Tuesday, 9 January 2007

US Somali air strikes 'kill many'

The US has carried out at least two air strikes in southern Somalia against Islamist fighters, who the US believes include members of an al-Qaeda cell.


It appears if the US thinks it has justifiable reasons to bomb a country then it is justified.

Applying that logic, if I have a complaint against my neighbour playing their music too loud, I’m justified to enter their house and smash their Hi-fi.

Let us assume the top three al-Qaeda operatives in East Africa were staying in the village, does that justify the attack? Bombing a village was bound to result in killing innocent women and children, (obscenely referred to as “collateral damage” by the Americans). What is the acceptable level of collateral damage: one, two, ten children per Qaeda operative? Does the answer depend on whether they are American, European or African children?

Knowing the al-Qaeda operatives were in the village, why didn’t the Americas send in Special Forces to attack them? This would have minimised the loss of innocent lives. The answer is very simple - Black Hawk Down. The disastrous attack on Mogadishu in October 1993 and the subsequent humiliation for US troops has left a deep scar on the US psyche. No US General is going to sanction a similar mission. Attacks on Somali will be carried out at 30,000ft irrespective of the collateral damage.

Innocent men, women and children are being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and other countries, all in the name of the war against terrorism. Politicians say, “We are carrying the war to them”. In reality it means it’s acceptable to kill 1000 foreigners if it saves 1 life in the streets of London or New York.

What am I worth?

What level of collateral damage is justifiable, to ensure I am safe to walk the streets of London?

No comments: