[The Nation (Nairobi)] President Yoweri Museveni's vow to crush the Somali-based al Shabaab extremist group after the deadly bomb attacks in Kampala is typical of a leader who values his warrior credentials.
The Ugandan president said: "Our troops will pursue and crush al Shabaab right inside Somalia. We will commit up to 20,000 troops for the mission," he said and vowed to eliminate the terror-linked group.
Even before the Uganda attacks, the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development had announced plans to send 2,000 more African Union peacekeeping troops to beef up the present 6,000-strong contingent supporting the beleaguered Transitional Federal Government's hold on just a small section of Mogadishu.
The warrior in Museveni wants not just revenge, but to steeply escalate the mandate of the AU peacekeeping mission made up essentially of soldiers from Uganda and Burundi, the countries receiving threats from al Shabaab.
While the AU and IGAD may be strengthening the African Union Mission in Somalia to more effectively support the Transitional Government, President Museveni obviously wants to 'eliminate' al Shabaab.
The twin bomb attacks in Kampala bought home the stark reality that violent extremists in lawless Somalia have the capacity to export their brand of terror across the East African region.
It follows that countries in the region must recognise the cancer in their midst, and formulate the strategies to either cure it or cut it out.
Uganda was targeted by al Shabaab because it is the main contributor to the African Union peacekeeping contingent. Burundi has also received threats.
Other African countries that had pledged troops, including giant Nigeria, have baulked at putting their soldiers in harms way.
The rise of Islamic extremism in Somalia, particularly by al Shabaab and its claims to links with the al Qaeda, has put the dirt-poor country on the international radar.
Kenya has a long history of linkages to the Somali conflict starting with the secessionist campaign in the country by Somali-speaking North Eastern Province in the early years of independence.
Neighbouring Ethiopia has had similar problems with its equally vast Ogaden Province also inhabited by Somalis.
Kenya is among the countries in the region that have condemned the Kampala bombings and has vowed to remain steadfast in the face of threats from Somalia.
The United States, the European Union and various other countries have pledged help to contain the menace coming out of Kampala. It is in one thing, however, to pledge action, including retaliation or revenge.
It is quite another to take the concrete steps required to neutralise the threat of terrorism fuelled by religious extremism.
So far all efforts since the fall of the Siad Barre dictatorship to stabilise the lawless country or to contain the extremist menace have come to grief. In many cases efforts at outside intervention have made the situation worse.
An international coalition led by the United States tried to pacify Somalia in 1992 one year of the fall of the Siad Barre dictatorship, only to be run out of town with a very bloody nose.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Shabaab
#1
From the article: political correctness has allowed the power of vocal minorities to intimidate, cajole, bully or shout down any critics who dare question their rights. The fact that these so called rights conflict with the rights of others or the essence of our democracy is conveniently forgotten as labels of racist, bigot and intolerant are the standard ad hominem return of fire.
In todays politically correct world, such slurs have the power to wreck promising careers and stifle any rational examination of the issues that confront us.
I saw this bumper sticker on a rusty old pickup on a Tennessee country road this week:
#3
The push for "globalization" and multiculturalism tends to threaten the culture. The quest for cheap goods and foreign markets has led to some of this. PC is also wrapped up in pushing multiculturalism.
There was a guy on television today by the name of Mark Andol who started a store called Made in America. Everything he sells is made in America. It has been wildly successful according to the story. He has been in business for about six months. There is a presence on the internet as well as a physical store. It is somewhere in New York state. I'll bet there will be franchises before long or an expansion of stores. Creates jobs in this country.
#4
The ultimate basis of political correctness is the old Communist party line. See the article "Unexamined Mental Attitudes Left Behind By Communism" by Doris Lessing, a former Communist herself.
#2
In another poll in late June, 81% of Americans didn't know who Kagan was. Who was polled? What do the other 22% of non-respondents say? I have difficulty believing the poll.
#5
This is the same group who, in 6 months time, won't be able to name a single Supreme Court Justice--even the one they support for confirmation, too.
#9
That sort of poll question can only make sense had it had been linked to the questions: "If the presidential election of 2008 were to be held today, who would you vote for now?" and "What state is Columbus, Ohio, the capitol of?"
#13
OK, so the polling question is,"Do you support Obama's selection of Kagen for Supreme court?" They poll Atlanta and Chicago and LA, 40% will drink the kool-aid and say yes to anything for Obama. This survey is a farce.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/18/2010 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
American victims of terrorism can sue their own government for damages -- but not, generally, foreign regimes or officials. It's a ludicrous approach to the War on Terror. Weren't we supposed to be using every tool at our disposal to fight the bad guys?
On Wednesday, a Senate committee began considering a bill to change things. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act would give victims a clear green light to go after terrorists' state-linked enablers -- that is, any regime, official or group that offers them "material support or resources." About time, no?
The bill is a response to a 2008 US Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that tossed out a case brought on behalf of thousands of 9/11 victims, their families, insurers and even the Port Authority. Plaintiffs had accused Saudi Arabia, four of its princes and other officials of funding groups that, in turn, provided financial help to al Qaeda, pre-9/11. Their lawyers collected mountains of evidence linking the Saudis to the terror groups.
Treasury documents, for example, cited a key Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, that was heavily backed by Saudi royals and that showed "support for terrorist organizations" through at least 2006. And in a sworn statement, an Afghan witness reported watching a Taliban leader in 1998 take some $267 million from someone representing Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal. Yet none of the evidence made it to court -- because the judges found that the Saudis are shielded by federal rules of immunity for sovereign states.
National governments have maintained such rules for centuries, under the rationale: You don't let folks sue us in your courts, and we won't let them sue you in ours. But while that may work for governments, it clearly hasn't worked so well for the folks governments represent -- which is why many countries have carved out exceptions.
In America, for instance, Congress has allowed damages for "commercial" and other activities. In 1996, it stripped blanket immunity from any regime on the State Department's terror list. But that's led to a patchwork of exceptions and conflicting rulings -- a mess worsened by the fact that the federal executive branch (mainly the State Department) fiercely resists such efforts to seek justice, as of course do the accused states. All of which has created a legal nightmare for those looking to collect -- and for those seeking to deter terror-enablers.
At Wednesday's hearing, Richard Klingler, a lawyer who represented the victims in the Saudi case, noted that only "a handful of states, not including Saudi Arabia," are designated terror sponsors. Thus, he said, under the Second Circuit's approach, "a US citizen can sue a foreign state for harm unintentionally caused by a car crash," but "almost every foreign state that might seek to harm Americans within our borders, through acts of terror or otherwise" is shielded. Terrific.
Feel free, though, to sue a government agency in America: A few years back, the Port Authority -- which, recall, was barred from suing in the case against the Saudis -- was found 68 percent liable in the '93 World Trade Center bombing (more than twice as much as the terrorists themselves).
OK, a court fight won't win the terror war. Letting folks sue (supposed) allies like Saudi Arabia triggers migraines for State. And, yes, other countries may step up suits against us in their courts. But c'mon: Other nations follow "international law" mostly when it suits them. Many that claim immunity are only too eager to subject officials from countries like America and Israel to criminal charges, never mind civil claims. Tell me again why we're protecting them?
Today, Saudi Arabia says al Qaeda is its sworn enemy, and, indeed, it has hunted down anti-Saudi jihadi terrorists. But it's spent billions upon billions pushing the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam that spawned jihadi terror -- and poured money into groups that back violent Islamists. And it's never paid a price for 9/11.
We fight terrorists with our hands tied -- following strict rules of engagement while they slaughter innocents, torture and behead. Some may see it as the noble course -- but it's sure not the smartest.
#2
Let's keep this outrage up for the next G4 meeting when the anarchists and other travelers are tossing rocks. The only difference between a rock and a bullet is mass, velocity, and aim.
#2
Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won't be able to manage and track the nanodetails.
Obama supporters Bill and Milinda Gates are probably already testing the new beta software.
#4
Yes, tax compliance rises with easily understood tax laws, simple forms, and fair rates. It is only when that the tax laws are convoluted that it becomes economically viable to go through the headaches that hiding income entails, especially for those with a major income. Look at the beginning of the income tax in the US : very low rates, very simple tax laws, very simple forms, very high compliance. It was only after the rates kept going up that the lawyers got involved and all of the loopholes and shelters got created.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Adam Brodsky
