I always keep silent about the discussions on Somaliland as I see it something which isn't worth my time. This is due to the fact that Somaliland people decided their faith and created a well developed system of government. The terms of 'pro-Somali unity' or somaliland only make sense with in the inhabitants of these respected countries. For instance, the petition would be a concern for Somalilanders if it was originated from somaliland itself and a large number of Somalilanders put their name to it. But since it was written by Somalis it won't make any difference to the stance of international community(or South Africe in that matter) on Somaliland since the world knows the majority of southreners can't stand the word Somaliland. More importantly though, the facts on the ground testify to the Somaliland case and no outcry (however loud it might be) of Somalis can do any harm to the Somaliland recognition. Ameenah, I thought you were a dedicated Somalilander. Didn't know you were undecided lady!

king & OG girl, my above two cents on the topic amounted to saying (of course in a plain language)that there is something wrong with an expression of love that is based on the first encounter.People should get to know each other before they start loving. And I thought the topic was why Somali men use the word easily. It was only that which I was commenting on, so you shouldn't have assumed it's one I employ myself!!!

The first day 'I love you' means I really want to get into bed with you!!!

Gashaamo, I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote "What this simply is the "Historical Reference" to which we debators of this two opposing concept are refering to, is wildly different in tones, in memory, and in the written bold fact -much of it witten in blood, may I add-, as to what this much-argued concept call "Greater Somalia" on one hand is as apposed to the counter-argument concept of somaliland on the other hand is inherently about, and therefore consequently, we are unlikely to reach a point whereby we could collective say that, this point is a given and we all believe in as the starting logical point of what we are as people of somalis origin, and then proceed to fashioned an end-point of the argument as the ultimate fact that we all accept as a desirable outcome." It's amazing how those who tried to respond to your well-formulated argument ignored the essence of your piece but instead picked up the most obvious and the most personal and detailed bit of it. Perhaps they found it difficult to unpack it.

Although I can't imagine a situation where I will prefer one over the other (given the abundance of women who have both), I think the two things manifest themselves differently and as a result one takes the lead over the other. For example, You have to speak to people in order to find out how smart they are but whether you take the trouble to speak to them depends on how attractive you find them. However, as time goes by intelligence becomes a factor (specially for relationships).

"Critiques of Pure reason: Immanuel Kant This book is must read for any one who wants to engage reason in his arguments." I can't help but to point out that a text book based on inaccessible premises is not something to recommend.

Though I'm not here to defend the Ethopian involvement in Somali issue, it's wrong to paint a picture as Ethopia is the only threat to the security of Somalis or, indeed, the formation of somali gov't. For Somali people, the most important obstacles to the good life and gov't come from within. The sooner people recognise that, the easier the solutions will become.

This thread is the best example of why Somalis can't forge a national gov't. They are forced to choose b/w an ass and a pig!!! It should not come as a surprise to anyone if this latest endeavour bears no fruit.

Kritikal Mind, Although this bit "If a country considers itself independent but then fails to achieve recognition, then again, it is not free. It has an internal force that denies it the right to be a sovereign state, so, that country is not free and will not be treated as equal as other states" is debatable, given the particularity of each state, I must agree with you.

Kcabuji, It's only the hawks in the White House that are linking Iraq to Sept11 but the Democrats and the academics at large know that it isn't wise to bomb Iraq to the Stone Age or even link it to terrorism. The thing is, given the current American opinion, the democrats can't argue against it. If they do, they risk losing votes. No party in the world likes to be in this sort of dilemma. One thing to note, though. The hawks in the White House are all graduates of the Realist school of thought--a doctrine that states that there is no justice or injustice in international politics. States have to do whatever they can in order to ensure their self_interest. This interest is measured on the basis of dominance, hence the higly frightenning doctrine of pre-emptive strike. A doctrine that this American adminstration adopted. Other states have to be striken before their assumed threat to America is fully formed. I believe this is the main (though we can't ignore the powerful economic motives as well) motive behind the looming attack on Iraq. Iraq isn't capable to inflict injury on american soil so one wonders where the threat is coming from.

kcabuji, American political compaigns are dominated by the Iraqi issue and this puts the Democrats in an awkward position cause they can't risk taking a stance on the most pressing issues associated with 'bread and butter.' If they take issues with the economy and the law (as they would have done in a peace time) they risk to be seen as insensetive to the current condition of the American psyche, which only appears to understand one word--SECURITY! Therefore, the both parties are forced to converge on the centre of the political spectrum in order to gain the most votes. This sadly blurs the famous (but increasingly insignificant) ideological differencess between the two parties.

It's really anoying when people use terms that they don't actually understand. The absence of a government doesn't make the states disappear. Govts go and come but the states are always there so we are not a stateless but we need a govt.

Let me just shift our concern from how should we defend ourselves to how can Somali victims get justice. There are a considerable number of Somali victims (some were killed and others suffered a serious injuries) but most of their offenders or murders haven't been brought to justice yet. This is partly cause we don't get the attention that needed to put pressure on the police to catch the killers from the media or the govts. Also most Somalis don't follow up their cases in courts. This gives an encouragement to certain groups, that don't like Somalis for some weird reasons, to target them. Some areas of London it's a common view held by non-Somalis that 'you're safe from prosecution to kill a Somali.'

kritikal mind, I don't think slavery and equality go together but I take your definition to mean 'freedom as equality' and 'freedom as independence.' It's well understood that freedom without constraints is impossible or undesirable, to say the least, within a civilised society that wants to live in harmony. So I think any reasonable person would choose a society in which the actions of people are regulated but thier freedom for individuality and private sphere is not subject to state intervention as the totalitarian states (that some of you envoked)did.

Originally posted by KritiKal-Mind: Equality under a freedomless state is slavery. And freedom without regulations and equality is anarchy and violence." Kritical-Mind, Would you please explain the above statement? especially the part that states "Equality under a freedomless state is slavery"? It din't only make no sense to me but I've never come across such an expression before in the discourse.