"I am with Terrorism" [Archive]

Bilal

Nov28-04, 11:53 AM

I think it is important to translate from Arabic to English some will known poet and literature to show how really ‘’the others are thinking). Qabbani is one of the most popular Arab peot in modern age:

Source:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/arabic/7206

((Nizar Qabbani was buried today in his hometown of Damascus. Nizar Qabbani is one of the Arab most influential poets. His poems about women and women rights in the Arab world won him both praise and condemnation. He also attacked the Arab regimes as well as the rape of Palestine.
After the death of his wife (Balkis - a rose) in Beirut in a car bombing of the Iraqi embassy where she worked, he wrote a devastating poem that expressed his love and longing for his wife and condemnation of the state of the Arab condition. (For those of you who are Star Trek fans, do you remember that entity that was married to a human women and when aliens attacked the planet and killed his wife, in a moment of rage he destroyed them all? Not just the attacking ships but all of them.))

I am with Terrorism

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended rose and woman

and the mighty verse ...

and the blueness of sky ...

A dominion .. nothing left therein...

No water, no air ..

No tent, no camel,

and not even dark Arabica coffee!!

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended with guts

the hair of Balqis

and the lips of Maysun

if we defended Hind, and Da`d

Lubna and Rabab ..

and the stream of Kohl

coming down from their lashes like the verses of revelation.

You will not find with me

a secret poem

or a secret logos

or books I put behind doors.

I do not even have one Qasidah

walking down the street, wearing Hijab.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we wrote about the ruins of a homeland

torn, weak ...

a homeland with no address

and a nation with no name

I seek the remnants of a watan

none of its grand poems is left

except the bemoans of Khansa.

I seek a dominion in whose horizons

no freedom can be found

red .. blue or yellow.

A homeland forbidding us from buying a newspaper

or listening to the news.

A dominion wherein birds are forbidden

from chirping.

A homeland wherein, out of terror [ru`b],

its writers got accustomed to write about

nothing.

A watan, in the likeness of poetry in our lands : It is vain talk,

no rhythm,

imported

Ajam, with a crooked face and tongue:

No beginning

No end

No relation with people's worry

mother earth

and the crisis of man.

A dominion ...

going to peace talks

with no honor

no shoe.

A homeland,

men peed in their pans ..

women are those left to defend honor.

Salt in our eyes

Salt in our lips

Salt in our words

Can the self carry such dryness?

An inheritance we got from the barren Qahtan?

In our nation, no Mu`awiya, and no Abu Sufiyan

No one is left to say "NO"

and face the quitters

they gave up our houses, our bread and our [olive] oil.

They transformed our bright history into a mediocre store.

In our lives, no Qasidah is left,

since we lost our chastity in the bed of the Sultan.

They got accustomed to us, the humbled.

What is left to man

when all that remains

is disgrace.

I seek in the books of history

Ussamah ibn al-Munqith

Uqba ibn Nafi`

Omar, and Hamzah

and Khalid, driving his flocks toward Sham . I seek a Mu`tasim Billah

Saving women from the cruelty of rape

and the fire.

I seek latter days men

All I can see is frightened cats

Scared for their own souls, from

the sultanship of mice.

Is this an overwhelming national blindness?

Are we blind to colors?

We are accused of terrorism

If we refuse to die

with Israel's bulldozers

tearing our land

tearing our history

tearing our Evangelium

tearing our Koran

tearing the graves of our prophets

If this was our sin,

then, lo, how beautiful terrorism is?

We are accused of terrorism

if we refused to be effaced

by the hands of the Mogul, Jews and Barbarians

if we throw a stone

at the glass of the the Security Council

after the Ceasar of Ceasar got a hold of it.

We are accused of terrorism

if we refuse to negociate with the wolf

and shake the hand with a whore

Amrika

Against the cultures of the peoples

with no culture

Against the civilizations of the civilized

with no civilization

Amrika

a mighty edifice

with no walls!

We are accused of terrorism:

if we refused an era

Amrika became

the foolish, the rich, the mighty

translated, sworn

in Ivri.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we throw a rose

to Jerusalem

to al-Khalil

to Ghazza

to an-Nasirah

if we took bread and water

to beleaguered Troy.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we raised our voices against

the regionalists of our leaders.

All changed their rides:

from Unionists

to Brokers.

If we committed the heinous crime of culture

if we revolted against the orders of the grand caliph

and the seat of the caliphate

If we read jurisprudence or politics

If we recalled God

and read Surat al-Fat-h

[that Chapter of Conquest].

If we listened to the Friday sermon

then we are well-established in the art of terrorism

We are accused of terrorism

if we defended land

and the honor of dust

if we revolted against the rape of people

and our rape

if we defended the last palm trees in our desert

the last stars in our sky

the last syllabi of our names

the last milk in our mothers' bossoms

if this was our sin

how beautiful is terrorism.

I am with terrorism

if it is able to save me

from the immigrants from Russia

Romania, Hungaria, and Poland

They settled in Palestine

set foot on our shoulders

to steal the minarets of al-Quds

and the door of Aqsa

to steal the arabesques

and the domes.

I am with terrorism

if it will free the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth,

and the virgin, Meriam Betula

and the holy city

from the ambassadors of death and desolation

Yesteryear

The nationalist street was fervent

like a wild horse.

The rivers were abundant with the spirit of youth.

But after Olso,

we no longer had teeth:

we are now a blind and lost people.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended with full-force

our poetic heritage

our national wall

our rosy civilization

the culture of flutes in our mountains

and the mirrors displaying blackened eyes.

We are accused of terrorism:

if we defended what we wrote

El azure of our sea

and the aroma of ink

if we defended the freedom of the word

and the holiness of books

I am with terrorism

if it is able to free a people

from tyrants and tyranny

if it is able to save man from the cruelty of man

to return lemon, olive tree, and bird to the South of Lebanon

and the smile back to Golan

I am with terrorism

if it will save me

from the Ceasar of Yehuda

and the Ceasar of Rome

I am with terrorism

as long as this new world order

is shared

between Amrika and Israel

half-half

I am with terrorism

with all my poetry

with all my words

and all my teeth

as long as this new world

is in the hands of a butcher.

I am with terrorism

if the U.S. Senate

enacts judgement

decrees reward and punishment

I am with terrorism

as long this new world order

hates the smell of A`rab.

I am with terrorism

as long as the new world order

wants to slaughter my off-spring.

and send them to dogs.

For all this

I raise my voice high:

I am with terrorism

I am with terrorism

I am with terrorism ...

- Nizar Qabbani London, 15 Nisan (April) 1997.

Gonzolo

Nov28-04, 12:06 PM

I read it. Is he encouraging all Arabs to be terrorists?

Bilal

Nov28-04, 12:16 PM

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.

By the way, Qabbani had hard time with Arab dictators and some Islamic groups, he was called ''the poet of women '', because most of his poem about supporting women rights.

I read it. Is he encouraging all Arabs to be terrorists?

Janitor

Nov28-04, 12:25 PM

...

tearing our Evangelium

tearing our Koran

tearing the graves of our prophets
...

- Nizar Qabbani London, 15 Nisan (April) 1997.

If you could bring yourself to pretend--just for a few seconds--that the deity of the Koran is merely a fiction that The Prophet falsely believed was real, would it drastically change the impact that Qabbani's writing has on you?

Bilal

Nov28-04, 12:36 PM

Qabbani is not religious, even many Muslims rejected to pray on his body in the mosque after his death. This means they did not believe he is Muslim.

He is one of the leaders of the liberal Arab who fight against dictators, occupation and imperialist and fight for freedom and women rights in Arab world.

It is strange that you chose just few words mentioned Koran from such long poem!!!! He also mentioned some words about Christian:

I am with terrorism

if it will free the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth,

and the virgin, Meriam Betula

and the holy city

from the ambassadors of death and desolation

I think ‘’tearing the Koran’’ is symbolic refer to external imperialists forces who want to destroy our culture …. The same as he talked about Jesus and Mary .. who represent the Christian part of Arab culture …. Such symbolism is well known in Arabic poem

The importance of this poem is to prove that the conflict is not ''pure religious'' as many American think. Arab liberals (many among them are from christian background : Edward Saeed, Azmi Beshara, Elias Khouri ...) were the leaders of anti dictators and anti imperialists resistance for decades .. till the rise of Islamic groups in last 15 years.
****************
You can see Qabbani in the American University of Beirut :

http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projects/public/qabbani/nizarintro.ram

If you could bring yourself to pretend--just for a few seconds--that the deity of the Koran is just a fiction that The Prophet falsely believed was real, would it drastically change the impact that Qabbani's writing has on you?

Bilal

Nov28-04, 01:10 PM

Another poem
**************
Qana is town in South of Lebanon was under UN control. The Israeli murdered 120 civilians in this town in 1995. USA used Veto to protect Israel after the report of UN shoed that Israel is completely responsible about this massacre ... this report was main reason that USA kicked out the former UN secretary , Butrus Ghali.
More information about Qana massacre ….

http://www.future.com.lb/qana/

**********************

The face of Qana
Pale, like that of Jesus
And the sea breeze of Nisan
Rains of blood.. and tears..
They entered Qana stepping on our charred bodies
Raising a Nazi flag in the lands of the South
And rehearsing its stormy chapters..
Hitler cremated them in the gaschambers..
And they came after him to burn us..
Hitler kicked them out of Eastern Europe
And they kicked us out of our lands
Hitler did not find the time to destroy them
And relieve earth of their mischief
They came after him..
To destroy us

They entered Qana
Like hungry wolves
Putting to fire the house of the Messiah..
Stepping on the Thob of Hussain..
And the dear land of the South

Blasted Wheat, Olive-trees and Tobacco
And the melodies of the nightingale
Blasted Cadmus in his bark
Blasted sea and the gulls
Blasted hospitals
Nursing moms
And schoolboys..
Blasted the beauty of the Southern women
And murdered the gardens of the honeyed eyes

WE saw the tears in Ali's eyes
We heard his voice as he prayed
Under the rain of bloody skies..

Who ever will write about the history of Qana
Will inscribe in his parchments
This was the second Karbala

Qana unveiled what was hidden
We saw Amrika
Wearing the old coat of a Jewish Rabbi
Leading the slaughter
Blasting our children for no reason
Blasting our wives for no reason
Blasting our trees for no reason
Blasting our thoughts for no reason
Has it been decreed in her constitution,
She, Amrika, mistress of the world,
In Hebrew.. that she should humble us all-Arab?

Has it been decreed that each time a ruler in Amrika
Wants to win the presidency that he should kill us..
We all-Arab?

We waited for one Arab to come
Pull this thorny prick from our necks
We waited for single Qurei****e
A single Hashemite
A single Don Quixote
A single Qabadaya, for whom they did not shave the moustache
We waited for a Khalid.. A Tariq.. or Antara..
We were eaten Tharthara (while engaged in vain talk)
The sent a fax
We read its text
Way after paying tribute
And the end of the Majzara (slaughter)..

What does Yisrael fear from our cries?
What does she fear from our faxes?
The Jihad of the fax is the weakest of Jihads..
It is a single text we write
For all the martyrs who left..
And all the martyrs those who will come

What does Yisrael frear from Ibn al-Muqaffa?
Jarir and .. Farazdag?
And Khansa throwing her poems at the gates of the Maqbara (cemetery)
What does she fear if we burn tires
Sign communiques
And destroy shops
And she knows that we have never been kings of Harb (war)
But were kings of Tharthara (wild belching)

What does Yisrael fear
From the beating of the drums
The tearing of clothes
And the scratching of Khudud
What does she fear when she hears
The stories of 'Ad and Thamud?

We are in national ivresse
We did not receive
Since the times of conquest..
The Barid

We are a people made of dough
The more Yisrael increases in her killing and terrorism
The more we increase in idleness and Burud (coldness)

A Smothering Dominion
A regional dialect that increases in ugliness
And a green union that grows in isolation
Summer trees, growing barren
And borders.. whenever the whim strikes
Erase other borders

Yisrael should slaughter us, and why not?
She should erase Hisham, Ziyad and ar-Rashid, and why not?
Why not? And the Banu Taghlab lusting after their women
Why not? And Banu Mazen lusting after their ghilman (slave boys)
Why not? And Banu Adnan dropping their trousers to their knees
Debating.. necking and .. the lips!

What should Yisrael fear from some of All-Arab
When they became Yehuda???

