Originally posted by xiinfaniin: But it’s also an extreme of sort to oppose this system simply because some men abused it. We need moderation saaxiib. I'd say lately most, if not all, have abused it. It is surprising, however, how much we agree on this issue and I can only reach one conclusion in the form of a question: why do you habitually acerbate the sisters when speaking of this?

Rest Easy, Bill Clinton: Milosevic Can't Talk Anymore by Jeremy Scahill Slobodan Milosevic is characterized in the obituaries as the "Butcher of the Balkans." If that is the story you want to read about, please go to almost any other media outlet and read it again and again. Some are now suggesting that death is Milosevic's final revenge, that he "ended up cheating history" by dying before judgment was passed. But the world has already passed judgment on Milosevic and what is being cheated by his death is history itself. What the corporate media overwhelmingly ignores in Milosevic's death is what they ignored in his life as well--his intimate knowledge of US war crimes in Yugoslavia. While Milosevic was undoubtedly a war criminal who deserved to be tried for his crimes, he was also the only man in the unique position of being able to expose and detail the full extent of the US role in the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. In fact, that is precisely what he was fighting to do at his war crimes trial when he died. Because of the rule of victors' justice in the ad hoc tribunal system (a poor and unfair substitute for a true international court), Milosevic's case would have been the only international trial to potentially expose the details of the illegal, US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia for 78 days in 1999. While the US-backed court consistently tried to limit Milosevic's right to speak, stripping him of his right to self-representation, Milosevic battled regularly to raise US war crimes. Sadly, with Milosevic will likely die the last hope the victims of these crimes in Yugoslavia had of getting their day (if it could even be called that) in court--a tragic and unjust reality to begin with--that speaks volumes about the twisted state of international justice. Milosevic's cause, regardless of what one thinks of it, was a casualty of 9/11--an event that relegated him and his trial to the annals of history before it was even over. Most people in the world--with the exception of those in the Balkans where the proceedings were broadcast live, daily--probably didn't even know Milosevic was still on trial in the Hague. It became an obscure sideshow to the blood and gore unfolding constantly on the international stage. Milosevic's death means that those who bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days beginning 7 years ago this month, killing thousands, will be, once and for all protected from any public scrutiny for their crimes. However opportunistic Milosevic may have been, he would have been one of the few people to appear at the Hague that could have--and would have--laid out these crimes in great detail. Now, there is almost certain to be no condemnation of the US bombing of Radio Television Serbia, killing 16 media workers, the cluster bombing of the Nis marketplace, shredding human beings into meat, the use of depleted uranium munitions and the targeting of petrochemical plants causing toxic and chemical waste to pour into the Danube River. There will be no condemnation of the bombing of Albanian refugees by the US or the deliberate targeting of a civilian passenger train or the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Milosevic also would have discussed how the US supports a regime in Kosovo that has systematically expelled Serbs, Romas and other ethnic minorities from their homes and burnt down scores of churches. He would have discussed the role of the US in funding and arming the Kosovo Liberation Army, which operates like a death squad and how the new prime minister of Kosovo, Agim Ceku, is a US-trained war criminal who gained infamy in both the Bosnian war and the 1999 Kosovo conflict. And Milosevic would have talked of the US interference in the Yugoslav elections in 2000 and the ultimate neoliberal takeover that was the aim of Clinton's sanctions and 78 days of bombing. In reality, it would have fallen on deaf ears, but it would have been stated for the record. It is ironic that Milosevic's last legal battle was an attempt to compel his old friend turned nemesis Bill Clinton to testify at his trial. If successful, Milosevic would have grilled the man who was US president through the entire Yugoslav war in what would have been a fiery direct examination. Clinton and Milosevic were once pals who talked collective strategy in the 1990s. Milosevic had many damning stories to tell and, without a doubt, uncomfortable questions to ask Clinton. The judges in Milosevic's case clearly worked to keep those moments from ever happening and the US government made clear its forceful opposition to such subpoenas of US officials, even considering invading a country that would put a US official on trial. With or without Clinton, Milosevic's defense would have brought to light some serious documentation of US war crimes and he died, muzzled, before he really got started. Little attention, therefore, has been paid to Milosevic's long-term efforts--which predated 9/11, the 1999 NATO bombing and his own trial--to expose the presence of al Qaeda in the Balkans--from Bosnia to Kosovo. With 9/11, Milosevic's talk of al Qaeda was easily dismissed as laughable, pathetic opportunism. But those who followed Milosevic's career and more importantly the events of the 1990s in Yugoslavia know it was none of those. Those allegations were based on true events the US does not want discussed in an international court. Following the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, many Mujahadeen eventually turned their sights on Yugoslavia where they went to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims against the Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. Once again, the US and bin Laden were on the same team. To this day there are reports of training camps in Bosnia, which remains under occupation. It is also a likely training ground for future blowback. In his opening statement, Milosevic alluded to some of the information he would introduce during his defense. "In 1998 when [Clinton envoy Richard] Holbrooke visited us in Belgrade, we told him the information we had at our disposal, that in Northern Albania the KLA is being aided by Osama bin Laden, that he was arming, training, and preparing the members of this terrorist organisation in Albania. However, they decided to cooperate with the KLA and indirectly, therefore, with bin Laden, although before that he had bombed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania [and] had already declared war." Milosevic concluded that "one day all this will have to come to light, these links." That, however, is unlikely and more so now that Milosevic is dead. To be sure, there will never be indictments of these US war criminals at the Hague: Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Jamie Rubin, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark. For many of Serbia's victims of US war crimes, Milosevic's trial was a "Hail Mary" pass, as awful of an historical irony as that is, aimed at someone recognizing their forgotten suffering. It is a sad testimony to the state of international jurisprudence that after many attempts to find justice, the only hope for US victims in the Yugoslavia wars was the trial defense of a man many of those same victims despised. If there was an independent international court that was recognized and respected by the US, those responsible for bombing Yugoslavia would have been alongside Slobodan Milosevic in the docks these past years instead of having their responsibility being buried with him. Source

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Would he forgo, I wonder out loud, men’s deepest wish; sharing multiple xalaal wives . He says he would. Easier said than done, i say I've a feeling you're being the proverbial devil's advocate here. Though devil is such a bad word in this context. Nonetheless, the wisdom of polygamy is for us to behold. I get the impression, however, you have something on your mind that you just can't let out (or let go of ). Could it be, good Xiin, you're suggesting men are incapable of being monogamous and consequently the whole system is designed in such a way that men should not have to resort to sin just to satisfy what is essentially a natural (I use the word loosely here ) existence? Certainly many biologists would agree with you.

Originally posted by Southern Hospitality: Castro is the Unofficial SOL I would ask for a status raise effective immediately What? Is that you Tina? Can you take a punch?

Codetalker, saaxib, that's one way to look at it but blaming the average ignoramus is not acceptable. Even "enlightened" and educated Somalis subscribe to this. This problem goes beyond educations ninyahow. Let us be the first generation that gets rid of this. Unlike what afweyne did in the 70's and 80's when he "buried" the multi-headed monster of clannism with posters all around town, let's bury it right here and right now. Walaahi it's embarassing to even bring this up with anyone who's not Somali. This shidh must go and to want to bring someone of authority (e.g. Ali Samatar) to justice, even to bloody question him on his role, shouldn't have "his" clan be up in arms ready to defend him whether he was guilty or innocent. Unless and until we see things that way, we're bloody doomed saaxib. And that's that.

^ That was my ulterior motive, not eNuri. Seriously though, Xiin needs to step up his game and not dwell on the polygamy "benefits". As a married and responsible man, he ought to know, and therefore preach, the benefits of monogamy specially in the backdrop of our society that is breaking down on many levels.

Originally posted by codetalker: Is the war criminal's clan wrong for seeing it as a witch-hunt? I think not. Yes. They are wrong. A war criminal of "my" clan don't make me proud. If I had any decency, I'd be the first to prosecute him before anyone else.

^ Just tryin to catch up to your post count, dear.

^ It is a credible, and I believe, earnest effort. Remember, I see Nur having no ulterior motives in this, unlike Xiin. So judging on motives, Nur also has the desire to rid our society of other ills that plague it. To be reminded of the other ills is our duty. After all, eNuri is a one-man dacwah machine and he couldn't possibly cover all there is to cover.

Originally posted by makalajabti: Mr Jibis ? I've got a scoop for you. Any woman has the right to spread her legs like that whenever she feels like. It's none of your business and you better quit your bigot attitude, because you sound like a looser and hater! Hey now, calling someone by names is against SOL rules so chill atheer. I don't know how anyone could be in the music industry without compromising their faith and their culture. Sure I listen to music but that doesn't mean I approve of the lifestyles involved. Or does it?

How is Ali Samatar able to live in the United States without being charged with war crimes? To have become a "man of God" is no excuse to evade prosecution for crimes when he was not a man of God. Frankly, the victims of his reign couldn't give a rat's as$ if he turned into a monk.

^ Saaxib we're not far apart you and I. Isn't it ironic, however, that the same ones that are failing (or have failed) in their first marriages, are the very ones that are prone to get a second one? This is lately of course and I'm not talking of historical reasons of marrying another wife in our culture. Reasons such as death of husband, etc.. were common at home and worked out well for the most part. These new Faarax's would rather die than marry a widow with 5 kids. What they want, and are lusting after, are fresh, never married young women. Even worse, they abandon their families to crumble so they could start anew elsewhere and create the same mess years down the road. That's what I have a problem with and that's what eNuri must continue to address. And for each pro-Polygamy post, Nur must have several that address existing and pervasive ills in the community. Saaxib I know you're reasonable enough to accept this. Edit: Saaxib how can I convince you that polygamy is not the holy grail solution to our societal ills? I wonder.

Absolutely a mistake on my part to insinuate that. What Allah made permissible no man can make into haram (and vice versa). However, it can be mandated that every marriage by a Somali sign an agreement to stick with one wife until divorce. A woman, Islam teaches us, has the right to such an agreement.

^ If you were part of eNuri, its stock price would quadruple. It's these problems of long distance, quick marriages, lack of patience in a marriage that we need to worry about as a community. Polygamy is allowed in Islam but it should be prohibited to Somalis. How you gonna drive a car if you can't ride a bloody bike, Faarax?

^ The achilles heel of Somali marriages is long distance. I can tell you from personal experience, it absolutely does NOT work. No matter what the cost, what we have to give up in terms of money, family or what have you, if you can't be together under one roof with your kids, you may as well call it quits. Pure and simple. Any (one-time) seperation of more than 3-6 months is unacceptable. Anyone who disagrees is deluding themself.

I know and I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be a prick though I certainly came across as one. My bad. I read all that you write on here and sometimes a (QB) or a (QUOTE) flies into my face. Now, a lot of people do that (specially when new) but then I don't think much of what they write so I don't bother with their QB's or QUOTE's. Here's the tutorial I neglected to mention: Every square bracketed term must have a closing one. So if you have a QUOTE a closing /QUOTE must accompany. The slash only means it's the closing one. So they must go in pairs. QB is a bold quote QUOTE is just a quote I is italic B is bold etc... They're in square brackets [] here since that's the language UBB (the software of this board) uses. In regular HTML, they use . I hope this helps. It's annoying I know to worry about bloody square brackts and closing tags (that's what they're called) when you've got a burning idea in your head. Again, my apologies.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Posted: October 29, 2004 7:35 p.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com SB, I'm not saying this "confession" is not authentic but I strongly urge you not to read or quote from WorldNetDaily. The original video from Bin Laden (shown on Aljazeera) is out there somewhere and it would be an excellent exercise for you to compare that to this "transcript" from WND. The point I'm trying to make here is that vilification of one enemy or another has been the signature foreign policy of the US. The level of that vilification is directly proportional the interests they have in that region. Bin Laden may not be a choir boy or someone I respect or admire. But to take the official western description of him, however, is an insult to my own intelligence. That's all saaxib.

"You cannot defeat the heretic with this book alone," bin Laden has said, referring to the Koran. "You have to show them the fist." (Quoted in The Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2001.) The timing of this quote (9/18/2001, exactly one week after 9/11) and its source (the Washington Post) make it extremely suspicious to me. Only God knows what is true from what has been attributed to Bin Laden. But even if it's all true, he only learnt it from the Americans. The irony of it all is that the same ones who claim to preserve life are the very ones who've killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis in less than 3 years. The "coalition of the willing" makes Bin Laden look like a junior boy scout just learning how to kill. Bob: I hear you.

^ Sure. And I'm not averse to that. It's a little more nuanced though and it's certainly a fine line. Nur seems to be still learning the tight rope techniques and that's good.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Another eNuri classic No doubt. But only after a drought of sorts. You know, the xalimooy-polygamy-is-good-for-you era of not too long ago. Nur came back to his senses and we thank Allah for that.

^ When you find a good link on that, do let us know. And one day I pray you will figure out the whole sol (bulletin board/forum) quoting mechanism.

Originally posted by naden: A most thorough coverage of the topic. Naden, does that mean you're ready for your beating now? I hadn't thought about many of these things either. But then I've not thought about much, period.

Originally posted by naden: Is there really anything other than the effect of video clips on people or what a woman wears that captures the minds of the ummah? Many in the Ummah, including some of the refugees themselves, are morally bankrupt. The "infidels", in many of the areas of helping the poor and orphaned, embody the teachings of the Quran. The irony is truly incredible.

^ I just read it and it essentially says messing with Iran is messing with China. Once neocons are out of office, however, the US may change its strategy altogether to one that is more conciliatory and diplomatic. If not, the consequences are indeed dire for everyone. Can the empire survive the humiliation of backing down from Iran? A rock and a hard place, anyone?

To judge by everything they say and do, Iran's leaders are determined to acquire nuclear technology. They want it not just so they can generate electricity - they also want the option of being able to build nuclear bombs. They already have the Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads and have a range of around 1,250 miles. That distance enables them to strike at Israel. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, likes to quote the late Ayatollah Khomeini's saying that he wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map". Deterrence has so far kept nuclear powers from attacking each other. The problem with nuclear technology in the hands of Iran's leaders is their belief in martyrdom: they are prepared to die to assert what they consider to be their moral and legal right. The worrying prospect is that so many of their countrymen feel the same way. Death in the form of martyrdom is central to the Shia sect of Islam that dominates Iran and it runs deep in the country's collective psyche. The founder of the Shia was Imam Ali, a son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed. Imam Ali was assassinated. But it is Ali's son, Imam Hussein, who is "the Great Martyr". Hussein regarded himself as the legitimate heir to the Caliphate. But when he tried to take control of it, he found himself facing his rival, Yazid. Hussein had just 72 followers. Yazid led a force of 4,000 crack troops. Yazid offered Hussein the option of surrender. Hussein contemptuously rejected it. He resolved to fight and die rather than capitulate or retreat: he and all his followers were massacred. Hussein's death is commemorated in the most important ritual of the Shia year, the Ashura. The message of Hussein's martyrdom, that it is better to die than to compromise on something which is regarded as a moral right, is ingrained in the very fibre of ordinary Iranians. "Ashura is the central tenet of Shia Islam," a stout, pale-faced textile merchant told me in the Grand Bazaar of Teheran. "The life and death of Imam Hussein tells us that when moral and legal right is on your side, you must not surrender it but fight for it and die in the process if need be." He added ominously: "This is now the case with Iran's right to enrich uranium." President Ahmadinejad has insisted that "Iranians, young or old, city dweller or villager, farmer or factory worker, are all saying one thing: nuclear energy is our undeniable right". The troubling thing is - he is probably right: the country is behind him. In his election campaign last June, he particularly targeted the poor, promising them a fairer distribution of the country's oil wealth and better benefits for women. As a result, he has rock-solid support among the 19 million Iranians who live below the poverty line. The rest of the country has united in the face of the condemnation from the West. Western pressure has had the opposite effect to the one intended: it has strengthened Ahmadinejad and weakened his reformist critics inside Iran. So what can the United States do to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons? The short answer is: not very much. The Bush administration insists that "military intervention is not ruled out" - John Bolton, Bush's ambassador to the UN, repeated that message last week - but in reality it is ruled out. America will not invade Iran, at least not while it is still embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simple logistics eliminate that option: the US does not have enough soldiers to launch a successful invasion of Iran. There are, of course, military options other than full-scale invasion. The Americans are known to have drawn up a list of 40 targets that they would need to destroy if Iran's nuclear programme were to be disabled, or at least delayed, and its conventional military power crippled. The idea is for "surgical" air strikes to destroy key sites in the nuclear production chain and military industry. But air strikes are never surgical, especially when the targets are in or near cities, as 10 of the American 40 are thought to be. The Iranian reaction when one of America's bombs hits a hospital, a school or a factory and kills scores of civilians is not difficult to imagine. Iranians would demand revenge. And their leaders would find a way to ensure that they got it. They could do immense damage to America. The US and British troops in next door Iraq would be an easy target. Iraq's Sunnis make up about one fifth of the population and have caused mayhem in the country: Shias, though, make up three-fifths of Iraq's population. Most of them feel a greater loyalty to their sect than to any administration in Iraq installed under America's protection. One shudders to think what they would do if they felt that because America was at war with Iran, they should go to war with America. What of the non-military options for coercing Iran out of developing nuclear weapons? The only practical possibility is sanctions. Both the US and the European nations seem to be heading to the conclusion that sanctions would be the most effective next step. The only sanctions that would hurt Iran would be prohibiting the export of oil and gas. But enforcing such a prohibition would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Iran has several hundred miles of coastline and land borders with seven different countries: policing every porous inch is not a practical possibility. Furthermore, the sanctions would hurt the rest of the world more than Iran. The leadership in Teheran has been stockpiling supplies of food and medicine: they reportedly have about three years' worth in store. And the rest of the world badly needs Iran's crude: it is the second largest exporter of oil in Opec, and it has the second largest reserves of both oil and natural gas. If Iran's oil were shut off, the price in the world markets would rocket. The effect on the economies of Europe and America - and now also China and India - could be devastating - which is one reason why America is unlikely to get the approval of the UN Security Council for sanctions. President Ahmadinejad insists that "the world needs the Iranian nation much more than the Iranian nation needs the world". It sounds like a threat, a proclamation of his country's readiness to martyr itself for a cause it thinks is right. Diplomacy has so far not proved an effective means of persuading the Iranians out of the idea that they have a moral right to nuclear weapons - but it is the only means we have got. By Dilip Hiro, the author of "Iran Today," to be published by Politico's Publishing on March 20. Source