^^Let us have Scheva for free

A Chelsea fan with Liverpool? Where are the Arsenal fans? Portsmouth gave them a good kickin!

Somalian troops join Islamists, official says Some 200 reportedly defect to Muslim movement that is threatening holy war By Salad Duhul ASSOCIATED PRESS MOGADISHU, Somalia - Nearly 200 troops serving Somalia's Western-backed government defected to the Islamic courts movement, an Islamic official said Sunday, as both sides braced for impending war. Sheik Mohamed Ibrahim Bilal, head of the Islamic court in the Bayan region, said the troops switched sides there late Saturday. Bilal told the Associated Press by telephone that the former government soldiers "are ready to be incorporated into the Islamic courts forces." The court movement has promised to launch a holy war Tuesday unless troops from neighboring Ethiopia, who are supporting the government, leave Somalia. Islamic fighters have surrounded the southern Somali town of Baidoa, the only town the government controls. Bayan, where the defections are said to have taken place, is about 50 miles from Baidoa. The government denied Bilal's claim. "The government has 6,000 strong soldiers who are well-trained and well-disciplined," said Salad Ali Jelle, the deputy defense minister. Tensions have mounted in recent weeks between the government, which has international recognition but little actual authority, and the Islamic courts, which appears to have broad popular support in this strongly Muslim country. Islamic movement leaders are outraged by the presence of troops from Ethiopia, a largely Christian nation. Ethiopia fears the emergence of a neighboring Islamic state and acknowledges sending military advisers to aid Somalia's government, but Ethiopian authorities deny sending combat forces. The United States has said the Islamic movement has links to al-Qaida, an accusation Islamic leaders have repeatedly denied. Also Sunday, two journalists were detained without charge by Islamic forces while trying to board a plane at Mogadishu's airport, the National Union of Somali Journalists said. The security forces seized the passport and computer of one reporter before taking both men to an undisclosed location, NUSJ official Abdirashid Deylka said. A spokesman for the Islamic courts said he had no immediate details on the case. Meanwhile, authorities in the semiautonomous region of Puntland released Abdi-Aziz Mohamud Guuleed, a reporter for a local radio station, after 16 days in jail. He was acquitted of charges his stories attacked the Puntland government. Somalia has not had an effective government since warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991, plunging the country into chaos. A government was formed in 2004 with the help of the United Nations, but it has struggled to assert its authority. The network of Islamic courts, meanwhile, has pushed aside the warlords and expanded into a rival quasi-government. Experts fear the conflict in Somalia could engulf the volatile Horn of Africa. A recent U.N. report said 10 nations have been sending weapons to the warring sides. War would hit an already devastated country where one in five children dies before the age of 5 from a preventable disease. The impoverished nation also is struggling to recover from the worst flood season in East Africa in 50 years. Source

Somali government takes reconciliatory tone as deadline for attacks nears BAIDOA, Somalia (AFP) - Somalia's weakened government has toned down objections to peace talks with the country's powerful Islamists, whose deadline for Ethiopian troops to pullout or face major attacks loomed. Two days after the Islamists appeared to open the door for talks with Ethiopia to stave off clashes, Information Minister Ali Jama said the government was prepared to respond to any attack but still believed fighting could be avoided through negotiation. "The government has not ruled out talks, we are a government of reconciliation, but how can we negotiate with somebody who is threatening to attack us?" he told AFP Monday. Islamist leaders have said they would launch a military operation against Ethopian troops in Somalia if they did not withdraw by Tuesday. "It is up to the international community to ensure that the climate for peace talks is conducive," he added. Last week, Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed said "the door for peace talks has been closed," and accused the Islamists of destroying any chance for peace by threatening the government. And on Saturday, a top Islamist official, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, said the movement was prepared for "dialogue" with Ethiopia, which has troops in Somalia protecting the government. At the same time, Ahmed and the speaker of the Somali parliament Sharif Hassan Sheikh Aden announced a deal, reached in Yemen, to bring the Islamists and the government back to the negotiating table after peace talks collapsed last month. A day before the deadline for Ethiopian troops to leave Somalia was to expire, the government had put its forces on the alert to respond if the Islamists make good their threat. "We have been counting the days and are waiting for the deadline. We will not be the first one to attack, but will not stand by and watch if we are attacked," Jama added. The Islamists have already declared holy war on the Ethiopian troops in Somalia and claim to have launched several minor attacks, but stepped up the ante last week with the ultimatum. There was no immediate reaction to Saturday's developments from mainly Christian Ethiopia which, along with the United States, accuses the Islamists of having links with Al-Qaeda and trying to foment unrest among its sizeable Muslim minority. Ethiopia has sent several hundred military trainers and advisers to help the Somali government, but denies widespread reports it has deployed thousands of combat troops to Somalia. Analysts have warned that an all-out war in Somalia would engulf the whole region, drawing in Addis Ababa arch-foe Eritrea, both of whom are accused of fighting a proxy war in the lawless African nation. Source

