Sign in to follow this  
General Duke

Asmara: Xasan Dahir sacks Sharifs : wonderfull stuff

Recommended Posts

Sophist   

The issue is will Sharif's apparent "somalinimo" and good intentions affect a change on the ground? I suspect the real power (the insurgency) lies with Garcase as such darinta in loo fidiyo weeye xaajiga..

 

Xiin; the road is littered with bambooyin aan indhu qabaneynin!

 

NG: Unlike your guru, I think Sharif is a man of above intelligence- not easily duped; certainly not by men of average intellect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously what is there to negotiate about?

 

The has only a few months left, having peace talks with them could allow them to re-elect themselves for another 5 years to wipe out somalia.

 

Its better to continue with the struggle today to ensure the death of the TFG and that Ethiopia becomes more naked and nowhere to hide, so we can all concentrate on the habesh occupation rather than wasting time talking to TFG that has no authority of its won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sophist, my good brother the real power lies with Sharif.

 

Sh Xasan have certainly his own rights to oppose any peace in Somalia as long he remains in the terror list. But listening his argument last night I was not impressed with his simplistic take on the question of Ethiopia, Jabbuuti conference…

 

The question has never been whether to negotiate with Sh. Xassan or whether his was part of the dirin process. Sh. Xassan was the face of Islamic movement in Xamar. But by coming out in opposition to what the very entity he helped establish is engaged in, he risks to play into the hands of those who always wanted to drive a wedge between his movement.

 

But one thing I have no doubt; war is not an option to resolve the Somali azmah. Peace is. Always support those who take that line of thinking yaa bro…

 

 

Ps..for those who are in MN, come and see Ina Walad Abdalla @ St. Paul this coming Saturday yaa Jamaacah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NGONGE   

Edit: (serves me right for typing with my eyes closed).

 

Sophist,

I needn't defend my guru on here. He is more than capable of speaking for himself with all his usual and beautiful verbosity. My gripe was with the poster. He, on one hand criticised, and on the other seemed to agree with all that big O was saying.

 

As for the Sheikh's intelligence, I beg to differ. His conduct so far does not point to someone in possession of average intelligence, never mind the genius you seem to attribute to him. Was he not the man that donned the camouflage uniform as the Ethiopian hordes were bursting through the border and promised to fight them to the death? Was he not the man that subsequently legged it out of the capital and claimed he was doing it to save lives? Was he not adamant that he would not sit and talk with the TFG? Is he not now talking to the TFG and losing some of his former friends?

 

I am in full agreement with my guru here. The Sheikh is probably a good man but, in politics, he's nothing but a simpleton who is out of his depth.

 

adiga eyo Xiin wax kala idiin muuqda, methinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Rigidity, I thought, was not one of your qualities yaa NG. Sharif is playing ball adeer. and if you think his political pragmatism is a liability for him, ilaahay ka bari inaad ayyaamo noolaato…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NGONGE   

Nothing to do with rigidity, saaxib. One can only judge a man by his actions and I have not been impressed with his. It seems that every new turn the Sheikh takes is influenced by conviction. But how could one have two opposing principles all at the same time? Surely he is not being kosher in at least one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^It would help if you lay ‘the two opposing principles’ out in the open so we can all understand the said principles good Sheekh betrayed Xaaji!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NGONGE   

^^ You know what the positions are. I've already outlined them above, saaxib. Don't make me do an MMA and get you the opposing quotes the Sheikh has made in the past two years. That would just be vulgar and pedantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Well, that is the rigidity I was refering to. We all have made statements and taken political stances that in hindsight do not all appear appealing any more. Some of the statements the good Sheekh made were reflecting the official position of the entity whose name he was issuing those statements. Others reflected his personal convictions. Those things happen all the time and most people understand them for what they are adeer. But principles are principles. And, as far as I can tell, the good Sheekh has not betrayed his principles. In fact he advanced them, and promoted them to the extent he could under the circumstances.

 

Let me cut to the chase yaa NG; embracing peace is not akin to a betrayal of Sharifs principles. Talking to the other side of the Somali conflict is not a betrayal of Sharif’s principles. Realizing Ethiopia is not alone in this war is not certainly a betrayal of his principles.

 

So I want you to own your words and assertions saaxiib. You can certainly be cautious on this peace drive given previous failures. But when you make assertions like the one you made, you owe us explanation adeer.

 

What is the principle that you reckon Sh. Sharif betrayed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NGONGE   

He vowed not to talk to the TFG when the Courts were in power unless the (unconfirmed) Ethiopian troops withdrew out of Somalia. But I guess you are going to say that this was not his idea and he was merely a spokesperson for the ICU. He dressed in full military uniform and vowed to fight then changed his mind and legged it out of Somalia. But I guess you're going to call this pragmatism. He went to Asmara (after being lost in the wilderness for a few months) and joined a plethora of Somali pariahs there. But I bet you will still find a way to explain this. He finally dropped all pretences and came to talk with the TFG in Djibouti!

 

Now his former comrades from the ICU disowned him, leaving him to represent no other than the pariahs I mentioned above. Where does the Sheikh stand? Who does he stand with?

 

If it were true that he left the capital to save lives, why was he cheering the mad efforts of Al Shabaab when the last thing these efforts did was save lives? If he was not prepared to talk to the TFG when Somalia was somewhat peaceful and under control why is he now kowtowing and ready to speak to whoever will listen? If he thought the TFG were the scum of the earth why is he frolicking with them now?

 

Please don't fob me off with the pragmatism nonsense. A pragmatist gains ground by changing his stances and positions whilst the Sheikh has not gained one inch in his flip-flopping madness of the past couple of years.

 

Please note that I have always believed that talking is the only way forward. So it will save us time if you don't bother preaching to the converted here. Just defend the Sheikh's positions and explain his reasoning if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Why, why, and whys? All about his past positions, which, notwithstanding with your rhetorical questions, are all clear for anyone who has been following the Somali conflict and the sharp turn it took last year! It’s telling that you have no whys of what he’s doing today.

 

One could say the same about almost every leader who achieved and advanced his cause. But I think it’s pointless to argue about how the man positioned himself if you agree with his bigger goal of achieving peace through talks and dialogue with the other side.

 

What did he so far gain in this approach? More than anything else he gained the trust of Somalis. Even his staunchest opponents admit that the man articulates a vision that’s realistic and fair for Somalis. As for some of his former colleagues disowning him, it is just part of the nature of the stuff the man is engaged in adeer. Some are consumed by anger and are unable to see any alternative to war. Some are resistant to change. And some just like you are natural born cynics and think the man is selfish and his moves are manifestation of his ulterior desires of power and position. So opposition to his bold moves is expected adeer. The fact remain though that the majority of the original Asmara team are with him. He has substantial fighting force on the ground that remain loyal to him. And he secured the capacity to engage with the world to advance his cause of reviving Somalia…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NGONGE   

No. No. No. I don't think the man is selfish, that is undeserved praise. I said it before and I say it again; I think the man is clueless.

 

To earn the respect of the Somali people is nothing much. Indha-bloody-cade is earning the respect of Somali people when yesterday he was a full-blown warlord. Somalis in general are fickle and emotional. It does not take much to earn their respect or turn their heads.

 

You are praising the man as a leader and putting your eggs in his basket. I, whilst admitting that there is no other way to solve this conflict than negotiation, do not think he is the best man for the job. You try to shrug and turn a blind eye to his previous positions but I repeat; this is the only way to judge the man.

 

When you talk about OTHER leaders you conveniently forget the difference between them and the subject of our discussion. The biggest reason for people to support him is that he's a pious and virtuous man. Other leaders change positions, convictions and principles out of necessity and circumstances. Their supporters understand the need to bend one's principles to fit in with changing events. It is a bit difficult to take a pious and virtuous man seriously when he acquires this vice.

 

Most of the Asmara group is with him but his fellow Mullahs (including the biggest fish of all) are not. What do the flip-floppers matter?

 

As for the substantial fighting force he has, who the hell are they? His clan or is it the People's Front of Mogadishu? Naah, those are with Awayes. It must be the Popular Front of Mogadishu! :D

 

Dee naga daa adeer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Tell us your perception of those fighting on the ground and who you think thier leaders are? I mean you are coming across utterly ilinformed on the realities on the ground saaxiib!

