Originally posted by Khayr: If I don't believe in God and/or don't believe in the idea of morality because it is associated with religion, Who said morality is "associated with religion?" If that was the case, then you as a Muslim would still be owning slaves. Islam not only permits Slavery but has in place a well articulated system of regulation. Since Muslims have engaged in Slavery in the past but not longer do, whence did the Muslims get the moral imperative to abandon Slavery? Originally posted by Khayr: then how can i argue for against racism? why can't it be acceptable? [/i] The source of ALL morals is empathy. I don't like to be stolen from, so stealing is immoral. I don't like to be lied to, so lying is immoral. I don't like to be murdered, so murder is immoral. So on and so forth.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: It's great to see how you confuse fame with intellectualism. I think to you intelligent is whatever happens to be most popular at the moment. I'm always struck by your inability to never miss an opportunity to firmly put your foot in your mouth. Your line of argument boils down to: women have two hands and men have two hands, therefore men and women are of the same sex. In logic it is called the Fallacy of Division. What's true for the whole is not necessarily true for its constituents. Just because some became NY Times best sellers for their fame as opposed to their intellects, it doesn't necessarily follow that all them were best sellers for fame. My contention is Ayan Hirsi is NY Times best seller because she has something substantive to share. Originally posted by 2+2=5: The only religion she seems to be critizicing is Islam. Why should she? No other religion calls for her murder as an apostate. Only Islam does. Originally posted by 2+2=5: How about excercising honesty? She lied her way into the Dutch society and into the hearts of the Dutch people, yet hypocritically opposed immigration. There is nothing hypocritical about an immigrant opposing immigration. Had you actually presented her reasoning and critiqued them, I might actually take your quibble seriously. Alas, you have a knack for habitually missing the target. Secondly, she did tell a little white lie about her full name but it is quite a stretch to say she lied into the hearts of the Dutch people. After all, her full name and her history was on public record long before she became famous or ran for a seat in parliament. Originally posted by 2+2=5: But the sad fact is, this is just a woman who found fame by abusing Islam. She sold herself the same way as reality TV stars sell themselves; by sharing their (water coloured) lifestories and backbiting. This is your own prejudiced opinion of Ayaan. And I won't mince words, your animosity towards her has absolutely NOTHING to do with her "lies" but the fact that she's an apostate and formidable critic of Islamic terrorism, fanaticism and absolutism. Your religion instructs you to murder her, you can't be expected to pass a fair judgment on her.

Originally posted by BiLaaL: Mightn't it occur to you that her literary success is down largely to her views on Islam? So? What's wrong with that? While on the subject, I do sincerely hope that people buy her books based on her views on Islam. If for no other reason, her views mirror reality. Originally posted by BiLaaL: There are enough Islamophobiacs out there to turn any publication critical of Islam into an overnight best seller. It is a matter of numbers. It is a no-brainer. There is no such thing as "Islamophobia." At least not on the part of people like Ayaan Hirsi who face death for apostasy. Phobia has the connotation of irrational or unjustifiable fear of something. Rest assured, she's not "imagining" the desire of many Muslims to see her dead like Theo Van Gogh. And any ideas as to why "publication critical of Islam turn into an overnight best sellers?"

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: What bugs me the most is you mention Isreal and all gaalo especially the Americans get so F-ing big brotherly protective. What would you like they rather do? Join Islamic antisemitism fiesta? Originally posted by chocolate & honey: Yeah, in someonelse's home? Israelis are in their home. They've been living in Israel long before a single Arab/Muslim set a foot in that land. Even Al-Asqa Mosque is built on the ruins of Jewish temple.

Originally posted by Che -Guevara: ^Where have I called for murder unless you hold the same disdain for every Muslim which again goes back to my point. I just gave you a taste of your own medicine. You made baseless accusation against me(of animosity and obsession with Islam), I replied in kind. How did it feel? As they say: if you can't it, don't dish it.

Originally posted by Che -Guevara: ^Your animosity and obsession with Islam seemed to have clouded your judgment much like peacenow's insane hatred for anything Arab seemed to have diminished intellectual capacity. You're projecting your own bigotry. I'm not the one that calls for murder.

