Barack Obama, democrat senator from Illinois, the candidate for the presidency of the United States, on Monday gave a telephonic interview to journalists of "Haaretz" newspaper, as well as to a number of correspondents of Zionist newspapers of America.
During the conversation, Obama said that there is a "constant virulent campaign" being waged against him, in which he is "accused" in secret commitment to Islam and disloyalty to "Israel".
The presidential hopeful said he would ordinarily ignore such comments, but he fears that they have been "getting some traction" and are being tuned into by public ears. Thus he said, he has asked the Jewish newspapers and Haaretz to use their "megaphone" so people can hear "from the horse's mouth" that all such accusations against him are unfounded.
Obama believes in Israel "as a Jewish state." He does not accept that a right of return for Palestinians can be interpreted "in any literal way." The senator also said that he opposes talks with Hamas as long as the "Islamist organization" refuses to recognize Israel. Moreover, he assured reporters that in the event of victory in the presidential election he will be "a guarantor of the security of Israel".
At the same time, Obama believes that the issue of Jerusalem should be decided in negotiations with the Palestinians and the Iranian with Tehran.
In May this year, Barack Obama said in an exclusive interview with "Haaretz" that the current level of world pressure on Tehran is "insufficient".
"Iran remains the main threat to the United States and allies", the newspaper quoted the words of senator.
During this interview Obama reiterated that Washington, in his view, should compel Iran to accept negotiations, but it should be a "low-level talks". And they must continue until there is "the first signs of progress" - such as voluntary decision of Tehran to freeze uranium enrichment.
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/cont.../30/9309.shtml
Ouch! Ooops! :o What a slap on my face!
I perfectly know that this guy isn't a Muslim but when I was searching his profile in Wikipedia, there I learned that he has an origin from African Islamic family as his names are Barack Obama Hussain. Since then, I start hoping him to win the primaries against Mrs Hillary Clinton and become the Democrat presedential contender. And even win the president. Because I'm wholly against Bush's Republican party, saying that they hate Muslims and Islam worst than Democrats. And furthermore, their conmntender John MacCain is an old military crook, so he lacks iota of symphathy.
Eventually, now I realize that they are all the same; same mother, same father, I may call that relation. I can even say I prepare MacCain to win since his milatary backround notwithstanding, he don't annouce his apparent hatred and aversion of Muslim world in such a public arena. Though I believe they are the same, yet I'm of this opinion.
But am really puzzle because of certain things in his words and other ex and present American presidents. Why must they care about Isra'el and Jews? Why? I mean really why? I ould remeber one qoute I read Clinton says about Israel. He says "God will never forgive me if I forsake Isra'el". Why this belief, my good people of the forum?
Thanks for your answers.
Quote from: Muhsin on February 07, 2008, 02:27:00 PM
But am really puzzle because of certain things in his words and other ex and present American presidents. Why must they care about Isra'el and Jews? Why? I mean really why? I ould remeber one qoute I read Clinton says about Israel. He says "God will never forgive me if I forsake Isra'el". Why this belief, my good people of the forum?
Thanks for your answers.
Assalamu alaikum,
Mallam Muhsin, Un-believers are the same they all hate Islam and Believers- and that could be why Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur'an: [4.144] O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?
The Hypocrites and un-believers are also same in adversity towards the Believers- just ponder at waht Allah (SWT) says in Suratul Taubat: '[9.67] The hypocritical men and the hypocritical women are all alike; they enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands; they have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them; surely the hypocrites are the transgressors.
Duk kafiri bayason Mumini- duk halinsu daya- duk dayake akwai masu dan dama-dama.
Obama's case has some political under-tone- some camps are making false claims to discredit him. Obama dai yafi Clinton ... dama-dama. Allah (SWT) Yayi mana maganinsu.
Well said, Engineer. And may Allah reward you in abundance. Keep iit up!
But its still unclear and surprising concerning Jewishn palpable innfluence on American political and governmental affair. Why is that so? Why not blacks, English, Dutches, French, etc that I think have denser population than that of few Jewish therein American?
Am sorry to declare but many thumb ups for Hitlar for doing such a great work of annihilating many Jews living on this planet. I always wonder what would have been the case if they have large population in the world. We all would certainly beccome prey to be hunted.
Can anyone elaborate that a litle more, please?
Allah ya shiga tsakaninmu da kafirci da kafirai, amin.
Yes, Obama is a Christian. He attends a black church in Chicago, and spoke very openly on a recent campaign trail about his faith in Christ his Lord and Savior. If you declare thumbs up for Hitler for masterminding the genocide of millions of people, I clearly think that makes you a deranged Lunatic, just like Hitler. Why must American Presidents care about Israel? Who should they care about? You? Iran?
America has deep with Israel. Israel is its strongest ally, and it is the only democracy in the region, and unfortunately, she is surrounded by very hostile and depraved people seeking to destroy her. Israel does not have oil like Saudi-Arabia and many of the other countries in the region. Israel does not have the land mass or high population like many of the Arab countries in the region, but it is way more advanced technologically and politically. Perhaps it will be better to focus your attention on your country and quit worrying about Israel that's doing way much better in every sense. Besides, other Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan have ties with Israel. Why not question their rationale for establishing those ties?
Quote from: King on February 11, 2008, 07:00:25 AM
America has deep with Israel. Israel is its strongest ally, and it is the only democracy in the region, and unfortunately, she is surrounded by very hostile and depraved people seeking to destroy her.
Assalamu alaikum,
King of Israel,
Israel kills innocent Palestinians daily and yet the King of Israel is telling us that its neighbours are hostile.
i dont think there will be an American president that will nt protect the state of israel in the next 100 years to come> Do you know there are more jews in America than israel or anywhere in this world. Jews are hypocites "It is said in the Quran" they alway pull the trigger wherever they are right from day one (History). So America is there workshop. Although cannot be precisely proved, thanks to the jews; The Image of a muslim has been tarnished in the eye of this world. there presence in the middle east have cause nothing but lost of lives and trouble.
Islam appears to be their number threat bcoz they knw what it is;
So for me be it Obama, Hillary or Mc Cain, the campaign againts islamist or extremist or islamic terrorist or whatever they call it "Subhanallah" will nt stop, despite being the president, there are those behind the scenes who give their own directives indirectly, may be the style might change but it will not stop.
As one of our brothers say in this forum, "Allah yayi mana maganinsu" ya kare dukkan musulmai dakka sharin yahudu da nasara,
Quote from: King on February 11, 2008, 07:00:25 AM
Yes, Obama is a Christian. He attends a black church in Chicago, and spoke very openly on a recent campaign trail about his faith in Christ his Lord and Savior. If you declare thumbs up for Hitler for masterminding the genocide of millions of people, I clearly think that makes you a deranged Lunatic, just like Hitler. Why must American Presidents care about Israel? Who should they care about? You? Iran?
Welcome to the KanoOnline Online Forum,
King. Thats from the beggining.
Well, it seems obviosly you are a newbie here and thus don't know the rules, do you? No, I think and supposed. Let me tell ya; we don't condone such lotish, snooty expression and personal insult. Just discuss the topic of the thread and cut this off next time. If not, mind that I warn you, Oga Admin will soon terminate your user account. Don't get hurt, ok?
Welcome you too
Dan Ringim. Your words are absolutely on the track. Pls do come again and share more of such with us.
Engineer, you are often quite funny. I read your reply to the King of Isra'el, as you called him. LOL ;D But I know you can intuitively guees people like
King. Keep it up.
Any African that supports Hitler has to be mad. Hitler believed coloured people were inferior to white people. He also killed homosexuals and gypsies as well as about 6 million Jews (none of whom had anything to do with the wickedness of the present day state of Israel).
Quote from: Dave_McEwan_Hill on February 13, 2008, 01:23:36 AM
Any African that supports Hitler has to be mad. Hitler believed coloured people were inferior to white people. He also killed homosexuals and gypsies as well as about 6 million Jews (none of whom had anything to do with the wickedness of the present day state of Israel).
Assalamu alaikum,
You back again INSULTING people - making a general statement. You are lucky we in the North and Muslims respect elderly people I will therefore observe some restraints otherwise..........
Despite our opposition to the attitudes of the Isreali's against our palestinian brethren, I think its completely wrong to support Hitler or any mass murderer under any circumstance at all, and I sincerely hope that Malam Muhsin you didnt mean what you said. Regardless of what Hitler thought of us (Africans, about whom he remarked "let the animals graze"), we dont support him, simply because he was a transgressor and as Muslims, a life is sacred regardless of who's life it is..
When people are killed around the world, regardless of where they stand, as a Muslim, you feel sad. If they were Muslims, you feel sad to have lost a brother, If they were not Muslims, you feel sad for what might have been, i.e. a lost opportunity to give them the sweetness of faith and for them to taste what it is we greatly enjoy, and hence gain eternal bliss. From the mindset of those who truly understand the beauty of Islam, Wars are fought as an inevitability, not as a craving. We never yearn to dominate, or to kill, or to fight for the fun of it or to amass power and rule over a dominion. If we did that, then what makes us any different from the imperialist powers we condemn? As Muslims, our yearnings are first and foremost to practice our religion in tranquility, to advocate fairness, truth and justice everywhere and to give to others the beautiful teachings we hold dear. We fight merely to defend this, and as the prophet once remarked to his companions when standing in ranks and preparing for a crucial battle, "Never yearn to meet your enemies on the field of battle, but if you do, then do not turn back and remember, in the shade of the sword lies paradise" (aw kama Qala rasulullah).
About Obama's comments, I have to say, I sincerely doubt the authenticity of those remarks, not because I am a supporter, (Frankly May the best man or woman win), but because it would be tantamount to political suicide and every politician with an iota of political flair knows it. As a rule in politics, you appeal to your core supporters and never alienate anyone, because the difference between winning and loosing, could be just one vote, hence every vote counts. Please confirm you sources, and be very wary of such "claims". It is as authentic as the first letter that said he was a Muslim, it's fairly obvious, that they're both fake.
I cant say I know why America cares for Isreal, but I will be the first to point out that in theory that is not a wrong thing to do, after all, we all have people and countries we care about more than others, (and as some of my very good friends have similarly argued, why do we care for Palestinians?). It however becomes wrong when the love for a certain beloved blinds you from being fair and just to all others, and hence upholding a "universal truth" and implementing a "golden mean". What we find fault in, and believe makes America wrong, is that it lets its allegiances to a certain country deviates it from establishing truth and fairness in its dealing with others, allowing its loved one, i.e. Isreal, to commit wrong doings against others, while it conveniently turns a blind eye and hence allows it to live "above the law" (as its floundering of international laws and countless legitimate UN resolutions attests to). That is America's crime, and why it builds enemies for itself. As a parent, you surely love your child, but will it be right if you turned a blind eye to your child's wrong actions? Is that love? is that fair on other children? Is that in the best interest of your child? Surely, it will make the neighbour dislike you and stop them from allowing their children play with you? Logic dictates, does it not?
