Alpha Blondy;935785 wrote: thanks for clarifying. why do you think Swahili is the lingua franca of eastern African country? i was told its very similar to Esperanza. Good question -- it precedes colonialism, Swahili was the language of trade and commerce in east Africa, with the Swahili on the coast and embedded in the Indian Ocean trade networks and trade going as far interior as Congo. Swahili also became important to anticolonial nationalist movements, like Nyerere's TANU.

Alpha Blondy;935777 wrote: when they're scantily dressed. our women have more value that, inaar.....! Right, because women are commodities and a reflection of your honour as a Somali man.

Alpha Blondy;935774 wrote: the enemy of friend is my enemy miiyaa sheekadadu, inaar? I dislike capitalism and neoliberalism and the way it chooses capital at the expense of humanity. The above associations indicate that clearly.

Alpha Blondy;935767 wrote: interesting....does this saaxil mean the same as sahal (e.g sahal region being hot and desert-like). It means coastal (as does Sahel, the "coast" of the Sahara desert). The Swahili coast and civilization stretches from southern Somalia to Mozambique.

Not only apartheid, Pinochet, Botha, Savimbi, Pol Pot, Tudjman, Mobutu, and the list goes on. For Thatcher, any enemy of socialism was a friend. Good riddance.

Alpha Blondy;935742 wrote: ask yourself before foolishly pledging support for this nonsense..........if his gross misrepresentation, sexist and pornographic portrayal of our women, who are indeed the laf-dhabarka of our society, is worthy of your support? also....... do you want your kids and other people's kids reading this highly perverse and disturbing graphic literature? i'll wait for your response. thanks. lol since when are you concerned with sexism facing Somali women, Alpha?

Successful indiegogo campaigns usually have a video pitch, so he should consider doing that as well. I'm sure people would be more inclined to donate if they could see the illustrator talking about this project and his previous work.

Lovely. It's a shame our traditional instruments are being replaced by crappy synthesizer music and autotune.

I saw the documentary Searching for Sugarman last night (best documentary at this year's Oscars), and I thought it was fantastic. Great story, and introduced me to a great musician.

Chimera;935585 wrote: Funny! Loved 21 Jump Street, and I rarely enjoy comedies -- it just happened to be one of the movies available on a long flight so I gave it a shot. I'm sure the person next to me hated me because I was dying lol

Wadani;935581 wrote: But since no one gives any information about themselves when appying for membership status how do SOL mods/admins conduct a fair selection process? It's probably something arbitrary like the sound of someones email address. I was rejected when I used my university email address, but not when I used gmail lol

AfricaOwn;935318 wrote: Perhaps before they got gunned down they had a record? They had misdemeanors or other charges? hence them being "known to police" lmao I see reposting for the functionally illiterate and cognitively challenged to have another chance to read and process the information didn't work.

AfricaOwn;935316 wrote: 3. The Police is using The term "known to police" as a description because they were individuals with criminal activity in the past according to the police, are you denying this? And how do people become "known to police" and thus described as such by the police if they end up dead? Let's try this one more time, for the functionally illiterate and cognitively challenged among us: "Every year, Toronto Police stop, question and document hundreds of thousands of people in encounters that typically don't involve an arrest or any charges. They stop people on foot, on bicycles, and in vehicles for reasons such as general investigation, related to a radio call, loitering, suspicious activity, or as the result of a traffic stop. They ask for your name, date of birth, phone number, address, height, and weight. If you're with some other people, they do the same for them and note that all of you were documented together. You're henceforth known as "associates." They also make a note of physical descriptions, including skin colour. There are four choices, white, black, brown and other. All of this is documented on a small white card called a Field Information Report, or a "contact card." Most of the people documented are law abiding citizens. Fewer than 1 in 5 of the more than 700,000 people who were carded between 2008 and 2011 had been arrested in the past decade. So what happens to all this data? The information is entered into a massive police database that has no purging requirements. It is searched by police following crimes for possible suspects, witnesses and associates. Police call it a valuable tool, and officers are encouraged to document citizens." ( Toronto Star )

AfricaOwn;935312 wrote: ^^^ Sorry, no one is going to entertain your blah blah blah nonsense, stay on topic. ... except I've made perfect sense and articulated myself clearly and cogently in this thread, while you've not only continued to deny the evidence refuting the points you've tried to make here (if you want to even call them points), you've made yourself look like a moron in the process. The fact of the matter is that being "known to police" is a description for anyone who has been *documented* by police in primarily non-criminal encounters, and those who are documented by and therefore "known to police" are overwhelmingly black males.