I wrote the following on Jan 10/2010: "Then her self-perception and self-worth is informed by superstition, ignorance and outright falsehood. We -- those that disagree with her -- must be allowed to show her the way to self-ennoblement without prejudice, hindrance or death threats. " Back then, when I wrote the above, some of you may have dismissed it as just another one of my jaundiced views on all things Islam. Pay close attention to the bit in bold. I know from long experience that people who stand against Salafi/Wahhabi ideology -- whether it is against the Burka or antisemitism or murdering apostates etc -- often face intimidation, bullying, death threats and sometimes outright murder (i.e. Rashad Khalifa). My views on this topic are still the same. The best way to fight fanaticism -- which is what this Burka ballyhoo is all about -- is for progressive forces to ally themselves with progressive Muslims who espouse equality of dignity of all humans, the right to dissent and adherence to the values of liberal democracies over Sharia absolutism. The whole banning of Burka is wrongheaded and ultimately self-defeating. We already know the whole argument that Muslim women wear the Burka out of their own volition is baloney. If you want to turn back the tide of fanaticism among Muslims, then create greater economic opportunities and incentives for Muslim integration and ruthlessly undermine the values/ideas behind the fanaticism craze. France doesn't need Burka bans, it needs Voltaire. Cogent arguments are far more powerful than all the weapons and coercive measures in the world.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: But I would never call her an "intellectual". She made a name for herself by bashing a religion. She's a NY Times Best Seller (no small feat by any stretch), invited as honorary speaker to some of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world and was named 100 Most Influential People by Time Magazine. By every objective measure, she qualifies as public intellectual. But she's more than. She's a much needed socioreligious critic. People like her have served an indispensable role in all the developed countries today. No society in history has made progress without first exercising self-criticism of its core assumptions and deepest held believes. The funny thing is, if she had been born in the Netherlands, her outspoken criticism against Dutch traditions and religious believes wouldn't have drawn as much criticism. Social critics and iconoclasts are taken for granted in Europe and other parts of the world. But it wasn't always like that. In another life, people like Ayaan were burned at the stake. The whole ayaan hirsi saga is a reflection of the backwardness of Muslims. She's entirely innocent bystander.

A company of Alshabaab commandos are on their way to free the people of Ceelbarde and Yeed from the filthy Tigre scourge.

Islam doesn't condone honor killings. There is nothing in Islamic sources -- Quran, Hadiths, the Sira, respected commentaries -- that justifies these ghastly killings. This much is clear. In light of the facts I stated above, there are still Muslims who argue that it is their Islamic right to honor kill. Lest you assume I'm speaking from deep and inexplicable hatred of Islam, read this story from Aljazeera. Ever since the mid 1990s, progressive forces in Jordan have been trying to change the law regarding honor killings. Intending to enact stiffer penalties but every time they tabled a legislation in parliament, the Muslim factions shot it down on the grounds the new law infringes on "Islamic traditions." Jordan quashes 'honour crimes' law Jordanian women have protested parliament's latest move Jordan’s Parliament has rejected the senate’s recommendation to uphold a law providing stiffer penalties for men who kill women in so-called "honour killings". It is the second time in over a month that the newly-elected parliament voted to reject an amended Penal Code law which was passed by the government during parliament’s absence in 2001, stipulating harsher punishment for perpetrators of honour killings. The lower house also decided to refer to its legal committee another law which gives women the right to divorce their husbands, which the senate had urged them to uphold. "Sixty of the 85 deputies present in parliament voted to reject this temporarily because the amendments (made by the senate) were superficial and did not deal with the root of the issue," Islamist deputy Adab Saoud told AFP. Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values. But the debate has not ended as representatives from the lower and upper houses of the government will have to meet to decide the fate of the law. The issue of women’s rights, particularly honour killings, has been a highly charged issue between conservative and liberal sides of the political spectrum. Murder cases carry stiff penalties in Jordan, but honour killers usually receive reduced sentences since their crimes are considered to be committed in “fits of rage†or as a “crime of passionâ€, sparked by “unlawful action†on the part of the victim. There have been at least seven cases of honour killings in 2003. source: http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2003/09/2008410102158508644.html

Originally posted by ailamos: The notion of "civility" (I tend to put it in quotes because it's quite relative) is labeled from an outsider-looking-in perspective with a strong ethnocentric connotation. What's civilized to one may seem barbaric to another and vice versa. You're simply mistaken. Civilized means developed. The US is civilized country, Somalia is uncivilized. Anyone who has been to both countries will readily agree to this. Originally posted by ailamos: Although I advocate secular governance, I am against depriving religious people from practicing and abiding by the rules of their respective religions. Me too. I'm a strong believer in letting people believe whatever will get them through the night. But there's a proviso -- your believes must not impinge on the human rights of others. Originally posted by ailamos: I think that's a misconception. The choice of where to migrate to is not necessarily out of love of secularism, but for economic reasons. If a country is economically attractive and offers opportunities (e.g. UAE or Netherlands) then it's the target for migrants rather than a country that doesn't (e.g. Pakistan or Ukraine). It is true that Muslims migrate to economically prosperous democracies. But why not dictatorships or totalitarian countries? Is it because there aren't that many developed dictatorships? That should tell you something -- the direct and positive correlation between secular democracy and economic prosperity. There is a way to test whether Muslim migrants prefer secular democracy over Sharia and that is to construct regression model that controls for economic development. For example, and using GDP as proxy for economic development, you record the choices Muslim migrants make when presented with two countries of equal development levels... a good example would be Kuwait with GDP (at official exchange rate) of $32,491 per capita and Spain with GDP (at official exchange rate) of $35,116 per capita. Now, I know Kuwait is not strictly run according to Sharia but it is deeply conservative and by defacto has many of provisions of Sharia. We know from official sources which of these two countries Muslims migrate to, risking life and limp. Nothing is stopping Muslims from getting on rickety boats and besieging the Kuwaitis until they take 'em in. I strongly believe that if one does this sort of analysis for large enough data set that one would come to the same conclusion that I have. It's obvious and undeniable. Even today, very few Muslims are willing to give up their Western passports for Alshabaab one or Hamas one or Hezbollah one or Taliban one or Iranian one or Saudi one or.... Originally posted by ailamos: My premise is to give the choice to the people under a system that accomodates that. The freedom to choose is the essence of a good life. The Muslims who are willing to accept such compromise are not the ones we (unbelievers) have issue with, is it? I got no beef with unobtrusive Muslims who let others live their lives as they see fit. They're already reformed and secular by outlook. To the Jihadis, such Muslims are kufaar lackeys and hypocrites. Your compromise is unrealistic. Islamic law clearly enjoins Muslims to wage Jihad fi sabiililaah (Jihad for the sake of Allah) to all four corners of the earth and until the whole earth becomes --in the words of Sayd Qutb -- "the dominion of God." This is an Islamic imperative that no practicing Muslim can oppose. There is no way a committed Sharia proponent would accept your compromise.

"There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam." By the late Ayatollah Khomeini

^Are you agreeing with Piouyt that as their countries become economically developed, Muslims will reject Sharia for secular democracy? That's the gist of what Piouyt is saying. Originally posted by ailamos: Although I disagree with Sharia being the law of the country, imposing a secular system on a people that refuse to be governed by it is not a solution. I'm glad we both agree that Sharia should never become the law of any civilized country (it's not a coincidence that no civilized country today has Sharia as its constitution). But how do you know that people refuse secularism? Vladamir Lenin once said "they are voting with their feet." Referring to the mass desertion of Russian troops in WW1 against Germany and thereby "voting" for peace with Germany by deserting. Today the term "voting with their feet" is popular to mean, instead, that where people migrate to is good indication of their likely vote. And where have people been migrating lately? To Sharia bastions like Al Shabaabland, Talibanistan, Hizbollaland, Iran, Saudi Arabia...? or to the EU, N. America, Australia & New Zealand -- the secular and democratic "dens of kafirdom" that are rife with binge drinking, scandalously clad women, apostasy, blasphemous cartoonists that should be beheaded preferably with axe, fathers pimping their daughters and swingers clubs for moms. When given the opportunity Muslims, time and again, gravitate towards den of Kafirdom which indicates that they favor Secular Democracy over Sharia Theocracy. Don't be fooled by Jihadi propaganda that all Muslims want Sharia. It's a lie. Only a vocal but significant minority of Muslims want Sharia. Most don't. They simply want a better life. But they must pay lip-service to wanting Sharia else they risk being labeled apostates and summarily executed or are emotionally blackmailed from years of religious indoctrination. You're also correct to observe that more education is the solution. When people are truly educated on Sharia -- the demystified and unvarnished version -- they'll reject it or call for reforms. Sadly, the Jihadis sensing this have already declared war on education -- from Nigeria to Indonesia.

Originally posted by ailamos: So, an adequate system, in my opinion, would be one that is dualistic whereby the country is governed by a secular law but if a Muslim(s) wants to settle an issue (e.g. inheritance, dispute, etc.) through Sharia, then that would be made available. There is no way this sort of arrangement will work in the Muslim world. Don't conflate post-enlightenment Europe with the contemporary Islamic world. The Enlightenment has convinced Europeans that dogma was NOT a virtue. And from that paradigm shift was born liberal democracy. The accommodation of religious courts in some Western countries may give one the illusion of dual law possibility but that is not the truth. The religious courts you find in Britain are similar to the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) that is widely used in business and civil cases. But make no mistake, Secular Law is still law of the land and has the final say. Criminal law is delimited by secular law and ADRs have no jurisdiction over it. So there is one obvious problem there. Who gets to write the Criminal Act of the country? In Britain, it is the parliament. Another obvious problem would be the Zhimmi institution in Islamic law. Muslims would rightly ask what's the need for a new parallel system when Islam already has a parallel system - one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims provided you are a member of "people of the book" and willing to abide by discriminatory laws, otherwise you'll be put to death. Originally posted by ailamos: But the question is, what if two Muslims are locked in dispute and one of them wants to settle it through Sharia and another wants to settle it through the secular system. Then what happens? They'll do what they've always done -- battle it out with winner taking all. This has been the pattern of Islamic history from the death of Mohammed to the present.

