Edna Aden Ismail and her terrorist threats against Sool

[Caano Geel]

Jaylaani, saaxiib, su'aashi maadan jawaabin!

 

The question is: in whose interest? how and why. It's not about xidig iyo calan.

 

I was speeking to a ugandan guy at work today and he told of how some ugandan tribes lokked like and though they speak local languages, they trace their roots to somali peninsula. now i'm not claiming that a new edge needs to be added to the star.

 

Your reasoning so far is about as rigid as 'xarig baan tuurayaa, dhulkuu-gaarana anaa leh'. If your gonna site colonial past, then your making your boundaries around the spot we were raped. And if your gonna tell me that an instrinsic bond exists between people and land, then it's as much yours as mine.

 

so a simple question again, what are the incentives, in whose interest, how and why?

[NASSIR]

waa idin dagaayaa kufriga, aad u dabcaysane

dirhankuu idiin qubahayaa' dib u go'aysaane

marka hore dabkuu idin ka dhigi, dumarsidiisiye

marka xigana dabaqadda yuu,dareen siine

 

marka xiga dalkuu idin ku oran, duunya dhaafsadaye

marka xiga dushuu idinka rari, sida dameeraaye

marhadan dushii adari iyo, iimay dacaldhaafay

maxaad igaga digataan, beruu siin la soo degiye

 

 

Sayid Mohammed, May Allah rest his soul in Janna, could foresee the events that were to come after his departure.

 

What had happened to South Africa and the rest of Africa attests to his warning: the racial stratification, the Indirect rule, the ossification of notions like low self-esteem that may arise from the indoctrination of the western culture and civilization. And those were what transpired after him. Somalis were disarmed and ruled under brutal, imperialistic system for the next 40 years.

[Jaylaani]

for you only faarah oomar is hero because you share with him a clan affiliation And sayid is enemy because he is from different clan and fought with British in uncivilized manner in your week opinion.

[/QB]

No brother, I respect Farah Omar because he was fighting with his brain while the other was a MURDERER that was killing his own people not the gumaysi.

 

 

BTW, what is British getto do with this I thought we were talking about Somali affairs?

 

I'm not even gonna bother addressing the rest of your statement...simply because it ain't worth my time and I already told you whuz up.

 

 

Caano Geel,

 

If you don't know the answer of that question, than you shouldn't be here talking about politics....

 

I never said I was siding with the Gumaysi. All I said was that the people of Somaliland suffer more under Somali administrations vs. British and that is a fact. Half a million people died in Somaliland in the hands of the Somali government that “supposed†to protect them. For what?

[Caano Geel]

jaylaani , saxiib or anyone else that cares to answer, an opinion was presented, now this i may agree or diagree with, but it is one whose consequences are not limited to any one individual. And to be honest i am interested in how you came to your decision, heck you might convince me.

 

Now by definition the politics is the process of resolving such opinions. because we dont share the same opinions my question is still has even more weight. What i'm asking is basically how do you justify the proposal to yourself? in your opinion how does the creation of a new state help you or any one else. And if you dont think its there for the people, then whose interst is it serving?

 

saaxiib, when you say something 'the people of Somaliland suffer more under Somali administrations .. Half a million people died in Somaliland in the hands of the Somali government that “supposed†to protect them. For what?

 

You make a very good point and the answer to your question of 'for what' is a harsh for nothing. However, this is still a fraction of the number of 'somalis' that have died as a whole, we've all pointlessly lost loved ones, and we cant bring them back.

 

So are you saying that see the role of the state as the guardian and protector? If so who does it protect, how does it identify them since it cant protect anyone and in whose interest does it protect?

[Jaylaani]

Caano,

 

Somaliland existence isn’t in trial here and I’m not gonna attempt to convince you or justify its existence for that matter. The question you asked (who will benefit from it?) is insulting to me. If you are sincere about your statement, I suggest you to google it and research it your self. That literature is well put together and presented by others who are more qualified to speak of such matter.

 

Thanks for your interest!

[LANDER]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

So are you saying that see the role of the state as the guardian and protector? If so who does it protect, how does it identify them since it cant protect anyone and in whose interest does it protect?

C.G,

your asking alot of open ended questions that may not have any simple or unique answers if you will. Seems your questioning the role of the state in general terms and I'm sure you might receive a multitude of all valid answers to that questions and in practical terms you can also find an equally large if not greater amount of ways the role of the state is undermined in a given situation. That said, I just hope you also question yourself on the 'why not?'

[Caano Geel]

Jaylaani walaal, on the contrary its existence is in question, it doesn't take much to draw up a border, what matters how much you are willing to defend its boundaries, this however is dependant on your motives for creating it.

