We are working on this section. Use the top menu for now.
Ready sections:
SomaliNet Forum Archive | SomaliNet News Archive | Modern Somalia History and more!!!
.
.
SomaliNet Library
SomaliNet Forums Archives: Before May 2001
Yes, thanks to SomaliNet Communuity, Somalis took advantage of the internet at its infancy!
     | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 07:34 pm The Turkish government banned the hijab in government offices. The cause of this is probably because Turkey wants to be admitted to the EU.
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 02:42 am Simba No, the cause of this is a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. Ever since Attaturk moved Turkey in a secularist direction and disbanded the Caliphate, Turkey has been a target of secularist wrath. The Turkish government views banning the Hijab as a way of identifying Muslim fundamentalists in the government. It wants to purge them from government posts and sees this as a vehicle to do it. Turkey's struggle to join the EU has nothing to do with Islam - at least not directly. There are two big stumbling blocks. The first is the ongoing civil war with the Kurds. This nasty little event has caused the left wing German government to shun Turkey. The Germans right now are leading the anti-Turkey charge, They are followed by the Greeks, who because they are short sighted and basically stupid can't see that admitting Turkey to the EU is in their own best interests. Turkey's alignment with the West is spawned by a desire to advance economically and scientifically and defend itself against aggressive Islamic movements from the south. Other countries with majority Muslim populations have made similar moves but are more subtle about it (Morocco, Tunisia, Malaysia).
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 04:04 am "The Turkish government views banning the Hijab as a way of identifying Muslim fundamentalists in the government. It wants to purge them from government posts and sees this as a vehicle to do it." and most western countries (the so called the champions of democracy and freedom) agree with what the turkish government is doing, right? the fact is that the so called the champion of democracy and freedom countries are very happy and will support any government puppets that go against muslim's freedom of rights to practice. take for example the election in algeria that took place not long time ago and the people's choice and how the west supported the military to dismiss the election results. double standard, right, mad mac?
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 05:57 am Asad Wrong Asad. Now you haven't been doing your homework. In fact, Turkeys government is under a lot of pressure to clean up its internal act. That's why it hasn't been admitted to the EU. You think the West is anti-Islam. This is not true. The West is anti-anything that will threaten its stability and security. Look at Saudi Arabia. They don't even like us. But we have a nice symbiotic relationship. They sell us oil (and make a fortune doing it) and we provide them security from some of the more psychopathic regimes roaming around out there. We stay out of site (because they don't really like us) and the Saudis ensure that those citizens who are unstable are kept at bay. They are as Islamic as they could be, and we don't care. OK, now lets look at the Algerian case. First, you say the peoples choice. True, to an extent. Except that GIA announced that this election would be the last. They also announced that non-Islamic political parties would be banned. They also received financial support from Iran - the perenial trouble makers - and also announced they intended to align themselves politically with the Iranians. The US is a supporter of the democratic process - but in Algerias case it was going to fail one way or another. We were stuck supporting the lesser of two evils. Again, as I have stated many times before, the US, like all states, is going to put self-interest first. Remember, there's not turning the other cheeck in Islam. Well, there's The West is tied to Israel. It will not let Israel fall. This is due to a guilty conscience from the holocaust. This is a source of constant friction with the Arab world and its non-Arab but Muslim supporters. Look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia. A complete Symbiotic relationship. We don't like the Saudis and they don't like us, but we need each other. If the Saudis didn't have the friendly Americans hanging around then they would have the friendly Iraqis - fellow Muslims who would be only too happy to steal their oil and rape their women. The Americans need Saudi oil. Take that oil off the world market and prices sky rocket. Very damaging to the US and world economy, even for a short while. Now, let's address the Algerian situation. GIA announced publicly, that the election they won were going to be the last. So the US didn't really thwart democracy - because one way or another in Algeria it was going by the way of the dinasour. The Islamicists also announced publicly that they were going to align themsleves with the Iranians -the troublemakers of the neighborhood. How could this possibly be in the US national interest. Remember, national interest is always first and formost in forming national policy - we even state that in the NCAs document on national security. All principals are subordinate to that one. So we aren't being hypocritical at all. It's a clearly stated national policy objective - our first and foremost one. If GIA had decided to align themselves with the Saudis then we probably would have aquiesced, although truth be told the US pretty much has just stayed out of this one. There are only bad guys to choose from here. We just weren't vociferous in our protest when the Military annulled the elections. As a non-advocate of turn the other cheeck, you of all people should understand this principal and how it applis to US national strategy well. Lastly, again you made the same old error of comparing apples and oranges (which you have been notooriously guilty of). He asked about the policy in Turkey and you quickly tried to highlight western hypocracy - without even doing your homework. Whether Western policy towards Turkey is hypocritical or not is irrelevant to the point he was making and the rationale behind it.
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 06:13 am "Now you haven't been doing your homework. In fact, Turkeys government is under a lot of pressure to clean up its internal act. That's why it hasn't been admitted to the EU. " to clean up muslim thinking. EU do not want anything to do with muslim ideas. "You think the West is anti-Islam. This is not true. The West is anti-anything that will threaten its stability and security. Look at Saudi Arabia. They don't even like us. But we have a nice symbiotic relationship." do you think saudi arabian royal family is anti-west? as long as the saudi royal family does what the west wants, the relionship between the two governments is good. "They sell us oil (and make a fortune doing it) and we provide them security from some of the more psychopathic regimes roaming around out there." the fact is that there are more saudi people in jail that the saudi royal family and the west do not want. the west supports and provides help saudi royal family against it's people and the amnest international keeps quite of the torture and wrong impronments in the saudi arabia. "The US is a supporter of the democratic process" that is not true. the US has always had puppets every place that oppress their people. "Again, as I have stated many times before, the US, like all states, is going to put self-interest first. Remember, there's not turning the other cheeck in Islam.' yes, so there the US does it's high tech terrorisim and helps terrorists. like most states, US is has it's hand innocent blood drippling. CIA does a good job (it's dirty job). "Lastly, again you made the same old error of comparing apples and oranges (which you have been notooriously guilty of). He asked about the policy in Turkey and you quickly tried to highlight western hypocracy - without even doing your homework. Whether Western policy towards Turkey is hypocritical or not is irrelevant to the point he was making and the rationale behind it." hey, if the shoe fits, wear it. i tell like it is, like it or not. ;-).
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 10:44 am Don't get me wrong, I'm no personal fan of the Saudi regime. I'm just citing it as an example of how a Muslim state can find a middle ground with the West. You can use other examples like the Morocans, the Tunisians, the UAE, the Yemenis, the Bahrainis, the Eritreans, etc. etc. etc. Where the US comes into conflict with Islamic regimes it is always due to the fact that these regimes are attacking US interests. If we come into conflict with Serbia does this mean that the US is anti-Orthodox?? If we come into conflict with China does this mean the US is anti-Bhudism?? Of course not. Our foreign policy revolves around self-interest, like any other sensible country. It does not revolve around supporting Judaism. That's just ridiculous. What exactly is high tech terrorism??? Can you define that for me?? If we use high tech weapons to destroy a suspected terrorist training camp is that terrorism?? How 'bout the bombing of the Sudanese Chemical plant?? Was that terrorism?? Did we do that because we wanted Sudanese kids to die from disease?? Do you actually believe that? The US IS a supporter of the democratic process. That is not an unconditional absolute. During the cold war we supported lots of anti-communist bad guys. Some of these guys were scum. But they were our scum. That was a war of survival, our economic system against theirs, our system of government against theirs. It was hardball all the way. You can argue (as many American leftists do) that we should not have supported those kinds of regimes, but the rationale should be clear. Our foreign policy is clear, publicly stated and the current record fits my description.
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 12:56 pm "Don't get me wrong, I'm no personal fan of the Saudi regime.' saudi royal family have the biggist fan and that is USA. if it were not the USA, the regime would not have lasted as it has. "What exactly is high tech terrorism??? Can you define that for me?? If we use high tech weapons to destroy a suspected terrorist training camp is that terrorism?? How 'bout the bombing of the Sudanese Chemical plant?? Was that terrorism??" high tech terrorism is what the CIA and the american government has been doing. it does not nessesserly mean bombing from above and killing innocent people; it is the helping people who are killing and displacing innocent people. "The US IS a supporter of the democratic process." no, US is the biggest supporter of state sponsered terrorism (israel)
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 11:10 pm OK, why would we kill and displace innocent people? Walk the problem back. Let's take the Palestinian problem for example. Every case of Israeli expansion, from 1948 to present, was started by the Arabs. That was when Israeli expansion took place. And it took place for both reasons of irrendetism and self defense. The small, 1948 state boundaries were extremely vulnerable. Had the Arabs been smart, they would have accepted this state and left it at that. Israel today would be a little, forgotten backwater. Now, as I explained before, the US, for reasons of history, is not going to let the Jewish state collapse. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better for everyone involved. You are using the word terrorism in a very liberal manner. You may accuse the Israelis of being aggressive and expansionistic, but they are not currently actively supporting terrorist cells in the classic definition (although that did happen in the late 40s). Can you name one of these organizations the State of Israel is supporting???
|
| | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 01:23 am Hello, there ! MAD MAC; First of all, we all know the root of the trouble, unless you turn around or keep insisting the reality.I do think that the west should try, as they made the problem in the first place by promising the Jewish people a nation at the expense of the people already living there. May be you are so arrogant even to smell the movements on the air, especially in your country US, how long do you think that you could support the terrorist regime "Jew" on the expenses of American taxes payers? I am afraid the wind of the change is already blowing.
|
| | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 05:35 am "Now, as I explained before, the US, for reasons of history, is not going to let the Jewish state collapse. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better for everyone involved." and the meantime, let the killing of innocent in the hand of israelis with the help of US continue, right? "OK, why would we kill and displace innocent people?" you asked the question and you answered it for yourself with the classical imperial mentality by blaming the victims. "every case of Israeli expansion, from 1948 to present, was started by the Arabs." ;-). if hitler would had used excuses like the one you are making, mad mac, he would win his case. if hitler would have said "every case of my killing the jews was started by the jews", killing people and displace innocent people would be justified. ;-). accidentally, the victims of hilter just turned around and created other victims. ! "You may accuse the Israelis of being aggressive and expansionistic, but they are not currently actively supporting terrorist cells in the classic definition (although that did happen in the late 40s). Can you name one of these organizations the State of Israel is supporting???" since the israelis with the help of US are still occupying stolen lands and since they are still torturing the owners of the land in prisons, they are actively doing terrorism, mad mac.
|
| | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 02:40 pm Mad. I wasn't expecting from someone like you(Being gaal and all that) to feel the pain those people are going through. Next time you log on, you have to keep in mind there is no such thing as arab proplem. It is our proplem and you can't change that view of ours by your cheap excuses. Believe me, you share the guilt with those guys and YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR MOUTH. YOU ARE AS GUILTY AS THE HOODED JEWISH MAN WHO IS SHOOTING THOSE DEFENCLESS PEOPLE AS MUCH AS ALL NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS BY LETTING THE JEWISH STATE GET AWAY WITH MURDER.
|
| | Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 10:47 pm Asad OK, you should pick a new word. Your use of terrorism here, invoked for its connotations, is really a poor word usage. Why don't you change to terror campaign. That's probably more appropriate. I blame the Palestinian and Arab leaders not for what happened, but for failing to recognize their own weakness and not moving to broker a deal when it would have been easy to do. They could have created a situation in which the Arabs garnered world sympathy and Israel was contained (which was the best end state they could have hoped for), but they failed to do that through ineptitude. As Sun Tsu said "know your enemy, know youself, and victory is assured" Of course, he followed confuscianism, which mean he's just a lousy kufaar and should not be listened to anyway. BTW I was quite impressed with your response to the Al-Khatar (or whatever his name was) dude on the other page. Very lucid. Now, for the rest of you: Now, just when I think you guys are pretty smart you make me think you're rock heads. Haven't any of you been reading what I wrote???? I have great sympathy for the Palestinian cause. But these are the facts: a. The Palestinians have so poorly marketed their plight they leave the impression they are not victims but supporters of terrorism. b. The Arab (or Muslim or whatever you want to call them) armies are not well trained enough, not well disciplined enough and not well enough equipped to defeat the Israeli State. This situation is exacerbated by the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons. A military solution is not feasible. In the realm of real politik, what counts is reality. Formerguest, statements like "blood on your mouth", etc. have no meaning in serious debate. Imagine Arafat and Barak sit down and each tells the other he has blood on his mouth, his people are murderers, etc. etc. etc. Well that would be real productive. They could all leave the peace process agreeing to despise each other for eternity (hell, they're all just lousy kufaars anyway), go home and start killing each other en mass. I guess that would solve the problem. After all the Arabs and Jews were dead the US could occupy the place and sell the property to CONOCO. Now, finally, do any of you have a political solution that is feasible to this problem? Do any of you have something contructive to add. Or is all you can thing of is empty rhetoric using ridiculous phrases like Jihad.
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 05:57 am "I blame the Palestinian and Arab leaders not for what happened, but for failing to recognize their own weakness and not moving to broker a deal when it would have been easy to do" again, mad mac, your blaming of the victims (the poor palestinians) is the classical imperial mentality. if the world (including the US) would have made the kind of excuses you are making for the terror the jewish luanch on people now, hitler would not be blamed for what the did and the jewish people. jewish people would not be victims of hilter, becuase they asked for it and because they were weak and because they didn't make a deal with hilter. ;-)
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 06:36 am "BTW I was quite impressed with your response to the Al-Khatar (or whatever his name was) dude on the other page. Very lucid." well, thank you, but we not here to impress people. we are here to express our opinions and point out the discrepancies of others and the facts in the way we see it.
