The birth of the 3rd Republic

[Abaq]

The ICU was willing to negotiate but outside forces compromised it by bombing Baidoa its in the Somali book called rising phoenix. Had that peace have happened Somalia would have a government similar to present day Iran

He’s not just talking about Cayr he’s own Abgaal didn’t want governance sheikh cali wajiis explaines, AS is a multi clan mafia organization but specific clans dominate the leadership while others are foot soldiers. Most of AS weapons come trough PL and their explosives through Djibouti ultimately I believe the end goal is for AS to take over Somalia.

Hawiye Militants, the Backbone of al-Shabaab

THE HAWIYE ARE AN INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE AND AS SOMALIA’S LARGEST AND MOST PROMINENT CLAN, THE HAWIYE AND IT'S POWERFUL SUB-CLANS HAVE PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN SHAPING THE COUNTRY’S IDENTITY. Present throughout southern and central Somalia, the Hawiye dominate vast regions of territory, including the capita

www.linkedin.com

Sh Cali Wajiis is a wadaad, but even he made it clear. Cali Geedi and his clan were the guests. The hosts were Cayr and they made their position clear to Cali Geedi in the presence of his clan members who were present. Listen to it again. It’s quite clear

 

[Gaandheri]

Sh Cali Wajiis is a wadaad, but even he made it clear. Cali Geedi and his clan were the guests. The hosts were Cayr and they made their position clear to Cali Geedi in the presence of his clan members who were present. Listen to it again. It’s quite clear

Cali geedi’s own sub sub clan was against him Abukar Cadaani either way HG dominated AS or HG dominated FGS will take over Somalia.

 

[Zak12]

Any speculation that ICU would behave like Al Shabab if they managed to take over all of Somalia is utterely baseless. Reminder that every accusation claiming they were extremist or had links to Al Qaeda were never proven. Its Iraq having WMD tier lies.

They were never aggressive towards anyone and only fought in self defence

Some of you guys fell for ZOG's narrative lol

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

A perspective for the anti PL forces by one of the thinkers in Xamar.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

This is my view of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU):
It comprised three organs:

• Former fighters of al Mujahidin of Afghanistan, the nucleus of al Shabab,
  • Their mentors were Sh Ali Warsame (Burco), Sh A/Qadir Gacamey (Garowe), Sh C/Nur (Jeddah), but were led by Godane, Cayrow, Afghani, Meecaad etc,
• Former al Itihad remnants, who have been looking for a stronghold in .So politics since 1992-3,
  • Their leader was Sh Xasan D Aways (Xamar), who had a score to settle, but willing to negotiate,
• Former warlords disguised as Islamists,
  • There were many, but the notables included Qanyare (at the time, the Security Minister of the TFG), Suudi Yalaxow, Qaybdiid (at the time, Police chief of the TFG), Maxamed Dheere, Bashir Raage, Cumar Finish, Ilqayte, Xaaraan ku naax etc.

Fast forward to the Khartoum meeting, in Jun. 2006, where the TFG and ICU, in principle, agreed upon a power-sharing formulae; Ahmed Caddow was leading the ICU delegation (none of ICU top leaders attended), and the then President, PM, and Speaker of the House represented the TFG delegations. Both sides agreed to the terms, till group (c) got wind of the details of the agreement, as leaked by one of the neighbouring nations representing IGAD at the meeting; core to the agreement was cessation of hostilities.

The mistake TFG's leadership made was of two-fold:

i) Giving groups (a) & (b) too much credibility and influence over other members of the ICU, and​

ii) Excluding group (c) in the negotiations, and alienating them.​

Group (c) realised their empty hands at the table, and declared a war.

And in Dec. 2006, war broke out in and around Baydhaba with ICU attacking TFG bases.

The rest is history.

 

[Dhiirane]

Any speculation that ICU would behave like Al Shabab if they managed to take over all of Somalia is utterely baseless. Reminder that every accusation claiming they were extremist or had links to Al Qaeda were never proven. Its Iraq having WMD tier lies.

View attachment 322766
View attachment 322767


They were never aggressive towards anyone and only fought in self defence

View attachment 322768

View attachment 322769

Some of you guys fell for ZOG's narrative lol

Their spokes person Indhacade were threatening ciida Addis Ababa ku tukaneyna , Alaska iyo Japan.

 

[Zak12]

Their spokes person Indhacade were threatening ciida Addis Ababa ku tukaneyna , Alaska iyo Japan.

No proof of that lol

 

[Dhiirane]

Power hungry

 

[FAST_LANE]

Yes, we are a trojan horse that will backstab you. We are gonna sell you out the first chance we get. Be very suspicious of Leelkase we all have annual meetings about how we can sabotage Majeerteen.

View attachment 322695

You don't have the means to dictate anything. The numbers isn't on your side. Leelkase in the whole word numbers around 8000 camel butchers and their families.

 

[World]

The majority of Somalia is north of Gaalkacyo.
Thats not including the fact that the FGS is a paper government that only exists due to AMISOM and will get conquered by Al Shabab if they leave.

A constitution passed by a government that doesn’t have power in the minority of the country that recognises them holds no authority.

 

[Gaandheri]

 

[White-Macrobian]

Of all the issues discussed, that was your only take-away? If so, then it does not appear you have read the whole thread, or your grasp of politics is not very good.

Postscript:
I am in a jolly good mood, let me highlight some of the major issues:
- Usurpation of FMSs powers, now assumed by the FGS, incl:
- Elections,
- Land ownership,
- Natural resources,

- Removal of the power-sharing requirement with the Powers of the Executive now wholly concentrated in the Presidency with the PM reduced to a mere facsimile,

- Removing Shari'a, and instead introducing 'Xeer' [derived from non-Islamic customs and traditions] opening the door for:
- Civil partnership and abortion,

- Alienation of Somalis in occupied territories equating them with refugees,
- Reinstating the infamous National security doctrine
- Banishing Miranda rights,
- Constraining freedom on enquiry,
- Constraining freedom of congregation,
- Doing away with the Presumption of innocence principle,
- Awarding Power of declaring war to the Executive alone, with the Senator having no oversight,
- And so forth.

Now, which one of those do you consider trite and trivial?

-------------------------
Here is another useful thread, take a glance at where ills of centralism are being discussed.

Is federalism 'treaty' good or bad for .So?

Under the social justice concept, I shall argue in its favour, and if you think otherwise, make the case against it, whichever way you think of it, for right, or wrong, there is none. In its elementary form, powers of government are divided between the Federal government at the national level...

www.somalispot.com

English isn´t my first language so ill try my best. First advice and I know thats alot of work and u don´t have to do that but underlying ur points with actual quotes from the consitution would be very good. So even the most biased qaabilist can´t argue against that.

1. Whats the problem with more centralized gov if now every one is able to run for president beyond clan lines. I would agree that this would be terrible if we still had 4.5. And to the point of AS controlls alot of lands. I mean yes but why are we pretending that that 100% of all somalis would vote anyways. The people that can vote should and the next gov should work on freeing those ppl to gain more voters.

2. I do agree with the removal of power sharing is terrible but I would assume that something is in the process, prefferably a supreme court.

3. Do u have evidence that the removing of sharia would open the door for all that or is that speculation ?

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

English isn´t my first language so ill try my best. First advice and I know thats alot of work and u don´t have to do that but underlying ur points with actual quotes from the consitution would be very good. So even the most biased qaabilist can´t argue against that.

Sorry, I did not realise you were a sojourning alien :--)
Actually if you look closely, you will notice I referenced relevant Articles.

1. Whats the problem with more centralized gov if now every one is able to run for president beyond clan lines. I would agree that this would be terrible if we still had 4.5. And to the point of AS controlls alot of lands. I mean yes but why are we pretending that that 100% of all somalis would vote anyways. The people that can vote should and the next gov should work on freeing those ppl to gain more voters.

We are living the legacy of 21 years of death and destruction resulting from centralised unitary system of governance; is that not enough evidence to break away from it, and try a system, imperfect as all are, which could potentially prevents its ills? Read along.

------------------------------------------------------
Centralism is the scourge of the State.
I was hoping centralists would present the case in its favour, but thus far, besides offing desires based upon perceived personal gains, they failed to come up with any meaningful defence. Let me offer the opposite.

For fragile States, with .So being the quintessential textbook definition, amongst other things, centralism is:

