Support NeoGAF

[COCKLES]

Looks like Somalia is going from the Bronze age to the Stone age. Is Islam such a fragile religion that the sight of people playing a game they love threatens it so much?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/5150118.stm

Two people are reported dead after Islamist gunmen in central Somalia opened fire in a cinema where people were watching a banned World Cup match.
The cinema owner and a young girl were reportedly killed by militia loyal to the Union of Islamic Courts, who seized control of parts of Somalia last month.

The courts have introduced Sharia law in areas under their authority, including a World Cup broadcast ban.

Somalia has had no effective central government since 1992.

According to reports on a Somali news network, gunmen arrived to close down the cinema in the town of Dhuusa Marreeb in central Galgadud district, where a crowd had gathered to watch the Germany-Italy World Cup semi-final.



Some of the football fans began to protest and according to reports, the gunmen fired in the air in an attempt to disperse them.

When this failed, shots were fired at the demonstrators and two people were killed.

The Islamic courts have introduced Sharia in areas under their authority.

This has included in some parts a ban on cinemas and on broadcasts of World Cup games because they have carried advertisements for alcohol.

The courts have taken control of large parts of Somalia, introducing a level of civil administration and justice which the country has not seen for the past 15 years.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Seriously, at this point, I (and I'm sure many others) could really give a shit about Islam.

**** it, seriously.

If they want to kill people for stupid ass reasons, so be it. Let's put it this way, it doesn't keep me up at night.

 

[ToxicAdam]

++ Breaking News ++

Crazy shit happens in unstable part of the world. Now here's pictures.

 

[Pellham]

This is disgusting. Yet another reason for there to be a worldwide ban on sharia.

 

[AlanHemberger]

We do have a stickied world cup thread. this should have been posted in there. ugh.

Spoiler

j/k

 

[xabre]

This is disgusting. Yet another reason for there to be a worldwide ban on sharia.

And who's going to enforce that ban?

Your dad?

 

[scorcho]

it's a situation that the Bush Administration deserves a heaping of blame for -

The rise to power of an Islamic militia in Somalia represents a spectacular failure of American foreign policy. Since the last effective administration in Somalia crumbled in 1991, there have been concerted efforts to bring peace to the troubled Horn of Africa nation.

Those efforts appeared to come close to fruition with the election, in Nairobi two years ago, of an interim Government. But President Abdullahi Yusuf's government has been weak and under-funded.

Without the promised international support, particularly with regard to arming a new security force, it has been unable to meet the key characteristic of an effective government - monopoly of legitimate use of force within its borders.

Somalia has, therefore, fallen under the control of panoply of ragtag militias.

Enter the United States. According to multiple sources, including the mainstream American national press and the respected International Crisis Group (ICG), the US has been channelling funds to secular warlords in Mogadishu since January.

The New York Times and other news sources, including Newsweek and Reuters, have highlighted dissent within the US embassy in Nairobi over US policy on Somalia. And, in May, a report of the panel of experts monitoring the 1992 UN arms embargo accused an unnamed state of channelling clandestine "financial support" to a section of warlords. President Yusuf himself has been more blunt, urging the Americans to cease support for the warlords operating under the so-called Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism.

This apparent US policy of supporting a section of warlords has been carried out covertly and in brazen defiance of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad) framework.

It is perfectly understandable for the US to seek all ways to ensure the security of its own citizens by pursuing suspected terrorists. Few people have felt the brunt of instability in Somalia more profoundly than Kenyans. All evidence suggests the terrorists who perpetrated attacks in Kenya in 1998 and 2002 were based in Somalia.

The point, however, is that recent history, most notably the still unravelling war in Iraq, has demonstrated the dangers of unilateralism. But the application of the same gung-ho, poorly planned and single-minded adventurism in Somalia this year by the Bush Administration demonstrates the Americans have learnt little from Iraq.

Funding shadowy groups in Somalia, without taking into account the highly nuanced politics of clan and religion in that country, appears to have boomeranged badly. It resulted in a daring and bloody military campaign, which culminated in the installation of Islamists in Mogadishu. Somalis are already feeling the impact of their installation, as demonstrated by the dramatic pictures of the summary execution of a man in that country on Monday.

Now that we have arrived at this pass, it is important for all parties to exercise restraint. The Islamic militia must abandon plans to extend their offensive to Johwar, as that may be read as provocation by Ethiopia and could trigger a regional war.

