A Somali unionist is arrested in Hargeisa

[Captain Xalane]

Originally posted by me:

Brownie a few questions

 

5. How do you propose we persuade the secessionists to change their mind? By force? War? Or by democratic means?

How about by any means possible?The truth is,pple can only be liberated when they want to and i don't think the pple who reside in the north want to be where the big bulls of power are taking them.Eventually if all available resources of changing their mind fails,then there is one that will always be open to any nationalist and that is liberating the nation even if it has to go through the dark levels of war.There is nothing more absurd than ur countryman denying his cizitenship and wants to be on his own with no good reason at all.Were it not for the colonialists that drew the lines on the globe right after world war two,wouldn't somalia have been the grand somalia it was supposed to be,a somalia with djibouti,with Nfd and with the occupied ******ia?Let it go down in to he minds of the secessionists ,somalia lacks peace now and its on its way to it,and when that happens,the absurd idea of secession would be quenched.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Eventually if all available resources of changing their mind fails,then there is one that will always be open to any nationalist and that is liberating the nation even if it has to go through the dark levels of

They say,charity begins @home. There should be some kind of a progressive step by step process that has to be first met before you can embark on this liberation march.

 

First & foremost,logically you would have to "liberate" somalia from its current state,then you would have to build a viable and a democratic stable government,then you would have to establish a good economy which inturn creates jobs and of course establish a strong army.

 

Any realistic person who is void of bullsh1t nationalistic blood will tell you it might take a good number of years,perhaps say 30yrs.By then somaliland would have been recognised as a country and presumably built itself a strong nation,so invading it would not be as easy as you put it.Kenya is already ahead economically so it will be even tougher and we already couldnt liberate somalis from the xabashis and who knows they maybe occupiers by then.

 

So it will be both economically and militarily monumental of a task for a young nation as somalia(it will be existing for only 30yrs) to wage war and capture lands from countries that have been stable for 70+ years.Unless of course we pray for miracles.

 

Therefore in conclusion and in my opinion,Someone needs to slap some sense into good LT.Xalane

 

*Excuse me am on a posting spree here*

[Captain Xalane]

Originally posted by Brownie:

Someone needs to slap some sense into good LT.Xalane

 

Me,i'll slapp the poor lieutenant for u.

you said,

They say,charity begins @home. There should be some kind of a progressive step by step process that has to be first met before you can embark on this liberation march.

 

That is being done even as i am typing now.There is no warlord in mogadishu,the government in baaidabo is planning something and both the government and the new uprise are still talking.

 

First & foremost,logically you would have to "liberate" somalia from its current state,then you would have to build a viable and a democratic stable government,then you would have to establish a good economy which inturn creates jobs and of course establish a strong army.

 

As said,somalia is being liberated and any government built on the shariah is stable and viable aswell as democratical as of the shariah law and not according to the laws of the white man.

Any realistic person who is void of bullsh1t nationalistic blood will tell you it might take a good number of years,perhaps say 30yrs.By then somaliland would have been recognised as a country and presumably built itself a strong nation,so invading it would not be as easy as you put it.Kenya is already ahead economically so it will be even tougher and we already couldnt liberate somalis from the xabashis and who knows they maybe occupiers by then.

 

Eh,now this is quite some reasoning Now u are mixing things.Militarily,war can be engaged in any form and an enemy can be defeated in many probable ways.We don't need to be economically built to wage war against kenya or even Ethiopia.Eh,am not gonna be suprised if this new bandit sheikh even goes and captures Ethiopia but then i would be crazy to think like that.Anyways i understand ur point but the north secessionists will never get that enough time to do all that.A simple change in mogadishu is already tremmbling them,let alone a unified grand somalia.

So it will be both economically and militarily monumental of a task for a young nation as somalia(it will be existing for only 30yrs) to wage war and capture lands from countries that have been stable for 70+ years.Unless of course we pray for miracles

 

I agree.Actually,Somalia has a history of doing this.Wasn't Ethiopia defeated two times both in 1964 and in 1977 and wasn't ethiopa always existing and strong?Hey it even existed more than the 70 yrs u are talking about.Aren't my pple wierd warriors to do so?Yes they are, and what can stop them to do so again?Probably nothing can:D

[Captain Xalane]

Originally posted by Oodweyne:

Hello Folks

,

 

 

To

:

Mr. Xalane

,

 

To you I can only say that try as I might, I was never in a position, or was known for at all, as a someone who can decipher any passing gibberish nonsense that someone else seen fit enough to throw my side of the debate; hence, I was complete and insensibly flummoxed; particularly, when I have decided to see as to where you were heading with your line of cheap contortion of an argument in here.

 

But, however, be that as it may, if ever, you improve your enormously important and

multi-dimensional struggle

with the English comprehension, with the view of making your argument henceforth, something that is half-way decent for others to get grips with; then, by all means, you are welcome to come back to us in that day; whilst you are baring in mind for our benefit, that you should bring it along something that will make your presence in our polite company of

SOL's

political forum, rather on the whole a decent sight that is worth tolerating it.

 

Point taken and thanks for having been patient with Xalane.

[Faarax-Brawn]

As said,somalia is being liberated and any government built on the shariah is stable and viable aswell as democratical as of the shariah law and not according to the laws of the white man.

Laba Xidigle Xalane. Gooood. Alright now that you understood my point,lets get to the other point. The "Step by Step" point,lets first have somalia liberated and have another 30yrs to build the country,cool?

[Baashi]

Here you go again Oodweyne! You are defending the indefensible again! Listen up bookish boy treason is a crime of disloyalty of one’s nation or state period. That’s long and short end of it. Go and quote Churchill now or lecture us about English/Irish or some other European narratives by penning another long and irrelevant “diffuse and ornate†write-up waabad yeeliye .

 

Anyone who knowingly and willfully cooperates with an enemy for the sole intention of subverting sovereign state is committing treason. One betrays the nation or state at one’s own peril! Waryee it doesn’t matter whether the state is democratic, Islamic, socialist, or what have you. This simple fact should easily sink in through your over inflated thick skull.

 

Now what is truly amazing is your Boolean logic where zeros and ones are doubly defined, rearranged, and reshuffled in order to find a way to justify your Bantustan’s actions to secede. Equally amazing is how you ignored the irony of treasonous entity (SNM led secessionists group) prosecuting the unionists on the grounds of them being treasonous!!! Kix kix ain’t that funny buddy

 

Hold your horse now. I completely understand your erroneous reasoning! Yes I do. It goes like this: secessionist enclave up in the North is sovereign state and democratic one at that hence it is open for nay it promotes the freedom of expression so long the dissenters don’t undermine its very existence! Yeah but the same line can be used to justify the dictatorial regimes’ oppressive actions against those who subvert their very existence or willfully and knowingly aid and abate the enemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Regarding to “Uncle†Yey and the alleged support I supposedly lent him in this forum, well I could and I’m sure I would have done a good job. However Inna Yussuf and I simply don’t share political objectives. We are not on the same page on many many issues. Still he is a force to reckon with in southern politics. He has Melez’s ear and he has lately positioned himself as an alternative choice to political Islam in Somalia. He has a record on this issue. He has defeated Islamists in Puntland once upon time. Powers that be see him as a useful idi*t at this junction of Somali conflict.

 

My position is that UIC, although imperfect in so many ways, are a force to reckon with. The enemy in this case the Ethiopians will do their utmost to pit them against each other. Since TFG has an Ethios support, the UIC will be forced to look for an outside support for it has to survive.

 

Therefore this political machination and foreign interference will render Somalia as a battleground between those who don’t want Islamists as a political force in new Somalia and those who want to have Islam as the guiding principle in the political conduct of the state. I don’t want to see Somalia become a proxy for outside powers through the invitation of the factions vying for power. I hope they understand the forces at play here and sit down and talk it out.

 

Enough said.

[Baashi]

You are quite a character Mr. Oodweyne. Unlike many nomads who congregate in this forum I happen to know exactly what you mean and where you are coming from when you spill your inner messianic beliefs in everything secessionism in your Bantustan corner. It almost borders “absolutism†if you know what I mean.

 

Friend you have the habit to exhibit rather a troubling attitude toward political discussion on any subject. You tend to equate the views that don’t conform to your political template to “hate, ignorance, etcâ€. You have this tendency to substitute name-calling and childish tantrums for an argument. It is quite amusing to see you so worked up when your political stands or your supposedly “informed†opinions is questioned.

 

By now the nomads in this forum have gotten used to your “I-know-all, you-are-ignorant, that-political-formulation-is-not-something-the-western-thought-is-familiar with†sort of debating style.

 

Be that as it may let’s straighten out this Treason biz for once. Treason is not a universal edict that a world court or UN has the hand to enforce. In that sense this is not a universal law applicable to Sovereign States. It is rather a crime Sovereign States have a free hand to define however they deem fit according to their particular school of thought be it socialist, Islamic, democratic or what have you. It is not quite clear to me how you get confused yourself so easily.

 

Brother what is treasonous to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia might be considered an act of civil disobedience in say Sweden! Are you with me there buddy! This means authorities that run Sovereign States are in a position to define what constitutes a high crime and what doesn't. It is local biz dear boy not a universal legal formulation all states are obliged to enforce. It might be the case that wishing ill for the queen is considered a treasonous act in the common wealth states. Yeah I’m stretching it a bit but you know what I mean.

 

Now you threw couple of words into the plate thinking that might absolve whatever treasonous act your clannish rebels might have committed against Somalia that once was including but not limited to conspiring an active enemy to subvert sovereign state. Nop. I’m not buying it buddy. Look insurgency, rebellion, uprising, or what have you might mean something in political revolutionary thought. Or even these sort of violent acts might be morally justifiable. However in the strict legal interpretation if you don’t abide the laws of the land you are simply liable.

 

The idea of the Chinese (a communist state) authorities, for instance, are restrained to implement their version of laws or Chinese malcontents who feel marginalized (Muslims in the Western corner) by the state are free to cross the border and attack the state under the pretence of “Legal Insurgency†is ridiculous. In this context the Chinese authorities would have the right to prosecute the rebels under the Chinese law. The jutice the law should be conforming to is another story altogether. But in the legal sense taking up arms against the authority is a crime the state have a right to prosecute. Talk about intellectual poverty what you exhibited in this thread is a textbook example. Dude you are brainwashed for real.

 

Regarding to my feeling about the secession issue well that’s common knowledge. I don’t support this fantasy notion entertained by your likes. I have nothing against my brothers in that corner. I don’t have a reason to have a grudge against them.

 

However you time and again resorted to these cheap assertions as substitute for argument. This attitude of yours is troubling to say the least. Somaliweyn, I know you don’t hold in high regard, is defensible political agenda. Secession, motivated by clannish grievances against formal regime that’s not in position of power anymore and romanticized by colonial history, is antithesis political agenda to the Somaliweyn platform. I oppose it for a reason. Ya hear me bookish boy.

 

As to your president mze Yussuf ‘s failed attempt to overthrow the military junta that was in power back then and his SSDF clannish militia well unlike you I readily admit that was a failure power grab. That rebellion was treasonous and for your info some of my immediate family members were part of that rebellion.

 

Siyad Barre was no angel and I support that folks have every right to oppose his unconventional ways of suppressing extremely independent nomadic masses. But to cross the border and conspire with the enemy during active war between the states is what Somalis term kud ka guur oo qanjo u guur! His act was treasonous in the first order. Barre’s response to that threat was the beginning of the end.