*****************************

The Fortune Teller
By: Nizar Kabbani ( Translated from Arabic Language):

She sat with fear in her eyes
Contemplating the upturned cup
She said "Do not be sad, my son
You are destined to fall in love"
My son,Who sacrifices himself for his beloved,
Is a martyr

For long have I studied fortune-telling
But never have I read a cup similar to yours
For long have I studied fortune-telling
But never have I seen sorrows similar to yours
You are predestined to sail forever
Sail-less, on the sea of love
Your life is forever destined
To be a book of tears
And be imprisoned
Between water and fire

But despite all its pains,
Despite the sadness
That is with us day and night
Despite the wind
The rainy weather
And the cyclone
It is love, my son
That will be forever the best of fates

There is a woman in your life, my son
Her eyes are so beautiful
Glory to God
Her mouth and her laughter
Are full of roses and melodies
And her gypsy and crazy love of life
Travels the world
The woman you love
May be your whole world
But your sky will be rain-filled
Your road blocked, blocked, my son
Your beloved, my son, is sleeping
In a guarded palace
He who approaches her garden wall
Who enters her room
And who proposes to her
Or tries to unite her plaits
Will cause her to be lost, my son...lost

You will seek her everywhere, my son
You will ask the waves of the sea about her
You will ask the shores of the seas
You will travel the oceans
And your tears will flow like a river
And at the close of your life
You will find that since your beloved
Has no land, no home, no address
You have been pursuing only a trace of smoke
How difficult it is, my son
To love a woman
Who has neither land, nor home

Gonzolo

Nov28-04, 01:27 PM

The importance of this poem is to prove that the conflict is not ''pure religious'' as many American think. Arab liberals (many among them are from christian background : Edward Saeed, Azmi Beshara, Elias Khouri ...) were the leaders of anti dictators and anti imperialists resistance for decades .. till the rise of Islamic groups in last 15 years.

I personnally think that the litteral "terrorists", i.e. the people who use bombs and violence to attack and terrorize civilians, use religion as a pretext to recruit people into their groups. By mixing religion and bombs themselves (especially with the concept of "Jihad") to convince Arabs of their "cause", the leaders of such groups also confuse Americans into being very skeptical of Islam. I don't think it's pure religious, although many probably do.

As of today, I believe the true purpose of the group leaders is to gain land, power, money and personnal respect. It's a conflict of poorer against richer, and their motivation is the fact that 1000 years ago, it is the Muslim/Arab world which was richer.

Janitor

Nov28-04, 01:32 PM

I realize that this may sound to you like it is off of your topic, but what is your evaluation, as a Palestinian, of this:

Islamic teaching states that women may not choose to use birth control out of fear of supporting the children, nor may they simply decide they do not want any more children. The use of contraceptives is allowed only if a pregnancy would harm the mother or the unborn child. Muslims believe that Allah (God) sanctioned procreation that would lead to a larger Muslim nation.

which I found here:

http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/4yes.html

Bilal

Nov28-04, 01:43 PM

Bilal

Nov28-04, 01:56 PM

Muslims since very early Islam used “birth control”, even some early scholars (7 th century) explained how they can control birth (by letting man sperm pour outside).

(Opposite to catholic and Judaism, from Islamic point: Sex between husband and wife is considered as essential part of marriage and it is encouraged strongly, even if parents do not intent to get kids from the relation)

Currently, in all Islamic countries there are Fatwa agree or even support ‘’birth control’’.

There are misunderstanding with controlling ‘’birth” and encouraging having many kids. Islam encourages the family to have many kids ‘’as most of other religions’’, but it is up to the parents to decide the number of their kids.

In other words, from Islamic views: it is not sin to make control birth, but it is better to have many kids if you have the ability for that.

In Palestine, the average number of kids of the family was 10 kids before 50 years, currently the average around 6 kids (it is still from the highest in the world)

I realize that this may sound to you like it is off of your topic, but what is your evaluation, as a Palestinian, of this:

which I found here:

http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/4yes.html

Gonzolo

Nov28-04, 05:32 PM

Jihad has many other meanings in Arabic. Even many Arab Christian are called ''Jihad'' , ( Jihad Khazen = well known Lebanese Christian journalist). Anyway , this is will be long topic , especially the Arab/Muslims understood it in different way than American show it.

I do not know what you means by the leaders of these groups, but if you mean the Islamic groups, then you are incorrect.

The main difference between Islamic groups and most of other groups, that the leaders of firs groups are willing to scarify their lives and money for their principles...

For example:

Hizbullah : The son of his leaders was killed in attack against the Israeli occupation army in south Lebanon.

Hamas : Most of its leaders were killed by Israeli. They used to be on the fire lines fighting with their soldiers.

Even OBL is very rich person who can live very wealthy life n, but he decided to use his money and his life for his ''ideas''...

Americans basically translate "Jihad" to "Holy war", which is, as far as I'm concerned a contradiction in terms with no credibility, it makes no sense. Nothing "holy" is associated with violence according to the other religions I'm familiar with. It may not be the best translation, but it is the one that runs around.

Some counter this argument with the the Crusades of the Christians, well, first I probably don't understand them fully, second, they were a failure themselves : Christians and Muslims should have learned the lesson, and third, if all Muslim/Arabs do recognize that a (Holy) "War" against America is actually going on (I don't think every Muslims do), then America has quite a right to defend itself in any way it can, and since Islam has no borders, then whether the US goes after Afghanistan, or Iraq or any other countries where Muslims predominate almost becomes irrelevent. Either borders between countries matter, or they don't. The "terrorist" groups seem to think they don't (between the arab countries).

The groups I had in mind are exactly those 3 :, Al Quaeda, Hamas, and Hisbullah.

"The main difference between Islamic groups and most of other groups, that the leaders of firs groups are willing to scarify their lives and money for their principles..."

I totally agree with that statement (except I don't think it's all Islamic groups). What I think most Americans don't agree with and frankly don't even respect much is "sacrify their lives". This crosses the line. I value life more than any principle. If someone suicides, it don't like it, it is sad, and I can manage to feel for that person. But if someone suicides and brings along people who wish to live, how can I possibly approve of that and admire that person? It defeats the purpose of having a principle. Even Hindus who belive in reincarnation don't do that. Those three groups cannot earn respect from the rest of the world if such actions are acceptable to them. No one wants people like that as their neighboor.

russ_watters

Nov28-04, 07:03 PM

Nov28-04, 07:15 PM

Btw, what's the definition of "evil"?

russ_watters

Nov28-04, 07:17 PM

Btw, what's the definition of "evil"?EVIL: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil) 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Nov28-04, 07:47 PM

:tongue2:
Well we can continue this for a while:
What is "morally bad or wrong"?

plover

Nov28-04, 08:09 PM

As far as I know, the literal translation of "jihad" is not "holy war" but simply "striving", and as a religious doctrine indicates many kinds of sacrifices that a Muslim may make toward spiritual goals. While I think the specific meaning of ejecting the ungodly from Muslim society has been around since almost the founding of Islam, my impression is also that that has not historically been the most important definition. The terror groups obviously use the word as a spiritual justification for their violence, but how many Muslims accept this justification? Are there non-violent interpretations of what jihad against Western nations might mean? Or do Muslims who are angry about the actions of Western powers in the Middle East, but who would never countenance terrorism use a different concept?

For a long time, European countries used the word "mission" in the sense of "mission to Christianize heathens" as a justification for colonialism. Bush has used the word "crusade" in reference to the current U.S. wars in the Middle East.

All of these ideas have complicated histories, and there is certainly no consensus on how to interpret them.

(I certainly invite Bilal to correct any misinterpretation of "jihad" I have made here.)

plover

Nov28-04, 08:43 PM

It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.
Well, I could call "coffee" "tea", but that would confuse a lot of people. Definitions are supposed to be constant and consistently applied, otherwise the words truly are meaningless.

Terrorism is a word that terrorists have to attempt to cloud because the objective definition isn't a positive one. Applying the real definition objectively means terrorists truly are evil.
Did you really not read the next sentence of Bilal's post?
But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.

I'm not sure how you justify that Bilal (or Qabbani in other than a literary fashion—and if you understand the use of metaphor in Islamic poetry, I'm a camel) is blurring the definition of terrorism. The most coherent interpretation I've been able to come up with for your post is the pathetically one-dimensional idea that anyone who wants to resist Western actions in the Middle East, and calls Westerners imperialists just wants to blur the meaning of terrorism (no matter what tactics they would or would not support).

So, how much of this reflects your actual thinking and how much is just sloppy writing?

And what do you call resisting occupation by imperialists and dictators?

russ_watters

Nov29-04, 01:27 AM

:tongue2:
Well we can continue this for a while:
What is "morally bad or wrong"? Are you being purposefully obtuse? I won't play the game.Did you really not read the next sentence of Bilal's post? Bilal says a lot of contradictory things and talks in generalities instead of specifics. The primary, specific tatic used by Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al Queada is terrorism. Period. You strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a bus station, that's terrorism. Period. The motivation is irrelevant obfuscation, rationalization, and misdirection.

plover

Nov29-04, 07:04 AM

Bilal says a lot of contradictory things and talks in generalities instead of specifics.
It doesn't look like he's contradicted himself (but it's not impossible). Come back when your Arabic is as good as his English. Accusing someone of obfuscation before you know what they're saying just looks like gratuitous hostility.
The primary, specific tatic used by Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al Queada is terrorism. Period. You strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a bus station, that's terrorism. Period.
And someone implied otherwise, um... where? (No, not there, read it more carefully.)
The motivation is irrelevant obfuscation, rationalization, and misdirection.
If you can't distinguish between the anger and defiance and despair that most Palestinians (or Syrians—Qabbani was Syrian) experience and the will to commit terrorism, I'm not sure what I can say.

plover

Nov29-04, 07:05 AM

"I am with terrorism" —
If this translation is remotely accurate, I can think of at least four meanings for this:
"I embrace terrorism" - it seems clear from the poem that this one is intended ironically
"I contain terrorism" - the fear that despair might lead to embracing terrorism
"I am counted as a terrorist" - the feeling of being seen as no different from the terrorists
"Terrorism is with me" - the sense of living in the shadow of terrorism and terrorists

kat

Nov29-04, 08:25 AM

I think there should be some clarification about who Qabbani was and why he should be considered in a more positive light then I see him being considered here.
Qabbani had spent most of his life in Lebanon to escape from Hafez Assad (Syrian) Lebanon was for a very long time the "jewel of the middle east" with much freedom in the arts as well as many "western" ideals, fashions and institutions. Many writers of political pieces found refuge in Lebanon at the time. Qabbani was a supporter of Democracy and against dictatorship, although he was bitter about syria losing the war to Israel and was very anti-Israeli.
Also, his wife was not just killed by terrorist, he was killed by Syrian supported forces conveniently called "terrorist" in the Arab world.
His poem written after his second wifes death is haunting and I think portrays his beliefs in a more clarifying manner.

1
Thank you…
Thank you…
For my love was assassinated…

You can now have a drink over her grave.
Thank you…
Thank you…
For my poem was assassinated…
And is there a nation on Earth…save ours…that
assassinates poems?

2
Balqis…
Most beautiful queen in the history of Babel
Balqis…
Tallest palm in the land of Iraq
When she walked…
Peacocks wandered about her
Deer followed her gait
Balqis…This pain of mine…
The ache of a poem quivering at the touch of a finger
Pray tell…Will the wheat rise again in the fields
Now that your hair in the wind no longer weaves?
Oh, green Nineveh... My fair-haired gypsy…
Like waves on the Tigris in the spring
Adorning your feet with the prettiest of anklets

3
They killed you, Oh Balqis…
What Arab nation is this that assassinates…
The songs of nightingales?
What became of chivalrous Samaou’al?
Where are you, Muhalhal, the poet hero?
Where have all the noble men of old gone?
Tribes have pounced on tribes…
Foxes have killed foxes…
Spiders have crushed spiders…
I swear by your eyes
Where slumber a million stars
I will tell, my sweet Moon, about the Arabs
Stories from far beyond Mars
Is heroism an Arab lie?
Or is History, like us, a pathological liar??

4
Oh Balqis…Don't fade away from me…
After you the sun shines no more on these seashores
I will tell in the inquiry
That the thief was disguised as a fighter
I will tell in the inquiry
That the gifted leader is now for hire…
I will tell about the myth of enlightenment
For we are one tribe among so many…
That is our History…Oh Balqis…
And how is a man to tell gardens from dump yards?

5
Balqis…
Martyr and poem…Pure and sublime…
Sheba searches for her queen…
Don’t you hear the cheers of the crowds?
Oh most magnificent of queens…
Woman in whom Sumer in all her glory was cast
Balqis…
Gentlest of birds…Most precious of icons…
A tear rolling down the cheek of the Magdalene
Did I wrong you…
By taking you one day away from the great shores?
Each day Beirut kills one of us…
Each day it looks for one more victim…
And death is right here in our coffee cups…
In the key to our apartment…
In the flowers of our veranda…
In the pages of the newspaper….
And in the letters of the alphabet…
Here we are once again, Oh Balqis
Entering the Age of Jahiliyyah
The Age of Ignorance
Here we are yet again…
Embarking on savagery and backwardness
On Ugliness and vileness
Here we are again …
Entering the age of barbarism
Where writing is a mad journey
Between burning shreds of shrapnel
And where assassinating a butterfly in her field…
Has become the Cause…

devious_

Nov29-04, 08:59 AM

The primary, specific tatic used by Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al Queada is terrorism. Period. You strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a bus station, that's terrorism. Period.
And firing a misile at a bus station (or a house) isn't terrorism?

Do you honestly think Palistinians would resort to blowing themselves up if they had an orginized military? They are fighting with what they have and can use. Sure, attacking Israeli civilians isn't really the right way to go, but they're only doing to the Israelis what has been done to them. That is not as much terrorism as it is revenge.

kat

Nov29-04, 09:07 AM

And firing a misile at a bus station (or a house) isn't terrorism? If it's intent was to harm civilians then yes, if not then ...no. That's the difference.

Bilal

Nov29-04, 10:43 AM

QUOTE=Gonzolo]((Americans basically translate "Jihad" to "Holy war", which is, as far as I'm concerned a contradiction in terms with no credibility, it makes no sense. Nothing "holy" is associated with violence according to the other religions I'm familiar with. It may not be the best translation, but it is the one that runs around.))

Real meaning of Jihad:

From language :

Jihad come from the verb ‘Ja- ha- da’ which means struggle.... it is exist thousands of years before Islam. It refer to any job need from you a lot of energy and effort to do …

From Social meaning:

It is refer to any great job you doing, for example: he is doing ‘’jihad’’ by his studies … it means he continuing his studies, in spite of he has limited means or limited financial support to do this noble job.

Of course for rich people or those who can easily continue their studies, we can not call that ‘’Jihad for knowledge”.

Islamic/politics:
Jihad has many types:

The noble Jihad is against yourself .. this means to prevent yourself from doing evil is called the most noble Jihad

The greatest Jihad is against your ‘’evil leader’’ or against the aggressor by telling the truth , even if it cause your death. For example, if you tell your ‘’bad leader’’ , you are bad! This means you doing the greatest Jihad …

Other types of Jihad … Jihad for getting knowledge, Jihad to protect your family, your money, your homeland, the poor people, you country ….

I wish you see the big difference between the real meanings of Jihad and how the American/western translate it!

if all Muslim/Arabs do recognize that a (Holy) "War" against America is actually going on (I don't think every Muslims do), then America has quite a right to defend itself in any way it can, and since Islam has no borders, then whether the US goes after Afghanistan, or Iraq or any other countries where Muslims predominate almost becomes irrelevent. Either borders between countries matter, or they don't. The "terrorist" groups seem to think they don't (between the arab countries).

This is far from logic .... just read these facts:

- 23% of the world is Muslims, they are majority in 55 States, they have hundreds of sectors, and they have thousands of schools!!
So how you think all these nations could agree in one opinion, or what you called holy war on America for no reason!!

Your problem with small group called ((Salafi Jihadi) or what you called it (Wahabi) , this school is exist in small part of Islamic world and they are not popular and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims. Not because they are against USA, but because they are extremists and rejected the rest of Islamic schools (especially Sufi and Shia schools).
Thanks to USA who gave them power in 80s by support them against the Soviet!! Otherwise nobody could hear about them!

((The groups I had in mind are exactly those 3 :, Al Quaeda, Hamas, and Hisbullah. ))

Again .. you could not see big differences among these groups:

- ALqaeda is salfi Jihadi school who reject the right of other Muslims schools to exist, they believe that Hizbullah (Shia) are enemy the same as USA!!
- Hamas and Hizbulmlah are fighting on their national soil to liberate it from foreign occupation.. they never bomb USA or outside the conflict zone, while ALqaeda do not believe in boundary of conflict and willing to bomb any country who do not agree with (whether Islamic or non Islamic countries). Remember that Alqaeda started attacking the Islamic countries several years before 11/9.
-
I believe there are big differences in ideology and tactics of these organizations.

((What I think most Americans don't agree with and frankly don't even respect much is "sacrify their lives". This crosses the line. I value life more than any principle. If someone suicides, it don't like it, it is sad, and I can manage to feel for that person. But if someone suicides and brings along people who wish to live, how can I possibly approve of that and admire that person? It defeats the purpose of having a principle. Even Hindus who belive in reincarnation don't do that. Those three groups cannot earn respect from the rest of the world if such actions are acceptable to them. No one wants people like that as their neighboor.[/QUOTE]

From Islamic point : Suicide is not accepted .... just some scholars in some places claim that they have no weapons except suicide attacks!!

Unfortunately you see the world black and white!! As I told you check about unbiased information about these three groups to see how the big difference.

By the way:

Hizbullah is against suicide bombers attacks for religious reasons. Most of Suicide attacks in Lebanon were done by the communist parties or nationalists in 80s. (Sana Mehaidly : first sucide bomber in ME from South of Lebanon and belong to left originations)

In Palestine , 60% of suicide attacks done by secular and nationalist (non religious groups). Even Hamas is the strictest in these attacks, because they do not let girls to do it as other no religious groups doing.

Bilal

Nov29-04, 10:52 AM

Can you call Qana massacre as ''Israeli terrorism''?

In 1996, Israel bombed a UN camp full by kids and women. They murdered 120 civilians. The UN report found Israel guilty ... so USA kicked out the former UN secretary because he accepted this report.

Murdering is murdering whether by suicide attack or by bomb!

((The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (UNGA Res. A/RES/50/22 C) on April 25, 1996 characterizing Israel's actions during the "Grapes of Wrath" offensive as "grave violations of international laws relating to the protection of civilians during war))

More information about the UN report:

http://hrw.org/reports/1997/isrleb/Isrleb.htm#P54_1377

Well, I could call "coffee" "tea", but that would confuse a lot of people. Definitions are supposed to be constant and consistently applied, otherwise the words truly are meaningless.

Terrorism is a word that terrorists have to attempt to cloud because the objective definition isn't a positive one. Applying the real definition objectively means terrorists truly are evil.

But hey, if you don't like the word, there are plenty of other ones that can describe those people and their actions: murderers, criminals, outlaws, savages, barbarians, evil, etc. Take your pick.

Bilal

Nov29-04, 11:11 AM

Dear plover,

I already explained the real meaning of Jihad ....

I do not think that Muslims or Arab hate he West !! Even the most extremists parties (e.g. Alqaeda ) believes that peaceful western countries should not be attacked ....

Extremism exist every where, and the popularity of ALqaeda among the Muslims is less than the popularity of the NAZI among the German or the popularity of KKK among the American.

In fact I do not understand why the generalization against all Muslims and Arab ... ignoring the fact that 10% of Arab are no Muslims and 70% of Muslims are not strict Muslims or fundamentalist!

As far as I know, the literal translation of "jihad" is not "holy war" but simply "striving", and as a religious doctrine indicates many kinds of sacrifices that a Muslim may make toward spiritual goals. While I think the specific meaning of ejecting the ungodly from Muslim society has been around since almost the founding of Islam, my impression is also that that has not historically been the most important definition. The terror groups obviously use the word as a spiritual justification for their violence, but how many Muslims accept this justification? Are there non-violent interpretations of what jihad against Western nations might mean? Or do Muslims who are angry about the actions of Western powers in the Middle East, but who would never countenance terrorism use a different concept?

For a long time, European countries used the word "mission" in the sense of "mission to Christianize heathens" as a justification for colonialism. Bush has used the word "crusade" in reference to the current U.S. wars in the Middle East.

All of these ideas have complicated histories, and there is certainly no consensus on how to interpret them.

(I certainly invite Bilal to correct any misinterpretation of "jihad" I have made here.)

Nov29-04, 11:27 AM

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I won't play the game

My intention is to point out that there is nothing like pure evil. What is good or evil is defined differently by everyone. Agree?

Bilal

Nov29-04, 11:27 AM

devious , EL and plover

You made many positive points and I highly appreciate that. We are human before we belong to specific religion and nations. Lets to think more logically ...

I am Palestinian who live most of my life under Israeli occupation. I can not tell you how the horror we experience for many years. Our crime is that we born Palestinian! Even before the Palestinian start the military resistance or what other call it ''terrorism'' , the Israeli treated us as sub human . They work by all their force to change the demography and the geography of our country by claiming that ''god give them this land 2000 years ago'', you can not imagine how to live your childhood under such violence and horror of occupation.

During my studies , I had to pass through 3 checkpoints everyday. It is something like the hell: they just enjoy beating and mistreating us. They hit fathers in front of their kids, they slap women and everyday they develop new tactics to harm us. They used to collect all the males from age 14 till 60 in the center of the town to beat all of them and to force them cleaning the streets by their hands.

Extremists Jews settlers are kind of human-beasts.. They just look for any Palestinian to kill him. At night they used to attack our towns , burning our crops destroying water and electrical systems .... they want us to give them our houses and lands and to immigrate!!

Only those people who live in the same conditions can understand our suffering.

Bilal

Nov29-04, 11:37 AM

My eyes were full by tears when I read for the first time this poem in Arabic. Thanks for copying this translation.

The information you collected about Qabbani is correct, he was against all Arab leaders. Even he attacked the well known Egyptian leader (Nasser) in 1969 by poem.

His poem is working better than CNN in USA, because Arabic culture is affected by poem since thousands of years. Beside the fact that Arabic is one of oldest languages on earth who continue survive and develop itself without interruption. Therefore it is rich by vocabulary and its poem has special musical systems.

In Middle Ages , Arabic poem was stronger than swords ...

I think there should be some clarification about who Qabbani was and why he should be considered in a more positive light then I see him being considered here.
Qabbani had spent most of his life in Lebanon to escape from Hafez Assad (Syrian) Lebanon was for a very long time the "jewel of the middle east" with much freedom in the arts as well as many "western" ideals, fashions and institutions. Many writers of political pieces found refuge in Lebanon at the time. Qabbani was a supporter of Democracy and against dictatorship, although he was bitter about syria losing the war to Israel and was very anti-Israeli.
Also, his wife was not just killed by terrorist, he was killed by Syrian supported forces conveniently called "terrorist" in the Arab world.
His poem written after his second wifes death is haunting and I think portrays his beliefs in a more clarifying manner.
…

russ_watters

Nov29-04, 12:24 PM

Thank you, guys, for proving my point: you are arguing against a definition. You are arguing that its ok if I do it if someone else is doing it. Like I said before: apply the definition consistently and there is only one conclusion.

This man says he is "with terrorism" - well then he's made it quite clear: he is for the intentional killing of innocent people. He's pro-murder. Pro-crime. Pro-war. Anti-civilization. Anti-peace.

Why? That's what terrorism means!

devious_

Nov29-04, 12:34 PM

Not all so-called terrorism targets "innocent" people, russ_watters. That's the problem: the generalizations.

Burnsys

Nov29-04, 12:37 PM

kat

Nov29-04, 12:57 PM

mmm just FYI, I believe the actual word used is irhab which would mean "fear" "to fear" "to frighten" I don't have an arabic copy here to look at, perhaps Bilal can clarify.

kat

Nov29-04, 01:29 PM

[I]QUOTE=Gonzolo]

From Islamic point : Suicide is not accepted .... just some scholars in some places claim that they have no weapons except suicide attacks!!

Unfortunately you see the world black and white!! As I told you check about unbiased information about these three groups to see how the big difference. Suicide was origionally a tactical movement but because of it's large success in Lebanon was strategically adopted by islamics after leading shi'ite clerics began to bend their interpretaion of the law sanctioning it.

By the way:

Hizbullah is against suicide bombers attacks for religious reasons. Most of Suicide attacks in Lebanon were done by the communist parties or nationalists in 80s. (Sana Mehaidly : first sucide bomber in ME from South of Lebanon and belong to left originations) The first suicide bombing in Lebanon was by the Amal organization...who were Shi'ite. Sana was a syrian nationalist and was the third suicide bomber (april, 1985-first suicide by a woman...much celebrated...)...one third of all suicide attacks in Lebanon were committed by Hezzbollah.

Bilal

Nov29-04, 03:25 PM

So it is terrorism to attack the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon?

**********************************

Sucide bombers started for the first time in 70s by the Tamil tribes in Sri Lanka ....

Suicide was origionally a tactical movement but because of it's large success in Lebanon was strategically adopted by islamics after leading shi'ite clerics began to bend their interpretaion of the law sanctioning it.

The first suicide bombing in Lebanon was by the Amal organization...who were Shi'ite. Sana was a syrian nationalist and was the third suicide bomber (april, 1985-first suicide by a woman...much celebrated...)...one third of all suicide attacks in Lebanon were committed by Hezzbollah.