Similarly, this raises a lesson for us to learn Malam Muhsin, that as Muslims, by justifying every wrong doing or crime committed by our brethren (or in the case of Hitler, any person) against Israel and its supporters, we risk becoming exactly like the nations we have grown to criticise. We should remember that as Muslims, our responsibility is to be fair and just at all times, even if it be against ourselves and those whom we love. This may in some cases, mean saying the unpalatable truth, i.e. that we are wrong and the opposition is right, and hence, giving them their due rights at all times. Hence my statement on Hitler and my similar sentiments about Milosovic and Muscilini. That was the way of the prophet and the rightly guided Khalifs (including Umar ibn Abdulaziz). If we dont act in such a fair and just manner in defining our convictions, then sadly, the difference between us and those whom we criticise, will simply be our names.
P.s. King, Just a thought, please tone down your words, and know that we are all here to discuss, learn from each other, and to find solutions to seemingly complex issues, in our region, country and in the wider world. It is in everyone's interest if we can do so, in a mature manner and not in ways that offend others. I'm sure, that you are more than capable of doing so. Thank you.
sheriff, thanks for your comments. Perhaps my response to Mushin was a little too harsh, but I do believe as Dave also pointed out that only an insane African would suport Hitler's action. We ought to think with logic sometimes when we post commentaries in forums like this. Why rejoice at the demise of 6 million people that had nothing to do with Muslims of those days and of today. The 6 million jews that the Nazis slaughtered lived in close knit communities all across Europe minding their business and living their lives. So why would any logical reasoning person support the fate that befell them? That was my point.
I am disappointed that EMTL does not seem to be capable of reading and understanding anything I write. Others on this topic are speaking a lot of good sense. History reminds us that Hitler tried to stop the black USA athletes from competing in the Olympic games because he believed that black people were an inferior sub species related to animals. In the event the famous black sprinter Jesse Owens won three gold medals at the Olympics in Hitler's Germany.
It should also be understood that the wicked behaviour of the state of Israel towards the Arabs around it is not about religion - it is about territory. I have always made it very plain that I believe the modern state of Israel is very wicked.
It should also be pointed out that many Jews around the world disagree with what is Israel in doing and there is a substantial proportion of people inside Israel strongly against their government's behaviour - including many in jail. When Hiteler was rampaging across Europe killing innocent Jews, many of them women and children, the state of Israel had not yet been brought into existence.
Another thought. I understand the Koran enjoins Moslems to respect Jews and Christians.
I am fortunate to live in a small country (Scotland) where Jews , Moslems and Christians are trying very hard to get on with each other.
Let me first of all start by reiterating that we don't condon PERSONAL INSULT. Just discuss the thread's topic and other meaningful issues but that...NO.
I'd since yesterday seen your comments, Dave. What actually forbade me to reply was; my curiousity and reaction had potentiality of maybe bomb blasting and in the process bad result could be hatched. So, I remained mute.
But, was flabbergasted at them, really. Only your age, as said EMTL, could put wedge to me not to respond accordingly. And yes they do because, am even very annoyed and sorry for myself to have written such words to you. Your ages, compare to mine, are minuscle. Even your gandson could have given birth to me, I solely believe. Any way,don't get hurt, right.
It's very obvious here that you and your two missed allies,i.e Ete and Lingior, had been a real pain in the neck of our beliefs here. But we did excercise patience and are still doing so. Pls, respect yourself and no body could or would disrespect you.
Sheriff 05, many thanks for your comments. I read King to commended on it,yes thats right you do, King. You don'tknow how happy I felt by seeing that. You seem understanding.
Lastly, I withdraw my supportive words to Hitler's action of killing Jews. Pls, forgive me. Just a childish thought, huh. But I now understand everything. Thanks and now thumb ups to you great members!
I can make no sense of Muhsin's post .
I have nothing to do with either Ete or Lionger and I take exception to Muhsin's remarks.
I would ask him to produce any evidence of me insulting anyone on this forum or me saying anything against Islam or of me talking any sort of nonsense.
I have regularly however posted when I have read some complete nonsense posted on this forum such as the recent post supporting Hitler. That is what the forum is for - contradicting nonsense.
It appears there are a number of people on this forum who have difficulty with that concept.
Muhsin - what points exactly do you disagree with in my last post? I'd like to know.
Muhsin,
Make no mistake, there was nothing 'childish' about your latest entry. At best, it was profoundly ignorant. While I will not address you as a lunatic, it must be established that your comment was (to say the least) the product of shallow, unsound reasoning - possibly similar to the kind that saw thousands of German would-be church-goers acquiese blindly to the rise of Nazism in the 1930s. A well-informed adult today ought to know better than to celebrate the racist horror that Nazism was; no less a black Muslim such as yourself. Did you know that part of Hitler's angst against the Jews was that they 'were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race' (A. Hitler, Mein Kampf)? Since you seem so flippant with Jewish life, understand then that our race may well have gone to the dogs had Hitler prevailed!
Moerover, Hitler is also alleged to have considered Islam as 'more compatible to us [Nazis]' than a 'weak and flabby' Christianity (A.Speer, Inside the Third Reich)! One would think that most Muslims would recoil in abject horror at such a claim, but then again here comes Muhsin and EMTL with their naive brand of Islamic solidarity to prove that Hitler may have been right after all!
Its dillusioning to realise that similar sentiments have been expressed on this board in my time here. I recall reading a couple of threads over a year ago on Ahmadinejad and the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. One of the apparently outstanding members of this forum espoused Holocaust denial theories and also claimed that Israel's alleged racist and violent basis could be found in their Torah, which he supported with a most bizarre example of scriptural hermeneutics. I'd like to find those threads, for I had wished to quizz him on his research and interpretative methods.
With all due respect Muhsin, your subsequent sanctimonious posturing is hardly acceptable. I encourage you to get better informed on issues before repeatedly demeaning your value system (Islam) here with such assinine remarks. Why worry about non-Muslim scoffers, when you bring Islam into far more disrepute with your own words? To me, at least, your comments carry infinitely more weight.
Quote from: Dave_McEwan_Hill on February 14, 2008, 11:00:40 PM
I can make no sense of Muhsin's post .
I have nothing to do with either Ete or Lionger and I take exception to Muhsin's remarks.
I would ask him to produce any evidence of me insulting anyone on this forum or me saying anything against Islam or of me talking any sort of nonsense.
I have regularly however posted when I have read some complete nonsense posted on this forum such as the recent post supporting Hitler. That is what the forum is for - contradicting nonsense.
It appears there are a number of people on this forum who have difficulty with that concept.
Muhsin - what points exactly do you disagree with in my last post? I'd like to know.
Dave,
I didn't know and never imagined that my comments would got you such frustrated. I didn't, at all, intend to do anything like that. Am sorry, really am I. And, as you said you don't have anything to do with neither
Ete nor
Lionger, well...I don't think that. Probably you couldn't remember, but I could. During that time, if you didn't not say exactly what they said, then you'd definetly back them up. But that was then and I don't know now.
To your question; what I disagree with you on is the calling of anybody that supports Hitler's action
mad, which simply means
Muhsin, as in that discussion. Sincerely speaking thats an insult. Wallahi I've and will never call anyone here mad. Some body called me lunatic, and other ignorant, but these people I reasoned them as new here but why YOU onld
Dave? If not because I managed controlling my anger, what I would have had said would be more desastrous and more disrespecting, I believe. Pls, don't do something like that, I beg, looking at your age and the long time you've been here.
And, if you'd looked at my reply, I withdrew my words. I was and am not supporting his action any longer. Thats done, to be candid enough with my humble self, under a facade of ignorance to the real issue on the ground.
Wish you'll understand me very well. And thanks for your patience.
Muhsin
Cekenah,
If you really wanna do me fairness, I think, you should have read my preceded post (before yours and Dave's) throughly and fathomed every word I say. But you come up here saying...cunningly insulting me and this and that. Why? I already accept defeat, thats following Sheriff's lucid explanation on the matter.
What do you want me do or say further? I do also accept your call that I should be getting currect and well-informed on issues before replying or doing anything.
Thanks
Quote from: Cekenah on February 15, 2008, 09:00:11 PM
Moerover, Hitler is also alleged to have considered Islam as 'more compatible to us [Nazis]' than a 'weak and flabby' Christianity (A.Speer, Inside the Third Reich)! One would think that most Muslims would recoil in abject horror at such a claim, but then again here comes Muhsin and EMTL with their naive brand of Islamic solidarity to prove that Hitler may have been right after all!
Since Muhsin has been cowered into apologising for expressing his sentiments and sympathy for Hitler, which many authors did and are doing today, I will here demand that an apology also should be tendered to Muslims for trying the tip of extereme logic in order to equate Islam with Nazism. Or when did EMTL or Muhsin's positions become synonymous with Islamic position ?
After all I do not know anybody on these forums, a year ago who, 'espoused Holocaust denial theories', but I know a one who asserted that the crime against the Jews during the tragedy was greatly exagerated above the one against blacks or Gypsies. That same person also put forward the claim that Jewish religion is inherently racists and preaches racism as a command of God.
Well, I am still waiting to see a stronger point against the positions taken by the above sited member.
Quote from: _Waziri_ on February 16, 2008, 11:31:57 AMSince Muhsin has been cowered into apologising for expressing his sentiments and sympathy for Hitler, which many authors did and are doing today, I will here demand that an apology also should be tendered to Muslims for trying the tip of extereme logic in order to equate Islam with Nazism. Or when did EMTL or Muhsin's positions become synonymous with Islamic position ?
At times, as I learn, you should lower down yourself and even bow on your knees not for anything but the sake of
peace. Thats just what I religiosly believe in, have been doing and also do now,
Waziri. Your been on the right position or telling the truth notwithstanding.
And moreover, what dishearten me a bit concerning this discussion is how people completely outbound its main topic. And in the process, some body called me lunatic and the other, knowing that I have had shown my annoyance before, called me again mad. Look, for Godness sake! As I said earlier, I have and will never address anyone here, no matter what you say to me. You don't know, mostly who you are dealing with and thus how dare you...??? :o
Any way...thats all.
Back to the main topic of discusion;
I just got that piece from one Jewish website. They themselves declare to world that Mr. Obama, by his pronouncement and well...confession about Muslims and Islam, was simply and plainly trying to quell them. Check this site; http://www.forward.com/articles/12581/
What lead me into more mire is why only Jewish. But as somebody, I think, King mentioned; Jewish have a large population in US almost than Isra'el itself. If thats not true then he really blunders. Doesn't he also want Muslims votes? Or don't they have a considerable population there? Or he practically wants to show that he no longer has any ounce of relation to Islamic religion?
Cekenah, I agree with waziri, your assertions also warrants an apology and (as I said to Muhsin), I sincerely hope you did not mean what you said ... well done Muhsin, true Men accept their Mistake, but only brave one's apologise as well... Masha'Allah..
Quote from: Dave_McEwan_Hill on February 13, 2008, 01:23:36 AM
Any African that supports Hitler has to be mad. Hitler believed coloured people were inferior to white people. He also killed homosexuals and gypsies as well as about 6 million Jews (none of whom had anything to do with the wickedness of the present day state of Israel).
Where is Maigemu, when i read this your post, i began to
wonder if you are a jew, nonetheless, i have no interest
in what happened to the jews or whoever and i also agree
with you that they have nothing to do with the wickedness
of the present day state of Israel.
