They're significant enough to take over the city, saaxib. There is really nothing wrong with my ayeeyo's argument there. (Ayeeyo en an mar mar wax ka celiyo ma argtay; hadaba hadawoto ha odhan NGONGE waa carab caseer oo dadkiisa wax o ma taro. Spread the word)

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm seriously loving my guru's work on this thread. (No sycophancy or sarcasm intended).

For those that have followed the Martin Amis and Professor Eagleton fallout. Even if you have not, the article itself is a good read. ------------------------------------------------- All wars begin with words By By Soumaya Ghannoushi 10/19/2007 On Channel 4 News last night, Martin Amis stuck to the same strategy he has adopted since the eruption of the row a week ago over his statements on Muslims. The comments in question, he repeated, were not made in writing - as literary critic Terry Eagleton had suggested - but “conversationally” in a press interview. He has since written more than 25,000 words all of which, he maintained, he stands by. But this is as bad an excuse as he could have concocted. For the implication is that what may be unacceptable when scribbled on paper becomes perfectly acceptable and entirely excusable when uttered verbally. If anything, however, spontaneous dialogue is more capable of revealing one’s inner thoughts and more expressive of one’s real positions than written texts. Its directness leaves less room for language games, for the ability to manipulate words, hide behind rhetorical devices, and disguise meanings. Amis’s deep-held views are much more likely to be found in the unguarded slips of his tongue than in the carefully rehearsed twists of his pen. The trouble for Amis is that he is being confronted with his own words; words so explicit and flagrantly clear that their meaning is graspable even by the young and the unlettered. And you do not really need Terry Eagleton’s powers of interpretation and literary criticism to see that they ooze hatred and bigotry. So shockingly racist and Islamophobic are they that even their author has not been able to stand by them, instead seeking refuge in complaints about his mood, psychological state and the context within which the statements were uttered. But are we to subject every statement of his to psychological analysis and ask if it was made in a state of calm or agitation, happiness or depression? And how can we be sure that his corrections were not made in a similar state of distress and tension? Are we dealing with a responsible adult, or with a minor who cannot be taken seriously? Aware of the indefensibility of his exposed positions, Amis has sought to depict the matter as a tiff in a literary saloon or a departmental row with a “self-righteous” fellow academic. Much is made of Terry Eagleton’s Marxism here, as though this were a dispute over some ideological doctrine, or philosophical tenet. Reading the many paragraphs Amis devotes to attacking his opponent’s character gives the impression that had they been quoted by one other than the “marooned” Eagleton, the passages at the centre of the controversy would have raised no eyebrows and have been deemed perfectly respectable. Amis’s attempt to distance himself from his utterances might have stood a better chance of being taken seriously if these had been substantially different from what he had opined on the subject of Islam and Muslims before and after the infamous interview. Although it is “Islamic radicalism” he claims to loathe and condemn, he almost always slips into reviling Muslims, their faith and their culture. He continuously vacillates between “Islam” and “extremism”, “al-Qaida” and “Muslims”, eventually blurring any distinctions between the terms. A few seconds before he began his alleged “thought experiment” on how Muslims ought to be handled, he says: “ ... the only thing the Islamists like about modernity is modern weapons ... They’re also gaining on us demographically at a huge rate. A quarter of humanity now and by 2025 they’ll be a third. Italy’s down to 1.1 child per woman. We’re just going to be outnumbered ... “ Although the diatribe starts against “Islamists”, soon the mask drops, and Amis turns his fire on Muslims. Implicitly or explicitly the terms co-refer in usage, and context. “Radical”, “extremist”, “Islamist”, “savage”, and all that is dark and frightening becomes a euphemism for “Islam” and “Muslim”. What else would we expect of Amis when he draws his references from Paul Berman and VS Naipaul? Sam Harris, whom he frequently quotes in his Age of Horrorism, says: “It is time we recognised - and obliged the Muslim world to recognise - that ‘Muslim extremism’ is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty ... The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no centre.” Beneath the verbiage, Amis’s views are no different from those of his neoconservative mentors. What they say openly, he seeks to disguise behind the thin veil of “isms”. His writings, like theirs, drip with cultural essentialism, a conviction in the West’s superiority over other cultures, and zealous belief in the white man’s burden. The spirit that permeates them is one of sharp dualism of “us and them”, “West” and “east”, “modernity” and “Islam”. All the pages carry are rows of war trenches locked in endless confrontation, estranged worlds where the only meeting point is the battle field. Even as he seeks to turn cultures and nations into barbed wire blocks, Amis still bids us see him as a prophet of dialogue. He wants to build bridges with Muslims, he tells us. Well, as the brown-skinned Middle Eastern Arabs he wants strip-searched and deported say: “War begins with words,” and Amis’s words have nothing to do with peace and everything to do with war. He demolishes bridges then pontificates about building them, beats the drums of war in the morning then sings peace hymns when night falls. In his response to Eagleton, he writes that he wishes to engage with “moderate Muslims”. I am at a loss as to where he would find these moderates when he advocates the deportation of Muslims en masse, of “those who look like they’re from the Middle East, or from Pakistan”. Unless these moderates are meant to be blond and blue eyed - features in short supply among the mostly dark-skinned Muslims. Al-Qaida has many who subscribe to its logic in the West and Martin Amis is one of them. Amis says that: “The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.” Bin Laden said that American and British taxpayers will have to pay the price until Bush and Blair change their policies in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Both believe in collective punishment, in holding the innocent accountable for the sins of the guilty. When asked by Jon Snow whether he stood by his comments on the hounding of the entire Muslim community, he replied that the policy would be “counterproductive”. Not morally reprehensible, or grossly unfair, just counterproductive ... What a terrible inferno our world would be if we left it to these missionaries of clashes of civilisations and collective punishment, a monstrous pit of prejudice, hatred, discrimination, and ever-raging wars in the name of a God of war or a God of freedom Source

