US imperialists Bombing Somalia

[Comrade Hector]

The US government began bombing Somalia a few days ago, launching air strikes against suspected al-Qaeda. Some reports indicate that dozens have already been killed. Earlier today the US put a small number of special forces inside Somalia to hunt al-Qaeda terrorists. The operation is to aid the Ethiopian military in desposing Islamist militants from Somalia, and according to reports thay've practically achieved this so why is the US getting involved? One taxi driver stated "They just want revenge on us for what we did to them in 1993". In 1993 the people of Somalia heroically defended themselves from Bill Clinton's and Boutros-Ghali's rape of their country under the cloak of "humanitarian aid to starving people". After continued harrassment, and slayings from those blue helmet pricks (half of whom were white supremacists and neo-nazis), the Somali people bravely defeated the US army, and the UN forces; thereby ruining any chance of imperialist plunder of their natural resources (one of which is oil). But I guess since Bush knows his little "war on terror" has lost drastic popularity, he thinks its best to be the cowboy, and kill a few "skinnies" (derogative term US and UN troops called Somalis) discretely of course. As of now Washington denies there will be any further strikes, and has no intention of sending ground troops into Somalia. Opinions?

[ZX3]

It strikes me as being ridiculous that a socialist would defend islamic theocrats; that they would defend a rule where women were relegated to the house; men must grow beards; female education banned; homosexuality is banned; where clans rule the day, headed by unelected chiefs. I mean good lord! This person posted placed a note defending Fidel castro!

It used to be that socialists were at least rational in promoting irrational socialism. I understand that the USA has been the biggest block to a worldwide socialist revolt, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Islamic fundamentalists???
Things must really be bad on the Left.

[BobKKKindle$]

Nowhere in the post did the Topic poster actually voice his support for the Union of Islamic Courts. When judging the effects of American Imperialism and neo-colonialism, we as socialists try and think about the effects on and the interests of the working class and other disposessed elements of society, because Socialism is focused on the emancipation of the working classes under Capitalist societies. In the vast majority of historical cases, American Imperialism, whether it in the form of a direct military invasion, or an economic embargo, has been to the detriment of ordinary working people. That is not to say that we accept the persecution of women and homosexuals routinely instigated by Islamic groups - but we belive that Somalia under the control of the Islamic courts offerred a degree of stability that enabled people to live something reminiscent of a normal life. American aerial bombardement puts these people and their families in great danger and threatens the already under-devloped Somalian economy.

In addition, did you ever think about why the 21st century has witnessed a resurgence of Islamic Fundamentalism? Ideologies do not just grow due to chance in an arbitrary manner. Islamism is a reaction to America's continued economic and political domination of the middle east, especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace process, and the Iraq war, and the continued export of American cultural values through ongoing globalisation. These groups, despite their flaws, do represent an enduring resistance to the forces of international capital and imperialism, and Socialists recognize that - the same is true of North Korea.

[cormacobear]

I am all for the defeat of the Islamic courts, but I am suprised that the interim government and Ethiopia would accept US support. Having US backing has only further alienated the Somali's from the interim government andthe Ethiopian army already veiwed as foriegners.

[Guerrilla22]

Its not the targetimg of the Islamic Council that bothers me, its the use of militarty force at will by the US, in an attempt to empower individuals they dem acceptablr that bothers me.

[Pawn Power]

And not only do they use force at will they are not even hitting their targets. Somali raids miss terror suspects (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6251077.stm)

[Guerrilla22]

The dynamics of the Bush doctrine still trouble me, as they should trouble anyone. Its anticipatory strikes. Bush believes who ever they were targetting in Somalia ,it can't be varified that it was actually al-Qaeda that they were after, or if they were simply targetting Somalis that stand in oppistion to the so-called "Somali government, to be a potential threat to the US, so he simply orders a military strike.