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 07:33 am As usual you miss my point. Vis-a-vis Hitler, it's a poor analogy. Hitler didn't offer a deal and didn't intend to make one. His deal was, you can die now. Not much of a deal. And the Jews did fight back in many places. I'm not excusing the role of Israels leaders, I'm simply saying that the Arab leaders mis-played their hand. Of course, at the end of the day it's now history. What's done can not be undone. Even if the US terminates its official support for Israel, the Jewish state is not going to go away. And nuclear weapons ensures its security in the terminal sense. As I said before, I have great sympathy with the Palestinian cause (I have a good friend here who was a former PLO terrorist and moved to Germany - long story). But I also recognize that the Palestinians are not going to achieve squat through violence. And I never support mob violence no matter the righteousnous of the cause. You never did say how you, if you were US SEC State, would try and solve this problem.
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 07:45 am "As usual you miss my point. Vis-a-vis Hitler, it's a poor analogy. Hitler didn't offer a deal and didn't intend to make one." if hilter would have offered to the jewish a deal and said to them they would be second class citizens; they would not get rights, would the jewish people be happy with that? "His deal was, you can die now." and the israelis deal is that you can be quite, or die. "Not much of a deal." that is right. "And the Jews did fight back in many places." the palestinians are fighting back too. who would not fight back, but the american's are not helping them as they did the jewish when hitler was terrorizing them. in fact, the US is helping the israelis terrorize palestinains. ! "I'm not excusing the role of Israels leaders," the israeli leaders are terrorists. that is a fact, just like the leader of germany (hitler) was a terrorist. "I'm simply saying that the Arab leaders mis-played their hand." if the palestinian people are mis-playing their hand, the jewish people mis-played their hand when hilter was terrorizing them, right? ;-)
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 09:26 am The Jews definately mis-played their hand. They did not recognize the danger they were in because they did not want to recognize it. Now, remember earlier I said the Jews are not monolithic (no state ever is). The state of Israel is a democracy. There is a faction which has the support of more than half the population which believes that the Arabs in Israel should have equal rights and the Palestinians should have their own state. But when the Paelstinians react to things like the Sharon visit they help the hard liners who are oppossed to Baraks initiative. In short, they worsen their own situation and make it harder for them to achieve their objectives. Now, back to my question. If you were the Secretary of State, how would you go about trying to solve this problem? -How we got from Turkish entry into the EU to Israel I don't know.
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 12:42 pm "The Jews definately mis-played their hand. They did not recognize the danger they were in because they did not want to recognize it." so, since the jews definately mis-played their hand, was it the jews fault that hitler terrorized them and if it is their fault, are you saying it is also the fault of palestinian people that israelis is terrorizing them? "The state of Israel is a democracy." but the state is also a terrorist state. "There is a faction which has the support of more than half the population which believes that the Arabs in Israel should have equal rights and the Palestinians should have their own state." that is good, but their support is nothing (hal bacaad lagu lisay). the support US is giving the terrorists (israelis) is what the fuels the fire (the terrors which the palestinian people have been facing every day for the 50 years). "But when the Paelstinians react to things like the Sharon visit they help the hard liners who are oppossed to Baraks initiative. In short, they worsen their own situation and make it harder for them to achieve their objectives. " still palestinian people should not be terrorized. sharon and alike excuses is the kind of excuses has been going on for long time. it is a cheap one. if hilter would have used these kinds of excuses that they israelis are making now, it would be okay too, right? ;-) "Now, back to my question. If you were the Secretary of State, how would you go about trying to solve this problem?" give the palestinian people their rights back (their homes). "How we got from Turkish entry into the EU to Israel I don't know." this is a public forum. anything goes. ;-)
|
| | Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 09:50 pm Asad I said, if you were SEC State how would you solve this problem. You come back with "give the Palestinians their rights (homes) back." Now how would you do that??? You need to come up with an agreement that will be approved in the Israeli Knesset and in the Palestinian Authorities Parliament. Now, I agree you might be able to craft language like "Israel will review all land claims by Palestinians. Those land claims which are proven will be honored with a return of property, or if this is not possible, financial compensation for property loss amount to be determined by an independent commission established by Arab and European States." I also think that you could have verbiage that reads so: "All people, regardless of racial or religious, which reside in the borders of Israel as recognized in this agreement, will have Israeli citizenship with all of the rights and priveledges that that entails." Then we could have the following: "Jerusalum will be declared an open city. The States of Israel and Palestine will establish a joint police force to police this city and a joint legislature which will establish laws governing conduct in this city. This legislature will be drawn by individual vote from each city resident. Once basic laws are established to change those laws will require a 2/3rds majority from the legislature (to avoid changing laws on a whim or when the majority of representatives swings from one group to another). Both Israel and the PA will share Jerusalum as their capital city with East Jerusalum designated as the Palestinian Capital and West Jerusalum designated as the Israeli Capital." Then we would have to address holy sites. "Holy sites within the city of Jerusalum (include other sites that are controversial) will be jointly administered. Citizens from the PA and Israel will have equal access to these sites and will have the right to observe religious practices at this site. A Joint Muslim / Jewish / Christian Board will be set up to determine what is considered a reasonable religious practice and what is not (example, live animal sacrifices might not make the cut - excuse the pun)." There, that's my solution. What do you think? I'd like to get your input before I send it to Madeleine Albright.
