Voilet that was just nasty,,,,

Originally posted by Taliban: quote:Originally posted by -Lily-: A friend of mine is organizing a mini fundraiser, an afternoon of tea & refreshments to donate money for the recently displaced victims of Mogadishu, the money will be used to aid overflowing hospitals. This is not a super Do and the emphasis is based on collecting money not spending it. This doesn't sound a professional fundraising, one that could allay the suspicions of prospective contributors that the money (or the bulk of it) wouldn't be used for the gains of few individuals. The manner the fundraising is being held is murky; you go to the restaurant, make the contributions, and voilà you leave. What/who guarantees the money would be used for what it's intended for? My suggestion is to contact a respected Islamic relief agency, organize with them a fundraising event at a mosque, or make a particular fundraising page at the agency's website. You have a simple choice. Donate at the dinner or by any other means. If your intention is to give as sadaqa you will be rewarded for it. Implying people will be dishonest without proof or even knowing them is not a good thing. Lily, do let us know how it goes and do pay on our behalf :cool:

advertising boards go flying into the players and fans with the help of a gust of wind!

Originally posted by NGONGE: I could never bring myself to watch any programs that Ms Yvonne Ridley presents. She always manages to irritate me with her sanctimonies air. I much prefer to watch other Middle Eastern channels (Sharja TV is good value). Besides, when The Islam channel started it was exciting and seemed like a novel (but much needed) idea. Now, whenever I had a quick glance at it I was always struck by its similarity to all those evangelical channels you get on satellite TV. I know what you mean akhi. Whenever i turn to the IC i'm confronted with political shows, chat shows, nasheeds and adverts. Hardly any ISLAM! I would recommend Huda TV for an English Islamic TV channel.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=south+african+football+match

Duke, who cares about the agenda? Disprove the article or move on! Simple!

Contest the article and dont shoot the messenger (i'm sure you used that line a few times)

pps Gerrard, Caraghger, Finnan played well

Ps what a goal by Mancini for Roma, i know a certain nomad who is happy tonight!

Its 2am but who cares! LFC what a club. Did you see the atmosphere at the end? Walk on,,,,,

^^lol got an email this morning from Denmark asking for $6.500,00 (no joke).

^^Guess what i bought at the Adidas store last Sat? A replica Liverpool shirt from the 80! Candy! :cool: They didnt have a size for my daughter but will carryon looking. Also got Argentina Maradona 10 shirt and the WC 2006 France shirt with Mr Zizzou

So it was Mr Farax Brown with the 'SomEnglish' twang. I speak luuqal Somali-Engriisi-Carabi hada! And i shake my head like an Indian :confused:

^^Public Transport ha raacaan dee! Polluters :rolleyes:

^^What do you mean by important? A game is being played behind closed doors in the ME,Iran,Israel,EU and USA. Iran is confident it can stave off any attack.

