Was Siyaad Barre a snake?

[Periplus]

The problem with USSR and General Daud AUN was that there was a difference of 4 years between his death and the 21 October coup. General Daud AUN was in the nation during the 1964 Border wars, and so it would have not made sense that his death was pre planned with that much of a gap.

His death was stated during "Military Training". What does that mean, did he die during training or whilst training. There are some topics missing, and it requires deeper reading about it. Why go to Moscow after the war? He was commander in chief after the war , and had trained with the Italians before independence, so why Moscow? It requires further reading and deep critical thinking in order to make sense.

But there is a small issue with the Wikipedia page of General Daud

Siad wasn't President at the time. So that means Aden Adde AUN was President at the time, and not Siad.

Had the USSR been planning the coup, which I think they were, then it was in motion for years.

I remember reading somewhere that Daud's death was deemed mysterious, I think it was from illness. This was in spite of his young age and reputed fitness.

As I said, the USSR was in charge of training the Somali military during the SYL years and it is very well known that Gabeyere and Barre were their point men in the military. If the USSR was planning the coup, it makes sense to get rid of Barre's superior in mysterious circumstance in order to allow Barre to assume the position that would enable him to take over the country.

 

[Periplus]

The agreement between Mengistu and Afweyne was to stop aiding and abetting the militias/guerrillas against eachother. There was no agreement to "hand over" anyone. If you have legitimate sources claiming the latter, produce them.

Correction: You are right.

Barre and Mengistu ditched their collateral, in their bipartisan agreement in the 1980s.

I do not know why I used the phrase hand them over, honest mistake.

 

[Dharbaaxo Jin]

Correction: You are right.

Barre and Mengistu ditched their collateral, in their bipartisan agreement in the 1980s.

I do not know why I used the phrase hand them over, honest mistake.

No worries, easily done.

 

[Calaf]

How can you not consider his relentless suppression of any and all opposition, by any means necessary including countless war crimes and an attempted genocide, as a policy "that affects all of us today"?

You're incredibly short-sighted when it comes to Afweyne and his legacy. It is very easy to surmise why.

What excuse is there for a nation to be screwed over 30 years later AFTER removing a President. Even Yemen had a better recovery time, and it has been marred with issues since the late 1970s.
He has been ruling for 21 years, yet for 30 years, we was in anarchy. It doesn't take 30 years and more to sort out your grievances. Somaliland, came and went.
1991, Siad leaves, 1995, he dies. Opposition are still opposition, but this time, they decided to oppose within each other. AUN to those who died, but does killing even more people bring them back? How does it affect us all when those who toppled him, tries to topple each other. How is Aidid AUN and Mahdi AUN playing Tom and Jerry in Mogadishu a fault of Barre. Not a single policy of his is intact today, not a single person brought to trial. In fact, our neighbours, who suffered even more then Somalia, recouped and recovered quickly. Look at Ethiopia after Mengistu, Uganda after Idi Amin. What excuse do post-91 Somalia have?

You tend to pick and choose history that goes with your narrative that everything is Siad's fault. It doesn't take a genius why, but screaming "War Siad Barre, its his fault won't work no more, as there is not a single excuse that you can say, "What is happening in 2021 is due to Siad Barre", cause there was more then enough time to sort it out.

Genocide victims, create a trial committee. to find out the truth and punish those found guilty. Corruption, again, trials and recoup the money. But no. Its blame Barre and I shall keep going on my ways.

 

[Macalin dheerow]

Somalia was much closer to Italy than the UK even before Barre. During the SYL era, the government cut diplomatic ties with the UK after they gave the NFD to Kenya in 1963 despite a plebiscite citing mass support for unification. Also, it was alleged the British promised the NFD to Somalia after the failure of uniting the Ogaden.



This shocked the UK as I think Somalia was the first newly independent nation to not only reject the Commonwealth but the UK altogether.

The actions of Kenya towards the NFD was also shocking. During their struggle against the British, the SYL sheltered the Mau Mau fighters only for Jomo Kenyatta to say "not an inch more not an inch less" to the SYL.

Here is an interview in which the SYL rep says Mau Mau is safe in Somalia even after Kenyatta insulted Somalia.




--------

As for Barre....

