Knaan, a Somalian born rapper gives his take on Somali pirates. He says that the Somali pirates are really the equivalent of the US Coast Guard (sure, our Coast Guard always captures ships and holds the Captain and crew hostage for ransom..GTHOH). He says that American and French ships dump containers of toxic nuclear waste in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean which will disintergrate and wash to shore within 100 years. Doesn't Knaan know that PSBO is the savior of the whole wide world and our "greenest" POTUS yet (not my words, Van Johnson's at the State of the Black Union).
Because my blog is balanced (wide smirk) I am posting this video. I am sure what Knaan is saying has some merit but seriously Somalia is in a state of anarchy and has been for 20 years...there is no central government there. So how on earth he can claim these pirates are noble in their efforts based on that fact alone perplexes me.
H/T to EVF II
I am inclined to believe as mankind is fallen and depraved that however noble the original intent of these rag tag fisherman who fancied themselves guards of the Somalian coast, they have since devolved into a band of common thieves with no purpose other than personal gain. Knaan isn't entirely accurate in saying the there have been no murders by these pirates although according to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB)they are rare:"IMB statistics indicate that the murder of hostages held by Somali pirates is rare. Attacks in this region are ordinarily economically motivated, in pursuit of a ransom. If the murder report is accurate it would represent a serious escalation in the violence against kidnapped seafarers." (Source)
I think Obama acolytes may find themselves in a bit of a kerfuffle. I mean how can our greenest President ever reconcile beating up the East Africans who are only protecting their coast from ships dumping toxic nuclear waste? Especially our devoted "pro-black" racism chasers, how on earth can they reconcile PSBO getting tough on Africans trying to protect the very cradle of civilization?
Knaan also has an interesting take on the Somalian Terrorists....
My take-- radical young people who serve as the useful idiots of Al-Queda and/or Hamas punch drunk on empty rhetoric of "Hope & Change" only in Arabic.
39 comments:
I think Obama handled the situation well.
The real question is will the Western governments step up an ddeploy a multinational force into Somalia and establish a governement?
Time will tell.
Well, that would be mighty arrogant of them wouldn't it? (Tee-hee, tee-hee) I'm loving this!
@CBW:
Well you know "I" have no problem with arrogance. lol
DJBA~I really did just laugh out loud. I'm praying for you...lol.
CBW:
Tread lightly on this entire subject.
To see a large contingent of Liberal Americans that spent the last several years seeking to have our troops prosecuted, speaking for myself - I am happy that they are happy about the projection of American imperialist power in the world to defend America's interests - without asking the permission of the United Nations.
CBW - when you see Black Nationalists cheering when 3 White members of the establishment shoot 3 Black men with their high power weapons, splitting their heads like melons on a shooting range - you don't interrupt. You instead take a step back and see how else they have CHANGED.
The American military system (and yes this includes Obama) did the right thing here. But this is not the point.
The military has been doing the right thing for a long while. Despite their noted mistakes - the operatives have been tarring and feathering them because at the time - they didn't like their commander in chief.
@CF:
I think you are being a bit unfair and not exactly honest CF. I think even the LEFT supported the troops and supports them even if they don't agree with or support the missions that GW got them into.
One does not have to agree with foreign policy to support the soldiers, airman, sailors and Marines who are out there doing the best they can do.
There is a difference, rather the right wingers who CLAIM they support the troops in these wars (as they vote down increases to veterans benefits and allow for the piss poor conditions at hospitals like Walter Reed) will make that distinction or not.
"The military has been doing the right thing for a long while. Despite their noted mistakes - the operatives have been tarring and feathering them because at the time - they didn't like their commander in chief."
Oh bull$hit.
The torture and coerced confessions at Abu Gharib and Gitmo were illgeal as well as abominations in the eyes of God.
Your attempt to make excuses for them is because you love massa...errr the white rightwing Commander in Chief.
CF
"CBW - when you see Black Nationalists cheering when 3 White members of the establishment shoot 3 Black men with their high power weapons, splitting their heads like melons on a shooting range - you don't interrupt. You instead take a step back and see how else they have CHANGED."
How come patriots like you don't open your mouths when you hear rightwing media figures openly stating that they want this President to "fail"?
Isn't that somewhat treasonous?
I guess treason only comes from Republicans -- BUT WAIT!! Wasn't that a leftist hack by the name of James Carville, who wanted Bush to fail after 9/11.
And most hypocritical libs wanted the Iraq war to fail just to get a spineless Democrat in office!
Stop with the double standards. This is why I put zero stock into the rantings of leftwing sheep, they are quick to point out the idiosyncrasies of the right but fail to acknowledge the foolishness on their own side.
