FB, I am a supporter of Oranje, the Dutch football team. We always play superior football and rarely get pass the semi finals. So superior football isn't always the best thing. What counts is the results. Its better to win with 1-0 with bad football, then to loose 3-4 with great football.

Bist du verruckt? Eins zu null für die indominable Löwen.

These A-rabs will get a lesson in efficiency football. Cameroon is the Germany of Africa. So we will see.

Originally posted by NGONGE: ^^ There are more recent pictures of the Cameroon team you know Google the ones where they lost by four goals. I am no turncoat Ngonge, I supported them then, I support them now I predict Cameroon 1-0 Egypt

Dawlada Federaalka Somalia ayaa ka digtay Ururka Dhawaan ay ku dhawaaqeen Qurbajoogta SSC ee NSUM. Boosaaso February 7, 2008 Xuukumada Dawlada Federaalka ee Somalia ayaa maanta markii u horeysay ka ahadashay urur aya dhawaan ku dhawaaqeen xubno ka tirsan qurbajoogta Sool,Sanaag iyo Cayn(SSC) . Ururkan oo loogu yeero Dhaqdhaqaaq Midnimada Waqooyiga Somalia (NSUM) ayaa dhawaan waxa ku dhawaaqay xubno ka mid ah qurbajoogta SSC kuwas oo sheegay in uu hadafkoodu yahay dib u soo celinta degaanada SSC oo ay bishii October 15 2007 la wareegeen maamulka la baxay Somaliland. Xildhibaan Cali Baashi Xaaji Maxamuud oo wareysi gaar ah siiyay shabakada Wararka ee Xargaga Online isaga oo ku sugan magaalada Boosaaso ayaa sheegay in Xukumada Somalia aysan marnaba ogoleyn siyaasadeedu in xiligan kooxa gaar ah la sameeyo gaar ahaan dhaqdhaqaaqyo kala daadsan balse loo baahn yahay wixii fakir ah iyo maalba in meel laysugu wada geeyo oo laga wada qayb qaato dib u xoreynta Magaalada Laascaanood. Waxaa uu Xildhibaanku intaa raaciyay in Laascaanood ay tahay xudunta midnimada Somalia isla markaan aaan laga qabsan o kaliya Puntland iyoi SSC toona balse laga qabsaday Somali oo dhan sidaa darteedna ay xukuumada Somalia wadio dadaal weyn ay dib ugu soo celineyso xoriyada SSC kana saari doonto kooxda gooni u istaaga ee hada ka talisa. Mar uu ka hadlayay dhaqdhaqaaqa ay qaar ka mid ahi qurbajoogta SSC ku dhawaaqeen ayuu sheegay xildhibaanku in uusan wax soo kordhineyn aan dhibaato ka ahayn iyo mija xaabin dadaalka hada la wado. Xildhibaanku waxaa uu ugu baaqay ninkaste oo u dhashay mandaqada SSC ee doonayo in uu siyaasada soo galo in uu soo dhaweynayo balse waxaa uu ka digay shaqsiyaadka uu ku tilmamay iyaga oo gacansi dibadaha ka wada sheeganaya siyaasiyiin has eahatoo loo bahan yahay ayuu yiri in ay iskeenaan masraxa siyaasada Somalia . Cali baashe waxaa uu cambaareeyay weerarkii gardarada ahaa ee ay mamaulka Hargeysa ku qabsadeen magaalada Laascaanood waxaana uu ugu bishaareeyay shacabka in dhawaan awood looga saari doono mamaulka Riyaale gobolka mar haddii ay diideen in ay si nabad galya ah uga baxaan. Cali waxaa uu sidoo kale sheegay in ay xukuumada federaalka soo dhaweyneyso dadaalada qurbajoogta SSC ee ay teegeerada ugu soo fidiyeen ciidamada degaanka ee dib u xoreynta SSC isagoo ugu dambeyn u mahad celiyay Isimada Mandaqada SSC goaanka adag ay iska taageen duulanaka lagu soo qaaday dhulkooda iyo go’aamadii ay ka soo saareen shirkii Boocame . Ururka NSUM oo ay dhawaan ku dhawaqen xubno ka mid ah qurbajoogta SSC ayaa hadal hayntiisa ay ku soo badatay mandaqada SSC iyadoo ay dad badnai tuhun ka qabaan magaca uu uruku la baxay halka qaar kalana ay soo dhaweeyeen cid kasta oo wada dadaal ay dib ugu soo celineyso xoriyadii Laascaanood. A E. Moha Boosaaso,Somalia Mohamediapro@msn.com