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 06:26 am mad mad, first, as i said before, you and i are not going to solve the problem. what i say and what you say would not fly in that part of the world. you and i, as outsiders, could write or could protest all we want, but that would not solve the problems. you keep talking about jerusalum as the only problem between israelis and palestinian people. i said israelis should give the palestinians rights (homes) back. i was not talking about jerusalum. i was talking about the rights (the houses, land and the rights) the palestinian people lost and what made them refugees and less than second-class citzens in their land. jerusalum is not the biggest problem. as long as the palestinain people are terrorized and denied for their rights and as long as the terror continues, the world will continue to witness injustices, the injustices and the terrorism, the israelis with the help of US are doing to poor people. if you come to my house and take what i had including my rights to be a human being and then you demand i have to come to agreement with you on which part of my house we can share, is that solution? ;-)
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 07:56 am Well, if you read what I wrote above you'll see it addresses the issue of dispossesed property. Assume that you were in a position to influence this. How would you solve the problem. What solution would you propose, that combined with some cajolery would make it through both legislative bodies?
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 08:12 am mad mac, i told you what i proposed----that the dispossessed property should be return. i gave you this example: you forced my family and me and kicked us out of our homes. then, i demand my rights and throw some stones at you while you are in my home. you then resort to killing and terrorist tactics with the help of super-power at your service. you want us to stop claiming back our homes. you want us to come to the table and and agree to forgot about our rights. as long as the terrorists are not letting the people have their rights, what is there to agree upon?
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 01:04 pm MAC 'Turkey's struggle to join the EU has nothing to do with Islam - at least not directly.' So you agree that Turkey has banned the hijaab because it isn't acceptable in a 'European Society.' Now about the other topic: You're saying that the west won't let Israel fall because they feel guilt from the holocaust. In other words the west doesn't care if the Arabs are being killed by the Jews as long as they can feel sorry for what was done to them in WWII. "The Palestinians have so poorly marketed… but supporters of terrorism." It really isn't how they have marketed themselves but how the media, especially the Western ones have marketed them. Take as an example the eleven year old that was killed by the Israelis this week, the western media says that him and his dad were caught in a CROSSFIRE but they don't mention the fact the child was murdered by the Israeli army. And the Israelis in turn say that the shots could have come from them, but it wasn't deliberately. Now correct me if I'm wrong but the dad of the boy was found to have 8 bullet holes in his body. To me this was done deliberately. The soldier or soldiers shooting knew their target and for sure saw a child and an unarmed man. The media makes kids throwing stones a terrorist in the eyes of the public and soldiers using tanks, missiles, and guns 'SECURITY' of the state. Like it or not soldier boy, this ain't right.
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 01:53 pm http://www.geocities.com/madhmulah/MuslimMartyrs.html
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 02:33 pm Anonymous. Thanks for the link. It is really sad to see those pictures.
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 11:07 pm Simba First the Turkey thing. The banning of the Hijab has NOTHING to do with Turkeys attempt to join the EU. You're high if you think that. The banning of the Hijab in working evironments is due to the Turkish governments attempt to suppress Islamic fundamentalism. Turkey is determined to be a secular state. This goes back to a movement started during world war I and completed in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal (Attaturk). His intent was to modernize Turkey and part of his effort to do that was to abolish the Caliphate and turn Turkey into a secular state. The Army is tasked as the protector of secularism in Turkey. Hence, if the government is seized by anyone trying to turn Turkey into an Islamic state, then (and this is in the consitution) the Army is required to seize control of the government, depose the Islamic leaders, and reinstitute a secular government. In other words, in democratic Turkey you can't advocate a Theocracy.Just as in Democratic Germany you can not establish a NAZI party (obviously for different reasons - I'm not comparing Nazism and Islam here). That's why Turkey was a pariah among Islamic countries after 1923. The West (and I mean the Germans and the Greeks here) have stone-walled Turkish attempts to join the EU. The Germans object to the Turkish war on the Kurds. They look at Turkish attempts to join the EU as leverage to get the Germans to recognize some sort of Kurdish autonomy. Then they can kick the Kurds (there's a bunch of them here) out of Germany - which they want to do. The Greeks have irredentist claims against the Turks. The Greeks are kind of stupid, because they can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that if Turkey and greece go to war Greece will get smoked like a cheap cigar. Now on to the Palestinian problem. I said it once and I'll say it again. I have great sympathy for the Palestinians. But they have to play the cards dealt them. Israel isn't going to go away. No matter how much "the Muslims" would like it to, it's not going to happen. So if the intelligent people in the Palestinian camp and the Israeli camp could put their knuckleheads together they could come up with something that would satisfy the majority of their peoples. Have the Israeli security forces overeacted? Yep. Has the Israeli government misplayed their hand? Yep. But the fact remains Israeli is still in the drivers seat. Right now, who's wrong and who's right doesn't mean a thing. sometimes I think you guys would rather see all the Palestinians dead just so you can say "see, those Jews are bad just like it says in the Qur'an." While I definately think the security forces need to try and determine who shot that guy and the kid and why, and take the cse to trial if neccessary, you have to ask yourself what the hell that kid was doing out there in the first place? Bullets are flying, rocks are flying, tear gas is in the air - what responsible parent would allow his child to be out in that. This same thing happened when I was in Somalia. A violent engagement would erupt. The SNA militia would be firing RPGs and AKs. We're firing back. All hell breaks loose. And who is running around out in the streets, throwing things at us and acting stupid??? Women and kids. It was unbelievable. When bullets start flying anyone with a lick of sense takes cover. You don't run over to where the shooting is going on. That's nuts. Then everyone says "How could you have killed these women and kids??" I mean come on. Women and kids have no place on the battlefield. They need to get in the basement until the shooting stops - or if you have no basement then the next best thing to it. Letting your kids run aruond on the open street is just plain irresponsible.