This is by far one of the best journalistic pieces from the West on Alshabaab, i.e. African Taliban. It is balanced and highly informative by using refugees as a window into the shadowy world of Alshabaab, their tactics and the reign of terror they're subjecting Somalis to. Special report: The rise of 'the African Taliban' More than 500,000 displaced people live along the 20-mile Afgoye Corridor, west of Mogadishu. Many have lost everything, including their families, in their flight from the Shabaab – Somalia's terrifying Islamist militia The plaque on the State House building in Hargeisa, capital of Somaliland, is an oblique commemoration to an event that never occurred. It was built in 1952 for a visit to the then British protectorate by the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen never came. These days the half-ruined structure is known for another reason than as the former seat of gin-sipping British colonial officials. The grounds, including parkland once laid out as a golf course, have bred domed shelters – "bool" they are called – thatched with plastic and segments of scavenged cloth. In places, walls have been tiled with panels of flattened cooking oil cans, which in their repetitions resemble Warhol prints. The bools are low, windowless huts through which the harsh light bleeds messily at the sewn seams to illuminate the kicked up dust. The occupants of this camp sit at the far end of the planet's social spectrum from the State House's first intended guest. Not a monarch and her retinue but refugees from war. The huts are so densely packed together they block the State House from sight. It is barely visible when approaching the camp, but the monument marks the centre of a labyrinth of winding, narrow lanes where cockerels scrabble. When I reach it at last, I find the State House is not occupied itself save for a single wing of outbuildings. Its rooms are open to the sky, floors scattered with detritus. Glassless window frames swing in the wind. But it is far from empty. Children clamber over walls of square-cut honey-coloured stone, partly demolished by fighting in the city in 1988. They sit on the floor of what once was a grand reception room to play complex games with piles of pale round pebbles, tossed and snatched from the air by competing hands. Outside, a few young men sit on a veranda painted with graffiti, listening to music. They pull jackets over their heads to hide their faces at our approach and warn against photography. It is a clue to the identity of many living inside the State House camp: the still anxious victims of the war in the south, in Somalia proper, the country from which Somaliland – recognised by no other state – split in 1991. Victims of the world's worst humanitarian disaster. And conflict, even at a distance from the running gun battles on Mogadishu's streets, imposes its own hierarchies. The most recent refugees, the poorest, live at the periphery, farthest from the State House itself. Which is why it is surprising to find Sarida Nour Ahmed, aged 31, a recent arrival, occupying one of the building's few habitable rooms, a few metres square. Once used to house the British governor's staff, these days it is roofed with corrugated metal which leaks in the rain. A bool would be much better, she explains. Sarida fled from Somalia in March, abandoning three of her 10 children in the chaos of flight. "The situation was unbearable. Mortars were landing during the day. At night there was torture, rape and beatings. At first we thought it was because of the Ethiopian invasion. But things got worse. They came to our houses. Robbed and raped." I ask her who? The Shabaab, she says. The Shabaab. The word means literally "the youth". And it is the story of the victims of the Shabaab's continuing war that I have come to the camps of Somaliland to find. Once comprising the northernmost part of Somalia's failed state, for the past two decades Somaliland has proclaimed itself an independent republic. Stable, if not prosperous, it has become a refuge for Somalis from the south, most making their way up north from Mogadishu. For those from Somalia's southernmost towns it is a dangerous journey that can take several months, with long stretches on foot. The Shabaab was once one of the Islamist militias attached to the Islamic Courts Union, which, in 2006, brought a semblance of peace to a country that had been wracked by years of internecine violence and warlordism. The Courts were routed after a few months by a western-supported Ethiopian invasion. Now the Ethiopians have gone, too, and a fundamentalist hardcore of the Shabaab is resurgent, Somalia's most bitter tormentor – Africa's own Taliban. Its masked men, accused by America of being proxies for al-Qaeda, enforce their own notions of justice, seizing suspected collaborators with the feeble new government from their houses and murdering those it regards as opponents, including dozens of local journalists and aid workers. Its feared and secret sharia courts have sentenced women to be buried and stoned to death for adultery or publicly beaten for infringing strict Islamic dress codes. Somalis say that, beyond the facade of harsh and rigid piety, the group robs and kills and sexually assaults with impunity. Arriving at the State House camp, accompanied by Oxfam, which is helping to support its residents, I ask to talk to the most recent arrivals from Mogadishu and the south. A group of women lead me through a ruined stone doorframe and across a little yard. It is here, in a dark, bare room smelling of smoke from her cooking fire, that I first meet Sarida. In Mogadishu, she tells me, she and her husband had a "proper house" with five rooms. They owned a little shop and sold cold juices and vegetables in the market. These days she washes clothes and skivvies, when she can, to feed her children. She cannot remember the last time they ate meat. She describes the violence in fragmented snatches that reflect the chaos in a city where all sides – government, African Union peacekeepers, Ethiopians and the Shabaab – fight their pitched battles over civilian neighbourhoods, not caring who is killed. "First the Shabaab fought with the Ethiopians. When the Ethiopians left," recalls Sarida, "we thought then that Somalis would come together. But it didn't happen." What happened instead, she explains, is that the Shabaab moved to impose its values on Somalis in the large areas it controls, bringing more violence as it did. "Women get 90 lashes even for wearing 'light' clothes," says Sarida. "And for not wearing the veil. But the veil costs money. I didn't have money for a veil..." It is a complaint I hear from many women. Sarida describes the worst day of her life. She does not cry. Not quite. It was a day that began with mortars falling on her neighbour Amina's house and ended with the loss of three of her children. "To see her in pieces…" she loses her train of thought for a moment. "Mogadishu is a big city. You used to be able to run to another neighbourhood [to escape the fighting], but the fighting was all over the city. I grabbed the children that were close to me and fled with the clothes I was wearing." Her eldest children, aged 12, 11 and 10 – nowhere in sight in the family's panicked impulse to flee – were left behind. So too was Sarida's husband, Abdi Khader. I ask the children's names. She says quietly: "Mohammed, Abdi and Hussein. I cheat myself thinking my husband might have got to the children and rescued them." But Abdi Khader does not know where Sarida ran to. Or where she is living now. Since that day, she hasn't heard from him. "If I could turn back the clock I would have my husband and my children here with me. But I can't go back." I had first heard about the brutality of the methods of the Shabaab from Zam Zam Abdi, a courageous 28-year-old Somali women's rights campaigner forced out of Mogadishu by the group. We had met in London almost a year before. Then, Abdi had told me of the note the group posted on her office door: "Stop what you are doing or we will act. Yes or no?" Abdi knew what it meant. It was a phrase gaining notoriety in Mogadishu even then. She had heard the same message delivered on the radio by a pro-Shabaab Imam, received it in emails and in anonymous calls. The same words had been pinned to the body of one of Abdi's friends, murdered by the Shabaab. It was Abdi's words that had impelled me to Somaliland to search for the group's victims. And it was to Burao that I was heading – Somaliland's second city, and home to the worst of the camps. The road to Burao takes a sweeping dog leg from Hargeisa down to the coast, before cutting back inland again, crossing an arid plain punctuated by long mesas, hazy in the distance. Visible, too, in places are the remains of Somalia's other wars: wrecked Russian armoured vehicles, rusted and buried to their axles in the sand. Somaliland's camps, however, are a reminder of a more recent conflict: America's war on terror. Far from weakening the Shabaab, the US intervention only appears to have made it stronger. Beyond the Soviet-built port at Berbera we overtake the Hargeisa bus bound for Mogadishu. It is empty on this leg, but will return full of those fleeing the south. My driver tells me it is good business for those willing to take the risk and drive a truck to Elasha Biyaha, 11 miles from Somalia's capital, at the heart of the Afgoye Corridor, and take on a human cargo desperate to escape. The Afgoye Corridor. A place synonymous with misery and degradation, hunger and disease. A 20-mile long stretch of road heading west out of Mogadishu, it is home to the world's largest concentration of displaced persons, over half a million living beside the road, many subsisting on boiled leaves. Yet faced with the choice of Mogadishu's gunmen and the horrors of Afgoye, it is Afgoye that many are forced to choose. According to Oxfam, some who end up living there have been displaced three or four times before. Arriving in Burao I meet one of the luckier ones, Liban Ali Ahmad, 21, who escaped through Elasha Biyaha and the Corridor on a crowded truck a year ago. Lucky, because in his extended family, Liban, a student, could count on two aunts born in Burao who paid for his family to escape and who housed them in the town. Lucky too because he did not have to live in the Corridor, only navigate one of the world's most dangerous roads. Liban is studying in his green-painted bedroom when I call to visit. He is tall and slim, with sideburns shaved into long slender blades that follow his cheekbones. There are English books stacked in one corner. He cannot afford the fees for the local university where he would like to do a course in business management, so he teaches himself in his room, furnished only with a mattress. In Mogadishu, he tells me, his four-times widowed mother was a "khat lady" selling kilo "trees" of the narcotic stems imported from Ethiopia, where it is grown. Her business paid for a rented house in Wada Jir district, close to the airport. "It was bad there because the war was everywhere," Liban remembers. He seems calm as he tells his story, until I notice his hands held in his lap, fingers weaving an invisible cat's cradle of anxiety. After he finished secondary school Liban worked as a private tutor, teaching children at home who could not go to school – Arabic, maths and Somalian. "I tried for two or three months," he says. "It didn't work out." The families of the children Liban was teaching were fleeing the city, until most of his neighbourhood was empty. "There was supposed to be a ceasefire. But there was fighting and the schools were all closed. So my brother said he wanted to see if the school was open. It wasn't. He climbed into a tree near to our house to play. That's when he was shot." He calls out into the corridor for 14-year-old Ayanle, a shy and skinny teenager, blind in one white and pupil-less eye. Liban gently helps his brother out of his shirt and then a T-shirt, to show where the bullet went in, piercing Ayanle's chest and bursting through his back. The wounds have healed and puckered to small, dark deformities. "Recently he became sick again," Liban explains: "Because of the bullet." Even after Ayanle's shooting the family tried to stay in their home. "Those six months were terrifying. Even when the children came here they were still terrified. They would ask: 'When are the bullets coming?'" In Wada Jir they could not go to the marketplace for days. The residents within his neighbourhood were given a 10-minute warning by the Shabaab when the fighting would begin. Told not to move. Not to leave their houses. "Finally we were trapped in our house for seven days. The smallest children were lying like they were dead. We couldn't give them water. Not fit for humans to drink. In the end I risked my life to go out to get water and something for the kids to eat. We had been discussing it for ages, whether we should escape. That time – those seven days – were the final exam. We decided to leave." Almost the last to leave their neighbourhood, the family headed for Elasha Biyaha and the Afgoye Corridor with $300, donated by an uncle, to pay for their escape. It was left to Liban to arrange it. He hired a taxi first to take him through the fighting to the Corridor, to hire a truck to take the family out. "It was risky. We left while there was still fighting going on. Some of the vehicles hit mines and exploded. You either leave safely or end like this," he adds bleakly. The camps in Burao are ugly places. There are no schools or health facilities. Not even proper sanitation. Privately owned, the residents are charged to occupy their huts and draw water from the solitary well. The 15 May camp is the worst: its huts border a field covered with rubbish, where camels are herded beneath the trees. On one visit I hear the sound of drumming, and enter a hut to find it crowded with men and women at a Sufi ceremony to drive spirits from a woman kneeling on the floor, pungent incense wafting through the hut. In her bool nearby, Quresh Ise Nour has a baby wrapped in a pink blanket in her arms, born a week before on the road to Burao, hair slicked wet with sweat. Tradition demands that Quresh stays indoors, confined, for 40 days. Without a husband to support her, she must rely on other women from the camp, who go to Burao to beg, to bring her food. When the pickings are slim, or non-existent, Quresh cannot eat, cannot produce enough breast milk and her baby goes hungry. Her hut is a new one; the older ones, with their multiple layers of fabric, are better, she explains, because they are cooler. Quresh is the camp's most recent arrival. Her husband was killed in the fighting in Mogadishu. "He was a casual worker. He left in the morning to go to work with his wheelbarrow. He was away for only four hours," she says, not quite believing what could happen in so short a period of time. "Some friends he used to work with brought his body back in his own barrow. His name was Mohammad Hassan Ali." Fleeing Mogadishu, she ran with her children to Afgoye. "You would always hear the bullets. Then everyone would try to run. When you would get back to your home the mortar shells would land on the huts. It is because the Shabaab would use the bools for their defences. The government forces would come in vehicles and uniforms. The Shabaab would be in civilian clothes with rifles and RPGs. They controlled the area we were in. They would mine all the routes that they believed the government troops might enter by. You can't tell anyone," she explains, seriously. "They ask all the time: 'Where are you going?' Their faces are covered with scarves so you only see their eyes. Most of the time I stayed indoors." Because of the mines, the African Union troops would not come into the camp. "They would come close and mortar where we lived, so the Shabaab would say: 'These are bad people'. But with the Shabaab you never got kind words." I start to understand how the Shabaab work. Others tell me of masked young men with megaphones walking by the houses, shouting out the rules. I hear stories of men taken from their homes and later found shot. All blamed on the Shabaab. A woman called Busharo tells me how the men arrived in her hut at night asking for her husband. Not finding him, they burned down her home. Quresh says: "If you don't have a hijab, the Shabaab come to you. They came to me. I told them my husband was dead and I had no money. They ran into my house. I thought there must have been fighting. They said: "Woman, why are you not wearing a veil?" There were two of them with a whip made from woven tyre rubber. They hit me on the back and buttocks. Even now you can see the marks. A month later I left." The stories of the Shabaab's cruelties accumulate as I tour the camps. One man tells me how they stopped him returning from his work and stole the fruit he had bought intended for his children, warning him not to resist. They said his life was worth more than some fruit. I hear the story of how the Shabaab tried to drag a neighbour's wife out of his house to rape her. How he was shot when he tried to stop them. Patterns emerge. Visits by day and night by armed men seeking friends and family, often accompanied by a press-ganged neighbour or passer-by, snatched from the street, and ordered to indicate the house they seek. Even as they tell their tales, the fear of the Shabaab still clings to these people. I ask for names, descriptions of the perpetrators, even nicknames they might have given individual Shabaab fighters. But no one is comfortable to say "it was this person". The reason, I am told at last, is that there are Shabaab sympathisers in the camps, perhaps even among those who gather to listen to the interviews in curious groups. There is one man, in particular, who I am looking for, Abdi Abdullahi Jimale, a 38-year-old mechanic from Mogadishu and sometime farmer who came to Burao nine months before. I already know the bare bones of his awful story: how he lost four of his children to hunger and violence. These days he makes a living through odd jobs and a few days' work at the local tannery when he can. Otherwise he sends his girls into Burao to beg. Abdi calls the Shabaab "al-Qaeda". "The Shabaab are everywhere among the people. They take what you have and leave you empty except for sorrow. When they started appearing they would say, 'You can't watch videos at home. You can't listen to music.' When the fighting came I lost two of my children. I didn't even have a chance to bury their bodies." He tells me that their names were Osman, aged four, and Mohammed, five. "I was sitting in my house when I heard the bullets. A little later a shell fell on my house. I carried some of the children and my wife the others, then we ran away." Their ordeal was not yet over. "I had two other children who died on the way to Baladweyne. They were small children. We walked a long way and they were very tired. They were one and three, and we were walking for eight days. We had put the children on a donkey cart at first, but some people took the donkey cart and the things we had in it." The rest of the family was saved through the intervention of a group of nomadic pastoralists who killed a goat for them to eat. I am in my hotel in Burao when a text message comes in. There has been a fire at the State House camp. The details change. Six huts destroyed, the message says at first, then later 12. A child has been killed. We head straight to Hargeisa and the State House. It is a girl of five who has been killed. The fire jumped from bool to bool in a matter of seconds, the flames enveloping the dry panels of fabric, collapsing it upon her. There is a clearing, now, among the huts. Someone has handed those who have lost their homes brightly coloured plastic buckets, to collect what is left of their possessions. The women hunt among the ashes for pots and pans, but there is almost nothing left but an accumulation of flaking ash. The shelters have been reduced in places to nothing more than a stubby spine of charcoal nubs, all that is left of poles that once supported them. A few torn pages from school books are blowing among the ashes. source

Arsenal suffered a crushing defeat from which they'll never recover until fundamental changes are made. They're simply not good enough. The score flattered ManU too; they're only second best and the standings at the end of the season will reflect that.

From the title I got the impression this thread was about George Lucas - the film maker. Who the hell is Lucas? I've watched a plenty of Kop games earlier this season and don't remember seeing Lucas.

^You mean the same RCMP that foiled the Toronto 18 plot to storm the Canadian parliament and behead the Prime Minister (among other dastardly deeds)? While on the subject of stereotyping, let us not forget that Sharia law not only calls for open discrimination against unbelievers but murdering them as well (i.e. apostates). Given this, can supporters of Sharia complain about stereotyping?

Well, it is well-established fact that human activities CAN and DO cause earthquakes. So it is possible the US caused the earthquake in Haiti. Is there any evidence for this? Any reasons for why the US might want to subject poor Haitians to such a devastating calamity? Of course no. This is the accusation of a mad man who completely lost his mind and any credibility he had.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: This guy has been on the loose for 7 and a half years, yet manages to push out audios and videotapes on a regular basis like a pop star. Yet the most powerful country in the world is supposedly unable to find him. That is because peace-loving Muslims are doing a good job of hiding Bin Laden. But he will eventually be found dead or alive.

So, when will Drogba and Kalou return to Chelsea? Anyone know? Are players required to stay with their national teams even if they're knocked out of the tournament?

They say that Homophobia is the last acceptable prejudice. Can't disagree with that based on what I'm reading in this thread.

There is no such thing as "Ahlu Sunnah Waljameeca (WSJ)" in Hiiraan. Or Xisbul Islam for that matter. Just local clans jostling for power and influence who group themselves under one of those two organizations for political expediency. That doesn't mean there are no hardcore Jihadi groups/individuals like those that carried out the Hotel Madina massacre. But they're in the minority. While there are locals on both sides, most Hiraanins oppose Alshabaab/Xisbul Islam in Hiraan since they're perceived as outsiders with little interest for local interests and concerns. Can't blame local Hiraanians for feeling that way, after all Alshabaab/Xisbul Islam flee every time rumors of Ethiopians in Hiran surface but tenaciously fight, massacre, maim, terrorize and oppress locals. It is clear from this pattern who Alshabaab/Hisbul Islam see their primary enemy.

Originally posted by Saddiiq: Raamsade, Don't be a snake in the grass. Didn't you say South African apartheid would be a more accurate reflection of "Islamic Surahs and hadiiths". So what difference does it make to you, & why are you wasting your time and ours when you have your mind made up. Excuse me? What does my views on Sharia in another thread have to do with this thread? Feeling uncomfortable with damning words of "shiikh" al fiesal? The man you defend as "innocent" whose "rights" to preach Islam are denied. My question to you still stands: are his words accurate reflection of Islam (Quran and Ahadith)?

I have to agree with him on this. An anti-terror/Alshabaab media outlet was bad needed from the getgo. Why did it take Sh. Shariif and company so long? Virtually every media outlet in Mogadishu is pro-Alshabab/xisbul islam and Somalis wholly rely on them for their info given the high illiteracy rates and general Somali cultural preference for spoken word over the written word. Anyways, better late than never.