     Alyisa | Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 04:16 pm
The World's worst Terrorists are based in Washington
by John Pilger
By knowingly killing innocent people, for political ends, President Clinton
is a terrorist. By supporting his action, the Prime Minister and the Defence
Secretary are accomplices. The dictionary meaning of terorism allows no other
interpretation; the rest is wilful obfuscation, or propaganda. What matters
now is our informed reaction.
We have been through this many times before, with the lies echoed predictably
from Downing Street. In 1986, there was the "evil" Colonel Gaddafi, whose
country President Reagan bombed from bases in Britain, killing mostly women
and children, including Gaddafi's 16-month-old daughter.
In 1990, there was the "evil" General Noriega, said to be a dangerous drugs
trafficker, whose capture by US Marines required a full-scale invasion of his
country and the death by bombing of at least 2,000 Panamanians, mainly the
poorest of the poor in their barrios. Noriega and drugs had precious little
to do with it. The aim was to put Panama, its canal and its US base under
direct American sovereignty, managed by other Noriegas.
In the same year, there was "the truly evil" Saddam Hussein, another one of
Bush's and Reagan's old pals, whose regime they had armed and backed (along
with Margaret Thatcher, who sent most of her cabinet to Baghdad as
supplicants or arms salesmen). Saddam's use of American and British weapons
in his attack on the "evil" mullahs in Iran in 1980 was perfectly acceptable.
A million people died in that "forgotten" war; and the American and British
arms industries never looked back.
Alas, Saddam, the nominal victor, then attacked the wrong country, Kuwait,
which is effectively an Anglo-American oil protectorate. He was clearly
unreliable: "an uppity bastard", as one State Department briefer described
him more in sorrow than anger. Punishing the uppity bastard cost as many as
200,000 Iraqi lives, according to a study by the Medical Educational Trust.
These were ordinary Iraqis who died during and immediately after a period of
military and economic carnage whose true scale has never been appreciated
outside the Middle East.
This old fashioned colonial massacre was called the Gulf war The dead
included thousands of Kurdish and Shi'a people who were Saddam's bitter
opponents and whom Bush had called upon to rise up against their oppressor.
Long after it was over, New York Newsday revealed, from official sources,
that three brigades of the US 1st Mechanised Infantry Division - "The Big Red
One" - had used snowploughs mounted on tanks to bury alive Iraqi conscripts
in more than seventy miles of trenches. A brigade commander said, "For all I
know, we could have killed thousands."
This is a war crime.
The following year, Bush attacked Somalia in what was called a "humanitarian
intervention". He was in the midst of his re-election campaign. Bush said the
Marines were doing "God's work. saving thousands of innocents". Like his
moralising over the Gulf war, this was generally accepted by the British
media, with honourable exceptions.
American television crews were waiting as the Marines landed in a beautiful
African pre-dawn; "prime time" at home. From the Somalian side there was
perpetual darkness; "chaos" and "tribalism" and "warlords". When the American
warlords had completed their adventure in Somalia and taken the media home
with them, the story died, as we say. According to CIA estimates, the Marines
had left between 7,000 and 10,000 Somalis dead. This was not news.
Soon after he was elected in 1992, Clinton attacked Baghdad with 23 Cruise
missiles. These destroyed a residential area, killing, once again, mostly
women and children, including Iraq's most distinguished artist, Leila
al-Attar.
Interviewed on his way to church with his wife, Clinton said, "I feel quite
good about this, and I think the American people feel quite good about it."
The pretext for the attack was an Iraqi "plot" to kill George Bush on a visit
to Kuwait. There was no hard evidence and the plot story is now widely
regarded as fake.
Two years ago, Clinton attacked Iraq again, this time insisting that he was
"defending" Kurds against Saddam Hussein, who "must pay the price". Once
again civilians - television's unpeople, I call them - paid the price.
Earlier this year, Clinton very nearly attacked again. Virtually the same
footage of missiles looking sleek against the dawn light, courtesy of the
Pentagon, appeared on British television. What stopped him?
Like spontaneous combustion, public opinion all over the world raised its
voice. The cameras had also shown glimpses of Iraq's silent holocaust, the
consequences of the imposition of "economic sanctions" by the United States
and Britain (under the usual UN flag of convenience) against the Iraqi
civilian population, notably its children.
Tony Blair said he wept for the children who were killed in Omagh by a
terrorist act; but he is silent on the children who die in Iraq as a result
of one of the most enduring terrorist acts of the late 20th century,
conducted largely by his government and its principal ally.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation and the World Health
Organisation, both UN agencies, more than half a million children have died
as a direct result of sanctions. Other sources put the figure at over a
million. Baby food and enriched powdered milk are blockaded, along with vital
hospital equipment: stethoscopes, X-ray machines, medical swabs, scanners and
water-purifiers.
As for the news of Clinton's latest attack, the surreal stereotypes are back
on parade: the flag burning, embassy-storming, bearded, wild men of Islam -
"the enemy of the future", says Washington. Forget that not only have Muslims
been responsible for a tiny proportion of deaths caused by terrorism, but in
recent years it is they who have been the greatest sufferers from state
terrorism. The limbs found lying in the rubble in Khartoum and Afghanistan
are theirs; the terrible burns shown fleetingly on TV are theirs.
All, of course, are unpeople: the victims of an unerring pattern of ruthless,
lawless terrorism, imperialist by nature and infinitely greater than that of
any Islamic or Irish group. It is time to stop sniggering at the distractions
of this rampant power and to recognise the truth about it and to speak out. |
| MAD MAC | Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 11:25 pm
This article is so full of lies and distortions I don't know where to begin. Anyone believing this crap is an idiot.
Let me see, implication to the Libya bombing was that Libya was innocent of supporting violent operations directed against the west. What is this the comedy hour??? By Ghadafis own self-admission Libya was supporting "movements of national liberation against Western oppression." Whether or not Libya was directly involved in the Labelle Disco bombing is insignificant. What is significant is that he was supporting and harboring terrorists who were targetting US citizens. Whether or not he was justified (the ol' one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter) is immaterial. Funny how after the bombing Libya curtailed its anti-US actions. He seemed to have gotten the message. what did he think we were going to do, change our policies to suit him???
Then we have the Norriega assertions. First of all, note how immediately after the invasion of Panama we proceeded with turning over the US bases. As for asserting our sovereinty over the canal, well that sure wa short lived. We split in just a couple of years and never did gain control of the canal itself. Part of the treaty that gives the Panamanians control of the canal (which was built with US dollars) guarentees US access to the canal at any time. Ergo if we need access to it and the Panamanian government denies that access we will just take it anyway - and we won't make any bones about it. The American public will support that.
Now let's take the gulf war. This idiot is trying to defend Saddam Hussein???? Of course we supported him during the war with Iran. It was a convenient way to bleed the Iranians white, consuming their resources which distracted them from using those resources for some other purposes. Since the Iranians were our enemies, this is a completely logical course to pursue. The death toll in the war with Iraq is irrelevant. Clearly the Iraqis invaded a sovereign state which was allied with the US. This was stupid. Hussein miscalculated, his population supported him, they got smoked. Those are the rules of the game. As for the troops buried alive, this isn't even close to a war crime. Enemy armed troops may be killed with whatever means are available. Dozing them in their trenches is not, I say again not, a violation of the rules of land warfare. Had they surrendered and been forced to lie in the trench then it would have been a war crime, but that was not the case. In war it is customary to kill the enemy.
I'm sure many iraqis have suffered as a result of the sanctions. But a million dead children? This in a population of 17 million people??? That means ALL the children in Iraq are dead.
As for the Kurds and Shiites, this was a miscalculation, and frankly I think we missed the boat. But face it, we were not going to support the Shiites, who would have wanted the Shat Al-Arab to be annexed by Iran, still a potential adversary. And if the Kurds establish a state in Iraq they will use it to attack a US ally, Turkey. So that isn't likely to get any support either.
Then we have "the invasion" of Somalia for "Humanitarian" purposes. Pilger asserts the real reason Bush did this was as a reelection ploy. Talk about shabby journalism. Bush did not announce his intent to send troops into Somalia (indeed did not make the decision) until AFTER the election which he lost. He also consulted with president-elect Clinton who supported the decision.
As for the attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan. If by now these type of rogue countries haven't gotten the message they just aren't listening. Harbor terrorists at your own peril, because we will attack them. And that means sometimes people are going to get killed that have nothing to do with terrorism. This is called collateral damage and while regretable it is also unavoidable. So, if you don't want us to occassionaly bomb you, then don't harbor and support people who are actively engaged in acts of violence against the U.S. If you do, then quit yer bitchin' when a cruise missile occassionally comes through the front door.
I am not a supporter of Clintons foreign policy. Frankly I think the sanctions on Iraq won't work and we should let the Arabs clean their own house. But that having been said, it's not an irrational or incomprehensile policy. And a lot of Arabs have supported it. This article is just flat out inaccurrate. |
| formerguest. | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 01:20 am
Thanks Alyisa sis. It is all to the point. The hypocricy of those people is not in disguise anymore. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 02:53 am
Formerguest
Now there's a rational, well reasoned response. Face it, if it comes from the West or supports the west you call it hypocritical. If it comes from your narrow view of Islam then it's great. Unbelievable. If you represent the real views of Islam then Islam will never govern squat. You can't simply wish away reality. |
| Hanah | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 08:07 am
MM,
Who is wishing away from realty. you or Mr Pilgar.
Your responde to the Article shows ; heartless, defensive without proper anylise, and loyalty to the bullets = is that arrogant ( compliment)
Going back to the Article, I do not agree that it is a full of lie as some of the things happened front of us there is no need for checking. I agree with you some of the things that mentioned can be easly challenged eg the purpose of somalia ( it is something i a s a somali will still have doubt whether what the Americans said were doing in Somalia would be only humanatarian and would leave, and knowing the situation of somali whether there would have been a clash btw the two if Aideed's damand eccepted)
Again denying the fact will not make feel you better. The sanctioned of Iraq is against innocent women and children ( see what i said about this under '' lift the sanstions'' by the name Arawelo).
What is also loughable is how you defend your policy '' divide and rule'' you were with Iraq to use them against Iran and now the viceverce ( who carries who dies they are both your enemies)
Are you sure the rules of the warfare are not against to kill your enemies under any circumestances ( I have to check that).
I have to go now. but man be a bit human do not let your job to dictate you what is right and what is wrong.
I will be back Insha Allah
See you later |
| MAD MAC | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 10:12 am
Hanah
Nothing wrong with my analysis here. I know the rules of the game Abai. And I know that this article is crap. As for divide and conquor, a time honored technique. In the case of the Iran-Iraq war it was sound policy.
As for Somalia, the conflict with Aideed was inevitable. What do you think the other non-Haber Gedir Somalis would have said if we had installed Aideed as president? I'll bet the Abgal and Hawadle would have been thrilled. And the Isaaqq and Daarood (Misspelled to pass the censors) would have really ambraced that plan. Aideed wanted to be the dictator of Somalia. Any plan that didn't achieve that end state was going to be resisted by him. We insisted on negotiation. Aideed had no intention of negotiating squat.
Can you challenge any of the facts that I have presented above. I may be cold-hearted when it comes to the application of force; that goes with the business. You want warm and sensitive, get a Phil Danahue clone. But what I asserted was dead on balls accurate. |
| Hannah | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 11:43 am
mm,
I was not looking warm and sensitive, but fairness Of course , you need to be human to see the sanctions against Iraq.
baout Soma;li, I do not know much about that to be honest with you, and what I hear cannot be the fact. |
| Galool | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 12:56 pm
MM
Mr. Pilger is a well-known and respected left-wing Journalist and film-maker. While his knowledge of the issues he writes about is undoubted, his objectivity is alas often clouded by his political views (a bit like FG et al)
The range of conflicts mentioned here are different in their nature, causes and reasoning for their occurence. You are right to assert that Saddam had badly miscalculated in his ill-fated invasion of Kuwait. He should've known that the West will not allow one of their oil-rich sheikhdoms to be gobbled-up by an unpredictable maniac like him. I find it interesting that Islamists around the world sympathize with Saddam and his Fascist Ba'athist gang. What most of them did not know is that he had decimated their ilk in Iraq in the most brutal fashion. Anyone suspected of belonging to any Islamist organization was arrested, tortured in some of the most unimaginable ways and eventually executed. The same treatment was then meted out to the victim's family and sometimes friends.
This guy also caused the pointless death of almost a million muslims when he attacked his Islamic neighbour for no apparent reason. Saddam murdered more muslims this century than America, the West, the Serbs, the Russians and Israel combined. Yet the bearded tribe sympathizes with this despot. Gives you an idea how much value a "muslim" life carries in the eyes of Islamists.
They seem to think that it is OK to torture and murder Muslims, unless of course you are an American or a Jew!
Having said all that, I think America was totally wrong to invade Panama and Grenada. It was idiotic of USA to bomb Libya and Sudan. Most of the world including its Western Europeans allies, saw it as yet another example of Uncle Sam's often ludicorous gung-ho approach to international diplomacy. You were also wrong to assert that Libya gave up sponsoring terrorists after the bombing. In fact it murdered more people (on the Pan Am flight) than it has ever done, and this time it employed its own security services personnel!
Operation Restore Hope was of course a noble attempt to save lives which went horribly awry. What the US should have done, is to go in, impose a dusk-to-dawn curfew, give an ultimatum to anyone holding unlicensed weapons to surrender them or suffer the consequences, re-establish the Somali Police Force and detain all the warlords. Sadly it did not consult me and we all know the consequences!
The Afghanistan one gives me plenty of Schaden-freude delight! It brings smile to my face whenever I see American officials moaning about the Taliban. I mean what did they expect? they armed and trained these guys. It reminds me of a Somali saying that goes "The one who feeds snakes should not be surprised when he gets bitten" |
| FG. | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 03:32 pm
MAD.
What is this tribal bashing of yours?. Plus, I supported the spirit of the fifty year old white muslim woman. I think she was brave enough to send this e-mail to her senator. Demographics will change as the political face of america will change. That is for fact. Let us face it, this country doesn't belong to the jews and they abuse it. Just like the way they abused YOUR MIND AND BLINDED YOUR REASONING to a point where you call the murder of children self defense. You are sick. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 09:39 pm
F.G.
Sick or not, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And for sure I'm not here on this thread. You don't summon a single fact that counters what I have stated. Not one.
Galool
Can't say I agree on Panama or Grenada, though I'm not sure that either was worth the effort. The one I really thought was laughable (and that I went in on with the advance party) was Haiti. Restore Democracy??? How can you restore something to a place that never had it? Aristide was a swine, as was the Junta that replaced him. Basically Haiti only has swine for politicians (true in most places, but exagerated in Haiti).
As for Restore / continue Hope. To have arrested all of the Warlords (some like Morgan would be damn hard to find) would have been very difficult and would have been bloody. To police up all of the weapons would have been impossible. After thinking about it long and hard I think our policy was sound, but our pathetic government (which new things might get ugly, they'd been warned enough) didn't have the cajones to see it through. HAd we kept the heat on one of two things would have happened:
a. The SNA would have handed us Aideeds head on a platter and everyone would have gotten back to the negotiating table.
or
b. We simply would have killed all of the opposition (admitedly a bloody affair, but again possibly unavoidable).
When we left we should have armed and trained the Group of 12 and the RRA and let themn had a go at the SNA.
As for Afghanistan, it's hard to say the policy in the 80s was wrong. It helped break up the ugly USSR. The Taliban are minor league freak shows. Eventually the Afghanis will get tired of them and they will go the way of the dinasour. |
| Galool | Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 02:45 pm
MM
You are thinking along the same lines American Policy makers thought at the time of Operation Restore Hope. What they did not know is that Somalis, like other races, respect authority when they see one. Siyad Barre made a declaration on the Radio shortly after he came to power ordering all licensed and un-licensed firearms to be surrendered at the nearest Police Station!
And guess what? Every firearm in the country was in Police hands within two months! Mogadishu was so safe during the 70s that Newsweek described it as "sleepy"
I firmly beleive that had the US demonstrated some grit in the early days of the operation, the outcome would have been totally different. A simple ultimatum backed by force would have accomplished results immediately.
Sadly what the warlords saw instead was a lily-livered fudge. And understandably, they said to themselves "hey these guys don't mean business" As a result Somalia, plus the repuation of US suffered an irrepairable damage. |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, December 19, 2000 - 09:48 pm
Maybe. Remember the Somalis of the 70s weren't the smae Somalis of the early 90s. These people had spent three or more years living by the gun. And maybe everyone surrendered their weapons in the eraly 70s, but by 1980 they were finding replacements and the SNM were going to work. When I got there in 92 EVERYONE was armed, even old ladies. It was a zoo. In that kind of climate, without police and without an immediate ability to provide them, and with horrific cases of banditry and looting, simply ordering people to reutrn their weapons probably wouldn't have worked. The firm hand approach might have backfired annoying everybody - but maybe not. Too late now, one way or the other, because the Americans sure aren't going back. |
| TLG | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 01:51 am
<Americans sure aren't going back.>
Except you MM, right?
I haven't read the original posting yet. My contribution on the way. |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 03:38 am
OK, except me. I meant the American military. Although if it does you can be sure MAD MAC will be going with them - being the resident Somali expert and everything. But it ain't going to happen. So I guess I have to go back on my own. It'll be great, with the cost of real estate being as low as it is. And no gun control laws - you can own anything fired from the shoulder. |
| Hannah | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 04:36 am
Interesting discussion.
Galool my Somali cousin Hmmmmm. |
| common | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 04:51 am
You know
Until the Lion learns to speak, tales of hunting will always favour the hunter.
Mad and Galool have "pointed out", how "left wing" views are tainted, but maintstream seems to be thought of as balanced or unabised.
Fellow muslims, can we honestly expect them to understand?. Those who have been made?.. and display charaterisctis of being deaf dumb and blind. Humanists, who watch 1 in 6 people hungry. we have thoudands of particpatory anyalsts who particpate not in the hunger, pain and misery.
Lords of poverty. the UN and the like.
American foreign policy. Does anyone recall the somali saying roughly translated as "tough eyes" or "amazingly in the face of all reality durable straight lying eyes".
what i can't figure out, is whther they belive what they say, i mean perhaps they have to internalise it, to convincingly conduct such things.
MM
drop dead |
| Galool | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 09:02 am
Common
"Drop dead"? Please say it is not you! I think Ramadan is getting to us all!
TLG
What do you mean you are not going to adore Common? And deny me the pleasure of teasing himn to death? Seriously, I hope I have not been a killjoy here!
Hannah
My Somali Cousin? Sounds sweet. |
| common | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 09:36 am
No not Ramadan,just MM why would i fast if i couldn't hack it?
he is tiresome, reactionary and incumbersome |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 10:20 am
Common
Give it a little more time Abowe, just give it a little more time. If I stay three years in Kalishnakov filled Somalia I give my chances of makign it out alive at about one in three. That ought to warm your heart.
Is incumbersome a word?? I'll have to look that one up. |
| TLG | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 10:26 am
Galool
If you are asking me to make "innocuous" comments that you can use to pick on people, "then I'm afraid i'll have to disapoint you much as it pains me" You are blessed with a "restless intellect" Don't you think it is time you put it into good use?
Look! I'm learning from you :-) |
| common | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 10:30 am
lol
i dunno if it is a word, it came naturally so i went with it.lol.
that made me smile |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 11:32 pm
BTW I can't believe you called me reactionary!! You of all people. If I didn't know better I would say you were related to Khomeini - except he was one of those Shiite dudes. The only thing you don't do is yell Allahu Ahkbar and "Death to the Great Satan" all the time. You calling me reactionary is like Hitler calling Stalin ruthless. |
| Hakim | Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 12:31 am
Salaam
Thanks Alyisa for both topic and the article too. Mostly very true and real. THank again. |
| common | Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 05:41 am
Chuckle chuckle.
Moi? Reactionary?. |
| common | Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 05:43 am
oh and i do say Allahu Akbar
i think it is a much underestimated phrase.
"lets do this man", with a high five and a gormless face whipped into histeria by a underloved mustashed corpral is, perhaps the only thing you don't do |
| Waryaa-Miskiin-Macruuf® | Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 10:26 am
Salama...
Galool:
It stuck me, really stuck me up; really, really, really cracked me up:
"I find it interesting that Islamists around the world sympathize..."
I think when you are citing those words blindly, you are considering yourself from outside the spectrum of Islaam. Your words should, as they said per se, judge it all. Is this how you were imbued so far. Brother, take it easy, when you are using Islaamic terms by prentending to be a Western.
Alyisa:
Thanks for sharing the pleasant, benign meal. And I think, I think again, Saddam Xuseen never, never in a million years would attack Kuwayd. Prior to his incursion, he got an approval, a reciprocal nod from his 'former' allies. Vis. the Big Head inside the White House.
Mad-Cap-Mac:
Your perspective, as usual, is always one-sided. Thus, we might not surprise.
___________________
Ciid Mubarak!!
Mac-Salaama!! |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 10:43 am
WMM
Same could be said for you. I noticed you didn't counter any of my facts though. That's because I'm right. |
| Galool | Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 11:07 am
WMM
You are obviously shocked by any opinion opposed to yours. May I suggest you read my earlier contributions and see how your chin copes.
And can't you get a less cumbersone username than that? Remember, we all make judgements on first impressions. We shouldn't, but we all do.
Thanks. |
| common | Friday, December 22, 2000 - 07:03 am
The tag team is back in sync.
Galool.
Dear Somali Brother.
Where were you, when you MM was calling me a fanatic and anti Christain, isn't that smearing the rep of anyone who disagrees with him, why do you only call out muslims peoples "faults", are you oblivious to MM and his dirty tricks campaign?
Am i not as a minor and a somali, under the protective wing of yourself, i mean you can divorce me in the Islamic ummah, but how you gonna sell me out on the nationalist vibe? Minor beardos have rights too! or have i travlled beyond reproach?
Mm
since when did noone countering your "facts", make you right, around the same time as anyone who counters your "facts" makes them obstinate, and fanatical?.
You are so transparant and worst of all hopelessly loserlike. You have zero skills, except in exectutive summaries of old sterotypes, and exist on the perphery of common sense , trapped in the sticky glucose your ego secretes you obese over fed American.
here we go.. add anti american to your list
lol |
| MAD MAC | Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:07 am
Common
"Zero Skills"???? I'll have you know I was an accomplished amatuer boxer in the Bantamweight Division and qualified expert on the range with the M-16A2, the G3 and the Barretta 9MM. No skills indeed!!!!! BTW I've never met anyone more vain than the Somalis. Recommend you scoot over to the General page. Say that you are anything other than a Somali, have fallen in love with a Somali woman and watch the sparks fly. Most of them will have no interest in whether you're a good Muslim or not. How do I know?? I see this topic posted endlessly. Always ending with a million folks saying (to paraphrase) "Somalis are the best". |
| Galool | Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:17 am
Common
May I say, in a true Asadian fashion, that I am not here to protect anyone. Nevertheless, your little sarcastic remark brougt a smile on my wrinkled face. Do I detect desperation in your responses to MM? You are sounding more and more like my grandmother in your curses! " May allah shut your mouth permanently" is one of her favourite retorts to anyone she disagrees with!
And when did I say I am a Nationalist? I hate Nationalism for it is Fascism's little brother!
Insults and curses are the signs of a man who lost an argument and is out of his depth. And what with wishing MM an early death and your latest reference to American gluttony, you sure sound like one! |
| Galool | Friday, December 22, 2000 - 10:35 am
MM
I thought the gun was called Beretta not " Barretta". Never mind. I would describe most Somalis as Xenophobic, rather than vain. This is borne out of isolation and nomadism.
Having said that, I remember seriously believing that Somalis are the best people in the world in my early and late childhood for no particular reason . But then you don't need reasons for that kind of thing do you?
We were intoxicated by revolutionary literature like the song which went "I am Somali, I am the highest of all that breaths.." (I now wonder whether the playwright was talking about the wildebeest!)
It took me sometime to realize that we may not be the Best in world, and even longer to come to the more realistic conclusion, that actually, we may be one of the worst!
Surprisingly though the snobbery remains in the minds of many Somalis. |
| common | Friday, December 22, 2000 - 11:02 am
Galool
Hmmm.
Okay i guess your patronising little escapades with me are over. I shouldn't be mad, seeing as i did my best to seek death to them. Lets remember though there was a time alas when i was a young misguided ,willful and passionate young man. Now i am irksome and accused of losing "an arguement"
I would take this opportunity to quickly point out that you yourself admitted a prespondancy to the "somali",If not nationalism( at least for your charity work, so i wasn't completely off the mark in asking for some zakat)
I was as you can tell just poking the fire, i really have little interest in the imagined community of Somalis. You do however i think( and don't realise it) the nation state demands a "nation" and that would involve nationalism,both intergrationist(mostlys southereners) and disintegrationsists( mostly northerners) are trapped in what giddens refers to as the parcularities of europe.Ie they both want some kind of state in which seeing the political and ethnic should be congruent, i have little reason to believe that you are not in this cultural straightjaket too, caught in the effiecent strokes of Sir Percy Cross red pen.
With regards to MM and my insults, He deserves them, shall you chastise me for swearing?, i did not, shall you chastise me for being inaccurate? i don't think so, elaborate and playful maybe.
What you are chastising me for, is expecting me and you to play by different rules, it is flattering that you imagine a more esteeemed postion for myself, but i beg thee, in which facet of your mind, is teasing not a sign of "losing an arguement" and insulting is?. surey the would have the same root casue.Secondly , i do reacall a certain person avoiding all my crunch topics, why thee punish with insolence amenisa not forget, what craft have thee, to cast such spell over website. chuckle chuckle.
The thing that upsets me with MM is that he lies. It is as simple as that. Whether he is aware of these lies, or he is really indocrinated is where my anylasis breaks down and with out some honest feedback from him i may never know.
Again when it comes to insults and we start counting, i ain't the winner, although i must admit, mine are far more pleasing to the eye and less crude, perhaps its on account of me being somali. Are we amused?
MM
Dear Friend
Somalis have serious issues when it comes to vainity you are right. Seeing as Galool thinks i have lost an arguement with you. My vain nature is offended, tell me do you habour such fancies?.
I will weep blood |
| Miskiin-Macruuf-Waryaa® | Friday, December 22, 2000 - 02:31 pm
Salama...
Mad-Cap-Mac:
What solid 'facts' are you talking about? Is that mean that your always seemingly one-sided, narrow-challenged, biased view to be a fact?
Know I not. However, I am sure you are as usual not taking the view more broad, general.
Galool:
"You are obviously shocked by any opinion opposed to yours. May I suggest you read my earlier contributions and see how your chin copes."
Your outlook judgement is not disagreed with my opinion. You are against Islaam, not me. Islaam is not an individual, Islaam is a set of concrete laws--Shareeca. You have a freedom to oppose them. However, say not you were opposed to my views. Indeed, you were considering yourself to be an outsider whilst you were uttering the above mentioned words.
P.S.:
"Since I am a pure, real, genuine Soomaali. I, therefore, still, adhere my 'Abtirsasho.' Which, usually, is at least in minimum three Names.
___________________
Ciid Mubarak!
Mac-Salaama! |
| Galool | Saturday, December 23, 2000 - 12:37 am
WMM
People like you who give themselves the right to judge others never fail to disgust me. Who are you to tell people what they believe or don't believe in? Do you realize you are playing Allah by saying that I am against Islam? Do you really know what is in my heart?
What you really mean, is that my views and interpretations of Islam does not fit in with your pale, blind deaf and dumb, tiny weeny, itsy-bitsy knowledge and understanding of Islam.
I may not be a "Muslim" but neither you nor any one else have the right to judge me or anyone else. Simply put it is not your place to do so. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, December 25, 2000 - 01:10 am
Common
Fear not, I'm not yielding even one inch of ground in this particular debate. Because I'm right and Common is wrong. This one is black and white, unlike most debates. Common accusses me of being blinded but acually it's the other way around. He has already decided that the west is evil (even when he denies it it comes through in every post) and therefore anything anyone says, supported by facts or not, he agrees with.
Common
For someone getting a university education and studying in the Egnlish language I'm surprised you don't understand the proper usage of a simple word like lie. To lie is to deliberately deceive. By your own admission you can't tell if I am deliberately deceiving or not. Therefore, I can not be lying. I can have a mistaken assertion, this is not the same thing. The word lie is a loaded word, and you should only use it when you are certain that the person is uttering falshood with deliberate attempt to mislead. For example, Bill Clinton lied about his relationship with "That woman." See the difference.
Now, on to the issue at hand.
Let's take a look at my assertions. First on Libya. Libya has backed way off (not all the way off) and worked hard to maintain credible deniability in any terrorist linkages. This goes for Ghadafis public line as well. He terminated his invasion of Chad, he has limited his support to terrorist movements in the Mahgreb. He's still a gadfly, but not a particularly annoying one anymore. Tha Pan Am bombing was the exception that proved the rule, and that was executed a long time ago.
The Panama invasion assertion is even more coomical. We gave the canal up as soon as we took it. And we can take it back anytime we need it. Who's kidding who. The Canal Treaty specifically says we have unlimited access to the canal in time of war. Of course, the canal does not have much military importance now since it's draft can not accomodate our carriers. It's an ecnonomic moneymaker for Panama and will continue to be so. The Panamanians are not going to cut off one of their best customers and if they caused too much inconvienience we go back to the rule we take it back if neccessary.
Now let's take the Gulf War. Everything Pilger wrote there is total and complete nonsense. Killing the enemy in combat is a war crime??? Hello, that's what you do in war.
My favorite has to be Somalia. I always hear about how we went there not to save the starving people, nooooooo, we wanted their "resources". As if Somalia were the Congo or something. One Somali told me we wanted to steal Somali sand because they had the best glass making sand in the world. I kid you not. This sounds like something Common would believe. Look, media pressure covering the famine drove us to go there. George Bushes election was already over for Christ Sakes!!!! We're damn lúcky the media didn't cover the horrific famine in the soutrhern Sudan or we'd have ended up there as well.
Now Common, the only one here who is furthering incorrect assertions (note I didn't say lying - I'm sure you just don't know what you're talking about when it comes to international politics. You're so naive you think there are good guys and bad guys.) is you!!! You need to do some more homework in this area kid. May Allah shut your mouth if you can't smarten up a bit (sorry, I couldn't resist that. It's Galools fault. He made me say it.). |
| common | Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 02:26 am
it made me laugh, so it kinda opened my mouth again.
International relations and me not understanding it okay..maybe.( but you know your neo liberal anyalsis of everything is hard to digest, and nearly always factually distorted)
the Lie, you have taken a very narrow view of the word lie. For example your recent assertion that "Islam was nothing radically new in the Arabian Penisula as Judaism and Christanity has made inroads". MM that is a false. Regardless of your lack of knowledge, which is clearly evident,you chose to make such a statment in the knowldge that you really don't know what the impact of Islam was, or know the impact and are downplaying it, now what reasons can we infer.
1. you wish to seem more intelligent than you are or
2. you wish to deceive folk.
Now i am glad you have taken it upon your self to identify the meaning of the word lie, and chstise me as a native for not wearing my masters clothes well enough, but allow my ill fitting western suit wearing behind, to question your fuzzy logic.
MM, you are getting old , not remembering our earlier debats, in which i whipped you in to shpae, or wish to rehash old ideas of yours , which were your dinner party milatary folk. I told you, the American goverenment, with the United nations was in Somalis for the promotion of Liberal norms, which was placed at the heart of operation restore hope, like the 25 other peace keeping missions taht have occured since 1997. you have to do better to fool me sonny boy, no horse type laughs at your bravado , your "compassionate conservatism". So anyway, comeone, you guys have had a policy of "democratic enlargement" weaved into USAid budget accoundt, i mean this no secret and we have been threw this. If you wanna start this debate and "not back down" say teh word. Not to be arrogant, but unless you ahev anything new, your chances are slim.
May allah shut my mouth more often
peace |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 03:42 am
Pound for pound baby. I'm there.
First let's start with the impact of Islam on the Arabian peninsula and its appearance there. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. Islam is clearly (and by its own admission) an extension of the Judeo / Christian tradition. It is easy to see how, esspecilly from a Jewish tradition, Islam is simply a copy cat production - taking the old books already in existence and refining them. If Mohamed had significant assitance - in the way of Ghost writers - this is possible. I don't personally believe this is what happened, but my personal beliefs aside, it is easy to see how Christians and Jews would have dismissed him. In the sense that Islam is a continuation of the basic tenets of monotheistic belief, it is nothing radically new. This basic concept (you can argue the particulars, but I'm talking in the broadest sense now) was not new to the Mecca and Medina area. In fact, the Qur'an specifically talks about Jews and Christians who were living in this area at the time (why I don't know since it's incredibly hot, dry, dusty and forlorn - but that's another topic). So from this perspective I mean Islam was not radically new - not conceptually. Certainly for Mohammed to make serious inroads in converstion, esspecially amongst the Arabs, that was new. But then, his book (or Allahs, depending upon your perspective) was written in Arabic and was well written; much more likely to find resonance among the Arab population than something written in Hebrew or Aramaic (related but not mutually intelligable languages as I understand it).
Common, not to toot my own horn, but I'm a little smarter than you think I am. My views are not pro-western, as you see them, except in support of the notion of freedom, something that, truth be told, Islam doesn't really embrace. Islam postualtes first and foremost that we are here to worship Allah. Therefore, anything that inteferes with that is at risk - including all manner of freeedoms. You know that as well as I do. I don't take umbrage with Islam per se - I take umbrage with the notion coming from radical Islamic circles that others rights lack value if they do not originate in the Qur'an. If Islam were practiced properly, with true tolerance with other beliefs, that version of Islam I am a full supporter of. I doubt you and I are seriously at odds there.
Now, as for USAID money. This is money provided by the US government right??? I'm just checking here. Why on Gods green earth would you then conclude that the committment of these economic resources would not be linked to US foreign policy goals???? Contrary to your very narrow view of those goals they are not oppossed to Islam. They are oppossed to Islams facists or autocratic cousins as we see in Iran or Afghanistan for example. This policy of opposition to the expansion of governments fundamentally hostile to you is an altogether reasonable policy, don't you think???? There are times in life, when certain principals collide. So for example, while the US believes that democratic governments allow for peaceful dissent and changing of government (like revolutions minue the blood shed) it will put its own interests ahead of this principal when it has too. In recent history we have the case of Algeria. The US isn't fond of FIS, but given the alternative, it had no choice. The Islamic movements there intended for this election to tbe the last (and they publicly said so). So there really was no democratic government to turn to. There was neutral to friendly, and there was hostile. This is a no brainer. I've explained this base concept to you before, it's not a hard one to understand. States put self-interest first. Always have, always will. Perhaps some day the nation state will go the way of the dinasour, but until that day, this basic operating principal is not going to change.
Now down to the specifics of Somalia. Of course the push there was for the establishment of some sort of democratic regime. You and I both know that Mohammed Farah Aideed wasn't fond of this notion, since democracy wouldn't facillitate his notion of becoming dictator for life. Do I think we commmited troops there for reasons of altruism??? Depends on the definition. We were driven to that committment by media exposure, which in a democratic society can exert a lot of pressure. The daily images on TV forced the US government to action. We were more resistant to this pressure in Bosnia because of the fallout from the Somalia experience. But even there we eventually knuckled under. Go to Bosnia, where the same Islam oriented anti-US attitudes are not prevelant and you will be hard pressed to find anyone (certainly very few Muslims) who isn't a suppoerter of US policy there. Even most of the Serbs now support the US presence. They don't have ridiculous conspiracy theories about how we came to steal something, etc. etc. Let's admit it, you are biased because you view the US from an Islamic prism. And many Islamic states are hostile to the US because the US is viewed as a powerful advocate of secularism (which it is) and a powerful ally of Israel (which it also is). Hence regardless of what activity the US is engaged in in states with Muslim populations you look for a conspiratorial or anti-Islamic angle. If you believe that being secular is anti-Islamic, then you are right, the US is an advocate of anti-Islamic policies. But if you view the notion of secular, democratic regimes as being compatible with Islam, then this is an innacurrate assertion.
I have never attempted to deceive folks and have now become convinced that Muslims like to accuse people of beings liars, hypocrites, under the influence of satan, etc. whenever they argue positions that are not in synch with theirs (and when the individual concerned is gaal). You have yet to accept the notion that other opinions which are at variance with yours could be from two well-intentioned individuals who simply have analyzed the same information and come to different conclusions. In some circles this is known as intollerance. |
| Miskiin-Macruuf-Waryaa | Wednesday, December 27, 2000 - 07:19 am
Salama...
Galool:
I DID NOT said you are not among us--that is you're not Muslim. I never said THAT. Again, never. Hokey.
I said, your views were agaist or opposed to Islaam, not my opinions as you intended. That does not mean you are not a Muslim. I am not arbitrator to judge how you behave. Again, I said you have a freedom to formalize anything you desire to say. Again, you do have a free will to do that.
With that, I do smell you are playing a 'foul-play.' Narrowing interpreting your own judgements.
Also, I am not a person who cherish to offend anyone without his capalities, faculties to fathom clearly what had been said or wrote. Get it? No such name-calling, baliish.
_____________________
Ciid Mubarak!! Iyaah, Xalwo Hilaal dhab iga dhaha hee, hokey.
Mac-Salaama!! |
| common | Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 06:02 am
MM.
Rolling up my sleeves
will write in a minute |
| MAD MAC | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 09:29 am
Common
Man, you're taking a long time. |
| TLG | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 10:32 am
MM, this is not my department(dunno much about politiks) but I have a few comments to make. will do so later insha Allah. |
| TLG | Friday, December 29, 2000 - 08:34 pm
MM,
I finally had time to read all your postings here. First, i'm supprised you state with much conviction that the US has the right to attack, destroy, kill(with "collateral damage" etc to preserve its interest. On the other hand, when muslims try to preserve their interests against the invading evil of western secularism, they are fanatics, terrorists madmen etc. Intersting. Is it just me or is the logic amiss here.
Next, you have to limit yourself to one of the following. Is islam a copy cat or an extenstion of the judeo-Christian tradition? Coz the two terms are as distinct as the earth and the sky. If you are elluding to the latter, then I think the word u are looking for is CORRECTION. For Islam corrects the misguided beleifs in both faiths. True, some things are similar but the central theme is correction. Our brethren of the Judeo-Christian faith deviated from the true path hence God once again (isn't Allah merciful?)gave mankind another chance by sending MOhammed (peace be upon him). So, I don't understand how you "can see how they dismissed mohammed".
<I have never attempted to deceive folks and have now become convinced that Muslims like to accuse people of beings liars, hypocrites, under the influence of satan, etc. whenever they argue positions that are not in synch with theirs (and when the individual concerned is gaal). You have yet to accept the notion that other opinions which are at variance with yours could be from two well-intentioned individuals who simply have analyzed the same information and come to different conclusions. In some circles this is known as intollerance.>
MM, the above is gross generalization. However, I can certainly see why some muslims would attribute the above to you. Your posting though sometimes sincere are often loaded with arrogance, inconsistency and distortion of basic facts about Islam. Whether these are intentional or unintentional is not for me to judge. But, you can't attribute such claims to Islam and expect people to keep quite. I imagine you love your son dearly. what would u do if I were to rant all day how horrible he is, specially if the case is not so? See, religion is the strong hold of most people. When you attack that strong hold, basing your assertions on wrong facts, don't expect roses.
Finally, you seem to be mistaken on what exactly lying means. YOu may have a better command of the English language than most of us here (after all it is your native tongue)but everything is subject to perception. According to Webster's dictionary, the definitions of lying include: inaccurate assertions, distortion of facts etc. If one looks at your writing and sees much contradiction in what you say, they are justified in asserting that you lied. |
| MAD MAC | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 02:07 am
TLG
Well, on your first point I would have to start with intent. Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, which in addition to trying to preserve the Monarchy maintain a fairly closed society oppossed to western secularism, there's nothing wrong with this. It's not the embracing of a different manner of governance per se, it's a question of attacking someone elses. Terrorist often deliberately target non-military targets (inlcluding woman and children). When women and children get killed incidental to a military operation, this is the equivelant of getting killed in a car accident. Unfortunate, but not deliberate. When woman and children have their brains blown out by a terrorist shotting at close range (like in Egypt two years ago) this is called murder. That's why I think calling the attack on the Cole a terrorist strike was a mis-nomer (you may have noted in my earlier posts). This was a military target.
As for states using force to protect their interests - that's just the way it is. I don't place a moral value on it one way or the other. I would simply say that that is normal Statist behavior exercised by all states within their abilities.
As for my perception of Islam, you have to understand that I don't regard religion (any religion) as sacred. Hence when I say something may not be true about Islam I get "prove it" (concerning things clearly not provable). If I were to make the same postulations about Christianity or Bhudism or Hinduism no one would say a thing. The inconsistency is arrogance the other way. The believers in Islam are so convinced they're right that they aren't willing to engage in objective discussion, they see it as a personal assault - when of course it's not. I can tell you right now I have had a lot of these same discussions in my Church and met no hostility, just open discussion. IN MY OPINION (I can't prove it) religion and emotion are a dangerous mix which often leads to fanaticism which then leads to the devaluation of other people who have other beliefs. History is replete with examples from all sides of the religious fence. For all the talk about how Islam teaches respect to other religions (and it does) in practice it's lip service (which is hypocracy). What's that favorite saying in Somalia "Catch the gaal, kill the gaal"???? |
| Galool | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 02:31 am
TLG
There is absolutely no doubt that the West has a Holier Than Thou attitude towards world affairs, but to be fair any Top-Dog culture would have behaved in a similar fashion.
I was touched by the poignancy of your comparison of Islam to someone's Child. There is obviously tremendous love there, but also that feeling that the `Child' needs to be protected. This is an indication of just how fragile collective Islamic psyche is at this moment in History.
You can criticize Christianity, Budhism etc to your heart's content without upsetting anyone, but mention anything about Islam and its like stirring an hornet's nest as poor MM is finding out. If Islam is such a great faith and the ultimate word in Allah's wisdom, then how come it needs all this screetching defence from mortals like you? |
| Idea | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 09:19 am
"If Islam is such a great faith and the ultimate word in Allah's wisdom, then how come it needs all this screetching defence from mortals like you?"
Galool, due to the unfortunate fact, that mortals like you who introduce their heretical writings and deviant religious rites which are contrary to Quran and Sunnah...we(muslims)have to expose to our brothers & sisters...your WEAK & LOUZY arguments. Islam doesn't tell us to stand still and not defend our faith. |
| Miskiin-Macruuf-Waryaa® | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 02:44 pm
Salama...
Idea:
ShaX! ShaX! ShaX!
Wondering?
I am applauding, LoL. Good for waking--in a cold freezing water--him up, this poor, unfortunate dissenter brother of ours. His nonconformism ideas doesn't really affect Islaam, but himself.
__________________
Mac-Salaama!! |
| TLG | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 06:01 pm
MM, your "incidental killing" of women and children in military operations and car accident anology is laughable. In a car accident, the driver in the other car or the victim have no idea the accident will be taking place. It is unforseen event. On the other hand, in a military operation, an individual with a sound mind gives an order knowing that somewhere some place, there will be a janitor working in the middle of the night near the target. Or a woman or child will be innocently walking around, unaware of the fact that someone somewhere gave an order to have them killed. Pray tell me this is not murder. What is the difference of killing with a phone call, wearing a suit and a tie and that of pointing a weapon at the victim at close range?
AS for those that blow up the brains of innocent men, women and children, you know as i know Islam does not condone such acts. They are actually violating the norms of Islaamic justice.
Tell me, is your argument against Islam or against muslim? for I can't speak on half of Muslims. But with my limited knowledge and wisdom, I can speak on behalf of Islam.
Ok, so you don't hold religion as sacred. Fair enough. Then I'll suggest that u refrain from stating things as facts such as "mohammed definitely wrote the Quran". You might wanna say something to the effect of I, madmac, son of..., postulate that TLG is a fanatic.....lol because she can't tolerate me.(i'm being silly here but u get my point)
I'm sorry to say that both your and Galool's arguments against Islam/Quran are INANE unlike those you have against Hinduism, Buddism or Christianity. May be that is why the beleivers of those faiths would not say a thing. People will tend to tolerate arguments that have a point. Maybe this is the case with these other faiths. As for Islam, you guys are ranting the same things offered by the babaric Arabs some 1400 years ago and which have been answered both in the Quran and by muslims over and over again. So, may be if you come up with new things, then people won't say you are under the "influence of satan" and will instead take the time to answer them.
As to your last statement, I'm at loss as to what u are getting at by "catch the gaal kill the gaal". As for tolerance, judge the religion by its scriptures, not by our (muslims) behavior. |
| TLG | Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 06:17 pm
Abtee, you never cease to amaze me! I like how you twisted my innocent comparison. By the way, what would u have said if I compared the love for Islam to that of my dad? I'm sure my dad does not need any protection from me. I guess u would find a twisted way of shooting that one down too.
BTW, if the "collective Islamic psyche is sooo fragile at this moment in history" then we wouldn't be having some of the presidents of the only remaining superpower saying on national TV that the most feared force today is Islam (wasn't it Nixon who said this? correct me if i'm wrong). How about those Israeli prime ministers echoing the same thing? And the Russians? man, the list is sooo long.
As for Islam needing protection frm a mortal like me, I think Idea spell it out for u. I will just add that contrary to your assertion, Islam does not need a protection from me or any other individual, for Allah promised to protect it with or without me. And Allah does not break Allah's promise. I'm just correcting people's wrong assertions about the message. And whether I succeed or fail, it does not make an iota of a difference to Islam or Allah. |
| MAD MAC | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 05:34 am
TLG
I have to admit I'm getting to like you more and more with every post. We aren't really that far apart other than the fact that you would likely consider me a gun for hire (not a completely inaccurate description). The difference between popping someone at point blank range and the accidental killing of the janitor is intent. Maybe there's a janitor, maybe not, but in acy legal system intent is key.
Don't get me wrong about Islam. Of course I recognize that Islam doesn't condone murder. What I AM saying is that many Muslims have a narrow definition of Qur'anic intent and use this narrow definition to kill innocent people. That's all I'm saying. |
| Galool | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 07:19 am
Mad-Mac
Don't you try to get your paws on my TLG! Oh! Why weren't girls this intelligent when I was young, single and on the prowl!(the wife is reading this, so no supper for me tonight!)
Seriously, I agree with TLG on this. The West will deliberately (as opposed to Collaterally) massacre women and children as quickly as the beardos, if they feel `threatened' in any way.
The British are still proud of Bomber Harris, a man responsible for the intentional incineration of about 350,000 civilians in Germany. And of course we all know of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tokyo and Nuremberg.
So the Holier than thou is, I am afraid, nothing but cultural arrogance with no basis on reality.
TLG
The reverse explanation for why people of other faiths show more tolerance is that they are culturally more self-confident and secure.
Muslims on the other hand feel beaten and besieged.
They look around the globe and see their "brethren" oppressed and humiliated by all and sundry.
Hindus kill Muslims and burn their holy places at will. So do the Jews, Serbs, Russians, croatians, Americans and other assorted "enemies".
Of course, most Muslims go blind when its is Muslims that do the killing and perpeterate the oppression as in Indonesia, or when most injustices are actually inflicted by Muslims on their fellow Muslims.
The most paranoid amongst the truly possessed believe there is a Christian or Jewish conspiracy against Islam, and hence Islam "needs to be defended". Interestingly, these guys seem to have totally missed the fact that Big Satan himself, the ring-leader of Christian domination (USA) had been recently busy bombing the hell out of "Christian" serbia in support of Muslim Kosovo and Bosnia.
But then rational thinking is not a beardo strong-point, is it TLG? |
| MAD MAC | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 09:26 am
A wise man once said to me "Where you stand on an issue, depends on where you sit." |
| FG. | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 10:24 pm
Mad, A hypocrite's confession not a wise man. But again, as you said "Hypocricy is the best policy". |
| FG. | Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 10:52 pm
Galool, One of your last fronts eh?. It is a matter of a rope you provide to people they can hang you with old man. Don't slip. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 01:28 am
F.G.
You view anyone who isn't a Muslim as a hypocrite. The idea that someone could have a divergent viewpoint on something outside the bounds of thew Qur'an is anathema to you. |
| Idea | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 02:50 am
Galool,
"But rational thinking is not a beardo strong point,is it TLG?"
I am pretty sure that she will come up with a perfect answer...anyway, Galool, do you know what were Abu Bakr Al-sadiq commmands to muslim armies? He used to say.."I command you to ten precepts: slay not a woman nor a child nor an aged man, cut not down a tree that beareth fruit and lay not waste a cultivated land, and destroy not a sheep nor a camel save for food and lop not a date tree nor burn it and conceal not plunder and be not faint of heart"...this is not a rational thinking..huh!
I like, also, Napolean Bonaparte's quote: " I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of QURAN which alone are TRUE and which alone can lead men to HAPPINESS"...well you see, it is not only that FG's lot or TLG et al are viewing Islam with the same perspective by taking IT as their shield. Don't you feel funny by your irrational irony? |
| Galool | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 03:18 am
FG
No seriously, what is the normal beardo reaction when they see "Christian" America bombing the hell out of "Christian" Serbia in support of "Muslim" Bosnia and Kosovo?
Shall I risk a guess? Allah has re-programmed the enemy and turned them against each other! |
| FG. | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 05:13 am
Galool.
How about Idea's wonderful facts you bypassed?. Never mind. My reaction to your question?,. It had been stressed by all western politicians. They couldn't risk the revival of islamic brotherhood at their doorstep so they had to wrist-slap an extrimist of their own who wasn't from their denomination. So what?. Am I supposed to be joyful about that?. They should have left the matter to muslims if they were truthful. Not only they would have risked islamic union but an overthrow of all their puppets in islamic countries. I say "THANKS BUT NO THANKS". Ask Mad, he knows why they had to fight the Serbs. FOR AMERICAN AND WESTERN INTEREST WOULD BE THE EXACT ANSWER.
Mad,
I understood well what you meant by your hypocritic quote. It meant: If you had to gass and nuke people, you should do it. Doesn't that mean an issue depends on where you sit?. Thus nuking Japan was right, the genocidal starvation of Iraqi women and children is right, God knows what else you did in vietnam. I heard that you guys used some kind of gas to wipe the forest out and whoever was hiding in it. So, where is the wisdom in what you said?. Pure hypocritical I say. |
| Galool | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 06:17 am
FG
I know that early Islam was the most tolerant, forward-looking and open-minded of all the world's great faiths! Sadly, none of the above applies today. It is intolerant, insular, unaccepting of criticism and dogmatic. And before TLG bites my wrinkly old head-off, of course it is the people not the message that changed. I never doubted that the core of the message was noble and sacred!
So what turned "ad-din as-samhaa" into this prickly little outfit that screams kill!kill! whenever someone even so much as mildly criticizes an aspect of the way Islam is practised?
You obviously disagree with my "inferiority complex" theory above (although you didn't say that, ever the diplomat) so what is your view on this?
All are welcome to comment, but I am particularly interested to hear from GOB, Common,TLG asad and New Deal.
And guys, this time I am not trying to tease you or anything like that, I want to understand and try to see the world from your perspective.
(New Year New Galool eh!?) |
| ANON | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 07:05 am
"All are welcome to comment, but I am particularly interested to hear from GOB, Common,TLG asad and New Deal."
galool, you are inviting me to comment on here is going to be fruitless, especially while you (as an atheist) are cornered (in defeat by others) to say about Islam this: "I never doubted that the core of the message was noble and sacred!". in defense of islam, it looks to me that you are saying the same things others have been saying (muslims can look bad, but never islam). does islam need defense, you asked. i guess as an atheist, you just defended islam by proving that islam is noble and sacred.
besides, galool, what is the use for your invitation to me to comment when every time i discuss things with you in many other different places, you are no where to be found or whenever the things get tough for you, you claim i am sedative (i put you to sleep)? i guess you wanted me to give your tranquilizer (your medicine) to you again, right? |
| Idea | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 07:58 am
FG,
He gave me a veto power to comment on his comments and never comment on mine <smile>
ANON,
"atheist"----> that is too HARSH!
Galool,
Alhamdulilaah Rab Al-caalameen. May Allah guide you to understand His truth perspective..rather than views coming from mortals. |
| TLG | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 08:26 am
Oh oh... MM and Galool, what is it?--lets boost TLG's confidence day? I once heard that when the "enemy" starts praising you, you are either doing something wrong, which they can use to their advantage or they are tired of fighting and want to you to quit. On seconds thoughts, suspicion is the root of all evil. So, i'm gonna say, I seek refuge in Allah from the whispering devil. The one that whispers in people's hearts. So guys, i'm truly touched by your compliments. Thank you, thank you very much.
Abtee, while MadMac's comments had an atom's weight of sincerity in them, yours were loaded with sarcasm. But I ain't complaining. For i've been told that i'm the mother of all sarcasm (see the "Madmac Galool" folder in the archives). Anyway, I like the "new" abtee. They say a change is as good as a rest. I hope you stay this way.
For your "reverse explanation" for the tolerance comment, I beg to differ but I have a plane to catch in a few hours and people I screaming, "get off the net". Once i'm back in ma crib, I'll give u a response.
Hey, where is Common, by the way? I'm missing him...lol (a lil charity your way Galool). And Hannah/Arawello. I miss her too...(but abtee will have no problem with this). |
| FG. | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 08:45 am
Hey Anon,
Easy on the Lad. You don't want him dissappear just like that. He can learn few things from the intuitive renegades to his atheistic and dogmatic views of life.
Galool.
Let us hear from others. Untill then, I don't buy your altruistic pretensions. I have seen your malevolence and disdainful writings about us. It isn't fair that you switch now after you saw the unexpected from your intended victims. I will take easy on you. Let others do the rest of the contribution. We have plethora of people who can write just fine.
Yes, addiin is always samaxa, and islamic critisizm should be handled through academic avenues as it always had been. Was yours mild critisizm?. Or loathesome chants towards Islam?. You were pretending to be intrepid in islamic matters but got whisked in the proccess. Anyway, you are funny guy and write good. My advice to you would be this; Don't critisize islam because it makes you look odd. I gotta run, let us hear from others. |
| MAD MAC | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 09:42 am
F.G.
The quote actually comes from the man I took command from when he went back to the States. I was working in the Battalion S3 shop. Of course, my perspective on issues from that shop was different than my perspective when I took command. This is normal and the interest of the company may collide with the interests of the battalion.
Now, for a little edification. In warfare, it is customary to kill the enemy. Remember??? If I told you once I told you a million times, nations commit force to defend national interests. Nations that commit force for other reasons have stupid leaders. Period, end of story. Only people who are clueless on this subject would think that nations (at least those with leaders who are not clueless) commit force for some other reason (like justice or religion or something). This is why neither Egypt nor Pakistan are going to attack Israel. Because they no longer have a dog in the fight. The fact that their populations may have the collective intelligence of a Bull Terrier doesn't change the fact that responsible leadership will put state interests first. You are follishly trying to place a moral value on any of this - like the dumb-ass Green party does here in Germany. That's why the US got some very lucrative weapons deals recently that Germany lost because it didn't want to sell to Turkey and support their war against the Kurds.
Now, on to why we supported Bosnia. This is simple. Hundreds of thousands of Bosnian refugees were moving into western Europe, the Europeans weren't digging that, and asked for our help. As for Kosovo, this was stupid policy. The Albanians have been trouble makers there for decades. Hell, they're trouble makers in Albania. We didn't have a dog in this fight, but Madeleine "bombsight" Albright had made it her personal mission to knock off Milosevic and she concluded (correctly) that he could not survive the loss of Kosovo. When we fight with Islamic countries we do so generally because it's in our interest to do so or we perceive it's in our interest to do so. When we fight against Islamic countries we do so for the same reasons. Now, listen carefully here, there is nothing wrong with this. This is the way every state behaves in an anarchic world. What Pilger wrote here is baseless drivel. I have since done some research on this guy. He attacks the market economy, he attacks western foreign policy - he's basically a commie nut who hasn't gotten the message that centrally controlled economies are grossly inefficient and make everyone poor instead of just some folks. He's a moron.
I challenge you to review my initial response and find one incorrect fact in it. |
| Galool | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 09:43 am
Anon
Me being cornered and losing? I thought one of the main planks of Asadian Philosophy was that this was not about winning and losing! Never mind. I think the news of my conversion, is, alas, overstated. You may have made hasty translations of the word "sacred". But then convenient translations are an FG speciality!
I said nothing new that I did not say the first day I discovered this wonderful forums. (although "wonderful" is not a word the wife would use about Somalinet!)
Hey, I am feeling a little bit guilty here! I did not think all that teasing about you being boring was getting to you! All I can say is when someone teases you in a debate it means you are hitting home too often and your opponent is trying to play for time or put you off-balance! Now I was not talking about anyone in particular here!
FG
You are not half-patronsing are you? I never see victims - poor lost souls deserving of pity maybe, but not victims. I was seeking to make your lives a little bit more interesting and gain some amusement at your expense, and I hope I achieved both!
Switched? Moi? Dream-on GOB!
Malevolent? loathsome and disdainful? Is that what you really think of my attitudes to Islam? Harsh and unfair! How about my views on Islamism as a political entity? spot on!
And young man, I thrive on looking odd! Never follow the herd is my motto!
I just asked for your views on a specific topic and you all jump up and down and shout praise be to Allah! You are truly an optimistic and excitable tribe!
Idea
My apologies. Did not intend to exclude you, it is just the name still feels new! Your views are always welcome. That "veto" thing brings a smile on my face. As to allah showing me the true path, would be nice but logistically difficult.
TLG
No sarcasm intended. The opinions are genuine! You are one special lady! |
| Ice-Man | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 10:16 am
Wake up Somalis. Don't tell me you can't tell Galool and Mad mac are not one person.
be wise my fellow Somalis
Later |
| Idea | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 10:37 am
Mac Mad,
Are they responsible leaders or some Puppets that America plays with them right and left? The only reason why Moubarak won't fight is: Egypt is the second main receiver of Aid after Israel in the Middle East. How i wish that life supply line stops...then, you will see the real face of egyptians.
Galool,
No need for apologies <smile> |
| Galool | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 12:50 pm
All
Please ignore this monkey-vomit called Ice-Man, and do not dignify him with a response. This idiotic slime-ball put down a name of what I believe to be a real person on the net and said it was me. He also mentioned the poor gent's family members including the man's wife and daughter, and insulted them!
So you see what kind gutter-dwelling, slime trailing cockroach-eating peanut brain low-life we are dealing with here!
He is welcome to insult people here, but until and unless he apologizes to the gentleman he mentioned, he should be shunned and avoided like the plague! (sorry plague!)
And sorry guys, I am actually shaking with anger and that does not happen too often! |
| Ice-Man | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 01:49 pm
Galool=MAD MAC you can't hide ••••••• Alcoholic.
