It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Accused of Funding Somali Militants To Battle Islamic Coalition

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Marg just to clear a couple of things up. Two Black hawks were shot down. And the 18 soldiers that died were not all on them, in fact some of them survived. The casualties were taken during the street fights that ensued in the attempt to save the soldiers aboard those choppers.
Battle of Mogadishu

Fact is these people were not murdering and raping each other until colonial expansion began destabalizing their nations during and after the industrial evolution. The current situation there is a direct result of what certain "civilized" Western empires had done when attempting to conquer this land in the past. They are just now starting the process of rebuilding a torn society after discovering and uniting under a common goal and ideology.

Before colonialism, they came from a culture of minimum governments not minimum rules, they had rules but minimum rulers and then the colonial system started this institutionalized government and the idea of having rulers rather than just rules of conduct. And our brothers and sisters in Somalia as a whole including Somaliland are adjusting to these new ways of government and are attempting to find satisfactory ways of maintaining rules, but nowadays just observing rules is no longer enough. You also need instrumentalities of power for law and order. They are having some difficulty in learning something, which is alien to their culture because previously they were ahead of other people who needed rulers and now they are left behind because they haven’t adjusted. But we in Africa, in Somalia and elsewhere of course must never give up we must continue to find the right formula for our people.”

Excerpt from Sudan Tribune Discussing the Balkanization of Somalia

What may have worked for some cultures would not, and apparantly did not work on this culture, regardless of how hard one would try and force it.

[edit on 6/6/2006 by DYepes]




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
DYepes

My husband was in Somalia during that time in 93, even in that time the US government was trying to buy out the militia groups while trying to disarm the population causing more harm than good to that poor nation.

Now US is doing propaganda and buying out militia groups in an effort to stop Islam.

I just wonder what type of government is a good government in the eyes of the US.

Now for the incident with the helicopter . . . I can only say that forever will be a touchy subject when it comes to the soldiers that were in Somalia during that time. . .

Now like you said what it works in some countries will not work in others . . . all you have to do is look at Iraq.

A western type of government in Somalia didn't work and trying that. . . cost many Somali lives back in 93.



[edit on 6-6-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Here just a tidbit of extra information regarding Somalia during the Imperalist era.

Starting in 1875 the age of Imperialism in Europe transformed Somalia. Britain, France, and Italy all made territorial claims on the peninsula. Britain already controlled the port city of Aden in Yemen, just across the Red Sea, and wanted to control its counterpart, Berbera, on the Somali side. The Red Sea was seen as a crucial shipping lane to British colonies in India, and they wanted to secure these "gatekeeper" ports at all costs.

The French were interested in coal deposits further inland and wanted to disrupt British ambitions to construct a north-south transcontinental railroad along Africa's east coast, by blocking an important section.

Italy had just recently been reunited and was an inexperienced colonialist. They were happy to grab up any African land they didn't have to fight other Europeans for. They took control of the southern part of Somalia, which would become the largest European claim in the country, but the least strategically significant.



Somali resistance to their colonial masters, both familiar and foreign, began in 1899 under the leadership of religious scholar Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, Ogaden sub-lineage of the Darod tribe and his mother was Dulbehante sub-lineage of the Darod tribe. Their primary targets were their traditional enemies the Ethiopians, and the British who controlled the most lucrative ports and were squeezing tax money from farmers who had to use the ports to ship their livestock to customers in the Middle East and India. Hasan was a brilliant orator and poet with a very strong following of Islamic fundamentalist dervishes all of which came from the Dulbehante tribe, these relentless and well organized warriors were Hasan's maternal relatives. They waged a bloody guerrilla war. This war lasted over two decades until the British Royal Air Force, having honed their skills in WWI, led a devastating bombing campaign against dervish strongholds in 1920, which caused Hasan to flee (he died of pneumonia soon after). The dervish struggle was one of the longest and bloodiest anti-Imperial resistance wars in sub-Saharan Africa, and cost the lives of nearly a third of northern Somalia's population: the Dulbehante lost half of their population during this era and there were heavy casualties on the Ethiopian and British sides as well. This was mainly due to the Dulbehante's refusal to sign the Protectorate Treaty and submit to British colonial rule. The Isaaq, the Issa, the Wirsingili as well as the Gidbirsi signed the treaty with the British without any loss of life. The Dulbehante viewed themselves as the sole protector of greater Somalia, and resented the signatory tribes. The British colonial leaders did not trust the Somalis; therefore, immediately after the Isaaq's, the Issa's, the Wirsingili's, and the Gidbirsi signed the treaty, they invoked article 7 of the treaty, sub-section 3(a)(j)(k) of which allowed the British Colonial Authority to enforce segregation rule and a head tax. It also subjected the children of the tribes that signed the treaty to CCTP (Children under Colonial Power under sub-section 3k). CCTP dictated separating a percentage of the children from their mothers for special education, although the actual intent was to instill fear into the treaty members to enforce law and order. This caused some of the aformentioned tribal leaders to regret signing the treaty and wish they had resisted as the Dulbehante's had done.

