• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Somali pirates receive record ransom for ships' release

A person can only die once, and we're speaking about individuals here not a country.
To suggest that all Somalis are pirates is to generalize (to say the least), and the individuals that constitute as the Somali pirates would fear death no less than the other person, especially more than they fear a sack of gold.

Not really.
All Somali's aren't pirates. Piracy is located within certain areas of Somalia but it is funded by foreign and "Big bosses" (< Including the " Somali Government" US funds and supports, Puntland officals, Kenya and so on). The only people not in the pocket of the pirates are Islamists and we all know how much US hates those people. The only people capable of preventing Piracy are the same people US helped overthrow with Ethiopia.

Threatening death on people who have seen death for decades will make little difference especially when piracy is the difference between eating and not eating. It is that simple. The risk of not going is higher.
 
Attempting to twist my words. Nice try.

I'm not twisting your words; I'm showing you what the implication of them is. Sorry if you don't like it, but no one made you say them.


Somalia is not made to have a centralized authority. It has run for hundreds on years on tribal politics. Not Westernized Governance.

Now you're backpedaling. You said it was "ungovernable." No one said anything about "westernized" anything. That's baggage you're adding now.
 
I'm not twisting your words; I'm showing you what the implication of them is. Sorry if you don't like it, but no one made you say them.

Now you're backpedaling. You said it was "ungovernable." No one said anything about "westernized" anything. That's baggage you're adding now.

It is ungovernable in the sense that there will never be written law that is followed. No Army, no police, no state run Hospitals/Education. No Parliament, no President, no courts, no taxes or regulation, no "State", no constitution. No Public property (nearly everything is owned by clans and sub clans). Nearly everything that defines a Country and Governance will not be there.
 
Last edited:
It is ungovernable in the sense that there will never be written law that is followed. No Army, no police, no state run Hospitals/Education. No Parliament, no President, no courts, no taxes or regulation, no "State", no constitution. No Public property (nearly everything is owned by clans and sub clans). Nearly everything that defines a Country and Governance will not be there.
So you consider them no more capable of achieving civilization than any other troop of baboons?
 
So you consider them no more capable of achieving civilization than any other troop of baboons?

Why does Somalia need what the West determines is Governance to be civilized?

I'd rather Somalia reverts back to how it was in the old days. It doesn't need Western Governance. It failed anyway
 
Last edited:
So you consider them no more capable of achieving civilization than any other troop of baboons?
"Civilization" takes many different forms, and cultural development is not linear.

Anyway, I think the native Somali culture lets the women run around topless. I'm cool with that. :pimpdaddy:
 
"Civilization" takes many different forms, and cultural development is not linear.

Anyway, I think the native Somali culture lets the women run around topless. I'm cool with that. :pimpdaddy:

That would not be native Somali culture though, nor Ethopian. Both countries are rather religous in nature (christian or muslim) and as such more modest

You would be thinking of cultures of the tribes that are more animist in nature and they would be located more towards the interior of Africa (southern Sudan, Chad etc)
 
OK, then you consider them to be wild animals who will never amount to anything. :shrug: You can't have it both ways.

A region that is not likely for generations be ruled by a central government does not mean they are animals
 
"Civilization" takes many different forms, and cultural development is not linear.

Anyway, I think the native Somali culture lets the women run around topless. I'm cool with that. :pimpdaddy:
:lamo

We like wearing slightly see through dresses or rather we did until they were banned by the Islamists in Somalia. Our dancing and clothes were deemed "unislamic"

n507134565109961282rw4.jpg


The guys wear these:
images


YouTube - Somali Niiko Dance(Jowhar.com)
 
That would not be native Somali culture though, nor Ethopian. Both countries are rather religous in nature (christian or muslim) and as such more modest

You would be thinking of cultures of the tribes that are more animist in nature and they would be located more towards the interior of Africa (southern Sudan, Chad etc)
Ah, right. I stand corrected.
 
We like wearing slightly see through dresses or rather we did until they were banned by the Islamists in Somalia. Our dancing and clothes were deemed "unislamic"

n507134565109961282rw4.jpg
Those Islamist bastards! :2mad:
 
I will say that of African women I do find those of eastern africa to be the most attractive
 
A region that is not likely for generations be ruled by a central government does not mean they are animals

Not generations. Centuries.

Many do not understand Somalia so always seek to judge how Somali's operated as uncivilized.
Somalia has only been a country for a few decades. We were never united. The whole EA region were filled with Somali's but we were never united into a "country" until the colonials came and split it and made borders.

Somali order comes from our historical legal code which has lasted centuries, the Xeer, which is interpreted by clan elders and informally enforced, mainly with ostracism being the key punishment. Islamic law was reserved mostly for matters of divorce and inheritance but was generally extremely weak.

Somali had a very "ordered Anarchy" for centuries. We had no centralized authority. That is why we revile the Western system where it is centralized and reject it.
The reason we reject it is because democracy is essentially split into two groups to Somalis. Those who rule and those who are ruled. That thought process is toxic to Somali tradition.

It was very democratic actually. Somalis would choose a Elder who was elected. He would then represent his clan when trouble occurred or when negotiations needed to occur with other clans.

When foreigners came ... for example when the British came. The British made a deal with each individual tribe leader for use of the port and signed an agreement with each one.
Xeer was a African rule of law that was attempted by the Italians to be wiped but thank god it survived in HOA but has been weakened.


Justice to Somali's is defined by terms of property rights. The law is compensatory rather than punitive. It focuses on compensating the victim rather than punishing the perpetrator.

It is very complex how Somali's do justice but I will try and explained, so bear with me.

There was almost no imprisonment for crimes in Somalia or wasn't and fines were extremely rare and any fine are not payable to any court or government, but directly to the victim.

So there was little need for police officers/law enforcement.
In Somali culture if a prominent public figure violates the law, he pays double what would be required of an ordinary person as they are expected more than anyone else to live up to the high standards. Somali's because xeer is based on property rights oppose any form of taxation (another reason why there will be no centralized Government)

Compensation requires the individual to be fully paid for their grievances.
This is where our clan system comes into play.
If the guilty person cannot pay the individual, his clan kin is responsible for paying it.
This has the effect of self policing their own clan. While on other continents like the US and Europe re-education and rehabilitation of criminals is typically a task of the government in Somali culture it is the responsibility of the family and clan to sort out their own and if the criminal continually repeats violating the law and the tab keeps falling on the clan. They can expel him, which in effect makes him a outlaw causing him to lose the protection of his clan.

The third aspect of Somali xeer is our Judicial services. Anyone can become a Judge in Somalia as long as he is not also religious and political. That is not allowed and breaks Somali traditional separation of religion from court and politics as long as they are aware if they break the law, they suffer double that of a normal person.

That is why Democracy goes against everything in Somali culture and centralized authority, we despise it. We despise any Government in any form in Somalia.

I'm sorry. I have probably bored everyone but one must understand Somalia before trying to think of solutions :3oops:
 
Justice to Somali's is defined by terms of property rights. The law is compensatory rather than punitive. It focuses on compensating the victim rather than punishing the perpetrator.
How does this justify the piracy with which they annoy their neighbors?
 
How does this justify the piracy with which they annoy their neighbors?

They are responding to the theft of their resources, specifically fish within the 200 mile coastal limits.

Somali pirates were originally fishermen who could no longer fish as there was not many left


Meaning the Somali's turned to piracy when their primary source of income was stolen from them. You cant fish but you have boats, you turn to smuggling or to piracy
 
Last edited:
How does this justify the piracy with which they annoy their neighbors?

I have no idea what you are talking about. When one is desperate, one does desperate things. One man's pirate is another's coast guard to Somalis in the South.

Xeer is no longer as strong in the South. The reason for this can be traced to the colonial history of the South and North and partly explains why the North is so peaceful and democratic and the South is in Anarchy.
The British left Somaliland intact, it didn't touch our traditions or law. It simply acted through the Elders so their authority was strong.
In the South. Italy completely destroyed Somalia's clan structure, it implemented its own Governance and weakened Elder's authority. Italy also attempted mass education, the result being a weakened tradition and a poorly educated populace. In the North, the British only sent a small number to their Universities. The result? A small but highly educated minority who were able to take leadership when the occasion called for it.

So when we had our democracy, which failed and then our dictator who was overthrown. The North quickly went back to our organized Anarchy whereas the South had little to fall back on, went to Anarchy.
 
Last edited:
They are responding to the theft of their resources, specifically fish within the 200 mile coastal limits.

Somali pirates were originally fishermen who could no longer fish as there was not many left
So who stole "their" fish? And if they have a valid claim, why not go to court?

As it is, it seems you are just trying to justify the pirates' version of might makes right - they have turned to piracy because it works (for now). May I assume you have no problem with the pirates suffering the consequences of bringing a knife to a gunfight?
 
So who stole "their" fish? And if they have a valid claim, why not go to court?

As it is, it seems you are just trying to justify the pirates' version of might makes right - they have turned to piracy because it works (for now). May I assume you have no problem with the pirates suffering the consequences of bringing a knife to a gunfight?

Given the lack of a real central government, they dont really have the ability to take China, Japan, Spain, Portugal, and the other major fishing nations to international court, even if they did, they would not have the resources to enforce any decision made by the court

I am not justifing anything. I am explaining the situation, I understand why they turned to piracy.
 
So who stole "their" fish? And if they have a valid claim, why not go to court?

As it is, it seems you are just trying to justify the pirates' version of might makes right - they have turned to piracy because it works (for now). May I assume you have no problem with the pirates suffering the consequences of bringing a knife to a gunfight?

Somali's don't have a central Government that can sufficently represent us in a Court.

And a poor African country winning against European and Asian countries?

****ing LOL
 
I think those pictures shows my good taste
Have you seen Laila's picture? She's definitely one of those hot E. African chicks.*


















* Translation - I'd knock the bottom out of her.
 
Back
Top Bottom