Can the insurgency be crushed? [Archive]

Bilal

Dec9-04, 05:37 AM

As person who knows well about Iraq, I can say the problem of American is the understanding of Iraqi society.

In this society if you kill one person or mistreat other, then all his cousins or his town should revenge, it is called ''sharaf or Karamah'' in Arabic .. which something close to ''honor'' . Unfortunately, the American do not have suitable advisers to tell them about the situation. They keep hearing the propaganda machine and ignoring the facts on ground.

People of ME do not live ‘’individuals ‘’, they live as small communities, and if one of these communities suffered, the others should not hesitate to help even if they lose their lives.

American came to Iraq thinking ‘’that evil Arab’’ understand only force, so kill more Arab to get more peace!!

Unfortunately they are completely mistaken, and it is too late to correct the situation.The image of American solider in ME is link with (murdering civilians, bombing houses, raping, Sodomising …..)

Most of Iraqi police are rejected by society. People see them as tortures because they joined the occupation army. Such feelings are the same for all nations under occupation. You can not tolerate with Iraqi solider who fight with ‘’occupation’’ against his nation.

Freedom, war on terrorism, democracy, liberations….. is great principles t used by American, as all occupation armies through history did , to give moral background for their occupation.

It is difficult to tell people I come to occupy your country because I want you to accept my will and to work for my own interest. Through history, all invaders used to say we invaded others to liberate them or to modernize them.

russ_watters

Dec9-04, 07:17 AM

Freedom, war on terrorism, democracy, liberations….. is great principles t used by American, as all occupation armies through history did , to give moral background for their occupation. The US is the first country in history to actually mean it when we said it: in WWII.

russ_watters

Dec9-04, 07:20 AM

With the toppling of Fallujah, The army is saying that it can be crushed, but it seems to me that things just keep escalating. I dont know, is it that we dont have enough troops within Iraq to lock the country down? One of the principals we saw working was that when the vacuum was created when many forces moved towards fallujah and away from the smaller towns, the insurgency bit at our heels immediately. Does this mean that future actions towards progress will be held back by the insurgency keeping us at our posts? To some extent its like trying to put out an oil fire with water: you just splash the still-burning oil around. Secondly, and maybe another point entirely, is that the insurgency seems to be reaming the new Iraqi police and military. Ofcourse many dont care for a body count of their forces lost, but it seems like every day a police station is attacked effectively. You always hear more stories about the insurgents actually killing the police as opposed to a whimpy mortar attack that is mostly for show. This is of much larger concern than insurgents attacking American forces: if they were just attacking us, we could fix the problem by leaving. But clearly, this isn't just about killing Americans, its about preventing democracy.

The only solution I can see is martial law until the country can be rebuilt and government established. Prosperity tends to lessen hatred.

wasteofo2

Dec9-04, 08:13 PM

.The image of American solider in ME is link with (murdering civilians, bombing houses, raping, Sodomising …..)

Most of Iraqi police are rejected by society. People see them as tortures because they joined the occupation army. Such feelings are the same for all nations under occupation. You can not tolerate with Iraqi solider who fight with ‘’occupation’’ against his nation.

So you don't believe the Americans are trying to help Iraq and that the Iraqi police and army are just puppets of America?

What if elections are held in January, what would your opinion of the new government be? Would you and others you know just automatically think they're also American puppets and can't be trusted, or will you have faith in them because they were voted in by the Iraqi people (assuming they are elected fairly)?

kat

Dec9-04, 10:39 PM

Hmm Bilal...since the "insurgents" some even from Palestine (are you proud of them or?) are attacking civilians and not just Iraqi Police and army..the families of those murdered by the "insurgents" are going to want revenge against who? and support who?

setAI

Dec15-04, 01:07 PM

of course it can be crushed- but since killing them only breeds more as a result of the memetic reaction- you would need to exterminate the majority of the earth's populaton ANTZ style- bassicaly you would have to kill everyone who thought that killing billions was wrong-

if you had a good self-maintaining technological infrastructure you could just kill all but the few millions that you could tolerate and leave perhaps another billion for slaves

technology might allow you to avoid killing alltogether- if you could engineer a neural virus [prion nanotechnology? ]which turns it's victims into easily brainwashed/re-programmed meat-puppets- this has been a dream of the CIA for decades-

Bilal

Dec25-04, 02:15 AM

Unfortunately, USA lost the war since Abu Gharib!! , you can not liberate people by violating their basic rights.
It is war of choice … USA started it against the will of most of the people in the world. It is similar to the German invasion of Poland in 2WW.

