They want to divert you and make you submissive to the devil....

They are trying to influence you and subvert you to worship the devil

Istanbul (CNN) -- The latest ISIS advance in Syria has brought a swath of the country's north-central Kurdish region under siege, with Kurdish leaders warning of another humanitarian crisis without international intervention. The Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani (Ayn al-Arab in Arabic) is an island, surrounded by ISIS on three fronts and the Turkish border to the north. The town was already mostly blockaded by ISIS, but in the past three days some 60 nearby villages fell under ISIS control, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or "Islamic State," as the group calls itself, took 39 villages on Friday alone as Kurdish forces withdrew from their positions, the Observatory said. Did intel community underestimate ISIS? Kerry argues for war against ISIS at U.N. Obama speaks out on arming rebels Senate approves arming Syrian rebels Missing hostage alive in new ISIS video U.S. focuses on new ISIS targets. Clashes are constant around Kobani as Kurdish fighters attempt to hold off ISIS, which is armed with heavy artillery and tanks, Kurdish activist Mostafa Baly told CNN. "Mobilization of people in Kobani is not enough," said Redur Xelil, a spokesman for the Kurdish fighters. "The international community has to take action. If not, there will be a new (Sinjar) genocide, but this time in Kobani." Sinjar is the Iraqi city that came under ISIS attack last month, causing thousands to flee onto adjacent Mount Sinjar, where refugees became stranded and were starving before U.S. airstrikes helped pave a way for them to flee. The fighting around Kobani has been intense for four days, Xelil told CNN. Masoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdish Region in Iraq, called the ISIS attacks in northern Syria "barbaric" and described them as ethnic cleansing. "I ask the international community to take every measure as soon as possible to save Kobani and the people of Syrian Kurdistan from the terrorists," he said in a statement. "The ISIS terrorists perpetrate crimes and atrocities wherever they are, therefore they have to be hit and defeated wherever they are." As ISIS encroached on the nearby villages, residents fled toward Kobani, said Baly, the Kurdish activist. There were reports that ISIS kidnapped some of those fleeing to Kobani, including women, children and the elderly, Baly said. At least three rockets landed in Kobani, causing much panic, he said. "There is a great deal of fear, but people are insisting on standing up to ISIS and remaining steadfast in the face of their attack," he said. Turkey opens border The fear of a humanitarian crisis in Kobani rose as displaced people sought refuge there but became trapped between the fighting and the Turkish border. An estimated 3,000 to 4,000 Kurds fleeing the violence walked right up to the wire border fence with Turkey, where they initially were not allowed in. They just sat at the border as Turkish Kurds on the other side of the fence tried to persuade the Turkish guards to let them in. The situation on the border could be observed on a live feed from the border and from video footage aired on Turkish news outlets. The refugees also tried to force their way into Turkey, creating chaos as one woman stepped on a landmine. Turkey finally opened the border, relieving some of the mounting pressure in Kobani and allowing refugees to enter Sanliurfa province.Obama: This will not be America's fight General doesn't rule out ground forces Airstrikes in Syria on the way? What if the airstrikes against ISIS fail? "Four thousand of our siblings will be hosted in our country," Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told state media. "Opening our arms to our Syrian brothers is our historic humanitarian responsibility."Hosting Syrian refugees is nothing new for Turkey and other neighboring nations. About 815,000 registered Syrian refugees were in Turkey as of last month, part of the 3 million total registered Syrian refugees that the U.N. has counted amid Syria's three-year civil war. A further 6.5 million people were believed to be displaced within Syria as of last month, according to the U.N. U.S. military on deck The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to approve the arming of Syrian rebels as top U.S. military leadership approved a plan to strike ISIS in Syria. The House approved Obama's request Wednesday. The approval allows President Barack Obama to carry out part of his stated strategy to combat ISIS, though some political leaders remain divided on the way forward. With approval in hand to arm and train Syrian rebels to fight ISIS, Obama said Thursday the plan keeps with "the key principle" of U.S. strategy: No American combat troops on the ground. "The American troops deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission," he said in televised remarks from the White House. "Their mission is to advise and assist our partners on the ground. ... We can destroy ISIL without having our troops fight another ground war in the Middle East." Obama said more than 40 countries, including Arab nations, have offered assistance in the battle against ISIS. Long vetting and training process National Security Adviser Susan Rice, speaking to reporters Friday, said that now that approval to arm moderate Syrian rebels has been given, a long process will start to vet and train those who will be benefit from the measure. U.S. military personnel will train the Syrian fighters outside of Syria, and the process of planning the training and vetting the participants will take months, she said. "This is a serious training program, and we are serious about vetting those we are training and equipping," she said. Rice stepped around questions about whether airstrikes against ISIS in Syria will require an additional thumbs-up from President Obama, repeating the President's own announcement that the United States is "prepared" to broaden its actions in the region into Syria. ISIS videos The advance by ISIS in northern Syria comes as the Islamist group released a 55-minute English-language video warning America against "direct confrontation."The video describes the conflict as a fight between believers and nonbelievers, and praises its successes on the battlefield. Earlier this week, ISIS released another video showing a captive British journalist criticizing the American and British governments. Citing the Sunni terror group's brutality, from beheading civilians -- including American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff -- to the mass execution of its opponents, Obama said the United States will not back down."With their barbaric murder of two Americans, these terrorists thought they could frighten us or intimidate us or cause us to shrink from the world," Obama said. "But today, they are learning the same hard lesson of petty tyrants and terrorists who have gone before: As Americans, we do not give in to fear. When you harm our citizens, when you threaten the United States, when you threaten our allies, it doesn't frighten us. It unites us." The question now appears to be not if, but when, the United States will strike ISIS in its stronghold in northern Syria. The U.S. military has everything it needs to strike ISIS targets in Syria, a plan that officials told CNN is still waiting on Obama's signoff. ISIS, meanwhile, is modifying its behavior, from the way it communicates to the way it conceals itself, in response to potential U.S. airstrikes in Syria, U.S. military officials told CNN.

You made a mistake suldanka...you assumed Mooge knows what he is talking about. Lol. Nonsensical pollution is the ideal discription.

The United States is the biggest supporter of terrorism around the world just look at how they messed up Iraq and how they failed to intervene. 170 thousand dead people gased by their own government doesn't matter. But a few people fighting Assad and the whole world crys. This will be a spectacular disaster for the United States as usual. Gentlemen what we will witness over the next year to come is the eventual end of United States intervention in the Middle East. Just remember only a decade ago intervention ment putting thousands of troops on the ground. Today intervention means air power tomorrow American won't even use the term intervention.

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, has said it was "not appropriate" for Iran to join talks on confronting Islamic State militants, as he appeared to play down how fast countries can commit to force or other steps in an emerging coalition. Mr Kerry met Turkish leaders to try to secure backing for U.S.-led action against Islamic State militants, but Ankara's reluctance to play a frontline role highlighted the difficulty of building a willing coalition for a complex military campaign in the heart of the Middle East. As he tours the region to gather support for President Barack Obama's plan to strike both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi frontier to defeat Islamic State Sunni fighters, Kerry said Shi'ite Iran should have no role in talks on how to go about it. Accusing Iran of being "a state sponsor of terror" and backing Syria's brutal regime, Mr Kerry said it would be inappropriate for Iranian officials to join an Iraq conference in Paris on Monday to discuss how to curb a jihadist movement that has seized a third of both Iraq and Syria. Tehran has described the coalition as "shrouded in serious ambiguities". ADVERTISEMENT "Under the circumstances, at this moment in time, it would not be right for any number of reasons. It would not be appropriate given the many other issues that are on the table in Syria and elsewhere," he told a news conference in the Turkish capital Ankara. Faced with disparate interests and goals among the region's often squabbling nations, Mr Kerry said it was too early to say publicly what individual countries were prepared to do in a broad front to cut off funds to the militants, encourage local opposition and provide humanitarian aid. The Secretary of State won backing on Thursday for a "coordinated military campaign" against Islamic State from 10 Arab countries - Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and six Gulf states including rich rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But it remains far from clear what role individual nations will play. While he confirmed France's commitment to use military force in Iraq, he declined to say whether France would join strikes in Syria. That follows conflicting reports in key ally Britain over its potential role, with David Cameron on Thursday saying he has not ruled out military action in Syria after his foreign secretary said Britain would not take part in any airstrikes there. "It is entirely premature and frankly inappropriate at this point in time to start laying out one country by one country what individual nations are going to do," said Mr Kerry, who travels to Cairo on Saturday, adding that building a coalition would take time. "I'm comfortable that this will be a broad-based coalition with Arab nations, European nations, the United States, others," e said. "At the appropriate time, every role will be laid out in detail." Turkey, which has the second-largest armed forces in the NATO military alliance after the United States and hosts a major U.S. Air Force base at Incirlik in its south, has so far conspicuously avoided committing to any military campaign. Mr Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Prime Minister, who did not join the news conference with Mr Kerry, told Turkish television hours after their meeting that U.S. action in Iraq would not be enough on its own to bring political stability. U.S. officials played down hopes of persuading Ankara to take a significant role in any military involvement, saying Friday's talks were focused on issues including Turkey's efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters crossing its territory and its role in providing humanitarian assistance. "The Turks have played an extraordinary role on humanitarian aspects of the situation ... and they are going to play and have been playing a pivotal role in our efforts to crack down on foreign fighter facilitation and counter terrorist finance," a senior U.S. State Department official said before the talks. President Obama's plan to fight Islamic State simultaneously in Iraq and Syria thrusts the United States directly into the midst of two different wars, in which nearly every country in the region has a stake, alliances have shifted and strategy is dominated by Islam's 1,300-year-old rift between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Islamic State is made up of Sunni militants, who are fighting against a Shi'ite-led government in Iraq and a government in Syria led by members of a Shi'ite offshoot sect. It also battles against rival Sunni Islamists and more moderate Sunni groups in Syria, and Kurds on both sides of the border. From the early days of the Syrian conflict, Turkey has backed mainly Sunni rebels fighting against President Bashar al-Assad. Although it is alarmed by Islamic State's rise, Turkey is wary about any military action that might weaken Assad's foes. It is also concerned about strengthening Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Turkey's own Kurdish militants waged a three-decade insurgency against the Turkish state and are engaged in a delicate peace process.

Malister "if the au foreign forces don't rape somali women someone else will so who cares" Malister focus on protecting mugdisho's women from being gang raped in ally ways by Burundian HIV conscripts. Me thinks that's a bigger problem.

President Obama’s strategy to beat back Islamic State militants spread across Iraq and Syria will depend on far more than U.S. bombs and missiles hitting their intended targets. In Iraq, dissolved elements of the army will have to regroup and fight with conviction. Political leaders will have to reach compromises on the allocation of power and money in ways that have eluded them for years. Disenfranchised Sunni tribesmen will have to muster the will to join the government’s battle. European and Arab allies will have to hang together, Washington will have to tolerate the resurgence of Iranian-backed Shiite militias it once fought, and U.S. commanders will have to orchestrate an air war without ground-level guidance from American combat forces. “Harder than anything we’ve tried to do thus far in Iraq or Afghanistan” is how one U.S. general involved in war planning described the challenges ahead on one side of the border that splits the so-called Islamic State. But defeating the group in neighboring Syria will be even more difficult, according to U.S. military and diplomatic officials. The strategy imagines weakening the Islamic State without indirectly strengthening the ruthless government led by Bashar al-Assad or a rival network of al-Qaeda affiliated rebels — while simultaneously trying to build up a moderate Syrian opposition. All that “makes Iraq seem easy,” the general said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share views on policy. “This is the most complex problem we’ve faced since 9/11. We don’t have a precedent for this.” Tracking the Islamic State The Syria side of the campaign remains a work in progress at the Pentagon, CIA and White House. The development of an operational plan is further complicated by a lack of intelligence — U.S. drones have not been flying over Islamic State-controlled parts of the country for long — and the absence of allied local forces that can leverage U.S. airstrikes into territorial gains. The consequence will be a military campaign unlike the opening days of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when tens of thousands of U.S. troops charged into the country and toppled Saddam Hussein’s government in three weeks. Nor will it resemble the troop surges in Baghdad and southern Afghanistan, when American forces sought to counter militants by protecting the civilian population. Closer analogues, Obama said Wednesday night, are the counterterrorism campaigns the U.S. waged in Yemen and Somalia, in which the United States has relied on drone strikes and the occasional Special Operations raid to kill or capture high-level targets, but placed no American boots on the ground for extended periods. Day-to-day fighting has been left to Yemeni and Somali soldiers. Those missions have met with success — a U.S. airstrike killed the leader of Somalia’s al-Shabab jihadist movement last week — but both campaigns have dragged on for years and involve far smaller and less-well-financed adversaries than the Islamic State. Although Obama promised a “steady, relentless effort” in a nationally televised address Wednesday night, he also said that “it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL,” using a common acronym for the Islamic State. Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option. Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House. Instead, Obama had decided to send an additional 475 U.S. troops to assist Iraqi and ethnic Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. Recommitting ground combat forces to Iraq would have been highly controversial, and most likely would have been opposed by a substantial majority of Americans. But Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission. “The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis said. “You’re giving the enemy the initiative for a longer period.” Supporters of the president’s approach say that the use of U.S. ground troops could easily send the wrong message to Iraqi soldiers, encouraging them to hang back and allow the Americans to fight, and it might discourage Iraq’s new government from moving quickly in efforts win over Sunnis estranged by the previous prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. “We cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region,” Obama said. The War Powers Act of 1973 is a classic separation of powers struggle. President Obama has already taken military action to fight the Islamic State in Iraq, but is Syria next? Here’s what the president can do, with or without Congress. (Jackie Kucinich/The Washington Post) U.S. military and diplomatic officials, even those who favored a small number of ground troops, see a path, albeit rocky, to wresting terrain from the militants in Iraq. If the new government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi acts inclusively — a key early test will be whom he selects for the still-unfilled posts of defense minister and interior minister — and his military leaders place competent generals in charge of the reconstituted units dispatched to fight the militants, the Islamic State’s territorial gains could be eroded. It will almost certainly be a grueling fight. Once U.S. airstrikes intensify and the Iraqi army gets back into the fight, most likely augmented by Shiite militias, members of the Islamic State may go covert, blending in with the local population and conducting insurgent-style attacks on Iraqi troops. U.S. and Iraqi leaders hope to peel away Sunni tribesmen who have acquiesced to the militants — some of them had viewed the Maliki government as worse for them than the Islamic State — a breakthrough that could help the government’s drive to reclaim territory, but many tribesmen remain wary of promises in exchange for cooperation from Washington and Baghdad. U.S. commanders promised them jobs in the Iraqi security forces if they fought against al-Qaeda’s Iraq affiliate in 2007 and 2008. They fought, but Maliki eventually reneged on those commitments. “This isn’t going to be as simple as rolling up the highway to Mosul,”said a senior U.S. military official involved Middle East strategy, referring to a large northern city that the militants quickly captured as they surged into the country. Even so, the prospect of the Iraqis retaking major cities now held by the Islamic State is far less murky than the potential outcome in Syria, which is embroiled in a four-way civil war: the Assad government vs. the Islamic States vs. the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front vs. the moderate but fledgling Free Syrian Army. “Figuring out where we can strike ISIL so that it weakens them and empowers a more moderate Sunni group instead of the government — you have to think that one through,” said Michele Flournoy, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense. “I’m not sure we know yet how to pull that off.” Although Obama has previously called for Syria’s Assad to cede power, he did not repeat that call in his address on Wednesday night, perhaps because Iraq’s campaign against the Islamic State is likely to rely on assistance from neighboring Iran, which has long been a supporter of Assad. He said his request to Congress for additional U.S. resources to train and equip Assad’s moderate opponents was aimed at “pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis.”

^^^ You avoided answering the question. Maybe you should pay attention and first answer the question before posing another one. The marfishes of hargaisa as you put it is in my view abhoront but overused. You can not compare the gang rape of somali women by au forces to "marfishes". There are women who chew in Ethiopia, Yemen, Djibouti etc and these are low class people with little morals. But in somaliland we have organisations that deal with them like the organisation for the prevention of vice and the restoration of virtue. This doesn't exist in Djibouti, Ethiopia or Yemen. It's something that has to be dealt with and we are dealing with it. As tribes and tribal leaders it's your duty to look after your people and the point I'm making is why are the hag elders quiet over the gang rape of somali women by African christen mercanaries and why are the d block elders quiet over the Pimping of somali women to Kenyan forces??? That's a tribal shame that these communities have to deal with and history will judge them. Now answer my question o confused one.

^^^^ If you say so... Tribes all have a responsibility of looking after their own areas. Islam is without boundaries and somaliland is different from somalia at present that's obvious. It's not the land of milk and honey it has yet to adopt sharia and other flaws. But it looks after it's people and the clans keep order. Somalis my idiotic friend are a tribal based society. Nothing wrong in asking tribes to fix up. They need to fix up. Clan elders hold the power in both kismayo and mugdisho and both these clans need to do their part in combating the sexual exploitation of somali women. That's a fact. The prophet him (pbuh) asked the people of each tribe to select a spokesman and he dealt with them as tribes. No different to why I argue d block and hag need to fix up and do their part and stop the sexual exploitation of somali women. In kismayo it's rampent and in mugdisho. Clearly there is government in mugdisho so it falls on the clans. If you have a better solution my strange friend please advise.

This is not an accident. This is a war against Islam. They want to destroy Somalis as they Impower Kenya and Ethiopia. They are weakening Somalis because they understand the conservative islamic nature of the population therefore the only hope they have is to further destroy the society. We're does one start when you want to destroy a society ...? Women.... This is not a war on terror...the islamic courts union were not terrorist. The United States supported Ethiopian invasion and their destruction. This is a war on Islam. We need to protect all Muslim women. And hag should grow some balls and protect their women and d block should stop pimping out somali women to Kenyan soldiers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL0atfi6qt0

The people of somaliland live in their own country, with their own army and police. No mercanaries on our soil. Somaliland and somalia are miles apart. Malister likes to post a few pics and videos that have nothing to do with what we are talking about. Mugdisho is not safe. How many people get shot everyday ??? Many. How many so called mps get shot every week. Many. How many bombs, suicide attacks. Let's not lie to ourselves here. Mugdisho is unsafe. What we are talking about here are tens of thousands of African mercanaries raping malisters sister and mother and his words were " if Africans didn't rape them someone else would" how does that compare with people who left their country as Tahrib and get raped. Seriously. Malister tens of thousands of Africans are raping somali girls and women, gang raping them in mugdisho. Acudubilah and your trying to justify it. This is sad. We're is the sharaf of looking after our sisters and mothers. Do you know how pathetic you sound Malister. Your mother is getting raped in an ally way of mugdisho in broad day light and all you can do is talk none sense. The humanity and sharaf has been taken away from these southern Somalis Walahi. No sharaf, no blood, no decency.

They welcomed how many Muslims? 3 million Muslims. Palestine was given to the Jews which has killed how many Muslims ? The hawd reserve area was taken from somaliland and given to christien Ethiopia by the British subjugating 3 million of our people. The ottoman chaliphate was destroyed by the British and how many deaths was the policy responsible for? Millions. It bombed Iraq killing millions, the sanctions millions of children. Afghanistan how many hundred of thousands. Spare us the bulls?it talabo. Muslim countries are not islamic the homosexual kingdom of al saud is not an islamic state. Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, somalia, Yemen all these States are secularist regimes supported and prepped up by the United States and british. They have killed more Muslims then any other country on earth. They gave you a passport and give you welfare so what....take pride in your own nationality and your own nation and your own objective and religion you Uncle Tom.

True they are more mature and advanced. A people who legally are a seperate country and are in a voluntary union can leave and can't be forced. Common sense a lot of Somalis lack unfortunatly. I think Scotland will narrowly vote no as well by a percentage but I hope they vote for Independence. The uk has committed a lot of historical crimes against Muslims and till this day as well it needs to be weakened.

^^^ I would like to say I'm shocked but I'm not. In all seriousness I honoustly think Somalia is screwed. It's finished and these vultures are picking at the bones. That's what they are vultures. Said barre and his cronies did it on a larger scale. The age of boli qaran. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Somalia is dead.... Halaga kala Carraro. Allah raxma.....

Malister now everyone sees you for what you are a pathetic individual who is a cheerleader for a retarded man who can't take a piss without au approval. Godane is dead, I don't know him and frankly I don't care. It's to him and his lord. Every man will die eventually. Alshabab is a movement and like any movement it has an ideology, it's ideology is potent and it's biggest contributor is the United States of America. Their ideology is one of Muslim nationalism, the removal of foreign soldiers who rape and pimp your women out. Sharia which is the law of God not Obama, or Ethiopia or Kenya or your bandits. Alshabab kills innocent people clearly wrong and unjustifiable in our glorious faith islam. In comparison to your ideology one of dependence on the very soldiers that rape your sister in ally ways, the laws of secularism and opening yourself to your enemies Kenya and Ethiopia. Malister you don't realise it yet but it's over.... The man who supports the rape of women in mugdisho by Christian forces who are occupying a land supported by a government that was never elected by the people. You make me si&k malister. I hope you feel the pain of these women in your own family

^^^ Walahi malister you seriously need help. Alshabab is Alshabab the Islamic courts union brought peace to Somalia. Like you call Alshabab terrorist the us and Kenya and Ethiopia called the Islamic courts union terrorist but they were not terrorist.you my small headed hag friend have swallowed the Zionist media pill. Alshabab doesn't rape somali women, they fight for God and country. They are an effective fighting force and still exist till this day. I don't agree with everything they do. They kill innocent people and clearly have a lot of issues but they are somali Muslim nationalist. Your bandits will never be able to control a single inch without the au forces you are happy to see rape your sister behind the ally ways of mugdisho. Your so called president pimps out the somali women to au forces with your approval. Malister I will pray for our sisters in mugdisho who get raped by the christen African mercanaries you support and it's clear for all to see your the hypocrite. Claiming to be a nationalist yet arguing "if the au forces didn't rape the women of mugdisho someone else would" Acudubilah Your sick malister sick. I hope your sister or your mother feels the pain these women in mugdisho feel and see if you would say the same thing you fake peice of sh&£)

This is what I'm talking about again. Somalis are a cursed people. Acudubilah arguing for Kenya over soveirgn waters. And alshabab is bad because ???? When they were in charge of kismayo everyone lived in peace, security business stability then Kenya invaded and you have this garbage in charge with Kenyan guns and instability. Kenya and it's lap dog admin are the real terrorists

Doctor Kennedy with all due respect the somali army does not do all the fighting that's a fact they do little to no fighting. The au does most of the fighting. The so called army has not been able to control one inch of territory without the au. They have become subsurvient to the au. These bandits once they enter a new area the first thing they do is commit crimes and extortion rackets like checkpoints. Malister this so called nationalist argued " if the au didn't rape the women someone else would have" this human piece of sh!t argues against alshabab and supports the raping of somali women by au forces in his own city. Let's be honoust here you people have no heart. Alshabab is nationalist religious movement the islamic courts unions was the same. They both staunchly supported the removal of foreign soldiers from somalia. America removed the islamic courts union who brought peace, stability and Islam to somalia yet they are a terrorist organisation while the au forces paid for by the United States and our enemies the Kenyans and Ethiopians kill Somalis and rape or pimp them out. Hag needs to fix up. In Kenya the d block are subservient to the Kenyans and the same is going on in their. Walahi you people are the shame of the somali race. Shame....shame...shame.

This is what I refer to daily on this forum and this Malister while he battles alshabab in his head his own sister is getting taken advantage of behind the so called villa somalia. These people are without blood. Alshabab is not going anywhere and alshabab have said they will not stop any struggle until all foreign soldiers leave while Malister takes joy in the fact this his sister is being sexually abused by some guy from Burundi. Who probably carried aids. Walahi you people make me sick and this is what the slaves have become. Happy and content with their own servitude and occupation. All foreign soldiers should leave somalia. This so called government must be dissolved and the clans must be called together to talk. Alshabab should stop killing innocent people and the somali people must be allowed to run their own affairs. Malister I bet if the au sexually abused your mom you wouldn't be saying the same thing you hypocrite.

David Cameron "if you vote for indepedence isis is going to get you"...... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2745063/Gordon-Brown-vows-lead-Scottish-campaign-win-powers-Edinburgh-voters-reject-independence.html Hahahaha hahahaha.... Use the boogyman for everthing even Scottish independence why not you use it for everthing else

