lol sorry S_S errghhm "on behalf of the nomads on S.O.L a warm wlcm to u dear samiha" :cool:

That was beautiful Big mom plz keep more coming this way

man me personal, i can only conclude that somali's are the biggest threat to their own peace and stability. Ethopia is an oustide aggressor and thus u would expect such behaviour natural.......especially given our history. However us, our selves........we are amazzing we have the same language same religon Al-Islam same culture and tradition same appearnce's and yet we have destroyed each other and continue to back bite against one another. we are our own biggest threat

ADMIN, WHY HAVEN'T YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO OBSERVE THE ACTIVITY THATS GOING AROUND THIS THREAT... WHY AREN'T MODERATORS KEEPING THESE SO CALLED ROOKIES UNDER I have been wondering the same thing.........

Bitter hard truths...............all though what exactly are u getting at my dear Lovely me? are u dissappointed by the lack of any thought provoking interesting topics on S.O.L nowdays?

I can only assume that to bite the hands that feed you would be something of a suicide for the Network................i think you could say that there is abit of u scratch my back and i'll scratch yours. But the main point is that they deliver up to date excluse information about the war that the established news meduim smply wont for their inherent bais's. Besides everyone knows that the regime there is a puppet regime so there is no need to say so its quite abvious but ur point is well taken more than a hint of hypocracy there

Its goood that they are getting exposed to what they (BBC) have become i.e. nothing more but a poltical tool that simple regurgitates what various governmental spokes persons say. War is War and the sooner the people become familar with the harrowing images of dismembered bodies of children and woman and men alike that are supposed to be liberated then it wouldnt be so easy to pass off this disgraceful notion of Humanitarian war which in itself surely is a contradictory statement

Hey i rember getting that sometime ago in my email amazzing isnt it? well amazzing facts for those who contest its authenticity but not for me am sure as time goes by more sicentific facts and miracles of the quran will be discorvered and that is a great

This is the latest news ----------------------------------------------------------------- World - Reuters Iraqi Shi'ite Opposition Calls for Revolt 1 hour, 18 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo! ZUBAYR, Iraq (Reuters) - Unrest rippled in the Iraqi southern city of Basra on Wednesday but it was unclear how serious or widespread the opposition was to the ruling Baath party of President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). Reuters Photo Latest news: · U.S. Changes Tactics in Push to Baghdad AP - 14 minutes ago · Iraqi Forces Make Way Toward U.S. Troops AP - 17 minutes ago · Iraq: 14 Dead in Baghdad Missile Attack AP - 45 minutes ago Special Coverage As an Iraqi Shi'ite opposition group called for the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam, a British minister and military officers said some unrest was evident and it appeared that local supporters of the president had been firing on their own people. But correspondents in Basra for Qatar's Al-Jazeera television and for Abu Dhabi Television reported on Wednesday they had seen no signs of unrest. Al-Jazeera reporter Mohammed al-Abdallah said: "The streets of Basra are very calm and there are no indications of violence or riots. There are no signs of the reported uprising. "All we can hear are distant explosions in the southeast, and we believe fighting is going on there." Britain's defense minister said there had been disturbances in Basra, with residents "rising up" against Baghdad and Iraqi government militia attacking them. "Whether it is still happening remains unclear," Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon told BBC radio in London. Hoon said: "Certainly there have been disturbances with local people rising up against the regime. "We know that there have been attempts by regime militia to attack those people, their own people, to attack them with mortars, machinegun fire, rifles and so on." He said British forces stationed around Basra, a Shi'ite Muslim city with a history of opposition to the Sunni-dominated Iraqi government, had not witnessed the uprising at first hand but had learned of it through "various sources." Basra was the scene of a failed Shi'ite insurrection after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). An opposition group leader, Mohsen Hakim, said widespread demonstrations had been held in parts of Basra on Tuesday. Hakim, of the Tehran-based Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (news - web sites) (SCIRI), said there had been clashes between local people and the security forces. Many civilians were injured, he said. "Opposition groups ... ask the Iraqi nation to be fully prepared to rise against Iraq's dictatorial Baath regime, to free cities and villages," he said. SCIRI spokesman Abu Islam also said earlier there had been disturbances in Basra on Tuesday, but he did not think these added up to a popular uprising. Basra is Iraq's second largest city and many of its people have been cut off from water supplies for several days, with aid agencies warning of a humanitarian crisis developing there. The International Committee of the Red Cross said on Wednesday that technicians and ICRC engineers had managed to start up three out of six back-up generators for the water plane but more spare parts were needed. "The ICRC estimates that 50 percent of the city's approximately 1.5 million inhabitants now have access to drinking water." ------------------------------------------------------------------

sorry i was in a rush and had made some errors to the question at hand. QUESTION: DO YOU THINK AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD GO INTO A RELATIONSHIP (NOT RELGION)WITH THE INTENSION TO CHNGE THE OTHER".. Perhaps if u werent in such a rush u wouldnt make such errors, an relationship minus religon? Infact a thought process that is abstract as that is just not logical. Thats why before deciding on any matter in reality ppl usually references some authorities, expirences precendents or so forth. With your question u cannot just ask it as if it where outside religon as it doesnt make sense to pretend so. Good or bad, whether u think it fair or not once someone enters such a relationship a guy would expect, rightly so, that she dress moderatly, dam she sould dress moderatly on her own accord its common sense.

Nafta fix up coz that was just raw

#9 - "How the f___ did you work that out?" - Pythagoras, 126 BC #1 - "Aw c'mon. Who the f___ is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton,1997 lol

wow u have not wasted any time posting some beautiful things on here keep it up B_M

Salam Calayakum wlcm to the site bIg Mom. Thz for the chronology of early islam it looks great am gonna explore it in detail abit later once again wlcm

thx for the article LSt it was very interesting to read.

Pssble true HA i just thought it was something interesting and wanted to see what the nomads reactions would be.

I can only speak for myself. marriage is marrige, it is about striking balances and making consessions to each other and to that end i agree with you that they shouldnt be this hypocracy on your friends part. It is all to do with status and respectability from our point of view BS. When a guy decides to marry someone who will be his patner, that will bear him his children then hey should have every right to expect that she is excatly that i.e. modest in appreance, covered for the sake of him and their children. But i suppose this is where perhaps you shouldnt think this way. If i can take the example of wearing the Hijab, covering ur hair. This is something that u should do fullstop not for the sake of ur husband but because it is a mandatory requirment of you by allah swt. So perhaps instead of thinking that about what guys whims are and whether u have to satisfy them just make sure that u are satisfying the request of you from allah swt.

Sxb do you agree modern warfare reduces casualties both on the enemey and on your side? Sure, there are times when bombs go off target and hit civilians, but those are very isolated incidents. And you'd see that more clearly if you compare this war to other wars that happened, where civilian casualties were unbelievably high. Perhaps i was to sarcastic saxiib. No i dont agree with the argument that morden warfare reduces the number of civilian casulties deff not, simply the aggressors(america as is the case know) will use that argument, essentially it is about limiting the number of there war casulties as this would bring political heat on them, especially when as Micheal Moore noted yesturday @ the oscar ceremonies the presdint himself is underfire, and the war reasons are as fictious as its enemies immediate threat

Sxb do you agree modern warfare reduces casualties both on the enemey and on your side? Sure, there are times when bombs go off target and hit civilians, but those are very isolated incidents. And you'd see that more clearly if you compare this war to other wars that happened, where civilian casualties were unbelievably high. Perhaps i was to sarcastic saxiib. No i dont agree with the argument that morden warfare reduces the number of civilian casulties deff not, simply the aggressors(america as is the case know) will use that argument, essentially it is about limiting the number of there war casulties as this would bring political heat on them, especially when as Micheal Moore noted yesturday @ the oscar ceremonies the presdint himself is underfire, and the war reasons are as fictious as its enemies immediate threat

Am not shocked R_O_Y because quite frankly we know that somali youth unfortunately have become lost and vunerable to the tempations of this western life style where we free mix quite frequently. Most of those that do engage in the relationships ((if u can even assume that its more than just a one night thing)) i would suggets dont live @ home, or if they do the isnt sufficient guidance or parental care. So am not so supprisied just saddened, as with most of the problems that afflict somali communtiy here in the uk it is that there isnt sufficient level of care displayed by the parents, guardians of some of these youths hence they same ppl who dont progress to Higher education and find themselves usualy in trouble either with the authorities or @ home are those that have been neglegted. Of course they too are @ fault but i cant help feeling that there is so much factors/issues/problems stacked up against them that it is no wonder we do see and here some crazy going ons these days I think a level of eductaion on the risks possed to promiscious behaviour would help curb such unfortunate trends, however the route lies with the fact that all to often the senior family memebers are just simply unable or unaware or uninterested about where their children boys especially and even nowdays their girls are?? so it is such a supprise that they end up contracting these dieses All the more case for the establishment of a somai community based on servicing the needs of somali ppl in the disapora

By Matthew Riemer YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) – The Bush administration ushered in a new era on March 20 with its preemptive invasion of Iraq: one of lawlessness and unaccountability. The world is already a place governed by the rule of force, and this action by the United States, in the most emphatic way imaginable, has reinforced and amplified this unfortunate condition. A new precedent has been established by which all future actions will now be judged. It's ironic then, to say the least, for the United States to suddenly claim that the treatment of U.S. POWs by Iraq is a war crime and a violation of the Geneva Convention. The hypocrisy and sheer arrogance of such statements is unbelievable. How can the leadership of the United States expect others to honor laws and norms of conduct that they themselves are in gross and repeated violation of? It's not that the broadcast of the harassment, interrogation, or execution of POWs (if that is indeed the case) is acceptable or defendable but that it pales in comparison to violations casually carried out by the United States on a regular basis. Such an obsession with the minutiae of international law also distorts events by taking a relatively mild and insignificant incident (the treatment of a handful of POWs) and emphasizing and sensationalizing it to the point where it seems like a profound and far-reaching crime (the burying in mass graves of thousands of Iraqis by US forces during the Gulf War, twelve years of murderous sanctions, or the current war itself). The Bush administration has created a world that they must now unfortunately live in, and to a certain degree, accept. They can choose not to accept this, but that will only result in more bloodshed and madness as Washington frantically patrols the world violently disciplining all those who break their rules. And as this double standard is perpetuated and further exaggerated by American actions the spite among the world's citizens and governments will just continue to grow and become radicalized. Why is it acceptable for the United States to withdraw from the ABM treaty but not for North Korea to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty? Why is it acceptable for the United States to use armaments tipped with depleted uranium while selected countries cannot even posses "chemical weapons"? Why is it acceptable for the United States to preemptively invade and bomb Iraq while the Iraqis themselves aren't allowed to have missiles actually capable of defending themselves? Why is it acceptable for the United States to circumnavigate and cynically manipulate international law whenever it wishes but not for others? And what about the prisoners or "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by the U.S.? These POWs, many of whom were just "in the wrong place at the wrong time," are paraded around in orange jumpsuits and handcuffs in front of the world while the Bush administration plays semantic games trying to deny them their right to resist American intervention by claiming that they aren't even soldiers; such a designation also provides a legal loophole that allows the likes of John Ashcroft to squirm free of the restraints of international law, enabling the U.S. to violate prisoners' rights provided by the same Geneva Convention the U.S. is now crying about. Both the American people and leadership may be in for a rude awakening as, if the events of the last several months are any indication, the world is finally just saying no to American hypocrisy and bullying. [Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.] Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

By Matthew Riemer YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) – The Bush administration ushered in a new era on March 20 with its preemptive invasion of Iraq: one of lawlessness and unaccountability. The world is already a place governed by the rule of force, and this action by the United States, in the most emphatic way imaginable, has reinforced and amplified this unfortunate condition. A new precedent has been established by which all future actions will now be judged. It's ironic then, to say the least, for the United States to suddenly claim that the treatment of U.S. POWs by Iraq is a war crime and a violation of the Geneva Convention. The hypocrisy and sheer arrogance of such statements is unbelievable. How can the leadership of the United States expect others to honor laws and norms of conduct that they themselves are in gross and repeated violation of? It's not that the broadcast of the harassment, interrogation, or execution of POWs (if that is indeed the case) is acceptable or defendable but that it pales in comparison to violations casually carried out by the United States on a regular basis. Such an obsession with the minutiae of international law also distorts events by taking a relatively mild and insignificant incident (the treatment of a handful of POWs) and emphasizing and sensationalizing it to the point where it seems like a profound and far-reaching crime (the burying in mass graves of thousands of Iraqis by US forces during the Gulf War, twelve years of murderous sanctions, or the current war itself). The Bush administration has created a world that they must now unfortunately live in, and to a certain degree, accept. They can choose not to accept this, but that will only result in more bloodshed and madness as Washington frantically patrols the world violently disciplining all those who break their rules. And as this double standard is perpetuated and further exaggerated by American actions the spite among the world's citizens and governments will just continue to grow and become radicalized. Why is it acceptable for the United States to withdraw from the ABM treaty but not for North Korea to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty? Why is it acceptable for the United States to use armaments tipped with depleted uranium while selected countries cannot even posses "chemical weapons"? Why is it acceptable for the United States to preemptively invade and bomb Iraq while the Iraqis themselves aren't allowed to have missiles actually capable of defending themselves? Why is it acceptable for the United States to circumnavigate and cynically manipulate international law whenever it wishes but not for others? And what about the prisoners or "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by the U.S.? These POWs, many of whom were just "in the wrong place at the wrong time," are paraded around in orange jumpsuits and handcuffs in front of the world while the Bush administration plays semantic games trying to deny them their right to resist American intervention by claiming that they aren't even soldiers; such a designation also provides a legal loophole that allows the likes of John Ashcroft to squirm free of the restraints of international law, enabling the U.S. to violate prisoners' rights provided by the same Geneva Convention the U.S. is now crying about. Both the American people and leadership may be in for a rude awakening as, if the events of the last several months are any indication, the world is finally just saying no to American hypocrisy and bullying. [Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.] Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

Indeed Sagal the evidence of our creator Allah swt is in abudence everywhere u look.

of course most ppl will acknowledge that. The zionists have been within various US administartion for decades now attempting to reshape the world in their corporate and ideolocial ideals. But it is about controlling oil, its flow, its price which has a great effect on the share prices of global multi-national economies and indeed getting rid of a man who quite bluntly tells the western economies to hell. The point is taken though, it is clear that the american regime now in power, more so than any previous one, is influenced by the extreme christian and zionist groups, who have colaborated to exert the utmost pressure for their agendas to be followed. To this end it seems america is trying to, whilst it is the economic and thus militarty and technological power house that it is, deal with any threats to its burgoning empire by (A) finding new oil resources which would mitigate its relance to saudis and thus once more give Israel greater range to do with the palestinans what they like, (B) remove the threat of any country that desires a poltical and economical ideology than that which would suit its interest and to thsi end Iraq is perhaps just one of many countries or perhaps even regions that this arrogant devil of an administration aim to meat out its brutality to.

Man they are a well organized ppl