HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: WHAT?!?!?!
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:28:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1766500007@igc.apc.org> dmorse@igc.apc.org (Dorothy Morse) writes:

>You can't simulataneously maintain that the press is silent about third
>world disasters because it doen doesn't sell papers and that the
>press had no political orientation.  We are in a real world. If your
>motive is to make money no matter what yoy do or don't do, you have a
>political orientation, and you are the willing servant of power.

I can, and  I do. The press has some (a low level, but some) principles
other than making money. But to consider the desire to make money a
political "orientation" is to redefine the words beyond their normal
usage. Those who don't have enough desire to make money go broke.
Those who do are left publishing. 

Yes, I can get some of the othewise-not-reported news by reading
_Mother_Jones_ or _Soldier_of_Fortune_. But the level of noise
and conspiracy theories go up sharply with such sources.

>There's a lot of stuff that would sell papers, by the way, that doesn't
>make it because it would be harmful to power--more money to be made
>by keeping quiet about it than by selling news about it.

To maintain such a meta-stable condition would require one almighty
great coordinating agency among those in "power." Even one paper 
breaking with the cartel could profit greatly.

followups to alt.conspiracy.
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Date: 26 Dec 92 08:55 PST
Subject: Re: WHAT?!?!?!
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec22.182540.5282@sunova.ssc:-966260219:cdp:1766500006:000:2534
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 26 08:55:00 1992


Concerning the media:  the media as a whole, especially network television,
ignored the Somalia crisis for months, when reporting might have made
a difference.  The Tyndall TV monitor report gives totals of network
time devoted to Somalia.  I believe the amount of time devoted from
January to Julyv 1992 was 11 minutes.  This when the Red Cross, Doctors
Without Borders, and their friends in the US were issuing urgent pleas,
crying out that millions of people were at risk of starvation, begging
for media coverage.  The Red Cross organized a trip to Somalia in
April for the media and the only people who went with them were CNN,
Associated Press, and the Washington Post.  Photographers and journalists
on the scene repeatedly report that their editors told them that
'people aren't interested in starving African children.'  This is
exactly the same reasoning used to suppress news about the Ethiopian
famine in 84.  And of course, when the news got out, people were not
only interested,but demanded in great numbers with great vehemence
that something be done.

Oh, after the Somalia crisis finally broke into the news in August,
network TV time devoted to it was 45 minutes.  In September this fell
to 9 minutes, and in October to 3 minutes.  Really liberal huh.  Really
liberal.  

Did you ever hear the word 'denial' in connection with people who
who are associated with alcoholics and drug abusers?  The American people
are in denial about the relationship of the media to the powerful
antidemocratic forces that have so much influence on our government.

Of course there are little liberal blips here and there, and of course
some of the small time folk  are members of the Democratic Party.  And
of course General Electric owns NBC who paired off with MAcNeil/Lehrer
to report the political conventions.  Liberal ideas get a few crumbs
from the media, but the policy makers ensure that you DON'T KNOW
things that would mess up their overall scheme.

Why didn't Ted Koppel (Kissinger's buddy, BTW) tell you about the
Somalian famine in July?  Why didn't Dan Rather? Why didn't Peter
Jennings?  Why didnn't Tom Brokaw?  Do you imagine they didn't know
what was going on, that they don't get the press releases from
the International Red Cross? 


ABC news reads peacenet and internet and probably the other news media
do too.  We were sure talking about this in July.

So there was this enormous famine and they didn't tell you
anything about it and you're sitting here trying to figure out whether
they are too left wing?


Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Alexander S. Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Somalia an Arab country??? no! [was: It's Blood for Oill, again.]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:52:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec21.094642.16144@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>In article <BzF1My.4o2@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.091537.12030@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>...
>>>In article <Bz4AL4.G81@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>>
>>>>    According to the Boston Globe (Dec. 6, 1992), Somali is the national
>>>>    language, Arabic is an official language, English and Italian are also 
>>>>    spoken.
>
>>>This is correct.  Arabic is an official language for religious reasons
>>>as it is the language of the Koran and therefore of Allah (according to
>>>the religion).  The vast majority of the people speak Somali, although 
>>>of the minority who can read, many of them have likely learned to read
>>>Arabic *also* in order to read the Koran in Arabic.
>
>>>>    Finally, Somalia is a member of the Arab League.
>
>>>True, they did so to join with their fellow religionists in an
>>>organization that reached the borders of their country.
>
>>    Do you really believe Somalis are a people without any national 
>>    self-identity and that they tend to blindly join their fellow 
>>    religionists with whom they happen to have a common border?
>
>Who's putting words into my mouth?  Somalis have a strong national
>identity.  I never claimed that they blindly join or follow anyone.
>They joined the Arab League in '74 well over a decade after it was founded
>in the 60's.  I would guess that they hoped that joining the League
>might benefit them in some way (perhaps financially?).

