Somalia's al Shabaab confirm leader killed by U.S. strike, name new head

Sheikh Ahmad Umar Abu Ubaidah

...warned its enemies to "expect only that which will cause you great distress'

I bet that warning is for the Somalians that live nearby to them as well as people they don't even know far away from them.

www.reuters.com...

its amazing that these groups find no shortage of 'Leaders' that are willing to attack their neighbors without cause and allow 100s of Thousands of their own people to die in famines because weapons are more important than food and water.

And even more amazing is the never ending chorus of western sympathizers that will support this organization even though there is nothing at all to support.

just another empty package. if he exists, he won't make it one year as leader. his new job is just a death sentence waiting to be carried out.

a reply to: michaelbrux


Just how many countries is the US illegally bombing? Anyone know? I guess the establishment line is "drones don't count".

WTF?

Kinda like whack-a-mole, or in NFL terms, next man up.

I think many if not all of these "Leaders" in these "Terrorist" places are just made up character puppets.

They may not actually exist imo.

If they do, they are the biggest scapegoats in history.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I suppose the answer depends on your definition of 'illegal'.

By my definition, the U.S. is illegally bombing zero countries and all of its bombings are legal. their legality is implied by their occurrence; had the bombing been illegal, it would have not been successful or ever occurred.

in addition, the Government of Somalia would determine the legality of the act and they are not complaining at all.

I think the concept of law is an under-discussed topic in open forums. if it were more popular many would realize the hopeless cause of groups such as al Shabaab and ISIS.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: michaelbrux


Just how many countries is the US illegally bombing? Anyone know? I guess the establishment line is "drones don't count".

WTF?

Are you bothered that the US killed a terrorist leader? A little confused by your comment... The world is a better place without terrorists..

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: FyreByrd

I suppose the answer depends on your definition of 'illegal'.

By my definition, the U.S. is illegally bombing zero countries and all of its bombings are legal. their legality is implied by their occurrence; had the bombing been illegal, it would have not been successful or ever occurred.

in addition, the Government of Somalia would determine the legality of the act and they are not complaining at all.

I think the concept of law is an under-discussed topic in open forums. if it were more popular many would realize the hopeless cause of groups such as al Shabaab and ISIS.

I was just speaking rhetorically; however, you point out an important question of LAW. International LAW in ignored by any nation that has 'bully power' whether it be military or economic. Domestic LAW doesn't seem to apply in any case (see US National Security Administration spying on communications going though other countries regardless of the nationality of the origin or endpoint).

I thought civilization was largely defined by a culture following a rule of LAW and not the rule of force.

Sigh.... another day....

a reply to: michaelbrux

just another empty package. if he exists, he won't make it one year as leader. his new job is just a death sentence waiting to be carried out.

The "empty package" is the belief that by killing your enemies you aren't creating more of them. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe that is the intent?

How else ware we going to justify more war to conquer territory and take the resources there?

Without more enemies there is no wider conflict.

So, drone away.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: michaelbrux


Just how many countries is the US illegally bombing? Anyone know? I guess the establishment line is "drones don't count".

WTF?

None. Yemen, Somalia, Iraq etc. alll nor only allow US strikes but, in fact request them.

a reply to: intrptr

all territory has been conquered. what the entire world is currently fighting are criminal organizations.

show me a body of Law that makes Al Shabaab legal, lawful or real in any way. What will ISIS show that makes them 'real'?

nothing. you can't even prove these people exist let alone prove they were murdered.

U.S. isn't committing any crimes.

what enemies could be created, when they don't exist?

its just a television show.

murder? where is the murder weapon? where is the body? where is the suspect?

but its best not to get carried away thinking that all of these affairs are new. just a rehash of the same scripts with exciting new twists, actors and scenes.

How long will Qaeda, Shabaab or ISIS last?

not long. they were just Nazis.

a reply to: michaelbrux

Thank you for the perspective. I entertain that too at times for different false flags, whatever.

In the case of drones though, they are very real. So is Hell Fire, their main weapons system.

We are too cheap and cowardly to face these people in a stand up fight, we do our killing of them at night from "behind' as it were, the most cowardly kind of combat according to their law.

