3 Americans reportedly among Kenyan mall terrorists

[USN_Hokie]

I feel pretty strongly that this/Beslan type of attack is what the US needs to prepare for next.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/22/world/afr ... index.html

Just checking: anyone heard a motive for the attack? Has Kenya invaded/occupied any Muslim countries recently? Ron Paul?

[awesome guy]

I feel pretty strongly that this/Beslan type of attack is what the US needs to prepare for next.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/22/world/afr ... index.html

Just checking: anyone heard a motive for the attack? Has Kenya invaded/occupied any Muslim countries recently? Ron Paul?

How about the scapegoats of poverty, illiteracy, and melloncaly? Lack of opportunity?

[oaktonhokie]

Kenya is becoming like Chicago. They need gun control.

I feel pretty strongly that this/Beslan type of attack is what the US needs to prepare for next.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/22/world/afr ... index.html

Just checking: anyone heard a motive for the attack? Has Kenya invaded/occupied any Muslim countries recently? Ron Paul?

[Bay_area_Hokie]

I feel pretty strongly that this/Beslan type of attack is what the US needs to prepare for next.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/22/world/afr ... index.html

Just checking: anyone heard a motive for the attack? Has Kenya invaded/occupied any Muslim countries recently? Ron Paul?

From sfgate.com....

The Al-Shabab extremists, said the attack, targeting non-Muslims, was in retribution for Kenyan forces' 2011 push into neighboring Somalia.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marine Hokie]

The Kenyan army went into Somalia last year to attack Al-Shabaab forces (the group behind the mall massacre).
I suspect that has something to do with it.

Or maybe they just hate Kenyans for their way of life and freedom and stuff.

I feel pretty strongly that this/Beslan type of attack is what the US needs to prepare for next.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/22/world/afr ... index.html

Just checking: anyone heard a motive for the attack? Has Kenya invaded/occupied any Muslim countries recently? Ron Paul?

[USN_Hokie]

The Kenyan army went into Somalia last year to attack Al-Shabaab forces (the group behind the mall massacre).
I suspect that has something to do with it.

Or maybe they just hate Kenyans for their way of life and freedom and stuff.

I feel pretty strongly that this/Beslan type of attack is what the US needs to prepare for next.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/22/world/afr ... index.html

Just checking: anyone heard a motive for the attack? Has Kenya invaded/occupied any Muslim countries recently? Ron Paul?

1. Are you actually denying that wars are fought over (religious) ideologies? That's what your comment implies.

2. Are you saying their attack was justified?

[Marine Hokie]

1. Are you actually denying that wars are fought over (religious) ideologies? That's what your comment implies.

Not at all. Plenty of wars have an explicitly religious cause. I also don't ignore that many people are just 1) retaliating for previous aggressions or 2) defending their own governments.

2. Are you saying their attack was justified?

Not even a little.

[USN_Hokie]

1. Are you actually denying that wars are fought over (religious) ideologies? That's what your comment implies.

Not at all. Plenty of wars have an explicitly religious cause. I also don't ignore that many people are just 1) retaliating for previous aggressions or 2) defending their own governments.

2. Are you saying their attack was justified?

Not even a little.

Somalia didn't even have any functioning government last I checked. Regardless, your answer to the first question doesn't really fit with your answer to the second....

[Marine Hokie]

Somalia didn't even have any functioning government last I checked.

1.2 isn't specifically referring to the mall attack. However, Somalia does have a government. It isn't a particularly powerful one compared to most other States, and they don't have total control over the entire geopolitical region, but they do have one.

Regardless, your answer to the first question doesn't really fit with your answer to the second....

Sure it does. I can recognize that someone is defending a government they like, or acting in retaliation for previous military action, and not view their violence as justified, even though they have a reason.

[Major Kong]

The Horn of Africa is in need of a glassing over post haste.

Time to unleash the Ethiopian hegemon.

[USN_Hokie]

Somalia didn't even have any functioning government last I checked.

1.2 isn't specifically referring to the mall attack. However, Somalia does have a government. It isn't a particularly powerful one compared to most other States, and they don't have total control over the entire geopolitical region, but they do have one.

Key word was "functioning." If they don't have control, it's not really functioning IMO. The warlords and terrorist groups are the real "leadership" there IMO.

Regardless, your answer to the first question doesn't really fit with your answer to the second....

Sure it does. I can recognize that someone is defending a government they like, or acting in retaliation for previous military action, and not view their violence as justified, even though they have a reason.

Al Kabab doesn't represent the government. They're considered insurgents in Somalia too.

[Marine Hokie]

Key word was "functioning." If they don't have control, it's not really functioning IMO. The warlords and terrorist groups are the real "leadership" there IMO.

You're just talking about degrees. The Somali government has police, military, public schools, public health systems, etc. A case can certainly be made that Somalia doesn't have a strong central government, but that doesn't mean that the government doesn't exist.
Additionally, you can say the warlords aren't governments, but I don't see how an entity that claims a legal right to collect taxes and impose its will on the population isn't as much a government as any other more well established and internationally recognized one. Would it make you feel better if a somali warlord set up a postal system?

Al Kabab doesn't represent the government. They're considered insurgents in Somalia too.

Correct. You're arguing against claims I didn't make.

[USN_Hokie]

Key word was "functioning." If they don't have control, it's not really functioning IMO. The warlords and terrorist groups are the real "leadership" there IMO.

You're just talking about degrees. The Somali government has police, military, public schools, public health systems, etc. A case can certainly be made that Somalia doesn't have a strong central government, but that doesn't mean that the government doesn't exist.
Additionally, you can say the warlords aren't governments, but I don't see how an entity that claims a legal right to collect taxes and impose its will on the population isn't as much a government as any other more well established and internationally recognized one. Would it make you feel better if a somali warlord set up a postal system?

Al Kabab doesn't represent the government. They're considered insurgents in Somalia too.

Correct. You're arguing against claims I didn't make.

Please read this and tell me how anything you or Al Kabob has stated is even remotely relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linda_Nchi

So, their message is that they shot up a mall full of women and children because Kenyans (along with Somalians, French, American, and Ethiopians) tried to stop their kidnapping/insurgency into Somalia? Why are you eating this propaganda?

[Marine Hokie]

Key word was "functioning." If they don't have control, it's not really functioning IMO. The warlords and terrorist groups are the real "leadership" there IMO.

You're just talking about degrees. The Somali government has police, military, public schools, public health systems, etc. A case can certainly be made that Somalia doesn't have a strong central government, but that doesn't mean that the government doesn't exist.
Additionally, you can say the warlords aren't governments, but I don't see how an entity that claims a legal right to collect taxes and impose its will on the population isn't as much a government as any other more well established and internationally recognized one. Would it make you feel better if a somali warlord set up a postal system?

Al Kabab doesn't represent the government. They're considered insurgents in Somalia too.

Correct. You're arguing against claims I didn't make.

Please read this and tell me how anything you or Al Kabob has stated is even remotely relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linda_Nchi

So, their message is that they shot up a mall full of women and children because Kenyans (along with Somalians, French, American, and Ethiopians) tried to stop their kidnapping/insurgency into Somalia? Why are you eating this propaganda?

What propaganda am I eating? What have I said that isn't accurate?

[awesome guy]

Key word was "functioning." If they don't have control, it's not really functioning IMO. The warlords and terrorist groups are the real "leadership" there IMO.

You're just talking about degrees. The Somali government has police, military, public schools, public health systems, etc. A case can certainly be made that Somalia doesn't have a strong central government, but that doesn't mean that the government doesn't exist.
Additionally, you can say the warlords aren't governments, but I don't see how an entity that claims a legal right to collect taxes and impose its will on the population isn't as much a government as any other more well established and internationally recognized one. Would it make you feel better if a somali warlord set up a postal system?

Al Kabab doesn't represent the government. They're considered insurgents in Somalia too.

Correct. You're arguing against claims I didn't make.

Please read this and tell me how anything you or Al Kabob has stated is even remotely relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linda_Nchi

So, their message is that they shot up a mall full of women and children because Kenyans (along with Somalians, French, American, and Ethiopians) tried to stop their kidnapping/insurgency into Somalia? Why are you eating this propaganda?

What propaganda am I eating? What have I said that isn't accurate?

The "they're just defending themselves from intervention BS".

[Marine Hokie]

Key word was "functioning." If they don't have control, it's not really functioning IMO. The warlords and terrorist groups are the real "leadership" there IMO.

You're just talking about degrees. The Somali government has police, military, public schools, public health systems, etc. A case can certainly be made that Somalia doesn't have a strong central government, but that doesn't mean that the government doesn't exist.
Additionally, you can say the warlords aren't governments, but I don't see how an entity that claims a legal right to collect taxes and impose its will on the population isn't as much a government as any other more well established and internationally recognized one. Would it make you feel better if a somali warlord set up a postal system?

