Fursaddii ugu Danbaysay ee Soo marta DFKS Xasan Dhooye (Abuu Xafso) dhooye@hotmail.com | June 16, 2006 Sida aan lawada socono waxaa ka dhacay Soomaaliya isbadel taariikhi ah oo aan horay uga dhicin, waxaadna xasuusaynaysaa maahmaahdii xikmada xambaarsanyd ee ahayd “xaqa hadii afka laga owdo feeruhuu ka dilaacaaâ€. Waxaa Koonfurta Soomaaliya inteedii badnayd xoog kula wareegay hirar kacdoon shacab ah oo ay horkacayaan Midowga Maxaakimta Islaamiga, sababta keentay kacdoonkaana waa Markii ay ku dhawaaqeen qabqablayaashii Koonfurta Soomaaliya intoodii badnayd in ay sameeyeen urur ay ugu yeerayn “soo celinta Nabada iyo ladagaalanka Argagixisada†shacabkuse u bixiyeen “Isbahaysiga Shaydaanka iyo ladagaalanka Diintaâ€. Ururkan samayntiisa oo leh sababo badan ayna ka mid tahay in Maraykanku uu ku bixiyey lacag badan $100.000.-$150.000 bishiiba inuu shaqeeyo ururkaan daraadeed khaasatan laanta CIA sida Saxaafada caalamku ay aad u baahiyeen asbuucaan, waliba ay raaciyeen dadbadan oo siyaasiyiin ajnabi una dhuun daloola bariga Africa iyo Soomaaliyaba inay ahayd talaabo qaldan ayna kasoo baxeen waxaan lafilayn. Waxaa muuqata in saxaafada Caalamku warkasta madaxdiisa ay kusoo qaadanayaan Soomaaliya aduunkuna aad ugu mashquulsan yahay hadal haynta arrimaha Soomaaliya, ilaa Maraykanka oo horay go’aan ugu qaatay marka laga hadlayo Soomaaliya inuu yiraahdo “Fiiri oo ka aamus†uu Maanta qabtay Shir uu hormuud ka yahay ayna kasoo qayb galeen Maraykan,Yurub, Tanzaaniya iyo goob jooga yaal kale, taasoo ka xanaajisay wadamada Carabta iyo wadomo Afrikaan ah oo iyagu is bidayey in Soomaaliya loo sii maro sababo jira owgood. Hadaba waxay tahay su’aashu maxaa Caalamka iska badalay oo ka hadlinaya 15 sano kadib?, dabcan waa su’aal wayn laakiin aan dib ugu dhigano qoraaladeena kale insha Allaah. Waxaa kaloo iswaydiin leh Maxaa aamusiyey DFKS?, iyadoo waxaan oo isbadala ka dhacayaan wadankeedii walibana Caasimada iyo agagaarkeeda oo u jirta masaafo aan saas uga dheerayn Baydhabo, ilaa hadda la maqal warsaxaafad oo kasoo baxay laamaheeda ama shir kusaabsan arintaas oo ay qabatay halka New York Maanta lagu falan qaynayey arinta soomaaliya loona magacaabay urur cusub. - Jawaabtu waxay noqon kartaa waa dowlad markii horeba aan shacabku dooran oo gacan ku rimis ahayd, taasina waxay qasbaysaa inay sugto wax loo soo yeeriyo. - Waxay marka hore ansax sanayeen in wadanka lakeeno Ciidamo ajnabi ah oo faragin military sameeya, sida shalay loogu codeeyey Baydhabo. - Waxay sugaysaa Shirka ka dhacayey New York wixii kasoo baxa maadaama maanta ay haystaan indho badan oo danaynaya Soomaaliya afkana ku dhufanaya DFKS magaceeda inkastoo wali aysan cadayn ujeedada ka danbaysa. - Iyagoo ay haysato laba daran midooro, haday taageeraan kacdoonka shacabka oo ay hogaaminayaan Maxaakimtu, waxay luminayaan taageerada reer galbeedka iyo Africa qaybteedba dhistay. Hadii ay hadal adag oo go’aana kana dhana kacdoonka soo saaraan