US Targets African Muslims

[SeVeR]

The United States is interfering in another conflict, this time in Africa. It's no surprise that Muslims are being bombed. The excuse is of course that they're terrorists, although i doubt they've done any worse than the American supported Christians.

 

Views? Is it right for America to interfere for religious reasons? Is it right for America to interfere at all?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7376760.stm

[FMBI]

I don't even know why the US bothers in Somalia, we don't have the reserve capability to actually pull anything off.

 

We also recently bombed / launched a cruise missile at Somalia recently (depends on who you ask), but that was never looked into, so I doubt this will be either.

 

 

The only way this could even be useful to US foreign policy is if it were made into a navy-only campaign to support the Ethiopian occupation, combined with a small-scale occupation of Yemen - that would allow control of the southern Arabia / east Africa area (widely believed to have significant oil reserves) - but I just don't think Bush is smart enough to do that. (Oh, I forgot, Bush is a really smart president, except when most people think he's lying.. then he "doesn't have the ability")

[Aceflyer]

I will concede that on the surface of it this appears to be rather sudden and seems to be unwarranted, but keep in mind that as none of us are, presumably, high level government officials who were involved in the Somalia case, there may very well be details that we don't know.

 

Hence, just looking at what we can see and drawing a conclusion would be premature. This is analogous to players who look at a player-taken screenshot or log and conclude "staff abuse!" - when in reality there was no abuse, a fact which would have been apparent if one reviewed the server log and the staff chat in conjunction with the player-taken screenshot.

[SeVeR]

The only way this could even be useful to US foreign policy is if it were made into a navy-only campaign to support the Ethiopian occupation, combined with a small-scale occupation of Yemen - that would allow control of the southern Arabia / east Africa area (widely believed to have significant oil reserves) - but I just don't think Bush is smart enough to do that. (Oh, I forgot, Bush is a really smart president, except when most people think he's lying.. then he "doesn't have the ability")

I think the people who tell Bush what to say are smart. Bush himself may be reasonably smart (he is educated... to some extent) although his accent, mannerisms and lack of eloquence superficially suggest the contrary. The oil interests may have something to do with it, although at a time when most of Africa is gripped in religious conflict, i am not surprised that America is crusading for the Christian cause.

[Dav]

this is what happens when a nation sits on its high horse over its views in the way the world should be.

 

Its a self perpetuating cycles, America irritates militants who then become more determined to attack and recruit new militants in other areas.

[Hoch]

Your subject !@#$%^&*le is a bit misleading Sever, and I

use the word a bit very kindly.

 

The US targeted Somalian militants with links to Al-

Queda. To suggest that the US is targeting African

Muslims is erroneous and grossly exaggerates what

actually happened. Though of course, it is always

unfortunate when those not involved are killed.

 

In any event, it is no secret that Al-Queda has been

wagging a proxy war in this poor African nation. So

what reason is there for the US not take action when

a well-known militant is in the area? I can see none.

 

Were you equal with your condemnation when the US

target-bombed Sudan in 1998? Or was that okay be-

cause it was President Clinton and not Bush? I daresay

you probably never gave it a second thought.

 

What have the American supported Christians done?

Who are they? Where are they based?

 

-Hoch

[Aceflyer]

Your subject !@#$%^&*le is a bit misleading Sever, and I use the word a bit very kindly.

 

Agreed.

 

To suggest that the US is targeting African Muslims is erroneous and grossly exaggerates what actually happened. Though of course, it is always unfortunate when those not involved are killed.

 

Again, agreed.

[SeVeR]

The article says `links with Al-Qaeda' but i honestly see that as complete crap. What links are these? It could mean anything or it could be completely untrue. Who would know and would it ever get reported?

 

In the first short section of the article is says "insurgents" "militants" "terrorists" and "Al-Qaeda". So what are they? Is this another key-word crusade where the fact they're Muslim means everyone will just believe it?

 

The American supported Christians are the Ethiopians and those supported by the Ethiopians in Somalia. This is a religious conflict and America shouldn't be involved.

 

I wasn't old enough to properly analyse or care about the 1998 bombing of Sudan. It doesn't matter if it's a democrat or a republican though. It's not like i'm a fan of Hillary now is it..

[Aileron]

I realize that 'terrorist' has become a buzz-word, but Al Queda has spent plenty of time in Somalia. It isn't Morocco or Egypt you are talking about. Somalia has been a dangerous place for a long time. These people aren't called 'terrorist' merely because they oppose the US' political views. Beyond the media negativity, they are still murderous thugs.

 

The other supported group of African Christians are those pesky evil imperialistic expansionist one's in Darfur who viscously want to live their lives in peace without being the victims of genocide. However, the 'liberating' Islamic group is handling that by slaughtering the evil Christians by the millions. Both sides are equally at fault though.

 

As for capability, Ethiopia did the whole thing without our help a while back. Giving a little support can't hurt, but I think they'd be fine on their own. Infact, I suspect that they would do a better job than we would, because the Ethiopian domestic political scene will be much more supportive given how the threat is at their back door.

 

Ethiopia's motivation is simple: They have a chaotic neighbor run by various tribal leaders who are constantly fighting. Ethiopia is tired of those wars spilling over the border and is in it for self-preservation.

[SeVeR]

Yea, if the U.S. gives them billions of dollars in "aid" so they can buy fighter jets and tanks, then i'm sure they will win the conflict all by themselves. Afterall, it worked with Israel.

 

I admit, i don't know enough about the conflict to say how "connected" to Al-Qaeda the Muslims in Somalia are, but i wouldn't put it past the U.S. to make false claims. They did it with Iraq and got away with it, they're doing it with Iran now, and if they do it in Somalia by killing these Muslims and saying they're buddies with Al-Qaeda... then who will do anything about it, right?

Edited May 4, 2008 by SeVeR

[Aceflyer]

Iran, at least, is connected to Al-Qaeda. I don't know enough about Somalia to say either way, but I think it's premature to just assume that there were no connections to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, after all, is a shadowy, highly mobile and fluid global organization from what we know of it.

[AstroProdigy]

Iran is connected to Al Qaeda? Oh dear lord I hope you're being sarcastic or you really are an idiot Aceflyer. If you are being sarcastic then my apologies. Otherwise I guess this is related to the level of foreign relations expertise that Hillary supporters have (absolutely zero).

 

As for connections between Al Qaeda and the Islamic Courts that were recently violently overthrown by Ethiopia, the links are only a small part of the story and those connections are neither widespread nor significant. The real reason Ethiopia invaded has nothing to do with a crusade and only partially to do with self preservation. Ethiopia became a landlocked country not too long ago and any neighbor with a coastline is a potential point of trade to the outside world. The Islamic Courts were hurting Ethiopian economic interests by trying to unite Somalia and thus giving Ethiopia a stronger neighbor that could deny them a port of exit for their goods. Also, Aileron is right also, though, because there is a Somali minority in Ethiopia that occupies a large area of land and given the history of Somalia going to war with Ethiopia to par!@#$%^&*ion that part of the country, Ethiopia would rather see a divided Somalia that can't keep trying.

 

Sever: We supported criminals in Kosovo over Serbs and still do and those people are Muslims versus Serb Christians. We say Serbs and Albanians can't live together in piece with a united Kosovo and Serbia, but at the same time that Serbs and Albanians can live in piece in Kosovo so there's no reason to par!@#$%^&*ion it. It's all related to American economic and strategic interests. There is a crazy group of Christians in the US who want a crusade, but they don't run the country. Bush, as conservative and evangelical as he may be is not among them and one of their people would never win the presidency because they aren't just extreme; they're the very far right extreme. Supporting Israel has strategic value more than religious value to the ruling elite in the US.

 

Also, Hoch Sudan is a country that shouldn't exist. It can't manage to keep itself from massacring its own people for very long. If there was ever a country that deserved to be occupied and bombed it's Sudan.

 

P.S.: Just a little note to Aileron's comment about Christians being slaughtered in Darfur; they're actually also Muslims just not Arabs.

Edited May 4, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

Iran, at least, is connected to Al-Qaeda.

The fruits of American propaganda.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I do feel sorry for Iran because of what the American government/press has done to them.

 

As for connections between Al Qaeda and the Islamic Courts that were recently violently overthrown by Ethiopia, the links are only a small part of the story and those connections are neither widespread nor significant. The real reason Ethiopia invaded has nothing to do with a crusade and only partially to do with self preservation. Ethiopia became a landlocked country not too long ago and any neighbor with a coastline is a potential point of trade to the outside world. The Islamic Courts were hurting Ethiopian economic interests by trying to unite Somalia and thus giving Ethiopia a stronger neighbor that could deny them a port of exit for their goods. Also, Aileron is right also, though, because there is a Somali minority in Ethiopia that occupies a large area of land and given the history of Somalia going to war with Ethiopia to par!@#$%^&*ion that part of the country, Ethiopia would rather see a divided Somalia that can't keep trying.

I understand there are lots of political reasons for Ethiopia to attack, but it's no coincidence that the two sides here are Muslim and Christian. There were strategic goals in the Crusades, or the attacks by the Ottoman Turks on Eastern Europe in the 14th-16th centuries. There was always a religious component that helped each side hate the other enough to go to war.

 

Sever: We supported criminals in Kosovo over Serbs and still do and those people are Muslims versus Serb Christians. We say Serbs and Albanians can't live together in piece with a united Kosovo and Serbia, but at the same time that Serbs and Albanians can live in piece in Kosovo so there's no reason to par!@#$%^&*ion it. It's all related to American economic and strategic interests. There is a crazy group of Christians in the US who want a crusade, but they don't run the country. Bush, as conservative and evangelical as he may be is not among them and one of their people would never win the presidency because they aren't just extreme; they're the very far right extreme. Supporting Israel has strategic value more than religious value to the ruling elite in the US.

Well, it's pre-9/11 and pre-Bush. I agree with your !@#$%^&*essment, but since 9/11 i'm pretty sure that strategic and economic interests involve having Christian governments rather than Islamic ones in Africa and thus religion, if not directly, is an important factor.

[Aileron]

Back to Somalia, I think Bin Laden actually had a house there one time, but in any case they have been moving in after losing Afghanistan. Generally Sunni groups like Al Queda stay west of Iraq while Shi'ite groups are located east of it. Ofcourse, terrorist groups are so mobile that there are always exceptions, like Afghanistan.

 

 

Iran never had any love for Al Queda. Iraq had a distant connection with Al Queda, not enough of one to go to war over, though enough of one that it was fair to tack it on to the list of justifications.

 

 

 

Look, you really need to get over the Crusades. Heck, a little over a decade ago the term 'crusader' was complimentary. I've already stated several times the positive effects of those wars, let alone the potential positive effects that would have happened had they had been more successful.

 

The fact of the matter is that Christianity is so ingrained into western society that it may not be entirely possible to determine all of the places it has contributed. For instance, the Bill of Rights, which was built to in reference to the 'self-evident inalienable rights endowed by one's creator' referred to by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, which was based upon the Christian concept that we are equal brothers in Christ rather than servants of some profit.

 

I'm beginning to think that's the recurring problem. Without that fundamental culture, a population would never embrace democracy, and the problem is that Islam just isn't that kind of religion.

 

 

To clarify, it isn't always Muslim vs. Christian. Remember the big war a few decades back between Pakistan and India? That was Muslim vs. Hindu. Let's not forget the Muslim vs. Jew war over Israel. There were also plenty of Muslim vs. Atheist wars when communism was spreading. My !@#$%^&*essment is that it is only the Muslims who can't stand anyone else while the Christians, Jews, Hindus, and even the Atheists can get along without killing each other. Sure, we have our differences, but we find ways other than bloodshed to settle them when we can.

[Aceflyer]

The fact of the matter is that Christianity is so ingrained into western society that it may not be entirely possible to determine all of the places it has contributed. For instance, the Bill of Rights, which was built to in reference to the 'self-evident inalienable rights endowed by one's creator' referred to by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, which was based upon the Christian concept that we are equal brothers in Christ rather than servants of some profit.

 

I'm beginning to think that's the recurring problem. Without that fundamental culture, a population would never embrace democracy, and the problem is that Islam just isn't that kind of religion.

 

I think that claiming that Christianity is a necessary prerequisite to democracy is unwarranted. There have been plenty of successful democracies that weren't also composed largely of Christians. And there have been plenty of non-democratic nations that were run by Christians.

[AstroProdigy]

Ignoring the "Did Christianity help create democracy" and "Are Muslims the only ones who can't get along with other religious groups" debates because they're irrelevant to this discussion I have to disagree that the invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia had any more than the faintest sign of a crusade. Ethiopia has gone to war with Eritrea, a half Muslim half Christian country run by Christians, frequently for the same reason of a lack of coastline as well as historical animosities. Somaliland, a breakaway region of Somalia that wants independence is on good terms with Ethiopia because it provides Ethiopia with a port for its goods. The fact is Ethiopia is the juggernaut of the Horn of Africa with a population that is by very far the biggest, a long legacy, and a long history of domination.

 

They see everything between Sudan and Kenya, and parts of those countries too, as their historical sphere of influence. The only reason they don't is based entirely on the permanent colonial borders that were drawn. Somalia is the combination of the former British and Italian colonies there, Djibouti is there because it was a French colony, Eritrea because it was an Italian colony, and the Kenyan and Sudanese countries only extend that far because they were controlled by the British. Why do you think Eritrea takes such a long coastline that ensures Ethiopia doesn't have an inch of access to the sea, which is basically required for any hope of prosperity. There aren't even any ethnic or religious divisions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The entire border only cuts through ethnic groups.

 

Have you ever looked at a map of the Aksumite Empire? Ethiopia has a long and powerful historical legacy which like other legacies from the Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Indians, Arabs makes them feel en!@#$%^&*led to a large amount of land and influence. Unlike certain groups like the Greeks, who got the one two punch of Islam and then Turkish invasions to ensure there was no way they'd ever return to their former glory, and the Chinese, Indians, or Arabs, who get massive parts of the world to call their own as well as good prospects for the future, Ethiopians, like Iranians, don't have what they once had, but have the demographics needed to get it back. That combined with substantial economic interests are what causes things like the invasion of Somalia to happen.

Edited May 5, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

Ace, you overextend what I said. There are certain values necessary for Democracy. For instance, the notion that all men are created equal. If democracy is attempted in a region where that at!@#$%^&*ude isn't present, it will fail. If the at!@#$%^&*ude is present, then a system will be set up where social inequalities are eventually dealt with and diminished.

 

Those values by coincidence are held by Christianity, though that is certainly not a unique trait. Many religions hold that to be true. Also note that the presence of those values don't automatically topple non-democracies. It would be more accurate to say that true, fair, decent religion is a prerequisite for democracy

 

The problem here is that that is not the case with Islam. They have mortals, and then they have people who have some sort of hereditary link to Mohammad. The latter won't get off of their high horse.

 

Oddly, the concept of Freedom of Religion is in and of itself a religious concept, though the argument is dependent upon being able to distinguish between the faithful and those who lie in order to provide excuses for violence; a distinction that many here simply don't recognize.

 

 

 

Astro, in that case I'd then say Ethiopia's borders were drawn wrong in the first place. One of the keys of peace is to have borders along nationalistic boundaries.

[Aceflyer]

Ace, you overextend what I said. There are certain values necessary for Democracy. For instance, the notion that all men are created equal. If democracy is attempted in a region where that at!@#$%^&*ude isn't present, it will fail. If the at!@#$%^&*ude is present, then a system will be set up where social inequalities are eventually dealt with and diminished.

 

Well, not really. When the US was founded, all adult white males who were landowners were considered equal. White males who didn't own land, nonwhites, and women were SOL (sadly outta luck).

 

Those values by coincidence are held by Christianity, though that is certainly not a unique trait. Many religions hold that to be true. Also note that the presence of those values don't automatically topple non-democracies. It would be more accurate to say that true, fair, decent religion is a prerequisite for democracy

 

I'd say a true, fair, decent set of moral values is a prerequisite of democracy. A true, fair, decent religion can provide these moral values, but these moral values do not necessarily have to be provided by a religion.

 

Oddly, the concept of Freedom of Religion is in and of itself a religious concept, though the argument is dependent upon being able to distinguish between the faithful and those who lie in order to provide excuses for violence; a distinction that many here simply don't recognize.

 

No, freedom of religion just means you have the right to choose which faith system, if any, you would like to follow. Beyond acknowledging that religion as defined by humanity exists, freedom of religion isn't really a religious concept.

[ThunderJam]

Also, Hoch Sudan is a country that shouldn't exist. It can't manage to keep itself from massacring its own people for very long. If there was ever a country that deserved to be occupied and bombed it's Sudan.

Uhh............

 

So if two fractions in france have civil war and one is winning out, then all of France should be bombed or taken over by an outside nation?

So, if they are gonna kill X% of their own population, someone else might as well go in and kill 100% of it?

[AstroProdigy]

Again ignoring the "does Christianity promote democracy" debate because it's irrelevant here it's more complicated than drawing borders along ethnic lines. The lines themselves are tricky with millions on the "wrong" side of them. Drawing these kinds of borders would either require a huge massacre and population transfer in the case of India and Pakistan or a slow bleeding out of the groups that are on the "wrong" side. Also access to the coast is absolutely essential and any side that happens to not have it would be pretty screwed. On top of that there are still very strong tribal divisions which would make a united Somalia, for example, extremely unstable.

 

Uhh............

 

So if two fractions in france have civil war and one is winning out' date=' then all of France should be bombed or taken over by an outside nation?

So, if they are gonna kill X% of their own population, someone else might as well go in and kill 100% of it?[/quote']

 

Sudan was created as the merging together of completely separate groups and the result is an absolute monstrosity where Arabs feel they have to have absolute control and have killed millions in order to try to ensure that goal. Also, the oil in Sudan is mostly found in non Arab areas so the rulers of Sudan are willing to kill millions for the money too. This wouldn't happen in France because France is completely different. When I said Sudan deserved to be occupied and bombed I meant as a way to par!@#$%^&*ion the country because it's even poorer and more diverse (in a problematic way), but par!@#$%^&*ion would offer much less impact on the rest of the countries around it like Iraq would.