Tackling Development Issues in Somaliland This book is about the work that needs to be done in order to achieve economic and social development in Somaliland. It consists of four chapters bearing the following titles: Economic Development Strategy, Social Development, the Development of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Development of Mineral and Hydrocarbon Resources. In chapter one the author discusses the economic development strategy that he regards as most appropriate for the development needs of Somaliland. This strategy consists of two main components the first of which is the development of the country's mineral and hydrocarbon resources and using the financial resources derived from this endeavour for achieving the development of the other sectors of the economy while the second component is the adoption of the economic development model of the newly-industrialised East Asian countries, which has proved to be so successful. Chapter two deals with the ways in which social development can be brought about in Somaliland, i.e. the development of education and health, the elimination of poverty and the attunement of the country's political system to the culture of its society. The author discusses the education and health goals set up by the UN in the Millenium Development Goals and how these can be achieved in Somaliland in a decade or so. The author also explains the role of education, health and poverty elimination in creating human capital for development. Chapter three is concerned with the development of agriculture (including livestock) and the natural resources of the country such as the forests and woodlands, rangelands, soil, water and fisheries. It discusses how Somaliland can become self-sufficient in its food requirements provided an arable land of about 100 000 hectares with adequate underground water, soils suitable for agriculture and flat or gently-sloping topography can be found. The chapter also discusses the improvement of the country's livestock resources, the protection and development of its fisheries and the rehabilitation of its rangelands, forests and woodlands. In chapter four the author discusses the country's mineral and hydrocarbon resources. He lists the country's mineral deposits that include nearly 10 valuable minerals including gold and the ores of other metals. He also indicates the existence of a wide variety of gemstones. As for the hydrocarbon resources, the literature cited by the author confirms the existence in Somaliland of the geological strata that form the basis for the accumulation of oil and gas and that, therefore, it is only a matter of time and proper exploration before these resources can be discovered in the country. The book is not meant to provide final answers to the issues raised therein or to tell the government of Somaliland how to deal with these issues. Rather, it is intended for stirring debate and discussion among Somalilanders about the possible ways in which these issues can be tackled. http://www.amazon.com/Tackling-Development-Issues-Somaliland-Irrobeh/dp/1845495233 For those interested in 'how'.

A&T, let me know when you're next going to Somaliland. Just PM me your flight details

Nuune, I wouldn't be comfortable with it either. The whole process has it's roots in Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia. What is surprising is the non-critique of the process by the Somali mainstream media. The Samatars have and they've been ignored. I think Puntland is onto something here with their insistence on fedralism. I think its the only way Somalia can work (with the right framework) and, if done correctly, might just temp Somaliland back.

^ :D

I commend Nuune and Chimera for having such visions. Unfortunately most of our people are not visionaries. The biggest problem I see is that the politicians of today and probably those of tomorrow also lack that vision. Once a vision of a developed country is communicated to the masses through a coordinated media campaign giving voice to the visionaries, the politicians will have no option but to see the same vision and work towards it. Self reliance is something that should be encouraged. This can be done through infrastructure projects being finance through PPP schemes with local businesses rather than waiting for or relying on donors and the UN. A coordinated effort to approach the Arab league and GCC countries for rebuilding help should be done (they will pay). Let's start thinking about how and communicate the same to those in power.

Does this vindicate the Samater guy? PL at least chose to issue a letter directly to those forming the new Somalia rather than through the media (a leak is a leak). So, how will the resident PL SOLers react?

Afternoon all iyo jimce wanaagsan Ngonge is the Lionel Messi of SOL (apart from the sports section where he is the Andy Corrol ) Ate a lebanese grill xalayto and now feel ill

I was talking about Carrol who couldn't score against a hapless Chelsea. You probably think we will win the league next season because we won last night

NGONGE;828361 wrote: We played well last night. Caroll is a lump who should have scored. Against a team in airplane mode

Afternoon all. Buuxo welcome back.