Do you think I care if people respond to me or not?
I am not like you swine, who Always needs some validation.
Later |
| Idea | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 02:47 pm
ANON,
My apologies, abti! You are truly wiser than me!
Mad Mac,
So the net is still safer than Haiti?
TLG,
I am afraid to say your effort will be worthless!
Abu Laahab never repented!
Ice-Man,
Please watch your Language!
I have never in my LIFE came across a passage Full of INSULTS! Good Lord, what kind of people live in this world! |
| ANON | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 03:40 pm
"Me being cornered and losing? I thought one of the main planks of Asadian Philosophy was that this was not about winning and losing! Never mind. I think the news of my conversion, is, alas, overstated. may have made hasty translations of the word "sacred" "
loosing or winning, i see when one is cornered to say a thing which he does not believe. i mean, why would an atheist say that the message of islam was *noble* and *sacred*!?
"Hey, I am feeling a little bit guilty here! I did not think all that teasing about you being boring was getting to you!"
i think it is the wishful of yours---- if you think teasing is getting to me. if insult didn't get me, would teasing get me?
"All I can say is when someone teases you in a debate it means you are hitting home too often and your opponent is trying to play for time or put you off-balance! Now I was not talking about anyone in particular"
i agree and that is why i said you are inviting me to comment on here is fruitless, especially when every time i discuss things with you in many other different places, you are no where to be found or whenever the things get tough for you, you claim i am sedative (i put you to sleep)? |
| MAD MAC | Monday, January 01, 2001 - 10:20 pm
Ice-Man
The reason that Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel (and that was Anwar Sadat you dumb-ass) is because Egypt recovered all of her lost territories by doing so. Get it????? Peace with Israel means control over the Sinai, control over the canal and about 2 billion dollars in foreign aid. You call this being a puppet. I call it self-interest. Why on God green Earth (or desert sand earth if you prefer) would Egypt risk 2 billion dollars annum, canal revenues, etc. to support a Palestinian cause??? Go back to the refrain on stupid leaders clause. The only interest Egypt has in this whole affair is making sure it doesn't spill over into Egypt. Mubarak understands this. You, being an individual of questionable analytical abilitz, don't. That is one, of many, reasons why Mubarak is Egypts leader and you are no ones. |
| Ice-Man | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 12:23 am
To.MAD COW. oh man you are drunk huh? did I mention Egypt?
Idea it's good to be fair . I hope you got my point
Later |
| Idea | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 02:43 am
LoL @ ice-man, No, he is not drunk. I guess it is his way to insult me. White boy, peace or no peace..remember Egypt took back Sinai on october 6th 1973 (10th of Ramadan, on a Friday exactly at 2:00pm). Go back and read History of Egypt before you tell me, i have no idea what i am talking about. And FYI, no body wanted peace with Israel, that was one of the main reasons poor Sadat was murdered. And Moubarak being in office has nothing to do with the guy's super intelligence, its rather a simple philosophy: everyone knows he is a big THIEF...Since he has stolen enough..Since he already knows how to play the cards of international gambling...the majority sees that there is no reason to elect a new thief. |
| common | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 02:54 am
A salaam alekum muslims
uhmm Hi everyone else.
Sorry about my delayed post Mm, but you been having fun.
My sister in Islam has represented quite well.
I cam back to school, and the comp lab was closed, it has opned today and my junkie behind is hre, unfortunatly it closes in a hot minute, so i had to stop reading and start writing, i will be writing a short version.
firstly
I wanna retrace our steps to the Islam not being radical thing, this is false assertion, not only fasle, but ungratuful assertion. The rise of the west, was precipitated, nay dependent on the coming of Islam and the lifting up of the world from its lowely postion. Dear MM do i have to remind you of Islam impact?. How can you say Islam was "nothing new" cause Christainty and judaism had made an impact, firstly when we met you folk, we taught you how to wash, you were heathens, who used orange peels to cover your stench, i am sorry to put it that way but its the truth. "Christainity" had arrived, yet the English, when a frrench ship crashed on the shores of england,and all the french sailors died, the english hanged a mokey, because they though he was a french man. The westerners thought the arabs were so advanced that they flew on carpets hence "flying carpets". You have heard about Bonapate, bearnad shaw, also had simlar things to say about Islam and our Rasoul (pbuh). I am sure you have heard, if the moutain doesn'rt go to mohammed (pbuh), then mohammed(pbuh) goes to the mountain, here was a mna, a blessed man, down to earth, with no claims to miricales, or transendent powers, unlettered, who after his message form Allah, changed the landcaspe of teh world,Military, Islam was nothing new?, in it superior script Islam was nothing new?. MM if you claim to have read the Quran Bible and Torah, tell me if it is not a journalistic miricle, in . Tell quietly if it helps, about the "once upon a time, method of explaining the word of God in the Bible(i have not read the Torah), compared to the way the Quran is revealed, see how the "same stories" are told in the Quran and the Bible and Torah, and watch the criterion superior revelation and correction(if need be) in prose and peotery. It is in human nature to tell a story in a "once upon a time" mannor, it fits in with our concepts of time. Christian arabs spoke of the beauty of the Quran recited "like the rymmatic beating of my heat". Historn Goldsmit was to write in 1983, no other book has affecetde minds so poweerfully for so long.
Put simply, the rise of the west was dependant on Islam science, islam arts. So is it not a little ungratuful, that you should cry amnesia? |
| common | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 03:09 am
Galool and MadMac.
The same person?.
Only with a split personality.
I wanna leave you folk, with the difference between them. Nehru in India and a British guy had a conversation.
British guy- "you know we have a lot in common"
Nehru- "yes i know"
British guy- "i mean we are both athiests"
Nehru " yes but let me remind you, i am a hindu athesist and you a Christian atheist".
Cynical, but funny, i thought the non wudu crew may enjoy |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 03:30 am
Common
First of all welcome back. I was beginning to think you had been killed by some Mooryan or something.
Now, perhaps you and I are using different definations of radical. I do not mean to imply whatsoever tht the rise of Islam was not historically significant. Nor did I mean to imply that Islam has not had an impact on the west as a whole. On the contrary the Arabs (and Islam) were one of the foils that allowed for Western development. What I meant was the Islam is an extenstion (or if you wish improvement of) the Judeo / Christian philosophy of monotheism already existent. That is, monotheism (which is at the heart of Islam) was not a radical concept at the time.
As for IDEA, YOU need to re-read the history of the 73 war (I am intimately familar with it). The Egyptians and Syrians attacked at 1400 hours on the 6th of October not because it coincided with Ramadan but because it coincided with Yom Kipur, a Jewish Holiday. The Egyptians did not intend to (nor did they) take the Sinai. Their plan, which has been since detailed by the Egyptian Deputy Chief of Staff in an excellent write up, was to seize a series of limited objectives with 5 divisions about 5 miles on the eastern bank of the Suez. With their new Sagger anti-Tank Missiles they hoped to blunt Israeli counter-attacks, sue for peace and force the conditions for the eventual return of the Sinai to Egypt. Syrian intentions were to seize the Golan heights simultaneously. The Egyptians quickly achieved their objectives. The new SA-6s, comlemented by ZSU-23-4s (Shilkas), SA-7s (Grails) and S-60 57mm AAA established an Air Defense umbrella which shielded the ground forces from the superior Israeli Air Force. This same composite of air defense forces was used by the Syrians around the Golan. The Israelis were superior at manuever warfare. The Egyptians knew this from first hand experience so they had no intention of engaging the Israelis in open warfare in the Desert. The Syrian attack, althuogh very aggressive, was not well orgnaized. Despite a more than 6-1 advantage in armor, the Syrians fell just short of a breakthrough before the Israelis counter-attacked. As the Syrians were beaten back, they asked the Egyptians to attack. The Egyptians committed 1,000 tanks to seize two passes (Sadat ordered this action against the advice of his senior military commanders). In short order the Egyptians lost 500 of them. However, repeated Israeli attacks against the five dug in Egyptian divisions along the Sinai were defeated with heavy loss to the Israelis. It was at this point that the Israelis, in a bold move, established a bridge head on the west bank of the Suez and drove one division down the canal, cutting off the five Egyptian division from resupply. this forced the defeat of the Egyptian 3rd Army in the Sinai. At the end of the war, Israel had driven to within 35 Miles of Damascus, reoccupied the entire Sinai peninsula, and occupied all of the Golan. However, the cost in material and Israeli life was high and the fact that the Syrians came within a hairs breadth of breaking through and driving on Tel-Aviv got the Israelis attention. And that, my friend, was what set the table for the subsequent talks that led to the peace accord (which torqued off Syria when Egypt made a seperate peace, getting it's land back while the Syrians were still SOL on the Golan.
Critical to the successes that the Egyptians and Syrians did achieve were the high tech weapons provided by the soviets, who saw this proxy war as an excellent chance to bleed the west and test their new weapon systems. The Russians now have third rate technology to sell (in 1970 they were only one generation behind us, now it's more like 2 1/2) and neither the Syrians nor the Egyptians have the money to buy (the Egyptains are producing some M1 tanks built under license).
So Jalle, get the facts straight. The Arabs lost the '73 war. Had they won it, the Syrians would have definately imposed a peace that estalished a Palestinian state and maybe aimed to eliminate the Jewish one. |
| common | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 04:42 am
hey the Kufffarster!
Thanks for the welcome
Arabs lost the 73 war, then America won, lets admit that America was far more heavily involved than Russia.
Secondly Isreal clearly lost in the sense its myth of invicibility. A qwustion though, you adequatly displayed your military knowledge, who would win the current intifada, if the IDF was deployed against one or more foreign army and Isreali was faced by more than one front. who would shoot the kids if they had some adults to deal with.?
I got a chance to read your state self interest thing.. I got no problem with the point. What the problem appears to be from my viewpoint, is that when you pretend to interested in Deomcracy for the interest of the people in the recipent countries, when acutally what you want is economic liberalisation facilated by poltical liberalisation. The point is clear, go ahead and pursue state interest, but don't cry consipacy theory when state interst is exposed. When it becomes state interest to lie and decitefully impose American intesrts on the world, in a mackevillain fashion, while crying champion of human rights, it is hard to stomach. When it becomes state interest, that 1-6 people starve, (and it is state interest taht this continues)I have issues reconciling this. My problme with America is not that i see it as a secular demon, rather that it creates the condtions, which casue misrey to the majority of people, particularly muslims around the world. Your high levels of consumption, "aid" which dumps your subsided farmers products at market value price after 25 % discount, changing patterns of consumptions in Afriac for example, your devalution of the Us currency, even though it is tied to the whole world economy, creates famine again, you guys will do it, to please the stock market, i could go on for days. Idon't have problem with you reading the same material and finding a different conclusion to me, i find it amazing that "you" write the material ( i qoute nearly 100% western qoutes, which are to me all kuffar) and it is compatible with history and current events, that you wish to persist your viewpoint. Let me clarify, tehre are no good guiys bad guys, save your snata barbar production for someone else. You are Kuffar, a Marxist is Kuffar, you are both products of the sypilitic nature of kuffar, if you understand syphilus you understand 80% of pathology, it has many outward manifestations, but the root casues are teh same. you interpret this as a simplistic view, i think it is far more sohistiacted than you give it credit for.But..I mean clearly if we are both "reasonable" human beings,i also take the view taht we share teh human condition, (although, i reserve the right to withdraw that in your case.lol) we can agree on the precise nature of the Somali intervetion. I have never once stated that you were there to steal anything, which you constantly return to me as though it were an example of my "irrationality" when i never offered such a thesis.
In the advent of a Uni polar world and a policy of "democratic enlargment", which is conducted in the highest Echlons of US national security, can we not see a reason for the Us to interevene in self interest in light of the disticntion made by John Stuart Mills of "self regarding actions" and "other regarding actions", i take acception to the notion that you were there to feed somalis. we both know there was a policy of "nation bulidng", which unfortunalty or fortunatly depending on your levels of kuffarness .lol. ended up spending more on the inctricate sewage system of the UN compound (reported $9 million smackaroos,) they spent about 5 on somalia |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 05:42 am
Let's go back to the Arab Israeli war to star with. Definately the Soviets spent more on this one. They had a long build up period with very specific objectives in mind. The Arab problem was that the Desert is manuever country. In modern times this means mechanized country. And they just didn't have the skills for this kind of warfare. They knew this - esspecially the Egyptians. But once the war turned into a manuever war, the early Arab victories (in terms of cash expenditures) were over-shadowed by the huge subsequent losses. The subsequent peace treaty was forcibly imposed (by threat of sanction) by both Russia and the US because neither party wanted to continue to under-write the cost of this war.
As for the premise of state self-interest. All states give their populations some moral reason to chew on. For Muslims states this is usually tied to Islam - hence the cry of Jihad even when they are fighting another Muslim state.
Now, on to my favorite subject (and Sahib you are talking to THE expert on this one). What drove the US to intervene in Somalia was the media. The media images bombarded the US. This put unbelievable pressure on the US government to act. The self-interest was political, and I suspect since George Bush was a lame duck he felt a do good policy would be OK, since he didn't have to live with it.
I'll finish this thought in a bit, I got to split right now or I'll miss my train. |
| Galool | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 05:47 am
Common
the "hmm hi everyone else" made me laugh.
Nice to hear from you though. Talk to you later
Idea
Abu Lahab? Moi? Some interesting views on Middle-east conflict and 73 war. Will comment later. |
| common | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 06:50 am
The soviets backed out, were not interested in providing the nitty gritty support that Americans were, need i remind you about kissenger a jew, madelina albright a jew and practically every other Us Statesmens postion on middleeast. how many russian muslims you know.(apart from the ones they oppress). the backed out for teh same reason , they chose Eithopia over Somalia, Islam, Islam, Islam
with regards to nationalisms lies, it is clear that the mass gravyards in which people die for their "country" need some explaining,you are right, you are aslo right in the assertion that few muslims will exchange jannah, for soil and blood. It is truly a superior ralling cry.You are alos right, that Iran Iraq and others have been wayward in tehir calling. For the fundermental reason, that your country doesn't really care for you, thats why you have to ask what you can do for it, not the other way round ala US drivel instead of Janet jackson big hair, shoulder pads 80's attitude (what have you done for me lately)
Thats why you guys can't recruit, and Isreali is loosing soldiers to the cappichuno drinking internet "whizz" kids (whizz?.. yeah right.. little dumbos if you ask me)
My, you almosty manged to get through a whole post without incuring my wrath, keep up the good work <smile>
about the media, sure it was involved, you coulda spun it any which way you wanted through, lets be real, ownership isn't that diverse, it woulda taken a few calls.
On a genuine question, i read somewhere credible, that Clinton was fumming about somalis killing americans, and was like "lets show these *****, what happens when you start messing with americans", swearing all over the place, in a remarkabley un southern gallentry type fashion, so where does your "thrid reich" stab in the back by politicans theory fit in here?
ps: it is a question albeit a slightly aggressive one , but am not claiming to know more than you on this one, let me here an answer, if you make it worth my while i will swallow it |
| Arawello | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 08:05 am
Ead Mubaarak + happy new year to all of you.
My brothers and sisters in Islam; Formergaust, Common, Anon, Ice- Man( new to here ,are not you) Idea, TGL, Madmullah, Sweetgirl ( I do not see your inputs nowadays) Alyisah. Anyone seen Qoonsade.
and of course my other fellows' MadMac ( the Christian boy) and my Somali cousin Galool ( I read lately that you claimed to be a Jew) But Insha Allah, this time next year we will share the thruth of islam, say Amen. |
| common | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 08:13 am
Thanks Arewelo Eid mubarak to you too.
MM
we having difficulties on semantics again and the word radical?
i would consider it radical, if i was an average joe goldberg/stein, walking around thinking their was "one our god", and it turns out that that God isn't ours.lol. there is a difference between belief in One God, and "our one God", isn't there, would you call that a radical difference?
Furthermore you have ignored the fact, that Islam was radical, in it revealation, its style of script and it is in essence a Criteron, muslims belive that Allah (swt) has sent down roughly 300 books, why would the Quran be radically different, its impact and effect was radical, its message, was the same message that Prophet Adam recived |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 08:55 am
Common
Your normally lucid text kind of fell apart on your last post. Can you re-state your question because I didn't get it.
As for the Wild Bill outburst, I wan't there, so I don't know. But the version I heard was that he was mad not at the Somalis, but at his staff who let the thing spin out of control. The truth is he just wasn't paying attention to what was happening there. The hand writing was on the wall all along. We should have been conducting an "Abdi House" (The raid on Abdi Hassan Awale) raid every day and night until either the SNA capitulated or all of their supporters were dead. That was MAC's solution and then word would have been on the street - don't mess with the U.S. Now the magic number is 18.
As for Russian Support - the Russians provided support right up until they realized they couldn't match the west tit for tat. They could produce a lot of equipment, but most of it wasn't of very high quality. They were still producing T-55s into the 80s. The '73 war gave the illusion that the Soviets could compete, but it was just anb illusion. They wanted it to end before everyone really saw the emporor had no clothes. In contemporary Egyptian accounts you can see the truth of where and how the chips fell.
As for Russia jumping to Ethiopia, this had nothing to do with Islam. Somalia was the booby prize. A much smaller and less influential state. It was an easy call for the Russians.
When I listen to you carefully I seem to sense the idea (as also postulated by Asad) that if only Muslims would really follow Islam properly Islam would triumph. If you are saying that a group of people would adhere to a specific doctrine with their heart and soul then they could further a great society, that might be true. But the same could be said for Marxism. The fact is whole groups of people will act like people first - doctrine always comes second. Occssionally you get movements (like Islam in the 7th century and Facism in the 1930s) which temporarily morph some people, but they always revert. People will always be people. What makes Islamic countries particularly vulnerable (in my opinion) is this notion of Insha Allah - God willing something will work. Instead of making it work youself. I have seen this over and over. My father use to say, God helps those who help themselves. Or the Napoleonic version "God is on the side with the best artillery."
If you want more detail on exactly how the situation devolved in Somalia just shoot. I was fortunate enough to be a first hand observer. |
| Idea | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 09:04 am
Arawelo: eid moubarak to u...i had problems with ur e-mail sister!
MM,
I'll be back...me know nothing about Egyptian history...that is 2001 joke! |
| Arawello | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 09:17 am
There you go again; '' what makes the Islamic countries particularly vurnalable is this notion of Insha Allah''
Let me tell you it is a well-kown hadith 0f the propet pbuh that a muslim should work for his wordly acheavment as he will never die, and he should worship for his creature ( practise Islam) as he is gonna die tommorow ( I just prapharased as I cannot quate it now) read this and think about it deeply, it basically meant you have to balance your life, and that you should work hard top acheave whta you want. The prophet and his sahaba were hard working poeple. now, where the notion of Insha Allah fits here. This means a muslim should do whatever he can while beleaving in the power of his Mighty.
ps. I was thinking while writing so I may not put it in aproper way. |
| common | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 09:30 am
kuffarster
The question was the billy boy outburst, you answered it well. It is a credible theory that the Somali version of maxism was more incompatable with the official soviet line than Eithopia which is incidently no more of a"prize" than Somalia, and strategically we know which one is better off.
when i listen to you carefully, i get the impression (as also postulated by Neo liberals) that the capitalist system in current action is the best of a bad bunch, that human beings are not good people, and that we cannot be trusted with a more remotely responsible system. Now seeing as we have evidence to suggest that Islam was a perfectly feasible and successful, explematory system , we should detsroy any trace of it, and then purpetuate the myth,. that muslims cannot be trusted, we are truly the animal farm of the world, for some reason, (largely i will admit due to our doing)but stop using Islam abnd facism in the same sentence, it makes you look "sheepish".
hey did i ever tell you about the history of the beef industry and the beef eaters in england, etc etc.
you should read beyond beef, a interesting book, also try a diet for a new america, written by john robbins, the heir to the baskin and Robbins coparte machine.
lastly i have finanly found somethning in which i can agree with you, almost in entirity. Don't worry about the almost part, for i have never been as enthusisatic about something that you say as this.
the problem with the Ummah is that they misunderstand the word "Inshallah" a UAE scholar said.
There is a hadeeth in which it is realted that Allah is in the opininion of his servant, if you think good of Allah, than you shall find good, and if you think bad of Allah than you shall find bad.
Your wrong only in that you also misunderstand the word inshaallah, but you have stumbled on a importnat point.
this defeatist use of the word Inshallah, is not a Islamic tradition, clearly in the Islam ic tradtion there action and belief are tied to togther and this is a very strong tradtion in the Islamic faith.
You can't say "astgafurralh" while drinking aand continue drinking for example, you can't also say inshallah and do nothing.
But you are right this is how it is used, everytime i used to ask my folks if we were going to the beach or swimming, they would say "inshallah"m, i kne2w the real prize was when they said yes, its not that people belive in Inshallah that is the problem dear boy, but that they don't. aren't you the accidental muslim scholar. chuckle chuckle |
| Arawello | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 09:41 am
Salaams,
You guys do not you think Madmac really and honestly needs to read one simple book about the fact of islam ( no offence to you MM) cuz seriously the guy does not have any opinion of the basic teachings of Islam. Bro Common and Asad kept telling him if the muslims were to follow the prober way of islma , they will success. But in fact , this is not easy for him to understand cuz all he could see is the backwardness of the so-called muslim countris, all this political functions this is coupled with that the guy nearly half of his age spent in the us marine wre he could hear nothing but Iran and Iraq are his worst enemies. And this got worse when he had to go to Somalia another so-called muslims who besides killing his freinds ( do not politisce here iam trying to be objective) gave him the name ' infidel'' so I think what you have to do is that wheever you mention why something about islam is good you have to explain why. This is true, the westren poeple would not be so anti-islam if they new more about it( beleiving in is another matter) and we muslims sit back and watch or sometimes add salt to it!
I am out here. |
| Arawelo | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 09:55 am
Idea,
I do not know what is wrong with it, but check it now.
Can anyone tell me what mudulood means ( is Somali ) and also who is Abdi awale ( above) and what does SNA means. Thanks |
| Idea | Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 01:06 pm
MM,
Generally speaking, western authors who wrote the "his*story" textbooks that you read rarely had a background in the Middle East. Inadequate and innacurate depictions of Middle East History are usually the norm. Books are riddled with flaws.Therefore, conclusions people are most likely to draw from these presentations are those held by Arab detractors.
Having said that, let me shed the light on the what occured in Middle East in 1973 war. Sadat came to power at a time when it became apparent that a new strategy was necessary if Egypt was to regain Sinai. While the basic elements of Sadat's strategy remained the same as Nasser's, Sadat's approach was quite different. Sadat's main goals were the return of ALL ARAB TERRITORIES and the resolution of the Palestinian issue. In case these goals would not be achieved through diplomacy, Sadat kept the WAR option open in order to have leverage on the WEST while Nasser completely ruled out a peace agreement with Israel and declared that what was taken by force would have to be retured only by force.
Sadat offered to sign a peace treaty with Israel inreturn for a COMPLETE ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL, I believe that that was a flamboyant plan from Sadat's side targeting at creating a rift between Israel and its Western allies since Israel held that position that no Arab leader was willing to consider peace with Israel which ofcourse strenghtened Israel's standing in the West.
Both Israel and the US demanded more significant concessions from Egypt. Israel couldn't accept a peace treaty that didn't include reconciliation. The United States position was that Egypt would have to move from the Soviet to the American camp and it would have to be more forthcoming in its bargaining with Israel as well.
Sadat realizing that American position moved closer to the Israeli side, chose to turn to the military option as this war symbolized their refusal to remain defeated and as a revenage for their lost reputation as an Arab leader and an influencial power in the Middle East.
On Oct 6th exactly at 2:00pm, the war started. I believe that Sadat had chosen the holy month of fasting:the choice was not related to fasting alone but also to other important considerations such as the TIDE of the CANAL and the conditions of the Moon; it was accidental that the ideal hour coincided with Ramadan and Yom Kippur.
Egyptian forces swiftly crossed the Suez Canal and over ran the BarLev line. Syria moved into the Golan Heights and nearly reached the 1967 border with Israel. Israel was outnumbered in the North leading to a complete failure of any Israeli counterattacks. Unfortunately, the tide of the war began to turn and the Egyptain third army was surrounded by the Israeli forces.
Both the Soviet and the United States intervened and all parts agreed to cease-fire. This cease fire was broken by Israel, however, US pressured her into accepting a second cease fire on Oct 25, 1973, then, the WAR was OVER.
I strongely believe that Israel forces didn't LOSE the war because of the SUPRISE factor which they all claimed. Because there were several warning signals such as:
a)the Israeli intelligence office had over 1,500 warnings of the military buildup
b)Israeli Airforce photographed Egyptain and Syrian troop movements.
cKING HUSSEIN of Jordan warned Golda Meir of the impending attack.
d)the C.I.A passed on to Israel an intelligence report that the Syrians were planning to stage a major attack on the Golan.
e)and finally, Soviet military families evacuated from Egypt.
Egyptains WON the WAR because of Sadat's astute planning and his exceptional political, tactical and strategical skills. The man was a HERO by all means of the word.
> |
| Galool | Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 02:57 pm
Hi All
Has anyone been experiencing difficulties accessing Somalinet or was it only me?
Arrawelo
Me a Jew? A nirvana-seeking Budhist maybe, but not a Jew. Not interested in yet another monotheistic straight jacket faith or else I would have remained a Muslim.
Idea, Common, FG
It is fascinating the way you each interpreted the 73 war. Idea simply reiterated the Egyptian line. Incidently, Egyptians also believe they won the Suez war and believed for a number of years they won the "War of attrition" till that became untenable. It goes back to the whole concept of what constitutes winning and losing. MM looked at it from a purely western calculation: number of men lost, land occupied or liberated. But the Arabs see it altogether differently. For starters, they are not told what REALLY happened. They consider Saad-adin al Shadli, the commander of the besieged Egyptian army as some kind of a hero. In fact he led his divisions beyond the 12 mile missile cover beyond which the Egyptians knew they will be slaughtered, and slaughtered the were. 20,000 arabs died in that war, as opposed to around 2000 Israelis, and the Jewish state occupied more land. This is a simple fact. But to this day, most Arab citizens are simply unaware of it.
But winning and losing wars is more than body counts. The Russians lost 20 million of their citizens in WW2 but still won the war, almost single-handedly. But the American and the British public still believe THEY won the war. In fact the contribution made by both are minimal compared to the glorious USSR.
What the Arabs achieved was unity in their cause, at least temporarily, and they shattered (as Idea rightly said)the myth of Israeli invincibility. The Israelis would probably have never contemplated negotiating over "Judea and Samaria" today if 73 didn't happen. The Arabs also utilized their "Oil Power" for the first time, and as a direct result of Yom Kippur, they now enjoy the ears of the world. So winning and losing are all relative. I remember reading Moshe Dayan's autobiography and sensing how shocked and petrified Israel became. He actually went to Golda Meir and told her that "the third temple is to be demolished" and this normally peaceful lady tearfully authorized the use of the Atom bomb.
So winning and losing wars is not as straightforward as it seems.
Common
You very occasionally show your age and innocence. The Ogaden war had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Islam. It was about Nationalism, Communism, Cold War, but not about Islam. The Russians wanted newly Socialist Ethiopia and its ally Somalia to be `friends'. They sent envoy after envoy to achieve this. Castro came to Mogadishu and spoke to the nation and was roundly booed when he said "viva la Etiopia socialistica" or something to that effect. The Soviets, as MM asserted simply made a cold political calculation and decided that Ethiopia was a much bigger price than Somalia which they always suspected for its close relations with China and its joining of the Arab league.
Try not to see your little politicized version of Islamic conflict in everything will you? you will only sound naive and green!
MM
You actually overestimate the involvement of the Soviets in Yom Kippur. Remeber that Sadat chased them out of Egypt only few months before the war, and didn't tell them about his decisions for the attack. The US was much more involved, and at some point Nixon ordered "anything that flies" to airlift arms and logistics to Israel. The Soviets by contrast played only a minor role till Isreal crossed the Suez into Egypt proper and Sadat pleaded with them for cover. |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 09:59 pm
Galool
Well, the Soviets got the briefing on the original plan (actually a couple of plans) back in 71. This is how the Syrians and Egyptians were able to get so much (and it was a huge amount) military hardware out of the Soviets. However, you are correct. At execution time the Soviets were no longer a player - except in the area of ressuply.
Idea
You were doing well right up until you stated that Egypt and Syria won the war. Since you state their objectives were to take back all territory perviously lost to Israel, and since at the conclusion of hostilities on 25 October the Israelis still held all of the land they held prior to the 6 October offensive, how can you say the war was successful??? Neither the Syrian nor Egyptian armed forces accomplished their stated missions. You have a Soviet-like definition of success.
Arawello / Common
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Islam in theory generates this notion of God willing something will happen, I'm saying that in practice it makes a great excuse to be slovenly. You don't feeling like pulling maintenance on the Tank, don't worry, if God wants the tank to work it will. I know from both first and second hand experience that this has seeped into Islamic cultures, regardless of its lack of purity.
Common
I am not saying an "Islamic" society - whatever the hell that is, and no one, not even you can give me the nitty gritty on it - can be successful. In fact, and Islamic society (based on what I've heard so far) sounds like a mixture of capitilism and socialism, at least from an economic standpoint. And surprise surprise, that's true of the US and Western European economies as well. Somalia is one of the very few examples of a true free market right now. There's certainly not a vast conspiracy to suppress the estalishment of this pure, Islamic government. Since no one is trying to create one, it's not an issue. Now, there is a very deliberate attempt to suppress violent, despotic versions of Islamic governments hostile to the west - such as the Taliban and the Iranian revolutionary movement. What you fail to realize is that healthy, competing economies in poor countries would be a benefit to us all - it opens more markets as well as more competators. If no one in a certain place can buy your goods, then you have no market. That's why everyone salivates when they think of a rich China - one billion consumers!!!! |
| passerby. | Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 10:39 pm
Galool&Mad,
You were two deprived individuals before you found this net. No one else from your disbelieving friends would offer you such respect these people are offering to you, yet you insult them and their religion, their tribe, and their bloodline. It is really disgusting that you guys do what you do and then expect people to be nice to you. Why don't you admit your reliance on this net to protect yourselves from frustration and suicide?. You must be feeling very important individuals to get these responses from the well-meaning people on this net. I have to see yet a single POST inwhich you thank them for their respect.
I would be truly dissappointed in Galool particularly if I hadn't seen a somali Gaal trying to be smart. Mad can kiss his whatever, he knows he has no place on this net unless he begs for the attention. Few praises and honest to god pleas can do the trick to the somalis for they-are-easy-to-forget-and-forgive people. A disbeliever is a disbeliever always. |
| Idea | Friday, January 05, 2001 - 09:37 am
MM,
Ofcourse, Egypt WON the war. Sinai is under which government's control? Egypt or Israel(& that was my point of argument against you to start with). If you don't believe me...we can always take a short trip to Sinai to see who is narrating his/her version of "his*story".
Secondly, you are funny by comparing me to the Soviets!! Man, remember that I am the Young and with the Faith here. Two things that you really can't compete with.
It is possible for an individual to be either a Skeptical or a Liar...but being both...that is really amazing!
Formerguest,
I believe as long as we are serving the net, all of us should invest their times in something useful rather than wasting our time arguing with some lousy kufar. Seriously, brother...i was looking for certain information...would appreciate if you help me out on this:
1)Do Sunnis really belief in the coming of Mahdi?
2)The Gog and Magoog: are they inzi or jini?
I have been doing some research on these...but i am totally confused?
Galool,
So, u think that 20,000 arabs died and 2000 Israeli?What about if i told you the real numbers were 8000 Arabs vs 6000 Israelis! Anyway, as you said..who cares!!!
Common,
How were your finals lil brother? Hope everything was just Great <smile>
Passerby,
LOL...isn't that weird! <smile> |
| common | Friday, January 05, 2001 - 11:52 am
Idea
<smile>
I have an exam on the 16th of Jan, we do our exams after Christmas cause our lecturers have good neogiaters, that the only exam i got, casue my other modules are independant, one on Tourism as a development strategy in Morocco, and the other on Deomcracy and Governance in Africa, 5000 words and 10000 words respectively, then i got next term to worry about, three more classes and i am out there in the big bad world <smile>
but have not been working on it.lol. (the exam that is)I have been helping this real cool editor with research on Palestinain refugees on black electorate website, i wrote in a letter after he wrote a editorial on the "islamic world should recognise Israel", and he liked it and asked me to imput on the next editorial, thanks for asking sistuh, May allah reward you for the zakat 
peace |
| Galool | Friday, January 05, 2001 - 11:53 am
Passerby
Calm down! Nobody insults anyone here unless you wish to start - we debate and discuss issues. And no one is doing a favour to anyone in this forums. It is an open place where people exchange ideas and opinions, in case you haven't noticed! So get yourself a cold drink and relax! |
| MAD MAC | Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 03:13 am
Idea
Yes the Sinai is under Egyptian control NOW. But it wasn't in 1973. Or 74 or 75 or 76 or 77. The Egyptians regained control of the Sinai (although they are not allowed under treaty to have military forces there) through negotiation, not combat. For sure, their early success in the 73 war gave the Israelis incentive to negotiate. But early success doesn't constitue victory. The Syrians, who have been unwilling to negotiate, still does not control the Golan. I reiterate, the Arab objectives of the 73 war were to regain control of the Sinai and the Golan and maybe settle the Palestinian issue as well. When the war ended, October 25 1973, the Arabs had not accomplished these objectives. That constitues a defeat, not a victory. While they weren't completely smoted as in 67, they certainly did not "win". If the Arabs coalition had won any of the four wars against Israel, Israel would no longer exist as a state. |
| common | Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 04:36 am
So then you guys really did lose in Somalia, seeing as your objective was to catch aideed, no matter how much "kick ass" and "don't feel sorry for us, feel sorry for them" ideas float around in your circles, we have a winner.lol. There many subtles to war my friend
and Israel doesn';t exist as a state, it doesn't have the right of Legitmnate force over its people, otherrwise the united nations would not have condemmed it in over breaking 50 resolutions, it exists as a de facto entity, like a malgnant cancer of something |
| common | Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 08:05 am
Galool
I had a few deep breaths, i extended a hand of friendship to MM today and i was just thinking, when was the last time i was overtly nice to you. So i have been thinking what could i do to get that pessimistic cynical face of yours to break into a smile, i could sneer something mean at MM regarding Americans, but that would go against the spirt di Islam and also be way too easy. Besides i still feel bad for calling americans those names last time. So i have decided to give you a little antidote. Today a girl who is casual aqquaintance, came back to School from Saudi Arabia, so she comes over and kisses me on the check, i freeze in a " oh no"type of way.lol and she misiikinta so innocent and carrys on telling me about how it was to be back in Saudi Arabia oblivious to my crisis of concious, i begin probing her for information on the expat deaths out there, turns out she knows the one of the guys who got his hand blown off , may Allah (swt) have mercy on him. So we talking and i mention that I want to go to Mecca for Hajh, and she is like yeah you should go, but don't go at Hajd time!, there are too many people there, my house boy just came back and he got malayria. Then she carried on telling me about the masharaf religious police, and how she got caught out with dudes in Ramadhan and they said to they guy "take you earing off, you are not a girl" and how when the Masharaf graudate, they refer to it as them being released.lol. how rude |
| Idea | Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 09:44 am
Common,
lol...you have a great sense of humor...ma-sha-allah.
FG,
Are you ignoring me or what my dear muslim brother? or you didn't see what i have asked you? |
| MAD MAC | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 01:33 am
Common
Well, Somalia is complicated. We won the battle but lost the war. But no one won the war. Aideed's overall objective was to establish himself as the undisputed head of state, and he was never able to do that. We wanted to establish a government, and we weren't able to do that (because our political leaders lacked Cojones). For those of us fighting there it was a bitter pill indeed. Now I do this strictly for the money - after Somalia and Haiti any illusions I had about being in the Army as a patriot faded away. But just because I am not an idealist in this respect, doesn't mean I don't recognize that we can kick anyones ass in the world anytime we feel like it. People like Idea and Formerguest don't want to recognize that because it bothers their sense of how the world should be - I don't factor "shoulds" into my analysis. |
| ANON | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 03:30 am
"But just because I am not an idealist in this respect, doesn't mean I don't recognize that we can kick anyones ass in the world anytime we feel like it."
included china, mad mac? |
| common | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 03:47 am
okay Mm
I know my military analysis is way below par, but doesn't your military and nuclear capablity depend heavily on resources not available in your country, which lie mostly in the continent to the south,hence the coup de eats of the late 70s and 80s and hence the "drugs" threat of the 90s, could you kick anyones ass, if the world wasn't loco on giving you their raw materials, you guys are not as secure as you like to make out, which is why you make out there are so many threats, which there really aren't, its a paradoxical situation, i like the logic |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 01:45 am
Common
The one resource we need from the outside is oil. We can get by without others, but we need oil. However, we produce enough and maintain enough reserves that while things might get rough at home, we could fight abroad if we had to. So if our oil supplies are threatened, we would most assuredly do what we had to do to "unthreaten" them. Now, of course, we may not be "dependent" on outside resources, but we may want them. Depending on the degree that a threatened resource is wanted this might lead to military intervention on our part to secure the supply. Generally speaking the interventions in South America were originally based on the notion that South and Central America were in the US' sphere of influence. This gave way to the notion of stopping the spread of communism during the cold war (the most legitimate of intervention reasons) and then, subsequently, to the notion of stopping the drug flow (the most futile of all reasons). The US is resource rich, remember that. We can easily get what we want through trade. It's true the US consumes a disproportionate amount of the worlds resources. It's also true it produces a disproportionate amount of the worlds food and products. If the US suddenly disappeared countries like Somalia and Ethiopia would see dramatic population reductions, because they have populations larger than they can sustain. In times of drought they would have serious famines were it not for food imports. If the US were not on the seen, the overall world food supply would be an ugly situation.
Asad
Yes, we could definately, without a doubt, kick Chinas ass. HOWEVER, note I said kick her ass. I did not say occupy her. There's lots of places where we would never want to / could, go and stay. China would definately be one of those. We can project power in a way that no one else can. We can go someplace, smoke someone, and split. Once you start talking physical occupation - that's a whole other ballgame. Also, in the game with China there are limits. China is a nuclear power. A regional confrontation is possible, but an invasion of mainland China might trigger a nuclear exchange. We would win it, but it would be a phyric victory if there ever was one. And China has nothing - not the resources, not the industry, definately not the chicks - to make such a venture worth while. |
| common | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 07:50 am
MM
Okay, you have purported almost comical statements. Firstly your analsyis about america being the bread basket of the world is riddiculous, its true your pampered heavily subsidised farmers peddle their frankenstein crops all over the world, but what the world is dependant on is your patterns of consumption, due to various reasons(which i could go into, but don't see the point) and also the current world food system locked in the current world trade system, food is not surprise, surprise, protected under the GATT rounds, basically becasue most of the raw materials flow out of the Third world rather than in despite you idea, with regards to your mathusian prohecies, they are a fallacy. There are at least 2500 known, i repeat known, imagine how much there is unknown, edible food plants in Ghana alone. The reason populations starve is not that we are dependant on your food suppplies, is that we are dependant on the notion that we are. Nobody is gonna die if you stop producing, execpt your farmers maybe. Give up this train of thought, before it gets to hatfield( you would have to be english, major crash at hatfield recently)
Concerning your oil only thing, i thought you might, claim untrue, so i gotta go and specifically drag it out of the book i was reading. I will list exactly what i was talking about tommorrow inshallah, (i mean you don't think i base my arguements on the prettyness of my own voice do you, kinda hard no one takes a young muslim with black skin very seriously.)
perhaps then you can argue with published authors who have studied in the field of acedemia for years and are well renowned scholars, of your tradtions, this is the best you guys got man, how you gonna refute them? |
| MAD MAC | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 11:03 pm
Common
I can easily hold my own with Academia - and smoke 'em too. They live in rarified worlds and always have agendas, which other than restoring statehood to Somalia, I don't.
You are wrong about the food thing. There are plenty of places in the world where there are insufficient food supplies. But let's assume for the sake of argument you were right (let's skip Ghana since I don't recall going there to stop a famine). Are all the indigenous, non-western inhabitants of these lands so ignorant about their own countries they don't know what's edible and what's not after having lived there God knows how long???? There are ONLY two possibilities here. That the peoples of these lands starve to death because you are wrong, and sufficient food stuffs are not readily available or the local populations are total morons who are clueless about their own countries in spite of generations of inhabitation. The US is the worlds number one food producer - this is not debatable. There are some other big ones as well: Argentina, the Ukraine, Australia being notable examples
As for resources, re-read what I wrote. The US is not DEPENDENT on imported resources to support military operations other than, in the long term, oil. I didn't say there weren't other resources that are required for some specific production that might cause our intervention were the supply cut and another supply not found. I did say that there are resources which, were the supply cut, we might intervene to get the resource back. However, even you can not deny that we now practice fair trade in resource acquisition.
The current state of the worlds economy and distrubution of resources is not some vast conspiracy to keep the brothers down. Get that out of your head. The worlds economy is only generally steered in a given direction - in the broadest sense of that term. It is basically anarchic. As I have said to you before, the more growth there is in the thrid world, the better for everyone, because it creates markets as well as competetors. The US is a resource rich country - you make it sound like it has nothing to offer or conducts no trade. In fact it's a major producer. One last thought, the more governments try and control their economies the more they screw them up. That's one of the reasons that Somalis has seen steady economic growth over the last 5 years (one of the only African countries to do so) in spite of the political instability. there just aren't very many controls to hinder growth.
I don't understand why you habitually try and rest blame for the lack of third world development on developed cuontries instead of on the thrid world itself. America is a former colony - yet it isn't making excuses for it's social problems and blaming them on English culture. If the third world in general, and Africa in particular, want to move ahead socially, politically and economically, then they have to look in the mirror and develop courses of acion to improve their states. Blaming the white man ain't going to help you. You should know that by now. |
| common | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 04:44 am
Now blaming the White man isn't gonna help me, I don't really have that much of a problem, by highlighting the existing condtions which the "white man" as you put it, creates and historical was responsible for, is largely so that we can all learn from the experince, it is as much for "white man" as it is for non white people, we all share the human condtion, and we can recognise our errors and move on, if we deny history, seek to distort it and lie, then houston we have a problem
Tough on Crime, Tough on the casues of Crime, is how my Prime Minister puts it,
As muslims we must be Tough on Kuffar Tough on the causes of kuffar.lol.
Here is some good meat for you too chew over
Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce international department said
"Historically one of the united states cheif reaons for investing abraod has been to develope natural resources particularly minerals and more especially petroleum.It is quite obvious that incentives for this type of investment can only grow.Our needs for raw materials are continuall#y increasing as the population expands and the living standards rise. At the same time our domestic resources are depleted."
MM, listen Sahiib, we can agree on petroluem, quite easily right, okay how about the notion that the obtaining of resources has become inextricably tied to the maintance of national security.You can't get by with out others, US cannot survive on Domestic resources And i will use the very least example for this becasue it relates specifically to your profession- the ablity to wage war.
The jet engine, the gas turbine and nuclear reactors have a great influence on the demand for materails only obtainable abraod and there is a clear link between the imperative need for strategic minerals , indespensible for the maintenanve of U.S military atomic power.
Now for an example of the methods by which these minerals are obtained, it would be very naive to imagine that you were nice guys. MM it even goes against you earlier assertion, thats states exercise state interest as a legitimate rigjht, and this is their guiding principle for actions. So her is an example of U.s state interest.
Brazilian army testimony
"The interest of the US government in maintaining under its control a vast tract of land for later use, whether for exploitation of minerals especially radioactiove ones or as a base for organised colonization.
Brazilian National Security
"A suspicious facter is that the areas occupiedby foreign elements are the sdame ares where sterilization campaigns for brazilian women are acrried out on by foreigners
Brazilian News paper Correo Da Maha 1968
"More that twenty religious missions, mainly of the U.S protestant chruch are occupying Amozonia, functioning in places that are richest in radioactive minerals gold and diamonds...they make extensive use of sterilis#zation and the introudive device and teach english to the caterised indians... these areas are surrounded by armed elements and no one can enter them.