This article i culled somewhere may interest you to see
how far africans mind the business of the jews
______________________________________________________________________________________________
THISDAY NEWSPAPER ONLINE VERSION
For praising Hitler, Nigerian risks jail in Hungary
02.11.2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
http://odili.net/news/source/2008/feb/11/217.html
Hungary has threatened to jail a Nigerian, Oludayo Olapite for praising Adolph Hitler and Sz.lasi in a music he released recently in the country. Both men killed many people during the Second World War inGermany and Hungary respectively.
Olapite, 38, may get three years imprisonment if found guilty of hailing the duo.The trouble started when a TV channel uploaded the video clip which is now under police investigation, to the internet.
In the video, Olapite, popularly called Fekete, lavishly beams an expression of approval and recommendation for the German politician who remained a totalitarian ruler until his suicide in 1945. He also cast aspersions on Jews and the Hungarian minority known as Gypsy saying, Gypsies don't work, so what are they living on? They do incredible things, really in this country. They scam you, they lie, and you mustn't believe what they say.ö Olapite when questioned by the Hungarian police attributed his outbursts to life under duress, the African news said.
He claimed that he was ordered to shout every statement he made during the interview. "I was very frightened because I thought I might never see my girl friend again,"said Olapite whose funny bait often entraps his Hungarian fans. He continued: "They gave me a 10-page-script about Gypsy, Hitler, Jews, blacks and the socialists in which I hardly understood because I was frightened.ö
"Although they tried to calm me down as they repeatedly told me they were not racists or skinheads. They convinced me that Hitler was a good man who wanted to do the best for the world. I felt I must do whatever they asked me to do otherwise I won't go out alive".
The producer of the BombagyĚr channel, TomCat, claimed Fekete knew exactly what he was saying. "Of course we explained who Hitler and SzĚlasi were but for PĚko itwas unnecessary for him to probe further. Oh, he is not a stupid ni****. I mean Nigerian". The BombagyĚrTV is often the focus of the media because of its racial and hatred contents. However, Africans in Hungary especially Nigerians have dismissed Olapite's under duress excuse as implausible and annoying.
Archie Bonka, a Ghanaian cultural performer, said that it was silly on the part of Fekete to have publicly praised Hitler and condemned the Gypsy who often calls us their brothers? "Doesn'the know that many blacks in Germany were killed by this man? This Nigerian has already destroyed himself.
It's high time he carried his own cross," he added.
In his own response to the scandal, Prince Kabir Abubakar said, "Olapite has only himself to blame for whatever outcome this unfortunate incident ultimately brings", adding that he needs to apologize not only to the Gypsy and overall Hungarian population, but also to Nigerians and the black people the world over.
Zsolt, a Hungarian political student whose class debated over the issue, blamed both Fekete PĚko andthe TV station which carried the interview. "Myopinion on this PĚk█ issue is that both sides are indeep trouble. Even if PĚk█ did not know what he wassaying, the things he said are against ourconstitution, and these types of crimes are strictly punished. The Nigerian Union in Hungary has since issued astatement condemning Olapite's unfortunate outbursts.
Virtually every African in Hungary believes thatFekete PĚk█ is a symbol to ridicule Africans by theHungarian tabloids
Quote from: sheriff 05 on February 17, 2008, 02:04:37 AM
Cekenah, I agree with waziri, your assertions also warrants an apology and (as I said to Muhsin), I sincerely hope you did not mean what you said ... well done Muhsin, true Men accept their Mistake, but only brave one's apologise as well... Masha'Allah..
Thanks a lot, sheriff.
Nice piece, DB. But unfortunetly my time is about to end and thus I couldn't read it completely. But when I get back, inshaAllah.
Most of what I have to say has been said by sherrif, so i wont waste much time.
I have great respect for this forum and its members young and aged as well as new and old. I have come to understand the difference in my clan, my tribe, my nation and my world. I have learnt that I or We are not alone in this world and niether our beliefs and customs. And I am proud of my religion which has taught me to live and get along with any other different from me in any way, peacefully, safely and even progresively. This being said, I want to beg Us to mind our language and character in the best way we can and potray the best image and words that best describes us.
Cekenah, EMTL, Muhsin, King, Dave, Eteh and Lionger This message is mostly especially for you, I do understand where each is aiming at but like I said above, show us some decency and maturity that all of u are worthy of.
On the subject matter itself, I think Senator Obama is smarter than making such comments, clearly someone is tryina ternish his image to his voters and other influence in the world...probably political reasons.
Frankly, I dont care about the U.S Elections. I dont have a say, a vote or the right to judge any one of them. My peoples lives will soon be messed up by AFRICOMM either way whosoever gets into power.
Hitler was a retarded leader that led a nation of people that needed courage beyond sanity to drive thier pride back to its status or even elevate it to an immortal status. Only a lunatic can preach such ideas, but a great lunatic he was. That era proved how vulnerable man can be. On a lower scale, its happening all over Nigeria.
Like Waziri was saying something about the exaggeration of the Jewish Holocaust, its probably what led to the justification of Israeli state. And its probably not as horrible as the Holocausts of ethnic Abanians that innitially was refused to be recognised by the western world. Or even the millions of Palestinians that have lost thier lives to "territory". But still, the World find it only convinient and appropriate to treat the Jews of the Holocaust to thier own lands amidst an ethnic Rival. And for almost a century now, that decision still seems right and only that. Despite the deaths. May Sanity befall our world again.
The middle east has always been a terrible place, sever war and massacre. But ever since the emergence of Islam, there has never been anything that united and made the region more peaceful. Even more than the pressence of the Romans. The state of Isreal has destroyed all that.
In all fairness and Equity, if the West so choses to police the world, shouldnt they maybe, find a place for the palestinians too, make them soveriegn, equip them with nukes too(what happens to the right hand should also be upon the left), push some people over before thier time to earn a land comes near. Or havent the Palestininas seen more deaths than 6 million people till date? What an Irony of prople and times.
Why does the U.S protect Isreal... I may not fully understand. Why do my people sympathise with Palestinians, mostly for religion I suppose. But if anyone has any human compassion in this world, one has to sympathise with the Palestinians, like the world sympathhised with the Jews of the Holocaust.
May Safety and Peace be with you
Quote from: Ibro2g on February 19, 2008, 01:33:44 AM
Most of what I have to say has been said by sherrif, so i wont waste much time.
I have great respect for this forum and its members young and aged as well as new and old. I have come to understand the difference in my clan, my tribe, my nation and my world. I have learnt that I or We are not alone in this world and niether our beliefs and customs. And I am proud of my religion which has taught me to live and get along with any other different from me in any way, peacefully, safely and even progresively. This being said, I want to beg Us to mind our language and character in the best way we can and potray the best image and words that best describes us.
Cekenah, EMTL, Muhsin, King, Dave, Eteh and Lionger This message is mostly especially for you, I do understand where each is aiming at but like I said above, show us some decency and maturity that all of u are worthy of.
May Safety and Peace be with you
Thanks for that, Ibro2g.
Any way, I don't wanna bring us back to sequare A, but yet I feel like stressing one thing here. I've already expressed my apology and so on after Sheriff's philosophical lucid enpantiation on all the happenings. Is good to remind, reproach, critisize, etc even again and again; just like now.
Quote from: Ibro2g on February 19, 2008, 01:33:44 AM
On the subject matter itself, I think Senator Obama is smarter than making such comments, clearly someone is tryina ternish his image to his voters and other influence in the world...probably political reasons.
May Safety and Peace be with you
That was my presopposition on him before. The man (Obama) has charisma (though I have never known him physically ) and is very impecable oratory and other good qualities of good politician. But I believe he says that. Didn't you read what I also qouted him saying in one Jews website? Follow that above link and read the full text.
Quote from: Ibro2g on February 19, 2008, 01:33:44 AM
Frankly, I dont care about the U.S Elections. I dont have a say, a vote or the right to judge any one of them. My peoples lives will soon be messed up by AFRICOMM either way whosoever gets into power.
If you look at US present position globally, I think you should bother, even a bit, about their election, your right to vote, say, judge, etc notwithstanding.
Quote from: Ibro2g on February 19, 2008, 01:33:44 AM
Why does the U.S protect Isreal... I may not fully understand. Why do my people sympathise with Palestinians, mostly for religion I suppose. But if anyone has any human compassion in this world, one has to sympathise with the Palestinians, like the world sympathhised with the Jews of the Holocaust.
Well said, Ibro2g. I also always imagine why US keenly concerns about Israel.
Well, this is a surprise. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, and have thus been woefully misunderstood. Apologies all round! Let's see if I can make things right.
On closer inspection, though I am compelled to say this.
Waziri,
sherrif,
Muhsin and
Ibro2g: you have all be rather careless with my post. If my intent was to insult Islam by equating it with Nazism, then
- Why did I say at the beginning that a black Muslim ought to know better than to support Nazism?
- Why did I say at the beginning that many German Christians were probably fooled into support of Hitler with similar reasoning? Was I insulting Christianity when I said that?
- Why did I decry Muhsin's attempted defense of Islamic principles here as naive at best?
- And finally, why did I say in conclusion that Muhsin insulted his own faith with such utterances?
You all missed the point of my rhetoric, and some are trying to put my statement on the level as Muhsin's; that is ridiculous. I hardly feel under no compulsion to apologise for Hitler's madness, or for pointing out the obvious implications of Muhsin's post - neither of which I agree with.
Waziri,
QuoteSince Muhsin has been cowered into apologising for expressing his sentiments and sympathy for Hitler, which many authors did and are doing today, I will here demand that an apology also should be tendered to Muslims for trying the tip of extereme logic in order to equate Islam with Nazism. Or when did EMTL or Muhsin's positions become synonymous with Islamic position ?
Your response is particularly bemusing. You excuse Muhsin by refering to similar sentiments of other writers - all of whom are probably discredited on that basis - and yet you take me to task for stating the obvious! Do you think that I cannot call on a larger body of expert opinion to support my claims? And if you believe that Muhsin and EMTL's posts are incongruent with Islamic principles, then why are you wasting your time with me, dear Muslim apologist? Of course, you are well within your rights to respond to forumners of your own choosing; however I am also well withinn my rights to point out that anyone serious about defending Islam's honor would not strain over misunderstood rhetoric while making excuses for the real offenders.
QuoteAfter all I do not know anybody on these forums, a year ago who, 'espoused Holocaust denial theories', but I know a one who asserted that the crime against the Jews during the tragedy was greatly exagerated above the one against blacks or Gypsies. That same person also put forward the claim that Jewish religion is inherently racists and preaches racism as a command of God.
The highlighted portion is quintessential Holocaust denialism. Holocaust 'denial' is not the absolute rejection of a Jewish Holocaust. It is, among other things, the idea that the present scholarly consensus on the Holocaust is the product of a grand Jewish conspiracy. The only people that reject the appelation 'denial' to such theories are the Holocaust deniers themselves. So perhaps it is little surprise to discover that a certain Waziri made those comments back then (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?topic=2373.msg24418#msg24418)! I shall comment on the issues you raised there in due time.