Somali Islamists open to talks ADEN, Yemen — Somalia’s powerful Islamist movement appeared to open the door over the weekend to talks with neighbouring Ethiopia to avert war with the weak Ethiopian-backed Somali transitional government. A top Islamist official, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, said the movement was prepared for "dialogue" with Ethiopia, which has troops in Somalia protecting the government. At the same time, Ahmed and the speaker of the Somali parliament announced a deal to bring the Islamists and the government back to the negotiating table after peace talks collapsed last month. However, the prospects were unclear as the Islamists have given Ethiopia until Tuesday to withdraw or face major attacks and the Somali government says the window of opportunity for talks has closed. Somali parliament speaker Sharif Hassan Sheikh Aden is also on poor terms with the UN-recognized government. "It is our right to set a deadline because Somalia belongs to the Somalis, not the Ethiopians," Ahmed told reporters. "It is our right to set a deadline, (but) this does not mean that we will attack them after this deadline expires. "The Islamic Courts have invariably called for dialogue and for resolving problems by peaceful means," he said. "We continue to champion this principle and we are prepared to negotiate and engage in a dialogue with the Ethiopians." The Islamists have already declared holy war on the Ethiopian troops in Somalia and claimed several small attacks against them but stepped up the ante last week with their ultimatum that was brushed off by Addis Ababa. There was no immediate reaction to Saturday’s developments from mainly Christian Ethiopia, which with the United States accuses the Islamists of having links with Al-Qaeda and trying to foment unrest among its sizeable Muslim minority. Ethiopia has sent several hundred military trainers and advisers to help the Somali government but denies widespread reports it has deployed thousands of combat troops to Somalia. Ahmed’s comments came after three days of urgent talks hosted by Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh between Ahmed, head of the executive committee of the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS), and Aden. In a joint statement the two pledged to work for a peaceful resolution to the crisis that threatens the lawless country with more unrest. "The Islamic Courts are committed to dialogue with the interim federal Somali government as a way of resolving differences ... and stopping any moves conducive to military confrontations by any side," it said. They committed themselves to talks on a political settlement guaranteeing the participation of all sides of the UN-recognized government, but did not give a date for the resumption of negotiations. They also affirmed agreements made at earlier rounds of talks and rejected "interference in Somali internal affairs by any country in the region," calling for the borders of Somalia and all neighbouring states to be respected. The pact appears to rule out a regional peacekeeping mission authorized by the UN Security Council and its success is jeopardized by Aden’s poor ties with the rest of Somalia’s so-called "transitional federal institutions." The speaker incurred the government’s wrath last month with an unauthorized trip to Islamist-held Mogadishu and has not returned to the administration seat of Baidoa, about 250 kilometres (155 miles) away, despite calls to do so. The government repudiated an earlier deal Aden reached with the Islamists, saying that he represented only himself and a small number of lawmakers, not the entire legislature or the cabinet of President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed. The agreement was announced a day after the Islamists and government traded barbs and moved closer to war following US and Somali accusations that the Islamist movement had been taken over by Al-Qaeda. On Friday, Yusuf said war was "inevitable" because of Islamist advances on Baidoa, the only major government-held town, and ruled out peace talks. At the same time, Islamist officials denounced the US allegations, denying any link to terrorism and claiming Washington wants to split their movement. AFP

Bushmen granted return to Kalahari Botswana's high court has ruled that more than 1,000 San Bushmen had been wrongly evicted from ancestral hunting grounds in the Kalahari desert and should be allowed to return. On Wednesday, the court ruled 2-1 in the Bushmen's favour in the major issues of the case. Gordon Bennett, the Bushmen's lawyer: "It's about the right of the applicants to live inside the reserve as long as they want and that's a marvelous victory." The case has pitted Africa's last hunter-gatherers against one of the continent's most admired governments in a dispute over land that is rich in diamonds and eyed by developers. "Forcibly ejected" Bushmen's ancestors have lived in the Kalahari for thousands of years, and the plaintiffs say they are being forcibly ejected from the game reserve and resettled in camps where their traditional way of life is dying. The Bushmen, backed by western rights groups, argued their expulsion was designed to increase Botswana's output of diamonds - already its top export - a charge the government denies. Al Jazeera's southern Africa correspondent Kalay Maistry said: "They are now free to return ... and won't need to get licences in order to continue hunting. "But the terms and conditions ... have yet to be ruled on ... and the state does have the right to lodge an appeal." Maruping Dibotelo, Botswana's Chief Justice, delivering his opinion ahead of the final verdict, had argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the state owns the Kalahari desert land. "The contention of the applicants that the government unlawfully deprived them of their land ... must fail," Dibotelo said. But Judge Unity Dow disagreed, saying Botswana's government had "failed to take account of the knowledge and the culture" of the Bushmen when it expelled them. "In 2002 they were dispossessed forcibly, unlawfully, and without their consent," he said. Source

lol, ninyo i dont know

We must speak out Today we are launching an appeal for a world-wide cultural boycott against the Israeli state. Today I am supporting a world-wide appeal to teachers, intellectuals and artists to join the cultural boycott of the state of Israel, as called for by over a hundred Palestinian academics and artists, and - very importantly - also by a number of Israeli public figures, who outspokenly oppose their country's illegal occupation of the Palestine territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Their call, printed in the Guardian today, can be read here. A full list of signatories can be found here. The boycott is an active protest against two forms of exclusion which have persisted, despite many other forms of protestations, for over 60 years - for almost three generations. During this period the state of Israel has consistently excluded itself from any international obligation to heed UN resolutions or the judgement of any international court. To date, it has defied 246 Security Council Resolutions. As a direct consequence seven million Palestinians have been excluded from the right to live as they wish on land internationally acknowledged to be theirs; and now increasingly, with every week that passes, they are being excluded from their right to any future at all as a nation. As Nelson Mandela has pointed out, boycott is not a principle, it is a tactic depending upon circumstances. A tactic which allows people, as distinct from their elected but often craven governments, to apply a certain pressure on those wielding power in what they, the boycotters, consider to be an unjust or immoral way. (In white South Africa yesterday and in Israel today, the immorality was, or is being, coded into a form of racist apartheid.) Boycott is not a principle. When it becomes one, it itself risks becoming exclusive and racist. No boycott, in our sense of the term, should be directed against an individual, a people, or a nation as such. A boycott is directed against a policy and the institutions which support that policy either actively or tacitly. Its aim is not to reject, but to bring about change. How to apply a cultural boycott? A boycott of goods is a simpler proposition, but in this case it would probably be less effective, and speed is of the essence, because the situation is deteriorating every month (which is precisely why some of the most powerful world political leaders, hoping for the worst, keep silent). How to apply a boycott? For academics it's perhaps a little clearer - a question of declining invitations from state institutions and explaining why. For invited actors, musicians, jugglers or poets it can be more complicated. I'm convinced, in any case, that its application should not be systematised; it has to come from a personal choice based on a personal assessment. For instance: an important mainstream Israeli publisher today is asking to publish three of my books. I intend to apply the boycott with an explanation. There exist, however, a few small, marginal Israeli publishers who expressly work to encourage exchanges and bridges between Arabs and Israelis, and if one of them should ask to publish something of mine, I would unhesitatingly agree and furthermore waive aside any question of author's royalties. I don't ask other writers supporting the boycott to come necessarily to exactly the same conclusion. I simply offer an example. What is important is that we make our chosen protests together, and that we speak out, thus breaking the silence of connivance maintained by those who claim to represent us, and thus ourselves representing, briefly by our common action, the incalculable number of people who have been appalled by recent events but lack the opportunity of making their sense of outrage effective. Full details of the campaign and add your name at www.bricup,.org.uk or email info@bricup.org.uk http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_berger/2006/12/john_berger.html

To be frank i have never been impressed with any of his articles. The guy seams to go with any bandwagon going.

