Walaal, you cant bring everything down to secularism. Look at theocratic, need we remind you of the behaviour of the people you have named u're self after [actually you probably think they were great don't you] .. wrt the congo, oil is not everything. Resources such as copper, cobalt, coltan and uranium are immensely valuable, rare and widely sought wrt the sudan, why do you say its 'minor' when millions are in refugee camps, what does it take to become major?

caano geel says: - if the discussion is on books, then people have the right to object to what their children are taught. Since they live in such liberal places to be inflicted which travesties, then they can always withdraw their children - if the discussion is on peoples sexuality, then allah created them, he (CG) didn't, so he'll leave their judgement to allah and wont stand in their way [dare we say, even advocate] their rights to lead peaceful and dignified lives. He also adds that having had the pleasure of meeting a diverse set of people from all corners of the planet and with a multitude of beliefs and characteristics (some of which he considered plain daft and others outright lunacy) sexual orientation still hasn't been a characteristic that has defined a persons moral character and goodness as a human being.. While he understands Islam considers homosexuality 'sinful', he reiterates that he is not their judge beyond their interactions with him or if their actions do not effect his (and those he cares about) quality of life and will not hesitate to stick to his position..

I got to run Talib, but a couple of points: 1. The congo is the most natural resource rich country in africa - everything from timber, uranium, copper, gold and diamonds ... are found, its why the Belgian King Leopard faught so hard for, its also why so many parties were fighting over it.. So, though resources have a huge influence i dont think their lack of was the determinant factor in teh congo. 2. A sizeable factor if Dafur in muslim so i don't think its a specifically muslim thing 3. The arab silence has always had more to do with regional power games than justice

Talib, The congo 'affair' has been the most diabolical travesty against humanity in recent times, but it has come to an end and if not fully has waned down significantly, to such an extend that elections have been held and Joseph Kabila is now in power. This at least means that there isnt the free for all. The days were troops from Zimbabwe, Sudan, Uganda, Angola, Rwanda, Burundi Namibia, Chad were slaughtering each other but mainly the local people are long gone. And its a disgrace on the conciousness of all that the situation was allowed to get were it got to. Now the Darfur is very different, its happening now and the issue is that we should do something now rather than dismay over the tragedy when the otherwise inevitable has happened and we are comparing it to the congo

You mean surwaalgaab or reer seeflabood is Afghan business as Nurrudin Farah claimed? certainly hope so

as i said, maryooley

ummhuh

Roobleh "People are dying everyday in your country for no reason." ^ your or our country?

so should they kill them in the mean time...

sxb, in the words of McEnroe "you cannot be serious" granted his régime has been subject to economic isolation but in some ways it has been limited, he has still traded with non EU-US countries, though this isn't as profitable, his main down turn was his economic mismanagement, nepotism and despotic behaviour. It was his land reform that killed the country economically, he threw out the industrial farmers and gave the land to subsistence farmers that could not run them. Land reform was desperately needed but it was done politically - only his supporters received plots, hundreds of thousands of farm labourers lost their lots and job. He arrested anyone that made mention for reform that didnt favour his and his parties stay in power, and looted what ever was productive - incidentally the largest landowner in ZW in Nicholas Van Hoogstraten a british gangster umm so much for africanism This man is a mad man and a despot, no other type of man would turn his brethren into beggars, because that is what Zimbabweans have become in SA, were as once it was the south africans that used to go to Zimbabwe for work. We africans always complain of foreign involvement, but this is a clear cut case of a nepotist and a despot running his people to ruin

^ no the west is trying to bring him down, but do you blame them .. Mugabi's credibility or any claims he had to Africanism died with his policies long ago Look at his track record over the last 10 years, we have a nation that used to be known as "Africa's Breadbasket" to hyper inflation, forced mass migration and mass poverty .. if for nothing else he should of moved on long ago since his presence and actions have done nothing but slowly suffocate Zimbabwe

