^Nothing much to say eh? I'm not surprised. Better late than never I suppose.

Originally posted by Paragon: quote:ThePoint: The case is really not all that complicated. For 30+ years - all assets of the government and people of Somalia were concentrated in Mogadishu. Yup, concentrated and allocated to the section of the society that was 'agreeable' to the clan-based dictatorship. Now, they want it back , with an Ethiopian might to back their claims. As you said, the case is not really complicated. Its more than 21 years of loot replaced by 17 years of loot, which brings us to today's TFG reclaim. Good one - I like the logic there. Presumably, since there must some folks in say Dhahar or Badhan who had ties to the past dictatorship and its nepotism - we must search them out and reclaim what loot given to them for the public. Better yet - why don't we turn the entire country upside down conducting a witch hunt for those with any economic ties to Barre and then reclaim whatever 'loot' they stole.

Originally posted by Castro: All"? Are you sure? You mentioned seaport and airport, what other "choice" properties were "expropriated"? And by whom? Do not forget that those who controlled many ill-gotten assets in Muqdisho are lovingly called ministers and members of parliament in the puppet regime. Also, do these properties include those "nationalized" by Afweyne only to be given away as gifts through despotic nepotism. I'm sure you've heard of such rumors. Thousands of private properties - ie. villas, hotels, businesses. Add to that all the government property of which there are many. They were expropriated by the warlords and anyone with military might of which there are many businessman affiliated with the ICU and its remanants. Does it matter whether they were nationalized by Barre or not? Presumably because X stole from Y - that makes Z stealing from X ok? Is that the logic you're trying to impress me with?? As SB said, that's an extraordinary claim with a pittance of evidence. Make up your mind, if "much that was valuable was stripped down and sold overseas", why on earth would it lead to "continous wars". Ah, it's because it didn't solely lead to the conflicts. The many wars that raged in Somalia had many motives. Not the least of which was a constant struggle for power between rivaling clans and subclans. You must be on shaky ground if you're citing SB as backup now. What evidence do you need apart from common sense? The entire country and its asset base was Mogadishu. A majority of its population fled with little but the clothes on their back. Armed warlords and their supporters moved in. They cashed in on the assets left behind through outright sale, rent seeking etc. Which of the above 4 sentences are you contesting exactly? Much was stripped down - ie the national monuments etc but much remained ie real property. Or did you think that you can't have one with the other? Poor thinking for an elder like you. And in Somalia power is about economics or do you think that power confers zero economic benefits? Anyway - it's hardly my contention that the wars in Mogadishu were solely about loot. But it's wierd that the fiercest fighting for the longest time took place there - I wonder why that was the case. Why are there more people in Mogadishu than any other city in Somalia? You gave too simple an answer specially when you claimed much of the "loot" had already been stripped down and sold overseas. See above for what was and what was not stripped down. I take it you're not an economics major - land in the most populous urban centre in Somalia has inherent value. No, I don't get the picture for you didn't paint any. You insist on making simple cause and effect links when you've made no effort in proving them with any specific evidence. Fully 3 sentences dedicated to why the conflict there lasted so long and raged strongest than in most other areas of the country. Cause and effect can be simple. What specific evidence are you looking for? A tally of what property was looted, when, and how much it produced in profit for the looters? Perhaps I should refer you to the quote by Ahmed Diriye, the head of the Beesha regarding his 'owning' a hospital or the quotes from the NYT article. Or do you think people making plain their motivations