2WW is completely different story ... otherwise why USA do not invade the other 90 countries in the world who suffer under dictatorship? What about N. Korea?

The US is the first country in history to actually mean it when we said it: in WWII.

Bilal

Dec25-04, 02:22 AM

Election will not provide magic solution!! Germany had election in 1933, and we know what the results!!

I hope to see Iraq peaceful country after all these wars, but hopes are far from reality. The situation in Iraq is very bad …. May be we should wait many years to hear that Iraq is stable again (if Iraq still exists on the map in that time!!) …..

We should face the reality instead of fooling ourselves … media just showing you what you like to hear …. But the real winner of occupation of Iraq is OBL and his supporters..!!

So you don't believe the Americans are trying to help Iraq and that the Iraqi police and army are just puppets of America?

What if elections are held in January, what would your opinion of the new government be? Would you and others you know just automatically think they're also American puppets and can't be trusted, or will you have faith in them because they were voted in by the Iraqi people (assuming they are elected fairly)?

Bilal

Dec25-04, 02:30 AM

The world is not only white and black!! Or If you are not with me, then you are against me!!

In Falluja , American sources admitted that only 25 non Iraqi fighters exist among 2500 fighters ...

I do not support bombing civilians, kidnapping workers and journalist, bombing mosques and churches ... of course I do not support also the American occupation and murdering of 100000 civilians /destruction of the country in the name of ''liberation''!! I do not support the barbarism in Abu Gharib and the complete destruction of Falluja !!

UN with help of Europe and ME should control Iraq till it become stable country. USA/UK has nothing to do in Iraq; they started this war to remove MDW, which they did not find them. Therefore they should withdraw after paying compensation to Iraqi people.

Hmm Bilal...since the "insurgents" some even from Palestine (are you proud of them or?) are attacking civilians and not just Iraqi Police and army..the families of those murdered by the "insurgents" are going to want revenge against who? and support who?

klusener

Dec25-04, 09:41 AM

"Election will not provide magic solution!! Germany had election in 1933, and we know what the results!!"

Bilal, that's a classic point, there are people here proclaiming that the elections will bring about a new dawn of hope, as if right after the elections are held, all the Iraqis will rush to the American troops and throw flowers over them.. If the elections are held, they will only be nominal, not legitimate, US wants to hold elections for the sake of saying that elections have been held and iraq is now a democracy, but even if the elections are held, it will not be the voice of the whole people, maybe a few cities will participate, but again only the Shiites will control the new gov., the Sunnis will be ignored...

Hurkyl

Dec25-04, 11:04 AM

I do not support bombing civilians, kidnapping workers and journalist, bombing mosques and churches ... of course I do not support also the American occupation and murdering of 100000 civilians /destruction of the country in the name of ''liberation''!! I do not support the barbarism in Abu Gharib and the complete destruction of Falluja !!

Did you support Saddam?

UN with help of Europe and ME should control Iraq till it become stable country. USA/UK has nothing to do in Iraq; they started this war to remove MDW, which they did not find them.

What leads you to believe that group would fare any better?

klusener

Dec25-04, 01:22 PM

What leads you to believe that group would fare any better?

I really don't think that many Iraqis, except for those who can personally gain some hard cash or power from this occupation( invasion ), have a tiny bit of respect for the troops or the US administration anymore, when they have seen the lies and despicable actions of these aggressors in every day life, how can they respect them? How can they follow a country that has humiliated them...

now, i do feel that the iraqis want a democracy, every human being yearns for that freedom, but they don't want to get it through somebody who has degraded them in the name of "liberation."

Maybe someone with more respect, who doesn't say that there are WMDs in their country and doesn't waffle on the reasons, would be well recieved in Iraq... Like bilal says maybe Europe is the right continent do it, who knows, maybe Asia is..

P.S - I really don't want to place the blame on the Anglo-American troops that much, they are just following orders...

