SomaliNet Forums

I don't believe in borders but ISIS will be the worst thing that has ever happened in Arabia in it's history, you're in for a surprise in the near future thanks to this pseudo-Islamic barbaric militia.

Perfect_Order wrote:What do you mean by Arab imerialism?

For all intents an purposes, it was British Somaliland, and they had rule over to the rest of the world, that is why their borders and treaties were recognized.

Isis and other terrorists want to establish a caliphate under the false pretense that it would unite a (non existing) homogenous ummah. The end goal is Arab imperialism.


No, the treaties were recognized by the tribes as well. This validates the bilateral contract signed by these two parties and not the fact that the British empire was basically ruling the world.

Nothing wrong supporting the ISIS.

Xildiiid wrote:No, the treaties were recognized by the tribes as well. This validates the bilateral contract signed by these two parties and not the fact that the British empire was basically ruling the world.

the treaties ended with the departure of the colonialists.
you can't possibly say, you as a habar xabuusheed or even isaaq have any right to speak for another tribe.
you dealt with the british on your own terms and not on behalf of anyone else.

HusseinHassan wrote:

Xildiiid wrote:No, the treaties were recognized by the tribes as well. This validates the bilateral contract signed by these two parties and not the fact that the British empire was basically ruling the world.

the treaties ended with the departure of the colonialists.
you can't possibly say, you as a habar xabuusheed or even isaaq have any right to speak for another tribe.
you dealt with the british on your own terms and not on behalf of anyone else.

wtf you taking about koombo oromo son

HusseinHassan wrote:

Xildiiid wrote:No, the treaties were recognized by the tribes as well. This validates the bilateral contract signed by these two parties and not the fact that the British empire was basically ruling the world.

the treaties ended with the departure of the colonialists.
you can't possibly say, you as a habar xabuusheed or even isaaq have any right to speak about or for another tribe.
you dealt with the british on your own terms and not on behalf of anyone else.

The British signed treaties with the coastal tribes and the protectorate was limited to the coastal areas in the beginning. The areas in the hinterland for instance the areas around Hargeysa, Borama, Burco, Cerigaabo were not part of the protectorate at that time even though the tribes who signed the treaties lived in these areas as well. The formation of Somaliland republic and its border evolved over a long period of time.

Xildiiid wrote:

HusseinHassan wrote:

Xildiiid wrote:No, the treaties were recognized by the tribes as well. This validates the bilateral contract signed by these two parties and not the fact that the British empire was basically ruling the world.

the treaties ended with the departure of the colonialists.
you can't possibly say, you as a habar xabuusheed or even isaaq have any right to speak about or for another tribe.
you dealt with the british on your own terms and not on behalf of anyone else.

The British signed treaties with the coastal tribes and the protectorate was limited to the coastal areas in the beginning. The areas in the hinterland for instance the areas around Hargeysa, Borama, Burco, Cerigaabo were not part of the protectorate at that time even though the tribes who signed the treaties lived in these areas as well. The formation of Somaliland republic and its border evolved over a long period of time.

no somali tribe send a delegation to london inviting the british to colonize them lol.
the british came and be it forcefully or willingly, signed treaties with certain tribes.
the question is, what did those treaties signify and more importantly, what was the situation of the area before the colonizers came?

Some of the coastal tribes signed treaties regarding commerce, slave trade etc. with the British prior to 1884.

The treaties from 1884 meant that the British would get access to the land and sea. The British would be protected by these tribes while in their land and in return on a larger political scale these tribes would get protection against the expansion of the Abyssinian kingdom.

Before the British the area was nothing more than a piece of land inhabited by disorganized nomads.

Xildiiid wrote:Some of the coastal tribes signed treaties regarding commerce, slave trade etc. with the British prior to 1884.

The treaties from 1884 meant that the British would get access to the land and sea. The British would be protected by these tribes while in their land and in return on a larger political scale these tribes would get protection against the expansion of the Abyssinian kingdom.

Before the British the area was nothing more than a piece of land inhabited by disorganized nomads.

if that is the case, then who are you to not only speak on behalf of the other nomadic tribes, but to also force
them upon your illusive dream based on what the british created from 1884 to 1960 (76 years)?
also, the nomads you described as "disorganized" were actually well established, ruling themselves with the shariah law.

They have abolished the Sykes-Picot borders and have created a new formely united caliphate.

On june 11 alone they captured so many areas. It's actually interesting & some town leaders just peacfully handed them authority. With isil, Iraqi resources will be controlled and profitable to iraqis. With the current government and the other lames, anyone (mostly the US) can help themselves.

The real reason the west isn't down for sharia is not because of stoning or amputation. Quite frankly they dont give a shit what muslims do amongst eachother. They just know that sharia is incompatible with passiveness. They know that with sharia, people can truly be soverign from empirial cluches. Just my 2 cents.

HusseinHassan wrote:

Xildiiid wrote:Some of the coastal tribes signed treaties regarding commerce, slave trade etc. with the British prior to 1884.

The treaties from 1884 meant that the British would get access to the land and sea. The British would be protected by these tribes while in their land and in return on a larger political scale these tribes would get protection against the expansion of the Abyssinian kingdom.

Before the British the area was nothing more than a piece of land inhabited by disorganized nomads.

if that is the case, then who are you to not only speak on behalf of the other nomadic tribes, but to also force
them upon your illusive dream based on what the british created from 1884 to 1960 (76 years)?
also, the nomads you described as "disorganized" were actually well established, ruling themselves with the shariah law.

They were disorganized and if it wasn't for these treaties they would've been conquered sooner or later by the Abyssinian Kingdom.

By your logic there shouldn't be a single state in Africa.

No one is forcing anyone. When the British left, Somaliland became a sovereign state and not one of these tribes opposed the creation or the independence of Somaliland. Today majority of the people in Somaliland want to reeastablish and regain their sovereignty.

Perfect_Order wrote:Is that they are erasing a hundred years of fake colonial borders legacy, set up by the British and French. It shows that after decades of imposed nationalism, things can be redrawn in the blink of an eye.

And whats you excuse for supporting Kenyans?