 

In any event waryee learn how to debate without these lil digs. Are you running out of ammunitions or what! Hey why don’t you slab me with some Western views on how Somalis should go about their business! Don’t forget to highlight them ala diffuse and ornate style we come to expect from you .

[Sophist]

The habitual bromidic of your polemics seem to fail short miserably of its intended purpose, which is to bewitch by what ought to have been resplendently colourful language; but it finds itself in it’s natural habitat—that is in the midst of plebeian convolution. Pray tell dear boy, isn’t that nocuous to your high seat?

 

Genuinely old chap, I mustn’t stoop to a level of ignominy otherwise I will be taking leave from the same wretched hymn sheet which you have become accustomed to of late.

 

I bid you a good day.

 

Sophist

 

PS: Qaar kayo, soomaliya iyo afkaan qalaadba si fiican ayey ugu caano maali karaan. Waa alaah Mahadii.

[me]

Qix Qix Qix @ Oodweyne

 

You just walked into it. Next time you want to cross the street look left then right then walk. I wonder how smart you must be if toddlers are setting you up?

[Mutakalim]

Alleylehe, rag baan hantaataca hanbeeyn. Koley, horay baa loo yidhi: siyaasi baa siyaasadda ka sooma, laakiin safiih baan deyn.

[Paragon]

Oodweyne: For one - i.e., Dictatorial Regime - is essentially political order that has no claim of popular legitimacy of the citizen, which is the definition of Dictatorial regime; whilst the other, it has it’s foundational root, something that is the assent of the citizens, which is definition of Democratic Polity(such as Somaliland); and therefore, a minority that are intend of defying the will of majority in that manner of calling out the State's destruction, in which, furthermore, such Majority’s democratic verdict is predicated on, in-terms cof the existence of the said Political State in the first place; can be, without mincing word, called, as an “Act of Treason†by that minority or their political part).

This is the summary of all of Oodweyne's argument. The issue is not whether the logical political reasoning he deploys here is applicable in all accounts and to all circumstances, rather, it is the acknowledgement that while states may remain similar in meaning, there are however are two different starting points or departures to consider. To explain this point further, one needs to consider these two scenarios;

 

1- Where a state is based on the democratic value of assent of the majority; where the welfare of the whole takes president over that of the few. In such a case 'dessent' is allowed but only to some extent. Where dessent becomes a threat of 'existential' nature, it (the dessent that is) must be kept in check. Thus in keeping with the majority's assent to a common social contruct upheld by all, the minority whose determination is total destruction of the common state can 'morally' and justifiably be charged with treason.

 

2- This is where the foundation or the construct of the state has no assent (majority or a sizable minority), in which people's self-interest becomes subdued to the interest of handful individuals. In this, the dessenting voice has a moral right to oppose such a state apparatus since he/she hasn't entered into a social contract ratified by the majority.

 

These above classifications are not universal in defining the purpose of the state's responsibility towards dessent. Rather, the above classifications are purely liberal definitions. In definitional matters such as these, it depends on which political lense one use to come to a conclusion. The realist definition of the state is to look out for itself in way possible. According to realists, a state, or all states in that matter, have the same purpose-to survive. Morally, therefore, any state, whether it be considered dictatorship or democracy, must function for three things, statism, self-help and most importantly, survival. Now, if you were to ask a realist about the predicament the said fellow faces, he would out-rightly tell you that 'democracy or no democrazy, the state is right to charge him with treason'.

 

So, while Oodweyne's assertions or Somaliland's actions can be justified as an interest in self-help and survival; the very thing Baashi said can be used to say: well, in looking after its welfare, the state (while claiming to be democratic) is really no different from dictatorship in taking the actions it took. Because, if the moral justification provided were absent, the state would still prosecute the dessenting voice. So the whole 'democracy' stuff is a charade.

 

Again it all comes down to what values one subscribes to. Somaliland holds democratic elections to gather people's votes and that may give it the right to claim to have a moral right to protect the will and welfare of its people. This can be countered with the argument that Somaliland has in essence forced a sizable number of peoples of territorial proximity to its broders, into a destiny that is not of the choice.That if the democratically marginalized minority, aren't really a minority but a majority whose other half has been kept out of the process of choosing their destiny. In a nutshell, the majority rule in Somaliland is a formally a 'minority' group of people that was in a country whose majority were opposed to what the now majority of Somaliland wish for! I hope that made some sense.

 

That said, however, it is always good to delineate the contours of discussion. If what is being discussed is the state itself then we need to ask, how sovereign is the state we're discussing? How fluid or transnational is the relationship and allegiance of this particular state's citizens to other states or political entities. The case here in Somaliland is that there is a fluidity of both allegience and transnation relations of citizen, not to mention the question over Somaliland's sovereignty due to lack of international recognition. The state in Somaliland is not as clear cut as a state that has clearly defined territorial borders to which its people can pledge allegience. When such fluidity exists, it always has the risk of de-legimizing the state's claims to its territorial sovereignty and existence and subsequently, its actions. In extreme cases, Somaliland's state may seem treasonous to the recognized Somalia's future state for trying to divide a sovereign country.

[NASSIR]

"Again it all comes down to what values one subscribes to. Somaliland holds democratic elections to gather people's votes and that may give it the right to claim to have a moral right to protect the will and welfare of its people. This can be countered with the argument that Somaliland has in essence forced a sizable number of peoples of territorial proximity to its broders, into a destiny that is not of the choice.That if the democratically marginalized minority, aren't really a minority but a majority whose other half has been kept out of the process of choosing their destiny. In a nutshell, the majority rule in Somaliland is a formally a 'minority' group of people that was in a country whose majority were opposed to what the now majority of Somaliland wish for! I hope that made some sense."

 

 

Great point Paragon. I brought this up to wake up our brother Mutakalim from hibernation. That post was probably his last one, nearly three months back.

 

 

"Brother what is treasonous to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia might be considered an act of civil disobedience in say Sweden! Are you with me there buddy! This means authorities that run Sovereign States are in a position to define what constitutes a high crime and what doesn't. It is local biz dear boy not a universal legal formulation all states are obliged to enforce. It might be the case that wishing ill for the queen is considered a treasonous act in the common wealth states. Yeah I’m stretching it a bit but you know what I mean.

 

Now you threw couple of words into the plate thinking that might absolve whatever treasonous act your clannish rebels might have committed against Somalia that once was including but not limited to conspiring an active enemy to subvert sovereign state. Nop. I’m not buying it buddy. Look insurgency, rebellion, uprising, or what have you might mean something in political revolutionary thought. Or even these sort of violent acts might be morally justifiable. However in the strict legal interpretation if you don’t abide the laws of the land you are simply liable.

 

The idea of the Chinese (a communist state) authorities, for instance, are restrained to implement their version of laws or Chinese malcontents who feel marginalized (Muslims in the Western corner) by the state are free to cross the border and attack the state under the pretence of “Legal Insurgency†is ridiculous. In this context the Chinese authorities would have the right to prosecute the rebels under the Chinese law. The jutice the law should be conforming to is another story altogether. But in the legal sense taking up arms against the authority is a crime the state have a right to prosecute. Talk about intellectual poverty what you exhibited in this thread is a textbook example. Dude you are brainwashed for real." Baashi.

 

 

Very articulate and convincing

[Jacaylbaro]

There is a clear democracy and freedom of speech in Somaliland but that doesn't mean any sick-minded person to use this against the value of Somaliland.

 

Somaliland's independence is untouchable and anyone who try to use this against it will be arrested and brought to the justice.

 

They can criticize the gov. and they even insult personally the President with full of freedom ,,,, but when it comes to the national issues that is why somaliland is standing strong.