al_faaris574
Active member
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 6
...
Last edited by a moderator:
No person that is not a Somalian has any right to fight there.
Assalamu Aleykum,
I'm confused at something, I thought Somalia was like nearly 100% Muslim, so the Un backed other side of the goverment in Somalia are Muslims too??
Oh for crying out loud. Is this a serious question?Why would a person not have that right? What if they have a spouse who is Somalian?
If you are not a Somalian, you have no business getting involved.Criminal charges should be layed against any person that does this. If they kill someone, it is murder. It is not their war.What if they have a best friend who is Somalian and in trouble?
No person that is not a Somalian has any right to fight there. If the UN sees this happening then they have a moral obligation to override whatever the wishes of the African Union and Somalian officials want, and step in and deal harshly with foreigners coming to fight.
It is unfortunate that the UN that is also foreigners would have to interfere, but it would be necessary. Foreigners coming to fight based solely on religious beliefs, have no right there.
Oh for crying out loud. Is this a serious question?
If you are not a Somalian, you have no business getting involved.Criminal charges should be layed against any person that does this. If they kill someone, it is murder. It is not their war.
According to your logic bro, should these same criminal charges be layed against the ethiopians who are entering somali territories and the americans who are supporting the ethiopians in this war?
Any person that crosses the border without international support, yes. If the ethiopians are massing troops under the advisement of an international body, to deal with human rights issues brought about by the ICU takeover of the capital, and to avert a regional conflict, then I support this.
If it is done under the lone support of the US (which I doubt - please provide a link), then this is not something I support.
Avert regional conflict or to cause regional conflict? Somalia has been an anarchistic state for coming onto 2 decades. As soon as they start to rebuild there national identity and try to reestablish a semblance of order. Countries such as ethiopia, supported by the western nations invade them and you support them?
Its ok for any nation to go and invade muslim lands and kill innocent muslim civilians but as soon as they start fighting back and asking for help, they are terrorists?
With such views, no wonder we live in such a peaceful world!
When things get worse, and the situation threatens to become more of a regional conflict, yes. You are misleading with the information presented in the way that you have. The situation has not improved since the ICU captured Mogadishu, as you seem to want us to believe.Its ok for any nation to go and invade muslim lands and kill innocent muslim civilians but as soon as they start fighting back and asking for help, they are terrorists?
They? "They" that are asking for help, are not the voice of somalians. They are one side in a civil war that is quickly turning regional.they start fighting back and asking for help
Settle down there fella, no need to shout. When things get worse, and the situation threatens to become more of a regional conflict, yes. You are misleading with the information presented in the way that you have.
The situation has not improved since the ICU captured Mogadishu, as you seem to want us to believe. .
They? "They" that are asking for help, are not the voice of somalians. They are one side in a civil war that is quickly turning regional.
You again are misrepresenting the facts. They are some somalians in a wide conflict. There are many other somalians (who I agree are probably not happy with airstrikes from Ethiopia) who have been fighting against this group.If they are not the voice of somalians, they themselves being somalians, then who is to be the voice of the somalians, .
To a limited extent this may be true. The Ogaden war in the late seventies was at times a battle of all the interfering countries, seemingly not Somalia or Ethiopia. Things never got better following this, and it was no surprise to see northern Somalia declare independance, hence, civil war.If it wasnt for external interferance it wouldnt even be a civil war. With the interferance of the external nations it not only becomes a full blown civil war it can easily escalate into a regional war. So instead of seeing a nation rebuilding, we will instead see a nation in an even worse state.
With this I agree 100%. If we can't agree on the details, at least we can agree on the outcome.The only people who will benefit from such a situation are the people whose business is to create the weapons of death.
With this I agree 100%. If we can't agree on the details, at least we can agree on the outcome.
"Muslims are brothers and help each other. We have a right to call our brothers and sisters to help us in this holy war,"
The closest fighters are in Sudan but are to busy killing blacks in Darfur. They are the closest but I doubt they are available currently because they are just so busy.
Why has Somalia not condemned them? But condemns watching FIFA matches.
Sudan in itself is at civil war; its not about religion or race, its about culture. Both sides in the conflict are Black and both sides have significant Muslim populations. Its about oil and cultural dominance (Nubian vs. Arab).
And secondly, Somali militia asked for the help of foreign fighters, including Sudanese ones, and did not make exclusions as to who can and can't help; although they'd have to be Muslim.
And Sudanese militia aren't the closest. Do not forget that Eritrea, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, and Ethiopia itself can provide militia to the Islamic Courts; as Ethiopia is one-half Christian and dominated by the powerful Orthodox sect.
But I do agree, the Sudan does have the most disposable number of militia at hand.
i am sure the sudanese arab militias would be willing to fight the ethiopians. i mean, they are willing to kill majority muslims who have the same ethnic backrounds as the ethiopians, and the ethiopians are majority christian.
Both sides fighting in Sudan's conflict are Muslim or have significant Muslim populations
and share closer ethnic ties than with Ethiopians.
Ethiopians share a close blood link with Somalis, whereas Sudanese people are closer to Maurs, Chadians, and Berbers.
Sudan's 'Arab' militia is not condoned by the Somali Islamic Courts
and it would also prove extremely tough because they'd have to CROSS Ethiopia
And just about every single foreign fighter is from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and the gulf Arabian peninsula,
all whom come through Kismayo's Aden Sea coastline, ruling it impossible for Sudanese militia to enter Somalia.
Sudan in itself is at civil war; its not about religion or race, its about culture. Both sides in the conflict are Black and both sides have significant Muslim populations. Its about oil and cultural dominance (Nubian vs. Arab).
And secondly, Somali militia asked for the help of foreign fighters, including Sudanese ones, and did not make exclusions as to who can and can't help; although they'd have to be Muslim.
And Sudanese militia aren't the closest. Do not forget that Eritrea, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, and Ethiopia itself can provide militia to the Islamic Courts; as Ethiopia is one-half Christian and dominated by the powerful Orthodox sect.
But I do agree, the Sudan does have the most disposable number of militia at hand.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.