Quote from: Cekenah on February 19, 2008, 06:30:39 PM
Waziri,
QuoteAfter all I do not know anybody on these forums, a year ago who, 'espoused Holocaust denial theories', but I know a one who asserted that the crime against the Jews during the tragedy was greatly exagerated above the one against blacks or Gypsies. That same person also put forward the claim that Jewish religion is inherently racists and preaches racism as a command of God.
The highlighted portion is quintessential Holocaust denialism. Holocaust 'denial' is not the absolute rejection of a Jewish Holocaust. It is, among other things, the idea that the present scholarly consensus on the Holocaust is the product of a grand Jewish conspiracy. The only people that reject the appelation 'denial' to such theories are the Holocaust deniers themselves. So perhaps it is little surprise to discover that a certain Waziri made those comments back then (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?topic=2373.msg24418#msg24418)! I shall comment on the issues you raised there in due time.
Okay, let's not try debasing ourselves by calling names like 'Muslim apologist' or 'Muslim hater' as you risk being branded here. But then if by saying what I said you still want to insist I denied the Holocaust why would you want to insist that even after attempting to compare Islam and Nazism all should try to see it as not so? Same standard for
you and same standard for
Muhsin or
Myself.
Why must you wish your explanation to be accepted without reading motives and come round to claim that mine shouldn't be so accepted?
Let's say same standards be applied you take me clearly on my words and I do that to you. You insist on reading meanings out of mine, I read meaning out of yours!
After all you said you can establish your comparison of Islam and Nazism from serious points of reference and I wish you do that.
Waziri and Cekenah,
I understand your discussion is leading to some places, where sincerely speaking it'll not be beneficial to either of you or other members of the forum. If it were me, I'll simply put it like; what happened has happened and cannot be undo but yet can be withdrew, just like what I did. But some people can barely do that, I know.
I unfortunetly know very little about that Holucous 'thing'. I wish I knew more than I know, thus I could have quench the flames of that ongoing fire thats rising. Any way, from now I vow to search, read and explore more on that in case next time.
Waziri, Chekenah and others please calm down and lets continue on our discussion securely, relevently and accordingly. That'll certainly do us more good than...
See you soon! And thanks.
Muhsin, it is not on everything you must comment please, just allow it flow like the rest of the members are doing. Each among us know where to begin or stop please do not give us the impression that it is you who only know when to calm others as if they don't know when to calm themselves!
This may mean some sort of an insult to some. You make peace when two parties agree they are on a war not when they believe they are enjoying the sports. You can't judge people by your standard afterall this discussion is not meant for you alone even though you are the one who started the thread. The subject was yours only before you took it to public arena but once there it is no longer yours but public's.
QuoteOkay, let's not try debasing ourselves by calling names like 'Muslim apologist' or 'Muslim hater' as you risk being branded here. But then if by saying what I said you still want to insist I denied the Holocaust why would you want to insist that even after attempting to compare Islam and Nazism all should try to see it as not so? Same standard for you and same standard for Muhsin or Myself.
First of all, I don't know what you think the term 'apologist' means. Webster's disctionary describes it as 'one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist). Does this not describe your relationship with Islam? I'm not aware of any pejorative usage of the word and I'm sorry if that is your experience. No offense intended.
Secondly, anyone who thinks I am a 'Muslim hater' needs to have his head examined!
Thirdly, I have already responded to your charges above (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?topic=3632.msg38605#msg38605); perhaps you missed it. If you are still unconvinced, then hear this: I put NO link between Islam and Nazism, and as I have shown, the rest of my post kicks against such an idea.
My redaction of Hitler's views on Islam do not represent my own views anymore than my redaction (and that of sherrif et al) of Hitler's abhorence for blacks constitutes our hatred for the black race!QuoteWhy must you wish your explanation to be accepted without reading motives and come round to claim that mine shouldn't be so accepted?
Let's say same standards be applied you take me clearly on my words and I do that to you. You insist on reading meanings out of mine, I read meaning out of yours!
There is no basis for comparison between us, Waziri. Unlike you, I'm not imposing my own pretext on your posts and quoting you out of context. Rather, I'm conveying the consensus of scholarly opinion on your Holocaust views. Unsurprisingly, you don't see your position as a 'denial' of the Holocaust - well, most scholars do! That's not just my pretext; that's academic opinion - which of course you are free to disagree with.
QuoteAfter all you said you can establish your comparison of Islam and Nazism from serious points of reference and I wish you do that.
I said no such thing!
BTW Muhsin,
I sheath my sword. All is forgiven!
Quote from: Cekenah on February 21, 2008, 11:42:57 PM
First of all, I don't know what you think the term 'apologist' means. Webster's disctionary describes it as 'one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist). Does this not describe your relationship with Islam? I'm not aware of any pejorative usage of the word and I'm sorry if that is your experience. No offense intended.
Cekenah, the problem up there is not the word apologist but the descriptive as you put it, "Muslim apologist", Yes I am "Islam apologist", that's defender of Islam. But I am not a "Muslim apologist" which means defender of Muslim or just Muslim who defends but nothing is put to denote what he defends, "Muslim apologist", That was why I said you too risk being branded "Muslim hater", that's he who hates Muslim, not Islam.
QuoteSecondly, anyone who thinks I am a 'Muslim hater' needs to have his head examined!
Hope you got why in the first place I used that in demonstration.
QuoteThirdly, I have already responded to your charges above (http://kanoonline.com/smf/index.php?topic=3632.msg38605#msg38605); perhaps you missed it. If you are still unconvinced, then hear this: I put NO link between Islam and Nazism, and as I have shown, the rest of my post kicks against such an idea. My redaction of Hitler's views on Islam do not represent my own views anymore than my redaction (and that of sherrif et al) of Hitler's abhorence for blacks constitutes our hatred for the black race!
Well accept this and hope you should accept my stance as not denying the Holocaust but rather saying there are reasons why we should believe the outcome of such event may have been exaggerated.
QuoteThere is no basis for comparison between us, Waziri. Unlike you, I'm not imposing my own pretext on your posts and quoting you out of context. Rather, I'm conveying the consensus of scholarly opinion on your Holocaust views. Unsurprisingly, you don't see your position as a 'denial' of the Holocaust - well, most scholars do! That's not just my pretext; that's academic opinion - which of course you are free to disagree with.
Fine, there are also other scholars who believe position like mine do not constitute Holocaust denial after all you did not site any scholar for your claims for us to scrutinize for he may belong to a school of thought we don't approve of.
Safe?
Some of you are jokers, for real ;D. Why was my name mentioned in this thread?? Muhsin and Ibro, I'm talking to you! ;D
Lionger,
Go back and read the texts. Guess you'll know why. 8)
Obama Bn "Laden".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-electi...788281739.html
I saw in the news the day before yesterday, Obama, i think it was a campaign in New Orleans, were he publicly chanllenged McCain to a debate on the policy that the US is suppose to take after the assuming in power of the new regime. He accused McCain that he is planning to continue with the Bush policies, and that he Obama, will be introducing a new policy, and that the Bush policy is democracy of the past, and his own policy will be democracy of the future....lol! i had to laugh due to the growing number of supporters he was easily summoning! He seems to have the upper hand.
Muda,
Obama is very good oratory. He swiftly attracts people towards him. Have you listened to his debate with Mrs Clinton yesterday? He was very tricky at the same time very intelligent. He won it seventy five percent, I believe. Maybe this guy...though only God knows.
Well, hello again my friends. Boy, I've been off-line for some time now, but it seems this forum is still lively and people are still addressing the major issues of the day. This is an interesting topic to me, being an American and following the presidential race daily. I used to visit here often, but gave up for a while for several reasons. First, this job is eating my brain and I find it hard to take any time to write - I like to write but find I write too much so that every time I do so it's a major comittment of time.
Second, I found that there is a significant difference in attitude regarding free speech and expression on this board. I came here originally because of the Amina Lawal case - that poor woman who was condemned to death by stoning because she wanted the father of her baby to take responsibility for it. Shari'ah law apparently doesn't make provision for such actions by the woman - all the man had to do is swear he didn't do it (father the baby) and, since it was clear that the baby was born out of wedlock, the shari'ah courts convicted her of adultry and sentenced her to die. Good grief!!! What sort of ninth century world is this? So I found you folks and demanded an explanation and hoped you would listen to reason. Apparently few here were used to this sort of approach, and I was accused of disrespect and other crimes, and I even got a note from the admin guy threatening me with expulsion if I didn't tone it down, etc. It's as though the Enlightenment never happened, or so it seemed.
In any event, we came to a tense compromise and I thought there were some very good exchanges including Mr. Waziri, Dave McEwan, Lionger, and some rather over-the-top guy named al-Hamza (who would end many of his posts saying "jihad! jihad! jihad!"). So I'm glad to see the forum hasn't changed all that much - many old timers still here, along with some new folks who sound very sharp. Except for the occasional cheerleaders for Hitler, which I hope you agree was one of the worst people of modern times.
But I no sooner get started, but I see I have to stop because I need to go brief my boss on something before he leaves. I hope to be able to discuss more with you nice people next week. Be sure to wear your debate shoes. Sincerely, Jack Fulcher
Isnt it an irony that had Hitler not massacred the Jews to the extent that he did, and David Ben Gurion had not connived with Hitler in the extermination of the Jews (although he never realized the extent to which Hitler would go, but it served his purposes just the same), there would be no Palestinian - Israeli issue today. Did you know that the west was fully aware of jewish extermination under Hitler during the second world war but did little about it? Did you know that the majority of Jews before the second world war NEVER wanted to go and settle in Palestine due to some obscure religious command in the TORAH? There is much more.. just listen to these lectures: 'History of Palestine' and 'Impact of Zionism on the Three Faiths'..
You will find them at www.edars.com
Nice to see Jack back.
If your claim is that Ben Gurion had connived with Hitler to exterminate fellow Jews, then it would make sense to provide evidence from credible and independent sources. I find it rather strange and even odd that you use the ludicrous claims of an Islamic website to support your own baseless assertions. Think about it for a second. When it comes to the topic of Israel, all Islamic websites and news outlets do is engage in anti Israeli propaganda. They manufacture all kinds of dubious stories and tell those stories over and over until gullible people believe them as truths. It is called propaganda. I hope you know that Nazi Germany had a Ministry of Propaganda, and they used it so well to poison the minds of German people until the became practical zombies of the Fuhrer.
Now, there is however, evidence linking Muslims with the Nazis prior to and during World War 11. History has it that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had met with Hitler to carve out a genocidal plan on how to destroy the Jewish people in Palestine. This is particularly interesting keeping in mind that prior to the second World War, the Jews did not have a state of Israel. The existence of Israel is the pretense for which Arabs/Muslims continually conflict with Israel. Yet, when the Jewish population in Palestine were just co settlers in Palestine, the Muslims were still antagonizing, and far from peaceful.
Here is a video on youtube that clearly shows the grand mufti meeting with Hitler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd5aA_kIDzY&feature=related
Also, for your information, please check out the below website as well for a more comprehensive history of the Grand Mufti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
Here is a small quote from the above report.......
"In his memoirs after the war, Husayni noted that "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours'.'[46]
In September 1943, intense negotiations to rescue 500 Jewish children from the town of Arbe in Croatia collapsed due to the objection of the Mufti who blocked the children's departure to Turkey because they would end up in Palestine.[47]
Recent Nazi documents uncovered in the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Military Archive Service in Freiburg [3] by two researchers, Klaus Michael Mallmann from Stuttgart University and Martin Cüppers from the University of Ludwigsburg, indicated that in the event of the British being defeated in Egypt by Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps the Nazis had planned to deploy a special unit called Einsatzkommando Ägypten to exterminate Palestinian Jews and that they wanted Arab support to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state. In their book the researchers concluded that, "the most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem.'[48]
Here is another excerpt...
"Propaganda and recruitment
Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni inspecting Waffen SS recruits from Bosnia.
Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni inspecting Waffen SS recruits from Bosnia.
Toward the end of the World War II, al-Husayni worked for Nazi Germany as a propagandist targeting Arab public opinion and a recruiter of Muslim volunteers for the German armed forces. Beginning in 1941, Al-Husayni visited Bosnia, and convinced Muslim leaders that a Muslim S.S. division would be in the interest of Islam. In spite of these and other propaganda efforts, only half of the expected 20,000 to 25,000 Muslims volunteered."[49] Al-Husayni was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units. The largest was the 13th "Handschar" division of 21,065 men, which conducted operations against Communist partisans in the Balkans from February 1944[50] and participated in the genocide of Yugoslav Jews.[51]
On March 1, 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husayni said:
'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.'[52][53][54]
Feel free to do your own independent research about this report. It comes with footnotes and references.
To see more photos of Al Husseini and Muslim collaboration with Nazi Germany, please check out the site below and then make your own conclusions.
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/
Quote from: King on May 04, 2008, 03:04:18 AM
To see more photos of Al Husseini and Muslim collaboration with Nazi Germany, please check out the site below and then make your own conclusions.
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/
Who says that my sources are not credible? YOU! and why am i not surprised? By the same token why should
yr sources of information be legitimate since they are Pro jewish and anti islamic. Whats good for the goose is also good for the gander king. You havent even checked the website before making such libelous assumptions. FYI there are lectures in which JEWISH RABBIS came out to talk about the israeli occupation of Palestine all in these lecture series so just put the blinkers and prejudice aside and go to the website and listen up to them...... it wont hurt you.
I once read Gogannaka saying he's afraid of this place big big grammar usage by its frequent visitors like... He talked true, exactly! Though, all the talks are very educative, historic and ...superb. Lets just read and leave.
Keep such coming!
Because my sources are neither Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or of any religion. Wikipidia is a neutral source of information that reports history and events based on facts not bias. They allow the readership to draw their own conclusions based on the materials presented. This is how I found the pictures of the Grand Mufti actively colluding with the Grand Mufti to kill Jews. There are more pictures and materials, and many of these materials are present in German historical archives. I am also glad you did not attempt to spin this information. I have taken a look at your website, and no it didn't hurt me. What it contains is a lot of spin and propaganda which characterizes most Arab or Islamic website where Israel is concerned.
I just appreciate facts and truths about history, not fallacies, not distortions, and certainly not lies told repeatedly.
In the history of America, the part that relates to African Americans, you'll notice that some White people have hidden and distorted the true history of black people. They did this to promote a message of black inferiority and white superiority by telling falsehoods over and over again until those lies were not only accepted by white people, but by blacks as well. It took years to begin re-writing history and re-educating black people about the true knowledge of self and about their important African heritage. The damage from all those years of mental deprivation, racism, segregation, and negative propaganda has done its damage. Now, the Arabs are just as skilled as the so called imperialist. They twist everything and everything and present it to their people as truth, and by so doing the real truth is lost. My problem is, if everything is twisted and lies replace truth, then even in history we'll be lost as human beings.
Most Muslims go about with a mindset that Israel is an evil nation because they are occupying Palestinian lands. Then that idea took a different turn after the state of Israel was established. Most Muslims never care to make objective and independent research into most issues. They simply swallow whatever the inciting leaders tell them.
A closer look at Husnna's claims that Ben Gourin was plotting with Hitler revealed FACTUALLY that it was in fact the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (a Muslim) that was meeting with Nazis and Fascists, and even recruiting other Muslims to fight alongside Hitlers Army. This same man met with Hitler, and Mussolini to plot the massacre of Jews. These are open book facts, and interestingly, this was all pre 1948 before there was any such thing as the Nation of Israel. So where does that leave the anti Israeli rhetorics and all the hate mongering because the excuse was always that the conflict was because Israel established a state on Palestinians land. Hogwash!!! Let the truth be told. Jesus said, "The truth shall set you free". Don't you want to be free?
Why doesn't anyone want Israel as a neighbor?
The Jewish are the most terrible sort of people ever created, they know how to perpetuate every kind of trouble, killing of palastenians innocent souls, for example.
Thanks for the kind word, Dave. Hope everything's going well for you.
I've decided to be modern and embellish my profile with stuff. I need to find an appropriate picture - I'm not the easiest to look at, so maybe I'll upload a picture of my dog if I can find one on my hard drive. It's a Westie, Dave! I did put up my gender (duh!) and my flag (yea for the USA and all that, you know). I'll have to get creative and come up with a saying for my signature (something from Voltaire or Jefferson or my mother...).
I do have a reaction to the rather intemperate statement of GoodFella, that the Jewish are terrible and perpetuate every kind of trouble, and of Gogannaka who asks why no one wants Israel as a neighbor. It seems to me that Israel is not the country who has the destruction of a neighbor in her constitution. Most of the surrounding countries do specify in their constitutions and laws that the destruction of Israel is a priority of the government. Why should Israel take such countries seriously and engage in talks with them (e.g., the Hamas government) when one of their stated goals is her elimination?
As an aside, I'd like to commend this board and their web folks for the strides they have taken in making this much more user-friendly. When I started writing here (2002?) it was impossible to use an apostrophe without getting some extraneous symbols inserted.
As for why doesn't anyone want to be their neighbors, I don't see that at all. I might as well ask "why do the Arabs and others in the middle east have such an irrational reaction to the presence of Jews in their neighborhood?" In the US, we have Jewish neighbors in most towns and have little problem. In fact, one of the things I like about this place is that I really don't know what religion my neighbors have. There's nothing in their front yard or in their mode of dress that would tell me. In New York, the orthodox Jews wear clothing that will tell me, but outside of New York, that sort of thing is rare.
I think that in this country we just want our neighbors to be hard workers and neat - if they don't have a job or don't keep their house looking nice or don't clean their yard, we generally don't want them in our neighborhood. Some Americans don't like all of the immigrants (both legal and illegal) who have moved there from Mexico or Central or South America, but many of us (including me) are happy to see them come because they really work hard. The US is a capital exporting and labor importing country (some are the opposite - what is Nigeria?), so we need labor to come here and help build and maintain our buildings and machines.
The Israelis are also hard workers and industrious folks. I know that some of the software companies with which we do business are in Israel. In fact, they are also a capital exporting and labor importing country. I would think that its neighbors would benefit from making peace with Israel and setting up a trading bloc similar to NAFTA or to the EU arrangements. This way the country could invest in its neighbors' economies, build factories and use the local labor in the same way the US does with Mexico, benefitting both countries. But this can't happen if there's no guarantee that the factories won't be attacked and the Israelis won't be killed. I suspect that the Arab and other middle east leaders keep the pot stirred because it keeps them in power, which keeps money coming to their families. Look at how much Arafat made while he was running the PLO! He died a billionaire! And what good did he do? Thousands of Palestinians and Israelis died and there has been little or no progress on the peace talks or getting a separate Palestinian state. J
Quote from: King on May 05, 2008, 02:50:02 AM
Because my sources are neither Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or of any religion. Wikipidia is a neutral source of information that reports history and events based on facts not bias. They allow the readership to draw their own conclusions based on the materials presented. This is how I found the pictures of the Grand Mufti actively colluding with the Grand Mufti to kill Jews. There are more pictures and materials, and many of these materials are present in German historical archives. I am also glad you did not attempt to spin this information. I have taken a look at your website, and no it didn't hurt me. What it contains is a lot of spin and propaganda which characterizes most Arab or Islamic website where Israel is concerned.
I just appreciate facts and truths about history, not fallacies, not distortions, and certainly not lies told repeatedly.
Wiki what??????????????????????? Wiki pedia? yr source of
NEUTRAL information... LMAO!!!!!
Come on King, you are in danger of sounding like a simpleton.. come on!! Have you never read their disclaimer notice??? Hahahaha well let me just paste a bit for yr public consumption:
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, [size=15pt]Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields[/size].
If you want to read more on their disclaimer notice, just scroll down a wikipedia page and you will find out just how
reliable yr source of information is
At least I can vouch 100% on the reliability of my source, and what is more just incase u dont know, the most conscientious ppl are God fearing ppl of what ever denomination or religious creed, which is something you cannot say about a public forum where any one is free to write up what he wishes, which is
EXACTLY what Wikipedia is all about.
Quote from: HUSNAA on May 06, 2008, 04:52:49 PMAt least I can vouch 100% on the reliability of my source, and what is more just incase u dont know, the most conscientious ppl are God fearing ppl of what ever denomination or religious creed, which is something you cannot say about a public forum where any one is free to write up what he wishes, which is EXACTLY what Wikipedia is all about.
Sincerely speaking, I've been, for quite long time, wanting to say my words here. But afraid to be... :o :o :o just like what happened above. Think now its high time to have my words read because I, from every angles, have such right and chance. Sorry if my words anger anyone. Thats unintentional, wallahi.
Aunty Husnaa, am not correcting you 'cos I cannot, in any way. Just wanna say what I learned or rather heard from my GSP lecturer when talking about the authenticity and reliability of Internet brand information. He almost extensively made a great emphasy on Wikipedia, saying any info. found there is not considered genuine, atleast academically. Why? Ordinary visitor could add on (or edit, as they put it) anything he sees there. But thats was then but now, such access is denied. But though, this hasn't yet reclaimed the authenticity whcih the site claims to have. And could not.
You could, therefore, see where I bold the tenses you used above. The context/pragmatic meaning is there. Only the... ;D ;D ;D
Many thanks. Am always learning lots from what you and other intellectuals of this forum discuss. Keep the ball rolling.
Read this Muhsin:
This page is semi-protected.
Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
This is Wikipedia.
All you need to do is register. Tell them any bulls**t on the talk page, request unprotection, log in and s**t to ur heart's content.
Oh...I didn't know. Semi-protected? That reveals everything, everything! Thanks Husnaa for your information.
