Originally posted by Castro: Somalia is indeed heaven-on-earth for NGO's. With all this "help", you'd think we'd be in better shape than we are, right? What if all of these organizations disappeared today? Would we perish? Would we thrive? I don't know but with this many organizations on the ground, they must not be very good at what they do since the shit looks like it's permenantely on the fan. LOL - that is precisely right. These guys don't want to declare success on any level since that jeopardizes their entrenched interests - namely themselves. All of these 'aid' agencies are good for one thing only - as a stop gap measure in emergencies. Otherwise - they should be out. They are not helping any 'development' except that of their pocketbooks and resumes.

Anyone who truly understands Islam believes it is fair to all and a way of life for all at all times. The problem is that too little of it is put in practice especially with regard to women. Witness the Mukhtar Mai case - some of our male brethren have nasty and repulsive attitudes towards their women.

Originally posted by naden: . We all know that not every woman in a sexual relationship wants to become a mother, why can't the same consideration be extended to a man? Generally, the same consideration is extended to the men. However, in a sexual relationship things happen whether unexpectedly, accidentally, seemingly impossibly(as in this case). At that point you have to step up regardless of your wants or desires to not be a parent. This woman didn't get this result by herself. That said - if it is proved she engaged in willful deception of some sort - then the support should be less than the normal.

Originally posted by Jimca Lee: B.T.W I just used the drawings debacle as an example to show that non-muslim may interpret the love for the Prophet (S.C.W) as an "obsession." I think anyone who would interpret the drawings debacle as obsession would simply be wrong. It really isn't in the same class. But I tend to agree with most of ur points.

Vroom, Vroom!! :eek:

Good God! The man is white according to the picture in the BBC. Wierd - how it could be racially motivated. Or have racists, if they did this, sunk to new lows?

^LOL - I agree. What's worse is how he had the kid clothed - with a black scarf completely covering his head. I hope those kids of his are rescued somehow.

Originally posted by Jimca Lee: I believe the article mocks (more so) the believer than the religion: and this isn't applicable only to Christianity but rather most of the "world" religions (that is the underlying assumption in my opinion). quote: but this Jesus obsession in Christians is over the top. The same thing could be said about Muslims who torch down buildings because of a drawing ( or rather because of their "Maxamed" obsession) Maandhayaal: If you wish for religious tolerance or respect, try practicing it yourself first: hadii kale, let everybody be a fair game. Muslims don't have a Prophet Mohammed obsession. Some reacted incorrectly through violence because of a deliberate insult. Don't want to go into that - beaten to death. What I meant by Jesus obsession is that they elevate and emphasize Jesus above God even though they claim that they are a monotheistic religion. That is my issue - that said I respect committed Christians.

Castro - I wouldn't characterize what's happening as civil war, my friend. This is low-level sectarian strife. A civil war is what happened in our country. I mean this doesn't even approach what happened in Souther Sudan between the 'Arabs' and 'Blacks'. Our Sunni friends really need to rein themselves in.

Bad luck for him. But I think they should clarify the situtaion - hopefully that will happen when the court rules. Personally, whether it was accidental, unwanted, unexpected or whatever - when you have unprotected sex, any and all fruits of that act must be borne by both individuals. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

^^Ok - then it is to be disregarded completely. And his obfuscation of NOI and Islam is deliberate. ******* .

I think it is an excellent idea - but we have to have a functioning country first. And there would be little shift in values if the vast majority of these potential immigrants were Muslims. That way Somalia could boost the Muslim-ness of the country and possibly dilute the bad effects of clannism while helping out the wider umma which is our duty as individuals and as a nation.

LOL - Sweden is soooooooooooooo ahead of the curve isn't it? In Canada, the Supreme Court just ruled that a teenager can carry a ceremonial dagger to his high school because it's a part of his Sikh religion. Religious head gear of any sort has long been sacrosanct. But the 'liberal' Swedes have apparently just discovered that.

Is it THE Daniel Pipes for sure - or someone who has the same name? Last I knew - he wasn't a journalist. Any one know for sure?

Originally posted by AbdulNoor: quote: Personally - I don't want Michael Jackson and Islam to be associated in any way whatsoever. He is the definition of a POS. Is there no possiblity that this could actually be real? Who are we to judge, its better to say may Allah guide him to the straight path. And what is POS? And didn't anyone tell MJ that he can't be a Muslim unless he gives away all of his 'haraam' assets, abandons playing with children and attempts to return to his original skin color? Just what we need, another 'Muslim' a la Mike Tyson. Haraam yes and the life style he led yes, but the skin color, come on brother. We don't know, if will be like Tyson, he went to Arabia built masjids, I pray for the man instead of denouncing him prematurely. The picture of mike in abaya is to discredit the man's character which is wrong. The article (Mr. Pipes) wants us to believe ppl convert cause they are lost, hopeless and the like, and this is not hard well thought out decision. I was in a crappy mood when I posted so... But seriously brother - are you defending MJ's character? Please! God guides whom he wills. I just don't understand why anyone would want MJ to become a Muslim(or is it NOI cult member)? Personally, I like ppl of good character and knowledge to become Muslims - not Wacko Jacko. PS - POS = Piece of S***

OMG - is it THE Daniel Pipes who is the author of this article? Can it be? No way. Personally - I don't want Michael Jackson and Islam to be associated in any way whatsoever. He is the definition of a POS.

