Attackers Tweet As They Assault UN Development Program Compound 240
Koreantoast writes "In another interesting example of the increasing use and sophistication of social media by non-governmental organizations, the Somali-based Islamic insurgency al-Shabab live tweeted their latest attack, a suicide assault against a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) facility in Mogadishu which left 15 dead. During the event, they denounced UNDP, tweeting during the attack that the UN is 'a merchant of death & a satanic force of evil, has a long inglorious record of spreading nothing but poverty, dependency & disbelief' and proceeded to mock newly appointed UN Representative Nicholas Kay who is to arrive in Somalia later this month. Also of note is their initiation of communications with various press entities including the AP, BBC and IHS Janes through Twitter. Hat tip to Foreign Policy magazine for the story."
I am now immune to dystopic fantasy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the people who live there aren't doing a fucking thing about it are they? Do you think they don't know who it is?
Why is it they I'm guilty for standing aside and watching a crime against humanity, but they are absolved?
If they had such a problem against it, they'd do something about it. They do not. They are only slightly different than the ones actually perform the bombings.
dammit slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll bet clicking on that Twitter link put me on some kind of list, and I needed to fly somewhere later this month!
Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (Score:4, Interesting)
> These attacks would not have happened unless something was going on that they found
> objectionable enough to kill over.
I think it more likely that these attacks would have been differently justified. That or these attacks would have been different attacks. The group is a militant group with a clearly larger agenda than opposing the UN.
That said, the best propaganda does have some truth to it. If there wasn't some sentiment already in this direction, then these attacks would be pointless. I am reminded of the talk of newspeak and the idea that big brother being good could be so ingrained in a language that to even say the opposite would seem, on its face, wrong. Just try to replace the UN with the Redcross or Doctors without Borders, and a lot less of us will be sitting here saying "well they have a point..."
Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (Score:5, Interesting)
When is the rest of the world, going to finally have enough of these 'pease loving' American asshats and just start stomping them...HARD? They don't seem to want to play nice with the rest of the world, and frankly isn't everyone about to start getting tired of going out of our way to be some tolerant of those that show absolutely no tolerance to anyone different than they are?
Do some counting. Americans have killed a lot more innocent muslims in the middle east than muslims have killed innocent westerners. You are far more evil than those you claim to hate.
Re:Given the UN's track record in Africa... (Score:4, Interesting)
God is all powerful but in allowing free will (giving you the ability to choose) He has allowed evil as much as we desire it. People choose evil. You may not choose God. Who do you choose? If you are not for Him, you are against Him. Do you know who else is against God? Evil doesn't force itself on people. If God didn't allow this choice, you would be called a robot and have only good to do and not allowed to do anything else. The next logical question is why should there be free will. The answer is that love is only love when it is freely chosen. If your child is forced to love you, is it really love? If your child chooses to love you, you know the difference.
God is good, all the time. He does allow evil, but never condones approves or encourages priests to do evil things. That is each person's choice.
These are good questions. Keep them coming!