Women of Substance

Maafanta.com


  Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim

  Maafanta.com

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

By Gambian Outsider!

A reply to Bax:

Bax wrote: “ Old prejudice die hard, don’t they? And of course , they cloud judgment too and often, are a source of inconsistencies, which is quite evident in Gambian Outsider’s observations of the week’s events…


I answer that: First Mr. Bax, you assume that I am prejudice against someone like Mr. Sallah which is not true. By not true, I mean you are in error and not that you lied. I just want to make this point clear because sometimes when someone tells another that what he or she said is not true, it is taken to mean that he or she lied. In other words, to tell someone that what he or she said is not true is different from lying. If you have been reading my articles, you will have noticed that I am not a member of any political party or organization. A careful reader Mr. Bax, you would have noticed in my article where I said “there is no independent judiciary in The Gambia; this is an open secret.” If a judiciary is not independent, how could it fair? We talk about independent judiciary because there is fairness. I never said that what Lawyer Darboe said about the fairness of the judiciary was true. I merely explained why he may have said what he said. And I gave a plausible reason for it.


Bax wrote: … On the issue of Jammeh’s recent tirade against former and present Senegalese presidents, Gambian Insider[ it is outsider] thinks that those who reacted and condemned Jammeh may actually have helped him to come to his senses and thus safe himself from crossing the “red line” of the Senegalese.

Then Bax wrote: Gambian outsider thinks that we should all do what his sycophants [meaning Jammeh’s] do and urge him on so that he can offend the Senegalese in a manner that will force them to intervene and remove him from power … Good reasoning …

I answer that: Yes that is my opinion because the overall goal is to remove Jammeh out of office. So why do anything that may in anyway help him out. They say if some decide to hang himself or herself, you give him more rope to do just that. This is the underlying reasoning in what I said. If you have read Ms. Fatou Jaw Manneh’s article on the same issue, and I agree with most of what she wrote, then you would have noticed that I was filling in the gaps to give a more realistic picture. And I went further and said, for Senegal to do anything against Jammeh something more than talk has to happen, something serious, like territorial provocation.

Bax wrote: He/She avoided indentifying any individual or groups for criticism, even though the UDP released a statement in reaction to that incident …

I answer that: If you have read carefully what I wrote, you will see that you are dead wrong. Here is what I mean. In the beginning of my article, in the first paragraph I said “a lot has been written by Gambians in the Diaspora and some politicians in The Gambia.” Later I refer to them as “those writers and commentators …” Bax anyone who wrote and blasted Jammeh on the issue is affirmed in any of the following terms: The Gambians in the Diaspora, some politicians (those who wrote on the issue) or those writers or commentators. This is what in logic is called predication. Predication means something that is affirmed or denied about something else. Anyone who falls within these terms: Gambians in the Diaspora, Some politicians in The Gambia (those who wrote on the issue), those writers and commentators who wrote on the issue are predicated of what I said. Let me give you a classic example. All men are mortal. Bax is mortal. If you read carefully, you will notice that there is something missing in my example. That is, Bax is a man. So this is how it is supposed to appear: All men are mortal. Bax is a man. Therefore Bax is mortal. By suppressing Bax is a man, this does nothing to the truth of the syllogism. The suppression of the minor premise, Bax is a man, is called enthymeme. So you see, I do not have to expressly identify any individual or groups. So long as any individual or groups falls into any of the terms I used namely: Gambians in the Diaspora, some politicians in The Gambia, those writers and commentator. UDP is a political party so it is affirmed in “some politicians in The Gambia.” Any Gambian in the Diaspora who wrote on the issue is affirmed by “Gambians in the Diaspora.” Going back to the major premise All men are mortal. That includes me, you and every human being. Of course, I can say Bax you are a man and therefore you are mortal. Here I am suppressing All men are mortal. I can also say, Bax you are mortal because you are a man. And of course, All men are mortal is suppressed again. This is the point: We do not talk in full syllogisms. One of the premises or the conclusion is always suppressed.

Your problem is that I singled out Mr. Sallah on the Kartong incident. Did not Mr. Sallah wrote on that particular issue? By the way, the Kartong incident is different from the Despot and Senegal incident. So let’s make that clear from the start.

Bax wrote: However, Gambia Outsider adopts a completely different line of reasoning when it comes to the Kartong incident… He/She hold that Halifa should have done something to avoid the situation from escalating, if he actually knew what was happening before and after the incident …

Then Bax wrote: One would have thought that given his/her earlier line of reasoning, the Kartong Youths should have been encourage to escalate the situation to achieve regime change, which is what the outcome will be if Jammeh offends Senegal.


I answer that: Bax, are you saying that what the Kartong boys did was motivated by regime change? If this had escalated, those boys may have been killed. To protest about environmental issues is far from a regime change. And yes, I want to see a regime change, you are absolutely right about that. I am against encouraging Gambian youths to escalate situation where they may lose their lives. Not on something that has to do with mining and the benefits from it. Do you believe there would have been an uprising if the boys were still held? You lack understanding about how law operates in society. Please read my article again. I gave some examples about how the boys could have been arrested even though they may have been exercising their civic duties. Sometimes it is not illegal to arrest persons even when they are exercising their civic duties. To say that because some people are exercising their civic duties therefore they cannot be lawfully arrested is absurd and demonstrate a lack of proper understanding of law.

The incident in Kartong was an opportunity to show leadership. Any wise politician should have taken advantage of that and demonstrate to Gambians his or her leadership qualities and how he or she can diffuse a situation without always having to arrest and incarcerate people as the current regime does. Instead of seeing this as a missed opportunity you mistakenly think I am throwing Mr. Sallah under the bus. What nonsense.  A leader is supposed to be able to solve problems and not escalate them or wish an incident to escalate to take advantage of it. How about this from Mr. Sallah’s article “of course, some in the Diaspora have been demanding action from the opposition in support of the youth. We hope they do not expect PDIOS to mobilize its members to go to Kartong to stop the trucks.”  What in the world Bax do you think Mr. Sallah mean by this? Do you think Mr. Sallah wished to encourage the incident to escalate? Are you serious!


You think I am sympathizing with Darboe. That is absolutely not true. If Darboe had written on the issue and took a similar position as Mr. Sallah, I would have said the same thing. What I said about Darboe as a lawyer has no relevance to what happened in Kartong and what Mr. Sallah wrote about it. Why are you making a connection that does not exist? In what context did I say what I said about Darboe?

Bax wrote: Given that Halifa is a politician who needs to win the votes of the Kartong Youths, shouldn’t Gambian Outsider be consistent and sympathized with him, as he/she did with Lawyer Darboe…?


I answer that: What better way for Mr. Sallah to win the hearts and minds of all Kartong and not just the boys if he had taken a leadership role instead of isolating himself from the incident. Once again, talk about a missed opportunity. My sympathy does nothing to help any politician. A politician wins votes not by being sympathized but by convincing voters that he or she is the right person for the job. I do not care who defeats Jammeh in the next election, if that is possible under the current circumstances in the Gambia. Because I wrote my article based on isolated events, you have to read each paragraph with a view to the event on which it is based.  


Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.