'The Law of Karma in Kismayo' Revisited

[NGONGE]

Have to agree with ThePoint here (could you not change your name saaxib, it’s sort of confusing). Paragon seems to have turned optimism into fact and is presenting us with a feeble argument. The Courts have only been around as a real and noticeable power for a few months! Yes, they have made some great political successes (and even better social ones) but they’re not even half way through what they intend to do. We hope that their intentions are noble. We also hope that they’re not going to get corrupted by power. However, all these are mere wishes (no matter how far we stretch them).

 

For now, only the heart is what should be rooting for the Courts, the mind can’t. After sixteen years of false dawns one can’t blame ThePoint, Duke and others if they’re being wary, cautious and suspicious! There is a long way to go before we know for certain if what the Courts are saying is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In the meanwhile, every criticism, question and condemnation that is directed their way is valid.

 

There are many ways that Paragon and others can sell us the case of the Courts but at no point should they try to break it down into the simplistic and hollow argument of ‘you’re either with us or against us’! That is not much of an argument and is, mostly, based on hearsay, expectations and wishes. Life, reality and politics do not work that way, my friend.

 

It’s time to deal with the detractors of the Courts, Paragon. Are their grievances valid? Are their suspicions baseless? Could there be a compromise? If yours is the correct (and ‘good’) way, why can’t they see it and how could you bring them to your ‘side’ instead of threatening to crush all those that stand in your way (as your words implied)? After all, in that last question, that would be the way ‘good’ people would deal with opposition!

 

Are we deluding ourselves here and supporting the Courts for Islamic reasons but rejecting all else for clannish ones? What about those that reject the courts? Are they doing it for purely clannish reasons or more because they mistrust the sincerity and truthfulness of these courts?

[Rahima]

the TFG the support it needed from some quarters, A/Qaybdeed

Allow me to interject from the sidelines for a split second, that is a partial lie. Yes this man and his cronies are anti-courts, but that does not mean he represents his clan, it’s spilt half and half dear. The half who support him are nothing but a bunch of clannists who hate the thought of taking a back seat (as they see it) for the greater good, so really stuff them I say. Now stop using this as a point and making it sound like his clan are against the courts, it’s Ramadan for godsake, write truth.

[Paragon]

ThePoint: Sir - you have no monopoly on goodness nor do those for whom you cheerlead. And let me educate you - you can be in opposition to a faraway group taking over your city/region etc without supporting any warlord. Your guantlet reminds me very much of one George W. Bush - You're either with us or against us(You are either for the ICU or for the warlords). Your argument above has about the same level of --intellectual maturity.

Shame you speak of monopoly to invoke a reaction. There is no monopoly on goodness; but there is one on the opposite of goodness from your side. You are asking me, if assumingly in an innocent tone, ‘who are you’ to judge what is good. I will tell who I am. I am that one who sees when good is on the horizon and I clearly consider the UIC a force of good. In support of their good work, Mogadishu of the last few months is my evidence and now Kismayo. And I know, although there are always those engaged in smear campaign, the Courts’ intentions have thus far been commendable. Alongside those whose assigned role is conducting smear campaign are those who claim not to support a warlord, not to be neutral but yet claim to be opposed to the UIC.

 

However, when their opposition is scrutinized, they are quick to cry foul. If you stand in opposition to the courts, for whatever reason (because even the warlord has founded opposition) then you are simply against them, and since those who stand opposed to the UIC have for the last 16 years done nothing good to alleviate Somalis’ hardship, they can be hardly considered a force for good.

 

So, ThePoint, if you stood around for sixteen years supporting or even not supporting a warlord, and did nothing against the mischief of your clan’s or another clan’s warlord, you are not in a position to question the good the UIC has done for the last few months. You either acknowledge their work or remain as mute as you were under the warlords that terrorised our people. That is the raw fact.

 

On the point of intellectual maturity, anyone who fails to understand which side he should be supporting has no claim to intellectuality. If you must know, Bush may be deemed an id!ot , but the ‘you are you with us or against’ is a timeless wisdom of Realist disposition. Only the coward, due to overwhelming fear, gets confused as to which side he should support. If your intention is to disdain that sentence, then I tell you, ThePoint; your attempts are nothing but ‘intellectual masturbation’, from which nothing of value can be derived for the purpose of good discussion.