through their own words is not 'evidence'. Please be serious. If you want to willingly remain obtuse and obstinate clearly state it. Did they have the military strength before or after they acquired the wealth? And if they've amassed such enormous ill-gotten wealth and military strength through looting and profiteering, why would they simply acquiesce to a group of rag-tag "Islamists" in mid 2006 and then turn 180 degrees to fight tooth and nail the largest army in Africa for the very same loot. That simple fact alone strips you, and your idol Gettleman, of any grounds for claiming the love of anarchy and profiteering is fueling this conflict. Surely, a low cost, high profit enterprise, like an Isbaaro, that could net $40,000 per day is worth fighting everyone for. Unless, of course, like our resident bigot on the forum, you are convinced that an entire clan is made up of looters and profiteers and therefore, that is their motivation to fight the Ethiopians and not their own, i.e. the Courts. Does it matter when they had the military strenght - it hardly makes a difference. LOL, 'acqueisce'??? There was a rather large 'firefight' in Mogadishu you remember. And some of those individuals who supported the ICU were looking to enhance their loot at the 'expense' of others, namely various warlords. And the ICU was about administration - there is ample reason to support a basic administration since it's about managing the status quo rather than trying to do something to change it. As to why they turned '180 degrees' in your words - it is rather simple. A government came in and started to reclaim government property - and the status quo was going to change as the spectre of 'righting' past wrongs became a reality. Mr. Gettleman is hardly my 'idol' anymore than Chris Floyd is yours. You simply failed the test on rebutting his article since you professed it was nonsense. Nor did I say that it 'fuels' the fighting. See below for a detailed explanation of that. An isbarro netting 40K a day? Really - that is rather a novel statement. Might I ask what evidence you have for that statement? Why bother with an isbarro when you and your co-horts can 'own' the seaport and take a cut of all that is coming in? Or say renting out a hospital and using it as a private motel. You wouldn't want an isbarro because that would hinder mobility and thus demand for 'your' property. As to the clan issue - don't even try and wave that dirty flag in front of me. I've clearly stated my position on the dynamics of the entirety of this conflict in Mogadishu. But then I've noticed on SOL - that when one has run out of intelligent things to say - one reverts back to the basest type of insinuation. Surely if it is an "important" factor, then it goes without saying that it is fueling this conflict. You can't have it both ways. This conflict, unlike all the others that came before it, and as others have told you, has zilch to do with profiteering. If you still insist that it does, you will have to make a better case that does not involve the entirety of Mogadishu clans are thieves, looters and profiteers. LOL - in addition to other things, it seems you've lost your ability to decipher the nuances of the English language. Important = significant factor, plays a role. Fuels = dominant factor, overriding reason for the situation. If you would like a full page essay on the differences let me know - I'll PM you. This conflict has 'zilch to do with profiteering'? Really? What a joke. I mean you can lamely argue it's minimal etc but zilch. Well then - how do you explain the following {or is there a hidden clan bias and pro-TFG'ism here on the side of the author): Maxamuud Nuur Muradeeste, a squatter landlord who makes a few hundred dollars a year renting out rooms in the former Ministry of Minerals and Water, said he recently invited insurgents to stash weapons on “his” property. He will do whatever it takes, he said, to thwart the government’s plan to reclaim thousands of pieces of public property. “If this government survives, how will I?” Mr. Muradeeste said. Source This debate is fast becoming a joke with a 'rebuttal' from you of that 'quality'. Next time - I expect better from an elder of your calibre. Or perhaps I've long been mistaken on your calibre. Hmmmm.

