It is always good to look back at one's past encounters for guidance. When I was in Jigjiga,once I had the misfortune of sitting with a senior regional government official who people rumoured was about to be sacked very soon. In fact, the story was he will be sacked when dawn breaks the next day. A lot of people surrounded him, most were people who relied on him for positions and influence. Some were those who hated the other man whom he challenged for the top leadership in the region and was cheering for him. As the night went on, and people mercillously munched on the tender Abu-musmaar from Awaday, the supporters of the man who hosted us in his spacious majlis were inquiring why the rumours are circulating about the demise of thier man, and what he has in store to deal with the conspiracies of his adversary. The man, at least at face value, seemed very buyount and untroubled. And his key word was to remind the majlis that they will see what will happen to his enemy next morning. Some were content with his assurances. But others, especially one man with the name Mowlid kept on pressing the man to divulge more information so that the rest of the team clams down. Mowlid asked, " Cabdiyoow, waan la soconaa oo ma fiicna wixii aad isku ogtihiin dawladda dhexe inaad meeshan ka sheegto ma fiicna. Laakiin, bal noo dul mar oo qolyaheed is ogtihiin, ileen waaka ninkii kale leh waxaa i taageersan nabadsugidda, Xafiiska Federalka iyo saraakiisha ciidanka". Cabdi got mad and very truculent. "Waryaa, Ina-iimaan (Mowlid), maxaad rabtaa? Maxaad afka qoryo nooga galgalinaysaaa? I told you I am not going to tell you one single thing. But you will see what happens tomorrow. Haddaad dhagaha faraha galin waydo, quruurad gadhka igaga xiir!!" As it turned out, in the morning, the meeting of the executive committee of the party went on. Cabdi was called to the stage, his crimes read out loud and was immediately relieved of all his titles. He said he accepted the verdict, in a bid to save hismelf from Prison. Later that day, I asked one of the people who was with us, " where is wixii uu lahaa dhagahaa faraha lagalin, this lair?!" The man's answer still cracks me up whenever I recall it. " Dee soowka faraha dhagaha lagaliyey!! Are you not shocked with his behaviour! So, you see he was true to his word. He didn't lie!"

No, saaxib. It is you who is giving new meanings to what some words mean. The Ambassador didn't say he visited a country.

If I am paid enough, I can report from the mountains of Tora-Borra. Money can make people do wonders. But, it clearly shows you lack a good objective judgement of how opinions about world leaders are shaped nowadays. It is not because Al-bashir is worse oppressor than Mubarak that you don't hear bad about the latter. It is not because Nethanyahu or Olmert are saints, there are no warrants to bring them to justice. Markaa sheekadan yar ee global powers ay abuuraan about who is good and who is bad in this world ha igula soo meeraysan. Do you know the nature of the conflict in Darfur? Mise carab ayaa dad madmadoow laysa line of George Clooney et al ayaad meesha ku haysaa? Get more depth and then we talk about the issues. I don't like people who don't question what they hear over partial media.

Originally posted by NGONGE: The man (and country) had to swallow his pride and go visit a country he (supposedly) does not recognise! Point of correction!! not a [country]. A stable province of a country.

I think Al-bashir is by far better and humane, diaspora kid. Just because you imbibed Christaina Amapours version of objective reporting doesn't mean you are informed.

Do you know what you are talking about? Or you are just another brainwashed child in the diapora? Forget about Meles. Let us say he is the cleanest man on earth. What is wrong with Al-Bashir? Do you buy all the CNN stories about 300,000 killed in Darfur?

Rise in delusional disorders of Somalilanders in SOL worries the rest of SOLers, it should also be noted. This after series of stories about Gorilla and IGAD visists ignited hopes of recognition.

Norf, I bet Luis Fabiano will not be the main striker come 2010 World Cup. The speedy Nilmar, Robinho and Alexander Pato of Milan are ready. Tell me if any team has a better attack force if these guys start. Especially when you have other attacking midfielders such as Kaka, Marcello and Ramires. And I hope Diego of Juventus will join. Defensive midfielders are strong too. The only weak link is Gilberto Silva. But, crucially what I really like about the current Brazil side is the coach's mentality. He has changed the way they used to play which was vey pleasing but not rewarding in terms of result. They are more of a team now than when they relied on whether Ronaldo is on top form or not. They are good in set-pieces and adopted European mentality of trying to maximise benefits from corners. Their defence is very good. And they have the best goal keeper in the World in Julio Cesare. BTW, they had all of the R's when they were so poor in 2006; and many agree they were equally poor in 2002 when they won. This time, they are a better side. It is not by fluke they have beaten Argentina 4 times with scores of 3-1, 3-0, 4-1, and somthing like that under Dunga. The only worry is they struggle to penetrate when other teams pack their defence. In the England game, you have seen Dunga was trying to diversify their approach (by not only relying on balls from crosses of the left and right backs) but by using them to chip the ball behind defence lines from the center. That is how the goal and the penalty come about. This is a major breakthrough. It means if Brazil can use crosses, chip the balls behind defence lines where speedy Nilamr can chase, use quick through balls with Kaka anchoring, they will have a lot of opportunities to open up opponents. The midfield and defence are very good. Brazil are no more attractive, but they don't need to be. Let Spain entertain us for the coming 20 years (trophy-less of course). They will finally learn Iniesta and Xavi's ping-pong in the middle is not going to win them cups. It is good to watch though.

I tell you he was worried.

Last week, waxaa TV la daawanayey nin anti-Somaliland ah. Waxaa la soo daayey Rayaale iyo madax kale oo Airport'ka salaan sharaf ku qaadanaya. Odaygii intuu in badan daawaday oo uu aamusnaa ayuu mar danbe oo qolkii ugu soo galay igu yidhi: "Adeer, waxaan ku idhi, nimankani siday u matalayaan dawladnimo ee ay isu-yeel-yeelayaan ARMAY dawlad uun iska noqdaan!!!"

Waan gartay. Ducaalaa si hoose loogus sheegay.

You don't disregard a team with the following record in the World Cup. Most World Cup appearances 19, Brazil (only country to appear in every World Cup) Most championships 5, Brazil Most appearances in a World Cup final 7, Brazil and Germany Most matches played 92, Germany and Brazil Most wins 64, Brazil Most goals scored 201, Brazil [edit] In one tournament Most wins [3] 7, Brazil, 2002 [edit] Streaks Most consecutive championships 2, Italy (1934–1938) and Brazil (1958–1962). Most consecutive final matches 3, Germany (1982–1990) and Brazil (1994–2002). Most consecutive finals tournaments 19, Brazil (1930–2010). Most consecutive wins 11, Brazil, from 2-1 Turkey (2002) to 3-0 Ghana (2006). Most consecutive matches without a loss 13, Brazil, from 3-0 Austria (1958) to 2-0 Bulgaria (1966). Most consecutive matches scoring at least one goal 18, Brazil (1930–1958) and Germany (1934–1958). Most consecutive matches scoring at least three / four goals 4, Uruguay (1930–1950) and Hungary (1954) (four goals); also Portugal (1966), Germany (1970), Brazil (1970), Most consecutive matches scoring at least six / eight goals 2, Hungary (1954) (eight goals); also Brazil (1950) (six goals)

Originally posted by Xaji_Xunjuf: President Rayale and the IGAD delegation discussed areas of mutual interest pertaining to the security, stability and development in East Africa. I don't see any discussions about statehood or recognition. Perhaps JB will decipher for me what I am missing. He has an inside inside inside information.

Duke, I could have quoted your typo error below about Brazil beaten by Brazil, but I didn't because I knew you meant something else. Likewise, you could have understood it was a typo when I said 2006 instead of 2002 (Korea/Japan world cup). Laakiin waa jikaarkii mudug and I understand. Originally posted by General Duke: Brazil on the other hand are always the favorite and usually only win world cups against weaker opposition, every time they come against a team with a decent side they melt, remember 1998 & 2006 at the hands of Brazil or in the 80s at the hands of Argentina or Germany. Anyway, your statement about Brazil being beaten by Italy, Argentina and Germany is wrong. Here is some recent encounters with Italy and Argentina, while Brazil NEVER met Germany on the World cup, but for 2002 finals when they triumphed 2-0. Post 1970 World Cup encounters: Brazil Vs Argentina 1974: Brazil 2- Argentina 1 1978: Brazil 0- Argentina 0 (Host Argentina) 1982: Brazil 3- Argentina 1 (Maradona red-card) 1990: Brazil 0- Argentina 1 (Brazil dominated the match fully but lost) Against Italy 1970: Brazil 4- Italy 1 1978: Brazil 2- Italy 1 1982: Brazil 2- Italy 3 1994: Brazil 4- Italy 3 (penalties) Against Germany They only met anything with a name Germany in 1974 but that was a different Germany. It was the DDR (East Germany) which they beat 1-0; they beat Germany in 2002 2-0. Against Holland 1974: lost 2-0 1994: beat 3-2 1998: beat Holland on penalties after 1-1 draw Against England, beat them 1-0 in 1970 and 2-1 in 2002. On the other hand, as I said earlier France beat them 1986, 1998 and 2006 ( and beat them convincingle both in 1998 and 2006). So, what are you talking about when you say they are not good against big teams in the World Cup. The record is: 2-1 against Argentina 3-1 against Italy 2-0 against England 2-1 against Holland 2-0 against two different Germany's And 3-0 against France (since 1970) in the World cup. So, what are your records to say they wiggle against big teams, except France. Edit:- If we go into the business of qualifyinf wins and losses and how it happened, we can also state that: - in 1982: Italians counter-attacked but were thought a football lesson by Socrates, Zico, Falcao etc - In 1986, Zico missed a crucial last minutes Penalty against France - In 1990, Argentina played as if they were Ethiopia playing Morocco, and barely managed one shot which turned into a goal Maradona never troubled Brazil for the record. He lost against them in 1982, and won in 1990 (but barely touched the ball save for one moment of magic). - In 2006 brazil was pathetic throughout and were lucky to win any game. Largely because of the choices of the coach who kept Ronaldo even when it was clear he cannot move.

Brazil defeated Holland and Italy when they won the 1994 World Cup. They defeated England and Germany when they won the 2006 World cup. They defeat Italy and England when they won the 1970 World Cup. They lost to Argentina in 1990, to France in 1986 and 1998. Admittedly, France is their boggy side. but their record against other big sides is impeccable. In the last four years, they beat Argentina three or four times scoring more than 3 goals in each occasion. They beat Italy 3-0 and Portugal 6-2 (in a Friendly). They have won two consecutive Copa America and the Confed cup without losing a match. I am surprised why you are not telling this side of the story. On the otherhand, Argentina lost to Brazil in 1982, Germany were beaten every time they played Brazil in the WorldCup, Italy only won ONCE in 1982. So when did Germany beat Brazil in the Worldcup? And do you realize except France, none of those you referred as big teams beat Brazil twice in the World cup? General Duke, i think you should keep us informed of the proceedings in Puntland which is what you are better at doing!

Dear old Xinny, I misunderstood nothing. What I agreed with good old Oodweyne is a common working framework on issues of common interst while at the same time agreeing to disagree on the fundamental beliefs we hold with regard to the Somaliweyn issue. I think it is a workable arrangement, and hence there is no need to break the so far thriving relationship. I, indeed, firmly belief that the open unilateral stance of Oodweyne's entity is by far less damaging than the insidious undermining of the unity of the somali nation by an entity [puntland] that purports to be advancing it, but in essence, is clearly dismantling what little is left of that same unity by way of subservience to Ethiopia and sabotaging the North and Southern neighbors.

I have no doubt Riyaale is not a supporter of Somaliland's secession. He is acting and so far acting very well. He is smiling tonight about the Egyptians remarks.

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel: lol it's the fabled Gorilla of Independence It is!!!

Dear Oodweyne, the jist of the analogy was for us to agree to be consciously deaf and dumb of the other's transgressions as far as some core political viewpoints are concerned; and to work togather where we can agree on. And the list is inexhaustible when it comes to what we agree on. I have seen the vagrant of SOL took it to a wholly inappropriate direction, but certainly I didn't expect you will lend some sense to his useless allusions by repeating what he was referring to, which is alien to you and me. And hence I saw no reason to suspect one would think of such filth as it is not part and parcel of our heritage or present lifestyle. But of course, I have forgotten that eversince the numbers of somali's in foreign lands swelled, the dangers of proliferation of some wicked practices was to be expected. Particularly with a kid who lives in California, who might think what he sees on a daily basis is what is seen by others too. For I would surely have embraced you by the shoulders and would have walked with you hand-in-hand as a sign of affection without ever suspecting either you or some other somali who looks at us would ever think of anything wicked about such an embrace. Of course, that is if we are in our land or in Africa.

Peacenow, You are losing your sanity because of Arab hatred. Calm down please. You accuse some of hating Christians, but look at youself!

It augurs the coming of recognition. good news. If Gorilla can come to the tree-less desert of Somaliland, recognition surely can. That the sighting of Gorilla's coincides with the visit of the IGAD mission is not a mere fluke.

Saaixb, Dunga has already come out and side his group is not 'the group of death'. I agree with him. Brazil will beat North Korea and Ivory coast (who expect Kalou and Yaya toure doesn't have that much of a talent despite the talk. Zokora, Eboue, Meite, Boka are average. Kolo Toure is disaster. Drogba is always bad when playing for the elephants.) If brazil tops its group and Spain (as expected tops its group) they don't meet, although I would have loved them to meet. Italy was beaten 3-0 by brazil in the confed. (i am not saying that will happen again), but Italy doesn't look that menacing. On the otherhand, the likes of Argentina, Denmark, Germany, Ghana, Serbia can meet England if they advance from the group stage.

On current form. So, forget about last three world cups blah blah. you made good points about England's form under Capello. But I feel Croatia was an ageing side. I feel England is not yet really tested!! As to Norf saying England will go further than Brazil, we know it can happen in football. That doesn't mean he has the foresight to know it. It is a blind guess. I can say North Korea will beat brazil. It can happen. But that is not how predictions are made. It is based on realistic assessments of the squad's strength and performance. With England, I have to say I am not rational for I hate them. I take that charge of xaasidnimo here. But except Rooney, there is no player I fear from the England side. John Thierry is a piece of cake for most attckers. And the midfield is not that strong. Even Gerard is on the decline. So, I genuinely feel England is not that great.

Originally posted by Norfsky: England will go further than Brazil. How about that A&T? Your prediction is based on what? Preference or hunch?

Dear Oodweyne, It is with regret that our newly found rapprochment is under threat in so short of a period. And let me assure you I am in no rush to jettison this warm attachment at the very honeymoon stage. There is no attempt on my side to jelly with the pirates, but the fact remains that on some issues you and me may not see eye to eye. The right manner of conduct will then be to follow the example set by the loving women who cherishes everything about her man but for the thunderous snorting whenever he lies beside her. The correct antidote this wise woman used was not to crowd the stairs of the courts and seek divorce papers, but to put two or three heavy ostrich-feather pillows on either of her ear that is facing the sky. As such, i think there is room to preseve this fledgling parternship, particulary when the points of divergence can be pinned down to not more one or two issues. Finally, to answer your questions of my motives, it is not either to replace Baashe or to palacate fish-eating crowds in SOL. It is simply to say what is deemed right by my conscience.