Originally posted by Mr.Red Sea: came up on a poll,meanign that I have equal right to the flag as you,therefore,I can choose to burn,or urinate on it if I have to,and you may suggest for one to not do that,but you cannot take it to a level of restricting someone by doing so. Who exactly is saying you can't do any of that? But if you break site rules, which Qudhac's avatar has, your material will get the cull. Aren't you the one that was saying in the other thread,that killings of Thousands of civilians,meaning the total civilian death of Somalia wasn't a genocide, You exhibit profound reading deficit. Where did I say there was no genocide in Somalia? I'll make my position clear one last time. There isn't a single tragedy solely on it's own befitting title genocide. And that's because genocide has only linguistic meaning... without humans assigning certain tragedies with genocide status, often influenced by their relation to the tragedy (ie, were they the perps or victims), the word is meaningless. Unless to you solipsism equals reality. This explains why people can look at the same tragedy and still disagree as to whether it was genocide or not. Nothing that can objectively decide exists.

Originally posted by Mr.Red Sea: ^lol.I would suggest you to go back to whatever you are reading,this time read closely,or maybe if whatever you read told you that,you need to look else where that really talks about somali history,but please don't argue with people who are more knowledgeable than you on this subject,hurdaad kasoo kacday maadaa aduunba lasocda ninyow,snowman. Do you have counter-arguement? Mouthing off your displeasure with my post doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by Che-Guevara: SB....Man-made Famine that lead to the death of 300,000 people doesn't qualify as genocide in your book?...a just mass killing eh. I'm saying accusations are worth a dime a dozen. Incriminating is easy, substantiating the incrimination is not so easy. Show: 1)The famine was planned 2)The deaths said to result from the famine were due to the famine, allegedly created by the USC, and not other sources.

Originally posted by Mr.Red Sea: what is the difference? Because shid needs to get flushed down everytime it comes up. Qudhac and his prose are merdi. But we understand where you're coming from. Defending your fellow clansman. MMA,I have accusation against you as well,when someone like Mr.me says that Burco and Hargeysa earned to be bombarded,doesnt' that offend anyone, Not any more than I'm offended by Ahmedenijad denying or down playing the extent of the Holocaust. What allegedly took place Burco and Hergeysa didn't affect me personally. For that reason it doesn't bother me when some attempts to whitewash it for own agenda. Contrast with Barre regime, where he confiscated property from MY close family members and exiled others... my take on his regime is, unsurprisingly, unfavourable. All opinions on these matters, regarding what we think of events and potentates, are so colored by personal experiences that we must, as rule of thumb, take them grain of salt.

Originally posted by Che-Guevara: Like the USC committed "enocide".... USC did commit genocide against the good people of Bay/Bakool. Said who? If the alleged victims, got no beef with them. It's there inalienable right to word their plight anyway they deem right. However, that alone doesn't evindence any "genocide". There's no such thing as "genocide". Only mass killings of groups. How you label them -- genocide, ethnic cleansing, holocaust etc -- is your prerogative.

Originally posted by Khalaf: brah pointing out facts from the past (to my knowledge)..... Facts? Like the USC committed "genocide". Who you think you're jiving here dude? You were caught with your hand in the cookie jar -- defending your petty qabiil's petty militia. Is deception permissible in Islam shiekh Khalaf?

Originally posted by rudy: i might be a broke azz td! but at least i aint a slave 4 no one!! sick in the head xalimoos! If you wanna get some, know this women don't give it away out of pity. For host of reasons most of them having to do with biology. So put an end to this self-deprecation. Admitting to being broke, although admirable on it's own, won't get you laid. BTW, pay Ibstisaam no heed... she doesn't know shid from shinola.

Originally posted by Khayr: dare assert that human moral values don't need religions or Gods , What did I finish through saying in my last post? Did I not "dare" you? You're waiting until I double dare you before you address my post? Tell me, do these gimmicks of yours work with others. Do they get you laid? Honestly, I don't understand why you persist with them. a simple emperical proof for that is the millions of agnostics/atheists who live and lead a moral life every single day I haven't a clue as to what you're saying here. But judging from the past, it's prolly you on a tangent again. If human moral values don't need religion, then what is the yardistic for MORALITY? There is no yardstick for morality since morality is relative. For morality to exist, religion is not absolute neccessity. These are my two positions, both are statements of fact. Enough with tangentiality, rebuff them or go away. A genuine moral act "always" constitutes the desire that others do well That's one definition. I should give a toss, why exactly? Whom determines what is 'WELL'? People. I am sure that there some Absolute Morals that you can identify with-i.e. Not inncocently murdering others not stealing not lying etc. Again, morality is relative. That's an empirical fact. Stop repeating the same mindless lines in place of cogent articulation. If you disagre with morality being relative all you gotta do is present your counter-arguement. Everyone of your examples in the list above is relative. Lying in some circumstances is acceptable, in others it's not. Please don't ask me to give you examples. If they were layed out 4000yrs ago, then why the denial in the play of influence of REVELATION in those ancient civilizations? Do you have reading deficit or something? They were not revealed. But commissioned to be codified by King Hammurabi of Mesopotamia (some of them predated his reign). The goal of citing them was to further substantiate the claim morality doesn't depend on religion. Could not the mayans or mesopatamians have encountered Revelation and a Prophet? Maybe, maybe not. But that's got absolutely no bearings on this discussion. Hummirabi Code of Laws are human made, with no sign of numina.

dp

Originally posted by J B: let's assume again that i'm familiar with the journey of an assertion from beeing a paradox to becoming an unproveable to proveable assertion. I'm prolly digressing here but paradoxes (same with "irony" and other mental constructs that we mistake for reality) exist only in language. Proving right them doesn't aid us in ascertaining truth. Firstly , it's the assertion of the Theist we're soley dealing with, there is no claim of own , You're rationalizing your position here. The charge you're making unfalsifiable/unverifiable claim still stands. Are you not claiming Theism is false brought about by it's incoherency? That is not testable claim but mere belief. Thus, why I initially said both you and the Theists got nothing but vying beliefs (theists call it FAITH). Simply put, a Theist, by claiming "there is that particualr God" runs over or falsifies the negative or possitive version of his claim,( negative in this case)," there is no that particular God",namely, the very notion that is beeing claimed to be the Atheist's claim. But how can a claim that can't be falsified falsify itself? The Theist position is not one that lends itself to testability, hence it's merely belief not claim to knowledge. Theists averring so doesn't on that account alone make it knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable fact. Moreover, if Theist claims are internally inconsitent and constradictory, that discovery is epistimically worthless to your case, ie the Theists are wrong. For one to pass the judgement a claim is right or wrong, one must present a body of knowledge that he/she based their judgement on. Else, it's a belief. Which is my whole point, you got belief behind your claim, not knowledge, just like your Theist counterparts. I'am a tall person can't mean i'm a short person at the same time, but runs over or falsifies the negative or possitive version of it's claim , (negative in this case) namely i'm not a tall person. Wittgenstein (the only and last "philosopher" you ever need to read about) talked about the distinction between language and reality in the Tractatus. While I kinda of understand where you're coming from, I take issue with your, perhaphs poor (because you could've used Gravity, speed of sound, Doppler Effect etc to make your point. The noteworthy difference being, gravity is a fact borne out by empiricism; tallness is not), example. Height. There doesn't exist "tallness" or "shortness" in reality. Only varying heights. We, humans, assign the tags short or tall to certain heights but that's just how we see it and it's purely arbitrary. Nothing exists, that is objective standards, that'll render something "tall" or "short". Saying someone tall or short is entirely subject and by extention meaningless. while the Atheist's conclusion is F(0) through rationally justified beleif. I have no issue with that position. Belief is not knowledge though. I come off as having a rationally justified beleif while the Theist comes off as incoherently inconsistent, and i've no problem with that. If I don't agree with you, how can I show you wrong? Turn to Theist's imponderable beliefs? A set of beliefs repudiating other set of beliefs is vacuous.