Al Kabab doesn't represent the government. They're considered insurgents in Somalia too.

Correct. You're arguing against claims I didn't make.

Please read this and tell me how anything you or Al Kabob has stated is even remotely relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linda_Nchi

So, their message is that they shot up a mall full of women and children because Kenyans (along with Somalians, French, American, and Ethiopians) tried to stop their kidnapping/insurgency into Somalia? Why are you eating this propaganda?

What propaganda am I eating? What have I said that isn't accurate?

The "they're just defending themselves from intervention BS".

What evidence do you have that isn't a factor?

[awesome guy]

What evidence do you have that isn't a factor?

As much as you have that as a factor, none. And besides, it's Al Qaeda. They throw out any kind of half arsed reason to attack. They're just looking to spread Islam through force. So look at them as a gang. They can blame you for looking at them wrong to bring on an attack, but that's just an excuse and they would find any reason to attack. Your mistake is looking for a rational explanation for irrational actions by irrational people. Or if you want to accept the intervention BS, then why not go one step further where Al Queda interfered with Sudan, launching attacks against Kenyans and in Kenya? And so Kenya responded to their intervention and disregard for their sovereignty. Then you're back to Al Qaeda just spreading violence for the insult of not bowing down to Islam. They're thugs, don't legitimize their thuggery.

[Marine Hokie]

What evidence do you have that isn't a factor?

As much as you have that as a factor, none. And besides, it's Al Qaeda. They throw out any kind of half arsed reason to attack. They're just looking to spread Islam through force. So look at them as a gang. They can blame you for looking at them wrong to bring on an attack, but that's just an excuse and they would find any reason to attack. Your mistake is looking for a rational explanation for irrational actions by irrational people. Or if you want to accept the intervention BS, then why not go one step further where Al Queda interfered with Sudan, launching attacks against Kenyans and in Kenya? And so Kenya responded to their intervention and disregard for their sovereignty. Then you're back to Al Qaeda just spreading violence for the insult of not bowing down to Islam. They're thugs, don't legitimize their thuggery.

When a group consistently retaliates against foreign intervention, and claims that as a reason, I find no reason to not take them at their word. It seems silly to think that whenever a government gets involved in another place, particularly with military force, that sometimes there won't be someone upset enough to retaliate with violence.

I agree that we're talking about thugs, and have no intention of giving them legitimacy. I'm just pointing out that they're often responding to thuggery. Having a reason is not justification. Don't confuse my position.
You're the one buying into the pro-US/anti-muslim propaganda. Try and look at things without a pro-intervention, "we're better than you because we were born here and you were born there," anti-islamic bias. If you do that, you'll still see the muslim militants as thugs, the difference is that you'll recognize they aren't the only thugs.

[awesome guy]

What evidence do you have that isn't a factor?

As much as you have that as a factor, none. And besides, it's Al Qaeda. They throw out any kind of half arsed reason to attack. They're just looking to spread Islam through force. So look at them as a gang. They can blame you for looking at them wrong to bring on an attack, but that's just an excuse and they would find any reason to attack. Your mistake is looking for a rational explanation for irrational actions by irrational people. Or if you want to accept the intervention BS, then why not go one step further where Al Queda interfered with Sudan, launching attacks against Kenyans and in Kenya? And so Kenya responded to their intervention and disregard for their sovereignty. Then you're back to Al Qaeda just spreading violence for the insult of not bowing down to Islam. They're thugs, don't legitimize their thuggery.

When a group consistently retaliates against foreign intervention, and claims that as a reason, I find no reason to not take them at their word. It seems silly to think that whenever a government gets involved in another place, particularly with military force, that sometimes there won't be someone upset enough to retaliate with violence.

I agree that we're talking about thugs, and have no intention of giving them legitimacy. I'm just pointing out that they're often responding to thuggery. Having a reason is not justification. Don't confuse my position.
You're the one buying into the pro-US/anti-muslim propaganda. Try and look at things without a pro-intervention, "we're better than you because we were born here and you were born there," anti-islamic bias. If you do that, you'll still see the muslim militants as thugs, the difference is that you'll recognize they aren't the only thugs.

