Monday, January 26, 2009

Somali pirates as a pretext for oil domination.

I came across a rather interesting read:

Johann Hari: You are being lied to about pirates

I wondered about the sudden outbreak of pirates in Somalia. Always questioned: Is there more to this story then meets the eye? It is like they just burst on to the world stage out of no where.

OH, and do I think we are being lied to about the pirates in Somalia? Yes, yes I do.
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 labelling as "one of the great menaces of our times" have an extraordinary story to tell – and some justice on their side.
This piqued my interest, and in my experience there is ALWAYS more to the these kind of stories then what is told to us. But, I am also going to make some corrections to this along the way. Corrections, I think are more in line with the facts.

" In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and 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.
That is not exactly correct. In 1991 the government did collapse. Think 'Black hawk down' for the Hollywood version. Yet, a government did arise out of that collapse. A government that was functioning and widely accepted. A government that the writer of this piece doesn't even bother to mention. One must ask why would that be?
Because the government was an Islamic government!
Yes, indeed a functioning Islamic government.

Somalis Recall Islamic Rule as Brief Visit of Peace
"Many women supported the Islamic Courts in Mogadishu because they received security," said Alia Adem Abdi, who chairs the Hiran Women Action on Advocacy for Peace and Human Rights Organization, based in Somalia's restive central Hiran region. "They had an access to move freely in the capital city. Also the children had access to go to school. But not now."

or here
"The Islamists avoided large-scale violence in defeating the warlords, who had held sway in Somalia ever since they drove out U.N. peacekeepers by killing eighteen American soldiers in 1993, by rallying people to their side through establishing law and order."

There is nothing scarier to western powers then an Islamic government. You know, the "war on terror" mentality? What was REALLY SCARY though, not only had this government succeeded in making women and children feeling safer. It was a government that brought stability. The stuff of nightmares, if stability is not on the western menu!
Which of course it wasn't!
Stability is never pertinent when there is oil to be had.
In fact instability is preferred

The Horn of Africa, at whose core Somalia lies, is newly oil-rich. It is also just miles across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through that waterway. The United States has a huge military base in neighboring Djibouti that is being enlarged substantially and will become the headquarters of a new U.S. military command being created specifically for Africa.

So that stable government had to go. All this Johann Hari fails to mention at all. His silence leaves me questioning.
Anyway, who overthrew the stable Islamic government of Somali ? Who would benefit from the division and suffering of the people? Of course, Ethiopia overthrew the government of Somalia, acting as a proxy for and with the help of , wait for it... the US.
Why would you be? And if you are? Time to get your head out of the ground, or out of your rear.

Bush’s sad policies in Africa

"In December 2006, the Bush administration authorized Ethiopia to invade Somalia waging a proxy war using Ethiopia, who could not even feed it’s own people."

In fact the US even did some aerial bombing of Somalia, looking for 'Al Quaeda' of course.
They had to help their proxy out just a bit. They did manage to at least kill a 4 yr old 'terrorist'. It is amazing how 'Al Quaeda' shows up in such a timely fashion for the US.
Dam, they are reliable!

As of today it is being reported that Ethiopia is withdrawing the last of it's troops from Somalia.
Accomplishing it's goal, of creating instability for the past two years.
"Over the last two years the situation in Somalia has deteriorated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian and security crises."

Ethiopia did it's job well and I am certain will get some nice parting gifts from it's masters.

But a report by the International crisis Group says the international community is preoccupied with the piracy phenomenon – instead of concentrating on the core of the crisis, the need for a political settlement.

Preoccupation with the 'piracy phenomenon' brings us back to the article that started this.

Hari claims the Piracy is in response to illegal dumping of toxic materials off the coast of Somalia, and the looting of Somalias food resource: seafood.

"This is the context in which the "pirates" have emerged. Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a "tax" on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia – and ordinary Somalis agree. The independent Somalian news site WardheerNews found 70 per cent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence".

Now this much of Hari's article makes sense. 70 PERCENT of the people polled strongly support the piracy as a form of national defence. It is really all they have, hence the support.

But what of the international communities obsession with the pirates? Are the acts of piracy being exploited? Being used as justification for something else?
In Hari's article when he says
" and yes, some are clearly just gangsters "
While, it is likely some of the so called pirates are attempting to act as some sort of rag tag national defence, to save their livelihoods etc.,
It is also likely others are committing acts of piracy for different reasons.
So consider this- What if the "gangster" pirates were being funded by privateers?
Who might the privateers be? What of the privateers agenda?
Control of the waterway perhaps?
The waterway that is
as stated "overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships"
Is control or domination of the waterway, as a means to transport the abundant oil resource that Somalia is at the core of the reason for this "preoccupation" of the "piracy phenomenon"?
Is it all just another part of an oil dominance strategy?
Another move on the Global Chessboard?


  1. Let me throw the first comment up.
    Why a black president, why now??


  2. He's NOT frikkin' black.

    God that bugs me... he's half frikkin' white for cryin' out loud.

    He could be purple for all I care - he's still a puppet.

  3. Okay, now that that is off my chest...

    I'll agree with your summation Pen, as usual - it's all about the oil. From there we get power - and afterall that's what the game is about - it matters not what the ordinary folks think, do or feel - as long as the power is concentrated in the 'right' peoples' hands.

    If I had a ship which had to sail those waters - I'd arm everyone on board as well as having a few nice fat cannons - frig the pirates - blow em out of the water - problem solved.

  4. Because Americans are STUPID.
    Oh wait we have Harper, were was my head at?

  5. Yep Silv, we have Harper. Talk about a jew puppet!

    Anywhoo's-it, good post Penny! Could the "increase" in coverage of piracy be for the next fake reason for war? Seems there always seems to be an excuse available at just the right time. Take your comments about Al Quaeda for example, they're always there when needed. Now however something new is needed. What could possibly be in the works this time do ya think?

  6. Onya Pen, excellent read! Very good.

    Nitpicking note - privateers don't back pirates. Privateers are like pirates insofar as they have to be in boats. They're certainly piratical but have the luxury of being backed by a government's letter of marque or some other official authorisation, if you can dig it. Historically they behaved precisely like pirates but would only attack the shipping of the countries with whom that government was at war with. They did not have to join with the navy in warfare and their crews were immune to impressment.

    But never mind that, it's just me being a pedantic fan of the age of sail.

    The other thing that plugs into this is the whole Hollywood 'Let's All Save Durfur' thing. This is a bullshit campaign designed to have us all contribute money and otherwise support intervention in the next door Muslim state of Sudan. It's relevant to Somalia like Cambodia was relevant to Vietnam. All the Muslim states there are to be destabilised and sent back to the stone age. It's all part of our glorious Sanctity Of Banking campaign.

    And yeah, yeah, the corporate capos can all swoop in and pick the eyes out of the corpse sure. Have to keep the capos happy since they've got all the guns sure enough.

  7. Sovereign nations need to always be at war with pirates! That is the way that the world HAS to work!
    There can be no middle ground. Pirates must die! They are willing to take that risk; that is why they are pirates.

  8. All nitpicking related,To Vietnam, Cambodia was related as was Laos to our great war and Nobody knows why. Hah, snigger snork
    Somalia is as well and it has little to do with oil.

  9. And for those who don't know, I have the answer to why pirates are pirates.

    Because they AAAARRRRRRHHHH!

  10. Sorry this is a serious subject and I shouldn't be cracking jokes.

    The silverfish made do it.

    And Watt with that mad photo. Watt you look like you're about to lick a lamppost. Don't do it!

    Actually I'm assuming you're Canadian. If you live in the Southern Hemisphere like me, you can go crazy and lick all the lampposts you like. We're mad lamppost lickers down here.

    Ha ha ha, I crack myself myself up. Actually now that I think about it, what on earth would possess someone to lick a lamppost? Perhaps it's some mad Canadian thing. Like French toast. Strange people the Canadians.

  11. silverfish:
    always cutting to the chase?

    sadly, stupidity is not to blame, but ignorance, I'll go there with ya!


    I agree , he is not black, he is all white, and black on the outside, he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

    And he is a puppet.

    I mean is it a coicidence that Obama has so called ties to Kenya??

    Kenya nighbour to Somalia.

    The oil and the area are key, the US is already dependant on African oil for some of their needs.

    But, I think China, or keeping China in line is a huge factor in this.
    As in getting control of the oil and denying China access to the said oil.

    and Yes skye, I think the Pirates are the pretext, the false flag, if one may to justify all means of military intervention in the area.

    What with British, US and Chinese ships all on the way, to deal with the "problem"

  12. nobody:

    I don't know any canadians who lick lamposts?

    And french toast, yummy.
    Particulary if made with raisin bread, or this great cranberry/raisin bread that I can buy locally, double yum.

  13. watt smith:

    I see you are blogging from Ethiopia?
    are you a christian missionary there?

  14. Nobody, I really don't believe that the "licking lamposts" thing you mention is purely Canadian. I believe it's something all children, in areas where it freezes in winter, dare other children to do. They really are evil creatures, children, they like seeing their peers suffer. Good thing I was never a child, I hatched as a fully grown adult, and never had to suffer that childish fate :D

  15. I lick lampposts, not altogether sure why. Might have something to do with my impoverished childhood when only the rich kids had lampposts. On our side of the tracks (Yuh know where the Poor folk lived) all we had were piles of dirty snow with a candle on top. (a small candle at that) well it wasn’t a candle as such but rather a wooden match that the rich folk had used only once, “as is their want” and then simply discarded but we were proud to have it.

    But no matter, now that I have grown old and wealthy beyond the dreams even of Midas I have my very own lamppost and I lick it proudly because it’s Mine all Mine.

    And the word of the day is "dingly" which would describe the little piece of skin thats left on the lamppost after Yuh know Lick it.