There's more to this pirate story than meets the eye. Nobody braves high seas, and gunfire because they want to make a fast buck to live fat.Take away a livelihood and people become desperate. Alot of these guys would probably rather be fishing.
You can tell by the way the pirates in the picture hold their weapons that they aren't disciplined professionals, but rather desperate men who are just as likely to blow their own foot off by mistake as unintentionally kill the two Brits. Somali's need to get together and either carve that area up into independently governed areas based on their clan system, with treaties, or agree to rebuild their nation. It's got to come from within.
If the international community gets sick of the pesky pirates and comes in weapons hot there's just going to be alot more needless bloodshed...and with a Navy off the coast and a coordinated military effort, it won't be another "Blackhawk Down" situation. And they don't have opium to sell to buy weapons...
19 comments:
Didnt you boy order the shooting of some Somali pirates earlier this year!
Didnt you boy order the shooting of some Somali pirates earlier this year!
Save those poor African pirates from their British colonialist oppressors, Bono!
K'naan on Somali "pirates"
IMO it's open to speculation if anything will actually happen to the Brits - it's been more than a week since this video was first aired. And no news. But if something happens to the Brits its yet more justification for military invasion by European forces. They've been itching to send troops there esp in the last five months. Former diplomats making strong recommendations to both the EU and UK parliaments to clamp down on Somalia, the 'terrorist haven'.
There's more to this pirate story than meets the eye. Nobody braves high seas, and gunfire because they want to make a fast buck to live fat. Take away a livelihood and people become desperate. Alot of these guys would probably rather be fishing. You can tell by the way the pirates in the picture hold their weapons that they aren't disciplined professionals, but rather desperate men who are just as likely to blow their own foot off by mistake as unintentionally kill the two Brits. Somali's need to get together and either carve that area up into independently governed areas based on their clan system, with treaties, or agree to rebuild their nation. It's got to come from within. If the international community gets sick of the pesky pirates and comes in weapons hot there's just going to be alot more needless bloodshed...and with a Navy off the coast and a coordinated military effort, it won't be another "Blackhawk Down" situation. And they don't have opium to sell to buy weapons...
Indeed, there is more to the story.
DMG, the Somalis did restore order to the country after years of civil war through the Union of Islamic Courts. However, as soon as calm seemed to be falling on the nation, the U.S. ordered and funded Ethiopia's recent invasion.
I won't debate that the Ethiopian invasion was sanctioned by the U.S. But I WILL take issue with your definition of "order" and "calm". Would you have moved your family there during this order and calm? To me calm is when the average non-political person is able to feed his family and can reasonably expect NOT to get shot with a 50cal bullet when he goes to the market.
The U.S. aren't the only bad guys here. This is a place where foreign influences, religious-based or otherwise don't have Somalia's best interest in mind. It's kind of like Afghaninstan, few laws are enforced, and it's relatively easy to set up shop for all sorts of nefarious schemes, from bases for terrorism, to gun running, drug trade, etc. Desperate people, will do desperate things, and turn a blind eye. Eritreans, Ethiopians, you can bet terrorist organizations, U.S., UN, and everybody else has their eye on influencing this area. As long as the "warlords" or whatever you term you choose continue to fight only for their own little fiefdoms, it will likely further devolve.
DMG, “order and calm” are relative. I doubt that you would move your family where I live.
A gang-infested, violence-torn community in LA or Chi-town, may be considered to be calm compared to Kandahar, Baghdad, or Mogadishu.
However, The II is absolutely correct. The ICU or UIC had restored a level of order Somalia had not seen since the early “anti-clanism” days of the Siad Barre regime. The war of aggression by the Bush Administration and their Ethiopian proxies in Somalia has contributed to one of the world’s greatest humanitarian disasters.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107946§ionid=351020501
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/76418/section/15
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5051588.stm
Of course I wouldn't. I'd like to have my family live in a calm and orderly environment, and I have the means to do so. But, I would also like the same for everyone. Somali's and II.
As much as I'd like to we can't lay everything at the feet of Bush and Co. I'm the last person to say he did ANYTHING right. I believe his rule was probably the single worst in the history of the U.S.
The U.S. is but a single player in this (albeit an important player). Sharia isn't indigenous to Somalia, it's ultimately just another outside influence. Whomever is supplying the clans with weapons is another player. And terrorist organizations...
I'm not pushing for a western style democracy. I don't think that system of government fits with every culture.
I view Somalia the same as I view Haiti...those in power aren't looking to the future and what's best for the people overall. They are more interested in getting enough for them and their kin in the short run. Clan rule by Russian made weapons is not sustainable in Somalia or Haiti (or even Inglewood). Nation states, and terrorist organizations will take advantage of this fact. Where there's no jobs, there will be criminal behavior and a violent fight for meager resources. That's human nature. Take scrounging for food, basic life sustaining necessities, and shelter out of the equation and the people can think of how they want to govern themselves more clearly.
Sharia isn't indigenous to Somalia, it's ultimately just another outside influence.—DMG
LOL. Negroes practicing Christianity are in no position to criticize “outside influences” on others.
I view Somalia the same as I view Haiti...those in power aren't looking to the future and what's best for the people overall.—DMG
“Those in power?” Who are you referring to--the US installed Transitional Federal Government?
Clearly DMG you’re entitled to your political views on the crisis in Somalia, but you’ve totally lost II’s valid historical point. The ICU had restored relative order to a segment of Somalia, and the people living in those areas were pleased with that order and the direction in which the ICU was taking the country.
[They were really trusted by the people, who had no other institution to go to," Mr Garaad says.
Even those Mogadishu residents who are wary of Islamic extremism may welcome a single group being in control of the capital for the first time in 15 years, saying there will at least be some authority.
And most will prefer Islamic preachers to the warlords who have repeatedly fought over and in many cases systematically looted the city since 1991.
BBC Somali analyst Yusuf Garaad Omar says the warlords were hated -even more so because of the widespread belief that they were being backed by the US.]
These people know a whole lot better than you DMG, who was looking out for their interest.
Their right to self-determination was crushed by the intervention of the United States and their Ethiopian proxies. Try as you might DMG to spread the blame, that intervention is the root cause of the current humanitarian crisis.
Makheru,
I'll give you a pass here, because maybe you haven't read alot of what I write...trust me I DO NOT practice Christianity. I don't think the top three desert religions are anymore valid than Voudon or Valhalla.
As far as people in power, I'm not talking about anyone in government. We both know they aren't wielding any power in Somalia OR Haiti (pre or post UN occupation).
I didn't lose II's point. Less gunfire and terror doesn't equal calm and order to me. Maybe a little less death is good enough for folks living in LA, and that's fine. I just don't see it as some sort of victory.
"They were really trusted by the people, who had no other institution to go to"
All this tells me is that people prefer something is better than nothing.
"Mogadishu residents who are wary of Islamic extremism may welcome a single group being in control of the capital for the first time in 15 years, saying there will at least be some authority."
Outside influences. Desperate people will accept almost anything.
Even YOU don't believe all the warlords are backed by the U.S.
And I'm sure they know a whole lot better than you too. ICU filled a vacuum. Simple as that. Why are you ready to declare victory?
"Their right to self-determination was crushed by the intervention of the United States and their Ethiopian proxies (I guess Haile Selassie was one of these proxies...)."
That's a nice way to simplify things. I'm not going to discount the role the U.S. has in this crisis, but if you are that simplistic in your thinking, there's no need to continue this conversation. I thought you were deeper than that. If the U.S. controlled all or most of the warlords, we would have LONG ago moved in and re-established and well fortified the airbase the Soviets left years ago, and would be projecting power into the Middle East like we wanted to do from Saudi Arabia since at least the early 90's. Or maybe you think the U.S. is only interested in "crushing black peoples independence". The Somali's are able to do that on their own.
DMG, if you are operating on the basis of a utopian concept of order that’s fine with me. When the US collapses you’ll certainly be forced to adjust your thinking.
Maybe a little less death is good enough for folks living in LA, and that's fine. I just don't see it as some sort of victory. –DMG
Obviously you don’t feel any sort of connection to the pain and suffering of those who are losing loved ones. That’s your prerogative.
"We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly..." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I’m not sure how you concluded that I was declaring some sort of victory, but yes I do believe that reducing violence is progress. Winning small battles or struggles can build momentum which can lead to an ultimate victory if the specific historical development is not disrupted. Discussing a point of development or a process of development is not declaring some sort of victory. That was my point for referencing how some people in Somalia viewed the ICU.
I guess Haile Selassie was one of these proxies..." –DMG
The focus here is on Meles Zenawi.
That's a nice way to simplify things. I'm not going to discount the role the U.S. has in this crisis, but if you are that simplistic in your thinking, there's no need to continue this conversation. -- DMG
That’s your choice. My root cause analysis of the current crisis in Somalia shows a process of development, led by the ICU, which was disrupted by the US/Ethiopian invasion of Somalia beginning in December 2006, for the purpose of removing the ICU and installing the TFG. Other catastrophic events (e.g. IDPs) proceed from that root cause. DMG keeps implying that there are other factors, (vague references to “those in power”) but he is yet to specifically identify what those factors are. Is that too complicated DMG?
DMG,
I think what Makheru was trying to do was to give you a fuller picture of what is going on in Somalia. You reference HIM Haile Selassie I as a slight, but as you know at that time the US had no interests in the then Somaliland. The Somali Youth League after struggling against Ethiopia still had to contend with British and Italian imperialists - the ones who carved up Somaliland in the first place.
Whatever was meant by that historically inaccurate claim totally misses two of the biggest snakes of all time - Meles Zenawi and Said Barre. It also makes me wonder are you suggesting that US proxies as historical are imaginary or that Makheru's making excuses for the present condition?
You said
"If the U.S. controlled all or most of the warlords, we would have LONG ago moved in and re-established and well fortified the airbase the Soviets left years ago"
Since 1950 over 50 legitimate forms of govt, over 30 liberation movements have been overthrown or crushed and one island 'stolen' by the US as testament to it's desire to be the only Super WarLord.
