Nina, this is for you. Sceptics cast doubt on events of 9/11 http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/the911decade/2011/09/201193211230257579.html The way the buildings collapsed having been struck near the top just doesn't make sense. More here: http://www.ae911truth.org/

A&T Nice side step. Ronaldhino-esk. As you were...... A Khadar, I will address your points after today’s games

When you fly over the city you will see just how well it was planned. The grid system makes getting around quite easy. Thanks for posting.

Baashi;745232 wrote: Northerner awoowe waan soo socdaa. No written offer yet but I have got the call. This time it will be four solid years if I can survive in office poiltics. I really don't know how you put up with the uncertainty and job insecurity in the UAE employment market. Tough thing to do I tell ya. When will you be back saxib? Sounds like a good offer. I have changed jobs a couple of times saxib. I have been lucky I suppose.

JB, how can you sleep ALL day?

Bow! What is this Zigzagging argument, which looks like a urine trail that a rowdy camel wantonly drew on a sand? Are you saying Somalilanders had the right to declare independence simply because they were massacred, while at the same time acknowledging this mistreatment was not reserved for them only? If that is not your point, then are you saying their secession should be contexualized and understood because the civil war in the south took a bad turn and the reality was such that Somaliland was left with no option? If this is your argument, it has strong but tentative merit. That merit has a short lifespan, for that same reality has changed and we are now in different times and context. Which means, if your argument made sense yesterday, it is laughable today. Somaliland has been presented with dozens of opportunities to sit with the rest of the Somalis in the last decade but has refused to do so. Which is not condemnable by itself given the quality of the governments in the South they were asked to sit with. But, you and me know the issue is not about the credibility of a government in the south. It is about clan ambition and grand scheme of Statehood for the clan that is so pure, so democratic, so civilized that it cannot mix with the unequals in the South. Which makes your points barely discernable much like the wink of a chinese boozer in a dimly lit casino. The reality has changed? Really? I must have missed it. What is today’s reality in Somalia saxib? It has gone from no government to operation restore hope, to warlords, to the TFG, Al Shabaab controlling large swathes, an Ethiopian invasion, it has sold itself to IGAD and is currently rife with piracy. So, what did I miss saxib? Where is this change you allude to? Call it a clan state all you want. If someone decides to leave a house crumbling around him and goes to live across the street in a new house, he is fully ENTITLED to do so (with or without the support of the others). No retrospective structural analysis by a gardener of the building now vacated by SL that still has no windows and no roof is going to change that. The house across the road looks neat, safe and enjoys many visitors who are welcomed with open arms (you included). I have dealt with the core argument of these lines. In the first line about the choices SNM had, you haven't added any value to the discourse even by way of sensible falsehood. You barely explained or more accurately excused what your uncles did 20 years ago. Was the option taken by Puntland, for instance, not open for them? And speaking of the benefit of hindsight, it is SNM and you who are taking advantage of it. The SNM did not had any foresight whatsoever about an impending mayhem and anarchy in the South. If it had, it didn’t express it in those days. That doesn’t mean they didn’t hope for one. If we think the unthinkable and assume SNM had a visionary leadership with clearly defined goal, they didn’t implement it in Burco conference. The fact is that the outcome of that meeting was dictated by gun-wielding mostly rural youths, commonly known as ‘the Gaas-dhagoole’ Brigade. It is a fact any veteran SNM fighter readily gloats about. Which is why Norf’s conjectures about presumed foresightedness are the product of his own imagination! Where is the evidence to support the assertion that the SNM foresaw anarchy in the south? All indications are that the SNM leadership did only posses the potent ability of inciting clanmen easily agitated and titilated by the war chants of Tolaa'ayeey. What my uncles did doesn’t need explaining. I’m not trying to get your agreement saxib. I am merely highlighting the flaws of your argument. The option taken by Puntland only highlights further the flaws and lack of context in your original argument and reinforces my points about the uncertainty in the region at the time which resulted in ‘Tol’ alliances. Some chose to stay in the union and others left it. Also, hasn’t Puntland previously expressed to go it alone if it didn’t get what it wanted from Somali governments? Poor choice as an example there. Besides, Puntland was more of a counter to Somaliland than anything else (even PL is experiencing some difficulties at the moment). When I said hindsight is a wonderful thing I was refering to the term generally being used when there are regrets about previous decisions. In the case of Somaliland, there are no regrets. Not because they foresaw what was going to happen or because they hoped for more anarchy elsewhere but because of the UNCERTAINTY at the time. Did you know what was going to happen in the early 90s? Were you certain things would get better? I think not. Being aggrieved followed by anarchy then uncertainty makes one rely on himself alone. Such decisions are perfectly understandable. If they’re not, you’re yet to tell me why. Your gibberish is no substitute and parading a duck as a swan at a party isn’t going to get you anywhere. Incidentally, recent civil wars have resulted in new countries being formed. The Balkan countries are a prime example. The only problem Somaliland has is that it is not part of a country in Europe aligned to Russia. I’m sure the same arguments were being had in those countries. All in all, although your argument might seem well put together at first glance, when contextualised and the reasons behind Somaliland’s split are analysed, one would understand why such a decision was made. You can carry on moonlighting about the issues exclusively from one another but when ALL the issues are considered, a reasonable discerning person would at the very least understand. Finally, those who hang on to this one argument are missing the boat as far as I’m concerned. I have said this many times on here. You’re inviting Somaliland back to the crumbling house I mentioned earlier. At least put the roof on!

Abtigiis;745269 wrote: I have no problem living with Ngonge's conclusions. They confirm my assertion that only one side is telling its story. Norf, you could have added © atrocities were committed by both Barre and SNM (D) Atrocities were committed against others too (E) C and D. And I would have circled E in this multiple choice question. The thread is also about teaching the difference between atrocities, war crimes and genocide to the shrieking prodigy of British-lovers. Ok. Let’s go with your (E). I will ignore getting into details as it will only derail things. Your argument centres on the premise that, in your opinion, Somaliland shouldn't seek secession even though the people were subjected to atrocities (just like many others were). The others are still willing to give the Somalia project a go (which is perfectly fine by the way). But the argument you present, the one of 'the rest are still in it so should Somaliland be in it too' is quite simplistic. You have acknowledged crimes were committed against them. You have acknowledged crimes were committed against others. But, what you (and others) keep failing to understand is, following the civil war, Somaliland had the RIGHT to go it alone. At the time, Somaliland (and anyone else) was well within its rights to seek independence (following the atrocities you acknowledge). At the time, the country was in a mess (as a civil was going on). At the time, the SNM trusted only themselves. At the time, there was no government in Somalia. At the time, the other choice was warlords. What exactly were the prospects there at the time? Should the SNM have stayed as part of Somalia even though it was in a mess? Who should make such a decision? Would the region be as it is today without the formation of Somaliland? Hindsight is a wonderful thing and 20 years later Somaliland holds no regrets. Somalia is still a mess. Don’t worry I don’t expect you to know the answers to the questions above as you (and others) have never thought about them. The default position of anyone and any group when uncertainty transpires is to rely on one’s self. This is what the SNM did, it was their right to do it and I commend them for it (their concerns have been proven right). Instead of rummaging your mind and only finding the argument you presented, a better and more extensive analysis would conclude the above (the SNM had the right to decide to go it alone). Do tell us the difference between atrocities, war crimes and genocide (they are all bad are they not?).

Abtigiis, I see its time for your once a year thread Saxib, tell me what you're saying here. Is it: a) There were no atrocities commited by Barre's regime in the North West or b) Atrocities were comitted by Barres regime but against many others as well

Typical Chelsea fan. Marka laga badiyo he says it wasn't a big deal. Saxib it was 3-0. You couldn't handle our physical play

Jacaylbaro;744941 wrote: I told you ... everything is moving in the right direction.

Look at this interactive map of where bombings and other terrorist attacks have occurred since 11 September 2001. I doubt it covers every incident but watching the red balloons brings home just what has gone on in the last 10 years since http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/sep/05/9-11-terror-attacks-interactive

We have Stoke on Sat so can't really enjoy watching a game of football

I wonder where that shoe box of mine with Sept 12 2001 newspapers is? Whoever has a hold of them will be rich one day (or maybe his grand kids will). Anyway, relive the initial coverage from the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/from-the-archive-blog/2011/sep/06/9-11-attacks-guardian-archive

Islam Feruz. Heard about this kid a while ago. The Celtic fans got on his back for leaving (I think he left too early). Well done to him.

Is it the one about squatters moving into a Doctor's house?

:D

^You know what they say about someone who laughs at his own jokes (or comments) Edit A year and a half later

Shiekh Basshi, waad salaamantahay and Eid Mubarak saxib. Still here and looking forward to the cooler months. By calaacal, I meant what usually transpires in a thread. I wasn’t calling the event of 9/11 calaacal. If you had gotten that job you may have hated it. It might have held you back. You may never have had the opportunity to come out here. Perspective saxib. I was on my year placement. It was just another Tuesday afternoon. I went for lunch late on that day. I think I left the office at about 2pm (BST). As I was driving to the small café I usually got a sandwich from, I hear one of the WTC towers was hit by a plane. No big deal I thought. Surely it was an accident I told myself. Then, as I was eating and listening to the radio in the café all hell broke loose. The second plane had hit the other tower. I wondered if I was dreaming or part of some movie. By the time I got back to the office people were literally in tears (the women) and swearing at the radio (the men). This was before live TV was available on the internet. Heck it was before broadband. So, without a TV in the office, people just huddled around a radio in one of the offices. When I got home I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing. The gravity of it all didn’t really hit home until much later. A week or so later a woman stopped by as I was filling the car with petrol. What did she say? “Go back to where you came from. F*&**&g killing people”. Caught me by surprise. But was a sign of things to come (mainly inspired by right wing media). Then the profiling at airports. The world has changed.

NGONGE;744720 wrote: ^^ Contractual terms are not their problem dee. Internal controls are. It is their problem. Payments are made to 3rd parties in accordance with the terms of contract signed between those parties. They should read the bloody contract! Anyway, I'm calm maanta. Its the weekend. Afternoon all

^ I am and I do. Accountants seem to be the ones who don't read contractual terms, assume something then when told 'no, its not like that' they hold on for dear life. I'm holding off firing an email.....

^Yeah Their bloody own procedures

So, it's been 10 years. I can't quite believe it. I saved the newspapers from the next day in a shoe box (could be worth something now) but unfortunately I can't find the box. Probably got lost in all the house moves I've made in that time. So where were you? Who did it? Is the world a better place as a result? Tafadal...

Ngonge, please don't say anymore. You're setting us up for a big fall. Remember what happened last time you made such predictions?

NGONGE;744704 wrote: Me too. What did they do to you this time? They don't understand contractual terms. Bunch of sheep they are.....