 

I do not and have never cheer-leaded for any warlord. And nor do I ask anyone to cheerlead for any warlord. But I do find it extraordinary that anyone claiming any shred of Muslim-ness should wish for the domination and takeover of other Muslims through military means. And I also love the casualness with which you dismiss other people's humanity and pronounce that the shedding of their blood is legitimate. I suspect you know the Islamic rules on that. And even if you didn't, simply human decency dictates that one does not simply kill those who oppose one. But somehow that escapes you - and saddest of all - it escapes you with regard to your own people.

So you would have other Muslims live under warlords? Or do you consider the warlord a devout Muslim? More importantly, are you saying the tyrants who mistreat Muslims, although they claim to be Muslims, should not be dealt with altogether? What human decency are you talking about then? Where was your human decency in the last 16 years? Why did it not compel you to fight against the human wrongs across Somalia? Now that a semblance of civility and human decency is being restored by those who are ousting warlords, do you even have a right to appeal to human decency? Or by appealing to such things, is your wish to keep Somalis in the situation they have been in for the last 16 years?

 

ThePoint, I tell you one thing; if you or another Muslim or in this case the whole of Somalis, lost their mind and dwell in inhumanity, I will come to knock some sense and humanity into them. Somalia has lost dignity and decency during the last 16 years of carnage, and you are talking about human decency now. Shame! You speak of something escaping from my own people and killings. If anything escaped my own people it is basic human decency and there are those who are giving to our people that which had escaped them. I wonder why you are opposed to it. I will tell you again, if you oppose me in my quest for what is good for our people, you become an enemy.

 

I don't ask you to support anything. I simply ask you to uphold Islamic principles and common human decency. See paragraph above for further details. I also don't make excuses for anyone - I simply ask the courts to enact their stated agenda of Islamniimo and Islax. So far they've seemed to concentrate on expanding territory and power. Sorta undermines their stated agenda no?

No. They haven’t. Look at the above paragraph for an answer.

 

If people did not ask for their liberation and some are protesting and demonstrating - it really calls into the question the liberation to begin with. Nor have the ICU demonstrated much evidence of goodness apart from their pacfication of Mogadishu. They have seemed to concentrate on other things.

No, those haven’t asked to be liberated were drug-dealers, who demonstrated the day the Courts took over Kismayo. Their concerns are motivated by greed. However, the majority of reer Kismayo celebrated and slaughtered camels for the UIC forces. Get your facts correct sxb. The Courts have pacified Mogadishu and have replicated the same in Kismayo, Bualle and other villages surrounding Kismayo. So, yes, this replication will continue till the entire country is under their control.

 

I have not segregated Somaliness for anyone nor have you shown any proof of that - you've simply thrown out yet another accusation. It is clear that Somalis have lingering clan divisions - that is a reality that must be dealt with. I suspect if Abduallahi Yusuf suddenly claimed he was reformed and had become a reborn Muslim - you would not welcome him with open arms. As I suspect many of his kinsmen would not.

I don’t need to show you any proof for your short-comings. The cliché is this. Every Tom, Dick and Harry says I need proof to this and proof to that – or I need proof to my inherent lack of understanding. Most probably what is needed here is self-reflection to revise own perception and values. And so ThePoint, the creation a dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’ or ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’, which is evident in your arguments is reliant on a segregated Somaliness.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Paragon:

Shame you speak of monopoly to invoke a reaction. There is no monopoly on goodness; but there is one on the opposite of goodness from your side. You are asking me, if assumingly in an innocent tone, ‘who are you’ to judge what is good. I will tell who I am. I am that one who sees when good is on the horizon and I clearly consider the UIC a force of good.

Apparently, only you and like minded people can see good when it's on the horizon? Are the rest of us to be relegated to slaughter because you 'consider the UIC a force of good'? Let's try and aim for some sanity in this discussion, otherwise it becomes a waste of time.

 

And I know, although there are always those engaged in smear campaign, the Courts’ intentions have thus far been commendable.

Have you got a special God-like insight into their intentions? How does one judge a person's intentions, barring that God-like ability? Simply by their actions. To date, the ICU have focused on expansion of territory and power. This does not necessarily mean they have bad intentions - but their focus so far has certainly left me with suspicions. Their intentions will be known given time.

 

Alongside those whose assigned role is conducting smear campaign are those who claim not to support a warlord, not to be neutral but yet claim to be opposed to the UIC.

Smear campaign? Certainly not be me. I simply raised the dichotomy between their actions to date and their stated agenda. I am opposed to the warlords and I am neutral on the ICU - I certainly haven't condemned the ICU but I am opposed to the main thrust of their tactics so far and thus remain suspicious of them.

