War in africa - Somalia.

The town of galkayo is being disputed with bullets and fighting. if the militias were to observe that the town would belong to the state of respective countries, what do they get out of it? Do they get power there, do they get extra money? Maybe, just maybe, their generals would become mayors of these areas. there is nothing to gain by collecting a small town, the revenue for the state is so meager and town would merely be a drain on the economy, with more people collecting services through service delivery, and, them not being able to generate a profit.

If somalia's forces were to withdraw from there, there would be security for everybody, and no more fighting. instead of fighting over 'brittle peace' and minor votes, they could fall back to other towns, and build bunkers there, preparing to have one bird in the hand instead of two in the bush, yes?

So, they are fighting over a town, and, this means that they want to control it. these militias are fighting over something together - why not fall back and take the next town in line?

Another way to get the rebels to stop fighting is to 'unify them under a flag.' what is wrong with uniting? what is wrong with working for all the people? if these conditions were made to them that way, they would surely stop fighting, of course.

The rebels are fighting for their people - if they were not fighting for their people, their people would not support them, would they? how best can they provide for their people - they could let the food and money start to circulate again. if they have conditions to be met before they lat down their arms, these conditions could be met now, hopefully?

But, let's say the only way they will stop fighting is through their leaders becoming the countries leaders? this would mean that they would of course want to be president, yes? this calls into my mind a new form of government - 'the tribunal system.' this would be where they get three leaders to vote on anything, and, if it is a good idea that benefits people, they will vote for it. if it is a stupid idea, then they must have the other two say no, of course.

I think the big problem is that they want to represent their regions first and foremost? this would lead to squabbling and then they would argue. the problem is, everyone forgets about their people once they enter office, in this case it should take no longer than a year. to make sure each region is represented, each region or province should have 'a leader' on the 'veto role.' this would make, for example in my country, nine leaders that vote on all things. if they happen to be of the same party, then they would compliment each other. in this case in somalia, there would be about eighteen leaders, all speaking to and hearing each other, with all people represented.

If they want to unify later, that is up tot hem, of course. this might lead to new legislation, new laws, a new constitution, but that should wait until the circulation of funds and foodstuffs is put into place.

Another way to get the rebels to stop fighting is to 'unify them under a flag.' what is wrong with uniting? what is wrong with working for all the people? if these conditions were made to them that way, they would surely stop fighting, of course.

The rebels are fighting for their people - if they were not fighting for their people, their people would not support them, would they? how best can they provide for their people - they could let the food and money start to circulate again. if they have conditions to be met before they lat down their arms, these conditions could be met now, hopefully?

But, let's say the only way they will stop fighting is through their leaders becoming the countries leaders? this would mean that they would of course want to be president, yes? this calls into my mind a new form of government - 'the tribunal system.' this would be where they get three leaders to vote on anything, and, if it is a good idea that benefits people, they will vote for it. if it is a stupid idea, then they must have the other two say no, of course.

I think the big problem is that they want to represent their regions first and foremost? this would lead to squabbling and then they would argue. the problem is, everyone forgets about their people once they enter office, in this case it should take no longer than a year. to make sure each region is represented, each region or province should have 'a leader' on the 'veto role.' this would make, for example in my country, nine leaders that vote on all things. if they happen to be of the same party, then they would compliment each other. in this case in somalia, there would be about eighteen leaders, all speaking to and hearing each other, with all people represented.

If they want to unify later, that is up tot hem, of course. this might lead to new legislation, new laws, a new constitution, but that should wait until the circulation of funds and foodstuffs is put into place.

Then there is the violence and rebellion in libya. i think if they all agreed on a leader, there would be less dissent. the leader they have now was voted in, of course, and that was based on popular leaders with popular promises. the thing is, the media in libya probably is not that vocal or listened to, as the militants are poorer people that do not have access to the media as much as the richer people, who are seldom protesting or otherwise destabilizing the country.

So, what can be done is to have all public figures, all those that want peace - i am sure there are a lot of those? - come forward and endorse the president. this needs to be backed up by their promises, and, 'deeds' so far. if a rural leader, for example, was to endorse the president, then there would be a sheep herder effect, of course.

This will mean that the people that listen, the support for the militants, will ditch 'the rebels' if they go against the likes of ghandi. these people, as many as possible, maybe with a incentive of some sort, should come out for peace, of course.

Maybe the best way to deal with rebellious militants is to use hypnotic messages in the media to thwart their support, and, their morale? this would see them turn away from violence and then the people can free themselves, yes?

This would come down to a few messages showing them fighting one another for what they really want - nothing too perverse about this, yes? they could tell them that the people around them want to take their place as generals after the war and that they will take their pay packets?

Maybe negotiations could be made if the leaders have each other's numbers and use cellular communications? if the communications were up and running, then deals may be struck and ceasefires more easily founded, of course. this is because everybody wants a cease fire, as it alleviates the pressure on the soldiers on both sides.

In dealing with cease fires, there should be a resolution for the leaders to al come together with all their soldiers. this will be for negotiations, of course. if both sides, in their entirety, came together, then to discuss demands, it would be very hard for any soldier to raise their weapons and fire with the end in sight.

If the leaders both agreed - "it ends now!" then dealing with peace will be easy. the costs of having a war on going could be a base for 'a ransom,' the potential for the damages to property will be diminished, leading to easier rebuilding, the posting of them as 'election material' in their provinces could be put under their consideration, and the loss of life, which some say is 'priceless' can be stopped. this i don't prize highly either, as, the leaders do not really care if someone dies - if another few people die, they act as if they have lost a leg, yet they do nothing about it, do they? they could call the war off and surrender to protect lives, yet they continue to fight, of course. anyways, if they want to use that as a 'political virtue,' that they do not want another single life to end, then that is up to them.

So, the wars can be ended with the line "it stops now!" then they meet, then they hammer out a plan - a plan where the state needs to concede to the militants, as, if their concessions are true, and the people reject their concessions, the militants must know this before things revert and the arms are done away with, due to stricter monitoring of the weapons caches in the army.

Maybe what is needed in africa is to send ambassadors to meet with the 'rebels?' these could be journalists with memos for them to see and hopefully sign. they could make deals like this, or, they could poison the letters for those that they want to kill. this is taking out the leadership, by poisoning letters to them, but, unethical.

Maybe the best thing to do to find the rebels is to find their guns. this can be done by finding missing weapons and gunpowder, from the manufacturing plants or army bases, and then 'sew them up?' inthe case of militants, they need guns to fight, so, getting hte guns away from them would be to their benefit, of course.

Maybe they could deny food aid to their 'protected people' while the war is going on? this will flush them out, as, the people will uncover them and expose them for the militants they are to get food parcels. closing down public sector services could also jab at the support of the militants, yes? finding some way to get the people t dump them will go a long way, i reckon. if the parliament was to deny electricity to the people and regions that support them, they would surely turn on them?

Then there is the idea that petrol is essential - denying them petrol would see them also throw them out. in the mean time, they could be suspended and receive no pay, by law, due to war time crises.

Or, in the mean time people could work from home, on cell phones typing memos or on their personal computers.

Maybe the best thing to do is offer amnesty for anybody coming forwards? a cash reward if finding lead to arrests or exposes would mean that their would be some incentive for them to expose the militants, but, what do rural and poor people - their most likely support - get from the militants? why they get promises of better lives, and power. so, showing that they will not get these things is important.

Then there is the religious angle - the militants all claim to be god's warriors, yes? if god is not sending angels, there is no need to fight as it is not their will - the various gods out there. if they wanted to fight there would be signs. looking for signs of this technique not manifesting would be to look to somalia and see how long they ave fighting for, yes? obviously power here is not forthcoming, and, the people should learn to accept it - the militants and their support. if somalia, some country the rest of africa is not that interested ind defending, does not come right in two decades, how could they claim power in a richer state? this would mean more soldiers and stuff, and there would be a even longer wait.

Finding out where the money is coming from is easy - drugs. the militants sell drugs to the people that support them, obviously, to get a hold on them. i think a few raids into the african and middle east would show that there are lots of drugs stashed, and, foiling a supply like this would impoverish the militants and cut the supply of power for them from the people, of course. the best way to raid is to get into prostitution, where the prostitutes and drug addicts are offered drugs in exchange for information, of course.

It is said that in africa, there is a lot of ethic violence, yes? this means, of course, that there needs to be less ethic violence on top of I.S.I.S. is a understatement. there needs to be more unity, so, getting to the root of the problem, what is the problem and why are they fighting?

If it means there is violence when they come together, maybe one of the solutions is to separate them? this would be like ethic apartheid, where people are encouraged to move around, maybe with one percent interest loans for housing and things, yes? this will encourage, especially if there is 'help' from the traffic department and other underused public sector delegates to organize the moving from place to place, yes?

Or, we could ask them - d they all belong to the same country? would they hit their friends if they found out they were lying about their ethic or clan and cultural beginnings? if the answer is that a friend is a friend, then they would surely forget about this. if you have your ear pierced at the top or bottom of your lobe, you still have an earing, if you are a young person or old person, don't you belong to the same family, noticing that there is already a contrast in tastes, and therefore culture, in their own households?

Now, if someone has the same needs you do, has the same goals, why not work together? if ti comes to something resource or finance based, they should protest together to the state rather than against each other, yes? is it good to fight 'in your home' when the problem solvers are outside? doing this as a group makes them very worried about elections coming up, and, with all the money the opposition parties have stashed away - money they do not spend that they get from the reserve or taxes, where it disappears, somehow, shouldn't they take the gravy train back and provide jobs, jobs they could gain finances from?

