Somalia next

[Flasch186]

Somali Islamists kill 2 at World Cup broadcast

Wednesday, July 5, 2006; Posted: 11:37 a.m. EDT (15:37 GMT)


MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Radical Islamic militia fighters in central Somalia shot and killed two people at the screening of a banned World Cup soccer broadcast while dispersing the crowd of teenagers watching it, an independent radio station reported Wednesday.

The Islamic fighters, who have banned such entertainment, opened fire after the teenagers defied their orders to leave the cinema that was screening the Germany-Italy match, Shabelle Radio reported. It said the dead were a girl and the cinema owner.

Islamic fighters who wrested control of the Somali capital from warlords in June forbade movies and television entertainment in line with their strict interpretation of Islam. The Supreme Islamic Courts Council, originally called the Islamic Courts Union, has expanded its control to other parts of southern Somalia.

Its leader, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, has spent the past weeks in central Somalia recruiting fighters in his clan's native region.

Somalia has been without an effective central government since the warlords turned on each other, carving much of the country into armed camps ruled by violence and clan law. Islamic fundamentalists have stepped into the vacuum, projecting themselves as an alternative military and political power.

They set up a militia force to enforce their interpretation of Islam and formed a court system that helped desperate Somalis settle disputes.

[Cringer]

next?

[Flasch186]

we're going to have to go there next. We meaning the free world.

[AlexB]

Haven't the US & the UN tried this one already? Didn't go too well if I remember correctly - see the above story: no govt since 1992

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

we're going to have to go there next. We meaning the free world.

Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't sure if you meant that, or if you just meant the next Islamic state, or something I wasn't catching at all.....

[st.cronin]

This must be Israel's fault somehow.

[Desnudo]

I don't think we'll be back there anytime soon. Unless capturing a few pick-up trucks with machine gun mounts is considered a matter of national security.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

we're going to have to go there next. We meaning the free world.

Why? And why there, as opposed to anywhere else?

[BrianD]

It amazes me that in this day and age, people can seriously entertain the idea of banning TV and movies...or a broadcast soccer match.

[vex]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why? And why there, as opposed to anywhere else?

Well, naturally, the killing of two people just started WWIII.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why? And why there, as opposed to anywhere else?

Because we abandoned them to the warlords some fourteen(?) years ago.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This must be Israel's fault somehow.

Actually, I would LOVE to see the USA move into Somalia, if for no other reason than to see what the conspiracy theorists come up with, since there's no oil, and no Jewish interest.

[Flasch186]

...because a slippery slope has started in Somalia that will culminate with a return of a Taliban-esque style gov't. wherein the seeds of terrorism will be allowed to prosper and grow.

No one denied that Afghanistan was a justified "war" and for the same reasons, somewhere down the line, we'll have to go to Somalia (again, we being the free world not just the U.S.)

EDIT: the fact that there is no oil and no jews there (maybe a few) should play no role in why we should or shouldn't go.

[sachmo71]

the best part is that we need the warlords to fight the radical muslims. foreign policy makes for strange bedfellows.

[flere-imsaho]

One day, Flasch, I'd like a list from you of all the countries the free world should be liberating, just for the sake of context.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

One day, Flasch, I'd like a list from you of all the countries the free world should be liberating, just for the sake of context.

Sudan and Somalia so far, and that is just the "S"s.

Note I'm not Flasch, but I do think we agree on this point. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility/duty of those who are capable to intercede on the behalf of innocents around the world. Our self interest shouldn't be a consideration.

[Flasch186]

off the top of my head, quickly, any that commit genocide....then the rest Ill have to research.

After WWII we said we would never allow it to happen again and I still subscribe to that desire and if we have the means we should do all we can to prevent it and nip it in the bud. One day late is one day too many...

EDIT to add: it should not be only the US but the entire free world with the means to participate.

[Poli]

Flasch and Glen are smart fellas.

Signed,

CJTF-HOA

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

CJTF-HOA

???

[Poli]

www.google.com

[Flasch186]

very cool

[Poli]

AKA: Where I'm at.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Note I'm not Flasch, but I do think we agree on this point. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility/duty of those who are capable to intercede on the behalf of innocents around the world. Our self interest shouldn't be a consideration.

Consider a list of everywhere in the world where innocents are being harmed by others. Most of Africa, definitely large chunks of the Middle East, some parts of South America, and a fair bit of Asia.

