Somalia Crisis Dubbed Worse Than Darfur

[Robbien]

Source: CBS

It's a dubious honor, but if the title of Africa's most pressing humanitarian crisis belongs to any country, it might not be the one with all the bus stop advertising featuring movie stars striking poses of deep concern.

At this moment it may belong to Somalia, where 200,000 people recently displaced by violence are rapidly running out of food, the New York Times reports. Top United Nations officials who specialize in Somalia said the country had higher malnutrition rates, more current bloodshed and fewer aid workers than Darfur, which is often publicized as the world's most pressing humanitarian crisis.

It might not matter who's in bigger trouble, except that Darfur has taken clear priority in terms of getting peacekeepers and aid money. In some cases, such as the African Union's promise to send 8,000 troops to stop the anarchy in Somalia, promises couldn't be fulfilled because the soldiers were deployed to Darfur. Only 1,600 Ugandan troops of the promised 8,000 have showed up so far.

Somalia's problems are centered in Mogadishu, where relentless urban combat between an unpopular transitional government - installed partially with American help - and a determined Islamist insurgency have driven waves of people to more than 70 refugee camps.

These people are hungry and sick, and only the hardiest of hardcore humanitarian agencies can get to them. Unlike Darfur, where suffering is being eased by a billion-dollar aid operation and more than 10,000 aid workers, Somalia is mostly considered a no-go zone.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/20/the_skinny/main3525115.shtml

[boricua79]

1. you know what...

we tried to help...food wasn't getting to the right people...we tried to get involved and remove the warlords from the equation, and we got "Black Hawk Down".

Sorry Somalians...Homey ain't playing that again.

Somalians need to sort out their won internal Islamic insurgency vs. transitional government thing first. As brutal as it may...we don't need to be involved in that bloodshed, unless we're willing to get embroiled in yet another anti-Islamic war.

[Robbien]

2. Boy do you have that wrong. US invaded Somalia in January of this year

Somalia was at relative peace until Bolton got the okay from the UN to invade Somalia and roust out all those nasty non-christians who brought calm to the country from the first time since your Black Hawk Down.

Tons of US money were given to the Ethiopian killer squads who were told to go to Somalia and start this war. Ethiopia rousted the Muslims and killed/raped/burned out all the civilians and now Ethiopia decides it isn't leaving.

So, WE started this mess and YOU say "Sorry Somalia, tough luck. Your fault. WE are warmongers and you are nonwhite non christians sitting on top of a bunch of our oil and you are in our way".

[boricua79]

6. umm...

when did we invade again? I don't see our troops on the ground.

Second, Ethiopia invaded, not us. They and they alone are responsible for THEIR actions.

Third, the "nasty non-christians" did not bring calm to the country since Black Hawk Down, unless you consider warlords rule "calm".

Fourth, I am not going to feel sad for Somalians if they can't get their act together and decide how their going to govern themselves. Muslims and non-Muslims alike are Somalians. They've decided to have a civil war for control of the country. Somalians themselves have not decided that outcome and Somalians themselves are participating in the war. I'm not letting them get off the hook on that.

We didn't start anything...this conflict is related to ethnic/religious divisions that have been longstanding in Somali society.

As for the oil argument, maybe the U.S. has its own geopolitical calculations in this equation, but the underlying ethnic conflict was not of their making. Somalia is also dealing with its own Arab/Muslim vs. AFrican ethnic issue, as is Sudan. This is a conflict of ethnicities that is centuries old.

[Robbien]

9. Your blinders are fastened on securely

And bias against Muslims is so huge you cannot see past anything but Christianity/USA good, Somalia bad.

We started this. But no amount of linking to Bolton's UN actions, no amount of links to our requests for Somalian invasion, no amount of links to our funding of the Ethiopian death squads, no amount of links to relative peace in Somalia under UIC rule before we decided to invade, will convince you.

Muslims were in control and now they are not. To get rid of the Muslim rulers millions of Somalians are dying and/or are in desperate misery. In your opinion that is a good thing.

The only ethnic/religious conflict here is that the USA religious cabal couldn't handle the fact that the Muslims in Somalia were in control.

[boricua79]

11. if you say so.

"And bias against Muslims is so huge you cannot see past anything but Christianity/USA good, Somalia bad.

You said that, not me. Pulled it out of your butt.

Muslims were in control through force and fear. They had no legitimacy. Don't give it to them.

And I personally could care less regarding the religious question. I'm someone who is very skeptical of ALL religions, and if you read many of my other posts, I'm very against the U.S. government, its foreign policy, and its actions around the world.

What I said is that I don't think we should get involved over there with our troops and military. Relative peace is a very disingenous way of proving your point. I'd like to know how "peaceful" it was during that "relative peace".

[Robbien]

12. I have read you other posts

and all of them are very anti-Muslim. You keep stating, "I don't hate Muslims BUT we cannot ignore that the Muslim faith has millions and millions of extremists who hate us and want to kill us.

I don't hate Muslims, BUT. . .
I don't hate Muslims, BUT. . . "
and so on

I fear you dost protest too much.

[boricua79]

13. what!?

I've never said that Muslim faith is filled with millions who hate us and want to kill us. That's falsehood! That's defaming. Prove that I wrote that...link to a post I did!

The burden of proof is on you.

[Robbien]

14. Link

Your comment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3072384&mesg_id=3072391

If you ever want to open your mind about peaceful Islam in Somalia read Somali journalist Abdisalam Guled who witnessed the rise of the Union of Islamic Courts and the US-backed invasion by Ethiopian troops.

Small sample

This is a distortion of the truth. The rise of the UIC is rooted in the chaos that befell our nation since the collapse of the central state in 1991. It has nothing to do with terrorism.

There was no government in Somalia for many years, especially in the south central area of the country. These were years of tragedy where our nation was turned into rubble. Somalia was under the control of over 20 rival warlords and their militias. They engaged in banditry, kidnapping, ransom, looting and extortion.

The warlords carved up the capital Mogadishu between them and placed checkpoints on every main street. Many tens of thousands of people suffered or died at their hands.

After years without a government ordinary people began to say, “Because there is no police and no justice, let us establish something we can trust.” So they set up an informal justice system based on the principles of Islamic sharia law. One or two people would have the responsibility of policing a neighbourhood and would attempt to hold the warlords and their militias to account.

This demand for fairness and justice rose everywhere and many neighbourhoods appealed for similar courts to be established in their areas. The UIC emerged out of this grassroots movement.

It galvanised those who lived in fear of the warlords and peeled away their support inside the clans. As the UIC gained influence it was able to appeal to the general dissatisfaction.

The warlords began to fear the UIC’s influence and attacked the courts, claiming they were a Somali version of the Taliban. The warlords formed themselves into an “alliance against terrorism” who were fighting against an “Al Qaida plot” to take over the country. Then they turned to the US for weapons and aid.

In June 2006 this struggle between the UIC and the warlords turned into a popular uprising that drove the militias out of the capital. Other regions staged similar rebellions.

At first those involved in the UIC had no idea that they would be pushed into power. It was not their original intention to become the government. They where taken by surprise by the popular insurrection that swept away the warlords.

The six months that they were in control of south central Somalia were a period of peace. The roadblocks had gone, the kidnappings and killings had stopped. The UIC restored property to people who had been robbed. It reopened the port and the international airport.

This period is painted as one of “Taliban rule” where music shops were burnt down and cinemas closed. But this was not my experience. There are many in Somalia driven by anger against the West, the US and Ethiopia, but the UIC kept them in check. To my knowledge there was one case where an owner of a camera shop was threatened by religious fundamentalists – but this was resolved by the UIC and the shop remained open.

After the warlords were driven out they reorganised themselves in the north with the support of the US and Ethiopia. They appealed to the “international community”, saying that Somalia was being overrun by Islamists. They claimed that they were part of the fight against the “war on terror”.

much more at link
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13580

[boricua79]

15. the link you provided said NOTHING

about Muslims hating us or wanting to kill us (as you stated I said in THIS post) - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3072438&mesg_id=3072696

You distorted what I actually wrote and twisted it to suit your interests/argument. That is dishonest.

What I said was that Islam, as it is practiced around many nations of the world (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, areas of Pakistan, North Africa, etc) DEFINITELY needs to go through a Reformation or an Enlightenment period. I'm not the first person to suggest that, and many actual Western Muslim intellectuals have actually condemned Islam as it is practiced in these places. They (rightfully so) claim that its mysoginy, religious absolutism/theocracy, anti-science, anti-foreign, anti-democracy, and anti-personal freedom tendencies are a mockery of what Islam should be about. I do not apologize for saying that in these areas, Islam is practiced in a backwards, medieval way (if you have any other term to more accurately describe hanging homosexuals or not allowing women to work in society, please enlighten us).

I specifically say, "Kudos to Muslims who practice tolerant forms of Islam compatible with modern life." I am supportive and in agreement with this interpretation of Islam, as I am supportive of interpretations of any religion that do not conflict with Western/Enlightenment values of personal freedom, rights of man, humanism, and equality. NO religion gets a pass with me if it undermines those Enlightenment values. I also specifically say, "I have the same scorn for Christian evangelicals who practice their own medieval version of Christianity."

You have been proven wrong, and you have been proven to have twisted words and put words in my mouth. I am not anti-Islam, and I don't hate Muslims, and I never said what you said I said. You need to apologize.

[Robbien]

16. When you make sweeping statements

writing off whole countries because of outspoken radical minorities who practice militancy, then that is viewed as bigotry.

In the US, a small radical vocal minority of christians spout hatred of other races, gays, women's rights etc. Our current leader is a member of that group. Should the US be written off as a hater militant christian country?

Islam is a peaceful religion as practiced by 98% of Islamics. A small portion of the Islamic population in every country is militant.

The majority of people in the world just want to be left alone in peace to raise their families and live their lives according to their beliefs. Islamics are no different than anyone else.

[boricua79]

17. oh you won't get away with that.

"writing off whole countries because of outspoken radical minorities who practice militancy, then that is viewed as bigotry."

HELLO! The laws of Saudi Arabia are the law in ALL of Saudi Arabia. The law in Iran is THE LAW in ALL of Iran. The Law in Afghanistan is THE LAW in ALL of Afghanistan. How it can be a "radical minority", when these nations' laws DICTATE this behavior? How can it be just a radical minority when many Imams and Ayatollahs constantly support the very same policies. You try being a woman or a non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia or Iran. See how the "minority" treats you.

The U.S.'s national laws do not allow for the type of blanket oppression that Muslim laws in certain countries do. And our laws are a product of the Western Enlightenment values I hold dear. Hence, why I don't give ANY RELIGION (let me say it again...ANY RELIGION) a pass if they infringe upon them.

"live their lives according to their beliefs."

Which means hanging homosexuals in Iran, forcing burkhas in Afghanistan, not allowing me to drive in Saudi Arabia, and gangrapes as punishments for sexual freedom for women in areas of Pakistan. I'm not even speaking of genital mutilation (an act to prevent sexual pleasure in women and therefore make them more sexually controllable).

You need to do some reading.

[Robbien]

19. I always need additional reading but

you need to stop continually taking radical events and spreading them to all muslims smearing them all as militant.

Sure, when radicals get in power, especially when those radicals are heavily supported by the USA, those radicals impose harsh oppressive laws on the non elite of their countries. The US supports those militant oppressive governments. You blithely write off all the civilian victims of the US backed oppressors.

Muslims in the countries you scornfully write off are peaceful people being oppressed by US backed radicals.

Religion is not the problem.

[boricua79]

20. these are not radical events!

This is the reality on the ground...right now...in Middle Eastern countries.

The Royal family has been in power in Saudi Arabia for decades...they're not temporary radicals. The Iranian theocracy has been in power since 1979...they're not temporary radicals.

I think someone here sees the U.S> behind everything. The Saudi Royal family has connections with the Bush administration and other U.S. business interests...but they're also a homegrown tyranny and the people acquiesce to it. The Iranian theocracy is a regime that arguably developed in opposition to the U.S. influence in Iran (in the form of the Shah).

I understand that it's hard for you swallow the fact that many Muslim nations practice backward, medieval social/political policies largely derived from THEIR misinterpretation of Sha'ria law. I'm not going to say that the laws are Islamic...but for the purpose of identification, those that propose them consider them "Islamic". So, if what passes as Islamic law in many nations is medieval...then I'm saying, as an outsider, that many Muslim nations need to go through an enlightenment and reformation. The day women can drive in Saudi Arabia or the day they don't have to suffer genital mutilation, or th day they can vote freely is the day I'm going to say, "yes, Islamic nations caught up to the West". Most of Europe and the United States (and I'd say most of Latin America as well) already have these enlightened views, so it's not a question of "only Whites" having superior values. I'm saying Islamic nations are FAR behind, and socio-economic-political statistics on development and human rights prove me right.

You want to put your fingers in your ears and say, "alalallalaa, I can't hear you", fine. But, reality is reality. It's not just a minority...and it's not just temporary radicals. These are established social customs.

What may be "temporary" or "radical" are Osama Bin Laden types...but even if he did exist, there still would be backwards practices in the Middle East.

[Robbien]

22. Same old story we get from wingnuts all the time

You are starting to sound a lot like Ann Coulter

Non-christians need "to go through an enlightenment and reformation".


Go somewhere else and sell your bigotry. Not buying your warmongering.

[boricua79]

24. you are coming to your own twisted conclusions

I'm not saying "perfect" Islam and make it Christianity. That's not what I'm saying and its dishonest to compare me to Ann Coulter.

I'm saying that Islam, as it is practiced in many regions of the world, is medieval. Just as medieval as the type of Christinity that people like Dobson, Robertson and Falwell would have us live under here in the United States. There is also a way to interpret Islam that is compatible with Western life, and many Muslims do practice it in Western Europe, the U.S., and in other places.

I'm not being a bigot, and I never called for war, so I don't understand where you claim I'm a bigot and that I'm being a warmongerer.

you're starting to sound more and more like an irrational person.

[Robbien]

25. You have no clue

You are sitting here on your high horse looking down at a small space and dreaming nightmares about countries and people and religions you know nothing about except what is written by those mongers on the right.

Islam is medieval you emphatically state and so ignorantly state. In the same way all bigots emphatically and ignorantly state so many stupid and mean things about people, places, religions, and races they know nothing about.

Again I say, go sell it somewhere else.

[boricua79]

26. what are you talking about?

Are you telling me that Iran does not hang homosexuals, or that Saudi arabia doesn't have all the backwards, medieval laws on its books. That's "what is written by those mongers on the right"? C'mon...you're sounding really out of it when you dismiss my claims with those statements.

I said that Islam, AS IT IS PRACTICED IN SOME COUNTRIES, is medieval. i didn't say the entire religion in every place in the world is medieval. I even stated so in my last post (you don't read very well, do you?)

And then you lump me with ignorant bigots. I hate to say it, but other readers on this forum will read your posts and see how out of it you sound. I think I've made my positions VERY clear.

[Robbien]

28. You are so closed minded

Just go away. People with your type of closed mindedness and narrow bigoted thinking are leading this country and it is is exactly why our country is invading other countries and dropping bombs on their citizens. People with your type of thinking are why those millions of Somalians are right now living in terror and despair and are close to death.

Just go away.

[boricua79]

29. part of my closed minded

explain THIS to me...just radicals, right? Here's an example of that very "modern" Islam at work...and of course, it just so happens to be a minority in Saudi Arabia, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3073653

For the record, I was anti-war in Afghanistan and anti-war in Iraq, and if drafted, I would rather refuse to go and go to jail then be sent to Iraq (to discredit your "your type of closed mindedness and narrow bigoted thinking are leading this country and it is is exactly why our country is invading other countries and dropping bombs on their citizens)

You're pulling all your statements right of your butt, and you're looking rather loony for it.

[boricua79]

31. more from the Middle East

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/21/saudi.rape.victim/index.html

More about that rape case. Something interesting caught my eye.

"Under law in Saudi Arabia, women are subject to numerous restrictions, including a strict dress code, a prohibition on driving and a requirement that they get a man's permission to travel or have surgery. Women are also not allowed to testify in court unless it is about a private matter that was not observed by a man, and they are not allowed to vote."

Is it fair to say that this reflects:

A) the actions of a radical extreme minority or
B) the laws of an entire country

I don't hate Muslims. I don't hate Arabs. i'd sit down with either any day. However, I do have an intellectual and moral opposition to these type of laws, which are common throughout the Muslim world. Only a few places (like Turkey) have laws that are compatible with Western notions of personal freedom, equality, and humanism.

THAT was my point. That was my only contention. People twisted my words to reflect their own agendas.

[KamaAina]

27. Actually, they're not all anti-Muslim

these two are anti-New Orleans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=321887&mesg_id=321896

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=321887&mesg_id=321898

Sheesh.

[boricua79]

30. wow, people...

I never said I was anti-New Orleans. I just thought that it didn't make sense to weep over the demographic change in the city (from black to white) when the city is going to be under the sea within the end of this century. I don't know how that translates into being "anti-New Orleans". You guys really do extrapolate a lot from people's written sentences and make up stuff.


It's very dishonest to spread innuendo, assumptions, and rumors without actually posting sentences I've written that say I'm anti-Muslim or anti-New Orleans. That's very wrong of you guys.

[Progressive Friend]

21. The US supports Ethiopia and encouraged them to attack Somalia

The US has even carried out air strikes on Somalia as well.

[Gman]

23. OMG! The "Personal Responsibility" shit

The biggest RW copout phrase and solution for everything they think is wrong ever. Lack of PR was most recently used to explain the current mortgage scam, a la, "they should have read the fine print". Now you're using it to blow off an invasion we instigated. "Personal Responsibility" is such a useful throw down phrase and wonderful wedge issue initiator when used masterfully. The "Personal Responsibility" thing is such a magnificent reason not to think. The world is black and white. No gray. Isn't life wonderful for us "personally responsible" people.

You even use it to describe people in Somalia. Brilliantly stupid and mindless explanation.

Do these phucking people ever stop?

[Beerboy]

3. We can learn from our mistakes,

instead of sending in an American Einsatzgruppen extermination team, we fund a UN program to restore government to Somalia?

[Eugene]

4. We're involved. The Somali government and Ethiopia are our proxies in the "War on Terror."

It was the Bush administration's idea use force against the Islamic Courts
and send the Ethiopians in shooting. Those now "ex-warlords" in the Somali
government are on the CIA payroll. They are our sons of bitches now.
And American advisers are there to tell them who to bomb.

We are directly responsible for whatever happens in this fight.

[boricua79]

7. so everything that happened previously

is conveniently wiped out, right? No tears shed for people who suffered under the Islamic Courts...all suffering that is relevant is the suffering and casualties of the civil conflict now between Ethiopia, Islamic courts, and the transitional government of Somalia.

And convenient...since now the U.S. gets blamed.

not a peep on the legitimacy of the Islamic courts...nothing.

[Beerboy]

18. No, everything that happened there previously is not erased,

the trouble in that corner of the world is 200% attributable to the good old U.S.A. America set up the Islamic Courts.

[tabasco]

5. Blackhawk Down happened when the Ranger task force went into Somalia

acting like it was a big training operation. 10th Mountain had been in country for a year getting the job done and getting the food to the right people. But the Ranger task force came in and flew around Mogadishu like it was a training operation, stirring up Aidid's militia, and acted like 10th Mountain didn't exist. Rangers screwed up and I hated to see it because I'm a Ranger.

The people who were starving in Somalia were not the people in Mogadishu who shot down the Rangers. They were the people in the hinterlands in places like Baidoa and Belet Uen.

Bush I sent us into Somalia with one month left in his term. Nice steaming pile for his successor. Clinton has to take some responsibility but he got bad advice from military people who told him to get into nation-building and go after Aidid. Just because the Pakistanis got wiped out was no reason for us to get in deeper.

But your expert analysis far surpasses anything I know. "Homey ain't playing that again." That's deep.

[boricua79]

8. i'm not offering "expert" analysis

I'm offering a lay-person's opinion..and my opinion is that I don't wish for us to get involved in Somalia again...at least not until they've resolved how they are going to govern themselves.

There's a lot of hot spots and conflicts in the world, and we don't need to enter every single one. If there is anything I've learned in these 7 years is that there are regions of the world which are absolutely backwards in their cultural ways, which have no sense of decency, which would rather wage unending ethnic/civil war, which would rather rule themselves under feudal-style warlord rules, and THAT's not gonna change anytime soon. Our military power can't change it, we can't occupy every nation to force them to live up to more enlightened standards, so we can't do much. That's life. That's reality.

We don't need to get embroiled. I'm sorry for the innocents caught in the way, but we don't need to get involved with troops there.

As for the U.S. government funding "our sons of bitches", I'm not gonna shed a tear for their targets: The Islamic Courts. And I'm not naive enough to think the "sons of bitches" will be any better. I'm well aware of how the U.S. funds dictators like Saddam Hussein or Musharaff.

But, as for sending in troops or getting involved, I say again, "homey don't play that".

[cosmicdot]

10. is Somalia's internet still down?

Friday, 23 November, 2001, 13:02 GMT

US shuts down Somalia internet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1672220.stm