Thanks

Originally posted by TheSomaliEconomist: ^^ Northerner, I'm not against that and I have never said that I'm against it either. However, implementation of Shari'a alone won't be fruitful, but rather devastating, if the islamic courts and their personell are corrupted by clannism. If the ICU would have continued their reign I wouldnt be surprised if we'd see killings of certain clans/families/individuals being backed up by 'fatwas' and using Islam in this kind of way is more close to being harmful for the ummah than positive. Ahh, so you have it all figured out because erm,,,,erm,,,,you say so? That simply highlights your tribalism.

GJ, please provide the source. Thanks

^^Ecoman Why are you against the implementation of Sheria Law?

Cloud seeding Cloud seeding, a form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei. The usual intent is to increase precipitation, but hail suppression is also widely practiced. Silver iodide and dry ice are the most commonly used substances in cloud seeding. How cloud seeding works The most common chemicals used for cloud seeding include silver iodide and dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide). The expansion of liquid propane into a gas is being used on a smaller scale. The use of hygroscopic materials, such as salt, is increasing in popularity because of some promising research results. Seeding of clouds requires that they contain supercooled liquid water--that is, liquid water colder than zero degrees Celsius. Introduction of a substance such as silver iodide, which has a crystalline structure similar to that of ice, will induce freezing (heterogeneous nucleation). Dry ice or propane expansion cools the air to such an extent that ice crystals can nucleate spontaneously from the vapor phase. Unlike seeding with silver iodide, this spontaneous nucleation does not require any existing droplets or particles because it produces extremely high vapor supersaturations near the seeding substance. However, the existing droplets are needed for the ice crystals to grow into large enough particles to precipitate out. In mid-latitude clouds, the usual seeding strategy has been predicated upon the fact that the equilibrium vapor pressure is lower over water than over ice. When ice particles form in supercooled clouds, this fact allows the ice particles to grow at the expense of liquid droplets. If there is sufficient growth, the particles become heavy enough to fall as snow (or, if melting occurs, rain) from clouds that otherwise would produce no precipitation. This process is known as "static" seeding. Seeding of warm-season or tropical cumuliform (convective) clouds seeks to exploit the latent heat released by freezing. This strategy of "dynamic" seeding assumes that the additional latent heat adds buoyancy, strengthens updrafts, ensures more low-level convergence, and ultimately causes rapid growth of properly selected clouds. Cloud seeding chemicals may be dispersed by aircraft or by dispersion devices located on the ground (generators). For release by aircraft, silver iodide flares are ignited and dispersed as an aircraft flies through a cloud. When released by devices on the ground, the fine particles are downwind and upwards by air currents after release. While cloud seeding has shown to be effective in altering cloud structure and size, and converting cloud water to ice particles, it is more controversial whether cloud seeding increases the amount of precipitation at the ground. Part of the problem is that it is difficult to discern how much precipitation would have occurred had the cloud not been "seeded". In other words, it is hard to discern additional precipitation from seeding from the natural precipitation variability, which is frequently much greater in magnitude. Nevertheless, there is more credible scientific evidence for the effectiveness of winter cloud seeding over mountains (to produce snow) than there is for seeding warm-season cumuliform (convective) clouds. This statement is supported by the professional societies Weather Modification Association, World Meteorological Organization, and American Meteorological Society (AMS). The AMS further states that there is statistical evidence for seasonal precipitation increases of about 10% with winter seeding [1]. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), an institution in Boulder, Colorado, has made some statistical analysis of seeded and unseeded clouds in an attempt to understand the differences between them. They have conducted seeding research in several countries that include Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Italy, and Argentina. Cessna 210 with cloud seeding equipment History The first attempt at cloud seeding was in upstate New York in 1946. Vincent Schaefer, a General Electric chemist, caused snow to fall near Schenectady, NY after he dumped six pounds of dry ice into a cloud from a plane.[1] Noted atmospheric scientist Bernard Vonnegut (brother of novelist Kurt Vonnegut) is credited with discovering the potential of silver iodide for use in cloud seeding. This property is related to a good match in lattice constant between the two types of crystal (the crystallography of ice later played a role in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle). Silver iodide is mostly used for winter snowfall augmentation over mountains and hail suppression. While not a new technique hygroscopic seeding for enhancement of rainfall in warm clouds is enjoying a revival, based on some positive indications from research in South Africa, Mexico, and elsewhere. The hygroscopic material most commonly used is salt. It is postulated that hygroscopic seeding causes the droplet size spectrum in clouds to become more maritime (bigger drops) and less continental, stimulating rainfall through coalescence. From March 1967 until July 1972, the US military Operation Popeye cloud seeded silver iodide to extend the monsoon season over North Vietnam, specifically the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The operation resulted in the targeted areas seeing an extension of the monsoon period an average of 30 to 45 days.[2] The 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron carried out the operation to "make mud, not war." [3] One private organization which offered, during the 1970s, to conduct weather modification (cloud seeding from the ground using silver iodide flares) was Irving P. Crick and Associates of Palm Springs, California. They were contracted by the Oklahoma State University in 1972 to conduct such a seeding project to increase warm cloud rainfall in the Lake Carl Blackwell watershed. That lake was, at that time (1972-73), the primary water supply for Stillwater, Oklahoma and was dangerously low. The project did not operate for a long enough time to show statistically any change from natural variations. However, at the same time, seeding operations have been ongoing in California since 1948. An attempt by the United States military to modify hurricanes in the Atlantic basin using cloud seeding in the 1960s was called Project Stormfury. Only a few hurricanes were tested with cloud seeding because of the strict rules that were set by the scientists of the project. It was unclear whether the project was successful; hurricanes appeared to change in structure slightly, but only temporarily. The fear that cloud seeding could potentially change the course or power of hurricanes and negatively affect people in the storm's path stopped the project. Two Federal agencies have supported various weather modification research projects, which began in the early 1960s: The United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation; Department of the Interior) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; Department of Commerce). Reclamation sponsored several cloud seeding research projects under the umbrella of Project Skywater from 1964-1988, and NOAA conducted the Atmospheric Modification Program from 1979-1993. The sponsored projects were carried out in several states and two countries (Thailand and Morocco), studying both winter and summer cloud seeding. More recently, Reclamation sponsored a small cooperative research program with six Western states called the Weather Damage Modification Program [4], from 2002-2006. Funding for research has declined in the last two decades. A 2003 study by the United States National Academy of Sciences urges a national research program to clear up remaining questions about weather modification's efficacy and practice. In Australia, CSIRO conducted major trials between 1947 and the early 1960s: 1947 – 1952: CSIRO scientists dropped dry ice into the tops of cumulus clouds. The method worked reliably with clouds that were very cold, producing rain that would not have otherwise fallen. 1953 – 1956: CSIRO carried out similar trials South Australia, Queensland and other States. Experiments used both ground-based and airborne silver iodide generators. Late 1950s and early 1960s: Cloud seeding in the Snowy Mountains, on the Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, in the New England district of New South Wales, and in the Warragamba catchment area west of Sydney. Only the trial conducted in the Snowy Mountains produced statistically significant rainfall increases over the entire experiment. [edit] Modern uses The largest cloud seeding system in the world is that of the People's Republic of China, which believes that it increases the amount of rain over several increasingly arid regions, including its capital city, Beijing, by firing silver iodide rockets into the sky where rain is desired. There is even political strife caused by neighboring regions which accuse each other of "stealing rain" using cloud seeding[5]. About 24 countries currently practice weather modification operationally. In the United States, cloud seeding is used to increase precipitation in areas experiencing drought, to reduce the size of hailstones that form in thunderstorms, and to reduce the amount of fog in and around airports. Cloud seeding is also occasionally used by major ski resorts to induce snowfall. Eleven western states and one Canadian province (Alberta) have ongoing weather modification operational programs [6]. In January 2006, an $8.8 million cloud seeding project began in Wyoming to examine the effects of cloud seeding on snowfall over Wyoming's Medicine Bow, Sierra Madre, and Wind River mountain ranges. [7] A number of commercial companies, such as Aero Systems Incorporated [8], Atmospherics Incorporated [9], North American Weather Consultants [10], Weather Modification Incorporated [11], Weather Enhancement Technologies International [12] offer weather modification services centered on cloud seeding. The USAF proposed its use on the battlefield in 1996, although the U.S. signed an international treaty in 1978 banning the use of weather modification for hostile purposes. In Australia, CSIRO’s activities in Tasmania in the 1960s were successful. Seeding over the Hydro-Electricity Commission catchment area on the Central Plateau achieved rainfall increases as high as 30% in autumn. The Tasmanian experiments were so successful that the Commission has regularly undertaken seeding ever since in mountainous parts of the State. Beginning in Winter 2004, Snowy Hydro Limited is conducting a six-year research project of winter cloud seeding to assess the feasibility of increasing snow precipitation in the Snowy Mountains in Australia. The NSW Natural Resources Commission, responsible for supervising the cloud seeding operations, believes that the trial may have difficulty establishing statistically whether cloud seeding operations are increasing snowfall. This project was discussed at a summit in Narrabri, NSW on 1st December 2006. The summit met with the intention of outlining a proposal for a 5 year trial, focussing on Northern NSW. The various implications of such a widespread trial were discussed, drawing on the combined knowledge of several worldwide experts, including representatives from the Tasmanian Hydro Cloud Seeding Project. At the July 2006 G8 Summit, President Putin commented that air force jets had been deployed to seed incoming clouds so they rained over Finland. However, not much seemed to come of this.[13] In Southeast Asia, open burning produces haze that pollutes the regional environmental. Cloud-seeding has been used to improve the air quality by encouraging rainfall. wiki

Helicopters fire on Somali market Ethiopian helicopter gunships have fired at a market near an insurgent stronghold in the south of the Somali capital, Mogadishu. The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says hundreds of insurgents armed with rocket launchers and machine guns are battling Ethiopian troops. Government spokesman Mohamed Mohamud Husein says this is the start of a three-day operation to restore order. Meanwhile, Ethiopia says two-thirds of its troops have withdrawn from Somalia. Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi told parliament the rest of his troops, which are deployed in support of the interim government, would leave in consultation with the African Union. Ethiopian troops helped install the government last December but have been gradually handing over responsibilities to the AU force that was deployed to Mogadishu this month to try and bring stability to the city. Some 1,700 Ugandan troops are in Mogadishu as the advance party of a planned 8,000 strong AU force. No-go zone In a dawn operation, at least six people died in the fighting which broke a ceasefire declared a week ago and brokered by elders form the ****** clan - the biggest in Mogadishu - but Ethiopia denied reaching any deal. Ethiopian tanks, troops and helicopters are trying to take control of five key junctions. The militia responded with heavy artillery fire. The southern part of Mogadishu, where the fighting is going on, has become a no-go zone. The interim government has blamed the escalating violence at the capital on remnants of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC). Somalia enjoyed a six months lull in the insecurity that had dogged the country in the past 16 years, when the UIC took power last year. But insecurity has returned to the city. The UN estimates that 40,000 people have fled Mogadishu since February. bbc.co.uk

Deleted

^^so where the Yahuuda

they can't speak like that in real life in front of other Somalis True!

It just amazes me how a 'Somali' ( i use this term very very loosely) can condone this.

WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan International experts have backed the use of male circumcision in the prevention of HIV. The World Health Organization and UNAIDS said circumcision should be added to current interventions to reduce the spread of HIV. Three African trials have shown that circumcision halved the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men. The recommendations largely apply to countries where rates of heterosexual transmission is high. Experts warned that greater use of circumcision would not replace the need for other prevention methods, such as condoms. But modelling studies have shown that if male circumcision was more widely available, millions of lives, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa would be saved. WHO and UNAIDS said access to the procedure should be urgently scaled up in areas with high rates of heterosexual infection and low rates of male circumcision. But warned that it was an additional intervention and would not replace programmes providing HIV testing, or prevention or treatment for sexually infected infections. Men and their partners must also be given counselling to prevent them developing a false sense of security, they said. Training and monitoring must be done to check circumcision is being done by appropriate health professionals in a sanitary environment with proper equipment. And they stressed there was no evidence yet as to whether circumcision has any impact on the risk of infection for the woman or on the risk among men who have sex with other men. Significant step Kevin De Cock, director of HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organization said: "The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention." "Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men." However, he said it would be years before the impact on the epidemic would be apparent. Catherine Hankins, UNAIDS, said: "Being able to recommend an additional HIV prevention method is a significant step towards getting ahead of this epidemic. "However, we must be clear: male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV. "Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners." All three African trials were stopped early because the results were so dramatic - with reduced rates of new HIV infections of 48-60%. There are several reasons why circumcision may protect against HIV infection. Specific cells in the foreskin may be potential targets for HIV infection and also the skin under the foreskin becomes less sensitive and is less likely to bleed reducing risk of infection following circumcision. When Aids first began to emerge in Africa, researchers noted that men who were circumcised seemed to be less at risk of infection but it was unclear whether this was due to differences in sexual behaviour. Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: "These recommendations address many of the benefits of including male circumcision in a comprehensive HIV prevention package. She added: "Additional research to determine the health impact for women and men who have sex with men is vital, as is ensuring that adequate resources are provided to fund existing prevention methods, as well as continue research into new technologies such as microbicides and vaccines." source

So all they were interested in was buying time to send reinforcements?

JB Again, your dancing. MC Hammer would be proud. Cambarro , well put. Naden You seem to have worked out the details in your mind, events are both prewritten and up to the person, preordained to the letter and yet up to the person to navigate. My earlier comment on people being left to their devices meant people who have the necessary understanding of prayer/rewards/pre-destiny etc. I think Cambarro explained it nicely. If I intentionally want to miss a prayer today I know I would commit a sin and blame myself but also know it was written for me to commit that sin (preordained). A very good question. I think it is because many believe that they have much less control over their lives than they actually do but that may a different discussion altogether. Hmmm, your right a different discussion. Cara asks: Northerner, isn't whether you make dua or not also written? Yes. But what is your take on the issues being discussed? I know your itching to join in Xiino, I think we are ready for another dimension to the topic.

Be careful in tube stations. Escalator Skiing

Waar reerku wey ladanyihine, JB, people who live in the South say Barth or laarf (laugh) as they think this is 'posh' (Queen's English) but we northern folk call a spade a spade. We are simple people who dont care about image. We would say bath or laff (laugh) as they should be said. Is that alreyt for you aa-kid?

Now is the time to call the bluff of the land of missed opportunities The Arab League should bypass Ehud Olmert and go directly to the Israeli people with its offer for a Palestinian settlement Jonathan Freedland Wednesday March 28, 2007 The Guardian Call it peace process envy. If they have any sense, Israelis and Palestinians will have a bad case of it this week, as they eye with jealousy the photographs flashed around the world from Belfast. How they must pine for the luck of the Northern Irish, as they gaze at Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley sitting side by side, promising their war is over and vowing to govern their bruised land together. How the people of Tel Aviv and Ramallah must wish their leaders would show some of that same Belfast determination which, after a long, torturous decade, has finally wound up what once seemed an intractable conflict. Instead, Israel and Palestine watch months turn into years without progress. Now there is a chance to break the deadlock. The 22 member nations of the Arab League are meeting for two days in Riyadh, with the Arab-Israeli conflict high on their agenda. They are preparing to make a remarkable offer: if Israel withdraws to its 1967 borders, pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza, they will agree to a full and comprehensive peace, including normal relations, between the entire Arab world and Israel. This, in case anyone has forgotten, is what Israel says it has yearned for since its creation 59 years ago, the acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East by its neighbours. What's more, Israel has always feared that a separate accord with the Palestinians would not hold because the Palestinians would be too weak to make historic compromises - on, say, the holy sites of Jerusalem - alone. An accord with 22 Arab nations would remove all such worries. Any final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would be underpinned, with the leading Muslim states giving their blessing to the concessions that would be required. And they would promise what Yasser Arafat never could: that the conflict was truly, finally, over. How could Israel pass up such a great opportunity? The answer is that it already has. The Arab League approved what began as the Saudi peace plan when it met in Beirut back in 2002. Among the signatories then were Libya's Muammar Gadafy and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. That's right: Saddam Hussein was ready to recognise the Jewish state. Nevertheless, Israel's then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, ignored the Beirut declaration, pretending it had never happened. Admittedly he was handed a gilt-edged excuse. The Arab League initiative came when the second intifada was at its bloodiest; indeed, the Beirut text was issued hours before a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 29 Israeli civilians gathered at a hotel to mark the Passover festival. Sharon was less interested in peace with Saddam than he was in rooting out Palestinian fighters in Jenin, and so the moment passed. An Israeli cliche is that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In fact it's Israel that keeps missing opportunities - with the Beirut offer of 2002 the stand-out example. This week it's getting a second chance. That's not because the Arab states are undergoing a spasm of peace, love and flowers in their hair. It's all about hardball regional politics. A cluster of Sunni, self-defined "moderate" states are alarmed by the rise of Iran, whose aspiration to lead the Muslim world, to be a regional superpower and to acquire the bomb, terrifies Riyadh, Cairo and Amman as much as it scares Washington and Jerusalem. In their bid to block the feared Shia ascendancy, action on the Israel-Palestine conflict helps. First, any progress on the Palestinian issue would deny Iran and, just as importantly, the Islamist radicals in the moderates' own countries - whose support is high and growing - one of their key recruitment weapons. The moderate regimes would show they too can act for the Palestinians. While they're at it, they hope a conciliatory stance on Israel will win US favour, necessary if they are to stand firm against the Shia "arc of extremism" they all fear. So much for the Arab states' motive. Will Israel seize this chance, whatever its origins? The prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has hinted that there are "positive elements" in it worth pursuing. That's certainly true for him personally. Olmert currently commands what may be the lowest approval rating for any democratic leader in world history: a measly 2%. Mired in corruption scandals and about to face the verdict of a commission of inquiry into the debacle of last summer's war in Lebanon, Olmert finds his premiership stalled and in a ditch. "He needs an initiative and this could be it," says one Israeli government official of the Saudi plan. He would have ample political cover if he gave Riyadh a positive response. His rivals, including former PM, Bibi Netanyahu, have spoken approvingly of the Saudi opening. At the weekend, a clutch of eminent Israelis, including former minsters and security officials, joined a similar group of Palestinians in calling for an embrace of the Arab initiative. Still, only a reckless optimist would be hopeful. For one thing, Israel retains major objections to the initiative as it currently stands. They don't want to give back all of the post-1967 territories, preferring negotiations, and maybe even a land swap, to arrive at final borders. The key obstacle, though, relates to the Palestinian refugees displaced by Israel's creation in 1948 and their descendants. The initial Saudi plan, first floated six years ago, spoke only of a "just solution" to the refugee problem. At Beirut the language hardened up, to include a demand that Palestinians have the right to return to their homes inside Israel. Israel insists that any such right would be impossible to implement, spelling the demographic end of the country as a Jewish national home: Palestinians should instead return to the proposed Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. If Riyadh sees no return to the original language, Israel will refuse to engage with it. Above all, Olmert may just be too weak to act, even in response to the initiative of others. Any progress would eventually require concessions and he is in no position to make them. There is, however, something that can be done. Normally, in the Israel-Palestine conflict, it makes sense to call on Israel, as the stronger party, to make the first move. But in this wider conflict, between Israel and the entire Arab world, that same logic may not apply. There is, in fact, something the Arab world could do this very week. It was raised in an open letter written by Shlomo Gazit, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, and addressed to the Saudi regime. The former general called on the Saudis to bypass Olmert, appealing over his head to the Israeli people directly. Follow the path taken by Anwar Sadat of Egypt 30 years ago, Gazit urged: come to Jerusalem and call for immediate negotiations. Public opinion will rally and "no government in Israel will be able to reject that kind of initiative," he wrote. It's a good idea, for it would call Israel's bluff. The country always says it wants peace; now the sincerity of that stance would be tested. If the language on refugees and borders were loosened, thereby denying Olmert a reason to say no, all the better. The current prime minister has made the mistake Ariel Sharon never did: he has lost the initiative. This would be a way for the Arabs to fill the vacuum, with a stunningly dramatic gesture. And if there's one lesson the world can learn from Northern Ireland, it's that a little bit of human drama and symbolism goes a long way. CiF

