HaHaHa.

You had a good look? Old man its official you’re a perv! Awkward and uncoordinated….poor girl. Nuune…..facts of life my dear. JB- sending her a text mesg? How dare you? Who are you? Who died and made Somali men the morality police?

Yes you did.. Now old man am curious@ “that he's not doing it right” how did you get to that conclusion?

LOL@The girl panicked and didn't know what side to run and the boy stood there looking all proud and cool.

Typical Somali men response

Thanks JB & North Every year I tell myself I am going to overcome my addiction “Coffee” so when Ramadan comes I don’t suffer as much. But every year I fail to do so.

Morning. when is Ramadan?

Che- senior citizens must be respected, shame on you for uttering that Now do tell how where you segregated? Malika- dam you lot, you know me so well ibti is off mark there bless her though shaydanka igaa naar dear friend…

Old man- am sure you mistreated him hence why…but the fact of the matter is what happened to your stories? Lily spot on, 8th husband has a nice ring to it dear. Zsa Zsa Gabor style.

Old man- what happened to your cat stories? Waiting for the stup1d email so I can start my 3 days retreat but for some unholy reason its proving otherwise. So Che, Ibti & Nune are you in possession of an amusing story?

Che- for what dear? Nuune>>>>>>>>>>>>>Islamic corner make haste...

Old man you know me so well, what can I say it’s all about the Drama.. lol@you'll shake your middle finger, beckon them closer and then whisper: "1hr to go" Ibti my dear- Islamic corner is for everything Islamic nooh?

Ibti +the rest>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..Islamic corner.

