Sh. Sharif at his best--many thanks to BBC

[Juje]

Originally posted by Castro:

I'll tell you in six words what Oodweyne would in 5000: this agreement is an aborted fetus.

Saying so does not make one a warmonger. Ignoring it makes you look uninformed.

Indeed for the last sentence and which is , Castro, a category you come under - uninformed. By declining to give it the benefit of doubt, even the thought of slightly hoping that it could work is something at least. And its success or failure will not effect 'directly' neither you or I, but many, and by many I mean many, who have lost everything and are in destitute situation. And that is what matters - whether this pact will ever prevail or even achieve something worthy of peace and stability will bring hope to those living under the 'qurac' or make shift tents in the outskirts.

Rest assured Castro you do not hate the Ethiopians as mush as Sheikh Sharif and his colleagues who agreed to this pact for the sake of finding another avenue of relief for those they represent - however bitter it would have made them is over ruled by the dire situation in the ground which you see as a 'blood sport'.

And in all honesty the Ethiopian enigma circles around the very people who suggest that there should be no peace pact until the total withdrawal of Ethiopian troops - good point indeed - but it is the same people who little more than a year ago who declared that they will perform their Eid prayers in Addis after a week.

Have we not yet reached a stage where we consider the betterment of many as a vital ingredient as opposed to defining presumptive the declaration of war that is inconsiderate at best and at worst not in tune with its mass.

[Castro]

^^^^ Heh. Today is 6/18/2008. The agreement was struck on 6/4/2008. 120 days from this latter date is 10/2/2008.

 

Tell me atheer, what, in your informed opinion, will be the state of Somalia on 10/2/2008?

 

You're hoping it'll succeed, I'm telling you it has already failed, so, what are the consequences of this agreement's failure?

 

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

To the contrary, this agreement is a good first step toward peaceful and stable Somalia.

Yes, Xiin. Only we've had 15 or 16 that came before it. All hailed as the first step. And believe it or not, we weren't even under occupation when those were signed.

 

Connect the dots, atheer. I know you can do it.

[xiinfaniin]

Castro ,

 

You are vacillating between cautiously supporting the Jabbuuti agreement and rejecting it. I am having difficulty time deciphering your posts. Tell us whether you oppose it outright, and, if you will, what you think the alternative should be. What is it that you are afraid of adeer? If it fails because of the International Community not living up to the their end of the deal, Sharif will have garnered even more support for he will have proved to the suffering masses, and outside audience, that it’s the powers that be that is in the way of the return of peace in Somalia despite their seemingly supportive pronouncements. If it succeeds, and Ethiopian troops withdraw, then it will be a great start to reconcile warring Somalis. The calculation could not be more shrewdly formulated.

 

Seriously, I don’t get you brother. Your objections do not make sense at all to me. If you really think peace should not be had as long TFG survives, then your cynic tone is just the tip of the iceberg and you are pregnant with more ominous thoughts. The notion that until certain personalities and warlord characters are defeated regardless of the context and without consideration to the situation in which said characters were able to ascend to the position of authority they occupy is not only naïve, but dangerous.

 

Don’t get me wrong for I still think Juje was wrong to accuse you of being inconsiderate to the humanitarian disaster in Muqdishu. I know you do consider the suffering of your people. But I think you are utterly mistaken in hastily concluding ARS leaders who signed this deal are bought up or were duped. Adeer cagaha dhulka u dhig…you are nearing to cross the warmongering threshold when you so energetically attempt to shut down this flare of hope that's coming out of Jabbuuti.

 

That is not you adeer.

[Castro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Castro

,

 

You are vacillating between cautiously supporting the Jabbuuti agreement and rejecting it. I am having difficulty time deciphering your posts. Tell us whether you oppose it outright, and, if you will, what you think the alternative should be.

Read a few pages earlier atheer. I already said I support it but only in so far as it is viable. Since it's viability is near zero. Then it is fair to assume, on your part, that my support is just as small.

 

Alternative is bring the Shabaab to the table along with the ARS (whatever that is). Entice them in however way you can. Ethiopia and the West are represented by the TFG at the table. Sheikh Sharif represents a segment of Somalis. The Shabaab represent other segments.

 

Make it all-inclusive atheer and put some realistic milestones on it.

 

When an agreement is signed from such talks, you'll see me lead the cheers with a cartwheel.

[xiinfaniin]

Edit: Castro, that would have been an ideal situation. But alshabaab has no interest to talking to dabodhilifs, and you know it. If you are suggesting such agreement should be put off till alshabaabsI do not agree. To include alshabaab has been Sharif's prefered approach as well. But alshabaab has been quite inflexible in thier stance. And the caravan must move forward adeer, and we shall support it.

 

Oodweyne, you did not answer my question!

 

Please table a realistic alternative to the one we had in Jabbuuti so the gallery can see to it if it passes the feasibility scale. If you dont have any alternative, then give the good Sheekh a chance, I say!

 

As I said before speaking more grammar than truth, as you always do, does not hide the fact your argument against the Jabbuuti accord is quite broken.

[Paragon]

As I was saying to Toure in another site, something nags and tells me that the so-called 120 are going be, for the Ethiopians, the very days they need to rest, re-group, re-stock arms while their route of passage is still safe, and then attempt one last push against the resistance movement.

 

I hope the resistance on the ground would keep this in mind. Just in case. Just incase the UN promise of troops was a fib. Just in case the so-called deal with the Shariif is respite for the Ethiopians.

[xiinfaniin]

^^I am in total agreement with you that contingency plan must put in place in case things don't turn out as hoped.

 

ps...I heard Sharif is going Somalia, so most of the resistance are on the same page regarding this deal.

[Castro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Edit: Castro, that would have been an ideal situation. But alshabaab has no interest to talking to dabodhilifs, and you know it. If you are suggesting such agreement should be put off till alshabaabsI do not agree. To include alshabaab has been Sharif's prefered approach as well. But alshabaab has been quite inflexible in thier stance. And the caravan must move forward adeer, and we shall support it.

You are too quick to label them inflexible when you easily ignore their designation as Persona non grata by the powers that be. Their boycott of these talks is only a response to their exclusion of the process by the organizers.

 

Let's be real here. Let's get off this philosophical rubbish and talk about the merits of the agreement.

 

How can you have a cease fire when one of the major parties in the conflict is not a signatory to the agreement? And why is this so different from all the others that came before it?

[xiinfaniin]

Castro, you need some basic education about the relationship between alshabaab and Courts--a relationship that preceded the designation you referred to. Alshabaabs have always been opposed to any talks with TFG even before when this entity was based in Baydhabo, and Courts were ruling most of the south. Their approach has failed Courts and us saaxiib and saying so is not philosophical rubbish, it’s a fact. Their unwise public pronouncements of being part of Al-qaida has tied the hands of Courts leadership. That said, these men are Somalis and have paid heavy price in blood and in treasure to fight for their country in its hour of need. That fact has not been lost on Courts leadership. But halting the caravan simply al shabaabs says so does not even merit for serious consideration given where we are today.

 

Is that why object to Jabbuuti agreement?

 

Oodweyne, the occupation has been addressed in this agreement. Perhaps you need to reread the agreement. TFG is a fact. Wishing it away will not change that reality. Ethiopia is a reality, hating it or wishing it away will not change that fact either. You must learn how to choose betwen bad and worst options, not good and bad only.

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by Castro:

How can you have a cease fire when one of the major parties in the conflict is not a signatory to the agreement? And why is this so different from all the others that came before it?

Haddaad wax la taaban karo ku hadlaysaa adeer. I have to leave now, but I will give you why a) this agreement is different than those preceeded it, b) and how it can succeed even if alshabaab attempt to abort it. IA.

[RedSea]

Sidii roon rabaa og. Can we leave it at that.

[Fabregas]

Originally posted by Castro:

^^^^ Heh. Today is 6/18/2008. The agreement was struck on 6/4/2008. 120 days from this latter date is 10/2/2008.

 

Tell me atheer, what, in your informed opinion, will be the state of Somalia on 10/2/2008?

 

 

is there a reason why u write the dates like that? To me, 6/4/2008 means the 6 of april 2008 and 10/2/2008 would have been february the 10th

[Member-sol-]

Walaal rabi quraan by soo dejiyay, uuna ku sheegay in gaalo wali (support, protector, friend) lala galin.

 

 

w/salaam.

[Juje]

Originally posted by Oodweyne:

For, it seams to me he was dealing with a

seasoned diplomats

from

EU

,

US

and lastly from the

UN

; whereby the

deal

that he was asked to sign, seams to me, that it has already been put together to the disadvantage of the

Resistance forces

that he was supposed to be speaking of, and acting on their behalf.

But, since you are convince, that this is

best deal

of all possible world; then in that case, I must beg to differ with you, or at least ask your indulgence for my obtuseness in here.

Ood sxb aside with your innuendo give me valid reasons your negative assumption of this pact apart your monotomous use of seasoned diplomats and sharks. The good Sheikh went into dialogue with the condition of a set time table of Ethiopian withdrawal and their replacement - he got that in the form of and I quote :

7. The Parties agreed from the date of coming into effect of this Agreement:

 

a. To request the United Nations, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1814 and within a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days, to authorize and deploy an international stabilization force from countries that are friends of Somalia excluding neighboring states;

 

b. Within a period of 120 days of the signing of this agreement the TFG will act in accordance with the decision that has already been taken by the Ethiopian Government to withdraw its troops from Somalia after the deployment of a sufficient number of UN Forces;

I know many made their own interpretation of this particular part of pact, however it clearly shows that there is a timetable, now whether it will be fulfilled or not is entirely a mere predition - but the benefit in here is, and I think that it is generally agreed, that the onus is on the UN to actually realise the withdrawal and the replacement. Not mentioning the fact that the good Sheikh has made the UN and the International observers (seasoned diplomats and sharks) sign a pact that calls for the withdrawal of the Ethiopian troops . If it succeeds well and good , alas if it fails then the good Sheikh would not be accused of dodging the chance of persuing the path to peace in an alternative other than armed conflict.

Ood, Sheikh Sharif has made a bold and brave move and has taken a big risk, but am sure he has made his own calculation and Insha Allah he will succeed. He has not sold neither abandoned the resistance which whom he is a leader.

This is only the begining and as obvious it woould pump. skepitical and rebuffed - hopefully though it gradually sink in that it is an alternative and an ideal one to kick out the occupation .

[Castro]

Keywords: occupation, resistance, terror, truce, cease fire, agreed, etc...

 

Xiin, atheer try to spot the above keywords in the article below. Imagine also, if you will, that you were to replace the names of Fatah, Hamas, Israel and the US with the corresponding (similar) actors in the current Somali conflict.

 

Do you recall how long Israel has been saying it does not negotiate with terrorists?

 

Ninkuu warankaa galo ayay weedhaa gashaa. Alshabaab are a formidable foe saaxib. Their tactics may be unpolished but their hearts are in the right place. Don't dismiss them like the rest of the world has with this wretched caravan analogy of yours.

 

Enjoy the read.

 

Israel agrees to Gaza ceasefire

 

Israel has approved a ceasefire to end months of bitter clashes with the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas in Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed.

 

Under the terms of the truce, which is set to begin on Thursday, Israel will ease its blockade on the Gaza Strip.

 

At the same time, talks to release an Israeli soldier held by Hamas would intensify, an Israeli official said.

 

Later, Israel said it was also interested in direct, bilateral talks with Lebanon.

 

Rocket attacks

 

Hamas, which controls Gaza, says it is confident that all militants will abide by the truce.

 

 

The agreement is due to begin at 0600 (0300 GMT) on Thursday and is supposed to last six months.

 

Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007, driving out forces loyal to Fatah, the political faction led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

 

Since then, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the international community have sought to isolate Hamas.

 

For Hamas, the ceasefire agreement is an acknowledgement that Israel's economic blockade of Gaza is hurting its administration and is having a hugely detrimental impact on Gaza's population, says the BBC's Wyre Davies in Jerusalem.

 

The decision to approve the ceasefire was made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak. It followed the return of a defence official from Cairo, where talks were held with Egyptian mediators.

 

Making his first public comment about the truce, Mr Olmert expressed his hope that it would succeed.

 

But, he added: "We should not have illusions. The terror organisations, and Hamas among them, have not changed their goals."

 

The White House gave the truce a cautious welcome, saying it hoped Hamas would "give up terrorism".

 

Earlier, Israeli Radio said eight rockets had been fired from Gaza towards Israel on Wednesday.

 

Meanwhile, Israel said it was ready for talks with Lebanon and would consider all issues of dispute, including the Shebaa Farms, currently occupied by Israel.

 

Separately, Israel and Syria have been holding indirect peace talks, mediated by Turkey.

 

A breakthrough in those discussions could bolster Mr Olmert at home, where he faces a corruption scandal, correspondents say.

 

According to a breakdown of the truce released by Hamas, Israel will ease its restrictions for the trade of certain goods between Gaza and Israel on Friday morning, and open up the crossings for all commercial goods next week.

 

After two weeks, talks will start involving Israel, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and the EU on reopening the Rafah crossing into Egypt.

 

An Israeli security source told Israel Radio that negotiations on the return of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit were expected to resume within a few days.

 

Confirmation of the truce coincided with the publication of a new UN report on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

 

The UN said power cuts and fuel shortages meant that more than half of Gaza's population had access to water only every other day, while a quarter received it only every four days.

BBC