"Wasn't that a leftist hack by the name of James Carville, who wanted Bush to fail after 9/11."
LIES.
Prove it.
Provide the quote.
I bet you don't.
"There is a difference, rather the right wingers who CLAIM they support the troops in these wars (as they vote down increases to veterans benefits and allow for the piss poor conditions at hospitals like Walter Reed) will make that distinction or not."
On top of all the chestbeating rightwingers who avoided military service when it was their time to serve.
You think CF ever served this country in uniform?
Yet you and I both did.
The so-called America hating "libruls".
The hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze.
@Uptown:
"You think CF ever served this country in uniform? Yet you and I both did."
Hmmmm. This might be interesting to look at closer, you and I both served in the Armed Forces of the United States, hell I have 3 honorable discharges, 1 from the Marine Corps Active, 1 from the Active Reserves of the Marine Corps and 1 from the Air Force Reserves, who ELSE here, talking all this crap about "supporting troops" had EVER served?
Looking forward to who answers, I'd like to talk to the convservatives who served.
CBW,
Doesn't it bewilder you how you can find a completely objective story, like saving U.S. citizens from terrorists dressed up like rejected extras on "Pirates of the Caribbean" and yet, the tools on either side of the fence make this a political issue?!
Get you head out of ... well, you know. This is about our countrymen, not about our political men (and women).
The Barackstar did good. I presume if he wasn't dog shopping, they would have sniped those fools one day earlier (KIDDING!)
Man, people are sensitive these days.
Peace, CBW.
HiScrivener
As a recently retired Air Force intelligence (Black female) officer currently working in the same field as a civilian, I have to commend you for keeping your commentary as shallow and narrow as possible. I'm a big fan of objective research, something that seems to be lost on some posting here. It seems that there is a prevailing aversion to understanding how history impacts current events. Please read this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html) as this is an example of relatively responsible journalism and commentary regarding the issue of Somali pirates, their legacy, purpose and roots.
This issue is not about partisanship or about supporting our military (as one would surmise reading the commentary). This is about how to properly address a "scourge" of pirating that has erupted from a failed state that has links to fundamentalist terrorism. And of course, as we learned from both OIF and OEF, military solutions alone will not cut the mustard. Understanding the diplomatic, intelligence, military, economic and law enforcement aspects of this issue COLLECTIVELY may help with getting to the source of the piracy problem in Somalia.
I didn't even listen to K'naan's comments as I have a fairly broad and deep understanding of the facts as they are presented from an historical perspective, analytically speaking of course.
Donna~I have never purported to be a journalist. I am just an individual with an opinion. Considering the fact that your regard any body of work produced over at Huffington post journalism I thank you for your commendation and will consider it a compliment.
Donna you are right at least one commentary nailed Mr. Hari Bull$$hit article (he must of watched Knaan's video)
"...outside of our 3 mile limit we see fishermen from as far away as Japan and Russia in Pacific waters, and from Europe in Atlantic waters. Since the fish don't carry passports, and know to stay in our territorial waters, they are here. This is why international treaties are so important on fishing and fisheries. Unfortunately Africa is a largely unregulated fishing ground because of the chaos on shore. Perhaps you should come off of it.
P.S. Mr Hari's article is complete BS. These folks are criminals, pure and simple, an extension at sea of the lawless chaos of Somalia on shore. Mr. Hari glamorizes them as Robin Hoods of the ocean, but they are nothing more than sea thugs. The pirates of the Johnny Depp brand worked under the aegis of the Queen of England to plunder Spanish ships laden with gold. When they finished serving their useful purpose to the Crown, and began plundering English ships from time to time, the English navy extinguished them with predjudice.
Prior to that, Pirates were no more than the sea thugs of earlier centuries preying upon ships coming up from Africa and Asia. They are largely the reason that England developed such a strong and swift navy: To protect commercial interests at sea."
A few things:
1) I never insinuated or overtly stated that you were a journalist or should adhere to "journalistic" standards. That is quite clear.
2) Mr. Hari IS a journalist for the London Independent. He, like many other journalists, contributes to the Huffington Post.
3) The fact that you were able to sift through the comments to find the one that reinforced your argument is telling, as is your overall summation of the piece as BS.
Keep in mind that the blogger inadvertently made an interesting point: "outside of our 3 mile limit..." Who do you think imposed that limit and how do you think it is enforced? USCG, maybe????
Do some research so that your commentary is less hollow. It's ok to have an opinion, but hollow opinions make a lot of noise and little impact.
Donna~You write:"..." Who do you think imposed that limit and how do you think it is enforced? USCG, maybe????
