How the US raid on al-Shabaab in Somalia went wrong
Navy seals launched a daring night-time raid in Barawe, but were forced to retreat an hour later without their target – why?

The events of Saturday 5 October could boost al-Shabaab's confidence in its defences but also give it notice that the world's most powerful military is ready to bring the battle to its doorstep. Speaking at a mosque in Barawe on Monday night, al-Shabaab's military operations spokesman Sheikh Abiasis Abu Mus'ab said: "Western countries … have to bear in mind we know that we are your target, but we will not be caught off guard.

"We know you are sharpening your knives to cut our heads off. We know our enemies. We will not oversleep so you can attack us at once. We are always vigilant and your cowardly attacks will end in failure."

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who studies Somalia and al-Shabaab at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, described Barawe as "right now the strongest area of sanctuary" for the militant group. He said it was likely that al-Shabaab expected something like a foreign raid after it perpetrated the attack on Nairobi's Westgate mall.

Gartenstein-Ross said the probable immediate response by al-Shabaab would centre around strengthening its internal security and grip on Barawe, rather than launching another terror attack.

"The raid has made them very nervous," he added. "In Barawe it's already been reported that al-Shabaab has implemented curfews. There will be an uptick in operational security and they will certainly use the way they repulsed this attack by navy Seals as a propaganda piece."

But the US defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, said the operation in Somalia, along with a near-simultaneous one in Libya, demonstrated the "unparalleled precision, global reach and capabilities" of US counter-terrorism. "These operations in Libya and Somalia send a strong message to the world that the United States will spare no effort to hold terrorists accountable, no matter where they hide or how long they evade justice," Hagel said.

Judge Dredd saves the day (and his credibility?)

This situation is so dire.

Christiane Amanpour's show featured a way to donate to those who are suffering in Somalia

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/million-moms-challenge/2011/11/11/somalia-famine-how-to-help/

 hippiechick wrote: 
BUMP

 miamizsun wrote: 
Oh yeah, Get Shorty was good. This one just, well sure all Elmore Leonard fits a pattern, but this one reminded me of Get Shorty at the time, for some reason.
 
Anyway since he gets the way things work, generally, I suspect his description of the scene over there is probably pretty accurate too. The picture we get from news reports isn't nearly so layered. 
 
edit: but yeah: Freaky Deaky's the one.  

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
dude, i enjoyed Get Shorty

If you would like to contribute $10 to the UN's Food Program

text

AID

to 27722

 rosedraws wrote: 
band name

For a fairly accurate (-sounding) depiction of what it's all about, politics, personalities etc. check out this book. It's NOT a good introduction to Elmore Leonard, though. But the description of the various players over there is clearly accurate. Including the WTF rich thrillseekers taking their yachts where they shouldn't oughta be. The scenario is thoroughly believable but the story itself is poorly executed, and a sort of rehash of Get Shorty. It'll only take you a day to read it though. Then you can go read Freaky Deaky and have some fun.

Those damn pirates have taken a ship with a Danish family on board.

So, I checked out the map of somalia, wondering why it's so hard to avoid, and yeah!  It's got a gajillion miles of coastline! 

 cc_rider wrote: 
Me too. I absolutely love that book!

 aflanigan wrote:
 
His discussion of 'quality' really influenced my life. Still influences my life.

 hobiejoe wrote: 

Robert Pirsig in Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has a discussion of the ancient Greek "sophists" and an explanation of how Plato (through his dialogues involving Socrates) condemned the practice of the sophists (basically a band of itinerant intellectuals who charged money for education in "arete" or excellence) as "specious" or "deceptive", hence the modern connotation of the term as a pejorative.  If I remember right, Pirsig even attempted half-heartedly to try and resurrect the reputation of the Sophists (whom he viewed, I believe, as pursuing his concept of "quality" that is a central theme of the book).

So yes, as beamends points out, words can change meaning over time.

 aflanigan wrote: 
that video was funny    (i do enjoy comedy and accuracy isn't always important)

however the first comment by bruk5 is a bull's eye.

"About as straw man as saying that all statists should go to North Korea"

bada bing! 

p.s. you should really watch some of those vids.

 beamends wrote: 
Is that all you're doing, or are you indulging in sophistry again?
 
BTW, which Tory in the Major govt. was rather brilliantly speared for sophistry by Robin Cook? Curly-haired bloke, Fellow of-some-posh-college or other.

 beamends wrote: 
It sounds as if you are using the tendency of politicians and petulant pundits (e.g. Jonah Goldberg) to misuse terms like "fascist" as an excuse to declare the commonly understood definition found in dictionaries "meaningless".

It's a fun game, indeed, but it makes it very difficult to carry on conversations which can potentially lead to mutual understanding (or overstanding, if you insist).

 aflanigan wrote:You seem to be working with a very creative political dictionary.

 
A dictionary, yes. But not a political one. If you you look on the web you will find a different definition for every result from Google. Those that don't assume Mussolini invented it assume it has something to do with the way the police behave when arresting people. Current usage has rendered the word pretty meaningless as, unless a group of people agree amongst themselves in advance what definition they are using, no one will actually know what the speaker means!

It's fun stuff - another good word is 'sophisticated'. One of the meanings is 'hiding behind the truth', so beware, if I ever describe someone as sophisticated I'm actually talking the piss out of them!

 beamends wrote:You seem to be working with a very creative political dictionary.

 aflanigan wrote: 
The almost complete withdrawal of government to a few very basic functions, leaving the population to fend for itself, isn't anarchy, it's fascism. 'Fascist' is an often misused word, the well known Austrian corporal often referred to as a fascist was not one, he was a National Socialist, and therefore to the left of the political spectrum. Fascism is to the extreme right of the political spectrum, just this side of tyranny. Many also confuse tyranny with fascism, stating that fascism can only exist under a despot or tyrant, but that is not so - a fascist leader can be elected. Neither does fascism have to be cruel, but almost by definition it is scince the state takes no part in moderating the extremes of the populations lives. If there is 100% employment, on good wages, fascism might even work.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Stefan should really just ignore those videos encouraging libertarians and anarchists to vacation in Somalia.  I don't think they are meant to provide a well-thought out critique of libertarianism or anarchism.

So his theory of anarchism is that it is supposed to supplant/replace an already existing state apparatus?  How can anarchists suggest that this voluntary societal control apparatus is viable when it is inexorably tethered to the thing they profess to despise (the State)?  In other words, if it cannot arise naturally out of a state of chaotic lawlessness but must replace existing state apparatus, that's not a very convincing argument for it's viability.