Whoa, the US, Israel, etc are the thugs? How? How are the guys responding to attacks from a group who has no legitimacy, but are always trouncing into sovereign nations to kill the infidels, thugs too? Al Qaeda has no nation or right to respond to any perceived insults towards them. That's not an anti-Muslim view, that's reality. They have no legal or moral basis to do what they do. And going way back to what started them off in the first place, the great insult was a non-muslim being on "muslim" soil. That's their grievance. And from there, a series of them attacking nations and then attacked nation responding, often with other nations aiding since they're so violent and atrocious. Which then just ticks them off more. It's assassine to call the US and really the west thugs for dealing with these nuts. Your are legitimizing them with your argument of them responding to [thuggery] of the west. Our [thuggery] was having a base in Saudi Arabia which was just too much for them to take, chiefly from the false prophet and violent religion they follow. So yes, I do look down on them, not from being born on the other side of the globe, but for following the teachings of a guy that sounds like he suffered from syphilis.

[Marine Hokie]

What evidence do you have that isn't a factor?

As much as you have that as a factor, none. And besides, it's Al Qaeda. They throw out any kind of half arsed reason to attack. They're just looking to spread Islam through force. So look at them as a gang. They can blame you for looking at them wrong to bring on an attack, but that's just an excuse and they would find any reason to attack. Your mistake is looking for a rational explanation for irrational actions by irrational people. Or if you want to accept the intervention BS, then why not go one step further where Al Queda interfered with Sudan, launching attacks against Kenyans and in Kenya? And so Kenya responded to their intervention and disregard for their sovereignty. Then you're back to Al Qaeda just spreading violence for the insult of not bowing down to Islam. They're thugs, don't legitimize their thuggery.

When a group consistently retaliates against foreign intervention, and claims that as a reason, I find no reason to not take them at their word. It seems silly to think that whenever a government gets involved in another place, particularly with military force, that sometimes there won't be someone upset enough to retaliate with violence.

I agree that we're talking about thugs, and have no intention of giving them legitimacy. I'm just pointing out that they're often responding to thuggery. Having a reason is not justification. Don't confuse my position.
You're the one buying into the pro-US/anti-muslim propaganda. Try and look at things without a pro-intervention, "we're better than you because we were born here and you were born there," anti-islamic bias. If you do that, you'll still see the muslim militants as thugs, the difference is that you'll recognize they aren't the only thugs.

Whoa, the US, Israel, etc are the thugs? How? How are the guys responding to attacks from a group who has no legitimacy, but are always trouncing into sovereign nations to kill the infidels, thugs too? Al Qaeda has no nation or right to respond to any perceived insults towards them. That's not an anti-Muslim view, that's reality. They have no legal or moral basis to do what they do. And going way back to what started them off in the first place, the great insult was a non-muslim being on "muslim" soil. That's their grievance. And from there, a series of them attacking nations and then attacked nation responding, often with other nations aiding since they're so violent and atrocious. Which then just ticks them off more. It's assassine to call the US and really the west thugs for dealing with these nuts. Your are legitimizing them with your argument of them responding to [thuggery] of the west. Our [thuggery] was having a base in Saudi Arabia which was just too much for them to take, chiefly from the false prophet and violent religion they follow. So yes, I do look down on them, not from being born on the other side of the globe, but for following the teachings of a guy that sounds like he suffered from syphilis.

Ah, so if the leaders of AQ make a constitution declaring themselves a government of a particular area, vote on it, and are able to maintain control for a while and get residents to suit to their rule, then they'll have legitimacy and no longer be thugs?

[awesome guy]

What evidence do you have that isn't a factor?

As much as you have that as a factor, none. And besides, it's Al Qaeda. They throw out any kind of half arsed reason to attack. They're just looking to spread Islam through force. So look at them as a gang. They can blame you for looking at them wrong to bring on an attack, but that's just an excuse and they would find any reason to attack. Your mistake is looking for a rational explanation for irrational actions by irrational people. Or if you want to accept the intervention BS, then why not go one step further where Al Queda interfered with Sudan, launching attacks against Kenyans and in Kenya? And so Kenya responded to their intervention and disregard for their sovereignty. Then you're back to Al Qaeda just spreading violence for the insult of not bowing down to Islam. They're thugs, don't legitimize their thuggery.

When a group consistently retaliates against foreign intervention, and claims that as a reason, I find no reason to not take them at their word. It seems silly to think that whenever a government gets involved in another place, particularly with military force, that sometimes there won't be someone upset enough to retaliate with violence.

I agree that we're talking about thugs, and have no intention of giving them legitimacy. I'm just pointing out that they're often responding to thuggery. Having a reason is not justification. Don't confuse my position.
You're the one buying into the pro-US/anti-muslim propaganda. Try and look at things without a pro-intervention, "we're better than you because we were born here and you were born there," anti-islamic bias. If you do that, you'll still see the muslim militants as thugs, the difference is that you'll recognize they aren't the only thugs.