I do not know whether this is a fact but there is a popular story about Barre's trip to Italy. The Italian government offered Barre an apology for their colonisation in Somalia and apparently Barre rejected it, instead saying Somalia was grateful for their rule. Not sure if its fiction or fact tho. I can look into it.

Flipping United Kingdom, they singlehandedly fractured somalis, giving Galbeed to Ethiopians and NFD to Kenya. Vile country.

The actions of Jomo Kenyatta is treacherous, Somalia sheltered Mau Mau fighters because they believed it would benefit us and free NFD from the british, only for the british give nfd to Kenya and them deciding to keep it. Treacherous and spineless acts.

On a sidenote, the video reminded me of Somalias support for african movements. I found it strange. I have a theory where the Soviet Union was using Barres Somalia as a proxy. It made no sense for somalis to care about faraway african countries political movements. Soviet Union through Somalia, funded and trained fighters for their own gain.

I truly believe this.

 

[Periplus]

The thing I disagree with people about is that without him there wouldn’t be a civil war.

Somalia would have went through a civil war either way, but the difference he did have were the severity of the war and lasting effects of it. His actions increased animosity between clans and we can see it today.

I disagree.

Somalia did not have an amazing government before Barre but it was better than most African countries. The West considered Somalia a role model for other newly-independent nations. There were peaceful transitions of power, separation of powers and other promising ideals.

You are right in that corruption was rife, there was discontent and other negative factors during the SYL era. However, if you compare Somalia in the 1960's to most peaceful African nations today, Somalia had a stronger foundation for peace.

 

[Periplus]

On a sidenote, the video reminded me of Somalias support for african movements. I found it strange. I have a theory where the Soviet Union was using Barres Somalia as a proxy. It made no sense for somalis to care about faraway african countries political movements. Soviet Union through Somalia, funded and trained fighters for their own gain.

I truly believe this.

Barre was the USSRs proxy, the entire Somali triumvirate of Barre, Gabeyere and Korshel were all USSR lackeys. Gabreye himself was a KGB agent.

However, in terms of his pan-Africanism, I think it was three reasons:

1. He was doing the USSRs bidding in Africa.

2. He wanted to make himself a pan-African hero.

3. I think, Somali leaders before him usually inserted themselves in pan-Africanism in the hope that they would support Somalia against Ethiopia and Kenya. Somalia had no allies in the OAU as everyone respected Kenyatta and Selassie as strongmen, therefore Somalia needed to make friends.

 

[Dharbaaxo Jin]

What excuse is there for a nation to be screwed over 30 years later AFTER removing a President. Even Yemen had a better recovery time, and it has been marred with issues since the late 1970s.
He has been ruling for 21 years, yet for 30 years, we was in anarchy. It doesn't take 30 years and more to sort out your grievances. Somaliland, came and went.
1991, Siad leaves, 1995, he dies. Opposition are still opposition, but this time, they decided to oppose within each other. AUN to those who died, but does killing even more people bring them back? How does it affect us all when those who toppled him, tries to topple each other. How is Aidid AUN and Mahdi AUN playing Tom and Jerry in Mogadishu a fault of Barre. Not a single policy of his is intact today, not a single person brought to trial. In fact, our neighbours, who suffered even more then Somalia, recouped and recovered quickly. Look at Ethiopia after Mengistu, Uganda after Idi Amin. What excuse do post-91 Somalia have?

You tend to pick and choose history that goes with your narrative that everything is Siad's fault. It doesn't take a genius why, but screaming "War Siad Barre, its his fault won't work no more, as there is not a single excuse that you can say, "What is happening in 2021 is due to Siad Barre", cause there was more then enough time to sort it out.

Genocide victims, create a trial committee. to find out the truth and punish those found guilty. Corruption, again, trials and recoup the money. But no. Its blame Barre and I shall keep going on my ways.

As I expected, this triggered you, so you write a long emotional polemic that doesn't address the question put to you at all. Instead you perform some amazing acrobatics in absolving your uncle of his disastrous legacy, and his seminal role in why Somalia is the mess it is today.

The conversation you are wanting to have about Somalia post-1991 is a tired one that has been had a million times. I have no interest in engaging in it with someone who has an obvious case of cognitive dissonance in this area.

