The Lies of the Times: New York Times Pushes Bush Line on Somalia

[Castro]

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.

[ElPunto]

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.

[ElPunto]

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

[xiinfaniin]

Castro & ThePoint, you’re both dancing around the point! ThePoint seems to be on steroids today while Castro is uncharacteristically reserved .

 

The issue of looted properties is one of the major factors of our conflict. But to assert that it’s fueling current standoff in Mogadishu is a bit over the top. This fight in Mogadishu has very little to do, if any, with looted properties, and everything to do with Ethiopia’s military presence. That’s the top issue in this war adeerayaal.

[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?

[rudy-Diiriye]

Gettleman is a neocon! he can say what he wants, its a free world. i just pay no attentions to it.

 

let him blow hot air thru is back side.i just have no time for that kind of bs.

[Tahliil]

Chris Floyd brilliantly and truthfully so writes:

"The Islamists declared war on Ethiopia." This, of course, is a blatant and outright lie. (

Although perhaps Gettleman, taking dictation from his "Western security officials" -- and apparently unable to access, say, the BBC on his computer -- doesn't actually know the truth. In any case, he obviously can't be bothered to find out.)

The truth is that Ethiopia sent a 100-strong column of trucks and armored cars across the border into Somalia on July 20 of last year to bolster the Bush-backed warlords who were trying to overthrow the Islamist Courts government, which had taken over Mogadishu a month before.

It was the day after this armed incursion into Somalian territory that the Islamist Courts declared a jihad "against Ethiopians in Somalia," not a "war against Ethiopia."

And then here comes the Meles Mr. Zenawi's speech on Dec 2006 to the Ethiopian parlamaint and for that here is the Oggaden online's editorial Dec 6, 2006:

 

Ethiopia Meles Zenawi: Mistaking Mogadishu for Mekele

 

Oggaden Online Editorial

 

Reading excerpts from the 'nationalist' flavored sermon given to the puppet Ethiopian parliament on November 29th by the head of the autocracy in the Addis Ababa, Meles Zenawi, one would have thought that Ethiopia was under imminent attack from foreign militants.

 

Zenawi, in his theatrical speech, pressed the panic button; trumpeted his suspect Ethiopian nationalist credentials; and sounded as if militants with extremist ideologies have been marauding downtown Mekele, his Tigrian hometown, for a while.

 

His claim that 'Jihadists in the Union of Islamic Courts [uIC], in collaboration with Eritrea, have already invaded Ethiopia…' was not only alarming to the uninformed but it was also a baseless propaganda intended to portray Ethiopia as a victim of a territorial aggression from foreign nations.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth hence our intension in this terse editorial to call a spade a spade on Zenawi's mind-boggling machinations. Zenawi has admitted to the world and only after repeated denials that his troops are deployed in many parts of Somalia.

 

In fact his troops are stationed as far as in the vicinity of Mogadishu, the Somali capital, yet he had the audacity to claim that Ethiopia was invaded by Somalia. He also had the pretension to wrap himself on the Ethiopian flag with the request to the puppet parliamentarians for authorization of a Somali invasion whose train has left Addis Ababa eighteen months ago.

 

Other than politicking to get a buy in from the Western world for his Somali project, two intertwined events appear to have confounded Meles and his minions in Addis Ababa. The hope is, as explained in earlier editorials and Oggaden staff reports, that the Somali project might provide a diversion for the Ethiopian public from the nation's abysmal state of affairs.

 

First Ethiopian military successes against the Oggaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) army appear as illusive as they were in early February this year. Instead of driving ONLF fighters into oblivion in ****** as was envisioned by Zenawi and his minions on the onset of the current counter insurgency operations carried out by Ethiopia, ONLF has gained the upper hand militarily in every encounter.

 

As if the military losses in Oggadania, Oromia and many parts of Ethiopia were not bad enough, the well-oiled Amhara political movement has succeeded in eroding any support Zenawi have had from the Western world in the name of 'democracy'. The arrest, extra judicial killings, and the prosecution of elected members of the new parliament have put the final nail in the coffin of Zenawi's democracy project.

 

Engaging in a reckless behavior of interfering the affairs of the Somali nation militarily is the last hope Zenawi has in clinging onto power whose foundation has already cracked. The world community should not be fooled by Zenawi's machinations. Mogadishu is thousands away from Mekele and no militants be they Somalis or 'Jihadists' have invaded Ethiopia.

 

editorial@******ia.com

Oggaden Online Editorial

Dec 06, 2006

[ElPunto]

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.

[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.

[ElPunto]

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.

[Castro]

Originally posted by 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.

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.

"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.

 

The competition for choice loot

led

to continous wars in Mogadishu as there was more than one armed group to fight over the spoils.

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.

 

Why were there more warlords in Mogadishu than any other city in Somalia? Why - because there was so much to fight over.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

Capisce?

[Paragon]

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.

[ElPunto]

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.

[ElPunto]

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.

[Castro]

This debate is fast becoming a joke with a 'rebuttal' from you of that 'quality'.

Too bad this has turned into a joke but I can't decide which is the bigger culprit here: my presumed faulty logic or your gamba-yar like insolence.