No Allah has bestowed it on them, what kind of question is that? 1. I thought you were the secularist? I am confused by your answer. Are you sighting divine will to legitimise Yusufs rule? If that is so, why did you oppose the last lot. Surely Allah had bestowed power on them too and going against them was going against divine will too? Or does the current ragime have more of Allah's favour? Surely the divine matra should be 'what will be will be'... or will it be 'god save the president'? Really, I am confused by your answer, especially since you've started saying 'you can vote them out'... shouldnt that be against the order of things too? mystic They are not all goons and many somalis support them .. a lot outside of clan alliagances. the point is why.

^ Ok, you've said that before, but how and why does it have all those rights? Are they not ours to bestow on them?

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^The sister is still angry..Calm down love. So derogatory ... Race for next *speaker* or *line toer*?

The police force should be prepared to meet the needs of its diverse and varied work force especially when it has to do with personal beliefs. Yes, they are obliged to. But do you not think she should think about the situations she will be exposed to before taking up the post. There is a serious point here of where obligation ends and hindrance begins. If she chooses (with all power to her) such strict interpretation, then how suitable is she to be a police woman outside of the muslim community.. Since she is obliged to serve all members of society equally. ... or are we just dealing with the Met. commisioners hand (which i would also be hesistant to)

G I asked that in earnest, First, because i think any sense of healing any nation needs to start with honesty and within the people. Second, because i assume your conviction is reasonable and without bias, I want to understand how you come to your conclusion. Having said that, if your reasoning is sound, then i see no reason why it can't convince me, hence the question. Mk fiiq >"What you don't seem to comprehend CG is that the TFI is the only legal political organ in Somalia that has a mandate to rule!" Legal is by defintion a set of rules or norms of conduct. I think we can agree that the situation which led to our current predicement was not normal, as for rules, it was against the international conventions on soveriengty (the ET role was that which used to be played SA mercinaries). And the US gunships are not norms of conduct. Second, since law is not an exact science (wainting for sophist's rampage!) it is maliable, and its content and any mandates the victors progative. Hence, we aught to question. >"The TFI wasn't born yesterday nor did it came out of a hat like a rabbit! It is broad and all-inclusive!" No, most of its members where born in the 1920s, and cut their political teeth fighting in the kind of *rebel* organisations that they are so vigorously trying to put down. >"The process took over two hard years with millions of International Community money and thousands of charted flights whereby an bony skeletel uncle of yours with a dusty macwiis and cimaamad could be flown over to participiate in the peace process and sign a letter!" Lets not talk about the kenyan hotel bills, and talking to people with insiders view on the EU claim bills, their impressions of Somalis you never want to hear. 2nd, my boney uncle did one better and got himself a post, but that does not mean he represents me, or my views. In fact, i actually like the man and know him to be a reasonable man. But much like your uncles, i dont see how he can represent my interests or concerns (dont know about yours, but mine could never get it together enough to own any technicals). More importantly, he is a member of a cabinet whose power figures have a lot of bones to hide, and a lot of backs to scratch. Whose idea of reconcialition is taken from master class of the great Bush and have a number village eijits and butchers (u know who) as ministers, rewarded for their efforts! So even if he did intent to represent me i dont see how he could... Since the TF[Next acronym] is being tauted as our saviours. Explain for me how/what the guys and gals will *represent*. Are they united against treachery, corruption, tribalism, incompetence, fraud ... or just there to make it easier by constitution >"TFI is supported because it has a mandate and it came from Somalis with the help of the International Community and its regional neighbours, so what's so hard to not get?" The words *mandate* and *regional neighbours* mean victors spoils. Ethiopic, Arab and US funding for decades of somali warlords dont need mentioning.... There is some milage to *"came from somalis"*, but that is as long as qabiil line, since it falls at the first hurdle. So i hope u see why "its so hard to get", and why i ask how *you* got it (to help me get there of course ). "On the other hand ICU was an exclusive club of one clan that came together in local based clan court systems, how could that represent all of Somalia? They said 'Yeah as we go along raiding villages and more clan join us the leadership will become more inclusive'? " ICU bull, I am not asking for comparisons. We know what they did wrong, and said so when they were doing it. You dont take Malaria because its got different side effects to Cholera. So lets not do the ICU/ TF[*], single clan/ lots of single clans line. Your just arguing a *my clans rights* rather than principles that aught to apply to a nation. What principles do these guys stand for. How can they convince us, what do they have to offer - mandate or no mandate. More importantly how did their argument convince you? "What logic is that? Madness pure I say. That is not the right system, even a little child knows that!" yes current Somali logic gives madness a bad name, but whats your excuse when you. Why do you support the TF[*].

G, MKA Fiiq, Taco This is an interesting question, but for me, your not answering it properly. Make a disctinction please. > Do you support them TFG specifically for their purpose, principles, record, etc... >>or<< > Do you support a centralised governance, and the TFG happen to be filling the void, etc ... These are very different perspectives, so why do you support the TFG? thanks

she could wear gloves

D Girl I hope your not threatening me with marada. Naagteyda wont stand for that .. Xalima Dare i say that i love it when you talk dirty ...

keeps on walking, not looking back

I don't quite like torture, you know? - not even unsalted it seems .... tut tut tut .. (walks away shaking his 'fro)

Z i'm sure i saw a korean place just off litle brouke st. sell it as a starter Give it a try man, their not not as bad as they look, promise V After all that training... I'm disapointed hun... i expected you to be asking for them raw and un-salted

Done deal, so jelly fish for Krispy Kremes then

^ 'Madusa' iyo 'mindiyo laqe' kuye! Yur, war qalanjada ha iga cijaabin!

^ i'll be back in the smog in a couple of weeks, how about we take some willing victims along and test it

^ Man you havent seen her look on her eyes when she "threatens" you! You dont know whether to drop your bakoorad or your position .. but never the less ...

Originally posted by Xalimopatra: I dont know about other fellas but my Farax told me he was smitten ever since the first time I threatened him. Its true, she told me to

This is the economist article refrenced. This time it's revenge Jan 11th 2007 | NAIROBI, From The Economist print edition Despite its previous unhappy experience, America decides to get involved once again in a civil war in the turbulent Horn of Africa BELATEDLY, if inevitably, the fist of American military power has smashed back into Somalia. On January 7th and 8th, an AC-130 gunship of the Special Operations Command (flying out of the large American base in Djibouti) struck Islamist targets near the town of Afmadow in the bush of southern Somalia and again at Ras Kamboni, a peninsula on the border with Kenya (see map). Further air strikes were reported, some from attack helicopters, but the Americans denied it was they who were making them. The surviving Islamist fighters, now numbering in the hundreds, seem to be surrounded, squeezed between the Kenyan army to the south, the Ethiopians to the north and an American fleet offshore. A few may escape, others will surrender, and the rest will probably be killed within the week. They have fought a disastrous campaign. Since attacking Ethiopian and Somali transitional-government positions outside Baidoa on December 19th, they have been relentlessly driven back, losing control of central Somalia, then the capital, Mogadishu, before abandoning the port of Kismayo. Even then, observers still overestimated their military clout, expecting them to slip away into the thickets and the salty mangrove swamps, to reappear a few months later as a ferocious guerrilla force. Instead, their convoys have sunk into mud and sand, making them easy targets for the Americans and invading Ethiopians. The Islamists failed to anticipate either that the Kenyan army would move so quickly to shore up its border or that America would risk firing directly on them. The lesson has been a hard one. Without a Tora Bora hideaway to run to, as in Afghanistan, and lacking the support of the local population, even the most zealous jihadist force is liable to be wiped out. Still, the American action raises uncomfortable questions. For a start, how many people died in the air raids and who exactly were they? Taken together, the attacks claimed dozens, possibly hundreds of lives. Sketchy reports, including one from a doctor working for the Islamists, suggest that women and children were among the dead. The Americans used the AC-130, a behemoth designed to shred large areas instantly, in the knowledge that the killing fields would be cleared before journalists and aid workers could reach them. The Americans said that their first overt action in Somalia since 1993 was limited to stopping “al-Qaeda terrorists” from escaping. But that label hardly describes the bulk of the Islamist fighters, many of whom are little more than boys. Their crime was to have sheltered (or pretended to shelter) three al-Qaeda men wanted for their part in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam that killed at least 235 people (nearly all of them local Africans) and for the attacks on Israeli tourists in Mombasa, Kenya's main port, in 2002. One of the three men, Fazul Abdullah Muhammad, who served as a leader of al-Qaeda in east Africa, was originally thought to have been killed in the air strikes. But the Americans later denied these claims. There is no way of knowing for sure. The American armed forces have issued inaccurate reports of their air raids before. Given Mr Muhammad's shadowy existence, perhaps not even a body will suffice as proof. The whereabouts of Abu Taha al-Sudani, a Sudanese bombmaker said to be close to Osama bin Laden, and a third man, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, were not known. Several Islamist commanders, including the political leaders of the Islamic Courts, which ruled most of central and southern Somalia in the months before Ethiopia's onslaught, have fled the country, some before the fall of Mogadishu. Somalia's transitional president, Abdullahi Yusuf, has praised the American action, but it is doubtful whether he speaks for most Somalis. There has been sharp criticism of the American air attacks in the Muslim and wider world; the new UN chief, Ban Ki-moon, was quick to give warning against the “possible escalation of hostilities that may result”. The fear is that the air strikes will be a rallying call, as al-Qaeda hopes. After all, it was CIA backing for the hated warlords in Mogadishu to hunt down al-Qaeda people last summer that stirred support for the Islamists in the first place. The Islamists may be marked as cowards for recruiting boys to fight their war, then running away, or they may come to be seen as martyrs. Much depends on what comes next: America will need to pay more attention to detail and work out an approach not wholly framed by the war on terror. The most urgent priority is to replace Ethiopian troops with an international peacekeeping force. Diplomatic efforts have failed to produce any troops yet. A battalion promised by Uganda may take a month to arrive. Troops from Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Tanzania and Rwanda may take even longer. Already, the European Union has cast doubt on the African Union's ability to run the operation. Despite Mr Yusuf's quick support for American action, it is unclear how Somalis and Muslims elsewhere will respond in the coming months. Successive American governments of both hues have shunned Somalia since losing soldiers there in 1993. The quality of American intelligence has been poor, often reliant on the warlords who caused misery in Mogadishu. But the fervent anti-Americanism of most Somalis may in some ways reflect a sense of abandonment by the superpower as much as the usual grievances about its pro-Israeli policies and infidels in general. They couldn't stay away for ever In any event, the air raids have thrust America back to centre stage. While sharing military intelligence with Ethiopia, it has the ear of several ministers in the Somali transitional government, most of them warlords. Its decision to join the attack, some say to promote it, together with its crude characterisation of the Islamists as al-Qaeda fighters, has upset other members of the International Contact Group on Somalia, which includes the European Union and the two countries most closely involved, Britain and Italy. UN officials in Nairobi fear that America's involvement may further alienate Somalis from their transitional government. But at least the Americans agree with the UN and the Europeans on one big matter: moderate Islamists should be included in a government of national unity. So far, however, Mr Yusuf has crisply rejected that idea. And even if his transitional government reaches out to these moderates, hideous problems will remain. In particular, rivalry between Somalia's many clans, which has been the country's bane since its inception half a century ago, will keep it unstable for a long time yet.

Originally posted by Valenteenah: [..] Maadan maqlin, saddex saddex baa loo guursadaa dumarka imika. Matrimonial prostitution? Bax, your just jealous because you havent yet been trio'd up.

Originally posted by Conspiracy: I don't really care about America Why not saaxiib?

Ok guys lets stop with the name calling please (my self included).. its getting juvenile.

^ actually i have more respect for their lack of front. I am not sure whether that is the result of incompetence or being brazen .. but we can gues

^ Ok, you've convinced me with your superior reasoning, faultless deductions and your impeccable conclusion.

ibti Its the 'modern world' abaayo, a modern girl like D, has to put her wallet on the table before any other negotiation for our boy can begin

^Devilangle Come out with it girl, how much you offering?

jb, welcome back [self edit ]