0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:37 pm
Sistani's Fatwa on the New Government

Fatwa of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani on the New Government
trans. J. Cole



"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

From the office of his excellency Grand Ayatollah Sistani, may God extend his shadow.

Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of God.

Many of the believers have asked about his position toward the new Iraqi government, which was constituted yesterday through the efforts of Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, the envoy of the secretary general of the United Nations:



In His Name, May He be exalted.

His excellency the Sayyid had previously and repeatedly affirmed the necessity for the Iraqi government to possess a sovereignty that derives from free and honest elections in which the children of the Iraqi people participate in a general way.

There are many well known reasons for which elections were postponed--procrastination and delay, obstinacy and intimidation. The time fled, and the appointed date of 30 June approached, on which it was supposed that Iraqis would regain sovereignty over their country.

Thus, the process has become one of appointment, in order to form a new government, without achieving the legitimacy of having been elected. Moreover, it does not represent all slices of Iraqi society and all political forces in an appropriate way.

Even so, if this government hopes to establish its worthiness and probity and its unwavering determination to shoulder the immense burdens now facing it, it must:

1. Obtain a clear resolution from the United Nations Security Council on the return of complete sovereignty over their country to the Iraqis, unconstrained in any regard, whether political, economic, military, or security-related. Every effort must be made to efface all signs of occupation in every way.

2. Provision of security in every part of the country and putting an end to organized criminal activities, as well as all criminal actions.

3. Provision of public services to the citizens and reducing the effort necessary for them to pursue their everyday lives.

4. First-rate preparation for general elections, and keeping to the appointed date, which is at the beginning of the coming new year according to the Christian calendar, so that a national assembly can be formed that is not bound by any of the decisions issued in the shadow of the Occupation, including what they call the Law for the Administration of the Transitional State [i.e. the Interim Constitution].

The new government will never obtain popular acceptance save if it demonstrates through actual and practical steps that it is striving with earnestness and sincerity to fulfill the above mission. May God enable all to do as He wills and as pleases Him.

14 Rabi II, 1425
The Office of Sayyid Sistani"



There is now a printed text on the Web at Karbala News, which enabled me to make some final revisions at 2:43 pm EST.

posted by Juan @ 6/3/2004 04:43:53 PM
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:44 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20040603.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:52 pm
Great cartoon! LOL
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:58 pm
Regarding Gelisgesti's Post 723137

In response I must ask: What? Respectfully I need some interpretation or at least: is this good news or bad news for Iraqis?

JM
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 10:17 pm
JamesMorrison wrote:
Regarding Gelisgesti's Post 723137

In response I must ask: What? Respectfully I need some interpretation or at least: is this good news or bad news for Iraqis?

JM


Hi JM, I honestly don't see that it has to be either good or bad for anyone, just informational .... that is why it was posted without comment.
Why do you feel it must be one or the other?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 04:36 am
Iraq as a Failed State:
Report #1
Pre-war through September 2003

Download
Executive Summary with Recommendations
(PDF, 54k)

Complete Report
(PDF, 317k)
The Fund for Peace (FfP) is pleased to release its report Iraq as a Failed State: Report #1. This is the first in a series of six month reports by the FfP that will measure the effectiveness of US policies in the country in building sustainable security. The report concludes that the US invasion had an effect that went far beyond its original goal of regime change. It precipitated the final collapse of a state that had been deteriorating for years. This complete collapse, which surprised the administration, constitutes the gravest strategic miscalculation of the war.

Measuring progress since the invasion using twelve top conflict indicators, the FfP found that four have worsened since the war, three remained at about the same acutely high levels of tension, one improved substantially - though it could backslide - and four improved marginally.

The fundamental pre-war planning flaw was in not understanding how states fail, how far Iraq had deteriorated in this regard, and what would likely follow a military invasion. The security meltdown over the first six months of the occupation is a continuation of the persistent breakdown. Now it is responsibility of the US to rebuild that state. The current strategy - to fast-track the political transition - will not work because it measures success solely on the speed with which the ancien regime is replaced. It does not take into account the need to build the institutions through which elected leaders must govern.

