Ask AbdiWahab252 Any Question Thread

[xoogSADE14]

AW

maxamud is pissed, the dude lost his cozy mareeyaha dekedda where he was making $ 11k a week.

nabs

compared to AW i'm a baby

[Ashlee~]

AW

Lets agree too disagree. The hawiye killed each other and no dawlad can be born from savages who kill their own kin

Anyhow your an old dude sxb I thought 99% of Snetters were between the ages of 15-25

[AbdiWahab252]

[quote="gurey25"]Abdi

you do know that working in a strip club is xaraam.
right?[/quote]

Gurey... Well, I don't make a penny from it. Just serve as the manager for free and in exchange for getting a place to host events

Xoogsade ... All good things come to an end. He should have focused on getting his University education when he had the chance instead of wasting his time.

[xoogSADE14]

AW

people go to school in the hopes of making money after finishing their schooling, he on the other hand already had money up the wazoo so why waste time studying crap

BTW the fukker owns countless villas in kista, in addition to the other properties you knew about in xamar, shalaambood, baraawe etc.

[AbdiWahab252]

Xoogasade... If I had been Marexan, I would have taken advantage of the scholarship opportunities.

Siyaad was a plague on the Marexan. He used them to protect himself and turn them into the face of his regime.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"Cawar... The Americans were biased and were using intelligence gathered by the enemies of the Habar Gidir.

If they had learned that lesson, Iraq would have been easier for them.

Cawar, every foreign intervention upsets the balance of power. It breathes life to the weaker side and helps extend the hostilities instead of letting the conflict end with a decisive victory for the winning side."

We were using multi-source intelligence. Not from one source. From a great many. We had a pretty good picture of what was going on. Better than you are crediting us for.

Iraq is a problem because Arabs are not capable of self-governance unless it's fascist government.

Are you saying that UIC-Aideed should have governed the country? Zinni agrees with you, I do not.

"MAD.... General Aideed was NEVER determined to be found to be behind the June 5th incident. He was cleared off all charges by the UN."

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Now on this, I do have insider information. Walter Clarke was the Charge under Gosende. He was sitting with Osman Atto the morning of 5 June when the shooting broke out. Atto was in the middle of warning Clarke that there would be grave consequences to any inspections of the authorized weapons stoarage sites. Aideed was looking for a causus Belli to sideline the UN. During this conversation, the shooting started (the meeting was at Attos house) around the Lambar Afra area. Clarke asked Atto "Are you threatening us?" Atto smiled and Clarke said "You realize this is an act of war against the UN?" Now, the first inspection was at AWSS 1. This compound was ADJACENT TO the radio station. During this inspection, a crowd formed and started harrassing the Pakistani troops. There was a little bit of shooting by militia men, but nothing real serious. The Pakis decided to move to AWSS 3. This took them northwest, up to 21 October road. There, SNA militiamen, waiting in a deliberate ambush, attacked the Pakistanis, killing 25 of them. There is NO WAY that attack was spontaneous. They was a planned event. And Aideed and the SNA planned it. He was guilty as charged, no doubt about it. Leftist dipshits, who can't see Africa for what it is, bought into and fed this SNA propaganda that it was tied to the radio station, blah, blah, blah. All patent lies.

"Your whole war was based on poor intelligence, a cocky Johnathan Howe, and idealist President."

Wrong. The war was started by the SNA. Period, end of story.

"About the Abdi House. General Aideed and Qeybdiid were opposed to the meeting. They warned the participants not to meet due to the dangers of an airstrike. Never the less, they were shrugged off. At that moment, I could predict about 70% of those attending wanted a settlement with UNOSOM. However, when you lob missiles into a building based on poor intelligence, you only gather support for the opposition."