|
| | Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 11:31 pm "Women and kids have no place on the battlefield. They need to get in the basement until the shooting stops - or if you have no basement then the next best thing to it. Letting your kids run aruond on the open street is just plain irresponsible." mad mac, what you are saying is that jewish women and kids had no place being in germany when hiter was terrorizing them. for them to be in germany was just plain irresponsible and stupid. Have the Nazi's forces overeacted? yep, but those jewish kids and women had no right to be in germany. hilter was still in the drivers seat. it does not matter the terror hitler caused and if he was wrong and if the jewish people were right; it doesn't mean a thing. sometimes I think the jewish people just love to say hilter was bad like it says in their *his-story* in order to get sympathy, right, mad mac? ;-)
|
| | Friday, October 06, 2000 - 11:49 am See MAC even you're using the term 'Israeli Security Forces.' Why don't you just say all PALESTINES are terrorists.
|
| | Friday, October 06, 2000 - 12:21 pm simba, israeli security force is no different than the nazis force. what was their name, the SS? i'm not sure. also, if the palestinian people are terrorists than patrick henry who was said to have said 'give me death or give me liberty' was a terrorist too. also, if you see or hear the term israeli "land settlements", it means israelis "occupied land".
|
| | Friday, October 06, 2000 - 11:40 pm Asad That is a very poor comparison. You need to take a good look at what the SS, particularly the Einsatzgruppn, did. Did you know that in the SS vesion of the UCMJ there was no penalty for murder - it wasn't a crime. I'm not kidding. An SS soldier could kill any non-German with total impunity.And they did - a lot. 13 Million Russian civilian died in the war. Not because they were caught in the crossfire. They were deliberately rounded up and shot. 7 Million Poles. Over one Million Gypsies. 6 Million Jews - most of Europes Jewish population. The SS generally didn't take Prisoners of War. They just shot them - they called it Rabat - a rebate. The intent was to spread fear among their enemies, it only hardened enemy resistance. Interestingly enough, rape was a crime with severe punishments because of the threat of racial impurities. Therefore, if you raped a woman then you could negate the crime by shooting her. What's the death toll in Palestine right now? 60-70? This is hardly whole scale slaughter. Hitler didn't oppress the Jews, he killed them en masse. He certainly didn't negotiate with them. You push the Hitler / Jewish comparison way too far. There have been singular incidents of that kind of behavior (like those two camps), but the fact that we can identify them as singular incidents highlights they're abberations. They're wrong, and those responsible should be punished if they haven't, but it's not Israeli state policy to kill al Muslims. German state policy, as of the Wansee conference, was to kill all Jews. Again, of course, you missed my point on the kid thing. I said "While there is shooting going on." No responsible parent should allow their kid to participate in riots. Riots are dangerous. Responsible parents keep their kids indoors when this is going on. I don't care if we're talking the West Bank, Mogadischu or East LA. When full scale unrest breaks out, 12 year olds should be in the basement or at least kept at home, where they are relatively safe, until the situation calms down. What's so hard to understand about that?
|
| | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 12:49 am Mad. Every body cares of his own. One person means a lot to his relatives and those who associate with that person. Remember how many american lives were put at risk to rescue Capt. Scott O'Grady whose fighter jet was shot down in bosnia?. Would you accept if somebody told you he wasn't worth the risk comparing the many other lives endangered for his sake beause he was one man?. What is your anology then of belittling the number of palestinians killed in recent days?. A blinded by bias person is always blind. How about some million people who can be terminated any given day, crowded on each other with no space to live, no water, even when some western countries wanted to build water tanks for them the jewish zionists rejected because they said that was against the plan of forced migration aimed at palestinians. It is pure genocide and painful and bitter live that drives those young kids to the streets to demand their right to live as a human being. Each one of them can see his house overtaken and occupied by a jewish family everyday who migrated from russia and from all eastern EUrope. Who can live in a such helpless life forever without hope?. There are programms early in the morning sponsored by televangelists collecting donations and telling people that 300$ can help some jew migrate to his homeland. And guess the home he is travelling to?. An old palestian's house who was evicted for no reason other than being a palestinian. If the jews legitimize to live at the expense of others then want other people around the world consider them victims of palestinian violence, at the same time demand peace, I guess One doesn't need to become a rocket scientist to figure out what is wrong with the whole scenario. They are all the same, the jew, the american government, the brittish, they are conspirators of what is happening to muslims in the middle east.
|
| | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 03:39 am Burden of inequality The law •Israel grants automatic citizenship and residency to Jews under the law of return, but not to non-Jews •The Jewish National Fund, which owns or administers most of the land, bars its sale or lease to non-Jews Housing •No Arab town has been built since Israel was proclaimed in 1948. So far this year Israel has refused 22,000 building permits for Arab citizens •Arabs are ineligible for 62.4% of housing ministry grants for buying flats, and ineligible for 68.7% of the budget for rent aid. In 1995, 2.3% of Arab applicants were granted mortgages Social spending •Arab poverty and infant mortality rates are double those of the Jewish population •Per capita expenditure on Arab towns is one-seventh of that for Jewish towns Jobs The unemployment rate is 14% for Arabs, 9.5% for Jews. The average hourly wage is 33%higher for Jewish men than for Arab men •Arabs do not serve in the army, so lack security clearance to work in companies with defence contracts and many areas of hi-tech industry •About 2,800 of the government's 50,000 employees are Arabs, and 25 of its 2,400 senior staff Education •In 1998, 40 of the 5,000 university professorships were held by Arabs •About 10% of Arab graduates work as drivers, waiters or unskilled labourers compared with 3% of Jews. http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,378147,00.html What do you think mad?. Any comments on this way of life and inequality?.
|
| | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 05:22 am Formerguest Abowe, don't you remember when I said I have great sympathy for the Palestinian plight? The state of Israel (which I personally consider a backward country and would never live there, just like I would never live in any other part of the Middle East) has clearly treated the Palestinians unjustly. I just had a conversation with my mother on this subject and my mother even said she has sympathy for the Jews but what they have done to the Palestinians isn't right. The difference between my perspective and yours is twofold: a. You look at the Palestinians as your Muslim brothers. You identify with them. I don't identify with either side. You think I'm pro-Israeli because I explain their point of view, which you simply disregard, like you disregard any gaals point of view concerning religion. b. I am a student of real politik. Like Henry Kissinger, I believe state policy should be formulated around what's possible and not around emotion. The problem with the conflict is there is no "Just" solution. To give total justice to the Palestinians at this point would be to commit an injustice against Jews who were born and grew up in present day Israel. Therefore, in my view, resolution requires compromise on all sides. But if you want justice in Israel, if you want policies that treat Arabs as equal citizens, then they have to act as loyal Israeli citizens (those who live in Israel). The Israelis are not going to subsidize subversion. Like I have said so many times before, if all sides would just calm down, sit down, and negotiate in good faith they could come to a solution that would be equitable to all. From my own personal perspective, I've given up caring very much about these idiots. I think they're all basically pretty stupid and worthy of contempt. As long as I don't have to go there and participate in some hair-brained peacekeeping operation I'm just going to write the place off. The more I read what'S on the net, the more I watch the news, the more I'm convinced these people really do deserve each other - God must have a sense of humor.
|
| | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 09:37 am "What's the death toll in Palestine right now? 60-70? This is hardly whole scale slaughter. Hitler didn't oppress the Jews, he killed them en masse. He certainly didn't negotiate with them. You push the Hitler / Jewish comparison way too far." mad mac, oppression is worst than murder. "There have been singular incidents of that kind of behavior (like those two camps), but the fact that we can identify them as singular incidents highlights they're abberations." there are many incidents and much oppression that are happening in israel. amnesty international (the so-called watch eye of oppression) ignore what is going on the jails (the tortures and the killings). thousands of palestinian mothers and kids do not know where their fathers are and if they are alive. at least the jewish with the help of europeans and US are still-hunting any former SS (nazi) member alive in order to be brought to justice, but no one cares about the israeli forces (who operate like nazis) and murder, oppress people and occupy. like i said, hitler was no hypocrite. he had guts; he did not hide under false negotiations that do not work. of all people, the jewish people should know what is like to be oppressed, but they refused to care. maybe they believe their rights (their blood compare to the other's rights) is no comparison. ;-)
|
| | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 04:40 pm MAD. "I am a student of real politik." Yes. The real politik of the new world order. Dominate or Terminate. "like you disregard any gaals point of view concerning religion. " What kind of view point about religion a gaal can have except a gaal's viewpoint?. What is the reason of us calling him a gaal in the first place if his views are worth of anything?. That doesn't mean you can't have a different view point or belief, but you have to understand why we call you gaal and dismiss your opinions about islam. It is simple, because you have no guidance from ALLAH and we do. We quote the Quran and Sunnah, and you quote your ideas and immaginations. We accept islam to be the right way of living, you reject that, what is there to accept from you mad?. We are having a difference of opinion so accept LIKE IT IS ACE and stop whining about your imperfections. For your info though, you are a better gaal than you were before you established any contacts and discussions with muslims. You have a better chance of accepting islam than many of your american folks. You learned a lot. I don't expect you to admit that anyway. "The problem with the conflict is there is no "Just" solution". There is just solution. Israel must give back what it took forcefully. No one is saying jews have to go back where they came from, there is plenty of empty land they can settle if they want to in israel, but they have to give properties and land they siezed illegally. Otherwise they have to live with the propspect of insecurity forever. How can they safely sleep while they know they committed an act of agression?. PEACE MEANS JUSTICE. WITHOUT JUSTICE THERE IS NO PEACE. If you call that injustice, I am not surprised, because you sympathise with the jews. And because you are an american who was raised in the view that the jews are sacred people. ". As long as I don't have to go there and participate in some hair-brained peacekeeping operation I'm just going to write the place off." If a major war breaks out , you have to go there, because you are the servant of the american institution and what that institution considered a legitimate responsibilities you have to do. Thus jewish help is in the american bible, CAN THEY OPPOSE THAT?. Remember, ST PAUL the jew guy wrote that in there. He was smart. I think the whole idea of writing the bible on his part was a devious plan to cheat people into servicing the jews. I hope you don't go there. But if it happens, write MAD MAC on a flag so somalinet forumers can see recognize you.
|
| | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 11:13 pm "Thus helping the Jews is in the American Bible". Formerguest, remember, we aren't as obsessive about religion as you are. The days of us fighting religious wars ended with the Crusades. Now we fight for important things, like oil.
|
| | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 01:51 am MAD. ""Thus helping the Jews is in the American Bible". Formerguest, remember, we aren't as obsessive about religion as you are". Who are "WE" MAD?. I tell like it is. I don't think I should be catering to your emmotional bond to the jews. " The days of us fighting religious wars ended with the Crusades." One of the things you guys discredit is the islamic religion. Because islam doesn't allow any reconciliation unless it is the interest of it. We have clash of interests there, thus call islam backward to take it out of circulation. Also, the crusade is the underlying mentality that drives all conflicts between muslims and christians. All the hype that was built by the crusades into the system of the western framework still works and resurfaces time and again only to be quelled by you guys because of the shame it brought earlier. Not to mention the information age where a massacre is the news of the minute wherever it happens albeit it is always too late when victims are muslims. "Now we fight for important things, like oil. " Okey, Have you asked this question yourself before?. Why not drill your own oil and be done with that of the middle east?. You have vast amount of reservations in the sea as well as in ALASKA?. Not to mention in TEXAS and off the coast of florida.?. What is the point of going miles and miles away from home to fill the tanks of your cars unless there is a future plan?. Or may be you can harrass those saudis into submission by making them supply the pumps with the snap of the finger?. I don't know MAD, Mind to fill me in on the strategy part of the game here.?
|
| | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 04:30 am Why Arabian oil? Simple, about 25% of the world oil reserves are located there. The oil reserves in the US are insufficient to satisfy global requirements. Remember, if the Japanese economy takes a hit that's bad for the US economy. There's no clash of interest between Islam and the rest of the world so long as Islam does not make irredentist claims. There's plenty of religions who are out there recruiting and converting. That's not an issue. You think of Islam as monolithic, but it's not. Nationalism trumps Islamic unity everytime. That's why Islamic countries fight Islamic countris just as often as they fight kufaars. Because fighting is almost never about religion, it's about battling for resources. People who are rallied by Islamic cries like Jihad are simply being suckered. Your cries of Jihad are like the cries of liberate the poor Kuwaitis during the Gulf War. All of us with a brain in our heads knew that was about protecting oil reserves. But "Let's go kick ass for cheap oil" isn't a battle cry troops or civilians relate to. Freedom sounds better. Of course, I don't consider myself a sucker - because I get paid good money to do what I do. Unlike the guys fighting for the Taliban.
|