The UN and Darfur Watching, but still waiting Mar 16th 2007 | NEW YORK From Economist.com Darfur continues to bleed while outsiders, including a UN human rights body, look on AT A summit in 2005, all the member countries of the United Nations agreed on a principle of a “responsibility to protect” civilians from atrocities. The fine idea suggested that if a state would not protect its own, outsiders must step in, with force if necessary. That same UN summit created a new Human Rights Council which would replace a discredited predecessor, and name and shame abusers of human rights. In May 2006, Sudanese leaders signed a peace deal with some rebels in Darfur, to halt the violence, and later in the year the UN agreed with Sudan to send peacekeepers to monitor the deal. These facts could give the impression that the world in general, or the UN in particular, has grown serious about putting an end to murder and repression in Darfur, in western Sudan. Yet almost nothing has changed there, except for the worse. International aid agencies reckon that the humanitarian situation has deteriorated markedly since last year’s partial peace deal. (Only one big Darfuri faction has signed on, and may now be helping the Sudanese government carry out its crimes.) The Sudanese government continues to refuse the actual deployment of the UN force. Rape and murder remain commonplace, along with the slow starvation of many more victims. This week, the newish Human Rights Council finally received a strongly worded report on Darfur, documenting abuses recounted by refugees (the mission was denied entry to Sudan). Yet the council’s 47-country members are expected to reject the report, largely with the help of votes of the Arab and Muslim states. This will leave the council—after its fourth full session, in a year of operation—having condemned the human-rights record of just one state: Israel. Ban Ki-moon, the UN’s secretary-general, has suggested that “the world is watching” to see if it will live up to its commitments. If there is no resolution on Darfur by the close of session on March 30th, it would be right to conclude that the new body is an utter sham. A vastly more important bit of the UN, the Security Council, could do more than just condemn Sudan; it has the power to authorise sanctions, even, ultimately, the use of military force. Alas, China continues to resist any resolution that would apply real pressure, so the August 2006 resolution, authorising a mixed UN/African Union (AU) force for Darfur, is blithely ignored in Khartoum. China is not only prickly about sovereignty, it also imports a lot of oil from Sudan. Mr Ban described “growing frustration” among Security Council members, but frustration plus a Chinese veto equals no action. Darfur-watchers are calling on states to act in smaller groupings if the UN cannot. The International Crisis Group (ICG), an NGO, has said that the United States, AU, European Union and other should take measures to squeeze the murderous janjaweed militias and their guardians and enablers in Khartoum. These would include an asset freeze and travel ban on leaders of Sudan’s ruling party, the National Congress Party, and sanctions on Sudan’s oil exports. Khartoum has become something of a boom-town of late, thanks to high oil prices. In other words, such a squeeze might actually cause pain. But would it save lives? It is not clear that the truculent regime of Omar al-Bashir will be persuaded easily by targeted sanctions from rich countries of Europe and America, which they would surely dismiss as imperialist meddling. As for the neighbourhood, African countries remain divided between a desire to take responsibility to stop bloodshed and the desire to protect sovereign rulers from outside pressure. Article background source

Zimbabwe The face of oppression Mar 15th 2007 | JOHANNESBURG From The Economist print edition Another ugly political crackdown. But also signs of hope THE opposition in Zimbabwe suffered another grievous blow this week. On March 11th, Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was arrested together with about 50 protesters and opposition leaders. He was on his way to a prayer rally organised by the Save Zimbabwe Campaign, a group of political, religious and civic groups pushing for political change. But security forces were waiting and grabbed Mr Tsvangirai before the rally even started, sparking clashes with hundreds of assembled protesters. One activist was shot dead and Mr Tsvangirai, who limped into court with a swollen face and a nasty head wound two days later, was badly beaten up while in police custody, as were others detained with him. Following his short court appearance, when he was greeted by cheers from his supporters, he and several others were taken to hospital to have their wounds looked after. Mr Tsvangirai himself was admitted to the intensive-care unit with a possible skull fracture, but vowed to continue the struggle against President Robert Mugabe. Their ill-treatment provoked outrage from the UN, the European Union and America—but not, as usual, from Zimbabwe's immediate neighbours, such as South Africa. Mr Tsvangirai's arrest is the latest episode in a series of failed protests. Sporadic street marches organised by trade unions, NGOs and other pressure-groups have been violently dispersed over the past few months, and their leaders have been routinely arrested and beaten up. Mr Mugabe's government recently banned all political rallies and the regime has become increasingly more repressive and brutal. Nonetheless, trade unions are planning another national strike next month. They will be following in the footsteps of doctors and nurses who, unable to feed their families, went on strike in January to protest against the plummeting value of their salaries. Inflation, now running at over 1,700%, is the highest in the world and is expected to worsen. Once the regional bread-basket, Zimbabwe is again going to go hungry this year. The economy has shrunk by half since 1999, and unemployment is thought to be at least 80%. Many people survive thanks to the black market and money or food sent by the 3m or so Zimbabweans who have left the country. Despite the attempts to protest on March 11th, the disparate opposition has so far been too weak to organise mass rallies or demonstrations. The MDC even split in 2005, although recently it has been trying to mend its divisions. Change is more likely to come from within the ranks of the ruling ZANU-PF, which itself is showing signs of cracks. At the party's annual congress last December, Mr Mugabe suggested that presidential elections, expected next year, should be organised instead alongside parliamentary ones in 2010. But several delegates reacted with something less than the usual enthusiasm to this idea; it was put on hold until a meeting of the party's central committee which is due to be held later this month. During an interview for his 83rd birthday bash last month—for which the government spared no expense—Mr Mugabe openly acknowledged the growing tensions within ZANU-PF by lashing out at the various factions within the party, accusing them of vying for power. Particular targets of his wrath were his vice-president, Joyce Mujuru, and her husband, an influential ZANU-PF stalwart who used to head the army. Divide and rule Mr Mugabe had kinder words for Emmerson Mnangagwa, once the speaker of parliament, who is also thought to be a presidential hopeful. The International Crisis Group, a pressure-group based in Brussels, argues that there is now a chance that Mr Mugabe will be forced into retirement by his own party, leading to a power-sharing government between moderate ZANU-PF leaders and the MDC until elections can be organised under a new constitution. It may not be as simple as that, however. Mr Mugabe has now said that, if elections were to take place next year, he would be ready to run again, despite earlier suggestions that he would retire. It is by no means certain that rivals within his own party—moderate parts of which are said to be talking to the MDC—can muster enough muscle to push him to go. Mr Mugabe still commands deep-seated loyalty within the army and the intelligence services. Although the security forces are also suffering from the country's economic disintegration, key units such as the presidential guard receive special treatment. Those within ZANU-PF keen to see Mr Mugabe retire have also been divided among themselves. Mr Mnangagwa tried to block Mrs Mujuru's appointment as vice-president in 2004. The former speaker is making a political comeback, but this may be little more than a shrewd attempt by Mr Mugabe to weaken the Mujuru faction, whose ascendancy he now resents. What is certain is that Mr Mugabe has so far shown no appetite whatsoever for leaving office. The idea to postpone the presidential election until 2010 could well be dropped, as it will be hard to obtain enough votes in parliament to secure the necessary constitutional amendment. But the alternative is likely to be a presidential election next year. If Mr Mugabe runs in that, and the election is as rigged as previous ones, Zimbabweans may have worse to look forward to. source

