What’s your political persuasion yaa Chemical? Are you a secessionist, an Ethiopian-Tank-rider supporter, or an icu supporter? ps---In this section of SOL, life expectancy is very short! Welcome on board, I say!

Hire Paragon yaa SX!

Xaraash? She is probably one of the few wise women left out there!

Yes it does!

Which sheikh are we talking about? The one posing, quite devotedly, for the PuntlandGov picture!

^^What does the Quran say? That only Muslims are clever and intelligent? Would you let me go off the hook if I say Abdul-Mudhalib was very intelligent, Abu-Lahab was shrewd, and AbuJahl was eloquent and had a managerial capacity?

^^I would call it an educated guess! I thought only Horn and Allamagan were betrayed and left in the doghouse! I wonder who’s next to drop on the same basis!

^^I can sense that you are itching to write another paper! But you shall first submit your abstract paper for brief review as the subject you chose to research is beyond simple mathematical technicalities . Displaying poetical abilities and waxing lyrics to make up the inevitable shortfalls won’t suffice either.Further more, your paper should go beyond linguistic trivialities and present solid proof of NG’s intent to justify the said behavior on the basis of it being innate and inherent. Your research should chiefly conclude that NG committed a theological error when he asserted rationalizing divine commands is not essential part of our faith! Also, no flowery diction allowed yaa Yonis ! Allow sahal libaax seexday bay niman salaaxeene'e.

You are not far from the mark yaa Camel rider!

You are not far from the mark yaa Camel rider!

You are not far from the mark yaa Camel rider!

Originally posted by Juje: Somaalida aya horey uu sheegtey fuley wax ka qoryo badan maleh. Ila iyo sanadki tegey ayad waxa ku heysa "4000 armed forces - finished traning and deployed", welina wax kaso naasa cad maleh. Jenerale halke bey saladu iska qabsan la'dahey saxiibo? So Juje is no longer voting with Duke? What has changed yaa Juje? I thought you decidedly wanted Courts defeat.

Yonis, you know that i do occasionally enjoy your amusing jests! With all fairness I do think you a point or two here but as always your Drama King character casts a shadow on what you are trying to say. The liberal interpretation that I was referring to is this statement of yours: So what is Ngonge here saying that Allaah has instilled in us the fitrah of homosexuality! ^^You see that kind of stretch is not healthy and puts the whole debate into confrontational mode! Midda kale what personal vendeta are you talking about? I dont know you and i hardly take anything your cyber character writes serious! So aayar with the cuqdad adeer! Khalaf, as always you struggle to make your voice heard clearly. You need no reps to raise a point in this discussion. It’s simple adeer. I don’t suspect any one is gay here. That’s why I wanted to stay with the central point of this discussion. I even told NG to answer the question to spare him further diversion! He did and I am satisfied with the answer he gave. CG doubts the impact of such reading stories could have but decidedly votes with me when it comes the core issue! As far as JB goes, I have bigger issues with him and should not bother him with this thing. Cara, an unusually intelligent nomad, is in league with JB so no need to reproach her stance on this particular issue! The majority of the posters agree so why dont you take that as a consensus and refrain from your law grade digs, i ask? edt: lol@Taliban ...please let the admin know. he should thank you for your detective work.

^^Khalaf, you cant be serious in wanting NGONGE to refute Yonis’s liberal interpretation of NGONGE’s simple statement adeer. That would be quite a digression from the original discussion! No one has thus far claimed to be in favor of the said school move to include its reading curriculum homo friendly books/stories! Some wonder the impact such a reading could have on children and others think our protest in misplaced as majority dont share with the values we want to uphold! But most of us still insist that such protests are needed, and at times necessary, to make our voice heard and to challenge what we think, in this case, a minority agenda! That's all folks. Midda kale i think it's time for us to shun from this habit of discussing posters' intents and instead learn to address points they raise!

It's only good that they come and honor PL with a visit. We need break from xabashis raoming aroung PL adeer. In a more serious note, Egypt took Somalia for granted for a long time without making the kind of efforts it takes to have considerable influence. I hope it represents a departure from that attitude.

^^Who put you away and in the doghouse yaa Taako? I thought you was an insider!

^^Because it’s passé’, at this point, to build shopping malls where gulf schemers spend sums of money on lavish items of western products. It’s about time to wise up and understand what it takes to live in dignity. Tanks may not precisely sum up my point but it’s a one symbol of defense mechanism, which our Gulf brothers so badly lack! Absent of aspirant leaders for that regard, I have hesitantly agreed with you yaa Kimiya! Logic: sending their petro-dollars across the sea and investing it in America’s economic houses is a lot worse than investing back into the community—albeit going with it on another shopping spree! edit: Che, it conveys a message of technological development and logistical reach (being able to manufacture their own tanks to defend themselves)!

^^I would’ve preferred a tank building factory but any development is a good thing, I agree!

Interesting...

^^Good call yaa Taliban!

Khayr innamo caadhi maoho !

When a Leader Missteps, a World Can Go Astray. In the months before the American invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, was one of the few members of the foreign policy establishment (along with Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to President George H. W. Bush) to speak out strongly about the dangers of going to war unilaterally against Saddam Hussein, and to warn, presciently it turns out, of the possibly dire consequences of doing so without a larger strategic plan. In August 2002, as the current Bush administration was already hurrying toward an invasion, Mr. Brzezinski cautioned that war “is too serious a business and too unpredictable in its dynamic consequences — especially in a highly flammable region — to be undertaken because of a personal peeve, demagogically articulated fears or vague factual assertions.” In February 2003, just weeks before the invasion, he added that “an America that decides to act essentially on its own regarding Iraq” could “find itself quite alone in having to cope with the costs and burdens of the war’s aftermath, not to mention widespread and rising hostility abroad.” In his compelling new book, “Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower,” Mr. Brzezinski not only assesses the short- and long-term fallout of the Iraq war, but also puts that grim situation in perspective with the tumultuous global changes that have taken place in the last two decades. He dispassionately analyzes American foreign policy as conducted by the last three presidents — George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush — and he gives the reader a sobering analysis of where these leaders’ cumulative decisions have left the United States as it now searches for an exit strategy from Iraq, faces potentially explosive situations in Iran and North Korea and copes with an increasingly alienated Europe and an increasingly assertive China. Mr. Brzezinski’s verdict on the current president’s record — “catastrophic,” he calls it — is nothing short of devastating. And his overall assessment of America’s current plight is worrying as well: “Though in some dimensions, such as the military, American power may be greater in 2006 than in 1991, the country’s capacity to mobilize, inspire, point in a shared direction and thus shape global realities has significantly declined. Fifteen years after its coronation as global leader, America is becoming a fearful and lonely democracy in a politically antagonistic world.” “Second Chance” is, in some respects, a continuation of the author’s earlier books “The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership” (2004) and “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” (1997), which examined the responsibilities and perils of global leadership facing America as the one superpower in a post-cold-war world. As in those books, Mr. Brzezinski employs a brisk, no-nonsense style here, using his erudition in history and foreign policy to lay out his views succinctly. A confirmed realist (a school of thinking willfully dismissed by the idealists and ideological hawks in the current Bush administration), the author writes with a keen understanding of the ways in which military or political actions in one part of the world can affect developments in another region, as well as a shrewd appreciation of the fallout of a global zeitgeist that is increasingly anti-imperialist, anti-Western and anti-American. What this book does most strikingly is remind the reader just how drastically things have changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. At that point, Mr. Brzezinski writes, America was “globally admired” and “faced no peer, no rival, no threat, neither on the Western front nor the Eastern front, nor on the Southern fronts of the great cold war that had been waged for several decades on the massive Eurasian chessboard.” A mere decade and a half later, he argues, the United States is “widely viewed around the world with intense hostility,” its “credibility in tatters,” its military bogged down in the Middle East, “its formerly devoted allies distancing themselves.” Although Mr. Brzezinski holds the current president, George W. Bush, most responsible for undermining the United States’ “geopolitical position” and for misunderstanding “the historical moment,” he also points to misjudgments and missed opportunities on the part of his two predecessors in office. Mr. Brzezinski gives the first President Bush high marks for handling “the collapse of the Soviet Union with aplomb” and mounting an international response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait “with impressive diplomatic skill and military resolve,” but says he failed to “translate either triumph into an enduring historic success.” The senior Mr. Bush, Mr. Brzezinski says, neither used “America’s unique political influence and moral legitimacy” to help transform Russia into a genuine democracy, nor used the victory in the first gulf war strategically to press for an Israeli-Palestinian accord and help transform the Middle East. In the dozen years that followed, the author goes on, perception of the United States’ role in the Middle East steadily deteriorated, as America “came to be perceived in the region, rightly or wrongly, not only as wearing the British imperialist mantle but as acting increasingly on behalf of Israel, professing peace but engaging in delaying tactics that facilitated the expansion of the settlements.” In Mr. Brzezinski’s opinion, Bill Clinton deserves credit for setting forth parameters for a Middle East peace settlement at Camp David II, for expanding and consolidating the Atlantic alliance and for helping to stabilize the Balkans. But in the end, he contends that Mr. Clinton’s “casual and politically opportunistic style of decision-making was not conducive to strategic clarity, and his faith in the historical determinism of globalization made such a strategy seem unnecessary.” By 1995, Mr. Brzezinski goes on, America’s “global status was probably at its peak,” but a “multiplicity of complex” situations that had surfaced in the wake of the cold war’s end had metastasized: “As a result, the global totem-pole atop which Clinton stood tall rested on shaky ground.” Though the terrorist attacks of 9/11 wrought a moment of “global solidarity with America,” Mr. Brzezinski writes, the Bush administration’s swaggering unilateralism and “neocon Manicheanism” would turn a moment of opportunity into “a self-inflicted and festering wound while precipitating rising global hostility toward America.” Indeed, he argues that the Iraq war “has caused calamitous damage to America’s global standing,” demonstrating that the United States “was able neither to rally the world to its cause nor to decisively prevail by use of arms.” Further, he says, “the war in Iraq has been a geopolitical disaster,” diverting resources and attention from the terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even as it’s increased “the terrorist threat to the United States” by fomenting resentment toward America and providing “fertile soil for new recruits to terrorism.” This precarious situation, Mr. Brzezinski says, means that “it will take years of deliberate effort and genuine skill to restore America’s political credibility and legitimacy,” placing enormous importance on the diplomatic and strategic skills of the next president “to fashion a truly post-cold-war globalist foreign policy.” “Nothing could be worse for America, and eventually the world,” he writes at the end of this unsparing volume, “than if American policy were universally viewed as arrogantly imperial in a postimperial age, mired in a colonial relapse in a postcolonial time, selfishly indifferent in the face of unprecedented global interdependence, and culturally self-righteous in a religiously diverse world. The crisis of American superpower would then become terminal.”

^^ JB, I like your implicit recognition of the probable harm in this endeavor though. As for your misplaced assignment, I would like you to come back and explain why do you presuppose that basic religious teachings at a young age is harmful yaa JB? edit: CG, that particular life style is quite defective adeer! One can’t respect what’s essentially harmful to the basic societal/religious norms. Sex is natural yet sacred deed from my perspective. When one indulges in it in the most animalistic way possible it does not take a lot of neural burning to detect the deformity yaa CG.

^^Right on yaa Changed! CG, it may not lead them to commit the actual thing itself but it sure comes out as an effort to tame their morality or at least influence them. The ultimate goal is approval of this orientation, and not necessarily doing it. You can’t however rule out the opportunity of instilling in the children a degree fondness and affection of this defective life style. And that’s dangerous promo adeer!

NOGNE, There you gave a lengthy speech with little or no substance! You went off on a tangent, rambled aimlessly and predictably made little or no sense at all. The issue before you is very simple and you need to take a stance: 1- Is it appropriate to introduce a 5-year child to a gay literature? Whether the fact Muslims don’t necessarily need to rationalize divinely imposed orders contradicts with my claim of homosexuality being a deviation from the norm is beside the point adeer ( I can start you by pointing out that man is born in a state of fitrah, purity, and what comes after birth is due to external influences, and not necessarily an innate quality). The point I am trying to make though (and most people understood it and actually took a stance on it) is exposing young children to such a gay suggestive contents is wrong and harmful. Tolerance has nothing to do with it. This is a badly chosen matter and it can actually be objected on many grounds. Hating, or badmouthing as you try to disguise it in your creative writing, is not my forte! I don’t subscribe to the notion that sins deaden hearts eternally or prevent moral reform. In the other words there is always a hope that sinners could recover from their wicked ways and find guidance hence there’s no point in hating a potential Muslim from my perspective. But it seems that you are utterly confused and failed to distinguish between protesting against a particular wrongdoing and expressing repulsiveness about it AND hating certain group or category of sinners. The two are different yaa Xaaji! CG, this is tiring now wallaahi. Yours is no longer intelligible adeer. In case you missed the point again, my analogy was to exemplify the vulnerability of children!