The wonderful Sheekh Mustafa Xaaji Ismaaciil in mp3 format Other topics include.. 1 Ahmiyadda Salaada. 2 Alfaaxishah. 3 Alwalaa Walbaraa. 4 Asbaabaha Toosnaanta. 5 Awoodaha Allaah ina siiyay een dayacnay. 6 Baahida loo qabo Camalka Islaamiga ah. 7 Baraaruga Islaamka. 8 Bishaarooyinka Xiliga Dhibaatada. 9 Casharada laga faaiideysanayo Hijrada. 10 Dabar Go'a Ummadda. 11 Dariiqul Ilal Hadaf. 12 Dhibaatooyinka Qaadka. 13 Dhisida Guri Muslim ah iyo Illaalintiisa. 14 Gumeysiga Maskaxda Dumarka. 15 Haweenka Iyo Quraanka. 16 Himada Qofka Muslimka ah. 17 Hubsashada Warka. 18 In la is qanciyaa Waa hab ka mid ah hababka Dacwada. 19 Jiilka Saxaabada. 20 Kaalinta Dhalinyaradu Ku leeyihiin Nolosha. 44 khalkhalka ku dhacay Fahamka Umada. 21 Khatarta Warbaahinta Reer Galbeedka. 22 Lagdanka Nafta Iyo Rabitaankeeda. 23 Mahadnaq. 24 Maxaa Inoo Xal ah Q1aad. 25 Maxaa Inoo Xal ah Q2aad. 26 Mideynta Camalka Islaamka. 27 Mustaqbalka Islaamkaa Leh. 28 Nidaamka Caalamka Cusub. 29 Qisadii Nabi Yuusuf CS. 30 Quraanka Iyo seyniska. 31 Saacad Iyo Saacad. 32 Sabarka Fitanka. 35 Sidee baynu u hormari karnaa. 34 Sidee baynu u hormari Karnaa2. 33 Sidee Looga Badbaadaa AIDSka. 36 Sideen Quraanka U akhrinaa. 37 Soomaalidu Waxey u Dhaxeysaa Dhib Iyo Rajo. 38 Taariikhda waxaa ku sugan cibro. 39 Tarbiyada Nafta. 40 Tarbiyadii Saxaabada. 41 Tusaalooyin Dagaaladii Uu nabigu SCW galay. 42 Usamafalka Waalidka. 43 Waano.

1. Children of Heaven 2. Baaraan (oo laga wado roob) Reviews "Baran" boasts the most achingly beautiful closing moments of any movie in recent memory." Baran operates on three levels: as a story about a contemporary social problem; as a love story; and as a parable in which spiritual purity is attained through selflessness. Baraan part 1

Milton Friedman born in to a working class family of Jewish Hungarian immigrants from Beregszász (Berehove, Austria-Hungary) Review: Over the past several decades, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, many countries, including Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Poland, South Africa, Indonesia, Russia, China, and most recently, Iraq, underwent economic shock therapy. The populations of these countries were subjected, in varying degrees, to mass psychological manipulation and trauma brought on by the imposition of the agenda of the late economist and ‘free market’ disciple, Milton Friedman (1912-2006). Ostensibly a true believer in the textbook theory of laissez-faire capitalism, Friedman and his followers’ ideology featured a three-pronged attack: privatization of all public enterprise, deregulation, and deep cuts in social programs. Always looking for new revenue sources, large corporations eagerly embraced his teachings. The U.S. government overtly and covertly encouraged Friedman’s global meddling Whatever one calls Friedman’s philosophy— trickle-down, supply-side economics, globalization, free trade, the Washington Consensus, neo-liberalism (as it’s known in foreign countries), or neo-conservatism (as it’s known in the U.S.) - he and his University of Chicago associates sought to spread their gospel worldwide by capitalizing on crises and disasters, real and orchestrated. They believed that only under crisis conditions—the more shocking the crisis, the better— could a radical new system be implemented in a short period of time. To that end, some countries were invaded outright by the U.S. military while others experienced CIA-induced coups and assassinations of their democratically-elect ed leaders. Still others, in the throes of (relatively bloodless) revolution to transform their political system through populist reform and popular control, stood virtually helpless as their economic systems fell into the hands of Friedmanite coups. Many countries experienced the additional psychological shock brought about by U.S.-trained death squads, the jailing of dissidents, torture, and disappeared family members. Union leaders, clergy working for social justice, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, professors, and others became prime targets of death squad executions Hundreds of thousands of people around the world died, and massacres were commonplace. Every country serving as a laboratory for the economic “shock treatment” experiment eventually saw the same results as corporate power ran rampant: destruction of social safety nets, huge increases in unemployment and poverty, and a disappearing middle class. In her award-winning book, The Shock Doctrine:The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, author Naomi Klein connects the dots and documents in detail the painful truth. She deftly portrays the genesis of electric shock therapy from its origins in a laboratory setting to its conceptual transition as a “shock doctrine” of imposing corporate control on a global scale. With forensic skill, Klein finds Milton Friedman’s fingerprints at the crime scenes. She concludes, “Everywhere the Chicago School crusade has triumphed, it has created a permanent underclass of between 25 and 60 percent of the population.” That our elected leaders provide cover for or participate in this updated terroristic foreign policy hearkens back to the 1930’s when highly-decorated Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, upon retiring after 33 years in the U.S. Marines, confessed to being a “gangster for capitalism” in his famous speech and book, War Is a Racket. In more recent times, citing ‘the national interest’, ’security concerns’, or claiming the U.S. is ’spreading democracy’, our Presidents and Congress try to convince us that they serve the nation’s interest, not the interests of transnational corporations. In every country documented in The Shock Doctrine, as money gravitated from the pockets of the middle class and the poor to the very rich and the privatizing corporations, it became clear who the beneficiaries of Chicago School economics were. A wholesale redistribution of wealth upward was obvious. In the end, the biggest casualty would be democracy itself, as the new corporatocracy was becoming a de facto government, a merger of corporations and government, neither liberal nor conservative, but corporatist. Pledging doctrinaire allegiance to the economic “shock treatment” theorists and their allies, the transnational corporations, one finds the usual suspects and partners—conservativ e think tanks, media pundits, and elected and appointed friends in governments here and around the world. The American Enterprise Institute(AEI), the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute are among those who religiously spread Friedman’s theory. According to Klein, Milton Friedman’s Chicago School mission became the “economic agenda of the neo-conservative movement.” As referenced earlier, its goals included selling off public assets so corporations could run them, cutting back social programs, and removing rules and regulations. In other words, (in the U.S.) trash the New Deal. NAFTA and similar corporate trade agreements were part of the program internationally as well as domestically. Explaining the Chicago School’s position of influence and power, Klein notes, “The enormous benefit of having corporate views funneled through academic, or quasi-academic, institutions not only kept the Chicago School flush with donations but, in short order, spawned the global network of right-wing think tanks that would churn out the counterrevolution foot soldiers worldwide.” And churn them out, they did. Friedman and his devotees laid the worldwide groundwork that enabled their corporate benefactors/benefici aries to use whatever means necessary—physical threats (and worse), economic sabotage, or other shocks—in order to produce the desired results. What is shock? Klein informs us, “From Chile to China to Iraq, torture has been a silent partner in the global free-market crusade.” Citing the contents of two declassified CIA manuals, she continues, “Torture…is a set of techniques designed to put prisoners into a state of deep disorientation and shock in order to force them to make concessions against their will,” and “The shock doctrine mimics this process precisely, attempting to achieve on a mass scale what torture does one on one in the interrogation cell.” Shock can also be induced by any large catastrophe such as an earthquake or hurricane, an attack like 9/11, or an economic crisis—real or contrived. In the seventies, Chile would experience the full force of the shocks brought on by the Washington Consensus. Populist Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile in 1970. That did not sit too well with U.S. President Richard Nixon or corporations heavily invested in Chile, including ITT and many others. U.S. government and corporate collusion and subterfuge ensued. It was later revealed that ITT Corporation “had secretly plotted with the CIA and the State Department to block Allende from being inaugurated…” and that “ITT had offered $1million in bribes to Chilean opposition forces…” In 1973, General Augusto Pinochet and the CIA-assisted Chilean military staged a coup to seize power in Chile —no news there. It was a revelation, however, to learn that American economists were also culpable in the overthrow and death of democratically-elect ed President Allende. A close adviser to Gen. Pinochet was none other than Milton Friedman. The unfettered free markets model brought neither democracy nor peace. Instead, tens of thousands were murdered and over 100,000 were tortured. Before and after the terror campaign in Chile, other Latin American nations suffered similar fates. In Argentina, for example, “an estimated thirty-thousand people had been disappeared. Many of them, like their Chilean counterparts, were thrown from planes into the muddy waters of the Rio de la Plata.” Ford and Mercedes-Benz in Argentina allegedly engaged in attempts to eliminate union influence in their plants through practices such as the detention and torture of union representatives and, in some cases, their permanent disappearance. Ford and Mercedes claim their executives are innocent of these charges which remain in litigation. Transnational corporations not only help orchestrate the overthrow of countries around the world and participate in torture and terror against their host country, but, Klein writes, “Argentina’s entire early-nineties shock therapy program was written in secret by JP Morgan and Citibank, two of Argentina’s largest private creditors.” “In Brazil,” Klein reports, “several multi-nationals banded together and financed their own privatized torture squads. In mid-1969,…OBAN (an extra-legal police force) was funded…by contributions from various multi-national corporations, including Ford and General Motors.” Indonesia’s popular President Sukarno had led his nation for about two decades when he “enraged the rich countries by protecting Indonesia’s economy, redistributing wealth and throwing out the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank which he accused of being facades for the interests of Western multinationals.” The CIA was instructed, Klein says, to “liquidate President Sukarno…” The CIA gathered a list of leftists which came into the possession of Gen. Suharto (Sukarno’s successor via a coup in 1965). Suharto’s minions “annihilated” the leftists, and then some. “In just over a month,…possibly as many as 1 million people were killed…” Why did Sukarno’s ousting of the IMF and the World Bank prompt such a furious response? While they exercised a different degree of economic control in Sukarno’s day, since the late eighties the IMF and the World Bank, according to Klein, have become “primary vehicles for the advancement of the corporate crusade.” Any crisis-plagued country seeking loans from the IMF has to “revamp its economy from top to bottom” along the lines of the Friedman school. A shell game, of sorts, was the free marketers’ modus operandi in the early to mid-nineties in two distinct regions of the world. In Poland, the Solidarity movement, underground for years, became a force as the population railed against one-party Communist rule. When Solidarity came to power in 1989, the leaders who had so determinedly changed the political system were focused on implementing it. What they didn’t notice while distracted by their political efforts became only too clear once in power—the economy was in shambles. In order to get help, Solidarity abandoned its goal of worker ownership and turned to privatization and Chicago School economic shock therapy. Klein reports that in 1989 “15 percent of Poland’s population was living below the poverty line; in 2003, 59% of Poles had fallen below the line.” By 2006, Poland’s unemployment rate was 20%, “the highest in the European Union.” After decades of struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) saw its candidate, Nelson Mandela, elected in 1994. So preoccupied were Mandela and the party with the peaceful political transition, that the National Party and its leader, F.W. De Klerk, sabotaged the economic transition. Naturally, the IMF and the World Bank were involved. The results: huge increases in poverty, unemployment, and homelessness, all standard fare for countries subjected to the shock doctrine. Early nineties Russia was prime territory for shock therapists. Warning shots were fired in 1991 when Mikhail Gorbachev, a proponent of social democracy, was admonished by G7 leaders at their summit in London to, in Klein’s words, “embrace radical shock therapy,” or else. Through political maneuvering, Boris Yeltsin forced Gorbachev’s resignation and took over the reigns of government amid the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He enjoyed the backing of the U.S. government. Yeltsin administered further shocks when he ordered tanks into the streets, machine-gunning of protesters, and the attack on and torching of Parliament, an assault which resulted in 500 deaths. Yeltsin demanded absolute power. Russia had found its ‘Pinochet’. Parliament was dissolved and the Constitution was abolished. After just one year of following Chicago School ‘reforms’, the average Russian was hurting and 1/3 of the population was in poverty. But the news wasn’t all bad—Yeltsin and his family along with an elite few became rich. Klein sums up the Russian experience, “In 1989, before shock therapy, 2 million people in the Russian Federation were living in poverty…in the mid-nineties, 74 million Russians were living below the poverty line…” By 1996, 25% of Russians lived in “desperate poverty”. In Russia,…”the Communist state was simply replaced with a corporatist one…” In 1980, the Deng Xiaoping government invited Milton Friedman to China. The Chinese leader wanted a corporate-based economy and turned to the master for guidance. Friedman’s advice must have been music to his ears—political freedoms are of no concern, unrestricted commerce is overriding. Those in power, of course, get dibs on the wealth. The authoritarian political control served the implementation of Chicago School policies well. But popular discontent was fueled by the economic shock of lower wages, higher prices, loss of benefits, and unemployment. A coalition of university students, factory workers, teachers, and others symbolized the dissatisfaction of the masses as they rallied in Tiananmen Square in 1989 in favor of democracy and against unregulated capitalism. Another major shock to the collective psyche occurred from the resulting crackdown and massacre, which drew approval from Henry Kissinger. Over a period of years, thousands of citizens were jailed, tortured, and killed. China instituted martial law, effectively stopping dissent. Multinationals, assured of a docile workforce, established themselves in China. Probably the prime example of privatization at the point of a gun is the ’shock and awe’ U.S. invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, and the ensuing years of war and occupation. As Director of the Occupation, Paul Bremer’s “central mission” was disaster capitalism. Things were going pretty well. The social system was dismantled, public service jobs were gone, local government was virtually nonexistent, and mass unemployment prevailed. Iraq’s oil and other industries were privatized, controlled primarily by American corporations. The war itself was falling into the hands of private profiteers. Waging perpetual wars for perpetual profits, corporations have figured out a way to generate an endless annuity, courtesy of the American taxpayer. In the first Gulf War in 1991, Klein points out, “…there was one (private) contractor for every hundred soldiers. At the start of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the ratio had jumped to one contractor for every ten soldiers. Three years into the U.S. occupation, the ratio had reached one to three. Less than a year later, with the occupation approaching its fourth year, there was one contractor for every 1.4 U.S. soldiers.” You’ve got to hand it to George W. Bush et al who accomplished precisely what they set out to do. We should be careful not to ‘misunderestimate’ Bush. Klein expresses it clearly, “Most of us chose to oppose the war as an act of folly by a president who mistook himself for a king, and his British sidekick who wanted to be on the winning side of history. There was little interest in the idea that war was a rational policy choice, that the architects of the invasion had unleashed ferocious violence because they could not crack open the closed economies of the Middle East by peaceful means, that the level of terror was proportional to what was at stake.” The transition to Chicago School economics does not always involve violence but it does require a crisis, sometimes real, sometimes manufactured. Lacking a real crisis, the shock doctors wondered if a contrived, phony, “pseudo-crisis” could work just as well in advancing their goals. The answer was found in Canada in the nineties. Large banks and corporations funded think tanks that promoted the idea of an impending financial crisis. TV and newspapers aided the shock therapists’ con job. Convinced there were no other options, Canada’s Liberal Party succumbed, cutting funding for health care and other social programs. Only after the cuts were official did Canadians learn that their economic crisis was contrived. The United States was not completely spared from the consequences of native son Milton Friedman’s policies. In the eighties and nineties, Democratic and Republican presidents, as well as state and local governments, succumbed to creeping privatization including the selling or outsourcing of public assets such as water, electricity, and highway management, to name a few. More unfinished business lies ahead. The privatizers covet the acquisition of Social Security, public schools, prisons, fire and police departments and other functions of government. A good example of corporatizing government functions is Lockheed Martin, known to most of us as a weapons contractor. When the Cold War ended in the mid-nineties, the corporation, looking to extend its tentacles into other sources of government largess, quietly assumed the role of performing government functions such as cutting Social Security checks, totaling taxes, sorting mail, and monitoring air traffic. Lockheed Martin was not alone. Other weapons manufacturers were on the gravy train, too. When it comes to finding disaster capitalists in government, the George W. Bush administration, teeming with Friedman pals and adherents, takes the cake. They were ready, willing, and able to capitalize on our nation’s horrifying disaster, the attacks of 9/11/01. What a wealth of opportunity that tragedy provided! The War on Terror, by its nature an endless venture, is a cash cow producing an economic windfall in the billions of dollars. It spawned the “disaster capitalism complex”. The new $200 billion Department of Homeland Security afforded a feeding frenzy at the government trough as did privatized war and disaster reconstruction. The reach of privatization extended to outsourced police and surveillance as well as a Halliburton detention facility at Guantanamo. Hurricane Katrina, a more localized event, supplied the necessary crisis frame for privatizing the public schools of New Orleans and committing other acts of corporate greed and opportunism in the face of poverty and loss. And speaking of opportunism, it is appropriate to mention the revolving door between government and corporate employment and some of the individuals involved: Dick Cheney (U.S. vice president and other posts) of Halliburton; Tom Ridge (Dept. of Homeland Security) of Ridge Global and Lucent; Richard Clarke (counterterrorism-Cl inton and Bush) of Good Harbor Consulting; James Woolsey (CIA chief until 1995) of Paladin Capital Group and Booz Allen; Joe Allbough (FEMA head on 9/11) of New Bridge Strategies; Michael (Brownie) Brown (FEMA during Katrina) of Michael D. Brown,LLC. Additional familiar ‘revolvers’ include James Baker, Paul Bremer, Richard Perle, and Henry Kissinger among so many others. There seems no end to the ways that disaster capitalists enrich themselves by playing on fear and misfortune. While their mouths disparage government as incapable of solving problems, their hands are in the government coffers. They could not survive without sucking at the government teat. Though disaster capitalism has a foothold in the U.S., it hasn’t yet triumphed. Mostly outside their current grasp lie big prizes like Social Security and public education. The complete privatization of Medicare has not yet occurred, though the effort has begun.Some highway (turnpike) and water systems have fallen victim to privatization. Efforts must continue to bring them back into the public fold, and we must be ever-vigilant to prevent future assaults on the public commons. If you subscribe to the notion that ignorance is bliss and you wish to remain in a blissful state, Naomi Klein’s: The Shock Doctrine:The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is not for you. Klein demands that readers confront some very unsettling realities. If, on the other hand, you believe that knowledge is power or, at the very least, knowledge is preferable to ignorance, The Shock Doctrine offers a rich, penetrating, eye-opening treatise on the corporate grab for resources and markets, with government assistance, of course, and the lengths to which they will go to achieve their ends. It shines a much-needed light on the role of economics/economists in the American foreign policy saga of the past several decades and their inroads into domestic policy as well. The book prepares you to be an observant citizen who can recognize disaster capitalism when you see it unfolding and actively oppose it. The temptation to feel elation by the inauguration of President Obama must be tempered by the inability of past presidents to transcend the Washington Consensus and resist its pull. Given that Obama’s advisers include IMF and World Bank types like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, hope must be accompanied by watchfulness. Source