Thats another way I know this is going on. Nobody debates that. Whether or not they actually take down any infrastructure or high value targets is another matter. If a group of people resist, like a village for instance, they get targeted, usually while that are in bed fast asleep. Then just claim success on some level.

A close parallel would be some foreign super power hitting a local minister here in the states and killing him and his family in their home while they slept.

How would we feel?

a reply to: intrptr

I've had to deal with those who fight in a cowardly fashion personally, and you are correct, it is preferable that an enemy would simply choose a time and place so we can meet and fight.

cowardice in war isn't confined to one side. from the point of view of the United States what is the benefit in putting in ground troops when the adversary will force fighting in the towns and villages hiding behind fruit merchants and school children?

they've got the war they wanted, one that looks unfair and seeks to influence opinion in the hopes that the siege upon their world will abate. but it cannot stop, this enemy has set itself against the rest of the world in every possible way that two things can be opposed; the war is obligatory.

and I know for a fact that those who say the U.S. is committing crimes are liars, so all of this falls on deaf ears.

originally posted by: michaelbrux
Sheikh Ahmad Umar Abu Ubaidah



...warned its enemies to "expect only that which will cause you great distress'



I bet that warning is for the Somalians that live nearby to them as well as people they don't even know far away from them.



www.reuters.com...



its amazing that these groups find no shortage of 'Leaders' that are willing to attack their neighbors without cause and allow 100s of Thousands of their own people to die in famines because weapons are more important than food and water.



And even more amazing is the never ending chorus of western sympathizers that will support this organization even though there is nothing at all to support.



just another empty package. if he exists, he won't make it one year as leader. his new job is just a death sentence waiting to be carried out.

Sheikh Ahmad Umar Abu Ubaidah is known to his friends as Shish Kabob, leader of al Shabaab.

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: intrptr

I've had to deal with those who fight in a cowardly fashion personally, and you are correct, it is preferable that an enemy would simply choose a time and place so we can meet and fight.

cowardice in war isn't confined to one side. from the point of view of the United States what is the benefit in putting in ground troops when the adversary will force fighting in the towns and villages hiding behind fruit merchants and school children?

they've got the war they wanted, one that looks unfair and seeks to influence opinion in the hopes that the siege upon their world will abate. but it cannot stop, this enemy has set itself against the rest of the world in every possible way that two things can be opposed; the war is obligatory.

and I know for a fact that those who say the U.S. is committing crimes are liars, so all of this falls on deaf ears.

I don't think that using superior technology and tactics to wage war is an indication of "cowardice". The end goal of fighting a war is to defeat your enemy. One of the ways to effect this goal is to kill enemy combatants...while avoiding casualties on your side if possible.

Using drones to attack enemy equipment, facilities or personnel is no more cowardly than, say, sending a tank in against unmechanized infantry...or firing artillery at enemy formations from afar...or using a machine gun against a guy with a bayonet.

If they reserve the right to show up in shopping malls and gun down shoppers, then we reserve the right to show up, in the form of highly kinetic and explosive objects, as they leave their meetings (wherein they are most likely plotting their next civilian atrocity).

a reply to: michaelbrux

and I know for a fact that those who say the U.S. is committing crimes are liars, so all of this falls on deaf ears.

War is a crime.

a reply to: intrptr

Perhaps you should expand your definition of War beyond Military operations and you'd realize that War is necessary.

Our debate is an example of Warfare in the sense that you challenge my beliefs and hope to destroy them; thus alter my reality...are you saying your opinions are a crime?

you believe in many lies, but I know I can't change how you think.

so, I would suggest finding a court to prosecute these alleged crimes; I don't know of any which the U.S. can be compelled to appear in.

a reply to: michaelbrux

Considering that none of the wars perpetrated by the US in the Middle East happened on US soil, how do you equate this to defending America?

How do thou resolve the spread of democracy as what has resulted in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan?

Are those places "liberated"?

Are they "free"?

Are they "democratized"?

Or has the war on terror really been a war of terror that has bred even more terror in its wake.

Yes I would call those failed enterprises from our POV. From the point of view of the Industrial Military Complex however, they have been hugely successful, profit wise.

Its not a crime to make war a business venture?

"Name new head"?

They have a new "head"?

Oh the irony.