waxaa dhici karta in Magaalada kumeel gaarka ay u joogaan uu kaga furmo kacdoon lamida kan hada soco. - Waxaa laga yaabaa inay ku fakarayaan qaadista talaabada qaraar ee ah in wadanka la keeno ciidamo shisheeye taasina ay dhaliso iska hor imaad iyo diidmo hindisaha DFKS sidaana ay marmarsiinyo u noqoto, kuna qanciyaan Ajnabiga ay leeyihiin talo hoosaadka, kuna helaan taageero dhaqaale iyo cidiimo ka awood roon kuwa hada ay Maxaakimtu hogaaminyaan oo ay rajaynayaan inay kacdoonka shacabka ku muquuniyaan. Haddaan dib u milicsano Fursadihii Soomaray DFKS way badnaayeen waxaana la oran karaa ugama faa’iidaysan sidii larabay 80%, hadaba miyaan la oran Karin tani waa fursadii ugu danbaysay ee Soomarta?, Maadaama Caasimada iyo Nawaaxigeedii la wareegeen hirar Kacdoon shacab ah oo ay hogaaminayaan Maxaakim Islaami ah, Isla markiina ay ku dhawaaqeen inay Soo dhawaynayaan DFKS wada hadala la furayaan. Dagaaladaas oo ay uga xoog roonaadeen Maxaakimtu qayb kamida Wasiiradeedii oo horay ugu madax taagay Awaamirtooda, kadibse ay usuura gashay DFKS inay xilka ka qaadaan markii la jabiyey kadib, iyadoo taas laftigeedu iswaydiin mudan tahay!, Maxaa horay loogu dhiiran waayey. Hadaba maxay tahay Fursada ugu danbaysa ee ay haystaan DFKS?, waxaan oran karaa waa inay tixgaliyaan shacabka aan dooran rabitaankooda waana inay fikiraan iyagoo soo jeeda, indha hooduna furan yihiin, waa inay dareemaan isbadalka dhakhsaha badan ee socda intaysan noqon mid daahda. Fursadaha taagan waa in sida u dhakhsaha badan ugu dhawaaqaan shir dag dag ah oo ku saabsan arinta hada ka socota Soomaaliya, waa inay ku dhawaaqaan hakinta dalbashada ciidamada shisheeye iyadoo sababtii loo dalbanayeyba ay meesha ka baxday,sidoo kalena waa inay cusumaad heer sare ah u diraan Midowga Maxaakimta ayna muujiyaan isu soo dhowaansho, waxaa kaloo muhiima inay xasuustaan dowladaan inay ku dhisnayd awood qaybsi, hadii awoodihii hore meesha ka baxeen dabcan cidii badashaa matalaysa. Waxaa kaloo Fursad qaali ah oo maanta hortaal DFKS Taageerada Maraykanku uu hada muujiyey iyadoo aan walibana la hubin noocay noqonayso, isagoo horay uga indho saabtay codsiyadii iyo cabashooyinkii kasoo yeerayey dowlada curdanka ah oo aan rug iyo raas toona haysan markaas, iyo taageeradii shacabka Soomaaliyeed siiyeen DFKS meelay joogaanba markii la dhisay, marka laga reebo dad tiro yar. DFKS ma Maraykan kay raaci doontaa oo dhinac maray taageerayna Qabqablayaashii ku gacan sayray?, mise shacabkeeda ilaa hada soo dhawaynta kuwada?, waa fursad laakiin jawaabteeda aan waqtiga u dayno. Hadaan laga faa’iidaysan fursadahaas qaaliga ah oo maalmaha nagu soo aadan aan Baydhabo war laga maqal shacabka Soomaaliyeed lama yaabi doonaan in Baydhabana Maxkamad looga dhawaaqo DFKS intooda danbiilaha ahna ay qoxooti ku noqdaan Kenya ama Itoobiya sida saaxiibadoodii oo kale. Wabilaahi Towfiig Soomaaliya Soomali baaleh. Xasan Dhooye (Abuu Xafso) dhooye@hotmail.com

