Al Qaeda in Somalia

To be honest, I had no idea what was going on at the beginning of this article. I guess I don’t understand if the New York Times is trying to tell me that Americans are in Somalia dressed as Al Qaeda leaders. I don’t understand who is in the country taking people for their armies and who gave them food. What I do understand is that famine is not okay. I know that food security is one of the basic human securities everyone deserves. Whether it’s drought or not, someone should be in there making sure everyone has enough food to live. I know that it is not okay that 750,000 people are expected to die due to in within the next few months. I do know that the pictures we saw yesterday and the pictures of these people were leaked to us and other countries are not okay. It makes me think that our government is doing something wrong..that we are selfish and that something needs to change. This famine is not okay. Someone needs to help.

Say What?

When I first read the title of the article we would be reading, it didn't make much sense to me that the major Islamist terrorist group Al Qaeda was providing aid to Somalia who is striving to survive every day. Considering the brutality that they usually posses, I don't understand how all of a sudden they're telling these people that they're there for them and want to help. It also surprised me how the man who went and spoke on behalf of Al Qaeda spoke perfect english. I'm not trying to discriminate, but if he originated in the United States and became a member of the terrorist group it's possible that he could recruit others to Al Qaeda as well. When Abdulkadir Hussein said that Al Qaeda is just taking advantage of the hungry people and trying to get child recruits, it didn't shock me in the least. As disgusting and evil as this is, what more could you expect from a terrorist group?

Al Qaeda- Kill 'em All

This past weekend, a man by the name of Abu Abdulla Almuhajir waltzed into a Somalian refugee camp with large amounts of grain, dates, dehydrated milk, and more. He claimed this aid was from Al Qaeda, claiming the extremist terrorist group keeps the suffering Somalians in thier prayers, and praised affiliated extremist group Al Shabab, who currently controls the crumbling country. He covered his face and spoke in perfect English, with an American accent, and was surrounded by masked gunmen in aid-worker white vests. In my opinion, this is a thinly-veiled PR campaign for Al Qaeda, who is trying to raise thier reputation in desperate Somalia. They are trying to sew the seeds for future support in the region, and trying to ensure for themselves a future pool of recruits. If Al Qaeda supports those poor Somalians, why do they block Western aid groups (along with Al Shahab). This type of psuedo-propaganda makes me sick, but it seems most people see through this ploy.

Al Qaeda in Somalia

The recent showing of Al Qaeda representatives in Somalia is something of great concern. In Somalia Al Qaeda can be viewed as saviors and people of hope. With no foreign aid, particularly American, getting into Somalia, Somalian people may be tricked into thinking that nobody cares but Al Qaeda. This is incredibly dangerous. If Somalia sees Al Qaeda as the only group to lend a helping hand, it will be the group they will turn to when the drought is over. This would lead to Al Qaeda taking up a governmental role in Somalia, making it stronger than ever. This is why we must take immediate action in eliminating Al Shabaab, the affiliates of Al Qaeda controlling parts of Somalia including Mogadishu. If we destroy the Al Shabaab regime, we will then be able to provide immense aid to all of Somalia, and install a respective Democratic government.

Al Qaeda's New Tactic

This past weekend a man identified as Abu Abdulla Almuhajir visited a refugee camp in Somalia. A scarf covered his face, he was surrounded by masked gunmen wearing white vests, and brought with him donations. The donations included sacks of grain, dates, dehydrated milk, children’s clothes, copies of the Koran, and $17,000 cash which was divided amongst the families. Even more peculiar, Almuhajir was a white man speaking perfect English with an American accent and the donated items had a label that said “Al Qaeda campaign on behalf of Martyr Bin Laden. Charity relief for those affected by the drought”. The Shabab terrorist group starving the people of Somalia has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. Many believe that this is solely Al Qaeda propaganda in order to gain a new generation of recruits after a series of detrimental blows to the terrorist groups hierarchy of command. This is likely true, though some believe that Almuhajir is only pretending to be an Al-Qaeda representative. In this case it would be hard to find his motive. One possibility is that Almuhajir is a wealthy and clever individual who had devised a way to get aid into the starving people inside the Al Shabaab camp, though this is unlikely.

Al- Qaeda Does Charity and Terrorism

For about the first half of this article I was thinking, “wow, Al-Qaeda is helping people”. But after reading further I realized that they haven’t changed. They are working with the Shabab, a group that is causing the deaths of millions of people and taking children to use as soldiers. Although Al- Qaeda was giving the camp of Somalians food, it seems to be superimposed, or in other words it’s covering up the true relations that the two groups have together. The first thing that made me suspicious was the fact that Mr. Almahujir was white. Muslims from Middle Eastern decent usually don’t take kindly to Western or European converted Muslims. Also he praises the Shabab leaders for, ‘“operating under extremely difficult circumstances’”. This doesn’t make sense to me because the Shabab leaders are imprisoning these people and causing the starvation of millions, so how could they be doing any good? It sounds like Al- Qaeda is backing the part of the Shabab that is doing the imprisoning not the part that is giving them food. Either way, there is certainly something shady about the whole situation, and I’m sure that it can’t be good.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

This article really put a lot of questions in my head. One being why would Al Qaeda help the starving people in Somalia. One reason why is that the people of Somalia are at their weakest, and this is a great opportunity to take over the horn of Africa and gain support. Also Al Qaeda could be recruiting new members who seem to be American. "Abu Abdulla Almuhajir" was the person who went to Somalia on behave of Al Qaeda to deliver supplies for the people who are in need. I believe that they are doing this to earn the Somalians trust and if they earn their trust they could be able to take over the horn of Africa and also get new recruits for their growing army.

Al Qaeda and Somalia

After reading the article about Al Qaeda supporting Somalia for the severe drought that they are currently dealing with, I was somewhat puzzled. Seeing that Al Qaeda is the largest terrorist organization in the world, it is strange that they would be trying to support Somalia in their efforts to feed their people. Many people have doubts that this is actually true and that Abu Abdulla Almuhajir is just an Al Qaeda impostor. I do not believe in this because Al Qaeda has a win win situation for supporting Somalia. One is that they look good to all other countries by helping a country in need instead of terrorizing them. The other is that they have the chance to recruit young children by basically bribing them with a supply a food. With the situation that the Somalians are in, many of them can’t afford to turn down such an offer.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

I honestly have no idea what to think about this article. At first I thought it was crazy that Al Qaeda wanted to help the people in Somalia, but then as I kept reading I realized that there is definitely a reason as to why they are doing this. Considering the conditions in Somalia right now the mass amounts of people just want to get out. I think Al Qaeda is trying to take advantage of the drought and get new recruits. This is almost a perfect place for them to do so. The people that get help are going to be so grateful that they helped them they will most likely switch to Islam and be on Al Qaeda’s side. This is also a better way for Al Qaeda to better their reputation and get more followers. This article was hinting towards the fact that they believe Al Qaeda could have some American members, which I do not doubt.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

Honestly, when I heard the words "Al Qaeda" and "Somalia" in the same sentence I thought there had to be some sort of mistake. With Somalia going through this extremely horrible drought, I didn't think that a well known terrorist group would be helping them by giving them humanitarian aid. It seems to be a little backwards, seeing as Al Qaeda is probably the most well known terrorist group in the world, and they're not known for lending a helping hand. I also think its strange that Abu Abdulla Almuhajir is supposedly white. It seems like Al Qaeda is trying to make themselves look good by sending aid to Somalia, which I think there is something a little off there. I think that if Al Qaeda is going to do this, they should do it because they feel bad for the millions of starving people, not to recruit child soldiers. That is absolutely wrong of them to even try to do when thousands of people are dying each day. The people of Somalia have been starving for such a long time, they aren't going to realize that they are being taken advantage of by Al Qaeda. It's extremely sad to me to think that the poor starving people of Somalia are being tricked/taken advantage of by Al Qaeda.

Somalia

I had mixed feelings about this article. In a way I think it is good for Al Qaeda to help Somalia, but considering how they are normally seems kind of odd to me. Not to mention this Abu Abdulla Almuhajir guy, who seems to be white? Something about this whole out reach seems all backwards. Isn't Al Qaeda more for terrorism than for helping other nations? I agree with the last few statements of this article, this has to be some kind of promotion attempt. Why else, other than of course to help the suffering starving people of Somalia, would a terrorist group branch out and help those in need? Not to mention this shady Abu Abdulla Almuhajir.. the whole thing just seems shady to me. Maybe they are trying to turn over a new leaf, or maybe they are trying to win over the Somalians trust, who knows. All I know is that there are starving people out there that need help and if this is a propaganda move on Al Qaeda's part then that is just wrong and totally disgusting to use these suffering people for that purpose.

Somalia and Al Qaeda

This article originally came as a great shock to me. I thought to myself , why would Al Qaeda bother to send aid to these people. Then I realized these actions would give them significant pull in that region. This would be greatly beneficial for their recruiting campaign. Then an even more radical idea came to my mind. What if the Somalian militant group known as Shabab had planned this with Al Qaeda. They gain control over Somalia, and stop all western aid. This sets up the perfect situation for Al Qaeda to swoop in and look like the hero. The people that Al Qaeda are saving will be so grateful , that they will be more likely to convert to Islam and join the cause against the Western nations who failed to save them. This would be devastating for the U.S. because there are a lot of people at these camps, so even if a small percentage convert that is a huge gain for Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda Aids Somalia

I found this article very interesting for multiple reasons. First of all, I think it's interesting that Al Qaeda is changing up it's tactics. They've realized that what they've been doing for the past few years isn't the best way to advertise themselves. If they want to attract new "members" and become as powerful as they hope to be, then they need to put on the disguise of volunteers. Along with this, Al Qaeda sees Somalia and the entire Horn of Africa as a great opportunity. They're weak in two ways. One being physical due to the lack of resources and intense famine and two being politically. Al Qaeda knows if they become a prevalent force in Somalia that they could to a certain extent take over the country, and gain many more followers. It's also interesting that this article brought up the possibility that Al Qaeda could have some American members. It's my opinion that due to racial profiling, if any large scale terrorist attack is going to happen any time soon, it will be done by a white American. It's a troubling thought to think that Al Qaeda could be getting back on it's feet despite how many of their leaders we've eliminated.

Somalia Famine

I don't really know what to say about this article because it if so confusing. Why would Al Qaeda help starving people in Somalia if the group is known for its horrible terrorist acts? If this was Al Qaeda then why was the man completely white and spoke fluent English? I think it must have been someone that was faking it. but why would someone pretend to be from Al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense if it was AL Qaeda or if it wasn't. Some other people accuse of it being Al Qaeda and that they were doing this in order to recruit young people to join them in whatever they are planning to do. To me that sounds like the most realistic thing because Al Qaeda would do something as horrible as that. I still don’t get why they are helping with the famine when all they've been doing is destroying peoples life.

Global Companies and Human Rights

The main difference between Market-Building Strategy and Cost-Minimizing Strategy is that one doesn't assault human rights to increase their profits and the other increases their profits at their employees expense. I believe that the smarter strategy for a company to choose is the Market Building Strategy because they involve making significant investments that are unlikely to produce profits immediately and they are more committed to the people and the country. An example of companies that use this strategy are large food and beverage companies. An example of companies that use Cost-Minimizing Strategies are large factories where the employees are forced to work long hours and receive very little pay. I believe that it's important for a company to choose wisely when it comes to either of these strategies, because if they choose cost-minimizing over market-building, the media could hear of it and then the company would be exposed and customers would find out about how the company operates. If they find that they don't like the way the company operates or treats it's employees, many customers will turn down any product made by the company and that will result in lower profits for the company.

Company Strategies

It's important for companies to promote human rights and the strategies that they produce need to attract its customers. Market building companies aren't as probable to abuse human rights than cost-minimizing firms and they seek profits by building up markets rather than abusing workers rights. These cost-minimizing firms are more pressured when it comes to globalization and to increase their profits at the levy of their employees rights. Market-Building strategies involve making investments that aren't as likely to create immediate products. Market building strategies mostly include large food and beverage companies. Cost Minimizing strategies involve factories where employees work long and hard hours for little pay. It was interesting to learn that what a company produces will affect its human rights record. That's important because if a company isn't treating their employees with respect and fair treatment, it will likely come out into the media and turn people off from buying that companies products.

Market Strategies

A Market-Building Strategy is a strategy where a company seeks profit by building up markets rather than assaulting worker rights. These companies take time to bring in immediate profits, and tend to have a commitment to the people and the country in which they operate. These are the companies that make up most of America such as Coca-Cola, Kellogs, and Macintosh. A Cost-Minimizing Strategy is when a company looks to increase profits at the expense of its employees. Companies that implement this strategy are mainly short-term and vulnerable to the demands to increase profits. This demand leads to poor treatment of employees due to the overwhelming concern of profit over everything. Examples of these kinds of companies would be sweatshops that are found all over the globe. These sweatshops have operated for large American companies such as Nike and are found in underdeveloped countries where jobs are difficult to find.

Marketing Strategies

When it comes to how an economy in a certain regions economy is functioning, the condition of the businesses in that area will determine the wealth of a countries economy. In a successfully thriving economy, you can be sure that what businesses it contains market building strategies that function on profits and good morals. Marketing building strategies are maintained and are implemented consistently by the company. Ways to maintain profits consists of identifying a target market, knowing your competition, finding a niche, building credibility and being consistent.

But as we know, when there are thriving markets, there is the competition that struggles to strive. When businesses are having these problems, some turn to cost minimizing strategies in hopes to raise their budget. These tactics can range from hiring fewer workers to paying under minimum wage and creating poor working environments.

Market-Building Strategy vs. Cost-Effective Strategy

As the book defines, market-building companies are less likely to abuse human rights than cost-minimizing firms, which are more short-term oriented and more vulnerable to the pressures of globalization to increase profits as the expense of employees' human rights. Market-building strategies involve making significant investments that are unlikely to produce immediate profits. Companies that pursue this type of strategy usually have a better level of commitment to the citizens and nation in which it operates. The market-building strategy seeks profit by building up markets rather than assaulting worker rights. On the other side of things, the cost-minimizing strategy is extremely important. It actually increases profits, however; it does so at the expense of the employees. The cost-minimizing strategy may be effective in many ways, but in order to get to the top using this strategy, human rights need to be infringed upon. It is not, in any way, desirable for a company to have to abuse these rights. So which is better? I'm gonna have to go with the market-building strategy. I know for sure I would never want to be part of something that took away my basic human rights.

Role of Global Companies

In the modern day market there's a large amount of competition. Lots of big corporations will do whatever it takes to get ahead of the competition. Sometimes, this involves using things like child labor and outsourcing to foreign countries. This way, the corporation isn't bound by the same regulations to protect human rights. The question is, is this ok and should we do something to stop it? The exchange rate for foreign currency allows for these companies to pay these workers less yet have it be a realistic amount for these workers in their country. However, sometimes these needs are not met and the workers are paid near dirt amounts. I think outsourcing is alright as long as it's regulated the same way businesses are regulated in America. It can be a smart business practice, but not when it comes at the expense of America's reputation or at the expense of human rights.

Market-building Strategy an Cost-minimizing Strategy

Market-building companies use the market-building strategy and will most likely not abuse human rights, unlike the cost-minimizing companies. Market-building strategies make significant investments that won't produce an immediate profit, because of this they have a stronger commitment to the people and the country they are in.

Cost-minimizing companies use the cost-minimizing strategy because they are more influenced by the pressures of globalization to increase profits. This of course leads to human rights violations. Most of this is fueled by the fact that most cost-minimizing companies are based in countries that fail to enforce protection of human rights, China being the prime example. Most of the things we have are made in China by people who are over worked, under-payed, and most likely working in poor conditions.

Marketing and Cost-minimizing strategies

Marketing strategy will show the result of your company. Marketing strategy is a process that can allow an organization to limited resources on the greatest opportunities to increase sales. A market building strategy doesn’t step on human rights, most of the time. A company that holds this strategy will most likely get profit. This strategy has bad working conditions. It also has bad pay, they don’t get paid fairly.

Cost-minimizing strategies are harder on workers but also will employ. This strategy give your fair pay and good working conditions. I don’t know any other examples that of a cost-minimizing other than Nike. The Nike produce produces their material at a cheaper cost for there employs.

Market Building vs. Minimizing

What would the world's most prominent and popular shoe company do to increase it's profits? Well, NIKE employs small Chinese children for little to no pay, who work in sweat shops in over packed factories, where you can never seem to escape the toxic fumes of melting plastic. This is a great example of a cost minimizing strategy. A company outsources and cheats its way around the American system so it doesn't have to pay as many taxes or pay minimum wage to it's employees. A company like GMC on the other hand, conducts it's business in America, pays it's employees at least minimum wage and does not outsource or build factories in other countries to avoid taxes. That is market building, when a company benefits the overall market, instead of finding ways to make the most money, which usually violates human rights. This is not to say that market building companies don't try to make as much profit as they can, but they at least follow those little things called human securities.

Global Companies

There are two different types of companies, one that is based off market building strategies and the other that is based off cost-minimizing strategies. Companies that use the cost-minimizing strategy are usually much more globally affiliated than the companies that use the other strategy. This is because they take advantage of employees in different countries that do labor for much less than minimum wage in America. This causes the overall profit of the company to increase because they are not spending as much as it on employee salaries, unlike a market building strategy. A market building strategy has part of their focus on supporting the economy of their country. They do this by having jobs for Americans instead of workers in other countries. An example of a company with a market building strategy would be Ford, and one for a cost-minimizing company would be Nike.

Comparing Market Building Strategies and Cost Minimizing Strategies

While it is not black and white, most globalized companies fall into two categories. Some corporations pursue market-building strategy, they tend to invest in human rights and treat their workers well; while other corporations pursue cost-minimizing strategy tend to use outsourcing and other strategies to get around human rights requirements. Market-building companies tend to make long-term investments that are unlikely to produce immediate profit. Cost-minimizing companies tend to make short-term investments cut corners, out source, and any other strategy to get around restrictions involving human rights. They will use low wages, poor quality, long hours, and bad health conditions to save money. An example of this is oil companies such as Shell's experience in Nigeria. They were taking advantage of Nigeria’s lack of human rights restrictions. This allowed them to work their workers as long as they wanted, pay them close to nothing, and have little or no health care. They also ended up working against a movement for rights for rights for the Ogoni people.

There's good companies, and bad companies

Economy plays a huge role in human rights, and corporations influence the economy greatly. Corporations can conduct business in two ways: in a cost-minimizing economy, and in a market-building economy. Cost-minimizing strategies are generally tougher on workers and will employ almost any strategy to increase profits. This includes horrible working conditions, outsourcing to foreign, cheaper workers, cutting corners on costs, etc. Cost-minimizing corporations do not plan for a better future, and some examples of such corporations are Nike. Market-building strategies take into account the future of humanity and human rights, and will often spend money on world-building programs like green technologies, worker's rights, and support for thier native country and people. Such corporations actually care about serving thier investors and bettering the world.

The role of Global Companies in Human Rights

The role that global companies play in human rights depends on their market strategy. A market building strategy typically does not directly violate human rights. A company that employs this strategy will make significant investments unlikely to produce immediate profits. As a result, these companies tend to have a bigger commitment to the people and the countries that they operate in. Two examples of companies that follow a market building strategy are BASF and Motorola.

A cost-minimizing strategy is the other kind of strategy that a company may follow. This strategy usually drives the company to increase profits at the employee’s expense. If a company can produce their product at a lower price if they manufacture it in another country, they will due to competition. However, what allows them to produce their products at a cheaper cost is their disregard for the human rights of their workers. Two examples of companies that follow a cost-minimizing strategy are Levi and Nike.