Waryee Meiji quqdad ha u dhimman. Puntland is Somalia. -------------------- -------------------- -------- (CNN) – The airport in Mogadishu, Somalia came under attack Monday as a member of the U.S. Congress visited the city, a journalist in Somalia reported. The sound of mortar rounds and gunfire echoed around a community near the airport not long after Democratic Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey concluded a news conference with the Somalia's prime minister, Omar Abdirashid, the journalist said. It was not immediately clear whether Payne was near the airport when it came under attack. Payne's spokeswoman, Kerry McKenney, said she and others in Payne's Washington office would be asking the State Department for news on Payne's status.

Report: U.S. Considers Attacks on Somali Pirates' Land Bases Monday, April 13, 2009 Print ShareThisDefense officials said the U.S. military is considering attacks on Somali pirate bases on land and aid for the people there to help stop the hijacking of ships off Africa's coast, Bloomberg.com reported. The plan would include helping Somalia create their own coast guard and train security forces, the officials, who requested anonymity, told Bloomberg.com. Officials said the plan would be submitted to the Obama administration as they decide how best to tackle the increase in pirate attacks off the Somali coast. The only way to make shipping routes safe from pirates would be to disrupt their support network on land, security analysts have said. Any actions against the pirates, defense officials said, would require the support of the Somali people, who are usually not in favor of foreign intervention.

April 12, 2009 Op-Ed Contributor Anarchy on Land Means Piracy at Sea By ROBERT D. KAPLAN Stockbridge, Mass. PIRACY is the maritime ripple effect of anarchy on land. Somalia is a failed state and has the longest coastline in mainland Africa, so piracy flourishes nearby. The 20th-century French historian Fernand Braudel called piracy a “secondary form of war,” that, like insurgencies on land, tends to increase in the lulls between conflicts among great states or empires. With the Soviet Union and its client states in Africa no longer in existence, and American influence in the third world at an ebb, irregular warfare both on land and at sea has erupted, and will probably be with us until the rise of new empires or their equivalents. Somali pirates are usually unemployed young men who have grown up in an atmosphere of anarchic violence, and have been dispatched by a local warlord to bring back loot for his coffers. It is organized crime carried out by roving gangs. The million-square-miles of the Indian Ocean where pirates roam might as well be an alley in Mogadishu. These pirates are fearless because they have grown up in a culture where nobody expects to live long. Pirate cells often consist of 10 men with several ratty, roach-infested skiffs. They bring along drinking water, gasoline for their single-engine outboards, grappling hooks, ladders, knives, assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and the mild narcotic qat to chew. They live on raw fish. The skiffs are generally used to launch attacks on slightly larger crafts, often a fishing dhow operated by South Koreans, Indians or Taiwanese, taking the crews prisoner. In turn, they use the new ship to take a larger vessel, and then another, working up the food chain. Eventually, they let the smaller boats and crews go free. In this way, over the years, Somali pirates have graduated to attacking oil tankers and container ships; the bigger the vessel, the higher the ransoms, which the pirate confederations can then invest in more sophisticated equipment. As Braudel suggested, there is nothing new here. Piracy has been endemic to the Indian Ocean from the Gulf of Aden to the Strait of Malacca, and particularly so after the Western intrusion into these waters, beginning with the Portuguese in the 16th century. Pirate groups, sometimes known as “sea gypsies,” tended to escalate in number and audacity as trade increased, so that piracy itself has often been a sign of prosperity. The Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta, who was the victim of pirates off western India in the 14th century, informed us that commercial ships in the Indian Ocean of his day traveled in armed convoys as a defense. Slightly earlier, Marco Polo described many dozens of pirate vessels off Gujarat, India, where the pirates would spend the whole summer at sea with their women and children, even as they plundered merchant vessels. The big danger in our day is that piracy can potentially serve as a platform for terrorists. Using pirate techniques, vessels can be hijacked and blown up in the middle of a crowded strait, or a cruise ship seized and the passengers of certain nationalities thrown overboard. You can see how Al Qaeda would be studying this latest episode at sea, in which Somali pirates attacked a Maersk Line container ship and were fought off by the American crew, even as they have managed to take the captain hostage in one of the lifeboats. So we end up with the spectacle of an American destroyer, the Bainbridge, with enough Tomahawk missiles and other weaponry to destroy a small city, facing off against a handful of Somali pirates in a tiny lifeboat. This is not an efficient use of American resources. It indicates how pirates, like terrorists, can attack us asymmetrically. The challenge ahead for the United States is not only dealing with the rise of Chinese naval power, but also in handling more unconventional risks that will require a more scrappy, street-fighting Navy. In a sense, America needs three navies; yet, as this pirate crisis reveals, it may have only two. It has a blue-water force for patrolling the major sea lines, thus guarding the global commons. It packs enough precision weaponry on its warships to project power on land against adversaries like North Korea and Iran. But it still does not have enough of a sea-based, counterinsurgency component to deal with adversaries like Somali pirates and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy. (The latter’s force features speedboats loaded with explosives hidden in the many coves of Iran’s coastline, which could ram ships on suicide missions.) The Navy has plans to build 55 new Littoral Combat Ships to deal with this deficiency. Yes, these fast, maneuverable ships have low drafts and are thus suited for many different kinds of unorthodox missions close to shore. But the oceans are vast, and ships cannot be in two places at once. Without sufficient numbers of them, it’s hard to believe that they will make much of a difference. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in his recent budget statement, indicated that only a few of these ships will be built at first, even as he endorsed the whole program. In recent years the American public has been humbled by the limits of our military power in dirty land wars. But navies have historically been a military indicator of great power. That a relatively small number of pirates from a semi-starving nation can constitute enough of a menace to disrupt major sea routes is another sign of the anarchy that will be characteristic of a multipolar world, in which a great navy like America’s — with a falling number of overall ships — will be in relative, elegant decline, while others will either lack the stomach or the capacity to adequately guard the seas. Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security

Paragon, thanks for posting. hadda waan carraabay,waanse aqrin insha Allah when i get home

Yes indeed always dad wax garanayyaa cid walba ku jira

The solution is to treat the problem at its sources; number one, the foreign vessels illegally shipping within Somalia water must be stopped. Number two; US should support the process of forming strong local-people led central government, and not oppose it when or if it emarge as the Bush adminstration did 3years ago. Number four; US must work with Somalia authorities whatever form or shape they might be and it must address this problem locally rather than internationalising The internationally community eyes only see Somali pirates while they are ignoring the massive illegal fishing that is going in within Somalia sea for the last 20 years. Average Somalis are now confince that what international community wants is the iollegal fishing and waste dumping to continues done mainly by 5 UN perminant members, in which France is the leading illegal fisherer, when so-called Somali-Pirates started their sea patrolling, the Tuna prices went up worldwide, illegally shipping fleets from powerful nations stop sending their ships to Somalia coast at least for the moment. Finally, Somali pirates is part of the problem but certainly not the only problem if there is justice. — John Lewis

Piracy emerged following the collapse of the Somali government in 1991. With the government gone, European ships began dumping millions of barrels of toxic waste into the ocean off the Somali coast. At the same time, illegal trawlers began fishing Somalia’s seas with an estimated $300 million of tuna, shrimp, and lobster being taken each year, depleting stocks previously available to local fishermen. Following the 2004 tsunami, hundreds of rusting barrels washed up on shore leaking toxic and nuclear waste with more than 300 people dying. Through interception with speedboats, Somali fishermen tried to either dissuade the dumpers and trawlers or levy a “tax” on them as compensation. In an interview, Sugule Ali, one of the pirate leaders explained “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits (to be) those who illegally fish and dump in our seas.” Inevitably, due to economic conditions in Somalia or greed, some fishermen eventually took to piracy for their own financial benefit. The western powers are the terrorists. The NYTimes is a propaganda organ for the elites. Get US out of Somali waters. ^^Here i found alle ubaahane lecturing about the root causes of piracy

I deplore this piracy.I also believe that if you want to change an individual’s or a group’s behavioryou need to impart a cost or consequence. Therefore, paying ranson is reward and is enabling, to say the least. However, there appears to be another side to the story. (http://www.huffingt onpost.com/johann-ha ri/you-are-being-lie d-to-abo_b_155147.ht ml) It appears, according to reports from several sources including the UN, that there’s been a history of nuclear and medical waste dumping by European entities off the shores of Somalia. This has gone on unchallenged due to the absence of a Somali government and global intransigence. The Christmas tsunami that hit Somalia subsequently dispersed this waste upon the shores and caused significant illness and injury to communities adjacent to shore. Additionally, again due to the power vacuum, the waters off Somalia have been rapaciously fished by predator non-Somali fishing interests. The story goes that Somalis themselves went to the waters themselves to evict the foreign fishing boats. This then advanced into the piracy extortion we see now. Justifications have emerged from Somalis themselves that the monies are to be used to compensate lost revenues of the fisherman and clean up the waste that was dumped. How much of this is truth and how much is mere rationalisation for piracy is quite unclear. However, it certainly bears strong consideration in the overall picture and clamor for blood. There’s a case for punishment here for MANY parties.Again, there’s a need to impart a cost to not just the pirates. Perhaps, we have an opportunity to deal comprehensively with this matter now, one and for all. I liked this one too...

loooooool@Meiji

^^non somali territory aa! that should explain your struggle with mar marbuu tuurtaa waan ku maagayyaa ee ha u bixin awoowe

^^Waryee wuu tuurtaa macnaheedu waa wuu gabyaa jeege dheere waaxid. Where did you grow up Emp

Exellent response, Paragon.

^^Yes brother I met him both publicly (there was a semi public dinner, not the Brain Coyle event posted above) and privately. I found him very frank about the issues facing the region he came to represent. I also found out that Juxa and I share a hobby of collecting Somali literature. Mar marna odagu waa tuurtaa

Reer Baadiyye, Your anarchic tendency is evidenced and manifested in your postings. Qalawdii yeertaaba waxay xoojinaysaa marmarsiiyahaad u raadinaysay dawlad diidnimadaada

^^lool sherban dont know the consequence of what he is talking about. if the pirates continue at teh rate they are growing now, thier shortsighted effort to fatten themselves will have a negative strategic concequence for somalia as a nation.

The only way to ameliorate this problem is to control piracy from land. But unfortunately, there is continued reluctance among many governments to do anything “on shore” — memories of “Black Hawk Down” are still strong. But there has to be a change in the incentive structure for pirates. Right now, companies and some governments are still willing to pay ransom. Might they instead hire clans to combat piracy, along the “sons of Iraq” model? Maybe foreign naval forces in the area should work to guarantee that Somali fishermen are free to ply their trade without fear of either pirate attack or the arrival of foreign fishing fleets to illegally fish Somali waters. After all, the genesis of the pirate gangs were the militiamen taken on board Somali fishing vessels to attack the famed “zombie fleets” from other countries. Perhaps it’s time for the international community to deal directly with the self-proclaimed governments in Somaliland and Puntland, rather than hoping against hope that a central government in Somalia will be reconstructed. Read on NY Times Somali Pirate discussion blog

^^Kudos to Eng. M of SomaliTalk. This is well researched and very convincing article.

Raggeedii. Ha la qabto nimanka inta aysan border dispute memo of understanding berri lasoo shirtagin. War wuxu waa xoolo wallaahi

Sophist, salaam saaxiib. Sophist is is this an agreement of maritimate demarcation or a mere memo of understanding and acknowledgement of a maritime disupute? the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the areas under dispute, including the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, shall be agreed between the two coastal states on basis of international law after the commission has concluded its examination Laakiin waxaa cajjiib ah sababta hadda loo shaaciyey maritime dispute aan hore runtii dadka intiisa badan u maqal. That's what is fishy about this so called memo of understanding.

^^Ahdaaf ka sarraysa in mujrimiinta aad sheegaysid laga aarsado oo la maxkamadeeyyo ayyaa aniga ii muuqatta. Horaan u sheegay ahdaaftaas oo hadda mar labaad ku celin mayyo. Raggii ugu sarreeyey maxaakimtii Islaamka e 2006 ayyaa maanta hoggaan u ah dawladan tanaazulka ku timid, hase yeeshee adiga malaha kuwaas waxaad ku dartay mujrimiinta ama kooxdooda! Allow sida san

Kashafa is good at dramatizing things, and as a result blowing them out of proportion. He’s good at rapping around hearsays and rumors. He is funny and at times witty. He is gifted in the art of swearing and cursing. But in this thread, his argument is demolished. His logic is shown wanting. His are pure slogans, and nothing more. In other words, we have pierced through Kashafa’s rhetorical veils, and found a naked man. Abu Ayyoub al shabaab

Obama's Unmacho Diplomacy By Kathleen Parker Wednesday, April 8, 2009; 12:00 AM A few decades on the planet confirm a certain consistency among males in their approach to love and war. Suffice to say, there is usually much talk of sabers, missiles and such. "Speak softly and carry a big stick," was how Teddy Roosevelt framed his foreign policy. Thus, in evaluating Barack Obama's first European tour as president, analysts have focused on whether he was quite manly enough. On their leadership blog, former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee and columnist Steve Pearlstein asked whether Obama should have "grabbed an opportunity ... to demonstrate his toughness, showing his saber as well as his smile." Verily, spoken like men. What they're really asking is: Did Obama do justice to the fire hydrant? Call me a mother of boys. Or call Freud, if you must. But would that life were really as complicated and confused as leaders insist it is. Unfortunately, most of world history seems to have pivoted on the balance or imbalance of hormones, with testosterone presenting the greatest challenge. (I note this as a fan.) In what may prove to be an epochal development, Obama seems to have his under control. He doesn't strut, swagger or flex. He doesn't even notice the hydrant. If George W. Bush was a cowboy, Obama is a group hug. He says we should show leadership by listening. That we should work in partnership with others. That we should show humility. This is, of course, pure porn for women. But unfortunately, women don't rule the world. Men still do. And we have to worry whether Obama will be viewed as weak and the U.S., therefore, vulnerable. And because the world is thus, we are also necessarily concerned whether Obama will respond aggressively enough when appropriate. This is because Americans still don't really know Obama yet. At each turn since taking office, he reveals new aspects of himself. We now know that he is without qualm when he finds it necessary to fire corporate chiefs. But will he be as bold when rogue nations strap on their Speedos and display their missilery, as North Korea just did? If life were a playground, one would have to infer that Kim Jong Il needs some attention. What he really wants is respect, according to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who met Kim in 2000. What he got from Obama was what the Chihuahua gets when the Great Dane shows up. Obama played it cool, in other words. He condemned Pyongyang for threatening stability and reiterated his commitment to reduce nuclear weaponry in the world -- but was noncommittal about possible consequences. For many, he was too cool by half. A Rasmussen poll reported that 57 percent of Americans want military action against North Korea. (Another war so soon?) John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the president's approach constituted "hand-wringing," which is a polite way of saying Obama is "girly." But was Obama really too cool? Or are we not listening? Yes, Obama did say that the U.S. will lead the way toward a nuke-free world. But he also said that the U.S. "will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies." Translation: We're going to be sensible and try to rid the world of nukes eventually. But if someone threatens us or our allies, we will hit delete. Is that not a big enough stick? You can bring 'em on. Or you can calm 'em down. Obama's outreach to Muslims via his visit to Turkey was similarly inspired. He delivered virtually the same message that Bush did countless times -- that the U.S. is not at war with Islam -- but without the reminder that either you're with us or against us. It didn't hurt that Obama dusted off his middle name, Hussein, and mentioned having lived in a Muslim country. "I get you," he implied. "We are not enemies." A man who listens may be perceived as weak by those who prefer to talk big. But playground wisdom holds that showoffs are usually overcompensating, and the strongest one has nothing to prove. To answer the original question: When you're the big dog, you can afford to smile. The saber is understood. Washington Post

Dadkii waagii hore la waalay baa hadda soo yaacayya. War soomaliland Norway maaha, ee waa soamaali. Buuqa hadda taagan wuu iska dhammaan, meesha Riyaale habeenkii seexdana, Siilaanyo mar un wuu geli haddii alle idmo. Dimoqraadiyadiinna maahane dadka nabadda halloo daayyo, oo Kulmiyye yaan tanaazulka lagu ceebayn jb, ilaah baan kugu dhaarshee dadka yaan la waalin, haddii kale sida Mahdi Gabose oo kale bay u hadli

Why doubt the xaaji, ya NGONGE? SL will go through this insha Allah. Six months is not really that long a time. Siilaanyo should be smarter, and sit it out.

Why doubt the xaaji, ya NGONGE? SL will go through this insha Allah. Six months is not really that long a time. Siilaanyo should be smarter, and sit it out.