Kenya (catch all)

[davidbfpo]

Aidan Hartley is a white Kenyan farmer, whose farm is in the region near Somalia and a journalist. The linked article is about his struggles to stop rustlers and added here as it gives an impression of what life is like in that area. Human Terrain no less:http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnist...ild-life.thtml

[omarali50]

I posted this on my blog http://www.brownpundits.com/2013/09/...ion-is-now-ok/

Extended excerpt (basic question):
This can be classified as a "Mumbai style attack"...armed men attack a city, pick out one or more prominent civilian targets and slaughter any random person that they find, but may make an effort to spare Muslims. The target may have symbolic value. e.g. educated Westernized left-liberal observers will not have difficulty recognizing an upscale mall as a temple of capitalism, a bastion of imperialism and neo-colonialism, or a shrine to consumerism..in fact, if i had the time I could probably write certain Pakistani-Western academic's next article about the class dimensions of this lumpen-revolutionary act in my sleep....but i dont think the gunmen will bring that up; ..Bin-Laden and Zawahiri used a few random fragments from that discourse, but its not a central part of their propaganda effort. Their propaganda will be simpler and more direct; you attacked us, now we are attacking you. You may drone us or bomb us, but we WILL strike back and make you suffer. We are not weak. We are not scared. We are mujahideen and we will always be back, until you leave our lands and stop your oppressions against Islam.

So my question is this: Their arguments and actions are horrible, tragic, sad, etc. But are they now so routine that they have become in some sense legitimate? That we accept them as part of the nature of war? after all, when more advanced countries fight each other (or weaker countries) and use aircraft to drop bombs or fire missiles, we sort of take it in our stride. War is bad, but when it does happen (and sometimes it happens), this is just how it is. Will we think about Mumbai-style attacks the same way now?

If your first thought is "what a strange question", then you have already accepted what used to be almost unthinkable. We have had bombs going off in cities for over a century. But we have NOT had this for a century. Is it now routine? or is there still some special horror attached to such attacks? does it in some way delegitimate the attackers in your eyes? put them beyond the pale? or are they just another damned armed force doing what humans have always done? fighting for their cause, while we fight for ours? Maye we have to kill them, maybe we can compromise with them? or ignore them? maybe we dont have to care what happens in Kenya or Mumbai?

[Wyatt]

Im sure its life altering for those directly affected by the violence if they come from a background where violence of the sort is a rarity. For outsiders hearing about violence, its old hat in my opinion. I can hear about terrorist violence everyday if I watch the news. If I were the average observer half way around the world, I wouldn't care or bat an eye. Terrorists are losing the "terror" component of their attacks through over use.

I dont know if that makes it easier or harder for affected govts to deal with the situation.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I posted this on my blog http://www.brownpundits.com/2013/09/...ion-is-now-ok/

Extended excerpt (basic question):
This can be classified as a "Mumbai style attack"...armed men attack a city, pick out one or more prominent civilian targets and slaughter any random person that they find, but may make an effort to spare Muslims. The target may have symbolic value. e.g. educated Westernized left-liberal observers will not have difficulty recognizing an upscale mall as a temple of capitalism, a bastion of imperialism and neo-colonialism, or a shrine to consumerism

I have not read enough about Kenya but I don't see it as a "Mumbai style" attack. Mumbai was clearly an attack by a foreign entity for political (and partially religious) reasons. This attack appears to be the opposite - a internally based entity attacked for religious (and partially political) reasons.

So my question is this: Their arguments and actions are horrible, tragic, sad, etc. But are they now so routine that they have become in some sense legitimate? That we accept them as part of the nature of war? after all, when more advanced countries fight each other (or weaker countries) and use aircraft to drop bombs or fire missiles, we sort of take it in our stride. War is bad, but when it does happen (and sometimes it happens), this is just how it is. Will we think about Mumbai-style attacks the same way now?[/I]

What might be more interesting is the question "do the victims not resonate with me enough to care?" or put another way "do I not feel enough affinity to this group to see myself as threatened by the activity of the terrorists?" The average Kenyan probably will not have anything in common with those who could shop in that mall. The average Westerner does not have enough in common with the average Kenyan to care. So you have a very limited audience who were intended to feel the brunt of this attack, if in fact it was a terrorist attack and not simply an act of war by a group who sees wealthy, non-muslim Kenyans as the enemy.

