Archive for September 25, 2013

Did Somali pirate’s ransoms finance the Nairobi attack?

consequences

After Nairobi, where next?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the worst terrorist atrocities ever committed in sub-Saharan Africa happened this past weekend in Nairobi. Over 60 dead and 200 injured. It far surpassed any single attack by the ANC in South Africa or ZANU/Zipra in Rhodesia.

Al Shabaab, the Somali based Islamic terrorists aligned with Al Qaeda have claimed responsibility. Another group with similar allegiances is a major player in the Syrian opposition fighting a civil war against the Syrian government forces.

And many in the West want to supply arms to the Syrian opposition knowing that this group would also be amongst those being supplied.

Perhaps this terrible event will persuade Western leaders to let the Syrians sort their own problems out and not supply weapons to terrorists to be used against our own citizens and other innocent people in different parts of the world.

Perhaps too, social media platforms and major international broadcasters might exercise some responsibility and stop terrorists using the likes of twitter to publicise their atrocities and communicate amongst themselves. Or prime time TV to broadcast their propaganda by relaying the terrorists own images of them inside the occupied building.

Unless cell phone and wi-fi connections had been cut off to the mall, the detailed radio and tv coverage would have informed the terrorists of the security forces every move. Sounds like aiding the enemy to me.

The Somali problem should have been dealt with years ago, but the West got cold feet after the disastrous raid by US forces resulted in casualties, a lost helicopter and a huge propaganda opportunity for the terrorists.

Later the West fiddled around for years while Somalian pirates caused havoc with shipping in the Indian Ocean and made millions in ransoms before the Russians and French navies started taking decisive action.

How many of the guns and explosives used in the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi were financed by those ransoms?

Blood money paid to release crew members held hostage because of a lack of resolve by the West, now indirectly responsible for the  murder of innocent people in Kenya. Including holiday makers and diplomats from some of the very countries who failed to take action when it was desperately needed.

This incident proved exactly how easy it is for a determined group of terrorists to carry out a deadly attack on a soft civilian target.

When religious fanatics launch campaigns of terror against neighbouring countries, no amount of foreign aid, gentle words of diplomacy or fund-raising rock concerts organised by misguided celebrities, are the answer.

In Africa, and other less developed regions, power and strength are everything. This is being clearly demonstrated in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the withdrawal of US and / or NATO forces.

It is to be expected that the Kenyan authorities, unfettered by Western concerns of protecting the human rights of terrorists, will attempt to exact retribution for this attack, and it won’t be pretty.

Instead of getting involved in the internal conflict in Syria, the West should help Kenya remove the threat from the Somalian terrorists decisively and permanently. Using whatever amount of firepower necessary to do the job properly this time.

Phase 2 should be to do the same against another group of Islamic terrorists, Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria.

Eradicating these groups is much more in Western interests than arming their counterparts in Syria. If they are not stopped, the next Saturday afternoon shopping mall attack might well be in New York, London or Toronto.

Political correctness, concern for “Human Rights” and tolerance of religious fanatics in the West have emasculated us and encouraged terrorist groups to attack us. Our refusal to accept that large parts of the world are not ready for democracy and our arrogance in trying to impose it on them have led to huge loss of life and condemned millions to live in fear and misery.

WWII was ended by the horror of two nuclear bombs, huge numbers of casualties, massive destruction, but an immediate end to the war. Somalia might not need a nuclear attack but its terrorists need exterminating by using whatever force is necessary.

Time for the West to wake up and take action, do we have leaders with the stomach to do it?

peter-wright

 

 

Image courtesy of idea go / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Obama or Putin – Who is the Syrian Chess Master?

Check, please.

 

Alex Eylar via Compfight

My comments in my previous post about Syria were uncannily accurate, within hours of hitting the publish button, the British Parliament voted against any UK involvement in military action against Syria.

I do not for a moment believe my post influenced a single vote, nor do I claim any special powers of foresight. My crystal ball is no better than any one else’s.

It seemed to me that most of the world, including a substantial majority of Americans were against any direct involvement. Only three major players wanting to send in the planes and missiles, the USA and French administrations and the Syrian opposition including those elements sympathetic to our enemies in Afghanistan.

I am certainly not a pacifist, having served in the military defending my country against terrorism, I have no wish to repeat the experience myself or see younger generations exposed to similar dangers. War, declared or otherwise is bad, but sometimes necessary to defend our or our allies sovereignty and freedom.

As I stated in my previous post, this is not one of those situations. More evidence to support non-involvement came in BBC coverage this week of the pleas from Christians in Maaloula, Syria for the West not to support the opposition. The jihadist fringe of which is attacking them and destroying their churches. It appears the Christians are volunteering to support the Syrian government forces defending them.

Which brings us to the events of the past week and the question of which President is the better chess player, Obama or Putin? Russians have long been masters at formulating strategic chess moves, both on the chess board and on the world stage.

Did Putin have the idea of putting Syria’s chemical weapons under UN control up his sleeve at the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, but wait for the American President to make a few more moves?

Did he then wait a few more days until it became more likely that the vote in congress would go against the use of force? Set him up for checkmate?

Was Putin’s proposal and the timing of it, a major face-saving exercise for President Obama? If so will there be a cost attached and what will it cost? When and how must it be paid?

My money is on the Russians coming out ahead in this game of high stakes chess.

 

peter-wright

 

 

p.s. You might enjoy this post on my other blog about the media bias to reporting trivial and negative news