Ayoubi, UIC have taken some corrective actions on the Lower Shabelle. Still there is room for improvement! On Lower Juba, Barre has left voluntarily, his senior colleagues have passed the control of the port city to Turki, a true son of the city and true practicing Muslim as well. Down under, it is all good buddy. The era of "Rob Peter to pay Paul" is over. Courts' fight to uproot the blood suckers of JVA alliances is a move that I and others, who hail from that city, welcomed. Kismayo is a blessed city. Its true residents are civilized merchants. They would welcome justice even if the courts forces are frrom H clans. Business at the end of day needs stability and order regardless who brings. Justice that came in the form of H dominated Islamists from Mogadishu was long overdue. Granted that courts are a mile away from perfection. Their mistakes and their tactical moves are many and if I were to list them, items in the list will fill a page or two. Yet the good they brought to residents of Mogadishu and Kismayo outweight their pitfalls. Hopefully Barawe, Qoryoleey, Marka, and Afgooye will benefit from their rule once they put to bed their internal deamons Insha'Allah. Awoowe Barre's calculated and wise exit from that city is something aan annigu kolay ku diirsaday. My tribe in general and my clan in particular and its elders seem to be losing their sanity. Very sad to report but the intrigue and poltical calculation of Cadde and Inna Yussuf is no more. Greed and obssessive and irrational fixation of winning the power through proxy nations is all that left in their game.

Shukran Nur. Libaax the tax constant is 0.3 (20% withheld by Uncle sam + early withdrawal penalty which is 10%). And that is if you plan to retire in the islands south of Kismayo prior reaching 59.5 milestone (milestone Uncle Sam has set for the 401k account holders). Zakat = [(Tc)]*0.025 Tc = 1 - 0.3 = 0.70 Zakat = [(7500)(0.70)]*0.025 Zakat = $131.25 Nur there I saved you $55.75. A few more bucks that you can give away for more credit from mina Allah. Note: state tax is not included in my cal.

If one has N figure ($) in one's 401K account, N figure that's yet to be taxed, how one should calculate what one owes? Nur, Xiin, Mutakalim, anyone?

Almost all good-willed Somalis cheered for the UIC’s ascendancy to prominence in Benadir region and the nearby provinces of the north of Mogadishu. Having watched the carcasses of Maandeeq fought over by alternating vultures supported and defended by their clan folk for so long, the emergency of principled group of men doing the difficult work of uprooting powerful and resourceful gangs whom they shared clan affiliation seemed surreal. Some of us dismissed them as half-religious half-clannish beast who were willing to coexist with pure evil until forced to defend themselves. They were just struggling for their survival, some said. Because of relentless onslaught of well-financed and well supported opportunistic snitches, they had to defend their turf! That is only half of the story, however. True. Paid snitches had to perform and they were on the offensive. Two of the localized courts were the target and indeed they defended themselves alright! But they also managed to overcome the limitations imposed by the clan sensibilities that were so pervasive in this corner of the Somalia that once was. For the anarchy-ridden, wayward, and impoverished Mogadishu, anyone that quiets the unceasing and ever present sound of blazing guns and/or removes the impassable isbaaro is a hero. Indeed they are heroes who found unity in Islam. They’ve won the battle and for the first time the capital came under a group of localized clan-based Islamic militia. That did it for most of us. We jumped on the bandwagon. The cautious optimists among us welcomed this new development in Benadir region but warned that the Ethiopian factor will come into play and the UIC has to learn how to navigate on the shark invested waters very carefully. The young and impressionable, on the other hand, labeled all Somalis who don’t submit to the authority of UIC as traitors. To this group, simply put, there is no room for constructive criticism. As much as some of us support UIC’s end game, we find their current tactical moves unsettling. The inclusion of Indhacade in the ranks of UIC and the refusal to negotiate with its rival is deeply troubling. We, those of us who consider the UIC as an agent for change (change for the better that is) feel betrayed by this move. I for one don’t think the idea of adopting a known looter, a warlord, who pillaged (I should know) almost every little village in the rich farmlands of Lower Shabelle a one consistent with the principles I share with UIC. As mere mortals operating under constraints of local forces and bound by the limitations of anarchic and war-hardened polity whose loyalty is to serve their clan’s interest, they are susceptible to the prevailing practices in the area. With Ethiopians helping and rearming their enemies, any willing and capable group who lends a hand in this critical time is irresistible. That’s reasonable justification. I buy that! I also buy the argument that to correct all wrongs to everyone’s satisfaction if possible at all will take time. True that too. To ignore the plight of folks in Qoryooleey (the Jiido and Garre’s of Somalia – along the Benadirs and Berawaanis they are the true victims of Somali civil war) however and instead undertake unwise and ill conceived military adventures in a far away lands under the pretext of “locals have invited us†is completely insane. Because of this stup*d blunder, Ethiopia has taken advantage of nervous and docile Puntalnd leader. She gained a foothold in the region in two strategic bases and the locals didn’t lift of a finger because they are suspicious of UIC’s confusing and illogical moves. Today UIC has achieved nothing, Puntland and Western Galgaduud has fallen into a trap, and its critics have credible ammunition to discredit UIC!!!!! Still UIC's end game is a cause worthy of our support. It's position to end the conflict in the South and its influence over the only remaining warlords in the South is too important to be overshadowed by its tactical errors. To be continued…

