You say that because you're a Southerner. I would agree if I was also a Southerner. As a person from the South, then yes the Civil War has indeed been costly and it was nowhere near worth it. Mogadishu is universally considered hell-on-earth. The people of the South have suffered infinitely more humiliation and turmoil than if Siad Barre ruled for a 100 years.Jugjugwacwac wrote:So we agree more than we disagree then. Siyaad was bad, no doubt. And he should have either given concessions or quickly and swiftly put down the rebellion, with as minimal civilian casualities as possible. Where we differ is, you think that despite our current situation the war to topple him was worth it, while I don't. Doesn't mean i'm a kacaanist or that im pro siyaad barre.LiquidHYDROGEN wrote:@Based. I think I distinctly remember agreeing that Afweyne was not ruthless enough. I also said that he could have avoided the whole war if he simply allowed the North some concessions and liberties. No where did I say that I agreed with him or found him and his policies as anything except abhorrent.
However, as a Northerner, things are different. Hargeisa 30-40 yrs ago was literally a town as big and as developed as a stone-age village. The Isaaq elite had to live in the South to find work and education. They suffered from tribal discrimination, harrassment and governmental nepotism. Secret police were rampant and people went missing. The reason I live in the UK is not because I am a refugee but because my family's lives were in personal danger and made a living hell thanks to Afweyne. Hargeisa and SL might be a shithole today, but they are vastly better than they were under the Kacaan.