Chimera, the part where Somali men established an effective telecommunications system is extremely irrelevant to the point. I never denied Somali ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Not once. But this is Somalia....a country where a large percentage of the population is hungry. And people need to eat. If that means destroying telephone systems to sell the copper wire, or burning down trees to make charcoal, or destroying railways to sell the steel and aluminum, or raiding the National Armory and selling the weapons on the Black Market, or printing out counterfeit Somali shillings and inflating the currency.... then so be it. (All of this actually happened in Somalia) I'm not blaming them for doing it. After all, they need to survive. I love your optimism, and I sincerely believe that Somalia has better days ahead of it, but you really need to be more realistic

Chimera;937751 wrote: Parts of the system would be derelict, but it would still function in various parts of the country, much like the road-network. Then with stability the whole system would be operational again, and we could expand it. Now we have to start from 0 km. Lol you do realize this is Somalia right? Somalia, the land where men actually took down telephone lines so they can steal the copper wires and sell the copper on the market. If the railroad was constructed before 1990, it would be completely destroyed by today

Wadani;935268 wrote: This is required at times when warranted. If degenerate lifestyles arent stigmatized within our communities and those who adopt them aren't held responsible for the outcome of their actions (yes even death) the problem will only get worse. Somalis need to take personal responsibility for what's happening to their communities in spite of all the systemic injustices that make conditions ripe for our youth to go wayward. The dominant white superstructure around us will not change, nor do they care about us. We have to stop believeing in their crocdile tears and taking their petty scraps and start empowering ourselves. Do u think the Jewish diaspora, which was dispersed in 70 AD, was handed all of their influence, power and wealth by the Muslim empires of the past, and later the Europeans Americans? These people banded together and did what they had to do to take what was theirs and then some. So lets stop with all the claptrap about rascism and disenfranchisement....These injustices are a reality yes, so we either get like the Jews and become self-reliant or like the African Americans and sulk all day about sh** not being fair. Let's not forget we are active agents that can create our own socio-economic realities (ofcourse within the limits of Allah's qadar). STOP! You're making too much sense This is the kind of paragraph that would make Jesse Jackson's head explode

Safferz;936907 wrote: RIP MSN messenger. A few memories: - the hotmail account I made in 5th grade, which was something like pisces_cutie911 - the passive aggressive, cryptic song lyrics I'd have as my sign-in name - getting mad when I'd sign in and my pic was replaced by that rubber duck - "appear offline" so certain people wouldn't see me online - - abo asking me why I spend so much time on the computer when I see these people at school all day - group chat fights - minesweeper LOL You summarized it perfectly I haven't used MSN Messenger in years but I have plenty of fond memories

Boondheere;936633 wrote: why allah wants to finger point the beauty of boys``? what would someone gets that from and why do we care how boys look like wather they look like scattered peals or not ? i dont understand that.. .. I suggest you read Ibn Qayyim's Hadi Al Arwah....which is a description of Paradise. My guess is the Quran emphasizes the beauty of the young boys as to outline the general beauty of Paradise. The Quran also describes many other beauties in Paradise, and only someone with a polluted mind can think of this as something bad. And Allah knows best

Boondheere;936626 wrote: in quran Surah al-Insaan :19 And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. Jannada waxaa jooga wiilal yar yar quruxdooda aad moodid luulka oo kale. wiilal yar yar ayaa kuu shaqeynaya.. mmmmmm i should say thats not my wish.. my wish is no serving boys for me.. allahu akbaaar. i wonder why someone needs to work as servant in ajannah. i thougth everything was automatic, you just need thinking about it and in milli seconds it appears front of you whit out boys serving. and why someone wants to point to me the beauty of boys.. what will you get wather boys are beautifull or not.. it sounds 7th century arabian fantacy.. allahu waclaaam.. You should be careful in your speech sir. That was bordering on kufr All we know is that these boy-servants were created in Jannah, they never lived on the Earth, and they serve their role as servants in Jannah.

LOL Am I the only one who loves the era we live in right now? I'm not a nostalgic person at all. I would never live in the 1960's or 1980's or anything like that. 2013 is perfect

http://islamqa.com/en/ref/8068/ Here's an article answering the question that someone posed. So if a woman marries multiple men in this Earth who all die before her, she will be with her last husband in Jannah, inshallah

If I were in Jannah, what I would want most would be to "visit" Allah everyday, if that's the right word. Everything else comes secondary. Oh....and I wouldn't mind having 2 pretty women by my side as well I'm a simple man

Showqi;936608 wrote: Wadani what if a woman had married three times, and all of her three husbands passed away before her. All three men were god fearing and good husbands to her. now which one does she have to be with if Allah allows her and the three husbands in jannah. She would be married to her last husband in Jannah.

Someone needs to give dawah to this Apophis character. Disbelief in Allah is not a joke, and it has some serious implications if Apophis were to die in this state of disbelief

Mustafe;936194 wrote: Whenever a punch of SNA soldiers are pictured, its a must that it contain a few blokes who look 50 and 15. Those guys should be banned from fighting. I understand they need the money, but cammon, at least its better than them dying lol. I think the Somali Army is sorely lacking in manpower, so they take any eligible recruit, regardless of age lol The quality of the Somali army will increase with time, but right now we gotta start with the basics.

Safferz;936112 wrote: I'm just fascinated by your ability to classify things as "not really capitalist" or "not really neoliberal" when they don't fit your ideal-type model of what you imagine neoliberalism to be. It's stuff that would get you laughed out of any economics department anywhere. You're just not being serious, and it's impossible to debate someone who either can't or refuses to grasp the basic contextual information and facts about economics from which we could then have a productive discussion. If for example, a Muslim were to commit an atrocious crime contrary to Islamic Law, how do you think the Christian would look if he pointed to the actions of the Muslim and claimed it was representative of Islam? The Non-Muslim would look ridiculous am I correct? So who do you think are, giving a momentary glance at the 2008 crash and claiming it was the result of Capitalism when the facts show that it had nothing to do with it. I gave you the exact reason why the economy collapsed. I told you it was caused by the Fed's monetary policy as well as Government inflating the housing bubble and you chose to ignore my point, not even responding to what I said, nice job And as for me "being laughed out of any Economics department"....I'm not the only one who's made this claim. Thousands of Economists---some of them Nobel Prize Winners---made the exact same claim as me. There's two sides to every story, and to claim that anyone who disagree s with you is "not being serious" shows how immature you are

Safferz;936088 wrote: So in the same way you don't consider the IMF and World Bank neoliberal institutions, you don't think that governments can be neoliberal and enact neoliberal economic policies? lmao! Governments should be neo-liberal. But the problem is the US Federal Government is far from being this way. Alan Greenspan and Barney Frank caused this economic collapse. But yet everyone refuses to see this. I think low taxes, low government spending, minimal regulations and free trade is something we should all agree on. But you completely dodged the point and ignored my contention. Nice job safferz

Wadani;936080 wrote: DoctorKenney, if u haven't noticed she's not a waryaa lol. But i'm pretty much with u on this, though i'm not sure if I agree totally with the Austrian school of economics. LOL my fault I don't agree totally with the Austrian School either.....But I know one thing: If the Government left us alone, this Crash would've never happened

Safferz;935987 wrote: LOLOL. You've already lost. When the Federal Government is guaranteeing home mortgage loans and lowering lending standards, then that's a distortion of capitalism. This knowledge is so basic that I'm wondering if you're deliberately being dishonest here. This crash was so obviously caused by government, and any honest Economist would tell you that. iska seexo warya. What you advocate will never be implemented in Somalia. We see right through you

Safferz;935975 wrote: Heh, another "but that wasn't really capitalism" argument to subvert evidence that it hasn't worked. The economy crashed because of the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, the Government lowering home lending standards, and the Government creating a housing bubble. The government distorted the market and that's what crashed the economy. Don't start this debate. You will lose. The 2008 crash had nothing to do with capitalism

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can compare West Germany to East Germany, and compare which countries were doing better. Someone once said, "The definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over, expecting a different result". You Socialists have lost the debate back in the 20th century. Deal with it

xabad;935961 wrote: leave alone this africans and look at chile, west germany et al. africans have other impediments and neoliberalism is expensive excuse for their misfortunes. i wish they had fully implemented neoliberalist policies, they would have been middle income countries. I agree 100% BTW, if I save my own money and decide to open up a factory producing cars, why should the Government dictate what I can or can't do with my own business, who I can hire, and who I can trade with? It's my property. I have the right to control my own property. Property rights are a very important aspect of Islamic Law.

Even the early Caliphs such as Abu Bakr and Omar bin Khattab stayed out of the economic affairs of their people. The government should only provide law enforcement and a court system. The Zakah tax was a mere 2.5% of someone's wealth, which is TINY. NOWHERE did they advocate a socialist system, where the State controls the economic activities of the people. These people think that Socialism means "generosity". It is not. You can be generous on your own time, with your own money. But when it comes to running a country, the government should stay out of the way.

Safferz;935929 wrote: lmao only on SOL can someone conveniently discard neoliberal structural adjustment policies and the IMF and World Bank as non-practitioners of neoliberalism to make an argument that neoliberalism hasn't been impeded African development. You would be eaten alive for making that argument in an economics or political science class at my university. Again, I do NOT support the IMF and World Bank making parasitic loans (with high interest rates) to corrupt African dictators. That's not neo-liberalism. That's colonialism under a different name. Countries like the United States (100 years ago), Japan, West Germany, Chile, South Korea, and others have ALL prospered due to neo-liberalism. If you actually read the works of F.A. Hayek and Mises than you would know what I'm talking about

xabad;935919 wrote: ok, leave britain and go to any one of the remaining socialists paradises. deal ? Apophis is our Atheist Marxist friend on the forum. He fulfills the very important role of being the town clown. We need him for those purposes alone

Safferz;935904 wrote: Except it's not. Neoliberalism refers directly to a type of economic policy and view of the market, articulated in documents like John Williamson's Washington Consensus. The IMF and World Bank are international institutions that embody neoliberal economics and design their policies accordingly. Except that none of these African nations actually practiced neoliberalism. Too much government spending, high taxes, high debts, high regulations, little property rights, are what African nations are filled with. It was never practiced. Unless you give me evidence that it's application didn't work, then you have no argument. Look at the country of Chile, which actually applied neo-liberal policies, and look how rich they've become. Chile is a success story

Safferz;935883 wrote: The government of China nationalized industry and has complete and direct control over their economy, which is the type of governance you seem to take issue with above. And who knows nothing here? China opened up their trade markets, reduced regulation, reduced taxes, reduced government control over their economy.....and the economy of China BOOMED. China is 10x richer than it was 30 years ago. I believe Africans can do the same.

Safferz;935876 wrote: There is no such thing as "by African standards," there are indicators for development that enable comparisons to be made across states and continents. It's true that Botswana is faring much better than its neighbours, but that isn't saying a whole lot. And I've said nothing about "repeating failed policies" (and I'm not so narrow as to define socialism in terms of Barre's "socialism"), so put the strawman to rest. The discussion here is about neoliberalism and its human costs, particularly to us as Africans. I agree, the World Bank and the IMF have done a lot of damage to Africans. I'm with you there. But to claim neoliberalism is like the World Bank is like claiming all Socialists are like Stalin. Dishonest comparison