So Qeybdid was against the meeting, but consented to allow his house to be used for it? And if this was a meeting of peace brokers, who had been warned about the potential for air strikes, why did they not simply come on line and TELL US "We are meeting at this location to discuss possible peaceful ways to end the dilema?" And why was Qeybdid, hardly a man of peace, there at all? None of what you are saying here makes sense. Furthermore, it doesn't matter. There was no way for us to know if this was a meeting for peaceful purposes or not - since the participants did not advertise it.

"Aideed's popularity skyrocketed. He became a "God-Like" figure who could have marched the entire HG nation into the fire."

And he did. But you guys were done by 4 October. Resource depleted and bleeding to death. We quit right when we were at the edge of victory. No political staying power in the Clinton white house.

"This I believe was a poor calculation and only increased the atmosphere of fatalism.

MAD... The State Dept. did an analysis of what went wrong in Somalia several years ago. They conducted interviews with the SNA leadership."

So have I. I have looked at this very closely. Things went south for reasons you have articulated here. The Haber Gedir felt they were the rightful replacements for the Marexan. The UN was in the way of this. The UN was forcing compromise with other political elements in Somalia like USC-Mahdi, the SPM-Gabyow movement, the SSDF, etc. All 12 factions were being given a voice, and Aideed didn't want that. He believed he was the rightful replacement for Siad Barre. He wasn't interested in any kind of compromise that might endanger that. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. The war happened because Aideed and the SNA leadership wanted it to. They wanted the UN cowed, they wanted control of any future Somali government, and in their eyes that was non-negotiable.

[AbdiWahab252]

MAD.... Aideed had won the Somali civil war. The UN was very biased against Aideed from the start. Boutros Ghali was a close freind of Siyaad Barre before he became Sec. General. From the go, the UN tried to reduce the SNA influence from allowing Kismayo to fall into Morgan's hands to the implicit disarmament of the SNA.

George Bush, Sr. had the right idea in UNITAF. It was feed the folks and that was it. No political experiments.

The 12 factions, a vast majority were from the Darood clan. How could 10 factions belonging to the same clan have the same vote/say as say the SNA (consisting of the SPM-Jess, SDM, and USC) ? Of the 10, a vast majority were insignificant players.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"MAD.... Aideed had won the Somali civil war. The UN was very biased against Aideed from the start. Boutros Ghali was a close freind of Siyaad Barre before he became Sec. General. From the go, the UN tried to reduce the SNA influence from allowing Kismayo to fall into Morgan's hands to the implicit disarmament of the SNA."

Look at your first sentance here. It gives away the truth. You believe that Aideed had won, that the SNA deserved top billing. You even say so here.

The UN did not "allow" Kismayu to fall into Morgan's hand. They were tricked just like Morgan was.

"George Bush, Sr. had the right idea in UNITAF. It was feed the folks and that was it. No political experiments."

I agree with this. But that doesn't get Aideed off the hook. I just agree conceptually that, in Africa, as in the Middle East, the political animals behave like animals. We have to recognize that in those places, the animals are running the zoo and we should not try and turn them into humans. It's a waste of time and effort and can only end in tragedy.

"The 12 factions, a vast majority were from the Darood clan. How could 10 factions belonging to the same clan have the same vote/say as say the SNA (consisting of the SPM-Jess, SDM, and USC) ? Of the 10, a vast majority were insignificant players."

I wasn't suggesting that EACH FACTION get a vote, but rather that each PERSON gt a vote. And essentially that's what the UN wanted as well. Aideed didn't want that, because there was no way he was going to win any kind of popular election, and he knew it. So he had to forestall things before they got that far.

So make no mistake here. Aideed and the SNA drew first blood, they did it on purpose and it was a planned event.

[Kamal35]

Mad Mac and Abdiwahab: Being absolutely ignorant here, and after reading Mark Bowden's book, my idea is that the UN and the USA went to Somalia with the best intentions (bringing food against the starvation, being peacemakers among the fights of rival clans and civil war) but, at certain point, when the marines withdrawed and were replaced by the Task Force (Rangers and Delta -if Delta Forces really exist), and in a moment of 'power vacuum', Aidid, in one side, and the US in the other side, tried to have a political intervention in the situation of Somalia and that was when all the things turned really bad. Aidid tried to control the food supply and the USA tried to have some kind of control in politics.


