Originally posted by Centurion: Somalinimo is the what compels us to return, when and how are less significant. That put a smile on my face saaxib. It reminded me of something I said 10 years ago. What would you say if I told you I've not been in the homeland for 18 years and in the previous 11 years to that, I've only visited for 6 to 8 weeks at a time totaling no more than 18 months. Essentially, I've been gone for 29 years. And though I'm not as wretched in my state as Ngonge is ( ), I've been removed from the homeland a long time. This is not atypical of SOL dwellers, of course, but my point is, Somalinimo is an identity that strengthens (or weakens) due to several factors. And though it may influence the desire to return home, it doesn't, alone, decide whether someone actually returns to it. The factors I listed do.

Centurion, Somalinimo has little to do with it saaxib. And you must separate the (mental and emotional) desire of returning home from the very physical act of doing so. The former my be great and never waning but the latter is a different ballgame. In my view, returning home is a function of five things: 1) The age a person left the homeland. Obviously, being born in the diaspora makes the question of returning 'home' kinda moot. 2) The connections (relatives, visits, business interests, etc..) they maintain with the homeland. If you left home to work in Dubai and ship merchandise from there while visiting Bossasso or Hargeisa every few weeks, you're very likely to settle at home again. 3) The security and economic climate in the homeland. If there's never ending war, famines, floods, and other calamities, it is hard to justify leaving the relative security and prosperity of the west for the raw and real risks of such a homeland. 4) The degree to which they build roots (and integrate) in their new home. Those who don't go to school or get no meaningful employment are more likely to return than those who're enjoying the 'American Dream' so to speak. Finally, 5) whether they find their new home welcoming and provides the economic and educational opportunities they seek for themselves and their children. You're more likely to return home from Yemen or Ethiopia than the US or the UK. Even the Netherlands (due to racism and lack of employment opportunities) witnessed an exodus of Somalis. And though it's true many of those didn't return to the homeland, it is not likely they left Holland for the UK because they felt more English than Dutch. Personally, I'm not leaving the west until my girls are working and living independently. If I do at all.

Paragon, is that you in the picture? LOL. Love the receding hairline. Soon you'll be shaving it all unless you wanna don the Homie The Clown look. What's with the new found exhibitionism sweeping SOL?

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Why are we so back-warded? Define backwardness yaa Xiin. And when you've done that, put Somalis on a scale such that the "so back-warded" can be compared to the completely back-warded and the not-so back-warded people. You know better than to ask this kind of question. I gave Bokero a reasonable response to his unreasonable questions on page 1 of this thread. He must not have read it, or understood it, for he went on to commit more fallacies. The good news is, many people feel the same way he does. The smart ones go out to find the answers they seek. Try again yaa Xiin. Centurion, people don't return to their homelands because they've often been gone long enough to build a life elsewhere. Also, whatever circumstances that made them leave in the first place often linger for decades. Perhaps you're a single person with no kids and often entertain ideas of returning. Once you're married with kids, the idea visits you less and less. And after a certain number of decades (varies depending on the age at which a person left home), the homeland becomes just a memory in some remote brain cell or two. Some do return but many, if not most, never do. And this is hardly unique to Somalis, it's everyone.

Originally posted by mystic: About the colts, I had a feeling they will win, but I don’t care about American Football. Speaking of sports, here is what Chomsky had to say about it in Manufacturing Consent: Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about . And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this. You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on. I'm getting too old to be a fan of sports. The soccer world cup every four years should suffice.

Originally posted by mystic: ^^^lol, gaal madow is not to be taken serious. He actually knows the difference between evil and good. You're too kind dear Mystic. He does indeed know the difference. Left Zenawi butt cheek, Evil. Right Zenawi butt cheek, Good. LOOOOL. I'm cracking myself up tonight. The Colts are world champions. Yaaaay.

^ I'm delighted dear. It's been long coming but also a little anti-climactic at the moment. The bears folded like lawn chairs. I'd have been so much happier if the Patriots were defeated in Miami tonight. Still, Manning and Harrison are World Champs! Hallelujah.

Originally posted by MKA Yoonis: Atheism is a evil like communism is and no true Muslim should defend it! Think about it sister, think and use your mind ! Coming from someone whose lips are surgically attached to Ethiopian buttocks? LOL.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^My information is solid, the AU will not stay in the country for that long.. Is it the same source that gave you the information below? Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^The tanks and the armour from Ethiopia was nothing compared to the Eritrean, oromo and outside support for the courts Sorry. I still can't get over this.

First kickoff return of the game for a touch down? First possession and Manning gets intercepted? WTF? It's gonna be a long night for the Colts.

Around 1,000 people have been killed across Iraq in the past week in suicide bombings, shootings and fighting between security forces and militants, according to figures compiled by Reuters from official sources. I know what havoc US and Iraqi 'government' forces wreak but who are these godless suicide bombers? What person can claim to be Muslim and do this every day? The suffering of ordinary Iraqis is unimaginable and beyond obscene walaahi. May Allah ease their suffering and remove the occupiers and all the death and destruction they've brought with them.

It's raining in Miami. That's a bad sign. And the pregame show sucks already. No wardrobe malfunctions this year.

UPDF earn dollars in Somalia Friday, 2nd February, 2007 By Milton Olupot As the first equipment is being ferried to Entebbe Airport for the African Union peace-keeping force in Somalia, the army has released more details about the terms and conditions for the 1,500 Ugandan soldiers who will take part in the mission. “Soldiers who get injured in Somalia will be compensated at a rate of between $100,000 and $150,000 depending on the degree of injuries. In case of death, the family will receive $100,000,” UPDF spokesman Maj. Felix Kulayigye, told The New Vision yesterday. He added that every soldier on the African peacekeeping mission in Somalia will receive an allowance of $400 on top of their normal salary, while another $100 will go to the Government. “The allowance will cover accommodation and food,” he said. The forces will also be entitled to free medical care. The UPDF asserts it has taken the necessary safety precautions for its soldiers. “The troops will have bullet-proof jackets, helmets and armoured personnel carriers which protect them from shrapnel and gunfire,” Kulayigye explained. “They were extensively trained to respond to suicide attacks, sniper fire and counter-insurgency operations. Moreover, the mandate allows them to defend themselves when attacked. Insuring our soldiers is really like insuring drivers in Kampala’s traffic.” The Ugandan force, which is scheduled to leave in two weeks, will stay in Somalia for at least 12 months, after which the UN is expected to take over, according to the deployment plan. The mission statement of AMISOM, as the operation is dubbed, reads: “To conduct peace support operations in Somalia as soon as possible to stabilise the current situation in the country in order to create conditions for the conduct of humanitarian activities and immediate takeover by the United Nations.” Besides providing assistance to the transitional Somali government, the force is also supposed to curb the trade of illicit arms, disarm marauding militias and help set up a functional justice system. The deployment plan spells out the mission’s tasks as follows: “to prevent the inflow of illegal arms into Somalia, to ensure the disarmament of all armed groups that are not under the control of the federal transitional government, to assist in the development of a justice system and the rule of law.” The mandate also includes to “provide assistance to the transitional government to consolidate its authority over the whole of Somalia, protection and promotion of human rights, provision of a suitable environment for the conduct of humanitarian work and promote understanding of the peace process and the role of the AU mission among the local communities through an effective public information campaign”. The Ugandan mission only awaits approval by Parliament. This week, MPs rejected a bid by the Government to get instant parliamentary approval without the normal three days notice to table a motion. Burundi is the latest country to offer to contribute troops to the peace mission. Foreign Minister Antoinette Batumubwira said yesterday that Burundi could send 1,000 troops. The African Union says it has 4,000 of the 8,000 peacekeepers needed for Somalia but it is not clear if that figure includes the Burundi offer. Many countries are hesitant to send soldiers to what is considered one of the most dangerous places on earth. POSSIBLE PEACEKEEPERS Nine battalions proposed - 7,600 troops: Uganda: 1,500 troops Nigeria: Troops offered Ghana: Troops offered Burundi: 1,000 troops offered Malawi: Considering Benin: Considering Tanzania: Considering Rwanda: Considering South Africa: Not sending troops New Vision Online

Originally posted by HornAfrique: Supporting the objectives of the TFG does not mean one has to make a policy of not only agreeing with but also defending that which cannot be defended. No it doesn't. What the General is doing is referred to as toeing the line.

^ And that's precisely why he (the non-expert ) is standing on a podium that reads "Headliners" and you (the expert charlatan ) are relegated to virtual intellectual masturbation promoting the nonexistent merits of the wretched TFG on SomaliaOnline.

Sun. February 04, 2007 02:17 pm.- By Mohamed Abdi Farah The forces of the transitional federal government in southern Somalia have arrested on Sunday a number of local traditional elders after they failed to bring the armed militias to the government. Colonel Aden Mahamud Ibrahim, the chief commander of 1st army division of the interim government has ordered the arrest of ten local elders in Afmadow town of Lower Juba region in southern Somalia. “The elders, including clan chiefs were taken into custody by the forces after they failed to comply with an order from the government 20 days before to bring in all the armed militiamen,” Mohamed Aden Suqar, a local independent journalist told Somalinet tonight. Earlier, reports from the southern port city of Kismayo in Somalia say that the transitional government began recruiting local militias to join the national forces after trainings. The army officials met some traditional and clan leaders in Lower Juba province in the presence of Ethiopian army officials over how they would convince the militias to join the forces in Kismayo, 500km south of the Somalia capital Mogadishu. SomaliNet

Charlatan you say? Really? And that makes you a visionary? LOL. You must think we have no memory. Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^The tanks and the armour from Ethiopia was nothing compared to the Eritrean, oromo and outside support for the courts, thus the truth is that one ally defeated another.

^ Make no mistake about it, Brzesinski is no friend of Muslims or Arabs. But the gravity of the situation dictates even the most hawkish US foreign policy advisers to sound the alarm. It is a calamity indeed and even the hawks are starting to see it.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^Saxib Samatar is just another sore loser, nothing more, nothing less. What makes him a sore loser? What game has he played and failed to win? Even if he is a 'sore loser', does that make him clueless of Somali state of affairs? Does this make you the sore winner? What have you won that you claim he has lost? Just admit you were wrong to attack the person. And the less you back peddle, the better for all of us.

^ Abu_Geeljirow, Bokero's profile says he's a researcher with interests in Politics and Development. I believe all the questions you're asking are research in progress.

Originally posted by Sharif_seylaci: The somaliland goverment controls all of its gobols capital exept lascanood but we want that somaliland is darawish free if u know what i mean Awdal, Somaliland, Puntland, and even Somalia would do well if they were free of the likes of you, and believe me your ilk come in every shade. Just ask Duke. Now take this crap and discuss it in your own home.

As US Power Fades, it Can't Find Friends to Take on Iran Washington has exaggerated Tehran's capabilities and intentions in Iraq. It is confused and frustrated by Jonathan Steele The shadowy outlines of a new US strategy towards Iran are exercising diplomats and experts around the Middle East and in the west. The US says Iranian personnel are training and arming anti-US forces inside Iraq, and it will not hesitate to kill them. It is sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, doubling its force projection there. It is calling on Europeans to tighten sanctions on Iran until Tehran suspends its uranium enrichment programme. Is the US rattling the sabre in advance of an attack on Iran? Or is it merely rattling its cage, as it pretends still to be a power in the region in spite of being locked into an unwinnable war in Iraq? The only certainty is that Bush's strategy of calling for democratisation in the Middle East is over. Washington has had to abandon the neocon dream of turning Iraq into a beacon of secular liberal democracy. It is no longer pressing for reform in other Arab states. On her recent trip to Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf, Condoleezza Rice said little about democracy. Her pitch was old-fashioned realpolitik as she tried to create a regional counterweight to Iran's influence. Gary Sick, a former National Security Council expert, argues that Washington's return to balance-of-power considerations is designed to create an informal anti-Iranian alliance of the US, Israel and the Sunni Arab states. The aim is partly to divert attention from the catastrophe of Iraq. It also reduces Israel's isolation by suggesting Sunni Arab states have a common interest in confronting Iran, whatever their disagreements over Palestine. Other American experts argue that Iranian influence should not be confused with Shia influence. The US blunder in invading Iraq and opening the way for Shia Islamists to control its government created an unexpected opportunity for Iran. But it does not follow that Shia movements in other Arab states have grown stronger or that the arc of Shia radicalism that King Abdullah of Jordan has talked of is anything more than a figment of his imagination. The Shia minorities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are showing no signs of revolt. On the contrary, Saudi Shias are reported to be fearful of a backlash from the Sunni majority if sectarian threat-mongering continues. Highlighting sectarian identities has turned into a galloping cancer in Iraq, and it would be a disaster if the US seeks to export these tensions into the wider Middle East. Even in Iraq there are limits to Iran's role. The eight-year war between the two countries in the 1980s showed that Iraqi Shias put their Arab and Iraqi identity above the religious rituals they share with Iranians. Moqtada al-Sadr, the cleric who commands one of the main Iraqi militias, frequently boasts of his Iraqi nationalism and the fact that his father, a distinguished ayatollah, remained in opposition in Iraq during the Saddam Hussein years rather than fleeing, as other Iraqi Shia clerics did, to the protection of Tehran or London. The US claims Iran has increased its subversion in Iraq in recent months. The US has a record of self-serving and false intelligence on Iraq but, even if true, Iran's actions cannot make much difference to the problems the US is facing. The sectarian violence is perpetrated largely by Iraqis on Iraqis. If outsiders provoke it, they are mainly Sunni jihadis loyal to al-Qaida. As for attacks on US forces, these come primarily in Sunni areas or the mixed province of Diyala. Some US officials now hint that Iranians may be involved in these areas too. Links between Iran and Iraq's Sunni insurgents would be new, but marginal. The real purpose of Washington's heightened talk of Iranian subversion seems to be twofold. The administration is playing the blame game. When the "who lost Iraq?" debate develops in earnest as the presidential election contest hots up, Bush's people will name its fall guys. Number one will be the Democrats, for failing to fund the war adequately and allowing the "enemy" to take comfort from the sapping of American will. Number two will be Iran for its alleged arming of militias and insurgents. Number three will be Syria for allowing suicide bombers through Damascus airport and into Iraq. The second purpose of Washington's anti-Iranian claims, as the former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recently suggested, is to prepare a case for a US military strike on Iran. It will be described as defensive, just as the first attacks on North Vietnam two generations ago were falsely said to be an answer to the other side's aggression. There could be a third aim: a desire to influence the internal Iranian debate. A senior US official stated in London this week that the Iranian government was a monolith and "we try to discern differences within the Iranian regime at our peril". That may not be the majority view within the administration. Ratcheting up accusations against Iran's revolutionary guards who are close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be a device to make a case for moderates like the former president Hashemi Rafsanjani. He appears to favour a deal with Washington rather than confrontation. The safest conclusion is that Washington remains confused about what Iran is doing, and frustrated by its own inability to find allies to support a response. All options are being prepared, along with their "justifications". The International Institute for Strategic Studies' annual survey rightly pointed out this week that US power is fading. It can shape an agenda but not implement it globally. Two stark new events prove that. One was the meeting between the Saudi and Iranian security chiefs to try to stop Lebanon sliding back into civil war. This showed Iran can be a force for regional stability, and that Saudi Arabia is resisting US efforts to isolate Tehran. The other was President Jacques Chirac's comment that it would not matter if Iran developed a nuclear bomb or two as they could not be used productively. Described as a gaffe since it broke ranks with Washington, it expressed the views of many Europeans (as well as the contradiction inherent in the French and British nuclear arsenals), since the French president added that the bigger problem was the push for other nations to follow suit. As Washington's neocons go into eclipse and the realpolitikers dither, Britain and other European governments need to be far clearer in public than they have so far been. They should point out that the dispute with Iran is not as monumental as Washington claims. Fomenting new divisions in the Middle East or resorting to force are cures far worse than the disease. The Guardian

War a Calamity, Ex-Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski Tells US Congress by Barry Schweid WASHINGTON -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq is a calamity and likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large." Testifying before the Senate foreign relations committee Thursday, Brzezinski skewered U.S. administration policy as driven by "imperial hubris" and a disaster on historic, strategic and moral grounds. Bush Administration Savaged While other former U.S. officials and ex-generals have criticized administration policy in committee hearings, none savaged it to the degree Brzezinski did. "If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," said the security adviser in the Democratic administration of former president Jimmy Carter. He set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq failing to meet benchmarks set by the administration, followed by accusations Iran is responsible for the failure, then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran, culminating in so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran. That, Brzezinski said, would plunge the United States into a spreading quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Proposing a massive shift in policy, Brzezinski, who holds a senior position at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the United States should announce unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq "in a reasonably short period of time." Second, he said, the United States should announce it is undertaking talks with Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed. Instead, he said, the administration is developing a mythical, historical narrative to justify the case for a protracted and potential expanding war. Initially based on false claims Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, Brzezinski said "the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism." AP via Common Dreams

^ He doesn't have the right to call him an infidel, you're right, but he can call him a traitor, coward, criminal, warlord, and an incompetent geriatric fool. And he would certainly be justified in doing so.

Originally posted by General Duke: Give it up sir, you are no expert on Somalia, and the US admin does not know you or your brother.. What makes anyone an expert on Somalia? Furthermore, what makes you an expert on Somalia while the person whose judgment on Somali matters everyone seeks is 'no expert'? The Westerners are outsiders, you say, and therefore, are no experts on Somalia. The Somalis who spent their lives studying the country (and the region) are no experts simply because they're in Minneapolis and not Muqdisho. The ones in Muqdisho are no experts because they, naturally you assume, hate the TFG. Well exactly who is an expert then? You? Rest assured that 9000 rubbish posts with opinions coming out of every pore in your body do not an expert make. Give it up sir. You're no expert on Somalia and all your efforts to discredit anyone who does not toe the puppet regime's line are transparent, even laughably futile.