Garnaqsi;828295 wrote: I didn't really dwell on your thoughts about the research because you are entitled to that. However, I thought your objection was disappointing. It doesn't even seem you thought through it. Here is why. You ask how can looking at a picture can be equated with analytic thinking. Well, it isn't. The idea is that looking at The Thinker stimulated analytic thinking. This was tested on a different group of randomly selected participants in a separate test. This type stimuli response is actually well known in psychology; it's called Pavlovian conditioning . Look it up. So your objection not only obviously lacks the basics but it's also laughably arrogant. As for your convert friend, you rebuff my what I said about his conversion as irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'. It isn't. Say, for example, the guy actually converted to Christianity instead of Islam. Replacing the Koran with the Bible in his statement, we have: “You cannot simply read the Bible, not if you take it seriously. You either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously, directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames, and challenges. From the outset it draws the line of battle, and I was on the other side.” Thus he found himself in an interesting battle. “I was at a severe disadvantage, for it became clear that the Author knew me better than I knew myself.” It was as if the Author was reading his mind. Every night he would make up certain questions and objections, but would find the answer in his next readings as he continued his readings in the accepted order. “The Bible was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built years ago and was addressing my queries.” He fought vigorously with objections and questions, but it was apparent that he was losing the battle. “I was being led, working my way into a corner that contained only one choice.” It lost nothing and gained nothing. That's why it's profoundly useless and vague. There is nothing analytic about it. As I said earlier, he tells us that the Koran vigorously challenged his thinking up to the point that he had to give up. But what exactly challenged him? If we wish to, how could we judge whether his conviction was justified? As I also said earlier, it seems to me you assume the validity of his exact reasoning (despite not knowing anything about it) just because you agree with his conclusion, thus falling for a cognitive bias. Come with a better objection to this than a mere dismissal of it being an irrelevant 'frivolous attempt at undermining it'. The problem I have with the research it is that it doesn’t appear to do what it says on the tin. According to the research, The Thinker statue inspires analytic thinking. Ok. Then, having looked at the statue, participants’ religious views change. Ok. But, in order for such conclusions to be considered as a result of analytic thought, surely ANALYSIS (of belief) is required. Get it? The revert ANALYSED information he considered important and his questions/objections were answered/clarified. Whether you agree with it or if its justified is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because he reached his decision based on what HE thought was the truth after his usual analytical thought process. He made a choice (remember that discussion we had? ). Your eagerness to use your usual analytical process in relation to this man’s reversion is noted (and misguided). If only you would apply the same to the research

Boqorada ingriiska iyo odaygeeda have been married for 50 years this summer. Archie, no probs. Nothing like the English countryside.

Ngonge and JB, the cake room is no longer there (its was just another room to eat in a couple of weeks ago)

In order for me to take you seriously it would be a good idea for you to address my WHOLE post rather than just the bits that you feel favour a counter argument. I talked about and gave you a definition of analytical thinking. I stated the research presented goes against that definition in that it equates analytical thinking with simply looking at pictures and statues and forming an opinion on belief! The point I was making about the professor who became a Muslim was that he was analytical. He actually analysed the source of Islam and made a decision. This is an example of analytical thinking in terms of trying to determine the existence of God by reading a source that states there is a God. Your frivolous attempt at undermining it is irrelevant. What the research presents, in my opinion, has nothing to do with analytical thinking. How can looking at pictures or reading italic or standard type face text be equated with analytical thinking and then go even further and conclude those doing so have more or less belief in God? The research is flawed. Call it defensive or sentimental as much as you like but my objection has a BASIS. More than what you have so far managed to conjure up in its defence. The question I ask you is, can a decision based on looking at a picture of something completely unrelated be considered analytical? Roll your sleeves up Ps, we will deal with the other issue another time (I don’t want to dilute this thread).

Adna bahasha daawo. Downing's crosses have been more often than not unsuccessful ie too low or too high. On the odd occassion he gets the ball in we have a lump who doesn't anticipate and only wants a back post header rather than attack the near post where the majority of all crosses end up. We also need an attacking left back. Enrique gets a nose bleed when he goes passed the halfway line. We will get at least 5 players. Waad arki then you will agree with me

Some great images. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140304/Queens-Diamond-Jubilee-marked-amazing-aerial-pictures-showing-Britain-above.html

I don't agree. Hes a headless chicken. The areas we need to improve in are obvious. We need a clinical striker, a playmaker (SG and CA are not playmakers) and two very good wingers.

NGONGE;813335 wrote: Downing is quick and technically gifted. How did I miss this?

Touché. There is a difference between debating with someone who knows what he is rejecting and one who doesn’t. Our previous discussions show you’re yet to fully comprehend the basics of belief in relation to Islam as well as having a baseless objection to it. The story I posted shows a ‘rational’ and analytical atheist (a professor of mathematics at that) becoming a Muslim and saying: “You cannot simply read the Quran, not if you take it seriously. You either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously, directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames, and challenges. From the outset it draws the line of battle, and I was on the other side.” Thus he found himself in an interesting battle. “I was at a severe disadvantage, for it became clear that the Author knew me better than I knew myself.” It was as if the Author was reading his mind. Every night he would make up certain questions and objections, but would find the answer in his next readings as he continued his readings in the accepted order. “The Quran was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built years ago and was addressing my queries.” He fought vigorously with objections and questions, but it was apparent that he was losing the battle. “I was being led, working my way into a corner that contained only one choice.” This professor used his usual analytical thought process to conclude that there is a God and that Islam was the right religion. In order for him to make such a conclusion (even if it was the opposite), it is required for him to read, think and analyse the sources of Islam (or even Christianity et al). A definition of analytical thinking is: 1. The ability to scrutinize and break down facts and thoughts into their strengths and weaknesses. 2. Developing the capacity to think in a thoughtful, discerning way, to solve problems, analyze data, and recall and use information. http://www.pathways.cu.edu.eg/subpages/training_courses/analytical_thinking/Chapter1_s.htm What you have put forth here is research conducted in such a way that actually dilutes analytical thinking to looking at pictures and statues and then, after a 5 minutes break, measures people’s level of belief (of which we have no methodological information). It’s quite pathetic to be honest. What is analytical about looking at pictures and statues? Analytical thinking or just tricks? If the researchers were honest and didn’t have an agenda of diluting analytical thinking to looking at pictures and statues to give the impression analytical thinking somehow results in less belief (research no doubt conducted for various causes/reasons), they would, for example, request people to read religious text (Quran, Bible, Toorah etc) and then when they’ve finished reading, measure their levels of belief. What is surprising (or maybe not so surprising) is that you, having previously stated you have used your own rational/analytical thinking to object to religion, fail to see the short-comings of this research. Or are you taking it as gospel? Atheists tend to want to have their cake and eat it. You’re no different. A comment on the reaserch. Gervais and Norenzayan may be overconfidently assuming that their experiments differentiate between analytic and intuitive thinking. I find it hard to believe that glimpses of statues have any effect on religious beliefs. (Of course, I'm ignorant of how the researchers "measured" beliefs.) They assume that seeing the Rodin somehow stimulates an analytic-thinking response because the statue is iconic. For all they know, viewers could be affected in other ways, e.g., the good-humored may feel it looks like someone on a toilet. Discobolus might induce analysis of the difficulty of throwing the discus, the ideal angle of release, etc. The font test may have merely demonstrated differences between the patient and the impatient. .

Garnaqsi;827843 wrote: I'm disappointed to say most people in this forum use arguments that have been abandoned before the dawn of analytic philosphy It would be good if the rejectors of the faith demonstrated a basic understanding of the faith they've rejected or even faith in general in order for any interesting discourse to take place. Your exchanges with Mario B (who has hit the nail on the head by the way), your non attempt at looking at Ngonge's comment about Nabi Ibrahim (CSWS) or my story about the atheist's reversion only go to show you've yet to grasp the fundamentals of 'faith' and/or 'belief'. Therefore, is there any point?

Cool pics but PLEASE wear a tie!

Thanks Archie

Are these recent pics?

^Liverpool might make a bid in the summer

^Ma waxaad rabtaa Garnaqsi to stop liking him? Looks like a proper striker with every goal. Hope he gets goal of the season instead of that over-hyped Crouch effort.