Bilal

Nov29-04, 03:43 PM

The actual word is Assassin, it is come from the Arabic word ‘’Hashashin’’ .

((The term originally referred to a heretical Islamic order known as the Hashshashin, an offshoot of Ismailism, and originated in a castle called Alamut in the mountains of Northern Iran in the 11th century. This sect was said to carry out assassinations of the enemies of the order, or Muslim rulers they believed to be impious. The earliest known record of the word in English (dating from the early 17th century) refers to this sect rather than its more general modern sense. Similar words had earlier appeared in French and Italian.

Marco Polo provided the first western account of the sect, although his account is probably fictionalized in part. He said that recruits were promised Paradise in return for dying in action. They were drugged, often with materials such as hashish (although some suggest opium and wine instead, all being, nonetheless, condemned by Islam) then spirited away to a garden stocked with attractive and compliant women and fountains of wine. At this time, they were awakened and it was explained to them that such was their reward for the deed, convincing them that their leader, Hassan-i-Sabah, could open the gates to Paradise. The name assassin is derived from either hasishin for the supposed influence of their attacks and disregard for their own lives in the process, or hassansin for their leader.))

There are many modern words from Arabic origin:.. Admiral, Alchemy, alcohol, Algebra, Algorithm, Alkali, Arsenal, Zero, Chemistry, Guitar, Jasmine, Magazine, Massage, Monsoon, Mummy …………

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin

So what is your point by saying that origin of this word is Arabic?

mmm just FYI, I believe the actual word used is irhab which would mean "fear" "to fear" "to frighten" I don't have an arabic copy here to look at, perhaps Bilal can clarify.

kat

Nov29-04, 04:52 PM

So what is your point by saying that origin of this word is Arabic?
Um...I was speaking of the Arabic word translated into terrorism....in...the...poem..... but I don't have an arabic copy available to me....you do...
is the word used "irhab" or?

kat

Nov29-04, 04:58 PM

So it is terrorism to attack the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon? If this is a response to my post..I was speaking of suicide attacks but I don't think attacking Israel soldiers IN southern Lebanon is terrorism...BUT attacking civilians across the border IS. Occupying Lebanon and attacking Israel from her soil also carries it's own element of a certain kind of life of terror though, doesn't it?!

Sucide bombers started for the first time in 70s by the Tamil tribes in Sri Lanka ....
Yes, yes...that is why I made sure to say... "The first suicide bombing in Lebanon " and not just...the first suicide...

russ_watters

Nov29-04, 06:32 PM

Not all so-called terrorism targets "innocent" people, russ_watters. That's the problem: the generalizations. I'm not generalizing, you are when you say that! You're citing actions without saying what they are and citing a definition without saying what it is! I'm being very specific: blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism and such acts are the primary tactic of Hamas, Al Queda, Hizbolla, etc. It doesn't get any more specific than that - I'm using the word's accepted definition and applying it objectively to real acts.

For all you who wanted to use misdirection to avoid addressing that point by asking me about Israel's actions, I'll answer all of your questions if you first acknowledge the truth of what I just said above in bold. Though if it helps clarify things: I'm willing to apply the definition of terrorism consistently and objectively what I'm asking is: are you?

Burnsys

Nov29-04, 06:50 PM

I'm not generalizing, you are when you say that! You're citing actions without saying what they are and citing a definition without saying what it is! I'm being very specific: blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism and such acts are the primary tactic of Hamas, Al Queda, Hizbolla, etc. It doesn't get any more specific than that - I'm using the word's accepted definition and applying it objectively to real acts.

For all you who wanted to use misdirection to avoid addressing that point by asking me about Israel's actions, I'll answer all of your questions if you first acknowledge the truth of what I just said above in bold. Though if it helps clarify things: I'm willing to apply the definition of terrorism consistently and objectively what I'm asking is: are you?

Actualy it seem that the FBI have a broarder view of what terrorism is, in their Pamphlet they say terrorists are:

Defenders of US Constitution
Groups of people engaged in paramilitary trainging
Christians
Those who make "Numerous reference to the US Constitution"
Left Wing terrorist??
Animal Rigths activist
Urban Riots Agitators

Betwen others.

You can check it here:
http://www.radioliberty.com/fbipam.jpg

plover

Nov29-04, 08:34 PM

Burnsys:

The FBI pamphlet is addressed to domestic terrorism (as it should be, the FBI's is not an international agency). It also offers a definition of domestic terrorism:
Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.

The list you give is groups which contain elements that have been found to be engaged in terrorism. I like how the list on the pamphlet includes "Weapons of mass destruction" as if they were a separate group that was sneaking around on their own :rofl:.

I'm not sure their definition is actually very good as it covers, say, election fraud, where terrorism is generally considered to be violent in nature. Perhaps the words "criminal activity" should be amended to "criminal violence or the threat thereof".

It's an interesting link, but I'm not sure it addresses what russ is saying.

Gonzolo

Nov29-04, 08:45 PM

Real meaning of Jihad:...
Facts...
differences among these groups:...
From Islamic point :...
As I told you check about unbiased information about these three groups to see how the big difference...

Thanks for the information. Jihad seems more like "duty", "work", "task" or "struggle" as you say. Of course, it works both ways, so if some groups have a duty involving a conflict of interest with the US or Israel, these countries have the opposite duty.

I have browsed news from al-jazeera, cnn, and a dozen other different contries, and have found that uniased information is incredibly hard to find, so your Palestinian viewpoint is important.

As for a definition for "terrorism", it's quite clear to me that it litterally means "terrorizing (a population)". Common usage seems to incorporate "...by killing innocent, random civilians" and often "...by sacrificing one of our own." Literally, Qabanni is saying he approves of this. But since he's being poetic about it, I suppose anyone who accuses him of anything isn't "interpreting" his message correctly.

Bilail, do you think peace (one year without any suicide bombing or Israeli attack) will be achieved in the Palestine/Israel region within our lifetimes? What are the prerequisits? I tend to think there are too many different groups that don't get along. I suspect you don't like Sharon much, but what do you think of Mahmoud Abbas?

Cuz when I get the chance, I'd like to do tourism over there without losing a limb.

russ_watters

Nov30-04, 08:07 AM

Actualy it seem that the FBI have a broarder view of what terrorism is, in their Pamphlet they say terrorists are... Round and round we go - this is the reason the anti-Israel Arab population does not have the support of the international community. Until such time as they renounce terrorism, they will continue to be considered to be the thugs of the world.

ramollari

Nov30-04, 08:18 AM

I sympathize with the Palestinian population and their cause. But I strongly condemn terrorism and suicide attacks and feel very sorry for so many lost innocent lives everywhere in the world. People should unite in pacific protests against the imperialist policies of George W Bush.

devious_

Nov30-04, 08:47 AM

I'm not generalizing, you are when you say that! You're citing actions without saying what they are and citing a definition without saying what it is! I'm being very specific: blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism and such acts are the primary tactic of Hamas, Al Queda, Hizbolla, etc. It doesn't get any more specific than that - I'm using the word's accepted definition and applying it objectively to real acts.

The only one of the three groups you cited that I would call a terrorist group is al-Qa'eda.

Hizbolla don't blow-up bus-stations or restaurants for the purpose of killing civilians. What Hizbolla do is keep Israel out of southern Lebanon. And although Hamas seem to attack civilians very often (which I am against, btw), I don't think it's accurate to call that their primary tactic. Hamas attack Israeli military targets often too, but that doesn't get as much media coverage for obvious reasons.

You should also take into consideration WHY Hamas resort to attacking civilian targets. It is because they are up against a much stronger enemy that kills AND humiliates their people (the latter should be emphasised), destroys their homes and ruins their farms and business places. (Are those not civilian targets?) This enemy has opressed them for over a decade, and seems to be backed up by almost everyone.

russ_watters

Nov30-04, 10:34 AM

You should also take into consideration WHY Hamas resort to attacking civilian targets. Does the definition of terrorism include a why and if so, what is it?

I'm also not willing to split hairs over what fraction of which organization's action is terrorism. That they do it and advocate it is enough.

studentx

Nov30-04, 01:52 PM

You should also take into consideration WHY Hamas resort to attacking civilian targets. It is because they are up against a much stronger enemy that kills AND humiliates their people

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.

This enemy has opressed them for over a decade, and seems to be backed up by almost everyone.

Evryone, except the billions all over the world like you. Its always a mystery for me how some ppl can be in the illusion that evrybody is against Palestine and for Israel. But for governments its simply impossible to back up palestinians who resort to blowing up buses and cafes. They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.

Bilal

Nov30-04, 02:29 PM

Yes .. Irhab means terrorism in Arabic

Um...I was speaking of the Arabic word translated into terrorism....in...the...poem..... but I don't have an arabic copy available to me....you do...
is the word used "irhab" or?

Bilal

Nov30-04, 02:34 PM

Suicide bombers is not the origin of the problem, it is just recent phenomena (after Hebron massacre 1994). The root of the problem is the racist ideology of Zionism , which ignore the right of the native people of Palestine to live as human.

I am not hopeful about peace in ME, especially USA doing the same job as Israel. USA became now part of the problem, which make everything more complex than before.

I do not trust Abbas ,may be we need him at this difficult time of the conflict.

Bilail, do you think peace (one year without any suicide bombing or Israeli attack) will be achieved in the Palestine/Israel region within our lifetimes? What are the prerequisits? I tend to think there are too many different groups that don't get along. I suspect you don't like Sharon much, but what do you think of Mahmoud Abbas?

Cuz when I get the chance, I'd like to do tourism over there without losing a limb.

Bilal

Nov30-04, 02:38 PM

If you check the UN resolutions, you will find all the world support the Palestinian people in their tragedy, except USA and Micronesia (island exist somewhere in the ocean).

Round and round we go - this is the reason the anti-Israel Arab population does not have the support of the international community. Until such time as they renounce terrorism, they will continue to be considered to be the thugs of the world.

Bilal

Nov30-04, 02:53 PM

Israel murdered more than 250000 Palestinian civilains, on the Israeli side: they lost only 1200 civilians in last 50 years of the conflict. (Just in Lebanon invasion in 1982, Sharon murdered 20000 civilians - -- more than all Israeli victims in last century: civilains + military (including 5 wars victims))

Or you think that Israeli blood is more expensive?
Terrorism is terrorism, whether by suicide bombers of F16.

By the way, Hamas was created in 1988, and suicide bombers started in 1994...

The conflict started in Palestine immediately after First World War 1917, in that time ; some Zionist militant groups got support from UK to immigrate to Palestine to steal by force the land and the houses of Palestinian people.

You can not integrate all the conflict by ''suicide bombers'' or Hamas , which just recently joined the conflict.

In 40s, UK called the Zionist militants as ‘’terrorists’’ after they bombed the Hotel of King David in Jerusalem .. The British killed one of the most well known Zionist leaders (Stern) after his collaboration with NAZI in 1941 against the British forces. Even Shamir , Former Israeli PM , was wanted dead or alive as ‘’dangerous terrorist’’ to the British authority … after he murdering several British soldiers and planted bombs in their bodies to kill also the British medical groups.

Thos who created Israel (LIHI military group) murdered all the citizens of Palestinian village near Jerusalem called ‘’Dair Yassin’’ , are they considered terrorists?

http://www.firasm86.9f.com/dair.htm

http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass01.htm

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.

Evryone, except the billions all over the world like you. Its always a mystery for me how some ppl can be in the illusion that evrybody is against Palestine and for Israel. But for governments its simply impossible to back up palestinians who resort to blowing up buses and cafes. They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.

plover

Nov30-04, 09:26 PM

Bilal,

What do you think of Marwan Barghouti? What do other Palestinians think? I've heard his name suggested as a possible leader for the Palestinians.

Gonzolo

Nov30-04, 09:57 PM

I understand that after WW2, the UN voted in favor of the creation of the Israeli state (11 "opposed", about 30 "for", and many (15?) neutrals), but the surrounding Arab countries (most of the 11 "opposed") defied this by starting a war, which displaced much of the Palestinian people.

What do the Palestinian people think of these events now? Do most Palestinians recognize this U.N. vote, or do they not?

Does Hamas, which apparently "doesn't reconize Israel's right to exist", recognize the U.N.?

plover

Nov30-04, 10:09 PM

I'm not generalizing
In your first post to this thread, you seemed to imply that anyone who resists Western activities in the Middle East was blurring the definition of terrorism. You made no mention of the means or motivation for this resistance, merely conflated it with support for terrorism. Looks like a generalization, quacks like a generalization...
Does the definition of terrorism include a why and if so, what is it?