I am not supporting the insurgency either, as you can see from the second paragraph...

edit: oh god, i am waiting for the backlash from the Bush supporters and the people with "support the troops" signs here, i can almost sense it coming soon... :frown: but i will get through it by any means necessary.. (just reading up on M X Shabazz, so i had to slip that phrase in) :smile:

----------------------------------------
When the Europeans came, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said that this is the book of God and asked us to meditate. When we opened our eyes they had the land and we had the Bible.

- Jomo Kenyatta

Hurkyl

Dec25-04, 06:09 PM

Looking back, I realize Bilal didn't even suggest that UN+Europe+ME was more capable, just that the USA/UK didn't have any business doing it. Sorry I misread you.

Bilal

Dec25-04, 09:48 PM

Did you support Saddam?
What leads you to believe that group would fare any better?

-I hate Saddam more than any other human on the earth. I never respect any bloody dictator.. I hate Saddam since his war with Iran, since his crimes against his people, unlike Ramsfield who used to have 'warm' relations with him in 80s! Saddam supported Palestine, but I never welcome his support. I take my decision based on "human principles " not based on my own interests.

- Europe (except British government) has a lot of respect in ME. It is wise and old Continent and it is the origin of new civilization .... Just check how people in Algeria, Egypt and Palestine wave with French flags .... May be the sympathy and support of French journalists in Iraq from all the Islamic /Arab organization is another proof. Even Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah .. asked to release the French journalists...

- The other ME countries has strong relations with Iraqi people: Iran can control the Shia , Syria can control the Sunni and Christian, can control the Turkmen .. so most of Iraqi people will be under control of the neighbors ..

Simply, Iraq should be divided temporary among these countries (Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia) based on cultural/historical and religious relations for several years. Europe can help in establishing Federal democratic system based on Iraqi culture … this system should respect the rights of every individual in Iraq.

plover

Dec25-04, 10:23 PM

Bilal:

What do Sunni think of Ayatollah Sistani? Do they respect or trust him? Or do Sunni mostly think of Shi'i leaders as heretics?

Do Iraqi Sunni think of Sistani differently than Sunni outside Iraq?

Bilal

Dec25-04, 11:17 PM

Hi plover,

In fact what called shia / Sunni is new issue in Iraq. This country was the most secular in ME. People rarely care about religions or sectors. In, mid 90s, Saddam encouraged them to be religious, also the environment of war force people to return to the god.

Ayatollah Sistani is not Iraqi, he is Iranian. This is could be enough reason that many Iraqi (Sunni, Shia and others) can not trust him. (He care about Iran more than Iraq).

The Iraqi Shia leaders who were fighting Saddam are (Sadr family). Muqtada Sadr is looks like ‘’child’’ but because of the history of his family, he got a lot of respect among Shia and Sunni.

Mohammed Sadr and his sister Zaynab (Uncle and aunt of Muqtada Sadr) were arrested both in 1981. Saddam cut Zainab into pieces and burned her brother by acid.. till his bones disappeared.

Frankly, most of those new leaders of Iraq including Kurds leaders had shameful history; Allawi , Shaalan (defense Minister) , Chalabi …were former Baathists who murdered many innocent Iraqi people in 80s. Kurds leaders shake their hands with Saddam several times and accepted to be his alliance. Ayatollah Sistani did not do anything against Saddam; he showed his support because he wants to survive …

Failure of USA to find trusted and respectful alliance among the Iraqi people is one of main reasons that Iraqi resistance got more strength.

Bilal:

What do Sunni think of Ayatollah Sistani? Do they respect or trust him? Or do Sunni mostly think of Shi'i leaders as heretics?

Do Iraqi Sunni think of Sistani differently than Sunni outside Iraq?

Hurkyl

Dec25-04, 11:34 PM

I hate Saddam more than any other human on the earth.

Okay, so you hate Saddam, and you don't support the American invasion -- fine. It's still important to ask yourself which one you prefer.

Here's a philosophical question to ask yourself: is it better to support the lesser of two evils, or to allow the greater to perpetuate?

I would expect that most people who supported the invasion merely found it to be a better alternative, rather than a desirable state of affairs.

Just check how people in Algeria, Egypt and Palestine wave with French flags

What about, say, Côte d'Ivoire? Most of what I read about modern African history suggests an intense hatred of Eurpoeans.

But anyways, you're speaking about (your perception of) popular opinion, but I had asked what makes you think Eurpoeans and the U.N. are more capable of mounting an effective occupation, and more capable of building a new nation?

