For one thing, they do not ask Soomaalis an entry dalkugal [visa], despite using that obsolete green baasaboor. They do not ask them a residence permit, which means they can live there as long as they want. Some of them get free education sometimes, free basic healthcare. The leaders in Suuriya take very strongly about "Carab Unity." Since Soomaaliya is a member of Jaamacadda Carabta, the Soomaali citizens are included. MMA, in that case i accede that Syria is indeed more welcoming than most other Arab nations.

^^ Or whatever little they think he has done for them. No doubt they are simply grateful for the peace and stability. I can think of no other reason why they would support him in particular.

lol, i guess you're right, not slaughtering somalis is a positive thing. Nevertheless, i doubt he has 'welcomed' Somalis into Syria. He is no less indifferent to the plight of the Somali nation than any other arab head of state.

^^ And pray, what has Dr Assad done for Somalia?

Quite a blitz of anti TFG threads, Northerner!

Alas, this drama continues at the expense of innocent Somalis who are killed one day, and forced to flee the next. Perhaps if the TFG and the Courts could focus more on the perpetual humanitarian crisis our people find themselves in, rather than their petty power struggle, and maybe set up a genuine reconciliation conference, so that we might finally escape the political rut we've been stuck in for the last 17 years.

Somali Take-off Feb 27th 1960 From The Economist print edition The Somalis, too, will soon be faced with the task of running their own affairs—and getting on with their neighbours A GALE of constitutional change is blowing through the Horn of Africa. On February 17th, British Somaliland had a general election, the second ever held in the protectorate, and a party of swift change won a decisive victory. Elected Somali members now dominate a Legislative Council that three years ago did not even exist. The timetable for independence has been written in New York, not in Whitehall. In 1950, the United Nations set a term of ten years on Italy’s trusteeship of Somalia, and in June the Italians make their unreluctant exit. The British can only follow. The Somalis are determined that they should go, and there is indeed no earthly reason for hanging on—beyond responsibility for what is left behind. Somalia and Somaliland start off with roughly the same disadvantages; both are harsh, hot lands of sand and rock without water, known mineral wealth, industry or anything else that makes life easy. But the Italian trust territory has had a clear political lead over the protectorate for which, indirectly, it can thank Mussolini and his imperial dreams. The British military caretakers who took over Somalia during the war exerted themselves to decontaminate the territory from fascist influence by an educational programme that was considerably ahead of anything suggested for the protectorate. Then the Italians came back, uncluttered by other colonial commitments, and more immediately aware than the British that they were working to a fierce timetable. Somalia has virtually governed itself since 1957. Its several political parties and the maze of their tribal ramifications promised a situation of singular confusion. But the Italians, keeping democratic scruples under strict control, picked their man and stuck to him. At the general elections last year, the Somali Youth League, led by Mr Abdullahi Issa, won 85 of the 90 seats, two-thirds of them unopposed because of the “regrettable technical errors” of their opponents. The protectorate’s election last week was not distorted by any such technicalities, but the result was hardly less conclusive. The Somali National League (SNL) has won 20 of the 33 seats available; the Somali United party, a new group that shortly before the elections joined forces with the SNL, has won 12 seats. This leaves the National United Front, which won most of the seats in last year’s rather timid attempt at elections, and whose members the British authorities were seriously coaching in the arts of government, with only one seat, although it got nearly a third of the total votes cast. The victorious SNL, led by Mr Mohammed Egal, is the party loudest in its demands for quick independence (it boycotted the earlier elections) and its victory is being proclaimed by Cairo radio as a smack in the eye for imperialism. But the decisive factor in the election was probably not so much the party platforms, which were all much of a muchness, as the complex inter-play of tribal, sub-tribal and family loyalties. All the parties agreed that the protectorate should join up, sooner rather than later, with Somalia. Mr Lennox-Boyd foreshadowed this last year when he promised British help should the protectorate seek some form of “closer association” with Somalia. Possibly when the time comes the two sides will be less keen than they are now on a complete union and more in favour of some kind of federative solution. The SNL is not on particularly warm terms with the Somali Youth League in Somalia, while for its part, the government at Mogadishu may cool towards the idea of straightforward fusion. At present Somalia’s government is picked from members of the Hawiya tribe—an ascendancy that is unjustified numerically, and would be very hard to maintain if a deluge of protectorate Somalis were to join forces with the opposition. Then comes the question of Commonwealth membership. For the commonwealth club to refuse this British territory admission would seem unlikely; but there is no certainty that the new member would be invited to bring a guest. THE challenge is how either state, together or separately, will be able to pay its way. The World Bank has calculated that Somalia will need $6 million a year of outside help if it is to manage at all. For a time, this much is assured. The Italian government has promised $3.6 million a year for the years immediately following independence, and the Americans are expected to find most of the balance. Bananas are Somalia’s only export and even they are not grown competitively; about half Italy’s aid consists of the government’s handsome subsidy on Somali bananas, supported by a generous quota; these arrangements are guaranteed for the next four years. This is not entirely quixotic; the Italian banana-growers in Somalia, most of whom settled there in the nineteen-thirties, have a significant voice in the ruling party in Italy. But against them, the Italian left-wing parties have always contended that Rome should spend what money it has to spare on its strident problems nearer home. After 1964, Somalia certainly cannot count on Italian aid continuing on its present scale. The protectorate needs less money than Somalia, because it is more backward and has about half as many people; otherwise it has roughly the same difficulties and no banana industry. Its exports are livestock and skins; both have done fairly well in the last few years, but one bad drought and Somaliland’s exports go by the board. There is a seepage of oil that gives the Somalis hope and a dressing for their camels’ saddle sores, but little else. Plans for mineral development are in the air, not on the ground. The British Government hands out £1.3 million a year, half of which is used to balance the budget and half for development and welfare. The impossibility, even by expensive hothouse methods, of quickly raising a Somali professional and administrative class in the protectorate has meant that a substantial proportion of the development and welfare grant is held over from year to year. Students with the minimum qualifications are now being bundled off to Britain for further education; in 1959 the Colonial Office gave 60 scholarships, three times as many as in 1956. The nomad existence and deeply suspicious attitude of most Somalis provide excuses for Britain’s late start, but these do not mitigate the stark difficulty of building on little or no foundation. OVERSHADOWING all these problems is the question of Ethiopia’s attitude towards its young, noisy, and weaker neighbours. Somalis are flagrantly calling down trouble upon themselves by the clamour for a Greater Somalia; the union of all Somali-speaking people in Somalia, Somaliland, French Somaliland, Kenya—and Ethiopia. The Pan-Somali movement is led from Mogadishu by an exile from French Somaliland, but all Somali politicians automatically include it in their creed. It gets a certain support from Cairo, although the Egyptians themselves are shaky about what sort of trouble they are trying to stir up for whom in the Horn. Even if Somali politicians are now only playing lip service to irredentism, the fact that they have committed themselves to wooing and subverting the Somalis in the ****** invites Ethiopian retaliation. Addis Ababa, already seriously concerned about the succession to the throne and running an empire that could be knocked apart by one good blow, is in no mood to wait and see what its neighbours are really up to. When in September, 1958, French Somaliland held its referendum, the Ethiopians showed their teeth—and the determination not to lose the right of access to Djibouti—in moving their troops to the frontier. In the event, French Somaliland, whose population is evenly divided between Somalis and Danakil, voted heavily in favour of continued attachment to France. Ethiopian suspicions and Somali ambitions have killed all hope of settling the immediate frontier issues. The border between Ethiopia and Somalia runs roughly down the middle of a hundred-mile-wide strip that each side claims. Mr Trygvie Lie was recently appointed by the United Nations to try his hand at mediation, but like others before him had to acknowledge defeat. On the protectorate frontier, the ceaseless quarrels over Somali grazing rights in the Haud can only grow more passionate with the departure of the British. When in 1897 the British Government signed away the Haud, its mind was on other African troubles; the protectorate inherits an overwhelming grievance. Both Somalia and the protectorate face a horribly difficult infancy as independent states. But what both must get in their heads is the loneliness of their position if they try Ethiopia too far. None of the western powers will have any interest in supporting a Somali campaign against Ethiopia. The Somalis, who dislike all foreigners, but Ethiopians most of all, must, to survive, practise unnatural restraint. source --------------------------

It certainly seems so, things are spiralling out of control, and we have already lost a lot of self respect and self confidence. We shall see many more things which shall leave us in dismay, things which will threaten to shatter forever our hopes, and doubt whether our country will ever be again. But no pit is big enough to confine a nation, as long as there are Somali babies being born we have a hope of self-redemption as a nation. We will recover, but how and when none knows.

Does it matter where or how unclean the streets where they beg are? Of course it matters, what i was obviously implying with 'dirty', was that some of our people have been reduced to beg in the meanest of streets, it means we have sunk ourselves to a new low.

The Somali people are to blame for the misery, exploitation and abuse of the Somali people. I was not aware we reached the stage where Somali women and children are begging and being sexually abused on the dirty streets of West Africa.

I have had the ill-fortune of having come across the video in question A quick search on the Internet will yield video footage of Dua, a 17 year-old dark-haired Yazidi Kurdish girl, being thrown to the ground by male members of her family and local religious leaders, who then mercilessly, kick and stone her to death. She was not being stoned with pebbles, but with very large rocks, which cracked open her head. Whilst mindless savages were calmly capturing it on their mobiles. It is depressing to be reminded how utterly bestial humans can be. Nay, bestial is not the word, animals do not commit senseless acts of cruelty.

centurion saaxiib, thank you for the good points, and forgive me for my corrupted education, let me try to answer your points as faithfully as i can. Funny that you thought I meant you , I have absolutely no problem with criticism of Sharica from anybody, especially Muslims. Unjustifiable perceptions of Sharica as backward, barbaric and totally inappropriate in Today’s world, I find rather annoying. First I'm not trying to recreate the western jurisprudence, my interest is that i do not wish to see an elitist system. The reason i say this is because any system not based on the cooperation and comprise of consensus leads to serving one group above the rest. Why I think this might be the case for religious law is that not everyone interprets doctrine in the same way. Therefore religious law or for that matter any law with infallible doctrine is prey to those that control the *acceptable* interpretation of the doctrine. What you are assuming here is that because Sharica (or any other religious body of law) is less influenced by ‘society’ as a whole than by those law-makers with the adequate religious knowledge, it is more vulnerable to manipulation. This would be more of a correct assumption if it were any other religion. When I said the principles of Sharica are unassailable, I mean its foundation; the glorious Quran and the Hadith. There are only so many interpretations of a passage in either source, hence its harmonious (a point you were so kind as to make for me below )and continues reform to make it more adequately adaptable for/to contemporary issues. Manipulations of Islamic religious texts are never subtle, nor are consequential abuses of the canons of Islam easy to conceal. My point is that, Islamic jurisprudence has the fortune of having sources which (Quran & Hadith) which have almost no grey areas where it matters, resulting in no major lack of consensus among law-makers. Now if we follow a process of finding some consensual agreement, and if as you say judgment is open to question and reason to revision, then we have nothing to disagree on. I don’t think we have, I am like you concerned about any potential elitism, a symptom of retrogression which religious bodies of Law are specifically vulnerable to. I also share your cynicism for the idea that there is a ‘perfect’ system of law, such shall never exist, we can but attempt to follow Allah’s will when it is clear, and follow our instincts and knowledge as best as we can, when it is less so. Let me give you an example, since we are taking the principles of a faith as the irreducible parts of the law, which interpretation of faith is unassailable? An example would be the sanctity of life, and hence the negative (relative to) Islamic legal opinion on the issue abortion. This is a problem because when you say "the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith can of course evolve with the modern world", you must also answer *whose interpretation*, yours or mine, theirs or ours. Of course that is unless we'd like to argue that there is no such thing as an interpretation when it comes to faith. ‘interpretation’ is too deceptive a word.Since it implies restructuring of the concepts being looked at. A more appropriate description would be ‘understanding of’ the Quran & Hadith. Throughout history scholars of the Quran and the Hadith seem not to have very conflicting opinions on ‘interpretations’ of the Quran and Hadith. So I’ll take my luck with how highly respectable and knowledgeable scholars apply the commandments of Allah, and the actions of the Prophet (SCW) to modern issues. When you say "[Western jurisprudence] .. shaped by 'the societies it judges' is a double sided blade" you are completely right. And actually it aught to be a double sided blade, otherwise we would be talking of a perfect system - the practicality of which as you can tell i don't have much faith in. More than that, if a law cannot address all of the subjects that it affects equally and fairly, sooner or later you are also a minority on some subject and prey to its distortions. Unless of course every one is the same and no one could possibly fall into a minority of some sort. Sharica does not have that corrupted side of the legal blade; the changing of laws according to fluctuating moral values of society but retains the ‘society-friendly’ features you are seeking, such as equality and the upholding of the rights of women. With regard to your sentence "[Western jurisprudence]'s .. bestowing guardianship of the rules of law to the defendant is naught but a make shift solution to the fact that it has lost its grip on its foundation tenets inherited from Christianity and has but modern society's moral compass as its guide." That my friend is nothing but a good thing. It realises that western society contain more that christians and have more than one notion of a christian, therefore when it works best is when it is blind to christian doctrine. You have the belief laws should be shaped primarily for the content of society, and I deduce you would contest the application of Sharica in a society which includes other [minor] religious-groups. Islamic jurisprudence is more about practicing life in the manner most pleasing to our Lord, He Who Knows Best, and a Muslim society would only be happy (should be in any case, Modern day Turkey is not, make of it what you will) living their lives in accordance with Sharica, which will provide (or so Muslims believe, one might add) the optimum living conditions, harmony and well-being. Sadly there is an unsatisfiable constraint on the premise. "Sharicah bestows guardianship to the glorious Quran, which judges can fall back on every time." Having bestowed guardianship on the Quran, whose interpretation of the Quran shall we take - since non of us can claim to have a complete understanding of it. This would be no problem, if the tenant were questionable, however if we state infallible and assailable wisdom, must find the interpreter and and interpretation of the infallible and assailable wisdom. You see the obvious contradiction. I’m not sure I fully understand the above paragraphs (no doubt the spelling mistakes are to blame) but I take it you mean how can we interpret the infallible, since different people will reach different understandings. It is enough for us to know 1) The Quran and Hadith are always right, and if something is spelled out clearly, we cannot interpret it into something different and 2) If a passage brings about a conflict in interpretation like all other things, the most compelling of arguments shall be followed otherwise a middle path (one seen as most appropriate) shall be taken. Since we are humans (as the Arabs say ‘Kulli Ibn-Adan Khadda’) we will be forgiven for a universal consensus which in the Afterlife proves to be faulty, a consensus is what is important. "Judges of contemporary non-islamic systems of law live in a world where they but follow ever changing laws, which are dictated by todays debased morals." Two points, first, why do you think laws change? Surely all secular laws are not dreamt up to satisfy the books of bureaucrats? Secular law is no big evil, but in a manner of speaking its laws are shaped by the people, the people are not shaped by the laws as should be. Of course intentions are fine, to accommodate all people equally, but it is inadequate for a Muslim nation, which should follow Sharica, the path most pleasing to God, and most rewarding for us. Second, it is your prerogative to find the modern world as having "debased morals", however sadly this is the world you live in and predictably that line is as old as the notion of a moral. lol, i am well aware of how old the notion of ‘The morals of today are not what they were once’ is sxb, nevertheless that does not make it less true today.

NGO's currently in Somalia Arguably a great deal more for Somalia than the Diaspora is doing.

Originally posted by Caano Geel: quote:Centurion When a ruling goes against you, surely you do not question laws already considered infallible, but rather how they are exercised by mortal men. you question both the judgment and the reasoning behind the judgment. You accept if you agree with both or the consensus says so (which is not always right and depends on who is given the power to advocate) - for examples look at how many cases go appeal courts.Sharica law does not limit the defence to just being able to question a judgement but the reasoning behind the judgement can also be questioned.Sharica is not in any way set in cement, it is merely far more coherent in its adherence to Quranic (and Hadith) principles than Western jurisprudence (the one i assume you are more attracted to) is to its undeniable Christian foundations and tenets. Hence it often appears backward and barbaric in the Western world, and unfortunatelu also to Western educated muslims. First, you can question the logic behind them in every sense, there is no higher authority to appeal to than the justification of the reason. If the justification is no longer valid, you may modify the law. Therefore laws represent and evolve with the societies they judge. The principles of Sharica are unassailable, and do not require frequent revisions, not unlike other bodies of law, the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith can of course evolve with the modern world. It could be said that the fact Western jurisprudence can to a very large extent be shaped by 'the societies it judges' is a double sided blade. Of course it allows for revisions of laws to include appropriate social changes, but also results in ever changing standards, the constant 'positioning of the bar' when it comes to things like ethics. Take for example the stance on Homosexuality, it has become commonplace in the Western world, and subsequently nation by nation revised its position on Homosexuality ( a position of stark opposition to homosexuality or anything of the sort; remnant of the Christian foundations of Western jurisprudence). Islamic jurisprudence follows letter by letter Quranic and Hadith-based proclamations by God and his prophet, and the islamic stance of total condemnation of homosexuality will never 'evolve'. In effect this is what common law attempts to deal with, it is extremely pessimistic. It assumes that no one is capable of fulfilling such a position of trust. It therefore takes you, the subject of that law as its guardian. If you disagree with it you make you point and you challenge it, if your case is convincing, such laws may be repealed . Therefore the fallibility of the enforcers is inconsequential when you can challenge the law it self. This is not case the other way round. This 'remarkable' phenomenon of Western jurisprudence of bestowing guardianship of the rules of law to the defendant is naught but a make shift solution to the fact that it has lost its grip on its foundation tenets inherited from Christianity and has but modern society's moral compass as its guide. Sharicah bestows guardianship to the glorious Quran, which judges can fall back on every time. Judges of contemporary non-islamic systems of law live in a world where they but follow ever changing laws, which are dictated by todays debased morals.

Originally posted by Caano Geel: Yes, because you cant question infallible laws when practiced by fallible people. When a ruling goes against you, surely you do not question laws already considered infallible, but rather how they are exercised by mortal men.

up until the perfect incorruptible all knowing, seeing people with the perfect understanding and knowledge of everything come around, i'll take the fallible and malleable man made law - defined and enforced by the peoples its there to govern. So what you are saying in effect GC, is that you'd rather be governed by fallible persons with their fallible laws, rather than by fallible persons with infallible laws (which is what we consider Sharicah to be)

^^Great use of last 5 mins

He does look as if he's just walked down the length of a catwalk and is executing (quite elegantly, i must say)the customary 'distant gaze' just before the turn.

I suspect it's because they have been there too long. The position of the so called Muslim world is in a deadly and calamoutius position. It is a rot. We have to decide, do we really want live in the real world? Do you like what you see? Somalia should emulate Singapore and forget about muslim world, islamic culture Many muslim nations are in dire situations, hence we must abandon Islam? Peacenow, your cries for others to abandon (or dilute their practice of) your former religion are rather pathetic symptoms of your recent apostasy.

Ilaahey ha u naxariisto marxuumka. Surely , Allah takes what is His, we pray for forgiveness for the departed.

It will be an immensely long, dangerous and extremely challenging path we need to take to see Somalia regain its full territorial sovereignty. The somali saying 'Midka tiisa dar yeela, baa tukale ku daro' comes to mind. Before we can see even the annexation of the de facto state of 'Somaliland', the rest of Somalia needs to experience a substantial reign of peace and prosperity, and a government with popular support. Only upon this foundation can we aim to pursue the dream of one day creating 'Somaliweyn'.

Talking about Bile, this is my current desktop wallpaper:

This is an interview with former UN spokesman for Iraq, Salim Lone (whom to some of you may be familiar for his condemnation of the US war in Iraq) who voices real condemnation of Ethio-American attacks in Somalia and the TFG and gives a frank assesment of the shameful going ons. Video of the interview TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: In Somalia, fierce fighting has killed over 320 people over the past ten days. This comes just three weeks after another series of battles claimed at least a thousand lives. Agence France-Presse described Thursday’s clashes in Mogadishu as some of the heaviest fighting in the city’s history. The fighting began in December when US-backed Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia. Four months ago today, Islamic fighters abandoned the capital, marking the official fall of the Council of Islamic Courts, which had controlled Mogadishu for six months last year. A humanitarian catastrophe now looms over Somalia. The United Nations says more people have been displaced in Somalia in the past three months than anywhere else in the world. Some 350,000 people have fled fighting in Mogadishu since February, more than a third of its population. That makes the rate of displacement in Somalia over the past three months worse than Iraq. Many of the those displaced are camped on the outskirts of Mogadishu and lack food, medicine and clean water. There is also concern for those trapped inside the capital where more than 600 people have died from acute diarrhea and cholera. This is UN relief coordinator John Holmes. JOHN HOLMES: There are stocks available in the area. If we can sort out the access problems, if we can step up our presence, in particular if we could achieve a ceasefire in Mogadishu and the surrounding area, then I think we will be able to cope with the problem, with some difficulty. But if the fighting continues at its present intensity, if there is no halt in that, if there is no political progress made, then we could indeed be facing a very serious situation indeed. I think already this is one of the -- the biggest movement of population, displacement of population we've seen this year, in terms of numbers, particularly in terms of comparative numbers, compared to the populations of Mogadishu or indeed of Somalia as a whole, greater in that sense than Darfur or eastern Chad, and the problems there are serious enough. AMY GOODMAN: Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Ghedi said Thursday his forces were now in control of Mogadishu. The BBC reports, for the first time in nine days, gunfire has stopped. Ethiopians and government troops are patrolling the city conducting house-to-house searches, as residents collect rotting bodies that have been abandoned in the streets. The escalating war in Somalia has received little attention in the US media especially on broadcast television. Using the Lexis database, Democracy Now! examined ABC, NBC and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts over the past three months. The result may surprise you: ABC and NBC has not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once on a Sunday night news broadcast. The network dedicated a total of three sentences to the story. Salim Lone is a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and a former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq. He joins us today from London. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Salim. SALIM LONE: Thank you for covering Somalia, Amy. As you said, the coverage is absolutely shameless. AMY GOODMAN: Well, first, Salim, can you describe who the fighting forces are and who's behind them? SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, the key country there is Ethiopia. Their occupation forces have been there, in fact, long before the actual war began. They came in around September, October. But at the moment, those fighting the Ethiopians and the nominal transitional central government, which is really an absolutely puppet -- it’s quite hapless. In fact, the Ethiopians don't even deal with Somalis that their fighting through the transitional government. They go directly to the elders of the clans to try to negotiate ceasefires. But those fighting them are obviously the ****** Clan fighters who dominate Mogadishu. I mean, historically, they're the largest clan in there. But there are also many others, not just Islamists, which is a codeword for terrorists, but there are many Somalis. In fact, most Somalis will not abide this occupation. I mean, this is what is most distressing about this fighting. All fighting is terrible, but you hope in the end something good comes out of it. But in this particular case, it is clear Somalis will not abide the Ethiopian occupation or the government they put in place there. So it is not going to be a successful war for the Somali government, for Ethiopia and, of course, for the US, which is the orchestrator of the whole adventure this time. AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, you're now in London. The British think tank Chatham House criticized the US role in the war. The authors of the report write, “In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, general multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actors, especially Ethiopia and the United States.” SALIM LONE: Well, you know, this is par for the course these days. What they also should have mentioned -- but it’s an excellent report, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it, and I’m so glad they were so candid. But one of the big issues here is not merely the unilateralism of the United States, but the inability of the international community and particularly the United Nations Security Council to try to play, if not an independent role, at least a moderating role. It is quite astonishing that for now three months, there has been terrible violence in Somalia, and yet we have not heard anything from the security council about how this carnage must stop. There is no interest whatsoever. You know the death toll. I mean, you've given all the details. I don't want to go into it. But let me add that women are being raped, that hospitals are being bombed. This is clearly a huge effort to intimidate and terrorize all those who come from clans who are fighting the government. They want to intimidate the civilians, because most of the death toll is of civilians. So this has been going on, and there has been no call whatsoever for this to stop. You had Sir John Holmes there. He's a Brit, who -- I don't know him personally, so I cannot speak for him. But clearly, he has been appointed, in fact, by the British to his crucial position as chief of humanitarian affairs. So we are seeing the Security Council completely silent while these atrocities are going on. We are seeing Western governments completely silent. Nothing has come out of Washington. Nothing has come out of London. We now see, for the first time on Wednesday, the ambassador of Germany -- and Germany holds the EU presidency now -- the ambassador released a letter, which he had sent to Abdullah Yusuf, the president of the transitional government. It is a very candid and a very strong letter, and that's wonderful. However, where was Germany? Where was the EU for all this period? Their silence has really given the green light for the Ethiopians to do the terrible things they've been doing. The death toll now in Somalia is greater than it was in Lebanon. And you will recall, of course, that even then, the big powers -- the US, UK, even initially the UN -- did not demand a ceasefire. But the world media was full of that story, and there were condemnations around the world for what the Israelis were doing. But, of course, Somalis and Africans don't count as nearly much, because there has just been no international outcry at all. It’s not just the media. So we really have a problem there. AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, we're going to break and come back to this discussion. We'll also play a comment or interaction in the State Department on what is happening right now in Somalia. Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, joining us from Britain. Stay with us. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Salim Lone. He is the former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq. He’s a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and is joining us right now from London. Salim, I wanted to talk to you about the US role in all of this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Ethiopian foreign minister on April 23. At a news conference the next day, State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said the two had discussed the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia. McCormack said the troops had “no desire to stay there any longer than they are needed,” but that they didn't want to withdraw to, quote, open up a -- “vacuum open up in Somalia.” A reporter questioned him about his comments. This is an excerpt. REPORTER: Does it concern you at all that your little -- your opening readout, your opening statements, with the exception of some of the proper names, could have applied exactly to the situation in Iraq right now? Does that bother -- does that concern you at all? SEAN McCORMACK: I'm not sure I see your point, Matt. REPORTER: That the Ethiopians say that they don't want to stay there any longer than they're needed, but they don't want to leave a vacuum. It just sounds -- SEAN McCORMACK: Right. REPORTER: -- an awful lot like they're taking a page from the administration's thoughts on what to do in Iraq. SEAN McCORMACK: No. I mean, they're -- REPORTER: But I guess -- so my question is, are you concerned that they might be seeing the beginning or the -- in fact, the middle of an Iraq-style insurgency going on, obviously not directed at US soldiers -- SEAN McCORMACK: Right. Right, right, right. REPORTER: -- but the same kind of thing. Are you concerned about that? SEAN McCORMACK: The situations are completely separate. They are -- you know, each are sui generis, but you are in each case concerned about leaving the field to a group of violent extremists who do not have an interest in building up the institutions of a democratic state, so in that sense, in that sense, there are similarities. I think certainly the specifics of each situation are quite different, and the histories are quite different. And I think the level of intensity of fighting in Iraq is quite different than you're seeing in Somalia, and the scale of it is a lot smaller. AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack. The reporter went on to ask him whether the United States is calling for a ceasefire. REPORTER: Are you calling for a ceasefire in Somalia, or are you urging the Ethiopians to go for these insurgents with as much intensity as they could? SEAN McCORMACK: You don't want to see any more violence in Somalia. Everybody would like that to be the case, but there are clearly people there, individuals who are intent upon using violence in order to further a so-called political cause. And we have seen that in other areas around the world. And what can't be allowed to happen is for those forces to gain a foothold to develop a safe haven, from which they could possibly launch attacks against other states in the region and further. REPORTER: So you're not calling for a ceasefire? SEAN McCORMACK: We want to see an end to the violence. But the real way to get an end to the violence is (a) stabilize the security situation, and (b) find a political situation that is workable for the major political factions in Somali life that have an interest in actually building a different kind of Somalia, as opposed to the one we've seen for the past few decades. AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack. Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, your response? SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, I’m very interested in the Iraq analogy, and it is really multiple, apart from what was already said there. The contrasts are striking, as well. But let me add to the analogy, actually, that May 1 is approaching. That was the day when on the -- right after the war, President Bush said that his mission had been accomplished. We have the same statement coming out of the prime minister of Somalia yesterday, that the mission has been accomplished and the insurgents have been wiped out. But let's look at the other contrasts, which are very fascinating. In Iraq, the world body, the Security Council, for the first time in many years since the Soviet Union collapsed, stood up to the United States and refused, despite enormous pressure, to authorize a UN war in Iraq. In Somalia's case, it is precisely the opposite. To begin with, the lawlessness of this particular war is astounding. I mean, this is the most lawless war of our generation. You know, all aggressive wars are illegal. But in this particular one, there have been violations of the Charter and gross violations of international human rights, but these are commonplace. But, in addition, there have been very concrete violations by the United States, to begin with, of two Security Council resolutions. The first one was the arms embargo imposed on Somalia, which the United States has been routinely flaunting for many years now. But then the US decided that that resolution was no longer useful, and they pushed through an appalling resolution in December, which basically gave the green light to Ethiopia to invade. They pushed through a resolution which said that the situation in Somalia was a threat to international peace and security, at a time when every independent report indicated, and Chatham House’s report on Wednesday also indicated, that the Islamic Courts Union had brought a high level of peace and stability that Somalia had not enjoyed in sixteen years. So here was the UN Security Council going along with the American demand to pass a blatantly falsified UN resolution. And that resolution actually was a violation. It contravened the UN Charter. You know, the UN Charter is like the American Constitution. Legislators pass laws, but they have to be in conformity with the Constitution. In this particular case, the Charter is the UN’s constitution, and the Security Council cannot -- it's not allowed to really pass laws or rules that violate the Charter. And yet, who is going to correct them? So this -- AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, on April 8, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration recently allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from North Korea, in violation of international sanctions. The US allowed the arms delivery to go through in January, shortly after Ethiopia invaded Somalia, from North Korea. Salim? SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, this just, you know, shows the lawlessness, the complete lack of pretense, even, to try to honor these resolutions. The big powers decide what resolutions are passed. But now what we see is the big powers then decide, are we actually going to honor the resolution that we just passed? I mean, I want to give you an incredible example of how the Security Council has become a plaything almost. There was a time when Security Council resolutions had gravitas. For example, everybody knew Resolution 242, asking Israel to vacate the Occupied Territories in exchange for peace. But now, it’s a plaything. And I want to give the example of the bombings in Spain in the year 2004. Just before the Spanish election, there was this terrible atrocity, as you know. About 200 people, Spaniards, were killed in the terrorist attacks on the trains. Because it was on the eve of the election, the Aznar government, afraid that if it was known that this attack was by terrorists, might lose the election, got the US to support a Security Council resolution which condemned the Basque separatists for the attack. And the Security Council went along with that. I mean, a day later, it became clear that it was a total lie. So the Security Council resolutions really have no meaning now, because they can be passed and violated at will, especially by the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, the Dow Jones newswire has recently reported that the US-backed Somali prime minister wants to pass a new oil law to encourage foreign oil companies to return to Somalia. Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corporation once had exploration contracts in Somalia, but the companies left the country in 1991. How significant is this in the US involvement in Somalia today? SALIM LONE: Well, you know, as you’ve discussed before, Somalia itself and the region, the Horn of Africa, is newly oil-rich. Kenya has some oil. Oil is the key to domination for the United States -- global domination, I mean. But it is going about, you know, the wrong way to get that oil. The US is also worried that its welcome in the Middle East is diminishing, and they need to make sure -- both they want to encircle the Middle East with the oil field, and they want to make sure they have Somalia and other countries handy for the oil. But this -- you know, the prime minister’s attempt to lure Western oil companies is on a par with his crying wolf about al-Qaeda at every turn. Every time you interview a Somalia official, the first thing you hear is al-Qaeda and terrorists. They’re using that. No one believes it. No one believes it at all, because all independent reports say the contrary. But they are using that to try to develop support. And, you know, this is why it is so important. Europe has now been coming into the forefront with its concern. It had this report about major human rights violations had occurred a month ago in Mogadishu. And the Europeans are afraid that they might be complicit in those, because they were supporting the warring -- the groups that were committing those atrocities. Germany, as I said, released that letter on Wednesday. Even the American ambassador has written to Abdullah Yusuf, the president. I mean, they are really writing letters to the Somali president. They will not raise this issue in the Security Council. They will not raise this issue in Washington or London. They want to keep this as a small African issue. And it is so important for all of us to put pressure on the governments in Europe, in particular, and on Africa, too. I mean, Africa is weak. It cannot really take strong stands. In my own country, Kenya, we have played a terrible role in these extraordinary renditions and Guantanamo Bay that are going on. But, of course, one leading opposition, the candidate in Kenya, said that the US has promised to support the government in the elections at the end of this year in exchange for the terrible things it has been doing. So Africa is weak -- AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, I want to ask you quickly, as you talk about Guantanamo, this secret prison in Ethiopia -- not clear how many people are being held there, if this is one of the black sites, one of the prisons that are not very well known about in the world that the US is involved with. But we do know that Amir Mohamed Meshal is there. He is a New Jersey young man from Tinton Falls. Jonathan Landay of the McClatchy Newspapers reported April 24th, Ethiopia has changed its mind and decided for the time being not to free the American Muslim who was captured trying to flee war-torn Somalia and was held without charge in Kenya and Ethiopia for more than four months. Can you talk about this secret prison? SALIM LONE: Well, you know, there are -- did you say “secret prison”? AMY GOODMAN: Yes. SALIM LONE: Yes, yes, yes. You know, I mean, this whole enterprise -- the kidnappings on Kenyan streets, the grabbing refugees coming across the border -- has a “Made in America” stamp on it, because you’ve seen it all happen before. And these secret prisons, the US denies any responsibility in this whole operation. And yet, we know that CIA and FBI officials are in those prisons interviewing the inmates. We also know, by the way, that many of the people who have disappeared are not in those secret prisons. Where are those people? Have they be killed? Are they being tortured somewhere else? This is, you know, utter lawlessness. And we must try to get the Europeans, in particular -- I keep appealing to the Europeans, because I know -- I speak to many European ambassadors in Kenya -- I know that they're privately very concerned about what is going on. And we must get them to do more. It is fine to indicate there are war crimes to be committed. It's fine to say this must stop, and hospitals shouldn’t be bombed, and you can’t keep relief away from suffering people. But they must go beyond that. They must take an initiative, or talk privately to the United States and say, “Look, this is a lost cause. We are only creating suffering, and we're creating problems for ourselves, because there will be blowback on this. There will be animosities and angers, which will affect Europe, America, Africa, everywhere.” So they must [inaudible]. AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General’s call for a coalition of the willing to go into Somalia? You’re a former UN official. SALIM LONE: You know, it is so disgraceful. For him to try to get the Security Council -- that's what he proposes, the Security Council, in case there is no peace in Somalia in the meeting in June, in mid-June, to discuss it in the Security Council -- for him to propose that the UN should now go in to do what the US and Ethiopia have been unable to do, which is basically to impose a client regime on Somalia, it's just absolutely disgraceful. I mean, I read that report to the Security Council, and it is hard to believe that Mr. Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is so blatantly and comprehensively one-sided. There is not a word about the fact that the Ethiopians are there without any international legitimacy. They're occupiers. They violated the UN Charter. They were not in any danger of being attacked, and they invaded. So this notion must also -- this notion that a coalition of the willing must be formed -- as you know, that was how the first Gulf War was fought. And if this coalition comes into place, which I hope will not, it will merely internationalize the crisis and make things even worse. But I hope the Europeans, in particular, and the Africans who are on the Security Council will not allow that to happen. source

Haha, yes i saw that weeks ago. Funnily enough it took me about 10 sec to realise she was talking in Somali. The Rome set is based in Italy, so i guess she was a somali in Italy recruited much like many Italians are who serve as the 'plebs' in the series.

Ilaahey waaridkeena geeriyoobay oo dhan ha u naxariisto.