Uganda America's friend Mar 15th 2007 | KAMPALA From The Economist print edition Ugandan troops to the rescue ON THE whole, life in Uganda has been improving. In the past year, the Lord's Resistance Army, a sadistic rebel militia which had made a hell out of the north of the country for two decades, retreated to Congo and has been drawn into peace negotiations, albeit fitfully, with the government. For the first time in a decade, 1m or so northerners may be able to leave the dismal camps where they had been forced to take shelter. The rains have been plentiful, alleviating a drought. And, perhaps best of all, the country came through an election unscathed, though President Yoweri Museveni arm-twisted his parliament into changing the constitution to let him have a third term in office. Indeed, Mr Museveni bent just about every rule to stay in power. He meddled with the courts, muzzled the press and brought out his own presidential guard to stymie protests. There were fears that Uganda might slip back into the bloody ways of its past. But it has not happened. Despite a big ego, Mr Museveni is no megalomaniac. Nor has he resorted to the spying tactics and wholesale imprisonment of dissidents that his counterpart to the north-east, in Ethiopia, has done. Instead, he has cannily sought to boost his reputation with America and the West by contributing 1,600 troops to the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia. They were the first to land in the capital, Mogadishu, two weeks ago to support the Ethiopian-backed transitional federal government that recaptured the south of the country from Islamist militias last year. The Ugandan troops are now the targets of an Islamist insurgency there. Mr Museveni has also made himself useful to America by standing up to Sudan over the conflict in Darfur. Some Pentagon observers think Mr Museveni's opportunistic alliance with Ethiopia—whose troops the Ugandans are supposed to replace in Somalia—has the makings of a bulwark against Islamist expansion in the Horn of Africa. But in return for the diplomatic and military help, Mr Museveni will expect all the Western aid and goodwill that he can get, for his legacy at home has begun to look threadbare. Yes, the government has improved primary education and health care and it has made headway against AIDS. But Uganda's young people, in particular, are at a loss. Half of the 28m-strong population is under 15, and on some projections it could reach 100m by 2050. Mr Museveni thinks this is good. With proper investment it might be, but too much of Uganda is disintegrating or chaotic. An upturn in Uganda's economic fortunes serves only to highlight how far the country has yet to go. Its economy is set to grow by more than 5% next year, but that is short of the 7-8% needed to reduce poverty noticeably. Many parts of the country have no electricity and even in Kampala, the capital, it is rationed. Mr Museveni says he will not tolerate “even a single day's delay” in bringing new power stations on stream. Don't bank on it. The greed of Uganda's well-equipped armed forces has made a big hole in the national budget. And Mr Museveni's habit of giving plum jobs to chums and relatives is costly too. But the main problem, these days, is a failure of vision. Neither the government nor foreign donors seem to know how to bring about the massive infrastructure improvements the country needs if it is to progress. The government shows no urgency in building new transport links with Kenya or Congo. Nor does it make the most out the resources it does have, such as Lake Victoria. As elsewhere in Africa, Mr Museveni has done well at playing off sweet but dithering Western donors against sour but relentless Chinese entrepreneurs. Yet farming, forestry and new-found oil have the potential to fuel faster economic growth. Instead, Mr Museveni's focus now is dynastic; he wants to preside over some kind of East African federation, comprising Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, perhaps with a family member succeeding him in Kampala's State House. With little threat now to his authority from a divided opposition, he is relaxing his grip. Radio talk-shows are vibrant and sometimes critical of government. That should help to burnish his image as a regional statesman at this year's Commonwealth summit in Kampala, as will his troops in Somalia. source

No i dont think it will be a good thing. From a practical perspective it sets a precedence that a republic/nation is defined by a very narrow sense of homogeneity - the infamous Balkanisation effect. It gives weight to the next group claiming their own sovereign reign over xyz and because grand-dad had once camped there or waa lagu gumeystey. Ultimately this bad for all groups -if nothing else a smaller country means even smaller means to compete in an increasingly global world - most of all your competitors don't want this. Somalis have more power to attain for themselves if they can consolidate their lot - and since we cant produce the next luxemburg in a 100 or 200 years, we need to think about how a nation that can compete globally and provide for its people can brought about. What the administration in the waqoooyi has done is amazing, but also look at the Bari it has also done well. To go ahead, the administrations in these regions aught to be given the chance to expand the structures they have implemented to the rest of the country. But hey what am I on about... we're still talking about maryooley arn't we..

not yet Z, and anyhow its not my cup tea as it were, that lap is a bit of bicycle, every one has had a ride.

lord.. they're now signing about jesus too ..

lilly, abaayo all somali kids are our kids also, we are one people

emperor, walaal haka walwalin, kuwaas baan ka bilaabi doonaa .. dhagaxaad ku dhufan laheyd uun diyaarso

Should our children really be singing about nijaas pigs and dogs! Comeback for 'non-offensive' pigs Organisers of a children's concert have given the go-ahead for the three little pigs to appear, after they were banned over fears they might offend Muslims. Honley Junior School in West Yorkshire was to perform the Roald Dahl story of Little Red Riding Hood and the pigs - but was told to substitute puppies. Now Kirklees Council has stepped in to allow the pigs a reprieve. No complaints had been made about the pigs appearing in the Kirklees Primary Music Festival event. No complaints were made about the pigs appearing in the play 'Something barmy' The committee organising the concert decided Muslim children may not want to sing about pigs. However, council education spokesman Jim Dodds told BBC Five Live the decision had been overturned. He said: "There is something barmy going on here and it has happened on my watch. "I can tell you now that the three little pigs will be back into the school musical festival. "The decision (to ban the pigs) was made by well-meaning people - it was the wrong decision, so let's stick with the traditions." The festival is due to take place in June. source

what Buddhists / Christians/ Atheists Somalis .. Gabaryahay waad fakatay, war soo noqo. Waxaas soomaali ma aha, waa itoopian and we'll station the stoning squads at the ports for them

talib your welcome, rooble, this is the point I was making, i'm afraid in our society you are labelled blasphemous if you question anything outside of the status quo - especially considering how innovative early islamic cultures were -- anyhow this is beside the point and probably worth a study of its own. If there are are anthropology sociology students out there, consider doing a thesis on the relationship between the dominance/confidence of a culture/religion and its receptiveness to innovation. Anyhow, i'll play the devils advocate in this game and say that evolution does really explain the origins of life. It does this by using the science, whereby science is the process of continuously reassessing your position with regard to the evidence that you have for it. This places two important demands: 1- Using your evidence or methodology your led to the same conclusion with repeated testing. And this can be verified independently of you 2- IF you happen to find that your evidence or methodology is wrong or incomplete, your allowed to modify it with something better at supporting point 1. In essence the first point means that you have to continuously examine the basic of your belief and the second means that that you have the right to change your mind - given a better alternative. Put together this means that science it self evolves since the knowledge or reasoning its based on has to evolve in order to stand the test of time. Religion in the dogmatic and literal interpretation that is being thrown at you here on the other hand does not do this. Being dogmatic means that it needs no evidence and being literal means that it requires no interpretation - everything is understood as its written and there are no ambiguities to be interpreted nor mysteries to be investigated.

Talib, not lemurs they followed a parallel branch

umm ^ uma maleynayo in aad soomali tahay

walleee attaching 'sheik' to your name seems the current SOL free ticket on the interplanetary express to life on mars