osman_nz Posted June 4, 2009 Laaska is in riot mode against sland administration. Sool historically was never apart of somaliland anyways, they never ratified or signed a treaty with the british. So how can they be considered sland border when infact historically they have no right there anyways. ***** is also not historically apart of sland because when the ***** signed the treaty they were considered not "subjects" like the **** and **** and ****" but **** was considered "territories" on their own. Infact the british even build foreign embassy and had an ambassador in *****land to signify them as different region all together. Lastly even somaliland historically has no real claim that is legemitate. When they recieved indepedence from the british they were free only for 5 days before they made the union with somalia. When that union was made the african union only recognized that border. Now their saying they wan't to go back to old colonial borders, how silly because african union constitution article 6 states "they only recognize the indepedence borders of africa" not colonial borders...So constitutionally african union can never give them recogntion even if they wanted and if they did legally they could be sued for breaking the African union constitution. Lastly to be considered a country, u need to have flag, government, currency, president, etc..when sland got it's indepedence from the british they never had any of these basic criterias and legally can not even be viewed as historic country. Wallahi i feel sorry for them, they keep running around the west thinking that will help their cause when the west keeps telling them "we only will listen to the african union" because african union is region boss not the west. And if they go to the african union their hand's are tied and can't do anything for them.. Truly sad situation..historica lly n even neighbourng countries wise like djibouti, ethiopia, egypt, sudan...none of them want to see indepedent somaliland and they have their reasons for that also.. Sad Situation after 17 years u'd think they get it through their heads, but nope...thick as bricks.. Anyways check out the article regarding las canod uprising.. Check it out http://www.riinji.co m/full.php?id=4965 [ June 04, 2009, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar ] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar Posted June 4, 2009 Welkam to the site horta. Since you seem a newbie, a rule you should have known before you posted: Writing explicit qabiil names in any way are not not allowed in this forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
osman_nz Posted June 4, 2009 miskiin oh ok bro..i didn't knpw that.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
landish Posted June 4, 2009 is funny how you seem not to distinguish the level of contracdiction in your little calacaal...ur wrinting that sland was independant for 5 days before joigning the union but that african union only recognize independant borders??? can u see ur contradiction...this goes all rules of logical and philosphical synthesis...let me put it this way: if sland was independant for even for an hour and that african union regonize independant border therefore african union should recognize sland..do u get it misse that doesnt register in your thick skull? miskiin and u had the audacity to call us thick skull...sxb this is the reason why every country is saying that sland independance could only be achieve by negotiating with somalia's government and reach a threaty within themselves and believe me we, educated slander, know that it is the only way to achieve it but when...as the whole country is being hostage by was going on in the south, it is sad to say that we're also coming along the ride and that inshalah they will achieve the same peace that we have in our land... but once that it is achieve, the rest is just history (with the help of Allah obviously)... but crying and calacaal kaan has to be stopped from folks in sool and sanaag cuz i dont know if they realise they're more than one tribe that lives there and i dont believe tribe war is something needed...sool and sanaag will not be seperate and left alone by "sland" population... and that is the honest reality on the ground... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
osman_nz Posted June 4, 2009 landish..to be defined as a country u need to fullfill some criterias...u need president, constitution, currency, flag, and parliament..once u have fulfilled this then can the world view u as country...did somaliland fullfill this basic criteria at the moment of indepedence? wa maya...marka in loo bixiyo wadan waba xaq daro..sure ur border may have been indepedent but u were never a country untill u made the union and had president, government, currency, flag, etc from the south...that is when the african union sealed the border because now they seen a government which represented the ppl.. When sland was indepedent for 5 days they never were nation, they were infact legally speaking border free but no government...we can argue to the african union that just because sland was border free doesn't mean they can be viewed as nation..becuz to be considered a nation u need a president...where was their president to represent their free border? he was in mogadishu signing the union...khalas weeye... So legally speaking u can't call yourself country at indepedence because u never had the basic criterias to be called country...just because your border was free doesn't mean your country in the legal world...and from that stand-point sland claims can be destroyed.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
osman_nz Posted June 4, 2009 landish..that is destroying the secession dreams...we can also destroy the seccessionist dreams regarding sool and sanaag...seeing that i can't use explicit qabil names i will use the region to represent that qabil. sool never signed a treaty with the british and legally speaking are not historically apart of sland...sanaag signed a treaty with the british but the british viewed them as "territory" not as "subject"...the british even stated in the treaty with them that the british will be opening up an embassy and sending an ambassador in that region which shows they were separate from the other sland tribes in the western part. The sland tribes in the west were considered "subjects" were as the sanaag treaty they weren't ever referred to as subjects but "territories"..on top of that with foreign embassy and ambassador being sent to their land which definitely gives them the right historically to be viewed as country separate on their own.. It's kind of like the colonial palestine...colonial palestine was made up of palestine (proper),syria, jordan, lebanon...those countries today became separated and are sovereign countries. The same can be applied in sland situation and sool and sanaag can be taken away from them...and we can achieve that by using the historical evidences in the treaty...so sxb the legal war when the south calms down..believe me puntland will get involved and u will be in the fight for your survival..ur educated in sland are 5 year old intelligence in puntland...u haven't met intelligence untill u met us Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xaaji Xunjuf Posted June 5, 2009 Dude garaad cali was in the parliament of Somaliland in 1960 leading the usp party of Somaliland then how can you say they are not part of Somaliland. Just because they fought the colonialist to some extend it does not mean they are not part of Somaliland. Other wise when the Dervishes where defeated in 1921 , they would segregate them self’s from the rest of the somalilanders but they did not. Somaliland had a prime minister they had currency they had a parliament in 1960 and even political partys. All of that prime minister was Maxammad xaji iebrahein cigal.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
osman_nz Posted June 5, 2009 Xaaji can u prove with reference to historical records that sland had president, currency, parliament, flag, constitition. The basic criteria's of a country AFTER the colonial period. Can you prove also that any country recognized this indepedent state after colonial rule? If u can provide ur historical references that would be appreciated for the above issue's. Because from what i read none of that was ever fulfilled. Secondly sool and sanaag and i will refer to them as their region as qabil name's are not allowed. This regions are easy to take out sland COLONIAL borders because the sool ppl never ratified and signed any treaty with the british to be considered apart of sland..sure if some person from that region was in hargeisa talking crap doesn't mean that his clan elders ever made an official treaty acknowledging their OFFICIALLY apart of sland. In a court of law u can see that you have no leg's to stand on. Sanaag is dismissable because if u read the treaty they signed they were considered "terriotory" not a "subject" as the west slander tribes were considered. They were viewed as terriotory and in their treaty it says the british will open foreign embassy and send an ambassador of england to represent the queen in sanaag territories...this clearly proves that they are separate country. So sxb pls if u want to discuss this issue minus hate and clan goggles i am willing to and be prepared for the fight for your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