While the British were bogged down by Mohammed bin Abdullah (known to the British as 'The Mad Mullah'), the French made little use of their Somalian holdings, content that as long as the British were stymied, their job was done. This attitude may have contributed to why they were more or less left alone by the revolutionaries. The Italians, though, were intent on larger projects and established an actual colony to which a significant number of Italian civilians migrated and invested in major agricultural development. By this time Mussolini was in power in Italy. He wanted to improve the world's respect for Italy by expert economic management of Italy's new colonies, upstaging the British and their various embarrassing problems with the colony natives.

Due to the constant fighting the British were afraid to invest in any expensive infrastructure projects that might easily be destroyed by guerillas. As a result, when the country was eventually reunited in the 1960s, the north, which had been under British control, lagged far behind the south in terms of economic development, and came to be dominated by the South. The bitterness from this state of affairs would be one of the sparks for the future civil war.

By 1935, the British were ready to cut their losses in Somalia. The pastoralists they fought on a daily basis were routinely labeled "anarchists", which seems prophetic today, considering Somalia's lack of any government for the past decade. The dervishes refused to accept any negotiations. Even after they had been soundly defeated in 1920, sporadic violence continued for the entire duration of British occupation. To make matters worse, Italy invaded and conquered Ethiopia, whom the British had been using to help their effort to put down the Somali uprisings. Now with Ethiopia unavailable, the British were faced with the option of doing the dirty work themselves, or packing up and looking for friendlier territory.

By this time many thousand Italian immigrants were living in Roman-esque villas on extensive plantations in the south. Conditions for natives were unusually prosperous under fascist Italian rule, and the southern Somalis never violently resisted. It had become obvious then that Italy had won the horn of Africa, and Britain left upon Mussolini's insistence, with little protest.

Meanwhile the French colonies had faded to obsolescence with Britain's dwindling control, and they too were abandoned. The Italians then enjoyed sole dominance of the entire East African region including Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and parts of northern Kenya.

Colonial Era

I can only imagine what these empires were doing in the other parts of the world they were attempting to annex. I hope for a better future without forgetting the past.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
A letter written by the Islamic nations to much of the international communities and bodies reassures them that this will not be another Afghanistan.

But the country's Islamic leaders have written a letter to the United Nations, the Arab League, the African Union, the European Union and the U.S. State Department, as well as to various European and African embassies, that aims to allay those fears. In the four page letter obtained by TIME, signed by Sheikh Sherif Sheikh Ahmed, Chairman of the Islamic Courts Union in Mogadishu, the city's new bosses say they want to end the chaos and bloodshed in Somalia's capital, help rebuild the country and "establish a friendly relationship with the international community that is based on mutual respect and interest."

"We categorically deny and reject any accusation that we are harboring any terrorists or supporters of terrorism in the areas where the courts operate," the letter says. "We share no objectives, goals or methods with groups that sponsor or support terrorism. We have no foreign elements in our courts, and we are simply here because of the need of the community we serve."

The Islamic Courts' appeal for cooperation comes at a time of fundamental change in Somalia's capital, which like most of the rest of the country has had no functioning government for 15 years. During that time, southern Somalia has been ruled by warlords, who have carved the Horn of Africa nation into a patchwork of fiefdoms. The warlords fought U.S. peacekeepers sent to secure United Nations' aid deliveries during a terrible drought in the early 1990s, but some are now believed to be backed by the U.S. Those warlords have now fled the capital, or are holed up and surrounded by Islamic militias.

Over the past two decades, the influence of Islamic clerics in Somalia has grown steadily. Like the warlords, they use their own militias and freelance hired guns to enforce their rule. But many residents of Mogadishu have applauded the Islamic groups for cracking down on crime, dismantling the hundreds of roadblocks around the capital and running schools and health clinics when no one else would. They began providing social services in the early 1990s, and by 1998 a loose collection of Islamic courts had been established and was running parts of Mogadishu. When TIME interviewed Sheikh Hussan Sheikh Mohammed Adde, then head of the Islamic Courts Union, in May 1999 he said that Somalia's Islamic movement saw its influence growing in stages. The first phase was to clear Mogadishu of "gangsters and warlords"; then the Islamic groups would open the airport and ports. "After that we take the next step," he said. "We don't want to fail so we are going slowly, slowly."

TIME



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
I take it you are refusing my kind offer to take it the appropriate forum...

I am sorry - do you feel Refused?





That's OK. I understand... your... ah... reluctance...


Do you mean a measure of the opposition to magnetic flux, analogous to electric resistance?





Once again. Your comments though obviously striving for sincerity have precious little to do with the subject at hand.

Yeah? You think so? So you think Funding the "Other" Warlords in Somalia will Bring Everlast PEACE To this region? You think that suddenly the Civilans will Stop Dying, since these "GOOD" Warlords will Protect them - and they will go into the battle and kill all the "Evildoers" and return victoriously and then burn all the weapons they used, so that this Evil will not come anymore upon this piece of Desert?

Maybe in a Fairy-Tale - but this is Real World, and it does not get more Real then Africa. And it sure ain't No News - US Funded Warlords in this Continent form Decades! So I am kind of not surprised at all - it is the good old tactics from the Era of Doctor Kissinger:

"My Enemey's Enemy is my FRIEND!"



Keep clicking that dial a little further... I have great confidence in you actually being able to cross back into reality.

If no anything else - you are Funny!





I have great confidence in you ole wise one.


You do?





Is it considered bad netiquette to point out once again you seem to have conveniently spaced off answering my assertions.

I think I have answered all of them - seek and you shall find!





Bad golemina! Bad golemina!

Bad golemina in any relation to the Red Golem?




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Souljah
>I think I have answered all of them - seek and you shall find!

Shhh! Don't wake Souljah up... He's having his favorite little fantasyland dream where he thinks he providing real answers.



Slap!

Everyone can see that you're afraid to... Start a thread.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Everyone can see that you're afraid to... Start a thread.

By Clicking on a Name you can see all the Threads (or at least 500 I think) that this member made.

So please, Do try clicking on my name. I double dare you.




[edit on 7/6/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
You 2 play elsewhere and let this topic continue please.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Here let me help stir the thread back up again...

So are the Islamic "winners" in Somalia supporters of democratic rights or only those who believe in Islam? I see no reason not to support a Christian group to fight back then...what's the difference? You're only choosing a side: red vs. blue, Islam vs Christianity. This isn't in my view a right vs wrong; democracy vs despotism. If the Ismalic winners say they were happy just to unify the country and now want to have free democratic elections then I might listen up.

The US has been funding under the table for years, $100,000 is chump change compared to the cold war era.

[edit on 7/6/06 by Atomic]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Neither Saudi Arabia or China are supporters of democratic rights yet they are two of Americas largest trading partners in the world.

The movement is too soon and at the moment they are trying to build stability and unification just so they can end some of the suffering. I do not know what their intentions for the supportt of Democratic rights are. As far as i know from what I read they want to form a sort of Theocracy like Iran, which as we have pointed at many times on these boards, enjoy many democratic freedoms. Who are to we stop that from happening if it is what they choose? Perhaps we should let the people there create a form of government that THEY want and not try to impose something that the West wants.


I see no reason not to support a Christian group to fight back then...what's the difference?


So basically you are saying that it is completely acceptable and encouragable to fund warlords to help further instability, war, and suffering in a third world nation as long as its to stop Islamic Law? More than 90% of their nation are Muslims, including many of the warlords that are being supported by this US funding. If they choose to set up a Islamic Theocracy what right is it of ours to stop them?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
it is quite logical that the U.S. Department of State,
issued a Travel Warning concerning Somalia (since 5 June 2006)

travel.state.gov...

...travel Warning issued to remind Americans about the security situation
in Somalia, including the self proclaimed 'Independent Republic of Somaliland'...

it is important to note; There is NO US Embassy
and there is NO other U.S. diplomatic presence in either Somalia or Somaliland.

Ergo, the monies, aid, arms supply, or whatever...is Illegal $$
the supposed $$$ being funneled into the country,
is not humanitarian aid money from the US, perhaps the leadership in Somalia
is spilling the beans that 100,000 per month of covert USA money, by covert USA operations= is assisting the UN backed provisional government.

which is in conflict with the UN Peackeeping Commission 'rules of the game'



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I guess this is a key passage from the source article :



A United Nations team charged with monitoring a U.N. arms embargo against Somalia has also said it is investigating an unnamed country's clandestine support for the warlords alliance as a possible violation of the weapons ban.


As is said, a UN weapons embargo exists which, one presumes, excludes sales of materiel to any side, by any party. Covert action by the US may be in breach of said embargo.

However, I would have to assume that all factions are being supplied by weapons from somewhere, so the US may not be alone in their guilt, if such guilt is evident, I hasten to add.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Well... the partys over...
Our murderers lost... their murderers won...

yeah for the murderers...!

oH... thats right we lost...

I do take some satisfaction with thinking that some of the Bastards that killed our peace envoys/soldiers (black hawk down) might have lost their heads in the battle...

I also take heart, that the strict religious regime that will now control that area, will bring the way of life up... as well as outlaw all warlords and militias (other than religious ones)
and of course, they will kick all the corrupt financial influences out of the region also...
(just ask Cheney and Rumsfeld... Taliban type governments are extremly expensive to corrupt)

So i see a brighter future for these poor schleps... they may have ignorant religious school teachings for awhile, and archaic treatment of females, but at least they will lack genocide and gang rapes in the street.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Well going by a technality the US is probably not guilty of breaching the arms embargo. They are alleged to be providing cash assistance, not direct arms sales, of course we can never know for sure with all the arms traders across the world working for some of the governments.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes


I see no reason not to support a Christian group to fight back then...what's the difference?


So basically you are saying that it is completely acceptable and encouragable to fund warlords to help further instability, war, and suffering in a third world nation as long as its to stop Islamic Law? More than 90% of their nation are Muslims, including many of the warlords that are being supported by this US funding. If they choose to set up a Islamic Theocracy what right is it of ours to stop them?


First off I'm playing a bit of a devil's advocate...I couldn't "edit" the post.

Well if 90% of the Muslims impose their will on the 10% non-Muslims then why can't the US outlaw being gay, outlaw Islam, or outlaw rooting for the Los Angeles Lakers? Why can't the majority of white people decide they don't want any minorities in the country anymore? A Christian, Buhddist or non-Muslim in Somalia may not like your opinion that it's none of the US' business to help fight Islam.

I think Somalia's people want the war to end and would accept Islamic Law as a trade off, but in the long run they will be enslaved by that same Islamic Law. Now if they choose to be an Islamic based country with secular laws, much like Turkey, so that non-Muslims have freedom and a voice...then you have a solution.

Maybe the US is funding freedom fighting "insurgents", who don't like the Islamic Laws. Its funny that it's ok that the militant Islam is blessed with a free pass at times to rebel but rebelling against Islam is wrong.

Now to get down to the truth...the US is funding warlords so the can reduce the hideouts that Al-Queda can run to. They are not there to solve the probelm, they are there to keep militant Islamic supporters from running the country. It is a game, it's a sad game where people have lives destroyed. The people are uneducated and hungry and Islamic Law will work because it can be a brutal set of rules backed by "God". But it is not the solution. Freedom of choice is always the solution. If everyone chooses to be Muslim and everyone chooses to live by Islamic Law, then you are right it isn't anyone's business...but I don't know of any major countries like that where there are no minority voices.

My red vs blue analogy is that choosing Islam or Christians to run the country is not a winning solution. You are only choosing a side. And just because someone else chooses another side, it is only "wrong" because it wasn't your side. Both sides win in a democracy, not in a theocracy.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
They are not driving out or murdering any minorities or other religions much like ishappening in Sudan. They are removing the warlords who have been fighting each other on the streets making stability impossible for years. Nowhere does it say that Muslims are attacking Christians. the fact that a very large majority of the population are Sunni Muslims goes to show they support Islam for starters. The conflict now arises in clan loyalty. Those warlords were not keeping anyone or Al-qaeda out. The people have said many times there are no Al-qaeda presence. From earlier posts:

"The FBI, people like you (journalists) and other groups who are often in the shadows always say al-Qaida is in Somalia," says Aweys, dismissively.

Interim President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed "also said two years ago there were al-Qaida training camps here. Well, the FBI came here, journalists came here and there were no training camps. It's just not true. We all know each other in Somalia. We would know if al-Qaida was here."

And

In the four page letter obtained by TIME, signed by Sheikh Sherif Sheikh Ahmed, Chairman of the Islamic Courts Union in Mogadishu, the city's new bosses say they want to end the chaos and bloodshed in Somalia's capital, help rebuild the country and "establish a friendly relationship with the international community that is based on mutual respect and interest."

"We categorically deny and reject any accusation that we are harboring any terrorists or supporters of terrorism in the areas where the courts operate," the letter says. "We share no objectives, goals or methods with groups that sponsor or support terrorism. We have no foreign elements in our courts, and we are simply here because of the need of the community we serve."


I posted that earlier. You cannot expect them to have their whole future planned out already. They need to bring stability before they figure out how they are going to start and run a new system. As of now they have brought a temporary stability to probably the most important part of the country. They have driven away the US sponsored warlrods, who before being paid to fight off the Islamic Courts, were fighting each other, looting the city, and even were some of the same groups responsible during the battle of Mogadishu. They have not stated anything about murdering Christians, or Buddhists, or Athiests.

And before you go off accusing them of having the intention of creating a genocidal crusading government you should give them a chance to let them do their own thing. people used to talk about letting these people just be on their own. They did that. And then they wanted hopes for a Islamic state, and all of a sudden Foreign forces start paying warlords to stop that from happening, further causing instability.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
They have not stated anything about murdering Christians, or Buddhists, or Athiests.

And before you go off accusing them of having the intention of creating a genocidal crusading government you should give them a chance to let them do their own thing.


I haven't accused anyone of being genocidal, why are you saying that?

What I'm saying is that a theocracy is wrong. People who want to combine church and state, whether that be Islamic or Christian, end up persecuting those that wish to be free of beliefs which they find wrong. If 100% of all of Somalia wishes to be an Islamic State then that's fine, but if as you say 10% don't want that then democracy is the choice.

I'm not defending the US, what I'm trying to say is that if the Islamic winners want to impose their Islamic views on everyone, then I can see how a non-Muslim "fan" could justify fighting Islam by paying warlords (insurgents to those who like to play word games) to help the 10% that don't want to be assimilated.

That's why whoever these guys are that claim they have established some peace, need to come forward with what their intentions are. Is it an Islamic state or is it a secular state based on democracy? Perhaps their intentions are known to the US, so they choose to keep things unstable. Or of course, maybe the US cares only about keeping militant Islamic refuges, that promote anti-western ideals and allow terrorists to hide there, from being established. I don't know that answer or claim to know what the US motives are. I am only throwing out a devil's advocate opinion to those that fall for a peace at all costs resolution.

As a "westerner" I don't really like people that wish to blow up my country or my friends' countries because they don't agree to follow Islam...so I would support the US if a militant Islamic state is the end goal in Somalia. I'm not saying the people don't have a right to establish an Islamic state, but if they do, the "minorities" of the country need to be protected and militants must be outlawed. Usually a democratic secular system that keeps the church/mosque out of government business is best solution for this.

I hear you that Somalia needs to end the fighting. And I have no problem with people choosing freely to be Muslims, but a statement needs to be made by these Islamic fighters in Somalia that the country wishes to follow a democratic path that does not endorse terrorism. Then you have a "live and let live" situation where the US needs to get out, or help fund these Islamic leaders to help promote a democratic form of government.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
They have already stated and I have posted several times that they do not endorse nor seek to deal with terrorism. And now the US state department has issued a statement regarding the issue.

the U.S. this week said the group's goal was to restore "some semblance of order."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington Wednesday that the group's aim, "is to try to lay the foundations for some institutions in Somalia that might form the basis for a better and more peaceful, secure Somalia where the rule of law is important."

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Thursday he supported the interim government's decision to launch a "dialogue in Mogadishu with the Islamic Courts, civil society, the business communities as well as other stakeholders."

Yahoo News
There you have it you heard it from our own Administration, the ones that were just funding the enemies of the courts. Their culture is a unique one, because it is almost a completely African Muslim country, not Arab Muslim. I do not necessarily know how that will affect their future, but there is a difference in their cultures. I am sure talks between them and the internatinal community shall move along gracefully in the coming years.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Right on...looks like I don't have anything else to say. If they are legit then I hope for the best for Somalia and would agree the US needs to cease funding other than humanitarian support.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Never forget the day a hope for a future was destroyed by American geopolitics and greedy ambition.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join