lool@inuu shaqalyahay

@The mule is sick, saaxib. I'm riding a horse banoonigii hoos baad iigu laaday waryaa.

^^Are you sure, Sacad ?

lool@Cagmadhige's ya salaam

I have observed my friend NGONGE, and here is my take on his apparent vacillation. NGONGE, if I understand him correctly, will come back into the Somaliweyn fold if the wars in the south end and strong, legitimate government with international recognition gets established. He said this many times before, and I see no reason to believe he changed his position on that big picture front. And in that verse, NGONGE is not the deluded Xaaji Xanduf neither is he inflicted with Oodweyne’s destructive swagger. The reason NGONGE raised the separatist flag was due to the fact that SL have shown political capacity to divide the H clans in the North. The fall of Las Anod, he said, was a clear manifestation of Riyaale admin’s leadership skills in gaining territorial and political ground without engaging in major wars. And I almost agreed. The problem with NGONGE of course is that in being so superficial and fickle, he borders being opportunistic, almost unprincipled, who supports whoever emerges out of the Somali civil war as a clear victor regardless of whether that group is right or beneficial to the larger Somalia’s national interests. Although NGONGE would argue otherwise one can reasonably point out that, despite all his wit and intelligence, the man risks being the proverbial two-mule rider, politically of course man rakaba ximaarayn, shaqqa duburah

Abdiladiif hawlahaan isagaa iga badiya runtii. Weligiisba dammiin uma dhuuman

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: It is true ,,,,, they are under investigation now. Red Sea aka Qalib ma ogyahay

^^Nice anology. Laakiin gabadh mehersan, oo dhowr da'a dhashay oo wadaadkii cid ugu dhawaa diiday inuu fasaqo weeye waxa cillaanka marsan oo hadba diyaaradaha raacasyaa

^^You were being overly hopeful at that time awoowe. I have said before that the Somali conflict has been brought about and prolonged by a crisis of leadership in almost all aspects of Somali life i.e. religious, politics, traditional, and intellectuals. That is why I have developed tendency not to be necessarily angry at Ethiopia for Ethiopia is doing what any serious player in a tough region would do: manipulate and keep your foes within the sphere of your influence…especially when your foes's leadership affords you that opportunity. But current situation would not permit the type of leadership we are yearning for to emerge. It’s imperative to allow gradual progression for this conflict to die down. And that requires us to applaud those who strive to bridge the gap between Somali factions…those who prefer peace over war and further displacement of Somali population…those who appreciate the fact that Somalia is at its lowest point in its history and genuinely want to make it better. This heshiis is a progress, and not bad news at all.

OBAMA IS NOT A NEOCON, Castro.

^^ I think Obama is proving to be a tough nut to crack for neocons

^^You are probably right still this is interesing fight, a one we have not seen like it for quite a while

^^Castro, it appears that you are measuring with the wrong specs. Given the state Somalis find themselves in today one should not busy himself assessing the quality of those at the lead for in doing so one is bound for disappointment. Instead think of these entities as a crude log rafts, improvised dugout canoes and weak yacht sails organized to carry us to a safe shores, and out of civil wars. The point is if you are looking for flagship government with highly qualified and competent men in Somalia today, you may be radical activist for justice and effective government, but pragmatist, and practical man you are not. These ahlu sunnah group may be motivated for clannish reasons but so were Somaliland an Puntland awoowe. If they have the good sense to join the TFG, grab few ministerial posts and merge their armed men with Sharif, why would one object to it?

caqlow ba'a

Yaa shaki kaga jiraa in Maaddeey yahay nin kale agabki ? anaa shaki bixinayyaa hadduusan qofkaasi 3 midkood ahayn: 1--nin waalan (Aw Tusbaxle oo kale ) 2--nin yar (waa badanyihiin) 3--naca-s (waa badanyihiin )

Castro, those types of sweeping generalizations do not reflect actual realities on the ground. TFG is a reasonable political arrangement that could be improved. At this point it does not matter why certain factions exist or their motivation. As long they are willing to compromise and work toward the larger goal of settling Somali conflict we ought to welcome them. Somaliland government is separatist, alshabaab is a suicidal group but describing Puntland government as ‘organized criminals’ is a crime.

^^Hase yeeshee dad iyagu goobta ragan laga so qabtay joogay ayaa u sheegay Garowe Online

good one

Even Thomas Friedman sees the light...

NGONGE, ma heshiiskaad diidantahay? Castro?

This is interesing development

SL: Rag dhaawac ah oo la xiray Ciidamada boolis-ka ee magaalada Hargeysa ayaa ka soo qabtay guri ku yaala magaalada dhinaceeda Bari illaa toddoba nin oo isugu jira qaar dhaawac ah iyo kuwo kale oo looga shakiyay in ay ka yimaadeen dagaaladdii ugu danbeeyay ee magaalada Muqdisho ka dhacaayay. Dadkan ayaa la sheegay inay ku xidhan yihiin xarunta CID da ee magaalada Hargeysa oo la sheegay in su'aalo lagu weydiinayo si loo xaqiijiyo inay yihiin kooxo ka tirsan Dagaalyahanada Islaamiga ah iyo inay yihiin dad shacab ah oo ku dhaawacmay xabadihii ay isweydaarsanayeen ciidamadda Dawladda iyo xoogaga ka soo horjeeda oo khasaare balaadhan gaadhsiiyay dadka deegaamada dagaaladu ka dhaceen ku sugnaa kuwaasoo barakacoodu gaadhay meelo badan oo ku yaala duleedka magaalada Muqdisho iyo meelo ka mid ah gobolada dhexe. Taliyaha Booliiska Somaliland Maxamed Saqadhi oo aanu khadka Telefoonka kula hadalnay si aanu wax uga weydiino warkan iyo warar kale oo sheegaya inay ciiddamadda Booliisku ku raad joogaan dhalinyaro wada abaabul ay doonayaan inay kaga qayb qaataan dagaaladda ka soo cusboonaaday magaalada muqdisho , waxana uu si kooban u yidhi wax war ah bixin maayo ee waa inoo mar kale. Hase yeeshee dad iyagu goobta ragan laga so qabtay joogay ayaa u sheegay Garowe Online in ay indhahooda ku arkaayeen niman dhaawac ah iyo kuwo bad qaba oo gaadhi xaajiyad ah lagu qaadaayo balse may sheegin meesha la geeyay, waxase la sheegay in la geeyay xarunta CID oo su`aalo lagu weydiinaayo.

"Condemn" is not a word that rolls trippingly off the tongue of a U.S. politician addressing anything having to do with actions, however objectionable, by Israel. So it was no surprise that close observers of U.S. Middle East policy sat up a lot straighter in their seats when Vice President Joseph Biden used the word not once, but twice, during his visit to Israel this week in reference to the Israeli Interior Ministry’s announcement that it intends to build 1,600 new housing units for Jews in an Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem. "I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem," said Biden, considered among Israel’s staunchest supporters during his several decades in Congress. "The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of [u.S.-mediated] proximity talks [between Israel and the Palestine Authority], is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now," noted Biden. In a remarkable show of displeasure, he subsequently kept Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu waiting 90 minutes before joining him for an official dinner and, according to Israeli press accounts, gave top Israeli officials a private tongue-lashing over how such actions by the Jewish state incite Islamic extremism across the Arab world and beyond. Forty-eight hours later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, clearly rejecting Netanyahu’s apology over the unfortunate coincidence of the ministry’s announcement with Biden’s arrival, joined the fray. According to her spokesman, P.J. Crowley, Clinton called the right-wing leader Friday morning "to reiterate the United States’ strong objections to Tuesday’s announcement, not just in terms of timing, but also in its substance." "The secretary said she could not understand how this had happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security," Crowley told reporters. "And she made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process." The rebukes, which some Mideast veterans described as the harshest directed toward Israel by senior U.S. officials since the presidency of George H.W. Bush almost 20 years ago, have revived questions over whether the administration of President Barack Obama is prepared to get tough with the most right-wing government in Israel’s history, particularly over the issue of settlements. Early in its tenure, the administration demanded a halt to all new Jewish settlement activity on Palestinian territory in order to get serious peace talks with the PA underway. That demand, however, was rebuffed by Netanyahu, who, encouraged by the right-wing leadership of the powerful "Israel Lobby," countered with a partial 10-month settlement freeze that explicitly excluded East Jerusalem whose "annexation" by Israel in 1967 has been rejected by all other members of the United Nations, including the U.S. The administration’s acquiescence in – indeed, praise for – Netanyahu’s "restraint" lost it a considerable amount of credibility, particularly in the Arab world, where hopes for a more evenhanded U.S. approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict had been running high, especially since Obama’s speech in Cairo last June. This week’s contretemps with Biden and now Clinton, however, has moved the settlement issue – and particularly the fate of East Jerusalem, whose status as the capital of any future Palestinian state is widely considered a precondition for any viable two-state solution – front and center once again. "It is now abundantly clear that with or without a formal declaration from Netanyahu, getting events in Jerusalem under control – which includes a de facto full-stop settlement freeze in Jerusalem – is no mere discretionary gesture but a political imperative," according to Lara Friedman and Daniel Seidemann of Americans for Peace Now (APN). "Failing that, this political process will be stillborn." But it is not only the peace talks, which Obama’s special envoy, George Mitchell, had labored long and hard to convene, that this week’s incident has put into question. In the words of one veteran U.S. Mideast hand, Aaron David Miller, it also raised new questions over "the degree to which Israel is willing to take into account U.S. interests." Indeed, while Biden’s mission was originally aimed at publicly reassuring Israelis of Washington’s "absolute, total, unvarnished commitment" to their security, as he put it immediately after his arrival, the private message, especially in light of the Interior Ministry’s announcement, was that Israel should reciprocate, according to an account published in Yedioth Ahronoth. "’This is starting to get dangerous for us,’ Biden castigated his interlocutors," the newspaper reported. "’What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.’" "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s actions and U.S. policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism," the paper continued. Any assertion, particularly from a recognized "friend of Israel" like Biden, that Israeli actions against Palestinians have a negative impact on the U.S. position in the larger region – let alone the safety of U.S. troops – has long been anathema to Likudist neoconservatives and the right-wing leadership of the "Israel Lobby." But, as Biden himself said in his departure speech in Tel Aviv Friday, "quite frankly, folks, sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth." Washington’s harsh condemnation of Israel’s behavior comes just days before the lobby’s biggest event of the year – next weekend’s annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The meeting’s organizers and Netanyahu, who will address the conference, had hoped to focus on the necessity of confronting the "existential threat" posed by Iran. But they may now find themselves in a more defensive position regarding settlements, East Jerusalem, and Israel’s alleged failure to take account of the implications of its actions on U.S. interests. Indeed, Israel’s actions had the virtue, according to former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy, of clarifying the strength of the settlement movement in Israeli politics. "The momentum they can now generate … is stronger than Israel’s demographic concerns, is stronger than fear of Israel acquiring an international pariah status, and as was proven this week, is stronger than the needs of the U.S.-Israel relationship," he wrote in The Guardian. "America’s vice-president has just seen this dynamic first hand and up close." That clarity could spur Washington to take stronger action in concert with its Quartet partners, which met in New York Friday and joined the U.S. in condemning the latest settlement announcement. "Perhaps America will present Israel with a real choice and with consequences for recalcitrance," Levy wrote. "Thus far, that has not been the case." But, "in the absence of decisive American leadership, Israel is likely to dig itself deeper into a hole, burying the last vestiges of home for pragmatic Zionism." Miller is even more skeptical. While the latest provocation "managed to elicit Washington’s strongest words about Israel in years," he wrote at Politico.com Friday, "… for this very busy president, the Arab-Israeli issue now has little to do with his stock at home." Still, Clinton’s strong public backing for Biden and her own dig at Netanyahu Friday hint of a tougher public stance. Another hint could come next week when she keynotes the AIPAC conference. (Inter Press Service)

Biden in Israel: Tiff or Tipping Point?