I have the same feeling as i did with the Iraq war. I knew it would happen some 2 years before it did. Call it a gut feeling. I feel the same about Iran, sadly. Another article War drums grow louder By Sami Moubayed, Special to Gulf News Even the Google search engine did not believe it. I typed: "War with Iran" and it wrote back: "Did you mean: war with Iraq." No. I meant: war with Iran. In as absurd as it may seem, with US forces tied down in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the crazy idea of yet another adventure in our part of the world, is seemingly, possible. What is certain is that tension between the US and Iran has been dramatically rising, due to Iran's nuclear programme and its meddling in Iraqi affairs. Media speculations are pointing in the direction of war. So are foreign diplomats in private discourse. Last week the BBC said that the US was planning to strike at numerous Iranian military facilities, mainly in Natanz and Asfahan. The Israeli press has been doing its share in drumming up anti-Iranian rhetoric, depicting a "crazy country, headed by a second Hitler. Some in the US are even pushing to have Israel, rather than the US army, go to war against Iran. The Guardian wrote last month that the US was in "advanced stages" of preparing for war on Iran. The Sunday Telegraph wrote on February 25 that the US is funding ethnic separatist groups (non-Persian, which make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 70 million) inside Iran to create trouble for the Iranian regime. These include Kurds, Azeris and Ahwaz Arabs. This won't break the Tehran regime, they believe, but might exert enough pressure on the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to abandon his nuclear programme. Other media reports are saying that the US will hit Iran either if its nuclear weapons become a threat to America or if a Iran-backed attack is conducted on US interests. According to a collection of US intelligence data, compiled in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iran will be unable to develop its nuclear weapon, due to the technical difficulties, until 2015. Meaning, only another 9-11 would justify war on Iran. US officials have denied any intentions to go to war, and on February 14, President George W. Bush said, "Our policies are all aimed at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward and I hope their government hears that message" adding, "We'll continue to try to solve the issue peacefully." US Defence Secretary Robert Gates added, "For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran." Stepping stone On the other hand, Joshua Muravchik, a neocon from the American Enterprise Institute, said: "I still believe, at the end of the day, that he will bomb the Iranian (nuclear facilities)." Diplomacy is only a stepping stone, he adds, for real war, enabling Bush to defend his action - when he does go to war - and say that "I tried everything else". Iran is not making things easier for the Americans. In February 2006, it ignored a UN Security Council ultimatum to freeze uranium enrichment. John Edwards, a presidential candidate, said: "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate - all options." US Vice-President Dick Cheney also echoed the same words from Australia last week. The foreign press is depicting a dangerously armed Iran, similar to how they depicted Saddam Hussain before the Gulf War of 1991 and the Iraq War of 2003. These articles are based on "intelligence reports" some of which claim that Iran can strike - with limited accuracy - at Europe. What fuelled all the media speculations was the groundbreaking article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker called The Redirection. This redirection, as coined by some in the White House, according to Hersh, brings America into confrontation with Iran. Hersh says, "To undermine Iran, the Bush administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East." Part of the plan is increased US-Saudi planning to undermine Hezbollah in Lebanon. Another way is to encourage Sunni extremists in the region, who although anti-American, are equally, anti-Shiite. How does all of this come into play with the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Saudi Arabia last Saturday? Saudi Arabia was very vocal about its fears from Iran's nuclear weapons, and upset at its interference in Iraqi, Lebanese, and Palestinian affairs. Does Ahmadinejad know things that the world does not? Is he striking some kind of deal with King Abdullah? The Saudis have their agenda: they want survival of their allies in Lebanon and protection of the Iraqi Sunnis. The Iranian President can offer much in both domains. But are the Saudis really able to stop an upcoming US strike on Iran - even if they so wished. And if this strike does take place, who says that it will succeed? Strong Any attack that does not break the Iranian regime will certainly, make it stronger. Iran is strong. It has weapons - efficient weapons - as seen in the summer war in Lebanon. Even with state-of-the art US weapons, Israel was unable to crush Hezbollah. It has a large population -mostly youth - that are indoctrinated with jihad and are willing to die for their cause. And it has the ability to destabilise every region where there are US military bases. It can work the Kurds of Turkey. It can rattle the Shiites of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. It can unleash hell in Iraq. No wonder Google was surprised at my query. So is everyone else. Will it remain media talk or will we witness yet another war in the region before Bush leaves office in 2009? Karl Marx once famously said: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst. article

^^Maybe not BOB but 187 might get annoyed at you (he gets annoyed easily just like most Arsenal fans) Big CL week ahead!

I would guess at a few nomads but i think Mr MMA and Mr Castro would be the main suspects.

A google search for SOL springs up a few surprises now and then,,,not sure if this has already been posted/discussed. Unfortunately, first generation Diaspora Somalis may have already lost much of the language, or blended it with other languages in their respective new countries. A recent observation of Somaliaonline.com, a popular blog for young, Diaspora-schooled, urbane Somalis around the world indicates a peculiar mix of Somali and English, already termed “Somenglish” by one blogger. A benign discussion about “Somenglish” leads to one of the members to exemplify “Waryaa yesterday ayaan ku soo wacay, and, you didn’t call me back. Maxaa qabanee tomorrow?” This member was quickly rebuked by another who disqualified that statement from “Somenglish”, only to introduce his ideal one: “That’s not Somenglish sxbow. You want inaa ku speakgareysid Somenglish? Waa inaad isku mix gareysaa, haddii kale it becomes sentence-yaal la is daba dhigay.” Ironically, all seem to be enjoying this discussion. (8) Where is this thread and who were they talking about? I can think of a few nomads who would be involved in the above discussion(s) source

The unity camp seem to have changed their tone from 'never' to 'ok but as long as the disputed parts are in Somalia'. Hmmm I wonder why?