Just give up and leave the thread before you embarrass yourself further.

AfricaOwn;935305 wrote: Ummm, I don't know how I am wrong....Goodnight Helped you out and transcribed part of the Toronto Star video explaining the process of how people come to be "known to police": "Every year, Toronto Police stop, question and document hundreds of thousands of people in encounters that typically don't involve an arrest or any charges. They stop people on foot, on bicycles, and in vehicles for reasons such as general investigation, related to a radio call, loitering, suspicious activity, or as the result of a traffic stop. They ask for your name, date of birth, phone number, address, height, and weight. If you're with some other people, they do the same for them and note that all of you were documented together. You're henceforth known as "associates." They also make a note of physical descriptions, including skin colour. There are four choices, white, black, brown and other. All of this is documented on a small white card called a Field Information Report, or a "contact card." Most of the people documented are law abiding citizens. Fewer than 1 in 5 of the more than 700,000 people who were carded between 2008 and 2011 had been arrested in the past decade. So what happens to all this data? The information is entered into a massive police database that has no purging requirements. It is searched by police following crimes for possible suspects, witnesses and associates. Police call it a valuable tool, and officers are encouraged to document citizens." (Toronto Star) And here's an interactive map that shows how young black men are 3.2 times more likely to be documented by Toronto Police than whites: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/knowntopolice/2012/03/07/interactive_map_black_and_white_differences.html Bye!

AfricaOwn;935301 wrote: How did I incorrectly define the term "known to police" ? Are you disagreeing the fact that I said its a person involved in criminal activity? Did you even read the Toronto Star report I posted twice now? I'm not "disagreeing" with you - a disagreement implies a difference of opinion - I am telling you that you're wrong and I provided the evidence for it. AfricaOwn;935301 wrote: And my question still remains, are the Somali victims who are labelled "known to police" (stay within the context of this thread) that I posted earlier wrongfully booked by the police? How else am I supposed to put it? I just walked you through your own logic to point out why that question is ridiculous and irrelevant in the context of your own posts and the discussion at hand.

AfricaOwn;935294 wrote: So all the "known to police" Somali victims (stay within the context of this thread) that I posted earlier were wrongfully booked by the police? If you'd like to stay within the context of this thread, then don't derail it with your logical fallacies. Let's revisit some of your posts in this thread: First, in a knee-jerk response to Chimera's suggestion of innocents being killed, you ask what it means that most victims were "known to police," to hint that Somali youth who are killed are engaged in criminal activities: AfricaOwn;935272 wrote: Here you incorrectly define "known to police" as a person involved in criminal activity: AfricaOwn;935280 wrote: visit your local police station to help you define the term "Known to police", they'll tell you it means that the person was involved with criminal activity in the past. After realizing you made that up and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, now you try to argue that someone "known to police" can still be a criminal despite the evidence that most people who are known to police are documented in non-criminal encounters, and when that is pointed out to you AGAIN, the strawman above appears. Where did I say "all 'known to police' Somali victims were wrongfully booked," and when was this EVER the discussion? My point here is 1) to call into question your use of "known to police" as evidence of the criminality of Somali victims; and 2) to point out that your definition of "known to police" - which you define as a person involved in criminal activity - is absolutely and unequivocally false. Some people who are "known to police" are criminals, yes, just like some people who are not "known to police" are too. So once again, thanks for playing.

AfricaOwn;935290 wrote: But..."Known to police" could also be a person involved with criminal activity in the past right? Of course it can, but the statistics show that the vast majority are not. You're still wrong. Thanks for playing.

Showqi;935286 wrote: AfricaOwn is absolutely right. If the individual has a criminal record that means he or she was already known by the Police becauce that person was charge or convicted for a crime. Once again -- "known to police" says NOTHING about criminality and is overwhelmingly the result of documenting minority youth in non-criminal encounters: Safferz;935283 wrote: Umm wrong, just as I suspected, which is why I asked you what *you* think it means. "Known to police" means you've been stopped by the police and asked for your identifying information, which is then documented and entered into the system. This is something that happens disproportionately to young black men, both in low-income, overpoliced, majority black neighbourhoods and when (perhaps even more so) they're seen by police officers in white neighbourhoods. White children in the suburbs, even when asked a question by a cop, are rarely *documented* for it. Here are a few excerpts from a Toronto Star investigation, "Known to police: Toronto police stop and document black and brown people far more than whites" : "A Star analysis of Toronto police stop data from 2008 to mid-2011 shows that the number of young black and brown males aged 15 to 24 documented in each of the city’s 72 patrol zones is greater than the actual number of young men of colour living in those areas. Young white males and those designated as “other” do attract police attention, but nothing as pronounced as black and brown youth." "On a patrol-zone level — there are 72 in Toronto — the Star looked at the ratio of individual young males, aged 15 to 24, who were documented to the actual population of young males in that age group. Obviously, not everybody who is documented in a patrol zone lives there. Police say nearly all of the people documented in the zone that includes the Entertainment District — a place where people from all over to work and play — do not live there. The ratios of young men documented in that area, known as zone 523, to the numbers who live there are huge, since relatively few people live in that zone to begin with. For young black males, for example, the ratio of individuals documented to the population there is 252:1. For brown young males, it is 65:1. For young white males, 23:1." "While blacks make up 8.3 per cent of Toronto’s population, they accounted for 25 per cent of the cards filled out between 2008 and mid-2011. In each of the city’s 72 patrol zones, blacks are more likely than whites to be stopped and carded. The likelihood increases in areas that are predominantly white."

AfricaOwn;935280 wrote: visit your local police station to help you define the term "Known to police", they'll tell you it means that the person was involved with criminal activity in the past. Umm wrong, just as I suspected, which is why I asked you what *you* think it means. "Known to police" means you've been stopped by the police and asked for your identifying information, which is then documented and entered into the system. This is something that happens disproportionately to young black men, both in low-income, overpoliced, majority black neighbourhoods and when (perhaps even more so) they're seen by police officers in white neighbourhoods. White children in the suburbs, even when asked a question by a cop, are rarely *documented* for it. Here are a few excerpts from a Toronto Star investigation, "Known to police: Toronto police stop and document black and brown people far more than whites": "A Star analysis of Toronto police stop data from 2008 to mid-2011 shows that the number of young black and brown males aged 15 to 24 documented in each of the city’s 72 patrol zones is greater than the actual number of young men of colour living in those areas. Young white males and those designated as “other” do attract police attention, but nothing as pronounced as black and brown youth." "On a patrol-zone level — there are 72 in Toronto — the Star looked at the ratio of individual young males, aged 15 to 24, who were documented to the actual population of young males in that age group. Obviously, not everybody who is documented in a patrol zone lives there. Police say nearly all of the people documented in the zone that includes the Entertainment District — a place where people from all over to work and play — do not live there. The ratios of young men documented in that area, known as zone 523, to the numbers who live there are huge, since relatively few people live in that zone to begin with. For young black males, for example, the ratio of individuals documented to the population there is 252:1. For brown young males, it is 65:1. For young white males, 23:1." "While blacks make up 8.3 per cent of Toronto’s population, they accounted for 25 per cent of the cards filled out between 2008 and mid-2011. In each of the city’s 72 patrol zones, blacks are more likely than whites to be stopped and carded. The likelihood increases in areas that are predominantly white."

AfricaOwn;935272 wrote: The stats say most of the victims are "known to police" , now what does that mean to you? And what do you think it means? Because you'd be surprised at how little qualifies as "known to police."

Cara.;935257 wrote: Here's my advice: join a gang. In every single case of a young Somali man killed during a violent altercation, the community swears up and down that it was a case of mistaken identity, "wrong place wrong time", or that the young man was an upstanding, promising member of the community with absolutely no ties to local hoodlums. One can only conclude that bona fide gangsters must therefore be completely immune to being killed in these troubling times, and that the safest place for our young men is in a gang. So we're victim-blaming now?

Who is Adams?

Chimera;935195 wrote: Ps; do you have long and thick curly hair with a pretty face? Not hitting on you, serious question. Haha, why do you ask? I impulsively cut my hair short about a year and a half ago, but just hitting shoulder length again now