If you really want to make progress with your problems, africa, you need to make it appealing to the leaders! if you rock up at a bank and ask for money, how are they supposed to give everybody? if you arrive with a plan, a plan you could petition to the courts, maybe with some bright ideas of how they, as the rulers, could secure resources for you, the people, and make a profit from it, they are far more likely to listen, yes?

First, take my plan? if the state was willing to put some effort in, and, make some money, they could demand higher wages for the people or workers in exchange for their votes? they could fly huge flags over the workers places of work, and have it told to them that they will get higher wages with them, and lower wages with the opposition. but, there needs to be balance, so the next step with this plan is to make sure the owners of the private sector business profit too, yes? this could be done by lowering taxes on their own operating costs, with the taxes of the workers compensating the state for income tax and sales tax from the things they buy, then the business will benefit from the lower taxes and operating costs on their own business - this will surely make them a meager amount more? - and then the state would benefit from the bulk of the income tax over the operating cost taxes, yes? this will also bring new investors to the region, as, the business owners of the private sector would see it as very attractive, brining jobs, yes?

Making a plan like this, with your own ideas, would mean that you too can make a plan for the state, and, a plan for yourselves, yes? remember, there needs to be a state where everybody scores, you know marching is not the answer?

I hate to say it man...but that is Africa. The Dark Continent. There will always be war and famine there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The various wars in africa mean that there are many lives being lost, resources polluted and abused and money being stopped from generating itself. the whole world should be involved in these wars - what if the world were to come together and declare war on boko harem, i.s.i.s. and company? This will make the likes of militants fear for troops arriving, yes? with that in mind, why not arm the populace that are able to fight? the rebels managed to do it, the people cannot work as long as they are at war, so, they should all be involved in the war in some way, of course. maybe even something simple like a few phone calls to the cities where i.s.i.s. is infesting - they could reassure the people, or, organize an underground of brave young men to thwart the actions of i.s.i.s.?

Being more crafty would mean they could use telephone lines with morse code to deliver messages? this could be done by having the message sent some how to them, maybe with an aid worker? a quick discussion would mean that it would be on line for all of them, yes? i am not sure the exact way they could help, but i know they can help. maybe they could send them some components for simple food poisoning?

Then, the state could also fly private helicopters over the are, taking photos of where the road blocks and forts are? this would serve as a good way to 'google maps' your way to a direct hit on them while they are resting, yes? simply getting the people inside to tell you coordinates, or, street names and numbers, could really help.

In the congo, there is still war raging, but it is not that big numbers wise. but, they need help, and, this will settle the markets of the area, knowing that militias will not come through and steal food and rape women whenever the mood takes them, of course.

So, i am suggesting, seeing as how the houses they have are easy to make, they abandon the rivers they cling to for food and nutrition, and leave the area. it is very hard for the army to fight and track people there in 'the jungle' and that makes it ideal for the militants. if the support of the militias were to come together and leave together, putting their differences aside for the sake of survival, the militias would be left stranded, yes? this makes it cheaper than running a war for another year or so, of course.

An alternative would be for lasting peace - the people that support the militias need to come together, and bury the hatchet, for the sake of, again, survival. if they were to meet up, there would be no spreading of leprosy or anything, yes? the thing is, the militias rely on the stereotyping and racism of the people that support them to prove their place - "what would they do without them to protect them?" i mean, if the soldiers were not there, what would change... would the screaming hordes of war painted savages run amok? of course not, but, due to propaganda and blaming the other tribes for food shortages, they seem to have a place, these militias, of course.

So, move them out into the open or make peace between the tribes, that only keep hating each other because of the soldiers own gossip. in fact i bet this whole thing started by some soldiers wanting some applause from the people, yes?

Ethnic cleansing is sort of like genocide i find, and there is no place for this in any sovereign nation. that means we need to persuade the soldiers not to kill 'other types of people' just because they are different somehow.

The first thing that comes to mind is that as servants of a god, surely they must try to make them pray to their god first before they kill them. this is a gift for their god, the prayers of another as they are filled with the love of their way of life. they should instead go into these areas, with their guns if they feel unsafe, and socialize with these people. this will make it hard for them kill someone they know - why have enemies when you can have friends and show other salvation?

If we are to have paradise, it should not have a lot of corpses lying around, yes? are these bad people? must they die? they have been shown their ways by their forefathers and will not be won over easily.

Now, think of this - say they have guns and want to kill the 'crusaders?' this would mean they would die for their god too, so, turn that around! the people they kill are dying for their god, truly blessed, maybe on their way to hell, yes? this means you need to take them as your children, and 'rehabilitate them,' of course. i know how hard it is to speak to people sometimes that have a different view, but, honestly, does you god want more prayers or to see people dead because you love him?

Boko harem is still at large and recruiting people quickly. there are cases of torture and stuff too from this major african militant group. they seem to hide in uniform, as this is a cult code i would suppose, as they believe that hiding the cause is bad for them.

So, what can we do to stop them? they say they want something noble, yet they do not act nobly to get it. they say they will help the people that help them, yet this is a one way street at the moment.

Why not put a bounty on their heads? they know who the 'commanders' are, and they could offer much money that will be saved from fighting the war. maybe if they had it explained to them that they will starve if they have their way, to continue fighting, they would realize that they are fighting a losing war, impoverishing the whole region they are fighting in or for.

Due to the recruitment of the faction, they will never be without people to fight for them. maybe they could buy a cease fire? all they need is to taste the life of not hiding and fighting for a week and i doubt they will go back to it. they are obviously mingling and stashing their weapons in the cities and farm lands and need to unearth this stash to take the teeth out of their fight.

This might require some help from the ayattolah and the saudi royal family - if they can be seen together, the ethnic cleansing will stop and they would likely receive much as yet undeclared things from the people around them. then the commanders would likely say they have lost their way, and continue fighting, but as for the ethnic cleansing, the super delegates could help a lot.

They should ask the community to look out for people that always seem to have money or have a prosperous lifestyle in the city yet do not have jobs, they are no doubt filters for the militants and would be doing something illegal, yes? if the local police were to make this situation known, then there might be a lead, especially if there is a cash reward.

~ Then i heard about there needing to be halved food rations in kenya for refugees? this could be overcome by giving the refugees all the vitamins they need by getting them a few herbs and such, to make sure they stay healthy, of course. maybe they could also dig for clay to eat, yes? this biomass comes from water mixing with sand and then also some plants, making it edible.

Then they could use satellite imaging, if they can find a sponsor for a few days, to find all the metallic stashes of weapons - i think it will be blue under imaging? - and then also all gunpowder stashes - i am not sure of this color.

There must be a way to end this terrible war - it has been raging for many years and seems to just carry on. being on a port, it is easy to see drugs make their way to the militants, and, then to the army base for guns. this is why i am suggesting a drug test for all army personnel to find out if they are taking these things for guns and supplies. that should bring in some dividends?

Then, they could also eat away at the morale of the militants by showing how much longer 'the war' could go on for. this would be where they show them they are not fighting for freedom, but, rather for resources, yes? this is a case where the fighting is leading to less resources, as the fighting will decrease the countries ability to 'produce,' yes? if they really want to fight for resources, then they need to bring food and water to their people themselves - the others are too weak and afraid, but, then, there will be fighting amongst themselves for resources - even the guy standing next to you needs these things.

I have come up with a way to make water and grow giant fruit, and, this will not be realized as long as there is fighting - the war should end as there is now enough, but only as soon as the fighting stops. fighting over land is not the issue - with sewerage they can cultivate any land with 'biomass.'

~ Biomass is living things. anything that you eat gets processed and pooped out, and, then keeps some of the living things fro your body, be they poison or not, they land on the ground giving it nutrients and 'biomass.' this is like plants, food, dead bodies... they all lead to a healthier farm land.

Now, the leaders of al shabaab will be saying no to them returning, as, the fighting is the only way for them to get power, which is what they really want. they have forgotten the trappings of life, and instead have empty dreams of power and money. getting rid of the commanders, and making sure no new ones come in, will go a long way to ensuring the livelihood of many of the people of somalia.

There are plenty of people out there ready to put on a mask of 'religious crusade,' yet lust for other things - we are all human, i am sure those of you out there will understand. you should observe a leader of a militant group that acquires a city - do they change and become greedy? do they put themselves first? these are not holy men, are they?

Anyways, there is a way to satisfy the laws of sharia, the most costly one for the state being that there should be no interest from banks. this could mean that the money will grow for the bank itself, and, encourage investment, yes? then, there could be other banks near the borders for citizens to put their money into, or have these offices at embassies, which is land belonging to another country, yes?

As for womanly affairs, i find that this is happening in suadi arabia and there are no problems. the women there are not outraged and do not shout at the western cameras whenever they can with masks on to demonstrate - women long for security, not freedom. if it is freedom they seek, then they have no security as they seek security by 'psychological main stay standards.'

~ Isn't it funny women in saudi are quite while women in america protest for freedom?

I think these goals can be realized quite easily, with thieves having their faces marked with tattoos instead of having their hands chopped off, yes?

Otherwise it is only 'the devil in the details.' if a serious scholar was to try to balance the forms of sharia with the way things are, yes things will change and there will be no more recruitment of people under the guise of religion while the leaders get so corrupted. i am not sure how all this started, but i am fully aware of what it has become.