The Limits of Vuvuzela Genocide

[Baashi]

d/p

[Carafaat]

Abtigiis;745213 wrote:

Ngonge, the question is irrelevant. For so many reasons, but I mention two here: I work for an international institution and they have little choice than to let me in. second, I have my people in Hargeisa and I don't need to be welcomed or treated well by anyone else.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt and for the benefits of the hysterical Carafaat, my position on ONLF and the struggle against the colonial occupiers is clear. I have always asked myself if it is possible to support an organisation whose name I detest and whose strategies I disagree with. And the answer is yes.

The ONLF is fighting aggression, occupation and slavery of the worst order. They are reacting to the rape of their daughters and mothers, and the dehumaniation of their elders and thinkers..

It is a legitimate struggle and any freedom-loving human being will not see any fault in their struggle. It is a bona fide liberation movement. And I support it with all I have. However, that doesn't mean I am oblivious to the shortcomings of this otherwise remarkable organisation. The shortcomings start with the name. And I disagree with the name OGA.DEN and with any vision of an OGa.Denia state. There is no need for one.

 

I, however, cannot accept to let a dwarf

Tigre

from the barren fields of Adwa to determine how I live and who I call myself. I refuse to submit to the idea that because other somali clans are not in the mood to fight aggression, the Oga.den clan, who is targeted for extinction by the Ethiopian regime, should not fight back. That is nonsense. And if the clan that is leading the fight against aggression happen to be the one that sired me, it is a coincidence. An unwavering belief in individual and collective freedom guides me and who is championing it comes second.

 

That said, the issue is about Somaliland and not about Somaligalbeed. Other than invoking the matter of my identity and an altogather different issue, the recognition-seekers had nothing substantive to offer by way of defence to the important question of why their narrow fiefdom mentality should be allowed to kill Somali nationalism.

Indeed, the fact is when their clanish prediliction is put on the on the spot light, their feeble personalised rebuttal is akin to the courtesy bow by of a woman whose lower garment accidently snapped before a watching gallery.

Sure they are. thats why the whole ONLF fighters number a not more the two hundred, while mass of the O.caden collabrote with the regime.

 

If a majority of the O people would oppose the Ethiopians they would free their land long time ago.

[Carafaat]

NGONGE;745244 wrote:

Abtigiis, since you answered yes to my questions I am going to keep my defence very short and to the point, saaxib. It's a play on my guru's "defeated lot" argument, you see. History is written by the winners, saaxib. Right or wrong does not matter much either. What matters is that those that won the fight have lived to tell the tale in their own way and according to their own preceptions.

 

Now you went to SL and had to go through an airport, get a visa and walk around in a city that is run by these winners. Of course, as a matter of principle, you may have disagreed with the whole thing but, in fact & practice, you had no choice but to follow the rules (rules put down by the people you disparge now). And, since you have no other way but to accept these blatent facts, you must also accept the fact that nations celebrate their own history and lament their losses in grand ways (WW II, Statue of the Sayid, etc). Now, tell me again, what was this thread all about?

 

This thread is about losers of history finding it hard to accept defeat.

[N.O.R.F]

Abtigiis, I see its time for your once a year thread

 

Saxib, tell me what you're saying here.

 

Is it:

 

a) There were no atrocities commited by Barre's regime in the North West

 

or

 

b) Atrocities were comitted by Barres regime but against many others as well

[Abtigiis]

I have no problem living with Ngonge's conclusions. They confirm my assertion that only one side is telling its story.

 

Norf, you could have added © atrocities were committed by both Barre and SNM (D) Atrocities were committed against others too (E) C and D. And I would have circled E in this multiple choice question.

 

The thread is also about teaching the difference between atrocities, war crimes and genocide to the shrieking prodigy of British-lovers.