Why Somalis got really angry against the UN forces, when we all know that the UN forces work always to bring peace into a zone?

Am I wrong here? Correct me if so...

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"Mad Mac and Abdiwahab: Being absolutely ignorant here, and after reading Mark Bowden's book, my idea is that the UN and the USA went to Somalia with the best intentions (bringing food against the starvation, being peacemakers among the fights of rival clans and civil war) but, at certain point, when the marines withdrawed and were replaced by the Task Force (Rangers and Delta -if Delta Forces really exist), and in a moment of 'power vacuum', Aidid, in one side, and the US in the other side, tried to have a political intervention in the situation of Somalia and that was when all the things turned really bad. Aidid tried to control the food supply and the USA tried to have some kind of control in politics."

You're sequencing is wrong, so your conclusions are wrong. The Marines, leading UNITAF, did go into Somalia with the limited mandate of opening the lines of communication, delivering food aide and ending the famine.

In MAY of 1993, UNITAF was replaced by UNOSOM II. The forces for UNOSOM II were a mixed bag, and in Mogadischu there was a large Pakistani contingent.

In JUNE of 1993, (5 June specifically) the SNA ambushed and killed 25 Pakistani peacekeepers, beginning a conflict with the UN that would not end until 9 October.

In AUGUST of 1993, TF Ranger deployed to Somalia with the intent of capturing Aideed and key SNA leaders and ending the fight once and for all.

As you can see, the conflict with the SNA started well before TF Ranger arrived.

In this particular conflict, you have a clear cut case of good guys and bad guys. Aideed and the SNA were the bad guys. The UN and the UN were the good guys. It's really not debateable.

"Why Somalis got really angry against the UN forces, when we all know that the UN forces work always to bring peace into a zone?"

Because the UN was forcing compromise and the SNA did not want compromise - as Abdi here has made clear. The SNA wanted victory. They wanted power. They saw the UN as an obstacle to that. And justifiably so. The UN was physically preventing the SNA from using its trump card, it's heavy weapons. That is why the UN was attacked. Peace wasn't going to work for the SNA. They wanted to cow the UN and defeat their enemies - principally USC-Mahdi.

[Kamal35]

I suppose that there's a lapsus here and when you write 2003 you mean 1993.


Here's a interesting link (I suppose you knew that) about the battle by Mark Bowder.

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Yeah, I meant 1993.

[AbdiWahab252]

Mad.... The SNA had won the Somali civil war. It was now a matter of negotiating amongst Somalis to resolve their issues. The UN simply breathed life into the weaker parties, the 12 that cause them to not seriously negotiate and make unreasonable demands.

I would say at the end of 1992 prior to UNITAF, the SNA had controlled large swathes of Southern Somalia and were coming close to negotiate an end of hostilities with the remenants of Siyaad's regime. Once the UNITAF mission was announced, the remenants of Siyaad's regime decided to hold out and hope that the foreign intervention would strengthen their position.

Never the less, Mad why would you oppose the SNA from forming a government of national unity ? What did the SNA do to the USA prior to June 1993 ? Where was the UN/ INt'l community when Siyaad BArre ruled the nation with an ironfist and filled key positions of power with his ethnic kinsmen ?

I empathize with the Shia in Iraq. They too were in the position of the Hawiyes and can not be blamed for taking what they believe is their's after so many years of oppression.

[COSTA]

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Abdi
It's not that cut and dry. The war was still going on when we rolled in. If it were already over, THEN we would have never shown up.

The argument that "We had won, and therefore had the right to call the shots" is not a legitimate argument.

Having said all that, I do believe US foreign policy should not be interventionist except when protecting a vital interest. And when compelled to do that, we should practice total war and utterly wipe out the nations we are fighting.