    That does not answer the question why other members of the Arab League 
    voted to accept Somalia in its ranks.
>
>>--->   history of seminomadic pastoral and agricultural
>>--->   traditions.  According to legend, all Somalis are
>>--->   descended from a common ancestor from Arabia. [Samaale a.g.].
>>--->   ...
>
>This states the existence of the legend.  It makes neither of the claims
>that you made.  Do you figure out those claims by yourself or do you
>have a reference which claims that Somalia joined the Arab league
>because a legendary figure was Arabic or that Somalia selected Arabic as
>one of its official languages for that reason?

    Until very recently, Somalis had no written language, hence Somalia's
    history could only exist in the form of a legend, which btw does not
    make it any less valid.

    The bottom line is: Somalia is a member of the Arab League - an 
    organization that has its own peace-keeping forces and, as the events 
    in Lebanon have demonstrated, is quite capable of intervening
    militarily in its member countries.

    There is no reason for the U.S. to be involved militarily in
    Somalia's internal affairs - it is the job of the Arab League!









Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Somalia: The REAL U.S. mission
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:25:32 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <92364.133649U38026@uicvm.uic.edu> <U38026@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
}I happen to locate some interesting information on Somalia.  I think
}most people would find this most interesting in light of the so called
}"humanitarian" mission, Restore Hope.  The issues that are most
}pertinent to issue of U.S. military intervention are marked with a "**".
 
}**Natural resources: uranium, and largely unexploited reserves
}of iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt

Any idea if the amounst are significant/economically feasable to exploit?

}**Environment: recurring droughts; frequent dust storms over eastern
}plains in summer; deforestation; overgrazing; soil erosion; desertification

Will the three people who have not figured this out please raise their hands...

}**Religion: almost entirely Sunni Muslim [interesting that they can sing
}Christmas Carols with the Marines.]

Have you listened to the singing?!?!?

}**Economy
}Overview: One of the world's least developed countries, Somalia
}has few resources. In 1988 per capita GDP was $210. Agriculture is the
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
     this does not appear to sinc well with your "natural resources" claim.
     Consistency error.  Recheck.

}Agriculture is the
}most important sector of the economy, with the livestock sector
}accounting for about 40% of GDP and about 65% of export earnings. 

This does not sinc well with the "environment" statement.  Consistency
check failure.
(not to mention the pictures that show no such thing...)

}Crop production generates only 10%
}of GDP and employs about 20% of the work force. The main export crop is
}bananas; sugar, sorghum, and corn are grown for the domestic market. The
}small industrial sector is based on the processing of agricultural
}products and accounts for less than 10% of GDP. At the end of 1988
}serious economic problems facing the nation were the external debt of
}$2.8 billion and double-digit inflation.

Check against the environment.  Bananas?!?!?!?

}**Agriculture: dominant sector, led by livestock raising (cattle, sheep,
}goats); crops--bananas, sorghum, corn, mangoes, sugarcane; not self-sufficient
}in food; fishing potential largely unexploited

Raising dust and somalians is more like it...
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: Canadian Peace Keepers
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:04:06 GMT

In article <1glaetINNoil@meaddata.meaddata.com> andyw@meaddata.com writes:
>I got this from an AP story a week or so ago, just got around to posting it.
>
>Quoted without permission.
>
>Canada Keeps the Peace:
>
>Canada is increasing its peacekeeping commitments even as it shrinks the
>military to provide a post-Cold War peace dividend.  Canadian soldiers 
>are under fire in Bosnia, helping separate beligerents in Cyprus and on 
>the lookout in the volatile Middle East. Although Canada's army ranks only 
>100th in size, it soon will have 4100 peacekeepers on duty on four continents. 
>The government is doubling its force in the former Yugoslavia to 2,200 and 
>750 are scheduled for deployment to Somalia.  Peacekeeping does not come 
>cheap.  The mission to Somalia and dispatching more soldiers to the Balkans 
>have sent the Defense Department scrambling to find $75 million more than 
>it expected to spend.  "You can't play hardball with a slow-pitch budget", 
>says Maj. Gen Lewis MacKenzie, a former U.N. Protection Force commander.
>

Ya' gotta be proud, eh?

-chris blask

(and no shady ulterior motives to worry about, we're just nice folks!)
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 31 Dec 1992 05:33:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kirby@xerox.com (Mike Kirby) says:

>By and large we already have vote weighting by income group.  Since the more
>wealthy people tend to participate more in the political process, (and vote)
>while the poorer people tend to ignore it.  The concerns of the wealthy are
>taken into account much more than those of the poor.  

I'm not after vote weighting for its own sake--I'm for less
government.  One man one vote isn't working to this end--
we should try something else.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast
From: ilyess@ECE.Concordia.CA (Ilyess Bdira)
Subject: Re: Somalia: The REAL U.S. mission
Organization: ECE - Concordia University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:19:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.195207.14392@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>tranquilizers.  While it is noone's business to try to steer people away

you got it here, it is nobody's business but the people in question,
I wish the U.S foreign policy makers understood this.

>from religion by force, fundamentalism equates to fanaticism (if I _know_
>who God is, isn't it more important than ANYTHING for me to make others
>believe?), and is a long run killer, muslim, judaic, christian...
>
>You are probably right about the CIA, but they do not run the country.  Ol'

I wish this was right, but I studied so many government documents (from
the libraries of Purdue Univ, Univ of Michigan (2nd hand) )
and I am pretty sure of the following things:
1) The president of the U.S the most ignorant person in the government
about foreign policy, his advisors know a lot, but have very biased
opinions and lack honesty.. besides the CIA pretty much directs the
government into any pollicy it wants by providing the "needed" information.
2) The CIA director is an honorary post, he might influence decisions but
the whole mechanism of the CIA is independent of who is directing the CIA.
3)There is a great deal of corruption in the CIA (its agents can get involved
in drug dealing and Mafia and it becomes very hard to distinguish between
things that are done for the U>S interest or things that benefit its agents,
examples that come to mind are Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama, Salvador, Lebanon,
Egypt, Tunisia, etc..) 
4)Still the U.S relies on information that comes from those centers to make
foreign policy decision.. 
>
>What work are you talking about?  Political?  Terrorist?  
Not all military action is terrorist, when you are facing a heavily armed
military/Police state (Algeria, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan in 78) which
kills the opposition and torture and terrorise the families of any
suspected opposition member, you have no choice but to defend yourself..
Still,..
Political work in Poland defeated the K.G.B, it just has to be organized,
and the people must be involved in it and ready to sacrifice, because on
the long run, they will benefit.
>
>sure your genetic homeland has some guys in overcoats too, let's hope
>_They_ are not running things too much.

Maybe 1 in 8 people in Tunisia is an overcoat on the other seven, thanks to 
instructions of the CIA and the Mossad. After all in the Arab world only
brutal ruthless dictators survive for so long (Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam, etc)

> 
> Cheer up!  the world's a real great place, check it out!
The world is a great place to live when I am at home, my back is to the
window, and I do not switch the T.V on.. :-)
What I am saying in the .Sig is another way of saying "Entropy is always
increasing" or in less scientific terms: "Bad things just happen, good things
happen only when you work hard to make them happen"
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:32:46 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1h29tiINN69d@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>The UN contingent that will be deployed in Somalia will be stronger than
>>the 100 Pakistani there before the Marines landed.  The US commitment
>>has spurred other nations to chip in about 13K - 22K troops.  I don't
>>expect all of them to stay there, but what will remain should be
>>considerably more powerful than the warlords.
>
>No.  In any conflict with "peacekeepers" the warlords would have the
>advantage of surprise, which is worth ... well, it's worth a lot.
>
>The only question would be whether they knew how to take advantage of it.
>
>And you still seem to think we will disarm the warlords.  Explicit
>government statements to the contrary notwithstanding.  Even the fact that we
>discovered a cache of weapons belonging to Aideed or one of the others, and
>then withdrew without confiscating them, does not seem to have enlightened
>you.

My argument is that this mission will fail and fail miserably if the
US or UN does not take this course of action, a reconcilliation
between the rival clan leaders seeming to be the more remote
possibility.  We already have seen cases of this, as relief columns
are robbed as soon as the Marines leave the area.  This kind of
banditry will return in full once the US withdraws its combat troops.
Surely our Government will see this eventually, especially with
continued UN prodding, and immediate responsiblity falling on the
Clinton administration.  Policy changes.

I don't think we should remove all arms by force.  This risks shifting
Somali public opinion against us.  What may happen is an offer of
food/money for guns.  We'll have to see.


>
>>Because Bush is an asshole, to put it bluntly.  The Kurds were killed
>>in part because of an exercise in realpolitik ("balance of power" and
>>all that)
>
>The Kurds were killed because we did not care to make Iraq into a colony.
>Would you rather we had?

Balance of power: we did not want Iraq dismembered into Iraq,
Kurdistan and a Shiite nation in the south.  Further, we did not want
the restive Kurdish population in Turkey to start thinking bad (for
Turkey) thoughts.

We would not have had to occupy Iraq to guarantee Kurdish safety.  We
could have set up safety zones perhaps earlier (Before public pressure
forced Bush into it.  Reactive policies tend to cost more than
proactive ones.), for one thing.  Further, we could have enforced the
ban on military flights instead of overlooking the transgressions.




--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast
From: powers@xerox.com (Mike Powers)
Subject: Re: Survival of the fittest...
Reply-To: powers@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Palo Alto
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:53:08 GMT

In article 20141@linus.mitre.org, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.211045.312@spectrum.xerox.com> powers@xerox.com writes:
>}In article @byu.edu, jensen@baloo.ee.byu.edu (Curtis Jensen) writes:
>}>Are we really HELPING these people, or are we just prolonging their
>}>suffering and starvation?  Just GIVING these people food will
>}>cause the somalians to do what they do best ... make MORE starving children.
>}
>}This is blatant racism Mr. Jensen.
>
>OK.  True or false, though?
>
>Poor argument technique.  If you have no counter for the instance, attack the messanger.
>REAL old methodology...
>
>

Sure. I say your statement is false. The part I most violently disagree with is the
phrase "what they do best" which is akin to "working in the cotton fields is what
Blacks do best, its genetic." Somalians are PEOPLE who eat, sleep, make love, have
children, and work. Whether the children they have starve depends on the eco-political
environment, over which they have little control. So JUST giving them food
is JUST a first step in what needs to be a rebuilding of Somalias infrastructure to
support life. The answer I hear implicit in your statement is to withdraw food
until the "genetically/culturally underpriviledged" Somalis are down to an acceptable 
population level. That is an unacceptable multicultural ethic. 

What leads you to believe, Mr. Jensen, that you have any more right to life than they? 
From what ideology do you draw your ethical stance? Is the basic tenet "Might makes
right" where the ones who have the power, food, education, and birth control are fitter
to live? If so I invite you to reconsider. Rather, derive your ethics from a basic 
tenet that holds to the value of humanity AND of each individual.
From: andyw@meaddata.com (Andy Welter)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia/Buying back guns
Date: 29 Dec 1992 21:07:18 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
Reply-To: andyw@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: geronimo.meaddata.com

In article 1h5vnrINN9f2@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU, yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>I don't think we should remove all arms by force.  This risks shifting
>>Somali public opinion against us.  What may happen is an offer of
>>food/money for guns.  We'll have to see.
>
>Money for guns?  Hahaha.  They will sell you only their old and useless guns.
>Just look at what happened to various money-for-guns programs in the US.
>And the Somalians need their guns a lot more than US citizens do.
>
>Food for guns?  The people with guns have not had a problem getting food.
>
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you give a man a gun
and teach him how to steal fish from others, you feed him for life!
:-)

---
|Andrew Welter	     |  All views are mine and not |      (513) 865-6822   
|Mead Data Central   |    that of my employer      |      pd&o-ps-ts-dsp       
|P.O. Box 933        |                             |     andyw@meaddata.com
|Dayton, Ohio  45401 |          	           | ...!uunet!meaddata!andyw

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia
From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:24:29 GMT

In article <1hds1aINN9l6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>
>
> jonesek@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Erik Reid Jones) writes:
>
>>
>>   Yes, it is scary.  The average American voter doesn't have a 
>>   clue in the world.  It's scary when democracy gets out of
>>   hand.  Now I by no means advocate this, but it really does
>>   give hefty weight towards the argument of an intellectual
>>   aristocracy, where only those with at least a Bachelor's
>>   Degree can vote...
>
>The votes should be weighted according to how much income tax
>the voter pays.  The way it is now, the have-nots vote to pick
>the pockets of the haves.  We'll NEVER have peace that way.
>-- 
>=======================
>"Endeavor to persevere"
>=======================

By this logic, people like Donald Trump or Michael Jackson have
thousands of times as many votes as the average schmoe on the street.
That's not what democracy means.  Nor is it fair.
-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.current-events.somalia:764 talk.politics.mideast:24453 alt.conspiracy:13579
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Somaliland
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:44:38 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu

The northern half of Somalia, formerly British Somalia, suceeded
from Somalia some time ago.  That there is no UN presence there indicates,
I trust, that things are going much better in the nominally independant 
country of Somaliland than in the remnants of Somalia.

Can anyone shed any light on what is happening up north?

-Kevin


Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.org.un,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush