home

What's Going On in Somalia?

Now the U.S. is killing suspected Islamocists in Somalia in the name of the war on terror. But it's not releasing any details.

Are we about to get into another pre-emptive war or are we trying to bring democracy to Somalia or do we just believe we can go anywhere in the world and kill people because they might be al-Qaida followers?

Thoughts?

< NOLA Judge Jails Public Defender | U.S. Knew of Homicidal Tendencies of Mahmoudiya Soldier-Killer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    it's another oil country (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by profmarcus on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:03:32 AM EST
    we don't really care how bad the local regime is, as long as whoever's in charge gives us unrestricted access to the country's energy resources, e.g., equatorial guinea... obviously, there was a concern that somalia's energy resources might end up in unfriendly hands, so we had to convincingly demonstrate just who the big dog really is...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally


    WHATS GOING ON? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Peaches on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    As usual, its oil

    From 1993 when the first Bush was sending troops to Somalia:

    Nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there.

    Officially, the Administration and the State Department insist that the U.S. military mission in Somalia is strictly humanitarian. Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as "absurd" and "nonsense" allegations by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake.

    But corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified. And the State Department and U.S. military officials acknowledge that one of those oil companies has done more than simply sit back and hope for pece.

    At the moment there are officially no proven oil reserves in Somalia, but exploration rights helkd by ConocoPhillips are promising and the discovery of new fields is "likely." For oil companies the discovery of new reserves are crucial for investers looking at their books on Wall street.

    Evidence? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 05:09:22 PM EST
    Nice to see you back here commenting, Peaches. But I have to disagree about Somali oil, driving the current fighting. Ethiopia took the lead on this front of the fight against Islamists and seem driven by a fear of a fundamentalist state on their doorstep.

    Suddenly, the US is involved and--rather than believe that it also is concerned with Islamists--you jump to a decade-and-a-half old article that says that maybe-just-maybe-but-we-have-no-evidence that oil interests were involved in intervention back then.

    That seems awfully farfetched, especially given that we're using airstrikes against al-Qaida and Ethiopia has indicated that it's not going to occupy the country.

    Parent

    final words (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by aahpat on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    For some reason, when I think about America today I am reminded of the last words heard by the members of the MOVE organization prior to the police firing more than ten-thousands rounds into their home. Police chief Gregor Sambor got on a bull horn and stated: "MOVE, this is America come out with your hands up."

    This could easily be the motto of America:

    this is America come out with your hands up!

    this is America come out with your hands up!

    this is America come out with your hands up!

    It also fits nicely in with (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Peaches on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    what we are doing in Iraq, what we are planning for Iran and all the the other geopolitics we are currently engaged in the ME.

    Salim Lone, the former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq yesterday on Democracy Now:

    Somalia sits at the tip of what is called the Horn of Africa. This is one of the most strategic regions in the world, after the Middle East, because through the Red Sea, you have daily, you know, scores of oil tankers and warships passing back and forth, because of the wars in the Middle East. It also is newly oil-rich. There are extensive reports, terrible reports, that Somalia now also has oil, just like most other countries in the region have.

    The US has a huge military base in Djibouti, which is neighboring Somalia. And, in fact, so important is Africa to the US now, especially this region of Africa, which also contains, by the way, Sudan -- you know, there was a big long civil war, brutal civil war, in southern Sudan. There's another brutal civil war in Darfur in Sudan. Ethiopia itself is a dictatorship. It lost the election last year, but by true force continued to assume power, Meles Zenawi, with the help of the US. The US has very close ties; it's training the military in Ethiopia. So the US in now going to have a new army command, like CENTCOM, for Africa. There's never been a US command specifically for Africa, but there's going to be one now, and it is going to be in the Horn of Africa.

    This is a very turbulent region. And the best way to look at this region is to imagine for a second that this very narrow Red Sea doesn't exist, and then you see that Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, all these countries are just a few miles from Saudi Arabia and Yemen and Iraq. And so, this region is very much a part of the Middle East, has centuries of trade, and also with India and the countries over there. It's a crossroads. And the US wants to make sure it dominates it fully, and it wanted a client regime in Somalia. And that's what it has managed to do, although I'm sure it's going to be temporary. There is going to be a lot of fighting against this regime.



    Yes, indeedy, Somalia would make a dandy... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    ...staging area for an attack on Iran and within the Horn of Africa AGAINST Chinese interests, HERE:

    The Horn of Africa has become an increasingly important region for China. Of the five countries--Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia/Somaliland--that constitute the Horn, Sudan looms especially large. China receives 7 percent of its oil from Sudan, has invested millions in Sudan's oil sector, and supports Khartoum as it faces international condemnation for its handling of the crisis in Darfur. China's engagement in tiny Djibouti and the still-struggling state of Somalia and its breakaway sister, Somaliland, is modest. Surprisingly, China's growing ties with neighboring Ethiopia and Eritrea have thus far escaped extensive review.

    We are being beaten out of the free market by China's aggressive oil PURCHASING from any/all countries, while China simultaneously loans us more than enough money to bankrupt us at will by starting a run on the dollar.

    Nice to see ya back, Peaches.

    Parent

    Bill, look at a globe (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    Somalia is a long way from Iran.

    The staging areas would be Iraq, SA, Kuwait and the varous Gulf states. That is IF we would actually invade, which we would never do. Air and naval power could do the trick nicely.

    Parent

    Reeling under personal attacks (1.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Fredo on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    Goodness gracious!  In the matter of a few hours, Fredo has been accused of submitting a post that is "fraught with racism," and of being "despicable."  There is even a request that one of Fredo's posts be deleted!  Again, perhaps Fredo has a dirty mind, but in the absence of principled instruction to the contrary he is inclined to suspect that the heavy, jack-booted heel of fascist censorship is at work here, instead of the spirit of free-wheeling and tolerant debate upon which the Left supposedly prides itself.  This could become downright disillusioning.

    Do any of you have experience with campus hate-speech committees?  If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to weigh in in this matter.  I think there is a felt need to stamp out these dissenting voices who threaten to depart from the received orthodoxy.  Let us do so in the name of something more lofty than mere censorship of those who disagree with us.

    Fredo (3.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    Fredo, I think you're raising interesting points for discussion, but as a matter of courtesy, could you adopt a less grating tone? I'm not calling for deletion or accusing of racism or despicableness, or whatever. And, certainly, you have a right to write in whatever manner you choose. But if your intent is to have a discussion, rather than just be an annoyance, you'll probably have more luck if write without the third person singular.

    Parent
    I wont be partisan on this. (none / 0) (#1)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:08:00 AM EST
    Lets let a few more hundred thousand die because it is not sexy.  The Islamists here are bad people.  Some bad people have been killed but there are very more that threaten stability here.  Please, it shouldnt be a party issue but a - lets avoid a genocide issue, like Rwanda.  Chide the UN, as well as the US, to stabilize the situation.

    I haven't followed the Somalia/Ethiopia (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:16:24 AM EST
    situation very much at all, so I don't have enough knowledge of it to comment intelligently, but here is a little bit of background on it. I do not know how valid this is:

    January 10, 2007, Strategy Page:

    Ethiopia apparently sent in only about 5,000 troops. As is often the case in peacekeeping missions, these trained soldiers quickly dispersed the untrained militias of the Islamic Courts. Dispersed, but not destroyed.
    ...
    The Islamic Courts proved to be more talk than action during December, when they enthusiastically trash-talked the Ethiopians, then quickly folded when pressed. Now the Islamic Courts leadership has been advised, by al Qaeda, to launch a guerilla war against the Transitional Government.
    ...
    Without peacekeepers, or perhaps even with them, Somalia seems likely to slide back into its constant, centuries old, cycle of clan feuds and anarchy. This makes al Qaeda inspired guerilla war redundant. And the neighbors know that, and don't want any part of it. Looks like Somalia is going to have to supply its own peacekeepers, or slide back into chaos. In this respect, they may be aided by U.S. Special Forces. These fellows are from a counter-terrorism task force that has been operating up north (in Djibouti) for five years.

    San Jose Mercury News also has this to say today (you'll need to pass the registration wall)
    Four-nation effort targets Al-Qaida forces in Somalia:

    U.S. officials said they did not know whether any Al-Qaida operatives were killed Sunday in a U.S. airstrike -- the first known U.S. offensive action in Somalia in more than a decade -- or in other encounters over the past few days.

    ``We have nothing that gives us truth. There's lots of speculation,'' said a U.S. official in Washington who requested anonymity because the operations were ongoing. ``We know who we thought we were targeting, and . . . we don't know who we hit.''



    From CBS (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:15:16 AM EST
    From  CBS.

    In an interview published Tuesday in the French newspaper Le Monde, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said that suspected terrorists from Canada, Britain, Pakistan and elsewhere were among those captured or killed during recent military operations.

    It's pretty plain that Ethiopia understands that if Somalia falls to the radical moslems it will be  next on their list. They have attacked and driven the terrorists south into a compact area that lends itself to air operations.

    Our response appears timely and effective in supporting the UN backed government in Somalia. If you want to avoid big wars you have to fight earlier.

    Another African Domino theory. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Mreddieb on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:55:48 AM EST
    Wow that's a totally new concept! The next thing all of Asia will fall to the Commies!

    Parent
    The question is... (none / 0) (#5)
    by madmatt on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    would the people of somalia rather have islamic stability or constant war...looks like the US is going to give them constant war and corruption.

    madmatt (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    Well, the current government is UN backed. Supposedly that means something.

    But what you appear to be saying is that if the radical moslems attack, a country should not be defended because that would harm "stability."

    There's another word for that, "surrender."

    Parent

    A Matter of History (none / 0) (#53)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 04:49:53 PM EST
    In addition to Jim's objection, I want to note that the quest for stability was what led us to tolerating third-world dictators during the Cold War. That aspect of realist thought has been criticized ever since (and justifiably, if you ask me). Certainly it is what has given rise to the claims that "we" created Saddam Hussein and that "we" supported the Taliban in the 1980s.

    That may have been okay for Kissinger and the other realists. But we should examine carefully what tradeoffs are made in the quest for "stability." It just may come back to haunt us...

    Parent

    Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    an attempt to create "stability" most likely  causes further instability.

    Sometimes its better to let the chips fall where they may, "interests" be damned.

    I just know I'm tired of turning on the news and seeing bombs drop on people from my country's planes.  They plaster a mug shot of some dude all over the tv.  Can we trust them?  There is no credibility left...I don't know what to believe.  

    No other country has ever dropped bombs on our soil since Japan...we've dropped so freakin' many.  The worst we had since Pearl Harbor was some Muslim crazies kamikaze'd 3 planes and a crazy white dude with a car bomb.  In global terms...total peanuts.

    Fredo's right about one thing...dropping bombs on people is a bi-partisan love affair.  Bush has just taken it to new deranged heights.  

    Parent

    Well, "interests" is right... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    That's the big question. We've got 'em both domestic and foreign. I'm not willing to give 'em up. I think that our interests are mostly reasonable. It's the means to achieving and protecting them that need adjustment.

    Parent
    Huge question... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    and whose interests?  

    I see a lot of unreasonable, and betrayals of our ideals in the achieving and protecting.

    Parent

    Effective? ::Effective::??? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:28:58 AM EST
    said a U.S. official in Washington ... "We know who we thought we were targeting, and . . . we don't know who we hit."
    It appears ::timely:: only by those who need to justify themselves and see it as an opportunity to create more terrorists, IMO.

    Somalia seems likely to slide back into its constant, centuries old, cycle of clan feuds and anarchy. This makes al Qaeda inspired guerilla war redundant. And the neighbors know that...

    Ethiopia is one of Somalias' neighbors.

    Edger (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    Well, an opinion is an opinion. The argument that killing terrorists create more terrorists is based on the fact that collateral damage outrages the non-terrorists, etc. The outrage may be there, but I think most people are willing to accept the fact that the terrorists being there is the real problem.

    Parent
    opinions? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    From the WAPO article:
    In Mogadishu, the Somali capital, reports circulated that as many as 50 people, many of them civilians, were killed in the attack by a U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship. U.S. officials said they are fairly certain that at least one targeted individual was hit

    How about some "wild speculations"? Lets' assume those 50 people all had a mother and a father. That makes as many as 50 civilians + 100 more civilians. Let's further assume that on average they all had 1 brother or sister. Probably more - I don't know the birth rate in the area - but we'll be conservative here. That's another 50 civilians.

    50+100+50 = 200.

    Let's stretch even further and assume thay all have at least 1 friend.

    200+200=400 people.

    Let's say all their friends have at least 1 friend.

    400+400=800 people who have good reason to hate the US government.

    I suspect that those 800 have friends and families who have friends and families, etc, etc, etc.

    I could go on but you get the drift, I'm sure.

    said a U.S. official in Washington ... "We know who we thought we were targeting, and . . . we don't know who we hit."

    ...but they think that maybe they got one al-quaeda member. Maybe...

    The entire history of US foreign policy and military actions in the area has been one of incredible bumbling, and misery and death for the people there, Jim.

    Of course, they are all inconsequential, brown, 'collateral damage', right? So big deal.... why should anyone care about them?

    Parent

    edger it is your opinion (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    that collateral damage creates terrorists.