 

I think we have two different frame of reference here saaxiib. I dont know if you know who many are in Asmara, and apart from good Aweys where most of the religous oriented stand on this!

 

And you think Indhaccade is gaining respect!

 

edit; you think he is clueless, yet we are depating the consequence of his policies...cajaaib!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oodweyne   

Hello Folks,

 

Firstly, To: Mr. Sophist,

 

Dear lad, it seams to me that it was a long time that I had the privilege of putting you into your verbally-reduced caged for all to see. And if memory serves me right in here, it was to do with that argument that alludes to the “political facts on the ground” that pertains as to who shall eventually rule that city of Las-Anod.

 

Which I gather may have made you to tail turn on us; particularly when that bet you took with me turn out to be like so much of receding mirage that is the illusion of water gleaming in the distance in that dusty and the savannah-like locales of Jidale of Sanag Region of Somaliland, particularly in the bitter drought season of early january.

 

But, be that as it may, one never had expected that you had in you the chutzpah that will convinced you, once again, to mount the saddle (as it were) of yet another argument (which you bound to loose against good old Mr. Oodweyne); particularly in the hope of seeing yourself to the other-side of the debate of that kind.

 

Much less if I were you would I have the temptation to comment about others “bitingly-gale-force-wind-of-an-intellect”; whilst yours is not even that of which that could, in turn, registered with the scale that is the latest kinder-gardens barometer that was designed to measure the toddlers version of it.

 

But, leaving that aside – just for a minute – in here; one still must suggest that one is still is at lost as to how you came to the conclusion that suggest that one is happy as to how things have turn out to be in Somalia.

 

Which is your way of alluding that one was glad that the good Mr. Shariif Ahmed has been disrobe from his “Title” that he was never fit enough – intellectually or other-wise – to carry onto his slender shoulders, as it were.

 

You see; unlike you, I see the dilemma of Somalia for what it is. And that means the issue is about Occupation on one hand; and on the other hand we have all manner of “pip-squeak collaborationist fifth-columnist” trying their luck – almost like a desperate last gasp of an effort – to hoodwink any gullible simpletons that they could find.

 

Whereby they could fashioned their new-found bogus call of “Somalinimo” on to the back of those bespoken simpletons. So that they will say; lets cut a deal with each other and then we shall ask those of whom we are their lackeys, namely the Ethiopian’s to cut us a deal in return and leave Somalia altogether.

 

However be that as it may; what they seamed to forget – or perhaps deliberately left it to mentioned it – is that the man who calls the shots in Somalia, namely the said Mr. Meles Zenawi does not think that the likes of Col. Yey or for that matter any amount of jaw-jaw should deprive him of his "political bounty" that is the "occupation of Somalia".

 

And, therefore, so long as that man in Addis-Ababa has no reason to think otherwise; no amount of “Peace Talk” can change that political equation in the ground. In other words, that would only happen, when and if the said Mr. Zenawi sees and hears an order from “Uncle Sam”, which will inform him to leave Somalia forthwith immediately (and that will not happen so long as Mr. Bush is in the White-House, in turn).

 

Or till on the other hand, the occupation of Somalia becomes too intolerable - i.e., logistically, financially, politically, and militarily - for him to sustain it (like the manner that the Israelis found it to their cost during their occupation of Southern Lebanon).

 

All in all; it seams to me that some were trying to have their cake and eat it in here (which means, that some were trying to have the occupation of Ethiopia as an “insurance policy”, whilst at the same time, they were trying to gingerly parlay with others with a bogus call of reconciliations).

 

And, therefore, Sheikh Aweys and the Asmara Group have understood it to a tee the banana skin that others were measurably putting onto the ground for the “Resistance Forces” (so that their political agenda of liberating Somalia will be subsumed under the rubric of a bogus call of a reconciliation talks that promised nothing but a way of legitimizing the collaborationist clique by the name of the said TFG who are the sort of folks that have started this nonsense in the first place).

 

And finally; dear lad, for your own information, I am an old war-horse in this sort of a political gamesmanship. For, in fact I could easily see from ten paces away the sort of hand that each party is trying to win the jackpot with it, without even breaking sweet from my end.

 

Hence, as to why I gather, that you have decided to tackle me in here with nothing more than a spleen of the insensible kind (for no one likes to be call on with the political deception and the underhand tactics that his clannish ilk were trying on others); particularly since the argument(s) that I was making all along turn out to be closer to the truth, at least in comparison to the sort of nonsense-on-stilts that the bogus peace-caravan – in which the likes of Mr. Xiinfaniin - were pushing in here of SOL.

 

 

***************

 

 

Secondly, To: Mr. Me,

 

Adeer, I see that you must be smarting from the last episode of our engagement, in which I have put you to the verbal sword (so to speak); and therefore, one can understand as to why you are chomping-at-the-bits (or at least pulling the leash) so that you shall have some meaningful thing to which to account from your end, at least as of this debate.

 

But, be that as it may, if you have something worthwhile to contribute in here (in this particular debate), feel free to go for the long haul of a "chapter and by verse of an argument sort".

 

As opposed to this sort of insensible spleen in which the teenage hussies of any neighborhood that you can think of were known to indulged in (like so much of a verbal scuffles that they must employ in-order to settle account with each other).

 

Particularly since that kind of language ill-becomes of a strapping young fellow of your kind, so say the least.

 

 

***************

 

 

Thirdly, To: Mr. Ngonge,

 

Dear friend; it was said that: “All will end well if it have started with well intentions”, least of all it was said it by Mr. A. J. P. Taylor (i.e., the famous British historian).

 

Which was when he decided to comment on the mistake that Mr. Neville Chamberlain have made it when he underestimated the political malignancy of Herr Hitler's intention; and therefore he – i.e., Mr. Chamberlain - went out of his way to make a “peace-on-paper” deal with Herr Hitler in that famous line of "peace in our time" agreement of Munich of 1938.

 

Similarly, many including the sacked Mr. Sheikh Shariif genuinely underestimated the political trap-door that others (mostly Ethiopia, with the connivance, of course, of the said TFG) have gingerly designed for the “Resistance forces” of Somalia.

 

Hence all, "would have end it well if it had started with a good intention from the get go", particularly in so far as “Djibouti Agreement” is concern.

 

In other words, many of us saw that agreement for what it was; but others had decided to play the chorus of “give-peace-a-chance” line of mantra with us in here of SOL in return; till we were almost ready to scream at their faces (since no considered argument from our end, that pertains to as to why what was agreed on in Djibouti was never the kind of the peace that they were talking about it, was getting through to them).

 

But, finally, it seams to me that others also saw the danger that was inherent in that agreement. And hence they did not buy into those bogus call of reconciliation; which would of turn out to be nothing less than a surrender for the "resistance forces" in the ground, particularly if that Djibouti Agreement were to have been implemented fully on the ground in Somalia.

 

And that will be the case, even, if that kind of call were to have been said it with "most heartstring-pulling panache of verbal" honey words that one could imagine it for a change.

 

All in all, I take it that a "verbosity of argument" may be what I am guilty of in here (according to your judgment).

 

But at least, one can say, is that a "barrenness of discriminating intellect", which in turn could help one to see the trees from the woods was not something, alas, that I could ever be accused of in here. And that, least of all, I believe you will be my “unbidden alibi” before the gallery of SOL, in turn... :D

 

Regards,

Oodweyne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NGONGE   

Come on, Xiin. Let us not play this game. You are the one who asserted the man has a substantial fighting force in Somalia. I asked you who they are only to be hit with a question on my knowledge of those fighting in Somalia?

 

As for the Asmara issue were Sh. Aweys and Sh. Ahmed not the faces (and leaders) of the religious wing of that group? When Aweys distances himself from this whole furore, who are we left with? No, it's not a rhetorical question. TELL ME.

 

Major-General-Xabashi-Conquering-Sheikh Indha Cade is fighting the Ethiopians. Most Somali people respect those fighting the Ethiopians. Therefore, Somalis respect Major-General-Xabashi-Conquering-Lion-Of-Somalia-Sheikh Indha Cade.

 

ps

 

My frame of reference is the same as the one I started with when talking to Sophist. It's you that sent yourself in all sorts of knots, saaxib. I say the man is clueless and give you, as evidence, his various conflicting positions in the past. You say he is not and give me NOTHING.

 

pps

Guru, the verbosity comment was supposed to be our 'in joke', you paranoid so and so. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this