I'm also not willing to split hairs over what fraction of which organization's action is terrorism. That they do it and advocate it is enough.
You talk as if terrorism occurred in a vaccuum. If a population has factions which use terrorism, there is generally something severely wrong with the situation that has caused some to view terrorism as the only option. In order to stop a population from allowing terrorists to remain as their leaders, there has to be some hope that making another choice will make a difference. Given the settlements and the positioning of the wall (among other things), it is hard to see how Israel offers any such hope to the Palestinians. And for a people who have been beaten down for many years, a solution which forces them to abandon whatever dignity they've retained is also not helpful, as it may be the only possession they believe truly their own.

While bringing terrorists to justice is necessary, anti-terrorist posturing is never going to solve anything. Acknowledging the conflicting impulses and feelings of a battered people, the twined desperation and paralysis of life under oppressive conditions might be a step in the right direction.

russ_watters

Dec1-04, 01:01 AM

In your first post to this thread, you seemed to imply that anyone who resists Western activities in the Middle East was blurring the definition of terrorism. My first post made no mention of "western activities". You made no mention of the means or motivation for this resistance, merely conflated it with support for terrorism. Looks like a generalization, quacks like a generalization... All I said is that a definition should be applied evenly. Now a plea for objectivity is bias? How absurd. You talk as if terrorism occurred in a vaccuum.... Does the context ever make terrorism not terrorism or make terrorism OK? ...anti-terrorist posturing is never going to solve anything. Now I've heard everything - being anti-terrorism is a bad thing. :surprised

Bilal - bla, bla, bla: if you won't acknowledge the objective concept that terrorism is wrong, we can't move on to discuss anything else. Your stance is preventing progress in this conversation in precisely the same way that terrorism prevents progress toward peace in the Middle East.

Smurf

Dec1-04, 01:17 AM

accually the main obstacle to peace in the middle east is international oil interests (namely the west (namely the US))

plover

Dec1-04, 07:44 AM

My first post made no mention of "western activities".
By ignoring the second part of Bilal's statement, you set up the context as being about what he refers to as "occupation, imperialists, dictators" and you, perhaps, do not.
All I said is that a definition should be applied evenly. Now a plea for objectivity is bias?

Does the context ever make terrorism not terrorism or make terrorism OK?
You complained about generalizations after making one yourself. That is all. I said nothing about objectivity or bias.

All you appear to be pleading for is that people repeat "I hate terrorists" over and over again forcefully enough to satisify your personal ideal of retributive judgement. Your persistent misreadings of pretty much everyone in this thread make it hard to believe you actually care what anyone here actually thinks on the subject (especially the one person with actual life experience of the pressures that lead to terrorism). Oh, but if they'll repeat your mantra then, well, maybe, you'll consider condescending to talk to them civilly. Nobody here is going "That terrorism, you do know I think it's bad don't you? I mean like, really, really bad!" because this is so damned obvious there's no need to.

You give no sense that you've ever even tried to imagine how living in hopelessness might affect you, of what seeing the people of your culture brutalized and humiliated every day, being yourself often brutalized and humiliated is like; that when one day you hear that one of your people, a "hero" some say, has killed some of the devils who have been your oppressors, those people who appear satisfied to keep you caged, how then, if you haven't been entirely beaten down, if you still can feel some spark of connection with the world, you feel a twitch of pride that someone has struck back, has finally made themselves heard, but it is combined with the shame that by doing so indiscriminately, by killing at random – without even knowing whether those who died participated in or even supported the oppression of your people – this "hero" has also made that reflection you see every day in the eyes of the soldier at the checkpoint on your way to work, that shows you and your people as less than human, as just beasts, has made that reflection a little more real; there are no certainties when despair, defiance, hope, rage, numbness, suffering are twisted and knotted one on the other, when the emotional and moral ground constantly shifts beneath your feet. Trying to impose easy certainties from outside amounts to a kind of casual viciousness – without understanding the chances are you're just pulling the knots tighter.
Now I've heard everything - being anti-terrorism is a bad thing.
No. Righteous posturing petrified by lack of compassion – that is a bad thing.

russ_watters

Dec1-04, 09:28 AM

accually the main obstacle to peace in the middle east is international oil interests (namely the west (namely the US)) I tend to separate the Israeli issue from the oil issue. There is, after all, no oil in Israel. But you are right that oil is what causes the problems in the rest of the middle east (though I suspect we differ on the exact nature of the problem).You complained about generalizations after making one yourself. So not addressing a point I consider irrelevant is making a generalization? If anything I am guilty of arguement via omission, but thats completely different than making an actual statement that is a generalization. That is all. I said nothing about objectivity or bias. The reason someone would make a generalization is bias. You're accusing me of bias/generalizing in order to avoid addressing my main point.All you appear to be pleading for is that people repeat "I hate terrorists" over and over again... Nope - all I ask is one acknowledgement of one fact. Then we can move on to discuss the complexities of the issue. Why is that so threatening to you?Your persistent misreadings of pretty much everyone in this thread make it hard to believe you actually care what anyone here actually thinks on the subject... You're half right: I don't care what someone says if they refuse to answer a direct question. If you (and others) answer my direct question, I will discuss the other things (which are, in any case, off topic) that have been brought up. I find this most ironic because even the starter of the thread is refusing to discuss the topic of his own thread. Nobody here is going "That terrorism, you do know I think it's bad don't you? I mean like, really, really bad!" because this is so damned obvious there's no need to. If its so obvious, then it shouldn't be difficult to say, should it? If its so obvious, a simple, direct question shouldn't require a 400 word response, should it?

So say it. Repeat after me: terrorism is wrong and should not be condoned or practiced by anyone.

In fact, instead of saying its wrong, people are implying they believe just the opposite: that terrorism is right (or, at least, justified) in this case. Heck, I'd have more respect for anyone here who believes that (as a debater) if they would come right out and say it. If you believe it, say it and be explicit. Then, at least, we could move on to discussing why it should/should not be justified in this case.

Bilal

Dec1-04, 09:46 AM

In fact there are many good candidates; I wish the people will elect the best for such bad situation. I think USA and Israel want Abu Mazen, even USA contacted the Palestinian parliament before few days of death of Arafat asking them to elect Abu Mazen and to cancel the public election!!

In fact , the Palestinian feel that they are under strong pressure to vote for Abu Mazen or to face more death and destruction.

Bilal,

What do you think of Marwan Barghouti? What do other Palestinians think? I've heard his name suggested as a possible leader for the Palestinians.

Bilal

Dec1-04, 09:54 AM

Palestinian accepted the right of Israel to exist within 1967 borders since 1988 ....

The question: will Israel accept the right of Palestinian to live free in their homeland and the homeland of their grandfathers since centuries? or there is no place for non Jews in the '' myth of biblical promised land''?

Will Israel declared the ''end of their independence war'' and accept to have ''fix '' borders as any other country in the world?

Till now the Israeli have no ''recognized borders’’, they call the current borders in their maps as "ceasefire borders for 1973". This means they hope to expend more their borders.

Beside that all the Arab countries accepted the right of Israel to exist, and the Israeli have good relation with majority of these countries....

Only Syria, Iran and Sudan rejected to have such good relation before Israel withdraws from WB and Gaza, therefore USA put them on the ''terrorist list'' and they have good chance to join the ‘’axis of evil’’ and ‘’preemptive attacks’’.

Hamas did not recognize the right of Israel to exist, but they will accept the choice of the majority of the Palestinian, so they will not cause troubles if majority of people want to accept the right of exist of Israel.

I understand that after WW2, the UN voted in favor of the creation of the Israeli state (11 "opposed", about 30 "for", and many (15?) neutrals), but the surrounding Arab countries (most of the 11 "opposed") defied this by starting a war, which displaced much of the Palestinian people.

What do the Palestinian people think of these events now? Do most Palestinians recognize this U.N. vote, or do they not?

Does Hamas, which apparently "doesn't reconize Israel's right to exist", recognize the U.N.?

Bilal

Dec1-04, 10:09 AM

I said before : I am against any kind of terrorisms , whoever do it ; Muslims, Christian, Atheists, Jews, white, African, Asian .....

My point:

We should have international definition for terrorism and ask the ''international court'' in Holland to have authority to check which governments/groups/individuals are practicing terrorism. Every government should accept the decision of this court as representative of the people of the world and representative of the international laws.

The question:

Will USA accept to let ''an international court '' having authority to do that and to respect its decisions instead to define the ''terrorism'' according to the propaganda machine?!

During the invasion of Iraq, an American military spoke to media about attack on the check point. He said ''the terrorist attacked us''!!

It is so funny to label the Iraqi soldiers who defend their country against the invaders ''as terrorists'' during the war!!

Such word losing its meaning and it will be just type of propaganda that everyone can se it to insult the others.

Bilal - bla, bla, bla: if you won't acknowledge the objective concept that terrorism is wrong, we can't move on to discuss anything else. Your stance is preventing progress in this conversation in precisely the same way that terrorism prevents progress toward peace in the Middle East.

devious_

Dec1-04, 05:01 PM

Wow, the enemy kills and humiliates? I wonder what suicidebombers do.
As for the Israelis being stronger, there is no defence against suicidebombers, which means the Palestinians are in a way stronger and according to you, this gives Israel the right to kill Palestinian civilians. You have to take into consideration WHY Israel resorts to attacking Palestinians.
But if Israel hadn't started killing Palestinian civilians, there wouldn't be any suicidebombing...

They have to straighten up their act and behave like a state if they want to be one.
Israel is preventing them from doing that.

russ_watters

Dec2-04, 08:32 AM

Bilal, you came about halfway with that post, and I guess that's the best I can hope for - you do continue to misuse the word in this and other threads. In any case, my answer to your question is a simple yes, but with the obvious caveat of how does the international community decide the definition?

Smurf

Dec2-04, 10:12 AM

There's a really good book called 'The no-nonesense guide to Terrorism" by Johnathan Barker that I think everyone should read. It teaches you how to kill Americans without; I'm kidding! Relax Russ, Calm down. A large portion of the book is an attempt to define 'terrorism' and it's very interesting.

russ_watters

Dec2-04, 02:55 PM

Defining and identifying terrorism today is relatively simple (it gets more complicated when you go back in history to WWII). The tough part is figuring out what to do about it.

Gonzolo

Dec2-04, 04:45 PM

russ_watters

Dec2-04, 05:33 PM

russ, what do you think of the "shock and awe" concept used in the beginning of the Iraq war? Do you believe there is much difference between a civilian being "shocked" by a bomb falling next to his house, and one who is "terrorized" by a car-bomb blowing up next to his house? Let's assume that in both of these cases, the events are motivated by some sort of political belief. "Shock and awe" was not aimed at the civilian population, so it can't be terrorism. HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-04-07-ullman_x.htm) is a pretty good article. Incidentally, there are some anti-US sites that use quotes from this article: chopped up to make it look like the civilians were the target. So be aware of that if you want to do your own research.

Gonzolo

Dec2-04, 05:55 PM

Neither were the attacks on the pentagon or USS Cole. Thanks for the link.

plover

Dec3-04, 04:10 AM

In fact, instead of saying its wrong, people are implying they believe just the opposite: that terrorism is right (or, at least, justified) in this case.
This is the real problem: that it is possible for you to believe this. And the evidence supports not only that you are capable of believing this, but that you entered this thread either believing it or predisposed to believe it.

Here's a definition you gave (post #39):
blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism

Here's Bilal's comment (from post #3) that you inveighed against in your initial post to this thread (post #12, the part you included is in italics):
It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.
By my view, the only plausible reading of this is that Bilal is expressing opposition to terrorism when it is given almost exactly the same definition as you give yourself, namely as violent action targeting civilians. One suspects that he has encountered enough people who expand this definition to cover any resistance by Palestinians, that he feels a caveat is necessary.

So, by my reading, you saw the phrase "definition of terrorism", and assumed it was being used to create ambiguity concerning what Bilal thought, rather than to disambiguate the different ways that Bilal thought he might be read.

The poem:

The poem was translated here with the title "I am with terrorism", but I've also seen it translated as "We are accused of terrorism". I know no Arabic however—I don't know if one of these is literal, the other interpretive, or if the ambiguity exists in the original.

In any case, I don't think the translation even as presented (and my guess is the translation is only adequate, not oustanding, though I can't be sure) can support a reading of the piece as some kind of celebration or even acceptance of terrorism (by your definition). To do so would require either some kind of wildly literal reading (as if it were an instruction manual rather than a poem) or some kind of pathological assumption that any Arab who mentions terrorism must be in favor of it. And this is just treating the text as it stands, taking into account details about Qabbani's life and reputation, such a reading becomes simply farcical.

Qabbani's poem is the lament of someone who feels their life has been defined by terrorism, both by the horrible actions of people within his culture (they killed his wife (!!) ), and by those outside his culture who cannot distinguish the terrorists from those who, while opposing many of the same things as the terrorists, do so in a principled fashion.

