SomaliNet Forums

Meseret wrote:The armed forces of USC which General Mohamed Aiided controlled was controlling, Mudug, Gedo, Kismayio, Jubba, Mogadishu, Hiraan, Bay and Bakool, Aiideed was without debate the most powerful man in Somalia in 1991, he had defeated all his enemies, he was making victory speech in Kismayio and near Garrowe. He was more powerful in Somalia than siyad barre ever had been. Aideed was the president of Somalia and had the resposiblity of the country. He was even living in Villa Somalia.

snet has shown that somalis are ignorant and will never back down from their views, so whats the point debating? do we discuss this to seek the truth or just to impose our ideas and turn away from other ideas? like fah said, somalis have their own stories to tell. well anyway, death to qabyaalad, it ruined a country that could have been something great.

abakar20 wrote:snet has shown that somalis are ignorant and will never back down from their views, so whats the point debating? do we discuss this to seek the truth or just to impose our ideas and turn away from other ideas? like fah said, somalis have their own stories to tell. well anyway, death to qabyaalad, it ruined a country that could have been something great.

We can have different views about things, but we cannot re-write history or deny facts.

kadarre wrote:

Based wrote:
You've consistently shifted the goalpoasts, my friend. I do not mind anyone blaming Siad Barre for mistakes prior to 1991, as he was the head of state responsible for maintaining law and order. Every government makes mistakes, some worse than others.

He didn't maintain law and order.When are burning crops parts of law and order? I blame him for the collapse of Somalia.Yes he is responsible for the existence of SNM,SSDF and USC. His actions legitimized their existence. I blame him who made it all possible that Somalis would fight each other. He encouraged tribalism.

As I have repeatedly stated, the ludicrous scapegoating of a man for the failures of his opponents who were supposedly fighting for justice and democracy is another glaring example of the delusional mindset of a people who've resorted to passing the blame rather than coming to grips with the horrible reality their own hands wrought.

Let me put this in perspective. Out of the roughly 87 coup d'etats in Africa against madmen ranging from Idi Amin to Mobutu to Bokassa to Mengistu, only the coup that overthrew MSB resulted in the world's first and only failed state.

There is no escaping from that fact.

You are in denying the responsibilities of Head of State. You want to give me the version that the rebels basically woke up and decided to topple the President.

Facts is Siad Barre was the head of State when the country went into Civil war. It happened with him at the helm. Where was the national Army the police force? What happened to the same folk that died for his blunder against Ethiopia?

You're arguing in circles. All governments make mistakes, and all rebel movements that topple said governments for their mistakes fill the power vacuum and re position themselves as the new government, all except for one. In all of modern history, there has only been one country where a coup d'etat against a government led to a failed state. Somalia is the exception to that rule because of the complete incompetency of rebels who were more interested in looting, robbing, pillaging, and raping than in righting the supposed wrongs of the government they overthrew.

Somalia has proven to the world that despite any supposed repressiveness of a government, it is far preferable to having no government at all.

Based wrote:You're arguing in circles. All governments make mistakes, and all rebel movements that topple said governments for their mistakes fill the power vacuum and re position themselves as the new government, all except for one. In all of modern history, there has only been one country where a coup d'etat against a government led to a failed state. Somalia is the exception to that rule because of the complete incompetency of rebels who were more interested in looting, robbing, pillaging, and raping than in righting the supposed wrongs of the government they overthrew.

Somalia has proven to the world that despite any supposed repressiveness of a government, it is far preferable to having no government at all.

Mistakes? is that the best you can come up with? Mistakes? Killing thousands and manipulating clans against each other are mistakes?

So now you want to admit Siad made'' mistakes''. .

1 Siad lost a war.
2 He lost the support of his people.
3 He was not able to step down when required.
4 He formed his own militia/army
5 The Army and Police defunct

These are all things Siad was responsible for. Looting, robbing and pillaging are all things which happen when a there is no Law and Order. Who is responsible for Law and Order? Head of State.............

If you would have read my previous posts, you would have seen my comments regarding the late government's failings. Instead, you have continuously argued in circles without ever actually addressing my points, in what is at best a serious lack of reading comprehension on your part or at worse, a deliberate misconstruing of my arguments that can only be described as a clear case of intellectual dishonesty.

As I have repeatedly and exhaustively stated time and time again, governments that have committed all those abuses you listed and much more have been overthrown by opposition groups. Every opposition movement that has toppled a government has been able to fill the power vacuum and establish some semblance of governance save one. The Kacaan regime instituted programs and reforms most African countries can only dream of and Siad Barre was by all accounts a relatively benevolent dictator in the African context for the majority of his rule, yet out of the roughly 87 coup d'etats in Africa against madmen ranging from Idi Amin to Mobutu to Bokassa to Mengistu, only the coup that overthrew MSB resulted in the world's first and only failed state.

The question for the last 21 years has been why? Why is Somalia different? Why were the opposition groups unable to do what the TPLF, the UNLA, the AFPRC, the PDGE, and countless others did? Why did they overthrow a government only to replace it with anarchy? Those fundamental questions have yet to be honestly answered because as I said before, it is easier to pass the blame rather than to come to grips with the horrible reality you created.

The reason why somalia is different is due to the fragility of the State in Somali culture.
We were anarchistic nomads, and only united by a shared colonial master and new sense of nationalism in the 40's to 70's.

The idea of a single somali state is quite new only becoming popular starting in the 1940's. thats about 70 years.
The Idea of a somali state is just as old and the existance of a somali state was only 30 years.

this is not enough time to develop nationalism, without a long and difficult shared struggle like Eritrea .

what remained strong was the clan..

other african countries do not share our unique history, and other forms of state structures existed like monarchies, of chiefdoms.
if you can submit to a king or a chief you have already been programmed to submit to the state.
So the state will not collapse because people were domesticated and indoctrinated by culture to depend of the state.

but in our case its the opposite , the clannish somalis always viwed the state as a hinderance a, strange entity
something that is too strong to mess with right now but if pushed too far, something to make war of.
Add to that the lack of a strong centralizing monarchic state and there was nothing to make somalis respect or really fear the power of a state.


this is why we need unique somali solutions to our unique problems, this is why every single political interferance from outside somalis will fail and will lead to continued disjunction.

gurey25 wrote:The reason why somalia is different is due to the fragility of the State in Somali culture.
We were anarchistic nomads, and only united by a shared colonial master and new sense of nationalism in the 40's to 70's.

The idea of a single somali state is quite new only becoming popular starting in the 1940's. thats about 70 years.
The Idea of a somali state is just as old and the existance of a somali state was only 30 years.

this is not enough time to develop nationalism, without a long and difficult shared struggle like Eritrea .

what remained strong was the clan..

other african countries do not share our unique history, and other forms of state structures existed like monarchies, of chiefdoms.
if you can submit to a king or a chief you have already been programmed to submit to the state.
So the state will not collapse because people were domesticated and indoctrinated by culture to depend of the state.

but in our case its the opposite , the clannish somalis always viwed the state as a hinderance a, strange entity
something that is too strong to mess with right now but if pushed too far, something to make war of.
Add to that the lack of a strong centralizing monarchic state and there was nothing to make somalis respect or really fear the power of a state.


this is why we need unique somali solutions to our unique problems, this is why every single political interferance from outside somalis will fail and will lead to continued disjunction.

My sentiments exactly. Europe has had 2000 years and more to come up with the liberal democracy they treasure so much now. In that time they have went through violent revolutions, wars, plagues, disasters etc. Somalis have never had that much time or that amount of incentive nor even the resources to come up with our own system of governance, and from there our own civilisation. We were a bunch of illiterate, nomadic camel-herders just as recently as the 1950s and today a large amount of the population still are. Think if Genghis Khan never existed, would anyone even know what a mongol was, let alone fear them throughout history? Somalis can only be the solution to Somalia's problems with home-grown Somali solutions and until we realize that fact nothing will change.

Based wrote:If you would have read my previous posts, you would have seen my comments regarding the late government's failings. Instead, you have continuously argued in circles without ever actually addressing my points, in what is at best a serious lack of reading comprehension on your part or at worse, a deliberate misconstruing of my arguments that can only be described as a clear case of intellectual dishonesty.

As I have repeatedly and exhaustively stated time and time again, governments that have committed all those abuses you listed and much more have been overthrown by opposition groups. Every opposition movement that has toppled a government has been able to fill the power vacuum and establish some semblance of governance save one. The Kacaan regime instituted programs and reforms most African countries can only dream of and Siad Barre was by all accounts a relatively benevolent dictator in the African context for the majority of his rule, yet out of the roughly 87 coup d'etats in Africa against madmen ranging from Idi Amin to Mobutu to Bokassa to Mengistu, only the coup that overthrew MSB resulted in the world's first and only failed state.

The question for the last 21 years has been why? Why is Somalia different? Why were the opposition groups unable to do what the TPLF, the UNLA, the AFPRC, the PDGE, and countless others did? Why did they overthrow a government only to replace it with anarchy? Those fundamental questions have yet to be honestly answered because as I said before, it is easier to pass the blame rather than to come to grips with the horrible reality you created.

The head of state is responsible for the creation of the atmosphere that bred anarchy.

Gurey and Abdi, axsantum wa axsanallahu ilaykum this is what I've been saying for ages,infact Muslims need to create their own indigenous methods of governance instead of taking this backward,defeatist attitude and their self-imposition of Eastern and Western imperialism and their methods or simply hybrids of both,which have evidently failed their countries in all levels of 'development' and will continue to do so, unless they search within and realise creative solutions of their own.But I doubt I will see that day in all its glory.

Saraxnow wrote:Gurey and Abdi, axsantum wa axsanallahu ilaykum this is what I've been saying for ages,infact Muslims need to create their own indigenous methods of governance instead of taking this backward,defeatist attitude and self-imposition of Eastern and Western methods or simply hybrids of both,which have evidently failed their countries in all levels of 'development' and will continue to do so, unless they search within and realise creative solutions of their own.But I doubt I will see that day in all its glory.

aqligaas firiya since when did good systems have a idenity fo east and west.
are one of those people that think democracy is "western"

^Re-read my post.

Most Muslim, especially Arab countries have hybrids of Communism and some form of democracy. You do realise that democracy in the modern political sense,did originate in Greece? Ta labaad, afkaaga hagajiso markaad hadlaysid.