It will take a minimum of two years, perhaps more, to get through the basics of reconstituting state institutions. But it can be done if a strategic redirection is made. Three immediate policy recommended are made concerning the economic package passed by Congress, the need for creating a wider Iraqi leadership pool, and the necessity to neutralize security threats from private militias.
The Mission of The Fund for Peace is to prevent war
& alleviate the conditions that cause war.
Copyright © 2000-2004, The Fund for Peace.

--------------------------------------------

Iraq as a Failed State:
Report #2
October 2003 through March 2004


The Fund for Peace is pleased to release its second report: Iraq as a Failed State: #2. The first report on Iraq, covering the first six months of the post-war period from April to September 2003, concluded that the U.S.-led invasion precipitated the collapse of the Iraqi state, which had been deteriorating for years. The second report concludes that instead of addressing the fundamental requirements of rebuilding the state, post-war policies undertaken by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) focused on completing the process of regime change, with an emphasis on de-Ba'athification, physical infrastructure reconstruction and incremental political transformation.

In the six months reviewed in this report, Iraq descended into what may be described as a failed state syndrome, a condition in which a number of trends reinforced each other to produce spiraling conflict that the country has little or no independent capacity to stop. A year after the invasion, Iraq is as shattered as it was the day that Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the main difference being that organized militias and terrorist groups have gained a foothold they did not have before.

Can sustainable security be achieved in Iraq? There may be a way forward to get through the next few months. But this does not necessarily mean that Iraq would be able to exercise full sovereignty and solve its own problems peacefully without an outside military or administrative presence over time. For that to occur, the state must be rebuilt. This requires, at a minimum, internal cooperation and cohesion among Iraqis themselves. The tipping point that will determine whether the country will move toward constitutionalism or chaos will be evident over the next six months. If the trends we are tracking improve over that period, then Iraq may have a chance of recovery.

For that chance to be fully realized, however, the U.S. and its allies will need to work urgently with the U.N. on a comprehensive and long-term international approach - not focused merely on the current political transition leading to elections and eventual international withdrawal - but on the entire spectrum of social, political, economic and security issues that must be addressed to nurture a transition. It must be a transition in which state institutions are capable of functioning on their own under the rule of law, the economy revives, and a civil society emerges. This approach will require more of everything - more money, more troops, more time, and more multilateral cooperation. That is the only path forward for sustainable security and there are no shortcuts.

The report lays out five possible scenarios for the future and states that several months leading up to Iraqi elections will be a "make-or-break time" for that country.

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 06:17 pm
WHEN I FIRST READ THIS AT THE AGE OF 14, IT SCARED THE HELL OUTAME.

Reading it again today, I laughed at my adolescent reaction.

LIFE Magazine: Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe

January 7, 1946

www.rushlimbaugh.eibnet.com
Quote:
We are in a cabin deep down below decks on a Navy ship jam-packed with troops that’s pitching and creaking its way across the Atlantic in a winter gale. There is a man in every bunk. There’s a man wedged into every corner. There’s a man in every chair. The air is dense with cigarette smoke and with the staleness of packed troops and sour wool.

“Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans,” puts in the lanky young captain in the upper berth, “but…”

“To hell with the Germans,” says the broad-shouldered dark lieutenant. “It’s what our boys have been doing that worries me.”

The lieutenant has been talking about the traffic in Army property, the leaking of gasoline into the black market in France and Belgium even while the fighting was going on, the way the Army kicks the civilians around, the looting.

“Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay,” interrupts a red-faced major.

The lieutenant comes out with his conclusion: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” You hear these two phrases again and again in about every bull session on the shop. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans, but….”

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.

You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.


The Skeptical French Press

Yet whenever we show a trace of positive leadership I found Europeans quite willing to follow our lead. The evening before Robert Jackson’s opening of the case for the prosecution in the Nurnberg trial, I talked to some correspondents from the French newspapers. They were polite but skeptical. They were willing enough to take part in a highly publicized act of vengeance against the enemy, but when you talked about the usefulness of writing a prohibition of aggressive war into the law of nations they laughed in your face. The night after Jackson’s nobly delivered and nobly worded speech I saw then all again. They were very much impressed. Their manner had even changed toward me personally as an American. Their sudden enthusiasm seemed to me typical of the almost neurotic craving for leadership of the European people struggling wearily for existence in the wintry ruins of their world.

