Originally posted by General Duke: no it is about their battle with Ethiopia their national interst, its about Eritrean interest. What Eritrean interests may I ask? I find this allegation that Eritrea has hidden designs for Somalia or is even least bit interested in Somali affairs other than to keep in check Ethiopian political and military expansion in the Horn of Africa simply absurd. For one, Eritrea doesn't have a border with Somalia unlike Ethiopia. Somalia and Eritrea have never been at war so there's no atavistic animosities laying dormant all this time that just erupted to the surface now. There's no rational, palpable reasons for Eritrean involvement in SOmalia other than to vitiate Ethiopian progress. Contrarily, Ethiopia got more interests (understandable and justifiable ones) than one can shake stick at. They're landlocked country in desperate need of ports (most of the world's trade is done via the seas). Somalia has plenty of them. Potential is there for many more as SOmalia is blessed with one of the longest coastlines in Africa. It wouldn't then be a stretch to suggest Ethiopia is set to reap from any future political and geographical fracturing of Somalia. It's in their best interest to sow enmity and division among already mistrusting, warring sides. The current Ethiopian leadership has toehold grip on power and rightfully fearful of any unfavourable tipping of balance in Somalia. One can go on enumerating Ethiopian motivation for getting involved in Somalia. But you'd be hard pressed to find similar motivations for Eritrea. For no reason other than they're are next to none to be found. The TFG made monumental blunder when they agreed to accept Ethiopian assistence. That was bad in it's own right, they self-immolated themselves in the eyes of thinking Somalis when they (allegedly because I have yet to see any hard evidence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia. WHERE ARE THE PICS OF ETHIOPIAN TROOPS IN SOMALIA?) allowed Ethiopian soldiers to come into Somalia proper and fight fellow Somalis. Irremediably discredeting themselves in the eyes on reasonable Somalis. Because one thing is undisputed, Somalis have visceral dislike for Ethiopia. Strangely enough, among the plethora of things Somalis have extreme dislike for their dislike of Ethiopia is most understandable.

^According to SOmali logic, yes. Unfortunate as it is, we gotta accept reality for what it is.

Originally posted by AAliyah416: there is nothing wrong with doing french-kiss with your husband Not if you're from people who consider sex a sport.

Originally posted by Xalimopatra: Less is more You say that only because you never had more!

Originally posted by ThePoint: That remains unproven. And the terms 'cahoots' and 'nefarious' have to be well defined if this is to pass resonable-ness tests let alone stick up in court. Outside of mathematics, proofs don't exist. They are meaningless. To rigorously prove something there has to be comprehensive and finite account of all relevent information/evidence. And since this is eternally unattainable, we go by the available evidence. There's only greater or lesser confidence based on available evidence. People say something is proved -- in the vernacular sense -- to mean there is so much compelling evidence that not to accept the allegation true would be absurd. With that out of the way, let me address your quote above. There comes a time in any process where intelligent and rational beings must make a provisional decision based on the limited and inocomplete evidence. That's all I have done. (Note men of responsibility, those tasked to look out for public safety don't have the lexury of waiting until they have foolproof case against those they suspect are about to commit a crime). Authorities allege that these men were involved in questionable activities. Mosques in their place of work were shut down because of suspicion of illegal activities. These two factors and given history of similar cases are more than enough to say it was justified to arrest these men. Not guilty of alleged crimes. That's for courts of law to decide. Remember the issue is whether it was warranted to fire them from work as security risks. The answer is yes given the disclosed facts. So I wonder - if you were suspected of being 'under the spell of diabolical' violent anti-abortionists - would interior minister SB have me barred from my job. What a red herring. The two scenarious aren't even distantly comparable. If it is the anti-abortionists agenda to sow mass carnage then absolutely yes. I should be fired from job, prosecuted and then sent to psychiatric ward. I trully beleive these zombies of death are suffering from mental issues. So in essence, SB supports ppl being barred from their work because they may have links to ppl who may be in the process of committing terrorist acts. Whether they may or may not have links to unsavoury characters or illegal business is for courts to decide. All I'm saying is if someone is suspected of being at a stage where the available evidence warrants their arrest, then by all means yes.

