Superpower Video Series 1-12 A Must See Video Series http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etJJh8g1IHU&feature=player_embedded Nur

Christians United for War By Philip Giraldi December 24, 2009 "Anti War" -- As today is Christmas Eve, it might be useful for those of us who call ourselves Christians to recall the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding humility, charity, tolerance, and peacemaking. The Christian message should be particularly welcome to the American people who have borne the burden of nearly continuous warfare since 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 5,300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners at an appalling cost to the US economy. The message is particularly appropriate for Christmas 2009 because it appears that many so-called Christian leaders are urging the United States government to take steps that will inevitably lead to a new war, this time against Iran. On December 10th a group calling itself the Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran sent a letter to both political parties’ leaders in Congress as well as to the chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Relations committee. The letter, beginning "We write today as Christian leaders," preceded a December 15th vote in the House of Representatives in which 412 house members approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, with only twelve votes opposed. The sanctions proposed by the House of Representatives and endorsed by the Christian leadership have correctly been seen by many as amounting to an act of war. The Christian Leaders’ letter was signed by many prominent evangelicals including Christians United For Israel founder John Hagee, Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Chuck Colson, Gary Bauer of American Values, and Richard Land. Land, who appears to be the driving force behind the letter, is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. There are also several Catholics among the thirty-seven signatories, which is surprising as the Vatican has repeatedly expressed its repugnance towards the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. One signatory Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has an interesting moral compass. In defense of the Catholic priests who assaulted young boys he once explained "After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested." He has also stated that "Hollywood likes anal sex" and that the film industry is controlled by "secular Jews who hate Christianity." Donohue’s signature might be a bizarre mea culpa for his nasty comments about Jews because it aligns him firmly with AIPAC on the issue of Iran, but it places him in strange company with Hagee, who hates Catholicism and has blamed the Catholic Church for the Holocaust. The name of the umbrella group, "Nuclear-Free Iran," is particularly ironic as Iran is in fact nuclear-free. But Tehran is directly confronted by 200 Israeli nukes and an undisclosed number of American bombs on board ships and planes in the Persian Gulf. If the Christian leaders’ letter is to be taken at face value, Israeli and American nukes are apparently to be judged, ecclesiastically speaking, by a different standard than those Iran might acquire. The letter also ignored that Iran shares a tough neighborhood with non-threatening but also nuclear armed India and Pakistan and made some questionable claims, starting with the flat assertion that Iran, guided by "extremist leaders," has a nuclear weapons program. It then went on to state that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, is destabilizing "democratic and Western leaning regimes throughout the Middle East," and it will "sell or give nuclear weapons to extremist groups." The letter claimed that Iran has "vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth" and concluded by calling for sanctions on refined petroleum products being sold to Tehran, to include not only the gasoline itself but also the ships transporting it and the banks and insurance companies enabling the transactions. It concluded "We speak out today on behalf of millions of Christians who believe that the interests of peace and security would best be served by our elected representatives sending a powerful signal that this tyrannical Iranian regime shall never threaten the world with nuclear weapons." I am one Christian who is saddened by the letter because it does nothing good for either the United States or the Iranian people and reflects no moral values that I can relate to. Many of the signatories also supported the US invasion of Iraq, which, inter alia, effectively destroyed the ancient Chaldean Christian community in that tormented land. The "Nuclear Free Iran" letter is also very light on facts. Iran’s government and its policies might not be to our liking, but it is not up to Washington to stage yet another disastrous intervention in a foreign land to bring about regime change. Tehran continues to be a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and abides by the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection regime. Like it or not, it has a legal right to enrich uranium for the generation of electricity. While there are legitimate concerns about some aspects of the country’s nuclear agenda, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the existence of a secret weapons program. If Iran does eventually decide to develop a weapon it will quite likely be due to the unrelenting pressure and threats emanating from the United States and Israel. And then there is the claim that a bomb in Iran’s hands would inevitably be given to a terrorist. In the real world, it is highly unlikely that any country would spend large sums of money over many years to develop a secret weapon for deterrence purposes only to turn around and give it away. Also, if the mullahs were to give a nuclear device to a terrorist who could somehow figure out how to transport it and use it, Iran would be obliterated on the following day by the US and Israel. There is no indication that the Iranian government is suicidal. Contrary to the claim in the letter, Iran’s admittedly fundamentalist and authoritarian leadership is far from extremist in its political ambitions. The country has behaved pragmatically ever since its revolution against the Shah in 1979 and it has not attacked anyone. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been widely and often unfairly criticized in the western and Israeli media, does not have the authority to go to war, unlike our own President Barack Obama. Iran does support Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements against Israel but none of those groups can be described as international terrorists unless one fully accepts the Israeli definition of terrorist. From Tehran’s point of view, it is the United States, not Iran, that is the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East through its support of Kurdish, Arab, and Baluchi separatist groups that stage attacks inside Iran. It is also difficult to discern what the democratic governments in the Middle East that Iran is allegedly undermining might be. If the reference is to Iraq, most observers would agree that in spite of occasional friction Baghdad enjoys an excellent relationship with the Ayatollahs in Tehran, almost certainly a relationship that is closer than it has with Washington. If the reference is to Israel, Iran has no ability to influence developments in that country while the often repeated claim that Tehran would wipe Israel off the map is a deliberate fabrication. Can Iran be undermining Lebanon? It is precisely because Lebanon is a democracy that Hezbollah is so strong. It is supported by many of the Lebanese people because of its resistance to Israel, just as Hamas has been democratically elected in Gaza, an election that many in the United States also would prefer to ignore. And then there are the sanctions themselves. The so-called Christian Leaders want to put pressure on Iran to make it behave as if punishing innocent people by denying them fuel to heat their homes is a Christian value. And there are two things that they are overlooking. First, the sanctions regime that is now being urged by Congress might have to be enforced by the US Navy to be effective which dramatically raises the likelihood that there would be an incident that could quickly lead to a shooting war, hardly a Christian outcome. Second, the sanctions themselves far exceed "pressuring the regime" to make it change its ways. Forty percent of Iran’s fuel requirements are imported, mostly from the United Arab Emirates, as the country has only limited refining capacity. If successful, sanctions on energy supplies would be devastating. Think for a moment of what would happen to the United States if 40% of its gasoline and oil were to be eliminated from the marketplace. Think what the reaction of the American public would be if the shortages were the result of the hostile action of a foreign country. If the intention of sanctions is to help the so-called "reformers" inside Iran, a claim that is made in the Christian Leaders’ letter, it would ironically have the opposite effect, empowering the hardliners. Most observers rightly note that the sanctions would at a minimum ensure that no negotiations between Iran and the west could be successful. If Iran were to react aggressively to the virtual shut down of its economy, the sanctions would quickly lead to war. So Richard Land and his friends are on record as supporting US interventionism, opposing elections when the wrong guys win, and using force to impoverish a civilian population in a country that does not threaten the United States in any way. America’s self-described Christian Leaders have again become enablers working with a Congress and media that have become addicted to war. It might be considered churlish to suggest that the Christian mission might better consist of helping the poor and saving souls without the added burden of advising politicians. It is indeed a tragedy when folks who call themselves religious leaders give the American public the usual Hobson’s choice when it comes to dealing with Iran. It is either war or more war. Not a very reassuring message at Christmas time and not exactly the legacy of the Prince of Peace.

Welcome to Pashtunistan The Aim of America’s Secret War? By Shaukat Qadir December 24, 2009 "The National" -- Few people by now can be unaware of Blackwater, later known as Blackwater Worldwide and now as Xe. The private security agency formed in 1997 and based in North Carolina is owned by Erik Prince, a former member of the US Navy Seal special forces, and has long-standing links with both the CIA and the FBI. Its presence in Pakistan has been an open secret for some years. The investigative journalist and writer Jeremy Scahill, an authority on Blackwater and author of the bestselling Blackwater: the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, revealed last month that it has been there since 2006. He says Blackwater is being employed for covert ops, essentially intended to target high-value al Qa’eda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, but it has also assisted in providing information for drone attacks and has kidnapped suspects and transported them covertly to the US for interrogation. In other words, it is an American agency with a licence to kill or kidnap, thus exonerating official American agencies that might one day be held accountable. (Although personally I doubt if the CIA will ever be held accountable. I continue to aver that it is the only real rogue intelligence agency in the world. Mossad might enjoy liberty of action for any operation, but it cannot undertake one without the approval of the Israeli prime minister: no such restriction applies to the CIA.) Mr Scahill does not engage in speculation, and is not to be taken lightly. So when he states that Xe is sitting in Karachi, he is not likely to be wrong. He has added that the operation is so secret that many senior people in the Obama administration were unaware of it. However, he seems to have erred in one respect: Xe is not only in Karachi. It also has a massive presence in Islamabad and Peshawar, where I understand the organisation has rented up to seven adjacent houses. Neighbours who heard muffled explosions soon after the houses were occupied suspect that they are linked by underground tunnels. That the former president Pervez Musharraf permitted Blackwater entry to Pakistan does not surprise me in the least; he would have been ready to bark if George Bush wanted him to, not that Asif Ali Zardari is much different; both have been acceding to every US demand at every opportunity. There is no doubt that for the past year or so US drone attacks have been far more successful in targeting militants than before, although, with the exception of Baitullah Mehsud, only in taking out low-level soldiers. My information is that the CIA/Xe have improved their human intelligence, and with its presence in Peshawar it is possible that Xe might have contributed to this improved performance of drone attacks. But what else is it doing there? If its purpose is to kidnap suspected terrorists and convey them to the US, then clearly no one can know how many they have managed to extract since the operations would be covert; but, equally clearly, none has been high profile, or their disappearance would have been noted. All major non-Pashtun names on the US list of terrorists still roam at large in Karachi and Punjab. If Xe is meant to target al Qa’eda, again they don’t seem to have had much success. The US secretary of state Hillary Clinton continues to assert that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, without offering concrete evidence; and if he is, why has the professional and highly paid Xe failed to kill or capture him? For such an expensive operation, Xe seems to have little to show to justify its continued presence in Pakistan. The latest twist is that the organisation’s founder and owner, Mr Prince, has given an interview to the American magazine Vanity Fair, apparently in a fit of pique, in which he claims to have been a CIA asset since 2004 with a mission to hunt down and kill al Qa’eda militants for the US government. Describing the backlash after his employees shot dead 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in 2007, Mr Prince said: “When it became politically expedient to do so, someone threw me under a bus.” He now says he is severing all ties with Xe, and after the interview the CIA said it was cancelling all contracts with the organisation. Nevertheless, there appears to be no evidence of its impending departure from Pakistan. This is a security agency that is available to anyone who can afford it. If its contract has indeed been terminated by the CIA, what is it still doing in Pakistan? Either the “termination” was a farce for public consumption, or Xe has found other paymasters. I am not a subscriber to conspiracy theories. However, sometimes there seems to be no alternative logical explanation, and/or the conspiracy theory appears logical in itself. When this happens, one is forced to become a believer. This seems to be one such instance. Pakistan’s conspiracy theorists have long held that the real object of Xe, acting on behalf of the CIA, is to destabilise Pakistan so as to have an excuse to take over or destroy its nuclear assets, because Israel and the US remain uncomfortable with a nuclear Pakistan. I have long disputed this theory, but am finding it increasingly difficult to continue doing so. The Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar has suggested that the US wants to leave behind a united Pashtunistan, consisting of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province and Afghanistan, an independent Balochistan and a weak, truncated Pakistan. The argument is a clever mix of fact and fiction; Jeremy Scahill he is not. But then, what is Xe doing in Pakistan? All official statements from the US, Pakistan and Xe itself have denied its presence; but we all know it is there and, if my conclusions are correct, apparently serving no visibly useful purpose. All the denials can only give credence to one conspiracy theory or another: take your pick. Brig Gen Shaukat Qadir is a retired Pakistani infantry officer.

This report supports what I've always believed. That the safest place on earth for Muslims today is in the USA. Safest spot on earth is around Washington DC ( If you stay away from South East side of the City where crime is endemic), its even more safer at Lafayette Square, where a Muslim can demonstrate against US policies in Muslim world with the protection of the US Park Police right across from Obama's White House Office, burn the US flag , and then catch the subway home to have a nice meal purchased by subsidized food stamps since most are unemployed due to economic depression. The farther a Muslim gets from that safe point, the slimmer their chances of escaping extrajudicial secret practices by the special US forces policing the entire globe without the watchful eye and umbrella of the US Constitution. The US simply outsources dirty little services not allowed in the US to third world nations who help in renditions, Aerial bombings and torture, all paid by the US tax money in exotic places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. The US government does not need to kill Muslims who live within it's borders and risk riots for the rest, it has already killed over a Million in Iraq alone and its not done yet. The irony here is that its safer in a lion's den for the Muslim prey from PREDATOR DRONES, HUNTING FOR FAKE Al QAEDA, and then Killing innocent Civilians and wedding processions by the hundreds, and destroying Mosques and schools, all mistakenly labeled as Terrorist havens. Mr. Obama, let my people live safe! Nur

Castro If you are still maintaining that there are no US and Ethiopian interference in driving events in Somalia for their own political agenda, then you have to convince me. But, this thread was started for settling the debate on who was behind the last Mogadishu Bombing. Therefore, the incidence was first reported by the TFG, and their sponsors have capitalized on it immediately. the question I raised that you are avoiding was; How can you trust the word of the TFG for accusing the AS for that specific crime? I take back my accusation of your either poor comprehension or dishonesty, you have just introduced another valid possibility, which is my poor wording which could be the case, if that was the case, you have my full apology and I am sorry for the statements, that possibility escaped my attention altogether. Now, let us resolve the difference in opinion on issues we disagree about the AS and the TFG and the Conspiracy/Coincidence theories around Somalia. InshAllah, I will work on my poor wording problem, you work on impartiality in judgement, that when there is a crime, innocence is the default state, unless guilt is proven beyond doubt. Peace Nur

Cara You have no dog in this conflict, Atheists have no place in Somalia, both the TFG and the opposition have pledged to follow Islam as the law of the land, if you disagree, please elaborate on why Atheists should be considered. Castro. You write: So generally, you preach, killing civilians is a "bad thing" but when civilians are killed by the Shabaab we ought to accept that as a "fact of life" while if they are killed by TFG bombings, they are collateral damage and should be denounced. Do you even read what you write? This is an example of what I've said. That you are dishonest in putting words in one's mouth. Here is what I have written, read carefully again and see how different your conclusion is. Killing of civilians by anyone is a bad thing, but it does happen in a state of conflict, accepting a fact of life, does not imply its approval, your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired, my advice to you, when in doubt ask for clarification, do not put words in someone's mouth, what you have written is misleading, and if it isn't poor comprehension, its plain dishonesty. Read my lips: I don't approve killing of innocent people by anyone. As for the reliability of news. Again, you are grossly misleading by shifting the focus on the news reported from Somalia to news about the Imperial powers by their own critics in the west. The allegations about the Shabab bombing does not come from the west first, it begins with the TFG, and then its echoed by Reuter and so on. Can one trust what the TFG reports about the AS? that was the question you have dodged. Finally, Your choice of words reflect your character and personality, this discussion was not about taunting, it was intended to be an objective dialogue, but it seems that you have personalized the discussion. Take a fresh air and come back with a cool head saaxib, like Ngonge says, its just words on a screen. Nur

Castro bro. Brother, You seem to have difficulty differentiating the official line of the press from what people in Somalia see everyday. If your conclusion reflects your understanding of what I have written, then I must write more explicitly, here is what I meant. You have assumed the following: So the Shabaab exist but they're being given a bad name and framed for these bombings. No, they are not framed, their actions are misreported, misrepresented, and at times, a blatant lie is spread of their actions, yes by the media that you feed on everyday. Allah SWT says in Quraan: eNuri Translation "O you who believe, if a Faasiq brings you a news, verify it, lest you accuse a folk what they have not committed due to ignorance, and later regret after finding out the truth" You write: They are, you tell us, Allah fearing patriotic men whose sole aim is to rid their homeland of occupiers and their puppets. You've got that one right! I am sure that you agree that they don't have personal bank accounts full of NATO and US donated money like the hired guns of the TFG, Ugandan and Burundi mercenaries. You write: The bombs, you claim (or hope), are not suicide bombers but remotely controlled and implanted in the buildings by mysterious powers hell bent on keeping Somalia in perpetual anarchy. If this is the way you prove guilt, you will never make a good judge, or a jury, trusting information provided by an opponent is not accepted as guilt by a competent court, specially if the information is provided by professional liars of the TFG and their foreign publishers who are on record claiming that there were no Ethiopians in Belet Weyn when the public was watching them move around town in broad daylight full of truckloads of Ethiopian mercenaries. You write: Once they go off, media owned by powerful interests fills the airwaves with false news articles of men wearing women clothes detonating themselves. Then someone impersonating the gallant Shabaab calls or faxes in a claim of responsibility for the recent bombing. You must be kidding saaxib, how can you be sure of these unreliable reports that men wearing a woman's clothing committed the last bombing? the TFG is in war with AS, and as you know, men who have no fear of Allah, like the TFG have no incentive to tell the truth if its not convenient to their interests. You need to doubt about their motives, not the AS. You write: Does this not summarize your position? No, saaaxib. Killing of civilians by anyone is a bad thing, but it does happen in a state of conflict, accepting a fact of life, does not imply its approval, your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired, my advice to you, when in doubt ask for clarification, do not put words in someone's mouth, what you have written is misleading, and if it isn't poor comprehension, its plain dishonesty. Didn't know you enjoy my Conspiracy theories. Have a look at this one. Nur

Americans Are Hell-Bent on Tyranny By Paul Craig Roberts December 22, 2009 "ICH" -- Obama’s dwindling band of true believers has taken heart that their man has finally delivered on one of his many promises--the closing of the Guantanamo prison. But the prison is not being closed. It is being moved to Illinois, if the Republicans permit. In truth, Obama has handed his supporters another defeat. Closing Guantanamo meant ceasing to hold people in violation of our legal principles of habeas corpus and due process and ceasing to torture them in violation of US and international laws. All Obama would be doing would be moving 100 people, against whom the US government is unable to bring a case, from the prison in Guantanamo to a prison in Thomson, Illinois. Are the residents of Thomson despondent that the US government has chosen their town as the site on which to continue its blatant violation of US legal principles? No, the residents are happy. It means jobs. The hapless prisoners had a better chance of obtaining release from Guantanamo. Now the prisoners are up against two US senators, a US representative, a mayor, and a state governor who have a vested interest in the prisoners’ permanent detention in order to protect the new prison jobs in the hamlet devastated by unemployment. Neither the public nor the media have ever shown any interest in how the detainees came to be incarcerated. Most of the detainees were unprotected people who were captured by Afghan war lords and sold to the Americans as “terrorists” in order to collect a proffered bounty. It was enough for the public and the media that the Defense Secretary at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, declared the Guantanamo detainees to be the “780 most dangerous people on earth.” The vast majority have been released after years of abuse. The 100 who are slated to be removed to Illinois have apparently been so badly abused that the US government is afraid to release them because of the testimony the prisoners could give to human rights organizations and foreign media about their mistreatment. Our British allies are showing more moral conscience than Americans are able to muster. Former PM Tony Blair, who provided cover for President Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, is being damned for his crimes by UK officialdom testifying before the Chilcot Inquiry. The London Times on December 14 summed up the case against Blair in a headline: “Intoxicated by Power, Blair Tricked Us Into War.” Two days later the British First Post declared: “War Crime Case Against Tony Blair Now Rock-solid.” In an unguarded moment Blair let it slip that he favored a conspiracy for war regardless of the validity of the excuse [weapons of mass destruction] used to justify the invasion. The movement to bring Blair to trial as a war criminal is gathering steam. Writing in the First Post Neil Clark reported: “There is widespread contempt for a man [blair] who has made millions [his reward from the Bush regime] while Iraqis die in their hundreds of thousands due to the havoc unleashed by the illegal invasion, and who, with breathtaking arrogance, seems to regard himself as above the rules of international law.” Clark notes that the West’s practice of shipping Serbian and African leaders off to the War Crimes Tribunal, while exempting itself, is wearing thin. In the US, of course, there is no such attempt to hold to account Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the large number of war criminals that comprised the Bush Regime. Indeed, Obama, whom Republicans love to hate, has gone out of his way to protect the Bush cohort from being held accountable. Here in Great Moral America we only hold accountable celebrities and politicians for their sexual indiscretions. Tiger Woods is paying a bigger price for his girlfriends than Bush or Cheney will ever pay for the deaths and ruined lives of millions of people. The consulting company, Accenture Plc, which based its marketing program on Tiger Woods, has removed Woods from its Web site. Gillette announced that the company is dropping Woods from its print and broadcast ads. AT&T says it is re-evaluating the company’s relationship with Woods. Apparently, Americans regard sexual infidelity as far more serious than invading countries on the basis of false charges and deception, invasions that have caused the deaths and displacement of millions of innocent people. Remember, the House impeached President Clinton not for his war crimes in Serbia, but for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Americans are more upset by Tiger Woods’ sexual affairs than they are by the Bush and Obama administrations’ destruction of US civil liberty. Americans don’t seem to mind that “their” government for the last 8 years has resorted to the detention practices of 1,000 years ago--simply grab a person and throw him into a dungeon forever without bringing charges and obtaining a conviction. According to polls, Americans support torture, a violation of both US and international law, and Americans don’t mind that their government violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spies on them without obtaining warrants from a court. Apparently, the brave citizens of the “sole remaining superpower” are so afraid of terrorists that they are content to give up liberty for safety, an impossible feat. With stunning insouciance, Americans have given up the rule of law that protected their liberty. The silence of law schools and bar associations indicates that the age of liberty has passed. In short, the American people support tyranny. And that’s where they are headed.

The Somali experience demonstrates the gap between the empire’s strategic projection of power and its actual capacity to realize its goals. It also exemplifies how imperialists, impressed by the number of clients, their ‘paper’ commitments and servile behavior, fail to recognize their strategic weakness in the face of popular national liberation movements. Prof. James Petras A revision of International politics 101 is in order to help those who are too busy to find the right information when they need. Nur

Castro bro Your write: You might even go as far as arguing the Shabaab don't even exist and are a convenient villain created by these powerful interests (much like some argue the Qaeda is). You see where I'm going with this, right? [big Grin] That is stretching it little too far saaxib, but as for Al Qaeda, the deception is unparalleled, like they say, don't believe ALL you hear, and HALF of what you see, since the art of multimedia doctoring spun from Hollywood technologies to manufacture consent has been perfected. check it out here http://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com/ Malika sis We are rotten from the outside-in, just like catching a virus, who do you think would have been in power if Ethiopia didn't invade Somalia in 2006? Non interference of other nations and the right to self determination of people's have been violated by powerful nations who consider Islam as their prime enemy, and any organization with an Islamic agenda as a threat to their national security. Bilal bro You Write: One thing we might all be able to agree on is this: that both groups have woefully failed to take the interests of the suffering populous into account. To have more than a million IDPs in and around Mogadishu and hundreds of thousands more languishing in refugee camps in neighboring states is a real tragedy. Agree, If a fair fact finding commission was set up today to put blame where it belongs, they would start as follows: 1. Who were the leaders of the past 18 years of clan civil war? who sponsored them, supplied them with weapons? Answer: Warlords supported by Ethiopa 2. Who was helping the people in these period, in education, health and business? Answer: Islamic groups. 3. Who established the popular Islamic courts that gave the people of Mogadishu the first glimpse of peace and harmony after years of anarchy and chaos by the hired guns of the warlords? Answer: Islamic groups 4. Who created the alliance of fighting "terrorism" aka Islam, to destroy the Islamic courts? Answer: Warlords 5. Who led the Ethiopian army to destabilize the nascent and new formation of Islamic Courts Union? Answer: Warlords 6. Who set up the government in Nairobi without any representation of any of the Islamic groups? Answer: Warlord led government 7. Who gave a " Legitimate" mandate for Ethiopian troops and African Union to occupy Mogadishu? Answer: Warlord led government Now, to be fair, if the warlords have mandated and legitimized the arrival and occupation of Somalia, are you suggesting that for the sake of safety of the people, and for fear that if they resistance groups attack the occupiers, that they would fire at all directions indiscriminately as well documented, that the the resistance groups should have accepted the occupation and laid down their guns? Is the blame on both sides equal yaa akhi? You write: Given that AS is the stronger of the two parties, its continued belligerence ought to be questioned. I agree again, but with fairness an equal footing of what the other party has done and continues to do. If you are standing on my toe, is pushing you off a belligerent action? Islamic armies, movements of the past exercised exemplary care whenever the lives of Muslim civilians were in danger. Salahuddin was once said to have abandoned an expedition (can’t quite recall the place in question) out of fear that innocent Muslims may come in harms way. That is an exemplary credit to an Islamic State once established, in our case, the very existence of such state has been labeled " Terrorism" which is the essence of what the whole internationalized conflict is all about. You write: I don’t doubt that AS care about their people. Unfortunately, there is less to be said about its willingness to compromise and fully engage with groups opposing it. I say this while considering some of the valid complexities outlined by brother Nur. I agree, 100% in that, AS should mend fences with their brothers of the Xizb Al Islam and the moderate elements ( from Islamic perspective) TFG, ( Warlords are the extremists). They need to be soft to those who differ with them in approach but are in line with establishing a just and fair governance in Somalia. You write: PS – Nur, I find your take on the character traits of Somalis interesting – naïve and nosy. I feel that Somalis (especially those currently in leadership positions) have lost their sense of independence and pride. Our current leaders, in contrast to those who’ve come before them, take orders from anyone. I said that half joking brother, yes we are a curious people, and yes, we are naive, we fall for everything new we hear, but, my take was that we are unmanageable people. Those who have been appointed by foreign entities as "Our Leaders" are in reality governors, not leaders, they are not sovereign, they cant proudly say that they have Somalia's interests first. Finally, you are also right that naivety and curiosity alone will not hamper efforts to annex Somalia to the regional Superpower clients. Nur

how do we understand "public power"? When freedom means occupation, when democracy means neoliberal capitalism, when reform means repression, when words like "empowerment" and "peacekeeping" make your blood run cold Arundhati Roy

Cruise Missile Attacks in Yemen By Glenn Greenwald December 21, 2009 - "Salon" -- Given what a prominent role "Terrorism" plays in our political discourse, it's striking how little attention is paid to American actions which have the most significant impact on that problem. In addition to our occupation of Iraq, war escalation in Afghanistan, and secret bombings in Pakistan, President Obama late last week ordered cruise missile attacks on two locations in Yemen, which "U.S. officials" say were "suspected Al Qaeda hideouts." The main target of the attacks, Al Qaeda member Qasim al Rim, was not among those killed, but: "a local Yemeni official said on Sunday that 49 civilians, among them 23 children and 17 women, were killed in air strikes against Al-Qaeda, which he said were carried out 'indiscriminately'." Media reports across the Muslim world -- though, not of course, within the U.S. -- are highlighting the dead civilians from the U.S. strike (one account from an official Iranian outlet began: "U.S. Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says"). For many people, the mere assertion by anonymous U.S. Government officials that these attacks targeted "suspected al-Qaeda sites" will be sufficient to deem them justified. All credible reports confirm that there is indeed a not insignificant Al Qaeda presence in Southern Yemen, so that claim, at least, seems at least grounded in reality. Yet arguments about justification to the side for the moment, here we have yet another violent attack by the U.S. which -- even under the best-case scenario -- has killed more Muslim civilians than it did "Al Qaeda fighters," and failed to kill the main target of the attack. When it comes to undermining Al Qaeda -- both in Yemen and generally -- isn't it painfully obvious that the images of dead Muslim women and children which we constantly create -- and which we again just created in Yemen -- will fuel that movement better than anything else we can do? Consider what else is happening around the Muslim world that is quite consistent with all of that yet receiving virtually no attention in the West (though receiving plenty of attention there). Pakistani lawyers -- many of the same ones who protested the tyrannical practices of General Musharraf -- held a large protest in Islamabad this weekend objecting to the presence of "notorious" Blackwater agents in their country. Palestinians are consumed with a recent incident in which West Bank settlers torched one of their mosques, burning holy books and leaving threatening messages; that was preceded by the Israeli Justice Minister proclaiming that "step by step, Torah law will become the binding law in the State of Israel." And perhaps most significantly of all, while reports have focused on alleged tension between the Obama administration and Israel over the latter's uncooperative conduct, this is what is actually happening: Behind the scenes, strategic security relations between the two countries are flourishing. Israeli officials have been singing the praises of President Obama for his willingness to address their defense concerns and for actions taken by his administration to bolster Israel’s qualitative military edge -- an edge eroded, according to Israel, during the final year of the George W. Bush presidency. Among the new initiatives taken by the administration, the Forward has learned, are adjustments in a massive arms deal the Bush administration made with Arab Gulf states in response to Israeli concerns. There have also been upgrades in U.S.-Israeli military cooperation on missile defense. And a deal is expected next year that will see one of the United States’ most advanced fighter jets go to Israel with some of America’s most sensitive new technology. Amid the cacophony of U.S.-Israel clashes on the diplomatic front, public attention given to this intensified strategic cooperation has been scant. But in a rare public comment in October, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren praised the Obama administration’s response to complaints about lost ground during the close of the Bush years as "warm and immediate." "We came to the Obama administration and said, ‘Listen, we have a problem here,'" Oren, told a gathering of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "The administration’s reaction was immediate: we are going to address this issue, we are going to make sure that we maintain your QME [qualitative military edge]." All of this is being done pursuant to this: America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge was codified directly into U.S. law via 2008 legislation backed by AIPAC. This legislation requires the president to report to Congress periodically on actions taken by the administration to ensure Israel’s advantage. I have to confess that I didn't realize that a law was enacted last year making it a legal requirement for America to maintain "Israel’s qualitative military edge," and -- even more amazingly -- that the President of the U.S. is required to report regularly to the U.S. Congress on the steps he's taking to ensure Israel's superiority. That's a rather extraordinary law, and the administration seems to be fulfilling its requirements faithfully. Whatever else is true, and even if one believes it's justified to lob cruise missiles into more countries where we claim "suspected Al Qaeda sites" are located, one thing seems clear: all of the causes widely recognized as having led to 9/11 -- excessive American interference in the Muslim world, our alliance with their most oppressive leaders, our responsibility for Israel's military conflicts with its Muslim neighbors, and our own military attacks on Muslims -- seem stronger than ever. As we take more actions of this sort, we will create more Terrorists, which will in turn cause us to take more actions of this sort in a never-ending, self-perpetuating cycle. The U.S. military, and the intelligence community, and its partners in the private contractor world will certainly remain busy, empowered, and well-funded in the extreme. Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. I am the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy. My most recent book, "Great American Hypocrites", examines the manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP and propagated by the establishment press, and was released in April, 2008, by Random House/Crown.

"The relationship between the media and the susceptible audience is often mediated through a wide range of highly organised pressure groups, whose sole purpose is to influence the content of news by attempting to curb what is published and what is not! This is called spin doctoring." Laba-X, December 22, 2009 "It is very interesting, that so many of our prominent newspapers have become almost agents or adjuncts of the government; that they do not contest or even raise questions about government policy." Senator William Fulbright, Senate hearing on Media, 1966 Nur

This discussion is alive and kicking Castro bro. My objection, which didn't please some debaters was the narrowing of the entire conflict to suicide bombing. Suicide bombing which kills many innocent civilians is indeed a bad thing, so is homicide bombing by the TFG, AMISOM and the US, which is softly justified as collateral damage. The thread was meant to be frank, provocative to address deep core issue driving the Somali uncivil war. In the last few days, I have taken pains brainstorming all possible factors and their possible contribution to the continuity of the conflict, and was about to focus on populating it when some nomads lost their cool and objectivity. This thread is silently followed by many readers who also have their opinions on the issues being raised, which can be different altogether than mine and that of other debaters, and its for their sake that I will continue to populate this thread. Once all the factors and their impacts are accounted for, everyone can make their minds up, and difference of opinion is not always bad. Nur

Very interesting discussion. It would help if we can gracefully disagree, some of the comments by debaters I respect are uncalled for, let us keep our cool composure, the discussion will not please everyone, but we can still learn how different we are or think, which in itself is a good thing. InshaAllahu, I will continue populating the thread starter topic, as and when I have time, so keep visiting the same page, there is a possibility that you may learn something you did not know, specially the fiqh component of the impact issues. Peace Nur

Attacking Humanitarians As Strategy by Christopher Albon on July 29, 2008 The Jamestown Foundation has a new article by Sunguta West on the targeting of aid agencies in Somalia. Aid groups in the country are increasingly being attacked and humanitarian operations have largely halted due to security concerns. The dangers of aid work come with the territory, but while most attacks against aid workers worldwide are robberies or mistaken identity, the attacks in Somalia, for political reasons, purposely strike against humanitarians. According to Shaykh Muhammad: “The UN relief agencies took part in the war that resulted in the defeat of the Islamic Courts Union by giving arms, money and fuel to the forces ranged against the mujahideen… I urge the mujahideen to make relief agencies their main target because they are assisting the enemy. This struggle has started and is yet to be accomplished (Codka Nabadda Radio [The Voice of Peace], July 14; Garowe Online, July 14). [Emphasis Mine] Insurgencies are contests for the minds and will of the population. In the eyes of insurgents, humanitarian organizations are competitors for the support of local populations. Thus, humanitarian NGOs and IGOs threaten to lose their century old, sacred position of neutrality. Whether we like it or not, in insurgencies nobody is neutral. Christopher Albon is a Ph.D. candidate specializing in armed conflict, public health, human security, and health diplomacy.

Foreign Aid, Arms Shipped By Same Firms: Report UNITED NATIONS, May 12 (IPS) - The military conflicts raging across Africa, Asia and Latin America have been significantly influenced by the heavy flow of illicit small arms, cocaine and rich minerals. But, ironically, some of the air cargo companies involved in these profitable - and politically destabilising - smuggling operations are also delivering humanitarian aid and supporting peacekeeping operations, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). In some cases, these companies are delivering both aid and weapons to the same conflict zones, including in countries such as Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea-Bissau. The 70-page detailed report reveals that 90 percent of the air cargo companies identified in arms trafficking-related reports have also been used by major U.N. agencies, the European Union (EU), members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), defence contractors and some of the world's leading non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to transport humanitarian aid, peacekeepers and peacekeeping equipment. The report, titled 'Air Transport and Destabilizing Commodity Flows,' points out that some U.N. missions have continued to contract aviation services from companies that have been named in Security Council reports for wholly illicit arms movement and have been recommended by the United Nations for a complete aviation ban. Co-authored by Hugh Griffiths and Mark Bromley, the study cites several such cases, including the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Sudan which has continued to use Badr Airlines even after the Security Council recommended an aviation ban for violating a U.N. arms embargo. The U.N. children's agency UNICEF and the International Medical Corps have been cited for using the services of Juba Air Cargo after the operator had been documented by the United Nations as violating its arms embargo. Story continues below The clients listed by Juba Air Cargo also include the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), the U.N. Office of Project Services (UNOPS), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Committee of the Red Cross, Concern Worldwide, Action Centre la Faim and the Swedish Free Mission. Additionally, Ababeel Aviation holds contracts with U.N. agencies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) even though the operator has been accused of violating U.N. arms embargoes. Asked what role the United Nations could play in preventing such anomalies, Griffiths told IPS: "The U.N. is not very good at policing its backyard. There is a need for an independent institute to do this effectively." He also said the United Nations should cooperate with the EU in order to solve the problem and also attend an upcoming expert meeting in Brussels on May 14. The SIPRI report shows how air cargo carriers involved in humanitarian aid and peacekeeping operations have also transported a range of other conflict-sensitive goods such as cocaine, diamonds, coltan and other precious minerals. Bromley, a co-author of the report, told IPS the United Nations has an important role to play, but the EU has a unified stance on this matter and has explicitly recognised the problems of air cargo carriers transporting arms in their framework control strategy against the illicit smuggling of small arms and light weapons (SALW). "The U.N. framework SALW control document (2001) and the Programme of Action does not make any reference to transport and does not recognize air cargo carriers as a problem," he added. Asked for a response from the United Nations, U.N. Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq told IPS that none of the air operators cited in the SIPRI report are registered as "bona fide" air carriers by the U.N. Department of Field Support (DFS). "That means they're not listed flight vendors by the U.N. Secretariat," Haq said. And thus, they cannot, and have not been commercially contracted by DFS for long-term charter in peacekeeping operations, he added. In terms of how DFS goes about contracting flight vendors, Haq explained that the department has a Quality Assurance Programme, which involves potential flight vendors having to go through a pre-qualification process for registration as flight vendors, followed by an on-site inspection of the prospective air operator. "These are done to ensure that any air carriers under U.N. sanctions are not considered for registration/operations with the United Nations," he said. As part of the ongoing process of enhancing safety, quality and the security of U.N. aviation operations, both DFS and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (along with the World Food Programme and the International Civil Aviation Organisation in advisory roles), have established an Aviation Technical Advisory Group (ATAG) comprised of aviation experts from DFS, WFP and ICAO. The ATAG's main objective is to develop U.N. Common Aviation Standards for humanitarian and peacekeeping air transport operations and ensure that risks are mitigated in DFS aviation operations, and any exposure to potential liabilities is reduced, Haq said. The report presents a range of inexpensive options which could be adopted to tackle the problems. U.N. agencies, governments, defence contractors and NGOs could make humanitarian aid and peacekeeping contracts conditional by requiring air cargo carriers to adhere to an ethical transportation code of conduct. The EU could also utilise its existing air safety regulations to put companies involved in arms trafficking or destabilising commodity flows out of business. Additionally, the EU could provide specialised training for its civilian and military peacekeepers to better identify suspect air cargo carriers operating in Africa and Eastern Europe. A coordinated response by the EU and the humanitarian aid community could require companies to chose between transporting arms or aid to conflict zones while air safety enforcement could put hardcore arms dealers out of business, said Bromley. "Our research shows that companies named in arms trafficking-related reports have poor safety records. Safety regulations represent their Achilles heel, and can do to them what tax evasion charges did to Al Capone," he said.

Quick responses: Akhi Xiin: We are on a different wave lengths if you find that statement amusing. One can't just walk over others, and ask for a dialogue, it isn't that simple brother. If time can't be rewound back to 2006, which is what made you laugh, then, we have to accept the facts on the ground, and that is also in favor of AS at present, the TFG can humbly ask for negotiation with the AS in the evolving new Sovereign Capital of Somalia, Kismaayo. Castro writes; Sheikh Nurow, yours is not nostalgia saaxib. You have now left the realm of reason. And since we can't turn back the clock, you suggest we tolerate suicide bombings? And you blame the CIA for the mayhem caused by the Shabaab? Akhi Castro: Don't get me wrong saaxib, I don't tolerate young men shredding themselves into pieces, worse yet, I don't accept the deception and oppression that drives them to such hopelessness committed by institutionalized human rights violators, Do I blame the CIA? Isn't the CIA an innocent, benevolent aid and human relief organization assisting Somalis by giving them food and assisting them how to govern themselves? How can I blame such an organization saaxib? Akhi, Norfsky If you can be patient with me as before, I will touch on these points with clarity in time inshaAllah. The reason that I have listed all the factors, players and impact issues is to examine Who is doing what, and the weight such impact will have on the whole of Somalia. I will assure you brother, if we go with the current " Moderate" popular nation building scheme through Ethiopian and International institutions, that in a very short time, you will be facing another animal, much more dangerous than the AS; you will wish the AS are back, Somalia will not be a Sovereign state, the UN and AU will dictate every law to this slave country, and a fundamental conflict with all that you believe will be a reality. A popular wisdom says that: Not everyone who sh..t on you is your enemy, Not everyone who gets you out a sh..t is your friend, and when you are in deep doodoo, keep your mouth shut!. We are indeed in deep doodoo to our chin, and to a distressed person waving a SOS sign, any net thrown to catch him, looks like a life saving rope, freedom is not served on a silver platter! The west has diluted all of their religious and ethical values slowly, transformed Sodomy to an acceptable institution, and that rotten moral net is being widened to poorer nations, through so called international non gov. organizations ( NGO)to dilute Islam too, beginning with the handy dividing western terminologies, " A Moderate Muslim", referred to those who are showered with praise for their abandonment of fundamental tenets of Islam, in order to encourage them to do away with remaining Islamic tenets, hence the shedding of the crocodile tears about the menace of the concocted "Extremism" Media jargon. Nur

Abu Salma bro. A wise and a balanced opinion. As for the Ethiopian army's face saving exit through the TFG "negotiations", it's debatable at best, but I hold to the opinion that the resistance was too hot to handle for the Ethiopians. At any rate, I do agree with you whole heartedly that the way forward is not militancy alone, AS and HI and the sincere brothers in the TFG need a reproachful mending of fences before dealing with the wider audience that have succumbed to the well financed an choreographed western Media Blitz that gave Ethiopia's ugly invasion, occupation and destruction of Somalia an appealing face lift while demonizing the Somali resistance after dividing them by virtue of a vicious PR Campaign. As I have posted above, the stakes are high, but, as in the advent of Islam, its a Fitnah trying times, I pray that Allah makes the believers firm on their faith till they meet Him. Amin Nur

Abtigiis writes: I will prefer to live with Ethiopia than Alshabab and their ilk. You have my sincere prayers for your wish, to be with them in this life, and to be raised with them in the day of judgement. Amin. Based on a Hadeeth by Prophet Muhammad SAWS that everyone will be raised with those they like. Nur