And, frankly, as far as I can tell, only a small percentage of the current violence in Iraq is against the Americans, and only a small percentage of that would change if you replaced the Americans with some other western power.

Addendum: I focus on these two particular issues, rather than others, mainly because in my eyes they appear to be heavily influenced by propaganda and public opinion rather than substance, a particular pet peeve of mine.

Bilal

Dec26-04, 12:19 AM

Dear Hurkyl,

Okay, so you hate Saddam, and you don't support the American invasion -- fine. It's still important to ask yourself which one you prefer.

Here's a philosophical question to ask yourself: is it better to support the lesser of two evils, or to allow the greater to perpetuate?

I would expect that most people who supported the invasion merely found it to be a better alternative, rather than a desirable state of affairs.

To compare who more evil USA or Saddam, we should wait till the end of American occupation to count who murdered and destroyed more …

- Do we know what really USA planning for? If USA just wants to establish democratic State in Iraq and withdraw within short time, I do believe that nobody will opposite them!! The problem that we can not trust USA government. The speech of Bush about Freedom, liberation, is the same speech of French-English Imperialist before just 50 years. USA is not charitable organization to waste hundreds billions of Dollars and thousands of soldiers for the ‘’interest of Iraqi people’’. To know why people can not trust the invaders, just check the modern history of ME and compare it till now. I wish you know the story of Palestine and how the British occupation army broke its promises and gave our country to the European Jews?
- Why USA did not let the UN to be responsible about Iraq?
- Why USA did not create democratic government in Kuwait (liberated by USA in 1990)?
- Why USA allows Israel to 90 UN resolutions and let them to get nuke?
- Why the war in Iraq is got ‘’religious and racist cover’’ … (e.g. Crusade, Christian activities in Iraq, anti Islam and anti Arab propaganda in USA…)
- Why USA using the same tactics of Israel in Iraq?
- Why only Zionists/extremists Christian is enthusiastic for this war? Is it accidentally that the people who planned this war are extremists Zionist who hate Arab and Islam? (E.g. Wolf, Fieth , Perele?)
- If American are liberators, why the last pictures of tutoring the Iraqi prisoners dated: May 2003, which means the American soldiers came to punish the Iraqi and they did not do their crimes as reply on Iraqi resistance ….

What about, say, Côte d'Ivoire? Most of what I read about modern African history suggests an intense hatred of Eurpoeans.?

Europe has not peaceful history in the third world countries … but the situation changed after 2WW. At least they learned from their history….

But anyways, you're speaking about (your perception of) popular opinion, but I had asked what makes you think Eurpoeans and the U.N. are more capable of mounting an effective occupation, and more capable of building a new nation?

Because people trust UN and Europe more than USA and UK. The problem is not with removing of Saddam, but with the hidden agenda of the neoconservatives (who are full by hate and racism against our nations). If the Palestinian resisted the British occupation in 20s, they could live in peace in their homeland now!! Unfortunately, they believed the British and they let them to stay several years till they created Israel and caused permanent conflict for generations … simply , the Iraqi do not want to repeat the Palestinian mistake.

And, frankly, as far as I can tell, only a small percentage of the current violence in Iraq is against the Americans, and only a small percentage of that would change if you replaced the Americans with some other western power.

I did not say to replace American occupation by western occupation!! Just I want UN to arrange everything without USA and UK : Arab and Muslims countries should send armies to replace the Anglo American forces, then Europe should provide experts to establish new democratic Iraq …..

daster

Dec26-04, 12:38 AM

Hurkyl, I'm Iraqi and I detest Saddam. However, I'd rather have him rule Iraq tyrannically than have the USA, or any other country for that matter, destroy it. That's just my opinion.

The damage the USA has done while "liberating" Iraq is irreparable. Iraqi culture, one of the most vital elements in the Iraqi society, is simply something the USA doesn't understand. The Iraqi people aren't seeing the occupation as a ray of hope for freedom, democracy and justice. They're seeing an enemy trying to force its ideals into their way of life, and fiddling with their culture in that process. And like other Middle-Easterners, Iraqis will not forsake their culture and way of life that easily. Sure, some might support the ideals imposed by the USA, but many would rather die than see their ideals lost.

Many Middle-Easterners blame the USA for the unfortunate state the Middle-East is in. Let me elaborate... The rising generation of Arabs/Muslims is arguably the worst one yet. This generation has abandoned the Arabic & Islamic way of life and replaced them with some of the worse Western aspects. Now, when an old-fashioned Arab/Muslim comes along and sees all these teenagers picking up these bad habits, what do you suppose goes through his mind? He'd think that the youth is leaving the proper traditions behind and is picking up the traditions of those who are killing Muslims, attacking their countries and aiding Israel in occupying Palestine. He'd feel that the Arabic and Islamic world is losing to a horribly cunning enemy, and he doesn't intend to sit there and watch it happen.

You might not like it, but this is a very common mindset in the Middle-East. And the actions of the U.S. Government are not making the situation any better.

Just my 2 cents.

plover

Dec26-04, 08:18 AM

In fact what called shia / Sunni is new issue in Iraq. This country was the most secular in ME. People rarely care about religions or sectors. In, mid 90s, Saddam encouraged them to be religious, also the environment of war force people to return to the god.
Did Saddam encourage religion because life in Iraq was bad under sanctions? So, before the mid 90s, he encouraged secular culture? Did Saddam ever try to prevent Shi'i pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala?
Ayatollah Sistani is not Iraqi, he is Iranian. This is could be enough reason that many Iraqi (Sunni, Shia and others) can not trust him. (He care about Iran more than Iraq).
I thought Ayatollah Sistani was the most influential person among the 'ulama in Iraq. He is organizing most of the Shi'i candidates for the election (plus some from other factions), so many people must trust him – or is this description too simple?
Frankly, most of those new leaders of Iraq including Kurds leaders had shameful history ...

Failure of USA to find trusted and respectful alliance among the Iraqi people is one of main reasons that Iraqi resistance got more strength.
Even to some in America, it was obvious that invading Iraq using advice from Chalabi would be a disaster. I do not know why the neocons believed that the Iraqis would trust him.

Bilal

Dec26-04, 09:37 AM

Dear plover,

Did Saddam encourage religion because life in Iraq was bad under sanctions? So, before the mid 90s, he encouraged secular culture? Did Saddam ever try to prevent Shi'i pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala?

Baath ideology based on ‘’anti religion’’ especially the political Islam. They succeeded to rule Syria and Iraq in 60s. In both countries , they destroyed completely the Islamic organizations (with zero tolerance) … also they trust the religious minorities more than majority (Sunni in Syria and Shia in Iraq).

Saddam rejected any kind of political Islam; even he did not let Muslims to practice their religion freely. Of course, he prevents Shi'i pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala, beside that he did not let Sunni Muslims to use their mosques in education or any religious activities except short time for daily sermons . He did his best to convert the Iraqi society into extreme secular. He gave complete rights for women (the same as western women) and religious minorities (especially Christian). Also he provided free education for females/males till they get their PhD degree (no wondering that Iraqi was the most educated people in ME with many well known scientists).

He got support of the West because he was secular, so he tried to play with this card against USA/UK during the sanction in 90s; also he wanted to let his nation to return to the religion to reduce the suffering due to the sanction and the daily bombing by UK-USA air forces.

I thought Ayatollah Sistani was the most influential person among the 'ulama in Iraq. He is organizing most of the Shi'i candidates for the election (plus some from other factions), so many people must trust him – or is this description too simple?

Muslims Shia (unlike Sunni) follow completely their religious men or leaders of their religious schools. In Iraq, there are several shia religious schools … Sistani , Hakim and Sadr are the most popular. Of course all the supporters of Sistani and Hakim schools (Iranian schools) will follow their orders. I do not know about their popularity, but I do not deny that Sistani representing one of most popular religious shia schools in Iraq …

Even to some in America, it was obvious that invading Iraq using advice from Chalabi would be a disaster. I do not know why the neocons believed that the Iraqis would trust him.

USA accepted those Iraqi because they have strong relations with Israel. Every Iraqi accepts to have strong relation with Israel will be good candidate for American goverment. No wondering that Chalabi and others are working together with Israeli business men and politicians. Even they talk a lot about giving Iraqi nationality to the Israeli from Iraqi origin, paying compensation for the Iraqi Jews and to export Iraqi oil through Israel ….. This means they (Chalabi … etc) care about Israel more than the Iraqi people who need every cent in this hard time.

