     Organizer | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 08:02 am
MadMullah writes:
MAD MAC,
I started this discussion thread at the 'Independent forums' called;
Islama-Phobes:Misconceptions about Islam.
Maybe I should start one here as well huh?
Here is one of the articles I've on my thread:
ISLAM AND 'TERRORISM'
Every time speculation arises that a bomb is responsible for a tragedy, such as the TWA
Flight 800 crash, we in America and in other Western countries (including Muslims)
suspect the Islamic connection. Of course the disclaimers abound, but a lingering
suspicion about Muslims is left in the general views of terrorism, even if other groups are
identified as the main culprits for any particular incident.
This perception is not due to any intrinsic resentment of Islam by the American people.
It is understood that the mainstream of Muslims, the vast majority of them, like in every
other faith, is peaceful and pay their taxes, trying to make America a better society,
trying to improve relations with neighbors and colleagues.
But images and terminology influence public opinion, and a bitter taste is left when Islam
is reported in the daily headlines.
The term "Islamic fundamentalism", whatever it means, has been repeated enough
times in relation to violent incidents that naturally, any thinking human being has to be
uncomfortable with the fact that America is home to a vibrant Muslim community. The
problem stems from negative images about Islam. In the court of public opinion, Islam is
guilty until proven innocent.
Even though the Middle East was home to fewer terrorist incidents than Latin America
and Europe, for example, it is still regarded as the region where terrorism is rooted.
According to a recent US State Department report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, issued
earlier this year, 272 terrorist events occurred in Europe, 92 in Latin America and 45 in
the Middle East. Sixty-two anti-US attacks occurred in Latin America last year, 21 in
Europe and 6 in the Middle East. These numbers represent the terrorist trend and not an
anomaly, whereby the majority of perpetrators are not linked to the Middle East or
Islam. The Red Army Faction in Germany, the Basque Separatists in Spain, the Tamil
Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Shining Path in Peru and the National Liberation Army in
Columbia are not viewed with the same horror as terrorist groups of Muslim background.
There is no moral justification for terrorism regardless of the ethnic or religious
background of the perpetrator or the victim, but the factual basis of terrorism has been
either hidden or twisted in the public's perception of this policy problem, especially in
congressional hearings on terrorism. The countries with the worst terrorist records in the
world are not in the Middle East either. They are not even Muslim countries outside the
Middle East.
They are Columbia and Germany, havens for drug lords and neo-Nazis.
The negative association of Islam with terrorism exists, but no one has ever asked
"Why?". Could it be that American society cannot overcome the Khomeini phobia, even
though he is dead? The US Congress found it necessary to push $20 million towards
covert operations in toppling the Iranian government even at the dissent of people in the
CIA. The Arab countries, both friend and foe, are run by tyrants who kill more of their
own people than those outside their countries. The presumption that these countries
represent a threat to American interests or that any one of them can dominate the
region or even rival the only remaining superpower is indeed generous. So the issue is
not these countries' hegemony in their region or the world, but about who can dominate
their people and exploit their resources.
The perception in the Middle East is that US policy does not serve the peoples interests;
it protects Israel and friendly Arab dictators even when they violate human rights, while
it slaps sanctions on and takes military actions against countries whose dictators
misbehave, resulting in suffering, starvation and even slaughter, all in the name of
teaching the tyrants a lesson. The priorities in the Middle East for the US are not human
rights and democracy, but rather oil and Israeli superiority. Consequently, anti-American
sentiment increases. This mood of the general public is then characterized as "Islamic
fundamentalism", even though the resentment is not rooted in religion. When it turns
violent, it is termed "radical Islamic fundamentalism" or "Islamic terrorism."
The various "terrorism experts" promote linkage to the Middle East before any other
possibility every time terrorism is speculated. They exploit the human suffering of the
victims, their families, and the fears of the American public.
Indeed, extremists of Muslim backgrounds are violating the norms of Islamic justice and
should be held accountable for their criminal behavior, but we in America should not be
held hostage to the politics of the Middle East or biased reporting.
An Israeli journalist, Yo'av Karny, reporting on the events in Chechnya made a striking
observation about this development:
"The West will be told--and will be inclined to believe--that the oppression of the
Chechens is part and parcel of a cosmic struggle against 'Islamic extremism' that rages
from Gaza to Algeria, from Tehran to Khartoum. Russians will seek Western sympathy.
They should not be given it." The issue is not Chechnya, and it is not even about Islam
and the West. Debates about religious wars and cultural clashes only distract us from the
real issue: the powerful want to continue dominating the powerless, manipulating facts to
influence public opinion, hence maintaining the status quo. |
| MAD MAC | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 04:03 am
OK, to respond to Mad Mullah. You are correct in your assertion that Israeli has given the Arabs the Shaft. But let's face it, there was no other way they were going to be able to establish a State without doing that. Was it just? No. But now it's history. We can't undo it anymore than we can undo the holocaust. Palestinian outrage is justified - but outrage doesn't solve issues. The Palestinians have done a very poor job of analyzing the problem set and adopting a course of action that will bring them to an end-state they desire.
You are wrong in saying Israel is not a democracy. It is definately a democracy. It holds honest, legitimate elections, it has changes in governments. Being a democracy doesn't mean you have a just government. Right now, in the case of the Israelis, you have what Thomas Jefferson called the "tyranny of the majority". But democracies have certain vulnerabilities which the Palestinians could exploit if they only tried. That's what I'm saying here.
T-Girl, thanks for organizing this. |
| Anonymous | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 04:59 am
MM,
If you around read my mail. |
| MADMULAH | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 10:58 am
When you say that the Palestinians have done a "poor job of analyzing the problem"
Did you expect them to wait for Israel to stop its genocide? The problem with people outside of Palestine is that they think all the Palestinians one day woke up and decided to start a new intifada. Well, that isn't the case, what we are seeing is the outrage of people who have been oppressed for more than 50 years.
It is a genuine outrage that I can understand. But since you've never had to deal with living in refugee camps and not being allowed to go from one city in Palestine to another without going through dozens of checkpoints, you can not understand their pain and suffering.
It is fairly understandable for people in the U.S. and the West to "Analyze" and call the Intifada a very "Stupid" outrage, because people in the West aren't in the same predicament as the Palestinians. You can never understand why certain people feel the way they do untill you've felt sometime along the way the same way, get my drift?
You also said "..adopting a course of action that will bring them to an end-state they desire."
What kind of a course of action? They've tried everything, they fought, they went to the "Negotiating table" and recognized the existence of Israel just so that they could something in return. They went to Oslo, Madrid, Washington, Sharm-El-Sheikh, and Camp David. And where did any of it get them? NO Where!
Palestinians are in the same predicament today as they were in 1988 when the first Intifada started.
Yasser Arafat was called a PLO terrorist then, because he was fighting for independence. Today the same man is a great seeker of peace, he shared a nobel prize with Perez.
"It holds honest, legitimate elections, it has changes in governments.."
Are you kidding me? The Israeli elections are made sure that they've the votes of jewish Israelis first then Arab Israelis. A study done recently done showed that Israel ranks the top as the countries with the most corruption scandals. Don't you remember the Netanyahu scandal? And Barak's resignition due tomorrow?
The Israeli government discriminates against the Arab-Israelis in everyway they can and that is what you call a democracy? I'll get you publications and studies done for this purpose alone.
"But democracies have certain vulnerabilities which the Palestinians could exploit if they only tried. That's what I'm saying here."
And could you please specify what the Palestinians could exploit? You know the U.S. can really justify the worst attrocities, simply because of they want to! If this was an African country, we all know what would have occured. |
| MAD MAC | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 12:29 pm
MadMullah
Be advised you are new to this discussion. I have laid down ad nauseum what the Palestinians need to do to break the Israeli wil. Go back to the thread "Only Islamic Intifadah will succeed" and read it through and you'll my recommendation.
As for democracy, sure Israel has it's share of corruption. All governments do. I most certainly did not say Israel was a perfect democracy (those don't exist) or even a model democracy. But it most assuredly is a democracy. It is not a dictatorship, it is not an Oligarchy, it is not a theocracy, it is not Marxist. Those are your picks. So you tell me what it is if you don't think it's a democracy.
If you agree that it is a democracy, I'll lay out for you how this government is vulnerable and how it is not: Hint. The Palestinians can not achieve their aims through violence. |
| The Equalizer | Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 06:30 am
At the outset I would like to spell out that there's no pure democracy in any part of the world. However, we must admit that there're different degrees of democracy. Some countries enjoy real democracy, others a somewhat moderate democracy, and others no-democray at all.
Having said that. It's an axiomatic fact that the Arab nations have no democracy whatsoever. It isn't that the peoples of those countries don't want democracy, it's their head of states that are adverse to that ideology. And that's indeed what constitutes their achilles' heel. You see in a democracy, presidents come and go. In most of the democratic countries, there're only two terms for the presidency. In the first term, the president-elect will strive his best to get re-elected. If re-elected, he will strive again to leave a shining legacy in the history books. For them the presidency is just another job, they stay there for a term or two and they go. Whereas in the Arab world, you've monarchy, dictatorship, and so forth. To them the notion of having a president who will stay for a term or two and will leave the presidency is unheard of. They're used to presidents who come and stay till they pass away or they're assassinated. And even then, the person who becomes the next president repeats the same cycle all over. In this way, the majority of these dictators become hostages and stooges of the Western World. In fact, in order to preserve their presidency, they're willing to sell their country, their people, their resources to foreign governments. Even during summits, at behind doors, they're told off by their foreign counterparts as if they were children.
In a nutshell, as long as the Arab nations are led by these so-called president stooges. They'll never see light at the end of the tunnel. |
| common | Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 07:16 am
Groan groan
MM
it is a liberal democracy, where more emphasis is placed on the liberal than the democracy. Sheeh kebaab how many tmes have we been through this, have you no respect for truth, do you enjoy rambling on about democracys. It is not a "demo" "kratos".. it calls itself "liberal democracy" which is a "representative democracy", enclosed with a buffer between the elite and the anomie , it is a transformation from a mass particpation society to avery liberal ideas on human soceity. It has been described by those , i would add in favour of it, as a polchary, elet minority rule, punchuated by periodic elections. It is not a democracy in form or content. Therefore can never be a "perfect" or "model" deomcracy.. taht is like saying a dog is a cta.. not a "perfect" cat.. or aa "model" cat, but a cat.
chuckle chuckle
we hold this ommisons to be self evident, that every american is fond of lying.. if albeit earnestly
chuckle chuckle
hey what da think of fidel. offering to oversee your elections? |
| Galool | Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 07:46 am
MM
I still think your views on the P'tinian Israeli conflict is rather myopic.
The bigger picture, seen from a neutral height, at least to me, looks like this:
The State of Israel was established on an unjust basis. The whole concept of taking over a land simply because some ancient religious book says it belongs to you, is preposterous. Yet that is exactly the premise on which Israel was founded. It would have been OK if the place was empty at the time, but of course it wasn't. It was teeming with P'tinians who have never known or owned any other land.
Of course there has always been Jews living in Palestine, and their historic ties to this tiny strip of God's earth is undeniable. But they have historic and religious ties to Egypt, Iraq and almost everywhere else in the middle east. Should they takeover those countries too?
If every religious or ethnic group lays claim to the "land of their fore fathers" and then chases away those who already live there, the chaos will be unimaginable. Yet the Jews did exactly that and got away with it!
I was amused when the late Yitzhak Rabin announced in front of the White House, that "we Jews are the only people who continously lived in Israel for 4000 years" The irony was, neither him nor any of his cabinet members who were accompanying him were even born there! (Actually, I don't believe Israel had any native born prime minister so far - I could be wrong, so please correct me)
The current situation is this: Anyone who claims to be a Jew, no matter where he or she lives can come and live in Israel - in fact they are paid to come to Israel. But if you are a P'tinians who was born there, lived there all your life, but was chased away in 1948, then you cannot return!
So the Palestinians have to fight for their rights. I think we agree on that. It is on the methods and means that we seem to disagree on.
You seem to believe that they should behave like "proper ethnics" and cry all over the westbank shouting slogans for peace and brotherhood in order to gain American sympathy.
This is patronising, but more importantly, it won't work!
American policy will not change on this issue in the foreseeable future, whether P'tinians chose peaceful or armed struggle.
They have to fight, with all the means at their disposal to regain some of what they have lost. This of course includes civil unrest, rioting, disrupting the enemy's economic plans and progress, guerilla attacks, suicide attacks, sabotage, assasinations AND blowing up of religious buildings in order to sap the enemy's morale and put the fear of god into his source of manpower,(ie the potential Jewish immigrants in Eastern Europe.). It is a well known fact that whenever, violence erupts in Israel, Immigration into Israel drops dramatically.
Do I like any of those things? No I don't, but I fully understand if the P'tinians employ them to further their cause. On this occasion, I am in full agreement with that Black American windbag when he made his famous, if hollow "...by whatever means necessary.." speech. |
| MAD MAC | Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 10:46 pm
Common
You sound as foolish as many of my compatriots. They hold is as axiomatic that all Arabs are trecherous and stupid. You LOVE to throw spears, but you are woefully short of pragmatic solutions to squat.
Galool
You and I agree in total to your premise number one. The establishment of the State of Israel, although perhaps well intentioned, totally ignored the rights of the indigenous peoples already there. Also, we both see the current Jewish state as a highly racists state that disregards the value of a portion of its population.
Where we disagree is the form that Palestinian protest should take. Remember, because I am a lousy Kufaar who grew up and was educated in America (and I was lucky enough to get a good education) I understand the strengths a vulnerabilities of democracies better than most here on this network, who can't help but look at the situation through their own prisms (just as I do). I believe that violent attacks on Israel allow the government to rationalize racist policies based on state survival. In fact, to a degree the government reaction becomes legitimate. States are going to protect themselves - whether you believe their existence is valid or not. Even the government of the State of Israel, maintains its ability to govern through the consent of the people. And it has that consent right now. Check the opinion polls and most Israelis right now are supporting Likud or factions aligned with Likud. That means most Israelis support reacting to Palestinian violence with violence. Now this violence might disrput Israeli society but without a doubt the Palestinians always are going to end up on the short end of the stick. The Israelis outnumber the Palestinians and they have FAR, FAR more firepower. What was it Napoleon said "God is on the side with the best artillery." Also, the Israelis have felt under seige for the past 50 years (because they have been), so they have proven they can weather the storm. And if the violence transitions to open warfare, then the Israelis love to pull their favortie trick, take more land and argue (in fact, from a military perspective this is a very valid argument) that it's for defensive purposes. Then expand again. Remember, amongst the religious nuts (who are relatively small in number but still have some political clout) the West bank also should be part of Israel proper and the Arabs (Who from their perspective are lousy Gentiles) should be bounced to the East bank and live with their Jordanian cousins. So violence can, and has, backfire. What I recommend (and what's the harm in trying, I mean, the Palestinians haven't even tried this approach) is the Palestinians start mass, non-violent protest. And they enlist the help of the Jews who are sympathetic to them (and there are many). If the Palestinians were to stage sit-ins, marches, if they were to pray side by side (and don't tell me this is haram - I have been invited to pray in Mosques on mulitple occassions and I'm openly kufaar) with Jews at contested sites, they would disarm the Israeli government very quickly. When the government cracked down it would lose the support of the Israeli people and the Israeli government might see US political support vanish as well. Just as American political support for segregation died a rapid death in the face of police cracking down on non-violent demonstrations in the south. My argument is, given some time, this would work. Rioting puts the tortoise into his shell. Then the Army and police can kill at will and no meaningful pressure will be put on Israel to concede anything. That's all I'm saying here. It's certainly worth a try. |
| Galool | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 11:24 am
MM
I do not believe that a peaceful protest unsupported by some sort of violence or the threat thereof, will work for the P'tinians. Sad but true.
Four hundred thousand Isrealis demonstrated in the aftermath of Sabra and Shatila, but not a single Isreali Private, let alone a General, was ever brought into justice for this holocaust-like atrocity. On the contrary, the 'architect' of this massacre is now the leader of Likud, and may indeed come to power in the next elections.
To the Palestinians, the whole thing is a charade. The Isrealis will continue to occupy their land, no matter which party comes to power. Strictly speaking, these political dramas belong to their oppressors, and their efects to the P'tinian and Arab macro-cause is limited, to say the least. I will have to abruptly get-off this site, due to unforeseen domestic threat! Talk to you later. |
| common | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 11:38 am
MM
man you pushing it comparing me too Americans! And anyway how come your imagined community keeps changing, first your american, then you have "thrown in your lot as a somali". I may be foolish or even arrogant, charges you throw at me profusly. Yet you are the one who commits actions resembling this things. I do not go around saying i am a damn good anayalst, and know more about democracies then most on this page.
Clearly you don't. Seing as you constantly refer to lumpen academic ideas and public policy rethoric.
What you are good at is excutive summaries and you aslo have a talent for propaganda. I didn't throw any spades, i just pointed out that hat you were saying, was in fact wholly inconsistant to present reality and history and was not founded on anythoing other than (what i presume)the whims of your ego.
If your arguments are based on such whimsy evidence, then i don't need to throw any spades, a relatively strong wind will knock them down.
If you looking for the answer then you have to ask the questions. If you are looking for approval of your answers, then all you gotta do is represent something, that is not tranparently false.
I told you before, don't expect us to applaud true lies.
I ain't playing the native game. You don't have the skill to dazzle a two year old somali.
What say you <stern look> |
| MAD MAC | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 11:07 pm
Common
I didn't say I'm not arrogant. I wold argue I'm not foolish. I calculate the odds and take risks, I don't think that's foolish. Don't feel so bad, at least I'm not calling you a lousy Kufaar.
Clearly since what we are discussing here is OPINION, I can't be lying. Good grief. Anyway, trust me I'm more persuasive in person. Maybe I should have been a politician, except that would make me want to puke. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. What makes you think violence will achieve the Palestinian objective when it has not heretofore?
For Common and Galool.
I don't understand why you believe it doesn't matter which party takes control of the Israeli government. If Likud takes control there will be no more negotiations - period. There will, on the other hand, be a lot more killing and a lot less restraint on the part of the IDF.
The killings at the camps were, of course, fisrt class attrocities. I honestly don't know the extent to which Sharon was involved. If it were proven he was involved he should be tried and punished. It's hard for me to envision a political development right now that brings that about. If Sharon were to become Prime Minister it's also hard for me to imagine the Palestinians negotiating with him.
My basic point is, given time (a couple of years probably) the Palestinians could co-opt an Israeli majority to have sufficient sympathy for their cuase that a sitting Prime Minister could meet the main Palestinian demands and achieve a peace the Palestinians found acceptable (the bulk of the Palestinians). I don't see how violence can support their cause. I do believe what Arafat is trying to do is remind the Israelis of the cost of not negotiating in good faith. I'm sure he wants to pull back and renegotiate. But I think his plan could backfire and he could end up with an Israeli government with which he can not negotiate that plans to simply destroy Palestinian presence on the West Bank. This is my biggest fear. The men capable of executing the operations at Sabra and Shatila are certainly capable of jacking the heat up on the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza. I do not think the Palestinians should sit back and do nothing, but I just don't see how violence is likely (sure it's possible) to achieve their desired end state. |
| common | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 11:35 am
Okay now that you have conceeded that you are arrogant, can you consider that you have projected your internal condtion on to Islam?.
Your arrogance is not in question Bini Adam (son of adam) has such tendecies, however do not project, or seek to explain other phenomenons, or people, by the plasma in your head, which refuses to bend down to its Lord. It won't work.
Allah's phone number is 2 , 4, 4, 3, 4
2 rakas in the morning, 4 during the day, three at sun set and4 at night, after we get you started be will move you on inshallah to sunnah.(joke)
I grew up in your world my son, i seen you eat, breathe, sleep, walk talk, for 20 years, I seen your smells, your fears, your worries and watch the west cocoon them in a prism which light bearly penetrates. I have been neither harmed or blessed by your ideas excepet by my own hand and the will of Allah.
I neither stare at you witha hate, nor look at you with love, you exist, in a perpetuial state of sleep, deaf dumb and blind, to the world. You move in a state which concludes where it begins, you travel, but arrive no where, you look, but see nothing, you speak, but represent no knowledge. You are the epitome of a mirage. This is why you are not a good anaylst. For you see, your breast is held in the dark. You indeed have the potentail; for guideance, for mankind is made of mud and water, and we know that light penetrates water but not mud, so tehre is as with all humans the potentail for knowledge. But truly you are a Loser, if you misunderstand the whole deal here. Imagine if!, if! for i think more would casue you pain. This life were to be but an a Illusion.
Now for your Palestine, the two are connected. How do you kill a dream? do you kill the dreamer?. How do you kill a belief, do you kill the beliver, why are all yoour thoughts, so crude?.
Israel, will never, never have peace, until the land is under muslim control.until it is a goner.
I am not speaking for the vanity of your words, nor for the concern of polite conversation,s hall i hold my toungue for the sake of jewish sensibility, which is drowed in muslim blood?. Shall i consider the desires of a nation which begrudges muslims food?. shall i entertain your ideas taht muslims would slaughter the jews, if they were in power, when Jews are now slaughtering muslims That is likeAmericas plea to Nasser Nasser repled, " how can i be fearful of a knife thousands of miles away (russia) when there is someone with a gun next to me (britain)The anayslt refuses to accept this becasue he/she always envisions a picture in which Israel has some kind of power over the land it now occupies, which is essentally a 20/21 Century colonalist. They are a messed up people, on the left they peddle concentration camps where Jews died on the right they have torture camps, where they torture muslims
what solution do i see, i see one where muslims are in power. Convince me otheriwse, tell me i can not run the awwad dam(eygpt), tell me i do not know the natural resources in my land (currently zimbabwe.. all over africa yestreday)
Persuade me of the realpolik, the reality that i must adhere to.
Lecture me on the the market and its invisble hand with american fingerprints.
Call me a fanatic, a bleeding liberal, a nigger, crazy, terrorist, illegal immigrant, etc etc.
Deny me a say in this world, and watch my tears rise into the sky like fireflies. Do you not fear Allah?, have you no knowledge of his wrath?,
Allah loves the oppresed and nothing, i repeat nothing, can stop the prayesr of the oppressed reaching Allah.
Do you wish to imagine a world in which Allah does not exist, for surely i can not anaylse any world that does not exist
wasalaam |
| Sweetgirl | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 01:45 pm
Common you're so full of common sense. I know I said I'd stay away but this had to be said. |
| Trauntlabgirl | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 01:49 pm
Common, man! you are sooo cool. I have no words to describe you anymore. Adorable would be an understatement now. I have to find another phrase. Keep up the good work. May Allah make your exams easy for you....go hit the books and make us proud :-)
I hear you are graduating at the end of this (academic)year. Me too. Do I hear a party? (a halaal virtual one I was thinking)lol. We will invite MadMac (and the rest)and give him da'wa..lol..what says you? |
| 2M.A | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 03:40 pm
To: Mad Mulla.
I speak and write very poor English, so foregive me. I don't have much to say, but i like to help
my bro. by informing him a historical event which he could use it if he is looking to realise whether Sharon committed geoncide,envolved or not. LET ME WRITE THE REST IN SOMALI.
Wargayska "Times" la dho wariye u shaqeeya ayaa arintan sharon ee ku lug leh xasuuqidda qaxootigii reer falastiin ee xerada ku jiray. Waxay sababtay in uu is casilo. Waqti aan sidaa u fogayn ee aan u malaynayo dhamaadkii 80kii ayuu dacwad ku furay wargaska . Wargayska ayaa ku guulastay dacwadii ka dib markay maxkamadda hor kee neen cadaymo dhab ah. Cadaymahaas taasi waxaa ka mid ahaa codkii sa oo hawada laga qabtay markuu amarka siinaayey ciidamada yuhuuda.
Haddii aadan ku kalsoonayn akhbaartayda baar ama la xiriir wargayka "Times".
Halkaa ka wata doodiina. Fadlan aan la caroonin ama la is ccaayin ee aqoon iyo si hufan haloo doodo.Auunku waan idin akhrisanaynaa
THANK U .Ha la i cafiyo haddaan iska soo galay ama aan meel kadhacay. |
| MADMULAH | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 05:20 pm
Assalamu Aleikum 2M.A!
Walaal, waan kala hadlaa waxaad ii sheegtay waadna ku mahadsantahay, Jazzakalah!
MAD MAC,
2M.A said that he would like to tell you of a report which was on 'Times'. There was a reporter who worked for the Times magazine who shed light in to the genocide of the Palestinian refugees that took place, that Sharon Ariel was responsible for. But the reporter resigned because of the intensity the of information.
A short while later(Late 80's), this reporter brought the case to a court. The news agency(Times) won the case after they showed the court serious proofs of what happened to the refugees. One of these proofs was voice recordings of Ariel giving the order to the jewish soldiers to commit the genocide, and this was intercepted in the air waves.
He also said "If you are not confident that I am telling the truth, you can check it with Times." |
| Galool | Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 10:40 am
MM
It is true. The party that comes to power in Israel makes very little difference to the Palestinians. Remember, it was the most hawkish of Likud governments that negotiated with Sadat and returned the Sinai to Egypt. Any Israeli gov't will HAVE to negotiate with the Palestinians.
You seem to think that Isarel may take more land. Again, this is short on real-politik. Militarily, the Jewish state have enough fire-power to overrun most of the Arab world. However, it will not be able to hold any land in the long-term. It failed in Southern lebanon.
You have to cede this simple fact: Palestinians are people under occupation. They are entitled to pursue any means they see fit in order to reclaim their birthright. The idea that they should do so only through peaceful means is simply naive, unrealistic and rather patronising. |
| common | Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 10:53 am
Galool
thanks liberator.
chuckle chuckle |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 10:33 pm
Mad Mullah
Thanks for the translation. I do not doubt that Sharon may have been involved in the massacres. Which reinforces my point. How can a government which he heads possibly be seen as not different from a government headed by someone who at leat demonstrates an intrest in negotiating? If Sharon (vice Netanyahu) heads the next Israeli government, then how can this be irrelevant to the Palestinians?
Common
Eloquent writing. You definately need to join the team. But if you're assertion that unless the Muslims rule the whole of the geographic area there will be no peace. In that case there will never be peace, because the State of Israel will never acede to Muslim rule. And since they have no where else to go (and most of them wouldn't leave even if they did) that means unless the two sides come to an accomodation, the fighting will go on and on - forever. Since the Israelis can be as fanatical as the Palestinians, with everyone claiming that everything is holy and God is on their side and they are righteous, blah, blah, blah, the endless cycle will continue for generations. And so long as I don't have to go there and try and keep the peace between a bunch of people who aren't willing to make the effort to have peace, fine. Let 'em kill each other. I sure ain't going to lose any sleep over it. |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 10:37 pm
Common
BTW I'm not a good analyst, I'm a great analyst. It's not that I don't understand the Palestinian thought process, it's that I don't respect it. I think both parties have their collective heads so far up their asses they can't see anything a foot in front of themselves. You have yet to offer solutions, only rhetoric. And you can't seem to seperate religion from the conflict, although this trait is a common failing - you share it with lots of others on the planet. |
| common | Thursday, December 14, 2000 - 11:47 am
Religion is isn't seperate from the Conflict, MM and you know it isn't, so why should i separate it from it. Secondly i don't envision a situation in which the jews have to move anywhere, they can stay there, if they stop the tyranny
i will write soon, i have to leave
ps: you are an okay anyalst  |