Long live satire In the name of academic freedom, Clare College, Cambridge, should have defended the pupil responsible for printing cartoons depicting Muhammad. Sue Blackmore Articles Latest Show all Profile All Sue Blackmore articles About Webfeeds March 5, 2007 8:17 AM | Printable version A Cambridge student is in hiding because he dared to print one of those infamous Danish cartoons and have a laugh at Islam's expense. Yet if offended Muslims want people to stop laughing at them, this latest incident will only have backfired. I bet I'm not the only one whose reaction was to go straight to Google Images and type in "Muhammad". And yes, you find lots of pictures of him who must not be pictured - "about 88,400" to be precise. The top 20 includes some ancient depictions (and I've no idea whether these offended anyone), a selection of Muhammad clipart, and several cartoons. I especially like the first one that Google throws up - Muhammad looking at himself in a mirror and exclaiming "Blasphemy". Ha ha. Then there's one I regularly use in my lectures on memes. It shows some suicide bombers arriving in heaven to be met by the man himself shouting "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins". These are just simple jokes, available to all, but when a student at Clare College reprinted one in the college magazine, offended students complained in droves and the college started an investigation. Even worse, senior tutor Patricia Fara said, "The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent." But isn't it the college's reaction that is abhorrent? I think the "offended" students are the real culprits, and the college should have had the guts to stand up to them in the name of academic freedom - and the good old freedom to laugh at ideas we find silly or disagree with. The whole sad story is told on Cambridge University's "Varsity" site and in the Cambridge Evening News. On February 2 Clare College's prize-winning student paper, Clareification, published a special issue renamed "Crucification" and largely devoted to religious satire (and presumably, from its name, not just Islam). In its regular "lookalikes of the week" the cartoon of Muhammad was set next to a photograph of the president of the union of Clare students, along with a caption suggesting that one was "a violent paedophile" while the other was "a prophet of God, a great leader and an example to us all". OK it's offensive, and funny, and that's what satire is all about. But the magazine apparently "provoked anger in Cambridge", with enraged students complaining in droves. A second-year student said these were "some of the most offensive things I've ever seen." The president of the university's Islamic society said "I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend." I say to him - oh yes it does, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You didn't have to read the magazine. You didn't have to spread the news about it. And you certainly didn't have to encourage other Muslims to believe that claiming to be offended gives them the right to stop the rest of us having a laugh. Yet you did so. We are talking here about a student magazine read by a handful of students at one college at one university. Student magazines have always been satirical and satire hurts. The president of Clare students might have been offended too, along with any other students who get picked on by their student mag. I expect the politicians who are regularly lampooned in Private Eye feel offended and upset, but unless they have been libelled they accept it. The freedom to laugh and poke fun at things we disagree with is fundamental to freedom of thought. And freedom of thought is fundamental to education, scholarship, and learning - all the things that Cambridge University should be standing up for. Great thinkers and scientists are always offending people by overthrowing the dogmas and false beliefs of the past. People were offended at the thought that earth was not the centre of the universe; they were offended at the idea that mountains and rivers were created by natural processes; they were offended at the idea that species were not immutable and they were offended at the suggestion that we humans might be descended from apes. Happily, in the end the evidence overwhelmed them . I hope the same will happen with these claims, and society as a whole will not let religious believers claim a right not to be offended. When I contacted the college the master told me that the student has not been reprimanded and the disciplinary process will determine whether he has infringed any regulations. I sincerely hope he has not and that the college will offer him and his magazine their support. The freedom to think, to argue, and to laugh at silly ideas must be allowed to flourish. source

lol You need to go earlier then! ps i thought you said no Somalis in town?

JB, please re-read the article. The President/Govnt have again done something which goes against the law/regulations/constitution. You may be fine with that as you voted for him but it is leading to dictatorship.

I'm reminded of the streets of Paris and the extra friendly Africans you come across. Taxi rides across town in a Malian cab :cool: