Quotable Quotes

[Socod_badne]

^Why are you repeatedly asking the anti-TFG camp to make their case? I would have expected such gaffe of debating etiquette from the likes of Duke et al, not you.

 

The burden of proof always lies with the claimant or one taking the affirmative position. The antithetical position is the default state. TFG exponents have to make their case for why we, the unconvinced, should support them before nay-sayers give their take.

 

 

Now, I know you don't endorse the TFG and for argument's sake taking the position of TFG proponents, so I'll try my best to briefly rebut some of the pro-TFG claims you wrote.

 

Claim: "Yet the TFG is the only group that can boast (rightly or wrongly) of containing members of all Somali clans and groupings."

 

The deficiency of this claim is readily self-evident to any discerning readers. If the TFG is the only all-inclusive faction out there, why are we even having this discussion. Why is Somalia literally on fire and slipping back into anarchy reminiscent of early 90s? Shouldn't every group be happy and supportive of the TFG since the TFG is theirs? Obviously this claim of inclusiveness is contradicted by the daily facts on the ground... it's for cosmetic purposes. The supposed clan/special interest group reps are puppets who are there for their own self-interest and who hold no sway in the respective communities they claim to represent. This claim is the lipstick put on the revolting face of Ethiopian occupation and TFG treachery.

 

 

Claim: "the argument is that the TFG is his best bet"

 

Far from being the best bet, the TFG is the Original Sin... built on a tower of treachery and cronyism taller the Tower of Babel only this time God hasn't send down new languages and it has set the whole region on fire. Their only claim to being anything remotely the best bet is to ignominiously use the deaths of thousands of Somalis, the displacement of nearly half a million civilians, malfeasance, pilfering of whatever paltry aid was giving to Somalis, harassing aid workers and journalists and engineering the worst humanitarian disaster in as many decades, all for the great accomplishment of current Mogadishu. A city that has earned the dishonorable distinction of: Baghdad by the Sea. This outfit of gangs have created something right out of the movie Gangs of New York... these criminals are the very embodiment of malfeasance, criminal incompetence and sheer buffoonery. It's the height of absurdity to claim these donkeys are the best to lead a country at it's most trying hour.

 

From purely practical point of view, the mess in Somalia is the TFG's own creation. There were NO suicide bombers before the TFG. No "insurgency" before they brought in Ethiopian troops to occupy Somalia. Neither were there half a million IDPs facing acute shortages of all essential life necessities and in urgent need of help. How, relying purely on reason, can the very entity that is the provenance for much of the tragedy facing Somalis today be the selfsame entity to remedy it? It's like expecting the US to solve the mess it created in Iraq.

 

 

Claim: "Kindly note that this does not involve feeling sad for the death of civilians or sympathising with people being displaced from their homes"

 

How can you decouple the civilian deaths consideration from the evaluation of the TFG (or any government for that matter)? I mean, if you're that morally flexible then couldn't you excuse the most heinous regimes in history? Can't you excuse Nazism on the account of suspending judgment of their crimes against humanity and judge them only on other considerations? The raison d'être of any government is to protect those it claims to govern, there's no greater purpose than that. If, for whatever reason, it can't actualize it's raison d'être then it has invalidated it's existence.

 

 

Claim: "After all, with their Ethiopian military backers, Saudi money and American support they (of all the other players in this arena) are the most able to bring your beloved Somalia back on its feet (whilst skimming some of the monetary aid and funds, but is that too much of a price to begrudge if they bring Somalia back)?"

 

The only certificate of approval that counts for any aspiring government is that from it's own people. After all, it's not the Saudis and Americans they'll be ruling over, it's Somalis.

[BiLaaL]

^^Its hard for you to understand ‘what I want’, when acceptance of the TFG is the yardstick by which you judge the validity of other peoples’ arguments. The reason you fail to understand my argument is because there is nothing that I want from the TFG.

 

Don’t confuse the things that that I want with who is best placed (in your eyes) to achieve them. Your confusion appears to lie in the latter. You seem to think that the TFG is best placed, whereas I don’t. Does this then invalidate what I want? If so, on what basis?

 

If your refuting my argument based on practicality, then that’s a different issue. My argument may not be harmonious with the here and now but again this doesn’t disqualify it. It’s an argument meant for a post-occupation, post-TFG era. The effort required to bring about the post- era that is speak of, is already underway.

 

I’m a little puzzled by the ‘waxaa la yidhi’ judge that you raise. I’m not one to practice such things. The TFG does not have support among the Somali public. There is universal agreement on this point, even amongst the TFG’s biggest supporters both at home and abroad. Have you forgotten that the Somali people (apart from a few tribal capitalists) had no say in the formation of the TFG? Sadly, your dismissiveness of this almost universal fact appears to lie in your recurring lack of respect for the wishes of the average Somali.

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

If it were about patience, principles or moral positions you would not be incessantly commenting on the situation in Somalia and praising this group or condemning the other. You would distance yourself from all, and, like many Nomads we have here (mostly females incidentally) offer no political comments other than those related to humanitarian issues.

What is wrong with one advocating on behalf of the principles and moral positions that one holds? Indeed, what good is holding a principle, if one doesn’t advocate it himself and calls others to practice them. Isn’t ‘amr bil maruf wa anha anil munkar’ the bedrock of the highest human endeavour? Praising or condemning the actions of the different stakeholders (not restricted to the TFG) in the Somali conflict is a must on every Somali. You can’t seriously be suggesting that we should all remain quiet and reserve our comments for humanitarian issues. We speak out either in favour or against certain actions / groups, precisely so that we can prevent humanitarian crises from occurring in the first place.

[NGONGE]

^^^Saaxib, I go only by your words and the positions I see you take. The only assumption I made here is the one about you not exactly knowing what you want. As harsh as my words come across and as bleak a picture I paint of you, this is not at all meant as a personal invective.