Here we see the intersection of religious identity and national identity that I discussed elsewhere.

[M-A Lagrange]

I live in Nairobi, Westgate mall is 2km far from my home. Several of my friens and colleagues were in westgate mall when it happened. There was a children cooking contest going on that day and it was just another shopping Saturday for all.
Al Shebaab target this mall because there are a lot of foreigners and it is a symbol of Kenya economicial success. According to AS twitter account, this attack is made to force Kenya to withdraw its troops from Somalia. To me, it is a Mumbay stile attack: a group of armed men entered the mall and started to shoot in the crow.

What is amazing is to see all the people together, helping each others to escape, black, white, indians, muslim, christians... In a Kenya were ethnic group, religion and origins are often an issue: all are together to face this coward act.

The operations were still going on this Sunday at noon (Kenya time).

[Entropy]

I think it's certainly a Mumbai-style attack. Monitoring the various twitter feeds, it's apparent that the attackers are being fed live intel and are coordinating efforts with and AS headquarters.

[davidbfpo]

The list of the alleged kidnappers reported on Twitter, entitled PrayingForWestgate and by ‏@shambuguREAL via @HSM_PRESS2; missing are 5 & 7 and the HSM account has been suspended:

10. abdirizak mouled 24 y.o from ontario canada
9. sayid nuh 25 y.o from kismayu somalia.
8. abdifatah osman keenadiid. 24 y.o from minneapolis.
6. gen mustafe noorudiin. 27 y.o from kansas city. MO.
4. qasim said mussa 22 y.o garissa KE.
3. ahmed nasir shirdoon 24 y.o from london UK.
2. zaki jama caraale 20 y.o from hargeisa somalia.
1. ismael guled 23 y.o from helsinki finland.

Another journalist refers to:

Among the attackers Jihadists from Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, London, Helsinki, Damascus

Elsewhere UK C4 News has an interview with Al-Shabaab:http://www.channel4.com/news/al-shab...ng-mall-attack

[commart]

This might help clarify the role sadism plays in Islamist attacks: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dawn-pe...n-at-the-mall/ The author of the piece pursues scholarship in psychology, symbols, and ritual violence.

[JMA]

This might help clarify the role sadism plays in Islamist attacks: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dawn-pe...n-at-the-mall/ The author of the piece pursues scholarship in psychology, symbols, and ritual violence.

Is this a surprise to anyone? If so where have you been?

This sub-human behaviour is not purely carried out by Jihadists. Certainly across Africa mutilation and torture prior to killing the norm - time permitting.

I am rapidly getting to the point where I believe that western governments are deliberately keeping the general public uninformed on such matters in the misguided belief that it could cause a blacklash against so-called 'innocent' Muslims if the public knew.

[Bill Moore]

Is this a surprise to anyone? If so where have you been?

This sub-human behaviour is not purely carried out by Jihadists. Certainly across Africa mutilation and torture prior to killing the norm - time permitting.

I am rapidly getting to the point where I believe that western governments are deliberately keeping the general public uninformed on such matters in the misguided belief that it could cause a blacklash against so-called 'innocent' Muslims if the public knew.

I suspect there is some truth to your claim about Western governments keeping their constituents in the dark, but the media is free to report on this, so I think the reality is that Western media is extremely liberal and these acts don't fit their preferred narrative that these are some form of freedom fighters battling the oppressive West.

The U.S. government has considerable means to tell the unpleasant truth, but for reasons that are not clear they choose not to.

[davidbfpo]

This might help clarify the role sadism plays in Islamist attacks: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dawn-pe...n-at-the-mall/ The author of the piece pursues scholarship in psychology, symbols, and ritual violence.

I am not an expert, let alone well read on the presence of sadism in Jihadist violence, but this passage simply did not sound truthful:

The Westgate Mall massacre is comparable to the mass murder of 166 people by members of the Islamist Jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, in ten coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across Mumbai, India on November 26 -29, 2008. During their siege operation the LeT Jihadists also took the time to sexually humiliate, torture and mutilate some of the victims before shooting them dead.