[A_Khadar]

NG, is that all you can bring to the table. Rightly or wrongly, a winner tells the history whichever way its desired. Sheekadu waa isku dhantahay uun yaan hadhow caaaaaaac la odhan when it comes your lot's turn.:eek:

[Carafaat]

Some stil cant accept that they have stood on the wrong side and they indeed lost, and on top of all that have lost all they stood for.

[Abtigiis]

By the grace of the SYL martyrs and those whose blood is blue, the discussion has moved from victims to victors!! It is a different ball game. But a victor is hardly a whinner.

[N.O.R.F]

Abtigiis;745269 wrote:

I have no problem living with Ngonge's conclusions. They confirm my assertion that only one side is telling its story.

 

Norf, you could have added © atrocities were committed by both Barre and SNM (D) Atrocities were committed against others too (E) C and D. And I would have circled E in this multiple choice question.

 

The thread is also about teaching the difference between atrocities, war crimes and genocide to the shrieking prodigy of British-lovers.

Ok. Let’s go with your (E). I will ignore getting into details as it will only derail things. Your argument centres on the premise that, in your opinion, Somaliland shouldn't seek secession even though the people were subjected to atrocities (just like many others were). The others are still willing to give the Somalia project a go (which is perfectly fine by the way). But the argument you present, the one of 'the rest are still in it so should Somaliland be in it too' is quite simplistic. You have acknowledged crimes were committed against them. You have acknowledged crimes were committed against others. But, what you (and others) keep failing to understand is, following the civil war, Somaliland had the RIGHT to go it alone. At the time, Somaliland (and anyone else) was well within its rights to seek independence (following the atrocities you acknowledge).

 

At the time, the country was in a mess (as a civil was going on). At the time, the SNM trusted only themselves. At the time, there was no government in Somalia. At the time, the other choice was warlords. What exactly were the prospects there at the time? Should the SNM have stayed as part of Somalia even though it was in a mess? Who should make such a decision? Would the region be as it is today without the formation of Somaliland? Hindsight is a wonderful thing and 20 years later Somaliland holds no regrets. Somalia is still a mess.

 

Don’t worry I don’t expect you to know the answers to the questions above as you (and others) have never thought about them. The default position of anyone and any group when uncertainty transpires is to rely on one’s self. This is what the SNM did, it was their right to do it and I commend them for it (their concerns have been proven right).

 

Instead of rummaging your mind and only finding the argument you presented, a better and more extensive analysis would conclude the above (the SNM had the right to decide to go it alone).

 

Do tell us the difference between atrocities, war crimes and genocide (they are all bad are they not?).

[A_Khadar]

Norf, since you are less hostile to the opposing views from secessionists, may I try to highlight few points from your argument which I think are counter arguments of your current project and also can take this thread to another totally different level.

 

1. You mentioned that SNM had few options and it sought the best one which was succession though you didn’t include the options IT (SNM) had that it could remain the union and still was able to self govern like p/l does now. You presented your point as that it either should be part of the warlords and the mess or succeed but nothing in between.

 

2. The second point which you repeated multiple times and also I think is the one that totally set off your argument is the RIGHTS of SNM to dismemberment. This is what I am talking about when I said this topic may head to a different direction than what it’s about now. So if I understand you correctly, your point is that SNM has the sole right to decide whether to succeed from the union regardless of other groups in the region if they agreed or not yet SNM will claim the divorce on behalf of the entire region and the region must seek separation. Is this sort of picking and choosing of what fits within your argument instead bring a comprehensive approach that isn’t contradicting against your basic argument that being “SELF DETERMINATION”.

 

I think A&T’s point is whatever happened between Somalis:

1. Succession isn’t best way to resolve it

2. Not to play a victim card when in fact SNM victimized others as well.

3. Somalis all victimized each other left to right no one else is barking like ur lot

[NGONGE]

A_Khadar;745280 wrote:

NG, is that all you can bring to the table. Rightly or wrongly, a winner tells the history whichever way its desired. Sheekadu waa isku dhantahay uun yaan hadhow caaaaaaac la odhan when it comes your lot's turn.:eek:

It's all that was needed, adeer. Have you not noticed yourself moving from A&T's song of "bari hore waxa jiray" to your current "threat" of "yaan hadhow caaac la odhan"?

 

At any rate, A&T is wise enough to know when he's been told. He, Xiin & Baashe are more comfortable when engaged in circular arguments but when the real stuff is put infront of them sheekado waxay isu badasha "Arsenal sida loo qaraacay ma argtay?"

 

Naga daaya dee.

[Abtigiis]

N.O.R.F;745300 wrote:

Ok. You have acknowledged crimes were committed against others. But, what you (and others) keep failing to understand is, following the civil war, Somaliland had the RIGHT to go it alone. At the time, Somaliland (and anyone else) was well within its rights to seek independence (following the atrocities you acknowledge).

What is this Zigzagging argument, which looks like a urine trail that a rowdy camel wantonly drew on a sand? Are you saying Somalilanders had the right to declare independence simply because they were massacred, while at the same time acknowledging this mistreatment was not reserved for them only? If that is not your point, then are you saying their secession should be contexualized and understood because the civil war in the south took a bad turn and the reality was such that Somaliland was left with no option? If this is your argument, it has strong but tentative merit. That merit has a short lifespan, for that same reality has changed and we are now in different times and context. Which means, if your argument made sense yesterday, it is laughable today. Somaliland has been presented with dozens of opportunities to sit with the rest of the Somalis in the last decade but has refused to do so. Which is not condemnable by itself given the quality of the governments in the South they were asked to sit with. But, you and me know the issue is not about the credibility of a government in the south. It is about clan ambition and grand scheme of Statehood for the clan that is so pure, so democratic, so civilized that it cannot mix with the unequals in the South. Which makes your points barely discernable much like the wink of a chinese boozer in a dimly lit casino.

 

At the time, the country was in a mess (as a civil was going on). At the time, the SNM trusted only themselves. At the time, there was no government in Somalia. At the time, the other choice was warlords. What exactly were the prospects there at the time? Should the SNM have stayed as part of Somalia even though it was in a mess? Who should make such a decision? Would the region be as it is today without the formation of Somaliland? Hindsight is a wonderful thing and 20 years later Somaliland holds no regrets. Somalia is still a mess.Don’t worry I don’t expect you to know the answers to the questions above as you (and others) have never thought about them. The default position of anyone and any group when uncertainty transpires is to rely on one’s self. This is what the SNM did, it was their right to do it and I commend them for it (their concerns have been proven right).

I have dealt with the core argument of these lines. In the first line about the choices SNM had, you haven't added any value to the discourse even by way of sensible falsehood. You barely explained or more accurately excused what your uncles did 20 years ago. Was the option taken by Puntland, for instance, not open for them?

 

And speaking of the benefit of hindsight, it is SNM and you who are taking advantage of it. The SNM did not had any foresight whatsoever about an impending mayhem and anarchy in the South. If it had, it didn’t express it in those days. That doesn’t mean they didn’t hope for one. If we think the unthinkable and assume SNM had a visionary leadership with clearly defined goal, they didn’t implement it in Burco conference.

 

The fact is that the outcome of that meeting was dictated by gun-wielding mostly rural youths, commonly known as ‘the Gaas-dhagoole’ Brigade. It is a fact any veteran SNM fighter readily gloats about. Which is why Norf’s conjectures about presumed foresightedness are the product of his own imagination! Where is the evidence to support the assertion that the SNM foresaw anarchy in the south? All indications are that the SNM leadership did only posses the potent ability of inciting clanmen easily agitated and titilated by the war chants of Tolaa'ayeey.

 

And that is why it is a cardinal rule that you must have one eye firmly fixed on the exit door when sleeping with a married woman. You cannot rejoice behind slammed doors in such perilous situations. I empathized with Norf when he sought refuge in these hypothetical lines. You simply do not flaunt as evidences your own imaginations when debating in forums like this one of SOL, without leaving an exit door open by way of carefully crafted nuances. Lest some with the real property rights appear, much like the real owner of the woman, and show you the pain of indiscretion.

 

On the difference between war crimes and genocide, law is not my area, but I know war crimes is about violations of laws of war, which is about rights and protections of non-combtants including prisoners of war. Genocide is about deliberate targeting of specifc groups (because of their religon, ethnicity, political ideology, race or any other commonality) for destruction by any ruling authority including governments, gurreilla groups, terrorist organisations etc. The SNM killed many POWs and mutilated civillians. The Barre government did the same. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that both sides had committed war crimes. And that is where I think the one-dimensional justice notion which Somalilanders embraced is not ethical and logical. The SNM must investigate and indicte their side of the war criminals or must accept that the other side is not morally obliged to honour their judicial bad breath.

 

It is also correct to assume both SNM and Siyad's government had committed acts that can fall within the genocide definition. But the one event usually propagated by genocide jingoists from the North doesn't look like it fits the definition. On the day, Hargeysa was bombed, thousdands of SNM clan civilians had left the town and were not harmed by Somali military and other clans for simply belonging to the SNM clan. That is a falsehood the SNM spread. Therefore, the SNM cannot monopolize and impose false narratives about the civil war in the north on the supposedly vanquished clans. It is a bit of strech to call this attempt as a victor's justice, for if their victory was complete, we would not have debated about proper accounting of the ugly episode. Instead, the topic would have been about clemency. But because the SNM's trumpeted victory is incomplete and illusory, their kangaroo courts will have to yawn for a while, with the likes of Jacaylbaro reaching retributive judicial orgasm only through internet pulpits.

[Dabrow]

Carafaat;745250 wrote:

Sure they are. thats why the whole ONLF fighters number a not more the two hundred, while mass of the O.caden collabrote with the regime.

 

If a majority of the O people would oppose the Ethiopians they would free their land long time ago.

Bro what kinda of reality do you live in?

Somali people in O oppose Ethiopia thats why they are still fighting and will fight.

You are under the influence of xabashi propaganda.

 

Read this wikileak and ask why Tigray are accusing USA for supporting ONLF. Their frustration is ovious.

If you think 200 soldier can do this you are not driven by logic.

[Dabrow]

¶2. (S/NF) The Prime Minister questioned out of frustration

whether the U.S. understood and supported, or at least

accepted, what Ethiopia was doing in the ******. He alleged

that ONLF leaders were in the U.S., including former Admiral

of the Somali Navy Mohamed Omar Osman, and remarked that he

had received "intelligence" that that USG (United States Government) officials were

meeting with these officials. Ambassador asserted that we

were not meeting with ONLF officials and requested specific

information from the Prime Minister on ONLF individuals whom

the government believes are engaged in terrorist activities.

The Prime Minister's questions reflect Ethiopia's irritation

and frustration over their actions in the ******, and their

reaction has been to hold information and deny charges.

Ambassador urged the Prime Minister to pursue a more open

strategy with the press and international community by

explaining to the public their activities and goals in the

******, and to address concerns raised rather than to simply

ignore or deny charges. END SUMMARY.

[N.O.R.F]

Bow!

 

What is this Zigzagging argument, which looks like a urine trail that a rowdy camel wantonly drew on a sand? Are you saying Somalilanders had the right to declare independence simply because they were massacred, while at the same time acknowledging this mistreatment was not reserved for them only? If that is not your point, then are you saying their secession should be contexualized and understood because the civil war in the south took a bad turn and the reality was such that Somaliland was left with no option? If this is your argument, it has strong but tentative merit. That merit has a short lifespan, for that same reality has changed and we are now in different times and context. Which means, if your argument made sense yesterday, it is laughable today. Somaliland has been presented with dozens of opportunities to sit with the rest of the Somalis in the last decade but has refused to do so. Which is not condemnable by itself given the quality of the governments in the South they were asked to sit with. But, you and me know the issue is not about the credibility of a government in the south. It is about clan ambition and grand scheme of Statehood for the clan that is so pure, so democratic, so civilized that it cannot mix with the unequals in the South. Which makes your points barely discernable much like the wink of a chinese boozer in a dimly lit casino.

The reality has changed? Really? I must have missed it. What is today’s reality in Somalia saxib? It has gone from no government to operation restore hope, to warlords, to the TFG, Al Shabaab controlling large swathes, an Ethiopian invasion, it has sold itself to IGAD and is currently rife with piracy. So, what did I miss saxib? Where is this change you allude to?

 

Call it a clan state all you want. If someone decides to leave a house crumbling around him and goes to live across the street in a new house, he is fully ENTITLED to do so (with or without the support of the others). No retrospective structural analysis by a gardener of the building now vacated by SL that still has no windows and no roof is going to change that. The house across the road looks neat, safe and enjoys many visitors who are welcomed with open arms (you included).

 

I have dealt with the core argument of these lines. In the first line about the choices SNM had, you haven't added any value to the discourse even by way of sensible falsehood. You barely explained or more accurately excused what your uncles did 20 years ago. Was the option taken by Puntland, for instance, not open for them?

 

And speaking of the benefit of hindsight, it is SNM and you who are taking advantage of it. The SNM did not had any foresight whatsoever about an impending mayhem and anarchy in the South. If it had, it didn’t express it in those days. That doesn’t mean they didn’t hope for one. If we think the unthinkable and assume SNM had a visionary leadership with clearly defined goal, they didn’t implement it in Burco conference.

 

The fact is that the outcome of that meeting was dictated by gun-wielding mostly rural youths, commonly known as ‘the Gaas-dhagoole’ Brigade. It is a fact any veteran SNM fighter readily gloats about. Which is why Norf’s conjectures about presumed foresightedness are the product of his own imagination! Where is the evidence to support the assertion that the SNM foresaw anarchy in the south? All indications are that the SNM leadership did only posses the potent ability of inciting clanmen easily agitated and titilated by the war chants of Tolaa'ayeey.

What my uncles did doesn’t need explaining. I’m not trying to get your agreement saxib. I am merely highlighting the flaws of your argument.

 

The option taken by Puntland only highlights further the flaws and lack of context in your original argument and reinforces my points about the uncertainty in the region at the time which resulted in ‘Tol’ alliances. Some chose to stay in the union and others left it. Also, hasn’t Puntland previously expressed to go it alone if it didn’t get what it wanted from Somali governments? Poor choice as an example there. Besides, Puntland was more of a counter to Somaliland than anything else (even PL is experiencing some difficulties at the moment).

 

When I said hindsight is a wonderful thing I was refering to the term generally being used when there are regrets about previous decisions. In the case of Somaliland, there are no regrets. Not because they foresaw what was going to happen or because they hoped for more anarchy elsewhere but because of the UNCERTAINTY at the time. Did you know what was going to happen in the early 90s? Were you certain things would get better? I think not. Being aggrieved followed by anarchy then uncertainty makes one rely on himself alone. Such decisions are perfectly understandable. If they’re not, you’re yet to tell me why. Your gibberish is no substitute and parading a duck as a swan at a party isn’t going to get you anywhere.

 

Incidentally, recent civil wars have resulted in new countries being formed. The Balkan countries are a prime example. The only problem Somaliland has is that it is not part of a country in Europe aligned to Russia. I’m sure the same arguments were being had in those countries.

 

All in all, although your argument might seem well put together at first glance, when contextualised and the reasons behind Somaliland’s split are analysed, one would understand why such a decision was made. You can carry on moonlighting about the issues exclusively from one another but when ALL the issues are considered, a reasonable discerning person would at the very least understand.

 

Finally, those who hang on to this one argument are missing the boat as far as I’m concerned. I have said this many times on here. You’re inviting Somaliland back to the crumbling house I mentioned earlier. At least put the roof on!