The ruin this war has left in Europe can hardly be exaggerated. I can remember the years after the last war. Then, as soon as you got away from the military, all the little strands and pulleys that form the fabric of a society were still knitted together. Farmers took their crops to market. Money was a valid medium of exchange. Now the entire fabric of a million little routines has broken down. No on can think beyond food for today. Money is worthless. Cigarettes are used as a kind of lunatic travesty on a currency. If a man goes out to work he shops around to find the business that serves the best hot meal. The final pay-off is the situation reported from the Ruhr where the miners are fed at the pits so that they will not be able to take the food home to their families.

“Well, the Germans are to blame. Let them pay for it. It’s their fault,” you say. The trouble is that starving the Germans and throwing them out of their homes is only producing more areas of famine and collapse.

One section of the population of Europe looked to us for salvation and another looked to the Soviet Union. Wherever the people have endured either the American armies or the Russian armies both hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The British have won a slightly better reputation. The state of mind in Vienna is interesting because there the part of the population that was not actively Nazi was about equally divided. The wealthier classes looked to America, the workers to the Soviet Union.

The Russians came first. The Viennese tell you of the savagery of the Russian armies. They came like the ancient Mongol hordes out of the steppes, with the flimsiest supply. The people in the working-class districts had felt that when the Russians came that they at least would be spared. But not at all. In the working-class districts the tropes were allowed to rape and murder and loot at will. When victims complained, the Russians answered, “You are too well off to be workers. You are bourgeoisie.”

When Americans looted they took cameras and valuables but when the Russians looted they took everything. And they raped and killed. From the eastern frontiers a tide of refugees is seeping across Europe bringing a nightmare tale of helpless populations trampled underfoot. When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people. But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.

U.S. Administration a Poor Third

We know now the tragic results of the ineptitudes of the Peace of Versailles. The European system it set up was Utopia compared to the present tangle of snarling misery. The Russians at least are carrying out a logical plan for extending their system of control at whatever cost. The British show signs of recovering their good sense and their innate human decency. All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met. Thoughtful men can’t help remembering that this is a period in history when every political crime and every frivolous mistake in statesmanship has been paid for by the death of innocent people. The Germans built the Stalags; the Nazis are behind barbed wire now, but who will be next? Whenever you sit eating a good meal in the midst of a starving city in a handsome house requisitioned from some German, you find yourself wondering how it would feel to have a conqueror drinking out of your glasses. When you hear the tales of the brutalizing of women from the eastern frontier you think with a shudder of of those you love and cherish at home.

That we are one world is unfortunately a brutal truth. Punishing the German people indiscriminately for the sins of their leader may be justice, but it is not helping to restore the rule of civilization. The terrible lesson of the events of this year of victory is that what is happening to the bulk of Europe today can happen to American tomorrow.

In America we are still rich, we are still free to move from place to place and to talk to our friends without fear of the secret police. The time has come, for our own future security, to give the best we have to the world instead of the worst. So far as Europe is concerned, American leadership up to now has been obsessed with a fear of our own virtues. Winston Churchill expressed this state of mind brilliantly in a speech to his own people which applies even more accurately to the people of the U.S. “You must be prepared,” he warned them, “for further efforts of mind and body and further sacrifices to great causes, if you are not to fall back into the rut if inertia, the confusion of aim and the craven fear of being great.”



Rush wrote:
Getting Déjà Vu yet? Here's more from this issue of LIFE...


Quote:
The first winter of peace holds Europe in a deathly grip of cold, hunger and hopelessness. In the words of the London Sunday Observer: “Europe is threatened by a catastrophe this winter which has no precedent since the Black Death of 1348.”

These are still more than 25,000,000 homeless people milling about Europe. In Warsaw nearly 1,000,000 live in holes in the ground. Six million building were destroyed in Russia. Rumania has her worst drought of 50 years, and in Greece fuel supplies are terribly low because the Nazis, during their occupation, decimated the forests. In Italy the wheat harvest, which was a meager 3,450,000 tons in 1944, fell to an unendurable 1,304,000 tons in 1945. In France, food consumption per day averages 1,800 calories as compared with 3,000 calories in the U.S.

Germany is sinking even below the level of the countries she victimized. The German people are still better clothed than most of Europe because during the war they took the best of Europe’s clothing. But their food supply is below subsistence level. In the American zone they beg for the privilege of scraping U.S. army garbage cans. Infant mortality is already so high that a Berlin Quaker, quoted in the British press, predicted. “No child born in Germany in 1945 will survive. Only half the children aged less than 3 years will survive.”

On Germany, which plunged the Continent into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of all Europe. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations. Some Europeans blame Russia for callousness to misery in eastern Europe. But some also blame America because they expected so much more from her. On the following pages the distinguished novelist John Dos Passos, who has been abroad as LIFE correspondent, reports on Europe’s suffering and what it means for America.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 06:28 pm
Wow, ican. Thank you very much. I heard something similar on NPR today. I'll see if I can find it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 06:53 pm
Also at:
www.rushlimbaugh.com
are late 1945 articles clipped from the New York Times.

By the way, I didn't read the New York times when I was 14. Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 06:46 am
Quote:
Muzzling a Marine
The Pentagon orders the military spokesman featured in the acclaimed documentary "Control Room" not to talk -- and now he plans to walk.

...In "Control Room," it's clear that Rushing is committed to his duties -- early on, after debating Al Jazeera's Hassan Ibrahim about the existence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, he pointedly tells the camera, "I'm not going to back down from my point that we're here to help the Iraqi people" -- and his position as a press officer is described as presenting America's military operations to the worldwide media.

And while no one will confuse Rushing with an antiwar activist, some of his comments in the film are surprising in their candor.

At one point he says this of his media diet: "When I watch Al Jazeera, I can tell what they're showing and then I can tell what they're not showing by choice. Same thing when I watch Fox on the other end of the spectrum." Later on, while talking to Ibrahim about Arab perceptions of America, he says, "No American connects the Palestinian issue and this issue. They're completely different. They might as well be on other sides of the world as far as they're concerned."
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/06/04/control_room/index.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 08:27 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
... while talking to Ibrahim about Arab perceptions of America, he says, "No American connects the Palestinian issue and this issue. They're completely different. They might as well be on other sides of the world as far as they're concerned."


Well, I guess that makes me unamerican. I connected these two issues long before 9/11/2001. In fact I connected them before 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing. I am personally acquainted with a great many such unamericans. The connection became obvious to us when Saddam first announced his family awards program for the Palestinian families of suicide bombers.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 04:03 pm
ican

That's not what the fellow means. He's talking about Arab perceptions of America being influenced by America's unyielding support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and oppression of the people there. That's probably the key element in Arab rage, but the fellow is suggesting that the American media doesn't show much understanding of this factor.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 04:13 pm


New Iraqi PM details security arrangement to U.N.The Associated Press
Updated: 10:51 a.m. ET June 05, 2004PARIS
- Secretary of State Colin Powell said Saturday that Iraq's new prime minister has written a detailed letter to members of the U.N. Security Council spelling out the relationship between the new Iraq interim government and U.S.-led military forces.

The letter from Iyad Allawi addresses one of the thorniest issues in the June 30 handover of authority to an Iraqi government. President Bush has said the new government will have full sovereignty, but the United States plans to retain command of its military forces in the country.

Powell, briefing reporters aboard Air Force One, said Allawi's letter proposes setting up Iraqi committees that will monitor and work closely with U.S.-led coalition forces throughout the nation.

It makes clear that Iraq will have jurisdiction over its own military forces, but not that of other nations, including the United States, said Powell, who was accompanying Bush on a trip from Rome to Paris.

*"Every nation retains sovereignty over their own forces," he said.

U.S.-led coalition forces will keep the new Iraqi military committees posted on what they are doing and planning, including giving a heads-up on "sensitive operations," he said.

If there are disagreements, they will be "taken up to a higher level," Powell said.


