Talk:Fall of Mogadishu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-starter?[edit]

The Siege of Mogadishu might be a very-short-lived affair, given the capitulation of the ICU. I suggest renaming this article "Fall of Mogadishu" if it proves to be more of an occupation of the capital than an armed siege. --Petercorless 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Somalia: ICU leaders resign as Ethiopian army nears the capital SomaliNet, December 27, 2006

I would support that. When I named it I expected there to be some sort of fight, but it turns out they just kept up their tactical retreats to the point of tactical resignations. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so the siege of Mogadishu is over? If so wouldn't this be front page material? If the ICU leaders did resign and are evacuating Modadishu to avoid bloodshed then technically the War in Somalia is over. 68.192.83.150 04:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have read, the clan leaders have not as of yet surrendered. But the ICU has handed power over to them. Its far too early to say what this means in the large scale of the war itself, but as far as Mogadishu is concerned it appears that the ICU's power has ended. But a google search for Mogadishu still gives results from 10 minutes ago saying troops are nearing it... so perhaps its too early to tell given conflicting reports. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of 4:12 AEST the capital hasnt fallen, there is confusion as to who controls it, and confusion about the ICU itself. So this article is a bit premature and should be a pre-cursor article, but might as well leave it and make it better. Enlil Ninlil 05:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much of a seige and Mogadishu has not yet fallen. How about moving this page to Third Battle of Mogadishu ? --PFHLai 09:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no there's no fighting so far. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significant acts[edit]

I don't like the end of the last sentence: losing the "significant acts" that they claim to have brought to Somalians. The ICU has brought unity to parts of Somalia that were ruled by several clans combatting eachother. It is a sign of disrespect to the Somali people who for a large part supported the ICU. It would be better if this sentence is removed.--Daanschr 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it myself.--Daanschr 10:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove it? It was a quotation of the ICU statement (not quotation marks for sarcasm). It was badly worded, but something to that effect should be included, I believe. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at some point we should make a sort of conclusion of the ramifications of the ICU's rise and fall. What they claim to have accomplished, regardless of whether that is soley their own assertions or a generally-held belief. Issues such as the prohibition of khat and the attempt at getting people to turn in arms and taking in technicals were indeed part of their security and social policies. They deserve to be treated as their earnest attempts at social reforms, as well as their more repressive Islamist beliefs. --Petercorless 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw on the news that the government forces and the Ethiopians were invited as heroes, so the ICU was not very popular. I don't think it will be much trouble to write this article.--Daanschr 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partly in the light this article has been marked to become a military project article, i think it is necessary to at least on the talks page mention the "fog of war". It is after all an (still ongoing) operation where the navo forces do play a role, in supporting ethiopian intelligence, troops and un-forces, and in guarding the border with kenia.Taking this into acount there can be no clear picture of what is and has been going on. Personally i think ICU has established some rest earlier, and now the Nato/Un/US whatever you want to call it, the christian "reaction", is welcomed similarly becus people as usual expect the improvement of the situation (under ICU) to continue and even some limitations to be dropped. The military situation has been one completely in favour of (i fear most precisely) 'foreign powers', wich must have been clear to ICU from the start. Wherever they tried to build up resistance they got bombed away, and they had not been very 'warry' in attitude anyhow , with only limited moves in the direction of baidoa. (From ICU point of view it is probably the saddest that what they perceive as a puppet government this way gets to rule the country again, not to mention it may again incite faction-wars.) At least i would like to have the sensible and populationfriendly aspect of the current ICU strategy (not taking the slaughter, but accepting defeat) lighted out in the article, now the christian? victory is a fact.80.57.243.100 15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the Ethiopian population is muslim. Islamic courts in Ethiopia support the government. The Somali government and Puntland are muslim. Yemen supports the Somali government. The African Union is against the Ethiopian invasion, a union with a considerable Christian presence. I would say that religion is not very important in this military affair, except of course for the ICU and the USA.--Daanschr 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPMILHIST Assessment[edit]

A fine start; I have no doubt that you guys are on top of this unfortunate series of events and will continue to keep us all updated. LordAmeth 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title change[edit]

This really isn't an appropriate title. This is not the only time Mogadishu has fallen - it isn't even the first time this year - so "2006 Fall of Mogadishu" is out as a title as well. We need to come up with something more unique to describe this event. Rmhermen 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we dont. We have the Battle of Mogadishu which was in the 90s, and Second Battle of Mogadishu, which was earlier this year. In both of these cases it was a battle that occured, in this case it was not a battle but instead a fall, where it was basically abandoned and TFG forces took over. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is the one time that the city has "fallen," for the most part, as a peaceful capitulation. Compare with the Second Battle of Mogadishu. However, we can put in a reference to the earlier article. I presume we do not need to compare it to the capitulation of the city to the British in World War II or other earlier wars? --Petercorless 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about calling the campaign ' outing of ICU from governmental power in Somalia" or some such descriptive of the political effect of the military actions. Overthrow of ICU government?, Riddance of islamic government somalia?, Etiopia undercover UN action somalia?.. So something that would merely describe the military party's involved. Much better then 'umpteenth battle for mogadishu', i think i remember at least 5, some of wich 20th century or colonial-era. Even for western involvement; third battle or (1st) fall of mogadishu, are neocolonialist eufemisms.80.57.243.100 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fall of Mogadishu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Fall of Mogadishu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Fall of Mogadishu[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fall of Mogadishu's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ethiopiaadmits":

  • From 2006 in Somalia: "Ethiopia admits Somalia offensive". BBC. 2006-12-24. Archived from the original on 16 January 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-17.
  • From Somalia War (2006–2009): Ethiopia admits Somalia offensive, BBC.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fall_of_Mogadishu&oldid=1201907216"