 

Now it surprises me that you find it insulting to be asked to justify believes that you have vehemently and publicly voiced. And i think your wrong when you say there others more qualified than you, since this implies that you need others to justify your believes for you. And i don't think this is true.

 

so what i am interested in? Honestly, I'd like to know what ordinary people that dint have a direct visible gain in the spoils of an ad mistration see as their interests being served, to what extent they are willing to defend it.

 

So in another way what do the border and distinction mean to you? and how you see them protecting your personal interests?

 

 

lander saaxiib, Yes you are right in that i am asking open ended questions and the reason that it doesnt have a unique answer is that there is no right or wrong answer. A state is effectively a line to distinguish one administration from another, nothing more. and it is exactly this reason that people can in my opinion best justify it using what it means for them and what they expect it will give them, and why they think this is so. These are all questions about motives and incentives since they are what trigger actions.

 

i don't understand what you mean by:

'in practical terms you can also find an equally large if not greater amount of ways the role of the state is undermined in a given situation.'

 

wrt to 'why not' for me the answer is simple, a smaller state is a weaker state, it has access to less resources with which to support its people and by the simple declaration of border they are enforcing a distinction. i.e. this line/feature/ ( fill clause here) makes us different from any one out side it.

 

As things stand, I don't think that any part of Somalia should be expected to play the 'its my turn to be chief' game thats currently happening in the rest of the country, but what is important is an understanding that it will end some day and in the meantime, something needs to be there to preserve what people have in common rather than what is claimed as their differences.

 

Now this is important because when you create a your boundary, there are those who will profit from its existence more than others, you create your elites and vise versa a boundry is created by th elites within it, typically to protect their monopoly. And as far as i an aware there exists no state whose survival is not tightly linked to the that of its economic elites.

 

So the question is then as before, in whose interest? There is as much reason to assume that the creation of a Somali state is there solely as a mechanism to benefit its elite who can then mark out slightly larger territories between themselves . However, ask yourself the question 'what proportion of those in power and with influence were beneficiaries of the Bare regime?'

 

In reality as always those that suffer and need most protection are the marginalised, those at the edges, if 1/2 a million died, chances are they were amongst the poorest in the society the ones that couldn't afford the tickets to get out. Now how does drawring up a new boundary help them? Any other pyscho can attack.

 

A simple test of good faith is reliable generosity with your hard earned cash. Now ask yourself how much does it cost to run an election campaign and how many people can you feed/clothe/ or educate with that money? The payoffs are simple, i win power, i reinforce my position and gain a little extran or I give my money away and i gain little other than goodwill.

 

I don't believe that state is there intrinsically to help its citizens. Its there to mark the territory between one group of elites from another, the role of the citizen of the state is that of the worker ant, cough up your tax, defend it when required, and in return the state will try to respect and enforce others respect what they allow you to claim as your own, be it land, business, money, limb or life.

 

Now my personal opinion is that which you have already heard, we as prospective citizens are stronger united - there is no difference other than that which serves the interests of a few, and any state that we potentially create is better able to fulfil our needs if it is built upon a foundation of the greatest good for the most people.

 

thanks for the replies and i hope i've answered your question, now answer mine

[LANDER]

C.G,

You touch on many points that may require a separate discussion for each case, but let me try to address what I can for now. You’ve outlined a definition of a state as being (as far as I understood) a territorial delimitation that is more or less set up arbitrarily and that is dominated by a group of elite and where by the remainder of the population serves as ‘worker ants’ or proletariat as Marx would put it. Assuming we agree on these characteristics of a state you went on to say that you believe a smaller state is ‘weaker’ than a larger state. By weaker, I cannot know exactly what you meant but would be fair to assume your referring to economic strength as well as strategic and military strength. I’d have to say I still don’t see how a larger state (assuming we’re focusing on greater land mass and population) necessarily means a ‘stronger’ state. For one this may go against one of the fundamental assumptions we just made which was a ‘state being dominated by an elite and the rest of the population falling under the role of labourers’, since the elite are greatly outnumbered by labourers, we can only assume that a larger country would a greater number of both groups in a proportional way which doesn’t really explain how or in which categories a larger state would be more beneficial. The second point being from real life situations or empirical evidence we notice that there are many smaller states that are economically, strategically and militarily more powerful than some larger countries in this world. Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea just to name a few, why do you think it is these countries don’t fit your criteria? Maybe even before that, you could explain how a larger nation has greater access to resources and whether those resources are internal or external. As for your question I think it was along the lines of who profits from sovereignty? In theoretical terms I’m afraid I don’t have a single answer for you, that may depend on your understanding of the role of the state. But you were alluding to Somaliland and this brings us again back to the point of your definition. If two states are political entities equally dominated by elites and are simply there to demark “one territorial boundary from the otherâ€, than how does there separation harm them and make them ‘weaker’ or more susceptible to the attach of “another psychoâ€?