^^ The NYT has to explain things in such a way seeing the kind of reputation Saudi Arabia has in the West. As for the king, he's been attempting to perform a very difficult juggling act for the past few years. Many thinkers and academics (some even religious) have been calling for more openness, freedom and fairness in the kingdom and their cries are getting louder and louder as the days go by. On the other hand, the conservatives insist on preserving the current system and way of life. It looks like the king is veering towards the first group rather than the latter. He's probably surrounding himself with all those American educated nephews, brothers and cousins of his. Ps Who's the big boss of Aramco (I don't mean Chief Executive)? Has to be one of the big whales of the kingdom. Blame him (or praise him)..

Originally posted by -Lily-: quote:Originally posted by NGONGE: Why are you all pretending you don’t find snakes worrying? Ngonge, they are worrying to me, but unlike you I'll have a hunky Farax whose job description includes to contain snakes with his bare hands How sexist ps I am not scared of snakes, I'm just worried by them.

Originally posted by Zenobia: Ngonge, Inanka maad cayda ka daysid? He looks nothing like you, you ugly mug. quote: Originally posted by Ghanima: Can you imagine if some silly S/L women married Tuujeey or Khalaf or Ducanysan, or “Me” upon meeting her father/ mother he said, well my hero Barre…. :rolleyes: LOL! Bare hero worshiping aside, kaasi waaba mid doqon ah, he'd need to be breifed on the art of wooing aabos intaanu odayga hor fadhiisan. Bal maxaa siyaasad u gaynaya? CVfiisga waa inuu xafido, oo marba in sheekada soo dhex galiyo. I could just imagine that Bajaq (Tuujiye) sitting in front of a frowning ******* man, after ten minutes of not knowing what the hell the Bajaq is saying, he'd call his daughter and berate her for bringing home a Surinaami, Somaali iska dhigaya. Waraa, Tuujiye... I don't know what Bajaq means but it sounds very nasty as it rolls of my ******* tongue, so I'm gonna join my girl KK and oo raaxadaan kaaga qaadayaa, Bajaqyahow! Sheekadii syaadna waa ka gudbay! Do you think I should set them up then? (G and my brother above I mean) As for the word Bajaq, whenever I hear it I always picture someone accidently sticking their feet in a bucket full of water!