Is the word "terrorism" used ambiguously in the poem? Yes, of course. The author has heard the word used ambiguously and is conveying that experience. For example:
We are accused of terrorism
If we refuse to die
with Israel's bulldozers
tearing our land
tearing our history
tearing our Evangelium
tearing our Koran
tearing the graves of our prophets
If this was our sin,
then, lo, how beautiful terrorism is?
To paraphrase: 'We are accused of terrorism when we "refuse to die" despite the damage Israel has inflicted on our culture – and if that "refusal to die" is "our sin" (i.e. if that refusal is what is called terrorism), then terrorism might be called beautiful.' Hardly a ringing endorsement of suicide bombings.

More important than the ambiguity of the word "terrorism" for the poem, however, is the ambiguity of the phrase "I am with terrorism". I listed some of the obvious meanings in post #20. The use of the phrase might be summarized as conveying the author's feeling of entrapment in a life surrounded/permeated by terrorism. "I am with terrorism" as in "terrorism is here, it is all around me, I cannot escape from it", or as in "if others insist on redefining terrorism to include principled resistance, then I have been lumped together with the terrorists", not as in "I am on the side of the (conventionally defined) terrorists".

There is no line of this poem that even suggests that the actions committed by conventionally defined terrorists are morally ambiguous. The author is, in fact, accusing people of doing precisely the same thing you have been talking about: applying the word terrorism inconsistently.

In the end, what I find completely baffling is the (apparent) fact that from looking at the obvious differences from your own opinions present in this thread, the first inference that pops into your head is that the people expressing these opinions must support terrorism; that differing, or even opposing, views to your own concerning the issues in this thread—Israel/Palestine, Islam, Iraq—amplify in some simple fashion into a fundamentally different approach to respect for human life.

You are the only person in this thread who has seemed to have any deep suspicions that the other commenters here find terrorism acceptable. Nobody should have to prove to you that they think blowing up civilians is deplorable and irredeemably foul. Where do you get the idea that it's somehow easy to find people who do not think this? Or that bullying people into protesting their agreement with your definition doesn't carry the whiff of McCarthyite interrogation with it? (And you didn't read that as saying you're as bad McCarthy, I hope. Yes?)

You've often said that you don't consider yourself to be with the far right, but does it really not occur to you that the implications you've been making here sound like something out of Ann Coulter? The impression you're giving out is that "oh, liberals and Arabs, they all really support terrorism, they just try to fool you into thinking they don't by obfuscating everything", which at best looks like the effects of one too many doses of the Fox News Kool-aid, and at worst like it might be intransigent bigotry.

I'm not accusing you of anything here—I don't think I have clue as to what your real story is. I'm trying to convey my outrage at implications you've put forward that seem (presumably unintentionally) insulting and at some of the tactical choices you've backed them with.

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 06:44 AM

Neither were the attacks on the pentagon or USS Cole. Thanks for the link. The Cole no, the Pentagon yes - the Pentagon attack did, afterall, use a civilian airliner.

Burnsys

Dec3-04, 07:17 AM

The Cole no, the Pentagon yes - the Pentagon attack did, afterall, use a civilian airliner.

Colateral damage :rofl: :rofl:

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 08:12 AM

The Cole no, the Pentagon yes - the Pentagon attack did, afterall, use a civilian airliner. Oh, I forgot to add the Cole caveat: though it doesn't really qualify as terrorism, it was still illegal under the rules of war because the attackers were dressed as civilians. Same goes for the embassy bombings by OBL. Since they were illegal either way, I don't think its all that useful to hairsplit over whether they were terrorism or not. But what happens is the media uses whatever label sounds best on the news and the politicians follow their lead.

edit: slight error there: Embassies are diplomatic installations and as such are off limits to attacks even in times of war. They are not ever legitimate targets. Since they are government installations, I'm not sure the label "terrorism" applies, but attacking them is still illegal.

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 08:20 AM

This is the real problem: that it is possible for you to believe this. And the evidence supports not only that you are capable of believing this, but that you entered this thread either believing it or predisposed to believe it.

Here's a definition you gave (post #39):
blowing up a bus-station or a restaurant for the purpose of killing civilians is terrorism

Here's Bilal's comment (from post #3) that you inveighed against in your initial post to this thread (post #12, the part you included is in italics):
It depends on the definition of terrorism..

If you define the terrorism as resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators ... then he support that.

But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it ... especially he lost his wife in terrorist attacks against the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut ... he cried a lot for her.
By my view, the only plausible reading of this is that Bilal is expressing opposition to terrorism when it is given almost exactly the same definition as you give yourself, namely as violent action targeting civilians. One suspects that he has encountered enough people who expand this definition to cover any resistance by Palestinians, that he feels a caveat is necessary.

So, by my reading, you saw the phrase "definition of terrorism", and assumed it was being used to create ambiguity concerning what Bilal thought, rather than to disambiguate the different ways that Bilal thought he might be read. Here's the problem with that: since no one anywhere defines terrorism as "resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators," putting it in the post is a straw-man attempt to cloud the issue. And that is, in fact, one of the most common ways this issue is intentionally obfuscated by those who support terrorism. Its relatd to the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" mischaracterization.

Essentially, that poem (as translated in the first post) boils down to: 'You call me a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter: So be it.' My response was 'I call you a terrorist because you are a terrorist.'

Either way, when the poet says explicitly that he supports terrorism, I'll take him at his word, literally. When Bilal says the poet supports terrorism, then gives a definition that has nothing to do with terrorism - I'll still take him at his word, literally - but then I'll also consider that a purposeful, intentional obfuscation by Bilal.

Also, someone (not sure which of you and don't feel like reading the thread) said that the terrorism started because Israel is killing Arab civilians. This is flat-out not true. Terrorism started in the Middle-east in 1970 as a result of losing the 1967 war and the realization it brought that Israel's Arab neighbors would not be able to annihilate Israel with conventional military force. The common recent claim that its tit-for-a-tat retribution for previous killings is an empty justification, and quite frankly is elementary-school childish.

Bilal

Dec3-04, 09:10 AM

Terrorism started for the first time in ME by the Zionist Terrorists groups …. In 1939, UK promised the Palestinian to stop the illegal Jews immigration to Palestine if they stop the revolution during the 2WW. The Palestinian temporary government accepted this offer.

This agreement cause anger between the extreme Zionists who want to do everything to create State with Jews majority in Palestine, so they declared war against UK , peaceful Jews and the Palestinian …. Even some of their leaders contacted the NAZI in that time.

Jews terrorist murdered many British solider sand Palestinian civilian from 1941 till 1948.

Here some international sources and facts show when really the Organized terrorism based on ORGANISED targeting civilians started:

- This is interesting article written by Jews thinker ((Israel Shamir is a Israeli writer and journalist )) about Dair Yassin massacre in 1948, which caused the immigration of 60% of ‘’terrorized’’ Palestinian civilians:

http://ukar.org/shamir06.html

((Death has many names. The Czechs call it Lidice, the French word is Oradur, in Vietnamese they use My Lai, for every Palestinian, it is Deir Yassin. On the night of the ninth of April 1948, the Jewish terrorist groups Etzel and Lehi attacked the peaceful village and massacred its men, women and children. I do not want to repeat the gory tale of sliced off ears, gutted bellies, raped women, torched men, bodies dumped in stone quarries or the triumphal parade of the murderers. Existentially, all massacres are similar, from Babi Yar to Chain Gang to Deir Yassin.))

- Israel Shahak
Dr. Shahak, Holocaust survivor and retired professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights.
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_shahak/shahak39.asp

((LEHI showed its uniqueness in its very earliest political strategy, namely in its persistent search for an alliance with Nazi Germany throughout 1940 -- 41. Unlike all other Jewish groups of that time, the LEHI men respected Hitler. Later, the veterans of LEHI tried for a long time to deny that they had ever made alliance overtures to the Nazis. Unfortunately for them, documents proving the contrary were found by Israeli scholars and journalists and published long ago. The search for that alliance and its implications are best described in the above-mentioned book by Heller. He shows that the drafting of the Principles of Renaissance took place at the same time, and he argues that LEHI's pro-Nazism was by no means unrelated to the contents of this document.))

((The principles of the alliance as proposed in LEHI's document submitted to Hentig were to be LEHI's unconditional acceptance of the Nazi "New Order" in Europe, together with "a state of the Jews to be established on nationalist and totalitarian foundations and tied to the German Reich." The state was to be established "within its historic boundaries." Yair considered it impolitic to explain to Hitler in full geographical detail exactly how those "boundaries" were envisaged. In the event the Nazis accepted the offer, "LEHI would join the war, fighting on the side of Germany, provided the latter would recognize the aims of the Israeli Liberation Movement."))

((The initiative floundered, however, as Yelin-Mor was arrested by the British in Aleppo before he could reach Turkey and, via Turkey, Nazi-occupied Europe. Several days after Yelin-Mor's arrest, Yair was killed while being apprehended by British detectives. After Yair's death, the leadership of LEHI passed on to the "triumvirate" comprised of Shamir, Eldad-Sheib and the same Yelin-Mor whom Yair had dispatched to Europe.))

((These assassinations need to be put in their context. LEHI murdered Arabs, British and non-Jews in general (like Count Bernadotte),))

- Zionism terrorism in 40s: Bombing of King David Hotel (Many British, Palestinian and Jews civilians were killed by Zionists terrorists).

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/15-shamir.htm

Also, someone (not sure which of you and don't feel like reading the thread) said that the terrorism started because Israel is killing Arab civilians. This is flat-out not true. Terrorism started in the Middle-east in 1970 as a result of losing the 1967 war and the realization it brought that Israel's Arab neighbors would not be able to annihilate Israel with conventional military force. The common recent claim that its tit-for-a-tat retribution for previous killings is an empty justification, and quite frankly is elementary-school childish.

Bilal

Dec3-04, 09:15 AM

russ_watters

Can you agree that Sharon is terrorist since 50s?
This man was kicked out from the government in 1983, after an Israeli committee declared his responsibility about the massacre of Sabra and Chatila ...

Here is information about Sharon (man of peace as Bush called him!!) if you need more trusted and international sources about the information below, I will promise to provide many …..

*******************************************
In August of 1953 Sharon, commanded the notorious 101 unit of IDF terrorists, in an attack on the refugee camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza, where (according to an Israeli history of the 101 unit) 50 refugees were massacred. Other sources allege about 20.

In October of 1953, Sharon commanded the notorious 101 unit of IDF terrorists, in an attack on the Jordanian village of Qibya. Israeli historian Avi Shlaim describes the massacre thus: "Sharon's orders were to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. The village had been reduced to rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civilians, two thirds of them women and children, had been killed".

Israel's foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett said "this stain (Qibya) will stick to us and will not be washed away for many years to come".

Between Feb. 28, 1955 and Oct. 10, 1956, Sharon led a paratrooper brigade in similar cross-border invasions of Gaza, Egypt, and the West Bank, Jordan. In the West Bank village of Qalqilya, Sharon's death squad killed 83 people.

In the Gaza Strip, 1967. Sharon brought in bulldozers and flattening whole streets. He did the whole lot, almost in one day.

In August 1971 troops under Mr Sharon's command destroyed some 2,000 homes in the Gaza Strip, uprooting 16,000 people for the second time in their lives. Hundreds of young Palestinian men were arrested and deported to Jordan and Lebanon. 104 Palestinians were killed.

Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was responsible for some 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese deaths. The Israelis bombed civilian populations at will. At Sabra and Shatila, he was responsible for the 1,962 massacred there. The killings took over 2 days. All killed were either elderly, women or children and included pregnant women. It is a fact that all those killed were civilians as the fighters had left for Tunis after receiving an assurance from the United States that if they left, the old men, women and children that stayed, would be protected (so much for American assurances).

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 09:32 AM

I'm not a big fan of Sharon, though I understand his position - he's pretty hard-line and I think there is some justification to that. I've heard allegations of some heinous past acts, however, he is/was not a terrorist: as a uniformed member of the armed forces, the label does not and cannot apply to him. His past actions (and I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly he did) can, however, be considered war crimes.

Citing this is not all that useful, though, considering the leadership of the PLO/PA for decades was an actual terrorist.

Regarding pre-1940 terrorism: its difficult to put pre-1947 actions in the same context since Israel didn't even exist until 1947. But, while I am a little fuzzy on those actions, it seems again, to be a mis-application of the word: not all killing is terrorism. Sometimes murder is "just" murder.

That said, I could have worded my statement better: what I meant was anti-Israel terrorism started in 1970 due to the loss of the 1967 war.