 

[Calaf]

I disagree.

Somalia did not have an amazing government before Barre but it was better than most African countries. The West considered Somalia a role model for other newly-independent nations. There were peaceful transitions of power, separation of powers and other promising ideals.

You are right in that corruption was rife, there was discontent and other negative factors during the SYL era. However, if you compare Somalia in the 1960's to most peaceful African nations today, Somalia had a stronger foundation for peace.

Somewhat right Somalia was a beacon of democracy and the first African nation to hand over power peacefully, but there was a article, just cannot find it now, talking about how discontent people felt after the Parliament elections of March 1969. It may have been the catalyst to the Assassination of Sharmarke AUN and the coup that occured afterwards

The election was highly contentious and saw the Somali Youth League gain an even greater majority in the parliament. Allegations of electoral fraud and corruption were rampant and more than 25 people were killed in election-related violence.

A general perception grew among Somalis that the SYL was becoming increasingly authoritarian in its rule. This view was compounded by the newly formed government under Prime Minister Egal largely ignoring allegations of fraud and corruption. This sweeping unrest and dissatisfaction created an unhealthy political situation in the country that paved the way for the October coup by Siad Barre and other officers.

There was a reason why the coup of 69 didn't have any major resistance, especially from civilians.

 

[reer]

I disagree.

Somalia did not have an amazing government before Barre but it was better than most African countries. The West considered Somalia a role model for other newly-independent nations. There were peaceful transitions of power, separation of powers and other promising ideals.

You are right in that corruption was rife, there was discontent and other negative factors during the SYL era. However, if you compare Somalia in the 1960's to most peaceful African nations today, Somalia had a stronger foundation for peace.

somalia was bound to have a civil war. if somaliweyn was not carved up then it would be a cold war playground over who gets to rule with weapons coming in.
cia wrote this in 1969. with or with out the kacaan somalis were gonna karbaash each other.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/54644.pdf

Barre was the USSRs proxy, the entire Somali triumvirate of Barre, Gabeyere and Korshel were all USSR lackeys. Gabreye himself was a KGB agent.

However, in terms of his pan-Africanism, I think it was three reasons:

1. He was doing the USSRs bidding in Africa.

2. He wanted to make himself a pan-African hero.

3. I think, Somali leaders before him usually inserted themselves in pan-Africanism in the hope that they would support Somalia against Ethiopia and Kenya. Somalia had no allies in the OAU as everyone respected Kenyatta and Selassie as strongmen, therefore Somalia needed to make friends.

jaalle siad had good relations with china which kinda pissed off the soviets. and he didnt eliminate the private economy which they didnt like. he was nominally socialist.

 

[Periplus]

One thing I disagree with on the subject of Barre's regime is the historiography of the Ogaden War.

Many people state that Barre should never have invaded the Ogaden fail to realise the immense opportunity Barre had. At the time, Ethiopia was in a turbulent period, Selassie was deposed and killed, leaving Ethiopia fractured and with a new dictator.

In my opinion, I think Barre thought he was doing the right thing because...

• Somalia had a stronger military than Ethiopia, especially when considering our smaller population.

• Somalia utilised the Viet-Cong strategy of having infiltrators sow chaos in Ethiopia, using Ogaden armed groups to attack behind Ethiopian lines

• During talks with Castro and Mengistu, Barre realised that the USSR were going to side with Ethiopia in any war. Castro disliked Barre severely. Barre realised that a proxy war with the USSR would grab American attention and hopefully gain military assistance of some sort. However, Barre was unlucky to have invaded Ethiopia during the Carter administration as they were not as trigger or money happy as their predecessors and successors.

• It should also be noted that the USSR barely had a history of involving themselves in proxy wars. The US had a greater history of directly involving themselves in global conflicts whereas the USSR would either send money or advisors. During the Ogaden war, the USSR gave Ethiopia a blank check, which could not have been forseen by anyone.

• Barre probably ascertained that any capture of the Ogaden would not have been challenged by the West. The European powers and the UN well knew that the Ogaden was their mess and were not going to intervene as long as Barre only took the Ogaden back.

With the benefit of hindsight it was a horrible decision, however, at the time, it made perfect sense. Barre was let down by the Carter admin as well as the anger of the USSR. Mind you, Barre dismissed the USSR in dramatic fashion from Somalia and they were very willing to get pay back.

 

[Periplus]

Somewhat right Somalia was a beacon of democracy and the first African nation to hand over power peacefully, but there was a article, just cannot find it now, talking about how discontent people felt after the Parliament elections of March 1969. It may have been the catalyst to the Assassination of Sharmarke AUN and the coup that occured afterwards



There was a reason why the coup of 69 didn't have any major resistance, especially from civilians.

These are hallmarks of African democracy today. Kenya still sees massive election violence and a $40 million corruption scandal by Uhuru blamed as a computer error.

The problem was the Somali people did not know what a military junta was or what it would entail. After all, Somalia did not have a long history of African democracy to look back on. Somalis just thought that because the Kacaan were anti-SYL, they would do the right things.

 

[Calaf]

As I expected, this triggered you, so you write a long emotional polemic that doesn't address the question put to you at all. Instead you perform some amazing acrobatics in absolving your uncle of his disastrous legacy, and his seminal role in why Somalia is the mess it is today.

The conversation you are wanting to have about Somalia post-1991 is a tired one that has been had a million times. I have no interest in engaging in it with someone who has an obvious case of cognitive dissonance in this area.

Chaos theory don't work as you shift the goalpost in order to find something to pinpoint for. The question has been answered, and if you choose to pick and choose, once again, then its up to you. His legacy has no affect on the common man today. Nether of his polices are intact, and thus, his errors are in the past. You chose to argue my point of his errors, I still entertained it and still get triggered when it gets deflected back into the modern day. Revisionism sure went into your head.

How does suppressing opposition link to today. Doesn't affect the common man. The genocide, and war crime you sure love to repeat, is the whole base of your existence today. And I sure did answer that already in the "emotional polemic".

Call it tired, talking about it for a million more times, but the truth hurts. You arguing post-1991 is a butterfly effect by calling it seminal isn't theoretically smart nor intellectually honest. It may be a sore topic for you, but it doesn't take a genius why your judgement is based on a case of "Historical negationism"

 

[Macalin dheerow]

I disagree.

Somalia did not have an amazing government before Barre but it was better than most African countries. The West considered Somalia a role model for other newly-independent nations. There were peaceful transitions of power, separation of powers and other promising ideals.

You are right in that corruption was rife, there was discontent and other negative factors during the SYL era. However, if you compare Somalia in the 1960's to most peaceful African nations today, Somalia had a stronger foundation for peace.

The main reason for the civil war, tribalism was strongly present at the time and would show itself violently one day. Especially with the droughts, as dwindling resources are one of the most common reasons for wars.

 

[Periplus]

somalia was bound to have a civil war. if somaliweyn was not carved up then it would be a cold war playground over who gets to rule with weapons coming in.
cia wrote this in 1969. with or with out the kacaan somalis were gonna karbaash each other.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/54644.pdf

jaalle siad had good relations with china which kinda pissed off the soviets. and he didnt eliminate the private economy which they didnt like. he was nominally socialist.

If I am correct, this paper was written during the election violence in 1969.

The CIA were right. In that excerpt, they said "from recent days" meaning they were predicting the near future not the distant future. They were not predicting a civil war, they predicting political unrest, which happened.

After the election violence, a president was killed and a military coup occurred.

 

[Macalin dheerow]

One thing I disagree with on the subject of Barre's regime is the historiography of the Ogaden War.

Many people state that Barre should never have invaded the Ogaden fail to realise the immense opportunity Barre had. At the time, Ethiopia was in a turbulent period, Selassie was deposed and killed, leaving Ethiopia fractured and with a new dictator.

In my opinion, I think Barre thought he was doing the right thing because...

• Somalia had a stronger military than Ethiopia, especially when considering our smaller population.

• Somalia utilised the Viet-Cong strategy of having infiltrators sow chaos in Ethiopia, using Ogaden armed groups to attack behind Ethiopian lines

• During talks with Castro and Mengistu, Barre realised that the USSR were going to side with Ethiopia in any war. Castro disliked Barre severely. Barre realised that a proxy war with the USSR would grab American attention and hopefully gain military assistance of some sort. However, Barre was unlucky to have invaded Ethiopia during the Carter administration as they were not as trigger or money happy as their predecessors and successors.