Wait a minute if y'all men want to go war with Xabashos (Ethopians) where is that gonna leave us (women). I will be the first one to get the water for y'all. It is really sicking to see someone of us laughting this, this is serious, xabashos are just hoping to get this opportunity to invide Soomaaliya, and someone us lol, it shows that how some of us are seriously dead inside, but we don't need someone who is really dead inside..... hay, let's not allowd this xabashos get this chance inta aan noolnahay...... Go figure:.............

Midowga Maxkamadaha Islaamka oo beeniyay in ay diideen in Muqdisho lagu daawado Ciyaaraha Adduunka Talaado, June 13, 2006 (HOL): Maalmihii tegay ayaa magaalada Muqdisho waxaa la isla dhexmarayay warar sheegayay in Midowga Maxkamadaha Islaamka ay Xaafadda Suuqa Xoolaha ku soo rogeen xayiraad ah in aan la daawan karin ciyaaraha Adduunka, walow warkaasi uu ahaa mid aan si rasmi ah u soo shaac bixin. Haddaba Guddoomiyaha Midowga Maxkamadaha Islaamka Shiikh Shariif Shiikh Axmed ayaa beeniyay warkaas oo uu ku tilmaamay mid aan jirin oo looga been abuurtay, wuxuuna caddeeyay in aaney xiligan Midowga Maxkamadaha fursad u heynin xayiraad ay ku soo rogaan daawashada ciyaaraha Adduunka. Shiikh Shariif waxaa uu intaas ku daray in xiligan ay ku dhex taagan yihiin qadiyado culus oo xasaasi ah, wuxuuna carrabka ku adkeeyay in wararkaasi ay buun buuniyeen Saxaafadda, gaar ahaan kuwa shisheeyaha. Midowga Maxkamadaha Islaamka ayaa Soonkii la soo dhaafay waxay magaalada Muqdisho ka sameeyeen howlgallo ay ku xireen shineemooyinka, iyadoo intii ay howlgalkaas wadeena albaabada u laabay Shirkad Filimada Hindiga Af-Soomaali u bedeli jirtay, taasi oo lagu magacaabi jiray Al-Faghi. Hadalka Guddoomiyaha Midowga Maxkamadaha Islaamka Muqdisho waxaa si weyn u soo dhaweeyay dhalinyaro badan oo wel wel ka qabay in laga joojiyo daawashada Ciyaaraha Adduunka oo ah ciyaar ay dadka intiisa badan daawadaan. Salaad Iidow Xasan (Xiis) Hiiraan Online sxiis@hiiraan.com Mogadishu, Somalia

Waraa tuujiye waxaan kaa iloobay, qofta wax maqorto nooh, marka sxiib tan waa is maqlaysiin lee nooh, teefanka ii soo dhiibhee aan siiyee qofta (Waxaan ka baqaa inay garan waydo sida loo diro teefankane) waa ku soo wacee nooh..... Go figure:.........

Our Failure in Somalia By John Prendergast Wednesday, June 7, 2006; Page A23 It was before "Black Hawk Down," before Somalia became the only country in the world without a government, that I took my first trip there. It changed my life. This was in the mid-1980s, when the United States was underwriting a warlord dictator in support of our Cold War interests, at the clear expense of basic human rights. As a young, wide-eyed activist-in-training, I couldn't accept the idea that my government would use defenseless Somali civilians as pawns on its strategic chessboard -- in a strategy that ultimately produced only state collapse, civil war and famine. Twenty years later the enemy has changed, but the plot is hauntingly similar. In recent trips to the capital, Mogadishu, I have seen evidence of U.S. support to warlord militia leaders in the name of counterterrorism operations. Since the beginning of the year, pitched battles between U.S.-backed warlords and Islamist militias in Mogadishu have claimed hundreds of lives and displaced thousands of families. Now "our" warlords -- and by extension our counterterrorism strategy -- have been dealt a crushing defeat by the Islamists, as the latter have consolidated control of Mogadishu. Our short-term interest in locating al-Qaeda suspects has thus been undermined, and the risk of a new safe haven being created for international terrorists has been greatly increased. The statelessness in Somalia has already been allowing al-Qaeda and other destructive forces to operate there. The president of a neighboring country told me recently that the "governance vacuum is growing larger, with very negative implications for Somalia. It increases the potential for international terrorists to use the structures that are filling the vacuum for safe haven and logistical purposes." It was partly from Somali soil that al-Qaeda organized and carried out two serious terrorist attacks, in Kenya and Tanzania, against U.S. embassies and a foreign-owned hotel, and narrowly missed bringing down an Israeli passenger jet with two surface-to-air missiles. A plot to crash an airplane into the U.S. Embassy in Kenya was foiled. "Soft" targets are legion throughout East Africa, and intelligence indicates that new attacks are being planned. Somalia is an al-Qaeda recruiter's dream -- with rampant unemployment, travel restrictions, and no government or foreign investment -- and young Somalis will turn to terrorism for money and, occasionally, because of shared ideology. Schools run by Islamic charities are graduating large numbers of students, many of whom are being taught in Arabic instead of Somali and who have no prospect of meaningful work. Drug dealers and militias looking to restart conflict over economic interests find easy recruits, further destabilizing the area and sowing the seeds of radicalism. The U.S. counterterrorism approach in Somalia isn't working: The al-Qaeda leaders sought by the United States there remain at large, and the Islamists who protect them are gaining ground against U.S.-backed militias, as this week's events show. With a growing chorus of voices, rightly or wrongly, blaming the United States and the warlords for the fighting, public opinion in Mogadishu has been swinging in favor of the Islamists. In April the United States tried a different tack, inviting clan and political leaders to Kenya for talks and to enlist their support in dismantling the al-Qaeda safe haven. But fighting broke out as soon as the leaders returned to Mogadishu, making it seem as though one hand of the U.S. government didn't know what the other was doing. A successful counterterrorism effort would require the United States to pull the political and military threads together into a coherent strategy of broader engagement. U.S. officials and those from other governments throughout the region uniformly have told me that long-term counterterrorism objectives can be achieved only by American investment in the Somali peace process. Yet the State Department has just one full-time political officer working on Somalia -- from neighboring Kenya, and he was just transferred out of the region for dissenting from the policy on proxy warlords. Somalia's ineffectual transitional government remains confined to the shaky central town of Baidoa, where it is still struggling to overcome internal divisions. A functioning government that could ensure security would be a win-win scenario for Somalis and the United States, enabling the state apparatus to address the criminality and extremism that undermine progress in the country. This would provide a real partner for the war on terrorism in an area that has a track record for exporting trouble. The continuation of Washington's current approach in Somalia would ensure that U.S. interests and those of other countries in the region remain dangerously vulnerable to terrorist attacks from this collapsed state. Continued fighting between Islamist elements and the U.S.-backed warlord alliance will breed resentment, attract recruits to the extremist cause and provide a training ground for new militants. The United States can no longer afford not to engage more deeply and directly in state reconstruction efforts in Somalia. It is in our national security interest to do so. The writer is a senior adviser to the International Crisis Group. He worked for the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

Sxiibayaal maxaa u murmaysaan, the history of warlords are finished, they are done, and i hope all the crimals, (and We all know who they are) brought to justices, and be punished...let's hope that one day idea of tribe/tribalism would come to an end.. Dood aan macnaha laheyn iska daaya.... Go figure:..........

This is really good, i just hope that they stick to this statement and right on their intiatives to create Islamic Courts to begin with,,,,they need to use the Media and to explain their objectives,,,,so that they could not be understood to why they are doing what they are doing now...... Go figure:..........

Check this out.... Taliban-like regime may be rising in Somalia Islamic militants capture capital in Horn of Africa nation Monday, June 5, 2006; Posted: 1:19 p.m. EDT (17:19 GMT) The advance against a secular alliance rumored to be backed by Washington comes after weeks of bloody fighting and 15 years of anarchy in the Horn of Africa nation, raising fears that Somalia could fall under the sway of al Qaeda. "We won the fight against the enemy of Islam; Mogadishu is under control of its people," said Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, chairman of the Islamic Courts Union, on a radio broadcast. The militia now controls a 65-mile (100-kilometer) radius around the capital after fighting off a secular alliance of warlords. The Islamic militia is gaining ground just as the U.N.-backed interim government struggles to assert control outside its base in Baidoa, 155 miles (249 kilometers) from Mogadishu. Weapons prices soared there Monday amid fears that the militia could head next to Baidoa. The militia is the first group to consolidate control over all of Mogadishu's neighborhoods since the last government collapsed in 1991 and warlords took over, dividing the impoverished country of 8 million into a patchwork of rival fiefdoms. Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, said the Islamic militia's victory in Mogadishu was a major turning point in the country's history. "It is exactly the same thing that happened with the rise to power of the Taliban," he said, adding that the extremists are "using the people's weariness of violence, rape and civil war" to gain support for a government based on Islamic law. The battle between the militia and the secular alliance has been intensifying in recent months, with more than 300 people killed and 1,700 wounded -- many of them civilians caught in the crossfire of grenades, machine guns and mortars. Alliance leaders could not be reached for comment Monday and had likely fled Mogadishu. One of them, warlord Mohamed Dheere, was believed to be in Ethiopia seeking reinforcements. The United States is widely believed to be backing the secular alliance in an attempt to root out any al Qaeda members operating in the Horn of Africa, but American officials have declined to comment. The United States has not carried out any direct action in Somalia since the deaths of 18 servicemen in a 1993 battle depicted in the film "Black Hawk Down." U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said recently that three al Qaeda leaders indicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania are being sheltered by Islamic leaders in Mogadishu. The same al Qaeda cell is believed responsible for the 2002 suicide bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya that killed 15 people and a simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner. The Islamic militants and their secular rivals began competing for influence in earnest after a U.N.-backed interim government slowly began to gain international recognition. The weak government, wracked by infighting, has not been able to enter the capital because of the violence. Interim Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi recently fired four ministers who were part of the secular alliance, leaving the alliance without any support in the government. Mogadishu residents expressed relief at Monday's relative peace, but they had mixed responses to the Islamic militia's advance. "The victory of Islamic Courts is a major step toward a lasting peaceful settlement in Mogadishu," said Somali economist Abdinasir Ahmed. "We are tired of the deception and rhetoric of the warlords." Computer engineer Abdulqaadir Bashir disagreed. "The Islamic clerics want to be like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan," he said. "People have no hope at all."

Raggaan Maxkamadaha waxay u baahan yihiin inay isku tagaan ay abuuraan unity, aysan bahashu ka noqon midi midi kutaag, iyo qabiil heban iyo qabiil hebal ayaa maxkamad furtay adna furo. Labo arrinba way ubaahanyihiin: 1. Inay midoobaan oo ay hubka meel isugu geeyaan. 2. Inaysan isku dayin inay xoog meelkasta u qabsadaan, balse aay la xaajoodaan shacabka. go figure:............

