DS, surely icu was not without anomalies but the theological difference within it was minimal and could not have been the source of its demise. We all knew that icu’s organizational capacity could vastly be improved but never did I ever thought it would crumple as it did. The internal bickering and the power struggles you listed were real and we all heard about. At the time we thought Indhacadde was on the thumb of the Sharif and Aweys and he was there for a mere political convenience. We all knew that Turk was a stubborn ideologue but icu supporters were assured that the man has no alternative other than to stick with the herd. Right after he captured Kismayo his political attitudes were put into a hard test; a man who only knew how to arouse the faithful into a jihadi war was confronted with the political realities of ruling over un-consenting public. When the demos abated to subside, a high-ranking icu political officer was dispatched to sort things out and calm the city down. The subsequent admin for the city was the direct creation of that officer in collaboration with the icu in Mogadishu, Turk and co simply accepted. That was taken as a signal of political maturity from Turk’s part and an indication that he was ready to face the inevitability of governing rather than waging a perpetual war to liberate far away lands, Muslim and Somali lands that is, for which icu simply lacked logistical reach and military capacity to do it. While those who were familiar Somali sahwa were preoccupied about the Turk factor, the question of Indhacadde was largely ignored and did not get the attention it deserved. Ignored partly because the man was a known warlord and no body thought that he had any real role in shaping icu decisions. His relationship with icu, it was assumed, was one of a political convenience and whatever portfolio he was given was believed to be a ceremonial one. Many people though have second thoughts about that today. How could they genuinely keep a man with such a questionable background in their midst, is the question? What was the benefit of having him in as opposed to throwing him out? Was he part of their proceedings and had access into their top secrets? Here you can sense where I am going with this. I do not believe their defeat had anything to do with any theological standing of theirs. Instead I think it came as a result of utter political and military failings. I am beginning to agree with NGONGE that icu were not cultured enough to decode current political goings of the region. They were simply new to this game. Their ambition of ridding what is current Somali ill of was not matched with the level of political competence such a task required. Decision-making powers seem to have not been concentrated in the right hands or if they were, whomever those hands might have belonged to, they were not making the right decisions. Theirs was analogous to a dizzied that came to the fork of a parting road and didn’t know which road to take: peace or war! ^^But again I am finding very difficult to reconcile that obvious fault with the caliber of the people who seemed to be running the show. The team that traversed in Arab capitals was the best Somalia could ever produce. Were they duped and led to say things that facts on the ground contradicted? Perhaps! Kashafa, I heard the same news and got the same sentiments. Especially in the Bandiiradley front! Please fill me in as soon as you lift your ears from the ground! NGONGE, marra waaxidah adeer. I agree your analysis that on the political front Courts got it wrong, and big time at that! You nailed the proverbial nail on the head when you said that they excelled in their administrative tasks but failed to translate that in to a lasting success by getting the politics of it right. But my question still stands; what went wrong and who gave the Courts away? Was it an act of betrayal that sprung from internal discontent? Or was it utter incompetence as some have already accused? As for your question of how Courts defeat will impact on the future Dacwa efforts, I say it will have a lasting impact and positive one at that. Somalis as you know are not a nation of stoics adeer and most people clearly see Global and regional hegemony as part of what led Court’s defeat. People will remember that along with Court’s superb administrative ability and managerial capacity that revived a dead city from its grave. By any standards Court’s achievement are astounding, and people will not easily forget the opportunity of peace they brought; how they allowed the city to flourish and business to grow; how they tackled the issues of looted properties and established a sense of hope among feuds clans; and above all how they did all of that without foreign help. When you listen real people, not the political pundits and the cyber fadhi-ku-dirirs, you hear their genuine appreciation of what has been accomplished by the Islamic Courts but unfortunately destroyed by America and Ethiopia. I think no matter how negatively certain groupings attempt to depict icu will forever tower high in Somali history. Their efforts will not be all different then Sayid Mohamed’s recorded quest to realize peace with dignity and obtain a state that’s free from foreign interference. We know today that despite his opponent’s attempts to paint him with the convenient brush of clan, history refused to bury the man and he outlasted his enemies. The sheer fact that they perished in the hands of America, a mighty superpower is enough to preserve their names in the coming years in a positive light. On the other hand the shortness of their age is not a matter that anyone would admire and we all wished that they lasted longer than they did. To avoid that similar fate we need to understand reasons that caused it in the first place hence this thread! Any succeeding Islamic movement would definitely need to be careful in entering or provoking a regional war that it cannot handle. It would need to understand the political workings of the world. It would need to lower the expectations and adopt modalities that succeeded before in the other parts of the world. If conflicts are to be had, they need to narrow the theatre of such a conflict and plan on taking the public with them to face any external danger. Above all, they would need to have well thought out plans and articulate to the public what and where they would take the country/region and what the benefits would be. I also think any movement would need to have a solid relationship with a host of countries in the region, who would do the diplomatic battles for them, if it comes to that. ICU was just the beginning and I have doubt in my mind that a more matured movement will follow it soon.

