Reddit: Siad Barre was a Terrorist.

[Step a side]

No one followed them. Somalis lived according to customs and tradition. When some bonehead killed someone, diya was paid rather than being made to pay via firing squad and deterring future criminals.

Italians build our government.

 

[Avalanche]

Italians build our government.

Damn, bring back the Italians

 

[Leila]

While acknowledging that no one is entirely innocent or flawless, it's noteworthy that he succeeded in uniting Somalis and eradicating tribalism, marking a significant achievement as we experienced unity and a newfound pride in being Somali. His emphasis on communal well-being over individual gain encouraged people to work together. Combining his version of socialism with Islam, he orchestrated the construction of the 15th powerhouse globally and the first in Africa, all without fully tapping into the country's abundant resources, including oil.

The Khawarij, along with their Western backers and allies, attempted to overthrow him in the 1970s. This experience left him understandably paranoid, even before any descent into madness. The challenges he faced made him suspicious, and as is often the case when in a position of power, the desire to maintain that power intensified.

Ethiopia provided funding to the SNM, with its headquarters based in the UK. Additionally, they enlisted the involvement of a Somali Christian individual to coordinate their efforts. The promise of territorial concessions in Ogaden and the north served as an incentive for the SNM to revolt. Dissatisfaction with the representation of their tribal leaders in the socialist Somali government further fuelled their decision to collaborate with Ethiopia in this endeavour.

In a certain interview, Siad Barre highlighted instances where individuals claiming to be Islamic sheikhs and imams used religion as a pretext to incite rebellions. According to him, he apprehended 10 such individuals, revealing that 9 of them couldn't even perform proper wudu (ritual ablution) when instructed—an indication that they were likely agents and impersonators rather than genuine religious figures.

In the context of the Quran, Sunnah, the understanding of the salaf, and the command of our Prophet – which is also the command of Allah – it is emphasized that even if a ruler is mistreating you, taking your wealth, or deviating from the Prophet's path, you are not permitted to withdraw your hand of obedience as long as the ruler does not prevent you from performing your prayers and instructs you to disobey Allah. Remaining patient is crucial. According to this perspective, Siad Barre did not oppress his people, seize their wealth, command actions contrary to the principles of Islam, or hinder them from performing their prayers and Hajj. It was only after he uncovered a plot by rebels that he took action against them. Unfortunately, these rebels, the Khawarij, concealed themselves in towns and among civilians, resulting in casualties as they attacked villages, destroyed wells, and shed blood.

Long story short, you can blame the Khawarji and their poison for 30 years of civil war and the disintegration of a unified nation. Rebellion never makes a situation better but 1000x worse, which is why the Prophet condemned it, and it is also a technique used by Yahud and the West to split and conquer.

I don't harbor any personal admiration for Siad Barre, nor do I have any vested interest in his legacy. However, when assessing our situation in light of the removal of Siad Barre and the subsequent plotting of the rebels, the question arises: did our circumstances truly improve?

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.” (Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)

My parents’ generation were the Kacaan era, yes they benefited from education and they had good memories of growing up in Xamar but while they enjoyed safety in the capital their Somali brothers and sisters were being killed , raped and had their livestock and wells poisoned . Whole cities carpet bombed , discrimination against certain clans. How do you justify that?

 

[techsamatar]

My parents’ generation were the Kacaan era, yes they benefited from education and they had good memories of growing up in Xamar but while they enjoyed safety in the capital their Somali brothers and sisters were being killed , raped and had their livestock and wells poisoned . Whole cities carpet bombed , discrimination against certain clans. How do you justify that?

Both sides, including the SNM rebels and Siad Barre's forces, left a trail of devastation. Reports indicate that villages were not spared, with instances of both sides resorting to violent measures, such as the alleged poisoning of wells during revolts. Siad Barre, in his quest to retain power and driven by the paranoia of rebel threats, unleashed a path of destruction. Cities used as hiding places by rebels were not only targeted but unfortunately, civilians found themselves unwittingly caught in the crossfire. It's a grim reality that during times of conflict, innocence becomes a casualty, and each faction bears the weight of blood on their hands. The complexities of historical events often defy neat categorizations of right or wrong, as the actions of both sides contribute to a tragic narrative of suffering and loss.

For those keeping it real and not getting too caught up in the emotions, let's ponder this: Was Siad Barre's reign the good old days for Somalis? Back then, our passport and name carried weight, and we had our own airlines rocking. But here's the kicker – what if those rebels, funded by outsiders, didn't mess with him in '73? You know, no power-grab drama, no paranoia vibes. If they hadn't tried to stir the pot and then bolted to Ethiopia for round two... Do you think Siad Barre would've stayed sane, steering clear of going off the deep end or causing harm to civilians? Just tossing it out there for some food for thought.

Whether one accepts it or not, the three decades of bloodshed and our subsequent downfall might never have unfolded if the Khawaraji rebels hadn't attempted to seize power. It's essential to note that this occurred before the leader in question experienced a descent into madness or developed paranoia about losing his position.

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.” (Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)