The 30-member Iraq interim government was named on June 1. Click below for the key members:
• Prime Minister Iyad Allawi
• President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer
• Vice President Ibrahim al-Jaafari
• Vice President Rowsch Shaways
• Deputy Prime Minister for National Security Affairs Barham Saleh
• Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari
• Interior Minister Falah Hassan
• Finance Minister Adil Abdel-Mahdi
• Oil Minister Thamir Ghadbhan
• Justice Minister Malik Dohan al-Hassan

Reuters
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi
U.S.- backed Shiite Muslim with military and CIA connections. His power base, the Iraqi National Accord, made up largely of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party and former military men, stresses secularism and counts Sunnis and Shiites among its members.
--------
Seems to be going very well.
*No nation gives over their troops to another country. The oath taken by the troops would prevent that. All in all, I can't reconcile criticism with the incredible progress acheived thus far.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 04:20 pm
Quote:
Iraqi PM: 'No more attacks on US troops'
By Katarina Kratovac in Baghdad
06 June 2004

Iraq's new leader called for a halt to attacks on foreign troops yesterday as a roadside bomb killed an American soldier and wounded three others in the second fatal attack on US forces in the capital in as many days.

Troops blocked off the blast sitein east Baghdad. An attack in the same area on Friday killed five Americans and wounded five others.

Iyad Allawi, Iraq's new Prime Minister, whose administration will take sovereignty after 30 June, called, in his first televised address to the nation, for a halt to attacks on Americans and other foreign soldiers, saying their presence would be needed to help the sovereign leadership improve security.

"The targeting of the multinational forces under the leadership of the United States to force them to leave Iraq would inflict a major disaster on Iraq, especially before the completion of the building of security and military institutions," Mr Allawi said.

Violence seemed to be abating around Najaf and Kufa, two months after the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr launched an uprising in the south. Under a deal between Shia leaders and Mr Sadr, his Mehdi Army militia is to pull back from the Islamic shrines in the twin cities, said Najaf's governor, Adnan al-Zurufi.

US forces also agreed to stay away from the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf and the Kufa mosque where Mr Sadr preaches to give Iraqi security a chance to end the standoff.
Source




Quote:
Now it's up to them?
Iraq's new leaders need to show they are credible and can pave the way for democratic elections

Interesting article in USNews
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 04:39 pm
Now there is a voice of Iraq, speaking to them factually!!! They don't have to rely on some crackpot in a mosque or propaganda.

It will be incredible, watching them adapt to getting information, not tainted with factional biases. (Or maybe not tainted with the SAME factional bias...)

In time, they are going to be thrilled with their power, and their ability to hear a different voice. I hope Allawi holds daily Press Briefings--or at least very often--so the people can get more than what they've been getting.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 02:36 pm
blatham wrote:
ican

That's not what the fellow means. He's talking about Arab perceptions of America being influenced by America's unyielding support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and oppression of the people there. That's probably the key element in Arab rage, but the fellow is suggesting that the American media doesn't show much understanding of this factor.


America is providing unyielding support of the existence of Israel in Palestine. America has provided that support since 1948. I hope most Americans understand that. Starting in 1920 the arabs in Palestine began murdering and maiming jews in Palestine. They did this out of their own self-induced bigoted alarm over the increasing number of Jews immigrating to Palestine. Subsequently, the Palestinian Jews began killing or injuring Palestinian Arabs in self-defense. Big surprise! The Jews actually had the audacity to fight back! Shocked

Nothing the British occupiers or the UN did stopped that continuing carnage which could have easily been stopped by the Palestinian Arabs choosing to solve their perception of the jewish immigrant problem some other way.

Even now this problem could be solved without further bloodsed simply by the Palestinian Arabs ceasing their TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murder and Maiming) of the Palestinian Jews. Palestine never was the exclusive property of the Palestinian Arabs any more than it was the exclusive property of the Palestinian Jews. Until the Palestinian Arabs face and come to grips with that reality they will continue to be as dependent on others for their survival as are the Palestinian Jews.

The oppression currently being suffered by the Palestinian Arabs at the hands of the Palestinian Jews who are increasingly resorting to pre-emptive defense of themselves, is caused by maniacal Palestinian Arabs inflicting upon themselves and other Palestinian Arabs adherence to a malignant, degenerative and bigoted doctrine.

While I cannot speak for the American media, I think the maniacal Palestinian Arabs are getting what they are paying for and foisting same on the rest of the Palestinian Arabs. It is the perpetrator of murder who is guilty of murder and not the would-be victim acting in self-defense. Get over it! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 05:05 pm
The Europeans went in to Palestine with the attitude of the racist, bigoted colonizers of their time, and the prejudiced idea that "this is our land."

Ahad Ha'Am, a liberal Russian Jewish thinker and a leading Eastern European Jewish essayist, who visited Palestine in 1891 for three months wrote in his essay of the same year, "Truth from Eretz Yisrael:"

"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules." 'Ahad Ha'Am warned: "We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside."

It's disingenuous to say "the Arabs started it."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 06:33 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
The Europeans went in to Palestine with the attitude of the racist, bigoted colonizers of their time, and the prejudiced idea that "this is our land."

The Jews did not go "in to Palestine with the attitude of the racist, bigoted colonizers of their time, and the prejudiced idea that 'this is our land'." That is a flagrant maniacal falsity. The Jews went into Palestine with the simple desire to return to their roots. Yes, some Jews made the claim "this is our land" as did some Christians and some Arabs. But those few did not and do not represent all Europeans, or all Jews or all Christians or all Arabs. The great majority of Jews were simply trying to escape from tyranny to what they hoped would be a refuge.

InfraBlue wrote:
Ahad Ha'Am, a liberal Russian Jewish thinker and a leading Eastern European Jewish essayist, who visited Palestine in 1891 for three months wrote in his essay of the same year, "Truth from Eretz Yisrael:"


So you think one man's conclusions from a 3 month visit in 1891 is an the authoritative source for what caused the 1920 TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murders and Maimings) by the Palestinian Arabs of the Palestinian Jews. Bunk! The whole of Palestine became a Mandate of the British in 1918. From that point on until 1948 (or if you like, up until the present day), Palestine was/is not owned by either Arab or Jew.

InfraBlue wrote:
It's disingenuous to say "the Arabs started it."

It's not disingenuous; it is the truth. Worse it is the Palestinian Arabs who have not only started the TMM, it is the Palestinian Arabs who have continued the TMM. More importantly, it is the Palestinian Arabs who can all by themselves end the TMM any time they decide to end it. The longer the Palestinian Arabs continue the TMM the longer the Palestinian Arabs will live in misery.

One definition of insanity is: "continue doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result each time."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 07:14 pm
A THEORY

The maniacal right and the maniacal left are equal malignancies of the human mind.

It use to be adequate to describe the maniacal right as consisting of those who believed in a pure meritocracy: those who believed all wealth should be destributed by the free market according to merit.

It use to be adequate to describe the maniacal left as consisting of those who believed in pure egalitarianism: those who believed all wealth should be destributed uniformly by government according to need.

Now I think that the maniacal right is more accurately characterized as maniacal theists, while the maniacal left is more accurately characterized as maniacal secularists. In the 20th century each group is virtually tied for the number of millions they are responsible for murdering. Nazism and Talibanism are examples of the malignant thinking of the maniacal right. Communism and Baathism are examples of the malignant thinking of the maniacal left.

I think the maniacal left and the maniacal right are actually best characterized as simply maniacs.

Currently the maniacs have greater control over the Democratic Party than they do over the Republican Party. However, once either candidate wins in November, the maniacs will seek to stifle the would be accomplishments of the winner. Solution? Let's cause a pox on all of the maniacs! Failing that, we'll have to defend ourselves against the damnable buggers forever [or the die-out of our species; whichever comes first]!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 07:30 pm
Who's confused?
*************
In answer to the question, "What would you say is the most important accomplishment of the Iraq war?", the New York Times/CBS News Poll of
23-27 April recorded the following results: capturing Hussein (57%), liberating Iraqis (5%), spreading democracy (4%), fighting terrorists (5%), other (15%), don't know or don't care (14%)

Billions of dollars and thousands of unnecessary deaths, just to capture one miserable man. Hope it was worth it! (This might explain such blind
fanaticism, however: the same poll found that almost a third of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001. Clever Dick Cheney certainly knows how to spread a lie.)

But wait! There is more ...

Just one in five Americans reckons their president is telling the truth, less than a third think the Bush administration has a clear plan for rebuilding Iraq, and more than half feel things have "pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track". Yet more than half also "strongly favor" Bush as president.

Fewer than one in five believes that Bush's "war on terror" has reduced the threat of terrorism, but 60 percent approve of the way he is handling the
campaign against terrorism.

Go figure!



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/29POLL.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 05:08:12