 

Only a few weeks ago you were starting threads talking about the Asmara group and the hope they bring to Somalia. You dismissed all objections and criticisms of that group as being minor flaws when compared to the ultimate goal, which is presumably the resurrection of the state of Somalia under a just and fair government! My argument to you here is that if you’re willing to take no notice of the misdeeds of some of the people in that Asmara group what’s stopping you from extending the same understanding to the TFG? Your aim after all is a united Somalia! The TFG, with all their faults and transgressions also want a united Somalia (I hope I don’t have to explain why that is). So, if that is your goal; logic dictates that you will choose the TFG over the Asmara group (for reasons I’ve already explained).

 

As for lacking respect for the wishes of the average Somali! I really am not sure how I could reply to this without appearing patronising, condescending and probably downright offensive (it’s an affliction of mine. Honest). Well, lets just say that if they indeed had no say in the matter then they deserve no respect at all. Though not for a minute do I believe that they had no say in the matter. Horn is an average Somali and he believes that Hirale is a good leader (where I suspect you regard the man as a warlord). Duke is an average Somali and he considers AY the best of leaders (I don’t even have to guess what you think of that). Oodweyne - putting the argument of Somaliland aside for a minute - is an average Somali and though he probably does not approve of Riyaale still accepts him as his leader. Millions of others fall into this category and follow these same lines of thinking. Somalia is not a democracy, saaxib. Somalia is a clannish country and it is beyond obtuse to attempt to forward an argument that talks about the views of the average Somali in any positive light.

 

What you want and who is best placed to deliver it is the whole argument, saaxib. If you were saying that what you want can’t be delivered by any of the current groups this would have been the end of the argument and I would have not found any chinks in your armour. It would have been a choice based on sound deductions. But this is not what you’re saying. You believe (as your words attest above) that what you want will be achieved soon. That could only imply that the Asmara group will deliver! We go full circle and come back to the argument that the TFG is best placed to deliver what you want. Neither group is more moral, principled or honourable than the other. You may as well choose the richer, stronger and recognised group. Is this so hard to fathom?

 

 

It would be easier and more understandable to just say that you don’t care for long term goals and are only interested in anyone that would eject the Ethiopians from Somalia. At least then it would be a clear position and wish. But when you treat the situation like an open buffet, taking a bit from the top, a bit from the bottom and dollops of other moral (and immoral) bits from the corners, you can’t blame me for concluding that you don’t know what you want but are rather following your feelings, instincts and prejudices (I’m satisfied, after our last argument, that it is not due to any clannish leanings).

 

 

SB

 

I don’t ask them to make their case in regards to the TFG itself. For all I know, the TFG has been a failure, is a failure and will probably remain a failure. Still, if one were to use an example to illustrate that people (and that’s not Bilaal alone) don’t know what they want, what’s better than the TFG?

 

As ever, I’m impressed by your rebuttal of my points but I fear that you (unpredictably) miss the intention.

 

If you were going to choose one side above all others then, surely, it is best to choose one that is likely to achieve your goals and is on a par with your beliefs. Moreover, it has to be one that you can easily explain (like Baashe’s old H union). It is not positions taken that I question, it’s the reasons why such views were taken.

 

Ps

Bilaal,

 

The humanitarian thing is a swamp that I do not wish to muddy our argument with at this point. Suffice it to say, when commenting from a humanitarian angle one will still have to be honest with oneself and know (for one’s own sake if nothing else) why he would condemn the actions of one group over those of another (e.g. TFG and Ethiopians killing civilians as apposed to Shabaab/resistance killing civilians).

[BiLaaL]

Orginally posted by NGONGE: I’m satisfied, after our last argument, that it is not due to any clannish leanings.

I thought i'd start my reply with this positive comment. I've always asserted my innocence of any tribal leanings. Thank you.

 

With regards to our discussion, rest assured saxib - I’m not taking any of your criticisms too personal. Thus far, your criticism has been constructive. Let’s hope it stays that way.

 

I notice that you’re still maintaining that ‘I /we don’t know what we want’. So it ends. I must admit that this part of your argument is bordering on absolutism. I do admire your low tolerance for ambiguity. In this case, however, I don’t believe that I’m being ambiguous at all. I’ve clearly outlined both the foundation and context in which my argument stands. Hopefully, by the time you finish reading this latest reply, you’ll come to not necessarily agree with but appreciate some of what I contend.

 

I know that we’ve more or less exhausted the case of the TFG but let me add a few more lines for the sake of clarity. My single, biggest contention against the TFG is this: it has blessed the occupation of its own territory and appears to be content with it, even to this day. The issue of the occupation and the obvious inability of the TFG to order the occupying force out of Somalia, render the positives you’ve mentioned about them, insignificant. The TFG is weak and I have nothing but contempt for weakness. I cannot trust the Somali republic with a group bent on appeasing the Ethiopian regime. Saxib, a policy of appeasement never succeeds in the long run.

 

We should probably adjourn our disagreement over the TFG for now. You’re rather cleverly trying to solicit certain concessions from me. Yours is a literal version of political brinkmanship. If it weren’t for the issue of the occupation, I probably would have inclined towards your argument.

 

To date, our discussion has been restricted to the TFG but I see that you’ve now brought the Asmara Alliance into the fold. The comparisons you draw about the Asmara Alliance and the TFG are quite valid, except for one crucial thing – the occupation. If you revisit the thread in question, you’ll notice that I did take the Alliance to task for its misdeeds. I mentioned the fact that it has members whose individual records are anything but perfect. I do not, for a moment, condone the shortcomings of these members nor of other numerous ailments that the Alliance suffers from. Having said that, however, the overriding issue for me is the occupation. If my only aim was for the revival of the republic, then sure, your argument would be entirely valid. The prerequisite for a united Somalia, however, is for an end to the occupation (presuming the occupation means anything to you). One can’t precede the other. It’s a no-brainer. As things stand, the Alliance is best placed to end the occupation, hence my endorsement of it and rejection of the TFG.

 

Does this mean that I don’t care for long term goals beyond ending the occupation, as you’ve asserted in your last post? No. This may come as a surprise to you but I have firm belief that the Alliance can go on and achieve many of the things that I’ve previously outlined. Before you jump the gun, let me ease your tension by inserting a qualifier here - do I believe that the Alliance in its current form is capable of achieving the desired long term goals? No. Do I believe that it will eventually get there, post-occupation? Yes. A further question arises; from where does my optimism emanate? It emanates from two things: firstly, the lessons of history; and secondly, the infant state of the Alliance and its potential in forming a coherent unit, as time advances.

 

Let’s elaborate. Firstly, history is full of examples where countries have experienced unparalleled unity, stability, advancement – all the hallmarks of a strong state – immediately after ridding themselves of the yoke of occupation. Naturally, citizens always rally behind their liberators. History is full of such examples. I believe the same will happen with the Alliance. We already have a precedent under SYL, don’t we? From that perspective, history is on the side of the Alliance.

 

Secondly, the Alliance is still in its infancy. I believe that the sobering effect of occupation will bring about a more coherent and united group, overtime, especially post-occupation. The Alliance has already undergone some stern tests. It has managed to contain the egos of the likes of Aidid – by denying him the foreign affairs post. Other reports indicate that the Alliance also compromised over the inserting of the word ‘jihad’ in the final communiqué after the nationalist bloc within the Alliance objected to it. Come liberation, nationalist feeling is sure to overpower and nullify tribalism. By then, I believe the Alliance would have united to a point where it will be possible for them to properly employ the political capital arising from their liberation struggle and use it to achieve the goals we’ve outlined. I could continue, but I think you get the gist of my argument.

 

Given some of the comments in your last post, the preceding must seem all too irrational to you. After all, Somalia is a ‘clannish country’ and the views of the average Somali so lacking in insight and acuity that one can’t possibly discuss them in ‘any positive light’, right?. Oh, I’m being too rational with this bunch of clannists, aren’t I? This characterisation of yours is reminiscent of the evolutionary, racist anthropological models that the colonialists once propogated(i’m surprised that a fellow Somali could hold such views). It is Eurocentric and seeks to group our people in the category of the ‘Other’. Without specifically commenting on the SOL members you’ve listed, I still have reservations on how you view your own people. I would encourage you to reconsider this view not for anyone else but for your own self-worth, saxib. Perhaps you should have a read of Edward Said’s Orientalism (if you already haven’t) or Frantz Fanon's – Black Skin, White Masks and The Wretched of the Earth.

[Fabregas]

quote:If you were going to choose one side above all others then, surely, it is best to choose one that is likely to achieve your goals and is on a par with your beliefs.

 

Well it all depends on how one achieves his intended goals. If you wanted to become super and you had the options of either going to a bank robber, fraudster or working way up the ladder like any law abiding citizens. Any self respecting person would choose the latter. Simarly the T.F.G as you say(assuming it's true) is the most equiped to bring back the Somali state and form a working government given the financial and military support given to it. However, if this means the displacement of thousands of Somalis, the throwin away of Somali soverignity, the arrest and killing of thousands of citizens;plus the countless other crimes commited. Then surely people like have Bilaal and co have the right to reject such a formula? What they reject is not the resurrection of the Somali state nor the forming such instutions, but rather the methods used to achieve the means.

[NGONGE]

^^ And I've argued that all sides are using immoral methods to achieve their means. Can't we stop going in circles please?

 

 

BiLaal,

 

Things seem much clearer now. You seem less vague in your explanations though I could still see a slight conflict there. I truly believe that your desire to liberate Somalia from the Ethiopian occupation influences your judgment regarding the long term goals. I have no problem with your immediate wishes but would advice you to think a little longer about the other part of your argument. It is wishful thinking at its best, no more and no less.

Again, I am only going by your words and it seems obvious to me that this occupation has blurred your views! My recommendation to you is to focus on this occupation and forget all other superfluous reasons why you want to support this Asmara group (so far, your explanations have been very flimsy and easily dismissed).

 

How this group is going to evolve in the future is something that neither I nor you could accurately predict. In fact, we don't even have enough information to make an educated guess about their future fortunes. This is because we already know they don't have the financial, military or political (in international terms) muscle to pull this one off! Politics is a funny old game and things always change from day to day (see Aideed and the way he was for the occupation one day and is now against it). The supporters of the Asmara group (and indeed the TFG itself) could switch sides at anytime, leading to the collapse of one or the weakening of the other (considering that the TFG holds more aces at this moment in time). Therefore, I am afraid I'll have to reject your analysis about the fate of the Asmara group.

 

Your views on my words about the average Somali made me smile (an unfortunate effect in the circumstances). Furthermore, the reading list you suggested allowed me to flash a big Colgate smile at my screen (my teeth are pearly white; I had them cleaned earlier this year when I went to Syria..but I digress..). It is possible that you misunderstood me and it's very possible (also) that you clearly understood my words but they offended you somehow! Nonetheless, I stand by them and, again, reject your unconvincing argument.

 

To repeat the same old cliche is tedious but, with prior apology of course, I'm afraid it IS central to my argument. It has been seventeen years of war, destruction and discord, saaxib. In that time, your average Somali (myself and your good self included) has proven his uselessness and impotence. You are right in your assumption that I look down on Somalis. I do, and for good reason. Though I find your comparison to racist colonialists a tad irritating (not to mention disagree with it) I am willing to wholeheartedly accept it. I view the alternatives you present as being much worse you see!

 

Again, it has been seventeen years, saaxib. Do you want me to ignore all that and rather act like some deranged mother of a criminal ,who whenever people pointed out his crimes, would still deny them all and shout: my son is a good boy! I brought him up with these hands of mine and he never gave me any trouble. Oh if you could only see him seventeen years ago when he was a mere infant, everyone that met him back then agreed that he was the sweetest boy ever born…..

 

I could go on but I'll only irritate you and that's not my intention at all.

[BiLaaL]

^ The occupation has not blurred my views. The long-term goals that I espouse are closely related to the occupation. Frankly, my positive long term outlook has only come about since the start of the occupation. I won’t go too much into this for fear of confusing you even further – but I will say this: Somalis (both tribal and non-tribal) needed a big wakeup call and the occupation with all its nasty undertones, serves to provide us with just such a wakeup call.

 

My explanations have been ‘flimsy’ and ‘easily dismissed’, have they? Flimsy, how? Dimissed, when? Do me a favour and actually address my arguments instead of just claiming to have ‘dismissed’ them, out of hot air. These empty words of yours aren’t going to advance this discussion much. This repeating ourselves business is getting a bit tiring.

 

If you follow my replies, you’ll notice that I’ve refrained from introducing new arguments without first addressing the ones you’ve posed. You don’t seem to be doing the same. Why is that?

 

For example, instead of putting forth arguments why you think the Alliance would/could not unite in their common struggle; you replied with something about no one being not able to predict the future! I never claimed that I could. What I did, though, was list examples where the Alliance has already comprised over and used those examples coupled with the uniting element that a liberation struggle inevitable entails to suggest that they will probably unite even further as their movement matures. This argument is far from astrology yet your answer is soaked with astrological fervour.

 

You did the same with the history argument. In fact, you didn’t even touch that one.

 

The argument that allegiances will shift between the TFG and the Alliance does not stand up to scrutiny. If the conflict between these two groups was over how best to organise a ceremony to swear in a new mayor, or whether to stamp tax on tomatoes or something; then yes, allegiances may have shifted. Saxib, we are not talking about whether to place tax on tomatoes though. We are talking about an occupation! In such scenarios, allegiances do not shift and if they do; they usually don’t shit from the side opposing the occupation. In this case, you don’t need to look back too far. Name one individual who has joined the Alliance and then defected back to the TFG. Just one will do.

 

As for your continuing swipe at your fellow Somalis; one can’t do much, except remind and offer brotherly advice. You seem to have forgotten that the dilemmas facing our country are largely on the political front. Economically, our people have been able to outdo their African counterparts not only on traditional forms of trade but even on the technology front. Somalia boasts better, more reliable internet and communications services than the ever-stable Kenya. This is despite Kenya having access to Western expertise. Surely this is far away from the ‘uselessness’ and ‘impotence’ that ascribe to them.

 

Imagine the possibilities if only we had the same stability enjoyed by Kenya for the last seventeen years. We would have out-performed not only Kenya but the rest of Africa. By now, our economy would have been in the league of the best performing economies of Asia – the so-called Asian tigers.

 

The average Somali is an intelligent, non-tribal, freedom loving, just, decent and hardworking. The chaos of the last seventeen years was not of their own making. It’s too simplistic to say that it was. Regional and international groups coupled with local traitors combined to bring about the chaos of the last seventeen years. It is they who continue to flame instability. Yes, Somalis seem to have played their part by aligning themselves with their clans. I would not blame them for doing this. The average Somali was placed in an unbearable situation. People often follow the lead of those in power (then, warlords). Instead of assessing these set of complicated factors, what you seek to do is lay blame on the victims. This approach of yours is much too simplistic.

 

The Europeans slaughtered one another over the centuries while vying for position, in what were essentially tribal wars. And mind you, they did it for a lot more than seventeen years. Are you willing to ascribe the same contemptible words to them? But the Europeans were…. – you’ll probably devise excuses for them won’t you? Or perhaps you won’t. Think about this one saxib.

 

Ps – What about the reading list I suggested did you find funny? I’d love to know.

[NGONGE]

And on you waffle! Saaxib, It's not my habit to quote and point out. I don't enjoy it and also feel there is something juvenile about quoting one point at a time and saying 'this is what you wrote, this is why I responded in this and that way, etc'! But since you insist I shall indulge you just this once.

 

To date, our discussion has been restricted to the TFG but I see that you’ve now brought the Asmara Alliance into the fold. The comparisons you draw about the Asmara Alliance and the TFG are quite valid, except for one crucial thing – the occupation. .....

....

Having said that, however, the overriding issue for me is the occupation. If my only aim was for the revival of the republic, then sure, your argument would be entirely valid. The prerequisite for a united Somalia, however, is for an end to the occupation (presuming the occupation means anything to you). One can’t precede the other. It’s a no-brainer. As things stand, the Alliance is best placed to end the occupation, hence my endorsement of it and rejection of the TFG.

 

Does this mean that I don’t care for long term goals beyond ending the occupation, as you’ve asserted in your last post? No. This may come as a surprise to you but I have firm belief that the Alliance can go on and achieve many of the things that I’ve previously outlined. Before you jump the gun, let me ease your tension by inserting a qualifier here - do I believe that the Alliance in its current form is capable of achieving the desired long term goals? No. Do I believe that it will eventually get there, post-occupation? Yes. A further question arises; from where does my optimism emanate? It emanates from two things: firstly, the lessons of history; and secondly, the infant state of the Alliance and its potential in forming a coherent unit, as time advances.

Humbug that does not tell me anything. When you say that the Alliance is best placed to end the occupation, what exactly do you mean by that? How is it going to end the occupation? Again, I've already mentioned that they don't have the financial, political or military ability to do so. So why are you so confident?

 

You say that your optimism emanates from the lessons of history and the infant state of the alliance and its potential! Now do you really blame me for dismissing and rejecting this guff? You are talking about an uncertain future and how YOU FEEL it may turnout! It's utter nonsense and nothing but empty waffle to inflate your reply. Neither do you give evidence for these predictions of yours (the educated guess from my last reply) nor do you present any practical steps why you think the Alliance will succeed!

 

 

Secondly, the Alliance is still in its infancy. I believe that the sobering effect of occupation will bring about a more coherent and united group, overtime, especially post-occupation. The Alliance has already undergone some stern tests. It has managed to contain the egos of the likes of Aidid – by denying him the foreign affairs post. Other reports indicate that the Alliance also compromised over the inserting of the word ‘jihad’ in the final communiqué after the nationalist bloc within the Alliance objected to it. Come liberation, nationalist feeling is sure to overpower and nullify tribalism. By then, I believe the Alliance would have united to a point where it will be possible for them to properly employ the political capital arising from their liberation struggle and use it to achieve the goals we’ve outlined. I could continue, but I think you get the gist of my argument.