Hurkyl

Dec26-04, 10:54 AM

Do we know what really USA planning for?

Nope.

Do we know that the U.N. will set up a government with Iraq's best interests at heart?

Do we know that, given your plan, Iraq's neighbors would be willing to give up their control of Iraq?

I've already read reports that Iran is trying to gain as much control of Iraq as it can...

USA is not charitable organization to waste hundreds billions of Dollars and thousands of soldiers for the ??interest of Iraqi people??.

It's been done before. *shrug*

- Why USA did not let the UN to be responsible about Iraq?
U.N. had been responsible for... 10 years, was it?

- Why USA did not create democratic government in Kuwait (liberated by USA in 1990)?
I didn't realize that there was a problem with Kuwait's current government.

- Why USA allows Israel to 90 UN resolutions and let them to get nuke?
Forgive me, there seems to be a word or two missing, and I can't figure out just what you mean. As for the existance of a nuke, I've only heard conspiracy theories, but I can't say I've looked into it.

- Why the war in Iraq is got ??religious and racist cover?? ? (e.g. Crusade, Christian activities in Iraq, anti Islam and anti Arab propaganda in USA?)
I live in the US, and haven't seen any of these. In fact, there is pro-Muslim, pro-Arab propaganda, to counter the fact that some individuals misplace their anger against terrorists.

- Why USA using the same tactics of Israel in Iraq?
I didn't know they were the same. Besides, the way the US coalition and Israel have handled insurgency is pretty dang mild compared to just about every other historical example I can remember at the moment.

- Why only Zionists/extremists Christian is enthusiastic for this war?
I didn't know that was the case. But it doesn't matter who's enthusiastic for war -- it matters who thought war was the better alternative. Most of them weren't enthusiastic.

- If American are liberators, why the last pictures of tutoring the Iraqi prisoners dated: May 2003, which means the American soldiers came to punish the Iraqi and they did not do their crimes as reply on Iraqi resistance ?.
Again, I can't figure out exactly what you mean. Media, in general, likes to report bad stuff, especially the al-jazeera network. You can find plenty of good stuff too, if you want to look for it.

Because people trust UN and Europe more than USA and UK.

You missed it again. Trust does not equate to greater capability. Nor does ulterior motives equate to lesser capability. Frankly, I'd imagine that all the scrutiny would make it more likely that the US would do it right.

plover

Dec26-04, 08:07 PM

- Why the war in Iraq is got ??religious and racist cover?? ? (e.g. Crusade, Christian activities in Iraq, anti Islam and anti Arab propaganda in USA?)
I live in the US, and haven't seen any of these. In fact, there is pro-Muslim, pro-Arab propaganda, to counter the fact that some individuals misplace their anger against terrorists.
Bush has used the term 'crusade'. And this statement by Ann Coulter has apparently become notorious in some circles in the ME: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." While you or I might not take her seriously, how will people who have never been to a Western country and have no predisposition to trust us interpret her outward popularity here?

And as someone else who lives in the US, the statement that there is any pro-Arab or pro-Muslim voice with much influence in our public discourse seems a bit bizarre. What are you referring to?
Because people trust UN and Europe more than USA and UK.
You missed it again. Trust does not equate to greater capability. Nor does ulterior motives equate to lesser capability. Frankly, I'd imagine that all the scrutiny would make it more likely that the US would do it right.
The scrutiny you mention was not the engine that brought the horrors of Abu Ghraib to light—let alone it having the ability to prevent them. As far as I can tell, however much Americans may have let Abu Ghraib be swept into the background, for many in the ME (and I suspect, the rest of the world), it remains the foremost example of the level of respect the US government holds for Iraqis. Why should people in the ME trust the US government when there has been no action—either symbolic, or in the form of some real redress—that comes even close to acknowledging the degree to which the Arab world felt wounded by these events? (And why anyone would think putting Lynndie England & co. on trial sufficient is beyond me.) Why should people in the ME trust the US government when even Bush's most visible opponent (Kerry) could not be heard condemning Abu Ghraib with any vigor?

