'The Curse of Resource Endowment'. The economists amongst us will be familiar with this phrase.

Cawo: Word of mouth waa khatar when it comes to dumarkeena soo maad garan. Cawo, nice theory walaahi. Waxaaba ii soo baxay image ah, laba oday oo geed qurac ah hoostiisa shaaha sidii loo xakimi-lahaa kaga shiraya . Wallee waa runtood, dumarkeena waaba aaladda warbaahineed tan ugu khatarsan, the best mass communication we have had till the telephone was invented .

Lol.. nice thread. Aniga iyo ragga intiisa badan gabay garanmeyna ee, idinka lee waaye . FG: Ereyo eey ka mid yihiin WAAQ, WAD'AAD, GAR'AAD, QO-RA(X), GOW-RA©, BAR-RE, BAR-WAAQ(O) iyo AB iyo ISIR ayaan naga soo raacey amba ka haray luuqadii hore ee So'maaliyeed, ee sida cad xiriirka -luuqadeed iyo midka jinsiba - ulalahaa faraaciintii hore. PS: there is a fellow nomad who has useful literature, thats if you are interesting in the meanings of these words.

^^Call it family entertainment for free . Don't thank me, but you are welcome .

Courtesy of Viking. Thanks sxb. Ar-ra-weelo: The tale behind women's circumcision The story of Arrawelo remains the best known of all Somali folk tales. A pre-Islamic pagan queen, it is she who ruled the entire Somali-speaking world at a time when the Somali sun god Ra- subsequently co-opted, it is said, by the ancient Egyptians-held sway as the supreme deity in the universe. The exact locality in Somaliland of the pagan queen’s fabled seat of power remains a mystery. But its whereabouts is still of much speculation, and there are in the Horn of Africa any number of ancient mounds and heaps of stone that one time or another have been claimed by local communities as marking the tomb and final resting place of Arrawelo. The Queen’s notoriety stems from her unparalleled cruelty to men. Legend has it that as a girl Arrawelo was the unfortunate victim of a brutal rape. This so embittered her that she later came to power her long reign was given over wholly to exacting her revenge - on the entire male sex. In an uncompromising crusade, she set out to empower women through having all her male subjects forcibly castrated, so creating in Somaliland a whole generations of eunuchs. Arrawelo, though, was haunted by misgivings that somewhere, some men might elude emasculation at her hands, and that one of their number would one day engineer her downfall. Accordingly, she introduced a strict code of precautionary dos and don'ts for women, including the infamous injunction that they were always to say NO when they actually meant YES, and YES when they meant NO. She is also said to have lectured women endlessly on how to maintain their dignity in the face of possible approaches by maverick men. To flush out those few wily men whose intact manhood, she was convinced, posed a threat to her absolute rule, Arrawelo devised a series of seemingly impossible demands and riddles, which - she believed - only such men would be able to solve. Thus on one occasion, the neurotic queen instructed a community of villagers to supply her with camel-load of fruits from the Lote tree, stipulating that the fruits be brought before her on the bare back of the animal without using any form of container. Try as they might, the villagers could find no way of fulfilling this demand. For, no matter how balanced, the fruits would simply roll off again as soon as the camel was made to walk. The Queen, for a while, while berating the poor villagers on each failure, was secretly satisfied; all was well she thought, reasoning that the inhabitants of the village must indeed be either women or eunuchs. Then one day, to her surprise, she was told that a camel-load was waiting for her outside her chambers. Her worst suspicions were soon confirmed, the feat had been orchestrated by one Oday Biqe, a reclusive village elder who had managed to get the fruits to stay in place by first smearing the camel’s back with a thick viscous mixture of bird lime and mud. With the help of further layers of this sticky paste, baked hard in the sun, the fruits - piled high on the camel’s back - had easily withstood the rigours of the journey. For his trouble, Oday Biqe was ruthlessly hunted down by Arrawelo’s knife-wielding minions, although in one version of the tale the old man died before the pursuing mob could do its worst. All the same, the offending organ was summarily cut from the dead man’s body and carried aloft to the savage queen as proof that her order had been carried out. Arrawelo’s own secret fears - that an undocted male would bring about her demise - were to prove well-founded. For one night a youthful stepson of hers, who had long since fled for fear of being an example of and emasculated, returned in disguise and drove a spear into the old queen’s chest, thus putting and end to the perpetual misery of men. After the Queen’s death, long suffering Somali men wasted no time in conspiring to get even with their womenfolk. Their immediate recourse was to introduce the practice of female circumcision, which they felt would forever serve to censure womankind for the untold misery that Arrawelo had once inflicted on the male sex. And so it is, the story goes, that many women, not just in Somalia but in many other lands as well are fated to go on paying the penalty for Queen Arrawelo’s legendary cruelty.

CAAMIR, thanks. I will try to provide a hopefully reasonable explanation of the topic. Thanks for your and Discreet's interests. It seems you are among the few who understand some of what I am saying . Prelude. From my side, I apologize about the vagueness I might have presented with this topic or other topics, which might have been misunderstood. When I decide to post a topic such as this, I feel like I am dealing with individuals whose interests in thinking (about peculiar matters) is at the same level as mine. But then when I realize many cannot comprehend what I am talking about or even worse when I am asked for elaboration of my topics, I become dissuaded by beloved laziness, which makes it difficult for me to provide an easy explanation to those whom I am discussing one matter or another. Usually, I hope somehow or someday, someone will think back and hear the fragmented echoes of my thoughts, and say 'crazy man he was, why was he obsessed with the self and its elevation to its highest and most deserved position, when others are less concerned about it'. That then it may come to that person that, I have spent many a time thinking of theories to get us of this social rot and moral quagmire. He may also luckily acknowledge that I have not forsaken all I was and still am, for the luxuries garnered by another man (of a different culture) with his own two hands. And that, though ill-equipped for it that I have frantically searched for anyone who has (at least) an idea, be it developed, undeveloped and untested, which can point us toward the better grounds of a moral society, which is responsible and accountable. Unfortunately, there are few among us who, let alone anything else, exercise their faculty of thought. Even more unfortunate, is the fact that majority of those expected to think out of this social rot, have mastered the art of unproductive critique, and it seems, only to undermine those who may wish to bolster their capacity to produce original and productive thoughts. Today, it is as if thoughts have become taboos that are suppressed with heckles and dismissals. The sad fact is that this is not something new. It is what we have (for centuries) been doing to those who wish to advance their thoughts, whatever kind their thoughts might be. When those artisans came up with crafts such as tool making, we dismissed them as sub-humans who feasted on the dead. When to-be agrarians amongst us came up with idea of land-cultivation, we despised them as lowly. When some clever men took up the art of fishing, we were quick to caste them as unequal and snake-eaters. This trend of dehumanizing and demonizing has become reserved for anyone who shows a sign of progressive thought. Ours is now an upside down world, where he who thinks has been already likened to an animal, while he who doesn't, has been hailed noble in lineage. Our thoughtlessness has become our symbol, our detriment and at last, after centuries of negligence, led to our downfall. For centuries we have technologically remained the same, and almost unchanged in lifestyle, depending solely on the art of escapade. We have never tried to solve any of our problems in direct manner, but by excusing ourselves with the animalistic needs of our livestock; we have chosen to escape from one problem to another. When there is no rainfall or pasture in one place, we move to other places with water and pasture. This is the cycle in which we have socially regulated ourselves. Run with the winds, and maybe, just maybe, our existential problems will, hopefully, go with the winds. During our last few centuries of existence, some other societies across the world, have realised the fruitlessness of being escapees of reality. They decided to settle down and plan ways to confront their problems. They were lucky, because by settling down, the howling winds of the semi-arid lands and the confusing dust of the animals's hoves, often produced while on the trail of fleeing livestock, settled down too. Clarity of vision and of mind became manifest. From there on, careful observation and constant education did yield fruits. Just as the dust has settled, enlightment through education produced scores of thoughtful leaders and individuals. Since humanity is conflict-prone, and neigbhourhoods are created as a result of permernent settlement; laws, rules and regulation were easy to come by. What followed next was social norms, and with social norms came clear role-assignment. With role-assigment came the duty, responsibility and accountability of the leader and the led. This is the outcome of those who settled down. But in the cycle of the escapees like us, the most canning of our elders were at the forefront of cultural negligence. Like the rest of us, they became way-farers and blind followers of a trail of cultural thoughtlessness. Their eldership was based on this very basic knowledge of following and following they have. But it is not their fault that they are followers. In a culture where there is no other option but to follow someone, for some supposed economic benefit, for better or worse, they have adapted very well. Like all who follow, we are following a tradition that seems untouchable or unchangeable, where anyone who is capable of facilitating any kind of change, is denied the right to make approriate suggestions. The chosen elders are, in essence, handicapped from producing influential thoughts that can have potential for social change. The very traditional guidelines, which the elders employ to retain authority and power upon the rest of us, work to limit them to thoughtlessness. And since these guidelines work so well to subdue those who might think, our leaders find it unnecessary to change them. If the elders become endeavourers of social change, they may lose their grip on power, thus they don’t endeavor. I shall not be so harsh at the elders, the problem is not with the traditional elders only; all of us have grown incapable thinking of change or revision. Back to the topic ... In the above prelude, I might have concentrated on the elder’s thoughtlessness, but it is my wish to seek their help, so as to think beyond what I would regard as being animalistic thoughts, and to a higher thinking tradition attainable only through the elevation of the human-self. This reason has made me post this topic, solely concerning itself with the achievement of human identity or ‘consensualist Somalism’, and the overcoming of animal identity, which is based on worldly whims and passions. While human identity is high identity, the animal identity, which is the one we have thus far known, is the lowest kind of identity, the most ugly to any being possessive of a SELF. In order to provide an explanation to this topic, I will concern myself with the SELF, which is the basis of this topic. I will be dividing the the SELF into two; the HUMAN SELF and the ANIMAL SELF. SELF. to be continued... ps: if you find any mistakes, kindly inform me.

Let me provide different names for some of these games. 2. Kabteey Bilataa (some say) = ha billato, dhan rabtana ha u dhacdo etc 5. Gariir/Imbiili (some say) = aay aay with 12 peddles? 6. Baliil/Boojo (some say) galool The rest of the games are literally the same. PS: except nuune and few others, anyone knows what Lool-Lool or Xanta-xantooy is?

Bird Sign, I guess.

Heestii 'Hadaad Diido Hadalkeeyga' iyo Xassan Aadan Samatar. Dhageeysi wacan. Halkan Ka Dhageeyso Sida hogosha roobka Ama hillaac gu'yoo da'ay Hooban bislaatiyo Hara wada biyeeysan Oo lagu hayaamo Hubaal sahanki u raray Wuxuu sii hibtiqiyaba Hadaqadacsi loo jiro Habooneey nafteeydan Higsi baad ku noqotoo Adaa ii hiraayee Waxaa hiilla iinoqon lahaa Halistiyo dhibkaan qabo Adoo iga horjoogsada Hadaad diido hadalkeyka Habeen wacan nasiibkeeyga Halkeeygaan ku sugayaa Hanfi iyo dabeelbaa Isu keey hareeyoo Sida howd dulhamaggan Habaaqir iiga baxayee Hadaan haysto talada Hibooy kaama hiisheen Kuu hood-sheegtee Haween ha igu noqonine Hadaad diido hadalkeyka Habeen wacan nasiibkeeyga Halkeeygaan ku sugayaa Hanaanka iyo quruxdaan Hibooy kugu jeclaadoo Hablahaad u sidataa Heybadiyo asluubtee La hamiyey dartaayoo Habeen socod ku waashoo Waxaan heegadaabaa (*) Hawadaa dariiqqee Waxaa hiilla iinoqon lahaa Halistiyo dhibkaan qabo Adoo iga horjoogsada Hadaad diido hadalkeyka Habeen wacan nasiibkeeyga Halkeeygaan ku sugayaa Allifaaga/Abwaanka heestan ma xusuusta. Ina xusuusi hadaad taqaan abwaanka allifey, fadlan. (*) Not sure

Fidel: Jamaal, are you saying that some people (not Somalis) are genetically predisposed to blowing themselves up? Yes.

There is always a haste, usually by the public media, to lay all blames of crime on whoever they suspect, mostly without any evidence at all. Yesterday, they said it was two Somalis who were to-be bombers, today they say its one Somali and one Eritrean. Tommorrow, as things become more clearer, we might be told something else altogether. Several years ago, a man kniffed a policewoman and the media was quick to judge and say the man was Somali. After few days, it turned out that the man was Sudanese who claimed asylum as Somali. Personally, I cannot buy the news that a Somali will strap a bomb around his waist and blast himself off, alongside other innocent people. It is not because we Somalis are at all good moralists, but its because we are number one cowards when it comes to doing such things as blowing ourselves up. It is not a Somali tradition nor is it a late tendency, nor has there been a suicide bombing that took place within Somalia during all the 15 years the civil war raged. If this man turns out to be Somali and he was intentioned to commit a suicide-bombing, then its a worrying addition to our already precarous situation. Somehow I don't believe a Somali born and raised in Somalia or in other African countries, will have intentions such as blowing him/herself up. It just doesn't add up, really. Something is fishy here.

NGONGE: Usually you write the longest posts in SOL, but with the least substance, and now you have gone out of your way to involve your family (your innocent daughter), in your tasteless rants, just to further a lame argument. Sxb give it a rest and maybe try to find out the wisdom behind one-line responses. But I guess you can't make a simple point in one line, it is a skill of its own kind . PPS I review what I’ve written by reading it loudly and now, my four year old daughter thinks Jamaal is obtuse (no offence this time, saaxib). PS: I still think you are doing a poor imitation of McCarthyism .

NGONGE, tell me something else sxb. Isn't it true that you judged and accused me for not knowing how to hold a position? Isn't it true that you equal civilization with a single country? You have tried to sweep what pointed out about your writing aside and you wish to ignore them, just as you do with many issues. If this is what the supposed 'position' you hold is premised on, then God forbid, I don't wish to hold position similar to yours. As I said before, 'If you knew how to deal with this issue directly, you wouldn't find any twist or complication at all. Frankly, this issue is simply a beginners' debate'. The most suiting way of dealing with this type of debate, which is common to you, is to make little or nothing of it. PS: If what I wrote was a 'waffle', why don't you proof it. Pick on the easy points I made in the 'waffle' and see if you can deny their validity.

No, Jamaal. In calling you obtuse, I’m implying worse than that. NGONGE, let me answer you in three steps. Firstly, to call someone obtuse, you must have enough information regarding the discussed topic upon which to judge someone as obtuse. This is a generally agreed procedure. And to judge without enough information makes the judge hasty and 'obtuse' . I’m implying worse than that. I’m implying that you DONT KNOW what position to hold. Secondly , you cannot imply anything in my case (atleast for now), since I am yet to even suggest or declare my position. So far, between me and you, it is only you who took a position. To not know my position I must first present to you varying positions, in which I WOULDN'T KNOW one position to hold or chose. So when you accuse me of not knowing my position, you are a lying outrightly. This is not the first time I've seen you reach such a conlusion, and it is for this reason that I adress you with lowly remarks. There is no moral equivalency here (from an Islamic point of view- always from an Islamic point of view). The Iraq war was a war between the West and Iraq. Most Muslims opposed it and still do. It’s a clear unambiguous position. WE WERE AND STILL ARE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION. Let me try to show you something contradictory in what you wrote. In the above quote, you say: 1- The Iraq war was a war between the West and Iraq. At first you create two categories or opposing parties that cannot be equal in comparison - the West and Iraq. While the West is a categorically a civilization, Iraq is one country. That is one point. In your writings you wrongly equal these two catogories. This is where your misunderstandings of the issue stem from. If the war was between Britain and Iraq then there wouldn't be a problem. But since the Western civilization is attacking a single country, isn't it atleast fair to ask, in which civilization does Iraq belong? 2 - WE WERE AND STILL ARE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION. SXb, you cannot claim to have a 'WE' when you seperate Iraq from the 'we' in your first sentence, which have seen you unite the West. If we link terror acts to the mischiefs of the West in our lands, it is not something we've invented, we've learnt it from the West itself. When one fanatic terrorist attacks one of their cities, they link it to Islam and as a result to Muslim countries. Do you want us to refrain from doing so? We condemn the London bombings, but we shall only stop linking them to Iraq or Afghanistan, after Blair and Bush stop linking the attacks to civilization. What is the point of speaking of a civilization, when the terrorists do not represent another civilization? Qeylida orgiga ka weyn [wey] nagu khaldaayaane The London bombings are also wrong. Again, most Muslims oppose and condemn them. However, here things get a bit twisted and complicated. Yes, they were wrong, and I agree with on that point, but you should stop at that. If what you are interested is specifically the London bombings and nothing else, then you should concentrate on the immorality of suicide bombings. If you knew how to deal with this issue directly, you wouldn't find any twist or complication at all. Frankly, this issue is simply a beginners' debate. Is there a link between the two? There most probably is. Does it make a difference to one’s decision making process when condoning or condemning them? NO. Is there a necessity in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO. Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link! Is there a need to talk about that link when condemning the London Bombings? NO Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link! Is there a significance in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link! Yes, and it makes alot of difference, unless that is, one is a hypocrite. If you tie a man to pole, brutalize him, gag him, walk all over him and when night comes leave him a candle light, which he then, due to his pain and anger, kicks it and burns the jail in which he was kept, and in the process die. Will you accuse him of criminality for effect his burning the jail down and ignore what he suffered? Or will you first address the cause and then effect, or visa versa? This is the case with condemning this suicide bombings. They are wrong but we cannot blantanly ignore its causes, which in this case Iraq is relevant. Reflect, ponder, think and analyse this whole thing. Reach a moral position and stick to it. Trying to walk this tight rope of duplicity will not do. Ask me to reflect on more meaningful topics rather than your poor attempt of deflecting your own ineptitude. As the saying goes 'doqon intaadan doqon oran beey doqon ku tiraahdaa'. This is the case with you, sxb. PS: Remember, I did not equate you to McCarthy himself, if you read my post again, you will see I said, you are doing a poor imitation.

NGONGE, Reading your posts regarding the recent London bombings and the discussions that they have sparked, you do come across as a poor imitation of Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin's 'Communist Witch Hunt' and the Americans whom he accused of carring out 'UnAmerican' activities in the 1950s. In those years, McCarthy placed his patriotic spotlight on influencial individuals prompting them to give Yes or No answers. In essence he was in a spate of implicating everyone and anyone who didn't clearly pronounce his/her patriotism and unquestioned loyalty to the national flag, just as he does. What this meant was that everyone would have to blindly be American and ask no questions about it. Nor shall one compare or contrast the activities of America to other countries' acitivies. If you do so, you are a communist. McCarthy judged and accused people with inconclussive evidence or often times questionable evidence. He was a man taking advantage of the public American fear, which grew out of the 'Second Red Scare' of the 1940s. At times when the public is fearful or scared witless, it is widely known that phoney advocates promising salvation are likely to emerge, and will blatantly accuse anyone who is not of their opinion. Just like McCarthy, you are asking, repeatedly, in a similar mantra, the same question. In the place of 'are you a communist', its replaced by your subtle question of 'are you a terrorist supporter and sympathiser?' Which many of us arent. Here in these pages, from which information has once been quoted by national papers, which are also likely being watched, as is the case with many Muslim forums, aren't you coming across as a man on a mission to write appeasing posts that portray the rest as supporters and sympathisers of suicide bombers? You portray anyone who doesn't speak like you or doesn't speak like an anti-terror government speaksman/woman, as being obtuse, and practising duplicity? Are you implying we're hiding something here? Or secretly supporting the terrorists? It seems you are unhappy with the admittance that we all condemn the bombings of London, and that you require from us to avoid mentioning any wrongs done by the West, while allocating all blame to Islam and its adherants. What do you want us to do?

When men of words or poets are engaged in a poetic combat, the rule and the regulation of such a combat are made clear. All combatants must refrain from things that bring prompt disqualification and defamation. And defamation is only possible if one commits 'deel-qaaf'. Apart from other components of 'deel-qaaf', the worst shameful kind of deel-qaaf a man or a competant poet can commit is to insult the womenfolk. For men this is a no go area, and any man who dares to do so is automatically defamed and excluded from the realm of gents. Many a man has fallen for this petty resort of bad-mouthing the womenfolk, resulting in loss of face in the Somali society in general. In our case here, it is acceptable to speak of another man and his polities in which manner available to one, but no in where nor under no circumstance is the insulting of womenfolk allowed. It is not allowed traditionally, religeously, nor will it be accepted in any place, which men with an ounce of goodness congregate. So please lets not bring the par down to this lowly tendency. PS: Leave the womanfolk out of this petty politics please. 'Naag taag mooye, tol malahan' waa tii hor loo yiriye. - wallee maxaad u hadli weydey xaal igu ma fuulo

It is very nice to hear you are ok... Alxamdullilaah for that. I wish you a quick recovery Insha-allaah aamiin. Take care sister

As we speak there is a police raid or something going on in Harrow-Road. Road is cordonded off and Morocan-looking women taken away by the police from an internet cafe. Bomb Squad present. Go to www.bbcnews.co.uk ...and click of live coverage thats if you have broadband connection. Be safe

^^^ NGONGE. Are you familiar with the art of 'sarbeeb' and 'hoosaasin'? Surely, you have a long way to go before you master that art. But sxb, were you really trying to insult my intelligence and comprehension? Good God! Do continue brother, you are doing fine. I like the 'children' analogy, very neat indeed . Sxb you can't blame me, I am trying to learn from you by socratically questioning you. Hoping to be the future student of a clever teacher, I am bound by principle to not utter insult against you. You see where I am coming from? PS: I have picked on 'the problem with Islam' 'cos it seems the gist of the topic is just that. But then you don't seem to realise that. Plus, no one else in this forum posts articles about/or promotes the point of there being a problem in Islam, except you. You do this by prividing suggestions in the form of posting articles and advocating for authors who habbitually question Islam, sometimes rightfully and at times wrongly. Since you are the propagator of these authors and their questioing habbits, why do you feel upsurd when questioned about what you and them write? PPS: Well, what do I know, I am the fool with little capacity of comprehension, remember? As Somalis say, doqon far weyn baa wax loogu qoraa . So do just that for me, adoo mahadsan . One more thing, leave the chatroom, the admin, the quality of the site and other nomads' charactors out of this. You don't have to blame everyone except yourself.

^^^ NGONGE, c'mon now. Don't you think talking about lowering one's self and writing veiled insults are female traits? What is there to lower or higher yourself about? It is a question, which I must add, about something you brought up the second time. I thought, in your clever state atleast, you would answer me straight-forwardly, or ignore it altogether. Instead you are making a fool out of yourself by assuming me to be things I wouldn't assume about you. Now c'mon, I want to understand what you saying about the problem with Islam. Mind you, the topic is about 'rethinking islam' and is very much inline with the topic of 'the problem with Islam'. And if say, you state a problem with islam and I ask you about it, how am I playing a game of 'pedantry'? PS: sxb your trip of assuming things about others seems to be driving you towards paranoia. Take it easy . It is all good.

NGONGE, you shouldn't call names the person who has only asked you for an explanation. I have asked you a straightfoward question, now will you answer it by showing exactly where the problem lies? Or do you want to resort to cheap assumptions of my very person and the charactors of other nomads. To remind you of the issue at hand, here is one of your quotes: Every imbecile can safely join this argument. Islam is from Allah; Allah is the creator of the whole entire universe; Allah is perfect; All Allah’s creations are perfect; Islam is perfect. When you say there is a problem with Islam you imply (god forbid) a fault with Allah! For a simplistic pedant, this is the best style of argument to have. No believing Muslim could possibly carry on with such an argument you see, ergo certain win. But, does it deal with the point about there being a problem with Islam? Exactly what is this 'problem with Islam' that you wish us to deal with? Tell us, is that too much to ask? PS: If it makes you feel better, you can resort to the nonsense that I 'been affected' or that I have 'caught a bug'.

NGONGE, do you believe Islam is the problem? If so, will you be so kind to tell us exactly where the problem lies. Explain it to us please, or rather enlighten us. Thank you.

hehehehehehehehehehehe ...ehehe

Beri aan dhoweyn ayaa waxaa cirka isku shareerey qiimaha lo'da iyo idooleeydaba. Nin reer magaal ah oo lacag yar hasyta ayaa hunguriyeey bal inuu ka bayaac-mushtaro kala-iibsiga suuqqan cirka isku shareerey. Illeen waa nin hunguri hayee, lacagtiisii yarayd oo idil ayaa ku iibsadey boqol neef of lo' ah iyo 100 ido ah. Sida la ogsoonyahayna, xoolluhu waxaa dabiici u ah in aay helaan daaqsin, dushana laga illaaliyo inta ay daaqqa ku jiraan. Ninkii reer magaalka ahaa, markuu xoollihii foofiyey oo ay duhurnimona gaartey, ayuu geed hoostii bal yara hargal is yiri. Ninku waa illeen nin dukaanleey ahaayoo duhur-jiifka aad u yaqaaan. Mar allaale iyo markii uu geedka in yar hoos fadhiyey ayay hurdo horor ku keentey, iskana seexdey. Goor dambe ayuu hal mar soo baraarugey, balse xoolihii waa maqanyihiin, gacan laguma hayo. Isagoo madluunsan oo madaxa lalminayo ayuu dib magaaladii ugu soo laabtey. Markii laga wareystey xoolihii, lana weydiiyey 'war caliyow, meeye maalkii amba xoolihii', wuxuu ku jawaabey: "MARKII HOREBA, EDEB DARRADA ANIGAA LAHAA, WAAYO ANAA MAALKAYGA OO JEEBABKA IYO MAQALLADA IIGU JIRA, LUGO U YEELEY, OO WELIBA FOOFIYEY!" Waana jawaab maahmaah noqotey. ---- Marka nimanyahow, aniga lacagteyda lugo weli ma eyan yeelan, balse waxaan shaki ku jirin in aan lacagdoon lambar uno ahay, waanna ogahay in lacagi buuxdo carrigan gaaleed. Ee ilma adeera-yaaloow, baadidoon lacag-raadis ah ayaan ku wada jirnaaye, maan is wareysanno? Sidee, inagoon is feera-goyn marnaba, oonan tuugag noqon, lacag jeebabka uga buuxsan karnaa? Waad ogtihiin xaalada iyo jawiga qurbe, iyo bedel xooggan ee ku yimiye, sideen lacag yar uga cantoobsannaa intaanan inaga lafaheena loosoo dhigan! FG: Waa iga kaftan-dhable

That’s fine, but I’ll repeat my original question: who is the other side in the fight? Do you approve of this ‘war’ then? Lol. Thats my answer.