^What a funny thread!

^Shawarma is over-rated! It doesn't need to have badhar in it - Sheh has plenty of it to add

Originally posted by Che-Guevara: Point....Let me clarify if my statement was perhaps a bit ambiguous or simply confusing for you. There is obviously no Somali State today, no contention there. The statement was only intended in relation to Yeey's history-part of that history includes his service to the Somali State which Ethiopia was openly at war with and effectively seeking to deconstruct or at the atleast neutralize . Yeah - but you seem to be saying there is some opprobium to be heaped on anyone who went against the Somali state and used Ethiopia's services to do so. The Somali state was murdering and oppressing its own citizens. Anyone and everyone has the right to seek help from the devil in order to oppose them. As such any reference to this aspect of A/Y's 'career' is really missing the point

Originally posted by Caano Geel: Dude, nothing that will pass for analysis here, god forbid. But our best justification is "give it a chance"? Come on, crystal balls aside, how many backers would they get for a "give us a chance" blast at the game? ... These men have serious scratching to do.. Anyhow, I'm curious now, would Duke and crew agree with you on they are cra.p. but give them a chance? (That would convince me ) The 'give them a chance' doesn't spring out of nowhere ie. simply because they are there. There is a reason to give them a chance - that is the drawn out political process that tried, however flawed, to incorporate Somalis from all sides and walks of life. The very first step of nation-building(and institution-building btw) is to establish a process and proceed with its results. PS - I didn't say they were crap - exactly. Just not much better.

Originally posted by Che-Guevara: ^^^I think he confused with qoftoo uu gaadaaye on SOL. I see you don't know what a good natured sarcastic putdown is - sweetheart ? But then again why did I expect you would know.

Originally posted by Che-Guevara: Try comprehend to my contentions in the context of Yeey's history who was an officer of the Somali State which betrayed by seeking Ethio's help in the struggles of SSDf against the Barre regime. I never said there IS Somali state now. Obviously, Ethiopia owns it now, and why would it need to deconstruct a puppet regime. Do me a favor...Don't call me sweetheart agian. Huh? What are you talking about? Comprehend what? The english in the first sentence hinders any comprehension. This is what you said: "It is pointless when one garner the support of his country's traditional enemy which is mainly interest deconstructing the Somali state, Interesting logic." Now the question is - if there is no Somali state to deconstruct - why mention Ethiopia's interest in deconstructing the Somali state?

Originally posted by Caano Geel: Ever the optimist... i like it But there is a real difference between supporting for the sake of a centralising force or because of merit. I accept the notion of I'll suppost the hope they may bring.. but the merit point is as you pointed what i have a problem with. I also agree with you on taking the optimist line, but what bothers me is the repeater signal, whereby any cognitive link between support and action is replaced by the "party line".. Examples of whihc you prolly dont need pointing out to ... Adeer - merit with regard to an African govt! Please! I can't imagine supporting the TFG entity as a whole on merit. What does need to be recognized is this process, however flawed, has resulted in something that has the backing of a wide segment of Somalis and the international public and can, just possibly, constitue the beginnings of an actual state if they proceed wisely. But at this point, all one can ask of individuals is to give this govt a chance rather than engaging in the continuous crystal ball gazing that passes for intelligent analysis these days.

Originally posted by SomaliThinker: Caano Geel thank you for posting a clearn example of all talk and no solution lool. You may think its cutie to post cartoons like this, but what it really shows is you are not up for a real debate to finding solutions to somali peoples ills, Plus i can find countless pics by aminarts.com that shows your side in bad light too old boy, but i be big enough not to post it cause it be on my side pointless and not really not stopping the divide that exists in somali culture. Your response with that comment is good direction of the state of how somalis view each other. What do you believe is the problem that needs a solution with regard to Somaliland?

^MKA - the point being made here is not difficult. Avoid the labelling of Muslims and the predicting of those going to hellfire. And others should also do the same. What a civilized and proper discussion in the mold of our religion we could then have!

^Agreed - but at least one party has to act islamically after all

Originally posted by Caano Geel: ^ they are, I'd like to hear a coherent argument that convices me of the TFG - basically why these guys are convinced. They are so far telling me that i'm dump (quite likely), old men went there (thei'll die soon, so will we have do a 4.6 formula?), or its gods will (in that case why did'nt they support the previous divine appointments) -- so I'm not yet convinced, and i'd like to be ... The question is why do you want to be convinced? Quite honestly - the people and the record of the TFG leave much to desire to put it mildly. So why not wait and see if they are in fact different from the usual bunch? Wait and see CG.

^Too much rubbing in the face General!

^What answers are you looking for really? Are they the same as those before them or are they different? Only time will tell. It seems to me now that the same conversations are being had over and over again.

^Sweetheart - what you wrote above is the rant! And you still haven't explained your contention that there exists a Somali state for Ethiopia to deconstruct. Now - if you wanna back away from that - the door is wide open. Or you can rant some more!

LoooL@pointless. It is pointless when one garner the support of his country's traditional enemy which is mainly interest deconstructing the Somali state, Interesting logic. ^Me pointless - impossible! I am fascinated, yes FASCINATED, by your contention that there is any Somali state to deconstruct. Talk about an otherworldly contention. And then to deride other's logic - well what can I say

LoooL@pointless. It is pointless when one garner the support of his country's traditional enemy which is mainly interest deconstructing the Somali state, Interesting logic. ^Me pointless - impossible! I am fascinated, yes FASCINATED, by your contention that there is any Somali state to deconstruct. Talk about an otherworldly belief. And then to deride other's logic - well what can I say

^Strange - didn't think you pined for Siyad's Somalia

^Actually it is not. Someone just fire her and get it over with pls.

^Somalis are gossip machines - just send someone to his neighbours on your behalf and they'll give you the dirt.

I think it boils down to character. Seek out someone with character and you will find someone with the patience, integrity, thoughtfullness, practicality etc to withstand and even prosper from the inevitable ups and downs of a marriage. Character is closely associated with religion but many times the religion is displayed without only. I would also suggest that a signed agreement be reached before any marriage takes place regarding: 1- Procedures on dispute resolution 2- Role of each partner(ie for bread winning, child-rearing etc) 3- Procedures on the handling of the details of a divorce in the event it occurs Such an agreement helps to clear up any misconceptions either party has before the marriage and also serves to delineate each party's rights and responsibilities.

^Somehow I doubt that A/Y will let them go and that Somaliland leaders would agree to the lopping off of large territory as the price of independance. A rather shabby example of the hyper-speculation and daily crystal ball gazing regarding the situation in Somalia these days.

As I said - I was looking for the following 3 criteria to render probable your assertions regarding an "old plan to invade Somalia" 1- Evidence that there indeed was a formal plan to invade Somalia by either Ethiopians or the Americans that are older than a year at least; any plans drawn up within a period of less than 1 year are indicative of a reaction rather than some longstanding strategic objective 2- Evidence that shows there was a joint(Eth/US) recognition of an indentified single enemy or antagonist within the Somali political landscape prior to the emergence of the ICU 3- Evidence that shows there was a definite objective in mind for a new Somali political landscape(in concert with the purported plan of invasion) separate from and different to the past attempts at a national gov't -------------------------------------------- I read through all your dots and I find scant evidence of any old plan to invade Somalia. Looking at each of the above factors for each article you gave me. There is no evidence that they were any plans of any substance to invade Somalia prior to the year 2006(a reasonable definition of 'old'). There were emanations of alarm and thoughts of 'action' in anarchy ridden Somalia from the US soon after 9/11 but this came to naught. What did happen on this front was the establishment of a base in Djibouti and a naval and aerial reconnasiance of Somalia. Any plans that were established to invade Somalia began after the emergence of the ICU and Washington's alarm at some of their rhetoric and their leaders. As evidence from Dot 1(or article 1) in the sources you cited: "But America's concerns came to a head last year with the rise of the Islamic Courts Union. At first, Washington's response was relatively modest. It mounted a small CIA operation, run from Nairobi, to stand up Somalia's hated warlords against the Islamists, a former intelligence official familiar with the region says." This above quote implies a reaction rather than any strategic longterm plan for the country - else why support the warlords at that juncture when the US had never supported them before? Moving on to criterion #2 - there is no evidence that shows any semblance of a joint recognition of an identified enemy by either the Ethiopians or the US. Presumably - you need a clear enemy to make an "old" plan of invasion and execute it. In fact, Somalia was completely off the US radar since the alarm after 9/11 dissipated. Ethiopia was the prime architect and active supporter of the TFG but even they were doing little in Somalia apart from hoping that the TFG wouldn't go the way of the previous Carta govt. From article 2: "The current series of events began with the rise of the Islamic Courts more than a year ago....Washington was wary, fearing their possible support for terrorists. While they have denied any such intentions, some Islamists do have terrorist ties, but these have been vastly overstated in the West." Again this implies a reaction to the ICU rather than a previously defined enemy that was to be taken out when the opportunity arose. Now for the final criterion. Presumably, if you will launch an old plan of invasion then you must have a definite objective in mind - and to consolidate your gains from the invasion you must put in place a new political landscape. Again, there is no evidence of the above whatsoever. Up until mid-2006 the Somali political landscape(in the south) was the same as it had been for many years - a bunch of warlords in the capital city with an ineffectual transitional govt waiting in the wings. Although the TFG was recognized by many and had the semblance of a government in waiting - few countries were willing to help it realize its goal of becoming the actual governing authority. Why? Because there was no vital interest apart from the those of the immediate nieghbours. However, as the ICU began to emerge and then gained strength, the support for the TFG increased dramatically. And the TFG was soon touted as the only way for Somalia to go forward(at least by the US and its cohorts). Once again, this is indicative of a reaction rather than a strategic longterm plan for Somalia. And the reason is simple - before mid 2006 there was no 'antagonist' in Somalia for the US to really give a damn about the country. In article 3 of your works cited - "But, last month, the Bush administration actively supported Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia....The United States claimed that the Islamic Courts government, which took power last summer, was harboring three Al Qaeda fugitives. But the Al Qaeda members had been in Somalia well before the Islamic Courts took power. They were not part of the government" You can see here a demonizing of the ICU after they took power and became a force which, again is a reaction to them and their political stance. The US didn't give a damn about Somalia prior to ICU emergence - when the ICU emerged they became the antagonists and by default the TFG became the protagonists. Your case is abysmally weak El Jefe. And upon examination of the evidence - I declare that there is no 'remarkable body of evidence' supporting your assertions - at least those that you cited in your post. Now for a better constructed case and one that is convincing to me is that of the allegations of a longstanding plan by the Israelis with the connivance of the Americans during the Lebanon war in the summer of 2006. That case is laid out persuasively by Seymour Hersh here: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060821fa_fact In reading that article you will see that it meets all of my criteria: 1- Evidence of a longstanding plan of invasion? Yes as cited by Israeli sources themselves since Hezbollah posed an existential threat to them for some time. 2- Evidence of a joint(US/Isr) recognition of an identified enemy prior to the invasion? Yes - well prior to the 2006 summer war - Israel and the US declared their enmity for Hezbollah and identified them as standing in the way of 'progress' in Lebanon and the broader Middle East. 3- Evidence of a definite objective in mind with regard to the political landscape? Yes - they wanted to clean out Hezbollah from the south and hand it over to the Lebanese govt which was friendly to America and which in due course would sign a peace treaty with Israel etc etc. I'll be back Sunday to respond to any rebuttals you may have.

^You're a classy guy Jefe - long may you remain on SOL.

^North - don't think the type of post above is worth it.

^I will go through your dots. I will be looking for several key things in order for your dots to render probable the assertion of an old plan to invade Somalia: 1- Evidence that there indeed was a formal plan to invade Somalia by either Ethiopians or the Americans that are older than a year at least; any plans drawn up within a period of less than 1 year are indicative of a reaction rather than some longstanding strategic objective 2- Evidence that shows there was a joint(Eth/US) recognition of an indentified single enemy or antagonist within the Somali political landscape prior to the emergence of the ICU 3- Evidence that shows there was a definite objective in mind for a new Somali political landscape(in concert with the purported plan of invasion) separate from and different to the past attempts at a national gov't I let you know by tomorrow the results of my readings. Hasta Luego Castro. PS - If you will note above - I responded to your post by saying 'I think' rather than your 'there is a remarkable body of evidence' etc - as such I hardly qualify for your 'flat-earther' appellation since a positive assertion is needed for that - perhaps the shoe is on the other foot