Arab summit attempts to revive peace plan Staff and agencies Wednesday March 28, 2007 Guardian Unlimited A summit of Arab nations opened in Riyadh today to consider an ambitious Middle East peace plan offering Israel recognition and security in return for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. The initiative - the centrepiece of the Arab League's 19th summit - is being heavily pushed by the hosts, Saudi Arabia. It was rejected by Israel when first put forward in 2002. The plan has generated hope of a possible breakthrough despite Israeli wariness over the extent of the proposed withdrawal and concerns over Palestinian refugees returning to their former homes. The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, who is also in Riyadh, gave the bloc's backing to the efforts and today said he was optimistic. "We expect that something can be achieved now, not only because of Saudi involvement but because of broader developments in the region," he said, describing current events as a rare "window of opportunity". Speaking last night, the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, said it was up to Israel to accept the plans. "If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace," he said. The initiative - first drawn up at a summit in 2002 - offers Israel recognition and permanent peace with all Arab countries in return for its withdrawal from lands captured in the 1967 Middle East war. It also calls for the setting up of a Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, and a "just solution" to the issue of Palestinian refugees forced from lands in what is now Israel. Israel turned down the plan in 2002, but the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, last week said it was willing to accept it with some changes - particularly if demands on Palestinian refugees were watered down. Israel rejects a full withdrawal from the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and strongly opposes a possible influx of large numbers of Palestinian refugees. The new peace deal deliberately avoids a specific mention of "right of return" for the refugees. Today, the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, said this point should not be negotiable. "I expect the Arab summit meeting in Riyadh to reiterate the Arab countries' commitment not to compromise in any way on the Palestinian refugees' right of return under any circumstances," he told Reuters. The peace initiative comes at a time of frantic period of diplomatic activity in the region. Both Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, and the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, have visited in recent days, with the latter persuading the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to hold regular meetings. The two-day summit will create working groups to promote the offer in talks with the US, UN and Europe, as well as possibly Israel. Much appears to depend on the make-up of the groups. Some have spoken of restricting membership to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. However, Syria - which has opposed changing the peace initiative - could also seek to join in, fearing it will be sidelined by the moderates. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia met the Syrian president, Bashar Assad, yesterday - their first meeting since last summer's Israel-Hizbullah war in Lebanon. The Saudi monarch is a supporter of Lebanon's anti-Syrian prime minister, Fouad Siniora, while Mr Assad backs the country's president, Emile Lahoud, and Hizbullah. The Arab unity is also broken by the Libyan leader, Muammar Gadafy , who is boycotting the talks. "The summit would betray the Palestinians due to weakness before the "American empire", he told al-Jazeera television. source

^^looks like an Arab country Dabshid, getting a new pc soon. Will need your help with the setup and bypassing the proxies.

^^Well the Af-Somali goes without saying "What we're hearing are wonderful new voices with vowel sounds from places like Jamaica and Asia mixed with more familiar accents. Take the boxer Amir Khan. If you close your eyes and listen, it's obvious he's an Asian lad. But at the same time he couldn't be from anywhere other than Lancashire." source

27 March Northerners speak true English: are you having a laff? Posted by Laura Who put the R in bath? Surely this is a trick question, you may think, there is no R in bath. But if you search hard enough in certain parts of Britain the rogue consonant is there - squatting erroneously between the A and the T. So which linguistic criminals are to blame? The Americans? Nope. They may have been guilty of savagely stealing the U from honour, colour and glamour, and ruthlessly usurping poor S from its position among realise, organise and their lexical brethren so they could replace it with the rather radical Z, but we can’t pin this one on the English-speakers across the pond. If we want to uncover who really put the R in bath we need look no further than England’s great capital. London, home of the Queen and the apparently “proper” English speakers, is actually to blame for the mutated pronunciation. According to an expert at the British Library, the Telegraph reports today, the R sound in words such as laugh and bath only came about 150 years ago when Londoners adopted the trend into their speech. Apparently, the entire nation used the bath and "laff" pronunciations about 250 to 300 years ago – a tradition which is still alive and kicking in northern England. The south gradually adopted an “aa” sound which, over time, became the familiar “barth” of the ubiquitous London and Home Counties drawl of today. So this in effect suggests it is northerners - often ridiculed for their flat-sounding vowels, overlooked as newsreaders for not speaking in a way the general population (well, the population south of Watford) can understand, and stereotyped as being poorer and somehow intellectually inferior because their paths, laughs and baths lack the pedigree of the mysterious invisible R – are actually speaking in what is historically the nation’s true voice. As a northerner in London I have to say the phonetic grass (not grarse) definitely gets greener as you head up the M1. London may have slowly eroded the northerly twang from some of my words; I now drink Coke, not Cerk, and think ice is cold, not curled, but you will never find an R in my bath. And the British Library research shows this phonetic northern identity shall remain. This week it launches a website dedicated to accents and dialects – Familiar Voices - c*****ng the evolution of the “a” sound across Britain. It has found the “ar” is spreading among the accents of southern England as Londoners move out of the capital, but it is highly unlikely to venture much beyond that due to a near-impenetrable dialect boundary which runs from Birmingham to The Wash. The changes are attributed to more fluid movements of people within Britain. And, whereas historically southerners were slightly more fickle in their dialect trends, those in the north have been steadfastly loyal to their A sounds. Will this mean elocution pedants will re-evaluate their curriculum to incorporate the traditional, phonetic sounds spoken by northerners? Will the BBC replace its plummy-voiced breakfast presenters with down-to-earth tones of Yorkshire, Geordie or Scouse accents? And will this finally bring an end to the barth or bath debate once and for all? I suspect northerners will defend their accents as vociferously as they always have done – and southerners will still insist they are speaking “the Queen’s English”. But with more than 300 years of history behind an R-free bath, only one question remains: “Who’s larfing now?” What do you think? Do northerners or southerners win the pronunciation battle? :cool: source

Stop using flickr!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: We apologize the site you are attempting to visit has been blocked due to its content being inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the United Arab Emirates. The pics dont show on forums aswell. Thanks for nothing Ibti!

Ibti, upload the pics (its not that hard)

^^I though this was explained to you before??? :rolleyes:

Naden You’ve managed to conjure up a whole host of issues here. But it all boils down to belief and it’s understanding. I hear what you're saying but you have to admit that even the staunchest of believers wonders why a child was found dead after an abduction or a grocery store clerk begging for his life is killed. You are correct the believer will wonder. But it’s not a wonder that is detrimental to his beliefs. He/she will wonder at the state of society, the evilness of the culprits or even think about what might have lead to the actions committed by the culprits. But somewhere towards the back of the mind he/she will say ‘it was the will of Allah’. Asking questions like why did Allah allow this to occur without sufficient understanding is understandable. But asking it with the understanding of belief in mind means one is on dangerous grounds. In such incidents is where one’s belief is tested. Even as a believer, I am not so sure why the weak and desperates' prayers are ignored with such dedicated regularity. And I don't mean the everyday please god, make my boss go away or I really need that 30 million lottery win . Calling prayers ‘ignored’ implies harshness on the part of Allah (Al Hakim) and I think we should be careful here. But why are the poor usually the one’s filling up the mosques if their prayers are no being answered? Is it because they have the right understanding of belief through the relevant sources? Is it because they recognise their life is a test and if they pass (through belief) they will be greatly rewarded? EDIT Sometimes, it is just human error or intention that causes things to happen. And humans are also part of a nature that has its own workings like a tsunami killing 250K people in a few minutes. It is not all mysterious. Difficult to accept or live with, but may eventually be understood and even intercepted. I guess what I am thinking is that perhaps we are not as micromanaged as we believe. The human error or intention is not independent from Allah’s will. As you are well aware Muslims believe all goings on in the heavens and the earth happen with Allah’s will as he intended and exact. Not a wind blows in the remotest of places without his doing never mind earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes. I’m sure you knew I would respond like this but if I was to have any doubt in Allah’s capacity as the all knowing, all hearing, then my firmness in belief would deteriorate and that is a very dangerous area to be in. I do think that prayer and wish granting are a small part of a much larger issue of choice versus preordained course. Muslims face difficult and often conflicting ideas of just how much of their destiny is written (and perhaps can be edited or rewritten by God through prayer) and how much is left to their devices, other people's actions and nature's workings. A written course is what we are in the start/middle of. We are merely going through a life long test. Our success or failure is already known to the all mighty. Our actions/deeds/sins are recorded. The balance sheet will be checked sooner or later. Therefore, the course is written and people are left to their devices to succeed or fail in that course. But could share the conflicting ideas you mentioned? For muslims, there awaits the difficult task of understanding the meaning of words such as ordainment,القضاء and destiny, القدر not to mention other references such as حق which points to physical realities in some instances, and أمر, instructions/orders. I think that an understanding of these Quranic terms as well as a grasp of temporal arrangements are in their infancy. Would the complete understanding of the above justify your notions?

^^Don’t mind JB, he is being his usual mischievous self only its disguised as an ‘intellectual’ debate where nothing but questions are thrown at you. Once you’ve answered them he will pose another question similar to the one before only with a twist designed to malign the religion. North, What are you trying to say here? ,that if two people pray to win a specific person's heart, one of them's prayers will be answered and the deprived or the 'loser' will be somehow compensated later ?, its a win win situation? For a believer, he/she will believe that it was the will of Allah. No one knows what is in store for them. You take the rough with the smooth but you keep believing and praying. The rich man will pray just like the poor man. The connection with Allah is a fundamental in Islam. Now for one who doesn’t believe in a diety he will self worship out of arrogance rather than based on anything in the way of proof. That arrogance is displayed at every opportunity (in your case here on SOL) and smacks of ‘I know better’ or ‘no one can tell me the truth’ etc etc