Originally posted by Faarax-Brown: Actually yes. I wish I could put it in a SIMPLER simple way. You personally said that that outsiders were fairing better than the black folks in america. Including Africans like me,so that makes it even more simpler to understand. It is not that black folks can not do very well for themselves,and as you have pointed out, Oprah and many others have done it .If it was a simple issue,then we would have many many oprahs and people of her calibre. This is a social,political ,pyschological and economic issue. You would have to go back some 500years ago. It is a Dominos effect. Is it a simple issue or is it not? You make two contradictory statments. One - Africans and other immigrants are faring better so that means blacks must be not doing well because of their history. Two - It is a social, political,... etc. It can't be both. I agree that there is definite baggage. There is a dominoe effect to a degree in terms of poverty, education etc. But anyone can break out of that cycle. America is the 'Land of opportunity'. The question is: since MLK's speech why have blacks regressed in terms of poverty, absentee fathers, criminality, black male participation in post-secondary etc. It doesn't make sense that it was because of racism and discrimination - because the individuals back then suffered it. And successful blacks in the US have also suffered but have been able to overcome it. If the state of blacks was a question of slavery/discrimination/repression is the cause - then you would expect very few blacks to be the exception since all went through that - but no - there are many execptions. The question is - how do you account for those exceptions?? Your Grand parents worked 20+ hrs a day for free, your father was refused to attend good schools(he was told he is too dumb to learn), you were lynched and killed if you spoke against injustices, you were not allowed to get good jobs .you were put in govt houses in govt estates with no jobs,no school and no businesses. Your only source of income is a check at the end of the month in the form of a welfare. What do you think the outcome will be? I will let you do the math. Compare that to a white person,whose grandparents were given land(with free labor),the sons inherit the land,go to school and become lawyers and Drs and what not…where is the freaking equality?? You expect those two descendants to perform equally in a market dominated capitalisitic society as this AMERICA? I don't expect them to HAVE performed equally in the past. But as to the present - why shouldn't they perform MORE equally? You can't have perfect equality because blacks live in poorer nieghbourhoods, their schools are underfunded etc. But this is where affirmative action comees in - they are given a helping hand. How could you not take advantage of that? Why are u dropping out of high school and getting pregnant etc? Is that a recipe for success? No, most will say - but is that the fault of the white man? I ask you FB - is it the fault of the white man??? Dude,cut the cadaan man's mentality. This has not been a fair start to begin with,and unless we do catch up,it wont be "EQUAL". Of course, it is not a fair or similar start. That is why I don't expect blacks and whites to be equal on a host of economic/social indicators. And that is why I am a firm supporter of Affirmative Action and other programs. An unequal start should not be used to justify sleeping while the race of life is being run by everyone else. This is not cadaan man's mentality, saaxib. This is my mentality - an attempt at trying to explain something that is fairly complex. You, on the other hand, seem to lay it all at the feet of racism and think that blacks are blameless. I believe this is wrong. Every human has the ability to change their lives - at least make an attempt at it.

Originally posted by Faarax-Brown: Actually yes. I wish I could put it in a SIMPLER simple way. You personally said that that outsiders were fairing better than the black folks in america. Including Africans like me,so that makes it even more simpler to understand. It is not that black folks can not do very well for themselves,and as you have pointed out, Oprah and many others have done it .If it was a simple issue,then we would have many many oprahs and people of her calibre. This is a social,political ,pyschological and economic issue. You would have to go back some 500years ago. It is a Dominos effect. Is it a simple issue or is it not? You make two contradictory statments. One - Africans and other immigrants are faring better so that means blacks must be not doing well because of their history. Two - It is a social, political,... etc. It can't be both. I agree that there is definite baggage. There is a dominoe effect to a degree in terms of poverty, education etc. But anyone can break out of that cycle. America is the 'Land of opportunity'. The question is: since MLK's speech why have blacks regressed in terms of poverty, absentee fathers, criminality, black male participation in post-secondary etc. It doesn't make sense that it was because of racism and discrimination - because the individuals back then suffered it. And successful blacks in the US have also suffered but have been able to overcome it. If the state of blacks was a question of slavery/discrimination/repression is the cause - then you would expect very few blacks to be the exception since all went through that - but no - there are many execptions. The question is - how do you account for those exceptions?? Your Grand parents worked 20+ hrs a day for free, your father was refused to attend good schools(he was told he is too dumb to learn), you were lynched and killed if you spoke against injustices, you were not allowed to get good jobs .you were put in govt houses in govt estates with no jobs,no school and no businesses. Your only source of income is a check at the end of the month in the form of a welfare. What do you think the outcome will be? I will let you do the math. Compare that to a white person,whose grandparents were given land(with free labor),the sons inherit the land,go to school and become lawyers and Drs and what not…where is the freaking equality?? You expect those two descendants to perform equally in a market dominated capitalisitic society as this AMERICA? I don't expect them to HAVE performed equally in the past. But as to the present - why shouldn't they perform MORE equally? You can't have perfect equality because blacks live in poorer nieghbourhoods, their schools are underfunded etc. But this is where affirmative action comees in - they are given a helping hand. How could you not take advantage of that? Why are u dropping out of high school and getting pregnant etc? Is that a recipe for success? No, most will say - but is that the fault of the white man? I ask you FB - is it the fault of the white man??? Dude,cut the cadaan man's mentality. This has not been a fair start to begin with,and unless we do catch up,it wont be "EQUAL". Of course, it is not a fair or similar start. That is why I don't expect blacks and whites to be equal on a host of economic/social indicators. And that is why I am a firm supporter of Affirmative Action and other programs. An unequal start should not be used to justify sleeping while the race of life is being run by everyone else. This is not cadaan man's mentality, saaxib. This is my mentality - an attempt at trying to explain something that is fairly complex. You, on the other hand, seem to lay it all at the feet of racism and think that blacks are blameless. I believe this is wrong. Every human has the ability to change their lives - at least make an attempt at it.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: quote:Originally posted by Khayr: e.g. Fornication was a Major societal taboo but now, its an encouraged behavior. High on your delusions again, aren't ya? I lived in Canada for nearly ten years and I can categorically tell you fornication is not encouraged . As usual, the gulf between what you say and the truth is as wide as the Atlantic ocean.I am afraid we must be living in alternate realities since both you and I are in Ottawa, Canada. Fornication is encouraged. Not at any institutional or official level but most definitely at the pop culture level. What the pop culture accepts or not is what governs the general behaviour of the society. Everyday you hear encouragement about your 'first' time of 'doing' it and how your virginty is something that one must hurry to lose. And how 'sad' it is that a 20 year old male has not lost his virginty. I am at a loss how you say 'fornication is not encourage'. PS - I have been here for 18 years - Trumps you!

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: Point, are you for real? is your thinking that simple? you said I have a victim mentality,then I think you would agree that you have little contact with the reality of Black america. I dont have victim mentality, you have colonizer metality: Blame the victim for their their misery cuz surely if they were smart enough they would be like you wouldnt they? It seems that you subscribe to the theory of people having no control over their lives - that they are acted upon by others like some passive beast of burden. Am I missing something or is America still practicing slavery and Jim Crow etc? No it is not. And it is not reasonable to throw up past discrimination and abuse as reason you can't do anything. By that token - any community or group that were repressed for centuries can then claim - 'oh, my woeful present state is due to that earlier repression and there is nothing I can do to change my condition'. The other thing - I stated my reasons for their condition as a lack of will and family breakdown - where do you come up with the 'smart enough' phrase? Ina Abti the truth is, economically and education wise, the likes of Opra are not role models. Yes, I'm so damn proud of her acheivements and acknowledge her as a pillar of the black community but it would be a disaster to measure success of the black community by how much money you have in your account, wouldnt it? This is the image the "whites" would like you to have and this is precisely why black people are failing to attain any goals. Have you ever wondered why blacks crowd the so-called "entertainment bussiness"? do you know the #1dream of black kids today, Yes it is to entertain and make tons of money. where does that leave us, a community just recovering from major dark period? Why would it be disaster to measure your success by money? If blacks are aspiring to the same level as whites - a reasonable measure is money. That is how we measure quality of life around the world - it's called economics. Yeah, black ppl's role models are messed up - but, again, I ask you - is THAT the fault of the white man? Whose fault is it that they have unsavoury role models?? And the point of the whole Oprah example is to ask you - Why did she succeed? Can't other blacks replicate that? What makes her different - because her background is not different from that of many blacks? Just who do you think will stay on top and maintain the supreme power of making the choices for the rest of the country, if your quick you guessed it right, yes the "whites". Whose children advance to Lawyers, doctors, senators, educators, governers and even presidents? Are blacks barred from becoming lawyers, doctors, senators, educators etc.? Why are some blacks able to acheive all those things and others not? From your perpesctive - it's the WHITE MAN! That is really simplistic. Ina abti, to come back to your urgument of the difference between lazy blacks and hard work indians or somalians for that matter( And I warned you not to go there because I knew you would :rolleyes: ) is you will never understand what it is like to be the descedents of black slaves. This is a poor argument - it doesn't explain anything but it makes the one stating this argument look smug and simplistic. Similar to your argument - I am not a woman - thus I can't make reasonable and sensible statements about women's issues. Also, I am not living in Communist China - thus I can make no reasonable statements about life there. Is the above paragraph really what you mean or was there some typing mistake? The indian or the somalian might have experienced some harsh circumstances, might be forced to exile, and mightnot know the English language or even the laws But for your urgument's sake, lets look at your reasoning. for sure their experiences have nothing on what blacks went through and are still going through. You are speaking like you beleive racism and prejudice is over. and blacks only have to worry about success and grabbing the riches now. and for this urgument only, I reject all your claims because obviously you have little knowledge about the circumstances of today's America. So blacks had massive repression and discrimination - so that it means they have an excuse not to succeed?? By that same token - the Jews who were enslaved by Pharoah have a free pass and then suffered repression and discrimination afterwards - they don't have to worry about succeeding - if the Jews are failing - it's simple - just look at their 'tragic' history. This is a poor argument. Racism and prejudice is not over - but it is markedly less than what it used to be 50 or 100 years ago. Pardon me, what are blacks 'still going through' - if you are talking about petty discrimination - move on because all coloured ppl face at some point. Yes, blacks have to worry about 'sucesses and grabbing the riches now' - if they don't - others are willing to grab for themselves. Through the course of your post - there were a number of instances of condescension and insult. They include: "is your thinking that simple?" "obviously you have little knowledge about the circumstances of today's America" If you have a resonable argument to make - make it. And it is important to separate an argument from the person - ie. you can call an argument simplistic but not the person based on one argument. Please keep it clean. All does does not answer the question from your perspective - why do you think blacks are in the economic and social situation they are in today? Is all you have to say - slavery and discrimination? Is it that straightforward for you?

Originally posted by Faarax-Brown: Point dude,i think the answer lies right there in your comparison example. If someone from the outside seems to do fine & those born in the'Miserable zone' seem to do fairly bad,then it is an inside issue. I mean how else would you explain this example? From your comparison,you would(Hopefully) agree with me that it has a lot(Or to some extent) to do with the PAST opressive,bigoted and racist history of the USA government and dixie state governments? If you dont think otherwise,then what do you think is the cause of your asian-African-American example? I hope you are not insunating that black folks are lazy and all those white man stereotypes No - FB - I think it has a little to do with past repression. It has mostly do with will and family structure according to me - Dr ThePoint - your online psychologist Why did Oprah Winfrey who came from a broken home, was sexually abused, came from a poor place, rise to where she was at? Why does that happen? Because she had the will to try and succeed and open her horizons. If you come from a broken home where you never knew your father, your mother is away 24hrs a day working, and you have no other support system - it is not shocking that you would turn to a gang or the local criminal network or hope to be a big gangsta rapper etc. But whose fault is it that there are so many broken black families - certainly not the white man. It is they, Black ppl, who have done that themselves. The will to succeed and do SOMETHING as opposed to falling in the same old trap and the serious family breakdown explain to me the situation for most blacks today.

I haven't seen this stuff posted here - but the rest of the articles(4) and video can be found here: http://hotzone.yahoo.com/somalia This is one article I found most interesting - the usual garbage about Al-Qaeda in Somalia - sad to say some Somalis are fanning the flames for their own ends. What's even more hilarious are some of the comments - REDNECK CITY! ------------------------------------------------- African al-Qaida? Posted by Kevin Sites on Tue, Sep 27 2005, 12:35 AM ET Video Audio Photo Essay Day Two: What will grow from Somalia's anarchy? Have America's tactics boosted the chance for an Islamic state, a base for al-Qaida or both? He is nimble on his crutches, moving through the marketplace with a fluid but mechanical choreography of leg and poles. He didn't see who fired the shot or where it came from, but 18-year-old Noor Malen doesn't believe it was intended for him. It was 1993. He was just a boy, walking the streets near his home. He didn't feel the bullet hit his thigh, but remembers going down, then passing out. The round shattered the bone of his right leg, and doctors amputated it. "I'm so very angry," he says. "I still have my friends, but nothing else. I can't walk freely, I can't carry things. I probably won't be able to get a job; the only thing I could do is be a watchman." Like so many others here, frustrated by the violence and chaos of Somalia, Noor believes Islam can save him. "I'd like to run an Islamic school someday," he says. "I think I would be good at it." He also wants to see Somalia become an Islamic state, believing it would bring security and stability -- something he's rarely experienced in his young life. "Things are so difficult here," he says, shaking his head. "There are 20 people in my family and they can't afford to support me. I only eat one meal a day, breakfast, then nothing but water." Noor is symbolic, experts say, of what is happening in Somalia today. Fourteen years without a functioning central government and warlords' thugs ruling the streets have turned this land on the horn of Africa into fertile ground for Islamic fundamentalism. Most of the women around Mogadishu observe strict Islamic dress, some covered head to toe, with only their eyes exposed. It's evidence, some say, of the growing influence of the fundamentalists. Before the beginning of the civil strife in the early '90s, dress was reportedly more relaxed. Osman Hassan Ali Atto is a powerful warlord in his own right and a minister in the fractious and mostly absentee interim Somali government. "If the lawlessness continues," Atto says, "yes, people will turn to religion." And some of those religious organizations they turn to are alleged to have links to terror organizations like al-Qaida. The largest and most well-funded, according to the terror watchdog International Crisis Group (ICG), is Al-Ittihad al-Islami, or the Islamic Union. It gained support and power after the fall of Somalia's ex-dictator, Siad Barre, in the early '90s. It attempted to win over Somalis by providing humanitarian relief, schools and even security in some parts of the country, while at the same time spreading fundamentalist ideology. The United States claims that Al-Ittihad al-Islami is linked to al-Qaida through guns, money and training. There are suspicions it has been involved in assassination attempts on rival Somali political leaders, the November 2002 attack on an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya that killed 13, and a rocket attack that same day that narrowly missed an Israeli jetliner. The United States lists Al-Ittihad al-Islami as a foreign terrorist group and has frozen its assets within U.S. jurisdictions. Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys is a leader of the group and was once a colonel in the Somali army. Aweys denies any al-Qaida connections, but does say he wants Somalia to become a theocracy. "The only reason Western powers say that al-Qaida is in Somalia is because they are afraid that Somalia will become an Islamic state and they will do everything they can to stop that," Aweys says. "I believe there's not even one person in Somalia connected to al-Qaida. We are one clan, one color, one language. We would not accept foreigners (al-Qaida) here." Aweys, with penetrating eyes and a red, henna-tipped beard, is deeply suspicious of Western journalists. I am just the second to interview him within his guarded compound in Mogadishu. As I a set up my camera and tripod, he asks me if I am an American -- and a Jew. He looks at me askance, as if I were a spy, but consents to the interview anyway. I ask him about the March 2005 United Nations report that claimed Somalia has become a haven for jihadists and has no fewer than 17 mobile terrorist training camps on its soil. "The FBI, people like you (journalists) and other groups who are often in the shadows always say al-Qaida is in Somalia," says Aweys, dismissively. Interim President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed "also said two years ago there were al-Qaida training camps here. Well, the FBI came here, journalists came here and there were no training camps. It's just not true. We all know each other in Somalia. We would know if al-Qaida was here." Aweys says he is, however, sympathetic to "jihads" being waged against Western forces around the world. "If you lock a cat in a room all the time," Aweys says, "what do you think it will do? It's going to fight back." He says he also supports Somalis who have gone to Iraq to fight against Americans there. "Islam is one body; if you're wounded in one place, you feel it everywhere. We all feel it when Americans kill Muslims," says Aweys. "I know in my heart I cannot accept when they say we must stay outside. Western countries fight to take what they want from us. We won't accept those conditions." The U.S. response to the potential terror threat in Africa has been serious. In 2002 it created the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), a 2,000-strong outpost based in Djibouti. And according to the ICG, the task force has put some Somali warlords, ex-military leaders and even Ethiopian security teams on the payroll to capture al-Qaida members operating in Somalia. The ICG says that as many as 12 suspected members are either dead or in jail. In an interview from Djibouti, CJTF-HOA Spokesman Maj. Ron Watrous denied that the task force is involved in these operations. The mission, he said, is limited to humanitarian activities and to helping regional governments bolster their own security forces. The hope is that this will translate into progress in fighting the war on terror not just in Somalia, but in the entire horn of Africa. "You don't have to physically go into Somalia to have an impact on Somalia itself," Watrous said. But some critics say the plan is backfiring. They say Somalis -- already deeply suspicious of American intentions after the failure of Operation Restore Hope in 1993 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- feel it's a war being waged on Islam, not terror.It's a problem that the task force acknowledges. "Yes, we are concerned (that the task force is not able to operate in Somalia)," Watrous said. "We do want to be able to communicate more effectively in the region." In a news article in July, the ICG's Horn of Africa Director Mark Bryden said that U.S. support for factional leaders, surveillance flights over Somalia and the abduction of innocent people sometimes held for weeks is "wreaking havoc over the country... the measures may actually be increasing support for terrorism." Even some of America's closest allies, like Atto, are skeptical about the presence of al-Qaida operatives in Somalia. "I don't believe [it] and I have not seen any al-Qaida cells in this country," says Atto, "but there are certain elements of so-called extremists that are taking advantage of the situation we are in." In the Bakhaara Market, where I first met Noor, the young amputee, I see evidence of anger toward Westerners and Americans in particular. Many shake their fingers and shout at me when I try to videotape them as I walk by -- a product of paranoia, an associate tells me. "They think you're going to show their pictures to the Americans, and they could be snatched up." One older man, speaking in English, stands up when he sees me in the crowd. "Tell Bush we're ready," he says. "Tell him we're ready to fight." "Ready to fight, why?" I ask. "Because he's attacking Muslims in Iraq; he'll come here too," he says. Some groups like the ICG are encouraging the West to end the capture campaigns in Somalia and support for factional leaders, which adds to the divisiveness, they say. Instead, the ICG says, the West should focus on supporting the interim government that was formed in Kenya in 2004, but has yet to truly take power. This backing, they say, will do much more to create stability and keep an Islamic extremist terror threat from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: quote: but the fact is that so many(many, not all) black Americans have squandered the opportunities that their forefathers worked so hard for them to have. And worse, their entire social/family structure has broken down as never in their history exacerbating their problems Walaalo that is the point I'm trying to refute if you hear the drums well. And I didnt say All somalis are racist. Rather I said it makes me sad when our people do that(and it is a given fact that majority of Somalis dont consider themselves African or from the black race hence dont concern themselves with such issues unless it concerns them particulary). And walaalo what rights or opportunities are we discussing here? It is all sugar-coated. If you dropp the judgement-attitude and truely look at the situation they are in, you will see it is designed to exhoust them. How can you succeed in a society whose consitution is designed to keep you at a poverty level? Truely they are conditioned to fail tragically. And dont even put yourself in their shoes(that is a mistake we make)because you can never comprehend their losses. You might be comparing yourselves against them telling yourself that you are in a worse position than them.. eg. being immigrant, minority, and Muslim. And this is where the majority of us miss the whole picture hence encouraging their prejudice. You can only compare yourself to them if you were enslaved(and not only phsically), seen your father/brother/husband/grandfather or mother dragged to jail, forced to do demeaning jobs, publically humilitated, and forced to take rations from the same people who tought you you are worthless ... the list goes on. The main point is: Black people are doing the best they can to move forward but unfortunetly the society they live have the habit of shamefully magnifying their probmlems. 45% of the homicides committed takes place in the suburban by a white person, why is it you only see the black poor kid who got busted for shoplifting on the News? Com ooooooooon pay attention! :mad: --------------------------------------------- Get Up!Up Even the best fall down sometimes Chocolate - Are you saying that because tons of bad things happened to Blacks in America - that they are excused from rising and grasping the opportunities available to them? It seems to me you have the victim mentality - please correct me if I am wrong. This is what I find inexcusable: An immigrant from East Asia - who doesn't speak a word of English - is unfamiliar with the culture, the society, the institutions - comes to America - works at some minimum wage job - goes to night school - learns - then gets a scholarship to an Ivy League university - gets numerous degrees - and finds a high-paying perstigious job. Meanwhile - the people who have been here for 400+ years are squandering the opportunities that others are grasping. I CANNOT sympathize. I can sympathize with the degradations of slavery, Jim Crow, Civil Rights etc but wasting the opportunities those battles enabled you to recieve - SHAMELESS. BTW - your statistic on crime maybe correct but the better question is: Why do black men make up 50% or some such number of people in jail when blacks comprise 12% of the US populations??? Now that is something that requires a better explanation than 'Society is keeping me down'.