While ulterior motives per se does not equate to lesser capability, it seems to me that you are defining "capability" to be such things as physical resources and expertise (both technical and organizational). I think a better term for this might be "means". Overall "capability" or "effectiveness" most certainly includes trust—it is much easier to accomplish something if the people you are working with accept your motives as honorable, and thus if (or, in any real world: when) things go wrong, you can receive the benefit of the doubt and keep the lines between mistakes, petty corruption, and ulterior goals clear. The way the Bush administration waffles over or outright denies their mistakes makes it impossible to determine those lines with any meaningful certainty even for those of us in America, how much more difficult must it be for those who have much less reason to trust us?

Hurkyl

Dec27-04, 01:20 AM

Bush has used the term 'crusade'. And this statement by Ann Coulter ...

I'm not familiar with either, but I'm hardly omniscient and won't attempt to deny it.

And as someone else who lives in the US, the statement that there is any pro-Arab or pro-Muslim voice with much influence in our public discourse seems a bit bizarre. What are you referring to?

I was referring to the television ad campaigns. Maybe I'm just the only one that pays attention to commercials. *sigh*

russ_watters

Dec27-04, 02:05 PM

Bush has used the term 'crusade'. CONTEXT (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0417.html)!!!! “Leading a Global Crusade Against Terrorism” [emphasis added] Are you saying Islam is synonomous with terrorism, plover?

I didn't pick that site intentionally to pick on Kerry (it came up high on a google search for "bush iraq crusade quote"), but Kerry's attempt to imply religious motivation for the war made him look really bad.

plover

Dec28-04, 01:49 AM

russ:

The main instance of Bush using the word 'crusade' is in some remarks to the press (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html) shortly after 9/11. (I thought this was well known—plus, it's also mentioned in your link. I was not actually aware of the campaign flap.) Bush released the word into the world press ecosystem and that's what is remembered, not his later statement that he regretted saying it—especially given that the original statement was made live for the cameras, and the retraction seems (I haven't done an exhaustive search) to have been just a press release.

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 01:21 PM

russ:

The main instance of Bush using the word 'crusade' is in some remarks to the press (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html) shortly after 9/11. (I thought this was well known—plus, it's also mentioned in your link. I was not actually aware of the campaign flap.) Right, and the context is exactly the same: This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.[emphasis added] So I ask you again: are you equating Islam with terrorism? (or are you just falsely accusing Bush of doing that?)

Bilal

Dec28-04, 03:20 PM

Right, and the context is exactly the same: So I ask you again: are you equating Islam with terrorism? (or are you just falsely accusing Bush of doing that?)

May be I can say my opinion about this comment:

The neoconservatives (who rule USA) believe that Islam (even Arab culture) and terrorism are the same. Of course top politician (e.g. Bush) can not say that frankly (at least now!) but you should read for those who plan the strategy of the government.

Here are just examples of books and articles, which written by people who represent the ideology of neoconservatives:

1) Richard Perle , one of well known neoconservatives and one of three people who planned the war on Iraq wrote recently book called end of evil :

DAVID FRUM, RICHARD PERLE "

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400061946/104-3731505-8014322?v=glance

If you read this book which is considered as ‘’strategy of neoconservatives’’, they ask to destroy all the Muslims countries and to force them to live under military American rule. They believe that Islam as religion and Arab as race are the sources of evil and terrorism.(beside France and Russia)

2) Ann Coulter : one of representatives of the neoconservatives ideology :

http://www.anncoulter.org/

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'). She also referred to: "(The Prophet) Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill non-believers whenever possible."

3) Graham – spiritual father of Bush:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/93/story_9367_1.html

NBC News" reported Friday that when asked to clarify his statement, Graham repeated his charge that Islam, as a whole, was evil. "It wasn't Methodists flying into those buildings, it wasn't Lutherans," he said. "It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith."
Here is one of articles about those evangelical Christian (Church of Bush):
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081432
((Graham is also, he says, "poised and ready" to send representatives of the charity he runs to Iraq as soon as possible. His primary purpose is humanitarian aid—providing food and shelter—but he also admits, "I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. … We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian, I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."))

Bilal

Dec28-04, 03:31 PM

What about bio-terrorism? What about Anthrax letters?

As we know that bio-Terrorism is the most dangerous thread on humanity, so why we did not know anything about the people who did such attacks?

Those terrorists succeeded to use high technology to convert the anthrax into powder, so they can use it to kill millions of people …..

