![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Tuesday, 2 May 2006
Lina's post is a must read:
Actually, I look at the generation of our parents, the generation that
was our age at the time of the 1967 defeat, the failed Syrian-Egyptian
unity, the so-called victory of 1973 (that’s what they fed us in tenth
grade history), the Lebanese Civil War, the Iraq-Iran war… the excuse
of war to overlook civil liberties in our countries and impose martial
laws (remember that it wasn’t until 1989 that parliamentary elections
were back in Jordan)… think of that generation, and try to imagine how
all of this, and all of the fading hopes have played into the psyche of
the Arab man.I do believe that there is so much in common
between Arab countries, the language, culture, a lot of the social
values and norms, and history. More than that, a thing in common is
this dire and urgent need for change, for radical change and
enlightenment (I don’t want to say reform because that word comes with
an unnecessary baggage these days). Yet I don’t think Arab unity is the
way to solve any problem or realize this change. Arab unity!! What
exactly are we talking about?? Opening up the borders?? Having one
common constitution, one currency, one parliament?? Can you imagine
doing it like the EU and having a rotation of presidency?? Haha! That
thought makes me laugh!! I think the only reason people follow the Arab
summit news is to be amused by what Qaddafi might have to say! Ok
seriously now, what I’m trying to say is… there is so much that needs
to be fixed internally, in each country, before we start thinking of
creating some kind of synergy. You don’t move to interdependence from
dependence, you move to it when you’ve achieved a certain level of
independence. I mean, seriously, let’s not compare ourselves with the
EU (regardless of whether that project is working well or not) because
we’re no where near what each of those states was before proposing to
have a union. The union was not a solution to their problems, it was a
step forward to make things even better for their citizens and to play
a more effective role on the international front.I, as a young Arab, am angry at all the crap that we were taught at
school, at the pathetic education of history, at the meaningless
emotional poems in Arabic class that talked about the glorious past and
the coming victory and unity and did nothing but tap into emotions and
end up making us feel more defeated, more victimized, and more helpless.
I agree. This is why the whole pan arabist notion has always seemed stupid to me (No offense Karim ), because the stupid reasoning went something like this: We are all weak, but if we get united, we will all be strong. NO. We are all weak , and if we unite, we will be even weaker, and with enough divisive crap that is guranteed to make us start waring on eachother as well. If any kind of unity is to be created,the arab countries have to be strong individually first, and then they can make strong alliances and Unity. And in order for such a unity to occur, there has to be economic Unity first, which won't happen, until free trade, business regulation and some serious anti-corruption measures take hold. For that to happen, there has to be strong political reforms and freedoms. It's like the chicken or the egg I swear to god.
Not to mention, the main incentive, the main impetus, the driving motive of the panarabists always seemed a little suspect to me. They always talk in terms of military strength and glory, and it all always comes down to Israel and the US. How once we are all united, we will show Israel and the US. Like that's the only kind of victory that counts for them. As if achieving more important things, like the welfare of their citizens, improving the education, the eradication of ignorance and poverty, promoting liberty, freedom and personal wealth do not count as a victory for their wounded arab pride. Oh no, Only showing the Jews will do. Everything else is secondary.
Arab Unity will require thought, not emotion; Planning, not reactionism; Following one's best interest, not one's sense of Pride or lack thereof; and more than anything, it will require leaders, not popmpus tyrannical assholes whose only interest is enriching themselves and their families on our expense and who don't have the leadership skills to manage a MacDonalds store. And maybe it will require us arabs to change as well. Be a bit more self-rcitical, be a bit more open to new ideas, Judge an ideology or a belief or a mode of behavior by how successful it has been in meeting its said goals, instead of just following it cause it's what your parents did. And more than anything, we have to chnage our flawd understanding of what the word "Pride" means. If we want to be proud of something, it has to be of something we are doing, not something we did 600 years ago. We might even have to think about planning for our future just a little bit, instead of just focusing on the past and the "right now". We have so much potential, but that's not enough. We have to act. We have to demand and facilitate change and reform in our respective countries first in order for that potential to be realized and actualized. Until that happens, you can talk about arab Unity till the cows come home, knowing at the same time that it is nothing and will never be nothing more than a pipe dream.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Go Sandmonkey!!!!!
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Sam, meaning no disrespect to someone like Karim, but the only real force that could unite countries as disparate as Egypt, KSA, Jordan, Tunisia, and the UAE is not language or anything like that. It would be a Militant Islam, an attempt to reform the Caliphate. The poems of the past that Lina talks about refer to that time (not that the past they refer to was real) the ‘unity against the Jews and the US’ is also the cry of the Islamicizers, etc.
It’s a great thought if I need a laxative, because you know what that scares out of me.
Is there any evidence that there could be any other unifying principle? I’d like to see some.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
It’s great to read blogs from the Middle East, but I’m wondering (from the safety of my chair in the USA) if the best of the bloggers couldn’t be bringing their ideas to fruition by organizing the youthful masses into political parties and movements ? That is to say, is the downside of blogging that natural revolutionary leaders are blowing off the steam that would otherwise be propelling them to organize? Is a blog a catalyst for change or a dissipation of youthful energy? I frankly don’t know. Rock music changed Eastern Europe, so maybe blogs will change the Arab world….But maybe they will indirectly slow down change. What do you think?
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Good post SM.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Canadienne Errante : your thoughts are poignant. While as you say it is very easy for you and I to sit in our ” comfortable chair(s) in the USA ” and suggest that the only way for change is action, I empathise greatly with the Arab youth who want change but face very real consquences for active action.
I lived in Singapore for 20 years and the kind of control methods used by this govt pale in comparison to many of the archaic measures used in some countries in the Middle East, yet no Singaporean or foreigner dare rise up against any govt policy. I interviewed several opposition members as a school project and each had spent 10-20 years in jail simply for speaking up. In the Middle East the fear is greatly compounded by the radicals who threaten death on ” infidels “, which is a term I assume refers to even Muslims who are not fidel ( French for loyal ).
The days of the likes of Mandela and Ghandi might be gone, because while unhapiness with the status quo in many area of the Middle East are prevalent, many like SandMonkey are living decent lives. It is very hard to give what they have up.
What the Blogging is doing, for any one outside of the Middle East who bothers to look, is giving outsiders an extremely valuable understanding that not all Middle Easterners are maniacal fanatics bent on destroying the US or even Israel. That while they justifiably have gripes with the way these two countries have conducted themselfes in history, that enough is enough. That some blame has to be laid at the feet of Middle Eastern govt’s who have spent way too long insulating themselfes from the rest of the world, under the premise that Arab unity will ultimately allow the Middle East to prevail.
In addition, these blogs are allowing people in the Middle East to communicate with one another and it is well known that finding that others feel the way you do can bubble into a movement or at the very least has psycho therapeutic benefits, which is crucial when one is faced with many of the attitudes encountered on the street in the Middle East.
The way I see it, is that many of the countries in the Middle East are no different then communist in that they believe that the way to success is insulation from the world. That by joining in the ways of the world will render them inpure and stained. As I have read though it is very possible that these are simply fasisct tactics used by Middle Eastern govt’s to brainwash their people into blind loyalty.
Their are Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia who have opened themselfes to trade and global commerce who have succeded in maintaining their Islamic identity quite nicely. Radical Islam has attempted to take hold in these countries and it does exist but these govt crack down harshly on overt radicals.
Change has to occur first in education, which seems is the greatest culprit for past and current sentiment by so many in the Middle East and if, like so many, Joe Q public does not have the willingness or ability to travel and see what the rest of the world is really like, then what is taught and dictacted prevails.
While I completely agree that it would be wonderful if there could be a mass youth uprising, I cannot blame the likes of SandMonkey for not doing so. The risks are so high. I believe, thanks to blogs like these that the seeds have been planted for internal ( not external ) overhaul but like racism it takes time to take real root.
For now I believe that allowing the rest of the world to see inside the mind of an educated Arab is tremendously valuable. So thanks to SandMonkey and others for taking what is already a risk.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
The point of “Arab Unity” seems to be a rationalization for the weak to submit to the rule of the strong. Not a surprise since the political roots of most Arab states are so shallow. No wonder Islamofascism emerged as a competitor once the drive for political unity failed!
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
The Middle Eastern populations (other than Israel, of course) need to feel they belong to something, or else something will feel wrong. Arab unity is a drug (not a cure) for their inferiority complex. The only cure for this complex is CIVIL LIBERTIES, HUMAN RIGHTS, and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION for ALL CITIZENS. Not waging wars and hate campaigns against Israel and Denmark.
What the “Arabs” are doing to their fellow non-Arab citizens in Kurdistan, Darfur, South of Sudan, Algeria, (and lets not forget Nuba) is shameful. Better yet, their silence towards what Iran’s occupation of Khuzestan (Ahwaz) and what Iran does to its Ahwazi citizens is simply a disgrace.
I am glad I am not an Arab - being Egyptian is more than enough for me.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Better yet, their silence towards what Iran’s occupation of Khuzestan (Ahwaz) and what Iran does to its Ahwazi citizens is simply a disgrace.
Oh come on, how can they have any time left to worry about Iran’s occupation and treatment of Khuzestan when they’re all so busy protesting Israel?
Seriously, they can only fight one occupation at a time.
:rolls eyes:
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:29 pm
SandMonkey… When you say Arab unity, are u using the word Arab to describe a race or a culture? If it’s refering to a race then your argument and solution wouldn’t work since that is an inaccurate description but if it’s refering to us Arabs as a collective group with an “Arab” culture then yes what you described will defintely work. I agree with you that each nation has to work to make itself strong first and then after that talk about unity. I do believe that things are bound to improve for sure (if Iran doesn’t nuke Israel and WW3 starts). It’s us the new generation that is more liberal and flexible than our parent’s generation that will take over in the future and hopefully change things for the better
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
This is a little off topic, but I really would like to understand the issues the ME has with Israel.
I read about it frequently, from both sides of the perspective. Debka for one side and Arab News for the other side each morning before starting work. But let us set aside that coin for just a moment.
According to the CIA fact book Israel is 20,770 sq km, slightly smaller than New Jersey. It was established by the UN when Britain gave up the ghost.
So far so good. The other ME states never really liked the UN decision.
Right after Israel declared statehood, it was attacked by neighboring countries. Looking at the documentation indicates it defended itself well and actually won some wars.
But then it gave back the Sinai to Egypt, rather than keeping the spoils of war, which is kind of historically the trend. Last year it got out of Gaza because the Palestinians said that really belonged to them (even though it was seized in a war).
Now it’s evicting settlers from the West Bank so Palestinians can have more land to build their country. Slowly they are making concessions that should lead to peaceful coexistence because the Palestinians will have what they wanted. Well, most of it.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Why is Iran hot to trot to destroy Israel? Near as I can tell, Israel never took aggressive action against Iran. Iran is a BIG country, why would it care about 20,770 sq km? Can anyone fill me in on this?
Plus, why are there cartoons that teach children to hate Jooozz? Where is the payback in that and what does that say about the future of those children?
Why not raise the issue of Israels existence with the UN rather than lobbing missiles or spending the formative years of the youth in hate lessons?
It just doesn’t make sense to me to spend so much world effort on so little of the planet. Looking forward to some input.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Thanks Sandmonkey for your site. As has been already mentioned, it is good to see common sense in what otherwise seems an ocean of insanity.
I hope this isn’t too simplistic, but I would suggest that the barrier holding the Islamic world back from security and progress is ………….Islam.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Aslan, that little bit of the planet is, and has ever been the most prized real estate in the world. Apparently, these people have never been to Hawaii.
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm
So I got an email telling me I got called out and to come over and check this out. To contest this post I guess; but you didn’t say anything wrong here. Actually most of it is pretty well put.
Especially:
“Arab Unity will require thought, not emotion; Planning, not reactionism; Following one’s best interest, not one’s sense of Pride or lack thereof; and more than anything, it will require leaders, not popmpus tyrannical assholes whose only interest is enriching themselves and their families on our expense and who don’t have the leadership skills to manage a MacDonalds store. And maybe it will require us arabs to change as well. Be a bit more self-rcitical, be a bit more open to new ideas, Judge an ideology or a belief or a mode of behavior by how successful it has been in meeting its said goals, instead of just following it cause it’s what your parents did. And more than anything, we have to chnage our flawd understanding of what the word “Pride” means. If we want to be proud of something, it has to be of something we are doing, not something we did 600 years ago. We might even have to think about planning for our future just a little bit, instead of just focusing on the past and the “right now”. We have so much potential, but that’s not enough. We have to act. We have to demand and facilitate change and reform in our respective countries first in order for that potential to be realized and actualized. Until that happens, you can talk about arab Unity till the cows come home, knowing at the same time that it is nothing and will never be nothing more than a pipe dream.”
And that what we’re working on.
Peace.
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Muslims generally hate Jews because of what they’ve been told about Jews and Judaism not because of how Jews truly are. This is the conclusion I reached to after months of heavy blogs reading.
What they have been told however is not completely wrong and is true but only in regard with an exremist minority.
There are extremists everywhere not only in Islam.
I’s all about the interpretation
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Thank you SM!
Brilliantly-put… I couldn’t agree more
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:57 pm
> Plus, why are there cartoons that teach children to hate Jooozz?
If you refer to palestinian kids - the “Jooozz” killed more than 700
of them in the last 5 years. The assumption that their hatred is
caused by “cartoons” is zionist fiction, another attempt to deflect
the foul reality of the only jewish-only democracy.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
> If any kind of unity is to be created,the arab countries have to be strong
> individually first, and then they can make strong alliances and Unity.
If strong means pursuing your own interests - forget it.
The west managed to subdue the arab countries and he will do everything
required to keep you in that inferior and dependent position - simply look
at the ridiculous elections held by your pharao.
And - it has nothing to do with the “jews” - and Islam is not the solution of
course.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Frenchman,
Very Good Comment. You’ve managed to sum up everything concisely. I (an Arab) couldn’t have put it better myself.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Speaking for someone from the West I can assure you that other than a few pathetic losers, nobody wants to subjugate or keep anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere in any dependent position. What we want is for everyone to be as free, wealthy, comfortable, and healthy as we are, or more so.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Why do Arabs hate jews? The answer is quiet simple. State media. Ever since the creation of Israel, the Arab media indoctrinated arabs into believing that the jews were the enemy. Even childrens school books (as I recall) constantly refered to israel as ‘the zionist entity’ and jews as the enemy. The jews where responsible for the failures of incompetent arab leaders.The treacherous agents of the jews where responsible for the defeats of 1948 and 67 (ironically 56 and 73 where celebrated as victories). The jews and their agents (3omala) where responsible for the failure of the unity of Egypt and Syria and henceforth the Arab unity as whole. It actualy went to the extent that arab leaders started pointing fingers at each other with accusations of treachery and of being agents of the mossad and the CIA.
We have grown up to believe that jews have taken over our ‘land’ in palestine (eventhough that land is about half the size of Sinai), and unless and until we take that (insignificantly small) piece of land back the Arabs would never amount to anything and would never prosper nor unite. As if we managed to do much with the enourmous amounts of land we already have.
Everything Israel and the US does is blown out of proportion and condemned as acts of pure evil, in contrast a blind eye is turned to far more appalling crimes of murder and corruption commited by the regimes on daily basis. National newspapers and magazines covered mainly international news (a skewed version offcourse), with very little if any local news. Arabs knew almost nothing about what was realy going on in their own countries. All corruption and wrongdoings where blamed on enemies of the state (3omala), who are (conveniently) agents of the Israeli Mossad and CIA.
The media distorted arab citizens perception of reality to an extent where outrageous conspiracy theories are readily accepted and defended. This twisted version of reality in which arabs live could easily give rise to radicalism. Young people are told alternate versions of reality and are called into action to change the status quo (to the advantage of one state or another). Back in the 70s, 80s and 90s it was the arab nationalist radical groups like Abu nidal, Black September and later with the death of Arab nationalism came the more violent and far more galvanizing Islamic (Jihadi) Nationalism by the mujahedeen (precursor to al qaeda) and later Al Qaeda.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 am
Thank you, Frenchman. That was a very thoughtful and thought-provoking response. I was particularly struck by your comment that blogging is one way forward-thinking ME youth find each other. And yes, certainly, it is helpful for Westerners to read the thoughts of forward-thinking ME youth, since we are inundated with photos of MEerners that fill us with contempt (e.g. 9/11 Ulullating Palestinian Lady). And for that matter, I hope ME youth discover through the internet that Westerners are not entirely brutal, corrupt and decadent, and that Western women do not all dress and behave like Paris Hilton.
I’m thinking again about the liberating effects of rock music in Eastern Europe; maybe blogging will work like that.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:43 am
Call me analy retentive, but Karin is wrong when she says:
“The union was not a solution to their problems, it was a
step forward to make things even better for their citizens “.
The EUSSR was created to stop the constant wars between European countries, particularly France and Germany.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:20 am
Do you think this Unity thing was a yearning to bring back the Abbasid or Ummayad days? The good old days of Empire, when you know who was the super power?
Sometimes I wish you could be a superpower for a week and see how much it sucks
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:44 am
“The union was not a solution to their problems, it was a
step forward to make things even better for their citizens.”
That is absolutely right.
“The EUSSR was created to stop the constant wars between European countries, particularly France and Germany.”
And that is wrong. American occupation was created to stop the constant wars between European countries. And it worked well.
The European Union is the result of that peace.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:54 am
That was one of SM’s best posts. Do not underestimate the power of the pen.
“If we want to be proud of something, it has to be of something we are doing, not something we did 600 years ago. ” More important, pride has to be based on _self_ respect, on knowing that one has accomplished something worth while, and not on what other people think of you. Arab “pride” seems to be too often based on image, on being “respected” or even feared by others - none of which matters at all.
This leads to the same kind of obsession with honour and dignity which was typical of the decaying Spanish gentry after the gold ran out. These people would parade around with noses in the air, too proud to work, in expensive but worn out clothes.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:20 am
? Is a blog a catalyst for change or a dissipation of youthful energy?
Great writing Errante
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Ramy Says:
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Frenchman,
Very Good Comment. You’ve managed to sum up everything concisely. I (an Arab) couldn’t have put it better myself.
Thank you Ramy….a true compliment…while I cannot put myself in your shoes or those of any Arab, I have had several very close Arab friends which makes it personal for me and allows me to empathise. Many people worldwide need to open their minds to their brothers in other parts of the world. Not to sound sappy but we are, in the end made from the same cloth. How we allow philisophies that dated hundreds of years ago dictate how we treat each other is beyond me. What we need is a mass exchange student program.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Hi Canadienne, I, in return, thank you because I have to admit to not contemplating the effect that these blogs have in projecting the fact that many Westerners like myself 1 ) are able to make very clear distinctions between the fundamentalists and Arabs / Muslims, 2 ) Do not want to see the Middle Eastern culture morph into America 3) that we are not whore mongering, drug addicts, with strip bars on every corner. and most importantly 4 ) that we respect Arabs and empathize with the difficulties they face, especially when their minds are open but must pretend to a degree that they are not in order to walk through their daily lifes in the Middle East without consequences.
I certainly hope that you are right. While I have come across some mildly radical Middle Easterners in Cyber Space, the majority seem to, while justifiably maintaining their identify, appreciate the points I have made above. I guess if communicating in an open forum changes the radical views of even one person on either side, then it makes all of this worth while.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Well, talking is easy isnt it?:)
Arab countires have been “building” themselves up since Balfour, can’t see much progress though:)
Captalist Ideas are eating thier minds that is, upper classes are growing fatter and the gap is growing greater between classes.
Egoism is a word I’d like to use. If we’d be less egoistic and think of us as a whole that consists of aggregates that all form that unity we’ll do alot better.
But as Kant puts it. We are more into our Inclination rather our Obligation. Because it’s simply easier:)
Do u remember the Indians?, Vietnam?, Heroshima,Argantina 1890, Chili 1891, Nekeragwa1894, China1894-1895, Korea 1894-1896, Panama 1895, China 1898-1900, Philippine 1898-1910( killed over 600,000), Cuba 1898, Porto ricco 1898- till now, Mexico1931, Russia, Salvador, Lebanon, Cambodia, Bolivia, Yugoslavia, Gulf war.
The list goes on, so Yes I believe that the U.S has been really busy messing up peoples lives:) Thats just to comment on why we blame everthing on the U.S. That is acting like GOD btw
Anyhow, what do I want?
How about starting to support the arab countries that are in need? Taking a rough political stand?
That would be a good begining:)
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:12 pm
> And that is wrong. American occupation was created to stop the constant
> wars between European countries. And it worked well.
As a servant you’re a perfect - although you’re german too.
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:15 pm
> Arab pride seems to be too often based on image, on being respected”
> or even feared by others
You described the US quite well, although they are not that “arab”.
> none of which matters at all.
Really?
May 4th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Ohoud Says:
Do u remember the Indians?, Vietnam?, Heroshima,Argantina 1890, Chili 1891, Nekeragwa1894, China1894-1895, Korea 1894-1896, Panama 1895, China 1898-1900, Philippine 1898-1910( killed over 600,000), Cuba 1898, Porto ricco 1898- till now, Mexico1931, Russia, Salvador, Lebanon, Cambodia, Bolivia, Yugoslavia, Gulf war.
Hmm…all right Ohoud, if you want to point a finger…Hiroshima (post occupation till present under the glories of American inspired capitalism), China (suffered awefully during the 50 years of Communist rule…after accepting the failure of Communism and opening their markets prosperity has grown exponentially), Korea (South Korea when comapred to Communist North Korea…of course the South was kept free by a, guess what, American occupation), Phiippines (this “property” was ceded to the US as a result of the Spanish-American War…under American occupation, the Philippines achieved modern governmental institutions and constitution, once the government and electoral system was generally agreed apon by the population, a date for independence was set–get your facts straight, bumpkin), Cuba (they have faired much better under Communism, no?), Puerto-Rico (every year they vote on whether or not to become a state, to secede, or to maintain status quo–every year they vote to maintain status quo), Russia (what in the hell are you talking about, again–Communism is to blame), Lebanon (Islamic militantism is to blame), Cambodia (Pol Pot is to blame), Bolivia (suffered from corrupt governments and attempted takeovers of socialists and Communists), Yugoslavia (we protected people from genocide, dimwit), Gulf War (we protected the sovereignty of a country, dimwit–and for 10 years we protected whole segments of Iraqi society from oppression, really bad indeed…following the 10 year protection, we liberated the majority of people from oppressive rule, again–the evil Americans and their quest for a free and liberated people). People like you seem to want the US to be seen in a bad light, perhaps because you have alterior motives (like thinking Communism is a good thing)… Maybe if you keep stating the lies, people will believe them. Keep revising the history until it meets your objectives…
May 4th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Oh yeah, supporting Arabic countries in need…
In FY2004, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to
about 150 countries.
The most consistent thread connecting the top aid recipients over the past decade has been continuing U.S. support for peace in the Middle East, with large programs maintained for Israel and Egypt. Since 2003, over $20 Billion has also been spent to help build and rebuild Iraq. (I wonder how much more could have been done for the Iraqis had there not been threat of harm by insurgents)
Top countries receiving aid from the US in greatest to least (though not all inclusive) are as follows: Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Columbia, Jordan, Pakistan, Liberia, Peru, Ethiopia, Bolivia, Turkey, Uganda, Sudan, Indonesia, and Kenya.
In that list, you will see that Middle Eastern (at 40%) and Muslim countries actually garner most of the foreign aid. Additionally, the US is devoting $15 Billion to help stop the spread of AIDS, with most of the effort going to African countries.
Again, your comments are easily refuted with facts…since they are made up of hot air and lies. Get your facts straight before you go spouting off, imbecile.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:58 am
Eudaemon. Pity you went through so much effort to post all that when most likely the reply will be “you and your pro-zionist american fascist lies”… *sigh*
May 4th, 2006 at 5:02 am
Being Zionist isn’t such a bad thing…the world would be a little more peaceful if the Muslims would be more Zionist in nature–to quote Woody Guthry, “this land was made for you and me…”
May 4th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
> Since 2003, over $20 Billion has also been spent to help build and rebuild Iraq.
When we have started to liberate you - managed to kill 5 million americans, toppled
your government - they have WMD! - etc., we will also offer you some peanuts then.
Extremely pathetic.
May 5th, 2006 at 2:30 am
If you consider $20 Billion peanuts, you must be wealthy indeed…send some our way if you will…
I’m not sure what you’re talking about - kill 5 milion Americans?
Here’s a little lesson for you concerning Western governmental theory:
One of the guiding principles our forefathers had was the idea of a “social contract.” Originally this was a call for those in government to represent mutual goals of its members, or that government should represent the wishes and needs of its constituency. But, in fact, government could not simply represent the majority of its constituency (democracy)—for consider the consequences if the majority sees fit to oppress a minority (ala Nazism, Communism, Fascism, or even Islamism). Government, if it is to truly represent the entirety of its constituency, must represent the ideal or natural law—that is that good will be allowed to express itself through the actions of individuals by mutual consent of its constituency. But what is good will? What is natural law? What is, in fact, good if not defined by God in the Torah/Bible/Koran?
Actually the solution is even more evident than one might think, and it doesn’t exist merely in the ideal or without of man’s grasp. It, in fact, exists in day to day life in nearly every country right beneath our noses…yet man consistently fails to understand. Perhaps this is due to the Torah or the Bible or the Koran not effectively spelling it out for people. In fact, what’s true is that some people keep doing wrong, despite knowledge of what’s right and what’s wrong, even as most people do right by God…
Day by day, people conduct a series of actions and gauge the response of others in terms of what is right or good. If one does bad, one expects others to do bad in return. Likewise, if one does good, one expects others to do good in return. This is the measure of what is just in society. If you take what is mine, I will likely either do harm to you or take back what’s mine and perhaps a little more to teach you a lesson. If you come up to me and punch me for no reason, it is understood that I can and will hit you back. If, however, you hit me because I expressed malice toward you (say I defamed your mother), then your action is deemed by virtue of the situation to be warranted (even if it is an expression of ill will toward me). In fact, man’s measure of his actions against the actions of others is not necessarily a measure of what is good, but rather a measure of what is just. We expect that God gauges our actions in the same way—that He will either reward us or punish us depending on our actions or manifestation of our intentions. We expect that we will suffer in hell or find pleasure in heaven based on how justly we lived, not necessarily by how good we lived.
But are we correct in assuming that God allows us the luxury of defining the actions of others in the same manner that He defines ours? Christ said that vengeance is God’s alone. In fact, Christ thought that if man places himself in the position of judge and executioner, that he is being vain and placing himself in an equal position to God and that he will therefore receive the same standard of judgment from God on the last day. This is the basis for many passages in the gospels. Meanwhile, Muhammad would state that punishment of wrongdoers and ridding society of evil is itself an expression of goodness and the will of God. Indeed, killing the murderers, adulterers, and those who turn against God; and maiming or otherwise penalizing those who break lesser commandments not only provides a deterrent for those who would do wrong, but also provides a means to reduce the population of sinners, thereby increasing the level of purity within a society. If you have dirty water, the only way to make it clean is by removing the dirt. How can one argue with this? However, isn’t this, in itself, an admittance of the end justifying the means? Doesn’t the West, along with its judicial systems, conduct itself by the same double standard, you may ask?
Actually, the goals proposed by the humanists and many Christians and by Western society in general proclaim that the inalienable rights of citizens denies the right of the state or judicial system to cut off indefinitely the rights of even sinners or evildoers. In fact, that most Western countries adhere to the declaration of human rights and do not enact capital punishment is morally justified in these terms because, logically, enacting good will is not only an ideal but also a responsibility that the state must attempt to promulgate. This proposal, that government has a duty to promote good will within its citizenry is central to Western theory of governance, especially that proposed by the social contract theory. Thus, Western governmental theory could be said to be more hopeful for man’s perfectibility and more trustful in man’s desire to enact good will, than any other system of government. What exactly is this good will? We may again be tempted to define this term, but first we must analyze what it is a government should do to promote good will, and what those limits necessarily are.
Man has often attempted to define what exists in the heart or mind by showing how this effects his actions. I may say that I hit you, because X—where X equals whatever justification I have for hitting you. However, the impulse that I have to hit you is almost necessarily brought about by a sinful thought or a desire for justice. If I hit you, then you will likely think that I either harbored unjustifiable ill will toward you or that I may have had my perceived “good” reasons for doing so. Nevertheless, my actions were brought about by inner thoughts and personal will. A court of law will attempt to gauge my level of guilt and therefore the appropriate punishment based on the situation and, consequently, my reasons for doing harm unto you. If a court sees that I’m justified, I will still be punished because wrongdoing is wrong no matter the circumstance (Western jurisprudence). However, Islamic and Jewish jurisprudence may not punish me at all and may see that my actions were entirely justified depending on the circumstances (say I hit my wife because she was being insolent). Both systems attempt to determine my inner thoughts or “reason” for committing ill will, but they have different definitions of the appropriate actions or reactions of individuals. Again, the Western governmental system’s primary goal is promoting good will in society, regardless of whether or not a situation or circumstance was tempting an individual to do otherwise. So, finally, what is good will?
Good will is essentially defined as a mutual respect for individual freedoms, with an understanding that freedoms are limited by the nature of man’s necessary interaction. A single man or woman could do anything he or she wanted if there were no God or no other person to wrong. If one thinks about it, individual freedom is necessarily limited only by the possible infringement of the rights of others. What are these rights? It’s almost cliché, but the rights of man are defined by social contract theorists as the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Man’s desire for justice is actually an expression of these ideals—that others respect his rights. Consequently, since the actions of people are the only true measure of their acceptance of the social contract, actions are the only matter addressed by the government. The government is not interested in inner thoughts or intentions (motivations), but rather is solely interested in promoting mutual respect for rights for all citizens regardless of these thoughts or intentions. Punishment may be lessened due to circumstances, but punishment will occur regardless. In effect, God will decide man’s adherence to Him and He will decide appropriate punishment or reward based on such; while the government and mankind in this world promotes good will in the interaction of society at large, and itself defines punishment for crimes against the contract (but the punishment must not permanently take away a citizen’s rights). Thus we leave heavenly jurisprudence to God, and define earthly jurisprudence by adherence to the social contract, or the acknowledgement of basic human rights for all. The promotion of good will necessarily treats all people equally and forms the basis for removal of any act of oppression, be it slavery or be it preferential treatment.
