# United Nations Government In Somalia?



## Flanders (Jul 26, 2016)

*Is it Western-backed? or is it U.N.-backed?*

Al Shabaab, the Islamist militant group that is trying to topple the Western-backed Somali government, claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it had killed more than 12 people. 

*XXXXX*​ 
   Al-Shabab is waging an insurgency against Somalia's weak U.N.-backed government. It wants to establish an Islamic emirate in the country based on a strict form of Islam.

At least 12 dead in Islamist suicide car bombing near peacekeeping headquarters in Somalia
       By Sarah Dean and Julian Robinson for MailOnline
       Published: 01:55 EST, 26 July 2016 | Updated: 03:10 EST, 26 July 2016

BREAKING NEWS: Suicide car bomb blast near Somalia peacekeeping unit​
*NOTE: The United Nations sacrificing Americans in Mogadishu, Somalia was exposed in the book and the movie Black Hawk Down. Question: Why in hell were Americans fighting for the United Nations in the first place?* 

Following the ousting of the central government and start of a civil war, a major United Nations military operation in Somalia was authorized with a peacekeeping mandate. Following the withdrawal of the bulk of the peacekeepers, Mogadishu-based Mohamed Farrah Aidid militia loyalists declare war on remaining UN personnel.

Black Hawk Down (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
*Considering the number of Muslim countries in the United Nations it is difficult understanding why Somalia’s government is U.N.-backed.

Of course, Muslim government leaders might be betraying Islam for the United Nations. If that is true a whole lot of Muslims are being killed for the United Nations in the war the West is waging against “Islamic radicals” irrespective of the number of people killed by true believers in Europe and the U.S. 

Frankly, I think Islam’s garden variety warriors doing the killing in the West are fools who do not know what they are fighting for. Dying for the United Nations is the exact opposite of dying for Islam.  

The enemy of my enemy is my friend*

*As far as I am concerned, choosing sides in Somalia is a no-brainer. So long as Muslims are killing Muslims, I come down on the side of Islam’s Muslims killing United Nations Muslims. 

Finally, knowing which side Clinton/Kaine choose is also a no-brainer. Their ties to the United Nations is a lot darker than their ties to Islamists: * 

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s newly-announced running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, has been portrayed as a safe pick, a “pristine” candidate with a history of missionary work in Central America, a fluent Spanish-speaker and a moderate by Democrat standards.

   But a new report out by a national-security expert suggests maybe Kaine’s record isn’t so clean after all.

   He has a history of embracing Islamists, writes Ryan Mauro in an article for the Clarion Project.

Hillary VP pick's dark ties to Islamists
       Posted By Leo Hohmann On 07/25/2016 @ 12:19 pm

Hillary VP pick’s dark ties to Islamists​


----------



## Flanders (Jul 27, 2016)

*Political expediency requires CANDIDATE Hillary Clinton to portray herself as a true blue, America First, patriotic hawk. I expect her to show up at the first debate wearing a dress made out of an American flag to make up for:*

The Daily Caller is at the Democratic National Convention Monday and it doesn’t look like there are any American flags.

   The stage is bland and grey, with no red, white or blue present. A thorough look at the crowd present also turns up no American flags.​
No Visible American Flags Present At The Democrat Convention
       Alex Pfeiffer
       Reporter
       9:36 PM 07/25/2016

No Visible American Flags Present At The Democrat Convention​
*NOTE: I believe they went out and purchased some flags for the second day.*



Flanders said:


> The United Nations sacrificing Americans in Mogadishu, Somalia was exposed in the book and the movie Black Hawk Down. Question: Why in hell were Americans fighting for the United Nations in the first place?


*When Clinton debates Donald Trump somebody on the panel should ask super patriot Hillary “Does using the military to defend this country include fighting for the United Nations when there is no military threat to Americans?” Ask Tim Kaine the same question. *


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 19, 2016)

Flanders said:


> *..... * Al Shabaab, the Islamist militant group that is trying to topple the Western-backed Somali government ....


What government? Is there one?


----------



## Flanders (Aug 19, 2016)

GLASNOST said:


> What government? Is there one?


*To GLASNOST: There is one to be sure. The question should be: Whose government is it? *


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 19, 2016)

Flanders said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> > What government? Is there one?
> ...


Well, the US and Sovjiet Union jostled it back and forth for some time, but I don't think Russia is interested. Other than geographically strategic at the  lower end Suez, the thing is an albatross around the neck. My bet is that the US is (or will do) selling the idea to NATO so they (the US) won't have to foot the whole bill ... but dominate the place anyway. I say "the West" is holding the king pin and letting the rest of the country continue in chaos. This way the US can call its marker any old time it wants to, at the drop of a hat. But I am interested to know what the Somalis would want to do with it if they were allowed to call the shots themselves. Any ideas?


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 19, 2016)

Flanders said:


> Question: Why in hell were Americans *fighting* for the United Nations in the first place?


First of all this is a load of bullocks. One doesn't *'fight'* for the UN. The US was not acting in a peace-keeping roll, though on paper that was (no doubt) the guise. The rest of it about the UN leaving the Americans _"out to dry"_ is clearly more of the same lie pie. UN FORCES ARE PEACE-KEEPING, not combatants. So either the UN was corrupted or (and most likely) the US was stepping out of bounds. Blaming the UN, then, is another red herring for the US to employ still more black-mail and manipulation.


----------



## Flanders (Aug 19, 2016)

GLASNOST said:


> My bet is that the US is (or will do) selling the idea to NATO so they (the US) won't have to foot the whole bill ... but dominate the place anyway.


*To GLASNOST: You are close but no cigar. NATO killed Christians for Muslims during Bill Clinton’s Balkan Adventure because he could not use the United Nations. Whenever possible the American military will fight for the United Nations as they did in Somalia in the Black Hawk Down incident.  

NOTE: Please read the following article:*

U.S. soldiers forced to wear U.N. logo?
   Appeal explains Clinton's secret executive order
   Published: 05/20/2012 at 6:57 PM
   by BOB UNRUH

U.S. soldiers forced to wear U.N. logo?​
*As to the military, I should have said “no American can be ordered to SERVE the UN.”*

Change the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) so that no American can be ordered to fight for the UN.

*XXXXX*​
   Lay my UCMJ suggestion on Democrats and you’ll hear so much caterwauling you’ll need earplugs to drown it out. They oppose the war against terrorism when it means America defending itself unilaterally, while they do not oppose Americans dying for the UN.

   Not one of the Democrats who opposed the war in Iraq while seeking their party’s nomination for president in 2004 ever included military UN peacekeeping missions in their anti-war pronouncements. John Kerry’s comments were so cleverly worded he fooled himself into thinking he had scored brownie points with voters.  I remember he said: “America should never go to war because it wants to, but only when it has to.”

   Most voters understood  “. . . only when it has to.” would have been decided by the UN had Kerry won the election. Neither Kerry nor any other Democrat ever said otherwise.

   Career military people acknowledged up-front that defending the country is where the rubber meets the road for most Americans.  Presidents can sign UN treaties, senators can ratify them, international-minded judges can interpret them for the UN’s benefit, and the press can make it all sound wonderful. None of those things will con the majority of Americans into fighting for the UN.​
Liberals Defining The Moral High Ground

Bottom line: No American should die fighting for the United Nations so that strangers in foreign countries can live.


GLASNOST said:


> One doesn't *'fight'* for the UN.


*To GLASNOST: Did you forget the Korean War?*

Truman jumped on the Soviet Union’s failure to attend a Security Council meeting; so he took the opportunity to stop Communist expansion by manipulating the UN; hence, a UN Police Action rather than a declared war. Had the Soviets attended the one and only Security Council meeting they ever missed, they would have vetoed Truman’s military opposition to North Korea’s aggression.

   Incidentally, President Truman was right in stopping Communism, but he was wrong in getting the UN’s approval.

   NOTE: The real reason President Truman fired General MacArthur was because Communist China was not a member of the United Nations. Mac wanted to cross the Yalu River and bomb Communist China. That would have amounted to the infant United Nations declaring war on China. General MacArthur was correct in light of what China is today.​
Selective Memories

*And did you miss this in the OP?*

Following the ousting of the central government and start of a civil war, a major United Nations military operation in Somalia was authorized with a peacekeeping mandate.​
*Incidentally, can you tell me exactly what UN peacekeepers do when there is no peace to keep?*


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 20, 2016)

It would be much simpler just to admit that the US has been manipulating the world through facade membership in international organizations such as NATO, the United Nations, Humanitarian Relief, the Peace Corps, the EU  (by proxy), World Health Organization, and many many more.


----------



## Flanders (Aug 20, 2016)

GLASNOST said:


> It would be much simpler just to admit that the US has been manipulating the world through facade membership in international organizations such as NATO, the United Nations, Humanitarian Relief, the Peace Corps, the EU (by proxy), World Health Organization, and many many more.


*To GLASNOST: Simply admitting does not move Americans closer to passing H.R. 75*

Text of H.R. 75 (113th): American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2013 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 20, 2016)

I am not sure if you are aware of it yourself, but there is a great misconception about participation in United Nation Peace-Keeping Forces.


The UN does not chose amongst UN member states and send them off to war zones. Each member state must submit their willingness to send troops, police, advisers, etc. Each state also decides how many of each they are prepared to send.


Whether or not the member state has national military conscription is up to each state, and if members of these military forces are compelled (or strictly on a voluntary basis) to serve with the UN Peace-Keeping forces is, again, a national matter.


Anyone barking up the UN tree in protest against *“serving”* or *“fighting”* for UN Peace Keepers …. has got the wrong tree.


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 20, 2016)

Flanders said:


> *To GLASNOST: Simply admitting does not move Americans closer to passing H.R. 75*


It ought to be crystal clear by now. The illegal invasion and occupation of Irak (with complete impunity) .... after 70 years of similar treachery world-wide, pretty much proves that the US has completed its international control and manipulation. There are no more marbles to win (read 'commandeer') so they no longer need to play. Whether there is other booty to snatch (on their way out or by lingering) is another matter. We'll know soon enough.


----------



## Flanders (Aug 20, 2016)

GLASNOST said:


> The UN does not chose amongst UN member states and send them off to war zones. Each member state must submit their willingness to send troops, police, advisers, etc. Each state also decides how many of each they are prepared to send.


*To GLASNOST: You are missing the point. Governments, that is ruling classes, decide. That is not the way it is supposed to work. A free people must retain the Right to decide what they will fight and die for.*


GLASNOST said:


> The illegal invasion and occupation of Irak (with complete impunity) ....


*To GLASNOST: Did the events of 9-11-2001 go over your head? President Bush did the Right thing when he invaded Iraq without the UN’s approval. Would you be happier if the United Nations approved by calling it a peacekeeping mission? *


GLASNOST said:


> after 70 years of similar treachery world-wide, pretty much proves that the US has completed its international control and manipulation.


*To GLASNOST: The important factor is that every country is free to withdraw from the United Nations. None will —— so long as they get what they want from American taxpayers through the United Nations.*


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 20, 2016)

Flanders said:


> *To GLASNOST:* You are missing the point. Governments, that is ruling classes, decide. That is not the way it is supposed to work. A free people must retain the Right to decide what they will fight and die for.


*Take it up with your congressman or your president. I can't help you with your national matters. Not even the UN can meddle in your affairs. If voting in your two-party system is your only recourse, then neither I nor the UN can do anything to assist you. 



*



Flanders said:


> *To GLASNOST: *Did the events of 9-11-2001 go over your head? President Bush did the Right thing when he invaded Iraq without the UN’s approval.


*You really are boring me now.



*



Flanders said:


> *To GLASNOST: *The important factor is that every country is free to withdraw from the United Nations. None will —— so long as they get what they want from American taxpayers through the United Nations.


*It's the US who is screwing the rest of the world through all of the organizations I've already mentioned  in my previous response ....... the U.N. VERY MUCH included. I don't think you are paying attention. But that's OK, you are not my responsibility.



*


----------



## Flanders (Aug 20, 2016)

GLASNOST said:


> You really are boring me now.


*To GLASNOST: You are too stupid to be bored, and far too stupid to learn.*


----------



## GLASNOST (Aug 20, 2016)

I wondered why no one else responded to this thread. Really, I did! I guess when they realized it was you who initiated it they correctly concluded ......


----------

