11/15/2018
Today from Hiiraan Online:  _
Ads By Google
The Questionable Moral Arbiters

by Mohamed Jibrell
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Ads By Google
It appears that hypocrisy is endemic in the Somali cyber media, but worse there are those self appointed moral arbiters defending terrorism and other forces of darkness in the Somali cyber space.   These defenders see themselves as moral arbiters of the Universe. At one level justifying violence for themselves and denying it - the right of defense - to the Transitional Federal Government. 

 

These self-appointed moral arbiters of the Universe wish a horrible end for the TFG and oppose any hope of stability in Somalia. For many of these cyber TFG Bashers hypocrisy is not considered a perennial crime. If all the cyber hypocrites were banned, there will be no one left to write for the cyber Somali news groups.  

 

Many of us would like to believe that there are no foreign terrorist elements in Mogadishu, but the facts do not support this wishful thinking.   To the contrary the string of execution-style killings and suicide car bombings that have been taking place recently are alien to Somali culture and demonstrate the fingerprints of foreign jihadists. The TFG cyber opponents manifest a deliberate attempt at obfuscation of their intentions; they betray a sense of subterfuge and confusion about their goals.  Others, those duped into the jihadist war, appear to be clueless about their distressing activities. In effect they are wittingly or unwittingly supporting Al-Qaeda

Suicide car bombings & execution-style killings - alien to Somali culture (AP Photo / Mohamed Abdulle Hassan Siidi)

The International Community has worked very hard for Somalis to reconcile and establish a government. They had no obligation to invest all their resources and good will to establish Somali Government, but they did it anyway out off the goodness of their hearts and because of their self-interest. Every country has it own national interest and as the idiom goes “foreign policy is NOT based on permanent friends BUT rather on Interests. One might ask: “what self interests do Africans, Europeans, Arabs and Asians have in Somalia that is not apparent to Somalis, themselves?” The answer is simple: the International community does not want chaos in the Horn Africa. How about Ethiopia: What is her self-interest?  It is hard to believe with all the wars and turmoil that happened between Somalia and Ethiopia, but it is plausible that Ethiopia and other neighboring governments’ self-interest in Africa is nothing more than to have a peaceful and stable Somalia.   It is in this context and rationale that the UN and African Union countries support the transitional government - to bring us back to the community of nations.   So for fourteen times the International Community, with Ethiopia, Kenya and the other IGAD countries at their forefront brought Somalis together to establish a negotiated government.

The cyber apologists for terrorism have created an unbelievable mythology around the Union of Islamic Courts. They tirelessly repeat mantras about the Islamic Courts: the Islamic Court governed peacefully and well, were on the right track, and have become victims of America’s war on terror.  On the contrary, the Islamic Courts did not govern; they had no administration at all.  Their claim to peace was bogus too.  The Islamic courts declared Jihad on all ‘infidels’ and set a “swarm” of child –soldiers to fight in Kismayu and Baidoa. They even predicted that it would be cakewalk to overthrow the “weak” Government in Baidoa and the infidel government in Addis Ababa.

 

What is more striking about the cyber TFG bashers is how nearly all ignore the reality of the courts introducing an autocratic rule of terror based on a foreign Islamic Salafi ideology compounded by criminal acts of suicide bombs, roadside explosions, and dragging of dead bodies in the streets of Mogadishu.  Those evil deeds never cross the TFG bashers’ editorial desks. For the last 17 years they have changed colors many times: clan rights supporters; nationalists; and religious purists defending the faithful, among others.  What make their arguments inane are the multiple portraits they provide as critics adrift from moral bearings.


Mohamed Jibrell
E-mail:
[email protected]



advertisements
 
Click here