It will become evident in a few months or a few years what the situation in Somalia really is. In the meantime - I guess idle speculation is the way to go. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Castro: ^^^^ Evasion? After my invitation to make a discussion out of this? Ma caleyna. I need not rebut Gettleman's article nor defend Floyd's rebuttal. I need you in the ring, atheer. You can't get a hint, can you? While writing your "best" effort above, I guess it dawned on you, and it shows , that it is easier to rebut a case than to make one. Are you sure you want to keep the above as your case? Is that your final answer? Don't worry, I got it saved anyway. Salut et bon fin de semaine. You evaded the rebuttal of Gettleman's article which you claimed as nonsense. It's nonsense yet you make no effort to show it as such. Odd. That is separate from our discussion. Capische? Whether it was my 'best' effort or my 'final answer' - I see you keep dancing. Kindly put away the dancing shoes or simply make a semi-graceful exit.

Originally posted by Xoogsade: ^ ThePoint is telling you that the rape of somali women in Muqdisho, their massacre, the destruction of their homes, the dismemberment of their kids, their displacement, all done on behalf of A/Y whom he is related by blood are justified. Wherever you read "loot" on SOL, it means: "I am for all violence, death, destruction and displacement visited upon clans of Muqdisho who don't hail from Puntland. I am for the tigre army doing what I always wanted to do but couldn't, and out of bitterness I support them, out of hatred I come out and accuse the victims who are not related to me by blood to be "looters"". It is that simple. You're a funny guy! Now you're trying to invent my position on what's happening in Somalia instead of addressing the issue I talked about. And somehow, of course I'm related to A/Y. Sure. TALK ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE OR ARE NOT LOOTERS IN MOGADISHU FIGHTING . I've already said that there are looters and thieves on the TFG side but you can't admit that simple self-evident fact on the other side. So what to do? Attack, invent and disparage. I don't know why I bothered to engage with you in the first place. If you are representative of the character and intellectual ability of the ICU and their supporters - then I've drastically overestimated their worth. -- SB - You're a joker. Shoo!

SB - don't worry bout it

Originally posted by Castro: ^^^ Only due to my prior exchanges with him that I am calm. And I'm also working on my temper, atheer. LePoint, let Jeffrey Gettleman and Chris Floyd defend their respective articles and stick to our chosen theme. Clearly, I rejected Gettleman's claims and hence my posting of Floyd's rebuttal, which you summarily dismissed. Now, are you gonna present a bloody case or what? I like the evasion Castro. Mr. Gettleman presents prima facie evidence of the profit motivation I'm referring to in part. I've rebutted Floyd's article clearly. Simply do the same for the Gettleman article if you can. After all, if you clearly reject that gentleman's claims - rebut them with your own arguments not the half-assed work of another. The case is really not all that complicated. For 30+ years - all assets of the government and people of Somalia were concentrated in Mogadishu. With the disintegration of the government and the enormous exodus of hundreds of thousands, there was a mass rush to expropriate those assets - land, property, airport/seaport etc. Much that valuable was stripped down and sold overseas. The competition for choice loot led to continous wars in Mogadishu as there was more than one armed group to fight over the spoils. Hence the continuing conflicts in Mogadishu for the past 17 years. Why were there more warlords in Mogadishu than any other city in Somalia? Why - because there was so much to fight over. Why did Mogadishu experience some of the worst fighting in Somalia pre-TFG or ICU? Why - there were serious assets at stake. Why did Mogadishu have the longest bouts of instability and conflict of any city of Somalia? Why - you get the picture. Those same people, using their military strength, were able to turn the loot into wealth and influence are among those fighting on the anti-TFG side in Mogadishu today. Their wealth and influence is threatened by this potential government. Why all you have to look at is the past history of the city. Simple as that. -- Xiin - I'm not saying that this is what 'fuels' the conflict to use your words. What I'm saying is that it is an important factor in the conflict. Simple as that.