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 09:38 AM

Regarding an international definition/prosecution, my research for this thread has shown that the UN has in fact, tried to define and outlaw terrorism: In the 1960s the UN General Assembly embarked on an attempt to do this[define terrorism]. Initially little progress was made, partly because many states were reluctant to go far along the road of outlawing terrorism unless at the same time the 'causes of terrorism' were addressed. Other states saw this approach as implying that terrorism was a response to real grievances, and thereby insinuating that it was justified.

Thus the main emphasis at the UN was on limited practical measures. In a series of 12 international conventions drawn up between 1963 and 1999, particular terrorist actions, such as aircraft hijacking and diplomatic hostage-taking, were prohibited. As the 1990s progressed, and concern about terrorism increased, the UN General Assembly embarked on discussions about defining and outlawing terrorism generally. Its Legal Committee issued a rough draft of a convention, which:

"Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be used to justify them."[emphasis added]http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/sept_11/changing_faces_05.shtml

Bilal

Dec3-04, 10:12 AM

[QUOTE=russ_watters]I'm not a big fan of Sharon, though I understand his position - he's pretty hard-line and I think there is some justification to that. ))

What Justification? Do you support the murdering of people of Qebia 1953 , Sabra and Shatila 1982 because they are Palestinian!! What the crime of those kids, women and civilians to be slaughtered at night by Sharon!! Is there are any justification to murder randomly civilians because they belong to other nation/race/community??

((I've heard allegations of some heinous past acts, however, he is/was not a terrorist: as a uniformed member of the armed forces, the label does not and cannot apply to him. His past actions (and I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly he did) can, however, be considered war crimes. ))

Who worse terrorism or war crimes? Do you mean people with military uniform can kill civilians, but people who have not such clothes can kill!!

((Citing this is not all that useful, though, considering the leadership of the PLO/PA for decades was an actual terrorist. ))

PLO already called as terrorist; even they kill less than 200 Israeli in 30 years of unbalanced fighting!!
The discussion is about Israel and Sharon; whether they are called terrorists or not.

((Regarding pre-1940 terrorism: its difficult to put pre-1947 actions in the same context since Israel didn't even exist until 1947. But, while I am a little fuzzy on those actions, it seems again, to be a mis-application of the word: not all killing is terrorism. Sometimes murder is "just" murder.))

Begen and Shamir who labeled as wanted dangerous terrorist by UK in 40s became PMs of Israel!
Also the three main terrorists Zionist groups: Hagnah, Lehi and Itzel became what called IDF after 1948. Do you means it is ok to create State by terrorism?
Also we talk about Sharon in 50s who started his military life by massacre of Qebia ..

Do you call bombing of 67 houses in small village in other country as murder, but bombing bus is terrorisms!! So what is the difference?!

((That said, I could have worded my statement better: what I meant was anti-Israel terrorism started in 1970 due to the loss of the 1967 war.))

Palestinian are under occupation according to UN resolutions, as we know the international laws allows the people under occupation to fight back ... may be some mistakes happen , but you can not call fighting back the occupation as terrorism!!

Simply, people under occupation have moral justification in their resistance protected by all huamn laws. The should be blamed by their mistakes , but surely their resistance is jutified.

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 10:21 AM

What Justification? Do you support the murdering of people of Qebia 1953 , Sabra and Shatila 1982 because they are Palestinian!! What the crime of those kids, women and civilians to be slaughtered at night by Sharon!! Is there are any justification to murder randomly civilians because they belong to other nation/race/community?? You misunderstand: that statement of mine had nothing to do with 1953 or 1982, it has to do with the situation today. There is legitimate reason to be hard-line today because Israel is under constant terrorist attacks today. Who worse terrorism or war crimes? Do you mean people with military uniform can kill civilians, but people who have such clothes can kill!! Uh, no... I said nothing of the sort and have no idea where you would get that from. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. PLO already called as terrorist; even they kill less than 200 Israeli in 30 years of unbalanced fighting!! How many people you kill has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are a terrorist. The PLO is/was a terrorist organization because it commits acts of terrorism. Simple. The discussion is about Israel and Sharon; whether they are called terrorists or not. That is not what this thread is about. Reread the first page. Palestinian are under occupation according to UN resolutions, as we know the international laws allows the people under occupation to fight back ... may be some mistakes happen , but you can not call fighting back the occupation as terrorism!! Mistakes? Uh huh. Strapping explosives to your body and getting on a bus is an intentional act, not a mistake.

See, this is what I mean: you are not willing to apply the definition evenly.Do you call bombing of 67 houses in small village in other country as murder, but bombing bus is terrorisms!! So what is the difference?! What do you mean what's the difference?!? You can't see that not all killing is murder and not all murder is terrorism? Heck, you argued this very position above and now you're asking the difference?!? No, I'm not going to play your games.

Bilal

Dec3-04, 10:46 AM

[QUOTE=russ_watters]((You misunderstand: that statement of mine had nothing to do with 1953 or 1982, it has to do with the situation today. There is legitimate reason to be hard-line today because Israel is under constant terrorist attacks today. ))

Present is result of past!! You can not separate them.... the crimes of the Zionists in past and occupation forced the Palestinian to fight back. I do not agree with targeting the Israeli civilians, but if we study the situation from ''macro level'', Israel is the root of the problem ... by murdering the people of Palestine for decades and replace them by force by new immigrants, they caused the situation now.
Sharon who destroyed Qebia in 50s is Sharon who attacked Sabra and Chatila in 80s is the same Sharon who destroying the Palestinian towns everyday!! So how you can say; let us ignore what he did in the past!

(( How many people you kill has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are a terrorist. The PLO is/was a terrorist organization because it commits acts of terrorism. ))

Could you count the crimes of PLO? PLO is not terrorist group by the international laws, even they are not mentioned on the American list!! So how you classify them as terrorists? If PLO is terrorist, why USA accept to give them Office in Washington? Why Bush willing to meet Abu Mazen ( one of fathers of PLO) and he said about Arafat: May god bless his soul …

((Simple. That is not what this thread is about. Reread the first page. Mistakes? Uh huh. Strapping explosives to your body and getting on a bus is an intentional act, not a mistake.))

Again, bombing bus is wrong and terrorism (I agree completely!!) ... but the question: bombing town and murdering randomly hundreds or thousands of civilians is terrorism or not?

((See, this is what I mean: you are not willing to apply the definition evenly. What do you mean what's the difference?!? You can't see that not all killing is murder and not all murder is terrorism? Heck, you argued this very position above and now you're asking the difference?!? No, I'm not going to play your games.))

I agree killing any civilian is terrorism ... surely there are some terrorist Palestinian, but what about the Israeli side? What you calling bombing 67 houses during the night!! or murdering in called blood several thousands of kids and women in the refugees camps, just because they are Palestinian!!

You ask me about bombing busses ... and I agree it is terrorism.

My question: will you accept that mass murdering of civilians in cold blood is terrorism as Israel did and still doing?

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 01:26 PM

So how you can say; let us ignore what he did in the past! I said no such thing.

It is in fact my opinion that with Arafat gone, there is the possibility that a peacemaker, not a defender, would be better. But that depends at least as much on what the PA's leadership does in the next few months.Could you count the crimes of PLO? The PLO is/was the political arm of the various terrorist organizations (specifically, Hamas). Arafat was head of Hamas before head of the PLO. Arafat's position changed with time, but he did verbally/actively support/fail to take action to stop the terrorist activities he supposedly had the power to stop.Again, bombing bus is wrong and terrorism (I agree completely!!) Then why did you characterize such actions as justifiable mistakes?I agree killing any civilian is terrorism That is not the definition of terrorism - you are intentionally broadening the definition so that you can apply it in places where it does not apply.My question: will you accept that mass murdering of civilians in cold blood is terrorism as Israel did and still doing? You'll need to be more specific: that question is loaded. For example, the Jenin "massacre" is often cited as terrorism: it isn't.

Burnsys

Dec3-04, 03:12 PM

FOX NEWS broadening the definition of terrorism??

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140445,00.html

It's nighttime. Crammed into an Amphibious Assault Vehicle not too much bigger inside than a Chrysler Voyager with a dozen heavily equipped Marines, cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski and I get ready to witness battle.

None of us knows what will happen. The hype of the worst-case scenario is pretty bad — hordes of suicide-crazed fanatical terrorists with all sorts of weaponry hunkered down in a heavily booby-trapped bastion of a city, ready to battle the West.

Tonight there's just a particularly annoying wall to scale and a rooftop to reach. The roof seems like a nice place to relax until the sky above it is filled with whizzing terrorist AK-47 fire and much nastier Marine responses

Now the Marines are going to level a neighborhood to make sure the bad guys never use it again. It isn't quite the "destroying a village to save it" formula of the Vietnam War, but it comes close.

russ_watters

Dec3-04, 03:32 PM

FOX NEWS broadening the definition of terrorism?? Like I said before - the news media uses whatever words sound good without necessarily worrying about correct usage. They often use "terrorist" and "insurgent" interchangeably and they aren't interchangeable.

edit: the tactics of the "insurgents" straddle the line though and thats complicated further by the fact that there are number of not necessarily connected groups with different goals.

Bilal

Dec3-04, 05:19 PM

I said no such thing.
Arafat was head of Hamas before head of the PLO. Arafat's position changed with time, but he did verbally/actively support/fail to take action to stop the terrorist activities he supposedly had the power to stop............

The PLO is/was the political arm of the various terrorist organizations (specifically, Hamas). Arafat was head of Hamas before head of the PLO. Arafat's position changed with time, but he did verbally/actively support/fail to take action to stop the terrorist activities he supposedly had the power to stop.

:surprised :rolleyes:
If your information is so little about ME, why you show yourself as expert!! :approve:

PLO is secular organization. It was established in 1963. Arafat was the leader of the largest group in PLO (FATAH) since 1969 , which also secular.

Hamas is Islamic organization, which established in 1988. Israel called it as illegal in 1989.
In fact there are no link between both organizations, even Israel supported Hamas at beginning to create internal Palestinian conflicts between secular and religious groups.

Hamas is political/social wing of Ezz eddin El Qassam established by Ahmed Yassin.

PLO is political wing of many secular, nationalist and socialist military wings. Secularism is common thing among them.

At least, I wish you will get advantage from such information!!

plover

Dec3-04, 09:25 PM

Here's the problem with that: since no one anywhere defines terrorism as "resisting the occupation, imperialists, dictators," putting it in the post is a straw-man attempt to cloud the issue. And that is, in fact, one of the most common ways this issue is intentionally obfuscated by those who support terrorism. Its relatd to the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" mischaracterization.
You're making an ad hominem case: Bilal is a Palestinian, therefore his motivation is to obfuscate the issue of terrorism (never mind that the logic of his text argues otherwise).

Anything can be read as obfuscation if you try hard enough. I find no evidence you are applying logic to Bilal's words. My impression is you've imbibed a framework from some right wing source and are applying that without looking at the evidence in front of you.
Essentially, that poem (as translated in the first post) boils down to: 'You call me a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter: So be it.' My response was 'I call you a terrorist because you are a terrorist.'
This doesn't even rise to the level of argument required by ad hominem. It's just an insult. If you can't provide an actual argument that Qabbani thought blowing up civilians was jolly fun (and which does not rely on narrow-minded misconceptions of Arabs), you should at least admit you're just airing a prejudice here.
Either way, when the poet says explicitly that he supports terrorism, I'll take him at his word, literally.
And why do you think that reading a document literally that was not intended that way is in any way intelligent?
When Bilal says the poet supports terrorism, then gives a definition that has nothing to do with terrorism - I'll still take him at his word, literally - but then I'll also consider that a purposeful, intentional obfuscation by Bilal.
As I noted in my previous post, Bilal's wording appears directed at preventing precisely the misreading you are making. The part of Bilal's statement you have yet to address:
But if you define the terrorism as targeting civilians, surely he against it

I think it's clear, but I'll paraphrase it anyway: If you define terrorism as targeting civilians—and the definition you've repeated over and over is based on that, any ambiguity here is in the direction of greater inclusiveness—then Qabbani does not support it. You entirely distort the situation by selectively leaving out the most important bit of evidence.
Also, someone (not sure which of you and don't feel like reading the thread) said that the terrorism started because Israel is killing Arab civilians.
This was not me. My complaint is that your argumentation is insufficient and based on prejudiced assumptions.

kat

Dec4-04, 12:07 AM

Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was responsible for some 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese deaths. The Israelis bombed civilian populations at will. At Sabra and Shatila, he was responsible for the 1,962 massacred there. The killings took over 2 days. All killed were either elderly, women or children and included pregnant women. It is a fact that all those killed were civilians as the fighters had left for Tunis after receiving an assurance from the United States that if they left, the old men, women and children that stayed, would be protected (so much for American assurances).
Bilal- You have a lot of misinformation or disinformation in your posts in both regards to Israel and Lebanon..but I think this is the worst of all.
You know that f the PLO had not come into Lebanon and terorrized the Lebanese people, If PLO had not come into Lebanon and used Southern Lebanon as a Launching pad to attack Israel NO one would have died from Israel and NO Lebanese would have been raped, tortured, terrorised and murdered by Arafats PLO.
At Sabra and Shatilla there were men killed by the Christian Phalangists, in fact all were men except for the 35 women and children, THIS is according to the Lebanese government.
What I want to know is where is your outrage for May 1985, when Muslims attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian camps and according to UN more then 600 were killed and 2,500 wounded? This is more then Shatila and Sabra! OR where is your outrage for 1990 when Syria murdered over 700 Lebanese in less then 8 hours?! THIS is more then what was killed at Shatila and Sabra. IN ALL, PLO and SYRIA is responsible for over 95 thousand deaths of Lebanese citizens. Often chopping off arms, legs and heads and leaving their bodies writhing in the streets. THAT is terror for you compliments of PLO.