    If that were true, then bombing in Poland, or France, etc., during WWII would have created more Nazis.  Now you can argue that the people in WWII were mostly more educated and from a different culture, and that is true. But if you use that argument, then you are saying that the people involved in Somalia, Iraq, etc., are not intelligent enough to understand cause and effect. That the terrorists come first, and then the US inflicted damage. It also ignores the fact that many of those killed are by the very terrorists we are hunting.

    Your argument also implies that the people involved are willing to accept the terrorists as a "government," and are willing to accept the actions of that government and defend those actions.

    I don't claim that the above is "cut and dried." I think the making of a terrorists is complex and includes many components. But it is not as simplistic as your examples.

    Parent

    You can read whatever yuou want into (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    what I said, Jim.

    But don't ry to imply that I said what you try to imply that I said.

    Go tell it to the families and friends of the 50 dead people in Mogadishu...

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:09:51 AM EST
    I noted that was what your argument implies. And it does. That's a simple fact. And it does. i.e.

    If collateral damage by itself creates terrorists, it should have in WWII unless there is a difference in the education level and culture between the two societies.

    I think the answer is more complex, and the citizens of Somalia are capable of understanding. By your argument you do not.

    I also noted that it wasn't a simple cause and effect situation. It is complex.

    As O'Reilly says, I'll give you the last word.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Imply away, Jim... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    Actually, Jim... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    I think most people are willing to accept the fact that the terrorists being there is the real problem.

    The problem is that whenever you try to think you always get yourself in trouble:

    A majority of Americans believe that the way the United States has been using the threat of military force has diminished U.S. security.

    Two out of three believe that countries around the world have grown more afraid that the United States will use force against them and the same number thinks this is bad for U.S. security ...

    Americans believed current policies had provoked fear abroad causing countries to react in ways that make the United States less secure. "Most Americans now believe that the recent thrust of U.S. foreign policy has backfired,"
    ...
    A large majority disagrees that terrorist groups should be dealt with solely through military action. Only 35 percent accept the argument that "the only way to counter the threat of terrorism is to find and destroy terrorists. It is naïve and pointless to try to understand their intentions or imagine that we can address any of their concerns."

    Sixty-one percent favor the alternative view that trying to destroy terrorists may not work because "if we are too heavy-handed, it just breeds more hostility and more terrorists.

    Link

    Parent
    another war crime (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:04:25 PM EST
    using airstrikes to take out individuals is a war crime. There isn't any even pretended way to minimize civilian casualties.

    BTW, the gov't may be backed by the UN, but the US unilateral airstrikes aren't (again, preemptive war is a listed war crime):

    The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is concerned that US bombing in southern Somalia where Uganda plans to send peacekeeping troops could escalate hostilities and harm civilians. According to the UN spokesperson Michele Montas notwithstanding the motives for the reported military action, the secretary-general is concerned about the new dimension the action could introduce to the conflict.


    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:19:36 PM EST
    I doubt that there was any even pretended attempt or intention to minimize civilian casualties.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 05:52:36 PM EST
    At one time a majority thought the earth was flat.

    That didn't make it true.

    There is a vast difference between people being hostile towards us and being terrorists.

    The first is easily understandable and undoubtedly why the "poll" had the results stated.

    The actual making of a terrorist is more complex.


    Parent

    jim, you're a mind reader now? (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:38:07 AM EST
    But what you appear to be saying is that if the radical moslems attack, a country should not be defended because that would harm "stability."

    There's another word for that, "surrender."

    the question is, who should do the defending? is this in our national self-interest? in this case, probably so, for reasons beyond oil. of course, it would be easier to see this with a more trustworthy administration in the white house.

    anytime you have a country in chaos (and somalia was in chaos, in spite of the islamacist court) it leaves it wide open for exploitation by terrorists and criminals. clearly, this is not in our self-interest. that it has significant oil reserves certainly made it more attractive (and probably tipped the balance) to decide to use our military resources.

    whether this will turn out well remains to be seen. the best outcome would have been for ethiopia to have been able to destroy them beyond any usefulness, and reinforce the legitimate government. unfortunately, ethiopia couldn't really afford the means necessary to do that.


    cpinva (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    Madmatt asked a question:

    would the people of somalia rather have islamic stability or constant war

    He then answers his own question:

    looks like the US is going to give them constant war and corruption.

    Given that islamic stability can only come through the islamic radicals in charge, and that these radicals have invaded, then surrender would be the correct answer for stability.

    His comment re "constant war" is an opinion that reflects, I think, his politics. Another choice would be stability and freedom through defeating the terrorists.

    I'll place the oil argument aside. I have no doubt that it is in the mix, the western world runs on oil, but I think the real deal is that the terrorists were trying to take advantage of the weak UN approved government and sieze power. Ethiopia, a non moslem country, appears to have recognized that it was not in its interest to have a radical molsem country on its borders, and acted early enough to stop the radicals.

    Our part appears to be what the Left would cheer.

    Limited engagement focused on a particular problem. Very much like the criminal justice strategy that has been called for by many on this blog rather than the "take, hold and change" strategy Bush has used.

    It appears that there is nothing the US can do that will satisfy these critics.

    Parent

    Ans to your question........ (none / 0) (#12)
    by Skyho on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    "Are we about to get into another pre-emptive war or are we trying to bring democracy to Somalia or do we just believe we can go anywhere in the world and kill people because they might be al-Qaida followers?"  --  Jeralyn

    Naw,

    GWBush is simply following the script laid out ever so carefully by bin Laden.

    You know, the one from bin Ladens speech where he said:

    All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

    in his taped message of October, 2004.

    I'm not certain who is the greater moron, GWBush or the cretains keeping the freak in office.

    Somalia... (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    will be fodder for Bush's Big Speech tonite. It will be touted as another glorious victory in the battle against "terror."

    Funny they do this on the eve of his prime time event.

    Somalia, I believe, but haven't researched, is rich in natural gas.

    fodder for Bush's Big Speech (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    Wouldn't surprise me. After all... just look at all the terrorists there.

    "We have to fight (create) 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here"...

    :-/

    Parent

    anti-American anger (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:02:01 AM EST
    International Herald Tribune has a good article about this today:
    News of the attack immediately set off new waves of anti-American anger in Mogadishu, where the United States has a complicated legacy. A target of the U.S. strikes was Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, shown in an FBI poster.
    ...fold...
    Barwaqho Mohammed Osman, a mother of two, stood in the street this morning with plastic bags of groceries in her hands and no way to get home.

    Ethiopian soldiers told her that her neighborhood had been sealed off because of the raids. When Ms. Osman tried to plead with them, witnesses said, the soldiers clicked the safeties off their guns and told her to go.

    "Why did our president bring in these people?" she fumed. "They are occupiers, and if they keep this up, they will fail at every step."



