^How dare they protest? Who do they think they are? Bunch of ungrateful ingrates I tell ya. lets hope it finishes in peace LOL - somehow my sincerity meter is not registering anything with that statment.

^From a moving car eh? Edit - professional photography is nowhere in your future.

I like the ones that are arranged forcefully myself.

^Rather ugly - professional photography is not in your future

^Estonians are an odd lot - very hard to figure out.

^Cool - enjoy your stay.

^Take it away Baashi. It would be interesting to hear your opinion on what should be changed and what errors need to be corrected at this meeting.

Whatever the case - the key test is whether there will be a transition of power through choice and not just a desperate clinging to power. And why aren't there popular elections in the place - Congo, war-torn, unstable Congo has managed to hold them.

^Nice Take some good pics will ya please(both of you) - and not just of dusty towns but the attractive parts of the countryside(mountains of Erigavo maybe). Too many folks who go back to the old country bring back pics of unattractive urban areas and this being Africa there really isn't much to photograph there. Safe journey.

^Oh Lordy! It wouldn't appear on google now would it as it is a Somali shorthand? But you can believe what you want.

Originally posted by Xanthus: The other thing is, few people here seem to assume that the article said he was reer-hebel-hebel, I must have missed that part. I’m sorry but unless I’m confused and you guys are saying only one clan lives in Somaliland, you better find some other useful argument, because this one is clearly invalid, the article mentioned a region and a town, I did not see any reer-hebel-hebel. Further more this article was clearly using it as means of identifying his life and how it all began, rather than hitting a political goal home. I'm not sure where the 'you guys' came from - I was making my own very nuanced argument not supporting the arguments of others. And my argument still stands though it is not really applicable to the original post of this thread as I said. I don't think anyone is saying that only clan lives in Somaliland - but as every reasonable person knows - it's shorthand for a particular clan - same with Gedo or Sool or what have you.

^There are many deeply traumatized ladies in this forum

^No I did - I didn't think you were sarcastic enough - juice it up 3 fold or so and it will come closer

Uploading images from your hard drive is not easy in this forum for sure.

Oldest Mosque in Mog

Since their independence, most African nations haven't exactely dazzled the world with their economic and social progress Understatement of the century. I'd settle for one of not dying of famine in an agriculturally rich a continent as Africa or not butchering millions for a passing political power. Scipio Africanus eh? - more like Romanus

Originally posted by Xanthus: I find it disturbing that grown a*ss men cannot comprehend that a national icon has an identity, he is from reer-hebel hebel, who are closer and dear to him than you. It is illogical to assume that everyone else has an identity (which is different from nationality or Qaran) but national icons, haada maa gaarac baa miis ciika uu kaa soo daacy?? While no one has "ownership" of any Somali hero/Icon, it is ridiculous to assume they dropped out of the sky with no family/ clan or heritage, pointing out their identity does not take anything from him, and people who objecting to it do so because their small hateful mind cannot comprehend simple facts And she comes back with a roar. It's an interesting point of discussion. At what point is a mention of rer-hebel-hebel useful in a discussion? Does the mention of it gratuitously not connote rather clearly 'ownership'? I think there is a fine line there and at some point you can't have rer-hebel-hebel without meaning ownership. And for 'national' icons it has particular importance. Personally, I wouldn't include that information in any post unless absolutely vital. But the original post simply linked to another site so the fuss there is somewhat strange to me.

^I for one am disappointed by any capitulation from either side - how can WE be deprived of such exquisite dialogue? Woe to us for the deficit that will come.

^'Woman can cock', 'Cocking, cleaning,....' - Is that you or the member talking? Or are they the same thing?

Originally posted by Naden: You're the only one saying that here. Fairer trade agreements and less tariffs are necessary for non-Western farmers to sell their produce. The Western world uses force to pry open markets while blocking fair trade. They are interested in raw materials, governments that amass weapons, and a populace that uses their products. This is not to say that corruption is not killing Africa or that better models of economic growth have been successful in other 3rd world countries. However, there are complex issues that plague many African countries including the IMF and the World Bank's involvement. Far from it. The author's prescription for Africa's ills is 'fair trade' read as - the West has to do x. When you mention solely that or put a primary emphasis on it - you are saying that others' actions determine your prosperity not your own. Which is nonsense. What is necessary for African farmers in terms of selling their produce is hardly the concern of Western governments. Their concerns are their own. And everyone is buying raw meterials not just the West. And those who have foresight realize that you build an economy through manufacturing and industry not simply extraction. You understanding it doesn't make it fair. I agree with you and the author that these crocodile tears and the entire aid industry should be scrapped. Even so, Western farmers have an unfair advantage, protection at the barrel of overt and mercenary guns. I don't believe it's unfair to Africans. That is rather a tenous claim. If western consumers(through their representatives) decide that they would rather pay higher food costs so that a small proportion of the populace(farmers) can benefit - it's certainly their prerogative. It's only unfair to those who didn't make that choice. I'm not sure where the references to power politics keep coming from. Certainly that has been the behaviour of the West in the past - but such behaviour is limited at present. At any rate - Africans hardly have the hard currency to buy much of what is offered to them by the West and this is where they go hat-in-hand to the IMF and co but that's another story. The West has an expressed interest in the demise of Africa. They are directly and indirectly benefiting from the thousand civil wars and the gutting of natural resources. Any more help to Africa would surely sink it. This part is neither here or there. Another's ill wishes matter much less than your own good wishes followed up by action. And whether you buy the weapons or offer your resources - it's ultimately your choice - you can say no at the end. I really think it's best here to observe the example of southeast Asian countries and try to understand the way forward is less about fair trade than other matters.

^When the end of interview questions come - your top one should be "Yeah, so, why don't you tell me a little bit about yourself"?

^You ladies are not liberated. You're still shackled. You're in the West - drop that nonsense. The idea that housewife can have any positive connotations!!

^I'm not sure why they don't make the HQ in Djibouti. They are already there in force and and the President would welcome them with open arms. Perhaps it's too primitive.

^It is a concession ultimately. The ability to produce one's own food is seen as a vital national interest by all countries hence the subsidies and protections for farmers. And any country that deems a certain aspect of its internal economic activity restricted is well within its rights. The point here is that this is yet another example of Africans saying you(the West) must do x, y and z for us to succeed. And what does this engender in the West but the fallacy that they are able to save Africa(said fallacy the author is vehemently against yet perpetuates unknowingly). Any prescription for Africa should be the other way around - ie Africa must do x, y and z and maybe the West could help out a little. If one examines the half century since African independance - and then looks at rapidly developing areas such as Southeast Asia and Latin America - one quickly sees that fair trade is hardly the driving point of the progess in those areas. It started with decent administration followed by incentives for investors which spurred export oriented growth and so on. Where were the cries then for fair trade? Don't get me wrong. Personally I'm in favour of less protection for western farmers but I can understand the reluctance to do so given the special nature of agriculture. But still casting the blame for ones own lack of development on the non-action of others strikes me as foolish overall.

Originally posted by Caano Geel: ... and hindus have been meditating on notions of movement, change and uncertainty that quantum physics is only beginning to grasp now -for well over 5 millennia, so does knowing that make you wanna find the right path in hinduism? .. in effect what is the point of mixing physical science and theology/spirtuality?! What's in your caano Caano? There is more to the right path than just that. And who said aspects of Hinduism are not interesting - they are to me after ignoring its predeliction for idols and idolatry.