Aideed was not given a post and Waxa la yedhi the group compromised on semantics? This does not resemble a debate anymore; it's a collection of all your wishes! I hardly see any facts there (other than the Aideed job bit), I can not at all take any of it seriously.

 

 

If you follow my replies, you’ll notice that I’ve refrained from introducing new arguments without first addressing the ones you’ve posed. You don’t seem to be doing the same. Why is that?

 

For example, instead of putting forth arguments why you think the Alliance would/could not unite in their common struggle; you replied with something about no one being not able to predict the future! I never claimed that I could. What I did, though, was list examples where the Alliance has already comprised over and used those examples coupled with the uniting element that a liberation struggle inevitable entails to suggest that they will probably unite even further as their movement matures. This argument is far from astrology yet your answer is soaked with astrological fervour.

See my reply above. On the point of me putting forward new arguments, I do hope that you have not forgot why we're having this debate. Remember? It was all about YOU not knowing what you really want. The more you write the more you prove that you don't.

 

The argument that allegiances will shift between the TFG and the Alliance does not stand up to scrutiny. If the conflict between these two groups was over how best to organise a ceremony to swear in a new mayor, or whether to stamp tax on tomatoes or something; then yes, allegiances may have shifted. Saxib, we are not talking about whether to place tax on tomatoes though. We are talking about an occupation! In such scenarios, allegiances do not shift and if they do; they usually don’t shit from the side opposing the occupation. In this case, you don’t need to look back too far. Name one individual who has joined the Alliance and then defected back to the TFG. Just one will do.

It's not about naming individuals, my friend. Don't go chasing red herrings there. It's about the calibre of people making up that Alliance. Again, I'll just mention Aideed! Will you try to argue now that he's seriously against the occupation rather than against those that lost him his TFG job? Is the man that presided over the actual occupation going to be the same man to end it? Adeer wax macqool ku hadal.

 

Psssst: I predict that Aideed will switch sides again and again. But unlike you and your dreams for the Alliance, my prediction is based on the man's personality and past deeds. It is NOT what I want or wish, it's a guess made in accordance with the various variables available to me at this moment in time.

 

As for your continuing swipe at your fellow Somalis; one can’t do much, except remind and offer brotherly advice. You seem to have forgotten that the dilemmas facing our country are largely on the political front. Economically, our people have been able to outdo their African counterparts not only on traditional forms of trade but even on the technology front. Somalia boasts better, more reliable internet and communications services than the ever-stable Kenya. This is despite Kenya having access to Western expertise. Surely this is far away from the ‘uselessness’ and ‘impotence’ that ascribe to them.

 

Imagine the possibilities if only we had the same stability enjoyed by Kenya for the last seventeen years. We would have out-performed not only Kenya but the rest of Africa. By now, our economy would have been in the league of the best performing economies of Asia – the so-called Asian tigers.

Our discussion was political, saaxib. Don't go clutching at straws and bring economic gains into it. Even if I agree to go down the economic argument route, I could happily (and easily) wax lyrical and dissect the thing bit by bit. But I will not for now. I still have many other quotes of yours to deal with (might as well leave something for my next post).

 

The average Somali is an intelligent, non-tribal, freedom loving, just, decent and hardworking. The chaos of the last seventeen years was not of their own making. It’s too simplistic to say that it was. Regional and international groups coupled with local traitors combined to bring about the chaos of the last seventeen years. It is they who continue to flame instability.

Yes, Somalis seem to have played their part by aligning themselves with their clans. I would not blame them for doing this. The average Somali was placed in an unbearable situation. People often follow the lead of those in power (then, warlords)

. Instead of assessing these set of complicated factors, what you seek to do is lay blame on the victims. This approach of yours is much too simplistic.

Oh! There you go again nauseatingly making things up as you go along! The average Somali you say is 'is an intelligent, non-tribal, freedom loving, just, decent and hardworking'!

 

In a country that suffers from a clannish problem you claim that the average Somali is non-tribal? So where did the clan problem come from, the camels? I gave you the examples of Duke and Horn not because I dislike these Nomads but to show you that most random Somalis suffer from the clannish ailment (or at the least, if suffer might offend them; choose to toe the clan line).

 

You admit that they have taken sides but you still argue that they had no choice! Does this then exonerate them from culpability? If they chose to take sides, which eventually led to the continued destruction of their country then they are not victims at all. They are guilty as charged and no amount of sentimental apologies or pleas of extenuating circumstances will change this fact.

 

My approach is indeed simplistic. It is a simple matter after all. They helped in bringing their country down.

 

 

The Europeans slaughtered one another over the centuries while vying for position, in what were essentially tribal wars. And mind you, they did it for a lot more than seventeen years. Are you willing to ascribe the same contemptible words to them? But the Europeans were…. – you’ll probably devise excuses for them won’t you? Or perhaps you won’t. Think about this one saxib.

Now we're really flailing about! How do the Europeans fit into this argument of ours? Two men talking about their own country, remember.

 

Note that I asked 'how'! This is because I have no idea what Europeans you were talking about and what wars (it might make sense if you were more specific). Of course, someone else might choose to jump in and tell you that the Europeans are not made up of one country or people but I suppose, to you, woxo ba waa wada cadaan!

 

Ps – What about the reading list I suggested did you find funny? I’d love to know.

Because it bears no relation to any discussion we're having here. Still, I'm sure it makes sense to you somehow.

 

--------------------------------------

Ditch the dreams, presumptions and prejudices and you might start to begin to know what you really want, saaxib.

[Fabregas]

Humbug that does not tell me anything. When you say that the Alliance is best placed to end the occupation, what exactly do you mean by that? How is it going to end the occupation? Again, I've already mentioned that they don't have the financial, political or military ability to do so.