^^The scent of frivolity is quite noticeable in your inquiry yaa Khalaf !

^^It's all ways the looks that men are attracted to women adeer. You'd want for your children to have her looks and your brain. Dont listen to her talks just ask her if she likes yours!

Cambaro luula, Why would you have a problem with her chosen profession if she apparently thinks she could succeed in it? Do you have a religious decree against Muslim females working in the field of law enforcements yaa Canbaro luula? If the answer is no as I would expect it would be, why then would you insist that she has chosen a wrong career. Perhaps you are mistaken to think challenging professions are not permissible, and hence fellow sisters should rather shun from them. I still see no contradictions in her choice. I think she is purposefully pioneering in challenging the norms and the standards of this institution. What’s wrong with that, I ask!

NGONGE, In principle, is it permissible for a female to be a police officer? Yes. Is it permissible for a Muslim female to walk around the city, police officer or not, without a mahram? Yes! Why then would you, yaa NGONGE, fetch these matters and present them as real issues that warrant a further discussion? The sister, my good brother, chose to be a police officer and she wants to serve her community in that capacity. Apparently that is the career she wants to have. Whether she did her homework and thought through all the risks involved in her chosen profession is a matter we know not. Frankly it’s immaterial to know to pass a judgment on her reported stance. I found it very funny that you chose to comment on the edges of this story instead of sharing your two cents about her distinguished resolve! Putting aside Pi’s rather predictable dig on her intelligence, I think most people acknowledged here that this sister is justified and she is indeed within her rights to request for special accommodation for her beliefs. The route she took was civil and courteous. Her request was granted and the ceremony was held without any embarrassment for anyone involved. I thought that was a splendid win for Muslim integration within that particular host society. The subsequent noise that came from some media outlets was quite predictable and should not surprise anyone. In fact, if you read this story you’d see that it hinges on a rather weak premise. The sister didn’t break any rules and was fairly accommodated. Now I would readily acknowledge that this kind of job is not suitable for a female, Muslim or not. It’s a tough job and I wouldn’t recommend it to her. But that as I said before is commenting on the fringes of the issue at hand. What she did is commendable adeer. You are a harsh analyst and I could see you looking out well in to the horizon of her career. I don’t know how the London police functions, but in the States, where I am familiar with, police officers don’t wrestle with suspects; they just shoot them if they don’t cooperate. I think the sister will do a fine job in apprehending un-cooperating suspects …by just shooting them! Lets give her a round of applause, yaa jamaacah! ps-since the defeat of icu, any thing i do is done in a hasty way!

The Ideologue by Patrick J. Buchanan. Churchillian it was not. Yet the State of the Union seemed a success if Bush's purpose was to buy time from Congress to wait and see if his surge of US forces into Iraq might yet succeed. But when Bush started to describe the ideological war we are in, one began to understand why we are in the mess we are in. "This war," said Bush, "is an ideological struggle. ... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us." But the "conditions" that drove those 19 men "to come to kill us" is our dominance of their world, our authoritarian allies, and Israel. They were over here because we are over there. If Bush is going to remove those "conditions," he is going to have to get us out of the Middle East. Is he prepared to do that? Of course not. Because Bush, believing the problem is not our pervasive presence but the lack of freedom in the Middle East, is waging his own ideological war to bring freedom in by force of arms, if necessary. "What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices." Very American. But the truth is terrorists do not fear free societies, they flourish in them. The suicide bombers of 9/11, Madrid, and London all plotted their atrocities in free societies. From the Red Brigades, who murdered Italy's Aldo Mori, to the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, who tried to kill Al Haig, to the Basque ETA, the IRA and the Puerto Rican terrorists who tried to assassinate Harry Truman, free societies are where they do their most effective work. Stalin's Russia and Nazi Germany had no trouble with terrorists. "Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies," declared Bush. Oh? Explain, then, why 70 million Germans, under the most democratic government in their history, gave more than half their votes to Nazis and Communists in 1933? In every plebiscite he held, Hitler won a landslide. In the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938, Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and far more popular than FDR, who lost 71 seats in the House. During 2006, free Latin peoples brought to power anti-American Leftists Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and came close to electing their comrades Ollanta Humala in Peru and Andrés Manuel López-Obrador in Mexico. In the free elections Bush demanded in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, the winners were the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas and Shi'ite militants with ties to Iran. If a referendum were held in the Middle East on the proposition of the US military out and Israel gone, how does Bush think it would come out? "So we advance our security interests by helping moderates, reformers and brave voices for democracy," said Bush. But how many of those "moderates" – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, the Gulf States – are ruled "by brave voices for democracy"? Our Islamist enemies would likely endorse unanimously a Bush call for free elections in all those countries, as elections could not but help advance to greater power, at the expense of our friends, those same Islamist enemies. What is Bush doing? The America that won the Cold War said ideology be damned, we stand by our friends. "The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies," said Bush. But if we bleed our country to give the men and women of the Middle East the freedom to choose the society they wish to live in, are we sure they will not choose a society where Sharia is law? In liberated Afghanistan, popular sentiment was behind beheading a Muslim who converted to Christianity. What leads Bush to believe everyone wants to be like us? Is it not ideology? To characterize "the totalitarian ideology" we confront, Bush quoted Osama bin Laden: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us." This is the true mark of the true believer. But did not the Spain of Isabella want the "unbelievers" removed from "among us"? Did not Elizabeth I feel the same about Catholics? "Give me liberty or give me death!" said Patrick Henry of the Brits remaining in this country that Brits had founded. "Live free or die!" is the motto of the great state of New Hampshire. This is the heart of the war we are in. Americans believe in freedom first. Millions of Muslims believe in Islam first – submission to Allah. We decide for us. Do we also decide for them? Perhaps the best advice we can give our Muslim friends in the Middle East is the hard advice Lord Byron gave the Greeks under the Islamic rule of Ottoman Turks: Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not, Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?

This incident highlights the difference between integration and assimilation. Muslims need to be integrated in their respective host society to fully realize the benefits of being part of the system. But in the process of doing so, they need not abandon their values or bend deeply held beliefs to fix mere inconveniences. Meeting western professional standards or conforming to graduation rituals is a mere inconvenience and does not warrant Muslims to respect it, especially if it contradicts latter’s own religious tenets. The story of the sister above is a beautiful illustration of how Muslims in the heart of the west are willing to go to the extra mile, so to speak, if accommodated, to serve their host community. Unless it seeks a forceful assimilation process, Commission’s announced inquiry into this matter will hardly do any good and can indeed have a negative impact on the public’s perception of it if the end result of it becomes suspension or penalizes the sister (here I am assuming in England public institutions are expected to strive to have an accommodating and diverse work environment). At any rate, congrats to this sister I say. I solute her resolve!

Originally posted by Taako Man: ^ Sheik Shariif has been in Kenya for upto a week by some reports. His intentions are not clear. But his support is useless. If Aweys were not on U.S terror watchlists he would be the first one to be dialed upon especially with his clan not fully onboard and most of the problems in Xamar originate from the South Xamar. ^^That's the problem with somali politics adeer. You see, the other day when CQasim met with the old man tfg supporters told us that it was over and the brainchild behind the courts is now onboard with the program. see what a difference few week make yaa Taako. Adeer Somalia god dheer bay ku dhacday, this tfg has niether the energy nor the competence that it takes to in godka laga soo bixiyo.. nin sacab tuntay ciyaar dalbay,as somali says, and we will see how it all ends! Pi, spill it out adeet duniduba ha ogaatee..

^^Sharif knows not how to sleep with Americans; there are known ones in our political congregation who excel in that business adeer! That prize has already been won by the old man, Geedi and the likes. For him to try it now would be useless; a lame steed as it were never outruns the stout one, yaa Pi !

LOL@Geed's tusbax. Waligaaba tusbax qaado wallee waa lagu hayyaa maraan fogeyn .

NAIROBI (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger has met top Somali Islamist leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, who is being held by Kenyan intelligence in Nairobi, a U.S. embassy official said on Wednesday. Ranneberger has said Ahmed potentially can be a player in reconciliation between the interim Somali government and Ahmed's militant Islamist movement, which government troops with Ethiopian backing defeated over the New Year. Ranneberger has said any Somali who renounces violence and extremism will have a part to play in reconciliation in the Horn of Africa country. The U.S. official, who confirmed the meeting which a source had told Reuters about earlier, spoke on condition of anonymity and declined to give any details. Ahmed, one of the most visible faces of the defeated Somalia Islamic Courts Council (SICC) during its six-month rule of most of southern Somalia, surrendered at the Kenya-Somalia border. Ahmed is being held at an upmarket hotel on the outskirts of Nairobi by Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service. Diplomats say Kenya, and possibly the United States, had a role in brokering Ahmed's surrender. A senior Kenyan official told Reuters on Wednesday that Ahmed wants to seek refuge in Yemen, and that Kenya will not send him to Somalia because he would be killed there. Kenya is also trying to push him to talk with Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi, who is in Nairobi, but Gedi has thus far refused, the official said. Washington and its ally Ethiopia have said the SICC had al Qaeda members in its ranks, and the United States has conducted at least one confirmed air strike against what it believes were al Qaeda hiding with the Islamists in southern Somalia. Many blame hardcore Islamist remnants for a series of attacks against government and Ethiopian troops in the coastal capital Mogadishu. The SICC has vowed a guerrilla war. Source: Reuters, Jan 24, 2007

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - The United States this week conducted a second air strike in Somalia, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, as the top U.S. envoy in East Africa met an ousted Islamist leader to press for reconciliation with the government. The new air strike came roughly two weeks after an AC-130 plane killed what Washington said were eight al Qaeda-affiliated fighters hiding among Islamist remnants pushed to Somali's southern tip by Ethiopian and Somali government forces. One official said the targets were from the Somalia Islamic Courts Council (SICC), a militant group defeated by government troops with Ethiopian armor and air power in a two-week war started before Christmas. A second source said the target was an al Qaeda operative. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment. Washington believes Somali Islamists have protected al Qaeda members accused of bombing U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and an Israeli-owned Kenya hotel in 2002. The United States and other countries are pushing on diplomatic and military fronts to help the government build on the gains it made in the war, which let it enter the capital for the first time since it forming at peace talks in Kenya in 2004. On Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger met SICC leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, who is being held by Kenyan intelligence in an upmarket hotel on the outskirts of the Kenyan capital, Nairobi A U.S. embassy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the meeting but gave no details. Another source with knowledge of the meeting said it happened on Wednesday. 'WHAT TYPE OF MAN' Ranneberger, also responsible for Somalia, has said Ahmed is among those who could play a role in the inclusive reconciliation process Washington and many diplomatic players, believe is necessary to unify Somalia's multiple factions. Ahmed, one of the most visible faces of the SICC during its six-month rule of most of southern Somalia, surrendered at the Kenya-Somalia border and is under the watch of Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service. Diplomats say Kenya, with U.S. support, has pushed the Somali government leaders to sit down with Ahmed for talks. "What we will do with him will depend on what type of man he is. But we will go back to our country, sit with my cabinet and decide what to do with him," Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf told a press conference in Kigali, where he met Rwandan President Paul Kagame. A senior Kenyan official told Reuters on Wednesday Ahmed is seeking refuge in Yemen and Kenya will not send him to Somalia because he would be killed there. 'NO VACUUM' Washington has long feared Somalia, strategically located at the tip of the Horn of Africa, could become a playground for militants, since it has been in anarchy since the 1991 ouster of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre. Even with a still-strong Ethiopian military presence in Somalia, attacks continued in Mogadishu -- a city full of military-grade weapons and people who oppose the government. The latest attack struck the Mogadishu international airport, witnesses said. "Two mortars were fired. One hit us and the other one hit the airport," Ahmed Abdi told Reuters from his bed at Madina hospital, where he was treated for shrapnel in his leg and shoulder. A hospital official there said five people, including a 10-year-old boy, were hurt. A government source earlier said one person was killed, but it could not be confirmed. Many blame hardcore Islamist remnants for a spate of similar attacks against government and Ethiopian troops in the coastal capital. The SICC has vowed a guerrilla war, but some experts question their ability to mount a sustained campaign. Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi on Wednesday said 200 soldiers were pulled out on Tuesday as part drawdown on his troops to make way for a proposed African Union force of nearly 8,000 troops, which is still being cobbled together. "We have organized that the last phase of withdrawal will coincide with deployment of AU forces," Meles told a news conference in Addis Ababa. "There will be no vacuum." Uganda and Malawi have agreed to contribute, while South Africa and Nigeria are mulling whether to participate. A communiqué from the meeting between Kagame and Yusuf said Rwanda would limit its help to training the fledgling Somali forces. (Additional reporting by Kristin Roberts and David Morgan in Washington, Bryson Hull and Marie-Louise Gumuchian in Nairobi, Arthur Asiimwe in Kigali, in Maputo, Andrew Quinn in Pretoria and Tsegaye Tadesse in Addis Ababa) Source: Reuters, Jan 24, 2007

^^tfg is going to have its little show as well adeer! Dont understimate Somalia's great equalizer!

The X Factor in 2008 – Iran. by Patrick J. Buchanan. After a weekend in which 29 Americans died and the 82nd Airborne deployed in Baghdad, what the Iraq war will mean to the politics of 2008 becomes clear. Hillary Clinton's early Saturday announcement of her exploratory committee was brilliantly executed and captured front page, cable, and network coverage all weekend. But it was a decision forced upon her. Barack Obama, the "rock star," has been poaching on Hillary's donor lists and offering Democrats, in the style of New York mayoral candidate John V. Lindsay in 1965 ("He is fresh, and they are all tired"), a post-Bush-Clinton-Bush politics that says, "Good-bye to all that." John Edwards has pitched his tent in the Cindy Sheehan camp. The Sunday preceding Dr. King's birthday, he rose in New York City's Riverside Church, where King had denounced the Vietnam War, to decry President Bush's surge as "the McCain Doctrine," called for immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 U.S. troops, and threw down the gauntlet to Hillary, declaring, "Silence is betrayal." By midweek, Hillary was out with her own plan for redeployment. The Democratic nominee will likely be one of these three. In every national or Iowa-New Hampshire poll, they are first, second, or third. But there is a wild card. On Feb. 25, America will watch the Academy Awards, where the Oscar for best documentary will likely go to An Inconvenient Truth. If Al Gore wins the Oscar, addresses the nation for two minutes on global warming and the war, then appears on Oprah, Leno, Letterman, Stewart, and Colbert, a subsequent declaration of candidacy would put him in the top tier. And unlike Edwards and Hillary, Gore opposed the war in Iraq. In the Democratic Party, the Iraq war is a lost cause that ought never to have been begun and any candidate who has not come to that position by February 2007 will not be in the hunt. In the Republican Party, the war is less likely to bring about the unity Democrats will have achieved by year's end. For by summer's end, the surge will be over. While there may have been a temporary reduction in massacres by then, no one believes an additional 21,500 troops in a Texas-sized nation of 26 million can turn around a war Gen. Colin Powell says we "are losing" and Bush concedes "we are not winning." Already, near a fifth of the Republicans in the Senate, including Chuck Hagel and presidential candidate Sam Brownback, have come out against the surge. The front-runners, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, however, still back the president. But while McCain is far out in front in raising money and lining up support, he is also the single national figure, beyond Bush and Dick Cheney, most identified with the least popular war in U.S. history. If McCain wishes to be president, it would be best for him for this war to be in its final act, one way or the other, by 2008. If the war has been lost by then, as many believe it is already, McCain can say: Rumsfeld lost it because he fought it the wrong way, and we shall never do that again. But if the war is still going on, it will be the issue of 2008, and it is hard to see America voting to continue or embrace the "McCain Doctrine" and escalate by sending in 100,000 more troops. The GOP is thus looking at a situation in 2008 where the party will be as divided as Democrats were with Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, Bobby Kennedy, and LBJ in 1968, while Democrats will be as united as the GOP was under Nixon. Had George Wallace, who got 13 percent, been out of the '68 race, Nixon would have won in a landslide. Is there anything that might alter the course of events and affect the war picture by 2008? Indeed: a preemptive strike on Iran. Should it occur, writes Wayne White, an intelligence officer at the State Department until 2005, "such action would likely involve not only taking out widely dispersed nuclear-related targets and nearby anti-aircraft defenses, but also portions of the Iranian air force assigned to defend these targets. And that's just for starters." "In order to reduce Iran's ability to retaliate in the Persian Gulf, such a plan probably would also include taking out Iran's array of anti-ship missiles along the northern coast of the Gulf, its Kilo-class submarines, other naval assets, and even some targets related to Iran's long-range missile capacity." Is such an attack being considered? Nick Burns, No. 3 at State, was at the Herzileah Conference this weekend. "Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon – there's no doubt about it," Burns told the Israelis. "The policy of the U.S. government is that we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state." Burns was cheered and echoed by ex-Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz: "The year of 2007 is the year of decisiveness. … The free world doesn't have the privilege to drag its feet on Iran and hope for best." Democrats failed to stop this war. Can they stop the next one? Or do they suspect and support what they think is coming?

Ma anaan garan!

Waa gartay. Most Somali poets come from Hawd region! Nimanku waa true afmaals!

Originally posted by Pi: Actually, I skipped over his blanket takfir of everyone. And I think it's a salafi tendency to think that way- not all salafis, but some. For the record, I don't agree with him on that. Where did you get the notion that 'blanket takfiir' is a 'salafi tendency'? I have conisdered your 'not all salafis' disclaimer, mind you!

^^accept my belated congrats for the effort, saaxiib! Pi, granted that Islam prohibits us to call other Muslims munaafiq or kaafir (and I think it’s really a ineffective way of debating anyway) but pointing out specific acts/words and labeling them as such based on the available facts/data is indeed permitted! You don’t have to have access to someone’s inner state to label his/her actions hypocritical! In fact there are discernable signs in munaafiqs actions/words that we can all see and observe. Five signs to be precise. Likewise this faith of ours have clear nullifiers that could throw us into the kaafir domain even if we insist otherwise. Constrains are put in place for the integrity of our faith and any violation of those constrains would indeed nullify it. If one’s actions are found to be in violation of own faith’s directives and in contradiction of its main pillars, then such actions, yaa Pi, could legitimately be labeled as a kaafir’s action. In this case, the tired (tired because it become a fashionable argument) notion of deeds depend on intentions does not hold! How else, pray tell, can religious obligation be ever effective? Zafir, are you standing in the path of repentance ? Yonis has been roaming like one crazed and the majority of his pronouncements have advanced well into the domain of errors, why, then, should we not, I repeat, offer a sincere prayer for this brother? I already said and sent mine to heaven. ps--i didn't mean to argue for those who doll out so easily those said name callingsjudgements!

^^Why should you not offer the brother a sincere prayer to heal?

LOL@Ina Niiqle. Sayidku caadi maahayn wallee! Many thanks to bro Sharmarke Jidbaaliyo Beerdhiga raggi joogay baan ahaye Waligayba meel laguu jabaan jaqalla weynaaye Ilaahay i jecelaa muxuu jirey arwaaxaygu! ^^Typical Abdi Gahayr! Was he not from Burco, horta yaa Sharmarke? I know Salaan was, but not sure about Abdi Gahayr. ps think about other poems were its author prematurely celebrated!

Ours is to reason why Ours is not just do and die! It was only few months ago when the Islamic Courts of Mogadishu came to the fore of Somali politics! Their immergence, and rapid assumption of power thereon was not a bloodless coup. Impressive it was, and still remains, how these obscure men successfully married an uncompromising ideological zeal with the wishes and desires of a broad spectrum of people! The result was quite a seachange and caught many regional experts in surprise. In a very short period of time, and with much lower casualties than previously assumed, Courts vanquished rival warlords and drove them out of Mogadishu and into what seemed then an eternal shame! The expulsion of those wicked men represented a shoot of hope for those like me who cherished ill will against them killers! Then come the opening of Mogadishu’s port and airport, the fall of Kismayo, and the return of law and order. Their ascendancy to power was as though a new virtuoso came to our political stage; they were significant in both stature and purpose, yet humble in their captivating eloquence; surely they were not amongst those trailing the garment of vanity, yet they raised armies of youths full of dignity! In a span of time not more than half a dozen moons they have constructed that which others failed to accomplish, spoke rare words of reconciliation whose utterance others shirked, and commenced to reverse the gains of vandal savages in the south. In short, they seemed to have captured our imagination---the imagination of both of those who stayed long on the hump of exile and hoped a dignified return to the motherland and those who endured the brunt of civil war and hoped for a better future that is. These (though not free from bias) are not just empty praises! Court’s men have indeed flew our kites of hope to the highest point, so to speak, and brought optimism where needed most! But times, as the saying goes, incline to the niggardly. Islamic Courts successes evaporated in the most unimaginable way! It took days, and not even weeks, to undo their military gains. More shockingly, all their accomplishments and successes were reversed without any popular resistance from the places and the communities that benefited it most! The demos and supportive parades were replaced by a depressing silence, and what seemed as an insurmountable organization disappeared like vapors without tangible traces. Granted that they were brutally and swiftly crushed by a mightier foe, a foe (America), it must borne in mind, whose fight they have not called for and whose military offense they were unprepared! But how was it not that they walked on the high road of guidance and restrained themselves from making threats and issuing ultimatums? What were their preparations and plans? Were they like the proverbial beast that scratched up its own death with its hoof? Or were they righteous men who were liquidated by allied evil forces? Don’t get me wrong folks for I have not begin to doubt their fathering and they do still tower above all that we have in Somalia to-day. I do also understand the true meaning of victory and know it doesn’t always translate into a worldly win for what seems defeat to some can indeed be a victory to others. In suuratul Buruj what comes across as utter loss, Allah describes it a great triumph! Even Hemingway recognized that man, as he put it, ‘is not made for defeat’. He can be destroyed but not defeated! He said! But again here my thoughts about Court’s vanquish linger and hence I should not be blamed to inquire as to what were the reasons that caused such a hurried fall! What plausible reasons are there to justify Court’s tactical errors? What are the lessons learned? What’s the strategy forward? I know it would be very hard to escape from the comments of the simpleton and the ignorant, but Nur (the sage of SOL) and others in this forum; I appreciate your inputs and thoughts!

^^I doubt Buchanan repented from his previous stances on Immigration and Jews ! I once watched him debate intensely with an immigrant from Haiti! Still, the man talks and makes a lot of sense! He is a realist in his foreign policy outlook. He doesn’t like Muslims per se but he thinks our difference is substantive and real and he doesn’t buy Bush’s hallow talk about spreading democracy. His keen observation of Israeli influence on American foreign policy turned out to be quite correct too. Sadaqa wahuwa kaathib, I say !

al Jazeera

See the Superpower Run by Patrick J. Buchanan No sooner had Sens. Hagel and Biden announced their resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Bush surge of 21,500 troops to Iraq was not in the national interest than the stampede was on. By day's end, Sens. Dodd, Clinton, Bayh, Levin and Obama and ex-Sen. John Edwards had all made or issued statements calling for reversing course or getting out. You can't run a war by committee, said Vice President Cheney. True. George Washington did not request a vote of confidence from the Continental Congress before crossing the Delaware, and Douglas MacArthur did not consult Capitol Hill before landing at Inchon. But Congress is not trying to run a war. Congress is trying to get out of Iraq and get on record opposing the "surge." Congress is running after popular opinion. And if the surge does not succeed in six months in quelling the sectarian violence in Baghdad, there will be no more troops, and the Americans will start down the road to Kuwait. And, unlike 2003, there will be no embedded and exhilarated journalists riding with them. To the older generation, the American way of abandonment is familiar. JFK's New Frontiersmen marched us, flags flying, into Vietnam. But, as the body count rose to 200 a week, the "Best and Brightest" suddenly discovered this was a "civil war," "Nixon's war" and the Saigon regime was "corrupt and dictatorial." So, with a clean conscience, they cut off funds and averted their gaze as Pol Pot's holocaust ensued. Our Vietnamese friends who did not make it out on the choppers, or survive the hellish crossing of the South China Sea by raft, wound up shot in the street or sent to "re-education camps." Nouri al-Maliki can see what is coming. As Condi flies about the Middle East in a security bubble, telling the press he is living on "borrowed time," and Bush tells PBS of his revulsion at the botched hanging of Saddam Hussein, Maliki is showing the same signs of independence he demonstrated when he refused Bush's invitation to dine with him and the King of Jordan. Give me the guns and equipment and go home, he seems to be saying to the White House. Put me down on Maliki's side. It is he who is taking the real risk here – with his life. It is he who is likely to learn what Kissinger meant when he observed that in this world, while it is often dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, to be a friend is fatal. Will the surge work? Can it work? Certainly, adding thousands of the toughest cops in America to the LAPD would reduce gang violence in South Central. So, it may work for a time. Yet in the long run it is hard to see how the surge succeeds. We are four years into this war, and the bloodletting in Baghdad is rising. Our presence has never been more resented. In America, the war has already been lost. Even Bush admits that staying the course means "slow failure." And a rapid withdrawal, as urged by the Baker-Hamilton commission, means "expedited failure." Even should the surge succeed for a time, it may only push the inevitable into another year. And consider what it is we are asking Maliki to do. We want him to use Sunni and Kurdish brigades of the Iraqi Army, in concert with the US Army, to smash the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, the most popular Shi'ite leader in the country and the principal political support of Maliki. We are asking Maliki to turn on his ruthless Shi'ite patron and bet his future on an America whose people want all US troops home, the earlier the better. For Maliki to implement fully the US conditions would make him a mortal enemy of Moqtada and millions of Shi'ites, and possibly result in his assassination. Whatever legacy Bush faces, he is not staring down a gun barrel at that. It is over. What we need to face now are the consequence of the folly of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice in launching this unnecessary and unprovoked war, the folly of the neocon snake oil salesmen who bamboozled the media into believing in this insane crusade to bring democracy to Baghdad in the belly of Bradley fighting vehicles and the folly of the Democratic establishment in handing Bush a blank check for war out of political fear of being called unpatriotic.

Doesn't surprise me at all!