The Fourth World War Started in Venezuela By George Ciccariello-Maher Those seeking the origins of the global rebellion against neoliberalism will need to look further back than Seattle 1998 (U.S.-centric activists are notorious for claiming that the movement began in Seattle), and before London's J18 protests earlier the same year. We would need to look before even the public emergence of the Zapatista movement on January 1st 1994. Before all these events, there was the Caracazo. On this, the 18th anniversary of this epic struggle, it is worth looking back at this singularly important but oft-overlooked event which has been described by Fernando Coronil as "the largest and most violently repressed revolt against austerity measures in Latin American history." Bait-and-Switch Carlos Andrés Pérez was inaugurated on February 2nd 1989 for his second (but non-consecutive) term, after a markedly anti-neoliberal campaign during the course of which he had demonized the IMF as a "bomb that only kills people." In what has since become a notorious example of "bait-and-switch" reform, Pérez proceeded to implement the recently-formulated Washington Consensus to the letter. The precipitous nature of this about-face is evident from the fact that Pérez's neoliberal economic "packet" (the "paquetazo" as it is called) was announced scarcely two weeks after the inaugural speech which had attacked international lending institutions and preached debtor-nation solidarity. The country must prepare itself, Pérez warned in this later speech on February 16th, for a "Great Turnaround." While Venezuelan elites had been toying with neoliberalism for several years, and president Jaime Lusinchi had even enacted a heterodox neoliberal package in 1984, Pérez's package was notable for its orthodoxy. In a Letter of Intention signed with the IMF on February 28th, while most large Venezuelan cities were in the throes of generalized rioting and looting, the basic premises of the Pérez plan were laid out as follows: government spending and salaries were to be restricted, exchange rates and interest rates were to be deregulated (thereby eliminating what were essentially interest rate subsidies for farmers), price controls were to be relaxed, subsidies were to be reduced, sales tax was to be introduced, prices of state-provided goods and services (including petroleum) were to be liberalized, tariffs were to be eliminated and imports liberalized, and in general, foreign transactions in Venezuela were to be facilitated. In brief, this plan meant a potent cocktail of stagnating incomes in the face of skyrocketing prices and monetary devaluation. As might be expected, poverty reached a peak in 1989, claiming 44% of households (a figure which had doubled in absolute terms during the course of five years), with 20% of the population in extreme poverty. While rising prices had been a source of anxiety at least since the 1983 devaluation of the bolivar still remembered to this day as "Black Friday," it was the common (and inarguably correct) perception that Venezuelans have a common right to what lies under their soil that fanned the angry flames of revolt early in the morning of February 27th. 27F-1989 February 27th 1989 was a Monday, and over the weekend Pérez's liberalization of petroleum prices had kicked in, the first stage of which was an immediate 100% increase in the price of consumer gasoline. While the government had attempted to force small transporters to absorb the majority of the increase, convincing the National Transport Federation to pass on only 30% of the increase to passengers, many smaller federations and individuals refused to respect this agreement. Since their gas costs had doubled overnight, one can hardly blame them. Protests kicked off during the early commute of informal workers into Caracas. Upon discovering that fares had doubled, many refused to pay. Resistance, rioting, and the burning of buses was reported from a number of suburbs and in cities across the country well before 6am. Demonstrations in the eastern suburb of Guarenas (where looting was reported as early as 7:30am), sparked off broader resistance in the region. By 6am, students had occupied Nuevo Circo station in Caracas, at the other end of the Guarenas-Caracas line, and were publicly denouncing the drivers. Joined by informal workers, the crowd at Nuevo Circo moved north onto Avenida Bolívar, building barricades to block traffic on this major artery. By noon, blockades had spread eastward to Plaza Venezuela and the Central University, southward to the Francisco Fajardo highway, and westward to Avenida Fuerzas Armadas. Revolutionary ferment united students, informal workers, and hardened revolutionaries, and the initial anger at increased transport prices (an anger directed predominantly at individual drivers) was successfully generalized to encompass the entire neoliberal economic package (thereby directing anger directly at the president). The structure of the informal economy provided more than the constituents of the rebellion: it provided the means of coordination and communication as well, with motorcycle taxis zipping back and forth across the city, drawing the spontaneous rebellion into a broader coordinated picture which more closely resembles what we would consider a revolutionary situation. Meanwhile, a similar pattern was appearing spontaneously in every major Venezuelan city: protests emerged early in the morning in San Cristóbal, Barquisimeto, Maracay, Barcelona, and Puerto la Cruz, and Mérida, and later in the afternoon in other major cities like Maracaibo and Valencia. Some have argued, and rightly so, that the common moniker "Caracazo" is misleading, concealing as it does the generalized and national nature of the rebellion. Deaths were reported in Caracas as early as the afternoon of the 27th, as police opened fire on students near Central Park. As night fell, sacking and looting became widespread (often aided by the police), touching even the generally untouchable sectors of wealthy eastern Caracas, and more than 1,000 stores were burned in Caracas alone. While many were looting necessities (most video evidence shows people hauling away household products and food, especially large sides of beef) luxuries were not exempt, and as a result many barrios enjoyed a taste of the life so habitually denied, celebrating with fine food and imported whiskey and champagne. "Complete Normality" The morning of February 28th saw a mixed picture: in some areas, the police fired indiscriminately with automatic weapons, while in others like the Antimano district of southwestern Caracas, police agreed to permit controlled looting. The government's first attempt to control the rebellion was a spectacular failure: the minister of the interior appeared on live television calling for calm, only to faint on live television thereby forcing the suspension of the broadcast. At 6pm, Pérez appeared on television himself, to announce the fateful decision to suspend constitutional guarantees and establish a state of siege. The simultaneous claim that the country was experiencing a situation of "complete normality" was hardly credible given the decision. This marked both a green light for government repression and the beginning of the end for the rebellion. A curfew was imposed, and those violating it were treated harshly. Repression was worst in Caracas' largest barrios: Catia in the west and Petare in the east. Police directed their attention to the former, and especially the neighborhood of 23 de Enero, as the organizational brain of the rebellion. Known organizers were dragged from their homes and either executed or "disappeared," and when security forces met resistance from snipers, they opened fire on the apartment blocks themselves (the bulletholes are visible to this day). In Petare, the largest and most violent of Caracas' slums, up to twenty were killed in a single incident, when on March 1st the army opened fire on the Mesuca stairway. Much of the country was "pacified" within three days, while Caracas saw rioting for more than five days. The human toll of the rebellion has never been entirely clear, especially since the Pérez government obstructed any and all efforts to investigate the events. Subsequent government investigations set the number killed around 300, while the popular imaginary places it around 3,000. Rumors of mass killings led to the 1990 excavation of a mass grave in a sector of the public cemetery called, perhaps not coincidentally, "The New Plague." There, 68 bodies in plastic bags were unearthed, and no one knows how many more deaths were concealed by government forces. Birth of the MBR-200 Internationally, the democratic façade that had obscured Venezuelan reality for decades was shattered in a single blow. Among other leaders, George Bush Sr. and Spain's Felipe González called Pérez directly to express their shock and dismay that such a dependable client state had evidently unraveled overnight. In a hopeless attempt to maintain the image of democratic exceptionality, leaders even attempted to blame the mass rebellion on a small number of extremists and even foreigners (read: Colombians). Politically, the Caracazo represented the death knell of the old regime. Former Chavista vice president José Vicente Rangel put it clearly: "Venezuelan history split into two." Juan Contreras, head of the revolutionary Simón Bolívar Coordinator, argues that it was the Caracazo in 1989 rather than the pair of coup attempts in 1992 (the first led by Chávez) that definitively destroyed the corrupt "partyocracy." And the proof of this is the fact that those coups were the direct result of the 1989 rebellion, or as Contreras puts it, "Chávez didn't create the movements, we created him." A clandestine revolutionary movement had formed within the armed forces years earlier, led by Hugo Chávez, Jesús Urdaneta, Raúl Isaías Baduel, and the late Felipe Antonio Acosta. 1982 to be precise, the 200th anniversary of the birth of the liberator, and hence the name MBR-200: Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement-200. During the next few years, the conspirators worked to recruit lower-level officials to their cause, but the MBR's plans to support a coup were still in the works when the Caracazo caught them off-guard. The polarizing effect of the rebellion and subsequent massacre was as powerful within the ranks of the military as in the general population. Young soldiers, largely drawn from the lower classes, were sent into the barrios to slaughter their own, and many refused to do fire. The importance of the Caracazo for the subsequent coup attempts is described by Chávez himself as follows: "without the Caracazo we wouldn't have been able to do it, it was a death-blow for Pérez, more military officers refused to participate in the repression that took place during those days." The Caracazo "reactivated" a waning MBR-200, sharpening the movement's opposition to the prevailing political system and providing it with new recruits. The Caracazo Remembered While the history of the Caracazo may be neglected outside Venezuela, efforts to erase this mass popular rebellion have failed, and it remains etched in the memory of both its protagonists and the elites for whom the Caracazo reinforced a fear of the poor and marginalized masses. With the successful election of the Chavista government in 1998, this memory found its institutional basis, and while previous governments had attempted to erase the Caracazo or deny its significance, the Bolivarian Revolution has converted this rebellion into its own moment of birth. Recently, the anniversary of the Caracazo was celebrated in a public session of the National Assembly held in El Valle, one of the large barrios in Caracas that had seen some of the harshest repressive measures. Speaking at the event, vice president Jorge Rodríguez, whose own father died at the hands of police torturers in 1976, argued that: "We still need to challenge impunity, indicating those responsible for the massacre that occurred in February and March of 1989 The memory [of the Caracazo] cannot die, and Venezuelans cannot allow the violations of human rights that have occurred throughout the period of the republic to be forgotten." Toward this end, the government's "defender of the people," Germán Mundaraín, has emphasized the importance of constructing a massive monument in Caracas to honor those killed during the Caracazo. Moreover, Mundaraín has opened proceedings to request the extradition of Carlos Andrés Pérez from Miami (where else?) to face charges over the executive's participation in the massacre. While it will be difficult to punish those who participated in the massacre which ended the Caracazo, and it will be nearly impossible to extradite Pérez from the United States, this should suggest that the legacy of the Caracazo has been forgotten. As Luis Britto García, radical poet and political writer (recently named to the presidential committee for constitutional reform) has long argued: "World War IV began in Venezuela. WWIII was the Cold War, which culminated in the fall of the Soviet Union and the apparent triumph of neoliberalism. World War IV began in Venezuela on February 27th 1989, with the first rebellion by an entire nation against a neoliberal package. As a result, we have discovered that a global extension of neoliberalism into the economic, social, political and cultural fields is impossible." As the opening volley in the war against neoliberalism, the legacy of the Caracazo lives on as long as that struggle continues. Source

