ONLF: Freeing the Freedom Fighters

[Taleexi]

By Muktar M. Omer

Feb. 23, 2012

 

The Importance of Ground Rules in Debates

 

No Sport is played without ground rules. In football, playing the man and not the ball is a bookable offence. First misplaced tackle yields a yellow card; second yellow card earns the offender a red one and exit from the field. If the referee lets flying tackles from behind unpunished, spectators who paid to watch football may instead watch rugby. In scholarly debate too, ground rules are as important as the substance of the discussion points. If there are no rules, a dialogue cannot yield results. It becomes a shouting duel. Its purpose boils down to commotion and point-scoring.

 

Listen. Dr. Mohamud Ugas is a good man. Nothing in his past or present makes me doubt his personal integrity. He has my utmost respect. It is his ideas and reasoning that I have issues with, not him. If he played the man, I will play the ball. But only after I prove that his otherwise useful points in his rebuttal "Is the ONLF Struggle on Track or Not?" were sullied by his use of a litany of fallacious arguments that are a no-no at this level:

 

Red-herring: Dr. Ugas started his article by casting doubt on my judgment, hinted he suspects my intentions and awareness of details about the struggle, and ended with a patronizing advice that I should not rush to make conclusions before digesting issues. He may be right about all of this. But in logical arguments, such presumptions are not allowed. It is called ad hominem fallacy; it is called red-herring. It is what is known as ‘poisoning the well’, which is presenting “adverse information about the target with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says”. The adjectives ‘young’ ‘idle’ ‘are the ammunition used in this case. Smart readers won’t miss this fallacy; average ones take the bait and miss the issue.

 

Straw man fallacy: This is when someone attacks ideas and beliefs not expressed by the person he/she is supposed to challenge. In this regard, Dr. Ugas talked about why ‘Ethiopia is occupying ******’, ‘the resources of the ****** region which are not to be found elsewhere’, ‘Muktar labeling the ****** struggle to be fruitless’. None of these points were either explicitly written or implied in my article to which Dr. Ugas was responding to. To call the struggle stagnating is not synonymous with calling it ‘fruitless’. Therefore, let the straw man who made those statements defend them; it is not me.

 

Faulty generalizations: Dr. Ugas states “There is no doubt that the world knows very much that the ****** liberation struggle is the pioneers of the Somali nationalism in the Horn of Africa. The world welcomes the struggle in many official and unofficial meetings.” Where? When? Which country supports the struggle, except the one in the red sea? Qatar? USA? China? Brazil? Rwanda? Just one name is fine with me. Also, when Dr. Ugas says “there is no doubt…” in whose mind, if I may ask?

 

Appeal to authority: This fallacy is committed when and where “an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it”. Dr. Ugas wrote “if ONLF clogged Ethiopia from [exploiting resources of the region] isn’t this a progress?” Maybe, maybe not. If they have been able to stop Ethiopia in 1994 and they are able to do it in 2012, how is it a progress? It is a good thing but is it not staying where you were? Also, has the struggle been about remaining a spoiler of Ethiopian machinations, or was it to go beyond that and end colonialism? The premise of Dr. Ugas’s assertion needs to be tested first. Is it true ONLF is stopping Ethiopia from exploiting resources or are there other factors too? I am not suggesting ONLF is not preventing Ethiopia from exploiting ‘******’ resources, I am wondering why Dr. Ugas did not back this up with the parameters he prescribed for me? As it is stands, the sentence is subjective, ‘believe me’ type. I can go on and on about the endless fallacies in the argument Dr. Ugas presented. There is no need to do that. It is much more useful to discuss substance, now that I have made the point that it is impossible to move an argument forward if certain ground rules and norms are not observed.

 

 

Dr. Ugas rightly asks why I have not used ‘indicators’ to evaluate the success or failure of the struggle. Oddly, most of the indicators he presented are not measurable. There is no point in listing indicators if they cannot be measured. For instance, how can “the mission of the organization’, ‘the impression of the world towards the fighting organization, ‘the power of the occupying regime or government’ be quantitatively measured? These are considerations, or could be extenuating factors. They are helpful when setting targets for indicators. They cannot be used to explain poor results. If these considerations are judged to be insurmountable, targets will have to be revised, timelines for success will have to be adjusted. They must not be used to justify lack of progress or the length of time needed to achieve these results. Whether freedom is to be achieved next year or 400 years from now, there has to be annual, five-year, ten-year targets and these milestones has to be quantifiable. Do we have these benchmarks so that we can judge if we are on the right track or not? Or do we only remember them when results refuse to oblige and questions are asked?

 

The other indicators Dr. Ugas listed such as ‘the support of the people in the region to the organization’, ‘the organization’s allies’ can be measured. I agree with Dr. Ugas that benchmarks will have to be first defined so that we can measure where we are against those benchmarks. But this is not do-able in an article. It needs research. Is Dr. Ugas saying that if rigorous research is not done, we cannot pass judgment based on anecdotal evidences? If so, why would he then pass judgment on Meles’ Zenawi’s alleged atrocities and alleged land-grapping intentions in the ‘******’ without undertaking a research? I differ with Dr. Ugas on this.

 

First of all, my article presented opinions, not researched facts. I did make no such claim. Second, I have done my research, and my conclusions are based on interviews, observations and desk review of studies about the politics in the region. I realize the limitations of such research; therefore I did not claim they are facts. I used the findings to form opinion on how things are doing. I am entitled to do that. After an arduous research is done, pages of statistics and charts are produced, ultimately the key finding is often presented in few lines. In many cases, research validates the opinions of experts, especially where volumes of anecdotal evidences abound. If an international institute today embarks on a research mission to find out if there are human rights violations in Ethiopia, it is prudent to wait for its conclusions. But, I don’t think it is difficult to predict what its findings would be. Sometimes, anecdotal evidences are enough to shape opinions.

 

I did use indicators too, albeit qualitative ones. I said the struggle did not get any new ideas, support base and allies. Only one clan started the struggle, only one clan is fighting today – the ****** clan; in truth, some sections of it. The leaders of the struggle give a single message of freedom or death, but never genuinely entertained different strategies or ideas to achieve this. Today, even thinking about any other idea other than the one the ONLF leadership promotes is loudly censured and condemned by the front. They may be on the right course. They may be guarding against sedition and distractions. They can rationalize why they are stifling critical discussion internally, but they cannot say my statement is false. If they say so, I challenge them to tell us what other eventualities/options/ideas they are prepared for.

 

Read more

http://wardheernews.com/Articles_12/Feb/Muktar/22_ONLF_Freeing_the_freedom_fighters.html

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Ninkaan muxuu rabaa horta. Qoraaladiisa iyo kuwa u jawaabayba ma aqrinin, laakiin ciyaal ciyaaleed u aqaan inay saan iskugu jawaabaan.

 

Su'aasheyda aan ku noqdee, muxuu rabaa asaga uu aaminsanyahay? In la isku dhiibo Xabashada? In jabhadda hub dhigis isku sameyso oo siyaasadda Xabashada ka mid noqoto?

[Abtigiis]

MMA, dee 10 daqiiqo sii oo akhri aad fahantid wuxuu rabee.

Hadii kale wuxuu rabo ha qiyaasin. Xabashi ha la isu dhiibo ma laha, la iska celiyo laakin iyadoo loo dhan yahay ee hal qabiil yuuna is xiijin buu leeyahay.

[Maaddeey]

Abtigiis, maxaa iska kaa bedelay?. Sowtaad dhihi jirtay hal qabiil xaq buu u leeyahay inuu keligii is daafaco?.

[Abtigiis]

Xaq umalaha inuu qabiil la laynayaa is difaaco meesha kuma qora. Xaq buu u leeyhay maanta iyo bariba.

Waxaa laga hadlayaa waa inuu guulaysto waxay ku xidhan tahay inuu balaadhiyo halganka. At least at the political front, ninka qoriga wataa koley meel un buu u badnaan.

[NGONGE]

Mukhtar has a point but he spoilt it all by the angry lecture he's giving there (red herring? generalisation? straw man?).

 

In his eagrness to reply to Dr Ugaas, he managed to patronise all his readers and treat them like little kids. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

[NASSIR]

Very emotional & well-written piece!

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Good read and he raised several good points. but I don't think somalis in. Somali galbeed would support the samestruggle even with a name change. The animostiy and miss trust is so high in the region.