US Airstrike in Somalia

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

US Airstrike in Somalia

Postby Dana Sheets » Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:08 pm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070109/D8MHQ70O1.html

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - A U.S. airstrike hit targets in southern Somalia where Islamic militants were believed to be sheltering suspects in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, Somali officials and witnesses said Tuesday. Many people were reported killed.


President Abdullahi Yusuf told journalists in the capital, Mogadishu, that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies." Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed told The Associated Press the U.S. had "our full support for the attacks."


Is this a good time to conduct this operation?
Of course, if not now than when. We've adopted a doctrine of striking cells overseas to keep the fight there instead of here. But to me, this was a heck of a time to choose to open fire in another new country.
Did you show compassion today?
User avatar
Dana Sheets
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Postby MikeK » Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:03 am

Not new, we've been there before. Maybe a little unfinished business.

But from the sounds of it the operation was pure SpecOps working with the Ethiopian and/or the Somali military.
I was dreaming of the past...
MikeK
 
Posts: 3672
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Postby IJ » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:58 am

Well, opening an entire other front would be a particularly bad idea, especially in yet another fubar islamic nation, as we contemplate a surge in troops to be accomplished with, I dunno, imports, given the difficulty in recruiting to current troop levels.

But blowing up a little al qaeda? They're always in season.
--Ian
IJ
 
Posts: 2758
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby AAAhmed46 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:07 am

I think it was a little pointless.

I mean SOmalia has far bigger problems then al-queerda.



Civilians are raped, killed, tortured, caught between war-lords. THere is no real government.

It's just a big mess.
AAAhmed46
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby IJ » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:21 pm

Ahmed:

Al Qaeda isn't queer. They kill and torture queers. I'm queer. Do you see what I'm getting at?
--Ian
IJ
 
Posts: 2758
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby AAAhmed46 » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:12 am

IJ wrote:Ahmed:

Al Qaeda isn't queer. They kill and torture queers. I'm queer. Do you see what I'm getting at?


Come on, just let some remanent of the banned Tony live on in this forum.
AAAhmed46
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby Valkenar » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:59 pm

AAAhmed46 wrote:Come on, just let some remanent of the banned Tony live on in this forum.


Isn't it a little bit insulting to Tony to use his name to excuse a bigoted turn of phrase? If you want to celebrate the memory of Tony, how about choosing one of his positive traits instead?

I know you're trying to be funny, but what you said is not very different from saying "al-negroda" as an insult. Do you think this would amuse a black man? I don't think you'd enjoy having people find ways to work "muslim" into their insults.
- Justin Powell
Valkenar
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Postby AAAhmed46 » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:36 pm

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.
AAAhmed46
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby smitty » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:26 pm

I'm sure Tony wouldn't see using this term a negative trait Justin, stop judging the guy.He is not hear to defend himself.

Adam, in Canada we have the language police. In America it appears they have the queer cops. Why just the other day the media was all over some actor dude for calling one of his cast members queer.

I don't get it, these guys fought so hard to come out of the closet.Now they get their nickers in a knot when they are identified. I guess it's like the word nigger. It's okay for a black person to use it but not a white person. So I guess queer now belongs to the queer folk and the "breeders" as they call us can't use it anymore.

Yeah you made a PC blunder it would appear Adam, you used their word. But hey don't feel too bad about it, webster's has been slow mailing out the notices of recalled words this year. :wink:

Whoops, not sure if the word breeders has been authorized by the queer police for use by hetro society.They got to get these updates out quicker.

It's all just a little bit to pc for me. Next thing you know you'll be accussed of villifying the enemy. 8O :splat:

I miss Tony too!

Image
Image
Image
Image
smitty
 

Postby AAAhmed46 » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:53 pm

Tony used to get me all riled up.

But he was funny.

And atleast you know where he stood in an issue, he didn't mask it in bullshido.

EDIT:

Sometimes you have to be able to talk about an issue or opinion in a blunt manner, even if it pisses you off.

Which was nice to have around this forum.
AAAhmed46
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby smitty » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:09 pm

yup honest is always welcome. :)
smitty
 

Postby Stryke » Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:48 am

Al Qaeda isn't queer. They kill and torture queers. I'm queer. Do you see what I'm getting at?


Isnt that usage of the term Queer fairly narrow ? , do we have to worry about such nonsense really ?

I thought the alternate sexual expirementation or lifestyle front (jesus christ how do say it PC ) took on queer as a sort of self pridethingymeswhatsit ...... I`m not against them using it , but I dont have to use it only that way .

man I just realised I blasphemed too :roll:

queer as a lemonade sandwich , just sounds strange to me !!!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/queer

mentally unbalanced or deranged.
Stryke
 

Postby MikeK » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:48 pm

Image

:?
I was dreaming of the past...
MikeK
 
Posts: 3672
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Postby IJ » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:44 am

First off, I don't lose sleep over this stuff and I don't want anyone else to. But neither should anyone be surprised that this kind of language isn't the cause of universal delight on a public forum like this, right? Esp since its backwards. They're the antiqueer.

"I don't get it, these guys fought so hard to come out of the closet. Now they get their nickers in a knot when they are identified. I guess it's like the word nigger. It's okay for a black person to use it but not a white person. So I guess queer now belongs to the queer folk and the "breeders" as they call us can't use it anymore. "

I guess you don't get it. My knickers are fine, and the situation is complex. For example, we don't really have to fight to come out of the closet. That's easy... we've fought to be in a position where one doesn't have to, or where one isn't condemned for it. And identified? That's all context based. Do I want to be "identified" after inadvertently walking into a KKK convention? Course not. Do I mind being identified at work ("oh, that's IJ, his partner does this or that...")? Not at all. Have some LGB people coopted the terms fag or queer to deprive them of their hurtfulness? Sure! Same with the N word. But that doesn't mean its all of a sudden polite to use it in a hurtful way. Can white people use it? Of course. Depends on how. Samuel L Jackson and Quentin Tarantino get along, don't they? Wouldn't use it in the State of the Union address.

And here's the really tricky part--there is no "us" or "they." "We" don't call you breeders--there is no we. I never use the term nor do people I hang out with. I don't do much that fits in with most of the rest of this "we" you refer to... I'm much more connected with doctors and martial artists, for one. Everyone's a person, everyone deserves to be respected as an individual, and not prejudged because of their race, age, gender, sexuality, national origin, whatever and so on--and derogatory terms that attack groups assume that those individuals can be dismissed and disregarded because there's nothing worth bothering to know about them except their group affiliation. Actually its dimissive for the Dem's to count on the "gays" or the repubs to count on the "evangelicals" because they're both sets of complex and varied people, even if they're viewed as an asset.

That gets to a little of the complexity. Suffice to say it is always a challenge for people who've been put in a position of social disadvantage or vulnerability to figure out why minorities and others feel the way they do about certain labels.
--Ian
IJ
 
Posts: 2758
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby cxt » Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:07 pm

IJ

Good point.

Nobody like labels, and few of them are at all accurate.

I have a good friend that "outed" himself in drunking rant over a "gay pride" parade in which as a "gay MAN" HIS EMP on the "man" part, he felt personally insulted by the "streotypes" being promoted by other gays.

People should be treated as individuals--not as members of a group.

Otherwise all sorts of serious mistakes can be made.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
cxt
 
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm


Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron