Haruna said:

"The spirit of democracy (Peace is not a consideration of mine at
thiis time), requires all protagonists to NOT hold partisan
gatherings, meetings, communion, or be present at any polling precinct
unless they are themselves polling agents or return officers (which is
highly unlikely) as the popular will is being discerned. So neither
Yahya, nor Ousainou, nor Hamat, nor OJ, nor Halifa, nor Waa, nor
Hassan Musa, nor Sherriff Dibba, ought to be holding partisan
gatherings, meetings, communion, or be present at any polling precinct
unless they are themselves polling agents or return officers (which is
highly unlikely). Given the atmospherics of the election in 1996, all
the protagonists are advised to attenuate calm and to act according to
the needs of their welfare."[Haruna]

I will pardon your selective amnesia to remind you, even if you are
fully conscious, of the fact that no one is talking about why Ousainou
did not go out in the streets when ballots were being counted. To
suggest that would indicate gross ignorance on our part.  Let me make
it clear that I understand and appreciate the personal sacrifice of
all opposition political leaders including Ousainou, Hamat, Waa, Sidia
and Halifa. How much further sacrifice they will make of their freedom
and be steadfast in their conscience in reaction to the trappings of
indecent dehumanization of the Gambian folks is where the difference
lies between Halifa and Ousainou notwithstanding shortcomings of
either. For you to suggest that anyone expected Ousainou to venture
out in the streets when it is ill-advised and illegal to do so is
another example of your deliberate distortion and deceitful tactics.

"The order of itemized thought has little or no bearing on precedence
or emphasis. You will be found wanting were you to use this method in
your school text books. The reason why I had that first was because
the extant conversation and the strongarming of Suntou regarded a
complex that presumes Suntou's intentions.
I therefore consider both items equally emphasized, their order
notwithstanding."[Haruna]

I can only assume what you were thinking when you wrote what you wrote
and will have to discern your intent in the order in which you present
your ideas. This is a well proven method in analyzing written
communications in my line of work. There is a reason why communication
experts follow this same rule in discerning intent or hidden clues as
to the presenter’s state of mind. I am not therefore surprised that
you have instinctively resorted to dismiss my observation and further
resorted into distorting my reaction to Suntou as “strong arming.”
Again that is very typical of deceitful intent or deliberate
misinformation.

"Gambia was not directly affected by the threat to Ousainou's person
just like Gambia was not directly affected by the arrest of Halifa."
[Haruna]

Are you serious about this statement?

"Therefore, it is non-sequitur to presume Gambia's good or bad in the
private demarche of political personalities.” [Haruna]

This is yet another deliberate distortion of the facts surrounding
this discussion. You can dismiss Halifa’s intent to find the truth
about reports of witch-hunting as a “private demarche” but you fully
understand there were social and political implications
notwithstanding the deliberate abrogation of thousands of Gambians’
human and civil rights. Likewise, Ousainou’s decision to seek refuge
at the Senegalese embassy - let’s assume for a second - to avoid
political mayhem in the heat of elections. To dismiss such exercise as
a “private demarche of political personalities” shows yet another
example of deliberate distortion of extant deceit. And you keep
contradicting yourself even as you carefully maneuver your way into
the delicate craft of deliberate and deceitful intent.

First you said:  “Gambia was not directly affected by the threat to
Ousainou's person just like Gambia was not directly affected by the
arrest of Halifa." [Haruna]

Then turned around and said:

“However, what is of interest to Gambia's good or bad or Gambians are
the following:
1) the threat on Ousainou's person that warranted his cautionary decision.
2) the illegal arrest of Halifa and denial of visitation of his family
and friends.
3) The witch-hunting exercise against Gambian citizens of all the
affected communities.
4) The forced consumption of concoctions which could be detrimental to
their health and welfare.
5) The conduct of state officials in rendering aid and comfort to the
witch-hunters.[Haruna]

I wonder how “the threat on Ousainou’s person” or “the illegal arrest
of Halifa” will be of “interest to Gambia’s good or bad” if “Gambia
was not directly affected by the threat to Ousainou’s person….”
How would you reconcile these conflicting positions if not for
deliberate misinformation and or deceitful intent?

 ‘WHen Halifa decided to go on a "fact-finding" mission, it was both
political and conscientious. The political became immaterial to me
when the idiot Yahya decided to arrest Halifa. I still cannot fathom
why Yahya made that value-less decision. If it were me myself and I, I
will not have arrested Halifa. In fact I will have encouraged all
Gambia to go on a fact-finding mission of their own. Because I would
want to know if we have enemies of the state masquerading as
witch-hunters and to what extent agents of the state security or
enablers are involved.”[Haruna]

What I can infer from the above is that you’re more upset about the
mistakes Yahya made subsequent to the witch-hunting saga than you are
of the deliberate abrogation of the innocent Gambian’s dignified right
to exist, of which Halifa was more concerned hence his actions. You
purposely present yourself herein as if you are not aware - like
everyone in Gambia in and beyond – that Yahya himself sanctioned the
whole witch-hunting exercise. Again, deliberate, intentional,
malignant and purposeful deception! (too many adjectives..i know)

“Attenuated fortunes for PDOIS imply fortune other than extant value.
So Halifa's position in PDOIS is not part of PDOIS' attenuated
fortunes. To attenuate is to enhance, amplify, accentuate.”[Haruna]

No Haruna: You either honestly, unfortunately do not know the meaning
of the word “attenuate” as you used it in your sarcasm of Halifa’s
efforts or you are deliberately misrepresenting the actual meaning of
the word to suit your deceitful intent. I purposely quoted your use of
the word “attenuate” to highlight your deceitful intent in belittling
Halifa’s effort vis-à-vis PDOIS political gains therein. To clarify
what I am saying, here is the true and official meaning of the word
“attenuate” and you tell me if you are being honest in your intent or
not:  To lessen the amount, force, or value of; to make less complex;
to weaken.

“Halifa's editorial responsibility is the purview of PDOIS party organ
Foroyaa. And it would make sense to use a party organ to yield the
party attenuated fortunes would it not Laye?”[Haruna]

 The above quote emphasizes your deliberate intent or apparent
ignorance in the use of the word “attenuate.” Which is it Haruna? Are
you ignorant or are you being deliberately deceitful?

-Laye