    Going Anywhere in the World (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fredo on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:20:17 AM EST
    I think the answer to Jearlyn's rhetorical question is that we certainly feel we can go anywhere in the world to kill people who murder our citizens, particularly when invited to do so by the government of the country in which the murderers are found.  This is by no means a novel approach; witness the Israeli approach to Nazis hiding around the world.

    Just eactly WHO invited us? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Mreddieb on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    We install a Govt. Then to everyones suprise, the New pupet Govt invites us to Bomb like mad anywhere and anyone we want. After all we wouldn't want anyone to think we are Imperialists, would we?


    Parent
    And who convicted anyone of murder? And then... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    ...asked the U.S. to play executioner? With the deaths of many innocents guaranteed due to our favored method of extra-judicial killing - precision bombs dropped from great height, for there ARE NO MORE SOLDIERS for us to dispatch anywhere except in very small numbers.

    Military intervention with the hopes of MAYBE killing ONE al-Qaede member - along with dozens of innocents, Jeralyn.

    Bush needs a "hook" for his speech tonight.

    Parent

    Bush: (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    "For My Next Trick I'll Bomb Somalia"
    Not that we should mock. At first blush, the Somalia raid (or raids) looks like just the kind of action that a global war on terror should entail, had it not been diverted by the unrelated nonsense about WMD and Iraq.

    After all, the Americans say they aimed their fire on Sunday at al-Qaida bigwigs, thought to be responsible for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Zapping bad guys like them is exactly what the war on terror was supposed to be about.

    But Sunday's operation carried serious risks. There is the propaganda coup - with the jihadist enemy represented by the US, once again, bombing a Muslim country.

    If the Americans have bungled, and civilians have been killed, then the recruiting impact for al-Qaida and others will be even greater. And the precedents suggest such raids from the sky are horribly inaccurate.



    Thinly veiled bigotry, Jimbo (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    If collateral damage by itself creates terrorists, it should have in WWII unless there is a difference in the education level and culture between the two societies.

    Not education, but global access. The ideological basis, and tactical strategies for conflicts today are different. There was no way for those civilians that were bombed in WWII to retaliate aganst us. For example, it may have taken weeks for news to travel to certain areas. And for the US the war only lasted for 4 years. Not much time for any civilian population to mount an insurgency against a country thousands of miles away, across an ocean. Today we have instant communications, transnational highways in the air and perpetual war. The conflicts today, and the social/political consequences, violent or not, cannot be compaered to WWII.

    Chebo (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    Note: I just finsihed replying to your comment and hit post and it disappeared. Don't know what happened...

    I can't imagine why you find my remarks racist. In fact, if you will read:

    If collateral damage by itself creates terrorists, it should have in WWII unless there is a difference in the education level and culture between the two societies.

    I think the answer is more complex, and the citizens of Somalia are capable of understanding. By your argument you do not.

    That clearly is a positive comment re Somalia. That last sentence was directed at Edger and implies that Edger thinks they are not capable of understanding.

    BTW - You may find this news, but they had radio, telephone, telegraph and newspapers in Europe during WWII. TV was most likely there, but in the lab. Not to mention carrier pigeons and runner.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Whats the differance between Somolia and Darfur? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mreddieb on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    I am hard pressed to understand our involvement choices in Africa. Where over a Half million innocents are being raped and slaughtered, there seems a rather plentiful pile of "We can't get involved" arguments. Yet I find out with little or no discussion our Military has intervened in the affairs of a sovereign Nation? If anyone thinks this entire invasion into this country was not a direct result of Bushbag's meddeling you probably think Iraq is a complete success and Mission is accomplished too!

    a couple of things: (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    che, you're quite wrong. there were insurgents in germany, at war's end, composed of both (probably SS) soldiers & civilians. they attacked occupying allied troops, after donitz signed the surrender docs. they were quickly squashed by the allies, who took a tack from the nazis: kill one of ours, and ten of yours get killed. not saying it was right or wrong, just that it was.

    It appears that there is nothing the US can do that will satisfy these critics.

    jim, let's be very clear about this: it isn't the US, it's the bush administration. up until recently, the republican controlled congress as well. both deserve the scorn heaped upon them, for their lies, corruption and ineptitude.

    after the past 6 years, suddenly, we're supposed to take them at their word? well pal, you may have swallowed a hearty helping o' that koolaid, but i haven't. nor, have the majority of the country's adult population, if the latest polls are to be believed.

    oh hell, forget the polls, does the date nov. 7, 2006 ring a bell? i thought that it would.


    cpinva (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:37:54 PM EST
    I hate to bring history into this but the Left's criticism of anything American is well established. And yes, I'm going back to Vietnam..

    My point remains. These actions would be my vision of a criminal justice response. Evidently any direct response is too much for some on the Left.

    And I understand that you hate Bush. Noted. But be careful. Many in those polls are unhappy because they don't like not winning immediately and because the MSM has carried the Leftist Demos' water, singing "we can't win, we can't win." Not because of any deep unhappiness with Repubs in general. The Demos control the Senate by 1 seat and several elections were by very slim margins.

    Remember.

    Ford created Carter and Carter created Reagan.

    Happiness is wanting what you get. Enjoy the moment.

     

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#64)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:58:24 PM EST
    Would be Hilarious if it weren't so Tragic... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:20:59 AM EST
    A guy who still justifies the CIA's creation of Bin Laden's Afghan army and who still justifies the invasion of Iraq is trying to warn everyone about unintended consequences.

    Parent
    Here come the justifications, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    and the lies, and the backpedalling:

    CAIRO, Jan 10 (Reuters) - The Arab League said on Wednesday U.S. military action in Somalia had killed "many innocent victims" and demanded that Washington refrain from such attacks.
    ...
    ...U.S. officials said there had been no new U.S. air strikes in Somalia since an operation on Monday, and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi also said there had been only one U.S. air attack with no civilian casualties.

    U.S. government sources said U.S. ally Ethiopia, which defeated Islamist forces in a lightning war last month, had conducted further air strikes since Monday.

    In Cairo, the Arab League's Assistant Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Hilli said: "We demand that these strikes which now target civilians and led to the killing of many innocent victims be stopped."

    "There was no U.N. Security Council authorisation for the U.S. forces to hit Somali areas," he told reporters.

    No new U.S. air strikes since Monday? How nice. Don't be so hard on these guys. They care. :-/

    Only one U.S. air attack with no civilian casualties. It never happened.