So I contacted an Indian friend, a Mumbai resident, who officially investigated the attacks and is "in the know". He responded:

There was no "ritualistic" killing, no "beheading" and no rape in Mumbai. The gory details carried on this web site did not happen here. They did not carry any knives. They did not even mutilate the Jews in Chabad House". All they did was to open fire indiscriminately on innocent civilians.

Several of the victims in Nairobi were from India or of Indian origin. Had there been any mutilation or slaughter of children, Indian press would have published.

The Indian police charge sheet, which details what property was recovered and no such weapons are shown (I have a copy).

I do not doubt mutilation has happened, for example in London, but the author is wrong about Mumbai and I suspect such violence did not occur in Nairobi.

[davidbfpo]

Clint Watts asks 'Was Kenya Westgate Attack More AQAP/AQ Central Than Shabaab?'. Link: http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=1164

[Bill Moore]

I am not an expert, let alone well read on the presence of sadism in Jihadist violence, but this passage simply did not sound truthful:

So I contacted an Indian friend, a Mumbai resident, who officially investigated the attacks and is "in the know". He responded:

The Indian police charge sheet, which details what property was recovered and no such weapons are shown (I have a copy).

I do not doubt mutilation has happened, for example in London, but the author is wrong about Mumbai and I suspect such violence did not occur in Nairobi.

David,

Unfortunately based on personal observation of several bodies in Iraq and a few elsewhere that were mutilated by Jihadists that indicates to me at least some, and I suspect a minority, do engage in mutilation for whatever purpose. Shifting to your comments on Mumbai, a lot of people from several nations investigated the attacks in Mumbai, so pardon me for being suspect of your friends apparent all knowing assumptions. He may very well be correct, but the jury is still out in my opinion. The latest I read on the Jewish victims, which were the only victims in Mumbai that were possibly tortured was their bodies were too badly mutilated to tell. I saw photos and it appears their bodies were mutilated by explosives. If I recall correctly, hard to believe the attacks were 5 years ago now, the reason the torture was suspected was based on the directions the terrorists were received from Karachi that was intercepted. Even if they did cut their throats, that isn't exactly torture in my view, it is just murder, but getting back to your friends comments none of the terrorists died at that site, so not having knives on them is hardly justification to rule out they didn't use a knife (perhaps for the Indian version of Sherlock Holmes that suffices as evidence of innocence). For example, a group of thieves could break into my house and tie me up, and then grab a knife from my kitchen or elsewhere and slice my throat, and then leave the knife at my house and continue on their killing rampage. I doubt any western investigator would rule they couldn't have cut my throat because they didn't have a knife on them when they were killed or captured. I'm simply throwing out a counter argument to reinforce what Fuchs pointed out, which is that the truth is elusive, which leads to ignorance.

The information coming out of Nairobi is still terribly confusing, the only thing that remains clear is that several innocents were murdered by terrorists, and possibly several more were killed by the so called security forces. The number of attackers according to open source reports ranges from four (apparently all that was seen in the videos) to 15 to as high as 30! It has been several days since the attack and the reporting is still mixed. Sometimes what passes for the truth doesn't emerge until years after the event.

After reading the Selected Wisdom post it seemed to be a lot of uninformed rambling about nothing. Al Shabaab has been a multinational terrorist network for years, and they also have been an insurgency force (even longer). Contrary to all the reports of Al-Shabaab being on their last leg, they remain one of the more dangerous Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist networks (even if their insurgency efforts were rolled back). We struggle too much to try to fit loose networked organizations into our desired view of organizations with a formal structure, and this results in a continued misdiagnosis or classification. We think we know how to defeat formal organizations, but loose networks are much harder to understand since they constantly adapt and are also very resilient. We seem to want to claim victory prematurely simply because African Union forces pushed Al-Shabaab out of the major urban areas in Somalia, yet they still exist and they still have the will and capability to fight, so making claims like they're on their last leg only sets us for disappointment when we find they're far from it. Instead of making such wishful comments, we should pursue the momentum the AU created and continue to aggressively target them until they're sufficiently suppressed. Furthermore, there is no reason to think they conducted this attack on the mall on their own, since the various terrorist networks around the globe mutually support each other to varying degrees, but on the other hand it may been conducted by homeboys from Kenya. It wouldn't surprise me if actors as far away as Pakistan and Yemen were involved (neither are that far away). Much too early to tell at this point, but whatever the truth is, it shouldn't be surprising, since all are credible probabilities.

http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/al_shabaab.html

Al-Shabaab is not centralized or monolithic in its agenda or goals. Its rank-and-file members come from disparate clans, and the group is susceptible to clan politics, internal divisions, and shifting alliances. Most of its fighters are predominantly interested in the nationalistic battle against the TFG and not supportive of global jihad. Al-Shabaab’s senior leadership is affiliated with al-Qa‘ida and is believed to have trained and fought in Afghanistan. The merger of the two groups was publicly announced in February 2012 by the al-Shabaab amir and Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of al-Qa‘ida.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/05/world/...rticle_sidebar

Washington (CNN) -- A pre-dawn raid by elite U.S. forces in southern Somalia, in the heart of territory controlled by the al Qaeda subsidiary Al-Shabaab, targeted an Al-Shabaab commander connected to one of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, a senior Obama administration official said Sunday.

The suspected foreign fighter commander is named Ikrima, a Kenyan of Somali origin about whom little is known. The official said Ikrima is associated with two now-deceased al Qaeda operatives who played roles in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and the 2002 attacks on a hotel and airline in Mombasa, also in Kenya.

Not only do they have American, British, and Kenya recruits:

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-s...,4926499.story

According to Norway's Channel 2, Ikrima had traveled to Norway in 2004 and sought political asylum while living in Oslo. He received travel documents but left in 2008 before authorities had ruled on his asylum request. Two Swedes whom he met in Norway later joined him at Shabab training camps in Somalia, the TV station said, adding that a Swedish member of the Shabab was killed in the SEAL raid Saturday.

Morten Storm, a Dane who said he has worked for several Western intelligence agencies, told CNN that he helped pass messages between Ikrima and Al Qaeda leaders in Yemen between 2008 and 2012.

Ikrima communicated directly with Anwar Awlaki, the American-born Al Qaeda leader in Yemen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011, about going to Yemen but never made the trip, Storm said. Instead Ikrima, who speaks Norwegian, became a key handler of Shabab recruits from the West.

[Bill Moore]

I am not an expert, let alone well read on the presence of sadism in Jihadist violence, but this passage simply did not sound truthful:

So I contacted an Indian friend, a Mumbai resident, who officially investigated the attacks and is "in the know". He responded:

The Indian police charge sheet, which details what property was recovered and no such weapons are shown (I have a copy).

I do not doubt mutilation has happened, for example in London, but the author is wrong about Mumbai and I suspect such violence did not occur in Nairobi.

It is a fact that some Islamists torture and mutilate their victims, but it does not seem to be a common practice. What I don't know is if it is part of a ritual based on religion or just sick behavior conducted by a few? I'll go a step further and wonder if they're actually more humane than many others we have fought to include Saddam's relatively secular forces, the Vietnamese, Japanese, Germans, Soviets and their proxies, etc.? Putting it in context the incidents of Islamists torturing their victims pales in comparison to the Cartels in Mexico, the Mafia in Italy, numerous communist insurgent groups, and of course the Nazis and Japanese practicing the unspeakable on an industrial scale, etc. On the other hand I am still concerned with the apologists for the Islamists in the media. It seems people can pick the news they want to reinforce their view (savage killers or something far from that), but the truth is getting harder and harder to come by in our so called information age (maybe more accurately the disinformation age). What little I could find on potential torture in the mall is still very questionable.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/world/...ing/index.html

Members of Kenya's government were mute about what they had seen inside after emerging from an inspection there earlier this week.

CNN learned that the Westgate mall attackers tortured some of the hostages.

Military doctors said militants severed hands, cut off noses and, in some cases, hanged hostages. CNN has seen photographic evidence of one dead victim with a hand amputated.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...=p&age=0&&tt=b

CNN Video briefly discusses potential torture/maiming during the attack and claims to have photographic evidence, but of course not provided.

My research on Dawn Perlmutter exposes little new JMM didn't already point out, except I did look at the reviews of her book on Amazon and the majority of reviews were one star reviews based on her lack of knowledge on the topic.

[davidbfpo]

Peter Taylor, one of the BBC's most respected reporters, was in Kenya before the Westgate Mall attack, preparing a Panorama programme and has an article 'On the trail of al-Shabab’s Kenyan recruitment 'pipeline', before the programme is broadcast:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24263357

He cites a radical Kenyan cleric:

There's no such thing as a moderate Muslim. The prophets did not teach us moderation in Islam - Islam is Islam.. Being a moderate Muslim is accepting what your enemies want you to be.

The dilemma facing Kenya is shared by others:

The key question is how these radical clerics are able to operate openly without being prosecuted. In September 2012, Makaburi was charged with several counts of incitement for his part in the riots following Sheikh Rogo's assassination. He is currently on bail pending a trial.

The Kenyan authorities I spoke to said Makaburi and other radical clerics operate to the very limit of what the law allows and gathering the evidence to convict them is extremely difficult. The United Kingdom faces the same problem.

I must read the chapter in the QIASS on how those who oppose recruitment in Minneapolis-St. Paul Jihadists are working. The NYT has this short article, I note the local Somali community is thirty-two thousand strong and twenty young men left a few years ago to fight in Somalia:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...it_ee_20130929

The Panorama programme is available on IPlayer:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03d5byk

[davidbfpo]

The cleric interviewed by Peter Taylor (see Post 21) was murdered last night outside Mombasa, in a mystery shooting; the second such shooting of a radical Kenyan cleric:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24398548

VOA reports rioting in Mombasa:http://www.voanews.com/content/riots...n/1762881.html

[Sargent]

So my question is this: Their arguments and actions are horrible, tragic, sad, etc. But are they now so routine that they have become in some sense legitimate? That we accept them as part of the nature of war? after all, when more advanced countries fight each other (or weaker countries) and use aircraft to drop bombs or fire missiles, we sort of take it in our stride. War is bad, but when it does happen (and sometimes it happens), this is just how it is. Will we think about Mumbai-style attacks the same way now?

I wonder why we think this will be limited to Africa or jihadists? It seems to me that any radical group watching these events is going to see a very effective vehicle to attack. While we may no longer spool up much emotion or response to these events within the GWOT context, when they happen in Paris, Beijing, or Dallas and are related to other issues this will be seen as the challenge of the next several decades to come.

In general, though, I think it would be more useful to stop calling this terrorism and start recognizing it as a legitimate shift in the warfare of the weaker or dispersed party.

[jmm99]

I've watched Unforgiven and Seven (each top notch), two of the three movies reviewed by Hitesman, several times each. The first and oldest movie in the review is King of the Pecos (Wiki - King of the Pecos), which I watched last nite on Youtube, Youtube - King of the Pecos (1 hr). This is a morality play in black & white.

I'm following Hitesman's review for the movie's scenes - the "quotes" below are mostly my summings of his facts (so, whatever errors are mine). The brief comments are entirely mine.

1. The Basis for John Clayborn's Personal Revenge-Retribution

Alexander Stiles, an ambitious land grabber (he envisions a million acre empire), and his lawyer Brewster, visit the Sweetwater homestead of the Clayborn parents and their son John. Stiles offers $1,000 for the land (probably fair for the land, but ignoring the strategic value of its key watering hole which controls the route between Texas and the Kansas cattle markets ). Clayborn pere refuses the offer. Stiles calls in his running gun Ash and his men. The parents are shot and their son is beaten and left for dead. Stiles then homesteads Sweetwater himself !

I follow Bill Miller's revenge = retribution equation; but I point out that there is a wide spectrum between (1) a one person vendetta; and (2) a society based on talion principles and having mediators to regulate the process.

2. John Clay's Insurgency - Non-Violent Action

Ten years pass. John Clayborn (having taken the name, John Clay) has grown up into a gunslinger and lawyer - don't laugh; recall Andrew Jackson (successful as lawyer and duelist; and not a bad tactician). J.C. (are the initials a coincidence ?) moves to Stiles' county seat, and takes on a group of independent cattle owners as clients in a lawsuit against Stiles. The county judge is an honest but timid man; and Stiles intimidates him from coming to the court house. Clay keeps to non-violent action, but safeguards the judge's passage into the courtroom with an armed force he has mustered. There, Stiles, represented by Brewster, has to sit in a civil trial aimed at voiding Stiles' water hole claims because they are public domain; and thus requiring re-payment of the exorbitant tolls he got from the independent cattle owners. The Court finds for Clay's clients on all counts, except that Stiles is entitled to Sweetwater (which Stiles homesteaded himself after killing Clay's parents). Brewster is fired by Stiles for losing the trial; paid off by Stiles (a "fair cut"); and later killed by Ash at Stiles' behest with recovery of Stiles' money.

Note that this result, besides being non-violent action (Clay employs defensive armed force to protect the judge), is not retribution for Clay or for his clients. It is restitution for the clients, but not for Clay (Clayborn). So, the movie still goes along with the moral sentiments of the 1930s political elites in eschewing revenge-retribution and substituting the idea of restitution. A more touchy-feely segment of today's political elite would require, in addition, reconciliation - with a truth and reconciliation committee facilitating "making nice" between Clay (Clayburn) and Stiles.

3. John Clay's Insurgency - Violent Action

Despite his losing of the legal trial, there is a inadequate legal system to enforce the Court's order, and even to prevent Stiles from using force. No longer able to control the other rancher's cattle by means of the watering holes, Stiles orders Ash and his men to gather all of their cattle by force ("rustle 'em"). To defeat Stiles and his men, Clay organizes the ranchers into a mass cattle drive that must stop in Sweetwater on its way to Abilene. When Stiles refuses access to Sweetwater, Clay (now revealing himself as John Clayborn) and the ranchers kill Stiles and Ash in somewhat the same fashion that Clayborn's parents were murdered years before.

But, before that happens, Clayburn offers Stiles the option of returning (with Ash) to the county seat to face trial for the murder of his parents. Stiles had set up an ambush of Clayburn, but Clayburn had set up a counter-ambush. Stiles decided it was better to live and fight from a fortified position, and waved off Ash and his ambushers.

So, in the end, Clayburn gets his personal revenge-retribution, but only because Stiles refused to take a chance on a murder trial - where a conviction in those days (19th century Texas) would have resulted in group revenge-retribution against the bad guys.

But, we have more. I've cast Clayburn in the insurgent's role to give viewers some mind exercise. Actually, he is the counter-insugent who employs the strategies and tactics of the insurgent. Stiles is the insurgent who takes over Sweetwater and the rest of the Pecos by Lawfare (Brewster) and Warfare (Ash). So, Clayburn responds by neutralizing (options are to kill, detain or convert) Stiles, Ash and his crew; Clayburn goes from non-violent to violent action, when necessary.

That kind of response spans John McCuen's spectrum - see thread for John McCuen, RIP. As Ken White points out in the thread, McCuen's principles work better in cities ! As Cavguy points out in his OP on McCuen:

(1) You must secure your urban centers. I agree with John McCuen that you don't uncover your semi-secure urban base to chase insurgents in the wild. The enemy wants you to do that so he can infiltrate and begin building the political and operational cells in the now-undermanned cities while you chase his bands in the bush, and then look back to find your cities on fire. ...

My 19th century morality play is addressed to the 21st century, but I don't expect its political elite to take notice.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

For African "hands" I doubt the allegations made in a Kenyan newspaper will come as a surprise; the sub-title:

It can now be revealed that the KDF stole cash and other miscellaneous items worth millions of shillings from the westgate mall. This happened during a rescue operation to end the recent siege by Al shabaab militants.

Link:http://www.nairobiexposed.com/2013/0...westgate-mall/

[carl]

Not surprising but always so sad to hear, especially since the article says the Kenyan Police figure many fewer people would have died if the army had kept out of it.

It's bad on another level too. When this kind of thing happens, people figure why bother with Africa?