Questioning the Loyalty of US Palestinians....chilling. [Archive]

L@mplighterM

05-14-2002, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Gatorade
On the flip side of this, I haven’t seen that many Jews in the US publicly support Israel as much as I thought they would. There are the radio talk show types who do and people like Alan Derchowitz, but the Hollywood crowd has mostly been silent. I hear more public support to Israel coming from religious conservatives people than from Jews themselves.

I think there’s a lot of support from the Jewish Community in the United States and elsewhere for Israel.

I don’t really see the article as one where up to third generation Palestinians living in the US support a negotiated settlement in the ME. My understanding is that Arabs have been steadfast in negotiated settlements. I see the article as young misguided individuals supporting terrorism against innocent unarmed civilians. All people should be against terrorism no matter where they live.

The same mentality can be found among third generation Muslims residing throughout the west. One would think that they would have become westernized to the point where strong condemnation against suicide attacks would be coming from them.

Evidently that isn’t the case throughout the world. I would certainly think that these same individuals would support bin Laden and the likes. So in effect what were left with is individual’s throughout the world that supports the destruction of western civilization.

I for one cannot differentiate between any of the Islamic Fundamentalist organizations whatever their name they are one of the same.

Vic

05-14-2002, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
The same mentality can be found among third generation Muslims residing throughout the west. One would think that they would have become westernized to the point where strong condemnation against suicide attacks would be coming from them.

Evidently that isn’t the case throughout the world. I would certainly think that these same individuals would support bin Laden and the likes. So in effect what were left with is individual’s throughout the world that supports the destruction of western civilization.

I for one cannot differentiate between any of the Islamic Fundamentalist organizations whatever their name they are one of the same.
Just for the sake of precision: a supporter of "suicide attacks" (or any other attacks on Israelis) is not necessarily an islamic fundamentalist. The Fatah itself doesn't fall in this category.

L@mplighterM

05-14-2002, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Vic

Just for the sake of precision: a supporter of "suicide attacks" (or any other attacks on Israelis) is not necessarily an islamic fundamentalist. The Fatah itself doesn't fall in this category.

Right or wrong I see the Fatah as a branch of Islamic Fundamentalist groups. It may be that it’s generally not viewed as such but I don’t care to see it that way.

Arafat is in my books an Islamic Fundamentalist in the closet and he set it up. I’d settle for calling the Fatah a quasi-military Islamic Fundamentalist force that keeps the balance between the Islamic Fundamentalist groups.

JustPat

05-14-2002, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Vic A victim. Period. An American of Palestinian decent, third generation in the US, what is he a victim of? Here is a subculture that continues to build an image of hatred in its children around the world. These children will be the ones to go on funding this lunacy for decades. Who knows which of them will "take it to the Americans." And to think, we have to support their right to be bigots and pay to have them voice it on NPR! :rolleyes:

Mediocrates

05-15-2002, 06:09 AM

I'm sorry if my somewhat rhetorical question was unclear. What I meant was, what affinity does one attach to someone who is a US citizen, third generation from a background that has no nation, no language, no culture, no religion, no history that one could reasonably call one's own or unique or nameable in any distinct way. All over the world diaspora groups from Jews to Armenians to Tamils who claim some distinct affinity have at least something to back that up. Or barring that they have some bizarre melange of left wing politics and history like the Peruvian Shining Path, or they're simply criminals like the Columbian narco terrorists and make no other claim.

The question you have to ask yourself is, what is the basis of Palestinian action. I submit that things here, like most things in life are simpler than they look and Palestinian claims and action are firmly grounded in nothing more sophisticated than power and control. Palestinians all over the mid east are held in untermenchen status by their own Arab brethren yet they don't rebel? Why is that. Because they know from experience that the response would be and has been utter violent fury. The only party who's not willing to extinguish them completely is the Jewish state. So to war they go with the Jews in the faint hope that fighting someone who seeks only parity will lend to the PLO cause some legitimacy. This is an of itself is the agenda that keeps the PLO at its work.

JustPat

05-15-2002, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates what affinity does one attach to someone who is a US citizen, third generation from a background that has no nation, no language, no culture, no religion, no history that one could reasonably call one's own or unique or nameable in any distinct way. ...
The question you have to ask yourself is, what is the basis of Palestinian action. ... Personally, this is no different to me than what the Black community (I think that is the current classification) has brought to America, only with a lot less violence. My heritage is Irish/Jewish/English/?????. I am an American, born and raised. Though I appreciate my heritage, I cannot make demands of the Government based on that heritage.
The "Native American" has a much great, more legitimate claim to reparations and restitution, but little is heard from that community. Perhaps the answer to the Palestinian problem is to put them on"reservations" and let them be isolated into oblivian.

Vic

05-15-2002, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by JustPat
An American of Palestinian decent, third generation in the US, what is he a victim of?
He obviously wants to perceive himself as one. Maybe it's a sort of adolescent thing about being someone special, quite out of the ordinary?

JustPat

05-15-2002, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Vic

He obviously wants to perceive himself as one. Maybe it's a sort of adolescent thing about being someone special, quite out of the ordinary? Could be, my 16 year old daughter has the same delusions. :D

Vic

05-15-2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by JustPat
Could be, my 16 year old daughter has the same delusions. :D
And now imagine her being fed the kind of propaganda the Palestinian kids are subjected to. What would be the result?

I wonder why no one mentions child abuse in this context.

Vic

05-15-2002, 10:45 AM

Israel holds American for involvement in terror activity

By Amos Harel, Ha'aretz Correspondent

20:46 15/05/2002

An American citizen has been arrested in Israel on suspicion of being a member of and raising money for a terrorist organization. Dr. Riad Abed al-Karim, 33, was arrested upon his arrival at Ben- Gurion International Airport on May 5.

The Tel Aviv District Court partially lifted the gag order imposed on the affair on Wednesday.

Al-Karim is suspected of being a senior activist in the Holy Land Foundation, which was declared illegal by U.S. President George W. Bush in December in light of information indicating that it had raised funds in America for Hamas's terror activity. Israel declared the organization illegal in 1997. Al-Karim was remanded Wednesday for another seven days.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=164573

takeo

05-15-2002, 08:30 PM

Why should a Palestinian-American be loyal to Israel?
why is expressing extremist palestinian views more anti-american or not coresponding to American ethics than expressing extremist pro-israeli views?

NewsGuy

05-15-2002, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by takeo
Why should a Palestinian-American be loyal to Israel?
why is expressing extremist palestinian views more anti-american or not coresponding to American ethics than expressing extremist pro-israeli views?
A Palestinian-American need not be loyal to Israel, but he better not be caught in Israel trying to tranfer funds intended to be used by Palestinian terrorists to mass murder Israelis. That would constitute extremely bad manners and sheer stupidity for a guest of the state of Israel.

As for the second part of your comment, extremist Israelis want to build their homes and raise their families in the Jewish homeland. This doesn't conflict with American values.