It looks like a Conservative win - but a minority gov't I think - those who see a Conservative majority underestimate Liberal staying power. With that said, I am officially voting for the NDP - if the rest of Canada wants Conservatives they can have them but I won't do anything to help them come to power. I do think that like another poster - the Conservatives are NOT like the Republicans at all. Most of the Liberal stuff about them is extreme and no party NDP/Green/Bull Moose party will dismantle the social programs and structure of this country. To do so would be at their own electoral peril. I'm sure people in Ontario remember when the provincial conservatives under Ernie Eves refered to Dalton Mcguinty as a kitten-eater! It's that sort of ridiculous hyperbole that Liberals are engaged in with regard to Conservatives.

Folks, Somalia has been improving for the past decade and will continue to do so - provided this possible federal gov't stuff doesn't happen or limits itself to big matters. With the exception of some places in the south, the country's commerce and economy has been more dynamic than it was under any previous gov't and is more dynamic than most in sub-saharan Africa. The reason for this is that the heavy-handed, corrupt and stifling nature of gov'ts in black Africa disappeared within a few years after Siyad was overthrown and this allowed people to come back and invest and develop projects for their own benefit and their country's. If things stay at present this will continue - and once each region is able to cobble together a decent local gov't - then a decent federal gov't can form. But, personally, I don't like this top down approach. And I am optimistic about the country and its future. With the exception of the last sentence(which is uninformed BS) in the following article, there is much reason to be hopeful: ------------------------------------------------- Mobile phones Somalia calling Dec 20th 2005 | BOSSASO AND HARGEISA From The Economist print edition An unlikely success story SOMALIA does not spring to mind as a good place to do business, but in telecoms at least it has something to teach the world. A call from a Somali mobile phone is generally cheaper and clearer than a call from anywhere else in Africa. The trick is the lack of regulation. Somalia has had no government since 1991. It was cut off for a while, but then private mobile companies moved in and found that the collapsed state provided a curious competitive advantage. No government means no state telecoms company to worry about, no corrupt ministry officials to pay off (there is no ministry), and the freedom to choose the best-value equipment. Taxes, payable to a tentative local authority or strongman, are seldom more than 5%, security is another 5% (more in Mogadishu), and customs duties are next to nothing. There is no need to pay for licences, or to pay to put up masts. It is a vivid illustration of the way in which governments, for all their lip service to extending communications, can often be more of a hindrance than a help. Golis Telecom, based in the northern port of Bossaso, is one of the larger forces in the Somali market. Its chairman, Adan Sheikhdon Ali, hopes for 50,000 mobile subscribers by 2007—not bad for a country where many people still live a nomadic life in the desert beyond a mobile signal. Golis spent $2.7m on Chinese equipment to set up its service and has since expanded its reach across the country, drawing in customers with its low prices. You can call anywhere on the planet on a Golis mobile for $0.30 a minute. Pricing is especially important in Somalia, says Mr Ali, because many potential customers are illiterate and so immune to advertising. The present dozen or so operators should eventually be whittled down to three or four. To survive, Golis has diversified into landlines and broadband. But even with price wars, profits are high. Somalis' gift of the gab, and the difficulty of getting in and out of the country, put a premium on extended telephone calls. Golis recouped its initial investment in two years. But the risks are also high. Investment is all up front. There is no insurance available. And then there is Somalia itself. From a distance it looks like a free-market nirvana after The Economist's heart; but closer up it better resembles an armed oligarchy, capable of taking anything it wants at the point of a gun—even a Nokia handset.

Originally posted by Dhoodimeer: Hi everybody there, I having been read the above reporter article. It is very interesting one to read and that is why I liked some of you share with me then. It really reminds Somali people what was going on of thier older generation and up to this generation of Somalis specially this coming part. I quote "The clans did not wait to be conquered. They took the easy way out and sold their rights, most often for less than a hundred dollars. The treaties were remarkable for their three-point simplicity. Point 1: All rights are yours. Point 2: I get 70 or 100 dollars. Point 3: You have the last word in all disputes." These words says lot about many Somalis!! bye Dhoodi Meer HA! If you believe some jumped up reporter for whom this is the first time in the country! From my understanding of Somali history(impartially gained from western books) Somalis put strict limits on those colonial treaties. They were for the most part protection & trade treaties - let us conduct trade/administration through your territories and we will protect you. Does any of you who know the Somali character really think that they would allow some 'gaal' to trample them and cede their land? I think not! Two stories told to me by my father help to illustrate - One - When the elders in Northwest Somalia (read Somaliland) were debating with the British as to these protection treaties - they included a clause in there to the effect that no preganant British woman could give birth in their lands - when they became pregnant they had to leave and take the boat to Aden or wherever. These elders realized that anyone who can point to being born there will necessarily presume some rights to the land. Two - In the south in Jubaland(around Kismayo) when the British controlled it as part of the Kenya colony, they tried to introduce a hut tax or poll tax so that every household would have to pay a certain amount. They went to the elders and told them this. The elders said - go and tax your kinsmen and not us. The British asked them what they meant. The elders said we are not 'buuryoqab' and 'gaalo' - those other Africans are 'buuryoqab' and 'gaalo' - go and tax them. The matter was left there. These stories may very well be apocryphal but I think there is much truth to them and as my father left the country in 1975 and does not hail from either the Northwest or Jubaland - the usual clannist suspicions are definitely diluted.

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: I thank Allah first, then I thank Dr.King for his dedication, pure vision, and for his undying dream of equality in the world. It is truely inspirational to celebrate his dream and acknowledge such true sacrifice. True, his dreams didnt completely come true but it didnt die either. Somalis truely need to acknowlege the struggles and the strifes of black America. It really amazes me when our people dismiss the racism issue as black- American issue yet dont even hesitate to shout Racist when they get a parking ticket Really if it wasnt for them, we wouldnt have the chance for equal education and other opportunities, yet all we see are their drunkards,violence, and drug addicts: That isnt fair to us and to them. So we need to be more brotherly and stop the prejudice and superiority crap! ---------------------------------------------- Get Up!Up Even the best fall down sometimes I totally agree that without MLK and the entire civil rights movement no person of colour anywhere in the West(it did not only affect America) would have the rights and freedoms they do now. That said, I don't know why you are criticising Somalis in such a general manner. They do need to be less racist for sure - but the fact is that so many(many, not all) black Americans have squandered the opportunities that their forefathers worked so hard for them to have. And worse, their entire social/family structure has broken down as never in their history exacerbating their problems. No one is superior to others - and Somalis shouldn't think that but thank God we have Islam as guidance at least and our family structure has not broken down as theirs has. I guess my issue is a matter of tone more than any real disagreement.

Some interesting stuff here. It would take too long to comment now. All will be explained after New Year's, Boys and Girls! TTYL

Ok Folks: 1- Yes, the post was somewhat of a hyperbole 2- I did put limitations on it - I wasn't completely cracked 3- Femme had a good point about migration - although given the millions of Turks that affects - just isn't feasible for many of them 4- The point is this - Death comes to us all - and whether it is civil conflict/dying peacefully in your own bed - the end result is the same. However, where one is prevented from carrying out one's duties on Earth as mandated by God(hijab ban), it becomes akin to a sort of slavery - don't tell me that slavery is better than death. Yes, I know it is stretching it. Taking off till after New Year's - Take care all

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by Sulekha: The last time i checked ,someone was one hell of a kiss asser.... It's as$-kisser, dear. Glad you chose to spend one of your 29 posts over 4 years on me. LOL, LOL - the post simply drips with sarcasm!

Originally posted by Yeniceri: ^^ Muslims the globe over have done worse things to each other than a hijab ban can ever do. Should we also question whether or not they're Muslims as well? The hijab controversy is an ideological battle compared to military and civil conflicts in Muslims nations amongst Muslims (in this context, Somalia should provide ample example). Turkey remains a [secular] Muslim nation. I would argue that the hijab ban is in fact worse, in some ways, than killings/civil war etc. And at the very least the Turkish government can be legitimately referred to as non-Muslim since they expressly enacted something in contradiction to Islamic requirements. When you actively prevent someone from practising something that has been mandated by God - in the false name of secularism(witness other secular nations like the US/Canada who don't have this ban)then you have gone well beyond the confines of reason. Killing a Muslim is one thing - the individual who perpertrated it will get punished here or in the afterlife - but then everyone dies at some point. But preventing someone from practising their religion is much like a living death. It is worse. Just as a state that prevents Muslims from fasting Ramadan is definitely worse than a state that simply kills Muslims. Personally, I have nothing but contempt for Turkish establishment and Kemal Ataturk because of this ban and their public self-loathing and self-flagellation resulting from their inferiority complex over Islam.

LOL - Liibaan - that was one funny post. I don't know anymore who to vote for. I am even considering, shock and horror!, the conservatives. Stephen Harper is definitely not the demon the Liberals make him out to be - and it is important to have some change in government instead of a one-party rule all the time. But..... I still can't make that jump - who knows. Maybe I'll give it to the NDP. It's so funny, whenever the words gay/homosexual appear on television, you will hear a string of curse words from my parents who almost never curse and yet almost every federal/provincial election they happily give their votes to the NDP. On the other matter, I doubt Muslim votes are really affected by Israel/Palestine, maybe only at the margins. Most Muslims vote for things that affect them in this country, in the here and now.

Originally posted by ATLAS: I have no time so I will just make a statement and hope we can discuss it more openly i would like to learn more about the arguments: Abortion is a question of who can afford to raise up a child to be a responsible member of society Give me time and i will expand until then please jump in A needlessly controversial and vapid generalization. Of course economics play into it but that is not all. In the same vein as your statment, I might say - The inabilitly of Africans to rule themselves decently is simply a question of their ********* .

Originally posted by Caano Geel: ^ Liibaan sorry man i disagree, the author is just plain wrong with regard to the science. To try to make an analogy with the watchmaker example just shows how little he understands about the subject he is trying to address. Before passing judgement - it is important to wait for and sift a response. After a reasonably long time, if no response is forthcoming - you can then pass the judgement above. If this above post is as a result of too much spiked Holiday caano-geel, I can make allowances.

My Thoughts on Science: I am always amused, facsinated, disgusted and saddened by those who think science is the be all and end all with regard to discovering the truth. In fact, science can only tell us only limited truths - science is locked in the straight-jacket of the Scientific Method. It can't grasp anything that does not neatly slot into the confines of the Scientific Method. Don't get me wrong - limited truths are always better than nothing and certainly superior to outright falsehoods. But it seems those defenders of science ascribe an almost biblical belief and significance to it(in our case Quranic). That is a big mistake. A simple illustration will suffice. Back in the 1920s and earlier, it was commonly agreed on by scientists, and widely accepted by the general public as a result, that some races were inferior to others(namely 'Negros' at the bottom and 'Caucasians' at the top). These conclusions were arrived at with reference to the Scientific Method and the scientific knowledge as understood at that time. At this same time, had you spoken to an illiterate nomad deep in the Somali bush with only a minimum of knowledge of the Quran and Hadith - he would tell you the immutable truth. All races are equal - a black man in not superior to or inferior to a white man etc as revealed to Muslims by the Prophet (PBUH) in the seventh century. Revelation, based on divine knowledge, trumped science and the Scientific Method then(and trumps it now) regardless of the 'intellect', 'knowledge', 'schooling', etc that scientists of that era may have had in comparison with our illustrative nomad. In fact, they would have looked down him with dismissiveness and arrogance and would have laughed at our nomad and his citation of revelation as proof in comparison with the 'vaunted' Scientific Method. Something that is still happening in our world today and to an extent in this forum. At this point, a chorusof howls will echo from folks like Socod-Badane etc. that science is self-correcting etc. That IS precisely the point - something that is, in fact, self-correcting CANNOT tell us about the fundamental and immutable truths about our universe and human existence. Because science is locked into the straight-jacked of the Scientific Method it simply cannot grasp anything beyond this. Furthermore, even if the falsehood or racial superiority/inferiority issue existed for a short time before it was corrected - it still doesn't excuse those who did believe as scientific 'fact' - their flawed 'science' led to a lot of injustice etc. From my perspective, scientists are like a bunch of amoebas locked into the stagnant pool of their own world - and they grasp their truths only from the confines of their very limited poo. They(amoebas) cannot ever possibly grasp or comprehend something as complex as the human mind or the human heart, with their abilities to think/plan, and feel emotions etc. In addition, our illustrative amoebas(read scientists) cannot ever acknowledge the possiblity of the existence of a world outside thier own pool because it simply doesn't conform to the dictates of the Amoeba Scientific Method. This latter trait is the bigger sin. In the interests of clarity, let me spell it out. The amoebas in this case refers to the scientists, and broadly humans, and the human/human heart and mind refers to God although God is, as always, above comparison. My request for our friends of the 'Science is the only truth'/atheist ilk - please recognize science's very severe and fundamental limitations. And more importantly, please refrain from knocking or bashing, unless legitimate mistakes were made in regard to science, those who take their fundamental and immutable truths from revelation. As opposed to the self-correcting and always fallible human endeavour called science. To me, it is clear which takes precedent.

Originally posted by ATLAS: The point dont sulk off thank you for participating my two cents: I am not sulking off - just taking a much needed break from work - and understanding the fundamental futility of trying to prove God exists to atheists and the like. Apart from that, I must say this is an exceptionally clear and well-written post notwithstaning all the refutations and rejections that follow. Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved . The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils," then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here? Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs , not about whether there's a creator behind it. No, indeed it is not. To me that is precisely what the debate is about - whether a creator exists. From that(affirmative in my case) I draw only limited conclusions(based on Islam) to Big Band/Evolution. Big Bang - directed, first originator was God. Evolution - certainly seemed to have occurred for animals and the like but modern humans were created by God as revealed in the Quran. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change." No real argument there - read the above response paragraph. Again, I don't know why you extrapolate no evolution from Watchmaker theory. I certainly didn't make that point. The point is the watch had to have an 'original' framework that was created by God - whatever evolutionary cycles occurred afterward depended on that original framework. An individual watch is, of course, always assembled by something outside itself (a human watchmaker, although nowadays it's more likely to be industrial robots). All the animals I've ever seen have assembled themselves , quite literally! They take in (usually) nonliving material from their environments, chemically process it, and turn it into parts of the living animal. In the case of mammals like us, the only parts of us that are directly made by someone else are the sperm and egg cells that unite and subdivide into our first few cells. After that, for the rest of our lives, we take in material from the outside, and assemble it ourselves into parts of us. Early on, that material is supplied by our mother, but she doesn't make us: she just supplies the raw material. We absorb it, manipulate it, build ourselves , and get rid of what we don't need. You stated earlier that watches evolved etc. but up here - you state that the individual watch(or first watch at least) is made by watchmaker. But apparently, for you, it is too impossible to also logically say, the first living matter or first animal was also created. Instead, we get 'all the animals I have ever seen assemble themselves'. The question is if you can accept an outside watchmaker for the watch(first one at least) as it appears you can, why can't you accept a creator for the first animal/animals? OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of the simplest chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating , if the raw materials are available. "Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules" - That is what we have today in our universe. Just because we have it NOW - does that mean it was always the case? Isn't that rather a huge assumption? Because X(read spontaneous combinations) is occuring now and has led to XYZABC - X was always occuring from time immermorial. Also, what happened to causality - What has set elements and simple molecules in motion that they are forming more complex molecules? We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve. But strangely enough, significant life is only found on this planet. Of the 9 or 10 planets in our solar system - none is even remotely like the Earth. Here is your theory of life. For whatever reason and by some unknown cause, elements/simple molecules started banging against each other, created more complex molecules resulting in living systems etc, and the only place these living systems were able to exist was the Earth out of all the other possible places in the universe. And nowhere else is this replicated. What a fortuitous theory! Based on one improbability after another! For me, the logical conclusion is that this was directed by a creator. One would likely never say, if the above was a human endeavour, that there was no one directing. And, if we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. To the first two statements - obviously that is my take on matters. Again, I do not use the watchmaker analogy as a blanket denial of evolution. I look at the watchmaker analogy as one that is purely illustrative that a watchmaker(the Creator, God) exists. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo ; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. Again, the first watch was created by an initial watchmaker - whatever evolutionary cycles it has undergone subsequently had been built into its original and miraculous framework. The inability of watches to self-assemble has everything to do with other life. Again, simply because we see elements/molecules assembling themselves now - we assume that is always the case? And what happend to causality - out of nowhere they started banging into each other? At the end of the day, my friend, no one can prove or disprove the existence of a creator through science. One can only point to the signs and hope that others may be convinced by them.

By PM demand - sorry about the bold probs! Originally posted by J B: Delayed gratifications are nothing for me dear ThePoint, so let me go ahead n collide with myself. before i lay my eggs i´d like ask u some sincere questions. ThePoint can you find out the contradiction in the WatchMaker anology? will you accept it if i demostrate it and abandon your beleif? Is this your very last resort regarding the existance of an Intelligent designer? Hardly a last resort, saxiib. Part and parcel of the many signs that point to an intelligent designer. If one of your answers to these questions is YES, here comes the contradiction, the ex nihilo and lastly the falsehood of the analogy: First: The argument is contraditory becouse it gives the universe two incompitable definations. You can´t assume that the watch is not as complex and complicated as nature in one hand( heey look what i found! a complicated complex thing, very unlike humble simplne nature ) and at the same time assume that the universe is so complicated complex but ordered just like the watch in the other hand , thus you can´t come to bedrock that way. Contradictory - how? Watch/Universe = ordered. Watch/Universe = complex. The universe is simply of a grade higher - more ordered and more complex. Hint - lose the sarcasm and arrogance and maybe your argument can be more intelligible to others. Second: You can´t make the watchs out of nothing, the things that the watchmaker used are available naturally, but you claim your Creator created things including you and the universe ex nihilo from nothing. SB´s refutation of your BB theory assumption might have given u a " wake up " dos by now. Sure the watch was made out of materials found on Earth, so the universe was made out something too - the Will of God. In our physical world there is no equivalent - as such nothing. God is the original creator. Can you grasp that? Can you grasp something that metaphysical or is your realm only the physical? And lastly the argument is false becouse it is based on WRONG assumptions, I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn. If two objects share the same quality they must not have another one in common. Your basic assumption dictates the contrary. Take a great look at this deductive reasoning. 1: A watch is a complex thing to construct. 2: A watch has a clever WatchMaker. 3: The Universe is also a complex thing to construct. 4: Therefore the Universe also has a clever WatchMaker. You see dear ThePoint, the last statement is WRONG. why? you might wonder , becouse what it concludes is not supported by the creteria. Your deductive reasoning quoted is a misrepresentation. Both the watch and the universe share a complexity and orderliness not explained by randomness and spontaneity. Thus one is an analogy of the other. The watch is also a direct reference to the sun so your quote above is lacking in depth. There is another funnier( dummier ) deductive reasoning i´d like to share with you , not that i´m implying it´ll be easier to grasb or something in that direction, but just becouse it is funnier. 1: flowers are beautifully designed beauty. 2: flowers grow on trees. 3: Dollar bills are also beautifully designed beauty. 4: therefore Dollar bills grow on trees. And that is FALSE according to the idiom. You haven't proven anything false to me at this point. On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care....... P.s happy holidays !! About the only thing I agree with you about - I like your words so much I'll give you the same advice. Substitute in your own misguided beliefs about God/Universe/Big Bang/Evolution etc. On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care....... PS - I have a feeling this debate is likely going nowhere fast so I will make this my last post on this issue. Happy Holidays to you too.

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by J B: I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn. You've burnt all of mine for the day, saaxib. Let me sleep on this, and regenerate a few more ex nihilo , and I'll engage you in this. It seems like you've also burnt all of The Point's cells but he'd rather use his new ones elsewhere. In contradiction to what I said before(we can't be Somalis if we don't contradict ourselves many times over ) I want to say Castro, he has not 'burnt' out my brain cells. It just seems to be this will likely be a tit for tat for debate with both sides not moving so... I'd rather not waste my time. My brain is amply supplied, thank you.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: What began the Big Bang? Does the theory have no explanation as to how it got its start? We don't know what began the Big Bang. If we go back in time, say rewind the creation of this universe, we'll end up hitting a brick wall which we can't see or know what's the other side of it. That is called point of singularity and all mathematics breaks down since the beginnning of this universe -- commencing at the point of singularity -- was coupled with the creation of time and space. If there is no answer - I have no problems. Then, you're happy I guess. Just Dandy!!! An incomplete theory as I have noted above. And you can see above what I believe it needs for completion.

Originally posted by J B: Delayed gratifications are nothing for me dear ThePoint, so let me go ahead n collide with myself. before i lay my eggs i´d like ask u some sincere questions. ThePoint can you find out the contradiction in the WatchMaker anology? will you accept it if i demostrate it and abandon your beleif? Is this your very last resort regarding the existance of an Intelligent designer? Hardly a last resort, saxiib. Part and parcel of the many signs that point to an intelligent designer. If one of your answers to these questions is YES, here comes the contradiction, the ex nihilo and lastly the falsehood of the analogy: First: The argument is contraditory becouse it gives the universe two incompitable definations. You can´t assume that the watch is not as complex and complicated as nature in one hand( heey look what i found! a complicated complex thing, very unlike humble simplne nature ) and at the same time assume that the universe is so complicated complex but ordered just like the watch in the other hand , thus you can´t come to bedrock that way. Contradictory - how? Watch/Universe = ordered. Watch/Universe = complex. The universe is simply of a grade higher - more ordered and more complex. Hint - lose the sarcasm and arrogance and maybe your argument can be more intelligible to others. Second: You can´t make the watchs out of nothing, the things that the watchmaker used are available naturally, but you claim your Creator created things including you and the universe ex nihilo from nothing. SB´s refutation of your BB theory assumption might have given u a " wake up " dos by now. Sure the watch was made out of materials found on Earth, so the universe was made out something too - the Will of God. In our physical world there is no equivalent - as such nothing. God is the original creator. Can you grasp that? Can you grasp something that metaphysical or is your realm only the physical? And lastly the argument is false becouse it is based on WRONG assumptions, I need you to hang on here becouse it is here where it usually takes few more brain cells to burn. If two objects share the same quality they must not have another one in common. Your basic assumption dictates the contrary. Take a great look at this deductive reasoning. 1: A watch is a complex thing to construct. 2: A watch has a clever WatchMaker. 3: The Universe is also a complex thing to construct. 4: Therefore the Universe also has a clever WatchMaker. You see dear ThePoint, the last statement is WRONG. why? you might wonder , becouse what it concludes is not supported by the creteria. Your deductive reasoning quoted is a misrepresentation. Both the watch and the universe share a complexity and orderliness not explained by randomness and spontaneity. Thus one is an analogy of the other. The watch is also a direct reference to the sun so your quote above is lacking in depth. There is another funnier( dummier ) deductive reasoning i´d like to share with you , not that i´m implying it´ll be easier to grasb or something in that direction, but just becouse it is funnier. 1: flowers are beautifully designed beauty. 2: flowers grow on trees. 3: Dollar bills are also beautifully designed beauty. 4: therefore Dollar bills grow on trees. And that is FALSE according to the idiom. You haven't proven anything false to me at this point. On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care....... P.s happy holidays !! About the only thing I agree with you about - I like your words so much I'll give you the same advice. Substitute in your own misguided beliefs about God/Universe/Big Bang/Evolution etc. On a serious note, you don´t need to abandon your beleif, i don´t frankly care....... PS - I have a feeling this debate is likely going nowhere fast so I will make this my last post on this issue. Happy Holidays to you too.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: Big Bang states that the 'Bang' occurred at random - thus the author's statment - 'something coming out of nothing'. Again, that is not what the Big Bang (BB) theory says at all. The author of the article was simply wrong. Nothing comes from nothing, there is no science theory that says that. What began the Big Bang? Does the theory have no explanation as to how it got its start? If the answer is spontaneous - that is, indeed, out of nothing. If there is no answer - I have no problems. The outlines of the theory make sense to me but I believe it is incomplete as it is. What started the Big Bang was God - he is the supreme creator.