Should Somalia Dispatch 20,000 Gorgo Troops To Djbouti If They Don't Release Fahad Yasin?
- Thread starter Lebron James
- Start date
I don’t want to say anything insensitive but you do realize that Hargeisa and Burco were carpet bombed to the ground right? And that most of your people were mowed down by the military and only reason it stopped in the ‘90s is because Somalia fell apart not because you guys won.Look man if Xamar tries to invade rest assured our people would pick up their guns to defend their land just like we did in the 80s
Also, that and this case are two different things. In the first case, siad barre was adamant on killing isaaqs, you’d have to be stupid to not fight back. It’s either you die a coward, or you die trying to defend yourself with the chance of survival. It’s not a hard choice. Whereas this case they’re really not under any threat, no one wants to kill them. They’re going to djibouti because some idiot on twitter called for it
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
It was a nationalist movement that wanted a united vietnam
Funded USC kulahaa
Uhmm the fall of the regime is big victory for SNM and the coward Afweyne bombed Hargeysa when SNM took the city in 1988 but even if faqash captured it again much of the north was at the hands of SNM including the border with Ethiopia or HawdI don’t want to say anything insensitive but you do realize that Hargeisa and Burco were carpet bombed to the ground right? And that most of your people were mowed down by the military and only reason it stopped in the ‘90s is because Somalia fell apart not because you guys won.
Also, that and this case are two different things. In the first case, siad barre was adamant on killing isaaqs, you’d have to be stupid to not fight back. It’s either you die a coward, or you die trying to defend yourself with the chance of survival. It’s not a hard choice. Whereas this case they’re really not under any threat, no one wants to kill them. They’re going to djibouti because some idiot on twitter called for it
Al shabab still blowing shit up every Sunday? You guys have bigger priorities
The ANC/MK was a nationalist movement but its members were considered terrorists and flight risks until the 2000s.
It is really a potato potato situation bro.
Any group that commits violence for political/ideological aims is a terror group by definition.
I wonder why the f do you support Farmaajo?
Who said I support Mr Cheesman
exactly, you guys had to fight, it was either kill or be killed. But this case is completely different. No one’s bombing your cities, your life isn’t on the line. But it will be if you put it on the line for money.
“Don’t push me I’ve got a corner at my back I’ve nowhere to go except over you.”
- henry rollins
this is a perfect quote to explain what happened back then. SNM had no choice but to fight back, any compromisation or peace talks were out. No one wants war unless it’s a must.
Just like now if a trained army of $20K walked through SL guaranteeing safety. All those enlisted soldiers (without much hierarchy) would think twice before going all out and potentially turning their cities and neighborhoods into battlefields. The moment the first few soldiers give in, it’ll be like a snowball effect where the rest agree as well.
On what basis?
Prior to American involvement, the Viet cong approach was often reminiscent of the ways the Americans began the Revolutionary War against the British. Back then, they used unconventional tactics that disrupted and disorganized the 'enemy' as effectively as the VC disrupted the South Vietnamese Army. After American involvement, our 'black ops' people (CIA, Special Forces, SEAL Teams, etc) used the same type of terror tactics as the VC. I couldn't consider the VC terrorists any more than I could consider our black ops people as terrorists. Both used strategies to defeat their enemy.
I don't recall anything they did that was much different than what we did. In fact, Americans may well have been more violent and/or vicious than the VC. I never heard any stories about VC making necklaces out of enemy ears or noses. Or napalm. Or White Phosphorus. Or napalm. Or Cluster bombs.
Americans were so much better at mass mayhem than they were.
I enclosed the definition of what defines a terror group above.
Lazy way to describe VC.
Wasn’t a description of VC but rather an apt description of terror groups.
If the shoe fits....
Another lazy way to paint them as terrorists.
First and foremost, the international law relating to the term “terrorist/terrorism” was nothing before 1994.
In fact, before 1994, there was nothing to define what a terrorist is. So up until 1994, the United Nation adopted the resolution about “Measures to eliminate international terrorism”. It means that at least, before 1994, It is difficult to apply this definition “terrorism/terrorist to most or any organizations/people who committed any actions similar to this new definition
So, technically, you could not consider VC as terrorists according to the international law because we could not use the law 1994 to apply to the period from 1955–1975.
Moving on, about the legality of VC who joined the Vietnam war and fought hard against the American and South Vietnam regime, the Vietcong was officially a political entity that existed in South Vietnam until the reunification of Vietnam 1976, This political organization was recognized by China, the Soviet Union, and many other countries in the world like the South Vietnam regime. Also, VC was recognized by America in 1973 as one of the two political entities in South Vietnam through the Paris Accord.
So, about the legality and even international law, the VC was not terrorist and even it was recognized as one of the two legal governments of South Vietnam equal to the South Vietnam regime in the views of the world community.
Also, America would not sign an international treaty with a terrorist organization. If not, we should also should count America as a terrorist state or organization by that same definition you posted up there. The VC was recognized as a political/legal entity in South Vietnam by America, South Vietnam, China, and the former Soviet Union. So, Its beyond ridiculous to label them as a “terrorist organization”.
I am not referring to legal definitions.
My argument is that the Viet Cong are, by all intents and purposes, a terror group by our current definition of the term. It doesn’t really matter what they were referred to back then.
The ANC and the PLO are examples of organisations that were referred to as terrorists yet could easily be substituted into your argument.
A state cannot fit the definition of terrorism as it requires politically/ideologically motivated violence against the state by a non-state actor.
A political entity can.
Trending
-
-
Are Somali men experiencing the "great shift"?- Started by Kamaaludeen Al Reewin
- Replies: 112
-