Originally posted by ThePoint: Do you believe that is a good enough basis to deny ppl the right to work? Of course, duh! If you're in cahoots with nefarious posse who are incessantly planning new deadlier ways to maim and terrorize people... if you're under the spell of diabolical imams, not only should you be fired from your work but apprehended and sequestered for your own good. I'd consider that doing them a favour. Rescue operation if you will. Saving them from the jaws of death. Do you want to work with a man who subcontracted his conscience to an imam or idealogy? I sure don't. Have we not seen this play out time and again. In similar fashion? Young seemingly normal muslim men falling under the influence of radical imaams who indoctrinate them with hate for life and lust for death. Encourage them to go out of this world with a bang. Take as many people with you as you can. Allah will reward you for it. Next thing you know, your average next door young muslim man's face is scrolling on the Telly screen as one of the casualties of the latest Islamic ispired suicide bombing carnage. Only that he isn't the so innocent victim but the one who caused the carnage.

Originally posted by Cambarro: Whatever next? Start being honest. This just fell out of the sky look of false indignation doesn't wash anymore. It's old broken record. In the article you posted above is mentioned the closure of SEVEN mosques in Charles De Gaule and other airports in Paris allegedly involved in suspicious activities. I did further digging into this story and what did I find? Since January this year, 18 imams have been expelled from France for inciting violence and spewing vile hatred. Do you also feel indignant about their expulsion as well? All this doesn't prove these muslim men are guilty of any crime but it does compellingly suggest what was done to them wasn't solely on the basis of their faith and not anything they might have done.

^^Lol, you read the same article 3 times. You know what they say. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Originally posted by WILDCAT: I have been intently studying ways in which to become more homely, submissively feminine, vacant-headed, and generally lower my offensive sense of self-esteem... any support in these efforts is most welcome. Really? Do you seriously want my support? My pleasure. OK, I'm gonna lay it all on silver platter for ya. All that'll be left for you to do is follow everything I say verbatim. Here is what you need to do. SHUT UP! No one likes chatty dame. I mean what you got to say? Have you ever seen a woman expound a single seminal idea? I haven't and that's good enough for you. So, shut your piehole. Do as told. Be obsequious. Speak only when spoken to. Studies have shown this approach builds rapport which in turn builds healthy relationship. Be at your man's beck and call. Always be there to do what he asks of you, whenever he asks. For instance, if your man asks you to regale him by doing Chinese calisthenics, oblige him. Allah will love you for it. If you follow these suggestions, you can't go wrong. But don't say later you weren't warned. I warn you!!! Start assuming your subservient role before it's too late!!!

Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: May Allah make you settle on me, Aamiin!

Dear Shiekh Alle-Ubaahne, If the Islamic Courts infringe on my sub-clans territorial rights without due provocation, is it Halaal to fight them? Can I wage Jihad against them? By asking this question, I hope I don't give you the wrong impression of who I am. I'm no clanist because I hate all clans but my sub-clan equally. I can tell you with straight face that my sub-clan is the best thing since sliced bread.

Originally posted by AAliyah416: Asalaamu alaikum, There is no such thing as freedom of speech, or freedom of expression. How lusciously ironic. You freely express your opinion on arguably the freest medium in the whole world. The internet. But are inexplicably of the opinion there's no such thing as freedom of speech. Needless to say, you got a bit of delimma on your hands. Holding self-refuting opinion. Maybe a way out is to say, "freedom of speech in the West is not all it's made out to be." At least this is tenable opinion.

^^Hear hear! Whatever tickles your fancy nomads, just remember one thing. DOn't get caught riding dirty.

Originally posted by AYOUB_SHEIKH: ^^ Socoto, that was a load chicken shidh mate. How you can come with all that psycho-analysis from that one sentence? You remind me of someone who watches too much daytime TV. Not so walaashiis. But I guess birds of feather flock together. Question; how long would it take for tribalists to change a light bulb? Answer: Indefinite. Depends on how many dead light bulbs they bring with them.

why?

Originally posted by Cambarro: One way to filter the gold-digger from the genuine article is to tell her that you are broke but willing to work hard to provide for her to the best of your ability. Naaah! Pre-nap is what every man should get.

^^Good for you to be out and mingling about.

Who cares which side Ethiopia or Eritrea support. What we should instead be discussing and arguing for is who is better fit to lead the country.

Originally posted by Jaylaani: I don’t represent certain tribe nor do I claim to be one. You just made arrogant assumption and labeled me with tribalism. Judging people ain’t cool. You know what? I'm not all too surprised you'd deny being tribalist. Just as I don't expect a thief to admit he's in the wrong profession. Unfortunately for you, your own words incriminate you and make my job that much more easier. Let me show you what I mean, this is what you said: I hail from this exciting place called SOMALILAND. Now, for a guy who claims not to represent anyone and belong to no tribe, you do feel certain obligation to triumphantly scream out your place of origin. Why? Did I ask you to tell me? No, why would I? Our little sub-sub-discussion was strictly about your solecism, your lack of fitting comportment... it had nothing faintly to do with where you hail from, not even mistakably. So, if I was asked to give a rational explanation for your decision I'd say it's because your of tribalist mindset. You exhibit all the traits. Most of all myopic, paranoid mindset courtesy of the tribalism tinted lenses you got on.

Originally posted by Valenteenah: ^ LoL, paranoia or what? Which part? You or Angel? I kid you not, I seriously think this Angel persona is reincarnation of old ghost.

Who would've thought? That you'd admit to being dopey as well. Your post is still there in it's entirety. This is the part that earned the cut: get off my nuts.

Originally posted by Jaylaani: Nigga please. Lovely argot there! Tell me where I played the victim card in my post, any of them. I’m standing on the top of the pyramid with my head held high. The only hill you're standing on is atop that of your bloated ego. Too bad you can't see past your nose to know this. Yes, you did play the victim role by crying foul over your deleted post AND charging the Mods with bias. Even though you contravened site rules (by your admission, see above post of yours). You break site rules and yet complain about Mod partiality. That's playing victim role in anyone's book. Of course, you're blind to this due to your tribal mindset. When you're tribalist you live with seige mentality and feel everyone is out to get ya. scurrilousness, outlandish paranoia, inflated egos and selfworth are matter of course. You guys are the ones crying about Somaliland this Somaliland that…. if you think we have nothing to offer than shouldn’t you just shut up and let us be? God you guys can’t have your cake and eat it too. See! Who is us guys? I only speak for myself and no one speaks for me. I'm responsible for what I write and not anyone else's. But because you sense antagonism from me, I'm automically lumped with us guys. You got your work cut out in overcoming this deficiency. Take solace in this though. Not all somalis are in the same boat as you! There's still hope for you, don't give up and God speed.

Originally posted by angle101: Since im new at this place, im not sure if this question has been raised before, if so do excuse me…... Could some one be kind enough and tell me .. Why these 2 r not married yet? ... A bit presumptuous of you there, heh? Why presume they aren't married? Are you really new or resurrection of old member. C'mon, spill the beans. You're guilty as sin, I can sense it.

Originally posted by Jaylaani: BELOW IS WHAT I SAID. That's not all you said. Your post fully deserved to be deleted. Your problem is you're one of those Somalis who suckled long and hard the breasts of victimhood. Plaintive moans at any percieved or real slights are par for the course.

Originally posted by ThePoint: any fears about lack of integration/separateness have to be established before they can be included in a debate about face veils. What do you mean have to be established? What's there to be established? Are there not muslim women in the UK who refuse to integrate into British society and show their separateness by donning eyes-only Burqas/Jilbaabs? I'm afraid your problem here is you're missing the forest for the trees. Getting caught up in minute details while missing The Point. The issue is not what muslim women wear per se. You can be naked in the comfort of your house. No cop will arrest you or reproach you. Go outside naked and you're liable to get handcuffed. NOw, why is that? When in you're in the privacy of your home, your nakedness might be troublesome only to you. But when you're sashaying outside bare naked, it becomes a problem since others share the outdoors with you. You'll be in flagrant breach of social etiquette. A social mores that's not imposed by few but reached by consensus... therefore, ethical. While cognizant the eyes-only Hijab issue is not comparable to public nudity in the absolute, the analogy I painted suffices. Wear the Hijab in your home, holy place, outdoors, public indoors etc... no problemo. But the moment you interact with others, the Hijab becomes problematic. People feel uneasy dealing with someone you can't even see how they look. Someone who could be your next desk co-worker for ages even though you can't pick her out of a crowd of Hijabed muslimahs. Because you never seen what she looks like. In the West this is goes against the grain of sociality. It also becomes law enforcement problem. How do you deal with uncomprimising Hijabed muslimah about showing her face for photo ID. Do you change the law in the books to propitiate her? Or how does aspiring fully hijabed muslimah astronaut overcome the absolute, bare minimum requirement of space suit for any space bound astronaut? You see, the problem of eyes-only Hijabs transcends simple personal dislike. It's an issue that touches on many facets of everyday life. To dismiss anyone who calls for public debate on the issue as someone motivated by less than honourable reasons or is prejudiced is to insult our intelligence, do disservice to discernment and discourage open and frank debate. Lastly, let us not for a moment be tempted into think this eyes-only Hijab issue has only binary outcome: either eschew the Hijab altogether or keep it. These aren't the only options available. In reality, there are a 1001 different styles and flairs to the Hijab. Everything from simple headscarf to face-only Hijabs. Reasonable people can reach reasonable outcome.