In the same manner by which the West has defined mutual respect for individuals in society, it has also attempted to define the freedoms and limits thereupon by nations in relation to one another. Government, if representing its constituency while promoting good will within its society, must—like the individual—respect other governments’ right to do the same. Actually, this idea forms the basis for the concept of sovereignty and nationhood to begin with. But, again, there is a social contract that is present between nations and between governments and the people—that if a nation or government fails to adhere to the social contract, there must be consequences. These consequences are limited by respect for humanity and for basic human rights for all. This is the reason that the West has attempted to curtail the effects of warfare on the enemy’s greater society. The offending government is the enemy due to its failure to adhere to the contract and is therefore the only “lawful” target of military intervention (international policing). This is an attempt by the West to decrease the level of wrongdoing in the defense of good will; in effect, it is an acknowledgement that bad is bad (killing for example) regardless of circumstance. However, the West has failed to agree on what appropriate responses are and to what degree a government has the right to oppress its constituency. Can we truly expect every society in the world to be free of tyranny, or every government to perfectly balance rights and responsibility of its constituency?
For instance, the UN agreed that Saddam Hussein did not have the right to kill or oppress whole segments of Iraqi society, but it failed to agree that anything should be done beyond permanent basing of international troops over-flying Iraqi airspace to ostensibly protect those citizens from harm. The US disagreed with the status quo, and elected to unilaterally conduct military operations to halt Hussein’s oppression by overthrowing his government and establishing a government that better represents the Western ideal of promoting good will in society regardless of religion or ethnicity. By in large, the US saw this as a necessity due to the perception that permanent basing of its troops in the region made it a de facto occupier and a target of international aggression.
Similarly, in the Sudan and in Bosnia, the West has defined the unlawful nature of a tyrannical government oppressing and killing whole segments of its society. In Bosnia it was Christians killing Muslims, while in Sudan it is Muslims killing non-Arab Muslims and Christians. The Western and, therefore, the UN response is the same, because both instances of government fail to recognize the social contract’s necessary respect for basic human rights for all. The same could be said for Rwanda several years ago. The willingness for some nations to devote troops to the cause is directly due to their adherence to the ideals professed in the social contract theory. The dichotomy of Muslim jurisprudence is readily evident. On the one hand, Muslims no doubt thought it right that people come to the aid of Muslims in Bosnia; while on the other hand, they feel that the UN interfering in the Sudan is an encroachment on sovereign rights of the state (or religion). The fact of the matter is that sovereignty, or mutual respect for statehood between states depends also upon the respect of the government for its constituency—that government necessarily has the obligation to respect its citizens and to uphold and promote good will in its society, regardless of the situation.
So what should the West do and what limits should the West have in its promoting respect for all people and in its promoting worldwide respect for human rights? Should military operations be used? If so, what situations necessitate the use of force? What limits are to be enacted upon the use of force? Unfortunately, these questions have yet to be clearly answered by the West, since there is no clear consistency. We have the ideals and the contract that most countries can agree upon, but we lack a clear standard by which we can levy action. Good will is universal, but the actions of mankind, including those who supposedly act according to God’s will, continue to err unabatedly.
One possible solution is defining appropriate actions in terms of individuals. Nearly everyone in the world believes that there is the right to self defense. If I am attacked, I have the right to protect myself. If threatened with deadly force, I have the right to inflict deadly force on my attacker. However, if I am unable to defend myself, I expect others to come to my aid, if able. Doesn’t an individual have a responsibility to at least attempt to stop a bad act from unfolding or to come to the aid of his neighbor? If a baby falls down a well, everyone agrees that people should help it; but if a man is beating his wife, not everyone in the world feels that it is a responsibility of society to come to her aid. To put it another way, since the police has the duty to respond to situations, we be shocked in a Western society to learn that the police did not respond in the event of a man beating his spouse? This is directly related to the Western view that evil or bad ought not to be done regardless of the circumstance. A response is compulsory should evil be perpetrated, regardless of the “reason” for committing it.
Likewise, social contract theorists also believe that if a government is oppressing its citizens or a segment of its constituency it is the responsibility of all citizens to forcefully remove that government from power. Therefore, coming to the aid of our brothers is necessary but should be tempered by our knowledge of what is good. Similarly, if a nation is acting in an evil manner toward its constituency (Sudan or Iraq) or is encroaching on another nation’s sovereignty, then it is actually the duty for humanity to come to the aid of the oppressed.
For these reasons, when Muhammad stated that it was a responsibility of Muslims to defend themselves against tyrannical acts committed by others, nearly any objective observer would agree that they had that right. So why does Islam disavow his enemy to hold themselves to the same standard? Why does Islam attempt to say that the West should not come to the aid of people when they are oppressed by Muslims? Quite frankly, this is because of the inherent double standard by which Muslims hold themselves in higher regard than other religions and other people.
Islam and in some cases Judaism cloud the matter of what is “right” considerably, because they both believe that God allows some instances of oppression to occur, and that He actually promotes it. They both state that parents have an obligation to discipline their children (one only has to observe undisciplined children to think this is necessary); they both state that a man should discipline his wife; they both state that there is nothing inherently wrong in ownership of slaves; they both state that it is not necessarily bad to attack an enemy even when not provoked. Islam goes one step further and states that it is a responsibility of Muslims to treat Jews and Christian as lesser peoples and that it is also “right” to kill or stamp out the atheists, pagans, or idol worshippers wherever they exist (Jews only conducted themselves in this manner within the “holy” land). Because of the nature of thinking that it is God’s will for some people to oppress others (Islam), the West is necessarily going to be at odds with Islam, and rightly so. Because the double standard is part and parcel to hypocrisy, and nearly any objective and logical observer would agree that it ought not to exist. What ought to be true is that if one demands respect, one must offer respect for others. This is the only fashion by which the social contract continues to be understood by all.
Therefore the Muslims have no legitimate reason, by objective standards, for opposing the UN peacekeeping mission in the Sudan, just as they had no reason to object to the UN in protecting Muslims in Bosnia—the same standard exists, because respect for all is maintained only by applying the same standard universally. I will respect your rights, but you have the duty to respect mine. What are those rights? They are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property ownership…plain and simple.
