I should never have stayed up. Rafa got it wrong in the first but trying to sit back and hit long balls to Torres and Kuyt. The 2 goals woke us up but it was too late. Anyway, the next game will be away to Chelsea. Time to show them what it's like to play a decent team (too many easy games for them so far this season).

Alot of work over there.

Hmm, wouldn't doing another 10km run in Jan 2010 for charity or shall go for the big one?

One needs to understand the importance of wearing a tie as president and the other looks like an aging Sri Lankan!

^Have a feeling he was one of the organisers

^Did you go to them? Afternoon

^True. But they need to see how it may benefit them.

Good pics Juje. Lets hope those were productive discussions.

What a lot of critics and of Arab leaders don't see is the huge sums they donate each year towards charity.

I object to the winner A&T. Armed resistance shall explode against the man aided and assisted by 'qurbo joogto'. Only man, JB, who is Hargaisa, was up for election. That was not fair. The losers of the election are collectively financing the resistance. Down down A&T down!!!

BIG game on Sunday! Saudis confirm Liverpool interest Liverpool players The move could boost Liverpool's profile in the Middle East A Saudi Arabian prince has confirmed he is looking to buy up to half of Premier League football club Liverpool. Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah al-Saud told the Saudi Al-Riyadh newspaper "we are looking forward to acquiring 50% of the club's stake". The price of £200m to £350m he is ready to pay for the stake is more than the £174m US owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett paid for the whole club. A deal to open football schools in the Middle East has also been signed. 'Sports investments' The prince's sports investment company F6 has confirmed it has reached a deal with Liverpool co-owner George Gillett to set up two academies in Saudi Arabia and two in North Africa. The deal would also extend the interests of the US Nascar motorsport series in the Middle East. "This partnership will provide a lot of investments in football, racing and sports media in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East," an F6 statement said. "The contracts are basically sports investments, which also include establishing football academies that will definitely help the future of Saudi sports in the future." Meanwhile the prince said it would be "marvellous" to seal a deal securing a 50% at the Merseyside club, which he called one of the most famous in the world. 'Concluded soon' Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett have been looking to reduce Liverpool's £245m debt and paid off £60m in July. That was when the loan used taken out to buy the club in February 2007 ran out and was renegotiated with banks RBS and Wachovia. Considering what Hicks and Gillett paid it is a huge increase in the club's value Harry Philp, Hermes Sports Partners "The deal will be concluded soon and its value will be between £200m and £350m," the Al-Riyadh paper quoted the prince, who is also an honorary member of Saudi football club Al Hilal, as saying. "If we finalise the deal, it will be something marvellous because Liverpool is one of the best and most famous clubs in England and the whole world." The Saudi interest comes after a document was leaked showing that since March 2009 the club has been seeking to attract new investors in return for a stake in the Anfield club. In March 2009, a prospectus drawn up by investment banks Rothschild and Merrill Lynch told potential investors that for £50m they could get a minority stake in "one of the world's most successful football clubs". Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah al-Saud, who was at Anfield on Saturday for the 6-1 win over Hull - where he signed the deal for the academies - now appears to be seeking to invest much more than £50m. As well as the F6 sports investment vehicle he is also chairman of Saudi holding company FAMA Group Stadium on hold "Considering what Hicks and Gillett paid it is a huge increase in the club's value to somewhere between £400m and £700m," Harry Philp, managing director at sports financers and advisers Hermes Sports Partners, told the BBC. "They had to refinance their debt with their banks recently. Despite paying off £60m of their debt recently as part of that refinancing it is still surprising, particularly considering that plans for a new stadium are on hold." However, a number of questions remain over any possible investment, should the Saudis take a stake. "The Saudis will have to take 25% of the club from each of Hicks and Gillett if they want half the club, but whether they both would be willing to sell any more of their holdings is unknown," added Mr Philp. Mr Hicks has promised that a new stadium will be built when the current global financial turmoil settles down. Liverpool recently signed a sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered bank, a sign that the club's commercial revenues are set to remain healthy over the coming seasons. The deal begins next July and runs to the end of the 2013/14 season. Just sell the damn club!

^How is the world of Electrical Engineering GJ? Ibti, I don't mind really.

What happened to campain rallier? I was going to throw eggs at them (a snake at Ngonge).

I don't mind the drive to and from. It's the standing around waiting with millions of midget hindi hoosta ka wada galaaya oo ku jiiraaya. Bloody Daallo :mad:

Three month notice is standard but is usually shortened to about 6 weeks. Airport run again tonight. Bloody Daallo :rolleyes:

Ragan isku haystaa waxan may alxadullilah uun yidhaadaan dad baa gaajoodey'e?

Busy day after a week off. Now have to go to airport. Daallo have made a lot of people stranded because of the cancelled Djibouti to London line.

Originally posted by -MARX-: Another pathetic and irrelevent post. Norf, I think I saw in camden last week. Why is it though? With all the negative press Islam and Muslims have been receiving over the years it is still growing rapidly. So muh so that you can pray in Mosques that used to be Churches. ps you didn't see me in Camden saxib. Wouldn't be seen dead around there. At least I know where you got the idea for the Mohican though

Empty churches, full mosques Several redundant churches in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland are slowly being converted into mosques as Christian congregations dwindle while a growing Muslim population demands more places to worship. Colin Randall, foreign correspondent, reports GLASGOW // When the Glasgow Central Mosque, then rivalling the biggest in Europe, opened a quarter of a century ago, it seemed all the needs of Muslim worshippers in Scotland’s largest city would be met at its imposing site on the banks of the Clyde. http://www.thenation al.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/2009092 6/FOREIGN/709259802/ 1041

I think they had no choice! The shift in people's opinions of Riyaale and Co. should not be ignored however. The Elections will happen and Riyaale will be gone along with UDUB. Think geographically.

Cara, I’m assuming you have been following this thread. A little re-cap is required none the less. What we have requested from the Atheists, on a number of occasions, is what they believe to be the origins of humans. This was presented to us by Raamsade. He said Humans descended from Apes or Ape-like creatures. Subsequently, I posted an excerpt from a book by one of evolution’s main modern era opponents. Naden and you object to my use of HY’s work. What you both seem to find contentious in his work is not clear. All you’ve stated is that he is merely wrong and I should take your word for it and read more on the subject (something you both seem to have spent years studying). However, there are others doing the same thing (writing about evolution’s short-comings). Now is that what you would call a debate? “I know more than you so will not engage you until you have done your share of reading”. A debate does no necessarily require both parties to be ‘read-up’ on the subject. It requires both parties to try and PROVE they are correct. So far, there has been reluctance from your side however tedious it may feel for you. Merely stating this person’s opinion won’t wash because he/she is wrong doesn’t do justice to your years as a biologist. Your inference that this theory is accepted by all biologists everywhere doesn’t answer the questions asked either. The same questions which have led to state schools accepting that evidence is indeed limited and that evolution will now be taught as a theory only and no longer as fact. Propaganda? Have a number of biologists not reverted from their pro evolution stance over the years? You see, what I see and hear in the news or on the net indicate that the evolution theory has been challenged without much in the way of a fight back from Darwinists. Maybe you believe the opposite to be true but until you state how and why you think this, I will have no option but to believe what I see and hear. What you will need to accept is that not everyone has studied the subject or read any books on it. However, there should always be a ‘reasonable’ threshold for those more informed to at least attempt answering what to them may be the most basic of questions/common misconceptions (something we have been doing on anything Islam for our resident nay sayers). This has not occurred here. You haven’t even attempted answering my earlier questions. If however you feel I’m not worthy then that's up to you but those questions won’t disappear.

Originally posted by sheherazade: Did u not witness tension @ Taraawiix. The Somalis squish toes! The Pakis leave a gap! The Bengalis... Those Asians love their bit of space. Somaliduna think squashing someone's toe is the way to go. Bal warama. Daallo Airlines is a joke. Don't ever get on one.

^Naden is a believer (she has already stated as such). Originally posted by Naden: Norfsky, I am not really sure what sort of answer you're searching for when you haven't examined some of the evolutionary evidence yourself. Even a wiki and some googling maybe better than nothing at this stage. Since we share nearly 95% of our DNA with present day chimpanzees, is it so far fetched that we would have a common ancestor? There is evidence of the genus, Homo , across several continents, and it is thought to have branched off from a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago. I'll give you an example of a debate that has been raging among muslim scholars in the face of this evidence. Abdel-Saboor Shaheen, a Muslim Scholar and well-known Daciya, waged a war of sorts in the early 90s against some Muslim scientists who agreed that early versions existed of today's man. He argued that these theories contradicted religious texts' conception of Adam (much like what his Christian counterparts do). In 1998, he did a turnabout and published a book called 'My Father Adam' where he contends that Adam, the first creature, may NOT be Adam, the nabi, mentioned in the Quran. I read the book when it came out and it is very thin on science. And there is a strong suspicion that a seminal part is lifted directly from a more learned Syrian scholar. Nonetheless, Shaheen essentially agrees that present man evolved from 'less-formed' series of ancestors. This complete turnabout earned him the expected wrath of other muslim scholars and daciya. Fortunately for him, the very writers he was accusing of kufr and testifying against in courts came to his aid with support. Curiously, he continues to wage his takfeeri war against anyone with whom he disagrees. One or two Muslim scholars are now postulating that the appearance of Homo Sapiens (sapien is Latin for intelligent) is nafkh el-roh into the less intelligent ancestor. They argue that this is how God preferred Adam's lineage over others. Frankly, Norf, and please don't take offense with this but I'm not sure what you can gain from engaging in evolution discussions when you're so woefully misinformed. I say use this passion that you have to gain some insights based on knowledge. Others may learn something from you as well. Naden, Unfortunately you seem to have adopted the very same tactics being employed by the other evolutionists in this thread. I was hoping for a more fruitful discussion even if I what I have read is solely from the net. What you have done there is state that you believe Humans have a common ancestor with Chimps. You’re entitled to that opinion. However, what I was looking for here is answers to the questions raised by creationists. None on this forum have attempted that yet. Requesting me to read and research around the topic is not what debating is about. What I would expect as a minimum is some sort of rebuttal to the following from your favourite Turk. The Imaginary Family Tree of Man The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 4 to 5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic "categories" are listed: 1. Australopithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australopithecus) 2. Homo habilis 3. Homo erectus 4. Homo sapiens Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged "Australopithecus", which means "southern ape". Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built (robust), while others are smaller and delicate (gracile). Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man". According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very much different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo. Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man", and "Lucy", which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.69 By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very recent times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia", it was reported in the journal Science that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia" 70 Furthermore, Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other. Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape. Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category. evolutiondeceit.com

All Somalis should have the name of their clan as their last names like the Arabs do.

^Bal u kaadi ninyow. The discussion on God will follow (in another thread). Will you take part?