Next, consider the manpower already invested in various peacekeeping or otherwise missions around the world. Look at Iraq only, and how many troops have accomplished only partial security. Look at the troops near Sudan that have only succeeded in setting up a refugee camp.

Put these together for me and estimate exactly how much manpower you'd need to do this.

Then, ask yourself, is it our (i.e. those who can intercede) duty to intercede on the behalf of innocents until, basically, either their tormenters are subdued or we are?

Given the manpower involved, are you willing to back that up with your own blood?

[Blade6119]

Remember Kingdom of Heaven, when they say why wont you do a bit of bad to do a greater good...i kind of wonder if thats not the case here. We wouldnt be able to help if we hadnt royally screwed the indians...odd opinion i know, but i felt it was worth noting

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Consider a list of everywhere in the world where innocents are being harmed by others. Most of Africa, definitely large chunks of the Middle East, some parts of South America, and a fair bit of Asia.

Next, consider the manpower already invested in various peacekeeping or otherwise missions around the world. Look at Iraq only, and how many troops have accomplished only partial security. Look at the troops near Sudan that have only succeeded in setting up a refugee camp.

Put these together for me and estimate exactly how much manpower you'd need to do this.

Then, ask yourself, is it our (i.e. those who can intercede) duty to intercede on the behalf of innocents until, basically, either their tormenters are subdued or we are?

Given the manpower involved, are you willing to back that up with your own blood?

If all good in the world (I use good losely but you know what I mean) banded together to fight all of the evil in the world (I understand its subjective but this is my opinion...NOT YOURS!!) good would win, and all those acting on behalf of the good side should "fight" if able. Fight is in quotes becuase I dont believe ALL those on the good side would need to physically fight (there are many many supporting but equally as important roles)

Good and evil have nothing to do with religion or faith, at all. More so relying on subjection, genocide, torture, mass starvation, etc.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Remember Kingdom of Heaven, when they say why wont you do a bit of bad to do a greater good...i kind of wonder if thats not the case here. We wouldnt be able to help if we hadnt royally screwed the indians...odd opinion i know, but i felt it was worth noting

true

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

If all good in the world (I use good losely but you know what I mean) banded together to fight all of the evil in the world (I understand its subjective but this is my opinion...NOT YOURS!!) good would win, and all those acting on behalf of the good side should "fight" if able. Fight is in quotes becuase I dont believe ALL those on the good side would need to physically fight (there are many many supporting but equally as important roles)

Sorry, I'm trying to be more concrete than that.

What you're advocating is a strongly interventionist policy by many (perhaps most, but certainly not all) of the world's nations. Given our experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan (most recently), and the U.N.'s various experiences around the world, what you're talking about are multiple intervention operations requiring truly sizeable manpower.

So, given that, do it anyway?

Let's say it requires such manpower that it proves a considerable drain on the world economy. Still do it?

What if it requires such manpower that you, personally, have to be given a gun and told to keep order in rural Colombia, or East Timor, or Congo, or Somalia. Still do it?

If you answer no to any of those questions, then where do you draw the line?

If you answer "well, not all concurrently" to those questions, then how could you possibly prioritize?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Remember Kingdom of Heaven, when they say why wont you do a bit of bad to do a greater good...i kind of wonder if thats not the case here. We wouldnt be able to help if we hadnt royally screwed the indians...odd opinion i know, but i felt it was worth noting

Are you referring specifically to Somalia here, or are you being more general?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are you referring specifically to Somalia here, or are you being more general?

here now, but it applies elsewhere i suppose...i just find it funny that we killed off almost an entire ethnic group to get where we are today to go and prevent other groups from doing it. I dont support genocide, but i am somewhat a believer in let people handle their own business. Survival of the fittest and all that

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sorry, I'm trying to be more concrete than that.

What you're advocating is a strongly interventionist policy by many (perhaps most, but certainly not all) of the world's nations. Given our experiences in Iraq & Afghanistan (most recently), and the U.N.'s various experiences around the world, what you're talking about are multiple intervention operations requiring truly sizeable manpower.

So, given that, do it anyway?

Let's say it requires such manpower that it proves a considerable drain on the world economy. Still do it?

What if it requires such manpower that you, personally, have to be given a gun and told to keep order in rural Colombia, or East Timor, or Congo, or Somalia. Still do it?

If you answer no to any of those questions, then where do you draw the line?

If you answer "well, not all concurrently" to those questions, then how could you possibly prioritize?

Considering that it would be impossible to do concurrently, no to that one. It has to be planned so as the end results, we hope, are the most successful outcomes.

Yes, war doesn't automatically hurt an economy...

Yes...if need be, then I, the most untrained person to do so, at the point when needed, would have to go help "save the world" (and that is how it can be framed for each individual involved). It is no delusion of grandeur to think that if they actually did need those like me to hold a gun, as opposed to raising money, or sales (what Im good at) we probably have been failing royally up to that point....



Now, I gotta ask....havnt we had this conversation before, dont I already know how you and that of the same ilk feel? You're never going to think of the greater world's good, right, whatever that means....it doesnt equate to myview of that good, right? So what can one do other than smack you upside the head with pictures from the victims of the world's evils (holocaust, bosnia, N. Korea, Taliban, etc.) before you say, with a shrug, "tough titty." no offense.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

If all good in the world (I use good losely but you know what I mean) banded together to fight all of the evil in the world (I understand its subjective but this is my opinion...NOT YOURS!!) good would win, and all those acting on behalf of the good side should "fight" if able. Fight is in quotes becuase I dont believe ALL those on the good side would need to physically fight (there are many many supporting but equally as important roles)

Good and evil have nothing to do with religion or faith, at all. More so relying on subjection, genocide, torture, mass starvation, etc.

ooooh, the final showdown between good and evil. I've been waiting for this.

Which side are we on?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I dont support genocide, but i am somewhat a believer in let people handle their own business. Survival of the fittest and all that

tolerance of Genocide is the same as supporting it, IMO. We must stop it, just like WWII....we need to learn from that history and never let it be repeated.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by yabanci

ooooh, the final showdown between good and evil. I've been waiting for this.

Which side are we on?

who is we?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

tolerance of Genocide is the same as supporting it, IMO. We must stop it, just like WWII....we need to learn from that history and never let it be repeated.

I agree learning from history is smart, and to counter that point and take it a different direction, the downfall of every great nation has been trying to over-extend its powers...influence too many areas...i love the US, and dont want to see her fall like every other nation in history has. No empire has stood, no nation remained the biggest power out there. So i say we take care of our own problems before we take care of theirs. Secure our borders before we police someone elses.

Dont get me wrong, i was 100% for iraq and afghan...still am...i also worry that these issues are taking focus over our own

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I agree learning from history is smart, and to counter that point and take it a different direction, the downfall of every great nation has been trying to over-extend its powers...influence too many areas...i love the US, and dont want to see her fall like every other nation in history has. No empire has stood, no nation remained the biggest power out there. So i say we take care of our own problems before we take care of theirs. Secure our borders before we police someone elses.

Dont get me wrong, i was 100% for iraq and afghan...still am...i also worry that these issues are taking focus over our own

Keep in mind, Glen and I are not saying the US should do this....the entire free world should be involved. Two totally different lines of thought there.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Keep in mind, Glen and I are not saying the US should do this....the entire free world should be involved. Two totally different lines of thought there.

Your talking in the hypothetical to me...i forget the stat but even now the majority of peacekeeping forces in the world are US. In a perfect world every country helps and all that...but in the world scene i see today, i dont find that terribly likely. Sorry to be blunt there

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Your talking in the hypothetical to me...i forget the stat but even now the majority of peacekeeping forces in the world are US. In a perfect world every country helps and all that...but in the world scene i see today, i dont find that terribly likely. Sorry to be blunt there

then the world needs to wake up. Not everyone has to be on the front lines, there are tons of supporting roles, but I feel that if we dont snuff out things like Somalia in their infancy, we will have to go there anyways, and the hundreds of thousands to millions killed, waiting for someone to come "save" them will be lost in the same vain as those lost in the holocaust and the like.

All my opinion.

[Flasch186]

i understand that it may be unrealistic assumptions to think that everyone "good" will help in the fight, but to aim for anything less, IMO is accepting the unacceptable.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

who is we?

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

LOL!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

We just ask Duckman. He is good at determining it.

Or

We could roll a 20 sided die and figure it out by fighting in the forest using Lightning Bolts.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

We just ask Duckman. He is good at determining it.

Or

We could roll a 20 sided die and figure it out by fighting in the forest using Lightning Bolts.

Didnt Hell Atlantic make a list just for this today?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Excellent question. Can you get me tickets to the meeting where it's determined who is good and who is evil?

Yes, an interesting question that raises a few hypotheticals. What if intervention in Somalia does not come from the liberal democracies of the west? For instance (not that they have the actual capability to do so), what if China or Russia were to take the lead in an intervention? I could see reasons other than pure humanitarianism for that policy choice.

So, can a state that isn't free be considered "good" if it intervenes in Somalia (presumably against the islamists) or in any other humanitarian crises? Can a humanitarian intervention in Somalia be considered "good" if humanitarian goals play only a minor role in the intervener's policy intentions, even if those humanitarian goals are attained? Also, what of the warlords? Wouldn't support of the warlords be just as odious as allowing the islamists free reign over Somalia?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Klingerware

Wouldn't support of the warlords be just as odious as allowing the islamists free reign over Somalia?

A very good question, actually. The warlords are just as bad murdering fucks as the Islamists have been. Probably the best situation would be take every power broker out... but that raises its own questions (who are we killing in order to bring a better government to the people... what if the people would rather stick to their tribal groups?).

[aran]

This "war of good vs. evil" seems to be an extremely naive viewpoint to hold, especially for an adult who pays any attention to the world around them. Everyone has good and evil in them and expresses both frequently. There must be good for there to be evil. Neither side can ever win--there's always a vile act occuring because there are always heroic acts occuring. You cannot destroy evil entirely without becoming part evil yourself. Cycles of fighting, victory, fracturing, fighting will continue until everyone is dead. One must constantly ask "Am I evil?" and if they are evil, what should they do? Commiting suicide would make them good again, but they'd be dead. Such paradoxes occur constantly because the world isn't black and white--good vs. evil is just an illusion created by one power to influence its people to be proud and fight even more faithfully for self-preservation.

Things aren't going to change on this most basic and most idealistic level.

[Groundhog]

Good and evil is all a matter of perspective. No one would really consider themselves evil, unless they were mentally unbalanced, and certainly no society considers themselves evil. Hitler felt he was doing what was right, as do the North Koreans now. Japan gets painted as evil for what they did in WWII, but at that time the Japanese considered the USA evil too for cutting of it's supplies and, in their opinion (back then, anyway) forcing their hand in to war.

You speak to an Islamic terrorist and they'll tell you that all the Islamics need to band together and destroy the "evil West". They consider themselves good and us evil in the exact same way that we do vice versa. And if you try and look at things from their perspective you can see why that might be; just as you can easily see it from your own as to why you are the opposite.

The war against good and evil is never going to end, because as long as you have different cultures, religions, countries, leaders, etc. people are going to get painted as good and evil in order to advance one nation over another.

In 400 years time there will still be the same violence, because in order for a culture to thrive, they need to take advantage of others, which causes anger. That's just unfortunately how the world has always worked, and how it always will.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Good and evil is all a matter of perspective.

No, good and evil are facts. Just because there is dispute as to what those facts are does not deny the existance of said facts.

The number of grains of sand in my sandbox is either odd or even. If you and I debate and discuss which is which and disagree, you thinking odd while I think even, thereis a dispute to the matter and it is unprovable. It is still a fact, just currently unknowable with the current technology available to us.

The same is true of good and evil. Arguments do not change facts.

-Anxiety

[thealmighty]

Perspective doesn't change the fact that something is, in fact, a fact. He wasn't saying good and evil are not facts, I don't think.

If I hate Bush, some call me evil, some call me good. Facts remain, irregardless.

[Flasch186]

correct but, as Ive stated time and again, that my opinion or naivete is from my view. You have yours, Osama has his, Hitler had his, but I believe in mine...I would venture to guess that a great deal of the majority of people in the free world would fall somewhere on the same side of the spectrum as my view (or portions of it) while the other side, lets call it "evil", would fall somewhere on the other side of the spectrum but certainly farther away from my view than those that share some of my same ideals. I'm not saying share mine exactly but some more facets than they share with the other side. When I saw 9/11 the views of the world were very polarized, it wasn't a whole lot of gray but much more black and white.

While I know that this view I hold has ingredients including naivete, much like the standards I hold politicians to, I dont think that you or I, should say, "Well that's unrealistic or unattainable so we shouldn't feel that way. Just accept X, Y, and Z because its more realistic." To me that is tantamount to "giving up".

[John Galt]

If genocide is the touchstone for invasion, why is Somalia next?