On the other hand, extremist Arabs murdered 3,000 Americans on 9-11, which definitely conflicts with American ethics, to say the very least. And also, Hamas is on the U.S. list of terrorist groups, which prohibits an American citizen from belonging to the group or funding the group.

takeo

05-15-2002, 09:33 PM

OK, i agree, but what about israeli people who try to raise money for the colonies in the US? (which are illegal according to the US)
The ones responsible for 9/11 are no Palestinians. So you can't blame american palestinians for this. By expressing their views against the occupation of israel they are not more or less anti-american or in conflict with American ethics than people who express their support for the Israeli policy (including the illegal occupation and settlement, condamned by the US).

JustPat

05-15-2002, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by takeo Why should a Palestinian-American be loyal to Israel? Why should he be loyal to the Palestinians?

Originally posted by takeo why is expressing extremist palestinian views more anti-american or not coresponding to American ethics than expressing extremist pro-israeli views? Let's see, American citizen that is extremely pro-terrorist vs. American citizen that is extremely pro-ally. Can't imagine why people would have a problem with the bedfellow of a terrorist. Friend of yours?

takeo

05-15-2002, 09:51 PM

America is a free country, everyone should have the right to express its own opinion, independant of who is US-ally or not.
By the way the US-government has never spoken of the Palestinian uprising in terms of "terrorist", only about some extremist factions who murder civilians.
So if someone criticise the SA-regime, he is unethical because SA is an ally of the US???
By the way the US cooperates with the PA as well and is not always an israeli ally.

why should a Palestinian american support Palestine?
why should an American Jew with even less links to the middle East support Israel?

i think by the way that many people with double nationality can be a potential problem for the US, what if there will be a rift between israel and the US, for whom will they choose?
of course this is true for Palestinian Americans, Mexican americans, etc. as well.

cerulean

05-15-2002, 09:56 PM

Immigration policy should be made with the potential for possible disasters in mind. Allowing persons who hold these political beliefs into the United States (or other country) is asking for internal terrorism. It's a stupid thing to do. This program provides a fine example.

The Palestinian-Americans expressing these opinions are certainly taking full advantage of US free speech rules and they seem to have no fear for their safety in doing so. It's perfectly within the rights of other Americans to condemn them for their views, even if they have the right to express them.

JustPat

05-15-2002, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by takeo America is a free country, everyone should have the right to express its own opinion, independant of who is US-ally or not.And the beauty of it is ... WE DO! Youngsters like yourself are more than welcome to express themselves in any forum they choose. When they choose to side with our enemies in the "War on Terror" they show themselves to be traitors and should be handled accordingly. I think we used to shoot them. Now we send them to a Carribean Holiday.
Originally posted by takeo By the way the US-government has never spoken of the Palestinian uprising in terms of "terrorist", only about some extremist factions who murder civilians. How right you are. Arafat, on the other hand, has been a known terrorist for more than half my lifetime. His current position not withstanding, he has not yet proven to be a good faith negotiator for peace. I think we can make room for him on the next Carribean Cruise. Or, perhaps, we can send him a cruise of his own. I hear Kadafi had a real change of heart after his visitation.
Originally posted by takeo So if someone criticise the SA-regime, he is unethical because SA is an ally of the US??? Ah the rub. How do you protect your strategic interests when it requires you to be the whore of a terror support network. The US will eventually pay for this I am sure.
Originally posted by takeo By the way the US cooperates with the PA as well and is not always an israeli ally.How true, how sad. No wonder ther is mixed support for US policy. It is difficult to deal with a two-faced ally. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Originally posted by takeo why should a Palestinian american support Palestine? why should an American Jew with even less links to the middle East support Israel?
i think by the way that many people with double nationality can be a potential problem for the US, what if there will be a rift between israel and the US, for whom will they choose?
of course this is true for Palestinian Americans, Mexican americans, etc. as well. And thus the importance of the Rule of Law, something the Palestinians do not have.

JustPat

05-15-2002, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by cerulean
The Palestinian-Americans expressing these opinions are certainly taking full advantage of US free speech rules and they seem to have no fear for their safety in doing so. It's perfectly within the rights of other Americans to condemn them for their views, even if they have the right to express them. The beauty of the American Society. Can the Paslestinians voice their heart with such freedom? Sure, if they don't mind a diet high in heavy metals and heavy handedness.

takeo

05-18-2002, 03:44 AM

yes, palestinians can not voice freely their opinion, they have been occupied for 25 years without any constitutional system installed by its occupier. People have been persecuted for 25 years for expressing their opinion, BY ISRAEL.
The PA has not yet shot someone for expressing his opinion, only for active collaboration with Israel.

"How right you are. Arafat, on the other hand, has been a known terrorist for more than half my lifetime. His current position not withstanding, he has not yet proven to be a good faith negotiator for peace. I think we can make room for him on the next Carribean Cruise. Or, perhaps, we can send him a cruise of his own. I hear Kadafi had a real change of heart after his visitation. "

sharon is a well-known war-criminal for more than half of my life-time, he has not yet prooven either to be a good negociator for peace, nor has his party-member Netanyahu.
I think the Palestinians can send him to HELL, as they did with his extremist collegue Zeevi.
arafat has fought israeli occupation, but without using violence against civilians as sharon did.

Yes, not Kadafi but his daughter and many more innocent people suffered from this terrorist attack on Lybia, for which Lybia never retaliated.

"Ah the rub. How do you protect your strategic interests when it requires you to be the whore of a terror support network. The US will eventually pay for this I am sure.
"

the US is good at supportering dictatorships worldwide, indeed it already payed for supporting fundamentalism in SA and Afghanistan the 11th/9/2001.

"And thus the importance of the Rule of Law, something the Palestinians do not have"

Of course they haven't they are still unlawfully occupied by israel.
they can only have a rule of law when the occupation ends and palestine will become an independant state.

"Immigration policy should be made with the potential for possible disasters in mind. Allowing persons who hold these political beliefs into the United States (or other country) is asking for internal terrorism. It's a stupid thing to do. This program provides a fine example. "

Well, you can not know someones political convicions before allowing him into the country.
so you would also oppose the immigration of ultra-zionist colonisers with extreme views regarding the palestinians, who might be a danger for american security (as some jewish extremists tried to blow up american mosques)?

Morpheus

05-18-2002, 04:00 AM

US is in very difficult position here.

The pro-Israeli voices :

The Israeli lobby is very powerful in the US. Also, the average American supports Israel, as he's misinformed and thinks that the Palestinians are immediatelly related to 9-11 and terrorism. So, if it would be up to the US, they would support Israel with all means available.

The other voices :
- The EU in particular, which is the US most important ally, wants to give the Palestinians their own state. Bush has also been influenced by his European colleagues, and although he probably doesn't like it, he has commitments to the UN. A good peace process could benefit Bush's position world wide and would give him respect in the US and outside of it, especially here in Europe.

- The Arab league : supports the PA, US needs the Arabs for economic and - more important - military purpuses. Air Force Bases in SA ARE necessairy if the US wants to maintain its position of being the strongest nation on earth. Without these bases, the US wouldn't be able anymore to threaten any state which is in its way.

- Many nations which sympathise with Palestinians : Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, Japan, even South Korea ... They don't want to get in trouble with Israel, they just want peace.

JustPat

05-18-2002, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by takeo
yes, palestinians can not voice freely their opinion, ...
The PA has not yet shot someone for expressing his opinion, only for active collaboration with Israel. Nice mixture of truth and lie. You are right, the PA only persecutes "collaborators" which appears to be defined as anyone who dares to disagree with Arafat.
Quoting the New Republic: Ashrawi neglected to acknowledge that a significant part of the intifada consisted of Yasir Arafat's death squads murdering more than 800 fellow-Arabs during 1989-1992. Many of the victims were targeted as a result of personal or political rivalries, clan wars, or were accused of 'moral offenses' such as drug use or extramarital affairsalthough the PLO leadership sought to mask the murders by claiming the killers were targeting those who had "collaborated" with Israel.
Qouting an interview on the MacNeil Lehrer New Hour: Ashrawi asserted that criticism of the death squads' activity was "a serious misunderstanding and a deliberate misrepresentation" of the killers. "The issue of violence against collaborators is a very ticklish issue, and we should try to deal with it in a serious and responsible manner rather than just dismiss it as an act of violence....We are, after all, a democratic society."
From USA Today: GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Firing squads of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority executed two men Saturday as collaborators with Israel in the killings of Palestinian militiamen, as family members wept and crowds of hundreds cried ''God is Great!''
In a dramatic, highly public move to stop cooperation with such Israeli attacks, lines of police opened fire with Kalashnikovs, sights trained on blindfolded men fixed to stakes, their hands tied behind them.
Palestinian Justice Minister Freih Abu-Maddien called it a ''clear message to anyone thinking of betrayal of his people and his homeland,'' a warning echoed later by a leader of the Hamas militant group.
From the Foreign Press Association:
Question by Aryeh Gallin: "While Netanyahu was prime minister, C.I.A. Chief John Deutsch appointed George Tenet to serve as C.I.A. liaison between Israel and the P.L.O.
While Barak was prime minister, then Regional Cooperation Minister Shimon Peres agreed to Tenet's request that the P.L.O. send 40 quote unquote "policemen" for advanced C.I.A. sniper, marksmanship and advanced weapons training in Virginia.
Mr. Defense Minister, are not those C.I.A. trained P.L.O. squads the very ones today inflicting such terrible casualties on so-called Arab collaborators, the I.D.F., and Jews in Gilo and especially in Judea, Samaria and Gaza?
And, Mr. Defense Minister, why was the C.I.A. request to train these P.L.O. squads routed through and approved by a Regional Cooperation Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres?"
Answer from Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer:"It's an easy question. We thought that they would behave themselves."
(Obviously they could not be trusted to behave themselves.)
Other articles of note:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/abunimah4.html
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest/jul97/hitsquad.html

JustPat

05-18-2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by takeo
sharon is a well-known war-criminal for more than half of my life-time, he has not yet prooven either to be a good negociator for peace, nor has his party-member Netanyahu.
I think the Palestinians can send him to HELL, as they did with his extremist collegue Zeevi.
arafat has fought israeli occupation, but without using violence against civilians as sharon did. takeo: surely you do not confuse accusations with facts. :rolleyes: To my knowledge Sharon has not even stood trial for being a "war-criminal" much less been convicted.
I see you believe that the Palestinians murdered Ze'evi, and I suppose you share Arafat's position that they are heroes and not criminals. Perhaps you need to learn what is criminal and what is not. Supporting and encouraging criminal behavior is making yourself an accomplice through abetting. Do you want to sign on as a murderer?
This is the kind of barbaric thinking that will bury the Palestinians. They will never be able to join the ranks of statehood as long as they are willing to practice such barbaric justification of their murderous ways.

JustPat

05-18-2002, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by takeo
Yes, not Kadafi but his daughter and many more innocent people suffered from this terrorist attack on Lybia, for which Lybia never retaliated. Of course, there was much more going on thanyou realize. A seal team was poised off the coast of Lybia to "arrest" Kadafi and return him to the US to stand trial as a terrorist. Had he attempted retaliation he would be no more.
Kadafi has been relegated to those who once thought terror would bring victory. He now shares his bed with Amin, a man of like mind and like destiny. I am sure they can make room for Arafat.

JustPat

05-18-2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by takeo
"And thus the importance of the Rule of Law, something the Palestinians do not have"
Of course they haven't they are still unlawfully occupied by israel.
they can only have a rule of law when the occupation ends and palestine will become an independant state. No takeo, even within their own community, the Palestinians do not have the "Rule of Law". They continue to live by barbaric Islamic extremeism. They are tribal barbarians and are rejected by the very Arabs they call "brother". Go, live among them, learn.

JustPat

05-18-2002, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by takeo
"Immigration policy should be made with the potential for possible disasters in mind. Allowing persons who hold these political beliefs into the United States (or other country) is asking for internal terrorism. It's a stupid thing to do. This program provides a fine example. "
Well, you can not know someones political convicions before allowing him into the country. so you would also oppose the immigration of ultra-zionist colonisers with extreme views regarding the palestinians, who might be a danger for american security (as some jewish extremists tried to blow up american mosques)? YES. And I would oppose the ultra-Palestinian sympathizer who refuses to see the facts presented to him.

JustPat

05-18-2002, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Morpheus US is in very difficult position here.
The pro-Israeli voices :
The Israeli lobby is very powerful in the US. Also, the average American supports Israel, as he's misinformed and thinks that the Palestinians are immediatelly related to 9-11 and terrorism. So, if it would be up to the US, they would support Israel with all means available. You must be getting bad press. Americans are very clear on the fact that the Palestinians and UBL's gang are two separate but equal entities.
As far as lobbying is concerned, understand that the power of a PAC is directly proportional to its funding. With the Arab oil dollars behind the Palestinians, they, not Israel, should have the more powerful lobby. Perhaps, and I realize most in the EU think it's a stretch, but perhaps there is an underlying security issue here that gives the US pause. Most of those in the House and Senate are old enough to remember Chairman Arafat, Terrorist Extraordinairre
Originally posted by Morpheus The other voices : - The EU in particular, which is the US most important ally, wants to give the Palestinians their own state. Bush has also been influenced by his European colleagues, and although he probably doesn't like it, he has commitments to the UN. A good peace process could benefit Bush's position world wide and would give him respect in the US and outside of it, especially here in Europe. Please don't overestimate the value of the EU's alliance. Other than the UK, the EU offers little aid or assistance to what he US proposes. You know that we are still viewed by most Europeans as crude, rude, and internationally unacceptable. Sorry, it's the French influence.

Originally posted by Morpheus - The Arab league : supports the PA, US needs the Arabs for economic and - more important - military purpuses. Air Force Bases in SA ARE necessairy if the US wants to maintain its position of being the strongest nation on earth. Without these bases, the US wouldn't be able anymore to threaten any state which is in its way. Correct, but the Arab League must choose carefully where it makes it's bed. Siding too strongly with the PA might mean they have to actually support Palestinians and make a place for them in their own countries. They have not been willing to do that .

L@mplighterM

05-19-2002, 01:53 PM

takeo

05-19-2002, 06:20 PM

"No takeo, even within their own community, the Palestinians do not have the "Rule of Law". They continue to live by barbaric Islamic extremeism. They are tribal barbarians and are rejected by the very Arabs they call "brother". Go, live among them, learn. "

Arafat is no islamist and keen to build a state based on the rule of law, which is not easy after so many years of war and occupation. However israel that unlawfully occupied the territories for many years is really the last one who could lecture Arafat on how to build a lawfull society...

"Of course, there was much more going on thanyou realize. A seal team was poised off the coast of Lybia to "arrest" Kadafi and return him to the US to stand trial as a terrorist. Had he attempted retaliation he would be no more.
Kadafi has been relegated to those who once thought terror would bring victory. He now shares his bed with Amin, a man of like mind and like destiny. I am sure they can make room for Arafat. "

America attacked a country without asking the permission of the un-security council and without presenting any proove for it's unbased accusations, and was thus attacking an independant country that didn't attack the US, with illegal terrorism. (because they prefere a loyal dictator in oil-rich countries).
However Khaddafi is still in power, the US failed miserably in its assasination-attempt on the leader of an independant state.

"I see you believe that the Palestinians murdered Ze'evi, and I suppose you share Arafat's position that they are heroes and not criminals. Perhaps you need to learn what is criminal and what is not. Supporting and encouraging criminal behavior is making yourself an accomplice through abetting. Do you want to sign on as a murderer?
This is the kind of barbaric thinking that will bury the Palestinians. They will never be able to join the ranks of statehood as long as they are willing to practice such barbaric justification of their murderous ways. "

Israel killed palestinian leaders with car-bombs etc. for many people this are murderous ways TOO and not a civilised way to act for a western state. Of course you will say that those people incited against israel, murderers blabla, well that is exactly what palestinians think of people like Sharon and Zeevi TOO, that they are criminals.

"Nice mixture of truth and lie. You are right, the PA only persecutes "collaborators" which appears to be defined as anyone who dares to disagree with Arafat. "

LOL, ANYONE who would cooperate with al-quaida or other ennemies of the US in their anti-us military operations would not be called "political prisoners" and would not be murdered for expressing their opinions! those people executed helped with the assasination by israel of leading palestinians, not really expressing an opinion is it?

takeo

05-19-2002, 06:25 PM

"takeo: surely you do not confuse accusations with facts. To my knowledge Sharon has not even stood trial for being a "war-criminal" much less been convicted. "

NEITHER HAS ARAFAT, you seem to confuse accusations with facts...

"Perhaps you need to learn what is criminal and what is not. Supporting and encouraging criminal behavior is making yourself an accomplice through abetting. Do you want to sign on as a murderer? "

Unlawful occupation is criminal, sharon committed war-crimes in Jenin according to HRW, also according to human rights watch the murder on innocent israeli is criminal, according to international laws resisting occupation by killing people involved and responsible for the occupation is no crime.
YOU should learn what is criminal and what is not.
BUT if you consider the murder on Zeevi and other politicians as criminal, than to the same standards you have to consider equally the israeli murder on palestinian politicians as a crime.

NewsGuy

05-19-2002, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by takeo
The ones responsible for 9/11 are no Palestinians. So you can't blame american palestinians for this.
It's actually a general Arab-American issue, where significant parts of the community oppose American policies and Western values.

These anti-American activities range from support of groups officially on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations and also include support for U.S. enemies like Iraq. Additionally, the Arab-American community has provided cover and shelter for:

- Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was responsible for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, who was living in the Arab-American community of New Jersey.

- The Islamic terrorists who was planning to explode a nail-filled bomb in the New York City Subway in 1997, who were residing in the Arab-American community in Brooklyn.

The fact is that since 9-11, the FBI has uncovered huge amounts of money funneled from American Arabs directly to al Qaeda to other Islamic terrorist groups.

The money trail starts at Arab-American mosques, community centers, and foundations Masquerading as Muslim charities.

For all these reasons and for the rabid anti-Semitic and illegal violent threats against Jews in the U.S. University system, the Arab-American community needs to be monitored very carefully and made to pay for its crimes against all of us here in America who are their hosts.

takeo

05-19-2002, 07:22 PM

if you consider the US to be a state of law and a western democracy than you can not punish a community as a whole but only individual persons and organisations who did illegal things according to the US-law. Final point (i said IF)

disagreeing with the us-foreign policy is no crime in the US (as far as i know...) neither is expressing its support for iraq (without actually military helping Iraq).
some American Jews also disagree with Bush' policy, should they be punished and monitered carefully???

JustPat

05-19-2002, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by takeo Arafat is ... keen to build a state based on the rule of law ... This statement cannot be proven by the evidence at hand. No true effort has been made to establish a government or infrastructure based on teh rule of law. Instead it has been the bullying of thugs, Arafat the chief.

Originally posted by takeo America attacked a country [Libya] without asking the permission of the un-security council and without presenting any proove for it's unbased accusations, and was thus attacking an independant country that didn't attack the US, with illegal terrorism. (because they prefere a loyal dictator in oil-rich countries).
However Khaddafi is still in power, the US failed miserably in its assasination-attempt on the leader of an independant state. I forget how young you are and how you have nothing but propaganda to guide you to the truth. Fact: Kadafi acted with aggression toward US forces in the Medditeranean Sea. Fact: "Uncle Mo" sent his Navy and Air Force to attack the forces of the US Navy in international waters. Fact: Libya is a self socumented suppoorter of terrorists and is currently home to some of the most violent criminals in the terrorist community. Don't speak to me in platitudes and rhetoric. I was there. I saw the intelligence gathered myself. I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about - as usual. Do your homework before you run your mouth.
Originally posted by takeo Israel killed palestinian leaders with car-bombs etc. for many people this are murderous ways TOO and not a civilised way to act for a western state. Of course you will say that those people incited against israel, murderers blabla, well that is exactly what palestinians think of people like Sharon and Zeevi TOO, that they are criminals. Accusations, more accusations ... unlike your Palestinian utopia, we who live under the Rule of Law operate under the premise of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Until that happens you are nothing more than a propaganda whore who has sold his soul for a warm fuzzy feeling.
Originally posted by takeo LOL, ANYONE who would cooperate with al-quaida or other ennemies of the US in their anti-us military operations would not be called "political prisoners" and would not be murdered for expressing their opinions! those people executed helped with the assasination by israel of leading palestinians, not really expressing an opinion is it? :confused: Perhaps you should go back and read what the Arab reporters are saying about your Palestinian brothers. The reports of eyewitnesses and members of the PA Security forces were the basis of my comments, not someone's Philistine propaganda machine. A little honesty, please!

Gatorade

05-20-2002, 11:08 AM

Update on American held by Israel.

Dr. Riad Abdelkarim was is freed after 14 days in detention on suspicion of aiding terrorists, which he denies.

http://www.ocregister.com/local/arrest00520cci1.shtml

Mediocrates

05-20-2002, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Gatorade
Update on American held by Israel.

Dr. Riad Abdelkarim was is freed after 14 days in detention on suspicion of aiding terrorists, which he denies.

http://www.ocregister.com/local/arrest00520cci1.shtml

Update on American held by Americans:

Jonathan Pollard is still serving a life sentence at the Federal Prison in Butner, NC.

What do the EU conspiracy theorists say about the zionist controlled media and government in this case eh?

JustPat

05-20-2002, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Update on American held by Americans:
Jonathan Pollard is still serving a life sentence at the Federal Prison in Butner, NC.

What do the EU conspiracy theorists say about the zionist controlled media and government in this case eh? Good point! :)

takeo

05-20-2002, 03:08 PM

"This statement cannot be proven by the evidence at hand. No true effort has been made to establish a government or infrastructure based on teh rule of law. Instead it has been the bullying of thugs, Arafat the chief. "

The PA has established a functioning government, police, ministry, etc. in very difficult circumstances, yet because of its limited powers, it could not completely outlaw parallel organisations such as Hamas.

"I forget how young you are and how you have nothing but propaganda to guide you to the truth. Fact: Kadafi acted with aggression toward US forces in the Medditeranean Sea. Fact: "Uncle Mo" sent his Navy and Air Force to attack the forces of the US Navy in international waters. Fact: Libya is a self socumented suppoorter of terrorists and is currently home to some of the most violent criminals in the terrorist community. Don't speak to me in platitudes and rhetoric. I was there. I saw the intelligence gathered myself. I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about - as usual. Do your homework before you run your mouth. "

i was very young but have actually read somethings about this.
What i know is that khadafi has not attacked US-forces in the gulf of Sirte but questioned their legitimacy in libian territorial waters.
Libia supported some liberation (or terrorist, depends from what point of view)-organisations, in the same way the US supported KLA, the contra's, etc.
So you couldn't still provide me one good reason (let alone legal approval) for the terrorist attack on Libia.

"Accusations, more accusations ... unlike your Palestinian utopia, we who live under the Rule of Law operate under the premise of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Until that happens you are nothing more than a propaganda whore who has sold his soul for a warm fuzzy feeling. "

but this "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" doesn't seem to count for "arafat and his thugs", they seem to be "guilty untill proven innocent", only for Israel...
by the way do you ignore that israel is responsible for many car-bombings (even one yesterday) , i think even most people on this forum will agree that israel is responsible for them and it doesn't even deny it in most cases.

"Perhaps you should go back and read what the Arab reporters are saying about your Palestinian brothers. The reports of eyewitnesses and members of the PA Security forces were the basis of my comments, not someone's Philistine propaganda machine. A little honesty, please!"

can you give me one example of someone executed because he only voiced his opinion, but didn't actively collaborated with an assasination???

Vic

05-20-2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by takeo
can you give me one example of someone executed because he only voiced his opinion, but didn't actively collaborated with an assasination???
There seems hardly to be a case where it was proven that the victims did in fact "collaborate with assasinations". The trouble is, no one has bothered so far to investigate such cases closely.

Here are some perfectly Palestinian links for you:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/abunimah4.html
http://phrmg.org/monitor2001/jul2001.htm

and:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/01/pa-ltr0130.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/pa/

NewsGuy

05-20-2002, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by takeo
The PA has established a functioning government, police, ministry, etc. in very difficult circumstances, yet because of its limited powers, it could not completely outlaw parallel organisations such as Hamas.
By "limited power" do you mean the billions stolen by Arafat and stashed away in his Swiss bank account, as opposed to paying the salaries of his civil servants?

takeo

05-20-2002, 05:03 PM

no, by limited i mean that the pa was not a real state, had no real army, and couldn't even freely move on most of the occupied territories. (and that was even BEFORE israel decided to destroy the whole PA-infrastructure).

takeo

05-20-2002, 05:14 PM

yes, ok, the links you gave are valid and i believe them (not from the JP...) the palestinian justice is indeed questionable but still they received a courtcase, which may not be according to modern standards of a fair trial, the PA is not a state after all and justice, with so many assasination-policies in the occupied territories and deliberate lawlessness on both sides, is lacking, but at least those people were not killed because of their opinion, but because of clear accusations of involvement in assasinations.

However i can agree with the conclusion of the autor:

"As a Palestinian, I am proud that our demands for justice, the rights of refugees and self-determination are based on international law, and on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our criticisms of Israel's human rights violations cite the same standards, the Geneva Conventions and the reports of human rights organizations. So it is as a Palestinian that I cannot have any identification with an "Authority" that adopts these standards as slogans when it wants to score points against the Israelis, but so quickly discards them when it is expected to apply them in its own conduct."

JustPat

05-20-2002, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by takeo The PA has established a functioning government, police, ministry, etc. in very difficult circumstances, ... Then I guess Israel is justified in pursuing the PA for its participation in the import of illegal weapons (Karine A ).

Originally posted by JustPat "Fact: Kadafi acted with aggression toward US forces in the Medditeranean Sea. Fact: "Uncle Mo" sent his Navy and Air Force to attack the forces of the US Navy in international waters. Fact: Libya is a self documented supporter of terrorists and is currently home to some of the most violent criminals in the terrorist community. Don't speak to me in platitudes and rhetoric. I was there. I saw the intelligence gathered myself. I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about - as usual. Do your homework before you run your mouth. "
Originally posted by takeo i was very young but have actually read somethings about this. What i know is that khadafi has not attacked US-forces in the gulf of Sirte but questioned their legitimacy in libian territorial waters.
So you couldn't still provide me one good reason (let alone legal approval) for the terrorist attack on Libia. First of all, you "know" nothing. You "read," and you obviously did not read a factually based report. The US forces were in international waters which Kadafi attempted to annex. Too bad, so sad, :( splash two. US - 2 / Libya - 0. :D
Secondly, I couldn't prove to you that water is wet unless I had something signed by a terrorist to certify it. I remind you, you only believe propaganda from the circle of Allah.
Originally posted by takeo but this "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" doesn't seem to count for "arafat and his thugs", they seem to be "guilty untill proven innocent", only for Israel... Wrong - I speak to the issue of Arafat and his cronies based on the words of their mouths and that of Arab eyewitnesses (that is Palestinian for collaborators :) ) It has not been so long ago that Arafat would boldly brag about his terroristic accomplishments. Now it threatens his funding so he let's lackies brag and he just signs the checks.
Originally posted by takeo by the way do you ignore that israel is responsible for many car-bombings (even one yesterday) , i think even most people on this forum will agree that israel is responsible for them and it doesn't even deny it in most cases. Again, you will note that I do not sanction nor approve of any violence committed by Jews against Palestinian civilians. It isn't good to have such a poor memory at such a young age.
Originally posted by takeo can you give me one example of someone executed because he only voiced his opinion, but didn't actively collaborated with an assasination??? Go back to my earlier posts, click on the links and read the articles.

takeo

05-21-2002, 06:19 AM

"First of all, you "know" nothing. You "read," and you obviously did not read a factually based report. The US forces were in international waters which Kadafi attempted to annex. Too bad, so sad, splash two. US - 2 / Libya - 0. "

you said kaddafi attacked us-forces in the gulf of sirte? can you give me please a link to any newssource confirming that...
questioning the legitimacy of us-troops near its borders (whatever if these are territorial waters or not) is not a reason for war, is it???
by the way how would you like libian battleships for the coast of new york???

"Wrong - I speak to the issue of Arafat and his cronies based on the words of their mouths and that of Arab eyewitnesses (that is Palestinian for collaborators ) It has not been so long ago that Arafat would boldly brag about his terroristic accomplishments. Now it threatens his funding so he let's lackies brag and he just signs the checks. "

You said "innocent unless prooven guilty in a court" concerning sharon so now you admit that you have two different rules of law, one for your friends and one for your ennemies...
by the way Arafat never asked for terrorist attacks against civilians, no do his cronies.

"Again, you will note that I do not sanction nor approve of any violence committed by Jews against Palestinian civilians. It isn't good to have such a poor memory at such a young age. "

nor do i approove any violence committed by palestinians against israeli civilians. your memory isn't all that good either, but that's part of the ageing process i suppose.

"Go back to my earlier posts, click on the links and read the articles."

i did and could nowhere find a testimony of someone killed by a palestinian court because he voiced pro-israeli or anti-arafat opinions.

JustPat

05-21-2002, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by takeo - you said kaddafi attacked us-forces in the gulf of sirte? can you give me please a link to any newssource confirming that...
Originally posted by Bernd Shafer, For some time, there had been ongoing conflict between the United States and Colonel Muammar Qaddafi's Libya, which hosted and supported anti-Israeli terrorist groups. In early 1986, the U.S. administration had undertaken a massive naval foray in the Gulf of Sidra, north of the Libyan coast, to retaliate against Libyan-sponsored terrorist attacks on the airports in Rome and Vienna in December 1985. Maneuvers were held in an area unilaterally claimed by Libya as its territorial waters and bordered off, in Qaddafi's colorful phrase, the "line of death." By deliberately crossing this line with ship and aircraft on March 24, the U.S. sought to provoke an attack by Qaddafi's forces.

The Reagan Administration hoped that a "Battle of Sidra" would teach Qaddafi a military lesson and possibly precipitate his overthrow by the Libyan military. This calculation only worked to some extent. When U.S. ships and planes entered the disputed waters and airspace, the Libyans send out patrol boats with antiship missiles towards the American ships. U.S. aircraft attacked them, sank two and damaged another severely. Many Libyan sailors were sacrificed for these almost suicidal missions. The Libyans subsequently fired Soviet-made anti-aircraft missiles at the U.S. planes. The Americans responded with missiles that knocked out the Libyan radar at the launching sites, but carefully avoided targeting the missiles themselves to prevent harm to the Soviet advisers present there. No American lives, aircraft or ships were lost during this course of action.
*********
BERND SCHAEFER is a Research Fellow at the German Historical Institute in Washington D.C. where he is currently working on U.S. foreign policy since 1969. He graduated from the University of Tuebingen (M.A.) and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (Master of Public Administration). From the University of Halle he got his Ph.D. on postwar East German history. Within PHP he coordinates the research in the East German Stasi archives.
Originally posted by takeo - questioning the legitimacy of us-troops near its borders (whatever if these are territorial waters or not) is not a reason for war, is it???
by the way how would you like libian battleships for the coast of new york??? International Law has set the limit of approach to keeping the line marking International Waters at 2 miles. Any nation is justified at enforcing that 2 mile limit. Taking "unilateral" authority over anything beyond the 2 mile limit is considered a provokative act. In reality, the US was well with its rights to steam that 2 mile line and enforce the Rule of Law for both themselves and the balance of the International Community. However, you and I both know it was not about the 2 mile limit. This was an issue of a terrorist bully being put in his place. Had it not been for his Soviet alliance, I think Kadafi would have been a non-entity. Like Arafat, the Soviets made him and their abandoning him broke him. The same may be the case of Arafat when he is no longer needed by his backers.
Originally posted by takeo - You said "innocent unless prooven guilty in a court" concerning sharon so now you admit that you have two different rules of law, one for your friends and one for your ennemies...
by the way Arafat never asked for terrorist attacks against civilians, no do his cronies. The Rule of Law must apply to all or there is no justice. No one is excluded. But indictments and accusations do not make the issue. There must be either a conviction or a confession. In the case of Arafat it is confessions that set his fate.
Originally posted by takeo - nor do i approove any violence committed by palestinians against israeli civilians. your memory isn't all that good either, but that's part of the ageing process i suppose. You say that, but your posts betray you. Perhaps it is the fact that you do not see Israelis as "civilian" but rather an occupying army in civilian clothing. YOu routinely justify the Palestinians for their violence and seem thouroughly convinced of their actions as being only against the guilty. For example:
Originally posted by takeo - i did and could nowhere find a testimony of someone killed by a palestinian court because he voiced pro-israeli or anti-arafat opinions. You found no evidence of a court ordered execution because the Palestinians executed those deemed "collaborators" without the benefit of a trial by law. Your blind allegiance will one day be your embarassment.

Batman

05-21-2002, 06:30 PM

This Quote was introduced by : JustPat

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." – Edmund Burke

The United Nations must be held accountable. The world cannot be silent and
continue to let this organization assume a position of world leadership, using our
tax money ($11 billion annually by US !) to support it, with its center location
in New York City, while continually declaring a political war against Israel and
supporting terror against Israel.

After the most recent MASSACRE in Rishon Letzion which killed 16 people and
wounded 60, the U.N. had the audacity to CONDEMN ISRAEL the very next day. The
vote was 74-4 with 54 abstentions. There were no votes condemning Palestinian
terrorism.

why they still have not called an emergency "security council" meeting about the
MASSACRE in Israel? Didn't they call several such meetings to help their
Palestinian terrorists? In fact, we want to know WHY there has never been an
emergency meeting after Jews have been massacred by the friends of the U.N.? While
on the topic, we don't recall Mr. Annan calling for an emergency meeting after
9/11. Doesn't the U.S. taxpayer give $11 billion to this corrupt organization
annually?

Until the U.N. calls an emergency meeting of the security council to condemn the
MASSACRE of Jews, VOTES on it with an unconditional resolution, and sends a team
to inquire how these massacres took place and what human rights violations were
committed by the PA, it is violating all that it is supposed to stand for. And,
by the way, why hasn't anyone heard from the U.N. Mideast "peace envoy", Terje
Larsen, about this?

Confronted with evidence of illegal Palestinian mines, mortars and missiles, no
U.N. official questioned how it was that bomb factories could exist in
U.N.-managed refugee camps. Either the U.N. officials were unaware of the bomb
factories -- a fact that would suggest utter incompetence -- or more likely, the
U.N. employees simply turned a blind eye.

If the United Nations is to be reflecting the values of peace, justice and unity,
we must gain momentum and grow in numbers to reflect our disgust with the present
betrayal of these common human values.

URGE THE UN TO
INVESTIGATE PALESTINIAN TERROR IMMEDIATELY (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/303588867 )

Call Fred and his staff and demand to know what criminal logic was behind this.
Yes, Annan issued some tepid and banal "condemnation" for the media, but frankly,
it just does not cut it. Annan only minces words when Jewish lives are taken, but
he is very graphic when condemning Israel.
United Nations: - Fred Ekherd (Annan's spokesman)
PH# 212-963-5128 FAX# 212-963-7055 EMAIL: inquiries@un.org

takeo

05-21-2002, 07:19 PM

"By deliberately crossing this line with ship and aircraft on March 24, the U.S. sought to provoke an attack by Qaddafi's forces. "

So clearly the US was looking for confrontation...to overthrow a regime they didn't liked in an independant country. (as if it is the right of the us do decide who should be in power in Tripoli)

Also according to this report, the US attacked first, not libia, who had the right to send out its patrol boats.

"the US was well with its rights to steam that 2 mile line and enforce the Rule of Law for both themselves and the balance of the International Community"

it was certainly not legal to attack libian ships in international waters, or entering libian territorial 2 miles-line(as you said yourself the international borderline), or attacking libia!!!

JustPat

05-21-2002, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by takeo
-So clearly the US was looking for confrontation...to overthrow a regime they didn't liked in an independant country. (as if it is the right of the us do decide who should be in power in Tripoli)
-Also according to this report, the US attacked first, not libia, who had the right to send out its patrol boats.
-it was certainly not legal to attack libian ships in international waters, or entering libian territorial 2 miles-line(as you said yourself the international borderline), or attacking libia!!! Not only are you historically ignorant, you are geographically ignorant.
1) The "Line of Death" was drawn in International Waters, far beyond the 2 Mile Limit.
2) The US ships were in International Waters. They operated in full understanding that Kadafi was looking for a fight and sought to bully his way into control of the very waters in which they were operating.
3) The Lybians fired upon the US warships. (Not a smart move, kind of like the Palestinians throwing rocks at armed troops.)
4) The US Navy responded to the Lybian aggression with lethal force in defense of International Waters under the standing of International Law.
5) Through proper diplomatic channels, the US advised Lybia that it would defend its ships if they were attacked in International Waters. Kadafi sent his "Navy" anyhow.
6) The war planes shot down also acted with aggression toward the US planes in the area. Fortunately, as the article said, they were too arrogant to learn from their Russian trainers and died as a result.
I realize, more and more as you speak your heart, that you hate Israel and the US. It isn't that you love the Palestinians or the Lybians. If that were the case you would go and join their plight. No you just want to hate Israel and the US and will use wnything to justify that position. Sad. :(

By the way, the information I quoted to you came from Russian reports, Lybian allies who cut their ties with Lybia after this event. They determined that "Lybia is not worthy of Russian assistance."

Pathfinder

05-21-2002, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by takeo
[B
So clearly the US was looking for confrontation...to overthrow a regime they didn't liked in an independant country. (as if it is the right of the us do decide who should be in power in Tripoli)

[/B]

If the US took military action to overthrow regimes simply because they "didn't liked" them there would be at least 30 fewer backward regimes in the world today. Libya was attacked by the US in self-defense because Libya was sponsoring and supporting terrorists attacking US interests.

JustPat

05-21-2002, 08:11 PM

Sure has been quiet in Lybia since the US bombed Kadafi's house. Perhaps Minister Sharon took the hint? Now, if Arafat looses his funding, perhaps he will also become a grease spot in history. :)

A-Palestinian

05-21-2002, 08:18 PM

Takeo,

Libya was attacked, ligitimately, AND morally, by the US, for sponsoring terrorists that attacked US citizens, including terrorists, who blew up Pan Am over Scotland. That is, the US had every RIGHT to attack Libya. The context of the US attacking Libya was not aggresive, it was defensive. In short, it was a retaliatory strike for Libya's actions, perpetrated by Libya's dictator, Qadafi.

To claim that the US had no right to attack Libya, (as you have hinted at before), requires a complete REVERSAL of morality.

Unless you withdraw your statements to the like, your morality comes under question.

Morpheus

05-22-2002, 09:52 AM

Sure, it's always US who keeps morality high. Vietnam ... US was there to defend itself against communism. There's always a way to claim you did it for self defense.

Operation El Dorado was a retallition of terrorist attacks which were the responsability of IRAN. The US didn't want to get into a war with Iran, so they just picked another country which was not PRO-US: Lybia. To show they were serious, with the message: Iran, you might be the next.
Gadhafi is not a saint, or a democratically elected leader, but he's no terrorist either. He only expressed his anti-American feelings towards the world.

BTW, the US has put Lybia off the "rogue-list".

NewsGuy

05-22-2002, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Morpheus
The US didn't want to get into a war with Iran, so they just picked another country which was not PRO-US: Lybia. To show they were serious, with the message: Iran, you might be the next.

Gadhafi is not a saint, or a democratically elected leader, but he's no terrorist either. He only expressed his anti-American feelings towards the world.
I agree with you about the U.S. wanting to avoid a war with Iran. This was, and continues to be, a mistake because there will always be terrorism and instability so long as the Islamic republic of Iran stands.

As for Qaddafi, you are way off base to think that he "only expresses his his anti-American feelings."

Qaddafi has paid for plenty of terrorism throughout the world, sent Lybian troops to collaborate with the PLO terrorists in Lebanon in mid 1981 and supplied missiles, resulting in the death of thousands of Lebanese and also of Israelis.

In 1985, Qaddafi sent Lybian terrorists to attack at the El Al counters at the Vienna and Rome airports spraying the crowd with machine guns.

In 1989, even a French judge issued warrants for the arrest of Lybians trained by Qaddafi, for blowing up a French passanger plane.

And, of course, the pinnacle of Qaddafi's long terrorism career was in 1988, when he sent his troops to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

So, I don't know who you're fooling when you say that Qaddafi is just expressing feelings. He is a cold blooded murderer, who should be standing in judgment at the Hague for crimes against humanity.

Mediocrates

05-22-2002, 10:46 AM

Oh its just those Arab boys kickin up some fun. Did you know that Nasser had a private American plane shot down over Egypt and directed a mob to burn down the library at the American embassy in Cairo and when the US ambassador asked him to reel in his people his response was an out of control screaming diatribe where he told the ambassador he could drink the salt water of the sea after he had his tongue cut out?

This was WHILE Egypt received several hundred millions of dollars a year in US aid. Needless to say, it stopped after this outburst.

Maybe my Yankee sensibilities aren't refined enough to appreciate the subtle Arab humor of this.

JustPat

05-22-2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Morpheus
Sure, it's always US who keeps morality high. Vietnam ... US was there to defend itself against communism. There's always a way to claim you did it for self defense.
Operation El Dorado was a retallition of terrorist attacks which were the responsability of IRAN. The US didn't want to get into a war with Iran, so they just picked another country which was not PRO-US: Lybia. To show they were serious, with the message: Iran, you might be the next.
Gadhafi is not a saint, or a democratically elected leader, but he's no terrorist either. He only expressed his anti-American feelings towards the world.
BTW, the US has put Lybia off the "rogue-list". It's a shame you don't want to use sarcasm. ;)
Though the US may always want to claim the high ground, the reality is that any time politics is involved the high ground has already been lost. Be it Viet Nam, Kuwait, Panama, or any of the others on a long list, the US looks out for us - the US. Any time they can sell that they are helping others they do. The US intelligence for the bombing in Germany that heightened tensions with Lybia placed the blame squarely on Lybia's shoulders. This was confirmed by Russian intelligence. If you have other evidence, please post it.
The attack by Lybia was an act of arrogance. The response of the US was measured and, according to Russian intelligence, was probative to determine the sofistication and capabilities of the Russian supplied defenses.
You say that Kadafi is not a terrorist, but those who offer aid and comfort, something Kadafi is known to do, is just as guilty as the man who triggers a bomb. Anyone who sponsors or assists terrorists must be treated as one.
Kadafi's recent capitulation in the Lockerbee case is the only thing that got him off the "rogue list." Don't put more weight on it than it deserves. If he behaves himself, who knows what will happen. The US has been known to be very forgiving, ask Japan.

JustPat

05-22-2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
So, I don't know who you're fooling when you say that Qaddafi is just expressing feelings. He is a cold blooded murderer, who should be standing in judgment at the Hague for crimes against humanity. What a shame that such tribunals seem to be reserved for the enemies of Islam, or at least for those who are not complicit in the EU global strategy.

Mediocrates

05-22-2002, 01:07 PM

Libya's transgressions are a matter of public record. I'm sure you could even search Aftenposten in Norway for a few reports of it.

The key thing though that precipitated our attack was his unilateral declaration of the expansion of soverign Libyan waters to 200 miles which would have disrupted the whole Mediterranean especially since he threated to shoot down any plane in this air space and there was no reason to doubt he would try. That's not what countries normally do. Surely the folks here can understand that. Look at a map of North Africa and do the math yourself.

JustPat

05-22-2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Surely the folks here can understand that. Look at a map of North Africa and do the math yourself. Don't you have a severe case of AI ... assumed intelligence. :D

takeo

05-22-2002, 05:23 PM

"The Rule of Law must apply to all or there is no justice. No one is excluded. But indictments and accusations do not make the issue. There must be either a conviction or a confession. In the case of Arafat it is confessions that set his fate. "

What confession are you talking of??? as you said yourself: "indictments and accusations do not make the issue" please come with real facts or be quiet.

"You say that, but your posts betray you. Perhaps it is the fact that you do not see Israelis as "civilian" but rather an occupying army in civilian clothing. YOu routinely justify the Palestinians for their violence and seem thouroughly convinced of their actions as being only against the guilty. "

No, acts against the occupation force, politicians involved and armed colonists are legal and responsible for the occupation. acts against israeli civilians (all others) are not.

"You found no evidence of a court ordered execution because the Palestinians executed those deemed "collaborators" without the benefit of a trial by law. Your blind allegiance will one day be your embarassment"

there has been a trial yet of course i admit this what not upon legal standards, the PA is not a state and its justice system is improvised. Yet those people were executed for alleged collaboration to assasination, there were no palestinians executed for criticising Arafat as far as i know (unless you know one...).
Israel's car-bombs and assasinations are not really according to the rule of law either. "Your blind allegiance will one day be your embarassment"

takeo

05-22-2002, 06:00 PM

"2) The US ships were in International Waters. They operated in full understanding that Kadafi was looking for a fight and sought to bully his way into control of the very waters in which they were operating. "

So they were meant as a provocation. Some people on this forum defend israel's aggression in 1967 by the fact that massive hostile troops were present near the borders and the Red Sea was blocked, so those massive presence of hostile ships near the coast of libia was clearly a provocation.

"3) The Lybians fired upon the US warships. (Not a smart move, kind of like the Palestinians throwing rocks at armed troops.) "

according to the facts you gave the Americans fired first: "the Libyans send out patrol boats with antiship missiles towards the American ships. U.S. aircraft attacked them, sank two and damaged another severely"

"5) Through proper diplomatic channels, the US advised Lybia that it would defend its ships if they were attacked in International Waters. Kadafi sent his "Navy" anyhow. "

Libia could send its navy to international waters, it had as much right to be there as the US-navy.

"6) The war planes shot down also acted with aggression toward the US planes in the area. Fortunately, as the article said, they were too arrogant to learn from their Russian trainers and died as a result. "

What kind of aggression? Did they fire at them?

"I realize, more and more as you speak your heart, that you hate Israel and the US. It isn't that you love the Palestinians or the Lybians. If that were the case you would go and join their plight. No you just want to hate Israel and the US and will use wnything to justify that position. Sad. "

No, i have no hate against israel or the US (as you hate the palestinians) but i hate the way the US tries to rule the world and attacks (or treatens or dominates) independant countries not obediant without legal arguments during its long history (grenada, panama, cuba, libia, vietnam, laos, Iraq during the late 90's, yougoslavia, etc.). I would prefere the US to be isolasionist and care for its own problems and leave the world alone and respect the territorial integrity of every country. about israel i hate the way they occupy land not belonging to israel and treated the palestinians.

"If the US took military action to overthrow regimes simply because they "didn't liked" them there would be at least 30 fewer backward regimes in the world today. Libya was attacked by the US in self-defense because Libya was sponsoring and supporting terrorists attacking US interests. "
"You say that Kadafi is not a terrorist, but those who offer aid and comfort, something Kadafi is known to do, is just as guilty as the man who triggers a bomb. Anyone who sponsors or assists terrorists must be treated as one. "

LOL, so you consider nicaragua had the right to blow up the WTC because the US was sponsering and supporting the contra's???
Yougoslavia had the right to attack the us because it supported the muslim KLA-rebels? What about the US supportering Islamic fundamentalists in afghanistan in the 80's???
of course the US knows in some conditions bombing is too delicate, so they try other methods, as recently in Venezuela, or by an embargo as in cuba.

"Libya was attacked, ligitimately, AND morally, by the US, for sponsoring terrorists that attacked US citizens, including terrorists, who blew up Pan Am over Scotland. That is, the US had every RIGHT to attack Libya. The context of the US attacking Libya was not aggresive, it was defensive. In short, it was a retaliatory strike for Libya's actions, perpetrated by Libya's dictator, Qadafi. "

LOL, you should study your history, the bombing of Libia happened BEFORE the pan-am terrorist incident.
By the way that was blamed on Libia but in fact the case against Libia was very weak, and the key-witness in Malta was questionable. Many people believe syria and iran were behind that, but because the US needed those countries in the upcoming war against Iraq it accused Libia.

By the way as far as i know the soviet-union and its ally Bulgaria kept assisting Libia untill 1990.

"I agree with you about the U.S. wanting to avoid a war with Iran. This was, and continues to be, a mistake because there will always be terrorism and instability so long as the Islamic republic of Iran stands. "

i think one day the Islamic republic of Iran will be defeated by its own civilians. Any deliberate aggression of the US however will make the ayatollahs again heroes, and not only in Iran. It is in fact the US-support for the Shah that provoked the revolution. Iranians hate the Ayatollahs, but they hate the US even more. By the way Iran has most probably nuclear weapons and missiles, has allies (russia and china) and there are no legal reasons (as in afghanistan there were) to attack Iran, iran even cooperated in the war against terror. The axis of evil speech had one serious consequence: former die-hard ennemies as iran and iraq now start to cooperate. The aggressive approach of Bush did not improove the strategical position of the us in the world.