Igad and the African Union should step up mediation efforts between the Islamists and the interim government to end the impasse.

And, if only to re-establish its credentials as a serious partner in the quest for peace, the US must urgently abandon mindless unilateralism and join the rest of the world in the search for peace.

 

[rubso]

1- Somaila does have Cinema?!!! BBC must be joking
2- in Africa and Middle East Countries, you can't watch World Cup until you pay for a cable subscription from a Saudi-Based Cable Television company.
now where did the somalians got the world cup matches, and how did they built a cinema while there is no cinemas in that poor country!!??!
there must be something wrong

 

[Pellham]

And who's going to enforce that ban?

Your dad?

Why do you care so much? Are you a supporter of the conservative islam sect that forbids women from showing their faces/body/hair and forbids things like World Cup matches? Sounds like you are since you made such a "witty" remark.

I just hope in the next 50 years, the world in general will become more civilized and we will see a complete removal of sharia from cultures. Sharia is the modern dark age and it's hurting a lot of countries around the world. And **** this prime directive bullshit, i'm not saying that we should try to interfere and speed things up, I am just hoping people will eventually realize how bullshit it is and stop supporting it over time. If not, eventually some high power WILL care and WILL take matters into their own hands.

 

[sharukins]

Its not Islamic, its cultural, stop being anti-muslim

 

[Zaptruder]

This is disgusting. Yet another reason for there to be a worldwide ban on sharia.

How about we go one better and get a world wide ban on ignorance?

 

[scorcho]

1- Somaila does have Cinema?!!! BBC must be joking
2- in Africa and Middle East Countries, you can't watch World Cup until you pay for a cable subscription from a Saudi-Based Cable Television company.
now where did the somalians got the world cup matches, and how did they built a cinema while there is no cinemas in that poor country!!??!
there must be something wrong

i say this with all love and sincerity - you're an idiot.

 

[sharukins]

This is disgusting. Yet another reason for there to be a worldwide ban on sharia.

If sharia is to blame for this killing, why is saudi arabia, which is the most ultra conservative muslim country, have a football team in the world cup?


its not religious, its cultural.

 

[GreekWolf]

Its not Islamic, its cultural

That's highly debatable.

 

[ToxicAdam]

it's a situation that the Bush Administration deserves a heaping of blame for -

Yea ... ok.....

 

[-Damien-]

it's a situation that the Bush Administration deserves a heaping of blame for -

why? is the Bush that pulled the triggers? As much as I hate Bush I hate this attitude more. Excuses like these are basically what drives those Islamists in this world. Enough of the apologist attitude, those bastards would get their weapons either way, whether it's from the U.S or from somewhere else. It's their beliefs and attitude are the real problems, stop chanelling blames to other parties.

 

[rubso]

i say this with all love and sincerity - you're an idiot.

i live in the middle east and i know what i'm talking about, genius.
btw, check this out.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/16/18280941.php

 

[xabre]

Why do you care so much?

Try to grasp the entirety of your argument for one second. You say there should be a ban on sharia law...I logically ask who should enforce it. This is a reasonable question to ask, because if a law is not enforceable it is not a law. Yet you brush this point aside as irrelevant; pretty silly thing to do because you've just defeated your own argument.

That's highly debatable.

Oh highly debatable is it? Are we from the neo-con propaganda school of revisionist history that suggests that Islamic culture is the only ideology throughout history to oppress people under its jurisdiction?

 

[sharukins]

That's highly debatable.

debate it. and use the most strict islamic countries saudi arabia and iran in that debate too.

 

[scorcho]

why? is the Bush that pulled the triggers? As much as I hate Bush I hate this attitude more. Excuses like these are basically what drives those Islamists in this world. Enough of the apologist attitude, those bastards would get their weapons either way, whether it's from the U.S or from somewhere else. It's their beliefs and attitude are the real problems, stop chanelling blames to other parties.

CIA operatives in the region (which i assume had either backing or the implied support of the Bush Administration) funded ~100k in weapons for secular warloards/tribes a month in an attempt to funnel out Al Quaeda operatives in the country. this destabilized the region even further and led to a massive push back from a consortium of fundamentalist groups that currently has them in control of Mogadishu and a haphazard 'truce' with the current government.

did this government create the situation? no - i didn't mean to imply that. but our short-sighted policy in the region has left it much worse than before.

A covert effort by the Central Intelligence Agency to finance Somali warlords has drawn sharp criticism from American government officials who say the campaign has thwarted counterterrorism efforts inside Somalia and empowered the same Islamic groups it was intended to marginalize.

The criticism was expressed privately by United States government officials with direct knowledge of the debate. And the comments flared even before the apparent victory this week by Islamist militias in the country dealt a sharp setback to American policy in the region and broke the warlords' hold on the capital, Mogadishu.

The officials said the CIA effort, run from the agency's station in Nairobi, Kenya, had channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year to secular warlords inside Somalia with the aim, among other things, of capturing or killing a handful of suspected members of Al Qaeda believed to be hiding there.

Officials say the decision to use warlords as proxies was born in part from fears of committing large numbers of American personnel to counterterrorism efforts in Somalia, a country that the United States hastily left in 1994 after attempts to capture the warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid and his aides ended in disaster and the death of 18 American troops.

The American effort of the last year has occasionally included trips to Somalia by Nairobi-based CIA case officers, who landed on warlord-controlled airstrips in Mogadishu with large amounts of money for distribution to Somali militias, according to American officials involved in Africa policy making and to outside experts.

Among those who have criticized the CIA operation as short-sighted have been senior Foreign Service officers at the United States Embassy in Nairobi. Earlier this year, Leslie Rowe, the embassy's second-ranking official, signed off on a cable back to State Department headquarters that detailed grave concerns throughout the region about American efforts in Somalia, according to several people with knowledge of the report.

Around that time, the State Department's political officer for Somalia, Michael Zorick, who had been based in Nairobi, was reassigned to Chad after he sent a cable to Washington criticizing Washington's policy of paying Somali warlords.

One American government official who traveled to Nairobi this year said officials from various government agencies working in Somalia had expressed concern that American activities in the country were not being carried out in the context of a broader policy.

"They were fully aware that they were doing so without any strategic framework," the official said. "And they realized that there might be negative implications to what they are doing."

Indeed, some of the experts point to the American effort to finance the warlords as one of the factors that led to the resurgence of Islamic militias in the country. They argue that American support for secular warlords, who joined together under the banner of the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism, may have helped to unnerve the Islamic militias and prompted them to launch pre-emptive strikes. The Islamic militias have been routing the warlords, and on Monday they claimed to have taken control of most of the Somali capital.

"This has blown up in our face, frankly," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit research organization with extensive field experience in Somalia.

"We've strengthened the hand of the people whose presence we were worried most about," said Mr. Prendergast, who worked on Africa policy at the National Security Council and State Department during the Clinton administration.

 

[buckfutter]

That's highly debatable.

Not really, no. Lots of religions have been used to the same ends. Certain cultures have relied upon religion (as well as other systems) as moral justification for social "change". If it was a problem with Islam itself then how does that explain all the devout muslims that, you know, aren't extremists?

 

[-Damien-]

The officials said the CIA effort, run from the agency's station in Nairobi, Kenya, had channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year to secular warlords inside Somalia with the aim, among other things, of capturing or killing a handful of suspected members of Al Qaeda believed to be hiding there.

Look, most of our actions have both negative or positive consequences directly or indirectly.

- I could buy an expensive shirt not knowing the shirt is actually made in some sweat shop in 3rd world country. In a way I helped the sweat shop black markets.

- I could give my money to some charitable foundation to help some natural disaster victims somewhere else, not knowing that the charity management pocket most of my money.

My point is that whatever you do have risks and consequences, but the biggest risk of all is not taking one. How could you really predict the future? In this case the CIA took risks that by financing the warlords, they might get some information on their nemesis. Did they identify the risks and consequences? I am sure they did, and I guess that's the risks they were willing to take.

But to link the killing of some innocents watching soccer events and to the U.S goverment is really stupid and narrow minded

 

[scorcho]

My point is that whatever you do have risks and consequences, but the biggest risk of all is not taking one. How could you really predict the future? In this case the CIA took risks that by financing the warlords, they might get some information on their nemesis. Did they identify the risks and consequences? I am sure they did, and I guess that's the risks they were willing to take.

But to link the killing of some innocents watching soccer events and to the U.S goverment is really stupid and narrow minded

there are risks in most every single policy action, but this specific decision was incredibly narrow-minded, which is pointed out by the layers of dissent from US gov't officials stationed in the region (some of whom were then summarily relocated to other posts). counterinsurgency was the only aim of the CIA operatives, which is obvious because you don't increase security in a region by funding non-government groups and destabilizing whatever sectarian/cultural/religious balance existed there.

it's extremely ignorant to argue that our foreign policy should not be tailored to have as little blow back as possible, and it's decisions like this which increase the disdain many people have for our overseas actions.

i don't blame our government for these deaths, but i blame it for the events which have emboldened these Islamic warlords to take up arms over the last few months.

 

[-Damien-]

i don't blame our government for these deaths, but i blame it for the events which have emboldened these Islamic warlords to take up arms over the last few months.

what?!? so these islamic warlords were benign and harmless before the last few months, give me a ****ing break

 

[scorcho]

what?!? so these islamic warlords were benign and harmless before the last few months, give me a ****ing break

yep, massive policy **** ups are fun for the whole family!

 

[Chairman Yang]

So Islam doesn't affect culture? And neither does Sharia? Come on now.

For what it's worth, I think Sharia is probably good for Somalia in the short term, just like Communism was probably good for Russia for a while. The problems start once a country has enough wealth to care about things like freedom, education, and human decency.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Seriously, at this point, I (and I'm sure many others) could really give a shit about Islam.

**** it, seriously.

If they want to kill people for stupid ass reasons, so be it. Let's put it this way, it doesn't keep me up at night.

Yeah, because the above says something about Islam? Or does it say something about those particular nutjobs in that society and their phychotically twisted view of whats right and wrong? I thought you were a bit more mature than that.

There is absolutely NOTHING in Islam thta comes even close to prohibiting a game like soccer, or any sport for that matter.

 

[Zaptruder]

what?!? so these islamic warlords were benign and harmless before the last few months, give me a ****ing break

No, but you don't go stirring a bees nest.

There is absolutely NOTHING in Islam thta comes even close to prohibiting a game like soccer, or any sport for that matter.

If you read the article; it was because the world cup had advertising for alcoholic products that it was banned, not because they hate soccer.

 

[robertsan21]

just another Proof that anyone who belives in ISLAM is an idiot

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Seriously, at this point, I (and I'm sure many others) could really give a shit about Islam.

Uh, I'm sure people whose families and friends are getting murdered "in the name of Islam" care about what's going on with it... like a lot.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Yeah, because the above says something about Islam? Or does it say something about those particular nutjobs in that society and their phychotically twisted view of whats right and wrong? I thought you were a bit more mature than that.

When a certain philosophy or religion has a higher number of nutjobs than normal, I'd say there's a problem.

 

[sharukins]

just another Proof that anyone who belives in ISLAM is an idiot

Ban much?

 

[Chairman Yang]

Ban much?

And yet if he said something like "anyone who believes in Communism is an idiot", or "anyone who believes in Scientology is an idiot", his statement wouldn't be construed as particularly offensive. I wonder why Islam (and Christianity, and any religion) get special treatment?

 

[sharukins]

I suggest everyone who is implicating islam in this should read this book available online for free, its called "Murder in the name of Allah" http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/index.html

 

[ge-man]

I'm an agnostic and even I can see that there is too much ignorance in this thread about the actually effect that religion has in such actions.

We're never going to stop this violence if we refuse consider the political and cultural factors that are involved.

 

[Chairman Yang]

We're never going to stop this violence if we refuse consider the political and cultural factors that are involved.

I agree. At the same time, we shouldn't deliberately exclude Islam from the analysis simply because it's politically correct to do so. Islam is not the only factor, but it is a factor.

 

[scorcho]

We're never going to stop this violence if we refuse consider the political and cultural factors that are involved.

ding ding ding. and we're likely to repeat our mistakes ad nauseum to boot.

 

[sharukins]

I agree. At the same time, we shouldn't deliberately exclude Islam from the analysis simply because it's politically correct to do so. Islam is not the only factor, but it is a factor.

it's only a factor if you dont know the full story

 

[robertsan21]

Ban much?

oh yeah? for what?

well I just think that Islam is ****ed up, they kill people for stupid reasons.

 

[GreekWolf]

Oh highly debatable is it? Are we from the neo-con propaganda school of revisionist history that suggests that Islamic culture is the only ideology throughout history to oppress people under its jurisdiction?

Yes, it's highly debatable. Neo-con revisionist history? How about traditional ( i.e. classic ) history, still taught today at the University of Athens.

Islam ( like many religions ) was founded on the principles of violence and bloodshed. If Muhammed had lived long enough to ensure that the Hijrah was a positive transformation, instead a chain reaction leading to mass slaughter, then the end result might have been radically different. But whatever. When Umar was named Caliph, his primary goal was to completely wipe out the Greeks, who had absolutely zero interest in Arabic territories and posed no threat, whatsoever, to the Islamic world. So why did Umar insist on destroying everything in his path? Why did the Arab armies feel the need to spread through Europe like a plague, raping women and children and oppressing the Byzantine empire at every available opportunity? Greed and fanaticism.

And little has changed today, except that those in power at least have the common sense to be content with what they have instead of continuing to push their agenda. Sorry if that offends you. I have no beef with the principles taught in the Quran, but I do have a serious problem with radical extremists who behave as if they came straight out of a comic book.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

And yet if he said something like "anyone who believes in Communism is an idiot", or "anyone who believes in Scientology is an idiot", his statement wouldn't be construed as particularly offensive. I wonder why Islam (and Christianity, and any religion) get special treatment?

yea, I agree. all idiots should be noted.

 

[Chairman Yang]

it's only a factor if you dont know the full story

Interesting. So, the relatively high frequency of suicide bombing or terrorism among people who claim to follow Islam is based on cultural or economic factors? This, despite the fact that these followers came from any number of varied cultures and many different socioeconomic backgrounds?

If you're going to absolve Islam of all responsibility and claim that every single bad thing that happens is a result of "other" factors, you're going to have a hell of a time backing that up.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Why is soccer the only sport in which fans will try to kill one another?

 

[sharukins]

Yes, it's highly debatable. Neo-con revisionist history? How about traditional ( i.e. classic ) history, still taught today at the University of Athens.

Islam ( like many religions ) was founded on the principles of violence and bloodshed. If Muhammed had lived long enough to ensure that the Hijrah was a positive transformation, instead a chain reaction leading to mass slaughter, then the end result might have been radically different. But whatever. When Umar was named Caliph, his primary goal was to completely wipe out the Greeks, who had absolutely zero interest in Arabic territories and posed no threat, whatsoever, to the Islamic world. So why did Umar insist on destroying everything in his path? Why did the Arab armies feel the need to spread through Europe like a plague, raping women and children and oppressing the Byzantine empire at every available opportunity? Greed and fanaticism.

And little has changed today, except that those in power at least have the common sense to be content with what they have instead of continuing to push their agenda. Sorry if that offends you. I have no beef with the principles taught in the Quran, but I do have a serious problem with radical extremists who behave as if they came straight out of a comic book.

do you even know anything about Islam that you can say it was founded on principles of voilence and bloodshed? I am muslim, I have read the Quran and Islamic history, you dont know anything what you're talking about. read the book linked above

 

[rubso]

I suggest everyone who is implicating islam in this should read this book available online for free, its called "Murder in the name of Allah" http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/index.html

are you ahmadi or qadyani ?

 

[sharukins]

are you ahmadi or qadyani ?

yes, we are kicked out of Muslim Ummah but we are the only ones who have actually defended Islam rightfully and we still do. In the end they will have to accept us and our views (which they are already accepting)

 

[saelz8]

oppressing the Byzantine empire at every available opportunity

:lol

 

[Zaptruder]

just another Proof that anyone who belives in ISLAM is an idiot

Random captilizations and sweeping generalizations and assertions only prove that you're the mentally challenged one here.

Probably as bad as the islamic fanatics that you seem to hate.

 

[Chairman Yang]

yes, we are kicked out of Muslim Ummah but we are the only ones who have actually defended Islam rightfully and we still do. In the end they will have to accept us and our views (which they are already accepting)

Actually, the mainstream Muslim community is far from accepting of the Ahmadiyyas.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330282005

But some people say the violence would exist regardless, because it's based on non-religious factors. I'm not convinced.

 

[rubso]

yes, we are kicked out of Muslim Ummah but we are the only ones who have actually defended Islam rightfully and we still do. In the end they will have to accept us and our views (which they are already accepting)

well, i'm a sunni and you have many wrong things in your point of view, one of these wrong things is that you believe merza golam ahmad qadyani is the christ or mahdi

and that is totally wrong..