Are SL unionists against federalism?

For or against federalism

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
Your talking complete hot garbage 1969 revolution happened for a reason give me straight hard facts what SYL built and what the Kacaan built i know the answers i just want to make you embarrass yourself you can be a regime opposition and that's fine but don't make up stories
I literally just did. :mahubowtf::mahubowtf:

Even the military that Siad Barre used to seize power was built and greatly expanded by them.
1) Let us first define 'progress' as an improvement of different sectors like economics, education, administration or security sector. Expect for the economy sector were the kacaan and the SYL were both shit and didn't fo anything memorable, the kacaan outshined SYL in every other discipline.

2) Centralism destroyed the country not (only) MSB. It gave a small group of people power over a clan diverse country, which was the base of nepotism, injustice and corruption and ended in the civil war. We are not a functioning nationality we identify through tribes and subtribes.

3) I'm not advocating for federalism you didn't get my point. Still It's laughable if you compare the federalism today with the centralism of 1960-1969 for a simple reason. The SYL were handed over a beautiful patriotic country with no issues, hence they could made little progress. wheras the states like SL and PL were formed after a brutal civil (caused through centralism) from nothing. The only comparison would be a federal state from 1960-1969 with the little progressing centralist state from 1960-1969.

4) Somalia is hopeless. Some people like federalism and other some like centralism, but that is none of our business. As SL we should just focus on SL, it doesn't make sense to blindly try to unite with Somalia, whether in a federal or central system.

1) No, hey didn't. There are studies that show how Siad Barre economy functioned. It was completely reliant on remittances that weren't available in the days of SYL due to the technology. The SYL are the ones who built Somali institutions that Siad Barre is wrongly praised for. Had they ruled during the 80s-90s with the same technology and access to improvements in communications and transports then we would have seen the difference between the two regimes.

2) Centralism did not destroy the country Siad Barre did. Last I checked, not once during the SYL days were cities carpet bombed or people posied to death. But if your argument is that centralism is responsible then surely your president axmed silanyo is also responsible? Last I checked he was a high ranking minister for Siad Barre government for 13 years, while the regime committed atrocities across Somalia. Surely he ought to be condemned and held partly responsible for the destruction of Somalia considering he was one of the heads of the government?

3) You advocating for independent states which is even more laughable than the joke that is tribal federalism.

4) Somalia currently I would agree is hopeless. However, I find it funny that while condemning Somalia to hopelessness you somehow see a light for Somaliland. Somaliland has made no progress and actually regressed over the last 10 years. Not to mention the fact that independence will never be recognised. Call Somalia hopeless then Somaliland is foolishness.

The problem with Somalia is not a problem unique to the territory, its a problem that is in all Somalis where they are. I only advocate for centralisation and a unitary state when the problems of tribalism and of our culture are addressed. I don't delusionally advocate for the unification of Somalia, I have envisioned remedies to solve the underlining problems within.


Seeker of knowledge and truth
I literally just did. :mahubowtf::mahubowtf:

Even the military that Siad Barre used to seize power was built and greatly expanded by them.
I already exposed the civilian government extensively in previous thread with receipts we're in 2 different worlds if you think the 1970s Kacaan government didn't achieve anything