 

 

What exactly do you want from the man? Perhaps a scientific formula or the Somali equivalent of the U.S consitution? Bal adigu Talo sheeg wa kaase? What should the Somali people do given the situation they are in according to Mr Ngonge?

[ElPunto]

What an interesting gem of a debate. Do continue lads.

[BiLaaL]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Now we're really flailing about! How do the Europeans fit into this argument of ours? Two men talking about their own country remember.

You’re accusing Somalis of being ‘clannish’ simply because of the civil war. The significance of the European argument is to point out other instances where clan animosity has led to civil wars. Bringing the Europeans into this is meant to discredit your wrongly held notion that Somalis are especially ‘clannish’ unlike other human beings. Also, Note: when i say 'Europeans' i don't mean to say that all Europeans are from the same tribe (of course not) but rather that the continent of Europe has in it different tribes; not of all of which have co-existed peacefully over the centuries. Read on.

 

Note that I asked 'how'! This is because I have no idea what Europeans you were talking about and what wars (it might make sense if you were more specific). Of course, someone else might choose to jump in and tell you that the Europeans are not made up of one country or people but I suppose, to you, woxo ba waa wada cadaan!

I was hoping that your history would be better than that. The Europeans are essentially tribes. What else would they be? Don’t all humans form tribes or aren’t they descendents of tribes?

 

Let me provide a few examples without going into a long history lesson. The Nordic countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland) once (middle ages) shared similar culture and language. These Nordic countries changed hands many times between warring tribes. This is why, even to this day, many people in these Nordic countries claim similar heritage despite living in separate states. Similarly, the Iberian Peninsula (Portual, Spain, Gibraltor, Andorra) shares common heritage with the Iberian people. Historians have since come to know that the Iberians were themselves divided into sub tribes (no surprises there). The British-Isles (UK and Ireland), were inhabited by the Hiberani, Angles, Jutes and Saxon peoples. The Vikings - A seafaring, Nordic tribesman also entered the region around 790’s. The Normans, who’ve left a much more enduring mark (all present European monarchs are direct descendents of a Norman king) are themselves said to have Viking origins.

 

The famous Battle of Hastings of 1066, which led to the conquest of England by William the Conqueror, was between a coalition of two tribes – Anglo and Saxon – against invading Norman tribesmen. Moreover, William invaded England precisely because he believed that he had blood relations with Emma of Normandy – the wife of the then king of England (Ethelred II).

 

Aren’t these examples enough for you? Or has your inferiority complex reached to a level where you regard all Europeans as special ‘beings’? Ma malaa ig baa? As Nelson Mandela once said - "there will always be, in emerging nations, an enduring attraction to the ways of the colonizer".

 

I've left the rest of your post untouched because i see no value in replying to it. There are certain principles to a debate that one must follow - your either not aware of what they are or have simply chosen not to follow them. As such, you've derailed my initial intention for wanting to to partake in this discussion. You're more interested in grandstanding than having a civil, educated discussion. The whole discussion has withered under your never-ending, ostentatious one-liners.

 

Of course, someone else might choose to jump in and tell you that the Europeans are not made up of one country or people but I suppose, to you, woxo ba waa wada cadaan!

This quote is an example of what i'm referring to. I expected better from you. One thing is for sure - i won't go down the same line.

[NGONGE]

^^Saaxib. Forgive me if I have a low tolerance for drivel but these arguments of yours do not present real value. It’s all wishes and dreams. Even when you risk it and dip your foot into the argument a little you still come up with nonsense about European tribes and what not! Your explanation for adding Europe to the argument still makes no sense. I am a Somali talking about my country. It is a fact that the people of my country are divided into clans. It is a fact that there is an animosity between these clans. It is a fact that the whole war is/was as a result of these clannish differences. So what are you telling me here? That clans exist in other parts of the world? And? What’s has that got to do with Somalia burning itself as a result of clannish fervour?

 

It is very cheeky to accuse me of having an inferiority complex when it wasn’t I that brought the Europeans, Edward Said or the Colonialists into the argument, saaxib. Physician heal thyself and read my CLEAR words instead of going back into your (by now) evident trance and making unfounded assumptions.

 

 

As for the rules of debate, they only apply when one is dealing with genuine arguments and explainable positions. When it is wishes and dreams one is forced to call them as they see them. Don’t get offended, get better.

 

 

Fatah-Al-Somal,

 

If I were talking to anyone else I would be embarrassed about having to state the obvious. But seeing that we are here and I am talking to a bunch of impractical dreamers, I suppose I have no choice but to embark on a long lecture.

 

For a start, they should be truthful with themselves and clear on what they want. I would suggest that they should think outside of the box but I’m afraid that Castro already tarnished that phrase with his recent rants.

 

Look around you, my friend! Do you see many that are even attempting to be objective and fair in their viewpoints? Have you seen many that reached their own thoughtful positions with any rational reflection?

 

I don’t at all doubt that all of them want a peaceful, proud and independent Somalia (well, save for a few of my brothers from Somaliland that may mistakenly believe that a turbulent Somalia is to their advantage). But every last one of you want a Somalia tailored to his/her own taste. You all want to protect what is precious to YOU. That could be the clan for some, the Courts for others, the old seventies Mogadishu for the dreamers or Somaliland for those in the northwest!

 

One or two reading this are probably asking themselves what is wrong with that anyway? I say there is nothing wrong with it at all. It is healthy to have differing opinions and adopt separate positions. It helps those on the other side, if they’re being truthful, review their own positions and maybe even adjust them. But we’re not truthful, are we? We’re partisan, biased and intellectually dishonest.

 

Again, I forgot my audience and gave you the headlines instead of screaming out the details. It’s tiresome but I have to keep reminding myself that one has to be specific with this crowd and not expect them to understand the obvious without having a big arrow pointing at it! Never fear though, I’m a dull old fart and as such, it will be my pleasure to go through all the examples available and point out the dishonesty of thought and phoney rage.

 

Let us start with the Asmara group and all that support them. This, as I understand, is a group consisting of some so called nationalists and some remnants of the Islamic Courts! The nationalists have at their lead the former speaker of the TFG parliament! A man that spent his time changing his mind over and over and over again. At one point, he was everyone’s friend and others he was everyone’s enemy. Consistency was never his strong point, yet, many hail him as a nationalist icon! They have Mr Aideed as a big and very visible member of that alliance! Now, despite what I think of my readers, I really don’t think I have to talk in any great detail about either of these men (the latter more so than the former). Their brand of stumbling politics is clear for all to see.

 

On the other side of this Alliance we have those scrupulous Courts men. They that were so principled that they refused to deal with the TFG because they (correctly) accused that entity of cavorting with the Ethiopians. In fact, they were so against dealing with that group that they were willing to fight and lose whatever gains they made in Somalia just so that they worthily could stick by their own principled position! However, where is the honour and where is the principle now? Why is it that when the chips were down they saw no problem with getting in bed with undesirables such as Aideed? Would it not have been worth them while to just bite their tongues and join the TFG instead of sitting in Asmara Hotels and talking about a dreamy liberation? If I’m being generous I would say that they mean well but have no idea what they’re doing (just like many in here) but, regardless of reasons, they still resemble a bunch of know-nothing clowns. Would their supporters admit any of this though? Could they adequately reconcile the glaring contradictions? Not in a million years. Oh, of course, they’ll pay lip service to wrongness of having undesirables such as Indhacade or Aideed but, on the whole, they’ll see nothing wrong with the whole muddy picture. But, that itself is not a problem. The problem is in admitting that they’re not using logic, rational or any kind of wisdom bur rather sentiment, instinct or gut feeling. Point me to one person that admits to supporting the Asmara group because they FEEL it’s the right thing to do but can’t explain why. Actually, don’t bother, you wont find one that honest.

 

Now, lets move to the TFG and its fans! Who are they and how many of those support the TFG for any rational, acceptable or logical reasons? I daresay NONE. They all claim to support it for various spurious reasons that when examined prove to be nothing but a delusion. Of course, some are better than others at this deception. But why do they need such deception and half-truths when they have plenty of rational reasons as to why they should support the TFG? I mean, if for nothing else, they could simply argue that position is nine tenths of the law and that since the TFG are in power (however artificial or meagre) they deserve the support of all. It may not be a position that all would agree with but, in the circumstances, it is one that can’t be faulted. But, would they do that? Far from it. They would rather invent falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations just so they can justify their reasons (whatever they maybe) for choosing the TFG!

 

Move down north to Puntland and watch the incessant wailing of that lot! They’re a self proclaimed region of Somalia! But has anyone stopped and asked what exactly is a self proclaimed region of Somalia? Are they in or are they out? If they’re in, why the self proclamation? Why be separate and yet belong?

 

Still, that’s neither here nor there, the real test is when one looks at what they’ve done FOR Somalia in the past seventeen years. When all is said and done, it turns out that they did nothing at all. They did it all for Puntland really. Even when they sent soldiers to fight the cause of the TFG, a rational observer would still conclude that this was done to assist the former Puntland president rather than the TFG itself. I mean, it is not as if there were no previous transitional governments in Somalia in the past; did they receive any assistance from Puntland? Why now?

 

You will kindly note that I have not commented on Kismayo and the debacle there. That’s self evident and the dishonesty there needs no further illumination. But, like the case of Puntland above, they too invent all sorts of reasons for their feeble positions instead of declaring the obvious and admitting that it is all done for self preservation; see how the Makhir boys finally let their own cat out of the bag; they had no handy flowery explanation to account for their recent defection from Puntland you see. But if Puntland presses them a little you’ll be sure to hear all sorts of Hollywood explanations talking about how they are different from the people of Puntland and how their fondness for fish sets them apart from the rest of Somalia, etc.

 

Now my cousins in Somaliland have been slightly more clever than the rest and got their excuses in early (in 91 to be exact). They used those five days of independence from the Brits and before the Union with the southerners as a reason why they are different to the rest of Somalis! They used powerful arguments such as the one about the majority of the residents of the North West being in favour of separation from Somalia! Yet, if you scratch the surface and interrogate any average Somalilander you will unquestionably come across the usual lament of ‘inadeer meyanad ogeen reer kunfur waxay nago sameeyeen?’. But will they admit it? Not on your life. They’ll use a million and one arguments to explain the reason for the state, all of them as weak as a cup of tea with no tea in it. What’s puzzling is why don’t they admit that the whole creation of Somaliland was a knee-jerk reaction to oppression at the time but that after seventeen years of unofficial independence the reaction has evolved into actual nationhood? It is a fact after all that any child of ten when the Somaliland Republic was declared is now a man of twenty-seven and has spent almost all his life knowing no other country but Somaliland (recognised or not). That’s not an easy argument to counter yet you don’t see many Somalilanders presenting such arguments. They would rather play the typical Somali game of dishonesty and batting for their own side regardless of how transparent their argument is!

 

A case in point (which also brings back all the sides I mentioned above) is this recent dispute in LA. Somaliland, for whatever political gains or advantage, decided to instruct its allies in that town to start a fight with the Puntland militia and eject them from the town. It did not only do that but it also sent its own militias (or army if this phrase sits better with you) to join in the fight and secure this border town (as it were). Now, before I go on, let me remind you that it’s not the actions of governments, entities or political groupings that I question here, it’s only the actions of the followers (the non-tribal, decent and hardworking Somalis as one Nomad calls them). Those that support Somaliland refuse to acknowledge the bungles of their government and, instead, either argue about back gardens, colonial borders or the new and juicy argument that many people in LA want them there! They deliberately choose to ignore the fact that many more DON’T want them there and that by ignoring the wishes of these people they’re as good as being the oppressors themselves. They claim that this city is part of the Somaliland nation but in what world do citizens of a nation turn a blind eye to the suffering of their (supposed) fellow citizens when this suffering is caused by their own hands? Of course it is all lies and political propaganda. The goal is to secure the borders by any means. That’s fine and to be expected from a politician but from none-tribal, decent and hardworking average Somalis? Could we call it dishonesty do you think?

