Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (11360)	2/7/2002 5:33:08 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

What about the original Zionist ideas, dating back to the early 1900s, which proposed clearing all Arabs out of Palestine>>> Truth revealed: A Complex Issue presented through the eyes of the Giants of History Thomas/Shachak finally break-it to the World: "It was when these notions leaked out, along with the Zionist boycott of Arab goods and labor, that Jewish-Arab relations were destroyed." PS How about Ottomans? There were no Palestinian Arab term? What Shachak sez about Ottomans? LOL!

To: Thomas M. who wrote (11360)	2/7/2002 6:30:50 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

Which version is correct? members.tripod.com Kaab Al-Ashraf was a Jew. He used to insult Muslims, and especially Muslim women. He had been later killed by a Muslim, through the permission of the Noble Prophet. This account is also present in Sahih Al-Bukhari as well as the thee earliest Sirah of the Noble Prophet, Sirah Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq. The following is the account in my words: The Prophet asked who would get rid of Kaab for him. A Muslim man responded that he would. Sadly, the Muslim who agreed with the Prophet, did not eat for three days (except for that which was required). When this was informed to the Prophet, the Prophet asked him the reason. The man told him that he had taken a responsibility (to kill Kaab) which he could not handle. So the Muslim asked the Prophet's permission to tell lies, or to deceive Kaab. The Prophet gave him the permission. The Muslim went to Kaab, said something deceptive, and made him come out of his house and then killed him. The attack which is raised by Anti-Islamics here is that the Prophet gave another man do the filthy work and even gave him the permission to lie. I quote Ibn Ishaq's Sirah, which was compiled decades before Sahih Al-Bukhari: The apostle said-according to what Abdullah b. Al-Mughith told me-"Who will get rid me of Ibnul-Ashraf?" Muhammad b. Maslama, a brother of B. 'Abdu'l-Ashlal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." He said, "So so if you can." [stuff deleted but is won't change the meaning, trust me] He said, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter." Now, quoting Sahih Al-Bukhari: No need to quote. Except for "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter," this report mentions that the Prophet gave permission to tell lies by saying, "You may have so." Please note the major difference in these two versions

To: Thomas M. who wrote (11360)	2/7/2002 6:39:18 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

Contrary to the excellent rule of getting to the point immediately, I must begin this article with a personal introduction. The author of these lines is considered to be an enemy of the Arabs, a proponent of their expulsion, etc. This is not true. My emotional relationship to the Arabs is the same as it is to all other peoples – polite indifference. My political relationship is characterized by two principles. First: the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine is absolutely impossible in any form. There will always be two peoples in Palestine. Second: I am proud to have been a member of that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This depends, not on our relationship with the Arabs, but exclusively on the Arabs’ relationship to Zionism. marxists.de All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. I am optimistic that they will indeed be granted satisfactory assurances and that both peoples, like good neighbors, can then live in peace. But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an agreement now.