Bilal

Dec4-04, 12:52 AM

The topic is not about civil war in Lebanon, which has longer history than the Palestinian existence in Lebanon...
There was tension among the Lebanese, even before creation of Lebanon. In mid of 19the century , Egypt, Ottoman Empire and several European countries involved directly in civil war in the mountain of Lebanon between Duruz and Christine Maronite .. In 1958, The Maronite president of Lebanon (Kamil Shimon) asked help from USA to stop the intensive demonstrations that arranged by left (mainly Muslims) against the government. Marine forces killed hundred of Lebanese in that accident …

Concerning the information about Sabra and Chatila … I will present international sources (not pro Palestine):

Robert Fisk is still probably the most outstanding journalist working in the Middle East. He was one of the first journalists to be present at the scene of the horrific murders in Lebanon, 1982. He has published a number of different books and writes columns for The Independant newspaper. He has received a number of prestigious awards for reporting and has produced a number of documentaries including the excellent "Beirut to Bosnia

http://www.geocities.com/cahumanity/hrwatch/

http://www.neopolitanonline.com/venom/Sabra%20And%20Chatila%20-%20Perhaps%20The%20Truth%20At%20Last%2C%20After%20 19%20Years.html

((All he could say as he walked round was "Jesus Christ" over and over again. We might have accepted evidence of a few murders; even dozens of bodies, killed in the heat of combat. Bur there were women lying in houses with their skirts torn torn up to their waists and their legs wide apart, children with their throats cut, rows of young men shot in the back after being lined up at an execution wall. There were babies - blackened babies babies because they had been slaughtered more than 24-hours earlier and their small bodies were already in a state of decomposition - tossed into rubbish heaps alongside discarded US army ration tins, Israeli army equipment and empty bottles of whiskey.))

((But in Beirut, the victims were Palestinians. The guilty were certainly Christian militiamen - from which particular unit we were still unsure - but the Israelis were also guilty. If the Israelis had not taken part in the killings, they had certainly sent militia into the camp. They had trained them, given them uniforms, handed them US army rations and Israeli medical equipment. Then they had watched the murderers in the camps, they had given them military assistance - the Israeli airforce had dropped all those flares to help the men who were murdering the inhabitants of Sabra and Chatila - and they had established military liason with the murderers in the camps))

((It was only a few days afterwards that we journalists began to notice a discrepancy in the figures of dead. While up to 600 bodies had been found inside Sabra and Chatila, 1,800 civilians had been reported as "missing". We assumed--how easy assumptions are in war--that they had been killed in the three days between 16 September 1982 and the withdrawal of the Phalangist killers on the 18th, that their corpses had been secretly buried outside the camp. Beneath the golf course, we suspected. The idea that many of these young people had been murdered outside the camps or after the 18th, that the killings were still going on while we walked through the camps, never occurred to us.))

((the Israeli Kahan commission published its report, condemning Sharon but ending its own inquiry of the atrocity on 18 September, with just a one-line hint--unexplained-- that several hundred people may have "disappeared" at about the same time. The commission interviewed no Palestinian survivors but it was allowed to become the narrative of history. The idea that the Israelis went on handing over prisoners to their bloodthirsty militia allies never occurred to us.))

Bilal- You have a lot of misinformation or disinformation in your posts in both regards to Israel and Lebanon..but I think this is the worst of all.
You know that f the PLO had not come into Lebanon and terorrized the Lebanese people, If PLO had not come into Lebanon and used Southern Lebanon as a Launching pad to attack Israel NO one would have died from Israel and NO Lebanese would have been raped, tortured, terrorised and murdered by Arafats PLO.
At Sabra and Shatilla there were men killed by the Christian Phalangists, in fact all were men except for the 35 women and children, THIS is according to the Lebanese government.
What I want to know is where is your outrage for May 1985, when Muslims attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian camps and according to UN more then 600 were killed and 2,500 wounded? This is more then Shatila and Sabra! OR where is your outrage for 1990 when Syria murdered over 700 Lebanese in less then 8 hours?! THIS is more then what was killed at Shatila and Sabra. IN ALL, PLO and SYRIA is responsible for over 95 thousand deaths of Lebanese citizens. Often chopping off arms, legs and heads and leaving their bodies writhing in the streets. THAT is terror for you compliments of PLO.

Bilal

Dec4-04, 01:03 AM

Also you can read about the recent Zionist Terrorism :

Robert Fisk
QANA
Massacre in Sanctuary; Eyewitness

http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/robert_fisk_qana.html

It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disembowelled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world's protection. Like the Muslims of Srebrenica, the Muslims of Qana were wrong.

"The Israelis have just told us they'll stop shelling the area", a UN soldier said, shaking with anger. "Are we supposed to thank them?" In the remains of a burning building - the conference room of the Fijian UN headquarters - a pile of corpses was burning. The roof had crashed in flames onto their bodies, cremating them in front of my eyes. When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand...

Israel's slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive - 206 by last night - has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 - the youngest was a four- day-old baby - when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home.

((Every foreign army comes to grief in Lebanon. The Sabra and Chatila massacre of Palestinians by Israel's militia allies in 1982 doomed Israel's 1982 invasion. Now the Israelis are stained again by the bloodbath at Qana, the scruffy little Lebanese hill town where the Lebanese believe Jesus turned water into wine.))

*******************************
Israeli at US Loan Talks is Implicated in Massacre
by Robert Fisk in Beirut

Israel is asking the United States for $8bn (£5bn) in loan guarantees – and has sent to Washington one of the former army officers implicated in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre of Palestinian civilians to persuade the Bush administration to grant the money.

Amos Yaron, who is now director general of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, was the Israeli military commander in Beirut when Lebanese Phalangist militiamen entered the refugee camps and slaughtered up to 1,700 Palestinian refugees. He ordered flares to be dropped over the camps, at the request of the Phalange, and Israeli soldiers blocked the exits to prevent civilians from leaving the area. Israel is pleading for the money – along with an additional $4bn in military aid – on the grounds that a US invasion of Iraq will provoke further attacks against Israel.

kat

Dec4-04, 12:34 PM

Bilal- Please refrain from posting Fisk as a dependable source when discussing the Middle East...if you want me to take what you say seriously. There is a reason that the term "Fisking" came into existence. fisking: n.
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment

In regards to your first statement:

The topic is not about civil war in Lebanon, which has longer history than the Palestinian existence in Lebanon...
There was tension among the Lebanese, even before creation of Lebanon. In mid of 19the century , Egypt, Ottoman Empire and several European countries involved directly in civil war in the mountain of Lebanon between Duruz and Christine Maronite .. In 1958, The Maronite president of Lebanon (Kamil Shimon) asked help from USA to stop the intensive demonstrations that arranged by left (mainly Muslims) against the government. Marine forces killed hundred of Lebanese in that accident …
The topic evidently is about a Syrian poet who came to Lebanon and wrote a poem about "being terrorism", and since Lebanon was the first in the middle east to suffer from terrorism it's only right to point out WHY. Much of it was a direct result of PLO entering Lebanon along with Muslim desire to have unity with the "arab nation" and Syria's desire for Lebanon to be agian part of the "greater syrai" right along with animosity towards any nation of the Caleph being anything but Arab and at least have the underlying power lay with Muslims. Christian Lebanese desire to be allied with Israel and Muslim desire to attack Israel. Without PLO and Syria invasion and attacks into Israel from Lebanese soil...Israel would never have had to attack southern LEbanon. Period.

Your lies about Sabra and Shatila- From the Kahane report:It is impossible to determine precisely the number of persons who were slaughtered. The numbers cited in this regard are to a large degree tendentious and are not based on an exact count by persons whose reliability can be counted on. The low estimate came from sources connected with the Government of Lebanon or with the Lebanese Forces. The letter (exhibit 153) of the head of the Red Cross delegation to the Minister of Defense stated that Red Cross representatives had counted 328 bodies. This figure, however, does not include all the bodies, since it is known that a number of families buried bodies on their own initiative without reporting their actions to the Red Cross. The forces who engaged in the operation removed bodies in trucks when they left Shatilla, and it is possible that more bodies are lying under the ruins in the camps or in the graves that were dug by the assailants near the camps. The letter noted that the Red Cross also had a list of 359 persons who had disappeared in West Beirut between 18 August and 20 September, with most of the missing having disappeared from Sabra and Shatilla in mid-September. According to a document which reached us (exhibit 151), [B]the total number of victims whose bodies were found from 18.9.82 to 30.9.82 is 460. This figure includes the dead counted by the Lebanese Red Cross, the International Red Cross, the Lebanese Civil Defense, the medical corps of the Lebanese army, and by relatives of the victims. According to this count, the 460 victims included 109 Lebanese and 328 Palestinians, along with Iranians, Syrians and members of other nationalities. According to the itemization of the bodies in this list, the great majority of the dead were males; as for women and children, there were 8 Lebanese women and 12 Lebanese children, and 7 Palestinian women and 8 Palestinian children. Reports from Palestinian sources speak of a far greater number of persons killed, sometimes even of thousands. With respect to the number of victims, it appears that we can rely neither on the numbers appearing in the document from Lebanese sources, nor on the numbers originating in Palestinian sources. A further difficulty in determining the number of victims stems from the fact that it is difficult to distinguish between victims of combat operations and victims of acts of slaughter. We cannot rule out the possibility that various reports included also victims of combat operations from the period antedating the assassination of Bashir. Taking into account the fact that Red Cross personnel counted no more that 328 bodies, it would appear that the number of victims of the massacre was not as high as a thousand, and certainly not thousands.

Bilal

Dec4-04, 01:48 PM

- Robert Fisk could be the most neutral sources, because Palestinian believe that 6000 civilians were killed in Sabra and Chatila massacre.

- In Fact Israel attacked South Lebanon in 1948 and occupied 5 villages. Till this moment Lebanon ask for these villages.

500000 Palestinian forced to leave to Lebanon from Galilee by Zionist forces in 1948. Such huge numbers of refugees indicate that Lebanon forced to be part of conflict since that moment.

- Syria was invited to Lebanon by Maronite Christian to help them against the Palestinian. Beside that USA ((Henry Kissinger)) and Israel gave Syria green light to do that, otherwise they will have no other option except to send their forces to east Beirut.

- Kahan reoprt: is report of Israeli government. They never even visit Sabra and Shatila or ask any of survivors about their suffering. They collect information only from the Israeli soldiers ... and they admit partially by their responsibility about this massacre. I think the goal of Kahan report is to reduce the international anger due to this barbarism.

- Here are some pictures about Sabra and Shatila massacre .. If that is not terrorism, so what we can call it?!

http://www.2intellitech.com/~hab/hab/Gallary/Sabra/sabra82.htm
http://www.geocities.com/shatila1982/masspictures.html
http://www.iap.org/massacres.htm

Bilal- Please refrain from posting Fisk as a dependable source when discussing the Middle East...if you want me to take what you say seriously. There is a reason that the term "Fisking" came into existence.

In regards to your first statement:

The topic evidently is about a Syrian poet who came to Lebanon and wrote a poem about "being terrorism", and since Lebanon was the first in the middle east to suffer from terrorism it's only right to point out WHY. Much of it was a direct result of PLO entering Lebanon along with Muslim desire to have unity with the "arab nation" and Syria's desire for Lebanon to be agian part of the "greater syrai" right along with animosity towards any nation of the Caleph being anything but Arab and at least have the underlying power lay with Muslims. Christian Lebanese desire to be allied with Israel and Muslim desire to attack Israel. Without PLO and Syria invasion and attacks into Israel from Lebanese soil...Israel would never have had to attack southern LEbanon. Period.

Your lies about Sabra and Shatila- From the Kahane report: