CIA: Israel participation in the Somali Civil war

[Idilinaa]

No one is denying these rebel groups were foreign funded, armed or guided and any government should do what it takes to take them out. But did you know for example the SNM had little to no support by the locals until Barre indiscriminately bombed the northern cities and ramped up collective rape and murder? SNM was limited to guerilla warfare for much of it's existence. Barre is responsible for SNM succeeding and seceeding today. He is responsible for Somalia's state today. He was the leader and should have shown leadership in the national interest but his clannism and hatred got in the way. He could have taken the initially weak SNM out but he clearly had other plans.

Ok, context and historical chronology matter if we actually want to understand what happened.

SNM regularly embedded themselves within civilian populations, used refugee camps as recruitment bases, and deliberately brought the fight into civilian areas. When they stormed cities with Ethiopian troops, ''heavy fighting broke out''. Before that point, they weren’t considered a serious military threat and were often defeated without significant civilian casualties.


Also, the simplistic “genocidal villain” framing of Siad Barre doesn’t reflect what actually happened. In fact, he was against the bombing of northern cities when it was proposed by Mohamed Ali Samatar , who, at the time, held greater military authority.


From U.S. court documents and transcript testimony:

“Samantar, don't be quick in bombarding the town, and Samantar said, Samantar saying it was it is must that we do that. The President saying let us not reach that position -- let us not make that decision very quickly of bombarding the town, then the general replying that, Samantar, it is must that we do that because they're already in town fighting. It is must to use the bombs to drive them out”

So Siad Barre was actually pushing for restraint and had been pursuing reconciliation prior to this escalation.

I personally think the bombing was a major mistake and shouldn’t have happened. But it’s important to understand that the government was militarily depleted and backed into a corner by an Ethiopian-supported insurgency that had taken over cities. They made a desperate decision to end the fighting quickly and paid the price for it.

But let’s not act like SNM didn’t have separatist aspirations long before the bombings. This wasn’t some innocent, organic response to oppression . SNM was an Ethiopian project from the start:


You’re right that the bombings were later used as propaganda to whitewash SNM’s actions, justify secession, and villainize the government in full.


Where the government failed was not in “hatred” or “clannism,” but in making bad decisions under pressure and not adapting to a shifting, externally manipulated war.

 

[Abu Hesi]

Ive never seen this level of gaslighting and hypocrisy, ever.

From now on I'm secessionist wallahi billahi, rather be dead than share a country with you people

View attachment 365335

Honestly thank you cause you made me look more into this topic, so much stuff I didn't know and the more I read about it the more I begin to understand why landers hate you guys more than oromos or any other ethiopians, truly a disgusting bunch of hypocrites

you were always a secessionist, it is in your blood. taariikhda dib u raac sxb

 

[Zak12]

For many there were legitimate grievances

What legitimate grievances did the USC had? You saw what they did, they chose to burn down Mogadishu instead of creating a proper government.

 

[AbrahamFreedom]

Most Somalis who lived outside Somalia during the 80s were actually a highly educated, highly skilled class of professionals. The bulk of them lived in the UAE, Saudi etc drawn there by the oil wealth. So no, they didn’t have caydh (welfare) money to send to rebels.

They sent remittances out of their hard-earned income to support their families back home mainly for poverty alleviation or relief efforts, not to fund civil war.

Also, caydh money doesn’t leave you with spare cash to send across continents to fuel rebel operations. That’s not how welfare works.

Why do you think the highest remittance senders are people living in the US, UAE, or parts of Africa? It’s because they actually have higher self-employment rates and are engaged in business or professional work,

I'm talking about Canada. There were some thousands of Somalis already in Canada by the 80s and they were not mostly professional or highly educated (some were). Alot of Somalis educated in the US (DC area, California, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, New York) moved north before the war after studies and were not privileged apart from their studies paid for by the government and had trouble gaining employment in America (many also didnt have trouble). Canada is full of American educated Somali odeys, including various people on this site past and present who their fathers moved north but the vast majority were not educated or professionals at least in Canada. Locals had their caydh money cut from them by for sure by Aidid's people (including one of his children who personally went to Africa to hand over the cash). Aidid's wife and children were in Canada in the 80s and his other wife and children in Los Angeles I believe (at the same time). SNM also gathered money (caydh and employment) in London too to fund their rebel efforts. I know that for a fact. Barre left a sour taste in many Somalis' mouth when they had no issue with him prior to his deliberate clan targeting. Not every resource came from foreign sources like Ethiopia or Israel.

