was not but not because they didn't have plans to execute an invasion or another war but rather because the possibility of WMD was a wildcard at that time.
Whether Intel was faulty or not many,many gov'ts and their leaders believed Saddam had access to WMD and therefore backed off. As you know an unsteady truce existed between Iran/Iraq since their awful,bloody war with each other. With Saddam using gas on his countrymen, the Kurds, gave the religious leaders in Iran a moment's pause before any more direct conflict.

The religious Imans control the President of Iran and he would not live long if he defied the nutjob clerics there. Saddam is gone and for the last couple of years foreign fighters have entered Iraq to fight the Americans not on the orders of the Pres. of Iran but rather on orders of the clerics and their military commanders.

The thought that no foreign fighters are in Iraq is not true but the idea that only a foreign gov't official could send them to Iraq is also not true. They are being sent by the wacko clerics who value power more than anything and they are the REAL TERRORISTS here. Not the monkey-like President of Iran.

WTH? What did I miss?

30% of what missiles coming to Iraq?

I wasn't talking invading Iran, I was talking defending against Iran attacking our troops in Iraq.

WTH? You just change the subject when you feel like it?

If you don't want to discuss what was being discussed, fine. But to change the subject mid thread, and attempt to make others look foolish? Golly, pit, we can all read. Most posting on here, or reading on here, have been following the discussion. Just because you attempt to change it to suit you doesn't make you "right".

I didn't change the subject at all arch. Have you read all of my posts on this topic? Do you remember the scud missles sent to Israel? Do you remember our "Patriot Missle Defense"?

It missed about 30% of the time at stopping those scuds. My question was fairly simple. Iran has more sophisticated missles than scuds. So it would seem fairly logical that we could see a 30% success rate on missles launched from Iran into Iraq. So what damages will we face from their missles?

And where did you get lost at arch?
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If Iran attcks,we wouldn't need troop to fight at all? If so,if we pull out of Baghdad to fight Iran.what happens to Baghdad in the mean time? How can we keep the current government in place,stop sectarian violence and fight Iran at the same time? When we can't even quail the violence in Iraq now?

And lastly,if Iran attacks Iraq,the Iranians are Shias. Do you think Syria,who are Sunni,will stand idley by while this happens without backing the Sunni's in Iraq?

See arch,we got where we are now by NOT looking at the worse case scenario. By NOT looking at "the worst that can happen". Are you willing to see us do this again? That's my point. And I wasn't changing the subject at all. I'm looking at possible scenarios that could happen if we drop a bomb on Iran. Can't you see what's already happenned when we don't consider the possible options that can occur?

So would you then say that it was in the best interest of Iraq to give "the appearance" of having WMD's to keep their country safe from attack from Iran? I agree compltely with what you've stated here BTW.


And I completly agree with your comments here as well. So it's NOT the governments of Iran and Syria that are the culprits,but religious leaders who reside within their borders,correct? And Iran can't "give its permission" to go after these clerics for fear of assasinations or possible overthrowing of their governments,correct?

I mean I can see why Sadaam felt a strong need to give the appearance of having WMD. If not,Iran surely would have attacked Iraq as you so aptly described.

JMHO

So if we agree on these points we seem to have the true War on Terror going on. Several countries harboring terrorists by the radical extremist religious leaders within the lands with a complicit politcal despot....so what do we do??

I'd suggest we blow the [censored] outta the religious leaders quarters...all of their homes...take the wussy political figurehead along for the final ride.

Can't do that??? Will outrage the world community??? Lead to more terrorists joining??? Please!!!!!!!

Find them and kill them...new leaders arise..".Second Verse-Same as the first"!!!

Enough is enough...the weak kneed pols in DC will moan and groan and threaten to impeach,withhold funds etc.... so the Hell what! The opponents have had years to formulate any alternative other than running away...they still don't want to be responsible for any deaths. Leadership means making the tough choices,decisions and actions and then trying to live with the results.

Let's Get It On!!

Well, I guess it would be a pretty "dry" date....... <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> It's a shame the guys could'nt have bombed Mogadishu to the stone age back in the 90's instead of putting troops on the ground, that way the food distribution to the citizens would have been a bit more "civil"........ <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I agree with you about "killing terrorists" where we find them. Not in overthrowing governments,nations and installing democracy's. You've already established that their leaders are mere puppets who are in fear of these religious leaders,so why go to the same type of expence and time as we did in Iraq?

My point is,you need to have the proper troop strength and military build up for contingency plans that may be a result of these actions. And we aren't up to the job while our major troop strength is deployed playing mediator in a civil war.

I'm for using them speraticly and viciously on short term,targeted extermination missions of "the terrorists". Because if not,we would have to have a military capable of conquering the world,or damned close to it.

I think we are looking for the same end result,but may not see totally eye to eye on how to accomplish that.

JMHO