1hr to go

Sankara's Thoughts on Women's Emancipation From his experience as a revolutionary leader and convinced of the need for a Marxist - Leninist understanding of human society, Sankara explained the origins of women oppression and the importance to eradicate it. Dorotea Wilson, a then member of Nicaragua's National Assembly and a Sandanista leader, paid tribute to Sankara's speech against women oppression, thus: "This speech is not just a declaration of principles. It also shows a profound understanding of, and active solidarity with the struggle of women which in fact belongs to and involves all of humanity." (Referring to his speech to a rally in Burkina Faso's capital of Ougadougou on March 8, 1987, commemorating International Women's Day) Thomas Sankara, putting his case before thousands of women, moved from the point that the revolution cannot triumph without the emancipation of women. Whilst the night of August gave birth to an achievement of freedom, honor, dignity and happiness, he argued, this was selfish happiness for something crucial was missing: woman. She has been excluded from the joyful procession. Though men had reached the edges of the great garden of revolution, women were still confined within the shadows of anonymity. He further charged that nothing whole, nothing definitive or lasting could be accomplished in Burkina Faso, as long as women are kept in condition of subjugation, a condition imposed in the course of centuries by various systems of exploitation. Men and women of Burkina Faso were urged to profoundly change their image of themselves, for they were part of building a society that is not only establishing new social relations, but is also provoking a cultural transformation, upsetting the relation of authority between men and women and forcing each to rethink the nature of both. In order to achieve this, which was immediately acknowledge as formidable but necessary task, you need correct tools to equal the task. "The human being," he said, "this vast and complex combination of pain and joy, solitary and forsaken, yet creator of all humanity, suffering, frustrated and humiliated, and yet endless source of happiness for each one of us, this source of affection beyond compare, inspiring the most unexpected courage, this being called weak but possessing untold ability to inspire us to take the road of honor, this being of flesh and blood and of spiritual conviction - this being women, is you. You are our mothers, life companions, our comrades in struggle and because of this fact you should by right affirm yourselves as equal partners in the joyful victory feasts of the revolution. We must restore to humanity your true image by making the reign of freedom prevail over differentiations imposed by nature and by eliminating all kinds of hypocrisy that sustain the shameless exploitation of women." The first step is to try and understand how this system works to grasp its real nature in all its subtler, in order to then work out a line of action that can lead to women's total emancipation. The evolution of society and the worldwide status of women Dialectical materialism has shed light on problems and conditions women face, which is part of a general system of exploitation. Dialectics defines human society not as a natural, unchangeable fact, but as something working on nature. Human kind does not submit passively to the power of nature, but takes control over it. This process is not internal or subjectively in practice, once women ceased to be viewed as a mere sexual beings and we look beyond their biological functions and become conscious of their weight as an active social force. In essence the difference between men and women revolves around biological functions, of which women have more functions than men, anyway. The importance of dialectics lies in having gone beyond essential biological limits and simplistic theories about our being slaves to nature and having laid out the facts in their social and economic context. From the beginnings of human history, humankind mastering of nature was extended beyond his or her bare hands or his or her physical organisation. The hand reached out to the tool, which then increased the hand's power. It was thus no physical attributes alone, musculature or the capacity to give birth for example that determine the unequal status of men and women. Nor was it technological progress as such that institutionalised this inequality. It was rather the transition from one form of societal evolution to the which institutionalised inequality breeding exploitation of women by men. From slavery, feudalism, capitalism etc. the common denominator has always been the subjugation of women folk. Frederick Engels explained that for millennia from Paleolithic to the Bronze age, relations between sexes were positive and complimentary in character. He (Engels) further charged that relations were based on collaboration and interaction, in contrasts to the patriarchy, where women exclusion was generalised characteristics of the epoch. Engels traced the historic enslavement of women to the appearance of private property, when one mode of production gave way to another and when one form of social organisation replaced another. So, for eight millennia property was handed down from a woman to her clan, unlike now where property is from father to son, a historical and contemporary patriarchy. Humankind first knew slavery with the advent of private property. Man, master of his slaves, land, cattle and in addition elevated himself to be the woman's master. This was the historic defeat of the female sex. It came about with the appearance of the division of labour as a result of the new mode of production and the revolution in the means of production. The patriarchal family emerged with the father as head, within this family the woman was oppressed. The family was founded on the sole and personal property of the man. Reigning supreme, the man satisfied his sexual whims by mating with slaves. Women became his booty, his conquest in trade, for he benefited from their labour power and took his feel from myriad of pleasures they afforded him. For their part, as soon as masters gave chance, women took revenge in infidelity. Thus adultery became a "natural" counterpart to marriage. It was the woman's only self-defence against domestic slavery to which she was subjected. Her social oppression was the direct reflection of her economic oppression. The status of women will improve only with the elimination of the system that exploits them. Through the different stages where patriarchy has triumphed there has been close parallels between gender, class and racial oppression. Her status overturned by private property, banished from her very self, relegated to the role of child raiser and servant, written out of history by philosophy and the most entrenched religions, stripped of all worth by mythology, woman shared a lot with a slave who was nothing more than a beast in human face. It is not surprising therefore that in its phase of conquest, the capitalist system should be the economic system that has exploited women the most brazenly and with the most sophistication. The woman, whatever her social rank, was crushed not only within her class, but by other classes too. This was the case even for women who belonged to the exploiting classes. The Specific Character of women's oppression Women's fate is bound up with that of an exploited male. However this solidarity must not blind us in looking at the specific situation faced by womenfolk in our society. It is true that the woman worker and man are exploited economically, but the worker wife is also condemned further to silence by her worker husband. This is the same method used by men to dominate other men. The idea was crafted that certain men, by virtue of their family origin and birth, or by divine rights were superior to others. We must pay close attention to the situation of women because it pushes the most conscious of them into waging a sex war when what we need is a war of classes, against gender oppression, against racial domination, wage together side by side. This war is one we can and we will win - if we understand that we need one another and are complimentary, that we share the same fate and fate and in fact that we are condemned to inter dependent. In order to win this war women must see themselves as part of an organic whole offensive against retrogression in society, not as a separate entity having to wage a struggle belonging to them alone. The man, no matter how oppressed he is, has another human being to oppress: his wife. To say this is without any doubt to affirm a terrible fact. When we talk about the vile system of apartheid, for example, our thoughts and our emotions turn to exploited and oppressed blacks. But we forget the black woman who has to endure her husband as well. There are plenty of examples of men, otherwise progressive who live cheerfully in adultery, but who are prepared to murder their wives on the merest suspicion of infidelity, yet thing nothing of seeking so called consolation in the arms of prostitutes. There are also those more or less revolutionary militants - who don't accept that their wives should also be politically active, or who allow them to be provided it is during the day only, who will beat their wives because they went to a meeting or a demonstration at night. Oh! These suspicious jealous men! Said Sankara. What narrow mindedness! And what a limited partial commitment! For is it only at nights that a woman who is disenchanted and determined can deceive a husband? What about on 'revolutionary" who will remark on a woman as a "despicably materialist", "manipulators", "gossip", "clowns", jealous" and so on. Maybe this is all true of women, but surely it is equally true of men. When you are condemned, as women are, to wait for your lord and master at home in order to feed him and receive his permission to speak or just to be alive, what else do you have to keep you occupied and to give you at leas the illusion of being useful? The same attitudes are found amongst men put in the same situation. Gender elitism: another enemy of women's liberation The continued oppression of women can as well be worsened by some other women who use women oppression to climb the social ladder. They use the gender ticket for narrow material benefit which has no bearing to the course of women's emancipation. The different neo-colonial regimes, Sankara wrote, that have been in power in Burkina have had no better than a bourgeois approach to women's emancipation, which brought only the illusion of freedom and dignity. It was bound to remain that way as long as only few petty bourgeois women from the towns were concerned with the latest fade in feminist politics - or rather primitive feminism which demanded the right of women to be masculine. Thus the creation of the Ministry of Women, headed by a woman, was touted as a victory. Asked Sankara: "Did we really understand the situation faced by women? Did we realise we are talking about living conditions of 52% of Burkinabe population, away from town in the rural areas? The high and fast life of town has to be normalised to take into account of all women concerned with fighting hunger, disease etc." Concluding remarks It is evident form this account that the struggle against women oppression is a struggle that belongs to all humanity. Thus it is the fight for gender equality, which is interwoven with class and national questions. The generation of giants like Thomas Sankara, Samora Machel and O.R. Tambo have pointed to the correct path - that the liberation of women is not an act of charity but a pre-requisite for the triumph of any revolution. This is the commitment of the ANC to fight for a non-sexist society with the same vigor used when we fought against apartheid system. The future is revolutionary! The future belongs to those who fight! Forward to a non-sexist society!

Morales' peasant revolution in the balance as Bolivians vote Bolivia's socialist leader, Evo Morales, was hoping last night that the desperate gamble of a referendum on his leadership will finally kick-start his attempt to redistribute wealth and land in the bitterly divided nation. Draped with garlands of coca leaves and flowers as he cast his vote yesterday, the country's first indigenous leader denounced his opponents as separatists and people only out to advance their own economic interests. Early results and exit polls predicted he would win the recall election by a comfortable margin, with around 60 per cent of the vote, although only a small number of votes had been tallied. "From tomorrow, there will be a great meeting of our peoples, to continue to deepen the process of change," he said after voting in a village in the coca-growing Chapare region. But many Bolivians and international observers were not so sure, and opposition leaders have warned that the results will breed only more division. As well as the President, eight of Bolivia's nine regional governors – all but two of whom have rejected Mr Morales's reform agenda – are also facing a vote, and the earliest predictions from partial counts in those races suggested that three of his opponents could be forced out. The President has courted popularity with cash handouts to schoolchildren and to the elderly, funded by nationalising the natural gas industry, where profits have boomed thanks to sky-high global commodities prices. And he still has strong support among the indigenous peoples, who make up more than 60 per cent of Bolivia's 9.5 million population. "We want change. That's why we're voting for Evo," said Daniel Ibanez, a mechanic, lining up to vote in a school yard in the slum city of El Alto, near La Paz. "You can really feel the change. The right-wing governors won't let him govern." On the shore of Lake Titicaca, Aymara Indians were steadfast in their support of the President. "For more than 500 years we've lived in slavery," said Rolando Choque, a 25-year-old elementary school teacher in Achacachi. "Change doesn't come overnight. It's a long road." Plans for a new constitution that will enshrine land reform and a redistribution of proceeds from natural gas-rich regions have stalled in the face of increasingly violent opposition. Victory in the recall election would be an opportunity to smite his enemies and give new impetus to the introduction of a new constitution . Residents in the resource-rich lowlands have chafed against Mr Morales's efforts to seize control of the natural gas industry, and European-descended elites and middle classes have feared the President will turn Bolivia into an international pariah with his courtship of the Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, from whom Bolivia receives economic and military aid. "The government is a satellite of Hugo Chavez ... and wants to impose a constitution that centralises, destroys institutions and the economy," said the former president Jorge Quiroga, who heads the rightist opposition party Podemos. "The President needs to divorce Chavez and marry Bolivia." Fury over Mr Morales's reform plans is so high in some areas that four regions have passed symbolic votes declaring autonomy from the central government. Percy Fernandez, the Mayor of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's largest and most prosperous city, recently went as far as calling for a coup. "This government has not learnt how to govern, and for that reason I ask the armed forces to overthrow the President," he said. Opposition to Mr Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism in these areas is such that last week, security concerns obliged Mr Morales to hold the Independence Day celebrations in his power base of La Paz rather than Sucre, the constitutional capital that is run by the opposition. He was also unable to visit the central town of Trinidad, where protesters prevented his plane from landing. At least two people have been killed in clashes and Mr Morales had to abandon plans for an energy summit with Mr Chavez after demonstrations in the gas-rich Tarija province. On the other side, pro-Morales groups have staged anti-American demonstrations. "They'll remain deadlocked and each side will use it to become more deeply entrenched in their positions," said Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network. Early reports from international observers suggest the poll is running smoothly, with reports of stolen ballot papers in one pro-Morales town apparently being an isolated incident. But there are fears that some opposition-controlled regions may not recognise the poll results. Even the rules of the recall election are in dispute. The outcome could trigger a legal showdown because of rules that make it easier to unseat the governors than the President. To unseat him, opponents of Mr Morales have to claim more than 53.7 per cent of the vote, more than the percentage of his victory in the 2005 election landslide. Ousting governors requires no more than 50 per cent. Farmers' champion Evo Morales' landslide victory in 2005 was a decisive moment for Bolivia's impoverished indigenous population, which – unusually in South America – is a majority in the country, but which has long been dominated by a richer elite descended from European settlers. Mr Morales is an Aymara Indian from a poor family, born in 1959 in the highlands of Orinoca Oruro, where only two of his six siblings survived. In his youth, he was a llama herder, a baker and a trumpet player, and a farmer of coca, the raw material for cocaine and the bane of US relations with Bolivia. As union leader and now President, Mr Morales has championed coca farmers, highlighting the plant's legal medicinal and ritual uses. His election – at the second attempt – promised sweeping reforms that could lift Bolivia's poor, redistributing land to peasant farmers and ensuring a more equitable distribution of proceeds from gas and minerals. The agenda puts him in the same orbit as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, of whom he is an admirer. But while Mr Morales had promised consensus, middle-class supporters have peeled away.

The minute you said heartburn, Gaviscon Advert song popped in my head what a feeling…… Lily Dhagta ma is qabta?? What’s that and yes I am sure I can find something to wrap my hands with I just need to punch something repentantly without harming my delicate fingers/skin….. Babuji…

Malika mpenzi, am far from it …*** but do ask dear why was he in the doggy House** lol Where is Lily when you need her, I need a punching bag. what is Laabjeex

US exploits Georgia crisis to push through Polish missile deal The agreement signed Wednesday by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski to establish a missile defence shield on Polish soil marks a major turning point in international political relations. The deal permits the US to set up a new missile system in the heart of Europe. In addition, Poland will receive 96 Patriot missiles, a permanent garrison of American troops and, most significantly, Washington’s commitment to come to the country’s defence, independently of the NATO alliance. From its inception, the US government has insisted that the proposal to set up a missile defence system in Eastern Europe was strictly of a defensive character. The circumstances under which the deal was rushed through last week—after 18 months of intense negotiations between Washington and Warsaw—only serves to confirm the opposite: the missile system is of an offensive character and is designed for use against Russia. The pact signed by Rice and Sikorski dramatically increases the possibility of a confrontation between the two nations with the world’s biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons—Russia and the US—with central Europe as a primary battlefield. Both Warsaw and Washington have sought to deny that the closing of the deal last week was bound up with the conflict between Georgia and Russia. Following its finalisation last Thursday, the chief US negotiator, John Rood, told the press: “This is not linked to the situation in Georgia”. In Washington, White House spokesperson Dana Perino assured journalists that the timing of the deal was not meant to further antagonise Russia. “In no way is the president’s plan for missile defence aimed at Russia,” she said. “The purpose of missile defence is to protect our European allies from any rogue threats.” Just before signing the missile deal, Rice reiterated that the system was designed to counter threats from Iran and North Korea and told reporters: “It is not aimed in any way at Russia.” Following the signing of the agreement on Wednesday, Polish President Lech Kaczynski again declared that the missile shield was of purely a defensive system and not a threat to its neighbours. None of these claims are credible. The deal was reached between the Polish and US governments last Thursday, just days after the outbreak of hostilities in Georgia and on the heels of a concerted anti-Russian campaign led by the Polish President Lech Kaczynski. Just two days before the finalisation of the missile pact, Kaczynski appeared alongside Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili at an anti-Russian rally in Tbilisi to proclaim, “We are here to take up the fight (against Russia).” For its part, the conservative Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, which welcomes the missile system, pointed candidly to the direct link between the deal and the conflict in the Caucasus: “Contrary to the official version presented by Prime Minister Tusk and the US State Department, the war in Georgia played a key role in accelerating the Polish-American negotiations on the defence shield. It is the war that has prompted Tusk to give the go-ahead for the signing of the agreement.” In fact, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has himself made it clear that the US pledge to back Warsaw in the event of Russian aggression was decisive in winning Polish acceptance of the deal. Tusk declared that he only agreed to host the US defence shield on the condition that the US augment Poland’s defences with Patriot missiles, which are intended to combat any threat from Russia. At one time touted as possible alternatives to the rabidly nationalist Polish President Kaczynski, Prime Minister Tusk and Foreign Minister Sikorski have revealed themselves to be politicians of the same stripe. Increased danger of nuclear confrontation The American State Department has always insisted that the 10 interceptor missiles that are to be installed at a base in Poland, just 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier, are aimed at countering potential missile attacks from so called “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea. Washington has already reached an agreement with Prague to place the second component of the missile defence shield, a radar tracking system, in the Czech Republic to Poland’s south-west. US claims that the missiles system is directed at Iran were recently debunked in an article published in the Blätter für deutsche and internationale Politik, Germany’s most widely read political and foreign policy journal. In a section of his essay entitled “The strategic logic of the missile shield,” author Hauke Ritz stresses that the stationing of the system in Poland and the Czech Republic “is not at all designed to intercept Iranian missiles”. Ritz points out that the Iranian military lacks any missiles with a range capable of reaching Europe and that it would require a long period of time to develop and build them. He also notes that the US State Department ruled out a Russian proposal for setting up a joint US-Russian anti-missile system in Azerbaijan, which could intercept and destroy any Iranian missile at the start of its flight path. The author concludes: “The fact that the US ruled out this compromise proposal permits only one conclusion: that the missile shield is directed first and foremost not against Iran, but against Russia. This is underlined by the fact that the other bases for the missile system are also located in border regions to Russia, for example Alaska.” In describing the role of the missile system, the article establishes that it is intended not as a deterrent against nuclear attack—along the lines of the Cold War build-up of a system of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) - but rather as an essential component of a US first-strike strategy. “The strategic significance of the system consists of intercepting those few dozen missiles Moscow is capable of launching following an American first strike,” Ritz writes. “The missile system is therefore a crucial element in the attempt to develop a nuclear first strike capacity against Russia. The original plan is for the stationing of just ten interceptor missiles in Poland. But once the system is established, their number could be easily increased.” Finally, the author refers to an article in the US magazine Foreign Affairs in 2006 entitled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” which argues that the US currently has unique advantages in conducting nuclear war. Ritz concludes: “This article makes very clear the actual function of the missile system: it is to guarantee the US the capacity to carry out nuclear war without the risk of a counter-strike. If this capacity can be achieved then it can be employed as a geopolitical argument, in order to implement national interests.” Ritz’s analysis of the missile shield system as an essential component of a first-strike strategy underscores the enormous and growing danger that the escalating conflict between the US and Russia could unleash a nuclear conflagration. Leading Russian military figures and politicians have reacted furiously to the missile shield agreement. Last Friday, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the Russian armed forces’ deputy chief of staff, described the pact as an act of aggression against Russia and warned Poland that it was leaving itself open to retaliation—and possibly even a nuclear attack. “Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike—100 per cent,” he said. In his talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last Friday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev repeated the charge that the Polish missile deployment “has the Russian Federation as its target”. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Washington has followed a policy of systematically encroaching on former Soviet territory to establish a string of military bases and governments friendly to the US. The purpose of this policy was to undermine the influence of Russia in the energy-rich regions of central Asia, while seeking to divide and weaken Europe. The consequences of Washington’s intervention in the former Soviet bloc have included the installation of a number of authoritarian regimes which lack any genuine broad popular base such as those of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukraine, as well as the regime in Poland. The most common characteristics of these administrations are rabid anti-communism, national chauvinism, contempt for genuine democratic processes and an unwavering adherence to the precepts of the free market. Such regimes are inherently unstable, both internally and in relation to their neighbours. Now, the US administration has agreed to install a new weapons system in Poland directed against its biggest neighbour, while at the same time guaranteeing to come to the military assistance of the Polish government when necessary. This is a recipe for new conflict and war. Nothing could more clearly express the utter recklessness of US foreign policy. The dramatic increase of tensions in Eastern Europe eerily recalls the build up to the Second World War. Throughout the 1930s, the German dictator Adolf Hitler professed his peaceful intentions while at the same time undertaking a series of provocations as part of his plan to fundamentally redraw the map of Europe in Germany’s interests. It was precisely in Poland where a global war that would claim over 70 million lives broke out in September 1939. Prior to leaving for Brussels for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, wagged her finger and warned that Russia was playing a “dangerous game” in Georgia. The US and its NATO allies would not allow Russia to draw a “new line” through Europe, she declared. Then, following the summit on Tuesday, Rice returned to the theme and declared with reference to Russia’s military presence in Georgia that there would not be a new line between “those who want to be within and those outside the Atlantic structure.” Such comments are utterly hypocritical. Russia’s intervention over the past two decades in the states of the former Soviet Union - as in its brutal war in Chechnya—have been of a reactionary character and should be condemned, but there cannot be the least doubt that the main power intent on establishing new power blocs and spheres of influence in the region is the US. This is the significance of the network of military bases and installations established in Eastern and Central Europe by successive US administrations since 1991 with the aim of encircling Russia. Moreover, it was Rice’s colleague, former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who in 2003 sought to draw a dividing line between “old” and “new” Europe, on the basis of which European countries were prepared to support the US in its war against Iraq. Now in its missile deal with Poland, it is the US which has agreed to a clause that subverts the traditional structures of the NATO alliance in order to further Washington’s unilateral militarist policy in the region. The increasingly aggressive penetration of the US into central and eastern Europe is causing alarm in Paris, Berlin and Rome. At the same time, Washington is only able to press ahead with its reckless offensive because of the cowardly stance adopted by the European bourgeoisie, which watches as tensions on the continent escalate to boiling point, but is not prepared to challenge the US administration.

looooooooooooool@I forgot to phone her goodnight. She always tells me she can only sleepa the sound of my manly voice. I'll make it up to ther though, I'll send her a text.

**sips her tea, while waiting for the old man's reply Hello ladies and gentlemen

Peru to vote on divisive land law Promises to revise a controversial land law in Peru have halted widespread protests just days before a vote by congress that might see the legislation repealed. Alan Garcia, the Peruvian president, passed the law by presidential decree earlier this year as part of free trade negotiations with the US. It allows for the sale of tribal lands, prompting thousands of indigenous farmers to protest saying they fear the loss of land to foreign companies. Ahead of Friday's vote, Garcia attempted to garner support for the law, arguing in a televised speech that repealing it would be a "historic mistake". Sixty-five tribes have mobilised against the law, which they say will speed the loss of their land and force them to migrate. Late on Wednesday they temporarily ended their 10-day protest after a pledge from the congress president that he would revise the law. The law allows an indigenous community to approve the sale of tribal lands by simple majority vote - eliminating a provision that had made it nearly impossible to develop communal property. Garcia said on Wednesday that a repeal would condemn Peru's Indian and rural communities to "another century of ackwardness and misery". Protesters are threatening to stop the flow of natural gas and oil through two pipelines in the Amazon jungle. Their action threatens energy supplies. Thousands had clashed on Wednesday with police in the jungle city of Bagua and nine civilians were treated for injuries. Peru's congress has agreed to vote on the law's possible repeal - on the condition that protesters unblock roads and suspend demonstrations. State of emergency Garcia decreed the law using special legislative powers he was granted to implement US requirements for a free trade pact between the two nations. A state of emergency had been imposed when protesters occupied oil and electricity plants in the Amazon basin. Alberto Pizango, leader of the Inter-Ethnic Association of the Peruvian Forest, said: "We're not afraid of the state of emergency." After talks with Javier Velazquez, the congress president, in Lima on Wednesday, Pizango agreed a 48-hour truce. About 12,000 indigenous people have been protesting since August 9. Their land is estimated to contain billions of dollars' worth of timber, minerals and oil. On Sunday, clashes between 800 demonstrators and police left at least four people injured. The state of emergency, which lasts for 30 days, covers the eastern provinces of Bagua, Utcubamba and Datem del Maranon and the southern district of Echarate.

5hrs to go... Nune habari mbaya

Morning Gosh I slept angry, woke up angry I think I need to invest in a punching.

Nuune and Ibti unhelpful busybodies, look you I’ve just spooked the old thing. Che- what can I say…