    And then there's THIS blast from the past... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    ...goin' all the way back to 1993 and bush 1:

    HERE:

    Four giant US oil companies stand to make a killing in Somalia if US troops can pacify the strategic African nation, the Los Angeles Times has revealed. The report further undermines US claims that the invasion was a "humanitarian mission" rather than one to defend US military and economic interests in the region.
    The report, which appeared on January 18, revealed that almost two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips by the pro-US dictator Mohamed Siad Barre. Barre was overthrown in January 1991.
    It seems a significant motive behind the decision of US President George Bush, a former Texas oil magnate, to send troops to Somalia may have been protecting the oil industry's multimillion-dollar investments there.

    Seems to me we just need to change the dates and we have pretty much the same ole story.

    Read the link; quite edifying.

    Parent

    perhaps one is cynical... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:53:45 PM EST
    enough to try and divert away from discussions of Mogadishu to anything else, anytime else, anywhere else...but for gawd's sake (sorry, I mean bushs' sake) just don't talk about 50 dead civilians targeted in Mogadishu.....
    whatever you do.

    Being on the right side of this war on terror = $$ (none / 0) (#37)
    by avahome on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    Ethiopia's Zenawi exploits the "War on Terror"
    http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=12757

    Your tax dollars at work:
    excerpt:
    George W Bush administration which has anointed him as an ally on the open ended "War on Terror" in the Horn of Africa. He is propped up by the U.S. and the international financial institutions. From the U.S. alone, he receives $800 million a year and $500 million worth of food assistance. Ethiopia is set to have its debt cancelled that will forgive $18.3bn owed to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and others.

    The (none / 0) (#38)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    dude hit did bomb the embassies in '96.  If that is not a good reason for the peace-at-any-costers then next time we are bombed, we should just keep the embassies closed.

    Wile, you mean they THINK that along with... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    ...the innocent Somalians killed, amongst them MIGHT have been planner of the Embassy bombings.

    Parent
    What you mean is that (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    along with the planner of the embassy bombings that MIGHT have been killed, some somalis who
    MIGHT have been innocent MIGHT have been killed.

    Parent
    No 'mights' about it Wile (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:48:32 PM EST
    'Many dead' in US air strikes on Somalia
    An AC130 warplane strafed the village of Hayo near the Kenyan border late yesterday afternoon, leaving "many dead", according to the Somali government. Ras Kamboni, on the country's southernmost tip, was also said to have been hit.

    Another air strike killed up to 31 people this morning near the town of Afmadow, 220 miles southwest of the capital, Mogadishu, according to local witnesses and officials.
    ...
    Richard Cornwell, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, said the strikes showed that cooperation between Ethiopia and the US over the Somalia incursion had been far closer than suspected, and was critical of the manner of the attack.

    "The AC130 is an appallingly blunt instrument and I very much doubt it can be used to target individuals," he said. "To kill alleged terrorists regardless of collateral damage is highly hypocritical."



    Parent
    Shame on you, Edger (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:16:52 AM EST
    He likes reading about bad darkies being killed off. You're ruining his buzz.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#89)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    Not even worth replying.  what lurks in your mind?  

    Parent
    Might is Right (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 01:07:50 AM EST
    There's never been a show of indiscriminate force againt a third world country mentioned on here that you haven't tried to defend, has there?

    Parent
    wrong again wile (none / 0) (#78)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:11:19 AM EST
    A top US official in the region said Thursday that none of the al-Qaida suspects believed to be hiding in Somalia died in a US airstrike this weekI don't know how you guys can keep falling for the roadrunner routine.

    Parent
    Total Silence From Wile on this (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 01:09:01 AM EST
    Speaks volumes!

    Parent
    WSWS: new stage in illegal "terror" war (none / 0) (#43)
    by Andreas on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    The recent attacks, part of an intensified attempt to establish American hegemony over the entire Horn of Africa, have heightened the threat that the conflict in Somalia will ignite a regional war with unforeseeable consequences. ...

    The direct US military intervention is in part a product of the Bush administration's inability to rely on various proxies it had hoped would be able to advance Washington's plans.

    The US response to the driving out of its military from the capital Mogadishu in 1993 was first to turn to the UN in an effort to subjugate the country, then to back various warlords and finally to sponsor the creation of the TFG. However, this only fuelled anti-US sentiment and encouraged popular support for the Union of Islamic Courts.

    The US-backed December 24 invasion of Somalia by up to 15,000 well-armed Ethiopian troops, backed by MIG jet fighters, appeared to easily sweep away the poorly-equipped Islamist militia. But having successfully ousted the UIC regime by using Ethiopia, Washington has nothing to replace it with that can stabilize the country. Instead, the conflict unleashed in Somalia together with Washington's plans to encourage other states to act as its military proxies threatens to destablise the entire Horn of Africa.

    Air strikes on Somalia: A new stage in Washington's illegal "terror" war
    By Chris Marsden, 10 January 2007


    Historical & political analysis (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    Somalia at the crossroads
    The area the US planes are bombing is a large jungle stretching for about 200 kilometres along the Somalia-Kenya border where the ICU militias are putting up stiff resistance. The US's main military objective is to crush the remnants of the ICU to a point of no return. The ICU here may still have more than 2,000 men in arms and ready to fight. The Somali media report that Ethiopian troops on the ground took heavy casualties on 7-8 January and hence asked for the US bombardment. Ethiopian MIG jets themselves had been bombing this area for about ten days but are unlikely to have the capacity for the pinpoint strikes that the US's superior technology can guarantee.

    In all this military escalation, it is too easy to forget that innocent civilians - including those already displaced by and fleeing from the war - are being killed, perhaps in considerable numbers. Some farmers of the region are also losing the animals that are the foundation of their livelihood. This situation has the ingredients of a humanitarian disaster that compounds Somalia's already endemic human insecurity.



    cpinva (none / 0) (#48)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    I never said there wasn't resistance in Europe. My point was that there was no ability for them to organize internationally, and thus continue violent resistance, and the fact that there were so few of them. There's really still no comparison.

    More to it. (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:05:07 PM EST
    The point is that, basically, there was a very small amount of terrorist type activity, despite a huge amount of collateral damage, deaths, suffering, etc.

    I have no way of knowing, but I would guess that the collateral damage inflicted during WWII is  1000 times all of the collateral damage inflicted on the ME since 1940. So there is more to it than just collateral damage.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#74)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:19:24 AM EST
    collateral damage (none / 0) (#57)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    Collateral damage is a fact of war.  Grow up and face the fact.  The other side already knows it-various Islamic suicide bombers often purely target civilians without even the excuse of targeting a military target, and they sure don't try to avoid needless civilian deaths.
    The Israelis have it right-kill the leaders.  The leaders are never suicide bombers themselves because they enjoy money, power and women.  Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein were chicken hawks.  If it is clear that suicide bombings will result in a loss of the leader's life (and thus earthly joys and money), things change.  Look at how Qaddafi stopped being a terrorist after his tents were bombed by Reagan.  

    diogenes (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    it's probably not a good idea for you to be even remotely suggesting going after bush that way here. The NSA might read your comment one day...

    Parent
    It is a fact of war... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    which is why you don't go to war unless you have to.  Saddam, Osama, Bush and Cheney..chickenhawks all.  Though the ultimate chicken hawk is the entire USofA for dropping bombs from high altitude to execute some murderers, innocent lives be damned.  We all pay for it, we're all ultimately responsible.  I know I feel sick and powerless about it.

    I say its cowardly with 2 big oceans protecting us....cowardly and reprehensible.


    Parent

    Diogenes (none / 0) (#70)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    The Israelis have it right-kill the leaders.  

    Did you read Utopia, by Thomas More. In it, I believe, he advocates such a policy. But his book should not be taken as a serious dissertation on society.

    Look at how Qaddafi stopped being a terrorist after his tents were bombed by Reagan.  

    And killed his child.

    Che - Answer this, please. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:15:14 AM EST
    And how many parents lost their children in the bombings Qaddafi was responsibke for?

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#79)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    Sigh (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    So it's okay to kill a child? Yew need ta git beyond that "somebody gotta pay" mentality, baw. Though I dont see it happening.

    Yes (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    And, am I to assume that means all leaders "responsible" for bombings in which children are killed should get a what Qaddafi; taking into account hypocritical double standards and all..

    ..should get what Qaddafi got. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:48:08 AM EST


    Collateral damage (none / 0) (#80)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    is a fact of war. Except that we were not at war with Libya. Tit for tat is not a valid foreign policy, unless you are stuck in adolescence.

    tit for tat (none / 0) (#81)
    by diogenes on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:55:00 PM EST
    In the context of cultural competence, are machismo leaders of terrorist movements more likely to respect and respond to tit for tat or to respect and respond to international law and UN resolutions, and preaching from Jimmy Carter?

    I'm sure that for (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:03:20 PM EST
    every tit you give them you'll get back a tat, so the question becomes: how long do you want to keep the cycle going diogenes, before you figure out - hey - this isn't working out so well - and you wonder if a different approach might be worth taking a stab at before there's no one left on either side?

    Parent
    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    ask GDub.

    However...Ghandi didn't tit for tat, MLK didn't tit for tat...they were victorious.  Peace, justice, freedom, equality...thats powerful stuff.  

    One thing I know for sure...military bases in 135 countries is asking for trouble.

    Parent

    Extremely atypical examples. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:06:11 AM EST
    Gandhi and Dr. King are frequently cited as examples of successful users of passive resistance (or non-violent resistance, if you cannot stomach the word "passive"). In order to understand why they were successful, it's necessary to look at the societies on which their methods succeeded.

    They were working within systems that innately acknowledged the rightness of their cause. In both cases, the societies in question had fundamental beliefs about freedom and self-determination and innate human worth that conflicted with the repressive actions that were overcome.

    American racists knew that their bigotry didn't accord with the principles of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The cognitive dissonance between their actions and the laws and aspirations of our society was a crucial element in defeating them. Even bigots felt shame at the hypocrisy of someone who could don a white robe and still claim to agree with the principles of "all men are created equal."

    Similarly, the British crackdown on the rights of Indians was strikingly discordant with the British experience of the rights of man. They needed someone to point the dissonance out to them in a way that was impossible to ignore. Their deep-rooted principles did the rest.

    Now, contrast those two societies--America and Great Britain--with the societies of the Islamist terrorists. These folks aren't going against the fundamental beliefs of their societies. There's no hypocrisy to point out or any fundamental beliefs about freedom and peace that passive resistance will point out for these guys.

    It is instructive to consider that Gandhi continued to preach non-violence even in the face of implacable foes. He had this to say to the British during World War II:

    I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

    Even after the war he believed that the Jews behaved wrongly. In 1946, he said:

    The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.

    Does anyone actually believe that Hitler would have let the Jews live if they'd only offered no resistance? Can it be true that Great Britain would have been better off had it not fought the German Nazi's?

    My contention is that passive resistance works great when your enemies have cultural traditions of freedom, fairness, and equality. It is not so great when your enemy cares nothing for whether you live or die.

    Parent

    Found more points to miss? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:05:33 AM EST
    You're getting quite skilled at that.

    Parent
    And since you find contrast so illuminating (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:14:17 AM EST
    The accomplishments of Islam are too numerous to mention.

    As a matter of fact, Everything ya know today...Yeah, a Muslim Came Up With It

    ...flight, mirrors, clocks, printing presses, optics, physics, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, etc., etc., etc. ......

    Take your pick, Muslims did it first...

    Go ahead, indulge yourself. Contrast yourself into a hole in the ground, but don't forget your shovel (a Muslim probably invented that too).

     

    Parent

    Edger.. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    The problem you have is that all of these claims, be they correct or false, is meaningless. The Moslem culture tanked and hasn't changed in 1200-1400 years or so. It's religion has not been reformed, and the bad parts of it are doing bad things, just as the Crusades caused bad things.

    Shorter. Who gives a flip about inventing clocks if you are going to use them to set off IEDs in crowded market places??

    You should really try and focus on the here and now.


    Parent

    In some repects you're right... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    ...even though it's not your fault. I hapens to the best of us by accident ocassionally. Even bad poker players get lucky in spite of themselves once in a great while. ;-)

    The Moslem culture tanked

    So, why is it that you are so determined to have the same thing happen as fast as possible to western culture??

    You should really try and focus....

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    Oh, mostly because that tanked Moslem culture is trying to take over the world.

    Look around you edger.

    Parent

    Really Jim? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    Do you have a link or two 'proving' that cheney/bush/ppj et al are 'Moslem'?

    Parent
    Now, contrast those two societies--America and Great Britain--with the societies of the Islamist terrorists.

    Let's see...those same two enlightened societies that invaded and occupied Iraq in a war of agression that killed tens of thousands of civilians and continues to this moment with no end in sight. Some contrast.

    It is not so great when your enemy cares nothing for whether you live or die.

    See our long list of interventions all over the world in the last 150 years. If you want people to care about you living or dying, you should do a lot less killing.

    Also see south Lebanon, July-August 2006 before you try to come off as being more righteous than any other barbarian.

    Parent

    You might also look at Baghdad (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:55:16 AM EST
    Do tell (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    Who gives a flip about inventing clocks when all that matters is whether you're Rapture Ready (and getting Terri into that cave before Easter).

    To say "Muslim culture tanked" is to ignore the millions of Muslim scientists, poets, teachers etc ; probobly with good reason as the neocons are nowhere without the un-edgicated.

    Are YOU Rapture Ready?

    Jondee...lease pay attention... (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    no one is ignoring the accomopishments of the Moslem culture. I think the concept of jihad and 72 virgins are wonderful.

