• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Originally posted by somalia1: Dashike It turns out we were no match for Soviets + Cubans + Yemenis + Libyans + ... (with a combined population of hundreds of millions). No country would be able to withstand such an attack by an enemy 20 times its size Well that is a somali problem,that is not a cuban problem,the reality is:Russia,Cuba,Ethiopia and Yemen defeated Somalia in 1978,period and nobody can change that. Dashike I now know why: Cuban defeatism Well the somalis dont think that,Siad Barre was very sad when we crushed his army and his dream in 1978. And about Guatanamo,Cuba got its independende in 1898,the cuban guerrillas with american help defeated Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War The Spanish forces at Guantánamo were so isolated by Marines and Cuban forces that they did not know that Santiago was under siege, and their forces in the northern part of the province could not break through Cuban lines. This was not true of the Escario relief column from Manzanillo,[34] which fought its way past determined Cuban resistance but arrived too late to participate in the siege Well Somalia tried to get its independence in 1920 but the poor Mad Mullah was defeated by England. But that defeat was the begining of the somali disaster in Jijiga in 1978 When Cuba and Russia broke the somali army and the somali spirit. Your reply once again reveals how small the cuban mentality really is. If Somalia was involved in gang up on another country that's 20 times smaller than the would be attackers, it would be widely considered by Somalis as a shameful page in our history. Yet in Cuba it's a matter of national pride. It's interesting how you try to make it seem like the US has Cuba's consent for holding on to Guantanamo Bay when that clearly isn't the case: "The current Cuban government considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be illegal and the Cuban-American Treaty to have been procured by the threat of force in violation of international law" From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantánamo_Bay Even if I were to accept your POV, the fact still remains that it was colonial era "treaty" in which natives are robbed and then forced to put pen to paper. All such treaties no longer hold in the rest of the world. Why do they still hold for your country?
  2. Originally posted by somalia1: Earlier this month, in a brutally populist application of sharia law, a 13-year old girl was stoned to death in the southern Somali city of Kismayu for alleged adultery in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators I can not believe this,the somalis killed an innocent girl and everybody is happy in Somalia,everybody agrees with this violence. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: Sorry but I can not understand this violence against an innocent girl. Somalis are strong and brave with weak people,they killed and raped weak people but when they see an army like: Cubans and Russians in 1978,everybody knows what happens. Somalia must be punish for this crime. This girl was an innocent girl,she didnt do anything wrong,we must blame the killer Sheik Aweys,he is strong with weak a girl but when he saw our tanks in 1978 he ran like a coward. And nobody in this forum says something against this crime. Alah has mercy of the somali soul. Because I will never forgive this crime. Please don't regurgitate the bullsh1t you are fed by the media (at least not on these boards). And to answer your questions about the 77/78 war, we defeated a much larger and better equipped Ethiopian army and we're very proud of it. Very few are able to so thoroughly tame a much larger archenemy. It turns out we were no match for Soviets + Cubans + Yemenis + Libyans + ... (with a combined population of hundreds of millions). No country would be able to withstand such an attack by an enemy 20 times its size. If you and your countrymen consider this a historic victory for Cuba, then I'd hate to see what you would consider a Cuban defeat. I've always wondered why the Americans are able to hold on to Guantanamo Bay for almost a hundred years without the slightest protest from Cuba. I now know why: Cuban defeatism.
  3. From http://boycottmcdonalds365.blogspot.com/ Boycott McDonalds 365 Black Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald's has taken up the rhetoric of black activists, suggesting those who oppose African-Americans are motivated by hate. AFA has asked for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants because of the company’s promotion of the black agenda. AFA asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald’s refused. In response to the boycott, McDonald's spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose African-Americans are motivated by hate, saying "...hatred has no place in our culture." McDonald's has decided to adopt the "hate" theme used by black activist groups for years. Whitman went on to say, "We stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment." Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring blacks or how black employees are treated. It is about McDonald's choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda. McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner said the company will promote issues they approve. "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world...and we do." Take Action • Sign the online Boycott McDonald's petition. • Forward this to family and friends and ask them to sign the petition. • Print and distribute the Boycott McDonald's petition. • Call your local McDonald's. Speak with the manager. Tell him or her (in a polite manner) that you will be boycotting McDonald's until they stop promoting the pro-black agenda. To find the phone number of your nearest McDonald's, click here. What the boycott of McDonald's IS about It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald's has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the black agenda, including entrepreneurship opportunities. What the boycott of McDonald's IS NOT about * This boycott is not about hiring blacks. * It is not about blacks eating at McDonald's. * It is not about how black employees are treated. ------------------------- Sign the petition and spread the word.....
  4. Dumar iyo dameeri duco la'aan ayay tarmaan Not a maahmaah but an odhaah nevertheless.
  5. MMA, Naas waa la soo wada nuugay waa uun lagu kala dambeeyay. Wax ceeb ah oo ku laaban ma arko. Hadduu se ereyga khilaafsanyahay protocol-ka website-kan, ha la iga raali noqdo waa intaas cusbahay.
  6. ^^ Biyo iyo saliid, wax la kala miiro iyagaa ufudud. Meeshu waa meel ay rag kuwada hadlayaan. Hadday da'daadu gaadhsiisanayn inaad warka ujeedada ka raacdid , fadlan naaskaad nuugaysay u noqo. Haddaad se ra'yi ka dhiibanaysid dooda socota, tafadal.
  7. Originally posted by xiinfaniin: JIS is essentailly sharif's men, they are financed by xarakatul Ictisaam which is fully on board with Sharif Ahmed... Your naivety is shining through. The resistance is highly decentralized. It is more an Iraq-type resistance than a Hezbullah-type one. You can buy off small groups but have little to no effect on the movement. Originally posted by xiinfaniin: The Kindom of Saudi Arabia will show its financial and political muscles at the end of next month, and back this deal. Are we not currently living under a Saudi Arabian-sponsored occupation? Originally posted by xiinfaniin: TFG will no longer have the free hand it had before, and Sharif's team will be more responsible actors and continue to learn how to interact with the International community, and SOMALIA will be better for it. What kind of fairytale world are you living in?
  8. Originally posted by Juje: Which part dont you understand there is a time limit "Within a period of 120 days after signing of the agreement" - I assume the agreement was signed today. Does the article not include the precondition: "after the deployment of a sufficient number of UN Forces"? When do you think this condition will be satisfied? How can it be satisfied i.e. what's your interpretation of "sufficient number"? I have yet to see any willingness on the side of the international community to send troops to Somalia let alone takeover from a 50,000-man occupation force. Originally posted by Juje: Those who want to continue with roadside bombs and suicide bombing regardless of the innocent victis of their acts and its retaliation should and will be condemned jointly. This begs the question: what forms of resistance do you consider acceptable? What are your views on other muslim resistance struggles (namely, those of the Palestinians and Iraqis)? In your book, what further can we do to have the 'good victims' label bestowed upon us? Originally posted by General Duke: You are against peace adeer. How can there be an occupation when the Ethiopians agree to leave and the UN is supporting thie process. You are looking for further excuses. read the agreement. Unless you plan to redefine the word 'occupation' I'm afraid the Ethiopian presence in our country will continue to be classified as an occupation. The fact that the ARS have put pen to paper does not change the situation. Besides, last I heard the Ethiopians started withdrawal back in February. I'm actually surprised you're not towing the line and stating that 'fact' to their defense.
  9. from: http://www.hiiraan.com/news2/2008/Jun/agreement_between_transitional_federal_governament_and_the_all aince_for_re_liberation_of_somalia.aspx 7. The Parties agreed from the date of coming into effect of this Agreement: a. To request the United Nations, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1814 and within a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days, to authorize and deploy an international stabilization force from countries that are friends of Somalia excluding neighboring states; b. Within a period of 120 days of the signing of this agreement the TFG will act in accordance with the decision that has already been taken by the Ethiopian Government to withdraw its troops from Somalia after the deployment of a sufficient number of UN Forces c. The ARS shall, through a solemn public statement, cease and condemn all acts of armed violence in Somalia and dissociate itself from any armed groups or individuals that do not adhere to the terms of this Agreement. :eek: :eek: Is it me or have they simply rubber-stamped the occupation? Where do I start? 1. There is no set time table for the withdrawal of the ethiopian forces. Withdrawal starts 120 days after the agreement and ends when? Their answer: "after the deployment of a sufficient number of UN Forces." A 'sufficient number' is not quantifiable. This is the kind of wording that guarantees a permanent habash presence. The ARS have only legitimized this presence. 2. No acts of resistance tolerated. They figured that once a ceasefire was in place there would be no reason to resist. The fools forget that the resistance was not against ethiopian aggression but against occupation. That is, as long as a single habashi soldier is on Somali soil resistance must and will continue. 3. No mention of the TFG puppets that got us into this quagmire in the first place. Unless they are replaced or the whole project scrapped there's no hope for a Somali government representative of its people. Why do I say they are rubber stamping the occupation: 1. There never will be a "sufficent" number of UN troops deployed. How many countries do you think will want to send their troops to Somalia? So far the only countries that seem to be willing could be called anything but "friends of Somalia"--all have either promised or deployed due to sympathy with the Ethiopia-US axis. Anyone who thinks UN troops will be able to match the 50,000 strong Habash presence is deluded. The blame of occupation will now shift from ethiopia's US-backed interventionism to the international community's unwillingness to commit troops. 2. Ceasefire is impossible to achieve. Like I've said, resistance is a result of occupation and not aggression. Without a timetable for withdrawal, resistance fighters have no reason to believe that occupation will end and will therefore continue their struggle. Even if they were to hold their part of the deal, all the Ethiopians will have to do is read from Israeli playbook to legitimize their continued presence. The whole ****ing agreement is a joke. Thankfully, I won't have to point that out to the ACTUAL resistance (the guys on the ground). What is with us Somalis? Anyone given a hint of authority and legitimacy sells out faster than you can say "shir baa la lagaa leeyahay".