 

[Idilinaa]

What legitimate grievances did the USC had? You saw what they did, they chose to burn down Mogadishu instead of creating a proper government.

Not gonna lie, a significant portion of Mogadishu's large-scale destruction came during the US/UN intervention in the early '90swhere airstrikes and military operations damaged key infrastructure and later during the Ethiopian invasion from 2006 to 2009, when the city was heavily shelled.


The early rebel factions, especially in the 1991–92 period, didn't have the kind of heavy firepower needed to flatten entire neighborhoods. Their damage was more about ransacking, looting, and seizing control of buildings not full-scale demolition.

 

[Farah717]

Somalis didn’t inherently divide themselves along clan lines, nor do they function that way today. In fact, across the Horn, Somalis often cooperate, support one another, and build across lineage lines. The idea that Somalis are politically hardwired to destroy themselves via clan is an oversimplified myth.

Groups like the SSDF, SNM, and USC failed to garner real domestic support. That’s why they were based abroad in Ethiopia and elsewhere and only rose through foreign weapons, funding, and political backing. They didn’t lead movements through popular legitimacy but operated like Al-Shabaab does today: through coercion, extortion, and manipulation.

There’s a peer-reviewed study that sheds light on this exact misconception using data from the Ogaden region an area that includes Somalis of various clans, including Isaaq:

Political Identity as Temporal Collapse: Ethiopian Federalism and Contested Ogaden Histories

Abstract. Since the 1980s, analyses of African political identities have emphasized identity manipulation as a governance tool. In the Somali Horn of Afric

academic.oup.com

Key takeaways:

Genealogy ≠ Political loyalty: Just because people share a clan doesn’t mean they support the same political agenda.

Clan is a political frame, not a cause: Political actors use ‘clan-talk’ to justify their power grabs or conflicts , not because clan truly drives political behavior, but because it’s an easy narrative tool.

So when we say “Somalis destroyed themselves,” that’s a dangerously reductive take. Yes, internal accountability matters , but real destruction came when external powers empowered warlords and armed factions who then preyed on their own. The collapse was manufactured, not natural.

Real progress starts with clarity, not recycled slogans.

Cope

 

[Riftvalley]

The dominant discourse among Somalis today actually revolves around self-blame and “qabiil” finger-pointing so if anything, my stance is the exception, not the rule.

Calling it a "cultural trait" to avoid accountability is just lazy stereotyping.

I’m holding accountable both those who betrayed their country and the foreign actors who enabled and fueled the collapse. Israel was a consistent and strategic ally of Ethiopia that’s a historical fact, not a conspiracy theory.

If someone bombs your home and then arms your neighbor to attack your family, are you really “avoiding accountability” by pointing that out? Or are you just being honest about what happened? Let’s not confuse truth telling with deflection.

This is a good point. Foreign involvement in the lead up to and during the Somali civil war is barely scrutinised in academia, at least popular journals and blogs. Somalis barely know of this or even discuss it, so you are correct when you push back against the “Somalis blame others narrative”. Most Somalis see the wars in Somalia as a struggle between clans. It is also childish to assume the mere mention of foreign involvement in Somalia is “blaming foreigners for all their problems”.


Ethiopia also had a profound over involvement with southern Somalia warlords after the civil war and they took advantage of the chaos to instil themselves in the local politics and in the so-called peace conferences. Kenya also has had a similar over involvement following the collapse of the Somali government. USA and western decisions on Somalia, especially post 9/11, was seen through the lenses of those two countries.

another under studied episode is the period prior to the ICU uprising when Ethiopian agents and the USA were allegedly assassinating people who they accused of being “Islamists”. The proto ICU wing of Godane allegedly started doing the same thing back and many people were killed by murky forces.

Somalia was badly damaged by the USA
/CIA support for Muqdisho warlords and the problems caused by those decisions continue till this day. Somalia is heavily impacted by neighbouring and international dynamics. You can say that going back all the way to 1977 when the Soviet’s and Cubans intervened on behalf of Ethiopia.

 

[Zak12]

Not gonna lie, a significant portion of Mogadishu's large-scale destruction came during the US/UN intervention in the early '90swhere airstrikes and military operations damaged key infrastructure and later during the Ethiopian invasion from 2006 to 2009, when the city was heavily shelled.


The early rebel factions, especially in the 1991–92 period, didn't have the kind of heavy firepower needed to flatten entire neighborhoods. Their damage was more about ransacking, looting, and seizing control of buildings not full-scale demolition.

Could it not be argued that the warlords helped enflame the intervention since they were attacking UN workers and stealing food aid meant to combat the ongoing famine? America was basically doing a man hunt for Aidid as well.

 

[Idilinaa]

Cope

I am just being historically accurate. If you see anything wrong about what i said feel free to correct me.
That's what i gathered looking through Walaalwhoops posts about that period a lot.

you were always a secessionist, it is in your blood. taariikhda dib u raac sxb

"I don’t think that’s true many Isaaqs and people from the north did support union with the south. In fact, some of the most prominent pro-union and anti-colonial figures were Isaaq. Many also fought bravely against the Ethiopians.

The issue wasn’t some innate desire to secede, it was the colonial legacy that left the north and south politically and economically unbalanced. The south had some exposure to self-governance under the UN trusteeship, while the north was sidelined under British rule. That imbalance created tension during unification. That's what Ethiopia sought to exploit.

Siad Barre’s government actually worked to bridge that gap.

The opposition that later emerged didn’t come from broad-based marginalization, it came from politically disgruntled actors who were punished or sidelined, often for corruption, betrayal, or personal ambition. Those people existed across clan lines.

And Ethiopia, like always, was ready to exploit that internal tension to revive its old secessionist project.

 

[Zak12]

This is a good point. Foreign involvement in the lead up to and during the Somali civil war is barely scrutinised in academia, at least popular journals and blogs. Somalis barely know of this or even discuss it, so you are correct when you push back against the “Somalis blame others narrative”. Most Somalis see the wars in Somalia as a struggle between clans. It is also childish to assume the mere mention of foreign involvement in Somalia is “blaming foreigners for all their problems”.


Ethiopia also had a profound over involvement with southern Somalia warlords after the civil war and they took advantage of the chaos to instil themselves in the local politics and in the so-called peace conferences. Kenya also has had a similar over involvement following the collapse of the Somali government. USA and western decisions on Somalia, especially post 9/11, was seen through the lenses of those two countries.

another under studied episode is the period prior to the ICU uprising when Ethiopian agents and the USA were allegedly assassinating people who they accused of being “Islamists”. The proto ICU wing of Godane allegedly started doing the same thing back and many people were killed by murky forces.

Somalia was badly damaged by the USA
/CIA support for Muqdisho warlords and the problems caused by those decisions continue till this day. Somalia is heavily impacted by neighbouring and international dynamics. You can say that going back all the way to 1977 when the Soviet’s and Cubans intervened on behalf of Ethiopia.

My favorite inquiry to people who love to blame Somalis for the civil war is ask them why the north managed to quickly stablize but the south couldn't? Hint hint, one region saw tons of foreign meddling while the other didn't.

 

[Bahal]

A 2002 communique from the Ethiopian information ministry & posted on their foreign ministry's website before it was scrubbed after we quoted it in somnet (which kinda makes you think these forums are monitored by a lot of foreigners):

Ethiopia, for its part, rather than responding to the threat by respecting the right of Ethiopian Somalis and by fostering brotherhood between the peoples of Ethiopia, so Ethiopian Somalis could live in voluntary unity with their other fellow Ethiopians, resorted to dismantling Somalia to the extent possible. The policy was to respond to Somali aggression by taking the war to Somalia and, along the way, aggravating the contradiction between the Somali clans.

The situation has now fundamentally changed. The "Greater Somalia" ideology has been discredited. It is now over ten years since Somalia has become stateless. On the other hand, in Ethiopia, a constitution in which peoples' rights are guaranteed is being implemented. Ethiopian Somalis are living in brotherhood and voluntary unity with other Ethiopians in a newly defined, inclusive Ethiopian identity. Together with other Ethiopians, Ethio-Somalis are, in the spirit of equality, democracy, development and an Ethiopian identity, resting on strong foundations and contributing to the building of the country. Ethiopia's vulnerability to the "Greater Somalia" ideology has been greatly diminished .

