As always, you folks whirl within a storm in a tea-cup. Hadal idin ka ma dhamaado. Take a step towards easing the hardship of even one mother (or woman) by tracing and sending them $100 or $50 now. Raasimaal fora whole month. Waxa kale waa cantarabaqash iyo tumun. Idinka akhrisan maayo.

This war has been in the pipeline for sometime now. Remember the meeting of former Somali Generals in the US? That kicked it off and operations (allegedly headed by the CIA) kicked off plots in neighbouring regions. Expect a war - 'a war to end all wars' as IR theorists would say.

Boy am I glad that The Saints won!

Originally posted by Peacenow: *********deleted********. filinkaada eeyaa cunay, peacenow. filin kale la imaaaw nooh, dhoorre. [ February 06, 2010, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Admin ]

^They are such good boys; they stay at home. Najwa, I like the 'Dhidi' song. Thanks. Aar has done a good job on this one. I remember introducing it in its own thread some months ago. It's a beautiful song. The original song was by A/nuur Allaale (of Djibouti from the classy old Sharaaf Band) PS: Gabdhaha Somaliyeed singer is also from DJ. Good one.

Originally posted by Cicero: Paragon , revisionism is not a naughty exercise when it comes to the practise of history. Historians do it all the time. As new evidence is discovered, the previous historical account is revisited - and if necessary- revised. The same thing happens to scientific hypotheses. Sometimes no new evidence is found, but historians ask bold, new questions about the available evidence , giving birth to more research, and consequently, more meaningful accounts of the past. [quick response] First, thanks for the response. Second, I must tell you that 'revisionism' in history is a naughty exercise. Oh yes it is, my friend. I will tell you why it is. You see the operational word here is 'revision' - divorced from the privilege of 'real time' interrogation- of available evidence. Now, without real time interrogation, and so-called 'objective observation' of the subject-matter, what does the revisionist historian have to derive new meanings to previous historic accounts? Educated imagination and proximate interpretation of his own, that is what he/she has. The so-called revisionist historian looks at what has happened - that doesn't make current common-sense- alters, and tailors those historical accounts to make sense to today's world. And that revisionist exercise, takes place in the name of the now dogmatic - in itself mind you - objectiveness. I say 'dogmatic' because I am certain that you mostly likely 'believe'(note my emphasise on believe) in the infallibility of the 'facts' produced by objective processes of (scientific) investigations. In other words you believe more in facts than you believe in the 'truths' of religious texts. That makes you an unshakable 'believer' in scientific facts, just as the devout 'faith-head' believes in his/her own religious truths. The question then, is, what does that make you personally? It makes you no better than those whose holy texts you dismiss, doesn't it? You may say I don't believe in scientific facts but then again, if you don't, how may you deploy a fact against another fact (i.e truths)and come to the conclusion that one is right while the other is wrong? Do you follow what I mean? Because otherwise your entire effort to 'disprove' falls into its own futility. In the end, you yourself will become a 'futile' existence with no facts or truths to hold on to. Think of the Greek Cynics (or in modern terms, the Dogs) and their lifestyles. This is the reason why I first questioned you on a basic level, before we could proceed to the very historic accounts you have so easily dismissed (and ridiculed). And you must never forget to acknowledge that historic revisionism is the result of arrogant, self-righteous, academic exercises by groups of scientific zealots. That's all it is. Revisionists give you an ultimatum: it's our words against their words (meaning the words of earlier, perhaps, orthodox historical accounts). Whose words you believe cements your position. OK, get back to me on the above first. Declare public your belief system/s and then we can proceed further. On the rest of your response, there's only one allegation that I can't accept. In fact, I resent being labelled an 'Intellectual Anarchist' when there are more suitable terms that can be used. But I will reply to you in length on other points raised.

^Cicero, what kind of historians are defending, if I might ask a more basic question. Which theoretical lens are sporting: an orthodox or revisionist one? Let us know that first, please. Second, are there any empirical evidence that currently exist [or existed, say, even 5 centuries ago], which lend credence to the validity of the Professor's version of history on this particular matter? PS: It's best to assign 'truths' to some accounts than to 'facts'. Truths can embody a host of things, miracles included, while facts are just, well, the tricks of so-called 'objectivity' - as if there could ever be 'objective facts'. As a critical theorist (and more to that, a disciple of ecosophyT), I don't believe it.

Originally posted by Che -Guevara: Paragon I don't understand why you are grinning? [/QB] I grin because i've read Samatar's whole article earlier, and I think he's far too a-stray this time around, and I predict a riot. The ensuing drama is worth the popcorn. PS: Why is he speaking as though he himself is Ethiopian? Or is it because he was addressing Institute of Ethiopian studies? He speaks as though he was - in another life- the subject of periphery Abyssinian colony.

Oh no he didn't! Now he's put his foot in it. Expect the expected.

Very good on K'naan.

^Tuujiye lol. Waryaa adna ma reer Qardhood baad ahayd? Ma anaan garan! Waa inaan iska kaa ilaaliyo. Wallee iima dhuumatid hadda ka dib. Bac baan isku xirayaa sidii nin buufis qaba. Lol.

^Lol. Juma nne, ka daa please. It's a good development runtii. So it means I could jet off from Nairobi at Quraac time and eat waslad hilib ah in Hargeysa. Then jet back to Nairobi for casho? Neat.

^Lol. War Dajiye, inadeer, armaan ninkaa iska deeynaa inteey goori goor tahay, illeen isagoon dheg la qabto lahayn ayuu na soo geli doonaaye? Dajiye, ugaas, bal warran berayahan laysma arage? Lafahaa? Ma taxxan yihiin?

^Hamile - thanks for the above links. Makes for a good reading.

I will. When you post music from Baba Africa (which includes Somalia).

Horta reer Qardhoodka muran badanaa?

Let's not expect miracles. A year into a 20 year old chaos is nothing. The situation requires a lot more plotting and planning before policy executions could commence. More time is needed by Sharif, and patience on our side.

^dhul shisheeye dheef maleh, habeen dhixitin mooye - ayaa horey loo yiri. Allaha u naxariisto marxuumka. Naf weliba meeshuu Illaah u calaameeyey ayeey ku go'daa. Laakiin, inkastooy geerida xaq tahay gaalo iyo islaamba, hadana laga fiican geerida noocan oo kale. Illaah baase u Muslimiin sahley. Kheyr Allaha siiyo Muslimiintaa.

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: Paragon, Abdul Ahmed is articulate and good in discussing some theories ( sometimes giving too many examples of where the said theories are used, in what seems to me as selling the validity of the theory to us just by invoking names of individualks who have used it or are associated with). But there is nothing scientific about his research methods and conclusions. If at all it seems he has made up his mind about what to recommend as a solution to Somalia and merely used the process of research and referencing to relevant social theories as a basis to justify his own pre-concieved solutions. He is selective in picking data as is evident from his claim that trade between North and South has declined, whereas he doesn't want to pay attention to the massive influx of Southererns to Hargeisa and the impact it will have on social dynamics, particulary when clan is the issues he discussses. He set out to prove that the North and South are getting apart, but the truth is the two people know about each other more now than when they were under one regime. As Dr. Ali Bahar suggested in one of his rebuttals, this is nothing more than a predatory act of trying to cash-in from the misery of a people for self-aggrandizement. One parochial look at an aspect of the somali society, i.e, clan, and suddenly Abdul has found fodder for the enticing 'irreversibility' theroy he so fondly talks about. And he is trying to intimidate readers that if they challenge the relevance of the theories he likes to the somali situation, then they are challenging Science itself!! His conclusions that a meeting between Guurtii's of different clans are the entry point for national reconcilliation is false and simplistic. There is no need to follow his reasonings or prescriptions to bring somalia back. All that Somalia needs is money. Even the seemingly hapless TFG can impose itself and turn into credible government if properly funded. Thanks, AT&T. I take your view on board. I would have felt inclined to write in response to your post in the old days of SOL, but lately, I cannot bring myself to do so. This discussion is an interesting one and I'A I will try my best to share my thoughts with you. Some day, that is, when time is most agreeable to me. Still, shukran again.

^Not now to not yet? You thought a little deeper miyaa? Good strategy.

A president in waiting indeed. Impressive stuff. It's time to crown the old man. No?

Sayid, gartey. Balse berito, Insha-Allah. Waqtigaa igu yar hadda.

^The Admin should ban this character (peacenow). The purpose of SOL is to exchange constructive opinions (and at times constructive criticisms), but when a member's sole purpose and only presence is to ridicule the very nomads SOL gives a voice to, then there can be no use extending courtesy to him. His membership of SOL has no material gain (intellectually or socially) but only denigration of the platform's admirable purposes.

Ignore peacenow altogether, if you want my advice. Altogether. It's your replies that give him a reason to seek further attention. Deny him attention and he's done for.