200 missing as migrants' boat goes down off Tunisia AP 21 June 2003 Up to 200 people are missing after a boat carrying Africans trying to get to Europe capsized off the Tunisian coast, the official news agency said. At least 12 died. About 250 people were aboard the vessel en route to Italy when it sank at dawn yesterday about 70 miles south-east of the Tunisian city of Sfax. The boat was carrying people from several African nations hoping to slip into Europe. 41 people were pulled from the water alive It is unclear what caused the accident, the latest in a series of deadly accidents involving boats of Africans trying to enter Europe illegally, Thousands of people risk their lives every year in the crossing. Often, they set off overnight in makeshift crafts or inflatable boats. Some drown. Tunisian investigators said it appeared the boat took off from a neighboring country, without giving details. Many such boats leave from Libya. Italy is trying to reach an accord with Libya to stem the boatloads of illegal immigrants arriving on Italian shores. Relatively few of those who try to slip into Italy hope to settle there. Most travel north, to countries such as Germany that have proportionally larger immigrant populations. Earlier this week, Italian rescue ships recovered the bodies of seven immigrants who drowned off the Sicilian island of Lampedusa near the North African coast after their ship capsized. The TAP news agency said Tunisian authorities had found two other boats likely carrying illegal immigrants on Wednesday and Thursday. The first, carrying 28 people, was discovered near Zarzis, a port near the Libyan border. Authorities discovered the second, a rubber boat carrying 24 people, near the Tunisian island of Djerba. As i have come to find out, this is a popular route for Somalis to try and get to Europe, via Libya, this is bad news indeed and would not be very surprised if some were not somali, the q i have is, IS IT WORTH IT? I mean risking all that just to get to Italy, who don not have the best record on Asylum by any means, then try to get to the uk thru the EU.

Boxing: Boos as Lewis retains world crown From Ian Gordon, PA Sport, Los Angeles 22 June 2003 Lennox Lewis retained his heavyweight crown after the referee stopped his fight against Vitali Klitschko at the end of the sixth round in Los Angeles. The Brit took the fight in controversial fashion with the Ukrainian definitely upset at the decision in the Staples Centre. Lewis retained his World Boxing Council crown after opening up two huge cuts above and below Klitschko's left eye. Referee Lou Moret acted on Dr Paul Wallace's advice to stop the fight because of the severe injuries to the Californian-based fighter's face. Klitschko paraded around the ring afterwards insisting he should have been allowed to continue and swung a couple of punches at Lewis as officials crowded round. The decision was greeted with boos from many in the around 10,000 crowd at the arena. But the decision gave Lewis his 15th victory in the 19th title bout of his career. The Londoner can now face former middleweight champion Roy Jones Jnr in a money-spinning final pay-day before hanging up his gloves after a 14-year professional career. Lewis had hinted before this fight - the heaviest heavyweight contest in history - that he would quit the ring after facing Jones. The fight was stopped with Klitschko ahead by two points on all three judges' scorecards. Lewis had looked in trouble as Klitschko clearly won the first two rounds. The 37-year-old's sluggish opening raised fears he had not taken the fight seriously, as he did when he suffered his shock defeat to Hasim Rahman in South Africa just over two years ago. But Lewis, half a stone heavier than when he demolished Mike Tyson in Memphis just over a year ago, responded like a champion in the third round. Klitschko was left with blood pouring from a cut above his left eye as he was repeatedly caught by Lewis. But Klitschko refused to buckle and took the next two rounds on the decision of two of the judges despite the cut again opening up. Lewis opened up a cut below the eye in round six and this was enough to give him the disputed victory. The referee stopped the fight just before the bell for the seventh round with the doctor saying that Klitschko could not see out of his left eye. Klitschko was immediately out of his stool and was furious at the decision. There was nothing he could do. Long after Lewis had left the ring to boos Klitschko was wandering round with arms aloft as in victory. Lewis had come into the fight weighing his heaviest ever at 18st 4lb. He felt Klitschko was lucky the fight was stopped as it saved the challenger from further punishment. "There's no way he could have finished the fight," Lewis told Sky Box Office. "If you look at the state of his face, there is no way. He is lucky the fight was stopped." He insisted Klitschko had not proved a tougher challenger than he had expected. "No, not really. Of course he can compete with me, that's why he is in the number one position. "He would have got knocked out in the next couple of rounds. He was definitely deteriorating. "I do give him credit. He has an unusual European style, plus I only had a week to prepare for it." A big right hand opened the cut above Klitschko's left eye and led to the stoppage, and Lewis denied Klitschko had successfully avoided his big right hand. "I wouldn't say he avoided them. The next couple of rounds would have told you the whole thing." Lewis looked tired, but said: "I was just getting my second wind." He conceded he was rocked by Klitschko in the second round, and added: "It definitely did wake me up. We're big guys, so any punch from both of us is going to hurt. I hurt him a couple of time - more times than he hurt me. "I still feel he cannot go the distance with me. As you could see he was definitely deteriorating. "I wanted it to be a dogfight, because I know when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and I am tougher than him." Lewis feels Klitschko may have a case for a money-spinning rematch, and asked if the Ukrainian would get a second chance, said: "If it calls for it and the money is right, then yeah, definitely." Dr Wallace believed he had to stop the fight because Klitschko was unable to defend himself. He said: "He (Klitschko) had to move his head to see me. At that point I had no other option than to stop the fight. "If he had to move his head to see me, there was no way he could defend himself." However, Klitschko could not understand the decision to stop the fight, and claimed he would have won had the referee not intervened. "Lennox Lewis does not have good condition, he is very heavy," Klitschko told Sky Box Office. "It was my strategy to make him tired. "I see very well. I don't know why the doctor stopped the fight. I feel very well. I know I can fight. "I know if this fight had gone on I would win. I would win the fight by points."

Hip Hop is what it is, straight out-da-bronx, u cant call somalis who recite poetry hip hop, common man!

Bush-backed feature film of 9/11 casts him as scourge of 'tinhorn terrorists' By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 22 June 2003 According to one version of history, President George Bush was so slow to react to the momentous attacks of 11 September 2001 that he continued reading to a group of primary school children in Florida even after being informed of the first plane crashing into the World Trade Centre. Then, after making an anodyne remark about finding "the folks who committed this act", he was whisked off in Air Force One, first to Shreveport, Louisiana and thence to an underground bunker in Nebraska, where he was hastily coached in the art of responding to the crisis in an appropriately presidential manner. That, however, is not the George Bush who emerges from a new television docudrama due to air on cable in time for the second anniversary of the attacks this September. In this version, the President is all swagger and seize-the-moment bravado. "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me," he says. "I'll be at home. Waiting for the ******* ." "But Mr President ..." stammers his Secret Service chief. "Try 'Commander-in-Chief'," Mr Bush corrects him, "whose present command is, 'Take the President home!'" If this scenario sounds like wishful thinking cooked up by the Republican National Committee, it probably is, given that the film, entitled DC 9/11, was produced and written by a direct associate of the President's, Lionel Chetwynd, in close co-operation with Mr Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove. From the administration's point of view, it is arguably, the most successful attempt to date to recruit Hollywood to help the White House in its war on terrorism - or, in this case, its war on the Democratic presidential nominee in the November 2004 election. Mr Chetwynd is not only a well-known conservative in Hollywood circles, with credits spanning political dramas and biblical stories. He also sits on the White House Committee on the Arts and Humanities. Mr Rove, meanwhile, has a special eye for propaganda - not only did he conceive of Mr Bush's recent post-Iraq Top Gun-style landing on an aircraft carrier, he was also the one who explained away the President's peregrinations on 11 September by claiming, less than convincingly, that Air Force One itself was under direct threat of attack. Although nobody has seen the finished product, the script of DC 9/11 was leaked to the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, which described its portrayal of "a nearly infallible, heroic president with little or no dissension in his ranks and a penchant for delivering articulate, stirring, off-the-cuff address to his colleagues". At one point, according to the script, he tells Democratic Party leaders: "I won't be seeking a declaration of war. With a shadowy enemy, specificity makes that problematic." That sounds awfully sophisticated for the malapropism-prone George Dubya. Amazingly, Mr Chetwynd denies his film is propaganda in any form. He insists that everything in the film comes from the public record - either published accounts or information gleaned from his own interviews with the President, the White House chief of staff Andy Card, Mr Rove and others. "This isn't propaganda," he told the The Washington Post last week. "It's a straightforward docudrama. I would hope what's presented is a fully coloured and nuanced picture of a human being in a difficult situation." The fact that it paints its subject in the best possible light at every turn certainly can't hurt the Bush cause, however. It is part of an emerging pattern whereby the anniversaries of 11 September are exploited as political advertisements for the Bush administration. This year it will be the airing of DC 9/11; next year, with just two months to go before the next presidential election, it will be the Republican National Convention in New York.

looks like hes headed for Real afterall, i actually think its a good for the geezer, if he aint a better player by Euro 2004 with all thm players around him, i will be surprised!

Talks deadlocked as Sharon demands 'war' on militants Hamas leaders reject 'surrender', while Israel says a ceasefire would not be enough to restart negotiations By Justin Huggler in Jerusalem 17 June 2003 Talks to persuade Palestinian militants to agree to a six-month ceasefire ended inconclusively last night, with Egyptian mediators returning home without success. As the talks appeared to reach a stalemate, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister said in a speech to the Knesset, Israel's parliament, that a ceasefire would not be enough and demanded "a comprehensive, ongoing war by the new Palestinian government" against the militants. New hopes for the peace process after the Aqaba summit have all but evaporated in a new round of violence between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas that has seen more than 60 people killed in a little over a week. Unless the violence stops, there are fears the road-map peace plan, personally backed by President George Bush, may go the way of previous attempts to make peace. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was still holding out hope of getting Hamas and the other militant groups to agree to a ceasefire last night. Abu Mazen, the Palestinian Prime Minister, was due to hold talks with militant leaders in Gaza after mediators sent by the Egyptian government left. The Egyptians offered to resume the talks in Cairo this week, or to return in 24 hours. The Egyptians have been pushing Hamas to agree to a six-month ceasefire. In return, the Israeli army would gradually withdraw from the northern Gaza Strip, and the West Bank city of Bethlehem. Comments from some Hamas leaders yesterday threw cold water on any future talks. "Ceasefire means surrender to occupation," Ismail abu Shanab, a senior figure in Hamas, said. "Now is not a time for truce. It is time for solidarity and standing united against Israeli attacks on our people." Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, Hamas's spiritual leader, was less vitriolic. "We have listened to the ideas and the proposals and we are studying them in order to respond," he said. Mr Sharon appeared to write off the peace process as long as militant attacks continued. "We cannot achieve a political arrangement and certainly not a peace deal, when terror runs rampant," he said. But Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, said unequivocally that Israel would not accept a temporary ceasefire, and Mr Sharon appeared to back that up in his speech. "For me, peace means full security for the citizens of Israel. Not declarations, not talk," Mr Shalom said. Mr Sharon's demand that the PA takes on the militants would put Abu Mazen in a very difficult position. There is a deep reluctance in Palestinian society, and within the PA's security forces, to take on the militants. Many in the security forces have relatives who are among the militants and some Palestinians fear a confrontation could lead to civil war. The main sticking point in yesterday's talks in Gaza appeared to be demands from Hamas for international guarantees that Israel would stop its policy of assassinating the militant group's leaders, in return for a ceasefire. The United States is believed to have been pushing Israel to stop the assassinations, after almost daily attempts last week in which many innocent bystanders were killed. But Mr Sharon appeared to say yesterday the assassinations would continue, when he vowed that Israel would hunt down the militants "in every place and in every situation". That was a considerable change from Sunday, when Mr Sharon was quoted as telling his Cabinet: "If no one fires on us, we will not return fire, except in cases of ticking bombs." Mr Sharon was speaking at a debate called by the opposition. Knesset opposition members have publicly accused him of jeopardising the road-map when he ordered the assassination of Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, the most prominent leader of Hamas's political wing, last week at a time when Hamas was talking about resuming the ceasefire talks. After that assassination attempt failed, Hamas vowed to bomb Israel to "rubble" and launched a sickening suicide bombing in central Jerusalem that left 17 dead. In the opening speech, Zahava Gal-On, a Knesset member from the left-wing, pro-peace Meretz party, accused Mr Sharon of deceiving the Knesset, the Israeli people and the Americans by falsely claiming to support the road-map for peace. In response, Mr Sharon claimed his hand had been forced by an attack in which Palestinian militants from three different groups broke into an Israeli army base at the crossing between the Gaza Strip and Israel and killed four soldiers. The Israeli government was forced either "to hold back in order not to stop the diplomatic process, or to respond to what was placed upon us", he said. The Knesset voted in support of Mr Sharon by a narrow majority. Palestinians torn between their desire for peace and anger with the Israelis By Sa'id Ghazali in Jerusalem 17 June 2003 Like many Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, Naima Hamad is caught between her desire for an immediate end to hostilities and her anger over the war that has left her husband unemployed and restricted her movement. "We want to have a normal life. We do not want Jews to kill our children and uproot our trees. We want the PA [Palestinian Authority] to come here and prevent the firing of rockets,'' she said, while grazing her seven sheep. Mrs Hamad and her 12-year-old daughter Feda remember Hamas militants firing rockets from Zimo, a large citrus farm next to her house in Beit Hanoun, two months ago. The farm is now in complete ruins. "The people pay a heavy price," she said. Mrs Hamad, who has seven children, said a one-sided truce was meaningless because if Israel did not stop its incursions and air strikes, any ceasefire would not last long. "The two sides should stop," she said as across from her home, several Israeli tanks and military vehicles could be seen and shots could be heard. She said a bullet had missed her head by inches while she was on the rooftop of her house on Sunday. Her neighbour Louai al-Zaneen, 24, whose father's farm was ruined by Israeli bulldozers, said he would support a truce if it meant lifting the closure, allowing more workers to enter Israel and resuming the peace negotiations. Signs of exhaustion are everywhere in the Gaza Strip. It can be seen in the deserted Feras vegetable market, and the fish market in Gaza City and in the pronouncements of established Palestinian figures such as Iyad al-Sarraj, a well-known psychiatrist. He said: "The Palestinian people are very tired. Seventy per cent of the Palestinian people have low income. Many people are desperate. They are ready to stop everything, if they have a little hope." The people are divided between two extremes: those who want to stop the hostilities and get back to normal life, and those who want to continue with the violence and acts of revenge. Colonel Majed al-Kafarneh, a senior security forces commander for the Northern districts of Jabalya, Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahia, with a population of 200,000, said there were two groups of people. There were those bent on violence, and those who don't care who's in charge, "whether it is [the Security Affairs minister Mohammad] Dahalan or a monkey, we should reach an end [to the conflict]." Colonel Kafarneh said he was not ready to "arrest or shoot at suicide bombers on their way to Israel", as long as Israel refused to withdraw and end its occupation. He said he would not shoot at Hamas, even if Yasser Arafat or the Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, ordered him to.

Thanx for the reminder NOT The whole system is designed for the middle classes who are able stave off that tempting loan. As for the so called lesser so and sos, this loan will haunt us for a very long time. One piece of advice, pay back more than the minimum per month, therefore paying less back (as a whole)than if u pay back the minimum. Interest rates are a mutha!

lol at unique perception so we should sit around a table with Sharona and Bush and talk peace? These ppl dont understand the meaning of the word, the quicker this is realised the better, and the quicker the palestinians gain alot more support by other muslim nation in areas such as milatary capability the better. This is a war, not a peace process as they lead you to believe, in wars ppl fight to gain what they want, in this case, to gain whats rightfully ours. Sorry for calling ya a jew mate, but u seam like u know what yr talkin about, too bad its in sharp contrast to my views on this topic. Just seams to me that yr re-gurgitating whats being portrayed in the mass media in the hands of the zionist entity! The peaceful route has been taken many a time without success. Whats gonna be diff now?????????

When the enemy is killing innocent ppl (muslims) we, as muslims, have the right to inflict the same upon the enemy! Stop watching Fox and CNN, rea more and learn more then form a judgement (when u have heard everything)not from just the Yahudi side! I suspect yr either white or a jew or both!

Posted by Paltalk: For god sake.how can you say that Suicide is Jihad...while innocent jewish people are dying as a result of a suicide attack...I astrong disagree with your points..I am really disturb by how some people view suicide attacks.

lol@Totti, should have known. carlos and thuram should swap, nedved should go left wing, davids in the middle, zidane in totti's position and Zambrotta on the right. Totti warming the bench!

Lewis all the way baaaby! But whos gonna pay these damn pay-per-view bills? then wait till 5am to c a 3 round show?

lander; i think we agree on beckam being over-rated but its business, beckam=money to be made off his name (shirt sales, sponsors, image etc etc!

studying full time, working part time and claiming cayd was once my speciality, lol, abusing the system maybe, but if its progressing me to go further then why not? However i really gets to me when those who have got the oppotunity to learn here for free and you see them doing nothing with themselves except stand around street corners chatin shiid, going to riywaads....couldnt agree with ya mor shujul, but then u have brothers with physics degrees who have been strayed and are now teaching in the merfish, that gets to me!!

The case for: 'The cut across the neck leads to very significant pain before insensibility' The case for a ban Martin Potter 11 June 2003 Perhaps it was inevitable that the publication of a report on the welfare of animals during slaughter, produced by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, would raise again the conflict of religious freedom and the protection of animal welfare. The paradox is that the traditional slaughter practices of Jews and Muslims almost certainly originated out of a respect for animal welfare, as well as for food hygiene requirements. While the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals believes in respect for religious beliefs and practices, it also believes that animals must be killed in the most humane conditions possible. Modern stunning instruments in the hands of highly skilled slaughterers can render an animal unconscious immediately. We, therefore, have the ability to give those animals reared for food a quick and painless death. Slaughter by the Jewish and Muslim methods involves cutting the throat with a very sharp knife without any form of prior stunning. But yesterday's report from the Government's advisory body on farm animal welfare presents evidence that indicates this method can result in cattle taking as long as two minutes to become insensible. The report also concludes that the cut across the neck leads to very significant pain and distress before the insensibility supervenes. So what is the way forward? Would it be unreasonable to suggest Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK review their slaughter practices in the light of the findings of this new report? Many Muslim leaders now accept the principle that animals may be stunned, with the result that almost 90 per cent of animals killed in the UK for halal meat are unconscious when the cut to the throat is made. In New Zealand, any animal slaughtered by the kosher method is stunned shortly after the cut has been made. These examples show some degree of flexibility in religious interpretation. Progress can only be made if the two sides - religious leaders and those seeking welfare improvements - respect each other's views and, having considered the recommendations in this report, jointly search for an acceptable way forward. Martin Potter is head of the RSPCA's Farm Animals Department and a member of the Farm Animal Welfare Council Muslims unite with Jews to defend animal slaughter rites By Paul Vallely 11 June 2003 It was business as usual yesterday at Hymarks Kosher Meats Ltd in Cheadle, one of the hubs of the Manchester Jewish community. In the cool cabinet untrussed chickens sprawled beside a selection of meats which was positively international in its range - lamb chops, marinaded steaks, pale chicken sausages, minty lamb kebabs, Italian meatballs. There was no sign of controversy, either among the customers nor the jolly chap behind the counter with a skullcap perched on the back of his head and a large red apron circumnavigating his ample girth. Elsewhere, the world was getting altogether more exercised about what united the various kosher meats on display - the ritual method of slaughter which had brought them to the butcher's slab. The time has come to repeal the law which exempts the products consumed by religious communities from the provisions of The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, a government advisory committee recommended yesterday. The proposal has caused outrage among the Jewish and Muslim communities. The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the Government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way 9 million farm animals die each year to produce kosher and halal meat causes severe suffering. All slaughter without pre-stunning should be banned immediately, it has advised. "It is not something we want to say anything about," said the man at Hymarks Kosher Meats. He did not want any hint of controversy to invade his stacks of chopped herring, pickled cucumbers and matzos. Understandably, say animal rights activists. "Scientific research shows that animals whose throats are cut while they are fully conscious can suffer terribly over relatively lengthy periods as they bleed to death," said Peter Stevenson, political and legal director of Compassion in World Farming, which was so quick off the mark that it actually published its support the day before the report came out. The report says: "After the cut has been made, the animal must remain restrained until it is bled out before being released, shackled and hoisted." A cow can take up to two minutes to bleed to death. "To say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous," said Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, who chaired the committee that produced the recommendations. The ground is set for a major battle, with both Jewish and Muslim groups - in a loud and unusual union of purpose - launching a twofold defence. They produce scientists who argue that religious slaughter is, in fact, less cruel than stunning. And they ring alarm bells at what they see as an assault on religious minorities. "One of the first enactments of the Nazis in 1933 was to outlaw the Jewish method of slaughter," warned Rabbi Yehuda Brodie, registrar of the Manchester Beth Din. The row turns on the insistence in both religions - which have common roots in acknowledging Abraham as the father of their faith - that believers should not eat meat from any animal which has undergone any harm, injury or hurt in dying. They argue that their ancient method of slaughter - severing the animal's neck and hoisting it so that all the blood drains from the body - causes the beast to feel virtually nothing. "With a surgically sharp knife all the vessels in the neck are severed and all blood cut off swiftly from the brain so the animal loses consciousness very rapidly," said Rabbi Brodie. In London, the president of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Henry Grunwald QC, backed the opinion. "Many scientific experts have confirmed that the Jewish method of religious slaughter is at least as humane as any other method of slaughter," he said. Opponents of the practice see it as self-evident that stunning animals before they are killed is more humane. But the Abrahamic faiths insist not. On the contrary, stunning is "a form of torture", according to Dr Abdul Majid Katme, who delivered a paper on the subject at the Universities' Federation of Animal Welfare and is now spokesman on halal meat and food for the Muslim Council of Britain. Rabbi Brodie argues: "There can be no doubt that every animal feels pain from the stunning, and moreover some 14,000 animals a year are stunned badly or wrongly." The opposition is rooted in something else. Numerous medical studies have shown that stunning leads to the retention of a significant amount of blood in the meat, said Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain. The consumption of blood is forbidden to both Muslims and Jews. "Scientific tests have shown that when an animal is stunned, small blood vessels rupture," said Dr Katme, "leaving meat tainted with blood which is full of germs, bacteria and waste material." The FAWC report disputes this. "Recent research shows that there is no significant difference in the rate of blood loss from a throat cut with or without stunning," it says. In any event, under optimal conditions, only about half the blood is drained at slaughter; the rest resides in the viscera and muscles, the report adds. There is another complication, as was highlighted yesterday by Nadeem Shaikh, a licensed slaughterer and poultry wholesaler who processes 10,000 live birds a day in north Manchester. "Some 95 per cent of animals in halal abattoirs are stunned before killing," he says. "Not a fatal stun as in non-halal abattoirs, but a lesser level to control the animal. "Non-stun slaughter is a much lengthier process," he continues. "Animals have to be put in cradles which is time-consuming. It can take a week to kill 500 lambs. But if the stunning is adjusted to a lower level - such that the animal would recover fully if it were not killed immediately afterwards - then that is halal, so long as the man who slaughters is a devout Muslim who says each time the prayer 'Bismillah Allahu akbar,' which means 'Thank you, God, for the meat'." But such partial stunning outrages many Muslims. "That idea is not orthodox," said Dr Shuja Shafi, chairman of the health and medical committee at the Muslim Council of Britain. Dr Katme says: "There can be no stunning at all. Those who argue for it are either ignorant or concerned primarily with money." The slaughterer Nadeem Shaikh, by contrast, brands the "no-stun" group as "extremists". He would probably not dare to tell them of the Muslim abattoir where 7,000 chickens an hour are dispatched by machines with whirling blades, to the accompaniment of a taped prayer, speeded up to match the rate of the mechanised knives - and all with the blessing of the local imam. For all such internal disagreement, what is perhaps most striking about the controversy is the unity it brings to two communities whose relationship is normally characterised by suspicion at the very least. Dr Katme said: "We're happy to see our Jewish friends so strong on this issue." Rabbi Brodie said: "This is an attack on religious freedom itself, by people with a hidden agenda." The animal rights lobby may find that this time it has taken on formidable foes. Ritual Controversy: 'It is a quick and efficient method, not cruel at all' Asid Ali, 34, a halal butcher who has owned Mashallah butchers in Hendon, north London, for four years, said customers yesterday expressed collective disbelief at the prospect of a ban. He said: "I have been a butcher for over 20 years and I believe that it is our right as Muslims to eat halal meat, which is an essential part of Islam. I have taken part in the slaughter of poultry in the past so I know it is a quick and efficient method, not cruel at all. "We feel offended as a community by the suggestion of a ban. When I came to Britain [from Pakistan] as a teenager, halal meat was available to us even then. "Many who have come into the shop today cannot believe that their religious practice will be banned. There are so many laws that regulate our slaughter already, it just makes life more difficult for me to hear this and I fear that it may be damaging to the business as well." Arifa Akbar Can u imagine all somalis becoming veggies?lol

Peace process in crisis as Hamas man is assassinated in missile attack By Sa'id Ghazali in Jerusalem 13 June 2003 The tit-for-tat violence between the Israeli army and Hamas intensified yesterday as Israel assassinated a senior Hamas figure and six others in a rocket attack, provoking threats of revenge from the Islamic militants. An Israeli helicopter fired missiles at the car of Yasser Taha in Gaza, killing him, his wife and their infant daughter. The attack followed a Hamas suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus that killed 16 people on Wednesday and a retaliatory helicopter attack by Israel that killed seven. On Tuesday, Israel attempted to assassinate a Hamas leader. As Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, declared that he would fight the militants "to the bitter end", Hamas leaders warned of suicide bombings to come and told foreign citizens to leave Israel as soon as possible for their own safety. The three days of bloodshed, in which at least 35 Israelis and Palestinians have died, have reduced to near irrelevance the US-backed road-map for peace. The Israeli government, which believes that the Palestinian Authority with Abu Mazen as Prime Minister cannot halt the suicide bombings, is directly targeting Hamas. In Gaza, Palestinians ran through the streets carrying a charred body and some of the 29 wounded, their faces stained with blood. A milk bottle and the baby's shoes were displayed for the television cameras. Mr Sharon kept up his verbal attacks on the Palestinian leaders, whom he ridiculed as "cry-babies". He decried Abu Mazen as "a chick that hasn't grown its feathers yet" for failing to halt the attacks by armed militant groups. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a Palestinian cabinet minister, said of Mr Sharon's comments: "His aim is to discredit the Palestinian government and to assassinate his real enemy, the road-map." The Israeli strikes have made it difficult for Abu Mazen, whose birth name is Mahmoud Abbas, to negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas and other militant groups. The Bush administration, which had turned its anger against the Israeli government after the botched assassination attempt on Tuesday, accused Hamas of being the main obstacle to Middle East peace. Hamas vows to 'tear Israel to pieces' after Gaza attack By Sa'id Ghazali in Jerusalem and Rupert Cornwell in Washington 13 June 2003 Hamas vowed yesterday to "blow up the Zionist entity and tear it to pieces" as Israeli helicopters patrolled the skies over Gaza to hunt down Palestinian militants in one of the most crowded cities in the world. Speaking after an Israeli rocket attack that killed seven people, including a senior Hamas militant, Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Hamas leader, said the movement would "launch a series of new attacks against the Israeli people by the youths of Palestine. This crime will not pass without punishment.'' Activists from Yasser Arafat's mainstream movement said they were siding with the Islamic militants of Hamas. Hussein al Sheikh, a Fatah leader in Ramallah, said: "This is a bloody war against the Palestinian people. [The] Fatah movement stands with the Palestinian people in the resistance against the occupation.'' The dramatic hardening of their position came after Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, promised at an emergency cabinet meeting to press ahead with attacks against Hamas. His language seemed to doom the US-sponsored road-map for peace in the Middle East, which calls for an end to violence as a first step. Israeli forces thrust into Gaza yesterday after their botched attempt to kill Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, Hamas's political leader, on Tuesday, which terrified the people of Gaza City as they went about their business. "We live in panic,'' Halima al-Ghoul, 55, said. "I do not know whether it is safe to ride a car or walk.'' Traffic stopped each time aircraft appeared and people got out of their cars, fearing another rocket attack. "We believe in fate,'' Khaled Jondia, 33, said. She was selling baby clothes in Shajia market when yesterday's attack happened. In Jerusalem, Israeli police set up more checkpoints in Arab neighbourhoods, searching people and checking their identity cards. Yesterday's attack - in retaliation for the worst suicide bombing in six months, which killed 16 people on a bus in Jerusalem on Wednesday - came after the funeral of 10 Palestinians who were killed on Wednesday night by Israeli helicopters. They fired missiles at targets in Sabra, where Ahmed Yassin, Hamas's spiritual leader, lives. Hamas claimed responsibility for Wednesday's bus bombing. Mr Sharon has served notice that he will continue to strike at suspected Palestinian terrorists as and when he chooses, whatever the damage to the road-map. Israeli officials say Hamas leaders, including Sheikh Yassin, are not immune from retaliation. Nabil Amr, the moderate Palestinian cabinet spokes-man, blamed the government of Israel for starting the tit-for-tat violence after the Aqaba summit, attended by President George Bush, which endorsed the road-map. "As a Palestinian citizen and a Palestinian Authority member, I say today's attack is deliberate. It is a new war waged by Sharon. The consequences will be grave. Sharon is the one who started it," Mr Amr said yesterday. In Washington, it was announced that Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, will hold talks at the end of next week aimed at rescuing the floundering road-map plan. The descent into violence has been a bitter blow for President Bush, barely a week after he stood alongside Mr Sharon and Abu Mazen, the Palestinian Prime Minister, in the Jordanian resort of Aqaba. The two prime ministers had embraced the plan, providing for a comprehensive two-state settlement by the end of 2005. Mr Bush is now being criticised both at home and abroad as the plan sinks deeper into trouble. General Powell is planning new talks in Aqaba, probably on 22 June, with senior representatives of Russia, the UN and the EU, co-sponsors of the road-map with the US . But their room for manoeuvre, diplomats say, is very limited. Mr Bush is in a position familiar to many US presidents who have wrestled unsuccessfully with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - he is facing a choice between giving up on an initiative that seems doomed to fail, or committing himself even more intensely, with no guarantee of success. His predicament is compounded by complaints from Capitol Hill and the Israeli lobby there at what is seen as undue pressure on Israel, target of an unusually blunt presidential rebuke after its attempt to assassinate Mr Rantisi on Tuesday. That attack followed the killing of four Israeli soldiers in Gaza. In response to Israel's attack, Hamas launched the suicide bombing in Jerusalem, drawing yet more deadly reprisals from Israel. Mr Bush said he was "deeply troubled" by the strike against Mr Rantisi, which was said to be in breach of an understanding reached with Mr Sharon at the Aqaba summit. In doing so, however, the White House has stirred up trouble at home. In thinly veiled criticism of a president who has hitherto been a firm champion of Israel, the powerful pro-Israeli lobbying group, AIPAC, said the Jewish state had to fight terrorist groups, and "it should be American policy to support such actions". On Capitol Hill too, Democrats in particular have gone after Mr Bush, arguing that if the US had the right to go after terrorists, then Israel had a similar right to defend itself. Force was "100 per cent justified", Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, declared. The domestic pressure on Mr Bush, as he seeks to make inroads into the Jewish vote for the 2004 presidential elections, only emboldens Israel to defy him. Such is the frustration in Washington that some senior law makers are even advocating that Nato forces be sent in to keep the two sides apart. But, US officials say, that is unlikely to be acceptable to Israel

The best defense against the suicide bombers is to take away their rallying cry, which is the illegitimacy of Israeli occupation. By: Ahmad Faruqui On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive war against the combined militaries of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria. Within six days, the Israeli Defense Forces had scored a decisive military victory. The Arabs lost East Jerusalem, containing the third holiest shrine of Islam, in addition to losing the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai. In November 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242. This laid out two primary conditions for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. First, it called for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Second, it called for the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel did not withdraw from the occupied territories. The Six Day War led to the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and Israel ultimately made peace with Egypt and returned the Sinai. It also made peace with Jordan, but did not return East Jerusalem. To this day, Israeli occupation of this holy site continues to fuel strong resentment against Israel in the entire Muslim world. It remains a key impediment to the establishment of peace in the Middle East. An entire generation of Palestinians has grown up in the West Bank and Gaza under Israeli occupation. Seeing no hope for their future, some of them have resorted to carrying out suicide bombings since September 2000. The bombings have killed hundreds of Israelis and brought on Israeli retaliation, killing thousands of Palestinians. This cycle of violence shows no signs of letting up, even after President Bush's landmark visit to the region. In accepting the Roadmap put forth by the White House, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon conceded that Israel couldn't indefinitely continue to hold millions of Palestinians under occupation. Many regarded this as a breakthrough, since "occupation" was a word that had thus far only been used by Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace block. Sharon also acknowledged that the time had come for Israelis to accept the reality of Palestinian statehood. However, peace will only be achieved if he matches his words with deeds. So far there has been no evidence of his sincerity. Yesterday's pre-emptive attacks in Gaza by Israel against Dr. Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, the number two man in Hamas, will weaken the hands of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas who had promised to put an end to terrorism in the Aqaba Agreement. President Bush publicly rebuked Israel, "The attacks will make it more difficult for Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks. I also don't believe the attacks helped Israeli security." However, Israel offered no apology for its action, and seemed determined to carry out missile and other attacks against militant Palestinians, who it considers to be "ticking time bombs." The strategic myopia of this policy should be evident by now. Israel has learned that it cannot eliminate terrorism by killing the terrorists. For every one that is killed, another two are created. After the latest attack, the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, declared there would be a violent response. "The Israelis have sent a message," he said. "Now they have to wait for our reply. Our answer will be of the same caliber. The Israelis don't want peace. They only want to humiliate the Palestinians." The time calls for boldness and courage on the part of the Israeli leadership. The Arab states pose no credible military threat to Israel. The best defense against the suicide bombers is to take away their rallying cry, which is the illegitimacy of Israeli occupation. Israel should declare a unilateral cease-fire with the Palestinians, and stop carrying out attacks against the militants. Ultimately, it should withdraw from all remaining occupied territories and eliminate the illegal settlements from the West Bank, as it committed to doing during the Oslo Accords of 1993. It should also release the 9,000 Palestinians who are being held in Israeli jails and detention centers. So far, only 200 have been released. These actions will bring legitimacy to Israel in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Only then will it acquire the peace and security that has eluded it since its "decisive" military victory 36 years ago. Ahmad Faruqui, an economist, writes frequently on security issues in the Middle East and South Asia.

nice topic Mujahid! From a personal view point, i'm about to embark on what i have been working towards for the past 4 years. Work will begin in Sept and i am actually looking forward to it. I did a years placement with the same firm last year and enjoyed it so much that when they offered me a job to come back to i had no hesitation in accepting the offer. So is this really my dream job? Nah, my dream job would be (like all somalis) football or the NBA. I know i will be a cog in the wheel of society ie taxes, making money for the country but i am happy to accept that in order for me to become reliant on myself, make some money, save, pay off debts etc etc. This all forms part of my future and allhamdulillah i'm in a position to take full advantage. Holding down a good and reliable job to be able to provide for ones family is the ultimate aim to be acheived. Future plans also include taking my skills back home in 2-3 years!

i cannot remember a most talked about transfer in football history, this puts Figo's transfer to Real in the shade!

London----home from home!

Mujahid bro we appreciate very much yr consistant help, advice and general 'pointing in the right direction'. Keep up the good work bro!

Europe.....cant be bothered with a long haul journey,specially back home,even tho i am tempted. Be good nomads!!!!

nice one libaax!

wow, brilliant, thanks Qa Qa!!

very nice piece sagal, thanx 4. If you see wrong from your wife, try being silent and do not comment! This may be the most difficult to master, but who says mariage is easy?