Can peace deal be reached while occupied?

[RedSea]

Hello,

 

Everyone knows that peace is sweet, colorful, pleasant and all things romantic. And war, well, quite the opposite. There comes a time, when peace does not equal submission to the will of the enemy and accepting humiliation.

 

1. Name me one nation,who seeks peace while their their counry, community or backyard is being occupied by foreign forces?

 

The U.S declared war on Afghanistan as a backlash against the attacks on September 11th on their homeland. All of which they claim to rightfully be defending their homeland and their population. While deeming Muslims as 'terrorists' to justify their means, and to make a good case for their acts.

 

 

While having in that mind, I want you to think for a moment about our current state of affairs and what WE are facing today. Are we any less of human beings to do we not have the right to defend our nation from aggresors. And should we not support anyone who defends our country and pride?

 

Today, we have a foreign forces in our homeland; killing our people both young, old, women and children without segregation. They, without the consent of the somali people have crossed over to our borders and subjected a great deal of humiliation to our name and pride. Though, somlaia does not have an official government, hence an army; it has people who are willing to die for its existance and pride as Muslim country, something worthy of the cause.

 

However, there exist many somalis both here on SOL and back home who would rather wave the white flags, accept humiliation and defeat via "peace treaties". What they do not understand is when can one reach a peace deal with his foes?

 

A. Is it when you are already under occupation?

B. Or is pre war status in order to give peace a chance?

 

Today, we do not have option B. It's too late for that. The foreign invaders have refused to give peace a chance, have entered Somalia. Therefore that gives every bit of right to any somali to take up arms and fight to defend what he/she stands for. Death is natural process, it will come sooner or later. However nothing beats losing your live defending who you are against those who deem you as unworthy of freedom and the right to choose your own destiny and form of government.

 

Islam does allow that we talk with our foes to strike tangible peace during peace times.However when attacked and transgressed upon, we must struggle against those who pursue our defeat. We cannot allow that to happen. Unfortunately some of our poeple both here on SOL and back still try to reason with the unreasanble.

 

 

Of course peace is good. There is no doubt about it. And war, for the sake of aggression against other people - people who have no intentions against the aggressor, no intentions against that aggressive society - war for the sake of occupying that unsuspecting nation's lands and of grabbing their property, for the sake of enslaving its people, for the sake of subjecting them to the influence and laws of the aggressors, is undoubtedly bad. That which is bad is transgression and aggression. Aggression is bad.

But all war, on all sides, is not always aggression. War can be aggressive and it can also be a reply to aggression, for sometimes the reply to aggression must be given by force. There are times that force is the only reply that can be given.

 

Any religion, if it is a complete religion, must have thought about what it will do on that day when it is faced with aggression, or, let us suppose, it is not itself faced with aggression but another people are. It is for such a day that religion must have a law of war, a law of jihad. The Christians say that peace is good, and we agree; peace is good. But what about submission, humiliation and misery? Are submission, humiliation and misery also good? If one power is faced with another power and both advocate peace, both of them desire, in today's terms, to live in peaceful coexistence without one power wishing to aggress the other, but both of them willing to live in peace with reciprocal rights and mutual respect, then this is called peace and is good and essential. There is a time, however, when one group is the aggressor and, on the pretext of war being bad, the other group accepts surrender, which means that the humiliation of having to tolerate aggression becomes imposed upon it. The name of this is not peace. The name of this is willing acceptance of humiliation and misery. Such a submission in the face of force can never be called peace. For example, while you are passing a desert, an armed bandit attacks you suddenly and orders you to "get off your car quickly, raise your hand and give me anything you have."

Here you submit yourself and say to him: "I am an advocate of peace and opposed to war completely. I'll accept anything you order. I give you my money, my luggage and baggage, my car and I'll obey anything you say. Say anything you want and I will give it to you. Because I advocate peace." This is not advocation of peace. This is the acceptance of humiliation. In this case a man must defend his property, his prestige unless he knows that if he wants to defend, his property will be abolished, his blood will be shed and there will be no use in it. Of course it must be known that sometimes the blood is very effective and fighting is very worthful and it is not that someone's blood be shed at defile and then everything comes to end. No, resistance here is not wise and one must sacrifice one's money and wealth in order to save one's life.

 

There is a difference between the advocation of peace and the acceptance of humiliation. Islam never gives permission to be humiliated, while at the same time it strongly advocates peace.

 

Today we have Shariifs and others who are suddenly advocating for peace.

 

If peace had any chance it was spring of 2006, not later 2008 when the Ethiopian troops and their allies are close to defeat. Today, we see the persistance of our young men and women who have gallantly and bravely defended their land and pride with firm and undetering iron will. Those same people who coward and suddenly interested in peace with the gaalos in our midst. Have they not know Islam does not allow surender?

 

They reason by saying that Islam gives peace a chance. Well sure it does; that is what pre July, 2006 was for. If peace wasn't given a chance then, and Ethiopians and their allies made the mistake to attack us, then what makes you think the Ethios are suddenly interested in reaching standing peace? :confused:

 

Do you not know this is an attempt to buy time for the Ethiopian troops to get fresh AU, UN troops into Somalia to continue the onslaught. Any attempt to ease the pressure will only help them.

 

Melez Zenawi was quoted as saying that 'we have done our part in securing the Somali government and have given the international community a chance to put together a force, so we can switch the responsibility over to them". He was later quoted as saying that 'Ethiopia was growing impatient". You see where I'm going with this? They're feeling the pinch. That is why Alshabab is right in their policy to not let up and not show mercy to the unmerciful *******s.

[RedSea]

Ethiopians are defeated and given bloody nose. they had to fight their way out dodging bullets. If somalis had chosen to put down arms and talked, ethiopians would still be here today without scar.