Significance of the relations

There is no condition whereby Somalia could contribute as a source of investment and financial development or as a significant market for Ethiopia. After a process of some length, followed by peace and stability in Somalia, there is the chance that it could become a significant market, but this is difficult to imagine in the short and medium term. Regarding natural resources, all the big rivers in Somalia flow from Ethiopia. The irrigation schemes in Somalia which effectively served the people are in a poor state. On the other hand, as our country steps up its development, we will have to dam the rivers for irrigation purposes. The harnessing of rivers in Ethiopia can help Somalia resist floods, and so the benefit would be mutual. But on the other hand, these rivers could be used in Ethiopia - mainly in the Somali region - for development purposes. This could create a minor conflict but the problem can be tackled by the principle of give and take in a way that takes into account the national interests of the two countries.

As can be understood from the above, in the short and medium terms, Somalia does not have a positive or negative influence of note in the development of our country. And yet, in Somalia there are numerous ports that can provide services to Ethiopia. Starting from the port of Zeila which gave services to Ethiopia during its long history, all the way to Kismayo, there are no less than seven ports in Somalia that can be used by different parts of our country. These possibilities could significantly contribute to our development, but due to the "Greater Somalia"-driven conflict and national oppression in Ethiopia, they were never seriously considered (not to forget that Ethiopia had ports of its own). The current collapse of the state in Somalia makes it unrealistic to think of using the ports at the present time.

Even if the chances to use the ports were to arise, and though that would increase Somalia's relevance to our development, one cannot see a positive role that Somalia can play at this time. On the negative side, it is worth noting that the disintegration of Somalia has posed dangers for peace and stability in Ethiopia. This situation has spoilt the image of our sub-region, and the Horn is now perceived as an area of conflict. Our chances to attract investment have been reduced and the "Somalia effect" has contributed to the uncertainty about regional peace and the lack of economic linkages between the two countries.

Policy Direction

Our proximity to Somalia would be beneficial to our development if there were peace and stability in Somalia. Peace can come to our region if a government committed to fighting disorder, terrorism and extremism in cooperation with its neighbours is established in Somalia.Some circles say that the establishment of such a government in Somalia would once again resuscitate the ideology of "Greater Somalia" and that peace, democracy and development in Somalia would, in that case, not benefit Ethiopia. This view is fundamentally wrong and dangerous. First, of all, from now onwards, our country safeguards the unity of its peoples not by denying them options but by helping them recognise and confirm in practice, the option based on equality, mutual development and democracy.

Although the international community wishes to bring about peace in Somalia, it is evidently not ready to exert all its efforts to realise this. Thus, it appears to us that the condition of instability in Somalia is likely to persist for some time. Therefore, our policy should not be limited to contributing to the emergence of peace and democracy only and, based on that, to forging strong ties; rather, it should also address what we should do if instability and turmoil persist.

Our fundamental policy remains to persistently work towards the birth of a peaceful and democratic Somalia. But in light of the continuing instability, the policy we pursue should essentially be a damage-limitation policy to ensure that the instability does not further harm our country, the region and the people of Somalia. If the instability is not stopped, the only option left is to limit the damage that may be caused. There are three main options to limit the damage.

First, we have to try to help those regions which are comparatively stable and do not shelter extremists and terrorists in order that the relative peace they enjoy is maintained and even strengthened. Those that can be mentioned in this regard are the regions known as Somaliland and Puntland. In the spirit of damage limitation and to assist these regions maintain their stability, it is necessary that the links be strengthened in such areas as trade, transport and the like in the interest of our country and the people inhabiting the region. The question could be raised regarding the recognition of Somaliland as an independent state. Taking this initiative is not preferable to Ethiopia because it would create negative feelings on the part of Somalis living in the rest of Somalia and others would be suspicious of our intent. Therefore, our cooperation with these regions should not include recognizing the regional administrations as independent states. But we should continue to assist these regions in maintaining peace and stability, as it is to our advantage and the benefit of the peoples living in the area.

Secondly, we shall certainly continue to be exposed to various dangers as long as peace and stability elude Somalia as a whole. In recognition of this, we must create the capability to defend ourselves and foil any attack by forces of extremism, terrorism and other anti-peace elements originating in Somalia. In this regard we must always be vigilant.

Thirdly, we have to work in cooperation with the Somali people in the region, and the international community as a whole, to weaken and neutralize those forces coming from any part of Somalia to perpetrate attacks against our country. Obviously, the solution to all of this is the prevalence of democracy, and everything must be done to assist in reaching this solution. At the same time, however, we need to receive the understanding and support of the people of Somalia and the international community regarding what we are facing. While maintaining the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of Somalia, we have to ensure our right to safeguard our peace and defend ourselves.

You can still find it if you look hard enough https://www.academia.edu/39001743/T...Y_POLICY_AND_STRATEGY_Ministry_of_Information

Was also quoted here https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=812043

 

[Abu Hesi]

I am just being historically accurate. If you see anything wrong about what i said feel free to correct me.
That's what i gathered looking through Walaalwhoops posts about that period a lot.
View attachment 365348





"I don’t think that’s true many Isaaqs and people from the north did support union with the south. In fact, some of the most prominent pro-union and anti-colonial figures were Isaaq. Many also fought bravely against the Ethiopians.

The issue wasn’t some innate desire to secede, it was the colonial legacy that left the north and south politically and economically unbalanced. The south had some exposure to self-governance under the UN trusteeship, while the north was sidelined under British rule. That imbalance created tension during unification. That's what Ethiopia sought to exploit.
View attachment 365347

Siad Barre’s government actually worked to bridge that gap.

The opposition that later emerged didn’t come from broad-based marginalization, it came from politically disgruntled actors who were punished or sidelined, often for corruption, betrayal, or personal ambition. Those people existed across clan lines.

And Ethiopia, like always, was ready to exploit that internal tension to revive its old secessionist project.

just kaftan shitposting jab against broski

 

[Idilinaa]

Could it not be argued that the warlords helped enflame the intervention since they were attacking UN workers and stealing food aid meant to combat the ongoing famine? America was basically doing a man hunt for Aidid as well.

It’s accurate to say the USC opened the floodgates for intervention. The manhunt for Aidid and famine, food aid looting narrative were just convenient pretexts.

In reality, the U.S. intervened for two reasons: to install a pro-U.S. regime and to secure oil interests. They had already been working with Somalis before the collapse and weren’t ready to abandon their investments.

Siad Barre had expelled U.S. oil companies after they mistreated Somali workers, so replacing him with a more compliant leadership was a priority.

Ironically, Aidid himself was later armed by the CIA after U.S. forces withdrew. The real problem?

The U.S./UN went in guns blazing, targeting civilians who weren’t even hostile escalating what could’ve been stabilized. They were the main reason the south spiraled further.

 

[Riftvalley]

My favorite inquiry to people who love to blame Somalis for the civil war is ask them why the north managed to quickly stablize but the south couldn't? Hint hint, one region saw tons of foreign meddling while the other didn't.

I think the Hawiyes and Rahanweyn would have eventually come to their own arrangements like the clans in the north. There would have been some flares up like Isaaq mini civil war, and the PL ones in the 90s, however there would have eventually come some sort of peace making process between the major clans in the south. The fact that all the UN and Ethiopian backed conferences all failed shows you foreign involvement was not helpful. Their approach was also to discuss things like power sharing between daroods, dir and Hawiye. This too-heavy approach caused more problems in the long run with different nations backing their warlords to become “president”. The focus should have been on internal reconciliation between Hawiye sub clans,as an example, led by elders.

I don’t buy this “Somalis are inherently prone to chaos and anarchy”. Our history doesn’t not show this. The fact the Warsangeli and SSC were able to make peace with Isaaq post collapse of the government in the in the north shows you Somali clans can be pragmatic. You can also see this in the fact Reer Borama chose to hold the peace conferences in the North.

Another side point- Ethiopians backing of various warlords in southern Somalia was also motivated by their fear of ONLF and Itihad remnants establishing bases in southern Somalia. I heard Ethiopia secretly backed the very first warlords who opposed the proto-ICU shariah governance courts established in Muqdisho. In the North, the Ethiopians were not so heavily involved as their allies had taken control of Hargeysa and Bosaso when the Somali gov fell. You can see this historically when these two entities would arrest Somalis suspected of being ONLf and hand them over to Ethiopia.

 

[Idilinaa]

A 2002 communique from the Ethiopian information ministry & posted on their foreign ministry's website before it was scrubbed after we quoted it in somnet (which kinda makes you think these forums are monitored by a lot of foreigners):



You can still find it if you look hard enough https://www.academia.edu/39001743/T...Y_POLICY_AND_STRATEGY_Ministry_of_Information

Was also quoted here https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=812043

They even admit to what they were doing , dismantling Somalia:

"Ethiopia, for its part, rather than responding to the threat by respecting the right of Ethiopian Somalis and by fostering brotherhood between the peoples of Ethiopia, so Ethiopian Somalis could live in voluntary unity with their other fellow Ethiopians, resorted to dismantling Somalia to the extent possible. The policy was to respond to Somali aggression by taking the war to Somalia and, along the way, aggravating the contradiction between the Somali clans."

This isn’t hearsay or propaganda, it’s from an official Ethiopian policy document. They admit their strategy wasn’t to defend Ethiopia's borders or promote coexistence, but to intentionally destabilize Somalia and exploit clans. That level of transparency in foreign policy doctrine is rare, and it lays bare the regional game Ethiopia played for decades.

Once they had successfully rendered Somalia stateless, the conditions became ideal for them. Somalia was no longer a geopolitical competitor or a hegemonic rival, but a weakened shell a fragmented landscape of pawns they could maneuver at will. Whether it’s Somaliland, Puntland, or the externally-imposed governments in Mogadishu, Ethiopia found leverage through division.

---

---

Also, let’s be clear: there is no real “Greater Somalia ideology.”


What people label “Greater Somalia” was never about conquest or expansionism. It was, and still is, about self-determination, unity among ethnically and culturally linked Somali territories, and the right to govern ourselves. In fact, the Somali world already operates as a unified space culturally, linguistically, and economically across Somalia, Djibouti, the Somali Region in Ethiopia, the NFD in Kenya, and the diaspora.

The political manifestation of Somali unity was simple: let the Somali people choose their own destiny, whether that means independence, autonomy, or federation with other Somali territories. It was not a policy of annexation it was a call for decolonization and inclusion.

As Siad Barre’s advisor once put it:

''Somalia is not saying that Western Somali region must join it, But that it must be allowed to exercise it's right to self-determination, just as Djibouti was allowed to excercize her rights. Even if they choose to unite with Ethiopia or to be on their own - that will not be the concern of Somalia. Somalia only supports Western Somalia only in it's right to fight for independence''

That distinction is crucial: support for liberation ≠ expansionism.

---

---

This was also about justice, freedom, and development.

Listen to Makhtal Dahir, leader of the NasrAllah liberation movement in the Ogaden:

"We wanted our freedom. It was impossible to seek it through democratic means in a country where there is no free speech and no political party machinery, where expeditions are sent to collect taxes by force — seizing camels and mil-let crops. When we asked the Emperor for internal self-government, he threatened to shoot 180 Somali chiefs. He had an inkling what we were up to, and tried to impose a new head tax on cattle. Quran schools were ordered closed, and the laws allowed for one wife and no divorce. All this interfered with Muslim Somali traditions; and as leaders, we were expected to execute this policy. We discussed it and decided to pull out. When the Ethiopians discovered our opposition, they intended to arrest all of us. But by that time we had gone into hiding, where we formed the Liberation Government."

This wasn’t some ideological fantasy ,it was a direct response to political oppression, religious persecution, and cultural erasure.

The same aspirations were expressed in petitions and peaceful demands by Somali elders across the Ogaden.

But instead of acknowledging these grievances, Ethiopia gaslights Somalis by painting all Somali aspirations as some kind of aggressive “Greater Somalia” plan. That’s projection.

Because the real expansionists weren’t Somalis it was Ethiopia and Kenya who expanded their territories, occupied Somali regions with help by foreign powers, and then acted as if Somalis were marginal aliens in their own historical lands. The very lands Somalis were fighting to liberate were theirs in the first place.

So no, we’re not “wrong” for fighting for our freedom. We’re not extremists for wanting autonomy, equality, and dignity. The Somali people across these regions were simply resisting marginalization and demanding their right to decide their own future something every free people is entitled to.

 

[Idilinaa]

They even admit to what they were doing , dismantling Somalia:

"Ethiopia, for its part, rather than responding to the threat by respecting the right of Ethiopian Somalis and by fostering brotherhood between the peoples of Ethiopia, so Ethiopian Somalis could live in voluntary unity with their other fellow Ethiopians, resorted to dismantling Somalia to the extent possible. The policy was to respond to Somali aggression by taking the war to Somalia and, along the way, aggravating the contradiction between the Somali clans."

@Bahal
This has been a consistent policy and plot by Ethiopia since indepedence and their foreign minstry archives pretty much confirm it as well:

Who exactly is “you guys”? Are you seriously assuming I’m pushing some pro Reer Ogaden narrative just because I pointed out they were ''innocent refugees'' and that somehow makes me one of them? Lmaoo. That’s some wild projection.

Mengistu’s ethnic cleansing and villagization campaign. And yes, SNM did attack those camps and massacre people who were completely unarmed.



The people SNM killed weren’t enemy combatants , they were labeled as such after the fact to justify war crimes. In reality, the real fighters were out facing the Derg on the battlefield, not hiding in refugee camps.

@Zak12 @livinlavish

I want to add some historical context that often gets lost or distorted
The refugees displaced into Somalia were innocent victims of Mengistu's brutal and genocidal displacement campaign in the Ogaden. His regime attempted to ethnically cleanse the region by displacing over a million Somalis, pushing them across the border into Somalia with the strategic goal of overburdening the Somali government and economy. This was not some benign humanitarian tragedy , it was weaponized displacement.


Yet today, you’ll hear revisionist narratives especially from certain Somaliland nationalist propagandists claiming that Siad Barre orchestrated this to make Daroods outnumber Isaaqs in the north. That is pure nonsense. The reality is, Mengistu aimed to replicate something like Palestine a mass, contained humanitarian crisis. The 20% of displaced Oromo Muslims, who were also victims of religious persecution, reinforce that this was a broader campaign of repression, not a clan-based population game.



Some more on this:


It’s important to note: these camps that were attacked didn’t house fighters they sheltered disabled elders, women, and children.


This mirrors what objective researchers have found when analyzing archival data on the Ogaden conflict: political actors often defaulted to using “clan” as a cover for political violence. But many so-called “liberation movements” were armed proxies who attacked fellow Somalis and then spun the state’s self-defense as “genocide” to justify their betrayal.

The true liberators were those on the frontlines defending their people, not those manipulating narratives for foreign support.

 

[Idilinaa]

@Bahal @Riftvalley @AbrahamFreedom @Neptune @Chaseyourdreamzz @Barkhadle1520 @livinlavish @Devilsadvocate

People in Northern Somalia were living dignified, peaceful lives before the SNM insurgency, Ethiopian interference, and the subsequent state crackdown upended everything.

So, what exactly were they being “liberated” from?
What oppression was the SNM supposedly fighting?

You only need to listen to the testimonies of those who arrived in London as young adults or teenagers during that era , refugees who recount their lives in Somalia before the war.

Their words paint a very different picture from the popular narrative.
They talk about ordinary, stable lives: peaceful coexistence across clans, little focus on clan identity, and a strong sense of community.

The last part is exactly what clan politicization looks like , weaponized by the SNM and fed into the narrative.
Now the Siad Barre government , under which many had stability, education, employment, and dignity , is blamed for everything that followed. The contradiction is glaring.

It directly challenges the idea that the collapse stemmed from widespread poverty, repression, or a popular uprising. There was no mass civil discontent, people had education, food, shelter, work, and community life. They lived with dignity.

Some of the stories even show how fluid the relationship between city and village life was. The simplicity and contentment they describe says more about that era than any political commentary

A cute drawing of a village

These firsthand stories debunk the idea that this is all “nostalgia.”
They’re raw, lived experiences and they challenge the entire revisionist framing of that era.

 

[sh-89]

They were proxies. Ethiopia itself classified them as such in their military archives.

Ethiopian intelligence referred to the SNM and SSDF as Project 6A and Project 6B.

View attachment 365306

I broke all this down in a different thread.


This part here too:



You can argue back and forth all day, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck , it’s a duck.

SSDF, SNM, etc. were proxy groups because they were created, trained, funded, and commanded by foreign powers. They didn’t just accept help , they were built to serve outside agendas.

“Legitimate grievances,” kulaha.
Tell that to the choir . I’m sure they’ll be moved.

And seriously, what kind of civil war has an opposition that’s headquartered outside the country, fails to rally any serious domestic support, and functions entirely at the mercy of its foreign sponsors?

Somaliland is also a proxy of Ethiopia but that is obvious. Siad Barre set up Eritrea as a proxy against Ethiopia. Both nations did this to eachother. But externally more nations supported Ethiopia than Somalia. While some sympathized with Somalia. Siad Barre's entire story is very similar to the playback used against Germany in WW1 and WW2. Hitler never wanted to go to war the British. And some British sympathized with Hitler and liked him. He admired the British but ultimately Germanys growth was a threat to the British. I think the same applied to Somalia. Somalis growth under Siad Barre was great but it threatened Ethiopia. I think they feared that when the nation grows it will take control over the more powerful nation. Even if the people are similar. British and German people are different but ultimately cutt from the same cloth in the same way Somalis and Ethiopia's share similarities. We aren't the exact same but compared to many other nations are much closer.

Siad Barre killing Landers for not bending the knee is also similar to Hitler's play book. I never even knew how fond Hitler was of the British. They really did him dirty because he never wanted war with them and wanted them to unite and go after the Slavs who he thought were a Jewish creation (Marxism being Jewish). Now im seeing so much British Nazi sympathizers who regret that decision.

 

[Zak12]

Somaliland is also a proxy of Ethiopia but that is obvious. Siad Barre set up Eritrea as a proxy against Ethiopia. Both nations did this to eachother. But externally more nations supported Ethiopia than Somalia. While some sympathized with Somalia. Siad Barre's entire story is very similar to the playback used against Germany in WW1 and WW2. Hitler never wanted to go to war the British. And some British sympathized with Hitler and liked him. He admired the British but ultimately Germanys growth was a threat to the British. I think the same applied to Somalia. Somalis growth under Siad Barre was great but it threatened Ethiopia. I think they feared that when the nation grows it will take control over the more powerful nation. Even if the people are similar. British and German people are different but ultimately cutt from the same cloth in the same way Somalis and Ethiopia's share similarities. We aren't the exact same but compared to many other nations are much closer.

Siad Barre killing Landers for not bending the knee is also similar to Hitler's play book. I never even knew how fond Hitler was of the British. They really did him dirty because he never wanted war with them and wanted them to unite and go after the Slavs who he thought were a Jewish creation (Marxism being Jewish). Now im seeing so much British Nazi sympathizers who regret that decision.

Eritrea was fighting Ethiopia before Barre came to power. With that said, saying Hitler never wanted war with them is crazy lmao. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, he was causing a massive upset in Europe, especially since Poland was allied with the UK.

Barre didn't invade any country except Ethiopia, and for the sole purpose of liberating Galbeed. Hitler wanted nearly all of eastern Europe under German control. You are right about Ethiopia viewing a strong Somalia as a threat however. There is a reason why they still meddle into Somalia's affairs to this day; because they know that a stable Somalia will go right back to claiming Galbeed again so they push for fragmentation and supporting clan states to prevent a strong central government.

 

[sh-89]

Eritrea was fighting Ethiopia before Barre came to power. With that said, saying Hitler never wanted war with them is crazy lmao. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, he was causing a massive upset in Europe, especially since Poland was allied with the UK.

Barre didn't invade any country except Ethiopia, and for the sole purpose of liberating Galbeed. Hitler wanted nearly all of eastern Europe under German control. You are right about Ethiopia viewing a strong Somalia as a threat however. There is a reason why they still meddle into Somalia's affairs to this day; because they know that a stable Somalia will go right back to claiming Galbeed again so they push for fragmentation and supporting clan states to prevent a strong central government.

Go look it up Hitler loves the British and admired them. Him taking other land pissed off the British for sure, but he still wanted them to unite. Poland is Slavic. The dude was the Slavic nations but England declared war on him. I think it was the timing. A lot of the generals and soliders in WW2 already had war with the British. Remember Hitler came in WW2. Its well known he wanted smoke with the Slavs and Jews. And some of the British elites liked him too:

Making friends with Hitler: Britain’s pre-war admiration for the Nazi dictator

By the end of the Second World War, Hitler's name was a byword for evil, yet in the 1930s he was just another European statesman, writes Ian Kershaw. Many in Britain admired his work in bringing economic revival to Germany and were keen for an understanding between the two countries...

www.historyextra.com

Anglo-Nazi Pact in the 1930’s? - Historic UK

Was an Anglo-Nazi Pact in the 1930's ever on the cards? The governments of Britain and Nazi Germany were certainly on very friendly terms, with the British following a policy of appeasement...

www.historic-uk.com

Its kind of how now you have Russian sympathizers in America. Its appeasement.

Eritrea sentiment existed but Barre and Somalis def have played it up. Same with Somaliland. I think we have been doing this a long time. Very cunning and evil type of games.

The Galbeed wanted Somalia too. Its was a two way street. How many Somalis live in Ethiopia versus how many live in Somalia? So this projection is insane. We dont have theirs land. They have ours and anyone pretending the opposite. If we had a chunk of Oromo people then fine but they literally rule over Ogden. And they have good clout for being Christian, and diplomatic. Tbh I have no issues with Ethiopians. They dont like us sadly. But I genuinely like their nation.