Madaxweynaha Somaliland Oo dalka ku soo laabtay Hargeysa(QARAN)- Madaxweynaha Somaliland Md Daahir Rayaale Kaahin iyo weftigii uu hogaaminayay ayaa galabta Dalka dib igu soo laabtay ka dib markii ay soo dhamaysteen booqashooyin shaqo oo ay ku tageen wadamo ka tirsan Yurub. Madaxweynaha oo maanta gelinkii danbe ka soo degay dhabaha diyaaradaha Egal ee Casimada isagoo la socday diyaarad khaas ah oo ay leedahay shirkadaha diyaaradaha Ethiopian Airlines ayaa hadal kooban oo ku siiyey saxaafada Xarunta Madaxtooyada kaas oo ku saabsanaa socdaalkii uu ku tegay wadamadaa iyo wixii uga soo qabsoomay waxa uu yidhi[Marka hore waxaan filayaa in warkaygu iga soo horeeyay sicid baana idiin soo dirayay markastaba,Si koobanse hadii aan uga hadlo safarkayaga waxaan ku tegay Sweden,Norwey iyo Talyaaniga waxaan ku soo ururinayaa wixii su’aal ah idinkaan idiin dhaafayaaye safarkaasi wuxuu ahaa mid guul ku soo dhamaaday waxa kale oo aan idiin sheegayaa Talyaaniga oo mudo inaga xidhnaa albaabkaasina wuu inoo furmay oo waa ku soo guulaysanay]ayuu yidhi Madaxweynuhu Madaxweynaha waxa Garoonka Diyaaradaha ku soo dhoweeyay Madaxweyne kuxigeenka Somaliland Md Axmed Yuusuf Yaasiin,Wasiiro,Xildhibaano ka tirsan Golayaasha Qaranka,iyo Dadweyne kale oo fara badan . Madaxweynaha iyo weftigiisa oo safarkooda ku soo khatimay Itoobiya waxa ay halkaa kula soo kulmeen Raysal Wasaaraha Itoobiya Ato Melez Zenawi iyagoo isla soo qaaday xidhiidhka labada Dal iyo Xalaada ka aloosan mandaqada Geeska Afrika Weftiga waxa habeenkii xalay casho sharaf ugu sameeyay Hutel Sheraton ee magaalada Adis-ababa Wasiirka Arimaha Dibeda Itoobiya Zayoum Musfin iyadoo uu goob joogna ka ahaa Wasiiru Dawlaha Arimaha Dibeda ee Itoobiya Tekda Alomu iyo Wasiirka Arimaha Dibeda Somaliland Cabdilaahi Max’ed Ducalle Madaxeynaha Waxa Safarkiisa ku wehelinayay Murwada Kowaad Huda Barkhad Aadan,Wasiirka Arimaha Dibeda Cabdilaahi Max'ed Ducalle,Xoghaynta Madaxweynaha Axmed Ciise,iyo Siciid Cadaani Afhayeenka Madaxtooyada.

looooooooool ,,,,,,, it was not about Khat niyow ,,,, slept at 3am and woke up at 6am ,,,, now i'm half-drunk

That time ,, i fell in love with Hema Malina ,,,, i don't know if she even knows me

war never ends ,,,, starting a war is very easy but ending it is almost impossible ,,,, Meeshan cid dhexdhexaading gasha waa in la raadiyo sidani si maahee ,,,,

waar ka daa ,,,,,, dad baa dhimanayee

wixii la isku raacaa ma xuma ,,,,

dadkan cid dhex gashaa ma jito miyaa "???

well, it is almost 2am here ,,,, don't know why i'm awake this time ,,,,, i need coffee before i go to bed ,,,,

waar anagu isma dilno ,, wiil dhasha mooyaane wiil dagaal ku dhintaa ma jiro ,,,,, Bal dhinac uun isku raaca inaad dhulka is dhigtaana ha noqotee

