USA shuts down Somalian Interweb

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

US shuts down Somalian Internet. Yeah you GO America. Just GO.

― Sarah, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Quick, get yer answers in before they GET YOU TOO!

― Sarah, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Crikey, that's terr

― Will, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"Its international telephone service was then shut down when its international gateway - run jointly by AT&T and British Telecom - was also cut off."
Now that's interesting. If something is run jointly by AT&T and BT, then chances are it was until recently run by the joint venture of AT&T and BT called Concert, which was a total failure for reasons I cannot go into here. I know this cos my dad is/was a senior Concert employee, and I shall be asking him about this when he gets home.

― DG, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That's an act of terrorism.

― Trevor, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

were those companies "guilty" or "accused"? Are they guilty until proven innocent?

― Mike Hanle y, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

From George Bush's lips to your ears :

Al Taqua is an association of offshore banks and financial management firms that have helped al Qaeda shift money around the world. Al Barakaat is a group of money wiring and communication companies owned by a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden. Al Taqua and Al Barakaat raise funds for al Qaeda; they manage, invest and distribute those funds. They provide terrorist supporters with Internet service, secure telephone communications and other ways of sending messages and sharing information. They even arrange for the shipment of weapons.

They present themselves as legitimate businesses. But they skim money from every transaction, for the benefit of terrorist organizations. They enable the proceeds of crime in one country to be transferred to pay for terrorist acts in another.

The entry point for these networks may be a small storefront operation -- but follow the network to its center and you discover wealthy banks and sophisticated technology, all at the service of mass murderers. By shutting these networks down, we disrupt the murderers' work. Today's action interrupts al Qaeda's communications; it blocks an important source of funds. It provides us with valuable information and sends a clear message to global financial institutions: you are with us or you are with the terrorists. And if you're with the terrorists, you will face the consequences.

― Benjamin, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Of course those accusations aren't specific. Is he implying that maybe the company in question gives terrorists or their mouthpieces internet access, or server space? Certainly there's a claim being made that the ad hoc banking and money transfer system allows funds to flow in ways that are hard to trace. There's also a claim that the companies in question skim money from transactions (is "skimming" anything like what Ticketmaster, or eBay, does... charging a fee?) that is sent to fund groups that advocate terrorism.
Not much of a public case is being made, but I suppose the US government doesn't feel the need to convince bystanders. If these companies are giving money to groups that use violence towards the goal of a world caliphate, then I say fuck 'em, shut it down (or get the UAE to shut it down, which is what happened here-- violent groups bent on killing innocent people and overthrowing governments to set up a vast theocracy is something more countries than the US are concerned about). I get the feeling that Starry's already set on the idea that this is an illegitimate action, no matter what the circumstances are-- is that the case, Starry?
Re Hanle y's point about presumption of guilt or innocence: if money is believed to be moving through this network NOW to fund further murderous acts, then maybe this should be more analogous to a court enjoining a person or business to stop a particular activity, pending a trial of the legality of it (Napster?). Again, it seems fair enough to me on the surface of it, although I'm very concerned by the Bush government's belief that it doesn't need to convince anyone of the merits of any particular thing it does-- that the justness of the attempts to stop those responsible for Sept 11 means that the US has carte blanche to do ANYTHING in the name of counterterrorism.
― Benjamin, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Use your italics carefully or it may not be obvious where Bush's opinion ends and your's begins.

― RickyT, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Interesting -- my dad was just theorizing this morning that Somalia and Sudan will be the next targets after Afghanistan. I think his fear was that the U.S., in standard fashion, would use someone else to do their dirty work in the region -- in the case of Somalia, using Ethiopia.

Another interesting thing he pointed out was that Eritrea is on the list of nations where U.S. visas are currently frozen. Excellent work, U.S.: help a nation secede, and then fear it.

― Nitsuh, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

ummmm, this isn't even...oh yeah, it is w's dad's failed war effort...i liked the thought that somewhere out there are a group of terroists sitting around listening to dionne warwick singing the greatest hits of al bacarach

― geoff, Friday, 23 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think the problem lies with the fact that a lot of these businesses are both legitimate AND apparently giving money to terrorist groups, in the same way that the oil and arms businesses are legitimate and gave money to the Republican party to get George Bush elected: both are businessmen using their profits to support political ends they approve of (there's no moral equivalence between a democratic political party and a terrorist group, but that's no reflection on the legitimacy of the businesses involved).

Bush is justified in trying to get this supply of money cut off given that it's used to fund terrorist operations. He can't control how the businesses concerned use their money so he shuts down the businesses themselves. But as the article points out, there is a human cost to the people and states dependent on the services these businesses provide, one that the Bush administration can whitewash by using phrases like "appear to be legitimate", implying the firms do no good to anyone except al-Qaeda.

― Tom, Saturday, 24 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think that large comapnies only detrimine what will aid them in the long term future and i think that it is such a mess of string that it is impossible to even find an end. You cannot even pull an Alexandaer and cut the knot because there are 1000s of them.

Let me trace this back . Is this a Concert (ie BT/AT&T)thing. Is it helped along by Warlords ? I thought the net was gutted in Islamic Countries ? How do we know the Al Queda was part of this ? Which Islamic countries are still our friends ? Is this related to Unical(sp), because i read of connections between BT and BP and the connections between BP and Unicol are fairly well established ... I am so confused !

― anthony, Saturday, 24 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Why, exactly, should there be surprise that people guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time will be shafted as everything continues in this whole wretched campaign or whatever it's supposed to be?

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 24 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.