I stand by the above quotes. I see no problem in them. By the way, some refugees contend that they endured verbal abuse and stigmatization well before Siyad unleashed them against the hosts. Somalilanders worried about the demographic consequences of having such a large group of other somalis in their land. As it turns out, today they have to contend with a similar reality, this time from Oromo migrants. What was denied to a fellow somalis is today accepted. A big part of the driving factors behind the SNM and the feeling of victimization was resentment against refugees coming to the land.

Carafaat, what are you reading? Where do I show empathy to the killers? Anyway, I know many other Somalis miss their dead ones. That is to state the fact, not to trivialize the indefensible killings in the North. Still, the question why SL's view themselves as the only group victimized by the military dictatorship, I cannot understand. What happened in Mogadishu in 2006? Was that not a big crime too? I refuse to accept that there was a single clan that were systematically killed in Somalia's civil war. Everybody has his dark tales. Baido's starvation by Aideed, Ban-balaayo massacre, Kismayo killings. I have dealt with that. Showing remains of victims of civil war won't strengthen your argument. Let us take emotion out of the matter and present the merits of secession.

Jacayl, dadkan ma anigaa laayeey? I have no single regret or guilt as a person. Qawl iyo qalbi toona kama taageerin in dadkaas la xansuuqo. Markaa, waabsiga jooji. Also, dadkaa dhintay cadaadis iyo dulaysi ayey ka dagaalamayeene Somalia hala kala jaro umay dhiman.

Carafaat;746346 wrote: We do feel the love. :D Waa run waryaa. Dadkaa cid aan ka jeclahay ma jirto. Soo xogso. Aabahay waxaa gacan looga jebiyey SNM baad wax siisaa. By the way, if the secessionsts do not stop this we go thing, another strategy will be to mobilize all Somalis elsewhere to marry two or three from the enclave so that few men remain with this malady and the rest naturally see the futility of secesion.

:D Ngonge, adigu nin fiican ma tihid. Maxaad talafoonka iiga qaban waydey maalmahan? War baa jiraa aan kula socod siin lahaa. Iskadaa SNM'ta xiiqsane, I wanted a sedate discussion with Ayoub, and he fell short.

burahadeer;746317 wrote: I know truth hurts & there is gona be a lot trash talk behind me,but in reality all those regions you mentioned r no more than 20% of the population;if a referendum were to be taken tomorrow it will easily pass if majority wish so.One thing you have to know is the majority believes those otha unionists are so only to hurt them & they were the ones aligned with siyad barre & were not taken any reprisals againest them - hence ungrateful.That's why I always preach dealing SL with the utmost care.You have to build bridges of trust & keep talking.One example ,SL will neva accept the 33 parlimentarians if it eva come back to the fold...everyone agrees it was a ripoff. I can't speak on this. I don't have figures to dispute this. I tend to agree the recognition-seekers are the majority, but as by what margin, I don't know. However, you would agree geographically, Awdal,Salal, Makhiir and SSC (at least the parts that want union with Somalia) are not small. Also, if referendum comes it will only take place where there is an issue. If there is no issue about secession in Las Anod, there is no need for one. Clearly, you don't want to treat the 20% as angry minorities if the other "80%" decides to go its way. Apart from being undemocratic, it is not excutable. No clan sleeps for the other as you know and the result will be the return of endless clan warfare. So, just don't say what you wish for, be realistic. Your argument also reminds me of the one I hear from ultra ONLF supporters when I say if they don't drop the name, they should at least developed a new map of where it will include. It is clear Harshin, Geladi, Ararso and Jigjiga will not be part of it. The same 'we are the majority' is what I get an answer and other irrelevant historical references. But some do say we are ready to do that but let the others also fight Ethiopian aggression. The other Somalis are not fighting Ethiopia because they are no equally oppressed (in a typical devide and rule policy), and because of the legacy of the clan polarisation in Somalia. On the issue of Somaliland's secession, no one is dying because Djibouti is standing alone. No one will die because SL (the part that wants secession) goes. The reason we cry for union is more from brotherly love towards the people whom we share a lot. And if as you said, you have relatives in Ethiopa and assuming I have similar ones in SL, can you in any way imagine why unity might be appealing to someone, other than seeing it as a relic of Fa.qa.sh policies or the cries of the disgruntled clanmen who wants to use somalia against Ethiopia? What if I just don't see the point of my son asking for a visa to visit his uncles in Hargeisa or the reverse?

d/p

Burahadeer, You are taking the discussion to entirely different angle. I have never disputed there was intolerable oppression. In fact I have said this many times before. I have never equated government response with what SNM did. But my question is not about the war. It is about the aftermath. Also, you agree those who were killed in the North did not belong to entire geographical area, but to a clan. It is sad,but true. Why would you therefore deny the fact that secession is a one clan agenda? be real there. Once we dispense with this, the next issue will be why secession has to be an answer to the death and destruction suffered? Again, this is not for me to decide and I said if the aggrevied party wants to leave, no one should fight them. But why do you deny me the right to claim those who I think are unionists as a pan-Somaliweyn supporter? Why do you see fault in me saying SSC, Makhiir, Awdal are pro-unionist. If at all we play a hide and seek game of obvious facts, I can well tell you the eastern part of the clan that wants secession are not so-strongly for secession, accoring to the stories I hear. Also, your hurt should not interfere into this discussion. You talk of how I am Ethiopian and how Ethiopia is nice and comfortable and how we are petualant to want to leave, yet you have no idea if there are personal tragedies on my part. Indeed, I should have been the one who should be upset, because I am in the state you were in 1988s. It is far easier to reflect back on an ordeal after it passes than live it. And if you could not accept oppression from fellow somalis, what makes you think we should accept it from an altogather different people?

Somalina;746299 wrote: Nonetheless, Yamamoto remains adamant in his cable to argue Meles to be a strong “thinker” on the side of “objectives and ends” judging him for his decision to break ties with Seeye Abraha, a man America’s career diplomat said was Meles’s “best, closest and oldest friend”. Yamamoto states: “When push comes to shove, he [Meles] is far more wedded to tasks than interpersonal relationships.”. A clear case of the blind describing an elephant. Everybody knows Seye has never been a close friend to Meles during the struggle days and Meles envied Seye's popularity with the TPLF fighters and alleged bravery. Everybody knows Seye comes from a part of Tigray which claims to be the traditional throne-holders (Ras Mengasha Siyoum's lineage) and Meles from the largely underpriviledged (until now) Adwa. Everybody knows Seye was threating TPLF Central Committee members who were not in favour of toppling Meles during the TPLF infighting. So, saying Meles broke with Seye is incorrect. Meles saved himself by doing that. It has to do with survival rather than objectives and ends. This alone shows the shallowness of this supposedly scientific character-analysis of Meles. Also, while the Americans whom he serves as errand boy can say whatever they want, Ethiopians never associate Meles with careful speak and sedate arguments. Everytime he comes to the TV, he is known to say inflammatory things that make people angry. To his credit, he reads a lot and knows many things. And there is little doubt he is clever. But he is not someone who likes to introvert. In fact, he displays lots of 'see-me' tendencies with his regular press interviews. If you watch him very carefully, you can see a person desperate for attention and admiration. This 'developmental State' model has been punctured with a simple question? How does it come about? Meles uses the developmental state argument to run away from multiparty democracy and as a way of smuggling his barely disguised communist orientations into Ethiopian politics. For instance, suppose Ethiopia is lucky it got a 'developmental state' led by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. All has to copy from it to make economic and social progress. But that nagging question is not asnwered. What do countries have to do to get a developmental state? The rest of the content of what a developmental state should or should not do fall under the discussion of what economic development models it should folllow. There is a lot on the menue when it comes to which type of development model the thrid world countries should follow, and the developmental state one is just a continuation of that. From Hirschman's "unbalanced growth" theories to "Harod-Domar's" model which emphasizes saving and national growth targets, the literature on economic growth and economic development models are enormous. Luckily, Meles found the developmental state model user-friendly to justify his control of every facet of Ethiopia: politics, economy, religious establishment, the military etc. Whether Yamamotto deoderises the stinking political behind of meles with fake scientific postualtions or not, with Meles, you are dealing with a despot with strong tribalist tendacies.

Baashi;746286 wrote: Abtigiis is posting this corner of the forum something to wrap our hands around. That does not mean he is always right or wrong or have a sinister motives. The man just put up something on the dirrin for discussion. That’s good. Put your magnifying glasses and rip his write-up apart. Just refrain from accusation of sinister motives on his part solely because he aired his views. Thanks Baashi. I may even have a sinsiter motive. The problem is there is no way focusing on my motives will advance any discussion. And you rifghtly said, I am hardly always correct. These are opinions of an individual. Infact, with each resposne I get new ideas that I missed and it is very much a learning process for me too. The other thing is letus bring all issues that are normally said in teashops and rip them apart so that they lose any meaning. it is never good to shy away from discussing topics that we know are there but we don't want to touch them. From this, a healthy tolerant consensus or disagreement will come out. Gheele, War mana sheegad sanidaa. Ma sheekadii the benevolent prostitue baad daba socotaa. Miida kale ma waxaad leedahay nimanka Xinn igu diraya ee leh wuu ku bahdilay waa runtood? Alla tolaa'eey! :D

Burahadheer, I don't carry a guilt of a clan on my shouders nor I am speaking on behlaf of my clan. As unseemly as it may be to you,I am expressing my personal opinions, obnoxious nor not. And I disagree with your characterisation of the conflict in the North. sure, your version is not new to me. I heard it million times. I have also heard the other extreme version. Butmy own analysis is thatwhile the scale of destruction is higher in the North, the intent of the regime was similar with what it did in Putland prior to this conflict. Barre was using clan against clan to preserve power. Those you think were armed because of kinship were mere stones used in this conflcit because of their vulnerable position. The storyline is a regime bent on remaining in power against rebels who fought against oppression. Extermination, i don't think. was a deliberate policy. The regime could not do the same in Mogadishu because it was quickly defeated. If that wasn't the scale, I am of the opinion the same would have happened to the USC supporters. Whatever moral legitimacy the SNM struggle had, I did not question. I am questioning why secession has to be an answer. And also please open a thread and say all you want about ONLF and the motivations you think it has and why there is no genocide in Somaligalbeed. I will give my opinion there without mixing your clan lineage into the discussion. It is a typical northern disposition to indulge in your-clan vs my clan sort of argument. For your information, I have never crossed the border of Somalia before the fall of Siyad Barre. So, you are wrong to think I am one of those who were cleansing your clan. I have also in the past spoke ill of the refugees you talk about here and the negative role they played. Can you ever look at SNM and tell us anything wrong they did? No. Speaking against your clan is crime in Somali mindset.

Xaaji, yes secessionst waan ahay in that sense. Laakin, isn't one man's terrorist the other's hero? I am secessionst for Ethiopians, I am unionist for Somalians. I would face the same accussations I am labelling against SL if i go to an Ethiopian forum.

Gheele, oo xinn sideen isu kiin raaciyaa, kol kaliya Professor miyaad i tidhi? :D Xinn waaka kula hadlaye dhabarjabinta joojii waad aragtaa meeshaan rer-aqoonsi- doon kala maraynee?

xaaji, now you are debating issues. It is every way correct to ask why I would support secession from Ethiopia and reject secession from Somalia. The answer is because I want to see all Somalis united. Is it realistic? Is it wise? Is it legal? That is another issues to debate but if my starting point is to see a strong and vast Somaliweyn in the Horn of Africa, you can see I am not committing double standard. Am I fair? Maybe not! Despite Burhader's pointless rants, I have always said I accept the will of any people and as such do not disagree if the Somalilanders (that is the clan that wants secession) goes it way. It is a loss, but I don't support forceful union. However, I object when they try to deny the same rights themselves want to others. Burhadeer doesn't get that. On the issue of why other clans are not participating in the fight in Somaligalbeed, you and me know the answer, but of course one can ask as a jikaar. It is because of the clan polarization in Somalia which impacts the region, and the fact that most of the Somali clans on the border areas actually identify themselves with the neighbouring regions (Somaliland, Puntland). It is also because of ONLF's dogmatic attachment to a clan name as a liberation struggle brand. Of course, for someone who has never thought outside clan frame, everyone else must have the same motivation and I am not surprised by Burhadeer's accusations against me. I don't agree with them but I understand. And also it doesn't really matter if I am a hypocrat hiding behind Somalinimo or a genuine person. The real question is am I saying incorrect things. To the extent I am saying what I see as facts, the right course is to present counter-facts so that I am convinced. FACT: Somaliland's secession is a one-clan agenda.

Firstly, I am sorry if you feel outsmarted. Let us not be personal. Secondly, the rest of your points are your opinions about my motivations and certain issues you think are happening in Somaligalbeed. You see, the same way you resist to be called a Somalian, I don't want to be called Ethiopian. What you said might be true or false, but there is no point in getting upset about my political philosophy about Somalia. I could in fact have an opinion on Peru. You can dispute it, or disregard it, but you shouldn't talk unrelated nonesense just because you are angry. An anger of a secessionist makes me happy, as you would probably know. Plus, your anger really amounts to the fart a dog breaks out to put out a furnace. It is powerless, it is meanigless. So calm down, and debate the issues if you can. If you can't, then you can't.

Moral appeals and laments hardly solved any problem I know of. Ultimately, Abu-Salman's line of rapprochment and compromise is what will solve the problem. But I object to the idea of appeasing a certian circle of Somalilanders who are fanatical in their pursuit of secession. What these people need is to be challenged for they are holding the majority hostage by presenting the matter as a choice between secession and slavery. The extremists must be named and shamed, their ideas must be rediculed and defeated. The sooner people wake up to this fact the better. That has to be done with a parallel strategy of appealing to the general populace, a task that has to be done by every individual even at personal level. Stating certain facts about the motivation and misinformations of secessionists is not creating wedge between Somalilanders and the rest. Only a petulant secessionist will find healthy debate about the events that led to this quaqmire as shouting from the slidelines. If one is allowed to decry what other have done to him with endless war criminal chants, why is it wrong for others to air their disputations? Let us not spoil an already spoiled SNM goons with some maudlin sentimentality about bridging rifts!

What Gheele wants is clear to me: a bit of Puntlanders bashing to satisfy his fondness of a bit of banter. I will oblige his liking at some point, but my mission here is to highlight Faroole's warped view of Federalism. And Faroole is not a mere individual. He represents a government and its functionaries. So, criticism of him is also directed at those who share his political philosophy including Gheele T.

Gheele, your acrobatics is noted. Which means you didn't say that SL and PL are doing the same thing in the first posts. And that is why I am kinder to the PL. Arm-twisting is fair and I have no problem with it. It may be just that for many Punties, but I was character-analyzing Faroole and it is my take that with sufficient level of desperation, he is capable of declarig secession. Of course, that doesn't mean people in PL will follow him. I have listened to his speechs and I see a man who values clan more than the nation.

Carafaat, I am sure you know vision comes first. Once the goal is set, the strategies will have to be developed, and structures are the tools used to do the activities critical for the implementation of the laid strategies. This is the theory. For now, I am discussing the vision. It need not be achieved at a go. The strategy is to bring Somalia back (which is why bringing somaliland back to the fold is so crucial to the realisation of the vision). And then the rest will be explored. It need not mean launching another regional war, but I am convinced it can be achieved through political and diplomatic means if credible Somalia comes back. And this may not be in my life time.

Abu-Salman;746146 wrote: It is therefore advisable to focus first on building trust and institutions in the South while dealing cordially with Northerners. If and when something viable emerges, the case for unity can only grow stronger, making its advocates from both camps more credible. Above all, let's avoid generalisations and disputes that only profit extremists in each group. ... It is hard to disagree with this sound advice. However, it is good to know that if he prevailing separatists narrative is not confronted, it has the potential to be the only talk in town, thereby confusing those who are not well versed with Somalia's rise and fall.

Somaliweyn!!

Excuse me not posting any videos. Qabla-Youtube generation baan ahay. But I like these lines from Siciid Mire Xaydar: Walow daylo aad tahay, Oo hadana la dhaqankiyo Dhunkashda ku wacan tahay

Barwaaqo, indeed there is no merit in generalisations and there is always an exception. My argument is that the Exectutive sheikhs are largely out and out knaves who would steal from the prophet hismelf if he was alive. The fact that one of them owes me money, however small, may have contribued to my anger but it doesn't invalidate my assertions. :D

“I am not going to the Mosque because I am not a thief”, Hassan Khalif, a prominent elder in the town of Degahbour in Somaligalbeed, once remarked. It was a remark that got notoriety for its blasphemous brilliance. It took me fifteen years to understand the frustrations of the old man from the dusty village I call home. And only the cheapness of Sheikh Ibrahim Dheere of United Western Somali Liberation Front (UWSLF) compelled me to accept that the resident occupiers of the front lines of the house of God are not saints, but sinners. Is 500 sq. meter of land in the CMC suburb on the eastern side of Addis Ababa the price of Sheikh Ibrahim? Is that all you need to package a surrender as peace deal and to betray the aspirations of your suffering people? Is Andalus and Madina complexes in East Leigh enough to blind Dhagaweyne, now inducted as Sheikh Mohamed Ibrahim Shakuul, a man I know from the days we used to play with balls made of plastic and old socks, to the atrocities of the Tigre occupiers? It is a matter that I don’t want to pursue further, lest I turn this piece into a political vilification, which I do not intend it to be. In the last two decades, men with white attires have taken over the business sector wherever Somalis live. The attire and the beard, previously known as emblem of the faithful, are a symbol of class nowadays. You simply do not have to assume the Wadaads of these days are in any way closer to the seat of God than an adulterer. A month or so ago, one of them proposed that if I can help his business to be granted an exclusive franchise in one of the regions in Somalia, I will get kickbacks. That is what it is, but he beautifies the sleaze by saying "what is mine is yours". I have no idea why he thought I have the power to do that. Fortunatlly, I have no such powers and there was no chance I would be tempted. This is not exclusive to one Wadaad, but is the seal of how they do business. They bribe, cheat and do not return money they borrow. They lie and twist religious edicts based on where their intersts lie. In their worst form, they become anti-humanity, when they graduate to the Alshabab mindset. In an article I wrote sometime ago under a pen name titled “the merchants of Fatwa”, I have remarked that “the fusion of business and religion is a deadly mix. Business requires flexibility in interactions with partners and clients. It also instructs unyielding devotion to self-interest. Religion imparts wisdom and guidance with intransigence and selflessness. Flexibility doesn’t go hand-in-hand with intransigence; selfishness doesn’t pair with altruism”. Clearly a new ethics is born, one that overturned idealistic altruism of religion for a more enterprenuerial lure, which is much more user-friendly to business and clients who have until now been bored by a surfeit of prosaic sermons from the religious establishment. They now talk about bread and butter issues, not a problem by itself, if they could take off the mask of magnanimity they wear, when the truth is they are like the jew usurperer– Shylock – in Shakeasper’s celebrated “The merchant of Venus” play. Mosques have now become the new stock exchange markets and a hideout of the mentally corrupt who are in search of a fitting veneer to wrongfoot the overzealous beliver.

It is not circular argument. It makes perfect sense. What do you do with a delinquent son who refuses to live in the family house? Lynch him? No. You set him free and let him go whereever he wants. But you will make sure he doesn't take the healthy ones with him, especially without their consent.