Idinka uun baa xaganna xabashi kala shaqeeya xaganna kala dagaalama ,,,,,, waar is daaya oo heshiiya oo wadankiina wax u qabsada yaa asxaabal soomaal ,,,,,

i can only see the reality ,,,,,

what do you call when you have a fabulous weekend ?? ,,,, i mean i was sleeping the whole day ,,,,, now i'm as fresh as a now-born baby

No ,, actually she didn't know and she was saying she doesn't trust those ppl coming from europe and she wants to make sure he is negative ,,,, sadly she was positive

you always go in circles niyow ,,,, you don't have to spend all that energy on something already finalized ,,,, now the ban has been lifted and the problem is solved ,,,, finiitoo ,, Now wait untill you get something else you can discuss for days before it is finalized too

Madaxweyne Riyaale oo dalka dib ugu soo laabtay iyo su'aalaha laga weydiiyey socdaalkiisa Somaliland.Org — Hargeisa, Somaliland — 22 June, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hargeysa (Somaliland.org) – Madaxweynaha Somaliland, mudane Daahir Riyaale Kaahin ayaa maanta dalka dib ugu soo laabtay, kadib markii uu soo dhammaystay socdaal saddex toddobaad qaatay oo uu ku soo maray dalalka Sweden, Norway iyo Talyaaniga. Madaxweyne Riyaale oo markii uu dalka soo gaadhey, madaxtooyada kula hadlay saxaafadda maxalliga ah, waxa uu sheegay in safarkiisu uu ahaa mid guul ku soo dhammaaday, isaga oo si gaar ah u xusay Talyaaniga oo uu sheegay in albaabkiisa oo xidhnaa uu soo furay. "Si kooban markaan uga hadlo safarkayga waxaan ku tegey Norway, Sweden iyo Talyaaniga. Waxaan ku soo ururinayaa – su'aalaha idinkaan idiin dhaafayaaye – Guul bay ahayd uu safarkaasi ku soo dhammaaday, " ayuu yidhi Madaxweyne Riyaale. "Talyaaniga oo meel inaga xidhan ahayd albaabkaasi inuu inoo furmay baan idiin sheegayaa oo aan ku soo guuleysaney oo Talyaanigu uu inala macaamili doono mustaqbalka dhow, " ayuu raaciyey. Waxa kale oo uu sheegay in safarkiisa uu markii horena ka bilaabay Addis Ababa, haddana uu ku soo gebagebeeyey. Madaxweyne Riyaale, waxa uu sheegay in warkiisu ka soo horreeyey, taas oo uga jeedey warsaxaafadeedyo uu soo dirayey Afhayeenka Madaxtooyada oo la socdey weftiga Madaxweynaha. Sidaa darteed, waxa uu sheegay inuu ka jawaabayo wixii su'aalo ah ee ay saxaafaddu weydiinayso. Madaxweyne Riyaale oo marar badan Suxufiyiinta, Golayaasha iyo dadweynahaba u tilmaama inay wax soo bartaan ama sharciga bartaan, waxa la weydiiyey su'aal ku saabsanayd Aqoontiisa iyo sababta uu wax uga qabanwaayey ama u maarayn waayey, musuqmaasuqa baahay, caddaalad-darrada iyo cabashooyinka kale ee la xidhiidha ku dhaqankiisa sharciga iyo dastuurka? Waxana uu ku jawaabey, "Horta anigu ma ogi waxaad aad ka sheekeeynayso, adiga ayaa og, musuqmaasuqna ma jiro, caddaalad darrona ma jirto, maxkamaduhuna waa maxkamado xora. sharcigana aan kaaga warramo, horta Madaxweynaan ahayoo dastuurka ninka ilaalinayaan ahay, 10 sannona waanan ku shaqeynayey. Hota dastuurka ha la raaco ayaan idhiye sharciga ma yaqaanaan maan odhan, ha qaloocin, dastuurka ha la raaco ayaan, idhi dastuurkana in la raaco waa waajib nin laga baryayaana ma jirto aniga layga baryimaayo, cid kalena laga baryimaayo." Madaxweyne Riyaale waxa uu beeniyey warar soo baxay intii uu Talyaaniga tegey oo sheegaya inuu la kulmay Wasiirka Arrimaha Dibadda ee dowladda Cabdillaahi Yuusuf. "Waa been, lama kulmin, war been ah bay ahayd, ninkii sameyeyna isaga ayaa sameeyey, cid walibana way ogtahay wasiir Embaghati oo meesha joogayna muu jirin, " ayuu yidhi. Madaxweyne Riyaale oo socdaalkiisa Talyaanigu aanu ku jirin qorshaha socdaalkiisa oo ahaa Sweden iyo Norway, waxa uu sheegay in markii uu dalka ka dhoofayey uu Talyaaniga ka haystey martiqaad rasmi ah, balse uu qariyey inuu sheego. "Horta markaan halkan ka dhoofayey marti-qaad rasmiya ayaan ka haystay Talyaaniga, laakin maan sheegin maadaama aan cadow badan aynu leenahay ilaa inta aan meesha gaadhayey waayo danteena ayaa ku jirtay inaan ka sii warramin sinaan danaheena u gaadho, " ayuu yidhi mudane Riyaale. Waxa kale oo la weydiiyey in Talyaanigu yahay dalalka Yurub ee sida weyn uga soo horjeeda Somaliland, si weynna ugu xagliya dowladda Soomaaliya ee Cabdillaahi Yuusuf, waxa uu sheegay in aanu Talyaaniga wax gaar ah saarayn, balse, uu ka mid yahay dunida oo aanu jirin dal keliya oo aqoonsan Somaliland. Madaxweyne Riyaale, waxa uu difaacey tallaabadii Shirkadda Itoobiyan Airlines ku soo rogtey madaxda Somaliland in la baadho ka hor inta aaanay diyaaraddaas fuulin. Madaxweyne Riyaale waxa socdaalkiisa ku weheliyey, Wasiirka Arrimaha Dibadda, marwada Madaxweynaha, Xoghayntiisa gaarka ah iyo Afhayeenka Madaxtooyada. Waxaana ku soo dhoweeyey madaarka Madaxweynekuxigeenka, Guddoomiyayaasha Baarlamaanka, wasiirro iyo dadweyne la soo abaabuley.

Cos he thought he is the only OLD one here

As someone who has devoted most of his life to elective politics, Andrew Moravcsik struck a responsive chord with me when he observed earlier in this conference that legislatures and elected politicians are the least legitimate and most generally despised of all our governance institutions. It is interesting to ponder just which of our sins it is that – in the league tables of most admired professions – puts politicians down there with used car salesmen and child molesters. I don't think it is any of the familiar seven deadlies: we know from recent US history that electorates can live with lust, and – if my experience in Australia even begins to match that elsewhere – gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride don’t seem to be show-stoppers either. My own judgment, for what it's worth, is what people most associate with politicians as a class, and most hate about them as a result, is hypocrisy, and all the familiar variations on that basic theme: double-standards, unprincipled inconsistency, saying one thing and doing another. And it's on the dangers and risks of hypocrisy, not just in domestic politics but in international relations, and in a number of different contexts, that I want to focus this evening, Far from consistency being the hob-goblin of small minds, it's something that voters take rather seriously – and so do states in their assessment of each others' international behaviour. I rather hope that what I have to say will mildly outrage some of you – there's always a chance with Max Boot in the audience – and generate a debate accordingly, but I suspect that at this late and speeched-out stage of the proceedings there is a better chance of being greeted by listless indifference. But, like Bill Clinton, I feel your pain. So I will keep my remarks as brisk and staccato as I can, and won't detain you too long from the sybaritic wallowing in which I'm sure you'd be much rather engaged. Hypocrisy and Democracy There are quite a few things we've learned about democracy promotion over the last few years, and most of them have emerged pretty clearly in course of discussion at this conference, so I will not labour too long over familiar ground. First, it is obvious now to just about everyone that democracy – or at least liberal democracy, the only kind that means anything – is about much more than holding elections. Protection of human rights, especially minority rights and those related to freedom of expression, and respect for the rule of law, are indispensable concomitants. Secondly, it is rather obvious now to everyone, except perhaps those most capable of doing it, that bombing for democracy – trying to deliver it on the tip of precision guided missiles, as my Crisis Group colleague Chris Patten puts it – is not, on the whole, a very good idea. Thirdly, and maybe not so obviously, democracy promotion can be rather bad news for democrats. I am thinking in particular of the cries of anguish we have been hearing recently from civil society and human rights activists in Iran, who have – following the US announcement that large dollops of democracy funding will be headed their way – been subjected to a rapid increase in state repression. Maybe it's possible for this kind of external support to distinguish between promotion of regime change and support just for building the preconditions of democracy (voter rights, better information flows, transparency and the like), but at the very least we should be asking first those in whose interests we are supposed to be acting. Fighting for our principles to the last drop of someone else's blood is never very edifying. The fourth big thing we should have learned about democracy promotion, which directly leads into my main theme, but doesn't seem to be at all obvious to most US and European policymakers, is that inconsistency is totally counterproductive: it is wholly damaging to the cause to advocate the case for democracy only when you are sure the that democratic process will produce an outcome you like. It has not been a pretty sight in this respect to watch the almost universal Western disavowal of Hamas after it won the Palestinian election that the West had so enthusiastically supported. An International Crisis Group report shortly after that election argued strongly that the international community needed to focus on encouraging Hamas to govern responsibly, not to force it out of government or make the government unworkable by imposing conditions that nobody believed could be immediately met, and we summarised the Hamas response as we found it as 'let us govern or watch us fight'. Events since then have done nothing but reinforce the accuracy of that assessment – with the outbreak of civil war-level violence, the complete collapse of the strategy to arm and support Fatah at Hamas’s expense, the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the collapse of the government of national unity, and the evaporation once more of hopes for resuming any kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace process for the foreseeable future. Another less than edifying experience has been the constant wriggling of Western, and in particular U.S. policymakers, in the face of Pervez Musharaff's continuing authoritarian rule in Pakistan, and in particular the contempt that continues to be expressed by so many of them – more veiled in public, but often quite open in private – toward the democratic parties as they struggle, with signs of growing popular and elite support, to recover ground. One does not have to be naïve about the manifest failings of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and their colleagues in the past, to nonetheless feel strongly, as I for one do, that New York Governor Al Smith was absolutely right when he said in the 1920s that 'The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy'. Of course we have to face the prospect in the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, that if full electoral democracy is introduced there is a prospect that Islamists will be elected – and a risk that cannot be ignored that the first such democratic election might be the last: Hitler was after all democratically elected. But it is absolutely critical to recognize that 'Islamism' or Islamic activism is not a single-stranded phenomenon, and that it is only a small minority of Islamists – which are in turn only a minority of Muslims – that would even be tempted to go down this absolutist path. As Crisis Group has spelt out in detail in our 2005 report, Understanding Islamism, there are in Sunni Islamism alone three very clearly distinguishable groups – the missionary (with no political agenda at all), the political (seeking power but by constitutional means and invoking democratic norms, of which the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is currently an example), and the jihadi (embracing violence, and with an extremist agenda) – of which the last is much the smallest. For those who think there is a risk in any brand of Islamism gaining a toehold through the democratic process, and would act accordingly to exclude that possibility, Algeria stands as an awful warning – with cancelled elections followed by a further ten years of brutal conflict. Double Standards in Human Rights Promotion Moving beyond democracy promotion to human rights advocacy generally, the short point to make – which again seems rather obvious these days to just about everyone in the world except those most in a position to do something about it – is that you lose your bragging rights and haranguing license when you are responsible for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, secret rendition, extended detention without charge and all the rest of the Bush/Blair post-9/11 bill of goods. This hasn't exactly escaped the notice of the Chinas and Russias of this world, who are becoming increasingly less polite in their responses to concerns expressed about their domestic human rights records. Having done a fair bit of haranguing on human rights in my previous foreign ministerial life – politely of course, because as everyone knows, subtlety and nuance are central to the Australian political culture – I am of course aware that having bragging rights about one's own record doesn't necessarily mean your interlocutors will take any notice when it comes to theirs. But we should never underestimate the effect of consistently and relentlessly applied moral pressure. However squalid their actual behaviour and motives might be, states – like politicians – always like to be seen as doing the right thing, and do get embarrassed when most of the world thinks they are not. Russia might be a tough nut to crack in this respect, but I do believe that China's recent moves to play a more positive role in Darfur, for example, owe something to that concern. Selectivity in Responding to the Most Extreme Human Rights Abuses This is another area of international relations where double standards are completely counterproductive, but unfortunately still in evidence. We may be past the Cold War days when political leaders could say openly and shamelessly of a given counterpart that 'he is a tyrant, but he's our tyrant, so what's your problem'? And we do, as an international community generally now accept that, after Rwanda and Srebrenica and Kosovo, that sovereignty is not a license to kill: that when a country's shamelessness reaches the point of a government being engaged in the large-scale killing or ethnic cleansing of its own people, or allowing others within the country to do so, then it’s the responsibility of the rest of the world to do something about it. But while the responsibility to protect (R2P for short) principle was unanimously accepted by the UN World Summit in 2005, there is still a lot of uncertainty about what it means and how it should be applied in particular cases, uncertainty generated above all else by a spectacular misuse of R2P principles by the US-led coalition, supported particularly in this respect by the UK, in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq – and the suspicion that R2P will be just another excuse for neo-colonialist and neo-imperialist interventions by those who cant get missions civilisatrices and other bad old habits out of their system. It is evident that quite a lot of uncertainty and misunderstanding persists about the nature and reach of the R2P concept. For the record, as one of the inventors of the concept, perhaps I can emphasise its three most central characteristics. First, R2P situations are narrowly defined: those where large-scale killing or ethnic cleansing or comparable crimes against humanity are occurring or imminently likely to occur, or the situation is likely to deteriorate to this extent if not untended. R2P situations are not about less extreme human rights violations, or conflicts that do not have this atrocity crime dimension. Secondly, R2P applies at three different stages along a continuum: it involves the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react (by all appropriate means, starting with persuasion, and coercion short of force) and the responsibility to rebuild societies after they have been torn apart in this context. Thirdly, when it comes to the most extreme form of reaction, military force, that has to be done in accordance with carefully defined prudential principles. Proponents of R2P identify five in particular: the seriousness of the harm being threatened (which in the case of internal misbehaviour would need to involve large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing to prima facie justify something as extreme as military action); the motivation or primary purpose of the proposed military action (whether it was primarily to halt or avert the threat in question, or had some other main objective); whether there were reasonably available peaceful alternatives; the proportionality of the response; and, not least, the balance of consequences – whether overall more good than harm would be done by a military invasion. If these principles are understood, there is no guarantee that there will always be absolute agreement about what is a proper case for the application of the R2P concept, and in particular for the use of force. But there will be much less scope for the kind of hypocritical ad-hocery which has plagued so much of the debate on these issues in the past, and which has made it so much harder to develop an appropriate reflex international response when another Rwanda comes along, as we must continue to feel it will. Inconsistency in Balancing Peace and Justice Another context in which the absence of clear international rules, and of any kind of consistency in the behaviour of key players, has been deeply unhelpful, is managing the trade off between peace and justice. This has become an increasingly central – and difficult – issue for those of us passionately committed to both human rights and conflict prevention. The existence now of the International Criminal Court, with its broad ranging mandate to attack once and for all the problem of impunity, has made it much more practically salient, as witness the current debates over the wisdom or otherwise of pursuing the prosecution of key figures in the Sudan government over Darfur, and the LRA rebel leadership while Northern Uganda peace negotiations are still under way. Mixed messages and inconsistency of approach in this area have been less the product, I think, of deliberate double-standard intent than of genuine puzzlement as to what to do. But there are some guidelines that can get us through the morass, and it’s important in future that they be observed: First, we should let the prosecutors and the courts get on with the task of prosecuting and overcoming impunity – with bulldog intensity. Their job is to focus on the interests of justice, not peace. If the interests of peace are however in play, and in a particular situation there is strong reason, backed by good evidence, to believe that a compromise on justice will produce a sustainable peace, and save thousands or more lives in the process, then that's a decision that can defensibly be made – but it should be made by someone else, with a political rather than legal role. In the case of the ICC, that power is vested in the UN Security Council under Article 16 of the Rome Treaty. Secondly, if an amnesty or safe refuge decision is made in the interests of peace, that deal should stick. The classic case is Nigeria's initial grant of asylum to Liberia's murderous Charles Taylor in 2003, not at all unreasonable given the prospect then looming of thousands more deaths in the final battle for Monrovia. But the deal wasn't honoured: after the change of government in Liberia, Nigeria, under international pressure, subsequently handed over Taylor for prosecution, without making any serious attempt to prove that he had acted in breach of the conditions of his asylum. And the person who has taken most notice of this, and who constantly refers to it whenever it is suggested that he might, in the interests of his benighted country, take the option of a graceful exit from public life, is Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. Hyprocisy and Nuclear Disarmament This final example of the risks associated with hypocrisy and double-standards in international affairs is probably the most familiar of all. On the one hand we have the systematic unwillingness of the five original nuclear weapons states under the NPT to acknowledge that the disarmament provisions of the treaty mean anything substantive in their application to them; the unwillingness of most of them for years to acknowledge the reality of Israel's nuclear weapons status; and their comparative indifference to the acquisition of weapons status by India and Pakistan. But at the same time we have an insistence by most of them that the absolute letter of the non-proliferation part of the treaty must be observed by the non-nuclear weapons states, with this issue coming to a head now with the ever more coercive action being threatened against Iran for doing essentially what it is entitled to do under the Treaty, viz. acquire full fuel cycle capability. The unhappy truth of the matter is that with things having got to the stage they have, there is only one way out of the Iran dilemma, namely accept the reality of Iran's civilian ambitions (not least because of the complete unwillingness of most of the rest of the world to accommodate them) and draw a new red-line that is genuinely principled, consistent with the Treaty, and that will get universal buy in. This would involve Iran taking no steps toward weaponisation; having in place extremely intrusive monitoring to ensure that (justified by Iran's less than full disclosures in the past, which have rightly aroused suspicion); and all hell being credibly threatened – including in an extreme case military action – if that line is crossed. For all the brinkmanship in which Iran has so far engaged, and for all its clear ambitions to be a major regional player, there is every reason to believe that – with an appropriate combination of incentives and disincentives – this is a deal waiting to be negotiated. Concluding Thoughts Every one of the policy dilemmas I have described involves highly complex issues. Of course it is the case that national interests will intrude all over the place – as they always do – making the resolution of every individual case difficult. The point I am making is that just as it is part of the essence of liberal democracy that the rule of law prevail, there be no arbitrary decision making and that so far as possible like cases be treated alike, so too it is the essence of a rule-based international order, as distinct from a wholly anarchic order, that like cases be treated alike, that rules and principles be developed and applied to cover the kind of situations that will go on arising, and that those rules and principles be observed, by the great and small alike, consistently, without double standards and without overt hypocrisy. My own favorite line on exceptionalism – the dangers inherent in applying different standards to oneself than others, and thinking not in terms of creating and applying rules but of exercising raw power – comes from Bill Clinton, speaking a few years ago (and before the understanding of the scale and speed of China's rise was anything like as acute as it is now): America has two choices. We can use our great and unprecedented military and economic power to try and stay top dog on the global block in perpetuity. Or we can seek to use that power to create a world in which we will be comfortable living when we are no longer top dog on the global block. When the United States finally gets to understand the point of having rules consistently applied to which everyone is bound, there really will be no excuse for the rest of us behaving any differently. Hasten the day. HERE

Hargeysa (Somaliland.org) – Shirkadda Diyaaradaha ee Ethiopian Airlines ayaa maanta dib u bilowday duullimaadyadeedii Hargeysa, waxaana duullimaadkeedii u horreeyey la socdey Madaxweyne Riyaale oo daboolka ka qaaday in khilaafkii hakiyey duullimaadyada diyaaradda la dhammeeyey. Shirkadda Diyaaradaha ee Ethiopian Airlines waxay joojisey duullimaadyadeeda Hargeysa Isniintii ina dhaaftay, kadib markii khilaaf ka dhashay baadhis ay shirkaddu amartay in lagu sameeyo dhammaan dadka raacaya diyaaradda oo ay ku jiraan madaxda dowladda. Madaxweyne Riyaale oo la weydiiyey sida uu u arko arrinta baadhista iyo halka uu ku dambeeyey khilaafkii, waxa uu sheegay in khilaafkaas ay soo afjarmeen, duullimaadyadii diyaaradduna si rasmi ah u bilaabmeen. "Horta waxaan idiin sheegayaa diyuuradaha ammaankooda adduunka oo dhan buu adag yahaym Kabaha ayaa la iska saaraa waan idiin sheegayaaye kabaha.. markaad madaarada ka dhoofayso, " ayuu yidhi mudane Riyaale. "Security-ga [Ammaanka diyaaraduhu] waa masuuliyad aanay cidna qaadayn, in laga wada shaqeeyo weeyaan. Arrintaasina waan soo afjarnay, waana arrin maamul oo Wasiirka Duulista iyo qolyaha Ethiopia, arrintaasina final bay noqonaysaa. Duullimaadyadiina way bilaabmeen, " ayuu raaciyey. Intii khilaafkaasi taagnaa ayaa waxa soo baxay warar sheegaya in Diyaaradda Ethiopian Airlines ay haysato heshiis ay lagashay xukuumadda Somaliland, kaas oo dhigaya in aan la baadhin oo keliya Madaxweynaha iyo Madaxweynekuxigeenka iyo xaasaskooda. Khilaafkanina waxa uu ka dambeeyey markii Shirguddoonka Golaha Wakiilladu uu diidey in la baadho Guddoomiyaha Golaha Wakiillada oo Khamiistii toddobaadkii hore ka dhoofayey gegida diyaaradaha ee Hargeysa. Dadweynaha reer Somaliland ayaa aad uga xumaaday in saraakiil ka tirsan Nabadsuggidda Itoobiya ee la socda diyaaraddaasi ay madaarka caasimadda Somaliland ku baadhaan madaxda dowladda Somaliland, iyada oo u arka mid waxyeelaysa karaamada qaranimada Somaliland.

haha ,,,,,,,,, i'll feed you with da news ,,,, just to tell you it is solved

nataka nanii ??

dadku wax walba hadal bay ka keenayaan ,,, hadaad tidhaa nin baa shaah karsaday waa lagu murmayaa ,,, muxuu u karsaday, muu iska daayo ,, muu karsan ,,, naag la'aan baa haysay ,, mayee wuu kibray

the issue is over sxb ,,,,, ethiopian airlines is starting its flights tomorrow. Now, maxaad odhan hadaba ???

I think nothing can beat the famous DISCO DANCER ,,, the best of all, I still have it in my computer ,,,,, The best part of the indian movies are the songs ,,, and the group dancing ,,,,,, more movies: Qurban Sholay Love 86 G 9 Anyone remember ????

I was in the other section today and ppl start refreshing my mind and driving me crazy by reminding me all those hindi movies/songs i had in my life ,,,,,,,,,,,, the best hindi movies were those in the 80s ,,, i think i started with Disco Dancer some time in 83/84 but there was one before that ,, i cannot remember now ,,, Let's see, exchange and post those favorate songs of yours ,,,,,,, NOT TAKE THIS AS A SAMPLE - QURBANI

I HOPE THIS WILL REFRESH YOUR MIND ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ONLY IF YOU REMEMER QURBANI