In the instance of Afghanistan’s constitution stating that they agree with the concept of universal human rights, but that such concepts mustn’t abridge Islamic law, it is evident that hypocrisy again exists. One legal concept defines people as equals and purports mankind to have unalienable rights, the other treats people differently and purports that rights of individuals ought to be abridged in certain circumstances, or that it is God’s will to oppress others—you cannot have it both ways, and in Afghanistan they feel that Islam trumps the social contract. Therefore the ability for Muslims to consider it right by God to commit evil depending on the circumstance continues in perpetuity. And due to Western attempts to limit action in response to wrongdoing, there is nothing but an exchange of words, a hope that one day the Muslims will come to a greater understanding of what God’s will, or good will, truly is.
You see, man’s ability to always do good unto others is only limited by the acts and intentions of others to do evil against you. That evil must only be done in defense or self preservation is itself an acknowledgement that evil is evil and good is good, regardless of the circumstance; because in all instances the right to life exists. Christ would have stated that these acts or intentions of others do not remove the guilt you have if you allow these things to justify an evil act. Therefore, a truly peaceful society and world can only exist if all nations and all people adhere to the social contract, or to state it differently, for all to adhere to the golden rule—do good to one another, as you’d prefer to have good done unto you. Slowly but surely, if man is to truly progress beyond barbarism and tyrannical rule, removal of the impulse to oppress the rights of others must first be acknowledged by all mankind. This is the ideal—the true enactment of God’s will in society. Is this possible? If God wills it so, nothing is impossible.
Muslims need a reformation. They need to achieve a greater understanding of what good will, or God’s will truly is for mankind. Only then will there be true benevolency in a Muslim government, and only then will free-thought allow the Muslim world to contribute to the betterment of all mankind.
May 5th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Eudaemon,
Thanks for taking your time and replying:)
First of all I advise you to go back your reply, and count the “we’s” there.( We aided, we provided, we thought, we saved.) If you’d do anything it will be for a good cause and you wont be adding it up or revising it as a prayer each time someone exposes the truth.
YOU assume you’re doing their people right, YOU assume you saved htem from communism, “extremism”, poverty.hmm. Its YOUR assumption:) let me get this right: Are you god to decide the destiny of people?
Hmmm, world domination maybe? *hint* *hint*. sucking out the good of these countries for your own good? *hint* *hint*
Did Iraqi’s ask for your occupation? Man, live and let live. You just bulge in peoples lives and assume its for the best. What kind of a mess are you doing there anyway? people are being killed daily. you call this “an achievment”? Quite a BLOODY one, I say:)
Aid? well hell yeah, the aid the U.S is providing for Israel is defiantely infinte! Building the wall thats against human rights and btw which the court of Lahai issued illegal was supported by millions by the U.S:) hmmm, calling that helping out? making hte lives of millions into a living hell? seperating families? villages? excuting THEIR LIVES?
You’re so living in double standards. Helping out people by breaking Human rights laws. Quiiiiiite ironic. Quite Ironic
and dont go telling me that this will stop the bombing attack on Israel. If it did, then why arent they stopping? Tel aviv recently???
Let me make this clear: You’re living in a big lie. A lie you started and funnily started believing. Helping out people? You arent helping out anybody but yourselves.
May 5th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Ohoud
You wrongly assume that the violence that is occuring is the fault of the Americans. The violence that’s occuring is at the hands of violent extremists. They are not freedom fighters–we are, and so are the majority of Iraqi citizens–many of whom have joined the fight with the American’s to ensure that people like Zarqawi don’t have a say in their personal lives. You lay blame where blame isn’t deserved. What America is doing is not world domination, if anything the US has done more to free people from domination than any other country on earth. Domination is what the Shia and Kurds experienced under Saddam Hussein (and many of the Sunni population as well). Domination is what the intellectuals and property owners have suffered at the hands of Communism wherever it has existed. Domination is what the Jews experienced at the hands of Nazism and Fascism. Domination is what the non-Arab Muslims and Christians are experiencing daily at the hands of Arab Muslims in Sudan. You don’t even understand the meaning of the word, evidently.
Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without tyranny–just as any country in the world would be. Communism has destroyed countless lives–read the Gulag Archipelego if you’d like to enlighten yourself to the dangers and toils of Communist thought. Read about how “great” Communism was in China under Mao–such as the forcible enslavement of groups of people, only because of thoughts in their heads. Read about the Great Leap Forward and how it destroyed peoples lives and starved hundreds of thousands of people. Read about the Cultural Revolution and how it prompted the Chinese youth to turn in their parents and loved ones and how it prompted the destruction of much of the Chinese identity. Read about North Korea–how almost the entire population is underfed and how a great number of people have resorted to cannibalism of the dead in order to survive. Read about how many North Koreans have attempted to escape into China and who’ve been forced to return back to North Korea where they were murdered for the embarrassment they caused the regime. Read about how the fat little dictator over there lavishes himself with the best wines and the best foods, while the vast majority of his people don’t have more than a handfull of rice to eat daily. You don’t even know what domination is.
Then, once you’ve enlightened yourself to what domination is…pick up some history books. Pick up a few books written about the great Western thinkers. Read about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Erasmus, Francis Bacon, Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Locke, and Nietsche. Then read about the numerous scientific discoveries–a product of free thought and a free people.
As I stated above, if you bothered to actually read the entire post, oppression is wrong. When a government forcibly oppresses people, it is the responsibility and duty of the people to remove that form of government. Removing a source of oppression is not domination and is not a double standard…by that argument, nearly every person in the world would still be living under oppressive monarchs, dictatorships, or some other form of tyrannical rule. Yes, removing oppressive regimes is helping people. Yes, pumping countless man hours and billions of dollars into a country is helping people. Yes, fighting those who would love to go back to the old ways of oppression is helping people. By what measure do you think it isn’t? The American people are helping themselves? Try telling that to the families of loved ones over there. Hell, try telling that to the majority of people in the US who don’t even think the Iraqi people are worth the help.
The big lie you propose that I believe is easily supported by facts and by the inherent truth proposed by the enlightenment thinkers. The lie that you believe is something else entirely. You unwittingly cast blame where blame is not deserved. Such as the US being responsible for Pol Pot or for Communist rule in Russia or Cuba or for the numerous times that the military has been used to THWART oppression and aggression. You are an intellectual stooge. You are the biggest friend the true oppressors of the world have. Keep believing your lies and mislabeling the pursuit of freedom as oppression…keep doing it, it makes you look all the more idiotic.
May 5th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
> I’m not sure what you’re talking about - kill 5 milion Americans?
Why not? The Iraqis should - no must - retaliate for the 500.000 children
the US killed by their deadly sanctions in the early 90’s.
Thus they have the right to kill 5.000.000 american kids.
This seems to be necessary, for the average american we find here only
understands the language of violence - of extreme violence.
May 5th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
> You wrongly assume that the violence that is occuring is the fault of the Americans.
The americans are the most brainwashed people on earth.
Orwell would find them hilarious.
May 5th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Retaliate for children killed by deadly sanctions? Are you serious? Ask yourself why those sanctions existed and you’ll understand that Saddam is the reason his people suffered, plain and simple. Hussein is to blame… Again, you don’t know where to cast blame and your only resulting hatred is directed to the Americans because you are biased and can’t see the forest for the trees.
As far as retaliation is concerned…you seem to think violence is the answer even though the US did not resort to violence in the first place. Implement all the sanctions agains the US you want, you’d only be hurting yourself, and you seem to know this so you’d rather kill American children. You are talking about the oppressive Americans and simultaneously calling for 5 million American children to be killed. You are insane.
May 5th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
No, the fascist scum of the earth killed more 500.000 innocent iraqi
childs - the judeo-christian master race itself dit it.
> You are talking about the oppressive Americans and simultaneously
> calling for 5 million American children to be killed. You are insane.
Not at all. The american killing machine - based on lies and brainwashing -
has to be stopped. If it’s necessary to kill 5.000.000 american children to
avoid, that the US kills another hundred thousand of innocent civilians in
Iraq or Iran, then it should be done. The live of each iraqi child is of a higher
value than that of 5.000.000 american children, because the americans killed
the iraqi childs deliberately without the slightest reason - just for fun.
A giant honour killing to demonstrate their supremacy.
It’s “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”.
You will know that.
May 5th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Again, you are completely insane–the value of a human life is equal no matter the race, creed, religion, sex, etc. Only people like you are unable to see that. “The live of each iraqi child is of a higher value than that of 5.000.000 american children”…indeed.
As far as “the American killing machine” is concerned, I’d like you to demonstrate numbers–show me the facts. You keep spouting numbers without providing the slightest proof.
If you call liberating people from tyranny oppression and then call the killing of millions of American children an “honour killing” you are insane. There is honour in fighting for freedom for all people, but there is none in “demonstrating supremacy” because such words demonstrate your desire for oppression over others. Face it, nutso–you are for oppression. You are for killing. You are for evil…remember that when you are burning in hell…
May 5th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
The only ones deliberately killing Iraqi civillians (children etc) are the ones who the “zionist” media calls fighters or militants. In reality they are Arab (not American) cold blooded murderers. They are also the most cowardly “fighters” on the planet. They are terrorists.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
> Again, you are completely insane the value of a human life is equal no
> matter the race, creed, religion, sex, etc.
Aah, then why did you kill 500.000 iraqi childs?
I’ll tell you - it’s because the judeo-christian master race considers
other people as Untermenschen whose life doesn’t count - as Mr. Albright
explained.
> Only people like you are unable to see that. “The live of each iraqi child
> is of a higher value than that of 5.000.000 american children” … indeed.
You disagree? But this is exactly what your compatriots said - roles
swapped of course.
> Ifd like you to demonstrate numbers show me the facts. -
> You keep spouting numbers without providing the slightest proof.
For 500.000 kids query the internet for the related UN-Report.
There you’ll find it.
> If you call liberating people from tyranny oppression
The americans have not liberated the Iraqis - their situation is worse now -
and you are not against tyranny, you are against tyrants that don’t accept
your orders.
So you keep Barak the stooge in power and toppled Saddam.
> and then call the killing of millions of American children an “honour kil-
> ling” you are insane.
You got it wrong.
To kill 500.000 Iraqi childs was an honour-killing.
As Ledeen said, the US has to smash little defenseless countries - including
their civilians - against a wall - remember Nicaragua or Grenada - as a
demonstration of strength to intimidate others and to feel like GOD.
Its part of the very specific american pride and honuor.
> There is honour in fighting for freedom for all people,
You mean, you are going to liberate the Palestinians from their evil supressor?
No? Then it’s a lie.
> Face it, nutso $(G!9 (Byou are for oppression. You are for killing.
Factually you - the US - killed hundred thousands of Iraqis for your
honour.
It’s not the way you want to suggest, that the Iraqis killed hundred
thousands of Americans - yet.
> You are for evil “remember that when you are burning in hell”
Being a nation superstitious killlers, YOU may once be burning in hell.
I will not, because I don’t believe in the tooth-fairy, the monkey-president
or a “supreme” being - a.k.a. GOD.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
> The only ones deliberately killing Iraqi civillians (children etc) are the
> ones who the “zionist” media calls fighters or militants.
We have witnesses en masse that saw american “soldiers” killing iraq.i
cicilians - sometimes with photos and - rare - videos.
I would call them terrorists, not “fighters or militants”.
> In reality they are Arab (not American) cold blooded murderers. They are
> also the most cowardly “fighters” on the planet. They are terrorists.
The most coward terrorists drop bombs from 30.000 feets on towns which have
no reasonable defense, start missiles from hundred of miles away or kill civ,
en masse via sanctions.
These terrorists are “americans”.
May 6th, 2006 at 12:03 am
How are they killing civilians with photos and rare videos? That’s quite a trick.
Plus, killing en masse with sanctions? Wow, the price of not doing business with the US is large indeed. We must be pretty damn valuable then, why would you want to blow us up again?
As far as the Palestinians…you obviously do not have your historical facts in order. The Palestinians have been the aggressor from the very beginning, along with the other Muslim oppressors who claim that Jews don’t have the right to exist or to live. The only reason that the country had to be partitioned by the Brits in the first place is because of the threat that the Palestinian anti-Jew hatred posed to the innocent Jewish civilians living in the region. And the only “claim” that the modern Palestinians have to the land that was taken as a result of war is the “claim” granted to them by the UN in the first place.
Along with your irrational hatred of the US, you harbor an irrational hatred of Israel. And you claim to be an athiest. So obviously you follow