Originally posted by J B: SB, not all universal negatives are impossible to prove, given that we'r rationally justified to deny anything that is incoherent. Granted but note that rationally justified to deny anything that is incoherent only leaves you with justified belief, nothing more. One can't verify the truth of your claim (Allah can not exist as He is incoherent) or falsify it. Absent these two necessary conditions for making truth claims (Allah doesn't exist etc), any statement of the ilk is, prima facie, mere belief. If i as an Atheist find a Theist's beleif in the existence of a particular God rationally incoherent, then i'm entitled to say that particular God does not exist, and with certainty, without me being ominscient. Here is where we violently disagree. Certain, unyielding convictions are the stuff of dogma, not reason or empiricism. I think reading Goedel's Theory of Incompleteness well aid you immensely. Goedel, in tour de force of reasoning, shows the utter impracticality of Deductive Reasoning by demonstrating that our knowledge base is always incomplete, in a flux. Deductive Reasoning relying on it's premises guaranteeing the truth of its conclusion (unlike Inductive reasoning employed by Science where the premises makes the conclusion only probable) hits hard rock. Lacking certainty in the information/knowledge we use to build our premises, our conclusions become only likely at best, unreliable at worst. Unless you have perfect knowledge you can never make absolute claims of facts. And in the off-chance you think you got a case for perfect knowledge upon which to proclaim a position of absolute truth, you still have to overcome the hurdle of Verifiability and falsifiability. When all is said and done, no claim be it for or against Allah's existence can be anything beyond mere claim. Thus, the reason for my initial comment that both you the Atheist and the Theists got only contending personal beliefs. I know it's hard pill to swallow but you know, deep down, I got fair point on this one.

I guess I'm asking what is the basis for your conflation of the ICU (a recent phenomenon) with the defunct (hence trivial) USC? HOw is the USC pertinent to current affairs?

I'm curious, do you also see dead people?

Someone prefers lapidation to decapitation, bid deal . But why limit ourselves to binary options, either 1 or the other. We can have both. The more the merrier. RealityCheck, I see you're still badgering Nur. Perhaps time for restraining order.

Originally posted by ibtisam: there are norms that allow us to share the same streets/ bus/ roads/ countries etc. Norms are still Weltanschauungen. I think you're frustrated dominatrix.

DevilAngle and Ibtisam, Got German? Your word is Weltanschauung.

What exactly is your point? Voyeurism? Do you get aroused by the sight of kids with guns?

There's no such thing as "annoying public behaviour." Only those behaviours you deem annoying. Stop being narcissist.

^You're asking him to prove a negative now? Submit empirical data for something that doesn't lend itself to empiricism? Both you the theist and JB the atheist got nothing but your believes to back up your claims. The sooner you accept this reality the better. You two got more in common than you think.

^The USC has been out of commission for ages, arguably died with the late Ceydiid. Equating the ICU -- a recent phenomenon -- with now deceased USC is akin to equating the current Putin Government of Russia with the defunct USSR. Doing so only reveals you as a tribocentric idealogue. Do you have anything meaningful to say? Or is your whole purpose here to showcase your buffoonery?

Originally posted by AYOUB_SHEIKH: ^^ You left out religion I didn't. I asked for his/her Qabiil.

The consummate demagogue. Using people's emotions/fears/hopes etc to gain own goals.

^For him to give you a meaningful answer, he need know which God you're talking about. There are literally a litany of Gods with different attributes ascribed to them. But it's save to surmise that for this site the God alluded to is that of Islam, Allah. Before he replies, make sure you to have your tinfoil hats on....

State your Qabiil, your fortune, age and sex. These nuggets about you are all that matters here discounting all the pretentions to the otherwise by the throng welcoming you.

Originally posted by Khalaf: 2. I suppose you, reality check, and Naden since u take issue with that claim take the view that it is not a grave sin or of importance to follow hadiths/Sunnah. Speaking only for myself, I reject any statement laying claim to truth absent Logic and Empirical facts. Like the claim above. It would only be true if the it's author knew something elusive to it's detractors. What is it? I've been asking you to submit the impartial criteria or body facts which will adjudicate the matter. Waffling has been your tack since then. Without fair set of rules, aren't we left with competing interpretations? If we agree with interpretation x and disagree with y, are we not doing the exact samething as dis/agreeing with competing interpretations of any text, movie, paiting, musical piece? I'm afraid 1400 years of Islamic history would, emphatically, say yes. You can have this disagreement living on for another 1400 years and at the end of it only be certain of auguring another 1400 years futher disagreements. Reason being the claim itself -- not following the Ahadith -- and the determining body of evidence are both immeasurable. please do provide us any interpretations by the ulma, scholars of Islam, or islamic sources which refute the claim made by Nur. [/b] Are you really this dense? What makes the Ulema the final adjudicators of truth? Answer the question please. I have already stated why appealing to Islamic Scholars adds absolutely nothing to this discourse. If you'd like me to explain further, need only ask.