Eid Mubaarak to you all.

Back to Africa - Bashir Goth Janaury 0 2, 2006 In the face of the current xenophobia in Europe against immigration and the mass movement of Africans, the unsuspecting observer may sympathise with the Europeans, justify their angst and look with apathy at the hordes of African immigrants whose dead bodies are washed ashore every day on the beaches of the Mediterranean sea. Looking from such a distance, Europe’s view of the Africans as invading marauders who bring with them nothing but economic burden, primitive culture, crime, diseases, black magic and stinky bodies may seem palatable. Even the stock accusation of Africans being a lazy race who come in their thousands to Europe only to eat, defecate and procreate, does not seem farfetched to the readers schooled in the language of the Western media. However, a quick and contemplative look at history may turn the picture upside down and show that Europe is behaving like a selfish child who refuses to share his new toys with his unfortunate playmates who shared theirs with them when they had better times. It was only a little over 200 years when the Europeans descended on our African continent like locust. We Africans lived in our dark, inaccessible continent, content with our fruits, our bushes, our animals, and our primitive weapons and wooden utensils. The Europeans came to us without permission. We let them settle on our soil and prosper. They milked our continent dry; took our mineral resources, taught us to kill our wildlife to satisfy their greed for fur and ivory. They cleared our forests and converted them into cash crop producing fields for their markets and for their pockets. One may remember the movie, Out of Africa, a woman who owned a large estate, a farm and dozens of servants and farm workers. They came to Africa as paupers and returned to Europe strapped with cash, dripping with honey, sporting leather jackets and ivory jewellery and glamorous titles as explorers, governors, writers and historians of eminence on exotic Africa. We Africans were lean people, always running, hunting, gathering fruits and fleshy roots, our women travelling miles to fetch water and firewood, our children looking after livestock in valleys and mountains and surviving the whole day on wild fruits. The Europeans taught us to build villages, and towns and permanent farms and adapt to a sedentary life. Our men became lazy; they got used to sitting in the white man’s offices all day and forgot about walking and running. Our women learned to sit in four-walled houses and forgot about the laborious, calorie burning daily trips to distant wells and woods. In the process we gained weight. We were happy; we thought we had finally learned the European ways. We frowned on our lean brothers and sisters. We took thin children to shamans and doctors and began giving them vitamins to fatten them. Then the Europeans who hate to be associated with the African look told us fatness was a sign of poor nutrition and less activity. They started adopting our habits of running, walking and jogging. However, in Africa we were running to earn our living but the Europeans are running in order to recover their health, the health they saw in Africa and deprived us. Now, they tell us their thinness is healthiness, while our thinness is sickness. In Africa, our clans fought over water, pasture, and ownership of animals, but we knew also how to reconcile and make peace between us. Our elders were experts in making peace. A council of elders from both clans met under a tree and resolved all issues. Now Europe has turned our wars and our reconciliation process into a profit making industry. The Africans can no longer reconcile among themselves, the white-man has to do it for them. Well, how else will all the thousands of Europeans who work for the UN bodies and NGOs find employment if their governments do not outsource African wars. In the old days, we used our traditional weapons and the most prolific fighter could kill only few persons in a battle. A battle that lasted for weeks including night raids claimed not more than two dozens of dead. Now with the AK machine guns and rocket propelled grenades mounted on fast running trucks, one man can kill hundreds in a day. In our Dark Continent days, we mostly died of natural causes. Famines, droughts, and diseases had checked our continent’s population. We didn’t see these calamities as enemies. Malaria was just a natural thing that happened to people like rain, sun and night. We had our remedies to treat our sick. But if one of us died of malaria, killed by a lion or struck by a lightening, it was just a natural death. This is why our continent’s population remained lean for thousands of years and resources were abundant. The Europeans, however, brought us medicine. They taught us that disease was not a natural phenomenon and we had to fight it. We believed them and gave medicines to our sick ones. They prolonged our life span, our populations increased. But our resources decreased not only because we now had more people to feed but also because Europeans had robbed our continent of all good things and when they left us they left their umbilical cords intact; some cash crops such as cocoa, coffee, diamond other mining businesses that fatten their pockets, confectionary shops and beauty parlours. With resources dwindling and population increasing, Africans resorted to one of their old habits of survival "following the rain and greener pastures". But when they reached the shores of Europe they were surprised that the white man that they had hosted over hundred years in their countries, that has taken everything on their soil in plenty and still takes it, refused to accept them. In Africa, if a girl loses her virginity in a rape, the rapist has to take her as his bride or has to compensate her family handsomely. Africa has lost its virginity to Europe and expected to be taken home as a bride or be compensated for her shattered pride, but the Europeans saw her as a whore who allowed a stranger to have his way with her so willingly. Forlorn and heart broken by the white man’s ingratitude, we Africans may have only one option available to us; to shut our gates and stop European tourism, and peacekeeping regiments pouring into our borders. We have to reclaim our Dark Continent’s old ways and status. Granted diseases like malaria and European brought plagues like Aids and even TB will kill millions but our population will be less, the land will regain its greenery and beauty, trees will bear fruits again, rains will be plenty; and with leaner population, we will have sufficient resources and we will be at peace with our wildlife. We will no longer fight for European markets and will throw away the modern beads of slavery such us cell phones, television sets and other luxuries. We will remove all the white man’s vestiges such as borders and land ownership; and just like the old days, we will move around the continent and let our animals graze wherever the rain falls and pastures abound. We will die and be buried in our soil and our bloated bodies will no longer be washed on foreign beaches. Bashiir Goth Abu Dhabi, UAE E-Mail:bsogoth@yahoo.com Source: Khaleej Times ---- Does he have a point?