Absolutely, and I see no problem with that. I chose that commentary because it echoed my sentiment. What is "telling" is that in typical "liberal" fashion if one does not share your opinion you consider it hollow...but I'm fine with that. Thank you for the service you provided to this country.
@Donna & CBW:
Ladies. The fact is, that as long as the horn of Africa is ignored by the international community, and Somalia is allowed to be a government-less / lawless state, the problem of piracy in the Gulf of Aden will continue.
The question comes down to this, are private shipping companies going to have to hire private mercs as security? Will the Navy keep on saving people for the companies that are too cheap to hire private security? Or will Western governments listen to ole' Benjamin Franklin and realize "an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure" and deploy a multinational force to stabilize Somalia and its borders with Kenya and Ethiopia, simple as that. Had we worked with the Islamic Courts Union as opposed to supporting the Ethiopian invasion, we might be in a better position over there. He who brings the schools and hospitals WINS.
Donna, you can't expect us lowly bloggers to have deep analysis, most of us have day jobs and it isn't our fault that mainstream media is missing the mark on the whole issue.
An honestly, I have read some of the commentary from the Huffington Post on the issue of piracy and results has been woefully remiss, and very poorly analyzed. Take Jeremy Scahill's silly and often time sophomoric drivel, that type of lack of any clear objectivity in reporting obviously is not limited to righties like the folks at FOX.
Just saying...
DJBA~It pleases me that but for this one bit " Had we worked with the Islamic Courts Union as opposed to supporting the Ethiopian invasion, we might be in a better position over there. He who brings the schools and hospitals WINS." I am in complete agreement with you. It's not that I don't agree with your take on the Islamic Court V. Ethiopian invasion position I just haven't read much about it or thought too much about it. Contrary to Donna's accusation of "hollowness" I'm not one to take a position unless I have committed to it after much thought.
But I must say her condescension is a bit off putting. Perhaps if she decides to leave any further comments here she will keep that annoying little tendency in check so that we can engage in substantive debate.
@CBW:
Well, The Islamic Courts Union can be heavy handed, BUT, as we work with Muslims that are in my opinion "heavy handed" (and in some cases fighting against us before the get a paycheck by us as in Iraq) we could have worked with the Islamic Courts Union. AT LEAST we could have went in there under the guise of helping them establish order, and undercut them (yes I have no problem with duplicity in military operations) by providing the basic human services on the ground, thereby winning the hearts and minds of the people and thereby undermining the extremist recruiting base, as we helped install a moderate Muslim civilian authority in that country.
Just my 2 cents.
To be clear, the hollowness to which I was referring was the overall lack of facts used to substantiate claims made, quite snarkily at that, regarding President Obama's stance on the environment as they pertain to nuclear waste being dumped off Somalia's shores and the lack of insight used to bemoan the reality of how Somalia became involved in pirating more than a decade ago.
I understand DJBA's point regarding intervention at the diplomatic and strategic level, but I do hold everyone accountable for presenting arguments firmly rooted in truth and perspective (like that of DJBA) as opposed to the hollowness of partisan-laced rhetoric that is regurgitated by the likes of those that choose to turn a blind eye to causal relationships, in this case nuclear waste and piracy. Read, process, analyze: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-23-voa23.cfm.
Now, as for being labeled a liberal. I do not take offense to that since labels tend to be the shield of those that cannot fathom ideas that are not placed in a convenient box of thought (liberal vs. conservative). However, I do take issue with being branded as such only because there is NOTHING in any of my posts that indicates my affiliation, leanings or political views. If you are making an assumption based on my recommendation of an article that happened to be posted on HuffPo, I would consider that unfortunate since people who prefer to analyze various points of view can site varied sources. Debate 101.
That assumption is so banal, made simply because I posted an argument that points to holes in yours.
DJBA has a great point about the Islamic Courts and our (US) failure to act upon an opportunity to address a seed about to be planted as it pertains to piracy. Beware that I make no concessions for or against, but the US, as do many other global powerbrokers, tend to tread lightly in areas that pose significant risk (think Mogadishu) and little geo-political benefit. It's an unfortunate reality that is coming to bear in both major combat theaters. The strides that China has made in continental Africa (Nigeria, DRC, etc, http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1884396,00.html) is a lesson they have learned from the West's inability to see potential, strategically and economically, in Africa's labor, resources and overall capacity to be an international staple in globalization.
By the way, substantive debate often involves substance from both sides, not one-sided rhetoric devoid of historical perspective and facts.
Also, DJ Black Adam, please provide a link to Mr. Scahill's op ed piece in question. The one I just read seems to site some relatively reliable sources, including Mr. Hari's article.
@Donna:
You wrote: "To be clear, the hollowness to which I was referring was the overall lack of facts used to substantiate claims made, quite snarkily at that, regarding President Obama's stance on the environment as they pertain to nuclear waste being dumped off Somalia's shores and the lack of insight used to bemoan the reality of how Somalia became involved in pirating more than a decade ago."
I can understand your point, but I think CBW was just messing with some of the regular Barack supporters here like myself and Uptown (though I could be wrong, however; I expect CBW to quickly and pointedly correct me if I am).
You also wrote: "Beware that I make no concessions for or against, but the US, as do many other global powerbrokers, tend to tread lightly in areas that pose significant risk (think Mogadishu) and little geo-political benefit. It's an unfortunate reality that is coming to bear in both major combat theaters."
I am inclined to agree, this (at least regarding the Horn of Africa) goes back to our Cold War days, and even later during Clinton's time (as well as his colossal failures in Rwanda).
It is unfortunate, we have allowed China to get a bit more of a foothold, and even allow China to control our responses in Darfur and greater Sudan.
I would hope that the current administration understand that the more we ignore Africa now, the higher the price we will end up paying when we are forced to intervene.
Donna~You write:
"the hollowness to which I was referring was the overall lack of facts used to substantiate claims made, quite snarkily at that, regarding President Obama's stance on the environment as they pertain to nuclear waste being dumped off Somalia's shoresI made no claim regarding PSBO's stance on the environment regarding the toxic nuclear waste that the Somali's "claim" is being dumped in their waters. My intentional snarkiness was not aimed at PSBO but Van Johnson and the Obama acolytes who thunderously applauded when Johnson made the asinine comment at the SOBU that "Barack Obama is not only going to save us, he is going to save the whole wide world". Since you are new to this blog I guess you didn't get it but I'm sure my regular readers did as there was much discussion about it on a previous thread. Neither was there a lack of insight because I posted the video of K'naan who engaged in much "bemoaning" regarding how Somalia became involved in pirating more than a decade ago and he discussed dumping to toxic nuclear waste and how the "pirates" are protecting their coast much like the USCG (I even posted Parts 1 & 2) I didn't feel that it was necessary to restate what Knaan stated in the video especially since he said that his countrymen were lawless. I find it hard to reconcile lawlessness and nobility of cause -- but perhaps that's because I'm "banal" enough to identify as Conservative and unlike Liberals it's difficult for me to to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
If I mislabeled you as a liberal then please accept my apology. I assumed that since you had the temerity to link an article from Huffpo, I made the mental leap that you identified with the sentiments expressed there -- liberal(gosh, I guess they are calling themselves Progressives now). I read Huffpo daily -- for kicks and to challenge my own positions but I don't personally reference them and until I find something objective over there I don't think I ever would. But again if I have offended you by calling you Liberal I am sincerely sorry. But I fail to see how you have poke a single hole in my argument -- especially since you weren't even clear on what my argument was.
By the way, I agree that substantive debate often involves substance from both sides so how about you bring yours if and when you visit again.
@Donna:
Verily, I was afraid someone would ask me to try to dig up that article while I'm writing a exegetical paper regarding "1st Corinthians chapter 2" lol.
O.K., here is the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/gen-petraeus-implements-m_b_185581.html
O.K., now to what specifically he wrote at the time that I found sophomoric, inane and silly (obviously this was before the decisive action of the "Marine trained ;-)" Navy sharpshooters)
"In today's episode of "Pirates," the most powerful Navy in the world remains in a stand-off with four pirates in a small boat in the middle of the Indian Ocean. So devastatingly threatening to US national security are these pirates that the Grand Puba of militarism, Gen. David Petraeus is now running the operation to rescue American hostage, Richard Phillips. And to defeat these nasty pirates, Petraeus is turning to his steady friend... a good old fashioned military surge."
This is the type of stuff I'm talking about that supposedly passes as "Objective journalism". "SNARKY" would be an understatement.
1. Who the heck IS Barack supposed to talk to besides Gen. Petraeus about a military action in the Gulf of Aden? AFRICOM? Hardly. Gen "Kip" Ward? Yeah, he's doing such a great job (insert sarcasm).
2. Can this reporter GET OVER The damn surge? Bush is no longer president, new policy now, get over it and let it go
3. What seemed like overkill was a good way to DETER any other pirates with bigger ships and better arms to come and assist their comrades. Scahill obviously doesn't know much about Naval action or the Powell theory of overwhelming force, so he needed to shut the hell up and hope they rescued the merchant ships captain.