Qac iyo nuune waad aragtaan Tiijuye waa cabaaday qoftoo in looraadiyo waaye nooh, tol la'aan aa meesha ku heyso sxiibkeyn, haye kii magac soo gali karo, kii email address soo tuuri karo, kii teleefoon u soo qorikaro, waraa Tuujiyo aan habayno yaakhee..... Tuujiyo too aan kasaa nooh, laakiin waxaa loo kul kululyahay sidii basbaaskii, waxaan ka baqaa inii ku huriso nooh,,,,, Go figure:.......

It's on now for Miami and Dallas for the NBA Finals,,,, what a show would that be.....

Queen Elizabeth, Bill Clinton & Daniel arap Moi died and went straight to hell. Queen Elizabeth said "I miss England; I want to call England and see how everybody is doing there". She called and talked for about 5 minutes, and then she asked "Well, Devil, how much do I owe you???? The devil says "Five million dollars". She wrote him a cheque and went to sit back on her chair. Bill Clinton was so jealous, he starts screaming, "My turn! I wanna call the United States, I want to see how everybody is doing there too. He called and talked for about 2 minutes, and then he asked Well, Devil, how much do I owe you???? The devil says "Ten million dollars". with a smug look on his face, he made a cheque and went to sit back on his chair. Moi was even more jealous and starts screaming, I want to call Ghenya too, I want to see how everybody is doing there too. I wanna talk to the ministers, to the deputy, I wanna talk to KANU, everybody..... He calls Kenya and he talks for about twenty hours, he talked & talked & talked, then he asked, "Well, Devil, how much do I owe you???? The devil says "One dollar". Moi is stunned & says "One dollar??? Only one freaking dollar??" The Devil says "Well if you make a call from one hell to another, it's local.

Again Qac welcome back sxb..

Waraa Qac Qaac you still remember my name huh?, just kidding , waraa waxaa la dhahay qoftoo aa xaraysatay Qac Qaac, waan ku farxay sxiib, welcome to the Family life man,,,, ani kaligay lee maa xanoonaa yaaqee... Soo fariiso aan is waraysanee, qacwa maan ku siiyaa mise Shaa? Welcome back sxb... Go figure:..................

What is he talking about?????

I don't like DABADHILIF....

MODESTY SXB I DON'T KNOW WAT KINDA PARENTING U R TALKING ABOUT, BUT OUR PARENTS DID WAT THEY COULD TO RAISE US, AND WE OWNED TO THEM, THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO IS TO THANK THEM AND APPRECIATE THEIR HARD WORK, THEIR WAY OF PARENTING DEPENDED ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THE CULTURE/RELIGION, AND HOW THEY WERE TAUGHT TO DO THINGS. IF WE WANT TO CHANGE PARENTING, WE (OUR GENERATION) CAN START PARENTING OUR CHILDREN DIFFERENTLY. BUT WE CAN'T NEVER CRITICIZE HOW OUR PARENTS RAISE US PERIOD...... SOOMAALI HADDII AAN NAHAY WAXA INOO DIIDAY HORUMARKA WAXAA WAAYE WE CRITICIZE TOO MUCH, WAXNA ISKUMA DAYNO WITHOUT CRITICIZING OR SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT IT...NOW WE ARE QUESTIONING HOW OUR PAPRENTS RAISE US, INTAAN DHIHILAHAYN WAALIDKEYN WAY DADAALEEYN WAYNA INA SOO KORIYEEYN IYADOO DHIBAATOOYIN BADAN LA KULMAYN... I SAY LET'S THANK THEM AND APPRECIATE THEIR HARD WORK INTAAN NAC NACDA ISKA DAYNO..... GO FIGURE:............

Casrto sxb i agree with, Suudi is Axmaq of the year, did u hear his interview with Banadir Redio, oh Gosh, wat he was saying on the interview is not wat i normal person would say, it was shocking,,,,,,,Oh Allah kuwaa inaga qabo.. Go figure:................

cool.....

By Stephen Zunes (Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus) Since its publication in the London Review of Books in March, John Mearsheimer's and Steve Walt's article "The Israel lobby and US foreign policy" - and the longer version published as a working paper for Harvard University's John F Kennedy School of Government - has received widespread attention from across the political spectrum. These noted professors put forward two major arguments: the first is the very legitimate and widely acknowledged (outside of official Washington) concern that US Middle East policy, particularly US support for the more controversial policies of the Israeli government, is contrary to the long-term strategic interests of the United States. Their second, and far more questionable, argument is that most of the blame for this misguided policy rests with the " Israel lobby" rather than with the more powerful interests that actually drive US foreign policy. The Mearsheimer/Walt article has been met by unreasonable criticism from a wide range of rightist apologists for US support of the Israeli occupation, including Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel (who accused the authors of being "anti-Semites"), Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (who falsely claimed that the authors gathered materials from websites of neo-Nazi hate groups), pundits such as Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, and publications such as the New York Sun and The New Republic. The authors have also been unfairly criticized for supposedly distorting the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though their overview is generally quite accurate. The problem is in their analysis. The article has garnered unreasonable praise from many in progressive circles, who have posted it on websites, circulated it on listservs, and lauded it as an example of speaking truth to power. Though critiques in establishment circles of the bipartisan US support for the Israeli occupation are unusual and welcome, progressive promoters of the article have largely failed to assess the ideological agenda of its authors and the validity of their specific arguments. It should be noted that Mearsheimer and Walt are prominent figures in the realist school of international relations, which discounts international law, human rights, and other legal and moral concerns in foreign policy. The realist tradition plays down diplomacy not backed by military force, belittles the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations, and dismisses the growing role of international non-governmental organizations and popular movements. With some notable exceptions, Mearsheimer and Walt were largely supportive of US foreign policy during the Cold War and subsequently. For example, during the 1980s, Mearsheimer - a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - opposed both a nuclear-weapons freeze and a no-first-use nuclear policy. A critic of non-proliferation efforts, Mearsheimer has defended India's atomic arsenal and has even called for the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states such as Germany and Ukraine. He was also an outspoken supporter of the 1991 US-led Gulf War. It is ironic, then, that these two men have suddenly found themselves lionized by many progressive critics of US foreign policy as a result of their article. Any adulation should be tempered by the authors' blind acceptance of a number of naive assumptions regarding America's role in the world, such as their assertion that the foreign policy of the United States - the world's No 1 arms supplier for dictatorial regimes - is designed "to promote democracy abroad". It is always welcome and significant when traditional conservatives, hawks, and others in the foreign-policy establishment speak out against specific manifestations of US foreign policy, such as when Mearsheimer and Walt joined other prominent conservatives in academia in opposing the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. However, such realist opposition grows not out of concern over any of the important moral or legal questions but out of a rational calculation that a particular war could lead to greater instability and thereby run counter to America's national-security interests. Indeed, Israel's violation of international legal norms and its impact on the civilian population in the occupied territories are mentioned in the article primarily as a way to counter claims that US policy in support of the Israeli government is based on a moral imperative. What progressive supporters of Mearsheimer's and Walt's analysis seem to ignore is that both men have a vested interest in absolving from responsibility the foreign-policy establishment that they have served so loyally all these years. Israel and its supporters are in essence being used as convenient scapegoats for America's disastrous policies in the Middle East. And though they avoid falling into simplistic, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial notions regarding Jewish power and influence for the failures of US Middle East policy, it is nevertheless disturbing that the primary culprits they cite are largely Jewish individuals and organizations. Also problematic are the article's references to US Middle East policy resulting in part from the influence of "Jewish voters", since most American Jews take more moderate positions regarding Iraq, Iran and Palestine than does Congress or the administration of President George W Bush. Similarly, while Mearsheimer and Walt do not claim that the Israel lobby is monolithic or centrally directed, they fail to emphasize how not all pro-Israel groups support the policies of the Israeli government, particularly its right-wing administrations. Groups such as Americans for Peace Now, the Tikkun Community, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and the Israel Policy Forum all identify themselves as pro-Israel but oppose the occupation, the settlements, the separation wall, and Washington's unconditional support for Israeli policies. WANT TO READ MORE GO TO: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE23Ak01.html

Animal Farm sxiib u got it wrong, it is not wat i wrote, this is all jokes, nothing else..

NEW YORK TIMES May 28, 2006 Militias Kill at Least 20 in Turf Battles in Somalia By REUTERS MOGADISHU, Somalia, May 27 (Reuters) — Bullets and artillery shells pounded Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, for a fourth day on Saturday, killing at least 20 people, as rival militias intensified their battle for control of the city. Fighters for a coalition of warlords who say they have joined forces to fight terrorism used antiaircraft guns, artillery and machine guns to assault Islamist militias in a bitter turf war. Militia leaders and hospital officials said at least 20 people had been killed and 18 wounded, but residents said the toll could be much higher. The fighting, which threatens Somalia's weak transitional government as it tries to impose authority on the anarchic nation, is also being seen by many as a battle between Islam and the United States, which is seen here as having supported groups that oppose Islamic factions. The battle that erupted on Wednesday eased overnight, but fighting broke out in the Daynile, Keysaney and Galgalato districts, sending residents fleeing, witnesses said. "We are hiding for our lives," said Abdirahman Hussein, a resident who said he and others spent a sleepless night as mortars and artillery shells pounded the neighborhood. The warlords, including four who are ministers in the government, said they were trying to retake areas seized from them on Friday. "It is another fight we must have, to get back our territory at Kilometer 4," the militia leader Abdullahi Atosh said as he reorganized his fighters in the Bulo Hubey area of Mogadishu, where his forces retreated on Friday. Kilometer 4 is a critical checkpoint and had been a warlord stronghold until the Islamist militias routed them and seized the Sahafi Hotel, owned by a warlord. Saturday's battle and three earlier fights have killed at least 320 people, mostly civilians, and wounded hundreds in what Mogadishu residents say is the worst fighting in the city in a decade. The Islamists, backed by influential Shariah courts in Somalia, have taken greater control of the city every time they have clashed with the warlord coalition since its formation in February, in fights laced with commercial and political motives.