^^Lol. Its a BS philosophical past-time. If BS in the form of theory book sells and entertains many among Humans then why not BS?

Castro, Ciid wanaagsan on the coming Ciid sxb. In fact ciid wanaagsan to all on the approaching Ciid.

^^^ Oh no, you ain't gone yet! Lol, that is before you tell us what is your definition of Bullshit? One of my friends read the book and encouraged me to read it. It would be a delight to read it.

Professor Harry G. Frankfurt: One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.Everyone knows this.Each of us contributes his share.But we end to take the situation for granted.Most people are rather con ï¬ dent of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it.So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern,nor attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence,we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is,why there is so much of it,or what functions it serves.And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us.In other words,we have no theory.I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of bullshit,mainly by providing some tentative and exploratory philosophical analysis.I shall not consider the rhetorical uses and misuses of bullshit.My aim is simply to give a rough account of what bullshit is and how it differs from what it is not — or (putting it somewhat differently)to articulate, more or less sketchily,the structure of its concept. Click Here for Source

Castro, thanks for the reply. Now saaxiib, I have one more question to ask (I mean to ask again with little comment). Since you've mentioned the circumstance in which a Somali woman can be forced (by say Islamic Organizations operating in Somalia)to choose to wear the Jilbaab, in the interest of logic: can something that came about as a result of choice (see your second point) be used as a 'tool of oppression'? If so, can it not be true that one can again choose to abandon that which she chose? Do bear with me, please.

Viking, I have come to associate the word 'Punt' with the peoples we currently called 'Boon' or 'Boontii'. These peoples who are mostly artisans, create the headsets and all other crafts such as spears, and are also related to more anceint Gureh, Galla or Oromo. So when one speaks of a link between Ancient Egypt and the Punt, I can't help but loook to these peoples (Midgaan, Madhibaan e.t.c included). PS: I will expand on this later, Insha-Allah.

Castro, I thought we were talking about the Somali version of the Jilbaab, not the Saudi's or any other version. And that we were talking about the Somali version of the Jilbaab in post-1990s, in which there is no overarching authority in a position to impose rules upon citizen's dresscodes. Waxaad ila aadey France iyo Sacuudiga adna . Trust me, in regards to Somali women who wear the Jilbaab, not even families can make them wear the Jilbaab. I went to Kenya and I was surprised to see Somalis there (where there is a state that use to intentionally discourage even Xijaab in schools), embraced the Jilbaab in proportions I couldn't imagine.

Originally posted by Castro: Paragon, not even. The tent is as ugly as it is foreign. However, it is a choice for some (or all, who knows?). Protesting that it is fashion faux pas is weak (and misplaced). Is it used as a tool of oppression? Sure. How widespread is that oppression? I don't know. Do those who wear it (by choice) deserve my support? Yes. Castro, let me see if I understood you. You are saying that: 1- Jilbaab is 'as ugly as it is foreign'. Granted that I agree with you that the version of Jilbaab which some Somalis prefer is ugly. Then it logically follows that if two items -one ugly and one beautiful- are placed side by side, and one is encouraged to choose one, the natural human preference would be the beautiful. That if the opposite occurs, then, there must be something wrong with the choser of the ugly item over the beautiful. If, however, nothing is wrong with the choser, there must be an external factor, most likely some sort of pressure (force) explaining why one has chosen the ugly item over the beautiful item. Therefore, free choice has no role to play in why, dispite 'it's ugliness and foreigness', many women still prefer wearing it. Now, moving on to your next point, you more or less allude to existence of 'choice'(maybe guided choice) by asserting that the wearing of the Jilbaab: 2- 'is a choice for some (or all, who knows?)'. Okey. So some women chose to wear the ugly tent out of their own free will. This choice conflicts with the natural preference of humans for the beautiful over the ugly. It does so in that some of the women who wear the Jilbaab are perfectly normal, or as you also agree, exercise their personal choice. But in your 3rd point, you ask yourself the question whether this chosen tent is: 3- 'used as a tool of oppression', to which you've replied 'Sure'. My question is: how can something that came about as a result of choice (see your second point) be used as a 'tool of oppression'? If you want to proof that Jilbaab is used as a tool of oppression, you must first locate where this 'oppressive' authority exists. This is what I asked you before.

Originally by Castro: And is this the sum of your response to how Somalis understood and practiced Islam for centuries prior to the civil war? Is it not more than just coincidence that a failure, at every level, of this society after 1990 has more to do with the tent than any new or elightened understanding of Islam? Is this not an irrational response to trauma? Are women not being made to bear an inordinate share of the blame for the sins of a nation? When all else fails, wrap up the women for they are the ones who wreak all havoc. What really gets me is how some view this as a choice. Ern, to asnwer all the above questions: NO. One question: who forced these girls to wear the Xijaab if the society itself (as you put it) has failed after the civil war? Is there really an overarching authority that imposes things such as Xijaab wearing? Maybe after we determine in who or in what these imposing authority is vested, can we discuss the Xijaab's un/fashionability (because as I see it, the argument of anti-jilbaabis is centered on modern fashionability than it is about religous obligation).

Illaahey amarkii, marna Woqooyiga ayey roobabku ka soo daahaan, marna Koonfurta, taasoo sababta nafwaa iyo khasaarooyin kale oo laxaad leh. Illaah baan ooga baryeynaa inuu roob iyo xareed ugu deeqo dadyowga ay abaartani saameeysey, aamiin. PS: This is a serious drought, Kashare. May Allah relief these peoples with a good rainfall. Amin.

Cute pics. Who knows (the year was 78), these girls might be mothers of erm 4 or over kids? Where is 'Who's Who' show programmers when you need them. Time, such a runner it is

Originally posted by Afromali: Understand what? a chronoligical history on somalia? Mise am supposed to understand carelessness by giving an example of an incompetent and perhaps unqualified Tank driver high on KHAD driving thru a town?? or that i should understand carelessness of somalis thru the actions of a Bakheyl GEELJIRE who refused to take responsibility for his son's action? Erm, Afromali, are you genuinely serious? Or are you just pulling my leg? You really don't understand it? Hahahaha, where on earth have you been living for the last 15 or so years? Just wondering! The entire article lacked substance; i was hoping to see a documented or perhaps a sciencetific proof of carelesness among 10-15M somalis. Not a haphazadly arranged examples of individual carelessness being passed as a collective trait among somalis.[And i hope you dont imply that] After 15 or 16 years of civil war, some folks are still asking for scientific proof. Aint that something? Just what we need. Perhaps,Mr Paragon you failed to read this part of my post: I hope i missed the point,if anyone out there got the POINT of this article,please come forward. I was clearly hoping to have you[Or anyone,prefrebly the writer] to help me out if i missed a point; but you decided to swing @Me. Now,be kind enough and tell me where i need to understand. I am sorry to disappoint you, son. You are way past your schooling years. These are things that you need to comprehend on your own. No life-long tutors who help you figure things out. Please consult the DIY booklet. & BTW; I could really give a rats TAIL wether my pretentious self kills you or not. If its gonna make you die; i would say it again: There isnt a single piece of NEW information ,if anything it was annoyingly repetitive, redudant & quite honestly;Boring. Please! Afromali, since you can't comprehend what the author wrote, don't you think you are ill-equiped to identify what is new or old in the article? Remember you are still awaiting for (preferrably) the author's clarification.

^^^ The Message, damn it, understand the message of the author, rather than looking for trivial intrigue within the article. Isn't what Mr. Muse is saying correct? Please concern yourself with the carelessness with which we seem to regard our affairs; the very symptom you seem to be showing too. There isnt a single piece of NEW information ,if anything it was annoyingly repetitive, redudant & quite honestly;Boring. God! The pretention kills me!

Don't be literalists folks. ThePoint's point, as I understand it, comes across as a metaphorical and quite useful one in standing ground against 'little' injustices. Once the Hijab's ban is demoted to a less serious position, before you know it, it creates a snow-ball effect that takes away not only rights to dress-codes, but the right to life itself. A society's independence and integrity depends on its ability to say NO to little things that may lead to bigger things. It was the Somali poet who rightly warned: Hadaan dhimano Geeridu kolbey, nolosha dhaantaaye, Dhaqashiyo marbeey kaa yihiin, dharagtu xaaraan e' Nin dhirbaaxo ceebeed dugsadey, dhaqashadeed maalye, Dhashaadeey sugtaa xaajadaad, dhowrataa abid e' -Bidhiidh

When i see such arguments starting i cant help but have the phrase 'the god of the unkown' come to mind. Indeed, Caano Geel. But so much for the 'God of the gaps' argument! It seems so-called Scientists are becoming more and more 'certain' about what is/or isn't, without the certainty of knowing the secrets of the 'gaps'. My hope is that one would accept Pascal's Wager (of probability) in order to safeguard the soul from the wrath of God . A paraphrasing of Pascal's Wager: "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

^^ Not really. I read the paragraph in question and was impressed, finding JB's posts interesting to read. So I decided to do some research in search of the evidences proving the occurrence of the holocaust. Unfortunately, the google spit out names of two authors and a review of their book, in which I surprisingly saw a similarity between JB and them. Thats how.

Originally posted by Castro: ^ JB wouldn't plagiarize. I've read too many of his posts to know that. I'm also fairly sure this is a case of forgetfullness. What he referred to in the other thread was a clear pattern and not a single incident. Castro, that is what I hoped for too. But what JB seems to be saying in his clarification is that: THERE IS NO REASON TO PLAGIARISE IN DEFENCE OF A WELL DOCUMENTED HISTORY AND I DON´T USE THE "WE" FORM IN A POST WHERE I STARTED WITH THE "I" FORM. I cannot figure out why JB is confusing the defence of the holocaust with the defence of copyrighted' intellectual property of others. I believe, to cite 'defence' of the holocaust is redundant here, and that a simple clarification regarding his forgetfulness of quotation marks is only what is needed. I could have easily believed that JB's forgetfulness is to blame, however, the only reason I held some scepticism towards his forgetfulness has something to do with JB's seemingly intentional editing (and I hate to be pedantic) of: " For example , if six million were not killed, what happened to all these people?" to " The Question should be, if six million were not killed, what happened to all these people?". This makes me reach the conclusion that this wasn't simple mistake of forgetting quotation marks.

Originally posted by J B: We prove the Holocaust through a convergence of data that include: Written documents-letters, memos, blueprints of the camps, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs and confessions. Eyewitness testimony accounts from survivors, members of the Jewish sonderkomandos who took bodies out of the gas chambers, SS guards, commandants, local townspeople and high-ranking nazi officials. We have many letters from German soldiers stationed on the Russian front to their families in, which they describe the mass shooting of Jews. Photographs-including official military and press photographs, civilian photographs, secret photographs taken by survivors, aerial photographs, German and allied film footage and photographs taken by the German military. The camps themselves; And inferential evidence-population demographic, reconstructed from pre-World War II. The Question should be, if six million were not killed, what happened to all these people? JB, my friend, you wrote in another topic (Big Bang: scientist must now evolve)that: Originally posted by J B: People like Proud_Muslimah apparently can only copy from others, being unable to construct their own arguments and attempted proofs. Perhaps if they had to sit down and work through the issues themselves, they might begin to see some of the flaws in the arguments they use. By simply copying and pasting the flawed work of others, though, they can avoid all the hard thinking and reasoning that might cause them to question their assumptions. Can’t have that, now can we? A person that goes to such an extent to defend a supposedly pure ,self-explanatory and compationate faith needs HELP. Yet surprisingly enough, the initially quoted words which are from the post you have made in this topic, aren't really your words, are they? Since you are google-smart, let me be google-smart too . I have found the exact copy of the words you used in this topic to be from Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman's book: Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do they Say it?. Their words were: We prove the Holocaust through a convergence of data that include: Written documents-letters, memos, blueprints of the camps, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs and confessions. Eyewitness testimony accounts from survivors, members of the Jewish sonderkomandos who took bodies out of the gas chambers, SS guards, commandants, local townspeople and high-ranking nazi officials. We have many letters from German soldiers stationed on the Russian front to their families in, which they describe the mass shooting of Jews. Photographs-including official military and press photographs, civilian photographs, secret photographs taken by survivors, aerial photographs, German and allied film footage and photographs taken by the German military. The camps themselves; And inferential evidence-population demographic, reconstructed from pre-World War II. For example, if six million were not killed, what happened to all these people? Source Here and here So I was wondering, are you one of these writers or have you mistakingly failed to do a bit of referencing before using an entire paragraph of theirs?

The question I always wished to ask Bush was, if interception restrictions were put in place during the bi-polar US/Soviet balance of power, where the threat to US national security was existential, how can he justify his acts of taping American citizens with the pretext of terrorism (which is insignificant really, compared to thermal/nuclear threat)? Do Bush's advisors really pay attention to the history of American foreign policy when in their decision-makings? :confused:

^^^ Nice approach . Xiinfiniin, absolutely. I think any group that is 'genuinely' fighting for the preservation of the environment deserves our support. As STOIC points out, "this philosophy of not worrying about the state of the environment will sure lead to the ruin of the country". Castro, thanks for being the pragmatic, we need to find out whether the protection is really about the protection of the environment, or rather indeed about "monopoly over the tree cutting business (if one could call it that) for short term economical benefits". Tukaale, yep we should support them but we also need suggestions as to how we can make our support available to 'Eco-warriors' such as this ones in discussion. We need to organise ourselves and manifest our support into actions. Any suggestion?

^^^ The tide is turning, Comrade, it is indeed turning . Look below; -- -- Chavez Welcomes Morales’ Victory in Bolivia Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005 Print format Send by email By: Venezuelanalysis.com Caracas, Venezuela, December 21, 2005—The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia last Sunday marks the beginning of a new era, said Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez in a letter to Morales. According to Chavez, Bolivians had to wait 500 years until they were finally able to have an Aymara Indian as President and this represents, “a real and true historical vindication,†said Chavez. Last Sunday, Evo Morales, the leader of the party Movement Towards Socialism and a former organizer of Coca plant growers, won Bolivia’s presidency with 51-55% of the vote. This represents the highest percentage with which a Bolivian has been elected to the presidency in the history of the country. The Bush administration repeatedly accused the Chavez government of contributing to unrest in Bolivia and of supporting Morales financially. Chavez, however, has forcefully denied these allegations. It is, though, generally assumed that Morales will follow similar policies as Chavez has. Morales rejects U.S. drug control policies in the region and promised to nationalize Bolivia’s natural gas fields. Chavez and Morales have enjoyed close ties for several years now. Chavez’s letter of congratulations to Morales went on to say, “Without a doubt, Evo, our joy is also great: the Fatherland of Bolivar and of Sucre [two 19th C. liberation fighters of Latin America] begins its new and definitive battle for dignity and sovereignty, and the great family of peoples finds in your fatherland a new reason to affirm the cause of humanity and to negate the neo-liberal fallacy of the end of history. It is time for the re-founding of Bolivia: it is a new beginning for history.†Venezuela’s Vice President José Vicente Rangel also expressed satisfaction over Morales’ election, saying he felt this way not just “for what it represents politically and ideologically, but also for the human.†Rangel went on to say that Morales, “Is a man who came form the people, son of a peasant family, forged in the everyday struggle for survival and in addition it is the first time that an indigenous person from Latin America reaches the presidency of the Republic.†Rangel also denied that Chavez had anything to do with Morales’ victory. “For all the satisfaction the government of Hugo Chavez feels, it will not become involved in the policies and government of Morales,†said Rangel. Castro, the economic shift you so rightly allude to is in rapid pace, just as Pax Americana is in rapid decline. I am reminded of the empire of Rome and its decline .

Castro, true. There is no doubt that South Americans (US' own backyard - the Latinos resent this phrase), are up to something UnAmerican . It seems leftist sentiments are becoming fashionable not only in South American, but all over the T.World. Interesting times to live, eh?

Originally posted by Castro: The trio of Chavez-Morales-Castro along with the left leaning Lula (of Brazil) could bring about enormous changes to Latin America. Erm, Lula de Silva, er, no longer left? He is now center-right . Originally posted by ThePoint: Communism and state ownership of large chunks of the economy are not a recipe for economic development - that has been pretty much established. No. Actually, in the study of development economics, illuminating neo-statist assertions claim that pricisely (in Johnson Chalmers) the 'developmental state' can be attributed to the economic miracle of East Asia (read for example, the 'guided market' of Robert Wade in the case of Taiwan, Amsden's 'governed' market in Korea). So yes, while state-ownership could have detrimental effects, state direction of the market, as opposed to 'market-led' (yet not precisely Laissez Faire as we know it), is key to economic development. You see market led economies lead to conglomorates (such as pre-war Zaibatsu of Japan, which was later dissolved and replaced by the Keiretsu) and interest groups that dominate the market itself by inducing into it economic factors that limit economic growth, while at the same time forcing the weak state to their own benefits. Thus there needs to be a strong state in the developmental process, a state that can protect itself from such interest groups pressures. A strong Communist state, especially that type of China doesn't necessarilly distort economic development, in fact if you ask some Asian Model economists, it appropriates suitable policy of resource allocation for industries (there is broad literature on this) that work towards the national developmental goal of the nation. But where state let go of their markets and indulge in all out liberalizations, such as in the mid-1990s, what happens is indeed financially catastrophic (think: the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the Malaysian remedy to the crisis). In East Asian social and economic rights rather than civil and political rights matter most. So as long as the state guarantees, the peoples' economic welfare, it can adapt whatever political approaches it so wishes. The same applies to Morales' case: to recover from economic disaster and poverty that had been resulted by rampant capitalism. The comparison with Canada is incorrect. Canada is a socialistic country in terms of trying to equalize income disparity and the associated ills thereof(ie. access to decent healthcare/education etc) Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations. OK. I won't say much about the quote above, but I will give you four economic categories in which all states of the world fall in: market ideological, plan ideological, market rational, and plan rational economies. USA falls in the first category, Japan falls in the fourth category. Try to get hold of Johnson Chalmers' writings and try to figure out the rest of the countries and the categories in which they fall . Pardon me folks, I might have used far-fetched examples in regards to the Bolivian case.