U.S. Shutdown Somalia's Internet.

[DanS]

"And also AFAIK, the US intelligence has no qualms in cooperating with their colleagues in Pakistan who created the Taliban but when it comes to Somalia and Al-Barakaat US cannot even afford to hold a proper trial or even provide some decent backup because of the chance, however big or small, this company will finance the next WTC?"

Lest you forget so soon after the fact, the Pakistani intelligence chief was in Washington during the attack to tell the Bush administration that the Taliban/Al Qaeda were nothing to worry about. On the day after the attack, Pakistan was given an ultimatum of the bluntest sort--the upshot being that Pakistan was governed at the pleasure of the US and that Pakistan was to be helpful or else.

This makes freezing the funds of a private firm seem downright gentlemanly in comparison.

"Darkcloud, Saudi Arabia hasn’t taken one single measure to combat terrorism so far, nice allies."

Patently false. (1) The whole air campaign is being directed from an airbase in Saudi Arabia. (2) The Saudis cut off diplomatic relations with the Taliban when Arab support of the campaign was in the balance. (3) They were very helpful in providing information about the background of the terrorists.

Just because they don't announce to the world the measures they are taking doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. The US has decided to leave it to Saudi Arabia to describe what they have done. But the Saudis are mum.

[Chris 62]

the other idiot strikes...

Originally posted by Mark L
And would you call American actions in Vietnam a sign of "culture"? Massacers (sp), rapes, napalm on civilians, etc. It's not all that long ago really, or did the US suddenly grew a ''culture'' in some 30 years?

You should quit watching "Platoon" and "Apocolypse now".

Also, trying to equate everything that an americcan says to vietnam is as relevant as me saying you blame Spain for holland's problems.

Oh please grow up Chris! You're acting like an angry 15 year old for Christ's sake.

I think you should look in the mirror, boy.
You are by far the most childish poster on apolyton.
Or would you care to justify 3+ months of false accusations and anti-USA hysteria you posted?

How can you judge an entire nation of millions by looking at the actions of a mere handfull of extremists? Or do you really think 99% of the Somalis are crazy terrorists?

How can you absolve them?

in your mind it's easy, I'm sure.

Your imbecilic postings are proof of it.

Like Bin Laden said after Sept 11. You're little better than he is.

How infantile you are.

Go to bed, the adults are speaking here.

[Giancarlo]

In response to the shutting of the Somali Internet Services... I just want to say that Somalia is technicially an anarchy with a barely functioning central government in control of only the captial, and absolutely no infrastructure. The internet was probably used by less than .05% of the population, for terrorist or other purposes.

[faded glory]

In breaking/Other news. A few thousand Ethiopian troops moved into Somalia. Ethiopia fought a 10 year war with Somalia over a border post. lost a few thousand men.....Cant possibly imagine why they would return. Unless at the request of Bush?

Gentlemen? Part of the war on Terror?

[Roman]

Originally posted by Mark L
Without the west the third world wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. The 300 billion, or whatever the total sum is, is the least the west can and must do for the way we ****ed their continents up. And we should damn well do more, we created this mess, and now we should clean it up.

Ehm, what is it that the West has done recently to ruin the third world?

I fail to see why West should feel obliged to give even more money than the present $300 billion every year, to the third world. I have to reiterate that this is a vast amount of money. Occasionally it seems that the third world basically just takes all the Western money it can get, complains about everything the West does and then tries to extract even more funds from the West.

[faded glory]

Mark L doesnt know jack about what hes talking about. 3rd world nations dont use the money properly....so we dont give them much...

Mark L is a commie...thinks we should distribute wealth to nations less forunate. I disagree.....

America has nothing...I REPEAT NOTHING.. to do with present day troubles in Somalia or elsewhere. And America is one your demanding pay more money!!? Let Europe throw away its money....we still have problems here in America that money can be better spent on!

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Stefan Härtel

Mark- if it wasn't for the west- they would likely still be primitive tribes in most of Africa- (exceptions: ethiopia,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia*possibly)

Question to you Dark Cloud: Would you be happier if you were to live under the rule of a foreign culture, that pressed it's ideals of culture and civilization on you,

That is precisely what I was against- that is why I am against intervention in any way- aid or war. But they owe the west money- thus they need to pay. The west helped them get where they are- and they seem to want to 'civilize' more... Right now they are but a feudal Europe without the castles.

m
aking you believe this is the right way to live, and, when they would finally go, you were left with a halfways urbanized society, which didn't really make you happy and brought you more disadvantages than good? And if they finally left, you found yourself in a country that has many different people lumped together with the only thing uniting them the ruler-drawn frontiers of the former empire?

The problem here is mob mentality- they hate the people their grandparents hated (still a problem in europe; but moreso because they are in the same country) if they could but conquer that, they wouldn't have a problem=- thus they caused it themselves and they have been thrown into the fire to correct it.

Or would you rather be happy to live in a society in which you would still lead a sometimes difficult yet simple life, peaceful and prosperous in so many areas? Without anyone interfering in your civilization and ideals just because they don't match with theirs? And without conflicts that needn't be there (of course there were wars in pre-colonial Africa, but not as widespread as today)?
And one final question: If you lived your whole life in the deep jungles of Africa, without knowing the modern western society, and without having serious contact to anybody who represents it, how do you know, and how do you care if your culture was primitive?

You wouldn't know the difference, I agree- but the way to civilization is better- they may not have known the difference- but would you rather go to the bathroom on the ground or in a toilet?
I would say that civilization is, ultimately, good for a people.

Without civilization- even more africans would die from aids, other diseases etc. Then again you could say that diseases weed out the weak, but take it as you like.

(And another question, since when is Saudi-Arabia in Africa? )

Also, Saudi Arabia is close, it is in the Middle East, a subcontinent of Asia, but it is also bordering Africa, thus my classification.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Colon
Darkcloud, Saudi Arabia hasn’t taken one single measure to combat terrorism so far, nice allies.

I understand perfectly well principles will get you only so far but whereas US stashes them away when it comes to several of the biggest sources of support of the entities it is fighting, it all of a sudden is principled again when dealing with Somalia?

Looks like battling mosquitoes while ignoring the elephants trampling your farmlands, because that might piss them off.

I understand- perhaps the US should do that before the problems- the problem is trickly diplomacy, They probably should make small demands now, then crack wdown later- but yo udon't want to anger your major oil suppliers too much- then risk south america killing you on you oil

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Stefan Härtel
Somalia can't become a civilized nation because it isn't a nation at all. It's a union only on the map. We're dealing with an agglomeration of 8 major peoples here.

A good point that is often missed by most people. There are many states that are not nations in the world, and in some cases like Afghanistan or Somalia there are geographical entities which are neither nations nor states. It's difficult to hold them to the standards expected of nation states.

[Roman]

Originally posted by faded glory
Let Europe throw away its money....we still have problems here in America that money can be better spent on!

Hey, I don't want Europe to throw away its money either! I live there after all.

[faded glory]

Why did European Civilization rise to control the world? Why not the new world civilizations? (Maya, Aztec's). Or Africa's...or even China.... was there somthing in our blood that motivated us more?

This is somthing ive always wandered.

[Roman]

Originally posted by faded glory
Why did European Civilization rise to control the world? Why not the new world civilizations? (Maya, Aztec's). Or Africa's...or even China.... was there somthing in our blood that motivated us more?

This is somthing ive always wandered.

That is a question to which there is no simple answer. Obviously, there have been other civilizations throughout history that were much more advanced than Europe in terms of science and technology.

For example:-

In 13th century CE China was on the verge of industrialization. The Chinese had developed paper currency, credit and rudimentary banking. These economic developments fostered technological innovation on an unprecedented scale. The Chinese already had the compass, paper and plenty of other technology that was extremely advanced at the time, including multiple mast ships, which were three times larger than Columbus' Santa Maria. China used the ships to explore and reached as far as India and East Africa, where the Chinese had set up trading ports and beginnings of colonies.

The population of Sung China was already large and suprisingly urbanised - 26 Chinese cities at this time exceeded the population of 500,000; 10 cities exceeded 1,000,000 and the capital Hangzhou had more than 2,000,000 inhabitants. The population was increasing rapidly, but the Chinese developed selective breeding and used it to make strains of rice with yields so high that they actually had a surpluss of food - the first civilization in history to achieve this.

China also produced steel and that on such a scale that it wasn't until Britain industrialized in the 19th century that this was overtaken by any other country. There was also labour intensive silk production taking place, which could quite easily have been automated had China developed steam power. In fact, China was on the verge of discovering steam power.

Historians call this Chinese accomplishment proto-industrialization and full blown industrialization would surely have followed (500 years before that in Europe) had it not been for the Mongol invasion, the concurrent spread of Black Death and the subsequent Chinese isolationism.

[faded glory]

Actually good point Roman. But I guess we kind of got off to a head start (thanks to the greeks )

Concerning Europe...I think the 1000's- 1400's was a time of serouis gut check for the worlds civilizations. Who would survive and propser...and who would barely survive only to be conquered. Europe took way to much of a lead here...

I think Christianity and Wars probably played a huge part in European Culture just Overwhelming and dominating the world in the end. It was a pretty fair game from early BC- to about 1000ad. Cause remember the Muslims were on the verge of overtaking Europe at the time. But after 1000ad it was clear that Europe was probably going to dominate the world.

When we look at the new world civilizations. Yes they were advanced. But they didnt understand logical concepts like Wheels, governing ability's, and metal mining.

Maybe one of the smarter people can drop by and put there 2 cents in on this issue. It probably belongs in its own separate thread.

[Stefan Härtel]

It's simple. Europe never provided the mass of soil and ressources for greater number of people to flourish. By the end of the middle ages, Europe was entirely explored, with only the lesser interesting areas of Russia left open. Think about it, if Europe wouldn't have settled their people down in America, there'd be a couple of tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of people more in Europe. It'd be a chaotic mess.
China is sort of different. It always provided more room for it's people. Yes, there have always been more people in China than anywhere else in the world, but China is also a hell of a lot bigger than other countries.
And why didn't Europe take the east? Simple. Russia was a large barrier; icy cold, unusual, unfriendly and uninteresting to most Europeans. And the other option would be southwards, through Turkish and Muslimic territories. And that would most definately have been the end of Europe.

[Colonâ„¢]

Dan, first of all, you seem to keep forgetting this isn’t just about Al-Barakat, it’s about the country in which the firm is situated and their role in ensuring income to the country.

Secondly, does Saudi Arabia’s and Pakistan’s cooperation compensate for the fact there wouldn’t be a Taliban without Pakistan’s support as there wouldn’t be an Al-Qaeda without Saudi Arabia support? Who plays with fire... right?

Yet I’m happy to concede that SA and Pakistan have been cooperative to the extend of risking domestic stability and it wouldn’t be very wise to crack down on them. It’s just that Bush’s administration apparently didn’t felt much for making such considerations in Somalia. If you’re going to be principled then at least be principled all the time.