Puntland delegation backs Somalilands request for more upper house seats

[Lord Flacko]

MOGADISHU, Somalia- A delegate led by Puntland Vice President, who visited the Somali capital of Mogadishu, were reported to back Somaliland community’s request for higher quota in the Upper House chamber of Federal Parliament, Garowe Online reports.

Somaliland elders and politicians stated the request reflects region’s power-sharing accord during the union of northern and southern regions of Somalia back in 1960.

The letter which was obtained by GO, indicates Puntland Vice President, Abdihakim Haji Abdualhi Omar, Puntland parliamentarian, Sadiq Gaarad and Puntland Minister, Abdi Mohamed were among other signatories, who demanded Somalia’s National Leadership Forum and international community to allocate 33-percent quota for clans hailing from northern region in the upcoming Upper House chamber.

Somaliland elders and politicians stated the endorsement of higher quota would be a significant step in the course to reunite the country.

Earlier, GO has reported that Vice President and MPs hailing from contested regions of Sool, Sanag and Ayn, held talks with politicians and elders from Somaliland elders in Mogadishu, over the disputed seats distribution for clans hailing from northern region.



On the other hand, Puntland President, Abdiwali Mohamed Ali “Gaas” who is attending the ongoing NLF conference in Mogadishu, is believed to have a role in Somaliland’s request for additional seats, which could undermine Puntalnd’s territorial sovereignty.

This comes amid delays to conclude the parliamentary elections in December 2016, and postponement of the Somali presidential election for the fifth time since September 10.

GAROWEONLINE
http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news...dorse-seats-increase-for-somaliland-community

 

[Mustafa]

Iv had a look at the article and came across another article on this issue from the same writers

http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news...-document-was-misinterpreted-says-puntland-vp

Which contradicts the original article.

 

[Cognitivedissonance]

This is a lie I watched mudane Abdi karin caamey Vice President of puntland who hails from buhoodle give a press conference on his talks with omar carte & other Isaac members of the federal government, he made it clear he was fighting to get more seats for puntland and he did, three extra seat for sool, sanaag & ceyn. He denied signing a document that violated puntlands dastuur (constitution) & he made it clear that it's a lie that's been circulated by some of the media outlets.

Start at 2:30

 

[Duchess]

Iv had a look at the article and came across another article on this issue from the same writers

http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news...-document-was-misinterpreted-says-puntland-vp

Which contradicts the original article.

I was just about to say this. I would think it was an honest mistake, but knowing OP it was deliberate. He saw both articles but only posted the first one to be deceptive.

 

[Lord Flacko]

I was just about to say this. I would think it was an honest mistake, but knowing OP it was deliberate. He saw both articles but only posted the first one to be deceptive.

Ok?

Iv had a look at the article and came across another article on this issue from the same writers

http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news...-document-was-misinterpreted-says-puntland-vp

Which contradicts the original article.

Didn't know they were related, thanks for the update/notice.

 

[Duchess]

Ok?

Didn't know they were related, thanks for the update/notice.

I saw you in another thread still posting that now debunked Washington Post article. US Africa Command already issued a press release stating no "troops" ( galmudug, SNA or otherwise) were killed and that they stand behind the drone strike.

http://www.somalispot.com/threads/u...ul-appropriate-did-not-kill-gov-troops.16511/

But of course this doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it. I wouldn't be surprised if you're doing the same thing here.

 

[Lord Flacko]

I saw you in another thread still posting that now debunked Washington Post article. US Africa Command already issued a press release stating no "troops" ( galmudug, SNA or otherwise) were killed and that they stand behind the drone strike.

http://www.somalispot.com/threads/u...ul-appropriate-did-not-kill-gov-troops.16511/

But of course this doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it. I wouldn't be surprised if you're doing the same thing here.

Oh that "local militia" they happened to have killed? Galmudug forces.

In interviews with The Washington Post in a hospital in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, two survivors of the strike who belonged to the Galmadug forces described the way it had hammered their unit.

“Small aircraft, sounding like flies, started hovering over us,” said one survivor, Ali Adan Mohamed. “At about six in the morning the airstrike started, the aircraft fired three missiles.

“I believed that the U.S. was neutral, but now it seems to me that they have sided with one of two clans,” he said.


When Galmadug state officials heard what happened, they were furious with the Americans.

“We responded and struck the hostile force with the belief that it was al-Shabab,” the U.S. official said. “But we recognize that they were Galmadug forces.”

I hadn't read that report, but incase you didn't know

But a new Pentagon report, parts of which were described to The Washington Post, contradicts that initial conclusion.

An American drone strike thought to have struck Islamist militants in Somalia actually killed 10 members of a regional force allied with the United States, according to results of a Pentagon investigation that have not yet been made public.

That was the same report the Washington Post article was made around, as the article was publised citing an unreleased Pentagon report and US officials on the 10. November, and the report was made public five days later. So how can it discredit the article when it is it's source?

Anyways thanks for reaffirming my narrative

 

[Duchess]

They referred to them as local militia, not government troops. If they were recognized as part of the Somali National Army or State troops, they would have been referred to as such. They were nothing more than a clan militia and their deaths were justified.

The Washington Post article said the US made a mistake, the press release says the complete opposite. You can't use the Washington Post to further your narrative while ignoring the official government press release. It shows how deceptive you are.

 

[Lord Flacko]

They referred to them as local militia, not government troops. If they were recognized as part of the Somali National Army or State troops, they would have been referred to as such. They were nothing more than a clan militia and their deaths were justified.

The Washington Post article said the US made a mistake, the press release says the complete opposite. You can't use the Washington Post to further your narrative while ignoring the official government press release. It shows how deceptive you are.

The Washington Post article doesn't say that, a US official who spoke to them did.

“We responded and struck the hostile force with the belief that it was al-Shabab,” the U.S. official said. “But we recognize that they were Galmadug forces.”

The report only confirms the article as it was literally the basis of the article. I can use the article because they used the report, alongside interviewes with US and Western officals and survivors of the attack. How am I being deceptive?

It's clear that the Washington Post article is 100% and reiterated the report while also including more credible and relevant information. In fact it would be more deceptive to rule out the article. Nice try though

 

[Duchess]

Lol you're so desperate it's sad. The Washington Post quoted an unnamed source and an unreleased report vs the OFFICIAL government press release that makes no mention of Galmudug or government troops. How can you use one to further your narrative while the official release debunks it? You're grasping at straws and your deceptive nature is becoming more and more obvious. Give it up.

 

[Lord Flacko]

Lol you're so desperate it's sad. The Washington Post quoted an unnamed source and an unreleased report vs the OFFICIAL government press release that makes no mention of Galmudug or government troops. How can you use one to further your narrative while the official release debunks it? You're grasping at straws and your deceptive nature is becoming more and more obvious. Give it up.

Youre lying to yourself. Who are the "local militia"?


The official report doesnt debunk anything, because the article is literally based of it. How many times to I need to tell you that? The Washington Post even said their source was an unreleased report, which got released after the article was released. The article also had an unnamed US official who corroborated some things, because the report was unreleased so s/he couldnt go on record. Are you really going to doubt The Washington Post?

The only missing link that you're willfully ignoring is that the local militia mention were Galmudug forces.

In interviews with The Washington Post in a hospital in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, two survivors of the strike who belonged to the Galmadug forces described the way it had hammered their unit.

“Small aircraft, sounding like flies, started hovering over us,” said one survivor, Ali Adan Mohamed. “At about six in the morning the airstrike started, the aircraft fired three missiles.

“I believed that the U.S. was neutral, but now it seems to me that they have sided with one of two clans,” he said.


When Galmadug state officials heard what happened, they were furious with the Americans.

“We responded and struck the hostile force with the belief that it was al-Shabab,” the U.S. official said. “But we recognize that they were Galmadug forces.”

Shortly after the attack, officials in Galmadug began accusing the United States of killing its own allies. They released images of government vehicles destroyed by the strike. There were protests in the streets. People burned American flags.

“There is not any justification that could lead to such disaster,” Minister Osman Ise Nur, the head of Galmadug’s security operations, said in a phone interview. “We were amazed with what has happened to our forces despite the fact that they were fighting al-Shabab.”

Not long after the strike, Stephen M. Schwartz, the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to Somalia, met with Abdikarim Hussein Guled, the president of Galmadug, and other local officials. Galmadug officials said the ambassador apologized for the strike.

Why blind yourself? All the qoutes I just posted confirms it. Galmudug officials, U.S Ambassador, survivors and U.S Officials. The truth is right infront of you. I'm just repeating myself now

 

[Duchess]

How can the Washington Post article be based off of the same report when they literally mention things that are not stated in the official press release? The Washington Post used an "unnamed" US official and the article itself makes claims that are debunked by the US government. If that isn't biased, I don't know what is.

Have you ever taken a class in research? This is some basic stuff you should have learned in 9th grade. You are entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. The US government mentions Puntland by name, but refers to those killed as "local militia". No mention of Galmudug or the SNA. Furthermore the US government stands behind their actions and said it was appropriate. Thus, one can conclude that the US government does not believe Galmudug's narrative but you do and you are continuing to further that narrative because you happen to hail from the region. It's deceptive to post a biased article but convinently ignore an official press release because it hurts your narrative. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Lord Flacko]

How can the Washington Post article be based off of the same report when they literally mention things that are not stated in the official press release?

They mention the same while also including corroborating information like interviews (survivors, U.S Official), statements (Galmudug, US,) and related news ( U.S. Ambassador visit to Galmudug President after attack)

The Washington Post used an "unnamed" US official and the article itself makes claims that are debunked by the US government. If that isn't biased, I don't know what is.

The Washington Post is a highly respected intistution, which is why they were given the report before it was released. The article makes no claims that were debunked. The official report as of 15. Nov, used local militia instead of US ally Galmudug as a way to dampen and lessen response. As evident by Galmudug officials, visit to Galmudug President by U.S Ambassador, survivors of the attack (who The Washington Post met personally in an interview) and U.S Officials themselves. As evident by qoutes in spoiler

Spoiler

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

If that isn't biased, I don't know what is.

The Washington Post are Galmudug supporters? And view above for direct unbiased qoutes that corroborate the story,

Furthermore the US government stands behind their actions and said it was appropriate. Thus, one can conclude that the US government does not believe Galmudug's narrative but you do and you are continuing to further that narrative because you happen to hail from the region.

Though we can disagree between the events leading to the attack, there is no denying that the victims were Galmudug soldiers

It's deceptive to post a biased article but convinently ignore an official press release because it hurts your narrative. Thanks for proving my point.

This "biased" article is written by the Washington Post, who were respected enough to get the Official Press Release Report, before it was released, and who did their own journalistic job by interviewing U.S Officals, Galmudug Officials, survivors of the attack, Western officials and including relevant information on Somalia and the U.S Ambassadors visit to the Galmudug President.

The Washington Post aren't a clan news site. They have won 47 Pulitzer Prizes, they are over a 100 years old and they are highly respectable. Though this does not mean they can't be biased, there is no clear bias in this reporting. It was written by Kevin Sieff, journalist who's stationed in Nairobi. The article only reports the situation with high accuracy.