Fighting in the Shadows Battles rage near the scene of 'Black Hawk Down'—and a covert American hand is tied to the warlords. By Michael Hirsh and Jeffrey Bartholet Newsweek June 5, 2006 issue - Mogadishu is a place most Americans would rather forget. During the 1990s, the "Black Hawk Down" debacle symbolized the dangers of dabbling in far-off lands we don't understand. TV images of a half-stripped GI being dragged through the dust by gleeful Somalis—he was one of 18 U.S. Army Rangers killed in a botched effort to arrest a warlord—became an emblem of American vulnerability. But Mogadishu, it seems, won't be forgotten. Somalia is erupting in violence again. And with little warning, Americans find themselves once more in the middle of battles they only dimly comprehend—and may well be losing. Last week, for the first time since the early 1990s, much of the Somali capital was engulfed in bloody fire fights. By all accounts, a jihadist militia of the so-called Islamic Courts Union was gaining ground on an alliance of secular warlords who have received U.S. backing. Observers say the Union has been winning adherents by casting its enemies as stooges of Washington, especially since the U.S.-friendly warlords formed a group called the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism last winter. The revived fighting inside Somalia—a lawless state on the Horn of Africa with no central government—has raised new questions about America's global war on terror, which is being fought mostly out of the public eye. For several years Somalia's three major anti-Islamist warlords have received U.S. cash and some equipment to help with intelligence operations, according to several unofficial sources, including John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group. No U.S. government official reached by NEWSWEEK would confirm or deny that the program existed. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counterterrorism official who stays in touch with his ex-colleagues, says much of the money is funneled through the 1,800-man Joint Combined Task Force, based in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa. Other reports point to the CIA. The warlords—Mohamed Dheere, Bashir Raghe and Mohamed Qanyare—have been asked to collect information on Muslim extremists tied to Al Qaeda. In one 2003 case, Dheere's men snatched an East African Qaeda cell member and turned him over. The policy has provoked dissent at both the CIA and the State Department, as well as in Europe. Some officials fear that America may be inadvertently creating a new jihadist haven in Somalia by generating an anti-U.S. backlash. Before the U.S. program began, the Islamists were only a small part of the population. "We know neither the rationale nor the scale of U.S. involvement; what we do see are consequences," says Marika Fahlen, Swedish ambassador and special envoy for the Horn of Africa: "The fighting is increasingly complex. Certain [islamist] groups that were not so active in fighting before have become fighters." Giraldi is more blunt. "We're creating a new mess," he says. "Everything is tactical with this administration: catching a guy, catching a guy. I don't see that anyone has thought about the strategic issue of losing support." Washington is also spending money on "hearts and minds" projects in the Horn of Africa region—refurbishing schools and offering free health and dental services in some places. But those programs are impossible for Westerners to carry out in lawless Mogadishu. The question is whether the Islamists are gaining hearts and minds more quickly. One of the pro-U.S. warlords, Qanyare, denied in a phone interview with NEWSWEEK from Somalia that he was getting any U.S. money. But he said he had "contacts" with American agents, and was very worried about the inroads of the Islamists. They want "to make a government of their own, Taliban style," Qanyare said. "They feel they are strong and that this is a time they can do something ... They are organizing from the grass roots. They're organizing schools, education, services. They collect a lot of money from the people." The U.S. warlord-support strategy is part of a series of clandestine operations around the world conducted with little accountability back home. The broad shadow war is conducted by the CIA, Special Operations commander Gen. Doug Brown, "black ops" commander Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the Pentagon's intelligence czar, Steve Cambone, along with his deputy, Lt. Gen. William Boykin. The U.S. strategy of quietly destroying jihadist cells outside Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 has had its successes. Among them: the capture of Algerian terrorist Abderrazak al-Para in 2004, the assassination of a jihadist leader in Yemen by a Hellfire missile strike in 2004 and the routing of Abu Sayyaf from Basilan Island in the Philippines. Publicly, the administration will not admit to any policy of aiding warlords. But officials with the Red Cross and other aid groups in Mogadishu report seeing "many Americans with thick necks and short haircuts moving around, carrying big suitcases," says one aid official whose agency does not permit him to speak on the record. And in recent months a diplomat critical of U.S. policy in Somalia, Michael Zorick, apparently was removed from his post in Nairobi after writing cables complaining about the strategy. (Zorick, who was moved to the embassy in Chad, could not be reached for comment Friday.) A political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, Lisa Peterson, refused to comment on the reasons for Zorick's departure. But she said that U.S. policy is under review, with State Counterterrorism chief Hank Crumpton currently on a visit to the Horn. Asked whether Zorick's dissent, and the current debate, were mainly about whether Washington might be creating more Islamist radi-cals than it is killing or capturing, she said, "Those are certainly questions that have come up." At CIA stations in East Africa, some agency officials believe the United States is being "essentially defrauded," says a retired CIA station chief who recently visited there and wanted to remain anonymous because he was discussing sensitive issues. "They think we should take a deep breath and settle down. We're throwing money at anybody who will say they're fighting terrorism." Indeed, some suspects grabbed in recent years by friendly militia leaders have turned out to be mere drifters: in one case, a hapless Iraqi was snatched at a cybercafé in Mogadishu, only to be interrogated for a month and released. U.S. officials say they're in an impossible spot: either leave Somalia to be a terrorist haven or try to form relationships with friendlies, even untrustworthy ones. "Any time you have these areas that are ungovernable, you have to talk to somebody inside," says Gary Berntsen, the former CIA team leader who allied with Afghan warlords to help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. "There's no choice." But for an administration that professes to see building democracy as a solution to global terrorism, the warlord strategy may not advance U.S. goals. Some intelligence experts say the key is to keep the U.S. "footprint" so small that it is undetectable. "In the case of countering Al Qaeda, the record seems to suggest that less is more," says John Arquilla, an intelligence expert at the Naval Postgraduate School. "A small investment can achieve very substantial results, like al-Para, whereas in the Horn of Africa a much greater investment has been made with much smaller results." There may be worse results to come.

Thursday 25 May 2006 I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror. In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants. What exactly did I want to achieve? First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women -- especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society. Now I have to ask myself, have I accomplished that task? I have stumbled often in my political career. It has sometimes been frustrating and slow. However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate. Issues related to Islam – such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation -- these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process. Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum? In the fall of 2005 I told Gerrit Zalm and Jozias van Aartsen, the leaders of the VVD, that I would not be a candidate for the parliamentary elections in 2007. I had decided to opt for a more international platform, because I wanted to contribute to the international debate on the emancipation of Muslim women and the complex relationship between Islam and the West. Now that I am announcing that I will resign from Dutch politics, I would like to thank the members of the VVD for my years in parliament – to thank them for inviting me to stand for parliament, and -- perhaps more importantly -- for putting up with me while I was there, for this has been in many ways a rough ride for us all. I want to thank my other colleagues here in parliament for their help, although some of our debates have been sharp. (Femke Halsema, thank you especially for that!). I would also like to thank the 30,758 people who in January 2003 trusted their preference vote to a newcomer. But why am I not remaining in parliament for my full term, until next year’s election? Why, after only three and a half years, have I decided to resign from the Lower Chamber? It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbors filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me. The Dutch government will appeal this verdict and I grateful for that, because how on earth will other people whose lives are threatened manage to find a place to stay if this verdict is allowed to rest? However, this appeal does not alter my situation: I have to leave my apartment by the end of August. Another reason for my departure is the discussion that has arisen from a TV program, The Holy Ayaan, which was aired on May 11. This program centered on two issues: the story that I told when I was applying for asylum here in Holland, and questions about my forced marriage. I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I said then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. (You will find a selection of these articles in the press folder). I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament. I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with – the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan. You probably are wondering, what is my real name? I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai’ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud. Following the May 11 television broadcast, legal questions have been raised about my naturalization as a Dutch citizen. Minister Verdonk has written to me saying that my passport will be annulled, because it was issued to a person who does not hold my real name. I am not at liberty to discuss the legal issues in this case. Now for the questions about my forced marriage. Last week’s TV program cast doubt on my credibility in that respect, and the final conclusion of the documentary is that all this is terribly complicated. Let me tell you, it’s not so complex. The allegations that I willingly married my distant cousin, and was present at the wedding ceremony, are simply untrue. This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me. I can assure you my father is not a man who takes no for an answer. Still, I refused to attend the formal ceremony, and I was married regardless. Then, on my way to Canada -- during a stopover in Germany -- I traveled to the Netherlands and asked for asylum here. In all simplicity this is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. For those who are interested in the intimate details of my transition from a pre-modern society to a modern one, and how I came to love what the West stands for, please read my memoir, which is due to be published this fall. To return to the present day, may I say that it is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. It has become impossible since last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship. I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear. I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me. I personally have gone through a long and sometimes painful process of personal growth in this country. It began with learning to tell the truth to myself, and then the truth about myself: I strive now to also tell the truth about society as I see it. That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction. Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work. I will go on.