How utterly unfortunate! They are mixing up the Nation of Islam(aka Garbage) with Islam. Can't these ppl do a little basic research? And didn't anyone tell MJ that he can't be a Muslim unless he gives away all of his 'haraam' assets, abandons playing with children and attempts to return to his original skin color? Just what we need, another 'Muslim' a la Mike Tyson. :mad:

^The ambassador has stepped out of line - a slap down will be forthcoming soon. Seriously - how many times have we heard Iraq civil war IMMINENT . I am not holding my breath.

I've read the book - unforutunately bought it on Amazon because I thought there might be some good insights. Alas, it was money wasted. While there are some truthful comments and interesting insights, the book is much too much full of hyperbole. There is also that insufferable disdainful attitude of colonials. "Damn blazing hot, smelly place", "that man has that evil oriental attitude" etc. Not actual quotes but rough paraphrasings.

True - no doubt about that.

I have difficulty understanding the negativity surrounding this proposed investment. If the demand for this undertaking is non-existent, then this enterprise(provided it gets off the drawing board) will collapse. And the investors will lose much of their money. Some in here would no doubt be heartened by that. If it succeeds, it provides an unmet need for a population of consumers in that area and as such increases their quality of life. It also will provide employment for at least some in the city. If it succeeds, it will also increase property prices in the immediate vicinity thus making those property owners better off. Also, any profits that are generated are more likely to be invested in the area given this successful investment thus creating a potentially virtous cycle. This is called economic progress and development.

^^^ LOL - I enjoyed it Castro - good laugh over lunch. Generally I like religious ppl unless they're psychos but this Jesus obsession in Christians is over the top. On any early morning Sunday - one could be channel surfing and be met with one high-pitched crescendo after another of - JEEEEEEESSSSSUUUUUUUS!

Here are the links for the signs of hope I was talking about: Studies 1 - www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf Better Off Stateless: Somalia before and after Government Collapse Read this if nothing else - certainly provides for some eye-opening insights 2 - http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/publicpolicyjournal/280-nenova-harford.pdf How does the private sector cope in Somalia? 3 - http://rru.worldbank.org/Discussions/Discussion.aspx?id=56 Subsequent discussion on the above 4 - http://www.delken.cec.eu.int/en/publications/Mogadishu%20Economic%20Survey-Final%20Report.pdf A Survey of Mogadishu's Economy Long and you have to set aside time for it - but adds some depth to the discussion. ----------------------------------------- Articles: 1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3629671.stm Life amid Mogadishu's ruins 2 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3865595.stm Coca-Cola makes Somalia return 3 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4055761.stm Somalia's angels of mercy 4 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4372189.stm Somaliland: Stability amid economic woe 5 - http://www.netnomad.com/boosaaso.html Boosaaso: A Somali City Thrives Without Aid Old - but still useful and indicative of progress 6 - http://www.globalenvision.org/library/3/526/ The Phones keep ringing in the world's poorest country 7 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4292678.stm Somaliland in first vote for MPs