Prophets without honor By Patrick J. Buchanan Tuesday, August 22, 2006 In April 1968, only days after Dr. King had been assassinated and riots had erupted in 100 American cities, there arose in England to raise the alarm on the explosive issue of immigration from the Third World a hero of the war and scholar of the classics, the Tory shadow minister of state for defense, Enoch Powell. "The supreme function of statesmanship," Powell began, "is to provide against preventable evils. ... The discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician." "Only resolute and urgent action," said Powell, could avert the "horror" unfolding on the far side of the Atlantic. As he spoke, the immigrant flow into Britain from the Commonwealth nations of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean was 50,000 a year, a trickle compared to the 1.2 million legal and illegal aliens who have been entering the United States every year for a generation. Powell warned that if stern action were not taken to stem the tide, by 2000, 5 million to 7 million Third World people would be there. "It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre," Powell thundered. Then he spoke the words that ended his brilliant career: "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'" Powell was instantly gone from the shadow cabinet, dropped by Edward Heath for what that future prime minister called a speech "racialist in tone, and liable to exacerbate racial tensions." Five years after Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, French writer Jean Raspail stunned Europe with his allegory, "Le Camp Des Saints." Raspail described a "Last Chance Armada" of a million diseased and destitute from the hellholes of Calcutta who embark aboard a fleet of leaky and decrepit ships and steer round the Cape of Good Hope to Europe -- to be taken in, or die. As the armada enters the Mediterranean and reaches the Riviera, the French government, awash in humanitarian liberalism, refuses to repel the invaders and invites them in. Around the world, the wretched of the earth watch the television reports, and wait. When the Last Chance Armada triumphs, they emerge in an orgy of looting, rape and pillage to overrun the fat rich lands of the West, "the Camp of the Saints." Though many reviewers were repelled, the novel was a smashing success, with some comparing Raspail's work to Camus' "The Plague" and Swift's "Gulliver's Travels." "One of the most chilling books of this generation," wrote James J. Kilpatrick. "Our children and grandchildren may soon discover that Jean Raspail wrote not fiction, but fact." In 2004, Raspail surfaced in Le Figaro to accuse the French elite of treason. "La Patrie Trahie par la Republique," the title of his essay, translates, "The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic." By "the Republic," Raspail meant not just the Fifth Republic of Mitterand and Chirac, but France's ideology of inclusiveness rooted in the Revolution's ideology of "liberte, egalite, fraternite." Alluding to the waves of immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and Asia, Raspail grimly asserted: "The deed is done. ... All of Europe marches to its death." Raspail recalled the 1974 threat of Algerian President Houari Boumedienne: "No amount of atomic bombs will be able to dam up the tidal wave comprising human beings in their millions which one day will leave the southernmost and poor part of the world, to swamp the relatively open spaces of the wealthy northern hemisphere, in search of survival." Europe denounced and dismissed both men as racists. Now we learn that 19 of those captured plotting to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic were British-born Pakistanis. The suicide bombers of the London subway were British-born Asians. Richard Reid's father was Jamaican. Alienated, he was drawn to an ultra-radical mosque, before attempting mass murder over the Atlantic. Race riots have since plagued the industrial cities of Northern England. In France last summer, thousands of French citizens of North African descent rioted and pillaged in the banlieus of Paris and 300 other cities, until President Chirac, after 12 days, finally declared a national emergency. Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker," was a French citizen. The Madrid bombers were immigrants or the children of immigrants, as was the daylight murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. The 9-11 terrorists plotted mass murders in Munich, Arizona and Delray Beach, Fla. President Bush says they hate democracy. No, Mr. President, they hate us. Powell and Raspail were ostracized for what they said and wrote. Their stories are related in my new book, "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America." Time to revisit the question: Were these men false prophets rightly reviled, or prophets without honor in their own countries? Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Umi, call him and tell him you are moving to Somalia and this time you are staying for good. Examine how he reacts to your decision.

Yaa Sh. Nur the Politicians R Us! The mere participation in a government could make one a politician No? Many many politicians are simply folks who want to make a difference. Since that requires an ability to have a voice in governance, they become civil servants whose agenda is to make some sort of a difference in their area. The other point is the politicians represent folks. The falg waving, bumper sticker bearing, dawg contributing, and well-wishing crowd who root for political figures are an extension of the politician of their choice. Now whether the polity is a tribal organization like ours, theocracy, or representative democracy the politics works just the same. Having said that I agree that there are politicians who bend the truth or manipulate their subjects into believing in false reasoning just to get their way. Those are wicked and deserve your disdain. But brother there are well-intentioned politicians like the UIC leaders who try to make what you call a “paradigm shift†by mobilizing their constituents to achieve political goals that are in line with their principles. They are politicians who want to make a difference in anarchy-ridden area. What makes them different from other politicians is where they get their inspiration from. They just happen to take their guiding principles from Qur’an. Politics is something none of us can afford to ignore Nur. Sxb everything we do from biz, work, to domestic relations, and what have you is regulated by the state. And in turn the state is run by decision-makers aka politicians. Some are benevolent and others are wicked.

What is multiculturalism? Any1? You would be surprised how wrong some of the folks here are once the term is properly defined What sort of social arrangement the Communitarian concept advocates for? Any1? Can any1 connect the dots here?

Tuujiye awoowe hadaad talo haysaa ee marnaba ha cafin. Sxb soo xaree qofta oo dee addiguna get on the program. Awoowe qallanjooyinkaas ehula diinka ah wax la quuri karo ma aha. Allow ma u sheegay

Why ban it? the reason is Somalia has a very fragile ecosystem. That fragile ecosystem has been disrupted by this trade. Since Somalia is mostly dry and semi-arid land, it is susceptible for desertification. With absence of regulatory government agency, the rate of natural resource degradation has quadrupled since the fall of last regime. The desertification problem is compounded by the emergence of business sector that solely based on charcoal trade. To reverse the damage done to Somalia’s forest, it will take many years of effective and consistent restoration program. Now in my opinion the restoration (long term) of the effected area outweighs the temporary loss of income (short gain) from charcoal trade. To start the restoration program one must put an end to the charcoal trade first. UIC’s proxy control over one of the two most affected areas namely Juba and Lower Shabelle gives them the opportunity to minimize this trade first and gradually ban it. At this junction I don’t think they can effectively enforce the ban in Lower Juba province. Kismayo has become the mecca of charcoal trade. And Kismayo is not a city the Islamist reign supreme.

Another day in paradise :cool: It is raining outside and I got wack load of work on my desk. I got one deliverable due today and as u can see I'm goofing off... Don't let the lil stuff get to u son. Talented Conspiracy, good one awoowe.

No kidding! I like ur attitude fruitcake. A go-getter like you deserve the Northerner's big trophy and all the perks that comes with. After all you are young, fab, and 'what u see is what u got' laid back kinda girl So why not! **Ladies and gentlemen cunning and persuasive LazieGirl has convinced old senile SOL grand dady Baashi to transfer all his votes to her box.**

Waryee Libaax is it true that politicians are engineers ? And the engineers that I have in mind is social engineers not the chemical/process engineers Awoowe the questions you posed are pertinent questions that need not to be taken lightly. Unfortunetly I'm short on time!

That's it. The new Somalia is closer than close. Yaa UIC keep hope alive.

Can Muslims be Americans? They ask... 8/12/2006 - Religious Social - Article Ref: IC0608-3075 Number of comments: 30 Opinion Summary: Agree:21 Disagree:3 Neutral:6 By: Dr. Aslam Abdullah IslamiCity* - Can Muslim Americans be loyal to America? She asked. The immediate response of the person to whom the question was addressed was a big no. It didn't surprise many who were present during the conversation as many nodded their heads affirmatively. It was an ordinary discussion in a home setting where friends and relatives had gathered and some of them had raised the issue of loyalty of Muslim Americans. An elected public official from California, who chooses to remain anonymous, was also present at the gathering. She told the audience not to jump to conclusions and that she would present the questions raised at the gathering, to a Muslim who she knew. She forwarded me a list of issues that were brought up at the gathering and asked my input. I sent her back my response, which she found helpful and assured me that she would do her best to promote the truth and fight ignorance. The issues raised and my response to them are as follows: Dear Aslam: Per our conversation I am emailing you a list of issues that were raised during the gathering. Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? Is 'Muslim American' really an oxymoron? Some people who were at the gathering, presented the following points to show why Muslim Americans cannot be both at the same time: Theologically, No - Because their allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia. Religiously, No - Because no other religion is accepted by their Allah except Islam. Their allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Koran. Geographically, No - Because their allegiance is to Mecca, to which they turn to in prayer five times a day. Socially, No - Because their allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Plus their men are instructed to marry four women and beat his wife when she disobeys him. Politically, No - Because they must follow the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teaches annihilation of Israel and destruction of America. Intellectually, No - Because they cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt. Philosophically, No - Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot coexist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Spiritually, No - Because where as we declare our country to be "one nation under God," and believe God to be loving and kind, their God, Allah, does not allow allegiance to a Christian God and does not promote love and kindness. Based on the above the majority of the people at the gathering were of the opinion that we should be very suspicious of all Muslims in this country. According to them, Muslims cannot be both 'good Muslims' and 'good Americans' at the same time. Look forward to your response. Sincerely, Dr. Aslam tries his best...read on

The De-Zionization of the American Mind 8/16/2006 - Political - Article Ref: IV0608-3079 Number of comments: Opinion Summary: Agree: Disagree: Neutral: By: Jean Bricmont Iviews* - Americans are constantly told that they have to defend themselves against people who "hate them", but without understanding why they are hated. Is the cause our secular democracy? Our appetite for oil? There are lots of democracies in the world that are far more secular than the United States (Sweden, France...) and lots of places that want to buy oil at the best possible price (China) without arousing any noticeable hatred in the Middle East. Of course, it is true that, throughout the Third World, Americans and Europeans are often considered arrogant and are not particularly liked. But the level of hatred that leads a large number of people to applaud an event like September 11 is peculiar to the Middle East. Indeed, the main political significance of September 11 did not derive from the number of people killed or even the spectacular achievement of the attackers, but from the fact that the attack was popular in large parts of the Middle East. That much was understood by Americans leaders and infuriated them. Such a level of hatred calls for explanation. And there can be only one explanation: United States support for Israel. It is indeed Israel that is the main object of hatred, for reasons we shall describe, but since the United States uncritically supports Israel on almost every issue, constantly praises it as "the only democracy in the Middle East" and provides its main financial backing, the result is a "transfer" of hatred. Why is Israel so hated? The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit. Both arguments are deeply racist, with their claim that it is right for Jews, and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab, like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion. This is illustrated by the "law of return": any Jew, anywhere, having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948, or their children, cannot. Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be Holy by three religions has become the "eternal capital of the Jewish people" (and only them) and one should start to understand the rage that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world. It is precisely this racist aspect that infuriates most Arabs, even if they do not have any personal connection to Palestine (if they live, say, in the French banlieues). This situation delegitimizes the Arab regimes that are impotent in the face of the Zionist enemy and, after the defeat of the region's two main secular leaders, Nasser and Saddam Hussein (the latter thanks to the US), leads to the rise of religious fundamentalism. Now, people often find racism far more unacceptable than "mere" economic exploitation or poverty. Consider South Africa: under apartheid, the living conditions of the Blacks were bad but not necessarily much worse than in other parts of Africa (or even than in South Africa now). But the system was intrinsically racist, and that was felt as an outrage to Blacks everywhere, including in the United States. This is why the conflict over Palestine goes beyond the second class status of Israeli Arabs or even the treatment of the Occupied Territories. Even if a Palestinian state were established on the latter, and even if full equality were granted to Israeli Arabs, the wounds of 1948 would not heal quickly. Arab leaders, even religious ones, can of course sign peace agreements with Israel, but they are fragile so long as the Arab population considers them unjust and does not accept them wholeheartedly. Palestine is the Alsace-Lorraine or the Taiwan of the Arab world and the fact that it is impossible to take it back does not mean that it can be forgotten . (I am not arguing here in favour of Ç wiping Israel off the map È, or in favor of a Ç one state solution È but simply underlining what seems to me to be the root and the depth of the problem. In fact, I am not arguing for any solution partly because none seems to me to be attainable in the short term, but, more fundamentally, because I do not think that outsiders to the Middle East should propose such solutions.) There is no sign that any of this is understood in Israel by more than a few individuals; if Arabs hate them, this is just another instance of the fact that everybody hates Jews and it only proves that they have to "defend themselves" (i.e. attack others pre-emptively) by any means necessary. That is bad enough, but why isn't this understood in the United States either? There are traditionally two answers to that: one is that the population is manipulated into supporting Israel by the government, the arms merchants or the oil industry, because Israel is a strategic U.S. ally; the other answer is that the United States is manipulated by the Israel lobby. The idea that Israel is a strategic ally, if by that one means a useful ally (useful to, say, the oil interests, broadly understood), although widely accepted, specially in the Left, does not survive a critical examination. That may have been the case in 1967 or even during the Cold War period, although one could argue that, even then, the Arab states were attracted by the Soviet Union only because it might support them in their struggle against Israel, albeit ineffectively. But both in 1991 and in 2003, the United States attacked Iraq without any help from Israel, even begging Israel not to intervene in 1991, in order for its Arab coalition not to collapse. Or consider the post-2003 occupation of Iraq, and suppose that the goal of that occupation is control over oil. In what sense does Israel help in that respect? Everything it does (the currents attacks on Gaza and Lebanon for example) further alienates the Arabs, and U.S. support for Israel makes the control of oil harder, not easier. Even the Iraqi parliament, Malaki and Sistani, who are the closest to allies that the United States can find there, condemn Israel's actions. Finally, just imagine that the United States would make a 180 turn and suddenly side with the Palestinians, as they did with the Kosovars against the Serbs--who, by the way, were, like the Israelis, richer and more "Western" than their Albanian adversaries . Such a change of policies is by no means impossible : when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the US supported the invasion by providing most of Indonesia's weapons. Yet, 25 years later, the US supported, or at least did not oppose, East Timor's accession to independence. What effect would that have? Can anyone doubt that such a change of policy would facilitate U.S. access to oil fields and help it gain strategic allies (if any were still needed) throughout the Muslim world? In the Middle East, the main charge against the United States is that it is pro-Israel, because it lets itself be "manipulated by the Jews". Therefore, if Washington switched sides, there would be no more basis for hostility to U.S. presence, including its control over oil. Thus the notion of Israel as "strategic ally" makes no sense. This leads us to the "Israel lobby" answer, which is closer to the truth, but not the whole truth. To get a complete picture, one has to understand why the lobby works as effectively as it does, and that depends on factors lying outside the actions of the lobby itself. After all, the militant Zionists constituting the lobby are a minority among Jews, who themselves form a small minority of the American population. The Israel lobby does not work like other lobbies, for example, the arms and the oil industry lobbies (which is one of the reasons why it is easy to dismiss it as irrelevant, as long as one does not understand how it really exerts its influence). Of course, like the latter, the Israel lobby does fund electoral campaigns and its power derives in part from its ability to target people in Congress who deviate from its "line". But if that was all, it could easily be defeated Æindeed, there are other sources of electoral funding, the big industrial lobbies for example, and if the pro-Israel candidates could be shown to be paid to serve the interests of another State, their opponents could denounce the people who receive money from the lobby as some sort of agents of a foreign power. Just imagine a pro-French, pro-Chinese or pro-Japanese lobby that would try to significantly influence the US Congress. Certainly, money alone cannot suffice. What protects the Israel lobby is the fact that anyone who would denounce an opponent funded by the Lobby as a quasi-agent of a foreign power would immediately be accused of anti-Semitism. In fact, imagine that Big Business is unhappy with the current U.S. policies (as it well may be) and wants to change them--how could they do it? Any criticism of Lobby influence on U.S. policy would immediately trigger the anti-Zionism-is-anti-Semitism accusation. So the strength of the Israel lobby resides in part in this second line of defense, which itself is linked to its influence on the media. But even that could easily be defeated -- not all the media are under the lobby's influence, and, more importantly, the media is not all-powerful: in Venezuela, it is anti-Chavez, but Chavez regularly wins elections. In France, the media were overwhelmingly in favour if the "yes" vote to the referendum on the European Constitution, yet the "no" won. The problem, and that is why the Israel lobby is so effective, is that it expresses a world view that is accepted too easily by too many Americans. After all, nothing could be more ridiculous than accusing someone of anti-Semitism because he wants or claims to put America's interests above those of Israel. Yet, the accusation is likely to be effective, but only because years of ideological brainwashing have predisposed people to consider U.S. and Israeli interests as identical -- although instead of "interests" one speaks of "values". Associated with this identification comes a systematically hostile view of the Arab and Muslim world, which both increases the lobby's effectiveness and is in part the result of its propaganda. Despite all the talk about anti-racism and "political correctness", there is an almost total lack of understanding of the Arab viewpoint on Palestine, and, in particular, of the racist nature of the problem. It is this triple layer of control (selective funding, the anti-Semitism card, or rather canard, and the interiorization) that gives the lobby its peculiar strength. (And that is also why it is easy to dismiss its strength by saying, for instance, that, obviously, Jews don't control America. Sure, but direct control is not the way it works.) People who think that it is the arms or the oil industry that are running the show in Washington as far as foreign policy is concerned, should at least answer the following question: how does it work? There is no evidence whatsoever that the oil industry, for example, pushed for the Iraq war, the threats against Iran or the attack on Lebanon . (There is a lot of evidence that the Israel lobby pushed for the Iraq war; see Jeff Blankfort, A War for Israel.They are supposed to act secretly, of course, but where is the evidence that they do? And if they is no evidence, even no indirect evidence, how does one know? Profits from the war, at least for major corporations, haven't materialized yet, and there are many indications that the U.S. economy will suffer a lot from war-related expenses and the associated deficits. On the other hand, it is enough to open any mainstream U.S. newspaper or TV and read or hear opinions expressed by Zionists calling for more war. War needs war propaganda and a supporting ideology, and the Zionists provide it, while none of this is offered by Big Business in general or the oil industry in particular. One may also think of historical precedents, like the China lobby (made of post-1949 Chinese exiles and ex-missionaries, supported by their domestic churches) in the 1950's and 1960's. That lobby led the United States to maintain the ridiculous claim that a billion people were represented by a government (Taiwan) that had no control over them whatsoever. It was also very influential in bringing on the Vietnam war. Whose interests were they serving? The ones of the American capitalists? But the latter make huge profits in post-Nixon recognized China. And the same is true in Vietnam. In fact both countries, as well as most of Asia, were anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist, as well as anti-feudal (partly because the feudal structures did not allow them to resist foreign invasions). But they were anti-capitalist (in the rhetoric, since capitalism barely existed there) mostly because their aggressors --the West--were capitalist. So that the main lesson to be drawn from the tragic history of the China lobby is that it held, during decades, the US policies hostage to revanchist feudal and clerical forces that were alien to mainstream America, and actually harmful to capitalist America. But they worked to the extent that their ideology-- mixing fear with racist contempt for the "Asian mind" -- was in sync with Western prejudices. Replace the China lobby by the Israel one and the Asian mind by the Arab one and you get a fair picture of what is going on right now in the U.S.-Middle East relation. What should the Left do? Well, simple: treat Israel as it did South Africa and attack the Lobby. The reason Israel acts as it does is that it feels strong and that, in turn, is for two reasons: one is its "all-powerful army" (currently being tested in Lebanon, not conclusively yet); the other is the almost complete control over Washington policy-making, specially the Congress. Peace in the Middle East can only come when this feeling of Israeli superiority is shattered, and Americans have a great responsibility is doing half of the job, the one concerning kneejerk U.S. support. Now, there are, in principle, two ways to do that: one is to appeal to American generosity, the other is to appeal to their self-interest. Both ways should be pursued, but the latter is not enough emphasized by the Left . (See Michael Neumann, What is to be said ?, for a discussion of the ethical aspects of that choice.) That's probably because self-interest does not appear to be "noble" and because the pursuit of the "U.S. national interest" has all too often been interpreted as overthrowing progressive governments, buying elections etc. But, if the alternative to self-interest is a form of religious fanaticism, then self-interest is far preferable: if the Germans had followed self-interested policies in the 1930's, even imperialist policies, but rational ones, World War II could have been avoided. Also, if the United States were to distance itself from Israel, it would pursue policies opposed to the traditional ones, and far more humane. The other problem is that a large part of the Right (from Buchanan to Brzezinski) correctly sees American interests as being opposed of those of Israel, and the Left (understandably) does not like to make common cause with such people. But if a cause is just (and, in this case, urgent) it does not become less just because unsavory people endorse it (the same argument applies to genuine anti-Semitic hostility to Israel). The worst thing that the Left can do is to leave the monopoly of a just cause to the Right. The Left cannot expect the American people to change radically overnight, abandon religious fundamentalism, give up oil addiction or embrace socialism. But a change of perspective in the Middle East is possible: the strength of the lobby is also its weakness, namely the naked king effect-everybody fears it, but the only reason to fear it is that everybody around us fears it. Left alone, it is powerless. To change that, one should systematically defend every politician, every columnist, every teacher, who is targeted by the lobby for his or her views or statements, irrespective of their general political outlook (to take an analogy, act as civil libertarians do with respect to free speech). When people in the antiwar movement divert attention from Israel by blaming Big Oil or Big Business for the wars (specially the one in Lebanon, or the threats against Iran) one should demand that they provide some evidence for their claims. Challenge all the apologists or excuse makers for Israel or its lobby within progressive circles. When politicians and journalists claim that Israel and the United States have common interests, ask what services exactly has Israel rendered to the United States recently. Of course one can always point to some (minor) services; but, then, ask them what a cold-blooded cost-benefit analysis would reveal and why such an analysis is impossible to undertake publicly. If they speak of common values (the fallback position), provide a list of discriminatory Israeli laws for non-Jews. Rolling back the lobby would necessitate a change of the American mentality with respect to the people of the Middle East, and to Islam, like ending the Vietnam war required a change in the way Asians were looked at. But that alone would have a greatly humanizing effect on American culture. It is true that a change in the U.S. policy with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict would change nothing about traditional imperialism-- the United States would still support traditional elites everywhere, and press countries to provide a "favorable investment climate". But the conflict in the Middle East, involving Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, has all the aspects of a religious war-with Islam on one side and Zionism as a secular Western religion on the other. And wars of religion tend to be the most brutal and uncontrollable of all wars. What is at stake in the de-Zionization of the American mind is not only the fate of the unfortunate inhabitants of Palestine but also unspeakable miseries for the people of that region and maybe of the rest of the world. The ultimate irony in all this is that the fate of much of the world depends of the American people exercizing their right to self-determination, which, of course, they should. Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium. He is a member of the Brussells Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, will be published by Monthly Review Press. He can be reached at : bricmont@fyma.ucl.ac.be Source

He is absolutely right on the lineage segmentation comment. I'm not sure about the rest of the article. I'm not even sure the kind of audience the author had in mind when he penned this one. Is this article for Uncle Sam policy makers consumption? Does he hold true to the notion that equates political Islam in Somalia to "Islamic" terrorism? As I said he is right on the underlying forces that shape Somali politiking namely lineage segmentation - euphamism for negative tribalism. I would disagree with him however on the implicit suggestion that sincere Somali Muslims cannot rise above the betty squables of political tribalism. Moreover the idea that political Islam in Somalia is equivalent to terrorism is a misconception. He didn't tackle that misconception. Instead he went on to explain why foreign powers should not be worrying about political Islam materializing in Somalia.

loooooooooooooooooooooooool baaba inaba caadi ma tihid. Not bad not bad at all kidos. Now qoftaan magaceeda ma karee qallanjada ah ma rati iyo xoolo bay meesha u soo yuururtaa Maxaa ii keentay Taas baa noogu daran awoowe. Well Sweden rati ma leh soo waxaad sameesaa kashaato (chocolate) iyo ubax (flowers) iyo erayo san oo run u dhow oo dee bar bar u rida bal ku day. :cool: Awoowe annigu nin tookh badan oo sida rag qaarki meel dhexe lalmanaya maahi oo wali cagaha dhulkaan ku hayaa. Marka waligaa meel shishe ha iga dayin Adoo nabad u belawaara, belooy kaalay lama yira, haddey kuu timaadana lama booyo boowe Awoowe lahjadii baan yara beddelay oo hadde warkan aan hayo waxa weeye pm iyo abtigaa iyo waxii kalee Ilaahay kuu bixiyo baad kaashaneeysaa. Waxan kaliya kaa doonayaa in aad intaa (13 eray) ku bedesho 13 eray oo kale oo lahjad kale (xaayoow perhaps ) addaan macnaha iyo wazniga iyo khaafiyada lumin. Waa ku kaa awoowe. Walle JB inaad wiil hoog tahay Awoowe hawlaha culculus oo caqiidadu ka mid tahay dib baan u dhiganaynaa.

Olmert's war, and the next one By Patrick J. Buchanan Tuesday, August 15, 2006 When Israel answered the Hezbollah raid that captured two soldiers with air strikes on Lebanon's airport, runways, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, buses, apartment houses and power plants, we who questioned the wisdom and morality of what Israel was doing were denounced as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Turns out we were right. In private, even Israeli army generals were raging that Israel was fighting a ****** , losing war. Ehud Olmert, who gave Chief of Staff Dan Halutz the green light to launch the shock-and-awe air campaign, cannot survive the moral, political and strategic disaster his country has suffered. While the Israeli Air Force was hammering Lebanon, Hezbollah rained down 3,000 rockets on Israel and fought off pinprick raids. When the Israeli army, after a month, moved in force against the real enemy, Hezbollah, Israel had already suffered irreparable damage to its reputation as a fighting nation and a moral country. As the war began, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the war. But with Hezbollah's defiant resistance, as Israel smashed up Lebanon, the Arab street rallied to Nasrallah. Arab regimes followed. The losers? Lebanon, which suffered 800 dead, thousands injured and 1 million made refugees, saw its infrastructure destroyed and nation set back 20 years. If the government falls or Lebanon becomes a failed state, it will be an even greater calamity for the Lebanese, and for Israel and the Middle East. For the mightiest political and military force in Lebanon, and likely heir apparent to power slipping away from Prime Minister Siniora, is now Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah. Says Walid Jumblatt, savage critic of Hezbollah and its Syrian alliance, "Hassan Nasrallah has won militarily and politically, and has become a new leader like Nasser." Another loser is Israel, and Olmert, who seized on the border skirmish to launch his Lebanon war. Writes Ari Shavit of Ha'aretz: "Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeats and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close and then say, oops, I made a mistake." Olmert and Halutz are history. The Kadima Party regime will fall. Left and right are already tearing at its flanks. What does this mean? The Sharon-Olmert policy of unilateral withdrawal from the territories is dead. The Hamas-led Palestinian authority, the creation of the freest and fairest elections ever held in Palestine, is on a death watch, after Israel's starvation blockade and ravaging of the Gaza Strip, which has left 150 Palestinians dead. A new Israeli regime will not withdraw from any more land, nor shut down any more settlements, nor vacate any part of Jerusalem, nor negotiate with a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, or by a PLO that is unable to disarm Hamas. We are at dead end, as George W. Bush will not push the Israelis to do anything, nor will Congress. America is another loser. The United States knew in advance Israel planned to attack and, if possible, destroy Hezbollah. And America approved. But when Olmert launched an air war on Lebanon, instead, Bush cheered him on, refused to rein in attacks on civilian targets, sent smart bombs and used U.S. influence at the United Nations to block an early ceasefire. Bush-Cheney are thus morally and politically culpable for what was done to Lebanon and the democratic government there that was born of a "Cedar Revolution" George Bush himself had championed. Congress poodled alone with Bush, so Bush will not be called to account, as he would be were any other nation but Israel involved. From Morocco to the Gulf, there is probably not a country today that would welcome Bush, or where he would be safe on a state visit. Where does this leave us? With Israel's failure to achieve its strategic objectives in Lebanon and America having failed to attain its strategic objectives in Iraq, Nasrallah emerges triumphant, and Syria and Iran emerge unscathed and gloating. What comes next? That is obvious. With our War Party discredited by the failed policies it cheered on in Lebanon and Iraq, there will come a clamor that Bush must "go to the source" of all our difficultly -- Iran. Only thus can the War Party redeem itself for having pushed us and Israel into two unnecessary and ruinous wars. And the drumbeat for war on Iran has already begun. "(T)he dangers continue to mount abroad," wails The Weekly Standard in its lead editorial. "How Bush deals with Ahmadinejad's terror-supporting and nuclear-weapons pursuing Iran will be the test" of his administration. Yes, the supreme test. Bush is on notice from the neocons and War Party that have all but destroyed his presidency: Either you take down Iran, Mr. Bush, or you are a failed president. If the president is still listening to these people, Lord help the Republic. Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Hambalyo Duke.

^Awoowe Xirsi magan ka daa yaanu JB ku hafan butaacadiisee. Libaax JB marka hore waa in la jara baraa oo afka si wacan loo baraa JB, awoowe shiribka xoogaa baan ka bowsadaa ahem! Yaxaad la fiigtay Faaraxoow, nin fadhaayaan kaa filaayee, (fulay maa tahay camal ) Ya minii fatuuro fiiq tiraa, ninkii fadhaaya maa fayoow (carar maxaa dhaama ) Now rag waa shaah sida Fika aan u baashaaleynaa awoowe. JB bal midan isku day oo inta macnaha dhuuxdid murtida ku jirta meel saar. Aadanoow waxaad maagan tahay addigiyo maankaagu, Iyo meel Ilaaheey ku marin kala mid weeyaane.

^right Valenteenah, You said you always wonder about “why some men feel the need to confine working women to the home? And why should a woman choosing to work through motherhood bother a man if he can find plenty of women who will be happy to stay at home or he already has a housewife?†That’s some recurring thoughts! I’m sure you would love to hear the answer to these recurring questions of yours. Well they don’t feel the need to confine working women to the home. They want the best for their family. That’s all! They want their kids to spend more time and quality time at that with their mother especially the critical years of their development. They are responsible men who look out for their family. Paid work or career however you termed is not that a big a deal in their book. They want to alleviate the stress and demands that come with being a mom and employee with responsibilities (deadlines, deliverables and what not). It ain’t easy to effectively shoulder both tasks. They know what the workplace is like especially professional kind and the mental drain that comes with the high paying jobs. Confine doesn’t do justice the goodwill these men have toward their families dear. That is the wrong word in this context. And NO they are not bothered by the fact that their wife is adding income to the family burse. That’s a plus. It is a shortcut to the road to financial freedom! However they want to prioritize. They think that choices we make in life have consequences. They are of the opinion that if the couple is ready to have a kid they should be really ready to what they wishes for it ain’t anyone’s cup of tea. Moving on…why these men who advocate that women with kids have a duty to put their children in numero uno on their priority list (second to none) want to marry educated and sophisticated wife cuz they want a good, practical, religious, reasonable, intelligent, skillful, resourceful, and dependable partner in this hectic journey we call life. Some men take nomadic wisdom Dhashaadu mar bay hiili kaaga baahan yihiin, waa markaad hooyadood guursaneyso to the heart. If you die or become disabled you know deep down that your seeds would at least have a dependable mother that can help them through the difficult times ahead of them. Still have recurring thoughts qallanjo? Why do I have the feeling that you associate housewife with negative connotation?

You are quite a character Mr. Oodweyne. Unlike many nomads who congregate in this forum I happen to know exactly what you mean and where you are coming from when you spill your inner messianic beliefs in everything secessionism in your Bantustan corner. It almost borders “absolutism†if you know what I mean. Friend you have the habit to exhibit rather a troubling attitude toward political discussion on any subject. You tend to equate the views that don’t conform to your political template to “hate, ignorance, etcâ€. You have this tendency to substitute name-calling and childish tantrums for an argument. It is quite amusing to see you so worked up when your political stands or your supposedly “informed†opinions is questioned. By now the nomads in this forum have gotten used to your “I-know-all, you-are-ignorant, that-political-formulation-is-not-something-the-western-thought-is-familiar with†sort of debating style. Be that as it may let’s straighten out this Treason biz for once. Treason is not a universal edict that a world court or UN has the hand to enforce. In that sense this is not a universal law applicable to Sovereign States. It is rather a crime Sovereign States have a free hand to define however they deem fit according to their particular school of thought be it socialist, Islamic, democratic or what have you. It is not quite clear to me how you get confused yourself so easily. Brother what is treasonous to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia might be considered an act of civil disobedience in say Sweden! Are you with me there buddy! This means authorities that run Sovereign States are in a position to define what constitutes a high crime and what doesn't. It is local biz dear boy not a universal legal formulation all states are obliged to enforce. It might be the case that wishing ill for the queen is considered a treasonous act in the common wealth states. Yeah I’m stretching it a bit but you know what I mean. Now you threw couple of words into the plate thinking that might absolve whatever treasonous act your clannish rebels might have committed against Somalia that once was including but not limited to conspiring an active enemy to subvert sovereign state. Nop. I’m not buying it buddy. Look insurgency, rebellion, uprising, or what have you might mean something in political revolutionary thought. Or even these sort of violent acts might be morally justifiable. However in the strict legal interpretation if you don’t abide the laws of the land you are simply liable. The idea of the Chinese (a communist state) authorities, for instance, are restrained to implement their version of laws or Chinese malcontents who feel marginalized (Muslims in the Western corner) by the state are free to cross the border and attack the state under the pretence of “Legal Insurgency†is ridiculous. In this context the Chinese authorities would have the right to prosecute the rebels under the Chinese law. The jutice the law should be conforming to is another story altogether. But in the legal sense taking up arms against the authority is a crime the state have a right to prosecute. Talk about intellectual poverty what you exhibited in this thread is a textbook example. Dude you are brainwashed for real. Regarding to my feeling about the secession issue well that’s common knowledge. I don’t support this fantasy notion entertained by your likes. I have nothing against my brothers in that corner. I don’t have a reason to have a grudge against them. However you time and again resorted to these cheap assertions as substitute for argument. This attitude of yours is troubling to say the least. Somaliweyn, I know you don’t hold in high regard, is defensible political agenda. Secession, motivated by clannish grievances against formal regime that’s not in position of power anymore and romanticized by colonial history, is antithesis political agenda to the Somaliweyn platform. I oppose it for a reason. Ya hear me bookish boy. As to your president mze Yussuf ‘s failed attempt to overthrow the military junta that was in power back then and his SSDF clannish militia well unlike you I readily admit that was a failure power grab. That rebellion was treasonous and for your info some of my immediate family members were part of that rebellion. Siyad Barre was no angel and I support that folks have every right to oppose his unconventional ways of suppressing extremely independent nomadic masses. But to cross the border and conspire with the enemy during active war between the states is what Somalis term kud ka guur oo qanjo u guur! His act was treasonous in the first order. Barre’s response to that threat was the beginning of the end. In any event waryee learn how to debate without these lil digs. Are you running out of ammunitions or what! Hey why don’t you slab me with some Western views on how Somalis should go about their business! Don’t forget to highlight them ala diffuse and ornate style we come to expect from you .

^ Reading too much into the posts eh! Blackmail? Emotional? Why do I have the feeling that you are getting bit defensive for no apparent reason? Back to the topic. You’ve asked what the input of the father is in this hypothetical scenario. The father’s input is to provide for his family and help out his wife with the kids when he is not away working his behind off. By “input†if you meant stay home dad that would sent his woman out to perform paid work for someone else then you are right that kind of “input†is not an option. You have also listed a plethora of alternatives that “high fly†girls could choose in order to avoid this sort of dilemma. Although these alternatives exist on paper in reality few companies are willing to put them into practice. And in the unlikely event they extend these discretionary benefits, they only offer to their senior and key personnel. So yes that alternative is theoretically there but rarely are they that generous. In any case if and when mothers have an opportunity that would allow them to prioritize their parental obligation over their professional demands (when in conflict) or better strike balance between the two they will gladly take advantage of the situation. However the majority of the cases that’s not simply the case. That’s why feminists in the states are still in a war footing against the establishment over what they term persistent “gender†discrimination in the workplace. As to the differences in schooling or what not between the states and the UK well this scenario assumes that the hypothetical family lives and works in the states. In the states kids @ age 4 to 6 can only spend half day in school. For first graders (late 6 to early 7) they start full time schooling! But that’s neither here nor there. Nannies are practical choice open to working mothers. The thing with taking that route though is that not many Muslim families are comfortable with idea of subcontracting their parental obligation to third party for the sake of advancing their careers notwithstanding with shortcomings and deficiencies associated with childcare centers. Statistically speaking most mothers would prefer to spend quality time with kids if the employers give them that choice. That tells me the real reasons most working mothers “drop off†their kids at childcare centers is not that they want to advance their “career†but rather it is for economic reasons. Finally it’s rather self-evident the natural affinity any child has with his/her mother at early years. This is what makes the mother’s role in raising kid all more important.

Yaa valenteenah look home stay mom is not a lifetime commitment. I have a hunch that many assume that is the case with home stay moms. Not true! When kids hit the magic number many stay home mom find something useful to do be business-related or community related work. This much has to be said at the outset. You also seem to be equating woman who has left paid workforce to take care for their family to woman who wasted their talents for something less-fulfilling or something that is not worth the sacrifice! Not true! With stable and functioning family, this is perhaps most fullfilling time for many women. Likewise you seem to be of the opinion that father is not doing his part if stay home mom accept that role. Not true! Assuming he is responsible and fair man, he is probably working his behind off to provide for his family and the same time helping her raising kids. You just have to realize that the best interest of the child is to spend “quality time†with mom at least in early childhood years! Fathers can help but they can not replace mothers Now it seems to me that you put “paid work†on a pedestal and a high one at that! Paid work is an economic necessity for many. Not a spiritual one! What that means is if one can get by without paid 8-5 work shift it is all better. There are activities that home stay mom might choose to pursue (given she has enough spare time) such as community work, teaching, writing, home-based business, and what not! Paid work is overrated qallanjo. Finally let me say this much to you: I know you are big on your career or paid workforce. Evidently that’s priority to you! Understood! But it is high opportune for you to at least concede to the premise that home stay mother is a natural and fulfilling role for women. By women I do mean educated and sophisticated women that are contributing to their community in so many ways. It might not work for you but this is a role that works for many many women.