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#117)
    by Sailor on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    This thread is about the useless attack on Somalia that, according to US officials didn't kill any AQ members.

    Parent
    And another thing.. (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    Think about Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison etc: who they were and what they stood for; then take a long look at whats in the Whitehouse now and tell us about a culture tanking.

    It's a disability issue I think, Jondee (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    "Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it."
    -- Peter Lamborn Wilson.

    Parent
    Jondee.. you're still confused (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:46:25 PM EST
    Your problem is you fail to understand that we have elections that nmean something.

    Parent
    Not disabled enough, Edger (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:46:54 AM EST


    I know (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    I'm not flexible enough anymore either to bend far enough to stick my head in the sand.

    Parent
    I'll make this easier for you. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    I'm going to spell this out for you step by step. Then I'm going to address your exclamations.

    First, kdog, discussing alternatives to military action wrote in #83:

    However...Ghandi didn't tit for tat, MLK didn't tit for tat...they were victorious.  Peace, justice, freedom, equality...thats powerful stuff.  

    Endeavoring to address this point, I decided to discuss the efficacy of the methods used by Gandhi and Dr. King. I recalled that these two men successfuly applied techniques of passive resistance against Western societies.

    Note that there are two parts to their success: the method and the environments in which they worked. kdog emphasized the abandonment of "tit for tat." Many people advocating passive resistance focus on the details of that method. On the other hand, I emphasized the environment, the societies, on which those methods were successfully applied.

    I noted that these Western societies had fundamental ideals that conflicted with the repressive and bigoted actions being opposed. That cognitive dissonance provided a wedge that could be--and was--used to separate the bigots from people able to admit that societal fundamental ideals were not being upheld.

    Then, I contrasted these two Western societies with two others: (1) modern Islamists and their supporting societies; and (2) historic Nazi Germans. I noted that in neither case is there a conflict between the fundamental ideals of those societies and the actions we seek to oppose.

    So, even were we to adopt the methods of Gandhi and Dr. King, I doubt that the environment--the societies--on which we would apply it, is suitable. To put it simply, countries without fundamental ideals respecting life, property, and civil rights are not fertile ground for passive resistance.

    That brings me to the usual suspects. First, of course, is Edger with the usual "Missed the point! Missed the point!" It is noteworthy that he comes back a few hours later and proceeds to...miss the point!

    He provides examples the "accomplishments of Islam" as if they were ever in doubt and as if they have anything at all to do with fundamental ideals of freedom, equality, peace, and civil rights. I'm not really sure why he's so interested in contrasting the inventions of the Islamic world with those of the West, but that contrast has nothing to do with whether a conflict exists between the terrorists and the ideals of Islamic society.

    Ernesto del Mundo takes a different tactic in #86. He provides examples of US military operations, and accuses me of trying to be "more righteous than any other barbarian." Like Edger's comment, his does not actually address my argument.

    When I first read it, I thought he was attempting to claim that the US does not, in fact, have fundamental ideals of respect for life, property, and civil rights. But then I noticed that he never real says that (not to mention it'd be pretty difficult to claim). That parting shot about righteousness was also a nice touch.

    I hope, having spelled it out for you guys, it'll be easier for you to understand what I was saying.

    I guess if you throw enough (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    at the wall, some might stick? Is that the hope here?

    Parent
    edger is (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    I'm not really sure why he's so interested in contrasting the inventions of the Islamic world with those of the West

    He is seeking moral equivalency.

    Secondly he is seeking accomoplishment equivalency.

    The first is obviously impossible when viewed in real world prism of terrorism.

    The second is a "so what."

    That doesn't stop him. He'll just keep attacking and making the same claims.

    Parent

    moral equivalency? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:07:08 PM EST
    No, I don't expect that we'll see that for a long, long time, Jim.

    If ever:

    "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between any of them: and we submit to Allah (in Islam)." (Q2:136)

    "During the period of the caliphs, the learned men of the Christians and the Jews were not only held in high esteem but were appointed to posts of great responsibility, and were promoted to high ranking positions in government. Haroon Rasheed appointed John the son of Maswaih, the Director of Public Instruction and all the schools and colleges were placed under his charge. He (Haroon) never considered to which country a learned person belonged nor his faith and belief, but only his excellence in the field of learning."
    ...
    Islam's Golden Age has many lessons to teach the greedy and terrorised world of today.
    ...
    With the end of the Abbasid Caliphate and the beginning of the Turkish Seljuk Caliphate in 1057 CE, the centralised power of the empire began to shatter...

    During this same period, the European Crusades (1097-1291) assailed Islam militarily from without. Cordoba fell to Spanish Christians in 1236.
    ...
    Muslims rose to the height of civilisation in a period of four decades. For more than 1,000 years the Islamic Civilisation remained the most advanced and progressive in the world. This is because Islam stressed the importance of and held great respect for learning, forbade destruction, developed discipline and respect for authority, and stressed tolerance for other religions.

    But I expect you to do your best Jim, even though it's probably an unnattainable height for western civilizations to even dream of.

    Parent

    edger - Tell me about how great things are (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:28:32 PM EST
    in a country that executes young women for defending themselves from rape.

    In the case of Nazanin, if she is executed for defending herself during a violent attack against her person by three men, then to me, it is Islam that is shamed. Muslims cannot allow or condone this sort of injustice to be visited upon a young Muslim woman - wherever she lives.

    If this crime against human rights and dignity carried out, then Islam and its followers cannot claim that Islam is a religion of peace. On its face, the very term "religion of peace" makes a mockery of the "civilization" Islam porports to be.

    It will be interesting to see what our Moslem Congressman does in this matter. Surely he has some influence with CAIR and they can put a stop to this injustice.

    Oh, BTW. Do you remember the woman executed in Afghanistan by shooting her in the back of the head? Her crime? Accused of running around on her husband... Yes sir, what a great culture that permits that.

    And this from their so-called religious leaders:

    A LEADING imam in the mosque where the July 7 bombers worshipped has hailed their terrorist attack on London as a "good" act in a secretly taped conversation with an undercover reporter.

    If you want to try and defend these acts, please go ahead. I have many more.

    In the meantime, shame on you Edger for failing to understand.

    Parent

    Strawmen (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:42:38 PM EST
    completely unrelated to anything in my comment you replied to. You can do better than that can't you, Jim?

    Can't you?

    Parent

    Well then... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 01:46:31 AM EST
    I noted that these Western societies had fundamental ideals that conflicted with the repressive and bigoted actions being opposed. That cognitive dissonance provided a wedge that could be--and was--used to separate the bigots from people able to admit that societal fundamental ideals were not being upheld.