I just realised those tickets cost a fiver each! Stingy Ghanima

^^ Four, she's taking my young brother with her.

^^^^^

^^ If she was not slightly out of my required age range I would have snapped this one up just for her wit. Lucky rudy.

Ghanima, I have a feeling I may share the same clan as your mother. Or maybe you father! I'm sure it's your ayaay's one. Anyway, did I ever tell you that I have a single younger brother who looks exactly like me but a bit better..what say you?

^^^ Are your father, mother and grandmother all of the same tribe and sub-sub-sub clan? How many fingers do you have?

^^ As if No qabiil-driven Somali father can stand in the way of a woman in love. Ghanima, why imagine other women when you're here and single. Other than his politics, do you see a future for you and Tuujeey?

Originally posted by ThePoint: quote:Originally posted by NGONGE: Your explanation for adding Europe to the argument still makes no sense. I am a Somali talking about my country. It is a fact that the people of my country are divided into clans. It is a fact that there is an animosity between these clans. It is a fact that the whole war is/was as a result of these clannish differences. So what are you telling me here? That clans exist in other parts of the world? And? What’s has that got to do with Somalia burning itself as a result of clannish fervour? Pardon my interruption. I think the point Bilaal is making here is that we, the Somali public at large, are not (quite) the savages you paint us to be. Clan and clan differences are not the determinative factor in the Somali conflict. It is but a tool. One's clan and clan connections became the only means to gain resources, position, respect and favour starting soon after independance and accelerating in the Barre administration. And not surprisingly this sharply increased clan passions and the more so when aided by a few wily self-serving demagogues. This doesn't excuse the Somali public from succumbing to this manipulation but it doesn't quite rise to the level of sweeping condemnation. In the future, a decoupling of political power from a blanket ability to bestow resources should help to temper the clan passions unleashed . Adna ma xanuunkay ku qaadseeyeen? The future is the future. Things may get better or worse. If we have no signs, signals or clear clues to what may come to pass in the future we, once again, find ourselves wading into that old familiar sphere of dreams and wishes. Is it: guilty and innocent? But not too guilty of course, rather, more innocent than guilty! However, we do concede the guilt. Just don’t rub it in our faces and hurt our pride. It’s like a couple arrested for committing Zina. The man admits that he slept with the woman but tries to argue that her beauty, the short skirts she wore and her ample cleavage are really what made him do it. The woman argues that he promised to marry her and seduced her with sweet words and future promises (just like the demagogues you mention above)! One feels sorry for both for allowing their basic instincts to lead them to such an act but no judge (particularly an ICU one) will dare argue that they’re not guilty. As things stand and as the wretched 4.5 formula makes plain; today, the conflict in Somalia is a clannish one. Fatah-Al-Somaal, I am afraid the point misled you as to the answer to the question (or maybe you diverted him with your assumptions). Still, the answer I was alluding to and thought was clear in that long post of mine is that Somalis, regardless of sides, persuasions or goals should at least try be truthful with themselves and stop this deceit. Your long rant there is full of such duplicity. You end it by telling the one truthful thing that caused you to twist and turn that much. Basically, and with no need for any rational explanations or sound arguments, you DON’T WANT Ethiopians in your land! Could you not have left it at that? Did you really have to spin history that much and announce that the Ethiopians first toppled the former Somali government and then invaded Somalia! Your historical narrative does not take into account the changing of Ethiopian dictators just as Somalia started to crumble! Still, in your straight-line view, the policies of two hostile dictators are the same (and probably even coordinated) when it comes to Somalia! Why employ half-truths to justify a perfectly acceptable position?

Abu Trika all the way.

^^^ Sometimes I really despair. That was not the answer I was alluding to. Pupils, could anyone else help this brother out please? BiLaaL, I must have rubbed you the wrong way. Never mind. However, since both ThePoint and Khalaf are repeating my initial questions and you've promised to reply to them I shall now take a step back and give you space to express yourself to more sympathetic listeners. Castro, It is not the meddling that I regard as an unproven theory. I’d be mad to do so. It’s the widely peddled theories as to the reasons for this involvement and how they’re presented as truth that I question. I can argue against your position on this without regarding it as a false position to have. But what all my senses compel me to refuse is that these opinions are also truths! It's the presenting of such opinions as facts that I consider to be a duplicity.

^^Saaxib. Forgive me if I have a low tolerance for drivel but these arguments of yours do not present real value. It’s all wishes and dreams. Even when you risk it and dip your foot into the argument a little you still come up with nonsense about European tribes and what not! Your explanation for adding Europe to the argument still makes no sense. I am a Somali talking about my country. It is a fact that the people of my country are divided into clans. It is a fact that there is an animosity between these clans. It is a fact that the whole war is/was as a result of these clannish differences. So what are you telling me here? That clans exist in other parts of the world? And? What’s has that got to do with Somalia burning itself as a result of clannish fervour? It is very cheeky to accuse me of having an inferiority complex when it wasn’t I that brought the Europeans, Edward Said or the Colonialists into the argument, saaxib. Physician heal thyself and read my CLEAR words instead of going back into your (by now) evident trance and making unfounded assumptions. As for the rules of debate, they only apply when one is dealing with genuine arguments and explainable positions. When it is wishes and dreams one is forced to call them as they see them. Don’t get offended, get better. Fatah-Al-Somal, If I were talking to anyone else I would be embarrassed about having to state the obvious. But seeing that we are here and I am talking to a bunch of impractical dreamers, I suppose I have no choice but to embark on a long lecture. For a start, they should be truthful with themselves and clear on what they want. I would suggest that they should think outside of the box but I’m afraid that Castro already tarnished that phrase with his recent rants. Look around you, my friend! Do you see many that are even attempting to be objective and fair in their viewpoints? Have you seen many that reached their own thoughtful positions with any rational reflection? I don’t at all doubt that all of them want a peaceful, proud and independent Somalia (well, save for a few of my brothers from Somaliland that may mistakenly believe that a turbulent Somalia is to their advantage). But every last one of you want a Somalia tailored to his/her own taste. You all want to protect what is precious to YOU. That could be the clan for some, the Courts for others, the old seventies Mogadishu for the dreamers or Somaliland for those in the northwest! One or two reading this are probably asking themselves what is wrong with that anyway? I say there is nothing wrong with it at all. It is healthy to have differing opinions and adopt separate positions. It helps those on the other side, if they’re being truthful, review their own positions and maybe even adjust them. But we’re not truthful, are we? We’re partisan, biased and intellectually dishonest. Again, I forgot my audience and gave you the headlines instead of screaming out the details. It’s tiresome but I have to keep reminding myself that one has to be specific with this crowd and not expect them to understand the obvious without having a big arrow pointing at it! Never fear though, I’m a dull old fart and as such, it will be my pleasure to go through all the examples available and point out the dishonesty of thought and phoney rage. Let us start with the Asmara group and all that support them. This, as I understand, is a group consisting of some so called nationalists and some remnants of the Islamic Courts! The nationalists have at their lead the former speaker of the TFG parliament! A man that spent his time changing his mind over and over and over again. At one point, he was everyone’s friend and others he was everyone’s enemy. Consistency was never his strong point, yet, many hail him as a nationalist icon! They have Mr Aideed as a big and very visible member of that alliance! Now, despite what I think of my readers, I really don’t think I have to talk in any great detail about either of these men (the latter more so than the former). Their brand of stumbling politics is clear for all to see. On the other side of this Alliance we have those scrupulous Courts men. They that were so principled that they refused to deal with the TFG because they (correctly) accused that entity of cavorting with the Ethiopians. In fact, they were so against dealing with that group that they were willing to fight and lose whatever gains they made in Somalia just so that they worthily could stick by their own principled position! However, where is the honour and where is the principle now? Why is it that when the chips were down they saw no problem with getting in bed with undesirables such as Aideed? Would it not have been worth them while to just bite their tongues and join the TFG instead of sitting in Asmara Hotels and talking about a dreamy liberation? If I’m being generous I would say that they mean well but have no idea what they’re doing (just like many in here) but, regardless of reasons, they still resemble a bunch of know-nothing clowns. Would their supporters admit any of this though? Could they adequately reconcile the glaring contradictions? Not in a million years. Oh, of course, they’ll pay lip service to wrongness of having undesirables such as Indhacade or Aideed but, on the whole, they’ll see nothing wrong with the whole muddy picture. But, that itself is not a problem. The problem is in admitting that they’re not using logic, rational or any kind of wisdom bur rather sentiment, instinct or gut feeling. Point me to one person that admits to supporting the Asmara group because they FEEL it’s the right thing to do but can’t explain why. Actually, don’t bother, you wont find one that honest. Now, lets move to the TFG and its fans! Who are they and how many of those support the TFG for any rational, acceptable or logical reasons? I daresay NONE. They all claim to support it for various spurious reasons that when examined prove to be nothing but a delusion. Of course, some are better than others at this deception. But why do they need such deception and half-truths when they have plenty of rational reasons as to why they should support the TFG? I mean, if for nothing else, they could simply argue that position is nine tenths of the law and that since the TFG are in power (however artificial or meagre) they deserve the support of all. It may not be a position that all would agree with but, in the circumstances, it is one that can’t be faulted. But, would they do that? Far from it. They would rather invent falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations just so they can justify their reasons (whatever they maybe) for choosing the TFG! Move down north to Puntland and watch the incessant wailing of that lot! They’re a self proclaimed region of Somalia! But has anyone stopped and asked what exactly is a self proclaimed region of Somalia? Are they in or are they out? If they’re in, why the self proclamation? Why be separate and yet belong? Still, that’s neither here nor there, the real test is when one looks at what they’ve done FOR Somalia in the past seventeen years. When all is said and done, it turns out that they did nothing at all. They did it all for Puntland really. Even when they sent soldiers to fight the cause of the TFG, a rational observer would still conclude that this was done to assist the former Puntland president rather than the TFG itself. I mean, it is not as if there were no previous transitional governments in Somalia in the past; did they receive any assistance from Puntland? Why now? You will kindly note that I have not commented on Kismayo and the debacle there. That’s self evident and the dishonesty there needs no further illumination. But, like the case of Puntland above, they too invent all sorts of reasons for their feeble positions instead of declaring the obvious and admitting that it is all done for self preservation; see how the Makhir boys finally let their own cat out of the bag; they had no handy flowery explanation to account for their recent defection from Puntland you see. But if Puntland presses them a little you’ll be sure to hear all sorts of Hollywood explanations talking about how they are different from the people of Puntland and how their fondness for fish sets them apart from the rest of Somalia, etc. Now my cousins in Somaliland have been slightly more clever than the rest and got their excuses in early (in 91 to be exact). They used those five days of independence from the Brits and before the Union with the southerners as a reason why they are different to the rest of Somalis! They used powerful arguments such as the one about the majority of the residents of the North West being in favour of separation from Somalia! Yet, if you scratch the surface and interrogate any average Somalilander you will unquestionably come across the usual lament of ‘inadeer meyanad ogeen reer kunfur waxay nago sameeyeen?’. But will they admit it? Not on your life. They’ll use a million and one arguments to explain the reason for the state, all of them as weak as a cup of tea with no tea in it. What’s puzzling is why don’t they admit that the whole creation of Somaliland was a knee-jerk reaction to oppression at the time but that after seventeen years of unofficial independence the reaction has evolved into actual nationhood? It is a fact after all that any child of ten when the Somaliland Republic was declared is now a man of twenty-seven and has spent almost all his life knowing no other country but Somaliland (recognised or not). That’s not an easy argument to counter yet you don’t see many Somalilanders presenting such arguments. They would rather play the typical Somali game of dishonesty and batting for their own side regardless of how transparent their argument is! A case in point (which also brings back all the sides I mentioned above) is this recent dispute in LA. Somaliland, for whatever political gains or advantage, decided to instruct its allies in that town to start a fight with the Puntland militia and eject them from the town. It did not only do that but it also sent its own militias (or army if this phrase sits better with you) to join in the fight and secure this border town (as it were). Now, before I go on, let me remind you that it’s not the actions of governments, entities or political groupings that I question here, it’s only the actions of the followers (the non-tribal, decent and hardworking Somalis as one Nomad calls them). Those that support Somaliland refuse to acknowledge the bungles of their government and, instead, either argue about back gardens, colonial borders or the new and juicy argument that many people in LA want them there! They deliberately choose to ignore the fact that many more DON’T want them there and that by ignoring the wishes of these people they’re as good as being the oppressors themselves. They claim that this city is part of the Somaliland nation but in what world do citizens of a nation turn a blind eye to the suffering of their (supposed) fellow citizens when this suffering is caused by their own hands? Of course it is all lies and political propaganda. The goal is to secure the borders by any means. That’s fine and to be expected from a politician but from none-tribal, decent and hardworking average Somalis? Could we call it dishonesty do you think? Oh but don’t you go smiling yet. Those opposing Somaliland in LA (and elsewhere) are not that much better. They themselves are as adept at the art of chicanery and hideous spin. Many of them brush aside the fact that it is their brethren that sold them down the drain and allowed Somaliland a foothold in their city. They, like those you find if you go all the way south (from LA to the ocean) all reject the whole idea of Somaliland and talk about a one united Somalia yet what carrots do you think they use to bring their (supposed) fellow citizens back into the fold? Somalidiid? Cult? SNM Gangs? One wonders, just like the case between Somaliland and LA, are these people really looking to entice their (supposed) fellow citizens or merely subjugate them? Que! Dishonesty you say? Now we reach the biggest duplicity of all. The Ethiopian Monster! Some in here probably did not have a wink of sleep since late December, because there are some Ethiopian soldiers in Somalia! You see them talking about fight, liberation and shame. But where does this xenophobia come from? Why in a country that has been burning for almost two decades do they get worked up about an Ethiopian adding his own fuel to the fire? What material difference is there between a Somali ruffian raping a Somali woman and an Ethiopian solider doing the same? The rape remains the same. The killing is the same. The humiliation is the same. It is the same old sewer and the addition of one smelly log makes no difference to the sewer itself. Oh! But this new log smells different, miya? As ever of course, that old coat hanger is available to explain away all misunderstandings. It’s an Ethiopian conspiracy you see! Melez has hoodwinked Somalis into fighting each other, falling out and destroying their own country. Having a divided Somalia benefits Ethiopia and progresses its interests in the Horn! It’s a given nowadays. These comments have been repeated so much that they’ve become facts! Yet, the obvious truth is that this is simply one of many unproven theories. Equally, there are theories that talk about how Ethiopia needs a united, independent and strong Somalia. But no self respecting Somali would entertain such a theory because the Waxa la yedhi bible does not approve. I chose not talk about the Shabaab in great detail because such empty minded bullies don’t deserve to be taken that seriously. This brings me back to your question. What should Somali people do? I hope by now you know what the answer is.

