The scenario here sounds like two guys in a house that isn't theirs arguing over whether or not to turn over a shoe. In such a scenario, kabta wa la iska rogaa Doubt many Somalis care or even notice up turned shoes anywhere else.

But is it superstition or the guest making sure his host's house isn't messed up by him (or his friends)?

I thought JB was the Hargaisa welcomer? Alpha must welcome random western visitors

No one wants the talks to fail. Both side want it to go their way and the int community want an amicable agreement. The problem with the SL govnt is that they believe they can pull out at anytime (which they can of course) but the longer the talks go on the more attention they receive and the more 'add ons' each party gets. Those add ons and incentives may prove to be too much to lose out on if the talks fail.

Alpha, just go to Southall

These 'talks' will continue but nothing will come out of them. Not for a while at least. Somaliland at the moment think it can pull out at anytime but they're mistaken. They won't be allowed to pull out by the powers that be until there is a full settlement. Somalia will delay things until their house is in order.

^ Ngonge, its the link between midfield and attack. No guile, finesse or tempo. The new kid looks good though. Juxa, Ibti is going to Xamar? Tell her not to try and upset anyone. The Minister for Health position is hers

NGONGE;870478 wrote: ^^ They have good blood circulation. After all, the blood doesn't have to travel far. Any good news yet or are you still on standby warya? Juxa is Hargaisa bound miya? Morning all.

^lol Cara, you’re right. If I felt insulted/slandered/defamed etc., there is a process in place for me to sue. Meaning free speech has been curtailed by the laws in place. Whether or not the lawsuit is successful is neither here nor there. How does the saying “the original purpose of free speech” miss the point? Laws protecting the free expression of the citizenry didn’t just happen. They came about as a result of pressure from the public who spoke out against the establishment’s censorship. There was an ‘original purpose’. I don’t have a problem with your points 1 to 4 and don’t want anything else. Just the acknowledgement that free speech isn’t entirely ‘free’.

Cara.;870193 wrote: Because the author suffers from the strange perception that "free speech" is something some Western philosopher invented and that it needs justifying. No, CURTAILING free speech needs justifying, because it's a basic human right. Protecting violent mobs from having their feelings hurt is not reason to curtail a basic human right. Not sure how one concludes the author believes a western philosopher invented freedom of speech from that but anyway, his points were a) the original purpose of free speech was for the advancement of society and to hold governments to account b) speech containing insults and degradation doesn’t achieve the objectives of free speech c) there is no ‘free’ speech due to the existing defamation and hate speech laws (free speech is already curtailed). Do you disagree with that? Now, what is the difference between say this video insulting the prophet CSWS (I haven’t seen it but let’s assume it is insulting) and The Sun newspaper defaming Joe Bloggs and being sued for it (a regular occurance)?

Apophis;869770 wrote: What a load of nonsense. This, is as valid as This Both are forms of free speech and should be protected. Try stating why its nonsense.

^He wears size 16s

What is freedom of speach? How did it come about? Why? The 19th century British philosopher and thinker, John Stuart Mill argued that the main basic justification of freedom of speech is that truth is advanced in the competition of ideas, and that the competition of ideas can only occur within liberty. From this justification the following objectives of freedom of speech have been discussed by thinkers: - acquisition of knowledge, - acknowledgement truth, - accounting governments and individuals, - intellectual and scientific progress. Conversely, neo-liberal thinkers seem to deny their own tradition, and exclaim that insults, bad language and degradation is necessary for the achievement of the objectives of freedom of speech. Under scrutiny, this perspective is self-defeating and is uncivilised. Taking the recent disgraceful insults and degradation of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) as an example, it can be argued that it defeats the very justification and objectives of the liberal notion of freedom of speech. Freedom to insult which includes the use of degrading language and visual obscenities actually contradicts the very foundation of freedom of speech. For example, in order to acquire truth and facilitate progress good argumentation is required, and this argumentation must be couched in human language. Insulting and using degrading language or imagery does not facilitate truth and progress. Imagine, the physicist Stephen Hawking explaining String Theory using pornographic imagery or President Obama swearing during his inaugural address. Accounting governments and individuals also requires good argumentation. If I were to go up to Tony Blair or George Bush and use vile language would I successfully bring them to account? Of course I wouldn't. In order for me to do so I would need to articulate a positive case against their crimes and injustices. With these, and there are many other examples, insults and degradation defeats the very objectives of speech. Therefore, if freedom to insult actually negates the objectives of freedom of speech, then shouldn't freedom to insult be restricted? [Obviously there must be conditions to this and it is in the context of achieving the objectives of speech. Also, there are many restrictions to speech in secular liberal nations, for example there are libel laws, product defamation laws, hate speech laws, noise pollution etc. So logically freedom of speech doesn't really exist! What exists is speech or expression in the context of law and society's values - this is a more coherent definition.) The recent video of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) has not achieved any of the objectives of freedom of speech. It has just gone against the very moral norms of both traditions, East and West. It is a pathetic display of immorality, an explicit unwillingness to engage in intellectual discussion and an expression of unjustified hatred. IERA

Hadaan ahaa nin adhi iibiya it would be easy to sell adhiga magaalada meeresada oo qaad ka dargay to A&T and Xiin. Let me know if anything changes on the ground gents. This is getting tedious.

Compare the teaching of the blessed Prophet Muhammad to the behaviour of those who attack embassies claiming to defend him... “The one who is victorious over his passion at the time of anger is the strongest among you. The one who forgives having the power to take revenge is the most patient among you.” Perhaps Allah lets these racist bigots attack his honour, to give you the opportunity to be among the strongest, most patient of people. Perhaps following the Prophet's wisdom is the only way to defend him. (from an fb status)

The roof top place or the ethiopian coffee shop?

My bad gents. Been meaning to try and sort out a get together. Will do before winter arrives and you all go into hibernation Each to him/her own they. You see thing not work out between both sets. Ilaahay bay ku xidhantahay. Abu, good khutba today. I ran out afterwards

When talking politics he will keep his voice down no doubt

Alpha Blondy;869061 wrote: i'm afraid i'm not able to divulge this info. AT is a guest in Somaliland and if it means that i give shelter to a somaliland-denier then so be it! my personal principles are compliant with the Geneva convention, particularly....protocol II - relating to the protection of victims of non-international (regional) armed conflicts. Thanks for PM

Alpha, where is A&T staying?

Abtigiis;868907 wrote: Unless the common belief in SOL that Norf's political intellect is only superior to that of Mooge is true, you will not miss the methaphor of the widow and the man who took her at the time of her distress. SL doesn't need to showcase her beauty to Somaia, it has to show why Awdal, Khatumo, Salal should fight for her and be happy in her!!! Ofcourse, it has to do so, without telling them about mayhem in Somalia! Only people of Mooge’s supposed intellect would believe things happened along those lines. To re-write it as such for this thread is understandable though (excitement makes people do such things). Notwithstanding SL’s position, if she is being threatened with divorce for reasons of a tribal nature, the –re-attraction process will only be of a tribal nature and doesn’t have to contend with the additional lack of security, lack of political maturity and the spoilt child throwing his toys out (PL). Though a divorce hasn’t occurred on the ground and is predominantly in cyber space, cyber excitables can be forgiven for mistaking a donkey for a horse.

A divergence out of necessity when his point is found wanting littered with almost excitable and illogical litany! Why would SL want to showcase her beauty if she wants to leave? What does Somalia have to offer? What is the attraction of Al Shabaab? Somalia bought a new suit this week. Now time to hit the gym, get a haircut, buy some cadar and leave behind the easily excitable Saudi aroused by the sight of a woman’s hand.

^Fall back on the tribal connections. Nice (and predictable). Extend yourself and bring a semblance of substance to this claim of yours. Anyone from SL with an ounce of common sense would maintain his/her position as, to be frank, nothing has changed (apart from the President). The bombings continue (8 people died yesterday), there isn't a cabinet as of yet, Somalia is still in effect a failed state. Wait a year, let things get better and progress and then your claim here might be entertained. Until then, la shaahee your imaginary knee jerk re-unionaries

A president who wears a tie!

Alpha, it is a good custom and brought the lads closer in those days. The Somali food thing is blatantly wrong. Not sure about the shoe thing Ng is on about though.