 

However, when their opposition is scrutinized, they are quick to cry foul. If you stand in opposition to the courts, for whatever reason (because even the warlord has founded opposition) then you are simply against them, and since those who stand opposed to the UIC have for the last 16 years done nothing good to alleviate Somalis’ hardship, they can be hardly considered a force for good.

Who's crying foul? These oblique references to 'others' and 'some people' do not make our debate any clearer. As I said, I am not opposed to the courts(it's a little too early for that) but I am opposed to the brunt of their tactics thus far.

 

So, let's for argument sake's say I'm opposed to the courts, so why would you lump everyone else like me as having done no good in Somalia? There are countless individuals in all parts of Somalia who have opened hospitals, schools, wells etc. I'm sure you'll find some opposed to the ICU - are those people to be dismissed too? Your huge generalizations is the hallmark of fuzzy logic.

 

So, ThePoint, if you stood around for sixteen years supporting or even not supporting a warlord, and did nothing against the mischief of your clan’s or another clan’s warlord, you are not in a position to question the good the UIC has done for the last few months. You either acknowledge their work or remain as mute as you were under the warlords that terrorised our people. That is the raw fact.

Me do something against my clan's mischief? I eagerly await to hear all that you've done on that front before responding. By your logic above, until you show me all your Herculean efforts to combat clan mischief, you are in no position to question those who oppose the ICU or like me are suspicious. This latter point, sir, is the raw fact.

 

On the point of intellectual maturity, anyone who fails to understand which side he should be supporting has no claim to intellectuality. If you must know, Bush may be deemed an id!ot , but the ‘you are you with us or against’ is a timeless wisdom of Realist disposition. Only the coward, due to overwhelming fear, gets confused as to which side he should support. If your intention is to disdain that sentence, then I tell you, ThePoint; your attempts are nothing but ‘intellectual masturbation’, from which nothing of value can be derived for the purpose of good discussion.

Anyone who believes the universe is only about black and white choices is a neanderthal. And then to apply black and white to present day Somali politics - well what I can say.

 

And for your education: The realist disposition in American foreign policy as espoused by Kissinger, Scowcroft et al is in direct contrast to Bush's famed 'You're with us...'. They advised to take each case on its merits.

 

So you would have other Muslims live under warlords? Or do you consider the warlord a devout Muslim? More importantly, are you saying the tyrants who mistreat Muslims, although they claim to be Muslims, should not be dealt with altogether? What human decency are you talking about then? Where was your human decency in the last 16 years? Why did it not compel you to fight against the human wrongs across Somalia?

I don't want other Muslims to live under warlords. However, that doesn't mean I think the solution is to launch a military response. This is the moronic logic of Bush. As to the human decency I'm talking about - it's the one where one doesn't get slaughtered because one opposes the ICU as you espoused in an earlier post.

 

I am fascinated to learn about your valiant efforts on behalf of Somalis - since you keep demanding to know what I have done. I eagerly await your response.

 

ThePoint, I tell you one thing; if you or another Muslim or in this case the whole of Somalis, lost their mind and dwell in inhumanity, I will come to knock some sense and humanity into them.

Is this what you do in life regularly - knock sense into people? Your neighbour is abusing his wife - you go over and knock sense into him? Keep on with that strategy - you will go far.

 

 

Somalia has lost dignity and decency during the last 16 years of carnage, and you are talking about human decency now. Shame! You speak of something escaping from my own people and killings. If anything escaped my own people it is basic human decency and there are those who are giving to our people that which had escaped them. I wonder why you are opposed to it. I will tell you again, if you oppose me in my quest for what is good for our people, you become an enemy.

Let's get one thing clear: Human decency and dignity does not emerge from the barrel of a gun! Again - I am opposed to people, such as yourself and the ICU, who claim that human decency and dignity will be restored by military takeover after military takeover. The two are simply incompatible.

 

'Enemy'! You have an extremely self-righteous view of yourself - I do oppose your thinking. I await your mighty sword.

 

No, those haven’t asked to be liberated were drug-dealers, who demonstrated the day the Courts took over Kismayo. Their concerns are motivated by greed. However, the majority of reer Kismayo celebrated and slaughtered camels for the UIC forces. Get your facts correct sxb. The Courts have pacified Mogadishu and have replicated the same in Kismayo, Bualle and other villages surrounding Kismayo. So, yes, this replication will continue till the entire country is under their control.

So no one who demonstrated was other than a greedy drug dealer? You have a tendency for extremely obnoxious sweeping statements. I don't know who the protestors were - I readily accept that some may have been part of the 'khat lobby'. Nor do I assume that the residents of Kismayo are against the ICU. But - according to how politics works in Somali society - I am not informed of any grouping of elders going to Mogadishu and requesting the ICU come and take over. If you are aware of such a mission, please do share. Barring that - I think anyone who claims that Kismayo residents welcome and support the ICU is premature to say the least.

 

I don’t need to show you any proof for your short-comings. The cliché is this. Every Tom, Dick and Harry says I need proof to this and proof to that – or I need proof to my inherent lack of understanding. Most probably what is needed here is self-reflection to revise own perception and values. And so ThePoint, the creation a dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’ or ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’, which is evident in your arguments is reliant on a segregated Somaliness.

Generally, reasonable and logical people provide proof for their accusations. You accused me of having a segregated view of Somaliniimo - and yet you provided no proof to back that up.

 

Apparently on your planet of Pluto - there is only a giant amorphous 'we' sucking up everything and everyone. Let me educate on how things work on Earth - your friend, his house and his car is properly termed 'theirs' since it doesn't belong to you. Your own self, your house and your car is properly termed 'ours'. Simply because there is an 'ours' and a 'theirs' does not consign you to perpetual hostility and enmity - in fact, it is better if both of you work together to increase both of your assets. But, you CANNOT have any human decency and dignity without recognizing the right of others to 'theirs' - for if you don't, you deny them a basic humanity.(which, as an aside, you seem to be doing in your constant baying for blood and territory for the ICU)

[General Duke]

ThePoint, I tell you one thing; if you or another Muslim or in this case the whole of Somalis, lost their mind and dwell in inhumanity, I will come to knock some sense and humanity into them

Funny stuff wallahi

[ElPunto]

Somehow - you've failed to respond to the essence of my argument in an earlier post - I wonder whether that was deliberate or not

 

The point of this is that real change comes from within and must be determined by the community that is being held back. Just like in Mogadishu. The broader community in that city defeated the warlords and chose(hopefully) a better future for their city. Those who brought about that potentially better future in Mogadishu have no right to impose it on others - they can only demonstrate it concretely and invite others to it.

[Paragon]

^^ThePoint, don't you see the dichotomy in your paragraph? It is like we are having a north-south debate on international development- them versus us. As far as I am concerned, Somalis are Somalis and there is no theirs or others' or even imposition of one ideology by one group on others. For Allah's sake, implimenting the Sharia by the community for the community is an imposition? That is the sort of question that came to my mind soon as I read your paragraph and I decided not to reply to it.

 

 

ThePoint: Have you got a special God-like insight into their intentions? How does one judge a person's intentions, barring that God-like ability? Simply by their actions. To date, the ICU have focused on expansion of territory and power. This does not necessarily mean they have bad intentions - but their focus so far has certainly left me with suspicions. Their intentions will be known given time.

No. I don't. ThePoint, it says, ‘the Courts’ intentions have thus far been commendable’. I guess you were greatly anxious to lambaste a fellow with blasphemy. It is quite interesting how dramatic your questionings have become in your last posts, suggesting that I have made a claim to possess a God-like ability-Subxaanallah. How can I make you understand this without you becoming wild in reading the worst of sentences? Look, ‘their intentions thus far’ mean exactly what it means, which is, so far the Courts have been persistent in their stated intentions, their actions to implement them and have brought to the fore the exact results they said they intentioned.

 

Now, if you want affirmations to what their stated intentions were, go back to the archives and search for the part where they promised to pacify Mogadishu, which they did. Or clear our all the armed controls in the city, which they did or even their intention to clean up the city, which they have commenced and still continues. If one isn’t reading (and in the process assuming a lot more than there is) in one’s post, then you will get melodramatic and accusing posts such as yours-and that is to no one’s advantage. You have asked me how I have come to know the Courts intentions thinking that I claim to know what future plans the Courts have intentioned. That is the problem with haste; it impairs one’s sharpness and comprehension.

 

So I suggest to you Mr.ThePoint, that this time around, you read and re-read my post and pay attention to the ‘thus far’ before you resort to implicate me with blasphemy. You can accuse me of being a zealous supporter of the Courts or even an unreasonable man, or a whole lot of other accusations, but please do me a favour, just don’t accuse of claiming to have a God-like ability. As you pointed out, their intentions would be known given time, but for the time that has gone; we know what their intentions were.