Ethics are dead. Long live BAE! Larry Elliott, economics editor Monday December 18, 2006 The Guardian Imagine that you are the French trade minister, keen to derail the global trade talks for fear that they will result in a wholesale dismantling of the Common Agricultural Policy. It's been an uphill struggle but at last help is at hand. The next time Tony Blair calls Jacques Chirac to insist that he must face down protests from angry French farmers and stand up for free trade, there is a perfect one-word response: BAE. Imagine you are the leader of a small, poor, African country with a troubled past and a cavalier approach to pluralism and democracy. Indeed, the crackdown on dissidents has become so blatant in recent months that the Department for International Development will cut off British aid unless the standard of governance is improved. As Hilary Benn repeats his prime minister's mantra - help for Africa is a deal for a deal, aid in return for a crackdown on corruption - you whisper one word: BAE. It all seems a long time since we were told that Labour, in contrast to the sleazy Tories, would have an ethical foreign policy. The decision to order the Serious Fraud Office to drop the inquiry into the Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia signed in the 1980s is the triumph of realpolitik over principle. As revealed yesterday, ministers may face a legal challenge; the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development wants to know why Britain seems to have flouted its obligations under an international anti-bribery code. But to those who argue the SFO inquiry should have been allowed to run its course, the retort is simple: join the real world. The defence industry is a complicated business and there are plenty of jobs at stake here. That's true, but ministers are now exposed to the charge not just of hypocrisy but of economic illogicality. 'Call girls' Although the intervention of the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, means that the courts are now unlikely to hear details of alleged slush funds and call girls, the public would be forgiven for suspecting that the defence contract stank to high heaven. The Saudis would prefer not to have baskets full of allegedly dirty linen washed in public and Labour has duly halted the inquiry. What does this say about the interface between politics and economics? Firstly, that there are some countries you bully and some countries you don't. There is a world of difference in getting tough with, say, Ethiopia, over its standards of government procurement and doing the same with the world's biggest oil producer. Abuses of human rights are always less serious in a big country with clout (eg China) than in a country where the high moral ground can be occupied without fear of economic consequences (eg Zimbabwe). But it is good to have double standards so clearly highlighted. The government's argument that its appeasement was due to concerns about national security, rather than fear that BAE would lose a £6bn contract for the next phase of the Al-Yamamah deal, suggests delusions of grandeur. What matters in the geopolitics of the Middle East is the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States; anything Britain does is a sideshow. The idea that the Saudis would abandon their pro-west stance because a few executives came up before the UK courts is risible. No, this was really about money. With Britain's own oil and gas reserves falling, Whitehall has justifiable concerns about energy security. Saudi is the world's No 1 supplier of oil and is too powerful to upset. Given that Russia has the world's biggest reserves of gas, those expecting the incorruptible British justice system to deliver up the killers of Alexander Litvinenko may be in for a long wait. It's not just about energy, though, because BAE is vital to what remains of British industry. The UK only has a global presence in pharmaceuticals and defence. It is no accident that both have benefited from strong and consistent government support for many decades. In an increasingly competitive world, the government has used its enormous procurement powers in the NHS and the Ministry of Defence to favour British firms. Pharma and defence account for 70% of the UK's annual spending on research and development; they represent the hi-tech, knowledge-based sectors that ministers want to foster. What's more, problems for BAE would mean problems for other companies, such as Rolls-Royce, which has gone from bankruptcy to world-beater in three decades. The UK is not so blessed with world-class firms that it can afford to let them go without a struggle. If that means turning a blind eye to alleged wrongdoing or failing to investigate whether palms may have been greased to win a deal, then that's what happens. 'Dark arts' The clinching argument, certainly as far as BAE is concerned, is that everybody is at it. The French would happily step in and sell the Saudis warplanes if BAE got the push but does anybody believe that our neighbours are whiter than white? Of course not. We know that the billions spent by the Pentagon help to subsidise the US defence industry. We know that the French are experts in the "dark arts" of securing military contracts. It seems only fair that British firms compete on the same terms, particularly since any alleged wrongdoing was a long time ago. The problem is that the attorney general's support for BAE amounts to protectionism, which the government in all its public statements considers to be a Very Bad Thing indeed. If Labour truly believes in the sanctity of market forces, it's hard to justify feather-bedding a company - even one as important as BAE - in this way. According to its own ideology, there should be no assured MoD contracts, no bowing to lobbying, no favours. Defence procurement would be done on the basis of free-market principles, with taxpayers getting the best value for money, savings used to boost other parts of the economy and the message to BAE workers the same as that given to those who lost their jobs in textiles or steel: that's globalisation. That is certainly a logical position for the government to take. Another logical stance is that the perfect world of global market forces simply does not exist, and that there are powerful arguments for states using their financial power to support industries they consider strategically or economically vital. A third position, and one that perhaps ought to appeal to a Labour government, is that it is proper for public money to be used to nurture and support industry, and that if a fraction of the money that has been spent over many decades on safeguarding Britain's position as one of the world's leading arms dealers had been spent on renewable energy and procuring green technology from the UK's environmental industries, we might all be a lot better off. Source

I think Mr Goth is bored,,,,

The Khat effect: The last battle of Somalia’s Islamists BY BASHIR GOTH 18 December 2006 THE Mogadishu Islamists’ decision to ban Khat, the narcotic stimulant that millions of Sumalis use, seemed to run on the lines of the old maxim, “A word of truth used with an ill intention”. For long, Somalis have been using Khat as a pastime and for generating income to feed millions of children in a country where more than 43 per cent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day. Yes, Khat is a curse on the economy, health and family fabric of the Somali people. It props the economies of Somalia’s neighbouring countries; with Kenya exporting $250 millions worth of Khat to Somalia annually and Ethiopia earning $60 million a year from Somaliland alone. Most of this money is the remittances sent by overseas Somalis to feed their loved ones back home. In addition to its financial burden, the Khat causes numerous health problems; causes family break ups, wastes people’s time and energy and increases the ranks of the country’s unemployed as addiction forces millions of productive countryside people to quit their farms and livestock to Khat markets, towns and villages. On the surface of it therefore, it seems any sound thinking Somali should applaud such move and thank the clerics for ridding the community of such an age-old curse. But the timing of it may make one question the real motive of the clerics. The ban comes at a time when Islamists view Ethiopia and Kenya, exporters of Khat to Somalia, as hostile countries and accuse them of siding with the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) that they want to topple. They have declared a jihad on Ethiopia and they showed their mistrust to Kenya. By banning the Khat, the Islamists have waged an economic war on both countries. It is also a quick answer to Kenya’s ban of all flights to and from Mogadishu. Banning the that, however, is different from all the other bans the Islamist have imposed on the Somali people such as prohibiting music, singing, cinemas, going to the beach for women and even denying women to go out of their house without a chaperon. The Khat is not only a narcotic that almost all Somali men and many of the women use on daily basis, but unfortunately it is the only lucrative business in Somalia that feeds tens of thousands of families. It is the main business for thousands of women who sell the Khat in order to secure food, medicine and schooling for their children. What alternative do the Islamists have for all these families one may ask? Did they think about the reaction of Ethiopia and Kenya? What about if Ethiopia and Kenya decide to slap a trade ban on Somalia? With Khat replacing tea and coffee as a hard currency earner for both countries, it is obvious that both countries will feel the pinch. According to some estimates, Kenya alone would lose up to Sh19 billion and an estimated 500,000 jobs. It is my hope that the Islamists have seriously thought about how they would feed the Somali people if both Kenya and Ethiopia decide to close their borders and airports to Somali trade. One may also remind the Islamists that when the British colonial authorities attempted to ban Khat in Somaliland it only strengthened the people’s resolve for freedom. It was also the ban of Khat that fuelled the Somali people’s resentment of Siyad Barre and eventually contributed to his downfall. Will history repeat itself? Will the Islamists revoke their decision when they feel the heat or will they stay the course until either the Khat or the Caliphate wins the battle? Only time will tell. But one thing is sure that the world may soon see an exodus of tens of thousands of Somali Khat refugees pouring to neighbouring countries and even to Somaliland, Puntland and the TFG ruled zone of Baidoa in search of their freedom to chew what many Somalis believe to be the nutrition of God-fearing people (quutul awliyaa). Khat may also force hundreds of the young Islamist militia’s, the majority of whom were the former mooryan’s (drug addicts) of the warlords, to desert the Islamists side and join the TFG, thus reversing the Islamists hitherto unstoppable advance. One may not rule out, nevertheless, that those that slapped the ban may have an agenda to extricate themselves of this brinkmanship by turning the Khat into a blessed black market that could fill their war chest. Bashir Goth is an African journalist based in Abu Dhabi. Khaleej Times

Anyone have avideo of the Charlot at Knicks brawl?

Chelsea played very well and scored some phat goalS!

A game i will def watch. I havnt seen any CL games this year but this one is a must! I will just enjoy it and see what happens. If we come away from Camp Nou with a draw then Anfield will be our 12th man in the 2nd leg.

^^a dark horse you have never seen play? LFC!

Include Oromia,, These are dangerous times in the ME for Sunnis. Youhave Lubaan, Syria, Ciraaq iyo Iran all stirring an unknown combination.

Rocko thats what has baffled me all along. This man cannot be stopped! Silly England selectors would pick him for first two tests. If you dont know now you know! England to pull one back. http://home.skysports.com/ click on the vids

Waar wax maqla, this topic is about the current situation in the ME not who is best for being the custodian of the two holy mosques. Start a new thread if you want!

On our hols already? Winding down?

104. You drive a phat car but dont know how to change a flat tire,,,,,,,

So its tomorrow. I wonder how many cameras will be there to catch the event? I wonder how many SOLers we will see on youtube next week Look your bestest

102. You carry your phone instead of putting it in your pocket or in your purse,,,,,,

100. You put a tonne of aftershave on just to go to the shop,,,,,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUPivN1r8Jw Burco boy come good ps not sure when it was