Saudi Arabia to reconcile with Bashar al Assad in Syria

Yukon_Niner

I predict deez tingz
VIP
Is that supposed to solidify your argument? US supports brutal dictators all the time, what made them drop Barre in the last minute is the exposure of his atrocities to main stream media. Again his own fault.



You left out the part were it says Barre's domestic policies and unreliable Somali army contributed to the decline of Somalia's geo-political appeal for the Americans. So yes it only reinforce my point about his legendary incompetence.

View attachment 188357


View attachment 188359

Despite Somalia's decline in importance US still kept delivering weapons & ammunition for 5 years ahead to keep Soviets away. So miss me with that B.S excuse about Somalia's importance a year later US launched operation restore.

Bashar Al Asad had the entire western world coming after him he turned his enemies against one another fighting religious, sectarian and ethnic insurgency. A multi layered civil war.


Siad Barre in comparison could not subdue or reconcile with couple Somali clans despite enjoying superior weaponry & international support for much of the 80s.

If Americans let go of him than one could argue that Ethiopia also let go of Somali rebel groups. DERG was all but finished in 1991 His government could not survive without international handouts for more than 1 year, let that sink in.
Congrats, you can pick out what I already told you and wrap it up in your own red herrings. If you weren't so fucking dense you wouldn't have to reiterate what I wrote/linked and you'd be able to use a bit of critical thinking to come to your own conclusion.

The US supplied chemical weapons to Saddam in a brutal war that was the talk of the world that ended less than half a decade before somalia's collapse. What in gods name makes you think the media gave importance to Barre's actions? Spare me your bullshit. I already pointed out the fact that America is willing to ignore crimes against humanity as long as it's in their interest, something they've done consistently. Somalia lost its strategic relevance and the US didn't care to stay because there were other established bases abroad. Coupled with the already growing internal strife the US command centre had zero interest in staying there.

Operation restore hope. A humanitarian mission turned disaster where shady oil deals were struck with warlords, yeah that sure shows how important Somalia was to America. I guess the US still kept a few of its DEVGRU teams running around southern Somalia because apparently it's still is important to America.


Bashar Al-Assad was a few months away from getting a knife jammed up his arse You're just arguing for the sake of it if you think he was a mastermind who stayed in power through his will, he couldn't subdue nor control the rebels that were coming for him who's inventory consisted of AK's and pentagon supplied Hilux's and the occasional manpad. Had it not been for a nuclear power with the 2nd greatest military on earth being interested in keeping their economies main exports alive that man would've been done for and like I said only a fucking idiot would argue otherwise.
 
Congrats, you can pick out what I already told you and wrap it up in your own red herrings. If you weren't so fucking dense you wouldn't have to reiterate what I wrote/linked and you'd be able to use a bit of critical thinking to come to your own conclusion.
That's the thing, I had to look up and fish it out. You intentionally picked a single paragraph to base your entire argument upon when the article clearly state its Barre's shortcomings in keeping his country stable. Did you think no one is going to fact-check you own source? The same link states Somalia importance declines due to internal strive and un-professional army guess who's fault is that.


It's not my fault you can't read your own sources.


The US supplied chemical weapons to Saddam in a brutal war that was the talk of the world that ended less than half a decade before somalia's collapse. What in gods name makes you think the media gave importance to Barre's actions? Spare me your bullshit. I already pointed out the fact that America is willing to ignore crimes against humanity as long as it's in their interest, something they've done consistently. Somalia lost its strategic relevance and the US didn't care to stay because there were other established bases abroad. Coupled with the already growing internal strife the US command centre had zero interest in staying there.
This long text of wall can be debunked with a single quote from your own link.

US ALLY.JPG



There goes your laughable argument up in flames. Somalia strategic location declined indeed but was still important enough to the measure of 100 million dollars a year in military aid to keep Soviets away. This aid, despite low value, was paramount for Barre's survival in the 80s.



Explain to me why did the US continue to supply Barre for 5 years after this report come out if Somalia lost it strategic importance? Most importantly what did happen in 1989 that changed US policies suddenly?




Bashar Al-Assad was a few months away from getting a knife jammed up his arse You're just arguing for the sake of it if you think he was a mastermind who stayed in power through his will, he couldn't subdue nor control the rebels that were coming for him who's inventory consisted of AK's and pentagon supplied Hilux's and the occasional manpad. Had it not been for a nuclear power with the 2nd greatest military on earth being interested in keeping their economies main exports alive that man would've been done for and like I said only a fucking idiot would argue otherwise.

He's a genius mastermind next to Barre. Fighting the most well funded, diverse and well mechanized terror organization in history and still coming on top. ISIS was at some point a 2 billion dollar transnational organisation boasting 200k fighters. Barre could not fend off some broke rag-tag tribal militia fighting with rusty AK's and numbering less than 10k


Calling in the Russians is actually a plus for Assad. They pulled on all stops to support his regime. I don't deny they saved him for their own benefits that's what politicians do. Too bad we did not have a one.

In contrast, Barre who due to lack of foresight kicked the Russians out during Ogaden war and switched to Americans who supplied him with pennants to barely fend off the rebels until 1989 is a complete idiot who failed to leverage his geopolitical position and eventually got overthrown.


Any modern researcher will laugh in your face if you place Barre next to Assad. Former is an ignorant Askari turned dictator, the Latter is a shrewd politician who against all odds defeated a transnational terror organisation and kept his country in one piece.
 

Yukon_Niner

I predict deez tingz
VIP
That's the thing, I had to look up and fish it out. You intentionally picked a single paragraph to base your entire argument upon when the article clearly state its Barre's shortcomings in keeping his country stable. Did you think no one is going to fact-check you own source? The same link states Somalia importance declines due to internal strive and un-professional army guess who's fault is that.


It's not my fault you can't read your own sources.




This long text of wall can be debunked with a single quote from your own link.

View attachment 188434


There goes your laughable argument up in flames. Somalia strategic location declined indeed but was still important enough to the measure of 100 million dollars a year in military aid to keep Soviets away. This aid, despite low value, was paramount for Barre's survival in the 80s.



Explain to me why did the US continue to supply Barre for 5 years after this report come out if Somalia lost it strategic importance? Most importantly what did happen in 1989 that changed US policies suddenly?







He's a genius mastermind next to Barre. Fighting the most well funded, diverse and well mechanized terror organization in history and still coming on top. ISIS was at some point a 2 billion dollar transnational organisation boasting 200k fighters. Barre could not fend off some broke rag-tag tribal militia fighting with rusty AK's and numbering less than 10k


Calling in the Russians is actually a plus for Assad. They pulled on all stops to support his regime. I don't deny they saved him for their own benefits that's what politicians do. Too bad we did not have a one.

In contrast, Barre who due to lack of foresight kicked the Russians out during Ogaden war and switched to Americans who supplied him with pennants to barely fend off the rebels until 1989 is a complete idiot who failed to leverage his geopolitical position and eventually got overthrown.


Any modern researcher will laugh in your face if you place Barre next to Assad. Former is an ignorant Askari turned dictator, the Latter is a shrewd politician who against all odds defeated a transnational terror organisation and kept his country in one piece.
I told you and mentioned it. Ninyahow do you think we're all fucking dumb. How much do I have to simplify it so you can understand?

  1. America was always going to leave the Horn of Africa. The diplomat in the source said it was a "marriage of convenience" there were other bases that
  2. $100 million is pennies to the US and it wasn't even anywhere up the USAID list. Somalia was a not-so important US client state so no shit Barre would be receiving aid. He was also funding his military on IMF loans, the more you know.
  3. Assad called for help because he was months from getting fucked. Just like Siad only he had something to prostitute his nation out for, he too put his nation under debt.

Both Assad and Barre are your run of the mill dictators. Assad couldn't handle anything, his military was incompetent and below any good standard. Just like Siad he installed loyal members in the military who would side with him, namely other alawites. Nepotism and corruption does a number on your military.

Many of the protesters belonged to the country’s Sunni majority, while the ruling Assad family were members of the country’s ʿAlawite minority. ʿAlawites also dominated the security forces and the irregular militias that carried out some of the worst violence against protesters and suspected opponents of the regime.

The summer and fall of 2012 saw a string of tactical sucesses for the rebels. Government troops were forced to withdraw from areas in the north and east, allowing the rebels to control significant territory for the first time. In July rebels attacked Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, establishing a foothold in the eastern part of the city. By early 2013, though, the military situation appeared to be approaching stalemate. Rebel fighters kept a firm hold on northern areas but were held back by deficiencies in equipment, weaponry, and organization. Meanwhile, government forces, weakened by defections, also seemed incapable of making large gains
He faced significant losses to under equipped militias surviving off of rusty technicals, crappy dShK's and old Soviet hardware. Unsurprisingly the amount of defectors just kept on growing although with your logic I presume this would all be part of baba Assad's plan because he's a "politician".

After a short cease-fire between Russian and Syrian government forces and Western-backed rebels collapsed in September 2016, Russia and the Syrian government forces turned their focus to the rebel-held eastern part of Aleppo, unleashing a fierce bombing campaign. Russian and Syrian forces made no attempt to avoid causing civilian casualties in their efforts to subdue the rebels; warplanes dropped indiscriminate munitions such as cluster bombs and incendiary bombs and targeted medical facilities, search and rescue teams, and aid workers. Those actions were condemned by human rights groups, but they continued unabated until the rebels in Aleppo collapsed in December.
Unsurprisingly he bombed the shit out of everyone who was against him as soon as he got the chance.

He was losing badly and then he was losing worse once Baghdadi mobilized a well organised force that shouldn't have been able to get past his forces and only did so because he was so incompetent. We're talking about a force who faced defeats to the Kurds albeit backed by America. Assad's rebels weren't able to do shit till Iran and Russia saved his ass.


No one cares about your hypothetical modern researchers and their oh so important takes. He's cut from the same cloth as Barre. He survived off of luck and foreign power in exchange for his country. Had the Russian's not been fearful for their main export and the hand they have over the EU he would've ended up like Gaddafi.

You can spin it in thousands of ways and at the end of the day he was just another dictator who failed again and again. Just like the man you despise.
 
I told you and mentioned it. Ninyahow do you think we're all fucking dumb. How much do I have to simplify it so you can understand?

  1. America was always going to leave the Horn of Africa. The diplomat in the source said it was a "marriage of convenience" there were other bases that
  2. $100 million is pennies to the US and it wasn't even anywhere up the USAID list. Somalia was a not-so important US client state so no shit Barre would be receiving aid. He was also funding his military on IMF loans, the more you know.
  3. Assad called for help because he was months from getting fucked. Just like Siad only he had something to prostitute his nation out for, he too put his nation under debt.
/QUOTE]
Go ahead highlight the part you said Siad Barre's mismanagement of domestic policies and military caused Somalia's geopolitical decline before your very partisan hyperlinked post. I'll wait.


1- You still haven't answered why this "marriage of convenience" lasted for 5 more year and abruptly end in 1989. Classic case of deflection when the clear answer is too much.

2- It does matter how Somalia's ranked in US aid list nor how much loans did he rack up from IMF, the point is he was receiving crucial aid irrespective of its stand to America and it was the game changer as evident by his fall a year and half later. This is yet another attempt at deflection.

3- That's why he's a better leader than Barre. Do you know what the job of a leaders is? He secured his own interest and survival of the state. They're both terrible leaders for embroiling in civil wars and killing their own people but Assad came on top and entrapped all radical rats in Idlib while Barre couldn't contain tribal militia fled his own capital. Assad is more of A politician than Barre could ever be.

By your own logic Assad is still better than Barre for choosing better allies. Barre dumped Russians who built his army in return for peanuts from US and even this lifeline of aid was closed because he couldn't hold his shit (question #1 which you could never answer)


The rest of you blabber is just that, a blabber. Give me any rebel group in Somalia that is even remotely close ISIS in terms of weaponry, man power, funding and foreign support. Or the very sitting of the war in 80 where media was restricted to radio. It was supposed to be a slam dunk but I guess Daddy Afweyne was just so incompetent to think through it.
 

Yukon_Niner

I predict deez tingz
VIP
Go ahead highlight the part you said Siad Barre's mismanagement of domestic policies and military caused Somalia's geopolitical decline before your very partisan hyperlinked post. I'll wait.


1- You still haven't answered why this "marriage of convenience" lasted for 5 more year and abruptly end in 1989. Classic case of deflection when the clear answer is too much.

2- It does matter how Somalia's ranked in US aid list nor how much loans did he rack up from IMF, the point is he was receiving crucial aid irrespective of its stand to America and it was the game changer as evident by his fall a year and half later. This is yet another attempt at deflection.

3- That's why he's a better leader than Barre. Do you know what the job of a leaders is? He secured his own interest and survival of the state. They're both terrible leaders for embroiling in civil wars and killing their own people but Assad came on top and entrapped all radical rats in Idlib while Barre couldn't contain tribal militia fled his own capital. Assad is more of A politician than Barre could ever be.

By your own logic Assad is still better than Barre for choosing better allies. Barre dumped Russians who built his army in return for peanuts from US and even this lifeline of aid was closed because he couldn't hold his shit (question #1 which you could never answer)


The rest of you blabber is just that, a blabber. Give me any rebel group in Somalia that is even remotely close ISIS in terms of weaponry, man power, funding and foreign support. Or the very sitting of the war in 80 where media was restricted to radio. It was supposed to be a slam dunk but I guess Daddy Afweyne was just so incompetent to think through it.
Mismanagement of the military kulahah. The military got wrecked in the Ogaden, in what part of your moronic worldview would someone manage to hold up a military that just got brutalised. The SNA and airforce were both declining and deteriorating after the Soviet and Cuban efforts.

“Berbera is more a convenience than a necessity for the United States now. There are better facilities in Oman and in Mombasa, Kenya,” one diplomat said. “It is a marriage of convenience only, but you won’t see any great U.S. military buildup in Berbera.

6 years later after this article Somalia would collapse. The military deteriorated, the base was becoming less important and the US had little interest in propping up another one of its client states that didn't have much importance. Human rights is a secondary thought to the US and it still is.

Assad didn't choose his allies you fucking moron, his predecessors did. That Russian naval base has been there since the 1970's and they've had cooperation treaties decades before Assad. If you had some sense of critical thinking you'd be able to pick out where I've answered your rather stupid questions but that'd be beyond you wouldn't it. I guess you've learnt writing shit for the sake of it isn't smart and so you've taken the "no you" route. Maybe next time you'll learnt stop trying to hide your lies in your paragraphs of horseshit.

The Syrian military didn't just face a superpower and thousands of bolstered armoured troops (instead they faced non-stop nepotism and defection from the beginning) but somehow they got destroyed whereas a single rebel group in Somalia managed to make the US regret and change how they engaged a humanitarian crisis/urban warfare forever.

It's a slam dunk in your armchair general mind because being crying about a long dead dictator because of politics and I assuming personal reasons mixed with stupidity feeds into your delusions. So much so you'll present an ophthalmologist turned dictator on inheritance who lost wars and battles where he wasn't given direct assistance as being a paragon of competency, a man who's military history is so bad it makes Barre look good.
 

reer

БАЗЕД
Barre would've been in power if he was useful to a world power, any dictator would and only those living in their fantasies could deny that.
gen abdicasis ali barre outlasted siad barre and left waqooyi when he fell. he might have survived if not for usc who overthrow him. that would mean the derg falls before the kacaan and meles and afwerki all 3 become buddies.
 
Mismanagement of the military kulahah. The military got wrecked in the Ogaden, in what part of your moronic worldview would someone manage to hold up a military that just got brutalised. The SNA and airforce were both declining and deteriorating after the Soviet and Cuban efforts

And who's fault is that?





Assad didn't choose his allies you fucking moron, his predecessors did. That Russian naval base has been there since the 1970's and they've had cooperation treaties decades before Assad. If you had some sense of critical thinking you'd be able to pick out where I've answered your rather stupid questions but that'd be beyond you wouldn't it. I guess you've learnt writing shit for the sake of it isn't smart and so you've taken the "no you" route. Maybe next time you'll learnt stop trying to hide your lies in your paragraphs of horseshit.

The Syrian military didn't just face a superpower and thousands of bolstered armoured troops (instead they faced non-stop nepotism and defection from the beginning) but somehow they got destroyed whereas a single rebel group in Somalia managed to make the US regret and change how they engaged a humanitarian crisis/urban warfare forever.

It's a slam dunk in your armchair general mind because being crying about a long dead dictator because of politics and I assuming personal reasons mixed with stupidity feeds into your delusions. So much so you'll present an ophthalmologist turned dictator on inheritance who lost wars and battles where he wasn't given direct assistance as being a paragon of competency, a man who's military history is


All this rabbithole because you can not answer a single question. Why did US drop Barre in 1989? I could careless about your life story or the folder you typed out up there.



I kinda feel sorry for your fried brain coming up with all this B.S to duck single question.


Assad >>>>>>>>>> Barre
 
Is that supposed to solidify your argument? US supports brutal dictators all the time, what made them drop Barre in the last minute is the exposure of his atrocities to main stream media. Again his own fault.



You left out the part were it says Barre's domestic policies and unreliable Somali army contributed to the decline of Somalia's geo-political appeal for the Americans. So yes it only reinforce my point about his legendary incompetence.

View attachment 188357


View attachment 188359

Despite Somalia's decline in importance US still kept delivering weapons & ammunition for 5 years ahead to keep Soviets away. So miss me with that B.S excuse about Somalia's importance a year later US launched operation restore.

Bashar Al Asad had the entire western world coming after him he turned his enemies against one another fighting religious, sectarian and ethnic insurgency. A multi layered civil war.


Siad Barre in comparison could not subdue or reconcile with couple Somali clans despite enjoying superior weaponry & international support for much of the 80s.

If Americans let go of him than one could argue that Ethiopia also let go of Somali rebel groups. DERG was all but finished in 1991 His government could not survive without international handouts for more than 1 year, let that sink in.
"The inefficiency of the Somali armed forces is legendary among foreign military men."

"U.S military officials in Somalia have grown disgusted with the performance of the Somali army and its inability to keep anything working."

:damn: :russ: :dead: :chrisfreshhah: but-but Somalia strong befor civil war powarful army
 

Yukon_Niner

I predict deez tingz
VIP
And who's fault is that?








All this rabbithole because you can not answer a single question. Why did US drop Barre in 1989? I could careless about your life story or the folder you typed out up there.



I kinda feel sorry for your fried brain coming up with all this B.S to duck single question.


Assad >>>>>>>>>> Barre
"hahaha unga bunga I dind reed wat u say even doe u anser queschun ten times
I cal it lyfe-stori n folder cuz das funni"

8618 - blender brainlet dumb keyboard textless wojak.jpg


Like every stupid pseudo-intellectual on the internet you'll probably ignore the thesis you wrote beforehand because it's wrong and you can't admit that. Then you'll instead suddenly decide to act like you weren't bothered when you replied to me first, you'll then try to make fun of the fact that it's long and tedious because you can't be bothered to read before you inevitably insult me and then dissappear. Though with the power of reverse psychology maybe you won't.

A military being mismanaged isn't the same as deterioration after facing bolstered forces. Though in your eyes and with your level of reading comprehension they probably seem similar because of the end result. He was dropped by good old uncle Sam because with the end of the cold War nigh, the rising internal strife and the more attractive bases in that same part of the world just seemed a lot more attractive while Somalia looked useless in comparison. Which is a much more logical reason than a Superpower known for funding murderous dictators and human rights abusers for financial purposes and power projection suddenly caring about human rights less than half a decade later after giving chemical weapons to Iraq's beloved autocrat they would then get rid of much to the horror of the rest of the world.

My brain could be fried till it's gone and I'd still be able to read, think critically and retort better than you have ever done. Believe me your pity is better reserved for the poor sods who birthed you, you're an argument for eugenics if I've ever seen one. I took a trip down the rabbithole because your bullshit got less tolerable, imagine saying Assad chose his allies and passing it off as a truth? If you had a decent level of intelligence and researched this or even some knowledge of this disaster you'd have known beforehand Russia has been a key Syrian ally for decades. Naval bases, gas pipelines and waterways next to NATO powers are why they got involved. But no, even when given a source it seems to be going too hard on your level of intellect.

You resort to greater-than-signs because you have no actual leg to stand on. Assad failed on every front and had to sell his dignity to the kremlin and Iran lest he end up getting lynched. Much like every other dictator in a 3rd world nation he's a stable alternative to rebels and extremists. I don't know what Barre did to you or your family but if you can't leave your emotions outside of these sorts of topics then you're best off not even bothering.
 
"hahaha unga bunga I dind reed wat u say even doe u anser queschun ten times
I cal it lyfe-stori n folder cuz das funni"

View attachment 188869

Like every stupid pseudo-intellectual on the internet you'll probably ignore the thesis you wrote beforehand because it's wrong and you can't admit that. Then you'll instead suddenly decide to act like you weren't bothered when you replied to me first, you'll then try to make fun of the fact that it's long and tedious because you can't be bothered to read before you inevitably insult me and then dissappear. Though with the power of reverse psychology maybe you won't.

A military being mismanaged isn't the same as deterioration after facing bolstered forces. Though in your eyes and with your level of reading comprehension they probably seem similar because of the end result. He was dropped by good old uncle Sam because with the end of the cold War nigh, the rising internal strife and the more attractive bases in that same part of the world just seemed a lot more attractive while Somalia looked useless in comparison. Which is a much more logical reason than a Superpower known for funding murderous dictators and human rights abusers for financial purposes and power projection suddenly caring about human rights less than half a decade later after giving chemical weapons to Iraq's beloved autocrat they would then get rid of much to the horror of the rest of the world.

My brain could be fried till it's gone and I'd still be able to read, think critically and retort better than you have ever done. Believe me your pity is better reserved for the poor sods who birthed you, you're an argument for eugenics if I've ever seen one. I took a trip down the rabbithole because your bullshit got less tolerable, imagine saying Assad chose his allies and passing it off as a truth? If you had a decent level of intelligence and researched this or even some knowledge of this disaster you'd have known beforehand Russia has been a key Syrian ally for decades. Naval bases, gas pipelines and waterways next to NATO powers are why they got involved. But no, even when given a source it seems to be going too hard on your level of intellect.

You resort to greater-than-signs because you have no actual leg to stand on. Assad failed on every front and had to sell his dignity to the kremlin and Iran lest he end up getting lynched. Much like every other dictator in a 3rd world nation he's a stable alternative to rebels and extremists. I don't know what Barre did to you or your family but if you can't leave your emotions outside of these sorts of topics then you're best off not even bothering.

No I've been very clear with my take and I stand by it. Let me me break it down for your peanut brain.

1- Siad Barre started Ogaden War

2- Ogaden War caused the army to deteriorate and decline in its quantity + quality.

3- SNA decline reduced Somalia's appeal to US.


4-1989 US stopped military assistance to Somalia due to Human Rights.



See a very logical & simple sequence of events that lead to Somalia's demise. I didn't need memes or long dissertations to debunk your long sprawl of an argument.


And the best part it is all from your own link. Literally your own source was the smooking gun.


Run along kiddo.
 

Yukon_Niner

I predict deez tingz
VIP
No I've been very clear with my take and I stand by it. Let me me break it down for your peanut brain.

1- Siad Barre started Ogaden War

2- Ogaden War caused the army to deteriorate and decline in its quantity + quality.

3- SNA decline reduced Somalia's appeal to US.


4-1989 US stopped military assistance to Somalia due to Human Rights.



See a very logical & simple sequence of events that lead to Somalia's demise. I didn't need memes or long dissertations to debunk your long sprawl of an argument.


And the best part it is all from your own link. Literally your own source was the smooking gun.


Run along kiddo.
Maybe I shouldn't have even bothered with this topic, it's like all you retards suddenly get emotional when someone brings up a dictator who's been dead for 30 years. I don't care if he bombed your family man that's got nothing to do with me.

  1. You've barely read any of my sources which I can easily tell Mr Assad picked his allies. A quick skim where you didn't even bother analysing and figuring out main and secondary causes is spit on the basics of debating and research. A testament to your stupidity.
  2. The Ogaden war was initially a success whereas Assad's policies of putting Alawites in positions of authority had absolutely no returns. How you even defend and compare that is beyond me.
  3. The US has vetoed sanctions against Israel. Gave billions in armaments to Saddam (who they later got rid of) who killed significantly more than Barre and now defends Bin Salman a man who chopped up a journalist in an embassy. Human rights are a secondary concern at best and they didn't suddenly start caring about Somali's from 1989 onwards, you're clutching at straws here.
I guess making fun of your attempt to label me a try-hard for actually presenting an argument and then leaving like every other idiot on the internet does when they can't backup their stupid point had some success. Now you've resorted to repeating yourself, lying and then adding in a little quip at the end. A little ironic since you replied with multiple paragraphs filled with shit first. You haven't debunked anything, you've consistently dodged questions and you've barely posted any sources to back you up, unsurprisingly. You couldnt even read the sources I provided you properly.

That meme was a lot more intuitive than assad>>>>>>Barre which is currently your most convincing argument. A lot better than America, a nation which supported apartheid into the 80's caring about human rights in the same decade.
 
Maybe I shouldn't have even bothered with this topic, it's like all you retards suddenly get emotional when someone brings up a dictator who's been dead for 30 years. I don't care if he bombed your family man that's got nothing to do with me.

  1. You've barely read any of my sources which I can easily tell Mr Assad picked his allies. A quick skim where you didn't even bother analysing and figuring out main and secondary causes is spit on the basics of debating and research. A testament to your stupidity.
  2. The Ogaden war was initially a success whereas Assad's policies of putting Alawites in positions of authority had absolutely no returns. How you even defend and compare that is beyond me.
  3. The US has vetoed sanctions against Israel. Gave billions in armaments to Saddam (who they later got rid of) who killed significantly more than Barre and now defends Bin Salman a man who chopped up a journalist in an embassy. Human rights are a secondary concern at best and they didn't suddenly start caring about Somali's from 1989 onwards, you're clutching at straws here.
I guess making fun of your attempt to label me a try-hard for actually presenting an argument and then leaving like every other idiot on the internet does when they can't backup their stupid point had some success. Now you've resorted to repeating yourself, lying and then adding in a little quip at the end. A little ironic since you replied with multiple paragraphs filled with shit first. You haven't debunked anything, you've consistently dodged questions and you've barely posted any sources to back you up, unsurprisingly. You couldnt even read the sources I provided you properly.

That meme was a lot more intuitive than assad>>>>>>Barre which is currently your most convincing argument. A lot better than America, a nation which supported apartheid into the 80's caring about human rights in the same decade.


I'm not the one writting dissertations and leaking all over the place for losing an argument. Your Berbera source disproves your own argument, I could careless how many links you put up to switch talking points.



Regarding Assad, true he did not start Syria's alliance with Russia but his father did. Guess what, from 2000 - 2010 he stayed faithful to that alliance and anti American stance rejecting Western agenda to lay the pipe through his country. That's why the entire Western world came after him. He withstood the test of time.



Now Barre in comparison is a fool who sided with the Russians and signed a Friendship treaty only to go against their wishes in Ogaden War and got REKT. He then completely turned 180 abounding his own doctrine for American bread crumbs.


See how it takes couple paragraphs to blow your novel into pieces. Emotional teen.
 

reer

БАЗЕД
Now Barre in comparison is a fool who sided with the Russians and signed a Friendship treaty only to go against their wishes in Ogaden War and got REKT. He then completely turned 180 abounding his own doctrine for American bread crumbs.
the relationship with the soviets started after independence when they agreed to train thousands of soldiers of xoogga dalka. selassie invaded. after 1960s indeoendence across africa you could stay non aligned but it became increasingly difficult.
siad barre was nominally socialist and castro didnt like him. achieving socialism in a somalia would mean he delays galbeed war for atleast another decade and changes somali society on an insane and possibly barbaric scale and delay galbeed liberation for many years.
the castro was negotiating a socialist federation between socialist somalia + communist ethiopia + communist south yemen. jaalle siad and mengistu were irrenconcilable. jaalle siad return galbeed and mengistu said no so the only solution was war.
i criticize siad barre but i will never blame him for dagaal xaq ah against gumeysi. after 1950s returning galbeed was priority for the civilian government.
kicking out soviets was a no brainer. they were giving billions in aid and footsoldiers to the enemy. the alliance ended in 1977. there was no alliance to stay faithful to. soviet sponsored assaults on godey? lmao what an alliance.
 
Last edited:

Yukon_Niner

I predict deez tingz
VIP
I'm not the one writting dissertations and leaking all over the place for losing an argument. Your Berbera source disproves your own argument, I could careless how many links you put up to switch talking points.



Regarding Assad, true he did not start Syria's alliance with Russia but his father did. Guess what, from 2000 - 2010 he stayed faithful to that alliance and anti American stance rejecting Western agenda to lay the pipe through his country. That's why the entire Western world came after him. He withstood the test of time.



Now Barre in comparison is a fool who sided with the Russians and signed a Friendship treaty only to go against their wishes in Ogaden War and got REKT. He then completely turned 180 abounding his own doctrine for American bread crumbs.


See how it takes couple paragraphs to blow your novel into pieces. Emotional teen.
  • The source clearly infers human rights was a secondary reason. Berbera base was no longer in the USA's interest seeing as Gorbachev's policies were less confrontational globally and there were other bases with better infrastructure (also in the source)
  • Mind explaining why the USA was supporting apartheid and more brutal dictators than Barre in the same time period? Something you're yet to answer.
  • If you had bothered to click the links you'd know he was forced to stay loyal to Russia and Iran. He neither planned to step down (what the Western world was calling for) and get executed nor be a political prisoner to the next autocrat in power. He's a useful puppet who failed every step of the way.

You cried and began writing nonsensical essay's as soon as I made a simple statement and then you're now resorting to acting unbothered when someone picks out your bullshit. Again I don't care what Barre did to you and your family.
He could've wiped them out for all I care and he still wouldn't be as incompetent as Assad. You're free to act like you're not bothered and convince yourself you came out with some sort of victory here since that's all you seem to be doing aside from repeating the same shit. You cherry picked a secondary reason from the source where a diplomat clearly explained bases abroad rendered it redundant. You've barely backed up any of your statements with evidence and you resort to running with your own conjured up reasons. Getting called a teen by a person who can't even read a simple article and uses "REKT" in his simple interpretations is something I doubt anyone would take seriously, if you're actually an adult then may god help you.

Kkkkkkk acting calm and collected when you've realised you have no actual points that were right is like the textbook manoeuvre for every dipshit on the internet who can't admit they're wrong. Next time you don't want to look like a projecting idiot don't appead everytime your Boogeyman Barre is mentioned and start writing fanfiction against him :icon lol:

Seeing as you're repeating yourself like a broken clock, not posting any sources to back yourself up, not even bothering to read the posted source while blatantly posting lies and now resorting to acting like you never cared after writing pages of shit I'm just gonna take my leave here. If I ever want to see you you'll spot Siad Barre in my posts kkkkkk.
 
  • The source clearly infers human rights was a secondary reason. Berbera base was no longer in the USA's interest seeing as Gorbachev's policies were less confrontational globally and there were other bases with better infrastructure (also in the source)
  • Mind explaining why the USA was supporting apartheid and more brutal dictators than Barre in the same time period? Something you're yet to answer.
  • If you had bothered to click the links you'd know he was forced to stay loyal to Russia and Iran. He neither planned to step down (what the Western world was calling for) and get executed nor be a political prisoner to the next autocrat in power. He's a useful puppet who failed every step of the way.

You cried and began writing nonsensical essay's as soon as I made a simple statement and then you're now resorting to acting unbothered when someone picks out your bullshit. Again I don't care what Barre did to you and your family.
He could've wiped them out for all I care and he still wouldn't be as incompetent as Assad. You're free to act like you're not bothered and convince yourself you came out with some sort of victory here since that's all you seem to be doing aside from repeating the same shit. You cherry picked a secondary reason from the source where a diplomat clearly explained bases abroad rendered it redundant. You've barely backed up any of your statements with evidence and you resort to running with your own conjured up reasons. Getting called a teen by a person who can't even read a simple article and uses "REKT" in his simple interpretations is something I doubt anyone would take seriously, if you're actually an adult then may god help you.

Kkkkkkk acting calm and collected when you've realised you have no actual points that were right is like the textbook manoeuvre for every dipshit on the internet who can't admit they're wrong. Next time you don't want to look like a projecting idiot don't appead everytime your Boogeyman Barre is mentioned and start writing fanfiction against him :icon lol:

Seeing as you're repeating yourself like a broken clock, not posting any sources to back yourself up, not even bothering to read the posted source while blatantly posting lies and now resorting to acting like you never cared after writing pages of shit I'm just gonna take my leave here. If I ever want to see you you'll spot Siad Barre in my posts kkkkkk.

Another wall text of wall that says nothing. Human Rights was the main reason US cut the arm supply to Somalia. Plain and simple. My source say so and so is yours.

Regarding US support for South Africa human despite rights implication than its just another prove inay maskaxda futada kugo jirta US imposed a 35 year arms embargo on South Africa due to Human rights violations and about the same time about Barre in mid 80s passed "Comprehensive Anti Apartheid Act" Few years down the line US bombed Serbia to the stone age due to its continues war against Muslim Bosnians.

Now that I answered your stupid question are you going to answer any of mine? Yeah I thought so.
 

Trending

Latest posts

Top