Backing the non-Islamic Somali warlords in their battles against the Islamic groups yet another way of asserting is super-status, or in more diplomatic terms "fighting terrorism and restoring order in Somalia." But this backfired.
Measuring Somali responsibility for Somali affairs can't be made by eliminating Western influence; they're inextricably linked. The US and Italy backed Said Barre all through his brutal rule that fomented the rise of southern Warlords all because Somalia served as a strategic gateway to the Middle East. Come Farah Aideed there's Blackhawk and more recently this past September were air raids on al-Shabaab territory that no doubt left more dead than getting any closer to a solution.
Perhaps you know all this already, but you make some rather sweeping and dangerous statements that suggest otherwise.
...one
I appreciate Makheru's info. But it's too easy to blame the U.S. for all the hell going on in Somalia.
Makheru suggested the slight about Selassie, not me. Just reminding him who he was talking about. Or, maybe you'll tell me that Selassie refused U.S. backing? Or that he opposed all ties to the U.S.? After all he's a man, not a god. Right?
No doubt the U.S. is backing the non-Islamic aligned warlords. The govt. has an interest in this. Makheru either by typo or on purpose suggested all of the warlords were backed by the U.S. suggesting that our government is more interested in them wiping each other out...which would make our interest there a different story.
Makheru made the sweeping statements, not me. Simplifying things down to U.S.=evil force vs. innocent downtrodden Somali's=good guys, is the same as Bush and Co talking about evildoers. I'm not buying either.
You both bring up good points. All I'm saying is things aren't as simple as you are portraying them.
Please tell me which of my statements are false, sweeping or dangerous. Then provide evidence as to why.
Makheru suggested the slight about Selassie, not me. – DMG
DMG, are you referring to the same Haile Selassie who passed away in 1975? And you’re saying that I slighted him in reference to the US engineered Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006?
Makheru either by typo or on purpose suggested all of the warlords were backed by the U.S.—DMG
DMG, Makheru dropped a few quotes from the linked BBC article which included this statement: “BBC Somali analyst Yusuf Garaad Omar says the warlords were hated - even more so because of the widespread belief that they were being backed by the US.” Perhaps you assumed that statement represented my position on the subject.
Actually I have not really thought that much about who was funding the Somali warlords, but wouldn’t it be a “huge surprise” if the worlds leading white imperial supremacists were funding various factions of Afrikans to destroy one another. I included that quote because I thought that it was interesting that some Somali’s believed this.
Makheru made the sweeping statements, not me. Simplifying things down to U.S. =evil force vs. innocent downtrodden Somali's=good guys… -DMG
Dayum, I’m racking my brain trying to figure out the cognitive process of thinking that would lead to such a conclusion. I’ve offered a very, very, very basic root cause analysis for the current humanitarian crisis in Somalia. Somehow that basic analysis is (1) a “sweeping statement,” that (2) simplifies “things down to U.S. = evil force vs. innocent downtrodden Somali's = good guys.”
One more time, this was an issue of self-determination disrupted by neo-conservative intervention.
You both bring up good points. All I'm saying is things aren't as simple as you are portraying them.—DMG
Alright then DMG, get on with your veracities of complexity.
Makheru,
"DMG, are you referring to the same Haile Selassie who passed away in 1975? And you’re saying that I slighted him in reference to the US engineered Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006?"
You act like U.S.-Ethiopian relations are a recent development.
I'm more interested in what you have to say, rather than trying to figure out which of the points made in the article are yours...since you didn't directly reference the article. But I'll take your word that I didn't understand your meaning.
"Dayum, I’m racking my brain trying to figure out the cognitive process of thinking that would lead to such a conclusion."
Rack no further my brother, I'll repeat:
"Their right to self-determination was crushed by the intervention of the United States and their Ethiopian proxies"
Sweeping statement of the day (sweeping statement of the week/month/year is always reserved for our host...). Were you trying to tell me that had it NOT been for the crushing intervention of the United States, Somalia would be an independently governed nation? Maybe I misunderstood you. I believe you are suggesting that the U.S. is the only outside player in this game.
You act like U.S.-Ethiopian relations are a recent development. – DMG
They are as recent as the overthrow of Mengistu Haile Mariam. They were clearly influenced by the Cold War, and are now influenced by the so-called war on terror.
Were you trying to tell me that had it NOT been for the crushing intervention of the United States, Somalia would be an independently governed nation? –DMG
I’m only saying that the Somali people have a right to self-determination, and we don’t know what kind of society the ICU would have been able to develop. We only know what they were able to do over a short period of time.
I believe you are suggesting that the U.S. is the only outside player in this game.—DMG
Two outside forces launched a war of aggression against Somalia in 2006—the United States and their Ethiopian proxies. You keep implying that there are other forces involved, but you never name them.
"I’m only saying that the Somali people have a right to self-determination, and we don’t know what kind of society the ICU would have been able to develop. We only know what they were able to do over a short period of time."
Umm, brother, I'm agreeing with you! I just don't agree that one religious sect filling a vacuum constitutes SELF-determination, as it's rule by religious fiat with the ICU.
Somalia didn't fall apart in 2006. All them weapons aren't flowing into Somalia with the rain clouds.
Post a Comment