Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Translating what they say in Arabic is "causing problems"?" So you tacitly admit that MEMRI is faking its "non partisan" stance. The problem with only listening to the translations of the Israelis is that even if they translate truthfully, which I doubt, (Or did "G-d" allot them only a single lie, which they used in order to claim to be non partisan?) they leave out the parts that are not in the favor of whatever point it is that they are trying to prove. We might as well listen to only one side's presentation of evidence at a trial.
The impression I have is that the Israelis are trying to show to the world that the Palestinians (and Arabs or even Moslems in general) are animals who can't be trusted. For example:
Carl, one of the sticky points I still take away from these verses of Quran is that while the faithful should honor their treaties while they last, it is not permitted to make permanent treaties with the infidel. #reply-16548603 This is not true. See #reply-16548806
At the same time, the Palestinians are trying to prove to the world that the Israelis are animals who can't be trusted. Does this mean that both sides are inhuman butchers? Of course not, countries that are at war always say that kind of crap about each other. You should read what the US wrote about Britain in 1812.
20 years ago I was in support of Israel over the Arabs. But my views have shifted over the years. Now I think that the US should follow the European lead and wash its hands of the whole thing. Certainly listening to the rantings of one side which is trying to dehumanize the other in order to justify its own butchery is not going to bring us to an understanding of how to eliminate the conflict.
In your hatred, you're unable to see the symmetry that is obvious to those of us who don't have ties to either party.
Re: "This is in our interests much more than Israel's." Then why are you quoting Israeli disinformation websites?
Re: "We are the ones who have seen our power diminish and Al Quaeda rise due to our failure in Iraq." While Saddam's ability to retain power in the face of US bombing probably did help Al Qaeda's ability to recruit (based on the resulting belief that the US power was limited), this doesn't exactly give the US an opening to invade Iraq. If it did, we could attack China as well, for instance.
You keep ignoring the fact that Iraq has little to do with the fundamentalist Islamic Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia has more to do with Al Qaeda, and they're an ally. When you were suggesting that the US should turn against Saudi Arabia you were making more sense, but because of the power realities in the area, that isn't going to happen. The US and Saudi Arabia are natural allies for a bunch of complicated reasons, most of them having to do with money.
If there are any ties in Iraq to Al Qaeda, it's likely in Kurdistan, where Al Qaeda is organizing areas where the US has kept the Iraqis out:
“Your brothers and colleagues for many years are busy with preparing themselves for Jihad (Holy War) in this area both monetarily and morally. We have achieved this task by opening training camps, Islamic education camps, and the preparation of necessary weapons and for this Holy purpose. After the people realize the area needs protection and the preservation of Islam, we must make a tough and holy stand against the blasphemous secularist political, social and cultural institutions. They seeking to conquer and exploit the Muslims of Kurdistan, thus the dirty Jews and Christians seek the destruction of Islam in Kurdistan.”
kurdmedia.com
Also see:
Anxiety ripples through Iraq
Nicole Pope, MSNBC, October 4, 2001
...
The Jund al Islam, said to have some 400 troops armed with Katyusha rockets, mortars and artillery pieces, appears to be an alliance of splinter groups that defected from the less radical Islamic Movement of Kurdistan.
Iraqi Kurds believe Iran could have tolerated, or even encouraged, such a group to promote instability in the back yard of its greatest enemy, Saddam.
“Only a dozen of the Jund al Islam fighters are Arabs or Afghans,” says a KDP official, suggesting the rest were Kurdish zealots fighting for bin Laden’s vision of jihad, or holy war. “In the past, another Islamic group was found to be responsible for attacks against hairdressing salons and restaurants. We arrested at least one Arab who was trained by Osama bin Laden.”
...
msnbc.com
There's only one word for the situation in Iraq. It's a "mess". But it's a fact that the US' no fly zone contributed to the making of that mess. It's also a fact that Al Qaeda is not fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein. The fact is that they see his as a "blasphemous secularist" regime. Saddam is a natural ally against the Islamic fundamentalists. If the Islamic Fundies truly are the next "Great Satan" that the US has to defeat, it's likely that we'll find a way to get along with Saddam, or whoever is running secular Iraq.
If the US really wants to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq, the easy way to do it is to quietly eliminate the "no fly" zones. Of course the Kurds, trying to use the US as a hammer (the same way every little group in the world including the Palestinians and Israel do), will undoubtedly attempt to curry US favor by showing themselves to be against terrorism. But I'm having some difficulty finding references to Al Qaeda in Kurdistan that predate September 11th. The few links that may exist are buried under the tons of stuff that's hit the web since then. I wish Google had a search feature that allowed you to only bring up old pages.
-- Carl |
