As far as we're concerned the spread of radical Islamic governments are not acceptable. Our position has been consistent with this philosophy. Al-Queda has a strong hold on this Islamic Court and any affiliation with them means they are a mortal enemy of the US. Perhaps if they had refused to accept the fighters of this terrorist group we could sympathize but the second they set foot under their banner they became targets. Supporting Ethiopia is the only way we can battle this front on the GWOT right now. It's good that we have another ally to bring into the war.
Get your war on' down in the Horn
- Thread starter merocaine
- Start date
As far as we're concerned the spread of radical Islamic governments are not acceptable. Our position has been consistent with this philosophy. Al-Queda has a strong hold on this Islamic Court and any affiliation with them means they are a mortal enemy of the US. Perhaps if they had refused to accept the fighters of this terrorist group we could sympathize but the second they set foot under their banner they became targets. Supporting Ethiopia is the only way we can battle this front on the GWOT right now. It's good that we have another ally to bring into the war.
radiosilence
jints
Thanks for your response but i was looking for something more concrete.
Actually those nations Rich listed were mentioned in a report released by the UN in November. It's pretty solid and of no suprise.
radiosilence
jints
Can you post a link to the report you are refering to?
I haven't seen it since last month. I think Reuters broke the story and should be in their archives dated Nov. 13th.
thats a new one.
But, in fact, suprisingly Richs list of doners to the ICC is correct. The ICC has a lot of support from many US allies in the region.
One thing about the ICC links to Al Queada is I have'ent been able to find any
real hard evidence linking the two of them. 'So there Islamic, and Al Queadas muslim' seems to be the reasoning applied at the moment. If anyone has any real evidence, please post it.
Leave the politics (please!)
Waylander, do you have any links to the MIG Vs Su combat from the last war? I've read a little about that war so know the basics about the land fighting (eritria really punched above there weight!) but very little about air to air combat. as an aside I dont think we will see any official fighting between the two E's this time.
DragonKing786
New Member
Well., the ICU is part of the youth movement that was started and they are part of the ICU., they aren't radicalized (they have more relaxed rules than the taliban did)., also in Islam the only true rule is the Sharia, which Saudi arabia has in place. So their's nothing wrong with ICU., from my opinion US been talk'in alot of he's supporting this and that, they have no hard evidence, and remember US was funding Ethopia (then US has to go around and say why SA is funding other groups., go figure US can't have all the cake, which i'm personally getting tired of US crying when someone does something it doesn't like the baby has to learn to keep quite and move on and learn everything doesn't have to go it's way).
From my opinion, Ethopia is the agressor., interfering in the interest of another country in a Civil War., a BBC reporter did an article saying that under ICU people are living peacefully and they removed corrupt warlords. But Ethopia might be pushing them out., but it will be hard to eliminate any group., and it might be locked in a long and bloody Guriella warfare which I doubt Ethopia will be successful at (since no one is in a Guriella warfare except the locals., example is Iraq., and Afghanistan).
From my opinion, Ethopia is the agressor., interfering in the interest of another country in a Civil War., a BBC reporter did an article saying that under ICU people are living peacefully and they removed corrupt warlords. But Ethopia might be pushing them out., but it will be hard to eliminate any group., and it might be locked in a long and bloody Guriella warfare which I doubt Ethopia will be successful at (since no one is in a Guriella warfare except the locals., example is Iraq., and Afghanistan).
radiosilence
jints
UN report about the situation in Somalia, it doesn't mention any specific country arming/funding Somali Council of Islamic Courts.
S/2006/838
link
Last edited:
Eithiopia v. Eritria? Try here
Couple of points, firstly going assymetric may be a lovely move for an outgunned player however it only really works if the other guy is planning to stick around playing 'nation building', 'exporting democracy' or whatever other term you're trying to flog to the media.
This is not the case in Somalia. PM Meles has stated they'll likely only stay a few weeks. Furthermore the goal is not a friendly democracy next door but merely to destroy as much UIC infrastructure as possible (that is, destroy the weapons and kill the leaders) in order to force them back to peace talks, and this time not from a position of strength.
One example of this would be the decision to only encircle Mogadishu, and perhaps bomb and shell the place rather then entering.
AD was pretty much bang on, they don't want to recreate Somalia in their own image but rather just beat the UIC over the head till it can't have the place either.
Sharia isn't a strictly codified uniform set of laws. It's more like a system of devising laws, based on the Koran, Hadith, & 1400 years of argument, interpretation & precedent. Some Saudi laws are rejected by non-Saudi schools of Sharia law as mistaken interpretations, or even un-Islamic. Ditto for Iranian law, & other versions of Sharia law.
Something is missing in this debate. Take a look at the map.
There are two states, one being Somaliland, the other Puntland, already on the soil of former Somalia. Especially Somaliland has historic justification, is a de-facto independent state, but as of now not internationally - that is from Western states - recognized.
Puntland tries the same, but the situation there is somewhat different.
That means that Somalia has de-facto already split into three new states. And only "South Somalia", or UIC-Somalia, or whatever you call it is attacked by Ethopia, no action in the north. Why now? And who from the West is behind that? I think it might as well be the final act for the old Somalia, with south Somalia becoming part of Ethopia. The Ogadan triangle was seized by Ethopia already decades ago, anyway.
There are two states, one being Somaliland, the other Puntland, already on the soil of former Somalia. Especially Somaliland has historic justification, is a de-facto independent state, but as of now not internationally - that is from Western states - recognized.
Puntland tries the same, but the situation there is somewhat different.
That means that Somalia has de-facto already split into three new states. And only "South Somalia", or UIC-Somalia, or whatever you call it is attacked by Ethopia, no action in the north. Why now? And who from the West is behind that? I think it might as well be the final act for the old Somalia, with south Somalia becoming part of Ethopia. The Ogadan triangle was seized by Ethopia already decades ago, anyway.
Thats what I read into it as well, it seems a sensible idea, but thats no garrente of success. Eytiopia has had troops in the border region for a long time, and have pretty much defined that border, I dont see them leaving anytime soon, whatever they say.
cheers for the link, very informative.
Ethopia is already fighting a somali insurgency in Somaliland and have claimed ICU support for the insurgents as part of the justification for there intervention. Personally, as I stated at the head of this thread Ethopia wants a coastline bad, and this intervention is as much about that as it is any other reason the Ethopians have given. I dont know if anyone in the west is 'behind it' the Americans have given it there blessing, whatever that means, they've managed to link it to the GWOT, not that they've come up with any proof. American policy in the region is so confused at the moment I'm not sure if you can read too much into it, mostly I think the Americans are functioning on auto pilot when it comes to Islamics.
Ethopia rather than being backed are well capable of deciding whats good for them, and have picked a time when most western opion will favor them over some shifty bunch Islamics who want 'Sharia Law' and have 'possible links to ..... ' insert your terrorist org here, no matter how much popular support the ICU have(not that gallop have being doing much polling in Somalia recently).
The US are for sure involved there.
http://www.arikah.net/commons/en/a/a4/800px-Dragunov_on_range.jpg
I really like your opinion of Ethiopia wanting a coastline bad and that the opportunity was there.
http://www.arikah.net/commons/en/a/a4/800px-Dragunov_on_range.jpg
I really like your opinion of Ethiopia wanting a coastline bad and that the opportunity was there.
That is true, we assisted elements of the Mujahideen back in the 70s and 80s during their struggle with the Soviet invaders. And in retrospect it was a brilliant move by everyone involved as we , and rather cheaply, checked Soviet expansionism and put Soviet hawks in a corner for being bad boys. Who knows what might have been next had the hawks had success in Afghanistan? Maybe Waylander would be wearing cardboard shoes right now and standing in a bread line. Assuming western Europe still existed.
There is however a distinction to be made here. There were many factions and elements in the Mujahideen at the time. Actually there were many factions and elements in Afghanistan at the time. Bin Laden himself established an organization called Maktab al-Khidimat in Afghanistan during the war. MAK was organized to recruit Islamic fighters from around the world and to fund them. Our CIA had nothing to do with MAK or Osama and that is the one thing that both parties agree on. So people can say the CIA "made Osama" or "made Al Qaeda" but there simply is no truth to it and to say such things is to underestimate both Bin Laden and his organization.
Besides the religious philosophy behind MAK, just like with Al Qaeda, is Wahhabism, which has always been virulently anti-western.
So the answer to your accusation is far more complicated then many people want to know. Its far easier to adopt a "The USA made____" and just fill in the blanks with whomever or whatever is needed at the moment.
from what I read from defence talk news and BBC the UIC helped to restore some law and order,were more popular than the interim government and they helped to capture pirates.They were okay,really and surprisingly and not extreme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6212807.stm
we had India trying to convince the west Bangladesh was a terrorist state in 2002 after there was a border clash but the US rejected it(later terrorists did show up and we captured them hehe).It has been quite a trend lately,to equate enforcement of Sharia laws with terrorism.corrupt governments like the interim Somali government can capitalise on this along with Ethiopia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6212807.stm
I hate the words terrorism and terrorist, they destroy debate, and the words them selfs are so over used as to be meaningless.
Everyones a terrorist according to someone, America and Israel according to Iran, Iran according to America, Pakistan according to India and Afganistan, the ICU according to Ethiopia, Israel according to Lebanon.......the list goes on.
Ethiopian forces are now 18 miles from the capital, this is one well planned operation, I wonder how long Ethiopia has been cooking up this one.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1979036,00.html
The distinction is made when they hide among civilians and kill them. We warriors live by the sword and die by it... as opposed to cowards who live behind the skirt and hide behind it.
Do we have any kind of military matchup intel on the forces?
I think I am clever enough not to say that the US "made Osama" or such things.
And I agree that the support of the Mujahideen was a job that caused enough good in the future (BTW, I am a born east german communist. I know why I am in favor of the west. I know both sides.
).But the problem is that the western world closed their eyes while anarchy ruled in Somalia after '91.
The sharia courts are better than most of the other corrupt and brutal law systems the people there know for decades.
And this is the problem in my eyes.
It has been said before here that it looks like that the US and huge parts of the western world seem to run on autopilot when it comes to islamic movements of all kinds.
The big success of the islamic movement their is due to the fact that the, now supported by the west, former Warlords and pseudo governments are a much more worse choice for most of the population there.
You may gain a short perioded succes against a ismalic movement there by supporting the Ethiopians but in the end this country is not going t calm down till the problems with the non islamic groups are solved.
I guess the UNISOMs headed by US forces giving their lives to feed the people and trying to bring some order to this society meant nothing.
Only the militant ones...
Better them than the ICU. The ICU will just breed a new training ground for Al-Qaeda, it must be whiped out.