• With the collapse at the centre, the whole nation collapses with it whereas in devolved government, where States independently operate, damage from the centre could be contained rescuing the nation. Case in point, when Xamar fell in 1991, imagine if there had been 5 or 7 regions independently operating beyond Xamar, where displaced people could be received till the malady at the centre had been remediated.
• Centralised government tends to be highly expensive to operate, ineffective to manage local affairs from afar, and poorly dispenses services to the public on the periphery. For instance, apportioning infrastructure projects at the centre not only delays, but creates undue bureaucracy, which potentially leads to corruption. Conversely, the cost of building, and/or maintaining infrastructure at the State level is cheaper, is swallowed by the State, which in turn allows States to prioritise projects based upon local needs.
• Centralised government poorly manages, or provides services, be it health, education, infrastructure building or maintenance, or security. Alternatively, decentralised authority could better manage said services at the State level more effectively, and efficiently, and where one State mismanages, it impacts not other States whereas if the Central authority abuses, or mismanages, it affects the whole nation.
• With centralised government, there is negligence at the local level, where a government, say in 2,000 miles away, with limited resources, could not effectively respond to local disasters, natural or otherwise. Alternatively, local State apparatus could plan, and respond to local emergencies quicker, better, cost-effectively, and is better-positioned.
• Centralised governments are more likely than not to abuse power, prey on citizens, where civil unrest followed by wanton imprisonment, followed by perpetual conflict leading to a total collapse, becomes the norm. With devolved power, there are multiple checks and balances, where should the State authority seeks to overstep its boundaries, legal or otherwise, the possibility of stopping it, or minimising the resulting damage are far greater.
• With it too, technical and professional classes are marginalised, for centralised government seeks loyalty over competence. With States, technical cadre is needed at the local level, with their expertise being put to a better use at the local level.
• Internal migration is a matter of concern in centralised government, where academicians, professionals, aspiring young people, and potential talent would vacate States seeking employment or fortune at the centre.
• Corruption is rampant in centralised government, where nation's resources, meagre or otherwise, are confined within small circles, where nepotism reins, alienating educated, and technical classes.
• Case studies of nations, which struggle with stable political order are those with past heavily centralised systems of governance, where current leaders inherited, or even had been indoctrinated in extreme authority, where they could not imagine devolved power to the periphery. If one considers successive leaders of the current Fed. government, one could see a trend, where they tend to seek greater powers than afforded to them under the law, and are constantly at logger-heads with provisions of the Constitution, and in violation of laws of the land. Their contaminated brain is conditioned to the authoritarian rule, under which they had matured, clones of their sires in essence.

2. I do agree with the removal of power sharing is terrible but I would assume that something is in the process, prefferably a supreme court.

Some of the most contested Articles are Shared Powers of the Judiciary, Articles 107, 108, and 109 in its three level, particularly Article 108, sections (a), (b), and (c).

3. Do u have evidence that the removing of sharia would open the door for all that or is that speculation ?

There are MPs in both Chambers, the likes of Sa'diya, the deputy Speaker, Jiis etc advocating for the legalisation of abortion and civil partnerships. Case in point, in the case of abortion, when Shuyukhs' role had been removed, medical doctors, most of whom liberals and not briefed as to the provisions and guidelines of Islam, are sanctioned to abort at will.

 

[Midwestern]

 

[Dhiirane]

It's quite funny same people who were accusing Farmajo of bieng or a wannabe dictator are supporting this move HSm has made.

BTW not Farmajo fan but it's quite telling of people's true colours.

 

[𐒁𐒚𐒒𐒂𐒘𐒂𐒗 𐒎𐒚𐒗𐒗𐒒]

It's quite funny same people who were accusing Farmajo of bieng or a wannabe dictator are supporting this move HSm has made.

BTW not Farmajo fan but it's quite telling of people's true colours.

Farmaajo was pulling these stunts as is HSM, in my opinion, Kacaanists and USC are very compatible, and should have a country together.

 

[White-Macrobian]

Sorry, I did not realise you were a sojourning alien :--)
Actually if you look closely, you will notice I referenced relevant Articles.


We are living the legacy of 21 years of death and destruction resulting from centralised unitary system of governance; is that not enough evidence to break away from it, and try a system, imperfect as all are, which could potentially prevents its ills? Read along.

------------------------------------------------------
Centralism is the scourge of the State.
I was hoping centralists would present the case in its favour, but thus far, besides offing desires based upon perceived personal gains, they failed to come up with any meaningful defence. Let me offer the opposite.

For fragile States, with .So being the quintessential textbook definition, amongst other things, centralism is:

• With the collapse at the centre, the whole nation collapses with it whereas in devolved government, where States independently operate, damage from the centre could be contained rescuing the nation. Case in point, when Xamar fell in 1991, imagine if there had been 5 or 7 regions independently operating beyond Xamar, where displaced people could be received till the malady at the centre had been remediated.
• Centralised government tends to be highly expensive to operate, ineffective to manage local affairs from afar, and poorly dispenses services to the public on the periphery. For instance, apportioning infrastructure projects at the centre not only delays, but creates undue bureaucracy, which potentially leads to corruption. Conversely, the cost of building, and/or maintaining infrastructure at the State level is cheaper, is swallowed by the State, which in turn allows States to prioritise projects based upon local needs.
• Centralised government poorly manages, or provides services, be it health, education, infrastructure building or maintenance, or security. Alternatively, decentralised authority could better manage said services at the State level more effectively, and efficiently, and where one State mismanages, it impacts not other States whereas if the Central authority abuses, or mismanages, it affects the whole nation.
• With centralised government, there is negligence at the local level, where a government, say in 2,000 miles away, with limited resources, could not effectively respond to local disasters, natural or otherwise. Alternatively, local State apparatus could plan, and respond to local emergencies quicker, better, cost-effectively, and is better-positioned.
• Centralised governments are more likely than not to abuse power, prey on citizens, where civil unrest followed by wanton imprisonment, followed by perpetual conflict leading to a total collapse, becomes the norm. With devolved power, there are multiple checks and balances, where should the State authority seeks to overstep its boundaries, legal or otherwise, the possibility of stopping it, or minimising the resulting damage are far greater.
• With it too, technical and professional classes are marginalised, for centralised government seeks loyalty over competence. With States, technical cadre is needed at the local level, with their expertise being put to a better use at the local level.
• Internal migration is a matter of concern in centralised government, where academicians, professionals, aspiring young people, and potential talent would vacate States seeking employment or fortune at the centre.
• Corruption is rampant in centralised government, where nation's resources, meagre or otherwise, are confined within small circles, where nepotism reins, alienating educated, and technical classes.
• Case studies of nations, which struggle with stable political order are those with past heavily centralised systems of governance, where current leaders inherited, or even had been indoctrinated in extreme authority, where they could not imagine devolved power to the periphery. If one considers successive leaders of the current Fed. government, one could see a trend, where they tend to seek greater powers than afforded to them under the law, and are constantly at logger-heads with provisions of the Constitution, and in violation of laws of the land. Their contaminated brain is conditioned to the authoritarian rule, under which they had matured, clones of their sires in essence.

Some of the most contested Articles are Shared Powers of the Judiciary, Articles 107, 108, and 109 in its three level, particularly Article 108, sections (a), (b), and (c).


There are MPs in both Chambers, the likes of Sa'diya, the deputy Speaker, Jiis etc advocating for the legalisation of abortion and civil partnerships. Case in point, in the case of abortion, when Shuyukhs' role had been removed, medical doctors, most of whom liberals and not briefed as to the provisions and guidelines of Islam, are sanctioned to abort at will.

Thx ok I got it now. But u would agree that there has to be some kind of a mix between centralism and federalism prefferably a federal republic. It seems like Puntland doesn´t want to give up anything and wants to remain its autononmous title which is not sustainable at all.

And again to my understanding all major stakeholders were invited but no one actually came.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Thx ok I got it now. But u would agree that there has to be some kind of a mix between centralism and federalism prefferably a federal republic.

Consider evolution of federalism in the case of the US:

o) 8 years of Confederation of the 13 colonies followed by:​

a) Dual federalism in 1900s, with minimal to little collaboration,​

b) Cooperative federalism post 2nd war, with greater cooperation,​

c) Creative federalism in the 70s, with nation building at its core, and​

d) Empire in its current form, with supreme economic and military might more power at the centre with the periphery still maintaining a great deal of power incl. elections, judiciary, land ownership except eminent domain and designated Federal lands, security within State borders to name a few.​

There shall be dual sovereignty, and shared sovereignty in the process, and as expected of a nation like ours, which has gone through deadly civil war.

Keep in mind, as stipulated under Article 54, Allocation of Powers, Fed. Government's powers are defined as:

(a) Foreign Affairs,​

(b) National Defense,​

(c) Citizenship and Immigration, and​

(d) Monetary Policy.​

It seems like Puntland doesn´t want to give up anything and wants to remain its autononmous title which is not sustainable at all.

What do you think PL does not want to give up? See if you could offer examples bearing in mind the 2004/2012 Constitution?

 

[Hilmaam]

Before civil war when govt was centralized majority of projects where opened in south. If we are centralized I expect more of same with major projects around 2 rivers and other regions being ignored. 4 billion for south in proposals and 142 million for south.

 

[Hilmaam]

Before civil war when govt was centralized majority of projects where opened in south. If we are centralized I expect more of same with major projects around 2 rivers and other regions being ignored. 4 billion for south in proposals and 142 million for south.

View attachment 323044

Having centralized govt increases pie and even smaller share is more total dollars than what we get today. But Somaliland and puntland in my opinion are trying to bet on themselves and secure bigger share especially with how unstable south has been last 30yrs