 

Smear campaign? Certainly not be me. I simply raised the dichotomy between their actions to date and their stated agenda. I am opposed to the warlords and I am neutral on the ICU - I certainly haven't condemned the ICU but I am opposed to the main thrust of their tactics so far and thus remain suspicious of them.

I will not address the smear campaign part for now, but I will like to know more about ‘the dichotomy between their actions to date and their stated agenda’ which you have an issue with. State an example where they have made out an agenda and yet deviated from it by their actions? Only then can we discuss this point more deeply. On the issue of support or opposition, you say ’I am not opposed’ to the ICU, and you claim to be neutral yet again you are no longer neutral but opposed , in virtue of the ‘thrust of their tactics’.

 

What does that mean, ThePoint? If you oppose a man’s thrust of tactics, which I must translate as his actions, what else is there to support him for? Again, which of the two –opposition or condemnation- is more detrimental to a man? To be condemned and left alone or to be opposed and fought against? This is a bit hard to follow. So I will just skip to your next paragraph which has much relevance to this paragraph. Allow me to skip.

 

 

Who’s crying foul? These oblique references to 'others' and 'some people' do not make our debate any clearer. As I said, I am not opposed to the courts(it's a little too early for that) but I am opposed to the brunt of their tactics thus far.

 

So, let's for argument sake's say I'm opposed to the courts, so why would you lump everyone else like me as having done no good in Somalia? There are countless individuals in all parts of Somalia who have opened hospitals, schools, wells etc. I'm sure you'll find some opposed to the ICU - are those people to be dismissed too? Your huge generalizations is the hallmark of fuzzy logic.

Those who are opposing the Courts are crying foul- crying foul is the next stage to mounting an opposition. But that is beside the point. You said in your previous paragraph that you were opposed to the ‘thrust of their tactics’ and now in this paragraph that has changed to the ‘brunt of their tactics’. There is a difference between the two words – thrust and brunt. While the former one is velocity-induced, the latter one is impact-induced. Thus while you are opposed to the Courts’ speed of advance and expansion; you are also opposed to the impact or pressure of their rule. That is basically what I can derive from your use of ‘thrust’ and ‘brunt’. Am I therefore allowed to think that your issue with the Courts isn’t about their expansion to, say, Kismayo, but also you are against the impacts of their rule in Mogadishu?

 

On the issue of who did what in Somalia, are you telling me the business and local organizations that back the Courts haven’t built schools, hospitals and even set up courts? Doing such things is good but not good enough. When I speak of the good being done, I mean good in general terms – such as collective efforts to change wider Somali society for the better. Building a clinic or a school is commendable but that is retail – I took part in such things myself and helped built hospitals, schools and mosques – still I felt that was in adequate.

 

What the Courts are doing is the collective good which makes other smaller goods worthy. So don’t get me wrong, I am speaking of another good, a political good. I don’t see how that can be considered ‘huge generalizations’.

 

Me do something against my clan's mischief? I eagerly await to hear all that you've done on that front before responding. By your logic above, until you show me all your Herculean efforts to combat clan mischief, you are in no position to question those who oppose the ICU or like me are suspicious. This latter point, sir, is the raw fact.

Whatever I have done to discourage clan mischief, soon enough my efforts will come to fruition for you to enjoy. I don’t need to brag but the joint will of Somalis (and mine) to change matters for the better, has made us even more powerful than the Hercules you speak of. To affirm it to you, until you make a conscious decision to work for what is good for our people and make your decision materialize into action that makes real change, only then can you question the efforts of the ICU. Now stop arguing and do something. So sir, this is the raw fact. Get it?

 

Anyone who believes the universe is only about black and white choices is a neanderthal. And then to apply black and white to present day Somali politics - well what I can say.

 

And for your education: The realist disposition in American foreign policy as espoused by Kissinger, Scowcroft et al is in direct contrast to Bush's famed 'You're with us...'. They advised to take each case on its merits

Allow me to rephrase your sentence, The Point. ‘Anyone who believes the universe is only about black and white choices is [not]a Neanderthal’. But anyone who doesn’t see things as clear as they are, must be dwelling in a permanent state of indecision. That isn't a good quality about a man, a man who cannot clearly identify one point from the other, or cannot tell white from black! The application of black and white approach is what Somali politics has been lacking since independence – and it is now that it needs more clarity than ever.

 

Lol. Sorry, The Point, my view of realist disposition goes beyond Kissinger and Scowcroft, and goes back to thousands of years to Thucydides. Your knowledge of realism seems to be limited to American Foreign Policy which doesn’t even consider the fathers of American realism. For your education, Bush didn’t create the words ‘with us or against us’, empires have fallen as a result of it in history.

 

PS: For the rest of your post, I am already bored in trying to answer your repetitive questions, so I will leave it at this. If there are specific questions that interest you more than others, then I oblige to answer them.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Paragon:

^^ThePoint, don't you see the dichotomy in your paragraph? It is like we are having a north-south debate on international development- them versus us. As far as I am concerned, Somalis are Somalis and there is no theirs or others' or even imposition of one ideology by one group on others. For Allah's sake, implimenting the Sharia by the community for the community is an imposition? That is the sort of question that came to my mind soon as I read your paragraph and I decided not to reply to it.

There is no Us vs Them in my paragraph - but there is an Us and a Them. Just like you are an individual and I am an individual. There is a You and there is a Me. Do not conflate the two together. By labelling/including Me with You, you deny me my most basic self - you deny my very existance and humanity.

 

'Implementing the Sharia by the community for the community is an imposition?' - I don't see the community of Kismayo implementing the Sharia for itself - what I've seen is the ICU coming in to implement it for them. Is the community of Mogadishu(the ICU) the one who implements Sharia or whatever else in the Community of Hargiesa or Galkacyo or Baidoa? My belief is NO! The community of Mogadishu has no such right. If you really believed in the question you posed at the beginning of this paragraph - you would allow the communities of Hargiesa, Galkayco etc to impose Sharia for themselves rather than your desire to see it imposed by the ICU, a separate community.

 

 

No. I don't. ThePoint, it says, ‘the Courts’ intentions have

thus far

been commendable’. I guess you were greatly anxious to lambaste a fellow with blasphemy. It is quite interesting how dramatic your questionings have become in your last posts, suggesting that I have made a claim to possess a God-like ability-Subxaanallah. How can I make you understand this without you becoming wild in reading the worst of sentences?

I have no idea why you are misrepresenting your own quote - perhaps because you realize the errors of your ways. Here is your exact quote:

 

"And I know, although there are always those engaged in smear campaign, the Courts’ intentions have thus far been commendable."

 

Note the 'I know' at the beginning of your paragraph. You imply a certainty about the ICU's intentions. It really doesn't matter about the 'thus far'. Now how can you have a certainty about their intentions given only a few months? You can certainly say I believe/think etc. But 'I know'? The man you stand beside at Jumuah prayers every Friday - how can you know his intentions? You can certainly say his actions underline his intentions - but at this point with the ICU - no one can claim a certain knowledge about their intentions as you claimed.

 

Now - if you would like to remove the 'I know' - then I would have little problem with your statement because it implies a belief. Nothing wrong with that.

 

You have asked me how I have come to know the Courts intentions thinking that I claim to know what future plans the Courts have intentioned. That is the problem with haste; it impairs one’s sharpness and comprehension.

I'll you this: what impairs debate and discussion is the slicing and dicing of quotes to come to a false argument.

 

As you pointed out, their intentions would be known given time, but for the time that has gone; we know what their intentions were.

There you go again claiming certainty about people's intentions - I'm tempted to throw out my accusation again - but I won't since it is Ramadan after all.

 

I will not address the smear campaign part for now, but I will like to know more about ‘the dichotomy between their actions to date and their stated agenda’ which you have an issue with. State an example where they have made out an agenda and yet deviated from it by their actions? Only then can we discuss this point more deeply. On the issue of support or opposition, you say

’I am not opposed’

to the ICU, and you claim to be

neutral

yet again you are no longer neutral but

opposed

, in virtue of the ‘thrust of their tactics’.

My issue is simply this: their stated intentions, on the whole, are Islamniimo and Islax. Yet their preoccupation at least as reported by the press is territory. There is takeover of most of southern Somalia and now Kismayo. And, previously, attempts at Baidoa and Galkacyo. Now why would a 2 month old movement be concerned with expanding territory rather than consolidating its gains and concentrating on delivering the fruits of its stated agenda. Because of this - I have my suspicions but I have not made up my mind as yet - I am neutral.

 

Let me clarify things for you: the statements 'I am neutral' and 'I am not opposed' do not cancel each other out. That should be straightforward. The statement 'I am opposed to the main thrust of their tactics' is just that. You can be opposed to the tactics of someone you have known only for a short while - because they raise suspicions - but you don't have to be opposed to the person him/her self yet. It is early for that. Capische?

 

What does that mean, ThePoint? If you oppose a man’s thrust of tactics, which I must translate as his actions, what else is there to support him for? Again, which of the two –opposition or condemnation- is more detrimental to a man? To be condemned and left alone or to be opposed and fought against? This is a bit hard to follow. So I will just skip to your next paragraph which has much relevance to this paragraph. Allow me to skip.

There is no support or opposition - but as I showed in my previous paragraph - one's tactics for a short period of time do not necessarily define one. And to be clear - I said thrust of their actions(also can be labelled direction). I am not hasty to make judgements.

 

 

Those who are opposing the Courts are crying foul- crying foul is the next stage to mounting an opposition. But that is beside the point. You said in your previous paragraph that you were opposed to the ‘thrust of their tactics’ and now in this paragraph that has changed to the ‘brunt of their tactics’. There is a difference between the two words – thrust and brunt. While the former one is velocity-induced, the latter one is impact-induced. Thus while you are opposed to the Courts’ speed of advance and expansion; you are also opposed to the impact or pressure of their rule. That is basically what I can derive from your use of ‘thrust’ and ‘brunt’. Am I therefore allowed to think that your issue with the Courts isn’t about their expansion to, say, Kismayo, but also you are against the impacts of their rule in Mogadishu?

For specificity I will stick with 'thrust' - I was using 'brunt' and 'thrust' interchangeably but I see I wasn't being clear enough. My issue is about the military expansion plain and simple. As to the brunt of their actions - I say 'Yay' to no khat, no roadblocks etc. I congratulate them on that. But once again - I have no desire to see a military takeover to ensure that 'no khat' takes hold in Hargeisa or Galkacyo. That is mistaken.

 

On the issue of who did what in Somalia, are you telling me the business and local organizations that back the Courts haven’t built schools, hospitals and even set up courts? Doing such things is good but not good enough. When I speak of the good being done, I mean good in general terms – such as collective efforts to change wider Somali society for the better. Building a clinic or a school is commendable but that is retail – I took part in such things myself and helped built hospitals, schools and mosques – still I felt that was in adequate.

No, I didn't say so. This, however, is what you said:

 

"those who stand opposed to the UIC have for the last 16 years done nothing good to alleviate Somalis’ hardship, they can be hardly considered a force for good."

 

This is clearly a vast generalization. Now you have obviously tempered your generalization by saying that building hospitals etc is inadequate and grassroots politics is better. Fine - glad you cleared it up. But please let the people of Kismayo build up their political grassroots - why do you need to impose the Mogadishu grassroots on them. By all means advise them, support others who are sympathetic to your ICU model but military threat and intimidation? No thank you.

 

What the Courts are doing is the collective good which makes other smaller goods worthy. So don’t get me wrong, I am speaking of another good, a political good. I don’t see how that can be considered ‘huge generalizations’.

See your above quote for your huge generalization.

 

Whatever I have done to discourage clan mischief, soon enough my efforts will come to fruition for you to enjoy. I don’t need to brag but the joint will of Somalis (and mine) to change matters for the better, has made us even more powerful than the Hercules you speak of. To affirm it to you, until you make a conscious decision to work for what is good for our people and make your decision materialize into action that makes real change, only then can you question the efforts of the ICU. Now stop arguing and do something. So sir, this is the raw fact. Get it?

Adeer - You have certainly peaked my interest in your work in Somalia with all of those veiled references. Please do tell what you have done for Somalis and I will clap for you, in all sincerity. But until you do so - you have no right questioning my ability to raise concerns about the ICU's tactics or anything else for that matter. And you can't avoid this with charming homilies like 'soon my efforts will come to fruition' and 'I don't want to brag'. Put up or shut up.

 

Allow me to rephrase your sentence, The Point. ‘Anyone who believes the universe is only about black and white choices is [not]a Neanderthal’. But anyone who doesn’t see things as clear as they are, must be dwelling in a permanent state of indecision. That isn't a good quality about a man, a man who cannot clearly identify one point from the other, or cannot tell white from black! The application of black and white approach is what Somali politics has been lacking since independence – and it is now that it needs more clarity than ever.

Ah - it's important to not only read words but to comprehend them as well. I agree with you that it's not a good quality in a man to not identify black from white. What I said, though, it's not a good quality(in fact, neandrathalish) for a man to assume the universe is only black and white. Black and white is what Somali politics has been lacking since independence eh? Spoken like a typical dictator a la Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc.

 

Lol. Sorry, The Point, my view of realist disposition goes beyond Kissinger and Scowcroft, and goes back to thousands of years to Thucydides. Your knowledge of realism seems to be limited to American Foreign Policy which doesn’t even consider the fathers of American realism. For your education, Bush didn’t create the words ‘with us or against us’, empires have fallen as a result of it in history.

The references in both of our previous posts was to the Bush quote and America. Thus I used Kissinger and company. If you would like to educate me about the Greeks - please feel free. Empires have fallen as a result eh? Is this the essence of your grandiose dreams - empires? As I assume you know - empires have a history of neglecting the interests of their inhabitants and collapsing under their own wieght.

 

 

PS: For the rest of your post, I am already bored in trying to answer your repetitive questions, so I will leave it at this. If there are specific questions that interest you more than others, then I oblige to answer them.

Bored eh? Guess you want to spend your time dreaming, plotting and planning for the ICU empire. Bon chance!

[ElPunto]

At this point it really becomes straightforward Paragon. The answers to the questions below will decide whether this debate is fruitless or not. I await your responses to the questions below:

 

1- Do you believe that those who are opposed to the ICU should have thier blood shed as you claimed in your previous post?

 

2- Do you believe that the ICU should expand, militarily if necessary, to Puntland, Somaliland and Baidoa?

 

3- Do you believe that individual communities have the right to pick their own leaders and determine their own agendas?

 

4- Do you believe that no political grouping apart from the ICU should exist anywhere in Somalia?

 

5- Do you believe that there should be a modicum of accountablity to the public by allowing them to remove those in the ICU they have deemed harmful to their interests?

[Paragon]

^^ I'll ignore your previous as I see nothing of value to reply to, except a poor attempt at sarcasm. But I will give you reply to your latter questions as they require little effort in aswering them.

 

1- Do you believe that those who are opposed to the ICU should have thier blood shed as you claimed in your previous post?

The evil ones should have their blood shed - no change there I am affraid. Note that while I make this statement, I am more politically inclined than I am religously.

 

2- Do you believe that the ICU should expand, militarily if necessary, to Puntland, Somaliland and Baidoa?

Absolutely, yes. Except Somaliland for now that is. I have other ideas for Somaliland.

 

3- Do you believe that individual communities have the right to pick their own leaders and determine their own agendas?

Where such a practice is found advantagious and compatible with ICU stipulations, yes. In places where the local elders have dubious history or criminal backgrounds, no. In other circumstances where no good supervision for the community is at hand, no.

 

4- Do you believe that no political grouping apart from the ICU should exist anywhere in Somalia?

Political groupings, yes. Again, they must be compatible with the prevailing law of the land.

 

5- Do you believe that there should be a modicum of accountablity to the public by allowing them to remove those in the ICU they have deemed harmful to their interests?

Oh yes, I love accountability and transpiracy. And I also love the idea of changing leadership when it is apropriate . Again, the proper procedures must be followed.

 

PS; we can even have a shura on sewing your mouth shut- if need be .

[ElPunto]

^Ah - as I suspected - this debate is fruitless. You have a vision for an ICU dictatorship. God knows the future - but I believe it shall not pass. Each region and community, particularly the North, has tasted the freedom of making local decisions - they will never allow your grandiose, all encompassing dictatorship to pass. Your dreams most definitely make Siyad seem a pushover. We shall see. We shall see.

[Allamagan]

Is this what you do in life regularly - knock sense into people? Your neighbour is abusing his wife - you go over and knock sense into him? Keep on with that strategy - you will go far.

Exactly!

[Paragon]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

^Ah - as I suspected - this debate is fruitless. You have a vision for an ICU dictatorship. God knows the future - but I believe it shall not pass. Each region and community, particularly the North, has tasted the freedom of making local decisions - they will never allow your grandiose, all encompassing dictatorship to pass. Your dreams most definitely make Siyad seem a pushover. We shall see. We shall see.

ThePoint, , it is a very just dictatorship I tell you. If you expected me to mince words and say - yes I am all for democracy and some such none-sense - I am telling you, waa habeenkii xalay ahaa oo tagay.

 

PS: I am glad to have become a self-appointed spokesman of the ICU , it sorta feels I am 'very involved'.

 

On a serious note though, after all things are said and done, the ICU is led by a diplomatic man (Sheikh Shariif) and it is only him who can give unequivicle ICU future agenda. Till then, I am here to say all the things you hate to hear.