Originally posted by Castro: Liberté, égalité, fraternité? That's the difference! Are you saying those are uniquely French ideals? Don't people all over the world want and strife for freedom, equality and brotherhood? Even obscurantist fascists like Alshabaab believe (or give lip service?) in brotherhood, equality and liberty. Originally posted by Castro: It called HYPOCRISY when you don't practice what you preach? Capice? But isn't that what the world wanted? When the French had an Empire and went around the world with "Mission civilisatrice," were they not condemned as evil imperialists? So when the French don't practice what they preach abroad it's good but when don't practice what they preach domestically it's no good? Who is really hypocritical here? Originally posted by Castro: Iran's totalitarian regime doesn't bother pretending there are freedoms or equality so they can do whatever they want but But this is about you and who you condemn. Who cares what Iranian regimes pretends. You have the freedom to criticize everyone but you (by that I don't mean specifically you but all of Sarkozy's detractors) choose to criticize France. If you believe that all people are created equal and all people can and should be held accountable for their actions, then you must condemn all who trample on personal freedoms. We must condemn the Iranian regime's curtailing of personal freedoms of Muslim women with the same alacrity as we condemn France's. I would argue more because the violations of personal freedoms are more egregious in Iran than in France. Lets hold all violators of personal freedoms equally responsible. Originally posted by Castro: Atheer, I'm no fan of niqaab but I, Sarkozy and everyone else should mind their damn business. Me too.

Originally posted by *Ibtisam: Raamsade Yaad yad ya, you speak rubbish. What Somali women have you seen who are forced to wear a niqab. No ONE can force somali women to do anything, indaah aya kaal soo biixi. Shame you don't know that. Do you live on the moon? Somali women are forced to wear the niqab wherever it is enforced. For instance, in Alshabaab controlled regions of S. Somalia. Forget about other parts of the Muslim world. Now that you know the plight of Somali women, are prepared to post anti-Alshabaab articles? Just asking. I was making a broader point which is the discrimination of Muslim women in other parts of the world. When it is in Europe a big a brouhaha is made over the slightest perceived discrimination but when it is in other parts of the world not a word of protest is raised. Why set up the West to a higher standards than the rest of the world. This smacks of racism and infantilizes the rest of the world. It suggests that only the West can be held accountable for their actions while everyone else is too infantile to be accountable for their actions. It's like the Abu Ghraib affair. When Saddam ran the place as his prime torture chamber no one was outraged (except some in the West but they were dismissed as "hawks"). When the Americans were discovered to be running S&M dungeon in Saddam's former torture chambers, the world went berserk. This is cant and hypocrisy. Either support the rights of Muslim women across the board (in every country) or don't support in any at all.

Originally posted by Torres: The Quran doesn't say 'we continue to expand it (refering to the universe in verse 51:47)? You're lying through your teeth and making a hash out of it. If you're gonna tell a lie at least make it look plausible. The verse you cited reads: 051.047 YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace. PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. These are the translation of three well respected translators of the Quran. Note that nowhere do you read expanding universe. Even if I or you made a mistake and it is another verse you quoted, I would still bet that you will not find expanding universe in that verse. Moreover, the fact "expanding universe" is in brackets leads me to conclude it was commentary added by Muslim apologists and not the original translation of the verse. Quran says nothing about expanding universe. The reason is simple. The cosmology of the Quran consists of Heavens and Earth. The heavens, 7 of them, are physical domes one on top of each other. And between them and earth lies everything else including the sun, moon, the stars, all living creatures, the oceans and so on. In such cosmology there is no room for empty space, solar systems, galaxies let alone universe. That's why in the Quran there's no mention of solar systems and galaxies. It's simply a lie to say the Quran mentioned expanding universe.

The hypocrisy of this lady and her like is truly something. Here you have a British muslim woman poking her nose in the internal of affairs of another country. Of course this country happens to be Western country. Had it been say, a Mid-Eastern or African country, we probably wouldn't have heard a peep out of her. Why is it the West is always held to a higher moral standards than any other group of countries? You know, in Iran, millions of women want to take off their chador but can't under the totalitarian regime of the Ayotallahs. Why doesn't she and others all across the world, not only Europe, who are in a tantrum over the proposed banning of burkas/niqabs in France speak for the rights of Iranian women? Or Somali women who are forced to wear the Niqab by force? What's the difference? If you believe the right of people to practice their religion (or lack there of) in the West (so long as they don't harm others), then you must also believe in the same right for all people in all countries. You must be equally outraged when any people are denied their inherent rights to practice their faith.

Of course not to ban. The whole idea of banning the niqab/burka in a supposedly liberal democracy is absurd. One of the main difference between democracies and theocracies (or any other oppressive system) is the freedom of religion. To ban the niqab/burka or any other attire desired by muslim women is to betray the principles France was built on. The argument the burka/niqab is creepy or makes others uncomfortable is also without merit. I find the way a lot of people dress uncomfortable, most notably punks. But I gotta put up with them. That's freedom for you; a luxury in many parts of the world. Having said, I have my personal limits and would support the motion to ban the niqab (but not the burka) under one condition. The niqab must be show two eyes. Not too long ago a Saudi cleric (read here: one eyed niqab) called for one eyed niqab because according to him "both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive." So, no to banning the two eyed niqabs but definitely ban the one eyed niqab. Every since I've seen the hit single by Burka Band, I've been a Burka fan. Keep the Burka for the sake of burka band!

Originally posted by Nur: Raamsade: You write: "Evolution is a demonstrable fact" Please Tell Us How This FACT Can Be Demonstrated to settle this discussion for good! By examining the fossil record for starters. Where In the fossil record How Natural selection Originally posted by Nur: Who can do it or did it! This is another loaded question. Who is "who?"

Originally posted by Nur: Brilliant! This is circular logic at its best! How so? Circular logic is when your premise assumes your conclusion. In other words, your conclusion and premise are one and the same. For instance, circular logic would like this: Microsoft is best software maker because Microsoft said so. The proposition that Microsoft is the best software maker can not be proven by what Microsoft itself says. I haven't done such thing. All I did was point out the fallacy of reasoning you committed. You asked a loaded question and I called you out on it. Your question is similar to another popular loaded question: have you stopped beating your wife? There is no yes or no answer to this question since the question assumes that I'm already beating my wife. The only apt reply to such question is qualified answer which is what I gave you. Originally posted by Nur: Is it likely then that a person who lived at that distant time to reach a scientific finding that is as sound as our scientific understanding of today. My answer would be it is possible. While new technology furthers our understanding of the world and increases our knowledge, it's not impossible for people with less fancy technology to discover scientific facts that are as true today as they were when initially discovered. History proves it. For instance, there is this Greek scholar who calculated the circumference of the earth, which was very close to what we know today, without the advantage of modern scientific knowledge and technology. Originally posted by Nur: Raamsade: No, because Science does not believe in any Supernatural entity, and that no knowledge existed before advent of science, because if we accept that other knowledge existed before science based knowledge, then we have to accept in supernatural revelation which science rejects! First, science rejects supernatural explanations because there is no good reason or evidence to accept them in the first place. Why so? Because for thousands of years humans have been attributing to the supernatural everything from the movement of the sun to thunderstorms, from birth and death to good harvest and so on. Everything humans couldn't make sense of they imputed to supernatural forces. And they got almost everything wrong. Science and thinking people, therefore, rejected supernatural explanations for very good reasons not from some a priori prejudice as you hint. Second, only one knowledge matters. And that is true knowledge. All other knowledge is useless. Originally posted by Nur: This description is opposed to the definition that we have agreed for science ( in this thread), I wrote that Science is Evidence based. So if we arrive at evidence, it should be believable science!. You're missing the point. Science is always work in progress. The scientific method gives us the tools to discern facts from falsehood. If you use the scientific method you have better chance of discovering useful facts that help humanity than if you were using, lets say, supernatural based method. One gives objective facts, the other subjective facts. The problem you're having is not too unfamiliar. Many people who are into supernatural explanations and "revealed truths" expect absolute and eternal facts. But the real world doesn't work like that. There is complete knowledge (absolute truths) and then there is no knowledge. In between is a continuum. Science gives us good confidence that we're, lets assume, 9/10th of the way on a lot of issues but we can't be certain. We still got some distance to go until we attain "absolute knowledge." But how do we know what absolute knowledge is? We have no way of knowing and for that reason science is tentative process. So we assume as if we're getting closer and closer to absolute knowledge. I said don't fall for the trap that is "Science in the Quran." Science is tentative process. For instance, today scientists tell us that the earth's atmosphere has only 5 layers as opposed to 7 in the past. On the internet you'll find websites that claim the "seven heavens" mentioned in the Quran correspond with the original seven classifications of the earth's atmosphere. Now, science can afford to revise and augment old knowledge but the "revealed truths" can't afford such luxury they must always be right. What will those who pinned their hopes that the Quran is validated by the modern science do today? Will they say the Quran was wrong? That is what I meant when I said science is tentative process and as such you're playing dangerous game when you use it to prove the Quran. Originally posted by Nur: What is not correct though, is your attempt to disprove the validity of the Quraan's scientific revelations by arguing that Science is tentative, unreliable, uncertain and hence if the Quraan agrees with any of the scientific findings, the Quraan is also likewise unreliable. Science is reliable and predictive. If it wasn't reliable, we wouldn't fly planes, build nuclear reactors for electricity generation, drive cars or use the internet. But it's a work in progress. Originally posted by Nur: If all of the claims of the revelation are false in your opinion unless verified by science, aren't you somehow acting as a new religion in the block of faiths? No, because science is based on reason and evidence. Faith is the antithesis of reason and evidence. That's why it's called faith. Originally posted by Nur: aren't you sentencing all of religion to be guilty until proven innocent by "Almighty Science?" No, I'm not. I rather sentence no one. Originally posted by Nur: Allah is the Sovereign Creator of the Universe and all inside it, who laid all the physical laws that govern it and only He has the keys to its mysteries known as al Ghaib! That's ok, you can believe that if that is what sails your boat. Just remember that believing the above will not help us understand the world or improve it. That's why need science.

Originally posted by Norf 2: ‘Religious people’ AS WELL AS many non-religious members of the scientific community oppose the evolution theory because it has failed to stand up to the many questions thrown at it from all quarters. I think you're exaggerating with the "many members" part but who cares. You can always find "many people" in any community who reject the official position. But when all is said and done, Evolution theory is accepted beyond doubt as legitimate and bonafide scientific theory. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Originally posted by Norf 2: Yet, somehow, you believe this THEORY to be fact and continue to champion it even though science itself (not just religion) has managed to challenge it (with no answers to-date). I'm beginning to question your sincerity now. Science DOES NOT question Evolution Theory whatsoever. There maybe debates over a particular events which is normal in science but the theory is legit and a fact. Pursued me otherwise. Show me this "science" that challenges Evolution Theory. For your info, Creationist Gee whiz science doesn't cut it. Originally posted by Norf 2: Now, unless you’re prepared to try and answer those questions for us and the gallery, your argument for evolution will be considered futile. If they're intelligent questions (i.e. not questions like: if we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?) and if I'm knowledgeable enough to offer answers, I'll give it a shot. So shoot away. Originally posted by Norf 2: Furthermore, your urgency to throw away Nur’s very pertinent question on the scientific discoveries post revelation only demonstrates your inability to articulate a robust response. Science does not need to accept revelation as you put it. All it needs to do is accept that the revelation was correct or had an element of truth to it and all you need to do is accept that the Quran has not changed in over 1400 years (or, if you want to be picky, in your lifetime at least). See my reply to Nur below. Originally posted by Norf 2: Do you accept that the recent discovery by scientists that the world is still expanding was foretold in the Quran? See verse 51:47. Of course not because the Quran doesn't say so. It's a complete lie. That's what enthusiastic Muslim apologists say in a bid to show the divine origins of the Quran. According to the Quran the entire world consists of Earth and Heavens (sky) and everything in between. No empty space, no galaxies, no solar systems, no black holes.

Let me get this straight. In just about every politics related topic, Sh. Shariif is berated as being naive man who can't even convince his old pals in the ICU to join his side. Here is an incontrovertible evidence of sh. shariif winning over one of the most implacable critics of his government. It wasn't too long ago when Indhacade was the most vociferous opponent of Sh. Shariif's government. He was on the radio every week rejecting even the very existence of Somali government led by sh. shariif. And here he is today as Sh. Shariif most vocal supporter and defender. Ladies and gentlemen, this settles the debate over the leadership credentials of sh. shariif. The man is officially certified as "fit for president." And why not, he convinced most of the ICU rank and file as well as their leaders to join his side. Instead of giving sh. shariif his due, his vindictive critics attack the straw man that is the persona of Indhacade. Who cares about Indhacade's history? There are no saints in Somali politics. You think the terrorist organization Alshabaab who terrorize innocent people are led by more decent leaders then Indhacade? Think again!

Originally posted by Nur: Raamsade Galileo was hanged for his scientific findings that were against the church's teachings, thus, the problem of science and religion, is reduced to a problem between science and the Church. A correction, for his views (Heliocentrism) Galileo was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life not hanged. But my point remains. The problem IS between science and religion. Not between science and the Church as you claim. The evidence for this comes from you. You're not part of the christian Church and yet you're against science as exemplified by your rejection of evolution theory. Christian fundamentalists in the US are pushing creationism in schools as are Muslim fundamentalists in Muslim countries (for example, Turkey). Clearly as contemporary events show, among the faithful, particularly among Christians and Muslims, there's a deep skepticism of science. The source of this skepticism, however, is not based on reason or evidence. It's based entirely on religious dogma. Earlier in this thread I sketched out the foundations for the apparent conflict between science and religion. Both science and religion make conflicting claims about natural history. The origin of humans is classic example of this conflicting claims. Science says man came about through the process of descent with modification (Evolution theory). Religion posits that man was specially created by God and all living humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve. You side stepped this point I made, it's the crux of the entire debate but fair enough. I would also like to speculate as to why religious people vehemently oppose evolution theory out of all the other scientific theories that contradict what they believe? My believe is that evolution theory is the rapier the through the heart of religion. Other scientific facts can be explained away with generous interpretation of religious texts. Bro Nur gives a good example of this with his tendentious interpretation of the Quran to find support in it for the Big Bang theory. I disagree with this; and digressing a little would caution against this practice because science is inherently tentative. So what passes for accepted paradigm today may change tomorrow. What will you then do? Reinterpret the Quran in light of the new evidence? Evolution theory on the other hand can not be easily reconciled with the religious texts. Religions go into extreme details about the origin of humans and their narrative is in contradiction of the current scientific understanding. Originally posted by Nur: Science only explains what it can observe, its nature and transformations. That's because science is based on the concept of falsifiability. For instance, if I claim that depression is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, I made falsifiable claim. If on the other hand I claim that depression is caused by invisible being called shaitaan, I made unfalsifiable claim. In the first instance, one can take samples of the patient to see if it is true. In the latter instance, there is nothing one can test to determine the veracity of my claim. It is because of the falsifiability concept that science makes genuine discoveries of new and useful knowledge. Originally posted by Nur: My question, is therefore, if science proves concepts from the revelations that predate its existence, will scientists accept the revelation as a source of Science? Nur This is a loaded question because it assumes that science accepts "revelation." Only once you accept "revelation" can you answer this question. But since science rejects, a priori, the supernatural this is a meaningless question.

This has to be one the most pathetic and intellectually bankrupt argument against Sh. Shariif. And I have seen a lot of arguments against Sh. Shariif running the whole gamut from: his beard, dress, skin color, his educational background, place of birth, qualification, alleged dishonesty, alleged inconsistencies, alleged desertion and so on. But none of the dirt thrown at Sh. Shariif have stuck. Truly, the man is the consummate Teflon man. If this latest argument is the best his detractors can come up with, then we can safely record another victory for Sh. Shariif. The entire argument against Sh. Shariif boils down to this: Sh. shariif held position x yesterday he holds position y today THEREFORE, he is wrong today with such logic as the basis for rejecting potential political solutions it's no wonder Somalia is in such a mess. Holding a position in one situation and holding starkly different position in a later situation doesn't prove anything other than one holds different positions. It's true that Sh. Shariif was, for instance, against foreign troops but is now for foreign troops albeit of different kind. The current foreign troops (excluding international jihadists for now) are peacekeepers in Somalia under UN mandate (meaning legally) and with the consent of the recognized Somali government. Ethiopian troops were illegal invaders. But lets for arguendo say they're both the same, how does that show Sh. Shariif is wrong? He could have been right yesterday. Or maybe today. It is the job of those against Sh. Shariif to demonstrate how he is wrong today by virtue of the positions he held yesterday. So far they've been found wanting. Us Sh. Shariif suppers, or me to be more precise, hold the position that there is nothing inconsistent about Sh. Shariif. The realities informing yesterday and today are different and so are his positions. It would be foolish not to change your position when facts change. Moreover, his current positions are mostly correct under the circumstances. It would be more fruitful if his detractors actually repudiated his current positions on their merits.

The title of this thread is outright false. And the sources provided say Ethiopia entered Galguduud and in particular Balanbale. No where does it say they entered Guriceel. In this thread I dispelled some of the ignorance surrounding Ethiopian presence in Somalia. I further elaborated why Ethiopia may enter Somali soil and how to stop further Ethiopian incursions into Somalia. I concluded with "The solution is obvious and that is to support Sh. Shariif's government since only strong Somali government can protect Somali borders and hence keep out insurgents and Ethiopians."

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed: Now as for the topic of this discussion, science and faith strive to answer too different questions, why most there be a conflict? Both science and religion try to explain pretty much the same thing. They're in a fierce competition for the allegiance of humanity. Science explains how the world works through materialistic/natura listic prism. Whereas religion uses God and divine laws as the ultimate cause of everything - past, present and future. The only area of dissimilarity is the "afterlife." Science offers no opinion regarding what happens after we die; religion offers salvation. Science and religion disagree on just about everything regarding history of mankind and how the world works. But there can only be one side that has it right. Obviously, the fact that only one side can be right necessitates friction if not outright conflict. You can't dismiss this "conflict" because we have history of religion persecuting science for fear of what science has to say. Science contradicts religious claims, pure and simple. The suspicion and vexation felt by the faithful against science is, in a way, understandable. After all science has been continuously gaining ground against religion in the past few centuries. Just a mere 400 hundred years ago everything was explained by appeal to God. The ancient Greeks who we associate with rationality used to believe that the movement of the sun across the sky was caused by God. They believed Apollo, after waking up every morning, would get on his chariot and drag the sun across the sky thereby explaining the movement of the sun, sunrise and sunset. Other inexplicable observations that the ancient attributed to God included lightning, thunders and fire. After a while these disparate believes coalesced into elaborate system of believe we today call religion that offered to provide comprehensive answers to just about everything unfathomable to the ancients. And it has been like that ever since until the scientific method gained strong foothold in Europe about 300-400 years ago. From then on science has progressively rolled back the sphere of religion into mere personal matter. Religion plays almost no role in the liberal democracies of today. The more and more science offers explanations about who we are, where we came from and how our world works, the less and less there is for religion to explain. The result is cognitive dissonance among the faithful. On one hand, they can't reject science since its progressive fruits are all around and can not be denied by any sensible person. By the same token religion becomes increasingly irrelevant and contradicted by the findings of science. The dissonance ultimately leads to irrational outbursts against science and reason. Science is attacked by the faithful on the flimsiest grounds and sometimes without any rational or factual basis. The relentless attack on the well established scientific theory of evolution is one such example.

Alshabaab is truly losing the plot, not that any right thinking person in the world supported them in the first place. All these wild and outrageous claims (and deeds) -- intentions to liberate Alaska, Solomon Islands, Kenya, Ethiopia, exhuming dead saints, beheadings, stoning to death of raped little girls etc -- are acts of desperation. They've realized that they're going no where, that the Somali people have rejected them hence the need for distraction.

God is unnecessary hypothesis in science.

So C. Qeybdiid was right about the children Alshabaab kidnapped from Sh. Hoose to be used as foot soldiers? They're using child soldiers! All the "fighters" in the pictures with the exception of government police are children. This reminds of Khomenie giving little children a plastic keys (representing keys to heaven) to clear mines during Iraq-Iran War. The kids walked into their deaths believing in the crap they were told. This is one great evils of religious men -- using the gullible to further their own personal agenda. Where is Aweys? Last I heard Aweys fled to Asmara. Chilling in Asmara with the great Muslim leader Afwerki while kids he sent to war die in Xamar.

This is over-hyped and pointless speech in my opinion. The problems in the M-East and the gripe against the US have very little to do with its policies and more to do with failure of the region as a whole to meet demands of the modern world. It's the frustration with their own lack of progress that is the root cause of the region's gripe against the US.

AU fails to stop war, but saves lives in Somalia MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Raising her palms in thanks, mother Sahra Abdi says an African Union force (AMISOM) in the Somali capital saved her daughter and mended her shattered knee. "May God reward AMISOM for treating us free of charge," Abdi said, her child clinging to her side after treatment at the AU's tented hospital inside its main base in Mogadishu. After 18 years of civil war, Somalia's infrastructure has been devastated, doctors have fled, and the government is unable to provide basic services as it fights Islamist insurgents for control of the capital. The 4,300-strong African Union peacekeepers in Somalia have often had a bad press: criticised for failing to stem the violence, accused by a U.N. body of selling arms to rebels, and accused by some residents of firing mortars into civilian areas. But on one subject -- the AU hospital -- Mogadishu's war-weary residents are enthusiastic. Mohamed Aden, 25, said doctors there saved his life. "My police mate destroyed my organs with my own gun," Aden said, wrapped in bandages from his toes to his thighs. "I did not know he joined the Islamists while I was away at a police course in Ethiopia. He snatched my gun and opened fire on me as we had a friendly conversation," he said. - no wonder the government is finding it extremely hard to pacify the city given the reality that anybody could be an insurgent, even your fellow policemen. The under-funded and under-equipped AU force arrived in March 2007, but only Uganda and Burundi have contributed troops so far, leaving the force well short of its 8,000 target. On patrol, the AU soldiers face guerrilla-style hit-and-run attacks by the rebels. A suicide bomb hit one of their bases. BEHEADINGS Inside the barbed-wire gate of the AU's main Halane base behind Mogadishu's airport, where the hospital is, Ugandan soldiers with machine-guns and bullet-proof vests frisk Somalis waiting to enter. Armour-plated vehicles sit inside, waiting for the next patrol or to transport government officials from the airport. Despite the heavy security at Halane, there are attempts to infiltrate the base. "I was very shocked one day when our intelligence picked out four al Shabaab teenagers from the line in front of me," said Ugandan doctor Donald Yiga, referring to a hardline rebel group. "They pretended to be patients. (It was) good luck, they had no pistols or explosives. Maybe they were just spies. We treat every Somali and do not know who is who," he said. Somalia's civil war has so far defied 15 attempts to restore central rule to the Horn of Africa nation, where warlords ousted a dictator then turned on each other. President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed -- a former rebel leader -- is trying to entice his Islamist comrades into the government. But the al Shabaab militia and the Hizbul Islam umbrella opposition group have rejected talks with the government while foreign troops remain on Somali soil. The rebels have continued to take territory in south Somalia and the capital. At lunchtime, bare-chested masons climb down from the roof of a new hospital under construction. For Somalis working for the continental body, each day is a new battle. "We have come here to get the family some money, but we might not survive tomorrow," said Osman Ali, a toothless middle-aged mason. "I am afraid al Shabaab will recognise our faces ... Those guys behead anyone who works for AMISOM and the government." Source: Reuters, June 03, 2009 -------------------- -------------------- -------- I post this article to counter the accusation that AMISOM have come to occupy Somalia and do nothing good for Somalia. This articles proves that they do some good in the eyes of the only people who matter regarding this topic -- residents of Mogadishu who actually live with AMISOM.

What's section 8?

^Shiikh Zeylaci, so you think the ONLF struggle qualifies as Jihad Fi sabiililaah? BTW, my question was regarding the end goal of the ONLF struggle. Are they fighting for an independent country or more autonomy within Ethiopia or to join Somalia?

Originally posted by Che -Guevara: ^Who are the "civilized" people? People who live in the developed world.

If xassan Turki can become a wadaad, why not barre hiiraale? It's not written anywhere in the Quran that one can assume the wadaad title and the other can't. The plot thickens.

Originally posted by Ismahaan: Ayaan hirsi is borderline retarded. Personally I think she sounds like an imbecile. Subhan Allah. She maybe all that and more but when her detractors threaten her with death, she becomes very intelligent and brave in the eyes of civilized people.

What exactly are they fighting for?

Is this all that Xassan Turki is capable of? We were told with his arrival that Villa Somalia will fall in matter of hours, days tops. What happened to fighting "Gaalo?" Why not attack AMISOM stationed in the airport and seaport? Instead all he and his cult of death do is fight fellow Somalis and invade peaceful towns.