Then this b/s he wrote: "On the U.S. side, it looks like this: The warship, the USS Bainbridge, is on the scene and "American Naval reinforcements" are en route with Petraeus saying he had called in "other warships." The guided-missile frigate USS Halyburton (no, this is not a joke) is reportedly among the ships deploying to the area. etal"
Which he frames next to: "On the pirate side, it looks like this: Four armed pirates in a lifeboat that is low on fuel. They have about ten days of food and water. Oh, and they have a satellite telephone."
Talk about an oversimplification, way to inform the American people Mr. Journalist. Sure, they had one guy and there were only four of them, however, these upstart so-called pirates seem to have balls, as reinforcements were actually on the way, various ships of different sizes.
The Naval threat was sufficient to deter anybody from lending assistance to the pirates.
I could go on, but in any case, if THAT is objective journalism, I need to e-mail my resume to the AP.
Just saying...
"I find it hard to reconcile lawlessness and nobility of cause."
Really? I would hope not, especially considering your civil rights to speak freely and not have to sit in a "colored only" section were brought to you courtesy of what others, at the time, would consider lawless and others noble.
What I mean to say by lack of insight is not regarding K'naan's comments and opinions, but more a lack of perspective on the issue of the USCG point I made earlier. So please excuse my meandering argument. The fact that Somalia is lawless and does not have the luxury of effectively policing its own shores weighs heavily on this topic. Failed states should not be given a pass to terrorize and plunder innocent cargo vessels - that is quite clear. However, if the now defunct Somali government felt the UN would be able to plead its case and assist in securing Somalia's shores, then I wonder if this would be the issue it is today.
Substantive and responsible discourse goes beyond relegating differing opinions to liberal and conservative; it takes all arguments into consideration based on their merits, not their proclivity to lean "left" or "right."
DJBA,
By no means did I mean for you to infer that ALL content on the HuffPo is to be considered objective journalism. The HuffPo remains a wildly popular site because it is able to balance op ed pieces with informative pieces, many of which are peppered with sarcasm, humor and other biased antics that are meant to entertain (and hopefully inform but not always the case).
I agree that the article you referenced is over-the-top sarcastic, but I only meant to use Mr. Hari's piece as an example.
Thanks for taking the time to highlight some interesting points. I think Mr. Scahill's piece, as per the comments you highlighted, was written somewhat vacuously...
@Donna:
CBW Wrote: "I find it hard to reconcile lawlessness and nobility of cause."
You replied:"Really? I would hope not, especially considering your civil rights to speak freely and not have to sit in a "colored only" section were brought to you courtesy of what others, at the time, would consider lawless and others noble."
That is a bit of a stretch wouldn't you agree? I guess in both cases (the Civil rights movement individuals and the Somali pirates) you do have people breaking the LAW (of men).
But, I think what CBW (if I may interject for her) is a matter of Morality, not law.
Some laws are immoral, some of our moral standards are illegal in many places.
Now since morality is subjective, we can say that perhaps the Somali pirates subscribe to a different moral standard than CBW does, so in that case CBW can say: "I find it hard to reconcile lack of following the common moral code of Western society and nobility of cause."
In any case, ex mea sententia, the defunct government of Somalia needs to let it go, a new government must be established, China and Russia need to shut up or move out the way, and let either NATO and the African Union OR The UN do what needs to be do
OMG!!! I think CBW has lead me into her snare!! I have defended and / or explained her positions at least TWICE!!!!
I thought my conservative crush was Michelle Malkin or Elizabeth Hassleback! Oh my Lord...
Donna~I think there is a world of difference between civil disobedience and lawlessness -- I never considered Rosa Parks actions lawless but I guess an argument could be made that it's just semantics.
I doubt that we would have this issue today if the UN were involved. But I will say that I believe that some action will be taken very soon as I read today that the US is going to offer assistance to Somalia.
Also you write:"Substantive and responsible discourse goes beyond relegating differing opinions to liberal and conservative; it takes all arguments into consideration based on their merits, not their proclivity to lean "left" or "right."I apologize you are right...my defenses are up as I am so frequently attacked for being a conservative that I guess I have begun to bite first.
I love your blog Conservative Black Woman. I am going to ad it to my blogroll. It is nice to meet other conservative black women.
http://afrocityblog.wordpress.com/
I think I like Donna.
Great posts!
@Uptown:
Oh yeah, I agree, Donna has some very thought provoking post + shes a veteran!
DJBA
Notice how none of our uber patriot rightwing friends are volunteering any information about their service to America.
Maybe they, like Dick Cheney, "had other priorities."
Post a Comment