Like Noam Chomsky pointed out in his latest book Failed States, what if all countries starting launching military attacks every time they felt threatned by another country or foreign oraganization? Certainly then Iran, North Korea and numerous muslims from across the globe would be justified in attacking the US.

[colonelguppy]

holy revisionism batman.


The operation is to aid the Ethiopian military in desposing Islamist militants from Somalia, and according to reports thay've practically achieved this so why is the US getting involved? One taxi driver stated "They just want revenge on us for what we did to them in 1993". In 1993 the people of Somalia heroically defended themselves from Bill Clinton's and Boutros-Ghali's rape of their country under the cloak of "humanitarian aid to starving people".

first of all, if by "the people of Somalia heroically defended themselves" you mean "gunmen being payed by somali warlords shot some of our troops in an attempt to maintain their bosses throttle hold on the country", then you're not too far off.


the Somali people bravely defeated the US army, and the UN forces; thereby ruining any chance of imperialist plunder of their natural resources (one of which is oil).

first of all, why the hell would anyone want to imperialize somalia? its a shit hole. and no, it doesn't have oil. second of all, it wasn't a "defeat", they killed maybe like 50 of the coalition forces in the whole 2 years. the reason why we left is because we actually were trying to give humanatarian aid and those ungrateful basterds wouldn't take it.


But I guess since Bush knows his little "war on terror" has lost drastic popularity, he thinks its best to be the cowboy, and kill a few "skinnies" (derogative term US and UN troops called Somalis) discretely of course. As of now Washington denies there will be any further strikes, and has no intention of sending ground troops into Somalia. Opinions?

or maybe he did it because these were the guys who blew up our embassies?

[ComradeR]

Its not the targetimg of the Islamic Council that bothers me, its the use of militarty force at will by the US, in an attempt to empower individuals they dem acceptablr that bothers me.

Same here.


second of all, it wasn't a "defeat", they killed maybe like 50 of the coalition forces in the whole 2 years.

The infamous battle in Mogadishu between US forces and Adid's militia was a defeat for the US, but it was also a humiliation in the fact that the most powerful army in the world was beaten back by a poorly trained milita.


or maybe he did it because these were the guys who blew up our embassies?

That gives him the right to attack a sovereign nation and kill it's civilians?

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:13 pm
the reason why we left is because we actually were trying to give humanatarian aid and those ungrateful basterds wouldn't take it.


or maybe he did it because these were the guys who blew up our embassies?
Giving people food only if they give up there right to self-determination isn't humanitarian aid, it's extortion.

The somali poor were happy to receieve food aid, the warlords wanted to steal and hoarde the food in holding with capitalist tradition. It's not the Somali poors fault a dozen dead soldiers is enough to scare the US's quarter of a million strong army into surrender.

Where is the proof that the bombers of the US embassies are with the Islamic Court fighters in Southern Somalia? If you fail to provide proof to the world before attacking it's murder not justice.

I think the Air India bombers are hiding in Washington, I guess Canada now has the legfitimization to Bomb Washington. <--- sound rediculous. Well so is the US armies imperial asperations and the millions of civilians they&#39;ve slaughtered, tortured, starved this century.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:24 am
Nowhere in the post did the Topic poster actually voice his support for the Union of Islamic Courts. When judging the effects of American Imperialism and neo-colonialism, we as socialists try and think about the effects on and the interests of the working class and other disposessed elements of society, because Socialism is focused on the emancipation of the working classes under Capitalist societies. In the vast majority of historical cases, American Imperialism, whether it in the form of a direct military invasion, or an economic embargo, has been to the detriment of ordinary working people. That is not to say that we accept the persecution of women and homosexuals routinely instigated by Islamic groups - but we belive that Somalia under the control of the Islamic courts offerred a degree of stability that enabled people to live something reminiscent of a normal life. American aerial bombardement puts these people and their families in great danger and threatens the already under-devloped Somalian economy.

