Ur letting clan sentiment take hold of u. I mean in our primitive Somali moral system the SNM killing was more understandable than the USC killing of Daaroods since they viewed it as revenge. Despite this they still didn't go ham like the USC and decided to restrain themselves. They ended up calling all Northern clans to a peace conference in Burco. So I wasn't justying what the SNM did, I'm saying it's more understandable within the Somali context/moral system when compared to the actions of the USC. But regardless killing civilians is always wrong and I recognize what they did as crimes.
For example, the Dhulbahante want leave Somaliland. If they wage a serious armed resistance against Somaliland and the Somaliland government responds by destroying Buuhodle and Laascaanood and targets Dhulbahante civilians, it would be understandable to me if the Dhulbahante rebels sought revenge by killing ISaaq civilians if they were successful in defeating the Somaliland government. It wouldn't make it right, but as Somalis we're just savage like that so it makes sense in a Somali context unfortunately.
P.S. I've already said about three times now in this thread that the Siyaad Barre government had a rational and justified basis to flush out the rebels in the north, and any civilians who died as collateral would be fine with me.
Then we agree but as true Somalis use several hours to discuss
Anyways, I find a government trying to secure its survival to be a more universal understandable reason for killing but then again, you don't need a reason to kill anymore it seems in Somalia
Legalistic? You're trying to justify State terrorism.
In the end all those atrocities that the Barre regime committed didn't work. The SNM won the war and the regime collapsed. Let's move on.
I am not justifying it merely nuancing it and trying to bring the Farmaajo qoute into context that can explain it rationally.
Nigga, do you understand what the words disproportionate use of force and not furthering a legitimate aim means?
It is the test for which government policies are held to based on four criteria used by both the EU court, the Court of human rights, and the Danish court:
1: There must be a legitimate aim for a measure
2: The measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect
3: The measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing is
4: The measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand
The human rights court and the danish court combine the last two.
Anyways, the bombing were aimed a legitimate aim: Removing violent rebels, so they didn't destroy the government, but fails the criteria as it could be done less onerous way and it is not reasonable to target a whole groups for use of force, when the rebel are limited to a small group and it could be done by more targeted attacks.
Never the less, we have to move on to built better relations for the future but try to understand the legal train of thought.
@Steamdevolopment has his moments too but lately got serious and engage more and more in intellectual discussions.