Please note that the Amazonia is the largest habitable deserets of all the habitable deserts on our planet.Birth control has been introduced there, unto this great empty place to avoid demograhpic competetion by the very fewe brazilians who live and reproduce in remote corners of the immense forests and plains.
So can you observe, the need for such minerals, and the lengths and means by which the United States will go to to get them. Your assertions that the current world trading system is not designed unfavourably to the thrid world, is contray to all known availble date on the subject, unless you have conducted any new reaseach on the matter, apart from your typing on this webpage. The Bretton woods institutes, are wholly, by your standards undemocractic, of which GATT, which become the WTO, is one of them is highly unfair.
the United states will wield its economic power to excert pressure, in areas which it is in defiance of the regulations, and thereaten memebrs with the loss of access to American markest, which clearkly goes againts any notion of free tarde, another principle of teh world trading oganisation , recipriocity, ie: you lower your trade barriers and i will lower mine, is often interpreted as you lower you trade barriers otherwise you will not be reciveing any monies from the world bank this year, and i ain't lowering mine.
Secondly regrading your assertion that there is not a consipracy to "keep the brothers down" you would be suprised. The G7 countruies, sumptious, lavish, suimmit producers that they are, often conduct meetings in private concerening trade. the E.U common agricultural market is the antheisis of free trade, and MIA's a agreement by the worlds 7 richest countries to reduce favourable trading condtions to the third world, were only released by activists who stolethe documents and then published, them on the internet, we were never meet to find out about them, at least until they had been pushed through the World trading organisation, do i have to go on?, i mean what on earth do you think your youngsters are going around smashing up these conventions and going coporate bashing?, while not involved i understand sincerly their frustrations
Dear MM, your attempts to depict me as a third world whinger, sitting on a cannabis stained, mattress, wearing a tyedye shirt and listening to chuck D is not gonna work, despite the current U.S admisntration postion, lacking very much in southern gallantry, the threats to the new world order are internall not external, it is your middle class white kids, who are freaking out, disatisfied and active, they are your problem, good luck.
lastly, with regards to Colonialism, you are offensive, in comparing the United States, to other Colonised areas, not becasue i am senstive, but becasue you should have more sense than that, perhaps i loan you too much respect. MM people went to America, to settle, they did not go withe the express puirpose, of depopulating, stripping of resources in record time and depravity, murdering, killing looting and wrecking havov, they went to America to live. To live. To live. there is a clear difference, you might say well the british lived in india, howver there was a mother country who's interest should be served, in Americas case, the Pilgrams were setting up their own soceity. Now one was setting up a soceity ecept the latter day Australia
the development of some aresa of teh worldm, is dierectly related to teh underdelopment of other areas of this and america has been at teh forefront of neo colonialism, so no we ewre colonised too, you weren't okay, and your wealth is upsurped from a people, who you have subjectgated and killed, so lets be sincere in what we are dealing with here. The axis between the First world and the thrid world has been the first worlds, exapnision, exploitation and destruction of teh thrid world, for the capilaist development of teh first world. Now becasue yoiu find such a prediciment abbhorant doesn'y not make it any less true, please desikst in any ideas, taht tehre was a wholesome route to your current postion, there was not, it was craeted by dispicable tactics and it is maintaned by dispicable tactics, i could go on for days with example of this, but this is neither here nor there. The real point is, if you are uncomfortable with the historical development and the contempoaryy actions of the government you serve, do not "shot the messenger", the white house, is over there <pointing in the direction of the white house>
Sahiiib, why be upset with me, what did i do?, do you hoestly think that you went to Somalia to stop a famine, your governemnt can stiop famine in that region, very easliyu,. it can stop famine, everywhere quite easliy as famine is a man made phenonmenon. Militray intervention is not how you stop famine, an causal analysis of the methods of food production and distribution, in the hands of multi national companies, who incidently come from your country dispropronately and are also not covered under the world trade organisation, which still only recognises countries as invloved in trade, despite the fact that 70% of trade is conducted by these companies, and aggribusiness is wholly, dominated by them. Brother. I have alreday explained that both the Unietd states and the European Union stock pile foods in massive mountains at great expense, so that the world price doesn't go down, that they spray paint cabbages purple, and bury tehm so taht humans can not eat them, when theree is a famine, they reap profit, by sending this grain, which they could not sell, and that was costing them a fortune to store to africa, wghere governments will have to pay commercial prices for "aid", which will recive a 25% discount and then constitue "aid"
the current world food production, syetme is not anarchic, most trade clearly flows in one direction The third world trades with the first world only mostly and the first world trades with each otherminaly manufactered goods and the first world sells its goods back to the third world. Lets stick with Ghana for a minute. Ghana produces Cocoa and exports it to Europe, europe produces chocolate and exports it back to Ghana, in which it has had a cascading price put on it due to the fact that is manufatured. Now growth you argue is good for everyone, no becasue if the thrid world goes for a method of Import Subsitition industrailsiation (which it did try), then you lose markets and plus you lose materials at a cheap price. So it is wholly in the First world interest, to have africa export raw materials and import manufactered producest, one becasue it is more luctriave financailly, and two becasue you can exeret pressure on a governemnt, you can starve them out in a "new york minute". Now if Ghana does this thing called I.SI and trys to develop its own markets, one it has to buy the technology of you guys, and you guys will kindly flog anything except technology, untill of course it becasuse in old and you will send it our way like you also do with discarded items , like the old railway lines and trains and CFC fridges and two it has to compete with trying to sell its products with Coca Cola. Mandel in his quite famnous work called late Capialism highlighed the massive problems of attempting to industralise almost a hundred years after evey one else. It is kind of like me, buying 1 dollar share in Sears and squaring up the dow jones, which decends its wrath upon me for attempting to compete, lighting and all. Thre are millions of limites to hinder growth you just are not familar with them. In your defence i would say that perhaops you are confused with the areas of investment, in which there are much less regulations, its called casino capilaism, when you can crash a economy in a second, like the Asian tigers or the NICS newly industrialised countries, which were the epitmoe of neo liberal sucesss stories untill they crashed, and russia crashed, and they realised, okay we need to control the market. In areas assciated with the free movemenet money is the most unrestricted even then, it depnds clearluy on wherther you ahve a convertable currency, now one for example is buying and hoarding the somali shilling, execpet for a few big belly baaris guzzlers and Time readers who imagine them selves to be econmoically enlightened in Somalia, who buy and then pruchase dollars and shillings making a a surplus of it, but you know what i mean, on a grand scale of things
On your idea, that the more a governemnt trys to control its economy the more it screws up, on the contrya the most effectivbe methods of development, in fact the only method of development thoughout history, if we assume that development is Western stsyle development, both Capialist and Socailist, has had heavy state intervention, and to this day your government is involved in this practise borttom line is, free trade is good when you need it, and bad when you don't. I mean you agree self interest is what motivates states, which i would argue is dangourous since economic nationalism has lead to innumarte wars, hence supra national organisations, yet you maintain that the USA went to Somalia due to media prsseure, idf the Us did not want to go, the mdeia u#interst would not have been generated, teh story would have fizzzled out. Lets be sohisticated here, i am bypassing Galool for he is a minow in the leas#gue of Kuffarness,a nd heading straight for the big guy..cut the garbage, okay.
With reargds tio why i habitually blame the First world for the thirds problems, is becasue they are respobslible for creating this condtions, they are linked, the development of one area, has led wholly to the underdevelopment of another.,. and most serious commentators which have not been funded by the U.S.A will agree to this. Blame is a striong world,w hich i ahve no need for realkly, i am just putting things in there proper place, you move the T.v to wear it blocks the sunlight in the window, i move it back to where ever one can see, where it belongs. thats all.With reargds to Africa's problesm, the concept of the nation state is one of them, everyone nows this concept was responsile for all the bloodshed and angusih of the twentieth century, so looking in the mirror, sadly often means looking at why you have becaome what you have become, what made you this way. Even teh chigao school of economcis, a staunchly neo liberal smithsion economcis which spewed economics as a science has through the force of beckers finanly ackowldged that
"the past places a significant role in the present through the influence it has to present day practises and choices"
Of course the thirworld is also to blame for the condtions that exist today, we have aften had snakes as leaders, but Venom has a hiecarchy and you guys are on top. what you wnat me to just shut up? |
| MAD MAC | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 05:31 am
Tough on Kufaar, tough on the causes of Kufaar?? Too funny!!! I'll respond to this most lengthy disertation - some I agree with, some I don't. But not enough time now. Bis Spater. |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 03:27 am
Common
Let's start with acquisition of resources. The US has a very diverse economy. This neccessitates acquisition of resources. This is not a distinctly US problem. Show me a healthy economy and I'll show you one that's dependent on importing raw materials. HOWEVER, that having been said, observe that almost all raw materials needed for production of a given product can be acquired from more than one source. Even oil is available from multiple sources. The problem comes in when a source is cut of from the Global economy - this creates a shortage which causes a significant increase in price. As long as the resource in question gets into the global economy, then basically the price wil be dictated by supply and demand.
Now, let's go back to oil - it's a good historical example. The US is willing (and does) to pay fair market value for oil. If OPEC were to raise prices, through the control of supply, to such a piont that it would have a serious impact on the US economy that would require an intervention. Iraqs threatening manuever drove just such an intervention 10 years ago. But outside that, the US can and will pay fair market value for the resource in question.
Now, historically the US has been fairly aggressive in acquisition of valuable resources. But there's also been a great deal of distortion for political purposes on this subject. Look at your Brazil examples. That's all pure nonsense. Nothing provable, nothing that connects specifics with names, places and dates. Just a lot of generalized accussations. That's typical of that sort of thing. Take a grain of truth, twist it into something unrecognizable, and sell it to a populace that already regards the US with suspicion.
As for your colonial example. The objectives for colonizing North America were the same from the governments point of view. They wanted American resources. For individual colonists the motivation was usually different. America was largely unsettled, the indigenous population was very small and disorganized. There was a lot of land. But the governments of Spain, France and England were looking to exploit resources and expand their respective empires. The American colonists of English, Germanic (about 25% Germanic) and French background (plus a very small African minority not enslaved) rebelled in the Revolution because they felt oppressed by the English government. They had no political representation in their government and they resented it. Even if they were originally of European extraction, the issue at heart is the same. Governance by what, at that point, had become a foreign government.
As for your economic theory. US government control of the economy basically amounts to manipulating interest rates. Private entrepreneurship has much more to do with growth and successful economies than government intervention. The US ecnomy 100 years ago had virtually no government controls, yet it grew in leaps and bounds. Let's move on to a more modern example. Somalia. It has not government controls because it has no government. Yet EVERY year since 1995 Somalias economy has grown.
Now, If I own a firm with a lot of economic resources and a competing firm shows up, well of course I'm going to try and undercut it. But that doesn't mean I'll always be successful. Sometimes the competing firm gets the upper-hand. Businesses are interested in profit, not for their countries but for themselves. Make yourself and attractive place to invest and investment will come. Do you really think IBM is interested in keeping the brothers down??? Of course not. IBM would love to move to a place where it pays its workers 10 dollars and hour for a first rate product that it can export. The problem is thrid world countries continue to maintain large, illiterate populations, their governments continue to steal everything that's not nailed down and some things that are, and they continue to lead little ethnic wars which make investors queasy. If Somalia educated its population, stopped fighting and executed corrupt government officials (when there's finally a real government) THEN there would follow investment. The result would be more money in the Somali economy which breeds for more stability, etc. etc.
Now let's take another modern day example. Saudi Arabia. Here we have the definition of backwater. A desert country full of a bunch of illiterate Arabs. No industry, little agriculture - bascially a bunch of Camel Herders who spend most of their limited leisure time killing each other in clan wars. Then along comes the discovery of oil. The West could have declared a protectorate, handily killed the few resistors (I mean, there weren't that many people to kill in the first place) and simply taken the oil. But that didn't happen. Why?? Because you version of how things go down is scewed.
Why do you think we went to Somalia? It doesn't have a lot of resources, it doesn't have any markets, it no longer has any strategic value. We spent two BILLION dollars there. If it wasn't to stop the famine what was it for??? Also, if the Army is going there to assist in the exploitation of resources, beyond establishing a stable environment how did we assist in this?? In my unit (And I was a primary staff officer) we never received any orders to assist any provate firms in executing any resource exlpoitation. Face it, it was a media driven operation. It was to stop the famine and later restore a national government. To think anything else is to read way to much into what was going on. Somalia has extremely limited ability to impact on economic development. It's a backwater. It doesn't have a lot of resources or people. In the old days it had a useful location, but now that doesn't even mean anything. It's not as if the Russians are going to try and use it to close access to the Red Sea. This mission is exactly what we said it was. Had it been something else - we would have stayed and destroyed the SNA (which would have been easy and risk free to do). We could easily have bent Somalia to our political will. The Abgal, Murosade, Hawadle, Rahanweyne, Digil, Most of the Darood and Isaaq were either already behind us or neutral. All we had to do was smote the SNA - not a problem. They even gave us a good excuse by attacking us. Your theory is based on nothing solid. I was there for a year. I'm positive that the objective was simply to deliver food and resotre a measure of political stability. When that got tough to do, we said screw it, it ain't worth the effort. Let them wallow in their own mire. And we've pretty much ignored Somalia since. |
| common | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 08:58 am
MM
we have gone full circle in our debate arena
I heard someone say if a there was a Nuclear Holcoust, only Cher and Coachroaches would survive, i am starting to think , your ideas would be swimming around in the gutter somewhere too. You are extremely resiliant in the face of a mountain of evidence.A Tall dark skinned person like myself, would refer to to as stubborn hardheadness and a mind which finds knowledge abbohrant
a short white skinned person, with a hint of native american in him, would refer to it as "spunk" or something to that effect.
I am exhausted, for exhaution please do not read convinced. You are amazing, in your banal persitance, your urgency to exaplain according to the pretty little lights in your head has casued me to conceed that you must be insane. Yes that is my new postion, not that you are wrong, which i initially belived or that you are lying,whic i later came to believe, but that you are insane. If you wonder why i wish to attach such labels for you, it is out of Mercy, for surely you cannot be so cursed with such mental ambiguity. Today has been a bad day for me, what da say i conceed that we Africans are negleigent, little lazy sons, and i agree what we need is all that you say, so we can be like you..and so our problems can start all over again. and a new generation can curse us and come to this webpage.. |
| MAD MAC | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:35 am
Common
Can't you see why I'm the perfect guy to go to Somalia and help negotiate the problems there??? I never quit!!! I will talk them to death. The Warlords will finally have to concede. BTW, I was talking to some of the team members and I mentioned you. You would really make an excellent addition to the team. You're smart and stubborn. Your views would complement mine well. Can I count you in?? |
| common | Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:18 am
<smile>
stay in the realm of good, brother,and inshallah everything will be possible for you |