And on you waffle! Saaxib, It's not my habit to quote and point out. I don't enjoy it and also feel there is something juvenile about quoting one point at a time and saying 'this is what you wrote, this is why I responded in this and that way, etc'! But since you insist I shall indulge you just this once. To date, our discussion has been restricted to the TFG but I see that you’ve now brought the Asmara Alliance into the fold. The comparisons you draw about the Asmara Alliance and the TFG are quite valid, except for one crucial thing – the occupation. ..... .... Having said that, however, the overriding issue for me is the occupation. If my only aim was for the revival of the republic, then sure, your argument would be entirely valid. The prerequisite for a united Somalia, however, is for an end to the occupation (presuming the occupation means anything to you). One can’t precede the other. It’s a no-brainer. As things stand, the Alliance is best placed to end the occupation, hence my endorsement of it and rejection of the TFG. Does this mean that I don’t care for long term goals beyond ending the occupation, as you’ve asserted in your last post? No. This may come as a surprise to you but I have firm belief that the Alliance can go on and achieve many of the things that I’ve previously outlined. Before you jump the gun, let me ease your tension by inserting a qualifier here - do I believe that the Alliance in its current form is capable of achieving the desired long term goals? No. Do I believe that it will eventually get there, post-occupation? Yes. A further question arises; from where does my optimism emanate? It emanates from two things: firstly, the lessons of history; and secondly, the infant state of the Alliance and its potential in forming a coherent unit, as time advances. Humbug that does not tell me anything. When you say that the Alliance is best placed to end the occupation, what exactly do you mean by that? How is it going to end the occupation? Again, I've already mentioned that they don't have the financial, political or military ability to do so. So why are you so confident? You say that your optimism emanates from the lessons of history and the infant state of the alliance and its potential! Now do you really blame me for dismissing and rejecting this guff? You are talking about an uncertain future and how YOU FEEL it may turnout! It's utter nonsense and nothing but empty waffle to inflate your reply. Neither do you give evidence for these predictions of yours (the educated guess from my last reply) nor do you present any practical steps why you think the Alliance will succeed! Secondly, the Alliance is still in its infancy. I believe that the sobering effect of occupation will bring about a more coherent and united group, overtime, especially post-occupation. The Alliance has already undergone some stern tests. It has managed to contain the egos of the likes of Aidid – by denying him the foreign affairs post. Other reports indicate that the Alliance also compromised over the inserting of the word ‘jihad’ in the final communiqué after the nationalist bloc within the Alliance objected to it. Come liberation, nationalist feeling is sure to overpower and nullify tribalism. By then, I believe the Alliance would have united to a point where it will be possible for them to properly employ the political capital arising from their liberation struggle and use it to achieve the goals we’ve outlined. I could continue, but I think you get the gist of my argument. Aideed was not given a post and Waxa la yedhi the group compromised on semantics? This does not resemble a debate anymore; it's a collection of all your wishes! I hardly see any facts there (other than the Aideed job bit), I can not at all take any of it seriously. If you follow my replies, you’ll notice that I’ve refrained from introducing new arguments without first addressing the ones you’ve posed. You don’t seem to be doing the same. Why is that? For example, instead of putting forth arguments why you think the Alliance would/could not unite in their common struggle; you replied with something about no one being not able to predict the future! I never claimed that I could. What I did, though, was list examples where the Alliance has already comprised over and used those examples coupled with the uniting element that a liberation struggle inevitable entails to suggest that they will probably unite even further as their movement matures. This argument is far from astrology yet your answer is soaked with astrological fervour. See my reply above. On the point of me putting forward new arguments, I do hope that you have not forgot why we're having this debate. Remember? It was all about YOU not knowing what you really want. The more you write the more you prove that you don't. The argument that allegiances will shift between the TFG and the Alliance does not stand up to scrutiny. If the conflict between these two groups was over how best to organise a ceremony to swear in a new mayor, or whether to stamp tax on tomatoes or something; then yes, allegiances may have shifted. Saxib, we are not talking about whether to place tax on tomatoes though. We are talking about an occupation! In such scenarios, allegiances do not shift and if they do; they usually don’t shit from the side opposing the occupation. In this case, you don’t need to look back too far. Name one individual who has joined the Alliance and then defected back to the TFG. Just one will do. It's not about naming individuals, my friend. Don't go chasing red herrings there. It's about the calibre of people making up that Alliance. Again, I'll just mention Aideed! Will you try to argue now that he's seriously against the occupation rather than against those that lost him his TFG job? Is the man that presided over the actual occupation going to be the same man to end it? Adeer wax macqool ku hadal. Psssst: I predict that Aideed will switch sides again and again. But unlike you and your dreams for the Alliance, my prediction is based on the man's personality and past deeds. It is NOT what I want or wish, it's a guess made in accordance with the various variables available to me at this moment in time. As for your continuing swipe at your fellow Somalis; one can’t do much, except remind and offer brotherly advice. You seem to have forgotten that the dilemmas facing our country are largely on the political front. Economically, our people have been able to outdo their African counterparts not only on traditional forms of trade but even on the technology front. Somalia boasts better, more reliable internet and communications services than the ever-stable Kenya. This is despite Kenya having access to Western expertise. Surely this is far away from the ‘uselessness’ and ‘impotence’ that ascribe to them. Imagine the possibilities if only we had the same stability enjoyed by Kenya for the last seventeen years. We would have out-performed not only Kenya but the rest of Africa. By now, our economy would have been in the league of the best performing economies of Asia – the so-called Asian tigers. Our discussion was political, saaxib. Don't go clutching at straws and bring economic gains into it. Even if I agree to go down the economic argument route, I could happily (and easily) wax lyrical and dissect the thing bit by bit. But I will not for now. I still have many other quotes of yours to deal with (might as well leave something for my next post). The average Somali is an intelligent, non-tribal, freedom loving, just, decent and hardworking. The chaos of the last seventeen years was not of their own making. It’s too simplistic to say that it was. Regional and international groups coupled with local traitors combined to bring about the chaos of the last seventeen years. It is they who continue to flame instability. Yes, Somalis seem to have played their part by aligning themselves with their clans. I would not blame them for doing this. The average Somali was placed in an unbearable situation. People often follow the lead of those in power (then, warlords) . Instead of assessing these set of complicated factors, what you seek to do is lay blame on the victims. This approach of yours is much too simplistic. Oh! There you go again nauseatingly making things up as you go along! The average Somali you say is 'is an intelligent, non-tribal, freedom loving, just, decent and hardworking'! In a country that suffers from a clannish problem you claim that the average Somali is non-tribal? So where did the clan problem come from, the camels? I gave you the examples of Duke and Horn not because I dislike these Nomads but to show you that most random Somalis suffer from the clannish ailment (or at the least, if suffer might offend them; choose to toe the clan line). You admit that they have taken sides but you still argue that they had no choice! Does this then exonerate them from culpability? If they chose to take sides, which eventually led to the continued destruction of their country then they are not victims at all. They are guilty as charged and no amount of sentimental apologies or pleas of extenuating circumstances will change this fact. My approach is indeed simplistic. It is a simple matter after all. They helped in bringing their country down. The Europeans slaughtered one another over the centuries while vying for position, in what were essentially tribal wars. And mind you, they did it for a lot more than seventeen years. Are you willing to ascribe the same contemptible words to them? But the Europeans were…. – you’ll probably devise excuses for them won’t you? Or perhaps you won’t. Think about this one saxib. Now we're really flailing about! How do the Europeans fit into this argument of ours? Two men talking about their own country, remember. Note that I asked 'how'! This is because I have no idea what Europeans you were talking about and what wars (it might make sense if you were more specific). Of course, someone else might choose to jump in and tell you that the Europeans are not made up of one country or people but I suppose, to you, woxo ba waa wada cadaan! Ps – What about the reading list I suggested did you find funny? I’d love to know. Because it bears no relation to any discussion we're having here. Still, I'm sure it makes sense to you somehow. -------------------------------------- Ditch the dreams, presumptions and prejudices and you might start to begin to know what you really want, saaxib.

^^

^^ There is a look I want to make as a response to your post but the graemlins here are not good enough. It's not a smile, frown or rolling of the eyes. Aha! I found it:

^^ adigo af hindi ku hadla ban ku fahma, saaxib. Marka kulay af somaliga saxa aha wan eska fahmi laha Edit: Is the Liverpool game on Saturday or Sunday? I am not going if the game is on Sunday.

^^ I want to go to the one tomorrow but there is football on. What should I do? { }

^^ Never said it is not feasible, saaxib. Keep your macawis on Between me and you now (ignore all others), don't you have any doubts? Ok, if not doubts, don't you sometimes have any nightmares where the whole thing does not work? My infinite wisdom tells me that just in case things don't work out dadka wa en hada wax loo sheego oo la bisliyo! At least then it would not come as a shattering shock. Do you really have a problem with such an opinion?

^^ No idea what he said. I never listen to Somali BBC.

I blame Castro. He started all this naval gazing and now the forum is full of historical threads. :mad: