Classified, Take it easy on Xaaji, even a professor like Samater would have a hard time articulating the gibberish Landers believe in. He should have had the good sense to disappear from the whole thread like the GAROODI dude who ignited this whole thing.

Classified;971542 wrote: He said, a Laascaanoodian 'so to speak', is more related to Burco sub-clans more than a Laascaanoodian does with someone from Garoowe or Boosaaso or Wardheer or Caabudwaaq. He then further said, the Khaatumo clan is NOT related to the Puntland sub-clans and the Jubbaland clans of Axmed Madoobe and Fartaag. He wants to force us to believe that he [Xaji Xunjuf] is related to Reer Buuhoodle than General Duke or XinFinin of SOL are. lol D I think Xaaji is smarter than you're giving him credit for. Unlike most Landers who simple repeat platitudes about colonial borders, Xaaji is proactively constructing theories to create a distinction between North and South.

^^^ if that is the case, why ain't Oubangui-chari and Tanganyika written in English. Lol

Xaaji Xunjuf;971537 wrote: Another fabrication and distortion of facts the french called their colony La Côte française des Somalis and later they called it Territoire français des Afars et des Issas. The Italians on the other hand called their trusteeship amministrazione fiduciaria italiana della Somalia. Non of them called their colonies Somaliland. Garmaqaate your argument holds no water. You have to try harder. Soon you will tell us the italians conquered Somaliland in the second world war thus Koonfurians and their italian allies have every right to claim Somalilland:D Dude, come on! you cannot be serious?. Wasn't you who posted this map of colonial Africa on page two? Ought to read it careful and unless you think your source is a fabrication to. Lol

Xaaji Xunjuf;971523 wrote: The People of Somaliland share a distinct history tradition culture ancestry and blood line political culture, which goes back for centuries and centuries. All Somalis have common ancestry, common history and a common destiny. The idea that someone in Laascaanood has more ancestrial, linguistic and cultural connections to someone in Wajaale than say someone Beledweyn, is nothing but utter non sense.

Xaaji Xunjuf;971520 wrote: You are missing point the reason the MP asked if Britain and Somaliland already established diplomatic relations was that Somaliland gained independence as an independent state , only a sovreing state forges relations with other nations, reason why he is asking But we know that when Somalia and Somaliland united under the Somali republic they started opening up embassies in the world. Why need an act of union why even hold a referendum for the union if it was a mere territory if it was not a state of it own. So are you saying Somalia expanded into Somaliland and there was never a union , Somalia a state , the people of Somaliland never knew before first of July. Certainly before 1896 Somalia was never heard of . Your argument is very contradicting and it doesn't go in par with the reality. Another fabrication Somaliland was never Somalia , Somaliland was never called Somalia the 2 states united under the name of the Somali republic. As it says in the union law. Unless you believe that was falsely created by Somaliland nationalists. Honestly this is just getting ridiculous now. I think I have said all I needed to say on the matter. Till someone can put up a meaningful rebuttal, the debate is over. But before I retire the subject allow me to inform you one more time. The word Somaliland is does not exclusively belong to Nothern Somalia, in fact there was never an entity exclusively called Somaliland. There were three somalilands, namely British somaliland protectorate, Italian somaliland and French Somaliland. In 1991 after the so called "Declaration of Independence", five names were put forward for considerations.Only two of those names made the cut, somaliland and Shankaroon ( no joke) and for obvious reasons they went with somaliland.

Tallaabo;971466 wrote: His logic;) Smileys and high fiving your buddies is not going to advance your cause. Either put up a meaningful rebuttal or shut up.

Xaaji Xunjuf;971471 wrote: Why are British Parliament debating Somaliland and calling it a state this is very strange on top of that why are they asking if Somaliland exchanged diplomatic representatives with Britain. The Brits were there signed a treaty with the Somaliland communities, these are colonial treaties the entity of Somaliland was well defined under colonial rule, The Anglo italian border the Anglo French border and so on. Your argument makes no sense at all. What Garmaqaate fails to understand after 1905 The British protectorate as an entity came directly under the colonial office If we have to follow Garmaqate logic and say the treaties were never legal. does that mean we were never colonized or protected. The Fact is Somaliland gained independence just like any other nation the Brits left it had its own judiciary system defined borders distinct history its own prime minister Parliament. And they made a union with a state called Somalia with their own leaders. Anigu ninkan ila hada maan fahmin ada ma wuxu ina leeyahay cidi ba idin ma isticmaarsan waxad ahaydeen dad xor ah, oo hadaan isticmaar jirin muxu ingriisku berbera ka qabanayey iyo hargeisa iyo xeeabaha oo dhan. Xaaji, I really admire your dogged determination to defend your beliefs/cause even when your beliefs are unfounded and unhistoric. But try as you may, it is still painful to watch you grasping straws in thin air. Strangely enough, you and your buddy Caraafat are now asking me, whether or not i am questioning the fact that British Somaliland protectorate was a British colony. Lets just make this abundantly clear British Somaliland was a colonial subject of the Crown and it had an administration..... it was called the colonial office. As for the "debate" in the UK parliament, I am surprised you brought that up again. First of all, there was no debate about somaliland. Mr Mr Reginald Sorensen of Leyton directed a question to a minister. Asking the minister if Britain had established a diplomatic relations with somaliland and the minister tells him that the territory does not exist anymore since it merged with Somalia to make the republic of Somalia. How could you use a source that complete undermines your own argument.? The only reason why you brought up that source, is because the words "state" and "Union" were mention in relation to your Tinpot Republic. I think we have proven beyond doubt that somaliland was never a state. So lets deal with the word the Act of Union. I have seen you and your colleagues quoting articles from the act of union, as prove of a union between two independent states. Firstly, an Act of Union does not prove anything, lots of country have Acts of Union, countries such the United States America and the United Kingdom. Usually when a country's territory expands that country passes laws to incorporate the territory into its legal and political system. In 1960, Somalia had two territories with different colonial systems. One with English colonial laws and other with Italian colonial laws and in order to harmonise these contradictory laws and more importantly to create laws for independent Somali state, it had to adopt an Act of Union. Secondly, I am perplexed by how the mere use of the words act of union in a document, can be interpreted as reference to prove statehood. Xaaji your parents have an act of union, my wife and I have an act of union, what does this prove?

Carafaat;971455 wrote: Iminka waxa leedahay Somaliland wexe eheed dhul banaan ah. Oo wax nidaam ah kamee jirin, maamul, tacliin, ciidan, cafimaad, barlaman, etc haba yaratee mee leheen. Heshiiska la galeen Britishkuna been ayee eheed oo 80 sano wexe ku joogeen bug ayee eheed? I presume this is an attempted sarcasm!

Xaaji Xunjuf;971410 wrote: Well the only difference is Kenya is recognized by the wider world and Somaliland is not but they have the same history which defines them as a state entity. where the Brits took part of their land and gave it to the italian colonialists the same they gave the hawd and reserve area to the Ethiopians. It doesn't make kenya less of an illegitimate entity, because of what the brits did. All African nations are the same in their history except for Liberia Ethiopia who were never colonized.And Somaliland after gaining Independence joined with another nation called Somalia. If there was never a state than how come there was an act of union, why was there the union law. Xaaji, in all honest I am having an extremely hard time following your chain of thoughts and your over all argument. I know English is not our native tongue, so naturally I'm starting to seriously question whether you understand the true meanings of some of the loaded words that your are using interchangeably. Words such as STATE,NATION,PROTECTORATE and ENTITY. I think it would be a useful exercise if we defined some of these terms, in order to have an informed debate. STATE " As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states." NATION noun "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory:" ENTITY "entity n. a general term for any institution, company, corporation, partnership, government agency, university, or any other organization which is distinguished from individuals." PROTECTORATE "Protectorates were protected territories in which: 1.there was no properly organised internal government; and 2.Britain not only controlled external matters, such as the protectorate's defence and foreign relations but also established an internal" example of this type of protectorate somaliland,Zanzibar and Aden. This type of protectorate should not be confused with a protected state. Protected states were places in which: 1.there was a properly organised internal government; and 2. Britain controlled only the state's external affairs. Examples of this type of protected state Qatar and omen.("Somalilanders" usually mistaken British Somaliland protectorate for a protected state and hence the talk about treaties and defined borders) Returning to our discussion, The premise of my argument is that, firstly, the treaties signed by the British with some of the tribes in North Somalia never established protectorate with defined borders. Secondly the treaty was not legal document under international law or in the eyes of the British. We have conclusively proven this, thus far. And let's move on to the second component of my argument. History show us, that there was never a state called somaliland, which preceded the Somali Republic. When the British left Northern Somalia on the 26 of June, it was the Somali flag that was raised in Hargeysa, ushering in the birth of the Republic. And on the 1st of July creation of Somalia was completed. Now I cannot understand how somaliland become a state in 1960, unless your argument is that a territory becomes a state by default, as soon as it is vacated by the foreign colonial power. As if states exist in a vacuum. In conclusion my question for you folks is simple, how and when did somaliland become a state, (in the prosper since of the word)?

Dude stop conflating the issue. Kenya is state because It submitted an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepted the obligations under the Charter. The Security Council considers the application. It received affirmative votes from the members of the Security Council. The recommendation was presented to the General Assembly for consideration and the Assembly voted for the admission of a new State. Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission was adopted. This is why kenya is a state (entity) not because it used be a British colony.So Xaaji, being a British colony is no a perquisite for statehood there are procedures. Therefore, the claim for existence of an independent state called Somaliland which united with Somalia in 1960 is unfounded myth. There was never a state called Somaliland.

The Somali republic is the only thing eternal and sacred in the Horn. Everything else is here today gone tomorrow.

Tallaabo;971296 wrote: Myth?? Ok then your rants must the irrefutable facts. Are saying somaliland was recognised by 35 countries in 1960, that included the 5 permanent members of the security council?

the Warsangalis (British Protection; Slave Trade; Wrecks: &c.). - January 27, 1886 THE British Government and the Elders of the Warsangali tribe who have signed this Agreement being desirous of maintaining and strengthening the relations of peace and friendship existing between them; The British Government have named and appointed Major Frederick Mercer Hunter, C.S.I., Political Agent and Consul for the Somali Coast, to conclude a Treaty for this purpose. The said Major F. M. Hunter, C.S.I., Political Agent and Consul for the Somali Coast, and the said Elders of the Warsangali, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles:- ART. I. The British government, in compliance with the wish of the undersigned Elders of the Warsangali, undertakes to extend to them and to the territories under their authorities and jurisdiction the gracious favour and protection of Her Majesty the Queen-Empress. II. The said Elders of the Warsangali agree and promise to refrain from entering into any correspondence, Agreement, or Treaty with any foreign nation or Power, except with the knowledge and sanction of Her Majesty's Government. III. The Warsnagali are bound to render assistance to any vessel, whether British or belonging to any other nation, that may be wrecked on the shores under their jurisdiction and control , and to protect the crew, passengers, and cargo of such vessels, giving speedy intimation to the Resident at Aden of the circumstances; for which act of friendship and good-will a suitable reward will be given by the British Government. IV. The Traffic in slaves throughout the territories of the Warsangali shall cease for ever, and the Commander of any of Her Majesty's vessels, or any other British officer duly authorized, shall have the power of requiring the surrender of any slave, and of supporting the demand by force of arms by land and sea. V. The British Government shall have the power to appoint an Agent or Agents to reside in the territories of the Warsangali, and every such Agent shall be treated with respect and consideration, and be entitled to have for this protection such guard as the British Government deem sufficient. VI. The Warsangali hereby engage to assist all British officers in the execution of such duties as may be assigned to them, and further to act upon their advice in matters relating to the administration of justice, the development of the resources of the country, the interests of commerce, or in any other matter in relation to peace , order, and good government, and the general progress of civilization. VII. This Treaty to come into operation from the 27th day of January, 1886, on which date it was signed at Bunder Gori by the Undermentioned. F. M. Hunter These treaties are nothing more than contractual agreements, enslaving the Somalis. Some of the treaties drastically differ from another seemingly creating different protectates.

