The Bad Guys Win
What am I saying. They're all bad guys. It's just that some of the bad guys are slightly better than the worse bad guys.
The 1400 year old jihad machine chugs on:
MOGADISHU, Somalia - Islamic militants captured the last strategic town held by their warlord rivals Wednesday, consolidating their hold over a large swath of Somalia even as the country's parliament called for help from foreign peacekeepers.
The brave troops of the U.S. backed warlords show us how they earned our hard-earned tax dollars:
Hours after the Islamic force attacked the town of Jowhar from three directions Wednesday, the last of the warlords' remaining fighters fled east, some in pickup trucks with rooftop-mounted machine guns. Militiamen seized the airport, just outside town. Residents were fleeing and witnesses reported as many as 19 dead.
Talk about take the money and run.
So the country's ineffectual and worthless parliament is calling for international peacekeepers. Sorry chums, we've been down that road and we've seen what happens.
It may not be realpolitik, it will never be given the Official Government Seal of Approval, but it's plausible that the only thing now to keep Somalia from being the new base of operations for Osama and Co. is a nice carpet bombing.
It's either that, or wait until Somalia is used as a base to launch another 9/11.
And, since you didn't ask, but were thinking it, yes, nearly 13 years on, I'm still bitter. If you were doing word association, and said "Somalia," the first thing that would pop into my head would be "fuc* 'em."
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:01 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Failed states are always chaotic where anything goes.
Posted by: john ryan at June 14, 2006 05:16 PM (TcoRJ)
2
I look at the suffering in post-war Vietnam and post-intervention Somalia and I remember what Ralph Peters wrote in his most current book: "when the US loses, humanity loses." Now there are some who want to abandon Iraq to those Islamo-animals? Insane.
Posted by: Thrill at June 14, 2006 05:41 PM (DYb4r)
3
>>>"when the US loses, humanity loses."
I would agree with that. Libs accuse America of invading Iraq to "further U.S. interests." And my response is yeah, and?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 14, 2006 05:47 PM (8e/V4)
4
Let the baby, have it's bottle.
I don't forsee the Jihadi's doing any better than the Warlords faired, the reason being is they have been welcomed because they're a hope, and a change and promise to make things better with their Islamic one trick pony show, the problem of course now is, they will have to make good on it.
Try telling a guy to put his wife in a Burka to be a good Muslim, while he has no food in his stomach, has no job, no water, electric etc.
What do they have to offer? nothing, no jobs, no money, no Government and they will ensure Somalia will be isolated by the rest of the world.
Sudan ran Bin Laden out of it's country because for all his money, he became a pariah.
Time to sit back and watch the jihadi's get their ass handed to them by a populace scorned.
Posted by: davec at June 14, 2006 07:13 PM (CcXvt)
5
Just don't let any of these Somalian use this as an excuse to immigrate here. Plenty of these backward shits allready wandering up and down our welfare roles.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 14, 2006 07:29 PM (s/5ju)
6
You are absolutely right, greyrooster. We can now expect another flood of refugees headed from Somalia to the US, with more murdered Americans the result. See how these people have behaved in Minneapolis. Just like they do in Somalia. Makes. You. Sick.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 14, 2006 07:51 PM (rUyw4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Islamists Take Mogadishu, Set up Sharia Courts: Echos of Kabul
As reported by Vinnie yesterday at The Jawa Report, Islamist militias with ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network have
succeeded in taking over the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu. It should never be forgotten that al Qaeda's first sucess was in fighting American troops in Mogadishu during the famous "Black Hawk down" incident.
Although not mentioned in the movie by the same name, Osama bin Laden later admitted that he had sent fighters into Somalia to help warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. Bin Laden, it is said, had had a mystic "vision" in which U.S. was revealed as a paper tiger & that American forces would withdraw from Somalia, defeated. When his "vision" came true, many came to think of bin Laden as a man with supernatural powers.
Thousands of U.S. troops are currently stationed in Djibouti, which borders Somalia to the north. Strategy Page (via Glenn) has the Somalia timeline.
We cannot afford to lose the Horn of Africa to Islamists.
Reuters:
The Islamic side, which supports sharia courts in Mogadishu, announced they controlled the city in radio broadcasts and public meetings. Both residents and some members of the warlords' own militia said the city was in Islamic hands.
"The era of warlords in Somalia is over," resident Mohamed Asser said. "This morning Mogadishu is under only one hand, the Islamic courts."
This is eerily similar to the takeover by the Taliban--which means "scholar" or "students"--of Kabul. The Taliban promised an end to the violence of the fighting warlords and a restoration of order. It was only later that we learned the harsh reality of Islamic law's "order" in Afghanistan.
