Id1ot.

17. Caring for one's wife's sexual fulfillment is an obligation of religion. The Prophet (s) warned against rushing to gratify one's pleasure and forgetting that of one's wife. He also disliked that the husband should quickly withdraw from his wife afterwards, as it is a strain upon the wife. If she asks for intercourse, he should not refuse. 10. If she works outside the house, it is praiseworthy for the husband to hire house help to relieve her from too heavy a burden. The wife's duties do not require her to feed her child, nor even to nurse it, nor to clean nor cook. It is the husband's duty to provide a nursemaid, food for older children, and servants to clean and cook. However, if the wife does those things out of mercy and love, it is a gift to the husband on her part. Wonder how many Somali men fulfil those two?

I wonder where you got that from? Seeing things are we.

They’re my favourite part of the paper and at times the first page I visit. Very fascinating if may say so. Any Solers who share my unhealthy fascinations with Obituaries? Anyhow; ever wondered what yours would say? Or who you would choose to write it? Or would you even have one?

Ohh!! Perish the thought No one can replace them; but for old times sake we must satisfy our curiosity..come on old man, lets see what they have to offer.

is Faheema alright?

The professional and presumably state-directed killing of a leading Palestinian has been exposed in embarrassing detail. Perhaps such methods have had their day. Feb 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition USING subterfuge to entrap and kill adversaries, in locations far from any battlefield, has been a feature of conflict for the past 3,000 years or so—at least since Jael, one of the warrior heroines of ancient Israel, lured the enemy commander Sisera into her tent, lulled him to sleep with a refreshing drink of milk, and then used a tent peg to smash out his brains. In modern times targeted killing is a more elaborate business, and many of the finer points—how the victim is stalked, how many people are involved—usually remain under wraps. But the plot to eliminate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a Hamas commander who was found dead in a Dubai hotel room on January 20th, has been laid bare in stark detail by the police in that country, not normally regarded as a model of open government. Hamas instantly blamed Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, confirming that the dead man was a founder of the movement’s military wing. Israel had fingered him in particular for the abduction and killing of two soldiers in 1989. Mr Mabhouh’s brother claimed that he had been killed by an electrical appliance that was held to his head. The local police said he had been suffocated. The gory details of his end were not made public in Dubai, but many of the events that led up to it were starkly exposed. Indeed any amateur student of espionage and its tradecraft can now consult YouTube, the video-sharing site, to see closed-circuit television footage of some of the 11 people (all travelling on European passports) who are said by the Dubai authorities to have joined in the plot. On February 15th the country’s police chief offered a blow-by-blow account of the plotters’ doings, elucidating the images. The key agents were “Gail” and “Kevin” who supervised the hit, and “Peter” who was in charge of preparatory logistics. In the films their appearances changed frequently. Kevin acquires glasses and a full head of hair, after going to the loo. It is clear that the plotters were expecting Mr Mabhouh’s arrival. One spotter waited at the airport; he duly tipped off a couple of colleagues, stout figures in tennis gear, who wait at the hotel and take note of the victim’s room number, 230. The plotters book room 237, which they use as a base. In later footage Gail and Kevin are seen pacing the corridor nearby. Four men in baseball caps, one also wearing gloves, are seen getting into a lift to leave; they seem to be the ones who did the job. In Israel the initial reaction to the killing was of telling smirks, plus leaks to the effect that the victim was buying arms from Iran. But this gave way to embarrassment as the Dubai authorities produced their evidence, and as protests came from countries—Britain, France, Germany and Ireland—whose passports had apparently been faked or abused; and from individuals whose identities were “borrowed”. The Israeli security services have never voiced any moral doubts about targeted assassinations (whether in the neighbourhood or farther afield) but there was a concern that the latest killing might go down on a list of plots that have misfired in unforeseen ways. In 1997, for instance, Mossad agents tried to eliminate Khaled Meshal, a senior Hamas official, in Jordan (see article). Two agents posing as Canadians were caught trying to poison him and Israel, under threat that its agents would be executed, agreed to send an antidote. In 1973 Israeli agents murdered a Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer in Norway, mistaking him for the leader of Black September, the group blamed for a massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. These bungles contrast with operations that Israeli spooks recall with defiant pride: the killing of Imad Mughniyeh, a top member of Hizbullah, in Damascus in 2008 (a particular coup since Syria is hostile territory for Israel); and the dispatch of Abu Jihad, a senior Palestinian official and founder of the Fatah movement, by a squad that swooped into Tunis in 1988. The not-so-cold war Israel has no monopoly on killing its foes far from home. European countries, including Britain (since the 1950s, anyway) claim to eschew such methods. But during the cold war both superpowers conspired eagerly to eliminate people they deemed undesirable. In America there was a rethink after a committee, under Senator Frank Church, disclosed that it was probing a web of plots to kill senior figures in countries like Congo, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Vietnam. This led to a series of presidential decisions—most famously order number 12,333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981—which barred assassinations. The real force of such orders was to squelch rogue plots hatched in the lower levels of the security services; procedures still exist for the president, in consultation with congressional leaders, to authorise the killing of a perceived adversary. In 1998, three years before the 9/11 attacks, Bill Clinton mandated the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, after bombs at American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Since the start of the “war on terror”, the boundaries in American thinking between legitimate military action and cold-blooded assassination have become fuzzier still. Among America’s foreign-policy pundits there were serious discussions, back in 2003, as to whether simply killing Saddam Hussein would be a humane alternative to waging war against Iraq. More recently, as the fronts in the battle with al-Qaeda have broadened from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Somalia and Yemen, so too has the scope of American actions to eliminate perceived foes. Last September, for example, American helicopters fired on a convoy of trucks in Somalia and killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was blamed for an attack on an Israeli hotel in Kenya in 2002, and for the embassy bombs of 1998. On February 3rd Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, told Congress that American forces might sometimes seek permission to kill a citizen of the United States, if he was a terrorist. This followed a report that Barack Obama had authorised an attack on Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American imam, in Yemen. The operation in Somalia earned Mr Obama a rebuke in the Harvard law faculty, where he first shone as a progressive young legal scholar. Such actions were counterproductive and of dubious legitimacy, a columnist in the Harvard Law Record argued. But defenders of the right to kill selectively cite the shooting down of Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in the second world war, which was quite a cold-blooded business—though he was clearly an enemy combatant. In truth, the factor that has changed the tactics of the American administration is less legal than mechanical: the advent of drones that can be directed with lethal accuracy (most of the time) from offices in Virginia. The best-known target was Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban, who was blown up at his home in Waziristan last August. A study by the New America Foundation, a think-thank, points out that CIA drone attacks have become far more frequent since Mr Obama took office, with more strikes being ordered in his first ten months than in George Bush’s last three years. In a world where Western voters demand maximum results for minimum expenditure of blood and treasure, assassination by machine has an obvious appeal to political leaders. Although they cost more “enemy” lives (including civilian ones) than old-time stabbing or poisoning, they also arouse less controversy. But for how long? Legal watchdogs say it makes unlawful killing more likely by dehumanising the process; and Pakistani officials, even those committed to fighting the Taliban, say the ruthless use of drones is alienating local people. Whether death is by computer or by more old-fashioned methods, the antecedents and details of assassination are easier to hide in rough, remote locations than in rich, westernised ones. And even in wild places, awkward facts can come out—as they obviously did in Dubai. Views: 1 2 >> Last 1-20 of 26 KennyNLM wrote: Feb 18th 2010 4:43 GMT You have to applaud the chutzpah of the Israeli government (assuming they were responsible of course) in still managing to carry out these type of operations despite technological advances made in the security arena, and in countries such as Syria / UAE. It will be interesting to consider whether Israel believe that the end result of this project was a success or failure. They are taking a big hit politically from the Europeans on this, but so long as they don't upset the Americans I'm sure they won't mind too much. Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse Falcon2000 wrote: Feb 18th 2010 6:11 GMT How to describe a criminal? The one who killed two Israelis or that ones who killed this murderer? Is there any difference between them? Do use fake (or "borrowed") passports is a crime? I cannot see any difference between killers. In my view, a crime doesn´t justify another; Israel (if it's proved its participation in this killing) should arrest this criminal for life and does not act as him. Recommend (5)PermalinkReport abuse watchingchina wrote: Feb 18th 2010 7:04 GMT This is incredible. We are discussing murder. Any person committing this act inside a country, including Israel or the US, will be sent to prison for a long time. But the US and Israeli governments can kill anybody they want, and that's ok. Well, if my government can kill someone they don't like, why can't I do the same? There is no substative difference, except in the power I yield, but that isn't part of the issue. And we have ignorance telling us we have to 'admire' the 'chutzpah' of the people who do such things. Why is that? What is there to admire in a government sending agents to another country to kill someone they don't like? In what way is Israel (in this case) different from the Mafia? How are these people different from the Kosher Nostra members like Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, Dutch Schultz, John Gotti Jr., Lepke Buchalter? And the Economist thinks, "Gee, maybe this should stop"? Recommend (7)PermalinkReport abuse watchingchina wrote: Feb 18th 2010 7:19 GMT I have a supplementary question. What would happen if it had been China that had carried out one of these assassination/murders on foreign soil? Can you imagine the flood of international outrage? All the drama and hyperbole, all the posturing and condemnation that would ensue? Or what if Canada did such a thing, or Sweden, or Australia? Can you imagine the fallout, the horror that would be generated, the vast swing in public opinion? So why is it that our two surviving military/Imperial powers, the US and Israel, can do this with such impunity? Why is there no horror generated, not universal condemnation of a barbaric extra-judicial act? Is it only the US and Israel who can go abroad to kill those they don't like, to commit murder in another country and just go home and be smug and say, "We neither confirm nor deny...."? What the hell is going on with the world? Recommend (14)PermalinkReport abuse A Sane Voice wrote: Feb 18th 2010 8:20 GMT The thing to remember here is that this is war. This is not a killing of some one who was not 'liked', no. We are talking about killing a murderer, who has an active part in ongoing offensive operations (buying arms from Iran to smuggle and use them in the attacks on Israelis). So, who ever did this (and there seems to be an consensus about that) has the justification of self defense, if protecting Israelis. But that aside, people here have asked what if other countries did it? Well, they did, didn't they? Look at China and Tibet for example. They are doing it, no? Look at the American drones mentioned in the article, the many assasinations the Russians undertook (like their ex-spy who was poisoned with radioactive materials in Britain just recently) and so on. So, this was a combatant that was killed during a war. It is an ugly thing to have taken place, but necessary if defending others he would have helped to murder. The place is definitely a better place for his departing, let's just hope that the long terms solution (peace) will come quickly and will make prevent such killings. Recommend (7)PermalinkReport abuse davidhutchinson wrote: Feb 18th 2010 8:21 GMT Watchingchina is wrong. In traditional warfare, each side dresses in red uniforms and faces eachother. In dirty warfare, the enemy dresses as a civilian, hides behind women and children, and kills or kidnaps you by surprise. He disregards the rules (chivalry) and thus forfeits his rights. Small wonder that he pays for his crimes. Recommend (8)PermalinkReport abuse firsys wrote: Feb 18th 2010 9:06 GMT The suggestion that the brilliantly executed plan to kill Admiral Yamamoto was "cold blooded" , is laughable; Yamamoto was supreme commander in the Pacific and the architect of the infamous attack on Pearl harbour. He was one of the principals in the decision to attack the United States. He was a key military officer in a military aircaft and the plan to shoot this downwas more complicated but no more immoral than destroying a warship. Given his fanatical loyalty to Emperor Hirohito, he would have chosen this death over dying in his bunk! Assassination of incovenient political leaders is an entirely different moral proposition. JMF Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse Froy'' wrote: Feb 18th 2010 9:21 GMT The Economist asks itself if state-directed assassinations like the one just perpetrated by Israel "have had their day". But talking about a country that still believes in right of conquest to expand its territory, where religion has the final say in capital matters of its society and which, heck, it's the last colonial regime of our times, this is quite a misplaced question. For government-sponsored assassinations to have had their day in Israel, Israel should be living in our days in the first place! Perhaps it's imperialism and colonialism what have had their day, and it't time for them to end, once and for all. Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse Nirvana-bound wrote: Feb 18th 2010 9:46 GMT Political assassinations will continue unabated & undercover till Kingdom-come, or till humans come clean & eschew completely from machievallian political intrigue & aggression - most unlikely if not totally inhuman!! Mossad is just following the sacrosanct & age-old tradition of subversion, espionage & intrigue set by MI5/MI6, KGB & CIA, among others. The only thing that may/will change is the mode of the assassinations, what with the advent of drones & other high tech killing machines, available for deployment at the flick of a switch or touch of a computer key. So what's new ***** Cat?? Recommend (2)PermalinkReport abuse Logical Truth wrote: Feb 18th 2010 10:19 GMT Better kill 1 terrorist than let the terrorist kill 1 civilian. Or more as the case usually is. As for the people talking about arrest. How do you propose Israel would arrest a violent terrorist outside of their jurisdiction. Sometimes to achieve justice and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians there is no other option. Recommend (5)PermalinkReport abuse noname1004 wrote: Feb 18th 2010 11:08 GMT I am glad to see that in general (at least according to election results) the Western Europe is moving away from the "liberal" insanity - at least when it comes to dealing with terrorists. War is war - whether its one nation against another or a nation against an entity. Hamas is a terrorist group - recognized as such by many western nations. Hamas wages a daily war on Israel - hence any member of that organization is a enemy. What happens to enemies during war? Care to remember WWII? Other campaigns by western nations? I think its very easy to sit here and discuss the so called morals of "all murders being equal" - until terrorists G-d forbid hit your town. I am not surprised by the ambiguity of the article - I come to expect that from journalists (after all they sometimes have to work with the enemy to get the hot articles and they don't want to piss the enemy off - immoral as it is) but the responses from the readers are somewhat bizarre. You hate Israel and Jews? Fine, but the terrorists are hitting Europe as well. Think of what you would do if YOUR TOWNS were shelled and your buses blown up. And do not even try to pull the whole "occupied land" story - as every single nation on earth lives on someone else's land - even your favorite Australia and Canada. You want justice - give land back to Indians and Aboriginal people of Australia. Recommend (4)PermalinkReport abuse James Gaffney wrote: Feb 19th 2010 12:01 GMT If I was caught forging passports I would expect to spend a long time in prison. What action, if any, can the governments of Ireland, the UK and the other countries under whose passports the agents were travelling take against Mossad for these crimes? Recommend (2)PermalinkReport abuse jbaustian wrote: Feb 19th 2010 1:01 GMT Target eliminated, no collateral damage, no innocent civilians harmed -- mission 100% successful. Too bad the agents were filmed and their cover was blown, but a small price to pay. Recommend (6)PermalinkReport abuse Cutters wrote: Feb 19th 2010 1:02 GMT Ignorance maybe a blessing, but the truth is a greater if bitter medicine. If Israel is found to have used passports in this way, I hope that they will be "diplomatically" cut off. "Hamas is a terrorist group" and democratically elected. If all other countries declared there neighbours governments terrorists, then the fallout would be nuclear. "You hate Israel and Jews?" Since when were all Israelis "Jews"? The criminal action "alleged or otherwise" by a government of a nation, should, where such action would not endanger its citizen, be taken against that government alone. However if Israel "is" found to be endangering the citizens of Europe, then maybe all Israelis should be banned from entry, and Jews monitored in the same way that Muslims are. Recommend (3)PermalinkReport abuse andrewdal wrote: Feb 19th 2010 2:05 GMT I’m not sure that Israel would qualify this as a bungle. A) They really don’t care what others think and they don’t care who they harm as long as it helps their cause. Clearly their actions continue to be a liability to their main ally the US but they show no interest in changing their evil ways. Remember 911 and all the other terrorist efforts against the US are punishment for its protection of the apartheid state. B) Israel likely looks at this as just another warning to don’t F with us, we do what we want, no matter what the rest of the world says. At the end of the day the terrorists will continue to attack the US because, hey it’s easier and safer. So what the US and others need to do is finally sanction this rogue state by cutting funding and support. Alternatively we could tell Israel that you don’t get another dollar until you assassinate Bin Laden. But then that would be against their interests at the end of the day. As their leaders have stated terrorism against the US helps their cause. Recommend (2)PermalinkReport abuse watchingchina wrote: Feb 19th 2010 3:00 GMT A Sane Voice wrote: ".... this is war. This is not a killing of some one who was not 'liked', no. We are talking about killing a murderer, who has an active part in ongoing offensive operations (buying arms from Iran to smuggle and use them in the attacks on Israelis ...." What an odd interpretation of the facts. There is no declared 'war', where the person in question was shot on the battlefield. This was a government-sponsored murder, plain and simple. And he was a 'murderer' because he was 'engaging in offensive activities' - bringing arms to Palestine? And so what? Israel is 'at war', right? And they have the 'right' to arms to attack and defend themselves, but the other side has 'no right' to arms to defend themselves? What kind of war is that? This is just foolish Israeli propaganda. The Jews 'buy' arms, but the Arabs 'smuggle' them. Well, how nasty of them. Why don't the Arabs just 'buy' their arms in the market like everyone else? Israel has completely isolated the Palestinian borders so the Arabs have no way to obtain arms to defend themselves against the savagery and cleansing that continues. Israel has probably a 95% superiority in arms and wants to keep it that way. That's really clever PR. I attack you with my military and then accuse you of being a criminal when you try to obtain arms to defend yourself. Cute. And you they have leaders who help you overcome, then I just assassinate them because they're 'murderers'. Israel must withdraw to its original borders and return all the land, including the West Bank, to the Palestinians. Then, the war will be over. What is happening in Palestine is one of the greatest tragedies in modern history, and we don't need Jewish sympathisers like noname1004 to call us 'jew-haters' and nazis for speaking out about the atrocities. So I'm a 'jew-hater'? Well, you're a Palestinian-hater. Sounds the same to me. Recommend (11)PermalinkReport abuse derridaderider wrote: Feb 19th 2010 4:02 GMT There's an obvious reason that states only assassinate people who are not heads of another state - the threat of retaliation. There is an informal Presidents' Union that prevents this sort of thing. So just as terrorism is the tool of those who do not possess an air force, so the risk of targeted assassination is mainly for those who do not possess their own secret service. Recommend (1)PermalinkReport abuse Andrii wrote: Feb 19th 2010 4:37 GMT I have to agree with watchingchina. Israel defenitely has the right to defend itself and its citizens. But what if China or chinese agents were cought on film while attempting to assasinate, say Dalay-Lama? It hurts the sionist cause more than helps it. RecommendPermalinkReport abuse noname1004 wrote: Feb 19th 2010 4:39 GMT I want to reiterate one point - all those praising the article and bashing Israel (even though you have no proof that it was indeed Mossad who carried out the action) are forgeting one simple thing. This "war" declared or undeclared can come to the neighborhood near you. You can hate Israel or Jews, or "love" only Jews (if they are suffering - who wants to love someone who is prosperous??) but hate Israel - NONE of that is going to matter when the bombs are exploding within the borders of YOUR nation. And unlike this assassination, the terrorists are not going to be targeting Obama or some other politician - we have seen this already in Spain, UK, India. Once again, I am glad that Europe is waking up. This can be seen by the leadership elected in France, Germany, Italy... by the recent developments in Switzerland. The history repeats itself - its the Jews who are always getting hit first - but they are NEVER the only ones suffering at the hands of maniacs. Antisemitism (now called anti-Zionism) is symptom of a much much larger problem which you my friends I am afraid are going to see over and over again unless Europe wakes up. Do you think Hamas and co wants Israel? Or independent Palestine? These guys will never want peace as its not profitable. Look at Taliban as an example. Pakistani's tried to appease them with Islamic law and what happened? Same thign happened in Somalia. I am glad that all "pacifists" who replied here as well as the pseudo-intelligentsia writings such articles are in the minority. Recommend (3)PermalinkReport abuse Isaac from Texas wrote: Feb 19th 2010 5:26 GMT Resp to watchingchina: Actually, there is a declared war. Hamas has the declared intent of destroying Israel and Israel has declared Gaza a hostile entity, so both sides have declared war. As the article rightly points out, killing in warfare has never been confined to the battlefield. Furthermore, the dead terrorist was engaged in purchasing arms for Gaza. He was therefore both part of the military leadership of Hamas and part of the supply lines of a belligerent entity. Both are legitimate targets. Most notably, not one civilian was harmed by this assassination. For those who complain that Israel did not kill this terrorist on the battlefield, well, Hamas’ battlefield of choice is the homes, schools, and masques of Gaza from which they launch their rockets. I have a feeling that those who complain of this assassination also complain about Cast Lead. So, you would argue that Israel may neither kill its enemies on the battlefield or off of it? So, Israel, of all sovereign nations, does not have the right to fight its sworn enemies? Sorry, that exposes your anti-Israel bias and renders your arguments no longer worth addressing. Recommend (5)PermalinkReport abuse

Goodluck Jonathan probably has only a short time in office. He could still make a difference Feb 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition ACCORDING to his spokesman, the man who has just become the acting president of Africa’s most populous country, Goodluck Jonathan, has vowed to “secure Nigeria’s path to greatness and guarantee our place among the great nations of the world in the shortest possible time.” That would be a tall order even for a freshly elected leader with a thumping majority and two terms in office. In fact, the spokesman’s desperate hyperbole reveals the truth of the matter: Mr Jonathan is taking over the leadership of one of the world’s least governable countries in the least promising circumstances. Some doubt the constitutionality of his succession to Umaru Yar’Adua, who supposedly still lies gravely ill in a Saudi hospital. And as the presidency rotates between a northern Muslim and a southern Christian, to satisfy both sides of Nigeria’s ethnic-religious divide, so Mr Jonathan, a southerner, probably has only a little more than a year in office before being replaced in the next election. To many of Nigeria’s ambitious politicians, he is more lame duck than Goodluck. Given these constraints, Mr Jonathan could be forgiven, perhaps, for just keeping his head down and the seat warm for his successor. His lacklustre record as vice-president and before that as governor of Bayelsa state suggests, alas, that this would be his instinct. However, he also has a rare chance to be radically more ambitious. Since Mr Jonathan has little to lose politically, he could position himself as a bold reformer. If he wants to make a difference in the year he has in charge he should devote himself to two policies. His first concern should be the Niger Delta. After six years of an insurgency in Nigeria’s oil-producing region, last summer Mr Yar’Adua negotiated an amnesty and a ceasefire with the rebel groups. Thousands of young men gave themselves up and handed over their weapons in return for promises of stipends and training. Yet with the months of uncertainty at the top of Nigerian politics, the momentum has been lost in the Delta; money has not been paid, the training programmes have fallen behind and there is little evidence of the roads and schools that were promised to local people. Mr Jonathan must dispel this dangerous sense of drift. He has the resources to honour the commitments made by Mr Yar’Adua in full, and he should do so as quickly as possible. Give democracy a chance Even more importantly, Mr Jonathan should also reform Nigeria’s dreadful electoral system. The last election, in 2007, was a travesty; some judged it to be the most rigged poll in the country’s history, others in the history of Africa. Either would be quite an achievement. Without fixing the political system, there is no hope of tackling Nigeria’s other woes, such as corruption, because the government will always lack the legitimacy to take harsh decisions and act on them. An official commission last year suggested several changes to the electoral system, such as taking the power to appoint the head of the body that supervises elections away from the president and giving it instead to an independent committee. This, and other sensible proposals, were all rejected by Mr Yar’Adua. Mr Jonathan should reverse that decision. Above all, he should create Nigeria’s first truly independent electoral commission. That will antagonise his fellow politicians, who do so well out of the present wretched system, but it will send a firm signal that Nigeria is on the right track and it will delight the country’s long-suffering voters. Who knows, the reward for Mr Jonathan might just be to cheat the Buggins turn of presidential succession in Nigeria and win his own popular mandate in 2011.

I'm soo there. Writers of the political sitcom Yes Prime Minister have reunited after 22 years to pen a play based on the popular TV show. Creators Jonathan Lynn and Sir Antony Jay said the play follows a tempestuous 48 hours in politics. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Lynn, 66, said they had been "hesitant" until recently to take the TV show to stage. The Chichester Festival production starts in May, the same month the general election is likely to happen. "People have been asking us for years about writing a play," said Lynn. "We were always hesitant." He revealed that a stage version of the hit series, which starred Paul Eddington and Nigel Hawthorne, was first discussed when the show was still being broadcast. "But the actors couldn't commit for long enough and we felt that no one else could really play it while they were around." A BBC film was also planned, but by then Eddington - who played Jim Hacker - was suffering from cancer. He died in 1995. Jay said they agreed to end the series because "we felt we'd said all we had to say. "We'd done 38 episodes on different aspects of government and we were beginning to feel that we were going to start repeating ourselves." Actors David Haig and Henry Goodman will play the parts of Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby in the forthcoming stage version. The production runs from 13 May to 5 June, as part of this year's Chichester Festival Theatre season. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8522359.stm

Hun its too cold to party. Alafu washefa wangu wote nima lodi lofa siku hize. Hakuna pesa, hakuna parties. Basi tuna suberi jua sasahivi.

and the ans is?

Malika- stop it at once. Your muhuni so it matters not either way. lol@ Kaka down under. Sheh-are you baregnant?

Hayee here we go again...IT WONT WORK@ Malika. Acha kune uza kwa wasonjo wa'hapa.

LOL@ both of yah. Mpenzi me going to see KOL on June nooh; got me'h ticket already. p.s Juxa are you implying ugly people are easy?

Flashlight style@Mpendwa. tsk tsk Juxa... Hello Mpenzi...

Hello Juxa- Nay nay nay @ not going to concerts. Awww thanag you for calling me cadeey, even when am as madoow as it can get. So what are you up too weekedka? p.s I used to know a woman many moons ago; who used labeen for a facial cream. That thing is disgusting but her face was as smooth as a baby’s bottom.

You sit there in your heartache Waiting on some beautiful boy to save you from your old ways You play forgiveness Watch it now ... here he comes! He doesn't look a thing like Jesus But he talks like a gentleman Like you imagined when you were young Can we climb this mountain I don't know Higher now than ever before I know we can make it if we take it slow Let's take it easy Easy now, watch it go We're burning down the highway skyline On the back of a hurricane that started turning When you were young When you were young And sometimes you close your eyes and see the place where you used to live When you were young They say the devil's water, it ain't so sweet You don't have to drink right now But you can dip your feet Every once in a little while You sit there in your heartache Waiting on some beautiful boy to To save you from your old ways You play forgiveness Watch it now here he comes He doesn't look a thing like Jesus But he talks like a gentleman Like you imagined when you were young (He talks like a gentlemen, like you imagined when) When you were young I said he doesn't look a thing like Jesus He doesn't look a thing like Jesus But more than you'll ever know Morning Juxa.... p.s It’s a beautiful daaaaaay!!!! Got my ticket to see kings of Leon in Hyde Park. Wohoooooooo!!!

What a cool ayeyo

Canno iyo shaah@Malika. Why@Malika Hello Lily and sheh

nahedhee, dont give him ammunitions.

Don’t jealous us Mr.

Ibt- as I read your response I could help but start singing Cher- Do you believe in love after love,…… Juxa- relaxer baby!!! p.s which one do you prefer? Am forever Ms

Naa baax- i have soft timoo no afro here.

wcs ibti...apart from Juxa permanent state of jaceyl nothing much. You.

Who said she is my saxiib? naa waa co-worker. Awww!!!@ juxa. where is Faheema horta?