Originally posted by naden: Our back and forth is at risk of becoming masturbatory and a little tedious. Nonetheless, I appreciate your pointing out lapses of argument that escape in a heated discussion. Here are a few more. Whoa there! Not the way I perceived it. Yes, it is a little tedious having to write paragraphs and paragraphs - but I never give up - even when it is a lost cause sometimes. A weakness of mine - hopefully this debate isn't a lost cause. Great. Where do you see in my statement that ‘we clearly see this aspect of recovery and its impact on Somalis differently’ as an ‘easy dismissal’ of your point and how does this point to a conundrum in the stats and my views on the desperate state of Somalis? Am I dismissing your view when I describe it as different? For a person who so values clarity and specificity, you need to read better and respond more accurately. The conundrum is this: Why are ppl returning to, investing in and building up a country that is a hellhole? That was the conundrum. However, since hellhole is my word - I shouldn't burden you with its characterizations vis-a-vis Somalia. You are dimissing my view that things are improving, albeit slowly, by not addressing that aspect and simply harping on the UNDP stats. Don’t deduce from a statement of disagreement and use it to discredit my argument that Somalia is in a miserable state based on the figures I used from the UNDP. Are you seriously disagreeing that there has been progress in the past 10 years in Somalia and are you serious that you would like evidence to back that up? Look, the UNDP stats are relatively indisputable and I accept those but the poster was commenting on positive aspects in the country. Can you accept those positive things? Or is everything doom and gloom, no light at the end of the tunnel? When I say you dismiss the progress/renewal agrument - I say it because you simply wave it away and fail to address it. Almost as if it was non-existent. You see the post as focusing solely on positive aspects, I saw nothing positive. Is the implication I draw from the post illegitimate because it does not agree with yours? The sweeping and simplistic view of a ‘culture untainted by kafirism’, whatever that means, begs to be questioned and challenged. You are not challenging it or even responding to it because you see it as a perspective, a personal reflection that should not be held against the sister. That's fine. The post: (paraphrased) - things are good here, ppl hungry but relying on faith, good and polite ppl, really enjoying the place. It seems to me all of those things are indisputably(?) positive. Sweeping and simplistic? - I don't know where you get sweeping from since she was commenting on where she was and what she saw. Simplistic? Why because it is not a complete perspective - that is the peroragative of a perspective - it doesn't have to be complete. Again, words are important. But characterizations like hellhole are really intemperate, inaccurate and unilluminating. You used the word ‘hellhole’ in an earlier post and I gave what constitutes such as place in my world including a place where people flee in fear of life and limb, die in droves and are threatened with grave starvation. Was this intemperate? You took a part of my view (the fleeing), ignored the rest, and brought an asinine comparison with Mexico to challenge whether a fleeing Mexican and a fleeing Somali are in the same boat. The use of the word ‘hellhole’ to describe present day Somalia is your pet and a sticking point for you that you’re trying so hard to disprove. OK - let's get a reality check. Are ppl fleeing for life and limb in Somalia right now? No - for the most part those fleeing are going for a better life - You can't get on the boat departing Bosaasso unless you have hard currency. Are ppl dying in droves right now? Not that I know of - millions are at the risk of starvation as the NGOs keep reminding us - but we have little evidence that thousands have even died in the current situation. Are ppl threatened with starvation right now? Yes - from all evidence it would appear so. So that's 1 for 3. No one is disputing that the situation is bad. The question keeps coming back to - can you accept that this particular poster saw positives for the most part? And if yes, then of course you can say - 'but sister, there are a lot of problems etc.' That is all I am asking of you. Is that really such an unreasonable position? Ok - set aside the hellhole reference - that was my word. From your post 97 dated March 5 2006, 17:59 - all you mentioned was: "She was proselytizing about the purity and wonders of Somalia when everyone knows the hundreds of thousands who ran with their tail between their legs know how desolate it is." Given that was all you said in this particular post - I thought it was legitimate to equate fleeing with desolation(and my word hellhole) and thus come up with the Mexico equivalent. Perhaps, I was being a little too harsh on you by simply using that one reference but it was important for you to differentiate and not simply make a reference to fleeing as the indictment. Whatever - this point has been beaten to death. I believe my stats on infant mortality and hunger are illuminating in a discussion of hunger and poverty. Where are your concrete examples of ‘signs of recovery’ you falsely and liberally accused me of dismissing? I cannot dismiss something that was not substantiated. Now personal reflections I can shout at as I have done with the sister’s post, but I have not dismissed a missing argument. They certainly are: but this wasn't a discussion on infant mortality or hunger. At least not initally. When you don't address something that is integral to an argument - you necessarily dismiss it. Now, are you saying that you know of no signs of recovery and you would like me to substantiate? Ok - I will do so. The argument is there - I didn't provide evidence since I(erroneously) thought all were familiar with the hopeful signs in Somalia. You are obviously troubled by the word hellhole. When I see these similar stats you allude to, in my world they are akin to living in a state of serious desperation. Subsaharan Africa has hideous AIDS rates, massive corruption and constant threats of widespread starvation. What I consider to be a hellhole I have explained several times, it’s clear that you don’t see it the same way. Hellhole definition has become hell, for want of a better word, in this debate so I'll move on from that. Such stats indicate a really bad situation - however, and I guess this is semantics, hellhole is too sweeping. I think it is over-the top. C'est tout. I can tell you the warlords don't believe their condition is a hellhole. It is neither difficult to understand or to accept the sister’s perspective. As I may have stated earlier, it is not a rare view of life and I have run into many variations of these views. My responses are largely angry and directed at nearly everyone who espoused such views. I always wonder if people who think any life can be ‘stress free’ especially in the face of dire economic conditions are naturally naïve and incapable of seeing complexities or people unable to deal with the pain and suffering of others. In both cases, my blood boils at the simplicity of it all. I found this paragraph the most interesting of all. What are you angry about? That someone can even comment on positives when the overall picture is negative? I like nuance and differentiation - there is a lot of gray in the world. What is wrong with that? At the end of the day, almost no life is stress free. But there are gradations of stress and when faced with a basic subsistence lifestyle where you can scratch out a living or the complexities of our current lifestyle - many people would say that the former incurs less stress. They could be mistaken. But hey that is a perspective. It is not simplisitic to say that some in Somalia have a stress-free life as compared us in the western world. They are not generalizing for everybody or imposing that fact on all - the only one doing that is you. And I can't figure out why. So you don’t think it was her person attacked in this thread, rather her perspective? Good. That she did not see any suffering while irksome is hers alone. In answer to your question, no one can tell another person to see the world a certain way. However, when she made large generalizations of Somalis in Somali and the West, some responded with suspicion. She can sing her perspective up and down and people can voice their suspicions and disagreements as well. I believed you attacked both her person and perspective but more so on the latter. She did not make generalizations - you have no proof there. She commented on what she observed. You can disagree to the extent that the perspective is not complete - but suspicions? Why? - she is going on SOL to lie about what she saw? Anyone holding that belief is wierd. The post does not say that hunger, stress, and depression do not exist. The post is confined to a particular perspective. The post speaks of a stress-free life. Being free of something means it does not occur there. True, she did say hunger existed and no one claimed that she said otherwise. It is the reflection of the mental state of hungry people that caused the disagreement. Again, a stress free life for those individuals in the city/town she saw. The rest you are imputing or assuming(wrongly). Are you saying that some hungry ppl do not have a strong mental state that allows them to persevere in the face of hunger? That is what the poster was saying and from all I know - many Somalis are like that. Questioned from a different angle - is everyone who is hungry stressed out and troubled in your book? I don't buy that - it's a generalization. That’s your opinion and you can raise your objections all you want. You do not set the parameters of a discussion and talking about social ills affecting Somalia when the issue of hungry Somalis comes up is not off-topic. A narrower discussion may be to your liking but the chance to discuss any relevant factors are open to people in the thread, and this includes Brother Khayr’s single-syllabic comments. The issue was a perspective - a positive one. Agree/disagree, or state that it is incomplete. You are right - the parameters of the discussion are not set by me. They are set by the participating individuals who wish to elucidate ideas and try to come to a consensus. Now it seems to me, all of your posts go to say one thing - (paraphrased) you are a deluded sister, Somalia is a catastrophe, how dare you mention positives that you saw. Now, parts of this are legitimate but in response to a persepective this is off-topic. CLEARLY! What is so bizarre and intolerable about one positing her perspective? Or must the perspective posted conform to your pre-conceived notions? It is not bizarre or intolerable but object to suspicion and debate. I don't understand your response here. Okay. You find my tone, use of language and other tools bothersome. I can take that, I’m a big girl. I reserve shouting for what I perceive to be lazy and deceptive ideas and I reply as such. I do try not to be dismissive or degrading of any ideas, but to be challenging. If that means turning on the bullshit meter and calling it as such, so be it. But wait a second! It's a perspective. There are no lazy or deceptive ideas. It is simply the result of limited observation. I will tell you one thing - I like ppl who challenge others. I think it lets you expand your mind, sharpen your arguments and really know what you are talking about with depth. I don't like ppl who use a hostile and belittling tone - I think it's disrespectful and additionally, it only results in defensiveness and insult trading. And not in the original goal of challenging. Fair enough. My arguments maybe pessimistic but I backed them up with statistics and personal examples. The sister waxed poetic about her reflections and you posted counter arguments including an unfollowed-through comparison between countries and an unsubstantiated claim of signs of recovery leading to an improvement. You have not supported this claim yet you accused me of dismissing it easily. You’re obviously a man/woman who values a rigorous argument that is well supported with examples. Perhaps the intelligent and unbiased person in you can apply the same rigour to your arguments. Well - the sister certainly waxed poetic - no doubt there. But you attacked her and her perspective - which I thought was crossing the line. As to the pessimism - certainly some pessimism is in order but to argue that pessimism is all there is when an eyewitness individual is claiming otherwise is a bit much. As to the claim of progress and renewal - I will post numerous sources either later on tonight or tomorrow. Since you like challenges - I will offer you one. In a maximum of 2 (short!) paragraphs - tell me what it is that you object to in my posts and what it is you would like me to do or write. And I will do the same. Perhaps, a straightforward resolution is in sight. PS - ThePoint = Male

^^It's a quoted company - since the poster included its stock price. Thus you can buy. But then, I am not familiar with the Austrialian stock market - I am much more familiar with the North American ones.