Originally posted by Xoogsade: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: I must say I like the deflection of 'you(TFG) have looters too'..... Yeah - I can't argue with that. But it seems you can argue against(or minimize) the looters in Mogadishu with nary a reasoned argument much less logic. PS - A sincere advice - stop bandying about 'clan president' unless you want to have that thrown back in your face. I must have touched a raw nerve to draw such emotional pleas from you, and to me to stop calling the lowlife warlord for what he is: A clanist bigot who represents only a minority as corrupt as he is. I don't need to comment once more on the facts in my previous posts. The record of the ICU is there and it will take another decent group of somalis to do what they did of justice and community service. Where there was peace, there is chaos today, where the children who came from as far as London went to school peacefully in Muqdisho, to learn the culture and islam, where women celebrated their newly found security from the ruthless warlord's taxation, rape and robbery, where there was beach gatherings for the returnees, where the people pursued education, where somalis who suffered from the trangressions of their fellow somalis opened exclusive schools for their community, to teach their young girls to walk high and reclaim the equality somalis denied them for generations, today, there is genocide perpetrated on behlaf of the maniac called A/Y who is happy to see the above mentioned acheivements by the ICU gone and replaced with permanent fear, death and destruction. This what motivates the people who are fighting, to reclaim their dignity, security and safety, to eject the filthy Xabashis from their homes and live as free as they were born and as brave a real somali unlike the stooges. Dee nin yohow, wixii odagaas dulliga taageersan waa isagoo kale. [/QB]Raw nerve? Hardly my boy. It's that I was, uncharactersitically, very shrill - after a day where poor reasoning was everywhere on SOL and off it. I like how you didn't address any point that I made with regard the loot. You go on and on about ICU and your perception of their record. NOT the issue. But obviously on that score you have nothing to offer. As to my point - of your repetition of A/Y as clannish. It is neither here or there and he is hardly alone in that. And if you want the debate, such that it is with the nonsense you posted, to degenerate into 'you're clannish' , 'no, you're clannish' - stop injecting clan into this. This is not the ccnversation of thinking adults if you care to engage in that.

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: "an important motivation for the current conflict is to keep the looted properties. Not the sole reason and maybe not the primary reason." Then present your case. This seems like a decent theme to explore but since you're asserting it, you must present a case supporting it. You do remember that he who makes the positive assertion is obligated to back it up. In other words, the burden of proof is on you to convince me to get off my Buddha-couch and make a rebuttal. A demain indeed. LOL. Well first why don't we start with this(I'm sure you have some familiarity with it) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/world/africa/25somalia.html And your couch is hardly Buddha-like - you've attempted to trash my contention with poorly reasoned nonsense. Wierd position for a Buddha. A demain finalement

Originally posted by Faarax-Brown: quote:What a straw man argument. Did Mr. Gettleman reduce the entire Mogadishu battles to gangesterism. Nope. He said "Beyond clan rivalry and Islamic fervor, an entirely different motive is helping fuel the chaos in Somalia: profit." Simply that it is an important motivating aspect. Nor did he say the corollary to that is an invasion or military conflict. This fellow likes to connect one invented dot after another.Demolished. You are demolishing & rebutting a purpotted straw man argument with straw man comback? Whats up with that?, Did your mind go into one of those kerfuffle modes known to the rest of the TFG puppets,when they get presented with simple facts? The man has cited two cases(two cases for heavens sake!),to back up this supposedly "Important motivating aspect" thats fueling this chaos. Do you mean to tell me that these two cases make an integral part of this resistance? Warranting a paper of NYTs calibre to dwell on a trifling issue as this? Why,arent they instead talking about the humanatarian disaster,death & destruction caused by the Ethiopians(Funded by American taxpayers)? Allow me to say this: WTF!!! :mad: 2 cases or umpteen cases. I don't think the number of cases presented will matter one jot to you. And please do tell me what my straw man argument was - in great detail pls. Cause what you said I said hardly warrants that appellation. Additionally - check out his NYT page and the NYT coverage on Somalia. You will note a lot of coverage on the Ethiopian invastion and the humanitarian situation. Simply address my key point which is an important motivation of this current conflict in Mog is about looted properties.

^One time hardly qualifies for practicing in 'public'. There is no set of points to agree on. If you want to rebut what I wrote go ahead. If you want to confine it to why you disagree with this "an important motivation for the current conflict is to keep the looted properties. Not the sole reason and maybe not the primary reason." Then present your case. A demain o generous one. Today my patience with poor reasoing has been very poor. And I need to do other things to return to my usually calm self.

^As you wish Castro. Hold fast when nothing else will do Geel-Jire, The choice is between losing one's livelihood and wealth as opposed to figthing for it with the decent chance of holding on to it. And the chance of holding on to it is not miniscule. There is a reasonable chance of doing so particularly in an urban environment. Again - in a city of 2 million - land in of itself is valuable - structures can be rebuilt. Additionally - I don't contend that all or even a majority are motivated by this. But it certainly is a motivation.

^Do as you wish Castro - one would assume it's in your intellectual interest to defend this article you posted tho. I think this is the first time - I've used the f-word. I believe you have used it more than once in your posts on SOL.

^LOL - Did all of you actually commend this article? And some of you are people who have brain cells? What a fcking joke! Here is the essence of the 'rebuttal': This is classic Establishment thinking here: the reduction of complex human societies to a few unruly character traits, supposedly unique and endemic faults that the poor creatures can't control but which pose a danger to civilization, thus justifying massive military action to bring them to heel -- for their own good, of course. What a straw man argument. Did Mr. Gettleman reduce the entire Mogadishu battles to gangesterism. Nope. He said "Beyond clan rivalry and Islamic fervor, an entirely different motive is helping fuel the chaos in Somalia: profit." Simply that it is an important motivating aspect. Nor did he say the corollary to that is an invasion or military conflict. This fellow likes to connect one invented dot after another.Demolished. Ahmed "and a group of fellow traders recently bought missiles to shoot at government soldiers." And why would they do this? "'Taxes are annoying,' he explained."...... So when they sought to recoup their losses with draconian tax hikes, many Somalis went into rebellion, including the "gangster" Ahmed. This is presented as some kind of wild, anarchic, even terroristic action. But what would good ole God-fearin' American businessmen do if Washington suddenly raised their taxes by 300 percent? Hmmm. The man says that he finds taxes annoying and then the 300% jump 'forced' him to fight the TFG. But wait. Wasn't there a serious conflict well before that? Oh - that doesn't matter - it simply doesn't mesh with our view of the 'facts'. The fighting had nothing to do with protecting loot and only began after the unreasonable tax increase. Which of course means that lobbing mortars is a natural and expected reaction to said outrage. As opposed to simply not paying it or lying about like most normal people do in many countries. What a bunch of crock! Demolished. Many in the business community became fed up with paying protection fees to the warlords and their countless middle-men. Business leaders then backed a grass-roots Islamist movement that drove the warlords out of Mogadishu last summer and brought peace to the city for the first time in 15 years. The Islamists seemed to be the perfect solution for the businessmen. They delivered stability, which was good for most business, but they did not confiscate property or levy heavy taxes. They called themselves an administration, not a government. “Our best days were under them,” said Abdi Ali Jama, who owns an electrical supply shop in Mogadishu. So it seems that Somalis -- even Somali businessmen -- can be governed, as long as people are treated fairly. It seems that stability and peace can be achieved in Somalia -- if it rises from the grass roots and is not imposed by foreign fighters shelling neighborhoods and American bombers attacking refugees. But you can only discern this by looking at Gettleman's piece upside down, and discarding the heavy scaffolding of spin he has erected around it. The ICU was an administration not a government. Precisely why little would've been done to tackle LOOTED PROPERTIES . An administration is about managing the current situation not rectifying injustices and outright theft. So little cause for concern for the thieves. And yeah - part of the current conflict is about LOOTED PROPERTY . Not about what taxes were levied or not. Not about who brought stability or peace. And the rest of the article goes on a diatribe about the TFG, Gettleman, NYT, Bush, Ethiopians and the whole panopoly of evils that some folks subscribe to. That's it - a little more than 3 paragraphs to 'rebut' the central fact - an important motivation for the current conflict is to keep the looted properties. Not the sole reason and maybe not the primary reason. Are there thinking Somalis who argue this is not the case??? Really! Is this a sign of just being completely retarded or is it than one's idealogical position is detracted by these indisputable facts so one must dimiss, deny, or make up stuff to discredit it. You boys let me know.

