< HOME  Wednesday, June 07, 2006

US f*cks up yet again in Somalia

Apparently, the brutal desecration of the bodies of 18 of our soldiers in '93 wasn't bad enough for the US. Instead of trying them for war crimes, the Bush administration gives financial support to the same warlords who dragged the dead bodies of American soldiers through the streets of Mogadishu, all in the name of fighting "Islamists." And now, "Islamists" have taken Mogadishu, not because they're brutal, but because they've restored a semblance of law and order not seen in Somalia since warlords took over in '91.
If the Islamists' claim is confirmed it would be the first time that control of the entire city had been wrested from Somalia's warlords since they ousted the former president, Mohammed Siad Barre, in 1991.

Aljazeera.net: What kind of support, if any, does the United States provide to the ARPCT?

Baldo: We know that some of the warlords are receiving support from Washington in the form of payments that allow them to buy weapons.

The Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism [ARPCT] took arms against the Islamist militia in February, probably after having increased its military capacity thanks to Washington.

The US has neither affirmed nor denied it; officials say they are in partnership with people that help in their war on terrorism.

Some US officials have tried to point out the dangers of such an alliance, but they were hushed up.

Aljazeera.net: Could you elaborate on the dangers that this alliance poses?

Baldo: First of all, it has fuelled the fighting between the ARPCT and the Islamic courts since last February that has killed hundreds of civilians caught in the crossfire. Washington has shown a total disregard for the humanitarian cost of this battle.
So, what's new? Freedom and democracy at the expense of life and human dignity.
Second, Somalia is becoming unstable again [Somalia has been plagued by intermittent civil war since 1977], the [Islamic] courts are getting stronger.

Some residents actually support them because they've restored a semblance of order and now they've captured Mogadishu.

Somalia is not traditionally a breeding ground for radical Islamism but follows a more moderate type of Islam, like in the rest of [Muslim] Africa.

Aljazeera.net: What were the Americans hoping to achieve?

Baldo: Washington and intelligence in the area believe that people responsible for the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and for the 2002 attack on a tourist hotel and Israeli plane in Kenya, were carried out by terrorists that used Somalia as a transit point and safe haven, especially after the fall of Afghanistan [to US-led forces in the winter of 2001].

Some of those radical elements have ties with the Islamic courts.

By defeating the courts, Washington was hoping to discourage the terrorists from using Somalia as a hiding ground and keep dangerous individuals on the run.

But, as we know, the end result is the just the opposite of that. The courts seem to be winning.

Moreover, the US may have violated a UN embargo by supporting the warlords. A UN investigation is under way.
So, what? By now, you must have realized that the UN is only relevant when it does what the US tells it to do.
The US is interested in immediate results and has failed. It also didn't hesitate to ally itself with the some of the warlords that killed 18 American troops in Mogadishu in 1993.

Aljazeera.net: Is it fair to describe the fighting in Somalia as a proxy war between Washington and radical Islamists?

Baldo: Not only that. This is also a proxy war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Eritrea supports the Islamic courts while Ethiopia co-operates with Washington.

The courts are traditionally funded by business communities locally because the application of the Sharia [Islamic law] had brought back a semblance of order.
That's right. Islamic law, the same one that is so reviled in the mainstream media, actually works to establish order. But, you won't hear that on either Fox News or on CNN.
Part of the fighting is also about economic turfs: who controls the trade routes, ports and airports. It's not purely ideological and there is a definite exploitation of September 11 in local politics.
It's always about money, and September 11 was simply a catalyst for the economic changes that they've been planning for decades now.

And what's so special about Somalia? According to the CIA factbook . . .
Natural resources: uranium and largely unexploited reserves of iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt, natural gas, likely oil reserves . . .

Geography - note: strategic location on Horn of Africa along southern approaches to Bab el Mandeb and route through Red Sea and Suez Canal
Somalia is simply part of a masterplan to control the world's natural resources and it doesn't matter how many dead people get dragged through the streets or hung from poles - as long as it's not THEM.


At Wednesday, June 07, 2006, Blogger Mike said...

That's right. Islamic law, the same one that is so reviled in the mainstream media, actually works to establish order. But, you won't hear that on either Fox News or on CNN.

A police state also establishes order in many cases.

Good story of typical American "Humanitarian" action, but this line just caught my eye.

I am pretty ignorant on Islamic law, but the fact that it establishes order doesn't necessarily make it sound great to me.

At Wednesday, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hear the new dead bodies come with wheels.

At Wednesday, June 07, 2006, Anonymous Jarrod said...

I did hear them say they might impose Shirah Law on Cnn a few days ago, mind you it was just the anchor speaking, no pictures or texts.

At Wednesday, June 07, 2006, Blogger denk said...

Before you know it, uncle sham will be marching off to sudan in another humanitarian mission [sic]……
If yanks are sheeps, then the msm and celebs would be their sheppards….guiding them into war after war after war……..



At Thursday, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Islam said...

That's right. Islamic law, the same one that is so reviled in the mainstream media, actually works to establish order. But, you won't hear that on either Fox News or on CNN.

I completely agree with this point.. The US government is hypocritical. Only supporting those who serve their interests and not for the general good of humanity. A strong reason why the Islamic courts are succeeding are because they have restored a sense of semblance and sanity to a land plagued by conflict.

Great point on exposing the hypocrisy of the US, supporting folks(the warlords) who killed their own troops!

At Thursday, June 08, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Mike, I understand your apprehension. But, even with its sometimes erroneous application, some order under Islamic law is preferable to lawlessness under warlords.

People, not governments, need protection against indiscriminate killings, rapes, and theft. This is why they will always opt for governments that provide that service as opposed to governments that do not.

Unfortunately, the US and their media mouthpieces elevate protecting 'our way of life' and 'our freedoms' above protecting life itself. This is not only patently absurd, but amounts to nothing but a proxy for protecting those in power and maintaining the status quo.

At Thursday, June 08, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

denk, thanks for drawing attention to ulterior motives behind the media hype over darfur.

At Thursday, June 08, 2006, Anonymous Hasan said...

Maybe before people start bashing Islamic law, they should take a look at history and see how individuals, communities and nations have thrived under the rule of properly applied Islamic law, even in predominately non-Muslims nations such as Spain. Islamic law was a major factor in ending Europe's "Dark Ages".

At Thursday, June 08, 2006, Blogger denk said...

Qrswave, you are swell. Many of those media hacks who call themselves journalist or analysts [sic] are not fit to tie your shoo lace.

as john laughland put it so succinctly,
“Indeed, the Darfur crisis is following a pattern which is so well-worn now that it has almost become routine
Saturation reporting from a crisis region; emergency calls for help broadcast on the electronic media (such as the one recently on the BBC Radio 4 flagship ‘ Today’ programme); televised pictures of refugees; lurid stories of “mass rapes”, which are surely designed to titillate as much to provoke outrage; reproachful evocations of the Rwandan genocide; demands that something must be done (“How can we stand idly by?”, etc.); editorials in the Daily Telegraph calling for a return to the days of Rudyard Kipling’s benevolent imperialism[6] ; and, finally, the announcement that plans are indeed being drawn up for an intervention.”



Post a Comment

<< Home