Akhwaani Xiin and Norfsky The real question is not what the Shabab want, its what the warlords lurking behind the flimsy government of Sheikh Sharif want? there was no problem between the members of the Former alliance of the Islamic Courts Union up until when the will of those who decided to join the warlord government was broken while the Shabaab and the Xizbul Islam factions stuck to their guns and kept on fighting the Ethiopians until they drove them out in humiliation. If we want to solve the current debacle, we need to return things back to the state of affairs of summer of 2006. The blatant invasion of Ethiopia and its destruction of what was left of the warlords 16 years of mayhem and chaos, who have also assisted the Ethiopian invasion and the covert military cover of the CIA has created the current intransigence of the resistance movements in Somalia. Simply, they don't trust someone who failed to destroy them. In Somalia, well recorded gross violations have taken place committed by many players who have collectively stand behind these heinous crimes against humanity in Somalia, The UN has violated its mandate, the Ethiopians have violated Somalia's sovereignty, and the Americans in their wild goose chase, have reverted to a Fascist state respecting no human values nor any international law including their own. When I started this thread I planned to address the core issues that are driving the Somalia problem. its hasty to simplify the problem by asking what a particular group wants. Please allow me to complete the above thread so that I can enumerate all the factors that are contributing to the current violence in Somalia. Nur

Allah waxaan uga baryayaa dhammaan inta u dhimatay Allah dartiis iyo inta ahlul tawxiid ah oo gardarro lagu dilay guud ahaan, iyo Akhi Al Xabiib fillaah, Ibraahim Caddow si gaar ahaana oo aan aad uga xanuunsaday geeridiisa, anigoo filaya iney aakhiro uga fiican tahay adduunka ( Naxsabuhu Kadaalika) , sababtoo ah inaan ku bartay Taqwo, jeceylka Islaamka, xishood badan, akhlaaq aad u sarreysa, jeceyl inuu dadka kaalmeeyo, toosnaan iyo amaano, naxsabuhu kadhaalika. Waxaan Allah uga baryayaa inuu ka aqbalo Shahaado Allah dartiis ah, lana soo saaro anbiyada, Shuhaadaada, Siddiiqiinta iyo Saalixiinta iyo inuu anigana igula kulmiyo jannada. Nur

Stunning Statistics About the War Every American Should Know Contrary to popular belief, the US actually has 189,000 personnel on the ground in Afghanistan right now—and that number is quickly rising. By Jeremy Scahill December 18, 2009 "RebelReports" -- A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety. In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff, “From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan. During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.” At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan. The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts. Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.” A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are “administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations.” According to one USAID official, the agency is “sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent.” As a result, the agency does not “know … where the money is going.” The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo: In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects. According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects. USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan. The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker(SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: “The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan.” Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors. As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed. Jeremy Scahill is the author of the international best-seller Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is a frequent contributor to The Nation magazine and a correspondent for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now! He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill has won numerous awards for his reporting, including the prestigious George Polk Award, which he won twice. While a correspondent for Democracy Now!, Scahill reported extensively from Iraq through both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Nomads I am starting this thread as a continuation of a discussion about the conflict in Somalia with brothers Norfsky, Xiinfanin and Castro. But its open for all to participate. The driver of this topic is a confusion on the identity and the secret hands behind the latest Mogadishu Bombing in which three Ministers and many Medical students were killed in a coldblooded carnage while many others were injured. This particular incident was one of many similar violent incidents as well as many indiscriminate heavy artillery shelling that has mercilessly targeted civilians as a collective punishment by proxy international actors in the current Somali political dilemma. A single life that is lost is as precious as any other life, an incident that claimed the lives of 70 Somalis as well as over a hundred wounded civilians by the African mercenary forces in Mogadishu did not warrant any denunciation from the media, and hence from Somalis abroad. No one has claimed this latest senseless bombing which is mysteriously monopolized by the TFG and, to date, no independent commission was appointed as required to analyze the evidence collected at the site, such as blood samples, phone records just before the bombing, the trail of Hotel visitors up to the date of the incident and much more data to verify expeditious claims made by the TFG Government, as well as conducting a long term investigation of the drivers of this unfortunate incident. But, for a reason beyond me, The International news Media (which will be driven out of business soon by freelance journalists in the internet) is skillfully proving John Kennedy's famous theory right; that its possible to fool some of the people all of the time. As a result of that theory, its becoming popular these days among Somali intellectuals to blame the Shabab Al Mujahidoon movement for this particular incident despite their immediate and vehement denial of taking any part in this atrocious incident. This incident is only a symptom, but not the ailment that we as Somalis are suffering from, so to get to the bottom of this affair, we need to dig deep below the surface to find out the real ailment, because, as long as we are constantly distracted by these side events, as unfortunate as they are, we will never have the time to diagnose the true ailment that is ripping us apart nor the time to find a suitable permanent cure for our national dilemma. The Somali dilemma is very complex, and as we all know, complexity calls for more and deeper knowledge of the conflict variables and their attributes to solve the equation. This conflict has multiple players, some are in the ring, while others are quietly coaching the players, and are in reality pulling all the strings of the events that is causing the ailment in Somalia. Since the collapse of the Siad Barre regime back in 1991, foreign players with an international cover have failed bringing peace to Somalia on their own terms after purposefully igniting the 18 year old civil war with an inter-clan enmity, Iraq style. But in a miraculous turn around of events, and against all odds, from the rubble of that civil war, an Islamic uprising headed by the Islamic Courts of Somalia regained the upper hand from the CIA trained and funded inter-clan civil war instigators and warlords. In part, this was due to the Somali social nature, who are both naive (Libaax nimaan oqoon baa hilib ka soo rita) and nosy, two unique characteristics that made it impossible for foreign designs to succeed as planned, and which continues to be the case to this date. The current conflict has historical as well as political and lately religious roots that have to different degrees contributed to the complexity of this conflict. The way to solve a complex problem is thus, to simplify it by isolating factors apart and grouping like factors on one side of the equation, and their probable outcomes and impacts on the other. By studying each factor and its contribution to the whole problem, we can then categorize the weights of these factors based on a set of criteria to assess their impact, which will allow us to start somewhere on what the problem owners value most. At this point, we should have generated a list of factors in which the factor with the most impact is listed as No. 1. Logically, then, we need to approach the most devastating factor of all, without which addressing other factors will be an exercise in futility. This is the most basic way to approach a problem with this complexity. Before I delve deeper into the nature of above factors and analyze their interactions, I would like to share with you all an inspirational story, which I have selected as the title of this debate: The Nail Of Juhaa. Musmaarkii Juxaa Once upon a time, there was a man called Juxaa. Juxaa used to own a house and he wanted to sell it, even though he wanted to leverage some permanent control over the property. So, in the property sale contract, Juxaa put a very fine line : That a specific nail on the wall should not be included in the sale and not removed from the wall as he had a sentimental attachment to that nail and he could not sell it as a part of the house. The buyer hurriedly agreed to this small, but significant condition of sale, as he believed that it would not interfere in the usage of the property. Few days later, Juxaa showed up to visit the house he sold, and when the new owner asked him why he visited, Juxaa responded : " Oh, I came here to visit my nail, I miss it!" The new owner, amused at first, welcomed Juxaa in his house, served food and drinks generously, but the frequency of subsequent visits has remarkably increased to the point that the new owner could not tolerate to have Juxaa show up anytime , day or night at his house with the pretext of visiting his nail on the wall. One day, Juxaa visited the house and as usual, the new owner served him food and drinks, but Juxaa wouldn't leave. When it became very late, almost time to sleep, the agitated owner asked him to leave, but Juxaa shot back at him claiming that he has a fundamental right to sleep under his nail, which was in the contract. The new owner of the house, sold the house back to Juxaa at a significant loss. Moral of the story. We Somalis have inherited Juxaa's nail from Imperial powers, only to discover that now that our current dilemma, in addition to our nice little clan conflict dimension, has also another dangerous dimension: Imperial Owners who have an interest to visit and sleep under their nail: The War On Terror Nail which is a pretext for A. Securing Natural Resources, (i.e. Oil & Gas, etc), B. Strategic Regional Designs ( Military Bases), C. Protection of the warlords whom they have empowered to legitimize the Somali National Resources heist Lets get on with the critical complexities driving current events. And as I've said, our aim is to take an inventory of the players and their impact on vital issues affecting the lives of the Somali People. Once we capture the main factors, we shall analyze their interactions and impact on Somali national interests. The following is a non exhaustive list, please remind me if I have forgotten a vital impact factor. Bismillah, wa bihi nastaciin: Somalia's Nation -Rescue and Building Dilemma A. IMPACT Issues A.1 Sharia Law and Order Independence of the Judiciary Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity A.1.1 National Security Transparent Governance and Civil Service National Defense National Guard Military Police Intelligence ( Criminal Investigation Dept. ) International Counter Intelligence A.1.2 Islamic Judicial System A.2 Moral Issues A.2.1 Gender Issues A.2.2 Public Decency and acceptable social norms A.3 Human Welfare Issues A.3.1 Public Health and the Internally Displaced A.3.2 Education and basic skills training A.4 Natural Resources A.4.1 Oil and Gas National Strategy Law A.4.2 Minerals National Strategy Law A.4.3 Food supply chain A.5 The Environment A.6 Private Properties and Public Land Players: B Local Somali Groups B.1 Xizb Al Islam B.2 Shabab B.3 Sufi Group B.4 Warlords B.5 TFG Government C Foreign Stake Holders C.1 US C.2 Ethiopia C.3 Kenya C.4 IGAD C.5 UN C.6 EU C.7 NGOs Analyses: I will begin this analysis with a question posed by brother Xiin: What do the Al Shabab Movement want? This type of question in the Arabic Balaagha, is known as "Tajaahul al Caalim". The subtle philosophical aspect of this question implies that Xiin does not not know, when its a given that he has already taken a firm position of what they want, with which he clearly does not agree with. This type of question is usually asked from a higher ground, an authority of sorts, that has secured some tangible gains on the ground while a competitor, through violence is undermining its legitimate authority. Clearly, the above is not the case, and in a conflict, where both parties claim to be on the higher ground, the way to mediate is to equate the parties and to force them to be arbitrated by a single Sovereign authority that they both obey. Logically then, it follows that we need to start the analysis from the perspective of that highest Authorities, which in our case is Allah SWT, the only authority that both parties claim to have surrendered to. Allah SWT says: "Fa In tanaazactum fi Shey-in, fa rudduuhu, ilaa Allah, wa ilaa arrasuul" meaning when you disagree on an issue, refer it to Allah SWT "The Quraan), and the Messenger" (of Allah) The Sunnah. Therefore, InshAllah, I will be mapping all the above issues and their impacts with the Quraan and the Sunna to see if we are off the mark or if we are indeed on the right track, Siraatul Mustaqeem, and not on the Siraatul Daalliin, nor the Siraat of Al Maghduubi Caleyhim, because, a lost person does not guide others.. I will begin my analysis of the problem by discussing the moral of the Islamic Sharia. The five kulliyaat, of which the preservation of faith is the most important. The effect of the impact issues on the preservation of faith shall be examined in depth, followed by a similar analysis of the other Kulliyaat. ...................To be continued inshAllah! Nur 2009 e-Nuri Problem Solvers We Attack Problems, Not People!