Today, protests erupted in the Somali capital over the new Islamist masters of the city. The protests, though, seem to be along tribal lines. Times:
Hundreds protested today against the Islamist takeover of the capital of Somalia....
At least 1,000 protesters, from the Abgal clan, a faction of the Hawiye tribe that used to control much of northern Mogadishu, rallied in a football stadium and on the streets.
"We want to establish an Abgal sub-clan defence line, politically and militarily," said Hussein Sheikh Ahmed, an Abgal leader. "Advances into Abgal territory should be halted immediately."
And how has the U.N. backed interim government reacted to the take over of the nation's capital by Islamist militias who want to impose harsh Sharia law?
Today's protests, which were left unhindered by Islamist militias, came as the interim Somali Prime Minister, Mohamed Ali Gedi, congratulated the Muslim forces on taking control of the city.
Mr Gedi called the Islamist victory, which the US fears could lead to the development of a Taleban-style African state, "an excellent step forward" today, telling Radio France Internationale that the fallen warlords had been "hurting the reconciliation, stabilisation and pacification of Somalia".
Echos of Kabul, ringing in my ears.
More on why we should worry from All Africa:
Al Qaeda elements responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania and the 2002 attack on the Paradise Hotel in Kikambala near Mombasa have been moving in and out of Somalia with the aid of local sympathisers, according to US officials.
Preventing Somalia from becoming a second safe haven for al Qaeda has been a primary objective of American policy in the Horn of Africa ever since US forces ousted Afghanistan's Taliban regime in 2001. The Afghan Islamist group had provided al Qaeda with the protection and resources needed to plot the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
Apparently there is a faction within the State Department which believes we should be working with the Islamists to stabilize Somalia. Recently, Michael Zorick voiced that opinion and was immediately tranferred from his Somalia desk.
The theory goes that we should stabilize first, and then worry about al Qaeda sympathies later. Which, of course, is the same arguement I heard when Kabul was "liberated" by the Taliban. That "stability" was more important than the radical political philosophy of the group--which at the time no one really understood very well.
So, our covert proxy war in Somalia seems not to be working. But is the alternative the installatioin of another Taliban-like government in the Horn of Africa in the name of stability? Insanity!
Related: Kim at Wizbang: "As far as the Islamists are concerned, there is no Transitional Federal Charter of Somalia."
John at Op-For: "Another collapsed state that has the potential to turn into a big-time breeding ground. Somalia is starting to look alot like pre-Enduring Freedom Afghanistan." Indeed.
Malkin: Not Good.
Rule 308: "You want sharia? Have it, be my guests. But I bet you won't like it."
Sandbox: "True democracy cannot coexist with Sharia law."
If the Onion were half as funny as this, I'd subscribe.
This Boston Globe article reports on the covert operations the U.S. has been engaged in:
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
10:04 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1093 words, total size 8 kb.
1
So basically it's going to take another Democrat administration to ignore the problem, and then a GOP one to clean up the resulting mess and take all the heat for it. Standard. I guess it's no surprise conservatives get tagged "warmongers". It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 10:37 AM (8e/V4)
2
Won't be long now. I hope Spain's pacifist leader is ready for what is coming their way.
Posted by: Cmunk at June 06, 2006 10:53 AM (7teJ9)
3
Gee who could have seen this one coming ? As for our abhorrence of shaira law, well we seem to have been able to stomach it in Saudi Arabia for some time now even though that is the epicenter of wahabism
Posted by: john ryan at June 06, 2006 11:24 AM (TcoRJ)
4
To defeat the Islamists it is necessary for them to succeed now and then.
Their harsh rule will create local allies for us.
It is not necessary to win every skirmish.
BTW you can bet that OBL has his hands in the mix.
Our most immediate action should be to suspend NGO efforts there. Too much easy food is breeding an army of zombies. A food cut-off would send these boys back to the farm.
Posted by: blert at June 06, 2006 12:15 PM (yyrhf)
5
I got $50.00 says humanitarian aid will be increased to them which in turn can be sold to sustain the sharia enforcers. Coupled with the influx of cash from saudi, they maybe can get some good terrorist training camps going and set their eyes on some real prizes. why enforce sharia law for nothing?? Spread and destablize and go for the Nigerian oil, why mess around? That's what I would do and I wouldn't be at all worried about anyone stopping me either.
Posted by: goesh at June 06, 2006 12:26 PM (1w6Ud)
6
It seems to me that all options are bad, so which is the least worse? All of you make good points, even John Ryan.
Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 01:27 PM (JQjhA)
7
I have been giving these issues a great deal of thought, especially after the raids in the U.K and Canada, and I have come up with some *different* conclusions, than previous.
1.) Why should the U.S keep cleaning up countries like Somalia? if they are radicalized, and want Sharia law, then so be it? You cannot put out a fire with Gasoline, all our military interventions are Gasoline. The problem in these countries comes down to the fact there are very few "free thinkers" they follow the Imam's who tell them what to think, it doesn't matter if the Marines were able to operate on a baby, and save it's life -- if that baby is brought up to hate the United States.
2.) Al Qaeda, these new raids tell us something that Bin Laden had hoped: that now like-minded Muslims can form their own terror cells, without foreign assistance, he has emboldened jihadi minded nationals to take on the West, in order to change our way of life.
Al Qaeda used to be a rag-tag bunch of loosely knitted, terrorist groups, now it's a methodology, a methodology that cannot be stamped out abroad, without it being quashed at home. If the U.S keeps bringing in people from countries with large radical presence (Saudi/Iran/Palestine/Algeria/etc) we are going to be infested with the people that wish our downfall -- like the United Kingdom.
It is interesting that taking a job like a Police dispatcher, one is required to take a Polygraph -- why not immigrants, for fun questions like 'are you now, or were you ever part of a \insert radical Muslim group from home country\' 'are Israeli citizens a valid terrorist target?' 'do you ever want to kill infidels?' et, al.
The danger these new raids present, while the MSM sleeps is evident, Muslims do not need a Bin Laden, Muhammed Atta etc to give them instructions, or induction in terrorism -- they're organizing themselves, in their host country, a clean up at home is needed before we take the broom to countries like Somalia.
Posted by: davec at June 06, 2006 02:21 PM (CcXvt)
8
screw 'em.
One well placed nuke = 0 problems.
Posted by: yo at June 06, 2006 04:21 PM (bLhPK)
9
how can you tell they are women?
Posted by: Cindy at June 06, 2006 04:40 PM (HYH6y)
10
>>>Why should the U.S keep cleaning up countries like Somalia?
Because since the end of WW2, America has been fulfilling the function that was envisioned for the U.N. Except we don't get paid dues for it, and we get vilified for our troubles. It's not the U.N. off the coast of Somalia hunting pirates. It's the U.S. Navy. Are we going to get reimbursed for that? A simple "Thank you" would do.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 07, 2006 12:27 AM (8e/V4)
11
And now we'll be innundated with "political exiles" looking for sanctuary and in that mix will be the few who slip through the cracks whose purpose is to organize here. I like davec's idea. Polygraph. Who cares if it's sometimes unreliable? It's reliable enough for national security. If there's any coubt, they don't get in.
Posted by: Oyster at June 07, 2006 04:12 AM (YudAC)
12
Figure out which pile of rubble they're operating from, then bounce said rubble around with some JDAMs. If precision doesn't work, there's always the area effect option of ARCLITEing the place until it's undifferntiated gravel. It's not like they could actually
do anything about it. My sympathy for the Somalis died with Gordon & Shughart...
Posted by: Cybrludite at June 07, 2006 06:21 AM (XFoEH)
13
Let us firmly resolve not to take the refugees here.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:39 AM (v72Rt)
14
JC: it really doesn't matter because even when the U.S acts as a part of the United Nations, it always gets blamed for the actions, case in point:
Sanctions against Saddam, many children, and adults starved to death -- doesn't matter to the libs that Saddam spent over 11 Billion dollars building palaces in the same period -- who's to blame? why the U.S of course! U.N sanctioned bombings in Yugoslavia -- the American's are to blame!
Of course the U.N will not act, without the U.S taking the brunt of both manpower, and money, and ignore the problems entirely like in Rwanda, and now Sudan -- other countries love using U.S forces as meat shields, so there 200 troops they send actually looks like they're contributing, where is Russia's and China's contribution to peacekeeping forces? of course it doesn't help that both of those countries actually contribute to the instability in these regions, nor do they face sanctions in the U.N for the same.
Oyster: they have a much more reliable tool now than the Polygraph, I am not sure why they are not using it, it looks like a CAT scan image of the Brain, during questioning they can tell if you're accessing the memory portion of the Brain, or the creative side etc.
I don't see it happening however, but it should be a requirement.
Posted by: davec at June 07, 2006 12:56 PM (CcXvt)
15
Cindy: They are not women. They are terrorists hiding their weapons in the name of religion. That's why they insist on wearing the stupid looking garb. Black drug dealers used the same ploy in Miami for years.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 07:40 PM (di2KJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
38kb generated in CPU 0.0177, elapsed 0.1019 seconds.
120 queries taking 0.0937 seconds, 260 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