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umhDCtOoJZ0

Shortly after midnight, an email arrives. From a leading light of the campaign for Scottish independence, one who six months ago dreamed of nothing better than a decent showing for yes and an honourable defeat. It says simply: “This just might be happening.” That message came on a fevered night when political chatter centred on a rumoured poll showing a small lead for yes, perhaps one of several such polls coming on Sunday. If that happens, says one Edinburgh sage not prone to hyperbole, “it will set the forest on fire”. Advertisement The pro-union camp can smell the smoke. It has seen the reports of midnight queues at council offices, as never-before voters demand they be registered in time to have their say on 18 September. They can see the blue and white placards and badges proliferating on every surface, they hear the talk of record-breaking turnout – and they fear the energy, the momentum, is for yes. A sure sign of a campaign that believes it’s facing defeat is when the recriminations begin, the post-mortem conducted before the patient is pronounced dead. That is not happening – yet – on the unionist side, but I felt the first breath of it in a conversation this week with one of the noes’ biggest hitters. “The Conservatives have fucked this up from beginning to end,” he told me. You can’t sell to Scots a Scotland forced to live under cuts and privatisation, slashing the top rate of income tax and imposing the bedroom tax, he said. You can’t do all that and then turn to the referendum as if it were a separate, purely constitutional matter. Put another way, none of this would be happening if there were a Labour government in Westminster. It’s the chance to break free of a Britain moulded in the Tories’ image that is luring Scots – or at least a critical slice of traditional Scottish Labour voters – towards yes. Advertisement Others say it’s the no campaign’s consistent negativity that’s made a yes victory possible. The noes should have begun with a message of warmth – a spirit-of-2012, Danny Boyle-ish celebration of all that Britain has been and could yet become – only turning negative in the closing weeks, to seal the deal. Instead, Better Together went negative from the start – shaking their head and saying this or that will never work – so that now the no campaign finds an electorate numb to its warnings. What’s left for the final push, that period when – if the Quebec referendum of 1995 is a precedent – an emerging yes can be converted into a nervous no by sowing last-minute doubt? Another warning of economic ruin from a bank or mega-corporation? The Scottish public are inured to such things now. As a matter of tactics, Better Together should never have agreed to fight this battle on ground of the nationalists’ choosing. Of course, Alex Salmond had the key advantage: he got to write the question on the ballot paper. But Alistair Darling has conceded on the decisive matter of language. He freely says he is against “independence”. The word should not pass his lips. He should insist he is against “separation” or “break-up”. What are those of us watching from afar to make of all this? How should Britons outside Scotland, especially those on the centre-left, react if the polls keep tightening and Scots vote yes? Some are eyeing events with envy, jealous of the awakening under way across the border: the packed public meetings, the debates in pubs and on street corners, the animation of civic life that the referendum has brought to Scotland. And it’s not just the engagement they covet, it’s the chance to cut loose from a solar system in which the City of London is forever the sun. For them, Scots’ chance to say yes seems nothing less than thrilling. I understand that feeling. I’ve written before that were I in Scotland, I too might vote yes. But I’m here, several hundred miles away, and now that the prospect of independence is clear and present, my reaction is different. When I contemplate the prospect of waking up on 19 September to discover the union has been defeated, I can’t help but feel a deep sadness. I know that this is for Scots to decide, that any member of a union always has the right to secede. But just because it’s their choice doesn’t mean the rest of us are not allowed a reaction. And if that reaction is emotional, that’s allowed too: the business of nations and nationhood is nothing if not emotional. This decision of the Scots will affect every Briton outside Scotland. Our country will change. At its most basic, a yes vote will mean that, at a stroke, the UK will lose a third of its land mass and close to a tenth of its people. The mountains and lakes of Scotland will still be there, of course, but they will be the terrain of a foreign country. They will no longer be part of our shared inheritance. I am haunted by the words of the Czech who remembers the sensation when his country no longer included Slovakia: “It felt like an amputation.” ‘British” will become an extinct term, too baggy and ill-fitting for the rump UK left behind. The English will account for more than 90% of the population of this leftover entity, while the Welsh and Northern Irish huddle together making up the rest. We will have to let go of British and Britishness, terms long mocked for their vagueness but useful all the same. Not least for those of us from minorities, who have found living in a country defined by its very plurality, a composite of four nations from the start, easier than in most places. “British” works well next to an unseen hyphen – black British, Muslim British, Jewish British. But if Scots vote yes, we will have to learn that trick anew alongside the word “English”, a category whose history is not quite as generous. Put aside the electoral calculus that shows it will be harder for Labour to form a government in Westminster without Scottish seats. It goes deeper than that. Wasn’t the 21st century vision meant to be one of interdependence, with nations working together? Surely it’s the Tory right and Ukip that insist on exclusivity of sovereignty, adamant that it can never be shared. Until now, Britain has represented a rare experiment in shared sovereignty, pooling risks and resources across borders. But a yes vote will end all that, declaring it a failure. So I understand the exhilaration both inside and outside Scotland as yes appears within reach. But from where I stand, on this side of the border, I find myself hoping Scots don’t give up on this odd, messy, imperfect union just yet. And I admit, part of that is selfish: I worry about life in the country they’ll leave behind. Twitter: @Freedland