    Since I assume you don't consider yourself a bigot, will you then admit that our foreign policy has historically been at odds with our fundamental ideals of respecting life, civil liberties, etc.?

    Your argument is that "we are superior to them because we believe in ideals that they don't" while you ignore the fact that our actions in the world do not bear out those ideals very well at all. Where's your cognitive dissonance?

    Parent

    Someone's fixated on superiority... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    Ernesto, I didn't say a damn thing about being "superior" to anyone else. I merely commented on the characteristics of Western societies that made them fertile ground for successful use of passive resistance.

    You, on the other hand, took both opportunities of responding to my comments to project some superiority BS all over the place. Maybe that's why we have trouble understanding each other. I just wanted to discuss the efficacy of passive resistance. You then made the odd leap that since I didn't think Islamic societies were suitable for campaigns of passive resistance that I was "being more righteous than any other barbarian."

    On the contrary, I said nothing of the sort. As far as "admitting" anything: yes, I think US foreign policy has sometimes failed to uphold fundamental ideals of American society. Now, what does that have to do with attempting passive resistance against terrorists?

    Parent

    Maybe searching is better than thinking, Gabe (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by aw on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    since I didn't think Islamic societies were suitable for campaigns of passive resistance

    But they already used passive resistance campaigns back in November:

     

    The Palestinians have chosen the perfect moment to employ the tactic of passive resistance. That this story has reached the front page of the New York Times is proof of that. The Times does all it can to filter news from Israel in contrast to European media and even the Israeli press itself. Most Americans are inured or ignorant of the Palestinian's suffering. After destroying Lebanon, the Israelis are being watched over more closely and with the massacre of Beit Hanun their brutality seems to have finally entered the American conscience. Now, with world watching, it is the time for satyagraha, which is only effective against such a calloused opponent if the world's cameras are running. DS
    Abstract: Israel called off an airstrike against the house of a suspected Palestinian militant in Gaza late Saturday, after the inhabitants ignored a telephoned warning and neighbors flocked to the house to prevent the bombing, the military said. On Sunday, hundreds of Palestinians, including the prime minister from the militant faction Hamas, stayed around the house and on its balconies and roof throughout the day. They declared a victory for "popular resistance," but Israel, under criticism for killing civilians in such strikes, called it another example of Palestinians using civilians to shield military activity. "We see it as a cynical exploitation of our attempt to avoid harm to civilians," said a spokesman for the Israeli military, who, according to usual practice, spoke on condition of anonymity. "They are using them as human shields." But Palestinians celebrated it as a possibly potent new defense against air raids that Israel might find difficult to counter. "We are so proud of this national stand," Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said Sunday while visiting the house, in the town of Jabalya, in northern Gaza. "It's the first step toward protecting our homes, the homes of our children."

    link

    Parent
    They know how to use it (none / 0) (#115)
    by aw on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    It may be a matter of time, rather than unsuitability, before they use it in Islamic societies.

    Parent
    Thanks, aw. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    I hadn't seen that. But I'm not sure it provides a good counterexample to my argument. Y'see, passive resistance is being used in your example against Israelis, not Islamic societies. It's yet another environment in which to discuss the efficacy of passive resistance. So far, we've got:

    (1) India and Great Britain;
    (2) the US;
    (3) historic Nazi Germany;
    (4) modern Islamic societies; and now
    (5) Israel.

    I guess the question now is whether Israel has more in common with Great Britain and the US or is more like historic Germany. The former two societies are fertile ground for passive resistance. The later was not.

    Your own article reveals that Israel called off its airstrike. Given that itt has on other occasions attempted to reduce civilian casualties, I think it's more like GB and US.

    As a thought experiment, think about the reverse. What would happen if the Israeli's were to lay down their arms in response to Palestinian violence? Does anyone doubt that they would be slaughtered to the last man, woman, and child?

    Parent

    Extreme paranoia is a tough nut to crack (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:56:30 PM EST
    Does anyone doubt that they would be slaughtered to the last man, woman, and child?

    Parent
    As (none / 0) (#120)
    by aw on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    I said above, Gabe, it may be a matter of time, rather than unsuitability, before they use it in Islamic societies.

    Instead of thinking of it in reverse, think of an Islamic passive resistance movement, in an actual Islamic society.  Pick one.  How many people do you think they would kill or punish before the rest of the Islamic world rose up against it?  I know it seems hard to imagine, but I'm pretty sure there is a limit (and I have to say, they would probably be the bravest people on earth, but so was MLK).  Of course, none of this is remotely possible as long as we're in the ME.

    Ironically, the place where this type of movement might have had some traction is Iran (before Bush called them evil).

    There's some interesting history out there.  Muslim Indians in South Africa used it to gain civil rights in South Africa, too.


    Parent

    Here's what you said... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:00:32 AM EST
    Now, contrast those two societies--America and Great Britain--with the societies of the Islamist terrorists. These folks aren't going against the fundamental beliefs of their societies.

    You claim that Islamic society believes in terrorism. Is it a great leap on my part to think you are therefore claiming our society is superior (as in "more civilized") than them?

    Parent

    Neocon Code Phrases (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    Why are you so sure you're morally superior; did God tell you?

    Johndee (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:29:42 PM EST
    Because I see the wrong in the actions that I outlined to Edger.

    Do you? Or will you also defend them?

    Parent

    And yet... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 01:53:47 AM EST
    And yet...your just peachy with a war and occupation based on lies. Seem the only difference between "you and them" is the brand of kool-aid you drink.

    Parent
    Killed: 70 nomads - NO terrorists (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:59:39 PM EST
    US strikes on al-Qa'ida chiefs kill nomads
    13 January 2007
    The herdsmen had gathered with their animals around large fires at night to ward off mosquitoes. But lit up by the flames, they became latest victims of America's war on terror.

    It was their tragedy to be misidentified in a secret operation by special forces attempting to kill three top al-Qa'ida leaders in south-ern Somalia.

    Oxfam yesterday confirmed at least 70 nomads in the Afmadow district near the border with Kenya had been killed. The nomads were bombed at night and during the day while searching for water sources. Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Kenya has acknowledged that the onslaught on Islamist fighters failed to kill any of the three prime targets wanted for their alleged role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

    OXFAM Press Release, 12 January 2007

    Wile, PPJ... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 01:02:14 AM EST
    Not even an "oopsy" from you guys?

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 04:54:10 AM EST
    It an old thread now. Ancient history. This is where they jump off and pretend to themselves they never saw the OXFAM story.

    Parent
    Oh, man (none / 0) (#121)
    by aw on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:40:22 PM EST
    that is just so awful.

    Parent
    It's only bad if they do it. (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    "Moral Equivalence": an expression introduced and constantly flung around by the same people that     said blowing up the King David Hotel was for a good cause.