Since this is a thread about Barak Obama, here's an interesting NY Times editorial talking about him and Islam. The basic premise is that he's still a Muslim under Shari'ah law, that he is thus an apostate (he's become a Christian), and his life is in danger because apostasy is a capital offense under the Shari'ah. Can the smart people on this board comment on this article for me? This even suggests that, if he were to visit an Islamic state, the security guards there would be under pressure because protecting him would be a sin. Not sure this makes me feel safe with him in the White House (although, in truth, no one makes me feel especially safe anymore). Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Jack, better authenticate your source. This link might be biased. ;D ;D
Quote from: King on May 13, 2008, 04:25:05 AM
Jack, better authenticate your source. This link might be biased. ;D ;D
Hmm.......... I am beginning to think that I might have to eat the words I wrote in another thread after all. This sarcasm is very reminiscent of Ete, New Ete, Sammy, Gaius and lord knows how many other pseudonyms
Quote from: HUSNAA on May 13, 2008, 11:38:08 AM
Quote from: King on May 13, 2008, 04:25:05 AM
Jack, better authenticate your source. This link might be biased. ;D ;D
Hmm.......... I am beginning to think that I might have to eat the words I wrote in another thread after all. This sarcasm is very reminiscent of Ete, New Ete, Sammy, Gaius and lord knows how many other pseudonyms
You know hajiya, I was about to reply to his posts then I say to myself 'why waste time'. For someone who would come and attempt to launder Jewish/Israeli atrocities, it would be foolish to even try and have meaningful debate with him/her.
Jack: The right wing American press would do anything to ensure Obama did not occupy the white house.
Quote from: Jack Fulcher on May 12, 2008, 11:56:04 PM
Since this is a thread about Barak Obama, here's an interesting NY Times editorial talking about him and Islam. The basic premise is that he's still a Muslim under Shari'ah law, that he is thus an apostate (he's become a Christian), and his life is in danger because apostasy is a capital offense under the Shari'ah. Can the smart people on this board comment on this article for me? This even suggests that, if he were to visit an Islamic state, the security guards there would be under pressure because protecting him would be a sin. Not sure this makes me feel safe with him in the White House (although, in truth, no one makes me feel especially safe anymore). Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Jack, I'm not sure if after you read the article you also read the hundreds of comments that the article generated and in which both Muslims and Christians alike condemned it as to put it mildly nonsensical. At any rate, I found two comments which might serve to answer yr query in case u just superficially went over the Obama issue for the sake of disseminating it to guage ppl's reaction on this board. Here goes:
How shameful of the editors to have printed this nonsense.
Under Islamic law a child cannot "apostate", nor is he held responsible for the religion in which he is raised. To suggest that any Muslims, let alone the ruling classes of Muslim states, would view Senator Obama's family history a "criminal" is baseless.
Some conservatives might shake their heads that a Muslim man would leave his 2 year old to be raised outside of the faith, but none of that judgement would fall on Senator Obama.
All this "editorial" accomplishes (with your help, grey lady) is to once again raise the Obama is a Muslim/ex-Muslim canard.
He never practiced Islam, was not Muslim upon entering adulthood and is therefore not considered a former Muslim by anyone (except islamophobes and the mainstream newspapers that publish them).
— Ilyas L., NJ
#96 is exactly correct. A child follows the religion he/she is taught in the household (or not taught if the parents don't believe in religion) until they are mature enough to make their own choices. From what I have read of Obama's life story, his father essentially abandoned them while Obama was a small child and had no influence in his life (he wasn't a practicing muslim anyway). His mother didn't have strong beliefs in religion and was more of a spiritual seeker and humanist. So unless he made a conscious choice as an adult or near-adult to become a Muslim and later changed his mind, he cannot be classified as an apostate.
It is very strange that the supposedly learned writer does not understand (or want to understand) that obvious point and that the NY Times would print such a factually wrong piece that is designed to spread unwarranted doubt and confusion about Obama's religious background. It seems like this is from the neoconservative playbook: spread false rumors disguised as facts in leading publications and then refer to those articles as proof that there is something to be concerned with and should be investigated further.
— Ahmed, Atlanta
And here is what some non muslims had to say about the article:
Mr. Luttwak has found a less repulsive and more fascinating way to keep the "he's some kind of Muslim" smear alive in the public mind.
After gladly wasting the nation of Iraq on the basis of what we, even back in 2003, suspected were lies, what do we care or know of what the Muslim countries think? They don't vote here. They barely have meaningful votes in their own countries. Lets see if we can figure out the serious policy changes from the "what you say to get elected" promises of these candidates so WE can vote. Enough with rumors, however cleverly packaged.
— george, massachusetts
This is an odd article in many respects. It assumes a static and unified interpretation of Islamic law. This would be akin to assuming that Jews still employ capital punishment in connection to adultery and homosexuality as prescribed by the Old Testament. Or thinking that all Christians are Calvinists or embrace the mentality of the Catholic Church during he period of the Crusades. No doubt Mr. Luttwak's rather naive approach to the interpretation of Islamic law would be as offensive to many of the Islamic faith as Obama's "non-conversion" conversion experience as described by Mr. Luttwak.
— Robert, NYC
Husnaa, thank you for your response. I read the article but didn't look at the comments. It appears that these commenters think that if Obama had not become a Muslim as an adult, the apostasy punishment doesn't apply. My wife points out that she's read stuff written by Luttwak and he's very biased and single minded, so she's not surprised he got it wrong. This is interesting, as the NY Times is very pro-Obama (since Hillary isn't going to make it). One of the comments (from Robert) says the article "assumes a static and unified interpretation of Islamic law." Does this mean that in some areas he might be considered apostate? It really doesn't make any sense, if so. There must be one age where you must decide to be a Muslim, or reject it. I think that's the idea behind the bar or bat mitzva in the Jewish faith. I think that's about 12 or so.
Anyway, thank you for clearing this up for me. I think I'll submit a letter to the Grey Lady. There's enough to think about this election - we don't need this sort of thing making the decision harder. Jack
There is a verse of the Holy Qur'an that says "There is no compulsion in religion". It is referring to ppl who chose not to accept Islam in the time of the Prophet Salaam and it still stands today. Islam is not a static religion it is very dynamic. The fundamental and basic Laws Laid down by God through the prophet (SAW) still stand and are operative especially those that can be found in the Holy Qur'an. e.g Muslims not eating pork, drinking alcohol or taking drugs as an extrapolation of that verse, committing adultery and fornication, lying, backbiting etc. Then there are other laws that fall under special circumstances like when a country is at war with its neighbors and especially as it pertains to the fact that it is the Islamic religion that is at stake. For example there is a verse in the Holy Qur'an which is a bone of contention with so many non muslims and they often quote it to show
that Islam is a violent and intolerant religion.
The verse says:
'And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al Fitna is worse than killing. And do not fight them in the Al Masjid al Haram (sanctuary at Makkah), unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, kill them, such is the recompense of the unbelievers'.
Firstly, the above verse is instructing the muslim soldiers to combat with the non muslim soldiers who are an ARMY and NOT civilians. This is something that all western and non muslims critics of Islam conveniently "forget" to mention when they are attacking Islam either verbally, or in writing. There is nothing wrong with the instructions on how to go about a war, how many human generals have given similar instructions to their soldiers on war tactics?
What the non muslim critics also dont want ppl to know is that it was only after this verse was revealed that muslims began to wage war with the non muslim idolaters who did not want to see Islam established. Before that, the muslims had always been at the receiving end of atrocities commited on them by the Meccan idolaters, and they bore it all patiently. This in itself was not helping Islam because there might have been so many ppl who privately wanted to enter Islam but were detered from doing so when they saw the tortures inflicted on the muslims by the non muslims.
Besides we all know how human nature operates, if a human is too submissive and appears to be timid to another human, he is grossly misused and taken advantage of and oppressed. Once the timid person stands up to his oppressors, he puts some element of diffidence in his oppressors and as a result, they back off.
Thus in order for Islam to be established, the muslims had to fight back tooth and nail and as those mushriqs were not using kid gloves to handle the muslims, the muslims must use equal force to handle them and if it meant killing the non believers then so be it, since they were the perpetrators of the atrocities on muslims to begin with.
The word Fitnah means trial and it also means oppression. Thus the Qur'an viewed oppression as worse than killing. If we look at history we see how true it is. The Jews were an oppressed race in Europe until the mid 20th Century. Hitler killed them in their millions, by incarceration in concentration camps and gassing. The single most unfortunate thing that happened was that the Jews resigned themselves to the oppression. If they had resisted, who knows? At least millions would not have been exterminated. There were cases of minor uprisings at Treblinka and in Sorbibor. At Sorbibor concentration camp some Jews managed to escape from the concentration camp, and at Treblinka, Jews showed what can be achieved if more of them fought back. I cant remember what happened at Treblinka, but they caused the Germans a lot of discomfort and angst, which showed that the Jews could have prevailed, if they had persisted.
At present the single greatest fitnah in this world is George Bush. That verse of the Qur'an is truly justified on him. I am not going to start on about him here, but what I want to say is that I heard in the news yesterday that he wants to 'lend' US soldiers to Lebanon so that they can crush the Hisbullah.. I shake my head. If he wants to do some good with US soldiers, send them to Myanmar to wipe out the Burmese Junta who are on the verge of masterminding a genocide on their citizens by not allowing proper aid to reach the victims of the natural disaster that happened in that country.
On a lighter note, consider this: Bush is easily the most hated person in the world now. I can count in scores the number of countries (Islamic or not), not to mention "fundamentalists, terrorists etc", that would gladly take him out if possible. But I can't recall Americans saying they fear for his safety.
In any case, if the West can keep Salman Rushdie safe, even with the publicly declared fatwa hanging on his head, I expect the leader of the most powerful country in the world to be safe as well. ;D
QuoteAt present the single greatest fitnah in this world is George Bush. That verse of the Qur'an is truly justified on him. I am not going to start on about him here, but what I want to say is that I heard in the news yesterday that he wants to 'lend' US soldiers to Lebanon so that they can crush the Hisbullah.. I shake my head. If he wants to do some good with US soldiers, send them to Myanmar to wipe out the Burmese Junta who are on the verge of masterminding a genocide on their citizens by not allowing proper aid to reach the victims of the natural disaster that happened in that country.
What would be the difference between your proposed campaign and the 'shock and awe' putsch of 2003 that removed another despot in Iraq?
Come on Cikenah, dont be obtuse lol! I will tell you some differences between invading Iraq and getting rid of the junta in myanmar... intent and will. The intent for invading Iraq was selfish and the reasons given for doing so were not real, they were lies and only apparent to Bush and his cohorts because they wanted to believe them or make believe them. The US went to Iraq becos of its oil, bcos it was planning to de peg its currency from the US dollar and tack it on to the Euro, which would have caused massive damage to the US economy. Saddam may be a despot according to you, but by God I'd rather live in his Iraq than the Iraq the US fashioned out now. Besides Saddam CARED for his subjects. He was mean to his enemies (who isnt?). There was electricity, water, education, housing food and health care under his regime and this is INSPITE of the horrid sanctions imposed by the same US on that country. (It is much more than u can say for us in Nigeria with a govt which is in canoodles with the US and yet we are much worse off than the iraqis who lived under a US hating despot) There was this very little incident that occurred in Iraq which is really not worth a photon of light shone on it, but for me who is starved of such a thing it made a massive impression ever afterwards and I still remember it. It was after the first round of air raids and strikes by the Bush admin and the city of Baghdad was plunged in darkness, after an hr or so...hey Presto! the electricity was back!! (Lord!! Nigeria we hail thee but quo vadis?)
Now to Myanmar, we can see what is happening in that country on our TV screens, we hear about the lack of care and concern for its citizens in the aftermath of the cyclone. The country cannot cope with the disaster on its own, but it refuses to let aid workers either into the country or freely move about. It is only starting to accept aid after much pressuring, but it is refusing to distribute the aid so far. Ppl are in danger of dying from starvation, lack of potable drinking water and the threat of dengue fever is very real. Dengue fever is a mosquito transmitted disease which is worse than malaria, in case ppl dont know. The reason why Malaria is more infamous is because it attacks more ppl, but dengue fever is by far more serious than malaria. With Dengue fever, one's immune system does not improve from an initial attack. A second attack often times proves fatal rather than mild which goes against the grain of conventional wisdom regarding most forms of viral disorders. So given the ripe breeding conditions for mosquito larvae there is a possibility for an epidemic.
The head of the Junta is incommunicado, the UN secretary and his envoys have tried to get in touch with him but to no avail.
I believe that the strength and test of a caring leadership is how it mobilizes iand manages its resources under a crisis condition. Look at the China, which a few days ago had a massive 7.8 richter scale earthquake, so far over 12000 ppl have died and 40,000 are buried some still alive. The govt estimates that over 1 million (or 10 million cant remember) ppl are affected by the earthquake. In the aftermath, the Chinese were impressive. The govt sent out thousands of soldiers to the affected areas to begin rescue work. Wen Jia bao personally camped out in the devastated area and is seen everyday on TV moving about the victims, supervising work and giving out words of encouragement and solace to them. It makes me like him immensely honestly, though at the back of my mind there is this niggling doubt of whether this isnt in a way a PR campaign to offset the negativity of the Tibet issue. I push down all such horrid thoughts, cos I am really not a cynic, I believe in humanity and I have great faith in the human spirit ;D ;D.
The problem with Bush is that he is a warmonger. He is a single bloody minded warmonger who cannot not see the overall picture. In his so called fight with terrorism he has managed to make the lives of millions of ppl miserable. He got rid of the fledgling Islamic militia in Somalia, when after it established itself, it brought some modicum of sanity to the lives of the ppl through law and order. Now any sensible man would consider the two score years of lawlessness which prevailed in Somalia against the foreground of a semblance of normalcy and just let the ppl be. No not Bush, he has this idea that any Islamic govt is a terrorist govt and must be got rid of. Now the country is in a the worst shape than its ever been. The western recognized govt is so ineffectual becos its not what the ppl want, and given the chaos that is the norm, the govt cannot impose itself on the citizenry. In the mean time Ethiopian soldiers are having a field day slaughtering innocent civilians abattoir style.
He keeps pressurizing Iran over its uranium for electricity programs. He has threatened, blustered, monkeyed gone red in the face and all that has stopped him from actually carrying out his intention of an Iranian invasion is the fact that he doesnt have more resources.. the available are being expended in Iraq. Meanwhile, he treated North Korea with kid gloves.. North Korea, who didnt deny its real intention of arming its self with nuclear weapons, he kept vascillating in his dealings with Kim jung ill. I dont recall once a mention or a threat of invading North Korea. Is it bcos North Korea is not in the middle east and has no interest in the affairs of Israel what so ever?
So there is a lot of difference between getting rid of the junta in Myanmar and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. The first case will be for altruistic reasons and the second case was selfish willfulness on the part of Bush and Blair
Great post, Husnaa
Oh good grief, Husnaa! I generally enjoy your posts and consider you one of the best researchers on the board. However, good research is not the same as repeating everything you read on the internet. Google is a tool that needs to be used carefully and discretion. I don't know where you got the following, but you really need to think about this stuff before you copy it here:
1. "The US went to Iraq becos of its oil, bcos it was planning to de peg its currency from the US dollar and tack it on to the Euro, which would have caused massive damage to the US economy." I don't know what you were doing in 2003, or what you were reading, but I'd Google some US newspapers from that time period. Saddam had WMDs at one time (because he used them in the 1990s against both the Americans and his own people). He got whipped by the first President Bush and was required to get rid of them. He wouldn't let the inspectors come in and search freely, so the UN issued resolutions that we used to go after him. Everyone (including the Americans, British, French and the Russians) believed he still had those weapons - Bush didn't lie about that. Where did they go? Syria? Still hidden? After all this time we still don't have the documentation showing they were dismantled. If he had them, or if he got nuclear weapons, he'd be the most destablizing influence in the region.
And let's hear your analysis of how pegging their own currency to the Euro would cause "massive damage to the US economy." How does that work, again? I'm an economist, and I have no idea what you're talking about. In the first place, even if their central bank could do such a thing, there's nothing about pegging a currency to something else that can damage another country's currency. Imports from Iraq represented far less than .001% of US GDP. Besides, the Iraqui currency was never pegged to the dollar in the first place.
However, the next one takes the cake:
2. "Saddam CARED for his subjects." What planet were you writing from when you penned that sentence? The only people he cared about were his own Sunni Baath Party members. Don't you know about the Kurds he murdered en masse? Don't you know about the thousands of Shia he killed? What they have in Iraq now is the beginnings of a democracy. Why are the Arabs so slow in creating democracy? This will make exactly two democracies in the area - Iraq and Israel. (You can't count countries that don't allow opposition parties, as in Egypt and Iran).
3. Yes, he was able to get some infrastructure built, but remember that Iraq was one of the larger producers of oil (not that they produced anything - they just let foreign companies come in, extract the oil, and got paid billions for it).
The bottom line for Saddam was he was a madman who killed thousands OF HIS OWN PEOPLE. Sanctions were imposed in an effort to get the Iraquis to replace this dictator, because he was such a destabilizing factor in the area. This was partly to keep the oil flowing (which helps not just us, but the rest of the world too), and partly to protect Israel.
I agree that Myanmar is a tragedy and I'd fully support an invasion with out troops. I suspect we won't because what happens there doesn't affect us much, but that's the way of the world, isn't it? I'd like to invade the Darfur region because genocide should be stopped, and I would have liked to invade Rwanda, but I guess those places aren't high on our list of areas of strategic importance.
The problem is that, no matter what we do, we'll be blamed by one side or the other. That's the problem with being the big dog - everyone takes a bite as you go by. We can't win in the court of public opinion. So we might as well just do what we think is best, not what others think we should do.
Jack (who CARES for his subjects).
Jack, on the case of the WMD Hans Blix, the chief UN weapon's inspector at the time of the war will strongly differ .. Afterall, what happened to the expression "innocent until proven guilty".. Or maybe Iraq is as guilty as Iran (Who the CIA just confessed have had no weapons program since 2003?).... No one especially in the UK even brings up the issue of the WMD anymore because it is absolutely clear that it was a hoax ... (stick to the moral argument, in my experience, that tends to do better)
On the legality of the war, just ask Kofi Anan till this day he says without mincing his word,that it "according to all international laws, is absolutely illegal"... Curiously, John Bolton the UN secretary general during the war (he followed John Negroponte) was asked to sum up the tenure of Kofi Anan and he remarked "I'll pass" . A genuine remark from a tough man of war about a Nobel prize winner and a tough man of peace.. (the tale of two worlds eh!)
I apologise for being brief Jack, I do not intend to get dragged into this debate, but I just feel like many of my very good American friends, you risk being extremely myopic, making your mind up without having the luxury of seeing that their is a lot more to the world than America .... I mean no disrespect and please take no offence but truthfully, I have to say.. open your mind!!..
For a self learning student of strategy, history and economics like myself, the sad unfolding reality of this scenario as evidenced throughout Mankinds over 3000 years of nation building is that the "denial", "myopism", "non-inclusivity" and "blindness" of America's foreign policy, was the beginning of the end for all the previous world powers (including the Turks, the Brits and especially the Soviets) .... A fact highlighted even in the earliest texts of Sun Tzu (The art of war 544 BC).. While previous super powers could be excused for living in a world of "Zero sum" solutions. Globalisation and rapid economic and technological change have altered dynamics significantly, making the best solutions for everyone mainly "Non-zero sum" solutions.... (As an economist, I'm sure you'll understand, but then again, our schools of thought may be different!!) .... My advice, travel the world, meet its people (not the one's in hotels but in the markets and villages) then open your eyes.. (My travel agent has some facinating deals if you're interested .. lol!!)
Hajia Husna, while I wouldn't say Sadam was pure evil, I don't think he's as innocent as you paint him to be either .... Like all leader's he had his faults and I feel justice should be done by accepting his limitations as well... But I do say that for the approximately 450,000 civilians killed in the fighting so far, (Iraq body count group, I thought I should reference before I am also accused of relying on google!!), and not to mention all that have been displaced, the seemingly philosophical question (depending on if you're sunni, shi'a or kurd) would always be... was it worth it?
At the risk of sounding pompous, let me first of say that my source of info on the iraqi currency depegging from the US dollar is NOT the internet. It is personal communication with someone whose judgement I trust. Secondly, 95% of my information if I need to consult the internet, comes from peer reviewed journals which have nothing to do with what I write on this board by the way. My source of information believe it or not is listening to the news as I work on my laptop, from the BBC mostly, I also listen to DW both TV and internet. I watch 20/20 and 60 miniutes and I get some American current affares from that. I love listening to kowane gauta as well as... so hilariously funny! That is where I get my aperitif or appetizer of Nigerian politics. I dont read online newspapers what ever their denominations.
I dont really like making arbitrary assertions simply bcos I dont want to be caught out. Many of the things I write are my conclusions on matters as I see them with the help of the input I get from the various news channels I listen to. I'd like to read prolifically, but I need to finish what I am doing at the moment. Oh BTW, I just bought a book called Jews of Islam, which is a series of lectures strung together as a book by Bernard Lewis. The interesting thing about this book is that its author is Jewish and all the ppl whom he consulted in its genesis were Jewish, right down to the typist. I dont agree with some of the stuff written but to be honest, the book was written in a fairly unbiased way and I believe the bits I dont agree with were not written as propaganda, but from the Jewish perspective of the Islamic religion since they dont believe everything about Islam. So Jack next time you hear something that jars your senses, remember, its sources are impeccable and not culled from wikipedia ;D ;D ;D ;D.
To answer both you (Jack and Mallam Sherrif) on the subject of Saddam Hussein. I still reiterate that Saddam cared for his ppl. All one had to do is not oppose him that is all and keep a low profile and everything will be nearly alright and tight. Of course he was responsible for the death of a lot of Iraqis. But isnt that what Bush has done for the past 5years? Honestly, I cant see any difference between Bush and Saddam except the method of execution (forgive the pun!) of their atrocities! If Saddam didnt care for his ppl, then the same can be said of George Bush, becos he doesnt care that American soldiers are being killed in iraq and Afghanistan. If he did, he'd order the withdrawal of the troops. He doesnt care about the FEELINGS of the families of the killed soldiers. Heck I think at the start of the war, he didnt even show any personal gestures of condolences to the families of the berieved, except to hand them some silly flag as a token of gratitude for the loss of the life, and even that is officially done, by someone 95 degrees removed from Bush. So if a life is precious then the hundreds of thousands of the iraqi lives killed under Saddam are equivalent to the plus-minus 4000 american soldiers killed so far, and to make it exponential, there are the 600 to 800 thousand iraqis killed as a result of the current iraqi war. So where is the difference between Saddam and Bush.. one was an overt despot and the other is a closet despot.
PS I know Saddam murdered the kurds, I saw pictures of them in Times or Newsweek when I was in the habit of reading those news magazines. I dont condone it ofcourse, but wasnt it the US who instigated them to uprise against him and then left them in the lurch? How typical of the US and the west in general! Its like Mugabe and the west at the moment. They have imposed crippling sanctions on that country to the extent that its on its last legs economically and the worst hit are the innocent citizens and the west has turned round and pointed an accusing finger on how Mugabe has let the country go to the dogs.. when the west was the one who released the dogs in the first place...
Excellent post, my ever lasting Aunty! You are certainly a reservoir of knowledge.
Nice posts Jack and Sheriff. And welcome back to KanoOnline (Sheriff).
Obama wins Democratic nomination. Just read on Yahoo web page. And Bush congratulates him, they added.
Hillary is supposed to win the primaries, she is my candidate
Obama is a failure.
Quote from: Dan-Borno on June 04, 2008, 06:53:33 PM
Hillary is supposed to win the primaries, she is my candidate
Obama is a failure.
EAT YR HEART OUT DB! HE'S ALREADY WON! SHE'LL BE HIS RUNNING MATE
Husnaa we have not yet make our intentions known,
we were eyeing the White House as President not
Vice President - However, series of meeting will be
held with her advicers.
I just hope zaku iya haye wa at the General Election.
The republicans might just help themselves and opt out of the race if there's an Obama-Clinton ticket.
Quote from: Dan-Borno on June 04, 2008, 06:53:33 PM
Hillary is supposed to win the primaries, she is my candidate
Obama is a failure.
You feminist, you've choosen a gigantic failure! Neither Obama nor Hillary is my candidate, DB. Yet, I prepare sosai-sasai Democrat to win this upcoming election, wallahi, than Republican. The latter manifestation is more outrageosly dengerous to world than the former.
And to tell you what I keenly believe would happen; Democtrat won't win this election. Kai whoever, among them (Obama and Mrs Clinton) win. Its not yet time for a woman to lead world most powerful country and neither for a black to do so. Period. You see; at the end of the day, that old crook MC Cain would be summoned as winner ko da rigging kuwa.
Dan Borno, what exactly makes Obama a failure? I am surprised at your comments. There are many of us African Americans here battling White Obama haters who are fighting tooth and nail to discredit him and poison the minds of their ignorant conservative bases in rural America, the Appalachian region, and around the so called Bible belt South. I have had very passionate and spirited town hall type debates with racist White people and other republican (and won by the way) who from day one, have had their agenda which was to damage Senator Obama's image in an effort to destroy his chance in this just concluded primaries.
You should reason properly sometimes before you express yourself. Senator Obama represents something that generations of black Americans and even black people all over the World yarned to see. Just 40 years ago, blacks could not vote in this country. Blacks were denied civil rights, but because of the fight and sacrifice of giants like Dr. King, Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, and a host of other black activists, African Americans have gained giants strides in this country.
Now, we have witnessed history when the son of an African Economist from Kenya, becomes the first black to win the Presidential nomination of a major party. To commonize such a feat is noting but that same colonial and crab mentality that is ever so prevalent amongst us Africans. We should be proud of this moment in black history. You on the other hand are being a hater. When a black person rises in the face of monumental odds, or even without odds, we should be happy for that brother or sister.
Here you are referring to the distinguished senator as a failure. Are you insane? Obama has attended the most prestigious academic institutions in the World, graduating with top honors. He was a successful attorney in Chicago suburbs. He contested and won state senate seat in Illinois. He ran for US Senate, and won. Now, he's the leader of the democratic party beating the Clinton machine. You call that a failure? You ought to be quite and say nothing else. Senator Obama right now is considered even by Republicans as the one of the greatest Orators of our time. His words alone is changing the mindset of a a generation...something that has not been seen in a long time.
We need to really educate ourselves and rid ourselves of the slave mentality that still keeps some of us thinking that Whites are better and superior. Goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QuoteWe need to really educate ourselves and rid ourselves of the slave mentality that still keeps some of us thinking that Whites are better and superior. Goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
King, this is false attribution. Dan Borno's comments about Obama didn't make sense to me either, but there's nothign to suggest that it was the product of an inferiority complex.
Quote from: King on May 14, 2008, 01:58:47 AM
don't read unnecessary meanings into my posts. I just call it like I see it, and yes, the issues I comment on may be sometimes controversial, or issues people shy away from. Like I said before, my views may be different from everyone else's, but that is fine also. I do not expect everyone to agree with me and vice versa. Just take what I write at face value.
King is ur above statement only APPLICABLE to you?
Yea, my words. Difference is, I explain my position very thoroughly. I don't just make a no-brainer comment and expect people to buy into it because it is my opinion. When you blatantly refer to a history making icon like Obama as a failure, without explaining your premise for this ludicrous label, it tells me you are way off base buddy.
Lionger, what else can it be? He endorses Hilary who by the way ran negative campaigns all the way, but expressed extreme negativity towards an African-American whose message is hope and upliftment. To say colonial mentality is not at play here is denying the obvious simply because it was stated. I take real issue with that. Failure? Dan Borno, try gaining admission first and then attend Columbia University and Harvard Law School while paying for your education. Try accomplishing that first. Then graduate from those two schools with honors, and then begin community activism. Then run a successful law practice and teach law at University of Chicago. Then try running for State Senate and winning. Then try being the guy that delivers a keynote address at the Democratic national convention. Then try running for US Senate and winning. Thereafter try sponsoring common sense legislation like control of conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds.
Try sponsoring legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.
Above all, try being the first minority to win the Presidential nomination of the democratic party.
You call that a failure? ??? ::)
Wow, very nice summary King.. I'll be tempted to think you were on his campaign team...
ANALYSIS-"Obama-mania" sweeps Africa, but could he deliver?
Mon Jun 9, 2008 4:19am EDT
By Andrew Cawthorne
(http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84218)
NAIROBI, June 9 (Reuters) - In Kenya, they name babies after him and quaff "Senator" brand beer in his honour. Global TV networks camp outside his grandmother's rural home.
In Uganda, a town has renamed a street "Obama Boulevard".
And in Nigeria, militants even called a brief ceasefire in praise of the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee.
"Obama-mania" has been sweeping through Africa all year, but the euphoria hit new heights when he clinched his party's ticket last week to run for the U.S. presidency in November.
The positive symbolism of seeing a man with an African father nearing the world's most powerful position is obvious.
"The fact today whites can choose a black man as their candidate is a mental revolution in the United States," Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade noted.
But beyond the feel-good factor, there are doubts as to whether Barack Obama could bring tangible benefits to Africa if he enters the White House.
Millions on the world's poorest continent hope the Illinois senator can deliver on aid, trade and heavyweight political support. But many are also warning against over-expectations.
For a start -- obviously -- he may not actually win.
"All this celebration could be premature ... his presidency is not a done deal yet," Kenya's Daily Nation newspaper reminded a nation exulting at his nomination.
Obama's late father was Kenyan, and on a trip here two years ago he was feted like a rock star. But apart from visits to his ancestral roots, Obama does not have a particularly strong track record of interest in Africa, analysts say.
"PREPARE TO BE DISAPPOINTED"
So being black and having a Kenyan dad are no guarantee he will hoist Africa up Washington's list of global priorities.
Like others, Ugandan columnist Timothy Kalyegira took note of Obama's decision to make his first post-victory speech to a pro-Israel lobby group rather than "adoring" black Americans.
That, he said, "should open the eyes of those who imagine that Obama is going to advance black interests or those of Africa ... Prepare to be greatly disappointed by Obama."
Few realistically expect Africa to compete successfully with issues like Iraq, China and the Middle East be it Obama, or Republican candidate John McCain, who takes the White House.
Richard Dowden, director of the London-based Royal African Society, predicted "business as usual" from Washington towards Africa even if Obama wins. Recent policy on Africa has been dominated by counter-terrorism, oil supply and humanitarian aid.
"Obama's rise has obviously given Africa more self-confidence, which is great," Dowden said. "But it is not as if he has any particular knowledge of Africa or great contacts.
"Remember too that he backed the Farm Bill which was very damaging to African trade interests, whereas McCain did not."
And while Africans are used to leaders who wield huge individual clout in their nations, a U.S. president has plenty of checks and balances despite leading the global superpower.
"Because of the history of Big-Manism in Africa, Africans think of presidents as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent ... In contrast, the American presidency is a highly circumscribed office," Kenyan columnist Makau Mutua said.
"Obama may change the pigmentation and racial identity of the person of the president. But does that mean anything? ... Africans and black people the world over must curb their enthusiasm about what an Obama presidency can do for them."
CLINTON VS BUSH
Obama's fellow Democrat Bill Clinton was massively backed by black voters and even dubbed by some an honorary "African-American", but his legacy to Africa is ambiguous.
Some might say it is most remembered for the failure to stop Rwanda's genocide, and an ignominious military exit from Somalia.
Despite being less popular globally, President George W. Bush received some acclaim on his recent trip to Africa, particularly for U.S. funding to fight AIDS.
"Let it not be forgotten that it is he (Bush) who appointed the first black secretary of state. It is also he who has been putting pressure on dictators in the world, especially in Africa and Asia," Kenyan resident Harrison Ikunda wrote in one of a stream of letters to newspapers debating the Obama phenomenon.
"A warning shot to Africa: Obama may be good for Africa, but first and foremost he is an American. He is unlikely to jeopardise American interests to pursue others."
While the debate is almost always cast in terms of what Obama might do for Africa, a major investment push by China and others on the continent has Washington worried.
And there, resource-rich Africa has influence.
"Africa is receiving concerted interest from other powers, including China, India, and Japan," said Mark Schroeder, of U.S. think-tank Stratfor. "Africa will not give a free pass to Obama, despite the heritage and symbolism, and risk losing out on billions of dollars worth of competing investments."
Despite such caveats, nothing can deny Africans a moment of glory in Obama successes so far.
From his grandmother's village in western Kenya to the fan clubs sprouting all over Africa, the cheers are loud and long.
"We are elated, he's one of us!" cousin Moses Obama told Reuters in another long day of interviews at Kogelo village.
"When he eventually succeeds, his joy will be our joy." (Additional reporting by Diadie Ba in Dakar, Daniel Wallis, Donna Omulo and Jack Kimball in Nairobi; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Matthew Tostevin)
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSWAL925173?sp=true
Well, I've got to admit that Obama is quite a sensation in the US. He's like a rock star and the kids just seem to love him. The big question, however, is can he win a general election? The primaries tend to bring out the extremists of each party, so is Obama too liberal for mainstream America? I personally would have preferred Hillary (of the two), but she and her husband made enemies too easily. I suspect that this means that McCain might win in November. He's OK with me, too, and he's not as conservative as Bush and that crowd. This will be an interesting election. Jack