Whoa, the US, Israel, etc are the thugs? How? How are the guys responding to attacks from a group who has no legitimacy, but are always trouncing into sovereign nations to kill the infidels, thugs too? Al Qaeda has no nation or right to respond to any perceived insults towards them. That's not an anti-Muslim view, that's reality. They have no legal or moral basis to do what they do. And going way back to what started them off in the first place, the great insult was a non-muslim being on "muslim" soil. That's their grievance. And from there, a series of them attacking nations and then attacked nation responding, often with other nations aiding since they're so violent and atrocious. Which then just ticks them off more. It's assassine to call the US and really the west thugs for dealing with these nuts. Your are legitimizing them with your argument of them responding to [thuggery] of the west. Our [thuggery] was having a base in Saudi Arabia which was just too much for them to take, chiefly from the false prophet and violent religion they follow. So yes, I do look down on them, not from being born on the other side of the globe, but for following the teachings of a guy that sounds like he suffered from syphilis.

Ah, so if the leaders of AQ make a constitution declaring themselves a government of a particular area, vote on it, and are able to maintain control for a while and get residents to suit to their rule, then they'll have legitimacy and no longer be thugs?

Yeah, they're just like us! When a muslim steps foot on American soil, we attack their nation of origin for such an offense. Better say your pledge of allegiance or prepare for death!

[USN_Hokie]

What evidence do you have that isn't a factor?

As much as you have that as a factor, none. And besides, it's Al Qaeda. They throw out any kind of half arsed reason to attack. They're just looking to spread Islam through force. So look at them as a gang. They can blame you for looking at them wrong to bring on an attack, but that's just an excuse and they would find any reason to attack. Your mistake is looking for a rational explanation for irrational actions by irrational people. Or if you want to accept the intervention BS, then why not go one step further where Al Queda interfered with Sudan, launching attacks against Kenyans and in Kenya? And so Kenya responded to their intervention and disregard for their sovereignty. Then you're back to Al Qaeda just spreading violence for the insult of not bowing down to Islam. They're thugs, don't legitimize their thuggery.

When a group consistently retaliates against foreign intervention, and claims that as a reason, I find no reason to not take them at their word. It seems silly to think that whenever a government gets involved in another place, particularly with military force, that sometimes there won't be someone upset enough to retaliate with violence.

I agree that we're talking about thugs, and have no intention of giving them legitimacy. I'm just pointing out that they're often responding to thuggery. Having a reason is not justification. Don't confuse my position.
You're the one buying into the pro-US/anti-muslim propaganda. Try and look at things without a pro-intervention, "we're better than you because we were born here and you were born there," anti-islamic bias. If you do that, you'll still see the muslim militants as thugs, the difference is that you'll recognize they aren't the only thugs.

Whoa, the US, Israel, etc are the thugs? How? How are the guys responding to attacks from a group who has no legitimacy, but are always trouncing into sovereign nations to kill the infidels, thugs too? Al Qaeda has no nation or right to respond to any perceived insults towards them. That's not an anti-Muslim view, that's reality. They have no legal or moral basis to do what they do. And going way back to what started them off in the first place, the great insult was a non-muslim being on "muslim" soil. That's their grievance. And from there, a series of them attacking nations and then attacked nation responding, often with other nations aiding since they're so violent and atrocious. Which then just ticks them off more. It's assassine to call the US and really the west thugs for dealing with these nuts. Your are legitimizing them with your argument of them responding to [thuggery] of the west. Our [thuggery] was having a base in Saudi Arabia which was just too much for them to take, chiefly from the false prophet and violent religion they follow. So yes, I do look down on them, not from being born on the other side of the globe, but for following the teachings of a guy that sounds like he suffered from syphilis.

Ah, so if the leaders of AQ make a constitution declaring themselves a government of a particular area, vote on it, and are able to maintain control for a while and get residents to suit to their rule, then they'll have legitimacy and no longer be thugs?

I think everyone understands that history is written by the victors, but WADR this is pretty cut and dry. Comparing the murder of 78 women and children in a mall to signing a declaration of independence is beyond absurd.

[Marine Hokie]

I think everyone understands that history is written by the victors, but WADR this is pretty cut and dry. Comparing the murder of 78 women and children in a mall to signing a declaration of independence is beyond absurd.

Once again, you're arguing against a point I didn't make.