In addition, did you ever think about why the 21st century has witnessed a resurgence of Islamic Fundamentalism? Ideologies do not just grow due to chance in an arbitrary manner. Islamism is a reaction to America&#39;s continued economic and political domination of the middle east, especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace process, and the Iraq war, and the continued export of American cultural values through ongoing globalisation. These groups, despite their flaws, do represent an enduring resistance to the forces of international capital and imperialism, and Socialists recognize that - the same is true of North Korea.
You are reaching if you think Islamic fundamnentalism is a step toward a socialist revolution. A sharia court is not a step toward a "People&#39;s Court."

regarding the growth of Islamic fundamnetalism: No. its not a &#39;reaction" to the USA. Its a reaction to the failed policies of the past within the Arab world (nationalism, ba&#39;aath socialism, monarchies, republics with presidents ect). The new paradigm is islamic unity, across the ethnic divide. In other words, its a reaction to the idea of Western "progress" which includes socialism, my friend.

[colonelguppy]

The infamous battle in Mogadishu between US forces and Adid&#39;s militia was a defeat for the US, but it was also a humiliation in the fact that the most powerful army in the world was beaten back by a poorly trained milita.

technically the objective of the mission that day was acheived (to capture a known militia leader), the army just lost some helicopters due to RPG fire which complicated things. i wouldn&#39;t call it humiliating at all, its a little more than difficult to try and rescue sporatic pockets of army rangers and pilots amongst both militia men and civilians in the most dangerous city in the world, while horribly outnumbered in an unfamiliar urban environment.

it wasn&#39;t really even a military defeat at all, but once the media got footage of american casualities, political will evaporated over night.


That gives him the right to attack a sovereign nation and kill it&#39;s civilians?

somalia isn&#39;t really a soveriegn nation. i don&#39;t agree with killing civilians, but i think its acceptable for countries to try and track down indivuals who attack them.

[colonelguppy]

Giving people food only if they give up there right to self-determination isn&#39;t humanitarian aid, it&#39;s extortion.


we didn&#39;t do that. the warlords had power before we got there.


The somali poor were happy to receieve food aid, the warlords wanted to steal and hoarde the food in holding with capitalist tradition

i wouldn&#39;t call roaming bands of gunmen in a stateless society traditional to anything capitalist.


It&#39;s not the Somali poors fault a dozen dead soldiers is enough to scare the US&#39;s quarter of a million strong army into surrender.

it scared the politicians more than anyone else. i think its closer to a million men actually..


It&#39;s not the Somali poors fault a dozen dead soldiers is enough to scare the US&#39;s quarter of a million strong army into surrender.

i haven&#39;t really read into it, i don&#39;t know. i doubt they&#39;d waste the recources and risk an international incident if they weren&#39;t sure they were the guys. either way, we do know they were al queda, who cares.


I think the Air India bombers are hiding in Washington, I guess Canada now has the legfitimization to Bomb Washington. <--- sound rediculous. Well so is the US armies imperial asperations and the millions of civilians they&#39;ve slaughtered, tortured, starved this century.

i think theres a slight difference between hiding and harboring

[La Comédie Noire]

I agree with everything you said but


(half of whom were white supremacists and neo-nazis),

Source?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13, 2007 12:10 am
I agree with everything you said but


(half of whom were white supremacists and neo-nazis),

Source?
he&#39;s making shit up, if i recall a large portion of the UN casualties were actually packistani, not exactly the white supremacist type.

[ihaterockandroll]

i think its acceptable for countries to try and track down indivuals who attack them.

So you would support Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, Native American Indians et al in an invasion of the US then?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:33 am

i think its acceptable for countries to try and track down indivuals who attack them.

So you would support Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, Native American Indians et al in an invasion of the US then?
they can certainly try

[Intifada]

Don&#39;t shed any tears when the next "9/11" happens.

[t_wolves_fan]

After continued harrassment, and slayings from those blue helmet pricks (half of whom were white supremacists and neo-nazis)

:lol:


, the Somali people bravely defeated the US army, and the UN forces;

Would you be willing to go live among the brave Somali people? Why or why not?

[Guerrilla22]

the reason why we left is because we actually were trying to give humanatarian aid and those ungrateful basterds wouldn&#39;t take it.

No actually, we wanted to put a government of those we demed acceptable in place, so something like the Islamic Council or Adid, who supported al-Qaeda didn&#39;t gain power, the US doesn&#39;t ever do anything for humantiarian reasons.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:26 pm

the reason why we left is because we actually were trying to give humanatarian aid and those ungrateful basterds wouldn&#39;t take it.

No actually, we wanted to put a government of those we demed acceptable in place, so something like the Islamic Council or Adid, who supported al-Qaeda didn&#39;t gain power, the US doesn&#39;t ever do anything for humantiarian reasons.
Would you have been happy with Adid or Al Queda in power and, if so, do you think they would have governed effectively and justly?

Are you sure the blanket statement, "The US doesn&#39;t ever do anything for humantiarian reasons." is correct?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 18, 2007 06:38 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 18, 2007 06:38 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 06:26 pm

the reason why we left is because we actually were trying to give humanatarian aid and those ungrateful basterds wouldn&#39;t take it.

No actually, we wanted to put a government of those we demed acceptable in place, so something like the Islamic Council or Adid, who supported al-Qaeda didn&#39;t gain power, the US doesn&#39;t ever do anything for humantiarian reasons.
Would you have been happy with Adid or Al Queda in power and, if so, do you think they would have governed effectively and justly?

Are you sure the blanket statement, "The US doesn&#39;t ever do anything for humantiarian reasons." is correct? [/b]
That&#39;s not the issue, the issue is whether or not the US had humanitarian aims for its intervention in Somalia, and the answer is clearl no. Yes, I believe that statement is true, everything the US government does abroad is for a strategic reason, you notice the bags of rice they deliver have giant American flags on the bags, they&#39;re attempting to buy favor. The US is hardly the first country to do this, nor is it the only country to do this, its international politics disguised as relief.

[t_wolves_fan]

Would you have been happy with Adid or Al Queda in power and, if so, do you think they would have governed effectively and justly?
That&#39;s not the issue,

I&#39;m making it the issue. Answer.


the issue is whether or not the US had humanitarian aims for its intervention in Somalia, and the answer is clearl no. Yes, I believe that statement is true, everything the US government does abroad is for a strategic reason, you notice the bags of rice they deliver have giant American flags on the bags, they&#39;re attempting to buy favor. The US is hardly the first country to do this, nor is it the only country to do this, its international politics disguised as relief.

The horror&#33; Letting people know who&#39;s feeding them. Call the ICC&#33; War crimes&#33;

:rolleyes:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:26 pm

the reason why we left is because we actually were trying to give humanatarian aid and those ungrateful basterds wouldn&#39;t take it.

No actually, we wanted to put a government of those we demed acceptable in place, so something like the Islamic Council or Adid, who supported al-Qaeda didn&#39;t gain power, the US doesn&#39;t ever do anything for humantiarian reasons.
keeping al queda out of a countries government seems pretty humanitarian to me. anyways, we had no reason to set up a puppet government there, the region has nohting we want, its a shit hole. the reason we did anything was because the west look bad after the ethiopia incident and we didn&#39;t want that happening again.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:17 pm
keeping al queda out of a countries government seems pretty humanitarian to me. anyways, we had no reason to set up a puppet government there, the region has nohting we want, its a shit hole. the reason we did anything was because the west look bad after the ethiopia incident and we didn&#39;t want that happening again.
Agreed.

Essentially, he seems to be complaining that putting our American flag on free food is worse than trying to get rid of a very, very repressive government.

