Mr. Sallah,
Once again you're holding unto the wrong vine! If all you have to back your
claim that the Gambia was on the Sierra-Leone/Rwanda path is the cases of
the soldiers you listed, and the "civilians" who attacked the Farafenni
camp, then you'll have to keep looking for a better excuse. I'm waiting for
you to tell me what these soldiers did that got them in trouble.
On the Farafenni incident, the attackers were not on the GNA payroll, but
they are not civilians by any stretch of the imagination. How do I know
that? I grew up with Joof -alias John Dampha. We went to the same primary
school. I know his parents, and all his people. Joof was among the
first/second intake of the Gambian Gendarmes in the early Eighties. He spent
a year or two in Senegal as part of the Confederate contingent. When he left
the service, he went to "hustle" like many of his peers. Turns out, he was
working for Kukoi in Liberia. He actually fought Ecomog for Charles Taylor.
I hope I'm not telling you anything new. Each of Joof's compatriots have
similar stories. I knew two other members of that gang passingly. They've
all had military training in Liberia - probably better than what Gambian
soldiers get back home. The combat exposure certainly helped. The swiftness
and precision of their attack on the Farafenni camp bears testimony to their
military acumen. So, how you can portray such people as "civilians" in the
conventional sense of the word beats me. Please explain to me how any member
of that gang is a "civilian."
In any case, I just don't get it. Are you trying to say that because of your
intervention, such "civilian" revolts have ceased? That you've calmed things
by intervening. Is this what you mean by you helping to "consolidate
democracy?" If so, congratulations. But let's set the record straight: That
ill-fated gang belong to Kukoi's army. They defied Kukoi, and struck
prematurely under the illusion that civilians would be more than happy to
join them. That did not happen, and we all know where they are.
However just as an afterthought, I find your claiming of credit for
influencing the political climate at that time ironical. Why? Because all
you've done is write articles trying to calm waters just like you did when
Koro Ceesay was killed. But unlike this case, you're angry that people are
crediting you for calming public anger in Koro's case. Clearly, you'd rather
someone else take that honor. I have absolutely no qualms about giving you
credit for what you've earned. But, if you're going to take credit for the
consequences of your writings, you should take credit/blame in EVERY CASE,
not in selective cases. You can't say I influenced the peace that enabled
the parliamentary elections to go ahead through my writings, but I had
nothing to do with calming nerves after Koro was killed even though you
conducted an "investigation" in which you concluded that of foul play or an
accident, you're going with the latter. So, which is it: have you influenced
the country either way in all these cases, or in none of them? Please help
me.
Good night.
Saul.
>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: To Hamjatta: Halifamania
>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:54:18 -0000
>
>Saul,
>
>Your last piece to Hamjatta dated 18 December 1999 is making it very
>difficult for me to take you seriously. Initially, I had the intention to
>deal with all your concerns in a chronological order. This was dubbed
>a--------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