War Crime Case Against Tony Blair Now Rock-solid Neil Clark: A trial would be warmly welcomed by millions – so what happens next? By Neil Clark December 16, 2009 "The First Post" - -- Tony Blair's extraordinary admission on Sunday to the BBC's Fern Britton - that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq's alleged WMDs - is sure to give fresh impetus to moves to prosecute our former prime minister for war crimes. The case against Blair, strong enough before this latest comment, now appears rock solid. Going to war to change another country's regime is prohibited by international law, while the Nuremburg judgment of 1946 laid down that "to initiate a war of aggression", as Blair and Bush clearly did against Iraq, "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". Blair's admission, that he "would still have thought it right to remove him [saddam]" regardless of the WMD issue, is also an acknowledgement that he lied to the House of Commons on February 25, 2003, when he told MPs: "I detest his [saddam's] regime. But even now he [saddam] can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. I do not want war... But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation." The view that Blair is a war criminal is now mainstream: when comedian Sandi Toksvig, host of Radio Four's News Quiz, called him one on air, the BBC, according to the Mail on Sunday, did not receive a single complaint. But while it is easy to label Blair a war criminal, what are the chances of him actually standing trial - and how could it be achieved? Various initiatives have already been launched. The Blair War Crimes Foundation, set up by retired orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin, has organised an online petition, addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly and the UK Attorney General, which lists 14 specific complaints relating to the Iraq war, including "deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war" and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the occupying powers. The campaigning journalist George Monbiot, who attempted a citizen's arrest of the former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, for his role in the Iraq war, said at the Hay Literary festival in 2008 that he would put up the first £100 of a bounty payable to the first person to attempt a non-violent citizen's arrest of Blair. Monbiot has also called for the setting up of national arrest committees in countries which, unlike Britain, have incorporated the 'Crime of Aggression' into their domestic law. These committees would exchange information with one another and make sure that Blair "would have no hiding place". If Blair is to face an international trial, then the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague - to which Britain is a signatory - would be the likeliest forum. While the ICC has said that it will not conduct prosecutions for the Crime of Aggression until it has been defined by its own working group, the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the Sunday Telegraph in 2007 that he would be willing to launch an inquiry into US/UK war crimes in Iraq. Charges could also be brought against Blair at the ICC for failing to prosecute the war in a "proportionate manner". From Iraq itself, there are also moves to bring Blair to book. It has been reported that lawyers acting for Tariq Aziz, the former deputy leader of the country, now held in captivity, have written to Britain's top legal adviser asking permission to prosecute Blair for Lawyers acting for Tariq Aziz have written to Britain's top legal adviser asking permission to prosecute Blair for war-crimes Tariq Aziz war-crimes, in the light of his latest comments. Whichever way it comes about, if Blair is forced to stand trial, there can be no underestimating the event's significance. Up to now, the only political leaders who have faced war crimes trials since World War Two are those who fell foul of the west - and in particular the United States of America. But the notion of international justice will never be taken seriously if western politicians are deemed to be exempt from the same rules that leaders in Africa and elsewhere are supposed to adhere to. The prospect of Teflon Tony finally having to answer for his crimes in a court of law, would be warmly welcomed by millions of people throughout the world, not least all those who marched for peace through central London in February 2003, one month before the Iraq invasion. There is widespread contempt for a man who has made millions while Iraqis die in their hundreds of thousands due to the havoc unleashed by the illegal invasion, and who, with breathtaking arrogance, seems to regard himself as above the rules of international law. The next decade will tell us whether that is indeed the case.