It’s sad like so many things in Somalia today. But what was the role of the military in the disintegration of the Somali state? I am not talking about these men ku naafooday dagaalkii 1977. *topic hijacking in operation* I am talking about the ones that walked out on the Somali people in the 70's,80's,90's. The ones that joined clan militias with their weapons and expertise. The ones that call themselves generals, colonels and are leading clan militia's or that ran away when their country needed them the most. What’s your opinion on them? Are they the Somali military? Or are they traitors and cowards, who ran away or joined the forces that were out to destroy the country when the Somali people needed them the most. So is the former Somalia army something to be proud about? When they didn’t produce not even one group of men that were willing to serve their nation. Iskaba daa taas, why did the Somali army produce men like Caydiid, Cabdulahi Yusuf, Cade Muuse, and countless other traitors. Don’t you think there was something wrong with the way they selected their men, trained their men. Why did they have produced the armchair generals who are now in the West. Hoping and waiting to be called one day and asked whether they want to come back and work in Somalia. Why didn’t they produce men that are decisive, men that take action when they see evil being done? Why didn’t the Somali army produce men that love their country? What kind of an army was it horta? And is it the kind of military we can be proud of?

Oodweyne, I have accepted your capitulation , there is no face saving left for you, so you can now ungracefully hit the exit door. You have lost the argument and your attempts at changing the topic have been deflected. So to sum it up, I am your superior and master. In this game that we play its not about gists, its about comprehension, presentation, clarity and persuation. You haven't mastered these subjects yet. Don't worry though I will tutor you, free of charge ofcourse. I don't want you lagging behind. A weak Oodweyne is half the fun you see

Oodweyne, I accept your capitulation. Regards, me ps. are you familiar with that hitlerite song by that stalinist 2live crew hoochie mama, with their famous *stop theatrics you ain't no actress line.

Baashi: You and your secessionist colleagues have failed time and again to make the case to Ethiopia -- of all places -- let alone sophisticated machinery that America is . Melez likes the way it is and he ain’t buying your crap. Keep preaching the gospel awoowe. Recognition is coming!!! Was it Jean Jacques Rousseau who asked the interesting question that goes like and I’m paraphrasing here again ‘what you make of a doctor who exhorts his sick patients to practice patience? Oodweyne and his colleagues can't even make their case here on SOL, let alone to the governments of the world. He would like us to take his clownesque writing and his theatrics on SOL for serious argument.

Dear Oodweyne I am sorry to inform you that your attempt at deflecting my questions has failed. Answer the questions that I have asked you. Incase you haven't realized that by now, I am exposing the weakess of your arguments. You use fancy phrases such as nation-state, sovereignty etc what I want to show here is that those fancy phases do not apply when it comes to the secessionist entity. So lets go back to the questions I have asked you and please do address the issues without your theatrics. Now tell me what does a nation-state/Sovereign Nation-State mean? define for me what a nation state means and how the secessionist entity could be considered a nation state. Many thanks, me ps. I do not need free tuition from you. I am already your master on these issues.

guess

waa wax aadan fahmi karin

Originally posted by Oodweyne: ^^^^ Dear Mr. Me , You said this: quote: Originally Posted By Mr. Me , Jemelia what are the requirements for one to be recognized as a sovereign state? In short answer all you need is an ability to persuade some friendly countries to recognised you on a bilateral basis . What that means, in a nutshell, is that you don't even have worry about what the UN could say in this case. Provided, that is, you do not need any assistance from International agencies, such as the UN's humanitarian agencies or even the World Bank/IMF as well as others, who may demand of your membership of the UN's State System, before they help your State and it's people. Which means, there is a way , to be a Sovereign Nation-State, which is recognised by some countries ( again, only by some countries ), without even been a member of the UN as a sovereign Nation-State, with a seat at the UN's General Assembly . And in this category (i.e., Nation-State that are recognised by some other States, but still are not a members of the UN State System), you'll find such states, the likes of Northern Cyprus comes to mind, which is recognised by Turkey only. Since, they are not member of the UN system, due to the partition of Cyprus , and it has declared it's "Unilateral Declaration of Independence" ( UDI ), which is similar to the Somaliland's one of 1991 , in 1983 , and it has been recognised by the Turkey alone. Of course, the most important Nation-State in this category – i.e., a sovereign and a recognised Nation-State, that is yet not a fully-paid up member of the UN – is that of Taiwan , which is a functioning, indeed prosperous Nation-State, that is also a sovereign, but yet, due to the Chinese blocking veto at the United Nation Security Council ( UNSC ) is unable to become a member of the UN State System. Furthermore, on this point, Kosovo , or soon to be, the Republic of Kosovo , will join in this category; since, the Russians veto at the UNSC means that even that when the western world (i.e., US and EU ) recognised soon in March of this year, the sovereignty of Kosovo's Nation-Stateness, still the Russian will veto any idea of Kosovo becoming a member state of the UN State System. On the other hand, if you want to go the UN route, meaning you want to be a recognised Nation-State, who is also a member of the UN state system, you need to fulfilled these requirements: On the political front : you need to insure that there is no likelihood that any Veto kind of an impediment at the UNSC will be exercised on your behalf, by the permanent 5 at that august table (which in so far as Somaliland is concern, very much doable; particularly ever since that the US had made it abundantly clear that they do not have any "Strategical objection" to the idea of Somaliland becoming a member state at the UN if that is the African Union ( AU ) saw a sufficient reason to referred the matter to them, for a final political judgement). .. On the Legal front : You need to meet this categorised requirement, such as: ( a ) A defined territories ; ( b ) A permanent population in whose plurality of it's majority are favour of the independence of the State ; ( c ) A functioning State apparatus, such as a competant government ; ( d ) And lastly, ability to enter and entertained a relation with other state . In other words, you need to be verily compliance with the Montevideo Convention of 1933 . Regards, Oodweyne. Now tell me what does a nation-state/Sovereign Nation-State mean? define for me what a nation state means and how the secessionist entity could be considered a nation state.

Wednesday, Feb. 06, 2008 Clinton, Obama: Why Not Both? By Michael Duffy Here's a quick rundown of the many advantages the Democrats enjoy at this stage of the 2008 campaign. Voter turnout in most states is running well ahead of that for the gop. Democratic fund-raising continues to break all records—even those set previously by Republicans. The Democrats' issues cupboard is fuller than it has been in a decade and a half. And voters have narrowed the field to two wildly popular candidates, either of whom would make history if nominated, much less elected. Given the embarrassment of riches, it was only a matter of time before Democratic voters looked at the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and asked the question, Why not both? That idea had been on some voters' minds even before the dream was made flesh two weeks ago in Los Angeles, where, at the end of the Kodak Theatre debate, Obama and Clinton smiled, embraced each other for more than the usual nanosecond and then seemed to whisper something knowing in each other's ear. After weeks of hand-to-hand combat and rumors of tiffs that may or may not have been real, the Hug rightly or wrongly got even more people thinking about the power of two. Even if their act was dutiful, evanescent and faked for the cameras, party regulars seemed to eat it up. It was all there: the visionary and the technician, the candidate who could inspire the masses and the candidate who could get under the sink and fix the plumbing. For Clinton, pairing with Obama would repair some of the damage with African Americans brought on by her campaign and, at least in theory, push her husband to the sidelines. Obama, in turn, would get a mechanic to match his magic, someone who could turn his poetry into governing prose. A new TIME poll reveals that 62% of Democrats want Clinton to put Obama on the ticket; 51% want Obama to return the favor if he is the nominee. The party's right brain and left brain, dancing together at last, right? Unlikely Partners—for Now Well, not exactly. It's far too early to know if Obama and Clinton could work together, though there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. While the Clinton camp saw an opportunity in the general longing of the audience—Clinton fund raiser Terry McAuliffe said on the morning of Super Tuesday that Obama has generated so much excitement, he would have to be considered for the party's vice-presidential nomination—the Obama people saw a trap. If Obama and his aides lent any credence now to the dangled notion of a partnership, they know that some of his voters might peel off, thinking a vote for Clinton was, in effect, a twofer. And that could drive down Obama's turnout. "We're not running for Vice President," said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. No, and as long as Obama has a real shot at the top spot, there's no need to entertain the Veep talk. As a top Obama aide said, "That's not where this campaign's head is at." Instead, the Obama camp had been expecting the Veep proffer for weeks, just as it had expected the Clinton campaign to play the race card after New Hampshire. Obama headquarters was fully aware that the Clintons had badly overplayed their hand in the days leading up to South Carolina—so badly that Bill or Hillary would have to make some peace offering to Obama's supporters, if not to Obama himself, to heal the breach. But forgiveness, while long a staple of the Clinton narrative, isn't something the Obama team is ready to embrace. An Obama adviser put it this way: "One could argue that the Senator should not even agree to discuss an offer of the vice presidency until Senator Clinton agrees to bar her husband from the West Wing for the duration of the first term. And then once she agrees to that, he should turn it down." More to the point, is the job of Vice President to a Clinton worth having? Al Gore learned that being No. 2 to Bill was really more like being No. 3 after you factored in Hillary, who had an office in the West Wing and a larger suite of rooms down the hall from the Veep in the Old Executive Office Building. Gore watched his priorities often take a backseat to hers in the first term—and his future run aground as they fought successfully to avoid impeachment and conviction. While she joked with David Letterman on his show that there is no doubt "who wears the pantsuits" in her house, there is little doubt that the Clintons intend to work as a team if Hillary is elected. "I'll be there, talking her through everything," Bill said in Napa Valley, Calif., last month, "like she did with me." One unaligned party wise man said, "Obama may look at the Clintons, at both of them—at that whole thing they have—and say, 'Jeez, that's just way too [messed] up to be a part of. That's just no place I want to be.'" If Obama becomes the nominee, the arguments against teaming with the Clintons might be even stronger.Obama's defining issue in the race is not health care or the economy or even the war, where he is most distinct from his rival. It's about being new and different and not from the past; in short, about not being a Clinton. For months he has attacked Clinton for taking money from lobbyists, for flimflamming voters on her war votes and for playing race and gender cards when she fell behind. To reverse all that and join forces with the Clintons would be seen as a huge betrayal of his most galvanizing argument—as well as his character—by many of his followers. The numbers back this up. In Time's poll, 58% of Clinton backers favor bringing Obama onto the ticket; nearly the same percentage (56%) of Obama supporters favor choosing someone else. The Shadow of History It would be wrong to suggest that the pro-Obama sentiment is universal inside the Clinton camp. It isn't difficult to find those allied with Clinton who believe that Obama would make an underwhelming vice-presidential nominee. Clinton, they say, will want an attack dog both on the trail and as Vice President—a role Obama is ill suited for and uncomfortable assuming. Plus, the states he could deliver she could win on her own. But what really worries Clinton loyalists is that Obama lacks their, well, loyalty. Running her campaign are a host of aides who have worked for the Clintons before, been fired or been kicked aside and yet keep coming back, decade after decade, to help. That's how the Clintons define loyalty. That pattern may explain why there are those in Clintonland who think Obama has wronged her over the course of the campaign simply because he took her on. Against all the mutual animus and anger, however, stands a lot of history. And history suggests a deal later is possible, if not likely, whatever the insiders may think now. More often than not, winners in both parties reach out to losers—or at least contemplate an overture—when the time comes to put a broken party back together. John Kennedy tapped Lyndon Johnson in 1960, though the two men were like oil and water. Ronald Reagan named George H.W. Bush in 1980, though they never became very close. Walter Mondale gave a man he resented, Gary Hart, a good look in 1984, before choosing Geraldine Ferraro. And John Kerry recruited his former rival John Edwards in 2004, though the hard feelings on both sides never went away. Whoever wins these primaries may have no choice but to offer it to the also-ran. So perhaps it is wisest now to think of the Democratic primary campaign not as one race but two: the one for the delegates and the other for reconciliation. We will probably know who wins the delegate race before school is out. But it might be late summer before the parleys and the peacemaking that lead to a partnership get under way. A lot can happen in six months. The party's fortunes could dim; the hard feelings could soften. And by August, who knows? There is no telling what a Democratic nominee will need in a running mate—and vice versa. —With reporting by Jay Newton-Small/Washington Wednesday, Feb. 06, 2008 Clinton, Obama: Why Not Both? By Michael Duffy Here's a quick rundown of the many advantages the Democrats enjoy at this stage of the 2008 campaign. Voter turnout in most states is running well ahead of that for the gop. Democratic fund-raising continues to break all records—even those set previously by Republicans. The Democrats' issues cupboard is fuller than it has been in a decade and a half. And voters have narrowed the field to two wildly popular candidates, either of whom would make history if nominated, much less elected. Given the embarrassment of riches, it was only a matter of time before Democratic voters looked at the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and asked the question, Why not both? That idea had been on some voters' minds even before the dream was made flesh two weeks ago in Los Angeles, where, at the end of the Kodak Theatre debate, Obama and Clinton smiled, embraced each other for more than the usual nanosecond and then seemed to whisper something knowing in each other's ear. After weeks of hand-to-hand combat and rumors of tiffs that may or may not have been real, the Hug rightly or wrongly got even more people thinking about the power of two. Even if their act was dutiful, evanescent and faked for the cameras, party regulars seemed to eat it up. It was all there: the visionary and the technician, the candidate who could inspire the masses and the candidate who could get under the sink and fix the plumbing. For Clinton, pairing with Obama would repair some of the damage with African Americans brought on by her campaign and, at least in theory, push her husband to the sidelines. Obama, in turn, would get a mechanic to match his magic, someone who could turn his poetry into governing prose. A new TIME poll reveals that 62% of Democrats want Clinton to put Obama on the ticket; 51% want Obama to return the favor if he is the nominee. The party's right brain and left brain, dancing together at last, right? Unlikely Partners—for Now Well, not exactly. It's far too early to know if Obama and Clinton could work together, though there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. While the Clinton camp saw an opportunity in the general longing of the audience—Clinton fund raiser Terry McAuliffe said on the morning of Super Tuesday that Obama has generated so much excitement, he would have to be considered for the party's vice-presidential nomination—the Obama people saw a trap. If Obama and his aides lent any credence now to the dangled notion of a partnership, they know that some of his voters might peel off, thinking a vote for Clinton was, in effect, a twofer. And that could drive down Obama's turnout. "We're not running for Vice President," said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. No, and as long as Obama has a real shot at the top spot, there's no need to entertain the Veep talk. As a top Obama aide said, "That's not where this campaign's head is at." Instead, the Obama camp had been expecting the Veep proffer for weeks, just as it had expected the Clinton campaign to play the race card after New Hampshire. Obama headquarters was fully aware that the Clintons had badly overplayed their hand in the days leading up to South Carolina—so badly that Bill or Hillary would have to make some peace offering to Obama's supporters, if not to Obama himself, to heal the breach. But forgiveness, while long a staple of the Clinton narrative, isn't something the Obama team is ready to embrace. An Obama adviser put it this way: "One could argue that the Senator should not even agree to discuss an offer of the vice presidency until Senator Clinton agrees to bar her husband from the West Wing for the duration of the first term. And then once she agrees to that, he should turn it down." More to the point, is the job of Vice President to a Clinton worth having? Al Gore learned that being No. 2 to Bill was really more like being No. 3 after you factored in Hillary, who had an office in the West Wing and a larger suite of rooms down the hall from the Veep in the Old Executive Office Building. Gore watched his priorities often take a backseat to hers in the first term—and his future run aground as they fought successfully to avoid impeachment and conviction. While she joked with David Letterman on his show that there is no doubt "who wears the pantsuits" in her house, there is little doubt that the Clintons intend to work as a team if Hillary is elected. "I'll be there, talking her through everything," Bill said in Napa Valley, Calif., last month, "like she did with me." One unaligned party wise man said, "Obama may look at the Clintons, at both of them—at that whole thing they have—and say, 'Jeez, that's just way too [messed] up to be a part of. That's just no place I want to be.'" If Obama becomes the nominee, the arguments against teaming with the Clintons might be even stronger.Obama's defining issue in the race is not health care or the economy or even the war, where he is most distinct from his rival. It's about being new and different and not from the past; in short, about not being a Clinton. For months he has attacked Clinton for taking money from lobbyists, for flimflamming voters on her war votes and for playing race and gender cards when she fell behind. To reverse all that and join forces with the Clintons would be seen as a huge betrayal of his most galvanizing argument—as well as his character—by many of his followers. The numbers back this up. In Time's poll, 58% of Clinton backers favor bringing Obama onto the ticket; nearly the same percentage (56%) of Obama supporters favor choosing someone else. The Shadow of History It would be wrong to suggest that the pro-Obama sentiment is universal inside the Clinton camp. It isn't difficult to find those allied with Clinton who believe that Obama would make an underwhelming vice-presidential nominee. Clinton, they say, will want an attack dog both on the trail and as Vice President—a role Obama is ill suited for and uncomfortable assuming. Plus, the states he could deliver she could win on her own. But what really worries Clinton loyalists is that Obama lacks their, well, loyalty. Running her campaign are a host of aides who have worked for the Clintons before, been fired or been kicked aside and yet keep coming back, decade after decade, to help. That's how the Clintons define loyalty. That pattern may explain why there are those in Clintonland who think Obama has wronged her over the course of the campaign simply because he took her on. Against all the mutual animus and anger, however, stands a lot of history. And history suggests a deal later is possible, if not likely, whatever the insiders may think now. More often than not, winners in both parties reach out to losers—or at least contemplate an overture—when the time comes to put a broken party back together. John Kennedy tapped Lyndon Johnson in 1960, though the two men were like oil and water. Ronald Reagan named George H.W. Bush in 1980, though they never became very close. Walter Mondale gave a man he resented, Gary Hart, a good look in 1984, before choosing Geraldine Ferraro. And John Kerry recruited his former rival John Edwards in 2004, though the hard feelings on both sides never went away. Whoever wins these primaries may have no choice but to offer it to the also-ran. So perhaps it is wisest now to think of the Democratic primary campaign not as one race but two: the one for the delegates and the other for reconciliation. We will probably know who wins the delegate race before school is out. But it might be late summer before the parleys and the peacemaking that lead to a partnership get under way. A lot can happen in six months. The party's fortunes could dim; the hard feelings could soften. And by August, who knows? There is no telling what a Democratic nominee will need in a running mate—and vice versa. —With reporting by Jay Newton-Small/Washington

Originally posted by Ducaysane: I think He was looking for an excuse to leave her. laakiin ninku dooq xumaa. muxuu timo dheer ku falayaa. hadii aysan gabadhu xiirnayn iga dhimatey. abuu micheal Jordan sexy..... waa markii labaad! Nayrobi? Bongo? Maputo?

Surwaalgaabs?

Originally posted by Cara: Yes. What would an elephant/rhinoceros cross look like? I want a detailed description!

Originally posted by Jamelia: Looool...You don't have to be part of the UN to be recognised as a Sovereign nation state..... Jemelia what are the requirements for one to be recognized as a sovereign state?

Kashafa and Xiin a.k.a. the surwaal-gaab coalition. Let me throw in my one-liners. I think that you both agree that Somalis should stop fighting each other. I also believe that you guys both want that the Ethiopians should be kicked out of Somalia. So if you both agree on these two points suaasho waxa weeye maxaad isku haysataan? I believe waxaad isku haysataan how to reach these two goals. I think that your both wrong on how to achieve these two goals or at least you guys misunderstand each other or I misunderstand you guys. Whatever it may be.......I believe that both your approaches are needed in tandem. Hardliners and moderates are needed and to achieve these goals, military as well as diplomatic means are needed. Diplomacy alone won't get you anywhere and force alone won't make you win the war. I think that you guys catch my drift. Maybe you should find a middle ground and work from there. Ps. Kashafa I like your theatrics but sometimes you need to be pragmatic in your approach. I prescribe you 2 sessions with paragon.

Somalida Finland ayaa case loo samaysanayaa.

^In other words you cannot present anything to the public. Your wishful thinking is making you hear singing in cadan I guess Horta Oodweyne you are one walking contradiction ma is tidhi. Try to make sense or at least present a coherent case. For example you say As for you point, in regards to victory and all; you ought not, dear lad, be deluding yourself in here; particularly, in the hope of thinking that our recent advances in Sool region, are nothing but a pyrrhic victory to say the least. Indeed one could say, that there is a grand scheme of things that are afoot in here, in so far as this particular issue is concern; and to be honest with you, one could easily see in here (or at least if one start looking through the prism of history), that there is a form to our method of jurisdictional expansion, at least starting from Caynabo in late 1920s to Ceerigaabo of early 1990, and today of 2007/2008 of Las-Caanood. Which points out your clan chauvinistic stance and you are saying that the capture of Laas Caanood is a part of an ongoing clan war and that your goal is changing the population of Laas Caanood just as the population of Caynaba was changed in the 1920's after the defeat of the daraawiish by the British. But when I say that the secessionist militias serve a clan cause you say the following. As for your point, in regards to marauding militia and what have you, one could only say, it's Somaliland's Military, dear lad, not clannish militia, that have you on the run; and it will be Somaliland that you shall return to it, all in good time; particularly one day of not that distance in to the future. So are they a clannish militia or are they not? Because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

As for you point, in regards to victory and all; you ought not, dear lad, be deluding yourself in here; particularly, in the hope of thinking that our recent advances in Sool region, are nothing but a pyrrhic victory to say the least. Indeed one could say, that there is a grand scheme of things that are afoot in here, in so far as this particular issue is concern; and to be honest with you, one could easily see in here (or at least if one start looking through the prism of history), that there is a form to our method of jurisdictional expansion, at least starting from Caynabo in late 1920s to Ceerigaabo of early 1990, and today of 2007/2008 of Las-Caanood. I am glad that you have explained the intention of the marauding secessionist militia’s and that their goal is nothing more then the expansion of clan territories. As for your last point, in regards to Mr. Sean McCormack and what he said in those exchanges, one could easily say, that is neither here nor there; for we have altogether different political tune from his superior in the shape of Ms. J. Frazer. Care to share the different tune that you have from Frazier? In case that you don't realize it I am basing my arguments on facts not on tunes. So present anything that might make us the nomads of SOL believe that Frazier has other plans for the secessionist entity other than what McCormack has stated in that State dept press conference.

A horse gallops with his lung Preserveres with his heart, and wins with his character - Tesio You got the galloping under control, but will you persevere? And do you have the character? As for political matters between us, you’re premature in your claims for victory. So bacdal aflagaado, How did you come to this This is what is essentially known as that of a classical double-game of diplomacy – i.e., say one thing for public consumption for some, do something else entirely, as a demonstration of your considered bottom-line political position, for others, as well, whilst you are at it. From this MR. MCCORMACK: Look, we think it's important to have as many political contacts as we can with responsible individuals in Somalia who have an interest in building up the democratic structures and institutions of Somalia and trying to take it from where it is to a much more hopeful future. Certainly, Jendayi's meetings just last week fall solidly in that category and it's a policy that we are going to continue to pursue. We have interest in fighting terrorism in Somalia as well as in the Horn of Africa. Part of trying to bring about some greater stability in Somalia writ large is -- involves working with the political parties, encouraging the political parties -- political leaders in Somalia to come together. Are you not stretching it too far? MCCORMACK words were clear and the American position so far is that they want to deal with all the players in Somalia. They dealt with the warlords in Mogadishu, they are dealing with the TFG, so what makes their dealings with the secessionists different from any other group in Somalia that they are dealing with?