South American and Arab leaders met in Doha, Qatar, for the second Arab-Latin American summit on Tuesday. The meeting ended with leaders from the two regions agreeing to boost economic and political co-operation. Though geographically distant, they are looking to step up trade and investment flows. They said the meeting was aimed at joining their regions into one economic bloc and, possibly, a single political voice on the world stage. They also considered creating a joint mechanism of financial co-operation to reduce the impact of the global economic crisis. Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, called for the creation of a new international currency, a petro-currency, to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency. He asked other oil rich nations to support him in a push to drop the dollar as their main currency of trade. In the last few years the volume of trade exchange between the Arabs and South Americans has sprung to almost $30bn. But for many this is just the first step in a process that could lead to the birth of a new body rich in resources and cash to tackle the globe's most pressing problems. Is the new co-operation between Arab and South American countries just a trade deal or a shift in political alliances? Is the Southern America moving out of the North's orbit? Presenter David Foster is joined by Francisco Santos, the vice president of Columbia, Michel Alaby, the secretary-general of the Arab Brazillian Chamber of Commerce, and Gamal Nkrumah, an analyst with Al-Ahram Newspaper. Link

Latin American leaders are set to begin a summit meeting with their Arab counterparts in Qatar, seeking to boost ties between South American and Arab states. The meeting, the second Latam-Arab summit, is due to begin on Tuesday in Doha, the Qatari capital, following the conclusion of the Arab League conference in the Gulf state. Though geographically distant, the two areas are looking to step up trade and investment flows and the meeting reflects Latin America's changing priorities - with left of centre governments dominating the region there has been a move away from the US and a push to embrace a multi-polar world. The two regions also each include a major oil producer, with Saudi Arabia and Venezuela both among the world's top oil exporters. Trade between the two blocs has almost tripled since the first summit in Brasilia in 2005. "Recently there has been a strong wish to increase commercial exchanges between the two regions, where aggregate GDP reached more than four trillion dollars in 2008," Faisal bin Qassem Al Thani, president of the Qatar businessman's association, was quoted by Qatar's al-Sharq newspaper as saying. He said that the Arab world and South America together make up 10.5 per cent of the world's population and as such represent a major potential market for businesses in either region. Arab diplomats said the summit will consider creating a joint mechanism of financial cooperation to reduce the impact of the global economic crisis. Palestinian ties Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's president, will be among eight South American leaders attending the summit. During Israel's 22-day war on Gaza at the beginning of the year, Venezuela expelled Israel's ambassador to the country and a wave of support for the Palestinians swept across Latin America. The Palestinian Authority has said it will open a diplomatic representative office in Caracas next month. Meanwhile, Argentina, represented by Cristina Kirchner, the Argentinean president, is reportedly seeking support from Arab countries in a renewed dispute with the UK over the Falkland Islands. Argentina continues to claim the Falklands 27 years after the two countries went to war over the South Atlantic islands. Also planning to attend the summit is Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil's president and the summit's South American co-ordinator. It was the Brazilian leader who first proposed the idea of the Latam-Arab meeting during a visit to the Middle East in 2003 Source

Venezuela and Iran to Form Joint Companies and Bank Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez arrived in Teheran, Iran, on Wednesday night to deepen bilateral cooperation between the two countries, inaugurate a joint bank, and discuss the creation of bi-national mining companies. On Thursday Chavez met with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidential palace, and will likely spend Friday and part of Saturday in the country as well. In his seventh visit to the country, Chavez and Ahmadinejad will discuss and revise the 205 bilateral agreements that the two countries have in areas such as food, energy, education, culture, science and technology. “Our countries should strengthen their commercial alliance in order to free ourselves from global free trade and to create fair trade,” Chavez said. Ahmadinejad agreed, “Now that the world is changing, bilateral relations between Iran and Venezuela should be a model of fraternal and constructive relationships for other countries of the world.” On Friday Chavez will attend the inauguration of the Irani-Venezuelan bank, which the presidents say should aim to create an alternative and independent structure to the international financial system and would hopefully help alleviate the effects of the financial crisis. Both countries are contributing an initial $US 100 million each out of a total of $US 600 million each. “We’ve already named a vice president of the bank,” Chavez told the press. “The big banks of the world fell to pieces, but here a bank is being born, and over there in South American another bank is being born, as in the Caribbean there is….the Bank of ALBA [bolivarian Alternative for the Americas],” he said. Iran and Venezuela are also evaluating the creation of two joint mining companies, one of which would be in Venezuela, and the other in Iran. “We’ve already been working for years with the mining ministry of Iran. If you all know the amount of mining resources that we have discovered in the last few years you’d fall on your backs: gold, diamond, precious rocks and other minerals,” Chavez said. “We, in the countries of the South, need to create some transnational companies that unite us, to confront the power of the transnationals of capitalism.” Chavez also congratulated Iran, saying, “Today on the first of April is exactly 30 years since the national referendum here in Iran, in which the people were asked what regime they wanted, and 98% pronounced themselves in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We want to congratulate the people of Iran...for these thirty years of revolution.” Guantanamo prisoners would be welcome in Venezuela Before arriving in Iran, Chavez attended the Arab-South America Summit in Qatar, where he later talked on Al Jazeera TV. In the interview he said the US run prison centre in Guantanamo bay, Cuba, is an expression of US imperialism and that Venezuela wouldn’t have any problems with receiving its prisoners. Chavez called for the US government to return the territory in which it is run to Cuba. On the show he also criticized US president Barack Obama and said that for the time being Venezuela wasn’t planning on re-establishing relations with Israel. However, he said he’d like to deepen relations with Egypt and to increase economic trade with it Al Jazeera and Telesur (Television of the South) also signed a new cooperation agreement. Source

Xiin, Any documents concerning the Jibuuti talks? That way we can see where all these are heading. There is a storm brewing walaalo and it will have the most deleterious effect on Somalia. ------------ Baltimore Chronical & Sentinal by Chris Floyd Thursday, December 11, 2008 Not content with destroying the only vestige of stability that Somalia had known for almost two decades by arming, backing and participating in a brutal "regime change" invasion by Ethiopia, the Bush Administration now wants to turn the ravaged land into an international "free fire zone," a giant Fallujah where any powerful nation on earth can launch armed incursions on Somali soil, wreaking the usual "collateral damage" in the search for pirates -- or for those arbitrarily designated as pirates. The Bush Regime is drafting a UN Security Council resolution that will give "the international community" carte blanche to "hunt down" alleged pirates on land in Somalia, the Guardian reports: A draft resolution that would permit states fighting piracy to "take all necessary measures ashore in Somalia, including in its airspace" has been circulated to members of the UN Security Council. Prior consent for raids would be required from Somalia's weak and fractured government.. As we noted here recently, the "Somali government" is a rapidly collapsing coalition of CIA-paid warlords and Ethiopian collaborators which "controls" only a few city blocks of territory in the entire country. It is unfathomable that this near-fictitious entity would or could oppose a "request" by a world power to send armed forces into Somalia in a noble quest to clamp down on pirates. And what happens when these invading forces inevitably clash with the various other armed groups now waging a multi-sided, hydra-headed war in the country? Why, the invaders will have to take stern "force protection" measures, of course. The story goes on to note that the locations of the "pirate lairs are well-known": Along Somalia's north-eastern coast, villages and towns such as Eyl, Haradheere and Hobyo provide sanctuary and logistical support for pirate gangs holding at least 14 ships. And it is certainly not surprising that the Western backers of the Somali "government" know just where the pirates are: they provided mighty assistance in their rise, as we noted here a few weeks ago: For one thing, [the Times] notes something that is almost never mentioned in any story about Somalia, neither in the very rare stories about the conflict itself or the rather more numerous stories about piracy and its effects on commercial shipping (an issue far more important that the lives of 10,000 innocent human beings, of course): the fact that the main backers and bankrollers of the pirate gangs "are linked to the Western-backed government." The conservative UK paper then goes on to give an accurate account of how these pirate-backing factions came to power -- facts that are almost universally ignored by the "liberal" American media . (Not to mention the "progressive blogosphere;" indeed, you can actually find more references to the Somalia war in the corporate press than among our internet "dissidents.") : Years of violence, neglect and misguided policies have left Somalia one of the most dangerous countries and a breeding ground for the pirates attacking one of the world’s busiest shipping routes. Today the northeast area of the country, including Puntland, has been carved up by warlords who finance themselves by drug and gun running. This is also the heartland of the pirates, whose main backers are linked to the Western-backed government. Radical Islamists control much of the south, including the key port of Kismayo and the porous border area with Kenya, a staunch Western ally. This has realised a Western nightmare, which was supposed to have been destroyed by Ethiopia’s American-backed invasion of Somalia two years ago in support of a puppet government created by the international community. That alliance spanned the spectrum from extreme radicals to moderate, devout Muslims. The latter were in charge. Everyone – except Pentagon planners, it seems – knew that Somalia had never proved fertile territory for Saudi-style radical Islam. However, indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas by Ethiopia, Somalia’s historic enemy, with huge casualties, put an end to that. The Islamists were driven out, the moderates went into exile and the hardliners took control of the south with a popular powerbase beyond their wildest dreams. A puppet government, installed by foreign invasion, riddled with crime and corruption, alienating and radicalizing the population: here we see the quintessential template of the "War on Terror," replicated faithfully in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia -- and soon, perhaps, in Pakistan. And now the Bush Regime -- going out inof blood and fury aimed at the world (and at the American people) -- wants to intensify the chaos in Somalia, laying it bare to more invasions, "precision strikes," death squad operations, renditions and other atrocities, this time coming from not just from Washington and its Terror War proxies but from all directions. This is the answer of the American militarist state to any problem, such as piracy or terrorism: the blunderbuss assault of massive military force by land, sea and air; vast destruction, social collapse -- and immeasurable, unbounded human suffering. This is the reality of much-praised "continuity" in "national security affairs" that Barack Obama's appointments have promised. This is what will be "continued."

Walaal, My concerns regarding the Jabuuti Caravan (as you call them) are pertinent to the IGAD pronouncements. Full article is on HOL. --------------- IGAD’s highly intrusive “declaration” on Somalia is more detrimental to the strategic interests of Somalia than the combined perils of the Ethiopian military intervention... Left unchallenged, IGAD’s pronouncements on Somalia could reverberate negatively in Somalia for years to come. On October 28, 2008, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti and Sudan, under the cloak of IGAD, instructed the weak but internationally recognized Transitional Federal Institutions of Somalia (TFIs) to: • Disband the current government and appoint a new cabinet within 15 days; • Establish administration for the Somali capital within 15 days; • Draft a new constitution, enact electoral & parties law within 6 months, • Submit “progress reports” to the IGAD Council of Ministers every 2 months! IGAD further decided to establish a “facilitator” whose task would be to “monitor” the implementation of the above directives. IGAD has further stated that it is determined to takeover Somali reconciliation efforts and institutional building from the able hand of the United Nations. IGAD’s resolutions further asked the TFG, the Alliance, and the UN envoy to modify the terms of the Djibouti agreement and its timeline (i.e. the withdrawal of the Ethiopian troops and the formation of government of national unity!). It is very important to highlight the fact that the Extraordinary meeting of IGAD’s Heads of State and Government was held at the time when the Secretary General’s Special Representative for Somalia was well on his way to usher a historic reconciliation in Somalia. Everyone knows that Ambassador Ould-Abdallah was able, on October 26, 2008 (two days before IGAD’s seditious summit) to convince the warring Somali factions (the TFG and Alliance) to sign a ceasefire, agree on the withdrawal date of the Ethiopian troops, and create a government of national unity. The question that needs to be raised here is what is IGAD trying to fix here, and more importantly, why embark on a broad daylight coup d'état against the successful UN envoy? In addition, why is the international community and the UN in particular, silent about Ethiopia / IGAD’s latest subversive ploy? It is clear Ethiopia is using IGAD as a springboard, and hopes to achieve through this entity, what its military intervention failed to accomplish in Somalia. The demeaning and unlawful IGAD pronouncements are, however, not what should scare Somalis. What should trouble Somalis is the unprecedented abdication of responsibly by the bed-ridden but internationally recognized TFIs. Likewise, Somalis should be concerned about the apparent complacency of many Somali politicians (including the Djibouti based Alliance leadership), as well the deafening silence of the Diaspora intellectuals about the gathering storm in the form of IGAD resolution. In nutshell, what the IGAD resolution aims at is to do away with diplomatic niceties and dismantle the already compromised but legally relevant political independence and national sovereignty of Somalia. TFIs Openly Caves In Article 6A of the IGAD Charter outlines the guiding principles of the organization. It states that IGAD member States “solemnly reaffirm their commitment to the following principles: a) The sovereign equality of all Member States; b) Non-interference in the internal affairs of Member States.” If ordering the Somali government to dissolve itself and report to IGAD bimonthly is not meddling, then what is it? What is more astounding is TFG Prime Minister’s response to the humiliation of IGAD. He has stated submissively that he would implement IGAD “directives!” I wonder why he would not make clear to his IGAD counterparts, (after all the men who issued the diktats have titles similar to his!), that the notion of foreigners instructing a sovereign nation blatantly violates the basic principles of international relations as well as the sacred provisions of the Charters of the UN, IGAD and Somalia. The latest IGAD communiqué validates two sad and deadly realities: (a) that Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti and Sudan consider Somalia NOT an equal IGAD member State, (b) that, the Transitional Federal Institutions are incapacitated and unfit to protect the national interest of Somalia. (Abdullahi Yusuf was present when Meles penned the edicts, Nur Adde told the world he wants to meet the IGAD deadline! and members of the Transitional Parliament are still mute). IGAD Resolutions are unlawful and Dangerous for Somalia Somali nationalists must categorically reject IGAD resolutions. The provisions of the Declaration of the 13th Extraordinary Session of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government are menacing danger for Somalia. They are also unlawful. The two Sharrifs, who are unfortunately agitating to join the subjugated, demoralized and practically defunct TFG, should think twice about such a risky adventure. Joining forces with the TFG whose President, Prime Minister and Parliament failed to understand and appreciate the sacred principles of political independence and national sovereignty is an ill-advised move, albeit, threat to the national interest of Somalia. The two Sharrifs should know, even if their Alliance takes the post of the TFG Presidency or the post of the Premiership plus the entire TFG cabinet, that they might not be able to let loose the Ethiopian / IGAD grip of the Somalia file. In addition, if they come into power under IGAD plans, then they might end up being the ones delivering the bimonthly IGAD mandated Progress Report! The proposed IGAD facilitator could well be Col. Gebre – of course this time with a title such as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary! I would strongly advise the Alliance leadership to consider convening an Extraordinary Summit for Somali nationalists and accept the council and input of informed Somalis. What is at stake is the interest of a nation and anything short of sober deliberation and inclusive consultation is disservice to the nation and deliration of duty.

Walaal, I will try respond to your other comments another time. If the Jabuuti Caravan (as you call them) fail to adhere to IGAD & Co, below are the following actions to be taken against them. See points 8, 11 and 13 in particular. ------- COMMUNIQUE OF THE 30TH EXTRA-ORDINARY SESSION OF THE IGAD COUNCIL OF MINISTERS ON THE PREVAILING PO Wednesday, 19 November 2008 The 30th Extraordinary Meeting of the IGAD Council of Ministers was convened at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 18th November 2008 to discuss the situation in Somalia. The Council was chaired by H.E. Seyoum Mesfin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the current Chairperson of the IGAD Council of Ministers. It was attended by H.E. Mahmoud Ali Yusuf, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Djibouti; H.E. Ali A. Jama, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia; H.E. Deng Alor Kual, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Sudan; H.E. Richard Onyonka, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs representing the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kenya; and H.E. Mull S. Katende, representing the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uganda. The meeting was attended by representatives of the United Nations, African Union and IGAD Partners Forum (IPF(). The Council was briefed by H.E. Ali Jama, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia on the current prevailing situation in Somalia. It was also briefed by H.E. Seyoum Mesfin on the meetings held in Addis Ababa with President Abdullahi Yusuf and Prime Minister Nur Ade. After deliberating at length on the prevailing political and security situation in Somalia, the Council: 1. Expresses utmost dismay on the failure of the top leadership of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to agree on the constitution of a new cabinet for Somalia, and the formation of the Banadir Administration as per the Declaration of the 13th Extraordinary Session of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government issued on 29th October 2008. 2. Regrets the fact that once again the Somali leadership has failed its people, the regional and the international communities at large, by failing to implement the agreements they consented to as set out in the Djibouti Agreement (s), the Addis Ababa Roadmap and the Nairobi Declaration resulting into the deteriorating security and political situation in the country, and further reiterates that the crucial challenge in Somalia remains the lack of political will and commitment and not security. 3. Reminds the leaderships of Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs) of the decisions contained in the Declaration of the 13th Extra-ordinary Summit of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government held at Nairobi Kenya (especially paragraph 13), and affirms that those decisions must be implemented without any further renegotiation or delay. 4. Welcomes the decision of the government of Kenya calling upon the members of the Somali Transitional Federal Parliament still in Kenya to return home to assume their responsibilities as legislators, and calls upon all the others in the Diaspora to do the same. 5. Welcomes the statement of the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union (AU) made at its 156th meeting on 11th November 2008, and the press release issued by the United Nations Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) on 17th November 2008, appealing to all Somalia's leading figures to put aside their differences and unite their efforts in the interest of their people and their country. 6. Reiterates and supports the call by the African Union to all countries that promised to provide troops to AMISOM to do so without any further delay. 7. Calls upon the international community in particular the European Union and the European Commission; the United Nations, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Countries and other potential partners to provide the resources necessary to strengthen the AMISOM deployment, and the 10,000 Joint Somali Security forces. 8. Reiterates and affirms that the parties should comply and implement the decisions of the Joint Security Committee (JSC) as set out in the Djibouti Agreement of 26th October 2008, and ensure that the timelines set out therein are strictly adhered to. 9. Urges the parties to expedite the formation of a government of national unity and an all-inclusive parliament as per their previous agreement, and seize the opportunity of the upcoming meeting between the leaderships of the TFG and ARS starting on 22nd November 2008 in Djibouti to do so. 10. Further urges the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to assume responsibility to save from collapse the institutions of the TFG in order to avoid the worsening humanitarian situation that would result there-from. 11. Decides with immediate effect to impose targeted sanctions including travel bans, freezing of assets among others, against all those in and outside Somalia who have become obstacles to the achievement of peace in Somali, and calls upon the African Union and the UNSC to do the same. 12. Condemns the continued escalation of acts of piracy along the coastlines of Somalia and reiterates the region's resolve to work together with the international community to eradicate the crime. In this context the Council underlines that a comprehensive approach including the building of appropriate institutions of governance in Somalia is essential to eradicate this menace. 13. Recommends the convening of an Extraordinary meeting of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government according to paragraph 17 of the Nairobi Declaration to be held in the first part of December 2008 to review all options, and recommends further to the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government to consider withdrawing political recognition and support on anyone in the Somali leadership who is an obstacle to resolving the Somalia problem. 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. Issued at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on the 18th day of the month of November in the year.

Xiin, I genuinely would like to know, what you make of below the article. Credit goes to Warmoog. DECLARATION OF THE 13th EXTRA-ORDINARY SESSION OF THE IGAD ASSEMBLY OF HEADS OF STATE & GOVERNMENT Wednesday, 29 October 2008 NAIROBI, KENYA, OCTOBER 29TH, 2008 The IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government held an Extraordinary Meeting in Nairobi on 29th October 2008 under the Chairmanship of H.E Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and Current Chairman of IGAD to consider the political, security and humanitarian situation in Somalia. The Assembly was attended by H.E. Ismael Omar Guelleh, President of the Republic of Djibouti, H.E. Mwai Kibaki. President of the Republic of Kenya, H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, President of the Republic of Uganda, H.E. Abdullahi Yusuf, President of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia, H.E. Salva Kiir Mayardit, 1st Vice President of the Republic of Sudan. Honorable Germain Niyoyankana, Minister of National Defence and Former Combatants, Republic of Burundi participated at the Meeting in Burundi’s capacity as troop contributing country to AMISOM. The Assembly was preceded by the 29th Extraordinary Meeting of the IGAD Council of Ministers, held in Nairobi on 28th October 2008. The Assembly was briefed by H.E. Erastus Mwencha, Deputy Chairperson of the African Union Commission, H.E Ahmedou Ould Abdellah, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General to Somalia, and Senator Mario Rafaelli, Italian Government Special Envoy for Somalia, representing the Chair of IGAD Partners Forum (IPF). The Assembly also held intensive consultations with the Leadership of the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs) and Members of the Transitional Federal Parliament (TFP) of Somalia. After deliberating at length on the prevailing political and security situation in Somalia, the Assembly adopted and issued the following Declaration. We the Members of the IGAD Assembly, 1. Take note of the statements made by the representative of the African Union, the United Nations, and the IPF. 2. Take note also of the remarks and submissions made by the Leaderships of the TFIs and Members of the TFP of Somalia. 3. Express profound concern regarding the political paralysis in Somalia contributing to the continuing deterioration of the security situation in the country as well as to the near hopelessness of the existing situation with respect to achieving the objectives of the transition period as evidenced in the complete failure to establish institutions of governance only nine months before the end of the transitional period. 4. Regret the lack of unity and unhelpful competition among the leadership of the TFIs as their working at cross-purposes has been the principal factor that has allowed the deterioration of the security situation in the country, and led to lack of progress in the national reconciliation effort. 5. Call upon the international community to support the strengthening of the TFIs through capacity building and provision of technical assistance. 6. Call further on the international community to provide the urgently needed humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering of thousands of the displaced Somali population. 7. Note that delays and prevarications of the international community in its response to repeated calls and appeals by IGAD, the African Union, and the United Nations to strengthen and provide the necessary support to AMISOM had a direct consequence and impact on the political as well as security developments in Somalia. 8. Note further the increased incidents of piracy along the Somali coastline and welcomes the United Nations Security Council resolutions 1816 and 1838 authorizing the use of force to combat the vice. 9. Commend the Governments of Uganda and Burundi for contributing troops to AMISOM and the Government of Ethiopia for deploying its troops to Somalia under bilateral arrangement with the TFG, and salutes the AMISOM and Ethiopia troops for their commitment to fulfill their tasks under difficult conditions 10. Welcome the agreement signed in Djibouti on the 26th October 2008 between the TFG and the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS) on the Implementation of cessation of armed confrontation. 11. Welcome further the agreement on the formation of a unity government of Somalia based on the principle of 4.5, and an inclusive Parliament. 12. Urge the TFG and the ARS to implement fully and in good faith the Agreement reached in Djibouti on 26th October 2008 and call upon the Members of TFP to endorse the same without any delay. 13. Decide that the TFIs shall implement the following as per the following timelines: 1. Appoint a Cabinet on the basis of the previous resolution of Parliament of 11 October 2008, within 15 days of the issuance of this Declaration. 2. Establish a Joint Security Committee (JSC) and its sub-committees as stipulated in the Djibouti Agreement that shall be operational effective 10 November 2008 but not later than 25 November 2008. 3. Establish the Banadir administration as stipulated in the Addis Ababa Roadmap within 15 days of issuance of this Declaration. 4. Finalize the drafting of the Somali Constitution, enact electoral and parties law within 6 months of the issuance of this Declaration. 5. The issue of the extension of the transitional period might be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Transitional Federal Charter (TFC) on the basis of the progress made on the ground. 6. Submit progress reports of the implementation (of the above decisions) every 2 months to the IGAD Council of Ministers meeting, which shall review the progress made. 7. IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government to meet every 6 months to review the progress made in the implementation of these decisions. 14. Decide to establish mechanism headed by a Facilitator to help monitor the implementation of the above decisions and report to the IGAD Council of Ministers and the Assembly of Heads of State and Government on the progress made. 15. Decide also that there must be a coordination mechanism among the IGAD states in the area of institutional and capacity building. 16. Decide further that the anchor of all the efforts in relation to Somalia must be IGAD. 17. Reiterate that in default of the above, the IGAD Assembly shall meet and review its options, as it will not be business as usual. 18. Urge the United Nations to take expeditious measures to fulfill its share of responsibilities as stipulated in the Djibouti Agreement signed on 19th August, 2008 and its modalities of Implementation as agreed upon by the parties, in particular the request to cover the financial needs of the 10,000 strong police force starting from 5th November 2008. 19. Recommend to the Parties and the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations for Somalia to be flexible in terms of modalities and timelines of implementation of the Djibouti Agreement(s) by the parties. 20. Thank the government and the people of Kenya for hosting the Extraordinary Assembly of Heads of State and Government. 21. Decide to remain seized of the matter. Done at Nairobi Kenya, on 29th day of October in the year 2008

The Facts Let’s get our facts straight! Ethiopia never invaded Somalia. Meles Zenawi did! Without public debate or discussion. On his own initiative, and by is own diktat. Last year, the former Ethiopian president Dr. Negasso Giddada expressed his bewilderment over Meles’ invasion: “Somalia is not a threat to Ethiopia. The Somalis didn’t attack us, so why are we fighting them?” Since December 2006, Ethiopians have been asking one simple question: Why did Meles invade and continues to occupy Somalia in the name of Ethiopia? This past week, Meles imperiously boasted to his rubber-stamp parliament, “When we exit from Somalia, it will be at the time when we are convinced that there is no imminent danger to our country.” He declared with his usual dismissive arrogance, mendacity and trademark warped logic, that his “forces did not enter Somalia to control the country, but to make sure that extremist forces will not be in power in that country.” Of course, back in 2006, he told us he was “invited by the Somali government” and will be out of Somalia in a jiffy after he flushes out the “terrorists”, two weeks max. Now the self-appointed Cop of the Horn of Africa says he wants to “make sure extremist forces will not be in power” in Somalia. Obviously, he has cleaned out all of the terrorists, now he is working on the extremists. But why does Meles bring up the Somalia issue now? Nothing dramatics seems to be happening. No one inside Ethiopia is confronting him on his failed policies. He continues to plunder and destroy Somalia with impunity, and he has succeeded in creating the second worst humanitarian crises of the 21st Century in Somalia. Why bring up the subject of Somalia now? The reason seems obvious. Meles is hoping that if he talks his usual nonsense about Somalia, Ethiopians will somehow be distracted and not ask questions (and hopefully forget) about the famine that is presently consuming large segments of the Ethiopian population, the galloping inflation that has reduced even middle class people to poverty and the completely depleted public treasury. Meles is trying to drape over what is shaping to be a famine of apocalyptic proportions in Ethiopia. On May 21, CNN reported, under the photograph of a 3-year-old child who weighs only 10 (ten) pounds1: Drought is especially disastrous in Ethiopia because more than 80 percent of people live off the land, and agriculture drives the economy, accounting for half of all domestic production and 85 percent of exports. But many also go hungry because of government policies. Ethiopia's government buys all crops from farmers at fixed low prices. And the government owns all the land, so it cannot be used as collateral for loans. (Emphasis added.) Imminent Danger? Back to Somalia. Meles said he will not get out of Somalia until he is “convinced” there is no “imminent danger to our country”. What in the world is he talking about? “Imminent danger” is a principle of international law used to justify state action under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which sanctions the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs” or is imminently likely to occur. Simply stated, when a country is actually attacked or an attack upon it is objectively “imminent”, it can act “preemptively” (preventively) in (anticipatory) self-defense. Meles’ claim of “imminent danger” has no basis in international law. The principle of “imminent danger” has been in use since 1837 when British troops attacked the American ship Caroline. Accordingly, “imminent danger” as a basis for a justified self-defense requires the existence of objective danger to a nation that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The fact of the matter is that Somalia as a “failed state” in December 2006, or since the downfall of the Barré regime in 1991, posed a danger only to itself through internecine clan warfare. No Somali troops attacked Ethiopia or occupied Ethiopian territory. Somali clan leaders were too busy fighting each other to be concerned about waging war on Ethiopia. Meles has presented no evidence whatsoever to support his raison d’etre in Somalia: Not a single one of the alleged 8,000 plus Al-Qaeda terrorists was ever apprehended and brought to justice. But if we follow the Meles’ Doctrine of Imminent Danger to its logical conclusion, it will mean two things: 1) Meles can claim a legal right to impose perpetual occupation on Somalia since he is the sole determiner of what constitutes “extremist forces” and the “imminent danger” they pose to Ethiopia, and 2) he is legally entitled to defend against “imminent danger” by means of indiscriminate killings and use of violence against the civilian population, torture, rape, pillage, displacement of civilian population. Under the Meles doctrine, the war crimes documented by the U.N Secretary General's new representative for Somalia including “killing of civilians, which are arbitrary and disproportionate, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions, and disappearance of civilians” would all be legally justified tools of self-defense for as long as the Somali occupation continues. Phrase-mongering and legal platitudes offer no defense to a legally indefensible and morally repugnant policy of intervention, occupation and destruction of a neighboring country. Ironically and unwittingly, Meles has made the perfect case of self-defense for Somali leaders such as Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the head of the Islamic Courts, who recently told the Guardian newspaper: “Our plan is to continue the struggle. It is important to expel the enemy from all areas. We don't want a fight to the death. We don't want to kill all the Ethiopian soldiers. We want to save them. We want them to leave.” Aweys is arguing a classic case of self-defense under international law and the U.N Charter. He does “not want to kill Ethiopian soldiers”, or have a war without end with Ethiopia. He does not want to cross into Ethiopian territory and attack Ethiopians. He just “wants Ethiopian troops to leave” Somalia. By far a superior and convincing self-defense argument under international law than Meles’ ludicrous claim of permanent occupation of a sovereign country by a contrived doctrine of “imminent danger." No Exit Strategy, No Victory Strategy What is Meles’ policy goal in Somalia (assuming he has one)? Disarming and pacifying the Islamic Courts? Catching the invisible Al Qaeda terrorists? Does he realize there is a growing and well-organized insurgency against his occupation forces? The fact of the matter is that Meles is in Somalia because he does not have an exit or victory strategy for his private war. What he is really saying in his hollow “imminent danger” argument is simply this: “I don’t have an exit strategy. I ‘miscalculated’ in invading Somalia. Now, I don’t know how to get out. I don’t know what to do, and the war keeps dragging on. I am stuck. Nothing is working. But my big ego does not allow me to admit I made a colossal blunder, and just get out. Since I am incapable of admitting wrong because that would be a sign of weakness, my opposition will exploit to the hilt. So, I will continue to sacrifice the lives of Ethiopia’s young men and waste its precious resources for a war and occupation that will have no end as long as I remain in power.” Meles does not have a victory strategy either. There are no Al-Qaeda terrorists to defeat. Only a homegrown insurgency (that strikes against its occupiers on a daily basis) against occupation, and millions of defenseless civilians gripped by famine, war and disease. Now after a year and a half, Meles is looking for victory by defeating the whole of the Somali people. That victory could only come through the destruction and subjugation of the Somali people and the reduction of Somalia to a client state of Meles, Inc. But that is pure fantasy! Meles will never be able to subjugate the Somali people. NEVER! They will fight for liberation from occupation. In the end, they will win. Meles’ End Game Meles knows he is deep doo-doo. In Somalia and in Ethiopia. He miscalculated badly in Somalia. He thought he could outfox the cunning Somali clan leaders. He could not. His blitzkrieg into Somalia may have satisfied his ego, but has not secured victory or stability in Somalia. In his war against imaginary terrorists and extremists, he managed to displace over one half of the Somali population creating an unspeakable humanitarian crises in the Horn of Africa. His military policy has ignited Somali nationalism and a growing insurgency, and his troops control and maintain a presence in just a few areas. His “diplomacy” has failed to produce any political progress as no Somali believes his “transitional government” stooges have any credibility. If Meles wants to win in Somalia, he can do it very easily: Just get the hell out! Let the Somalis solve their own problems. Only Somalis can solve the problems of Somalis. If he gets out, it may open the way for international mediation and peacekeeping efforts in Somalia under the auspices of the African Union, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference, the United Nations or some other regional entity and stabilize the country and control the long-simmering clan conflict. But it's abundantly clear that no two-bit dictator can force the Somalis to settle their differences. Meles’ dark vision of a military commitment and victory in Somalia based on a ridiculous doctrine of “imminent danger” is self-delusion. The Somali war was lost on the first day of Meles’ invasion of Somalia. Prolonging the war and occupation for another two, five or ten years will not bring Meles victory or reginal stability, only certain defeat at the hands of a unified Somali nationalist insurgency. It will also mean more young Ethiopian lives lost, more precious resources wasted and chronic regional instability. We believe Meles’ insistence on continuing his private war and occupation of Somalia is the height of depraved irresponsibility and a criminal and immoral sacrifice of Ethiopian and Somali lives in pursuit of unachievable and fanciful goals. There is no doubt that one day Meles will atone for his illegal invasion of Somalia, and for the humanitarian catastrophe his continued occupation has caused in that poor country. Meles’ occupation of Somalia must end NOW. We believe that a complete withdrawal of Meles’ troops, carried out as quickly as possible, is the best course of action for Ethiopia, and in its highest national interest. As to Meles, he is the only “imminent danger” to Somalia and Ethiopia. Meles, out of Somalia! Meles, out of Ethiopia! Meles, out of Somalia! Source

The Anglo-American masterminded neo-colonial design for Ethiopia has been implemented with their selective crowning of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia. As their favorite candidate, they hailed and tried to sell Meles Zenawi as one of the new brand of African leaders. Their neo-colonial designs are shrouded with economic development, political reform and democracy to deceive the wider public and consolidate their proxy rule in the country. They allowed controlled and manipulable opposition to enhance their image. Many well meaning Ethiopians had been tricked into believing that the country is heading in the right direction. However, time has proven the correctness of democratic forces who opposed or questioned the motives behind the installation of an unelected regime in Ethiopia. These democratic forces have been facing constant attacks, marginalization and persecution. Despite the serious crisis and difficulty the country has been going through, Ethiopians have never accepted the proxy rule and continued their resistance in various ways they find suitable. The grudgingly deep involvement of the west especially that of the United States of America and Britain in financing and running the proxy regime of TPLF-Meles, is a manifestation of their neo-colonial ambitions and desires in Africa. They have been instrumental and the brains behind dividing the country into ethnic homelands using the blue prints of the Italian fascists who occupied the country for a short period of time. The fact that the tribal regime is very much dependent on foreign (western) support for its functioning and survival or viability is self evident. Western money and expertise are keeping it alive as does a life supporting machine to a patient. Any casual observer would find out and realize this reality in the administration of present day Ethiopia. Some Ethiopians have rightly described the regime of TPLF-Meles as a mercenary catering for foreign interests. Meles Zenawi is just an instrument of foreign powers and interests whose fate is inextricably linked to his servitude. The blind admirers and supporters of Meles Zenawi regard his servitude as a good quality related to competence or smartness. Servitude and working against national interests are disgraces to be ashamed of. Based on their own official accounts and figures, the west as a whole is known to have spent between 25 and 30 billion dollars towards running and maintaining the proxy regime so far. There are evidences which show that in terms of volume, the corrupt and dysfunctional regime is the largest recipient of the so called official western development aid and grants in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, mention should be made of the complicity of the World bank which has been repeatedly advised against financing and supporting tyranny and repression in Ethiopia. As the arms and instruments of the west and neo-colonialism, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are entrusted with the task of financing and propping up Anglo-American cuddled and controlled regimes in the third world. Loyalty and submission to the interests of the west are the criteria that count to qualify any regime to secure the support of these western controlled and manipulated financial institutions. Regimes which are not to the taste of London and Washington are not entitled to secure loans and are rather subjected to sanctions of various kinds. These financial institutions function in line with the interests of the big western powers who impose and promote their economic policies through them. The harmful and misguided policies and prescriptions of these lending institutions were blamed for the financial crises and economic ills which had hit some countries in the 90`s. Despite the infusion of billions of dollars, the country is in dire economic situation and facing grinding poverty. Evidences show that unemployment and poverty are increasing at frightening rates. It is true that the tribal elites in the service of foreign interests are burgeoning and faring well in the crisis and maladministration. They do not have any positive impacts to account for the tax payers of the west who are the sources of the finances. The present reality shows that they have compounded the problems of Ethiopia and made it the hub of famine and poverty.Western presence, rule and money have not improved the lots of the great majority of Ethiopians. The tribal policy of the proxy regime is impeding the free movement of capital and domestic labour within the country. Moreover, the Anglo-American proxy regime is known to be among the most brute and repressive ones in Africa. It is accused of war crimes in Ethiopia and neighbouring Somalia. Neither does proxy rule improve and respect fundamental human rights. Siphoning of resources and trampling upon the rights and sovereignty of the country is resulting in more resentment and rage. It is marginalising and shoving millions into despair and misery. One does not need to present and analyse figures since the increasing deterioration of living conditions and desperation of the population in Ethiopia speak volumes to confirm it. Ethiopia is now in the grip of distressing and widespread famine which has hit the news headlines again. The excruciating pictures of emaciated and starving children are back to the media screens. These pictures are simply a bit of the unfolding human tragedy emanating from the appalling famine which is taking its tolls on human lives and causing immense suffering in Ethiopia. Yet the TPLF-Meles and their foreign masters are busy attempting to conceal its actual magnitude, depoliticise and blame it on nature and rising world food prices. It is in the middle of this tragedy that Meles Zenawi and Co. were throwing out lavish parties for the enjoyment of their cadres and supporters. It is well known that Meles Zenawi is the world`s champion in lying and his western nourished organs of lies will continue to cover up or deny or even seek escape goats. Cheating, lying and killing are all the occupations of TPLF-Meles. However, their efforts to hide the famine by producing farce reports of economic growth and development have proved to be futile. The much vaunted economic growth figures of the proxy regime in Ethiopia are yet proving to be another bluff and pack of lies. Their lies are blowing up in their faces and the famine is now getting the attention of the international community. The devastating famines hitting Ethiopia have their roots in the unfavorable policies and mismanagement of successive dictatorial governments which have neglected the vital sector of the economy, agriculture and the rural population. The western governments and media used to politicise the famine of the 80`s in Ethiopia and blame it on the policies and politics of the military regime. According to them, the famine was to go away with that regime. It has not done so because the west have crowned a malicious and more destructive dictator who takes their orders and dances to the tune of London and Washington.The proxy rule can not address and solve outstanding domestic issue like famine, poverty and democratic governance which are the foundations for economic growth and increased productivity. Instead famine has increased its magnitude and severity and is engulfing the whole country. It is assuming an epidemic nature and has even spread to the surplus producing parts of the country. The primitive and tribal TPLF-Meles proxy regime the west have installed in Ethiopia has taken the country way back and made it more vulnerable to famine and diseases like Malaria. The apartheid modelled ethnic homeland politics of the proxy tribal rule has led to numerous inter communal violence and significant internal displacements. As a consequence, hard working and productive citizens have been forced to be perpetual beggars. The proxy regime itself is well equipped with faculty of begging and inculcating this culture, corruption and discouraging hard work in the country. The regime has been bragging about its so called rural based development policy and its achievements. What is actually happening is that they have subjected the rural population to repression and strangling through training and deploying their security agents (cadres) to control and quell any dissent. The connivance of the western donors in the repression and violation of human rights is deplorable. It is hampering the freedom, initiative and productivity of the population. Government ownership of land and the threat of evictions are being used as weapons to blackmail or intimidate the rural population into submission and preventing them from applying long term innovative methods. As expected the rural population is bearing the brunt of the endemic famine and suffering in the country. The much publicized millennium goals and poverty reduction programs of the west are not alleviating these scourges. Human conscience would not accept the folly of the western financiers and masters of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia. It is well known that periodic droughts of varying scales and impacts do hit Ethiopia. But droughts should not lead to famine all the time. There are other parts of the world experiencing drought but avoiding famines. Thus, famine in Ethiopia is very much a political or policy issue and the solution for it lies in abolishing dictatorship and tyranny in the country. In the face of this malice, Ethiopians are left with no option but to resort to mass uprising and regain their sovereignty and ensure their democratic rights. The major short coming or weakness of the main stream pan-Ethiopian opposition politics has been the surplus of docility and deficit of militancy. The serious deficits of militancy and unity of purpose have been impeding the struggle and contributed to the maintenance of the status quo ( national humiliation and suffering) in the country. The genuine opposition forces should embrace militancy as a form of peaceful struggle and be in the forefront to mobilize and usher the country into an era of democracy, freedom and prosperity. The fast deteriorating and volatile situation developing in the country would require proactive measures based on guided, well coordinated and targeted militancy to deal a decisive blow to the illegitimate and proxy rule that is imposed on our country. The citizens of the west should be made aware of the complicity of their politicians using the pretext of combating poverty and should uphold accountability. The people of the United States should apply pressure on their leaders and urge them to respect International laws and the sovereignty of countries. Domination and subordination should be brought to an end and give way to International cooperation and stability. As far as Ethiopian democratic forces are concerned, the way forward is to forge unity centered around the burning and immediate issue of the rights and sovereignty of the country and work for the removal of the Anglo-American fetters, TPLF-Meles. The belief of regime change through elections should be dispelled since elections have proved to be fatal and extending cooperative hands to the mass murderers. Mass uprising and destabilization of the proxy regime are the right courses of action which will enable us to take our destination into our own hands. Extreme actions on the part of the proxy rule should be met with corresponding reactions. The opposition should work for mass mobilization aimed at teaching the traitors and their foreign masters unforgettable lessons. Demanding and seeking justice are our legitimate rights and should not be regarded as revenges. It is only justice that can heal the wounds the atrocious TPLF-Meles are inflicting on us. By Seifu Tsegaye Demissie Source

Miskiin baa misko la fuulo leh tolow maxaa lagu yiraah ingiriis.

I recognise so much of what is currently happening in Somalia (secessionism, tfg) in the breakdown of the 800 year Islamic empire.

"Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind's eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal." Emough is Enough

Mahadsanid Rudy. Adeerkey maalinta xornimada wuu joogeyoo qofkasto oo u yimaado wuxuu tusin jiray masawirada.

caamir, from what i've seen the NY times represents the closest thing to liberal/inclusive thought in popular US media Marmarka qaarkood waxooda been hawaas ka daran. MAD MULLAH'S MEN CANNIBALS.; One Captive and Several Women Eaten by Camp Followers.

Sheekadaan siday u socoto uma bogin. Sahalkaan miyaa la isku qaarajinaa? Senior nurses to decide whether patients should be resuscitated Senior nurses will be allowed to veto the resuscitation of patients under new guidelines issued yesterday by the medical profession. The British Medical Association said patients should be spared "undignified and unnecessary" attempts to revive them when there could be no realistic hope of success. The guidelines tell doctors to weigh up the benefits and risks of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) when a patient stops breathing or the heart stops beating. They should consider the damage to vital organs that could be caused by CPR and take into account the likely views of the patient about the lasting medical consequences of being brought back from the dead. Under the old rules, a decision not to resuscitate had to be made by a hospital consultant or GP. The new guidelines extend the power to consultant nurses and specialists in palliative care. David Pitcher, of the Resuscitation Council, said survival rates after resuscitation were as low as 5% in some circumstances, and patients' families were often given over-optimistic expectations by television dramas. Dr Pitcher said: "It is not always appropriate to distress a person who is dying, perhaps in the last few days of life, by discussing attempted resuscitation when clearly CPR would not be successful." Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: "This guidance should help spare patients and their families the heartache and indignity of repeated and sometimes unnecessary resuscitation attempts. It will also mean that when a suitably experienced nurse believes that CPR will not be successful, they will be able to respond appropriately without having to wait for a GP or consultant." Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of science and ethics, said: "The primary role of medicine is to benefit patients and when treatment can no longer achieve this, it is good practice to avoid further invasive and burdensome interventions. "CPR also carries the risk of internal fractures and ruptures and there is a risk of long-term brain damage ... Health professionals need to be honest with patients about the likelihood and the level of recovery they can reasonably expect if CPR is attempted." Dr Nathanson said people may be able to express their wishes about resuscitation on an electronic patient record being prepared by the NHS.

Waxaa looga sameeyey sanab Nelson Mandela. Sanabkaas oo ku yaal Parliament Square London. Inkastoo konfurta Africa wax saasa iska bedelin wuu u dadaalay dalkiisa waagaas. Waxay xagayga la mid tahay Sheikh Sharif ama Aweys oo sanab looga dhisay adis ababa agta xafiisada dowlada Ethoopiya. Meles Zenaawi oona ku leh mabruuk yaa sheikh waad iska keen celiseen! A different Nelson Mandela, 20 April 1964 "I am Prepared to Die" Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the Rivonia Trial Pretoria Supreme Court, 20 April 1964 I am the First Accused. I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Arts and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without a permit and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961. At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in its opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said. In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case. Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites. I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962. In the statement which I am about to make I shall correct certain false impressions which have been created by State witnesses. Amongst other things, I will demonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the evidence were not and could not have been committed by Umkhonto. I will also deal with the relationship between the African National Congress and Umkhonto, and with the part which I personally have played in the affairs of both organizations. I shall deal also with the part played by the Communist Party. In order to explain these matters properly, I will have to explain what Umkhonto set out to achieve; what methods it prescribed for the achievement of these objects, and why these methods were chosen. I will also have to explain how I became involved in the activities of these organizations. I deny that Umkhonto was responsible for a number of acts which clearly fell outside the policy of the organisation, and which have been charged in the indictment against us. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, but to demonstrate that they could not have been authorized by Umkhonto, I want to refer briefly to the roots and policy of the organization. I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence. But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organization bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress. The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: "who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all". Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. During the Defiance Campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These Statutes provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests against laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress Alliance, including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the State, but when the Court gave judgement some five years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a communist state in place of the existing regime. The Government has always sought to label all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been repeated in the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organization. In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organization. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the Government and did not make the laws by which they were governed. We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the Government', and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this organization which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting White political organization would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say. In 1960 the Government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the Republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were apprehensive of our future under the proposed White Republic, and a resolution was taken to hold an All-In African Conference to call for a National Convention, and to organize mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted Republic, if the Government failed to call the Convention. The conference was attended by Africans of various political persuasions. I was the Secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for organizing the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of the Republic. As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the person organizing such a strike must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest. The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organizers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The Government's answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto. Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the Court to appreciate the attitude eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963. I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to fight it and, if so, how? We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the White man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a nonracial State by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism. It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the Government attempted to impose Bantu Authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out - it showed that a Government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as Whites, if not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of violence engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the Government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of life and bitterness. At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force. This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the Government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is Exhibit AD, we said: "The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom". This was our feeling in June of 1961 when we decided to press for a change in the policy of the National Liberation Movement. I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did. We who had taken this decision started to consult leaders of various organizations, including the ANC. I will not say whom we spoke to, or what they said, but I wish to deal with the role of the African National Congress in this phase of the struggle, and with the policy and objectives of Umkhonto we Sizwe. As a result of this decision, Umkhonto was formed in November 1961. When we took this decision, and subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage of non-violence and racial harmony was very much with us. We felt that the country was drifting towards a civil war in which Blacks and Whites would fight each other. We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the destruction of what the ANC stood for; with civil war, racial peace would be more difficult than ever to achieve. We already have examples in South African history of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty years for the scars of the South African War to disappear. How much longer would it take to eradicate the scars of inter-racial civil war, which could not be fought without a great loss of life on both sides? The avoidance of civil war had dominated our thinking for many years, but when we decided to adopt violence as part of our policy, we realized that we might one day have to face the prospect of such a war. This had to be taken into account in formulating our plans. We required a plan which was flexible and which permitted us to act in accordance with the needs of the times; above all, the plan had to be one which recognized civil war as the last resort, and left the decision on this question to the future. We did not want to be committed to civil war, but we wanted to be ready if it became inevitable. Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision. In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in our Manifesto (Exhibit AD): "We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to achieve liberation without bloodshed and civil clash. We hope, even at this late hour, that our first actions will awaken everyone to a realization of the disastrous situation to which the Nationalist policy is leading. We hope that we will bring the Government and its supporters to their senses before it is too late, so that both the Government and its policies can be changed before matters reach the desperate state of civil war." The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the political and economic situation of our country. We believed that South Africa depended to a large extent on foreign capital and foreign trade. We felt that planned destruction of power plants, and interference with rail and telephone communications, would tend to scare away capital from the country, make it more difficult for goods from the industrial areas to reach the seaports on schedule, and would in the long run be a heavy drain on the economic life of the country, thus compelling the voters of the country to reconsider their position. Attacks on the economic life lines of the country were to be linked with sabotage on Government buildings and other symbols of apartheid. These attacks would serve as a source of inspiration to our people. In addition, they would provide an outlet for those people who were urging the adoption of violent methods and would enable us to give concrete proof to our followers that we had adopted a stronger line and were fighting back against Government violence. In addition, if mass action were successfully organized, and mass reprisals taken, we felt that sympathy for our cause would be roused in other countries, and that greater pressure would be brought to bear on the South African Government. This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on no account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out operations. These instructions have been referred to in the evidence of 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z'. Umkhonto had its first operation on 16 December 1961, when Government buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred. Had we intended to attack life we would have selected targets where people congregated and not empty buildings and power stations. The sabotage which was committed before 16 December 1961 was the work of isolated groups and had no connection whatever with Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and a number of later acts were claimed by other organizations. The Manifesto of Umkhonto was issued on the day that operations commenced. The response to our actions and Manifesto among the white population was characteristically violent. The Government threatened to take strong action, and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to ignore the demands of the Africans. The Whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they responded to our call by suggesting the laager. In contrast, the response of the Africans was one of encouragement. Suddenly there was hope again. Things were happening. People in the townships became eager for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was generated by the initial successes, and people began to speculate on how soon freedom would be obtained. But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety. The lines were being drawn. The whites and blacks were moving into separate camps, and the prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The white newspapers carried reports that sabotage would be punished by death. If this was so, how could we continue to keep Africans away from terrorism? Already scores of Africans had died as a result of racial friction. In 1920 when the famous leader, Masabala, was held in Port Elizabeth jail, twenty-four of a group of Africans who had gathered to demand his release were killed by the police and white civilians. In 1921, more than one hundred Africans died in the Bulhoek affair. In 1924 over two hundred Africans were killed when the Administrator of South-West Africa led a force against a group which had rebelled against the imposition of dog tax. On 1 May 1950, eighteen Africans died as a result of police shootings during the strike. On 21 March 1960, sixty-nine unarmed Africans died at Sharpeville. How many more Sharpevilles would there be in the history of our country? And how many more Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence and terror becoming the order of the day? And what would happen to our people when that stage was reached? In the long run we felt certain we must succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the rest of the country? And if this happened, how could black and white ever live together again in peace and harmony? These were the problems that faced us, and these were our decisions. Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the Government limitless opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was precisely because the soil of South Africa is already drenched with the blood of innocent Africans that we felt it our duty to make preparations as a long-term undertaking to use force in order to defend ourselves against force. If war were inevitable, we wanted the fight to be conducted on terms most favourable to our people. The fight which held out prospects best for us and the least risk of life to both sides was guerrilla warfare. We decided, therefore, in our preparations for the future, to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare. All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training was given to Africans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus of trained men who would be able to provide the leadership which would be required if guerrilla warfare started. We had to prepare for such a situation before it became too late to make proper preparations. It was also necessary to build up a nucleus of men trained in civil administration and other professions, so that Africans would be equipped to participate in the government of this country as soon as they were allowed to do so. At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for Central, East, and Southern Africa, which was to be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and, because of our need for preparation, it was also decided that, after the conference, I would undertake a tour of the African States with a view to obtaining facilities for the training of soldiers, and that I would also solicit scholarships for the higher education of matriculated Africans. Training in both fields would be necessary, even if changes came about by peaceful means. Administrators would be necessary who would be willing and able to administer a non-racial State and so would men be necessary to control the army and police force of such a State. I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst abroad, underwent a course in military training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and to share the hazards of war with them. Notes of lectures which I received in Algeria are contained in Exhibit 16, produced in evidence. Summaries of books on guerrilla warfare and military strategy have also been produced. I have already admitted that these documents are in my writing, and I acknowledge that I made these studies to equip myself for the role which I might have to play if the struggle drifted into guerrilla warfare. I approached this question as every African Nationalist should do. I was completely objective. The Court will see that I attempted to examine all types of authority on the subject - from the East and from the West, going back to the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the Anglo-Boer War on the other. Of course, these notes are merely summaries of the books I read and do not contain my personal views. I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo military training. But here it was impossible to organize any scheme without the co-operation of the ANC offices in Africa. I consequently obtained the permission of the ANC in South Africa to do this. To this extent then there was a departure from the original decision of the ANC, but it applied outside South Africa only. The first batch of recruits actually arrived in Tanganyika when I was passing through that country on my way back to South Africa. I wish to turn now to certain general allegations made in this case by the State. But before doing so, I wish to revert to certain occurrences said by witnesses to have happened in Port Elizabeth and East London. I am referring to the bombing of private houses of pro-Government persons during September, October and November 1962. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, nor what provocation had been given. But if what I have said already is accepted, then it is clear that these acts had nothing to do with the carrying out of the policy of Umkhonto. As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its policy correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the principles of Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom Charter, as a short term solution to the problems created by white supremacy, it regards the Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not the end, of its programme. It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal - in this case the removal of white supremacy - and is not proof of a complete community of interests. The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great Britain, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or communist tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a communist world. It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world. I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country's system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration. The American Congress, that country's doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments. I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the West and from the East . . . Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships or, to use the language of the State Prosecutor, 'so-called hardships'. Basically, we fight against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called 'agitators' to teach us about these things. This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live. During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

the people's cause let us struggle, Let us hasten to the battle-field! Forward! All together advancing! Our Vietnam is strong, eternal. Albania: Hymni i Flamurit (Hymn to the Flag) United around the flag, With one desire and one goal, Let us pledge our word of honour To fight for our salvation CHORUS Only he who is a born traitor Averts from the struggle. He who is brave is not daunted, But falls - a martyr to the cause. With arms in hand we shall remain, To guard our fatherland round bout. Our rights we will not bequeath, Enemies have no place here. CHORUS For the Lord Himself has said, That nations vanish from the earth, But Albania shall live on, Because for her, it is for her that we fight. Chechnya* We were born at night when the she-wolf whelped, In the morning, to lion's deafening roar, were named. There are no gods save Allah. In eagles' nests our mothers nursed us, To tame wild bulls our fathers taught us. There are no gods save Allah. Our mothers raised us to dedicate ourselves to our sacred land, And if they need us we're ready to fight the oppressive hand. There are no gods save Allah. We were born and grew up free as the mountain eagles, With dignity and honour we always overcome hardship and obstacles. There are no gods save Allah. Granite rocks will sooner fuse like lead, Than we will lose our honour in life's struggles. There are no gods save Allah. Earth will sooner be swallowed up by the broiling sun, Than we emerge from a trial in life without our honour! There are no gods save Allah. Never will we submit and become slaves, Death or freedom, for us there's only one way. There are no gods save Allah. Our sisters' songs will cure our wounds, Our beloved's eyes will supply the strength of arms. There are no gods save Allah. If hunger weaken us, we'll gnaw on roots, And if thirst debilitates us, we'll drink dew. There are no gods save Allah. For we were born at night when the she-wolf whelped. God, Nation and Vainakh homeland. There are no gods save Allah. * Heeska xornimada iyo calanka way is leeyihiin. Eritrea Eritrea, Eritrea, Eritrea, Her enemy decimated And her sacrifices vindicated by liberation. Steadfast in her goal, Symbolising endurance, Eritrea, the pride of her oppressed people, Proved that the truth prevails. CHORUS: Eritrea, Eritrea Holds her rightful place in the world. Uruguay: Orientales, la Patria o la tumba! (Uruguayans, the Fatherland or Death!) Eastern landsmen, our country or the grave! Freedom, or with glory to die. Eastern landsmen, our country or the grave! Freedom, or with glory to die. This is the vow that our souls take And which we know how, courageously, to fulfil, This is the vow that our souls take And which we know how, courageously, to fulfil, Know how to fulfil, This is the vow that our souls take And which we know how, courageously, to fulfil, Know how to fulfil! Know how to fulfil! Know how to fulfil! Freedom, freedom, eastern landsmen, This cry saved our country, Inflaming its brave men With enthusiasm in fierce battles. Freedom, freedom, eastern landsmen, This cry saved our country, Inflaming its brave men With enthusiasm in fierce battles. We merited the glory of this sacred gift. Let tyrants tremble! Let tyrants tremble! Let tyrants tremble! Ah, in the fight we shall clamour for freedom And, dying still cry for it, And, dying still cry for it, Still cry for it, Still cry for it. Source "Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all." Nelson Mandela

China: March of the Volunteers Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves! Let us amount our flesh and blood towards our new Great Wall! The Chinese nation faces its greatest peril, The thundering roar of our peoples will be heard! 　　 Arise! Arise! Arise! We are many, but our hearts beat as one! Selflessly braving the enemy's gunfire, march on! Selflessly braving the enemy's gunfire, march on! March on! March on! on! Cuba: La Bayamesa People of Bayamo rush to the battle our homeland watches you proudly don't be afraid of a glorious death because to die for the homeland is to live. To live with chains is to live with dishonour and ignominy listen to the sound of the clarion Rush to combat, braves! Algeria: Qasaman (We Pledge) 1. We swear by the lightning that destroys, By the streams of generous blood being shed, By the bright flags that wave, Flying proudly on the high djebels, That we are in revolt, whether to live or to die, We are determined that Algeria should live, So be our witness -be our witness -be our witness! 2. We are soldiers in revolt for truth And we have fought for our independence. When we spoke, nobody listened to us, So we have taken the noise of gunpowder as our rhythm And the sound of machine guns as our melody, We are determined that Algeria should live, So be our witness -be our witness -be our witness! 3. Ô France! Past is the time of palavers We closed it as we close a book Ô France! The day to settle the accounts has come! Prepare yourself! Here is our answer! The verdict, our Revolution will return it We are determined that Algeria should live, So be our witness - be our witness - be our witness! 4. From our heroes we shall make an army come to being, From our dead we shall build up a glory, Our spirits shall ascend to immortality And on our shoulders we shall raise the Standard. To the nation's Liberation Front we have sworn an oath, We are determined that Algeria should live, So be our witness -be our witness -be our witness! 5. The cry of the Fatherland sounds from the battlefields. Listen to it and answer the call! Let it be written with the blood of martyrs And be read to future generations. Oh, Glory, we have held out our hand to you, We are determined that Algeria should live, So be our witness -be our witness -be our witness! Vietnam: Tien quan ca (March to the Front) Soldiers of Vietnam, we go forward, With the one will to save our Fatherland, Our hurried steps are sounding on the long and arduous road. Our flag, red with the blood of victory, bears the spirit of our country. The distant rumbling of the guns passes over the bodies of our foes. Overcoming all hardships, together we build our resistance bases. Ceaselessly for the people's cause let us struggle, Let us hasten to the battle-field! Forward! All together advancing! Our Vietnam is strong, eternal. Soldiers of Vietnam, we go forward! The gold star of our flag in the wind Leading our people, our native land, out of misery and suffering. Let us join our efforts in the fight for the building of a new life. Let us stand up and break our chains For too long have we swallowed our hatred. Let us keep ready for all sacrifices and our life will be radiant. Ceaselessly for

The government trumpets free speech while trampling on it. The PM might mouth platitudes, but our phone records lie exposed, a whistleblower is prosecuted and a demonstration is banned The art of government these days is to extend power without people noticing. Gordon Brown proclaims his solemn duty 'to uphold freedom of speech, freedom of information and freedom of protest', yet his ministers steal through the night to attack each one of these rights. We are moving with a sickening speed to a point where the reality of government intentions is the precise opposite of its presentational rhetoric. Let's just go through the list that Gordon Brown trumpeted at the Labour party conference two weeks ago. Yes, of course, we have free speech. Yet any fool understands that free speech is not simply limited to what you say, but must also include when you say it, where and to whom. In other words, the right of free speech is linked to personal privacy. If you feel constrained because a government agency may know your location, the time of call and your interlocutor, then your freedom of speech is being curtailed very substantially. On Monday new regulations came into force, after a personal decree by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, that give nearly 800 public bodies the right to access your telephone records - mobile phone and landline - and make it compulsory for all phone companies to keep those records. So the data of your calls and text messages may be accessed by any damned busybody in any agency stretching from the Scottish Ambulance Service Board, the Food Standards Agency, the Environment Agency to every local council in the country. Naturally, the intelligence services and police are provided with the usual easy pass into your private life. This was all slipped through our comatose Parliament during the summer when Smith knew people were thinking about their holidays and the electorate was enjoying some kind of post-coital swoon with its new Prime Minister. The Lib-Dem spokesman on Home Affairs, Nick Clegg, rightly asserted that the government had extended surveillance powers 'with no meaningful public or parliamentary debate'. Yet the footpads from the Home Office media department rushed round saying that a full consultation had taken place under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Yeah, right. When? With whom? The Welsh Ambulance Service? The Postal Services Commission? Wychavon district council? All of them can now acquire your phone records. There was absolutely no debate about this, and it is nothing but a straight lie to claim otherwise. Before the election - which now looks a good distance away - it is crucial to understand that some kind of circle is being closed here by Labour. That circle includes the National ID card database and the mass surveillance of people's movements by motorway ANPR cameras, the congestion charge cameras in London, Oyster cards used on London's public transport, the new parking payments by text message and God knows what else. With Monday's extension of RIPA powers, the government has created an apparatus of control only matched in sophistication by the system in China known as the Gold Shield Project. Wake up and smell the milk burning, Doris. Gold Shield is coming here, too. As to the Prime Minister's declared devotion to freedom of information, he has to be kidding. The very week of the Labour conference a man named Derek Pasquill, an official at the Foreign Office, was charged under the Official Secrets Act. The authorities have been playing the usual cat-and-mouse game with Pasquill, but finally they moved on 27 September. His crime? It appears he is accused of leaking information that when published in The Observer, New Statesman and a Policy Exchange paper - all by journalist Martin Bright - won universal praise among government ministers and opposition politicians. Bright exposed the Foreign Office for its policy of listening to radical Islam, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and excluding moderate voices from its considerations. 'Instead of tackling the ideology that helps breed terrorism,' he wrote, 'Whitehall had embraced a narrow, austere version of the religion.' As a result of Bright's work, this dangerous, almost lunatic, eccentricity by the Foreign Office was stamped on and government policy was altered to include consultation with more moderate voices. The Muslim Council of Great Britain has at last been shown the door. What we have here is a leak that brought some sanity to government policy in relation to extreme Islam. This is all good, surely? The free flow of information working for an improved government service? Not to those at the Foreign Office, who now abuse state power to spare ministerial embarrassment. It goes without saying that only Pasquill has been charged. The bully boys are not yet ready to take on the press with such a slender case. Which brings me to the third panel in the triptych of Gordon Brown's conference pieties - his love and support of the freedom to protest. Clearly this does not extend to the demonstration tomorrow, timed by its organisers, CND and Stop the War Coalition, to coincide with Brown's statement on Iraq. It begins at 1pm with a rally in Trafalgar Square and is due to proceed, with the octogenarians Tony Benn and Walter Wolfgang at its head, to Parliament Square. That is where it becomes a problem. Instead of using the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the law preventing demonstration within a kilometre of Parliament Square without police permission, the authorities have disinterred a Sessional Order of the House of Commons of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839, passed at the time of the C*****sts. With archaic relish, they have banned the march because it may impede the progress of any MP or peer who wants to attend Parliament (it is surprising there is no mention of Mr Speaker's coach and four). The organisers have guaranteed that access, but the ban stays in place, which is odd given that the Prime Minister is on record as saying he wants to repeal the section of SOCPA that requires police permission. As everyone now realises, the use of Sessional Orders may stop all demonstrations while Parliament is sitting. The repeal of the relevant sections of SOCPA, if it happens, will not make the slightest difference. I am sure that tomorrow there will be many who want to see how all this works, and find themselves in Parliament Square looking for a cup of tea. I hope so because, as I have said many times, we need constantly to remind this government of our rights. If they are to be removed by the same law used to frustrate the C*****sts, a profoundly significant moment has arrived, which may cause people to wonder what else lies behind Labour's rhetoric. A final thought. Now we have seen how the Foreign Office tries to defend its interests at the expense of good government, it is worth considering how all those other agencies that now have access to everyone's phone records will use these powers to protect themselves from similar exposure. One day it may be your phone data. But you'll never know. Source Sharciyaal badan oo sandule oo qarsoon ayaa markaste shaaca ka soo baxaayo. Markaste waxay dowladahaan ku marmarsoonayaan inay la dagaalamayaan muslimiinta”xun” laakiinse shicibka miyanan fahmayn in iyaga loo danleeyahay? Dowlad oo qofkay rabto iska xiri karto, intay rabto u xirnaan karo, qofkoon loo sheegin waxa lagu haysto! Tolow maxaa ku xiga in la heeso guulwade Gordon? C*******S = C h a r t i s t s

Paragon waa iga qoslisay. Waxaad dhagaysata Uyghur heesahood? Waxaan bartay sheikh oo ka imaaday Azerbajaan oo ila yaabay markaan ku iri soomali baan ahay. Kuma lahoo soomaali uma ekid adiga? Waliga nin azerbajaan makugula murmay sinjigaaga! Aniga waxaan ka helay nashiidkaan agqanistaanka lakin ma karo. Waa video-ga ugu dambeeyo waxaa qaadaayo sheikh ajmi.http://www.alfitrah.com/reminders.html Cod macaan maku qaadi karta?

Xiinfaniin Xooga sujuu baan ka ahay xaalada kiismaaye. Waxaan ka fahmay dad maskiin baa lagu dilay? Ma ila socodsiin karta backgroundka (afsoomali kuma aqaan) iyo atoorayaasha (the players) iyo waxa la isku haysto.