:wacko:

[Anarcho]

That&#39;s not the issue, the issue is whether or not the US had humanitarian aims for its intervention in Somalia, and the answer is clearl no. Yes, I believe that statement is true, everything the US government does abroad is for a strategic reason, you notice the bags of rice they deliver have giant American flags on the bags, they&#39;re attempting to buy favor. The US is hardly the first country to do this, nor is it the only country to do this, its international politics disguised as relief.

EVERY country on the planet that gives aid, in one form or another, does it for strategic reasons.

Cuba gives money to the poorer nations of the Caribean to try to build up their reputation, both with the locals and with the international community.

America and other western nations gave aid to Somalia to try to help stabilize the region.

Europe gives the PLO funds to help stabilize the area, and to have some leverage on the politics (though this has failed with the rise of Hamas in the political process).

No nation acts out of pure selfless altruism.

[Severian]

One interesting thing I&#39;d like to point about all this advocacy of "humanitarian" intervention in Africa: We&#39;re hearing a lot more of it at the same time that peace is breaking out all over in Africa. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16490918.htm)

In other words, there&#39;s no correlation between the severity of real humanitarian problems and how strongly elements of the political and media establishment advocate supposedly humanitarian intervention.

[Guerrilla22]

]The horror&#33; Letting people know who&#39;s feeding them. Call the ICC&#33; War crimes&#33;

The point is it was done for political purposes, not out of the goodness of heart as you seem to claim.


keeping al queda out of a countries government seems pretty humanitarian to me. anyways, we had no reason to set up a puppet government there, the region has nohting we want, its a shit hole. the reason we did anything was because the west look bad after the ethiopia incident and we didn&#39;t want that happening again.

We didn&#39;t or don&#39;t have a reason for setting up a favorable government in Somalia? Clearly you don&#39;t know too much about the nature of international politics. So how were the various other war lords that the US has been supporting in Somalia over the years better than the one affiliated in al-Qaeda, other than the one affliated with al-Qaeda was anti-US?


Essentially, he seems to be complaining that putting our American flag on free food is worse than trying to get rid of a very, very repressive government.

Again, you you don&#39;t seem to know much about the situation there. The US attacked one warlord while supporting others just as brutal, simply because the one warlord had Islamist affliations. I think anyone, including those in the uS government and military familiar with the situation would concede that "humanitarianism is and was ever the goal there.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

anyways, we had no reason to set up a puppet government there, the region has nohting we want,

Except oil (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=4342) and and strategic locationing in the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, and Arabian Coast.

But yeah, you&#39;re right, the U.S. backed Somalia in its reactionary war against revolutionary Ethiopia, then invaded Somalia after Siad Barre was overthrown, then backed Somalian warlords (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html), then backed U.S. trained Ethiopian troops when they invaded Somalia (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-07-ethiopia_x.htm), then invaded and bombed Somalia theirselves.. all because "the region has nohting we want".

:lol:


No nation acts out of pure selfless altruism.

Socialist Cuba acts out of proletarian internationalism.


keeping al queda out of a countries government seems pretty humanitarian to me.

Is that the same kind of "humanitarianism" the U.S. government practiced when backing Islamist nutters (which later became the Taliban) in Afghanistan?

* * * *

U.S. leads illegal war in Somalia

In the last two weeks of December, thousands of Ethiopian troops, sponsored by the U.S. imperialists and the “transitional Somalian government” they back, along with a small team of U.S. “Special Forces,” invaded Somalia, where they overpowered the Islamist forces which had taken control of the country’s capital, Mogadishu, earlier in the year.

In early January, the Ethiopian soldiers continued their fight backed by U.S. gunships, which dropped bombs across Somalia, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, and injuring hundreds more. The attacks, purportedly aimed at “al-Qaeda leaders,” also destroyed vital water sources and left hundreds of thousands of Somalian refugees cut off from much needed supplies near the border with Kenya.

At least five U.S. warships, including the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, now sit off Somalia’s coast.

The fighters of the Somalia Islamic Courts Council (SICC), which had controlled the Somalian capital and much of the south for the last six months, have been forced from their strongholds; but have vowed to continue fighting.

In the meantime, the “transitional Somalian government,” which was created by U.S. and European imperialists in 2004 in another failed attempt to impose a stable regime that would act in its interests, declared a three month period of martial law.

This widely unpopular “government,” which until recently had no control over the country, has shut down the country’s main media outlets – three radio stations and al-Jazeera TV – which it accuses of “inciting violence.”

It has also sent its soldiers – mostly clan-based militiamen which only very recently agreed to join the national army – along with Ethiopian troops, door to door in Mogadishu to disarm the population.

In Somalia, which hasn’t had a cohesive central government since 1991, many people carry guns, and aren’t very enthusiastic about giving them up.

For their part, the U.S. imperialists quickly moved to establish a “peacekeeping” force, made up of 8,000 troops from other African countries, knowing that the Ethiopian troops occupying Somalia are very unpopular among its citizens.

The imperialists are seeking to cover themselves by dispatching “peacekeepers” from non-imperialist countries, just as they have done in Haiti. And just like in Haiti, these “peacekeepers” will do anything but keep the peace. So far, only the Ugandan government has agreed to contribute troops to such a force.

Somalia is the latest front in the U.S. government’s reactionary “War on Terror.” It has been meddling in the country for years, playing a large part in Somalia’s current state. In early 2006, the New York Times reported that the CIA had been covert operations to arm and finance Somalian warlords, in hopes they would fight the rising Islamist forces. The plan backfired, and the operations actually shifted the balance of power in the country over to the SICC, prompting them to move to take control of the capital.

The SICC garnered some support for their promises to bring order to Somalia, but their extreme religious policies, like closing movie theaters and forbidding women from going to the beach were opposed by most Somalis.

Once the SICC took control of much of Somalia, the U.S. government was forced to take harsher measures than it had before. It wasted no time goading its lackeys in Ethiopia into invading Somalia and ousting the SICC.

The Ethiopian soldiers that invaded Somalia were trained, armed, and fed intelligence reports by U.S. forces at the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa military base in neighboring Djibouti, which was set up as a part of Washington’s “War on Terror.”

Using Ethiopian troops to wage a “war by proxy” was a test of another strategy the U.S. imperialists hope to be able to utilize in future wars of conquest, as its own army becomes thinned out in the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We revolutionaries oppose on principle the U.S. imperialists’ bombing and invasion of Somalia, as we would reject a similar invasion of any sovereign country for the gain of the rich ruling elite.

http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?257

[Tungsten]

bobkindles

In addition, did you ever think about why the 21st century has witnessed a resurgence of Islamic Fundamentalism? Ideologies do not just grow due to chance in an arbitrary manner. Islamism is a reaction to America&#39;s continued economic and political domination of the middle east, especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace process, and the Iraq war, and the continued export of American cultural values through ongoing globalisation.
You&#39;re suggesting that because one country exports some cultural values that are at odds with Islamic fundamentalism, the fundamentalists have the right to start bombing them out of existence? Does that mean I&#39;m okay blow you up if I don&#39;t like your values?
CompañeroDeLibertad

Socialist Cuba acts out of proletarian internationalism.
Poor man&#39;s imperialsm?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:53 pm

Socialist Cuba acts out of proletarian internationalism.
Poor man&#39;s imperialsm?
including risking millions of poor by accepting soviet warheads in their land.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:07 am
It strikes me as being ridiculous that a socialist would defend islamic theocrats; that they would defend a rule where women were relegated to the house; men must grow beards; female education banned; homosexuality is banned; where clans rule the day, headed by unelected chiefs. I mean good lord&#33; This person posted placed a note defending Fidel castro&#33;

It used to be that socialists were at least rational in promoting irrational socialism. I understand that the USA has been the biggest block to a worldwide socialist revolt, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Islamic fundamentalists???
Things must really be bad on the Left.
I don&#39;t have the luxury of seeing things as black and white. I in no way expressed any support for the Islamist fanatics in Somalia. Please tell me, exactly where did I hail them? If you&#39;re refering to the Clinton "humanitarian" rape of Somalia, it wasn&#39;t just those fanatical militias fighting the US/UN occupation. Average men, women, and children took up arms in self-defense against the imperialists after suffering repeated harassments and bullying. A perfect example is the case of 16 year old Shidane Arone, who was beaten and tortured, then killed by Canadian blue helmets. These men were also members of the Canadian branch of Aryan Nations. I am all for defeating those Islamic reactionaries in Somalia, but by the masses of Somalia. You&#39;re either foolish or just naive to think that the imperialist power the raped Somalia in 1993, and the neo-colonial regime of Ethiopia will bring a better future for the oppressed masses of Somalia. I&#39;ve no doubt what you say about those Islamist crazies that ruled Somalia is true. But for the USA and a neo-colonial regime to "liberate" them???? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Give me a break&#33;

[Comrade Hector]

holy revisionism batman.

Holy Manure Batman&#33; A ton of Bullshit&#33;


first of all, if by "the people of Somalia heroically defended themselves" you mean "gunmen being payed by somali warlords shot some of our troops in an attempt to maintain their bosses throttle hold on the country", then you&#39;re not too far off.

What I mean is, my bourgeois friend, is that the people of Somalia took up arms in self-defense against US/UN colonial occupation. I woundn&#39;t doubt that the Somali warlords were able to get support from the Somali masses considering the the slayings, shootings, and harassments they endured by the imperialists who werew pretending to help them.


first of all, why the hell would anyone want to imperialize somalia? its a shit hole. and no, it doesn&#39;t have oil. second of all, it wasn&#39;t a "defeat", they killed maybe like 50 of the coalition forces in the whole 2 years. the reason why we left is because we actually were trying to give humanatarian aid and those ungrateful basterds wouldn&#39;t take it.or maybe he did it because these were the guys who blew up our embassies?

Read some statistics, boy&#33; In fact before the neo-colonial regime was overthrown in 1991 oil concessions were granted to American corporations, and Clinton&#39;s and Boutros-Ghali&#39;s "humanitarian" mission was to take it back. The reason why the US and UN left is because they were defeated by an armed population. The imperialists "humanitarian" mission was taking casualties in what Clinton falsely portrayed as "helping starving people". The "ungrateful basters" you refer to are the Somalia people whom were tired of being bullied by the imperialists who went there pretending they wanted to help.
Go to my Sudan Page. (http://www.geocities.com/h_marroquin/Sudan.html) Scroll down and observe what those blue helmet white supremacist fucks did to Somalis&#33; USA and UN "humanitarian"???? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[rvn10]

Frankly speaking my brothers, i have no problem with intervention in Somalia.

And just so that you all know, the Islamic world is pretty anti-Communist and anti-leftist. They are more conservative than those crazy fucks here in the American Bible Belt.

I read a news that one of the heads of an Islamic court passed a law that said they would behead anyone who doesn&#39;t pray 5 times a day, im sorry but if an atomic bomb is dropped on those people it wouldn&#39;t be of much harm to humanity.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13, 2007 05:10 am
I agree with everything you said but


(half of whom were white supremacists and neo-nazis),

Source?
FOR COMRADE FLOYD: Here is one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair

Here&#39;s another http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ57Racism.html

Scroll down a bit for the Somalia case.

I&#39;ll get back to you when I find the sites with the photos.



he&#39;s making shit up, if i recall a large portion of the UN casualties were actually packistani, not exactly the white supremacist type.

I wasn&#39;t talking about casualites, I was talking about the servicemen: Americans, Canadians, Italians, Belgians, etc. I guess they don&#39;t teach how to spell in cub scouts, huh? Or how to read correctly for that matter.