The treaties ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ We, the undersigned Elders of the Gadabursi tribe, are desirous of entering into an Agreement with the British Government for the maintenance of our independence, the preservation of order, and other good and sufficient reasons. Now it is hereby agreed and covenanted as follows:- ART. I. The Gababursi tribe do hereby declare that they are pledged and bound never to cede, sell, mortgage, or otherwise give for occupation, save to the British Government, any portion of the territory presently inhabited by them, or being under their control. ART. II. All vessels under the British flag shall have free permission to trade at all ports and places within the territories of the Gadabursi tribe ART. III. All British subjects residing in or visiting the territories of the Gadabursi tribe shall enjoy perfect safety and protection, and shall be entitled to travel all over the said limits under the safe-conduct of the Elders of the tribe ............ . In token of the conclusion of this lawful and honourable bond, Jama Roblay, ........and Major Frederick Mercer Hunter, Assistant Political Resident at Aden, the former for themselves, their heirs and successors, and the latter on behalf of the British Government, do each and all, in the presence of witnesses, affix their signatures, marks, and seals, at Zaila, on the 11th day of December, 1884, corresponding with the 25th Safar. F. M. Hunter (the marks of Elders named.) Agreement with the Gadabursi, ZAILA, Dec. 11, 1884 - ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ We, the undersigned Elders of the Eesa tribe, are desirous of entering into an Agreement with the British Government for the maintenance of our independence, the preservation of order, and other good and sufficient reasons. Now it is hereby agreed and covenanted as follows:- ART. I. The Eesa tribe do hereby declare that they are pledged and bound never to cede, sell, mortgage, or otherwise give for occupation, save to the British Government, any portion of the territory presently inhabited by them, or being under their control. ART. II. All vessels under the British flag shall have free permission to trade at all ports and places within the territories of the Eesa tribe ART. III. All British subjects residing in or visiting the territories of the Eesa tribe shall enjoy perfect safety and protection, and shall be entitled to travel all over the said limits under the safe-conduct of the Elders of the tribe ....... In token of the conclusion of this lawful and honourable bond, Ali Geridone, .........and Major Frederick Mercer Hunter, Assistant Political Resident at Aden, the former for themselves, their heirs and successors, and the latter on behalf of the British Government, do each and all, in the presence of witnesses, affix their signatures, marks, and seals, at Zaila, on the 31st day of December, 1884, corresponding with the 13th Rabu-al-Awal, 1302 F. M. Hunter Agreement with the Eesa Somal, ZAILA, Dec. 31, 1884 -- ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ We, the undersigned Elders of the Habr Toljaala tribe, are desirous of entering into an Agreement with the British Government for the maintenance of our independence, the preservation of order, and other good and sufficient reasons. Now it is hereby agreed and covenanted as follows:- ART. I. The Habr Toljaala tribe declare that they are pledged and bound never to cede, sell, mortgage, or otherwise give for occupation, save to the British Government, any portion of the territory presently inhabited by them, or being under their control. ART. II. All vessels under the British flag shall have free permission to trade at all ports and places within the territories of the Habr Toljaala, and the tribe is bound to render assistance to any vessel, whether British or belonging to any other nation, that may be wrecked on the above-mentioned shores, and to protect the crew, the passengers, and cargo of such vessels, giving speedy intimation to the Resident at Aden of the circumstances, for which act of friendship and good-will a suitable reward will be given by the British Government. ART. III. All British subjects residing in or visiting the territories of the Habr Toljaala shall enjoy perfect safety and protection, and shall be entitled to travel all over the said limits under the safe-conduct of the Elders of the tribe In token of the conclusion of this lawful and honourable bond, Dirir Shaikh Don, ....[iNSERT THE NAMES OF THE ELDERS HERE].....;and Major Frederick Mercer Hunter, Assistant Political Resident, the former for themselves, their heirs and successors, and the latter on behalf of the British Government, do each and all, in the presence of witnesses, affix their signatures, marks, and seals, at Aden, on the 26th day of December, 1884, corresponding with the 9th of Rabu-al-Awal, 1302 F. M. Hunter (the marks of Elders named.) Agreement with Habr Toljaala, Aden, December 26,1884 ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ We, the undersigned Elders of the Habr Gerhajis tribe, are desirous of entering into an Agreement with the British Government for the maintenance of our independence, the preservation of order, and other good and sufficient reasons. Now it is hereby agreed and covenanted as follows:- ART. I. The Habr Gerhajis tribe do hereby declare that they are pledged and bound never to cede, sell, mortgage, or otherwise give for occupation, save to the British Government, any portion of the territory presently inhabited by them, or being under their control. ART. II. All vessels under the British flag shall have free permission to trade at all ports and places within the territories of the Habr Gerhajis, and the tribe is bound to render assistance to any vessel, whether British or belonging to any other nation, that may be wrecked on the above-mentioned shores, and to protect the crew, the passengers, and cargo of such vessels, giving speedy intimation to the Resident at Aden of the circumstances, for which act of friendship and good-will a suitable reward will be given by the British Government. ART. III. All British subjects residing in or visiting the territories of the Habra Gerhajis tribe shall enjoy perfect safety and protection, and shall be entitled to travel all over the said limits under the safe-conduct of the Elders of the tribe In token of the conclusion of this lawful and honourable bond, Ahmed Ali, ........and Major Frederick Mercer Hunter, Assistant Political Resident at Aden, the former for themselves, their heirs and successors, and the latter on behalf of the British Government, do each and all, in the presence of witnesses, affix their signatures, marks, and seals, at Aden, on the 13th day of December, 1885, corresponding with the 28th of Rabi-al-Awal, 1302 F. M. Hunter (Signatures of Elders) Agreement with Habr Gerhajis, Aden, January 13,1885 ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ WHEREAS the garrisons of His Highness the Khedive are about to be withdrawn from Berbera and Bulhar, and the Somali Coast generally, we, the undersigned Elders of the Habr-Awal tribe, are desirous of entering into an Agreement with the British Government for the maintenance of our independence, the preservation of order, and other good and sufficient reasons. Now it is hereby agreed and covenanted as follows:- ART. I. The Habr-Awal tribe do hereby declare that they are pledged and bound never to cede, sell, mortgage, or otherwise give for occupation, save to the British Government, any portion of the territory presently inhabited by them, or being under their control. ART. II. All vessels under the British flag shall have free permission to trade at the ports of Berbera, Bulhar, and other places in the territories of the Habr-Awal tribe ART. III. All British subjects residing in or visiting the territories of the Habr-Awal shall enjoy perfect safety and protection, and shall be entitled to travel all over the said limits under the safe-conduct of the Elders of the tribe ...... In token of the conclusion of this lawful and honourable bond, Abdellah Liban, ........and Major Frederick Mercer Hunter, the officiating Political Resident of Aden, the former for themselves, their heirs and successors, and the latter on behalf of the British Government, do each and all, in the presence of witnesses, affix their signatures, marks, and seals, at Berbera, on the 21st day Ramdhan, 1301, corresponding with the 14th July, 1884 F. M. Hunter, Major, Officiating Political Resident, Aden. Agreement with Habr-Awal, Berbera, July 14, 1884 ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _______

Xaaji Xunjuf;971273 wrote: this does not mean their treaties signed with the Somaliland tribes were not legal, it was legal, th. There is really nothing of value in your incoherent rant to move our debate forward. I have provide you with irrefutable evidence that definitively prove that the British did not regard the treaties signed with some of the tribes of Somaliland in 1884/6 as an agreement with a sovereign or part-sovereign entity, which could be recognised in international law. This is not my assertions, this is an established fact. But let's just disable our critical faculties and accept the proposal that the treaties were "legal" and binding. And since "The Treaties of Protection did not stipulate the transfer of ownership of Somali territory to the protecting states, only obligations to preserve the in- dependence of the protected people. Neither did these treaties provide for the alienation of Somali territory to a third party state. It follows, therefore, that under the fun- damental principles of law "Memo dat quad non habet" so long as the protecting powers had no legal ownership of the Somali territory, they could not transfer a valid title to another state, in this case Ethiopia Therefore, if the treaty was legally as you claim then the Britain would not have the legal right to award Somali territory to a third party without the knowledge of the Somalis and in violation of the treaty. Yes...

I belief the average (grassroots) members of alshaabab should be integrated back into society and they should have the same rights and opportunities as other law abiding citizens but any high ranking al shaabab member should be made to face justice, at minimum they should be bared for holding political and civil service positions.

In that year of independence, 1960, and before the merger, 35 countries recognized Somaliland diplomatically including Egypt, Israel and the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. Above is another commonly held myth that is consider as a historical fact by Somalilanders.

Alpha Blondy;971245 wrote: Kulmiye = kleptomaniacs Wadani = xenophobic UCID = politically waa waraabian , economically waa free market , socially waa left of centre.

Lol

Johnny B;971238 wrote: A fanatical ? Maybe,(after all, he is Somali.) A nihilist ? Maybe ( after all, he is a Human being. ) A jihadist ? Maybe ( after all, he is supposed to be a Muslim. ) With blood on his hands ? mind expanding on that?! :confused: As the justice of the peace? , My Somali may not be at its best but " Nabad sugid " != The justice of the peace. But if you meant the peace after the civil war or the current status quo of the Nation, then you need to expand on that too as those adjectives you put in raw ( fanatic, nihilistic,jihadist) shoulden't disqualify a Somali citizen from taking that Job. Darn, Johnny in the defence of someone wearing a Turban, may my nationalistic sentiments take me away. I think the fact that he was a leading member of a cult that has systematically murder, bludgeoned, blundered and terrorise the Somali people for years disqualifies him and other criminals like him from office. What next Godane for Chief Justice?.

There is no distinction between "their" politicians and "your" politicians. Most if not all of somalia's politicians are the same. They are corrupt, self serving, extremely tribal and shockingly shortsighted.

A fanatical, nihilist jihadist with blood on his hands as a Justice of the Peace. What could go wrong?

The achievements of every single administration in the Somali peninsula can be summarised in one sentence. " We have solicited more aid and handouts than the previous administration and we have attended more conventions then the previous lot". Horta what is the difference between Kulmiye, Wadani and Ucid in their political, economical and social values. This is a genuine question, any information.