Originally posted by peacenow: It's not from the IHT its from the NYT! Agreed, this article is pure diversion. It serves no purpose. The guy who wrote it, is not even a proper NYT reporter. He is not constrained to check his facts and sources high enough. Rotten tricks. Would nominate this post to be deleted. It serves no purpose, other to misinform. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/jeffrey_gettleman/index.html?8qa Check that out and email him for his 'fact-checking'. It's better to investigate rather than making ****** statements. Or better yet stick to topics like Somali gays etc.

Originally posted by Castro: War is profit and this one is no different. The loot many mention around here is mostly barren lands and demolished homes worth a pittance. (Homes and land whose pre-Afweyne owners may claim were ill-gotten to begin with.) Where is the real loot that all these men, women and children are being bombed for? In Iraq, it's clearly the oil. What is it in our case? Foreign aid? Regional hegemony? Access to sea ports? Resource mining? What utter BS! So the fight to dominate Mogadishu for the past 17 years was merely all about bringing benevolent rule there? And where the hell do you come with a sweeping statement like 'mostly barren lands and demolished homes'. WTF. I've never seen so much concentrated crap in a single one of your posts. Originally posted by Xoogsade: You can add to the facts saxib that entire sections of Muqdisho was flattened in the early 1990s, thick forest had grown in entire sections of Old Xamar and no one lives there. Also, if it is about property that people in Muqdisho want to keep, they wouldn't have supported the ICU which had an islamic platform, and which would require everyone to give up any loot. It is notewrothy that many properties were returned to those who went back in the ICU days. My own mother was on the waiting list to recover her land, a land onwhich someone built a small home. Illegally built homes on other people's property were destroyed in Kaaraan district. The sheekh was on BBC talking just about that during those old days of the ICU. These individuals on SOL with the "LOOT" monotonous comment know where the looters are: In bed with their clan president and he loves them, among them Qeybdiid, Yalaxoow, Qanyare and the rest of Muqdisho crooks. What the hell does whether a structure remains have to do with receiving your just property - property includes land and buildings. And in the 6 months of ICU rule - little was done on this front. Presumably you would've thought the ICU would start with their own leadership on this front let alone ordinary citizens if they had credibility. Oh oh - I better stop short of mentioning the dreaded I-word. Looters are everywhere - on the TFG side, in Puntland and Somaliland, in the diaspora. And for sure there are many looters dying to hold onto their ill-gotten gains in Mogadishu today. I must say I like the deflection of 'you(TFG) have looters too'..... Yeah - I can't argue with that. But it seems you can argue against(or minimize) the looters in Mogadishu with nary a reasoned argument much less logic. PS - A sincere advice - stop bandying about 'clan president' unless you want to have that thrown back in your face.

^Played out? Whaa? For some individuals this battle is about loot. In fact - the 16 year plus battles in Mogadishu have been primarily about that. And this reporter documented that aspect of the current conflict in Mogadishu. And this war can be spun clan-wise anyway which way you desire because that card can played from all sides.

^It's possible - even as you say 'more than possible' but unlikely.

^A tad pessimistic no Khalaf? I really don't think Somalia or Somalis will be taken over without a fight. And I don't think most Ethiopians want to take over or to fight. The ONLF can do as it wishes but it certainly has to think about the repurcussions of attacks like this and what, at the end of the day, this accomplishes.

^Good article and you post quite a few. But why don't you tell us what you think? Do you think she's right in her condemnation of British society vis-a-vis the American Bible belt? Do you feels as a Muslim woman that there is an unhealthy concern with regard to your clothes from non-Muslims and Muslims? etc

^Castro - what you have a right to do and what is wise to do are not always the same. Don't tell me you're conflating the two also. BTW - welcome back. PS - interesting answer Horn. Somalis generally have difficulty understanding anything but an absolute unequivocal embrace of a 'political' position.

Not really adeer - just wanted to indulge a contrarian streak

^Helluva of a lot of 'come cleans' and 'declare yourself' etc in this thread. Perhaps someone can set up a dedicated thread so that all can strip themselves bare

^Sucky read