ETHIOPIA’S FRAUDDDDDDDD!!!

[killerxsmoke]

Bro, he threw Xawaadles into the Webi and Ciise M off valleys. He even xooged D&M lands of all places

God damn but I think the reason why he done is that they were traitors to islam

 

[𐒁𐒚𐒒𐒂𐒘𐒂𐒗 𐒎𐒚𐒗𐒗𐒒]

There was a Turkish troops in adal army so.

Last I checked Turkey was in Asia, not a "neighbouring Sultan".

Did the Turks rule the Horn of Africa? Was Adal a vessel of the Ottomans? If that's what he is talking about he needs to make that clear. You can't run a 'History' channel and not be precise and factual.

 

[𐒁𐒚𐒒𐒂𐒘𐒂𐒗 𐒎𐒚𐒗𐒗𐒒]

God damn but I think the reason why he done is that they were traitors to islam

Opposing Sayid Abdulle doesn't make someone a 'traitor to Islam', he was not a prophet of Islam. WTF

 

[killerxsmoke]

Opposing Sayid Abdulle doesn't make someone a 'traitor to Islam', he was not a prophet of Islam. WTF

he mostly killed isaaqs coz they were with the British

 

[Shimbiris]

The Mahdists of Sudan did a similar thing, though unlike Tewodros, he actually defeated the British

Yes, the Mahdi was very much the Sudanese equivalent of the two. If you ask me, all three should have taken the route of King Abdulaziz of the al-Saud and just allied with and kow-towed to great powers like Britain to their advantage instead of being dogmatic toward them. As an old Somali proverb roughly goes "Kiss the hand you cannot cut". But, to be fair, our predecessors in East Africa didn't have the opportunity to learn the same lesson as the al-Saud when dealing with superpowers and by the time they had it was too late:

We East Africans need to learn the same lesson the Saud family learned with the first Saudi State. They reared their heads at the Ottomans back then who were still rather powerful. It resulted in the head of the Saud family back then being brought to Istanbul and beheaded (his head was crushed like walnut after as well) and many members of the Al as-Sheikh family were also brutally killed. The House of Saud's fire was almost utterly extinguished and eversince then the family learned an important lesson; do not fight the superpowers of the day but instead cooperate with them. Even at the annoyance of some of the Ulama, Abdulaziz was always wise not to upset powers like Britain, Italy and the United States in his day and instead created alliances with whichever he could and now look at how high Saudi Arabia flies and has for the last century.

I'm sorry but right now the Khaleejis have more wealth and power than us. We need to accept that and make alliances with them that still allow us to develop. Let them manage our ports if they'll give us world-class ports, I say. Let them meddle in our politics if they'll build roads, desalination plants or whatever else. They are the power of the day and we need to accept our place and bide our time as they did.

Arabians in general also had more historical experience with vast and powerful empires neighboring them. What had Horners ever seen other than loose Ottoman presences on our coast during the early modern era? They really had no concept of how powerful the outside world's great powers were, I reckon, and as people never really ruled by outsiders for much of their history there was a certain amount of pride present that would be their downfall.

 

[GemState]

Yes, the Mahdi was very much the Sudanese equivalent of the two. If you ask me, all three should have taken the route of King Abdulaziz of the al-Saud and just allied with and kow-towed to great powers like Britain to their advantage instead of being dogmatic toward them. As an old Somali proverb roughly goes "Kiss the hand you cannot cut". But, to be fair, our predecessors in East Africa didn't have the opportunity to learn the same lesson as the al-Saud when dealing with superpowers and by the time they had it was too late:



Arabians in general also had more historical experience with vast and powerful empires neighboring them. What had Horners ever seen other than loose Ottoman presences on our coast during the early modern era? They really had no concept of how powerful the outside world's great powers were, I reckon, and as people never really ruled by outsiders for much of their history there was a certain amount of pride present that would be their downfall.

Funny you mention Abdulaziz, the son of Sudan's Mahdi was offered Kingship of Sudan, but he denied it due to religious reasons

 

[Darood]

The man was evil to the core he claimed to own all land from tanzania to the egyption bordars.
He wanted to control the whole of east africa and force their muslims inhabitants to ethier convert or leave he's land, meaning the land of the muslims he wanted to conquer.

He forced muslims in his territory to convert and it was said that in the day they would pray with orthodox and durning the night they would pray in mosques. He cried for european help for his conquest and when he was unable to get any he played with fire and took some english men to hold them for ransome. The british empire destoryed him in a day and he was no more.

Interesting. He’s presented as an anti colonial resistance fighter in the UK.

I could never fathom why the British stole his hair and placed it in a museum.

 

[Sajid]

Last I checked Turkey was in Asia, not a "neighbouring Sultan".

Did the Turks rule the Horn of Africa? Was Adal a vessel of the Ottomans? If that's what he is talking about he needs to make that clear. You can't run a 'History' channel and not be precise and factual.

Ottoman send troops to aid the adalites

 

[reer_ugaas_hussein]

God damn but I think the reason why he done is that they were traitors to islam

You are a true Ogaden walaal, defending our adeer sayyid like that, mashallah. Don't listen to the haters

 

[killerxsmoke]

You are a true Ogaden walaal, defending our adeer sayyid like that, mashallah. Don't listen to the haters

if u didnt know i am sacad

 

[reer_ugaas_hussein]

if u didnt know i am sacad

Yes, makahil ogaden, I know. I am your brother from the malingur ogaden.

 

[reer]

Yes, the Mahdi was very much the Sudanese equivalent of the two. If you ask me, all three should have taken the route of King Abdulaziz of the al-Saud and just allied with and kow-towed to great powers like Britain to their advantage instead of being dogmatic toward them. As an old Somali proverb roughly goes "Kiss the hand you cannot cut". But, to be fair, our predecessors in East Africa didn't have the opportunity to learn the same lesson as the al-Saud when dealing with superpowers and by the time they had it was too late:



Arabians in general also had more historical experience with vast and powerful empires neighboring them. What had Horners ever seen other than loose Ottoman presences on our coast during the early modern era? They really had no concept of how powerful the outside world's great powers were, I reckon, and as people never really ruled by outsiders for much of their history there was a certain amount of pride present that would be their downfall.

abyssinia is the 2nd oldest christian state. even if sayidka worked with the brits they would not allow him to continue controlling swathes of land especially in somali galbeed.

 

[killerxsmoke]

Yes, makahil ogaden, I know. I am your brother from the Mohamed zubair ogaden.

 

[Garaad diinle]

Interesting. He’s presented as an anti colonial resistance fighter in the UK.

I could never fathom why the British stole his hair and placed it in a museum.

There were a british man that was praising tewodros excessively and lobbying for him throught his writing. Ethiopia wouldn't have existed if it weren't for europeans.

The french russian and the british armed the amhara meanwhile they blockaded the somali ports and went as far as chasing somali merchant ships to prevent them from buying weapons. The russians trained amhars on how to use firearms and the british sent them advicers to help them with their wars. Britiain went as far as to fight amharas wars for them and chased the sayid for the amhars. The british fought somalis in northern somalia in ogaden and in jubaland while helping the ethiopians. Southern somalis led by the colonial power conquerd the whole of ethiopia easily when there were no european involvement.

 

[Shimbiris]

abyssinia is the 2nd oldest christian state. even if sayidka worked with the brits they would not allow him to continue controlling swathes of land especially in somali galbeed.

He would have to concede Galbeed or a good chunk of it. Hard to imagine but if Abdulaziz could let go of taking the Trucial states, Southern Iraq and parts of what are now Jordan to avoid the British's ire, the Sayyid could have learned the same prudence. Abdulaziz didn't even take the Hejaz until he noticed the Brits were fine with it:

You are a well-read man, mashallah. Take the heart with stride, niyahow. But I would interject that a key part of him leaving Yemen was the fact that it earned both the ire of the British and the Italians and the British made it apparent that they would not support him if he remained in Yemen and came into conflict with the Italians. This was not too dissimilar to the fumblings of the Sharifs of Makkah when they continued to piss off the Brits which resulted in the British remaining quiet when Abdulaziz tried his luck with conquering the Hejaz. Abdulaziz didn't seem to want to make the same mistake. No angering superpowers.

Furthermore, I don't think he wouldn't have taken over the Trucial States and Kuwait out of some sense of honor. Abdulaziz was a shrewd and reasonable man who probably would have allowed them their local autonomy and even intermarried with them perhaps but he was also quite ambitious and his family's debt to the Kuwaitis who gave them asylum didn't deter him from taking 2/3rds of Kuwait's land as a concession from the British when they told him he couldn't have lands in southern Iraq.

 

[Saciid]

God damn but I think the reason why he done is that they were traitors to islam

He also raided HG, were they traitors to Islam?

 

[reer]

He would have to concede galbeed. Hard to imagine but if Abdulaziz could let go of taking the Trucial states, Southern Iraq and parts of what are now Jordan to avoid the British's ire he Sayyid could have learned the same prudence. Abdulaziz didn't even take the Hejaz until he noticed the Brits were fine with it:

conceding galbeed to british and menelik would kill the dervishes. that was main dervish territory and big source of manpower. no red blooded somali would stand by and watch his fellow clansmen be violated and r@ped by menelik hordes in front of them while the british disarm them. the dervishes and ottomans were a big source of weapon proliferation.

 

[Shimbiris]

conceding galbeed to british and menelik would kill the dervishes. that was main dervish territory and big source of manpower. no red blooded somali would stand by and watch his fellow clansmen be violated by menelik in front of them while the british disarm them. the dervishes and ottomans were a big source of weapon proliferation.

View attachment 245870

Yeah, that would be quite the conundrum. He could perhaps argue to the Brits that it's not even Abyssinian land to begin with and agree on a buffer zone around Harar? But yes, giving them all or much of Galbeed would be suicide in more ways than just losing a power base. He would be deposed overnight, I reckon.

 

[Saciid]

There were a british man that was praising tewodros excessively and lobbying for him throught his writing. Ethiopia wouldn't have existed if it weren't for europeans.

The french russian and the british armed the amhara meanwhile they blockaded the somali ports and went as far as chasing somali merchant ships to prevent them from buying weapons. The russians trained amhars on how to use firearms and the british sent them advicers to help them with their wars. Britiain went as far as to fight amharas wars for them and chased the sayid for the amhars. The british fought somalis in northern somalia in ogaden and in jubaland while helping the ethiopians. Southern somalis led by the colonial power conquerd the whole of ethiopia easily when there were no european involvement.

Come on bro, I except better from u than to say stuff like without Euros Ethiopia wouldn't exist.

As for the weapons stuff, it was a minor factor to our loss. Ethiopia simply had better leaders and reactions to European colonialism.

There's way to much cope ab modern Ethiopian empire and our colonialization

 

[reer]

Yeah, that would be quite the conundrum. He could perhaps argue to the Brits that it's not even Abyssinian land to begin with and agree on a buffer zone around Harar? But yes, giving them all or much of Galbeed would be suicide in more ways than just losing a power base. He would be deposed overnight, I reckon.

also somalia is a muslim nomads vs the 2nd oldest christian state. most of galbeed is wild west territory today. also a reason why galbeed was given my opinion. i think its an overlooked reason.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.