• It should also be noted that the USSR barely had a history of involving themselves in proxy wars. The US had a greater history of directly involving themselves in global conflicts whereas the USSR would either send money or advisors. During the Ogaden war, the USSR gave Ethiopia a blank check, which could not have been forseen by anyone.

• Barre probably ascertained that any capture of the Ogaden would not have been challenged by the West. The European powers and the UN well knew that the Ogaden was their mess and were not going to intervene as long as Barre only took the Ogaden back.

With the benefit of hindsight it was a horrible decision, however, at the time, it made perfect sense. Barre was let down by the Carter admin as well as the anger of the USSR. Mind you, Barre dismissed the USSR in dramatic fashion from Somalia and they were very willing to get pay back.

Somalia had the ideal conditions to invade Ethiopia and still everything that could go wrong went wrong.

I can’t still believe Cuba joined the fight. Unbelievable. I can’t fathom any reasons why Castro decided to defend Ethiopia. Seems straight out of fiction.

 

[Dharbaaxo Jin]

Chaos theory don't work as you shift the goalpost in order to find something to pinpoint for.

Very rich for you to say that anyone shifted the goalpost. You bring up things that have nothing to do with this conversation like what the " the whole base of my existence today" is, while running away from the central point we were originally discussing - Afweyne's biggest mistake/policy failure. You illogically believe the biggest failing of a man that destroyed his own country to be his foreign policy. The unbelievable mental acrobatic it takes to arrive at that conclusion is impressive - congratulations.

Somalia is a mess today because of Somalis period. No foreigner caused Somalis to be where they are today. Somalis did. And the godfather of Somali mistakes in that arena is your uncle .He destroyed the country he ruled from point to point and coast to coast. Yet you want to blame those left to pick up to pieces after him, for failing to do a good of a recovery job. Qabyaalad has rotted your brain to have such as primitive reasoning powers.

 

[TekNiKo]

From South to East Africa, wa doqonimo from Barre AUN. Look at TPLF today, that is 100% Somali inkar.

Nice, allahimdullah your safe back home.

AUN he was too soft in my opinion if he was ruthless he would have survived but had no major power backing him. Russia saved Assad and now Syria is 70% under govt control. Somalis need to be disciplined with a hard hand he amended Caydiid"s prisom sentence and gave him a post in India only for him to come back and wreak havoc. MSB wasnt as meciless and his kindness and old age got to him to regret those decisions.

He waa vindicated by the madness that follow, most elders in xamar miss his rule and regretted the tribal madness started by the evil sorcerers of Garowe

 

[Periplus]

The main reason for the civil war, tribalism was strongly present at the time and would show itself violently one day. Especially with the droughts, as dwindling resources are one of the most common reasons for wars.

Under the SYL period tribalism was a problem. However, in my opinion, all the power-brokers of each tribe were in government or military and were somewhat satisfied.

Isaaq had Egal, MJ had Sharmarke/Abdirasaq Hussein, Hawiye had Aden Adde/Abdullahi Isse, RX had Zoppe and MX had Barre in the military.

It was a democratic 4.5. There was complaints but none of these men specifically wanted to get more power for their tribe. Barre wanted power for himself not because MX were left out.

Discontent becomes a war when it receives backing from a high level individual. Under Barre, Egal's support for SNM and Aideed's support for USC turned discontent into a popular struggle. During the SYL, none of these men felt that it was worth it.

 

[TekNiKo]

As I have proven in this thread, he supported colonisation not nationalism.

1. The predecessor to AU, the Organisation for African Unity, was founded years before Barre even took over in Somalia.

2. Barre was instrumental in many African issues but he was also one of the first African leaders to openly deal with the apartheid government in the 1980's. Barre invited an Apartheid government delegation to Somalia in order to secure an arms deal.

You are a liar it was MSB who hosted the first ever OAU meeting and chaired Africa for the first time this is an undeniable fact!


2. You are a liar Siyaad Barre assisted Robert Mugambe and the ANU in Rhodeisha and supported the ANC heavily in the fight against white apartheid. He was also best friends with African hero Idi Amin