 

Oh but don’t you go smiling yet. Those opposing Somaliland in LA (and elsewhere) are not that much better. They themselves are as adept at the art of chicanery and hideous spin. Many of them brush aside the fact that it is their brethren that sold them down the drain and allowed Somaliland a foothold in their city. They, like those you find if you go all the way south (from LA to the ocean) all reject the whole idea of Somaliland and talk about a one united Somalia yet what carrots do you think they use to bring their (supposed) fellow citizens back into the fold? Somalidiid? Cult? SNM Gangs? One wonders, just like the case between Somaliland and LA, are these people really looking to entice their (supposed) fellow citizens or merely subjugate them? Que! Dishonesty you say?

 

Now we reach the biggest duplicity of all. The Ethiopian Monster! Some in here probably did not have a wink of sleep since late December, because there are some Ethiopian soldiers in Somalia! You see them talking about fight, liberation and shame. But where does this xenophobia come from? Why in a country that has been burning for almost two decades do they get worked up about an Ethiopian adding his own fuel to the fire? What material difference is there between a Somali ruffian raping a Somali woman and an Ethiopian solider doing the same? The rape remains the same. The killing is the same. The humiliation is the same. It is the same old sewer and the addition of one smelly log makes no difference to the sewer itself. Oh! But this new log smells different, miya?

 

As ever of course, that old coat hanger is available to explain away all misunderstandings. It’s an Ethiopian conspiracy you see! Melez has hoodwinked Somalis into fighting each other, falling out and destroying their own country. Having a divided Somalia benefits Ethiopia and progresses its interests in the Horn! It’s a given nowadays. These comments have been repeated so much that they’ve become facts! Yet, the obvious truth is that this is simply one of many unproven theories. Equally, there are theories that talk about how Ethiopia needs a united, independent and strong Somalia. But no self respecting Somali would entertain such a theory because the Waxa la yedhi bible does not approve.

 

I chose not talk about the Shabaab in great detail because such empty minded bullies don’t deserve to be taken that seriously.

 

This brings me back to your question. What should Somali people do? I hope by now you know what the answer is.

[Castro]

Good discussion. The truth, I suppose, has been narrowed down to the triangle with Bilaal, Ngonge and SB as vertices.

 

Ngonge, a couple of questions for you: why do you believe Ethiopia's meddling in Somali affairs is "one of many unproven theories?" Are centuries of documented history not enough proof for you? Furthermore, why are those who condemn the current invasion and occupation engaging in the "biggest duplicity?" You will be hard pressed to find anyone who claims the atrocities committed by Ethiopians are any more heinous than those committed by, say, warlords of yesteryear or the disasters that were the 1990s.

 

In addition to killing, maiming and destroying the livelihood of many tens of thousands of Somalis, the Ethiopian aggressors, unlike our domestic ruffian/warlord/dabo-dhilifs, have violated the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of, sadly, what's left of the motherland. Certainly the abhorrence of their other crimes has been of the same caliber as that of our home-grown criminals.

[Khalaf]

Originally posted by BiLaaL:

I've left the rest of your post untouched because i see no value in replying to it.

You shouldn't have sxb, particular this following point, since you believe the allience will deliver the nation, u should address this point made by NG.

 

It's not about naming individuals, my friend. Don't go chasing red herrings there.

It's about the calibre of people making up that Alliance.

Again, I'll just mention Aideed! Will you try to argue now that he's seriously against the occupation rather than against those that lost him his TFG job? Is the man that presided over the actual occupation going to be the same man to end it? Adeer wax macqool ku hadal.

 

Psssst: I predict that Aideed will switch sides again and again. But unlike you and your dreams for the Alliance, my prediction is based on the man's (or cats making up the alliance

) personality and past deeds. It is NOT what I want or wish,

it's a guess made in accordance with the various variables available to me at this moment in time.

NG said: This brings me back to your question. What should Somali people do? I hope by now you know what the answer is.

 

I am afriad neither Geel, you, nor I know the answer to this, and if we do come up with the answer to this question then it will be our dreams, hopes, and our wishes.

 

Great discussion sxbyal enjoyed reading it.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Your explanation for adding Europe to the argument still makes no sense. I am a Somali talking about my country. It is a fact that the people of my country are divided into clans. It is a fact that there is an animosity between these clans. It is a fact that the whole war is/was as a result of these clannish differences. So what are you telling me here? That clans exist in other parts of the world? And? What’s has that got to do with Somalia burning itself as a result of clannish fervour?

Pardon my interruption. I think the point Bilaal is making here is that we, the Somali public at large, are not (quite) the savages you paint us to be. Clan and clan differences are not the determinative factor in the Somali conflict. It is but a tool. One's clan and clan connections became the only means to gain resources, position, respect and favour starting soon after independance and accelerating in the Barre administration. And not surprisingly this sharply increased clan passions and the more so when aided by a few wily self-serving demagogues. This doesn't excuse the Somali public from succumbing to this manipulation but it doesn't quite rise to the level of sweeping condemnation. In the future, a decoupling of political power from a blanket ability to bestow resources should help to temper the clan passions unleashed.

 

Bilaal - I'd love to hear a concise answer on what Ngonge has been banging the drum about and which is in danger of getting lost in the back and forth.

 

1- What factual reasons do you have for taking a firm stand in favour of the Asmara Group taking into account the totality of their actions and statements?

 

2- What concrete reasons give you hope that the Asmara Group itself will, in the event it gains power in Somalia, send the country on the hopeful path you dream of? Is it due to the character, calibre, knowledge, experience, technical know-how, statesmanship of the individuals involved - what exactly is it?

 

And North was bemoaning the 'quality' of the Politics section!