2
   

Somalia: You Are Being Lied to About Pirates

 
 
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 12:24 am
Somalia: You Are Being Lied to About Pirates

by Johann Hari

Global Research, April 15, 2009
The Independent

Who imagined that in 2009, the world's governments would be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this, the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more than two dozen nations, from the US to China - is sailing into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there is an untold scandal. The people our governments are labeling as "one of the great menace of our times" have an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on their side.

Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the "golden age of piracy" - from 1650 to 1730 - the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that lingers today was created by the British government in a great propaganda-heave. Many ordinary people believed it was false: pirates were often rescued from the gallows by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we can't? In his book Villains of All nations, the historian Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out. If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked from the docks of London's East End, young and hungry - you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the Cat O' Nine Tails. If you slacked consistently, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.

Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains - and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains, and made all their decisions collectively. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the eighteenth century." They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed "quite clearly - and subversively - that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.

The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young British man called William Scott - should echo into this new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina, he said: "What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live." In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa - collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury - you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention." (empasis added)

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation - and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's unprotected seas. The local fishermen have suddenly lost their livelihoods, and they are starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."

This is the context in which the men we are calling "pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax' on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia - and it's not hard to see why. In a surreal telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas." William Scott would understand those words.

No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates" have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America's founding fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?

Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn't act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world's oil supply, we begin to shriek about "evil." If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia's criminals.

The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13193
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,192 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 05:43 am
When they hold people for ransom, as opposed to demanding justice, it is hard to give them the benefit of a doubt.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 10:38 am
The motivation of those who bankroll the operations of these pirates--and make no doubt that they are pirates, by any definition, and certainly by the classic definition--is pure greed. There is no concept of justice which authorizes the activities of pirates, there is no concept of justice which says that because the Somalis have failed to build a working state they are entitled to take it out of the hide of the rest of the world. This is yet another example of S & C's complete inability to see past his prejudices to the reality of the situation.
Pamela Rosa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 06:31 am
@Setanta,
Quote:

There is no concept of justice which authorizes the activities of pirates, there is no concept of justice which says that because the Somalis have failed to build a working state they are entitled to take it out of the hide of the rest of the world.


Sharia law
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 06:40 am
@Pamela Rosa,
Pamela Rosa wrote:

Quote:

There is no concept of justice which authorizes the activities of pirates, there is no concept of justice which says that because the Somalis have failed to build a working state they are entitled to take it out of the hide of the rest of the world.


Sharia law


prove it
Pamela Rosa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 11:28 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
Jurist are agreed that ghanima means property taken from the enemy by force


p.48
The Islamic Law of Nations By Shaybānī Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan, Majid Khadduri

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=89spaKByt_MC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Majid+Khadduri+Ghanima&source=bl&ots=aFqKaSPIBe&sig=h7G8MmLNHcWNL3_7aNSNV6ftGAM&hl=en&ei=2OT1ScWbJIGUjAfupPW_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA48,M1



Quote:
During the recent Somali pirate standoff with U.S. forces, when American sea captain Richard Phillips was being held hostage, Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer confidently concluded that "the good news is that these [pirates] are not jihadists. If it's a jihadist holding a hostage, there is going to be a lot of death. These guys are interested not in martyrdom but in money."

In fact, the only good news is that Richard Phillips has been rescued. The bad news is that what appears to have been a bunch of lawless, plunder-seeking Somalis "yo-hoing" on the high seas may well in fact be related to the jihad " as attested to by both Islamic history and doctrine.

Indeed, the first jihad a newborn U.S. encountered was of a pirate nature: the Barbary Wars off the coast of North Africa (beginning 1801, exactly 200 years before September 11, 2001). Writing in the Middle East Quarterly a year before Somali piracy made headlines, U.S. sea captain Melvin E. Lee " who knows in theory what Captain Phillips may have learned in practice " writes:

What Americans and Europeans saw as piracy, Barbary leaders justified as legitimate jihad. [President Thomas] Jefferson related a conversation he had in Paris with Ambassador Abdrahaman of Tripoli, who told him that all Christians are sinners in the context of the Koran and that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."

Lee goes on to reflect: "One of the greatest challenges facing strategic leaders today is objectively examining the centuries-old roots of Islamic jihadism and developing a strategy that will lead to a lasting solution to the Western conflict with it. … This inability to grasp the root of Islamic jihadism is the result of a moral relativism prominent in modern Western liberal thought."

This last point is especially poignant. While U.S. leadership is capable of mouthing history, so too is it in the habit of distorting the past through such "moral relativism." Hillary Clinton, for example, in a press conference about the Somali kidnapping crisis, put an interesting spin on the Barbary Wars when she said " in between fits of hysterical and inexplicable laughter " that America and Morocco worked "together to end piracy off the coast of Morocco all those years ago, and, uh, we're going to work together to end, uh, this kind of, uh, criminal activity anywhere on the high seas."

Historical anecdotes aside, it need be acknowledged that, doctrinally speaking, the jihad has various manifestations; it is not limited to bearded, "Allah Akbar"-screaming mujahidin fighting in Afghanistan and lurking in caves. Along with jihad al-lissan and jihad al-qalam (jihad of the tongue and pen, respectively, i.e., propaganda jihad), one of the most important forms of jihad is known as jihad al-mal " or "money jihad."

The money jihad is fulfilled whenever a Muslim financially supports the more familiar violent jihad. The Koran itself declares: "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if you but knew" (9:41).

Several other verses (see 9:20, 9:60, 49:15, and 61:10-11) make the same assertion and, more importantly, in the same order: striving with one's wealth almost always precedes striving with one's life, thereby prioritizing the former over the latter, at least according to a number of jurists and mufasirin.

Muhammad himself, according to a canonical hadith (collected by al-Tirmidhi), said: "He who equips a raider [i.e., mujahid] so he can wage jihad in Allah's path … is himself a raider [i.e., achieves the same status of mujahid]."

Moreover, the seafaring jihadist " or, in Western parlance, the "pirate" " is forgiven all sins upon setting foot in a boat to wage war upon infidels; he receives double the reward of his terrestrial counterpart " which is saying much considering the martyred mujahid is, of all Muslims, guaranteed the highest celestial rewards (see Majid Khadduri's magisterial War and Peace in the Law of Islam, p. 113).

There's more. Islamic law (Sharia), what mainland Somali Islamists have been successfully waging a jihad to implement, has much to say about kidnapping, ransom demands, and slavery. U.S. leadership should keep this in mind if and when they consider the plight of the other 200 hostages in Somalia. According to Sharia, there are only four ways to deal with infidel hostages: 1) execution, 2) enslavement, 3) exchange for Muslim prisoners, or 4) exchange for ransom. Those hostages who have not been executed are therefore currently living as slaves to their Somali overlords.

This is clearly the case of Canadian journalist Amanda Lindhout, for whom the Somalis are demanding $2.5 million in ransom. Eight months ago, she was abducted, raped, and impregnated by Somali Islamists and is currently "owned" by them " or, in the words of the Koran (e.g., 4:3), she is ma malakat aymankum, i.e., human "property" conquered and possessed by jihadi force:

The term spoil (ghanima) is applied specifically to property acquired by force from non-Muslims. It includes, however, not only property (movable and immovable) but also persons, whether in the capacity of asra (prisoners of war) or sabi (women and children). … If the slave were a woman, the master was permitted to have sexual connection with her as a concubine (Khadduri, p. 119, 131).

Finally, for those readers who refuse to interpret modern-day events in light of "antiquated" history or arcane religious doctrine, here's an August 2008 Reuters report revealing that what top news analysts are now dismissing as a bunch of random pirates scouring the coast of Somalia may well be directly related to the mainland, if not international, jihad:

An explosion of piracy this month off the coast of Somalia is funding a growing insurgency onshore as the hijackers funnel hefty ransom payments to Islamist rebels. … According to our information, the money they make from piracy and ransoms goes to support al-Shabaab activities onshore.

Al-Shabaab ("the youth"), of course, are the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamists currently taking over Somalia.

Thus, in the words of Krauthammer, whereas "these guys are interested not in martyrdom but in money," the facts remain: whatever their "true" motivation, a portion of this money funds the greater jihad; and those "pirates" slain by U.S. ("infidel") firearms are most likely being portrayed as martyrs by their companions.

Does this mean that all pirates who happen to be Muslim are funding the jihad and fervently seeking after "martyrdom"? Of course not. But it is a reminder that what may appear to Americans as "um, criminal activities" (in the memorable hilarities of Hillary) have a long pedigree and, within an Islamist context, may have method to their madness.

From Muhammad's 7th-century caravan raids, to the Muslim conquests, to the Barbary wars, to modern-day Somali piracy"all of which were likely triggered by the desire for booty and plunder rather than religion per se"so long as jihadi doctrines continue providing the base proclivities of man with a veneer of respectability, indeed, piety, so long will such behavior be endemic to the lands, and waterways, of the jihad, irrespective of true motivation.

http://www.meforum.org/2126/barbary-wars-somali-piracy-water-jihad
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 11:36 am
@Pamela Rosa,
it's well known you have a problem with brown people, i think i'll pass on your info
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Somalia: You Are Being Lied to About Pirates
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 03:33:11