Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

U. S. Condemns Terror Attack In Somalia That Killed At Least 230

U. S. Condemns Terror Attack In Somalia That Killed At Least 230

Calls attacks “cowardly,” vows to continue fight against “scourge of terrorism”

Two truck bombs detonated in Somalia’s capital Mogadishu on Saturday, killing at least 230 people and wounding hundreds more.  Reports indicate that the Somali government believes al-Qaida-linked al-Shabab is responsible.

The United States has condemned the attack, calling it “cowardly,” and has vowed to continue to fight the “scourge of terrorism.”

The BBC reports:

A massive bomb attack in a busy area of the Somali capital Mogadishu on Saturday is now known to have killed at least 230 people, police say.

Hundreds more were wounded when a lorry packed with explosives detonated near the entrance of a hotel.

It is the deadliest terror attack in Somalia since the Islamist al-Shabab group launched its insurgency in 2007.

It is not clear who staged the bombing, but Mogadishu is a target for al-Shabab militants battling the government.

President Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmajo” Mohamed has declared three days of mourning for the victims of the blast.

Local media reported families gathering in the area on Sunday morning, looking for missing loved ones amid the ruins of one of the largest bombs ever to strike the city.

Police official Ibrahim Mohamed told AFP news agency the death toll is likely to rise. “There are more than 300 wounded, some of them seriously,” he said.

Officials also confirmed that two people were killed in a second bomb attack in the Madina district of the city.

The U. S. has condemned the attack and vowed to continue the fight against terrorism.

Fox News reports:

The death toll has risen to 231, with more than 275 people injured, after a truck bomb in Somalia that the U.S. government condemned Sunday as a “cowardly” attack.

“Such cowardly attacks reinvigorate the commitment of the United States to assist our Somali and African Union partners to combat the scourge of terrorism,” the U.S. mission to Somalia said in a statement.

The U.S. military this year has stepped up drone strikes and other efforts this year against the al-Qaida-linked al-Shabab, which is based in Somalia and often targets Mogadishu, the capital.

None of the roughly 400 U.S. troops in Somalia were hurt in the attack, a spokesman for the U.S. Africa Command told Fox News.

. . . .  Somalia’s government has blamed the al-Qaida-linked al-Shabab extremist group for the attack it called a “national disaster.” However, al-Shabab, which often targets high-profile areas of the capital with bombings, had yet to comment.

“They don’t care about the lives of Somali people, mothers, fathers and children,” Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire said. “They have targeted the most populated area in Mogadishu, killing only civilians.”

Somalia’s information minister, Abdirahman Omar, said the blast was the largest the city had ever seen. “It’s a sad day. This how merciless and brutal they are, and we have to unite against them,” he said, speaking to the state-run radio station.

Watch the report:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Summary of attack in one word,


Islam is the religion of peace. Just keep telling yourself that.

Slightly off topic, but I have never understood why the stock description
of these heinous attacks is “cowardly.” I mean, sure, it’s not good to be
cowardly, but is that really the first thing that jumps out at you here?
Lots of people are cowardly in various ways every day, but I wouldn’t equate
these shortcomings to the mass slaughter of hundreds of innocents. It is
like calling the terrorists rude. I doubt that the terrorists themselves
are much moved by the taunt. What does it even mean? Is there such a
thing as a non-cowardly terrorist attack? You might almost think that the
people saying this feel called upon to express disapproval but find terms
such as “evil” to be problematic.

American colonials hiding behind trees and using asymmetric warfare were “cowardly” in 1776. It is just really… How does one go toe to toe with a TOW or gunship? War isn’t civilized …. But we play like it does.

“Condemning” means little.

MOABs mean so much more.

Someone who volunteers for a suicide mission may be many things, but “cowardly” is probably not one of them. Nor is it likely that anyone contemplating such a thing is likely to consider it so.

One might describe the attack (or the attacker) as “depraved,” or find some other words to express extreme disapproval, but, calling it “cowardly” seems singularly inappropriate.

Who is presumed to be the audience for such a statement, what is it intended to accomplish and why, of all the words that might be used to disparage the act and the actor would the speaker choose “cowardly”?

    Albigensian, I think when U. S. presidents refers to terrorists as “cowardly” (Presidents Bush and Obama did it, too) they mean that though the terrorists deem themselves “soldiers for Allah,” they avoid engaging trained military forces, actual soldiers (Marines, et al.), preferring to target unarmed and innocent civilians.

    As to why they choose this word, “cowardly” is a powerful insult and is probably intended to discourage further potential terrorists from joining whatever jihadi group. Who wants to sign up for cowardice? Who knows if that works, but it can’t hurt.

    As to delusional fanatics being “brave” (or at least not cowardly) in choosing to die / become martyrs for their cause . . . that’s a matter of debate.