Will the white house react the same if Muslims behind the anthrax letters or they will use it as excuse to destroy another countries?

Why terrorism is get attention ONLY if Muslims behind it?
Why the USA ask the Arab and Muslims to change everything (media, text books …. Etc) and they let Hollywood and many journalist to attack the Arab and Islam by showing them as terrorists, savages and evil people?

Why anti Jews (or what called anti Semite) is crime, while anti Arab or anti Islam is accepted and encouraged by neoconservative and their spiritual leaders?

Why USA force Muslims countries to respect the resolutions of the UN (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan …) and throw in the trash the anti Israeli resolutions?

plover

Dec28-04, 06:56 PM

are you equating Islam with terrorism?
I'm not quite sure what to do with a question like this. The first time you asked, I assumed it was just random nastiness. Is this the case? I find it hard to believe your lack of insight into my thinking is so great that you can ask this seriously. Am I wrong? Perhaps there's some grand motive here beyond 'bait the liberal' that I'm missing?

So here's an answer: no. So do you know anything you didn't know before? Or is it just satisfying to manipulate me into making an answer? (Maybe I should start giving false answers to obviously illegitimate questions, just to see what kind of screwed up positions you're willing to attribute to me.)
(or are you just falsely accusing Bush of doing that?)
Was there something ambiguous about the sentence "Bush has used the term 'crusade'"? I imputed no motive to Bush. The overall purpose of the post was to propose an explanation of how actions by Americans have translated into perceptions in the ME. The part that's least likely to be lost in translation is the symbolism, not the context. Saying that 'jihad' means 'holy war' is like saying 'weather' means 'hurricane'—sure it's an example of the concept (an especially violent one), but it doesn't explain the concept, and doesn't show what it means to people on an everyday basis. But how do most Americans react to the word jihad? Why should most Middle Easterners react differently to the word 'crusade'? If I'm accusing Bush of anything, it is of making a grand rhetorical error, the negative effects of which might have been prevented by a far more humble public apology than Bush has ever shown himself capable, but which more than likely were overdetermined from the moment he opened his mouth.

Hurkyl

Dec28-04, 07:04 PM

plover

Dec28-04, 07:50 PM

Why terrorism is get attention ONLY if Muslims behind it?
Do you know about Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Kaczinski (the "Unabomber")? They are both American terrorists. McVeigh killed over 200 people when he blew up a government building in Oklahoma. Kaczinski killed several professors with mail bombs. Both received a lot of attention in America. There are certainly groups in America that the FBI considers to be potential terrorist groups—largely what are called "white supremacist" groups (meaning groups who believe white Europeans are a favored race, and often take parts of their philosophy from Nazism; their hatred is largely directed against black Americans, but also Jews and sometimes Catholics; the best known example is the Ku Klux Klan). McVeigh was connected with such groups. Kaczinski was motivated by his own peculiar (and extreme) theories of environmentalism and hatred of corporations.

However, it is also true that since 9/11, the American people and media have focused on Muslim terrorists. And I doubt any white supremacist group has ever been arrested on evidence as flimsy as that which was used to justify imprisoning Arab-Americans (and Canadian and British Arabs) in Guantanamo.
Will the white house react the same if Muslims behind the anthrax letters or they will use it as excuse to destroy another countries?
I think (though I may be wrong) that the FBI believes that the anthrax letters were not sent by Muslims, but rather by an American group (perhaps one with aims similar to McVeigh's).

plover

Dec28-04, 08:11 PM

Those terrorists succeeded to use high technology to convert the anthrax into powder, so they can use it to kill millions of people ?..
Any references? I don't remember it being any more than a handful (and a huge scare), and I would like to know if it was otherwise.
I think Bilal's sentence was intended to mean:
Since we know that 'terrorists succeeded to use high technology to convert the anthrax into powder', they could use that knowledge to make enough 'to kill millions of people'.
This, at least, is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me in context.

I was referring to the television ad campaigns. Maybe I'm just the only one that pays attention to commercials.
I don't think I've seen anything like this. Do you remember when (and on what channel(s)) you saw them?

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 08:33 PM

[edit]I posted something nasty, and now deleted it. I have a real problem with people "reading between the lines" things they didn't say (which is all there is to the 'this is a religious crusade' thing) - and I may have done the same thing.

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 08:36 PM

May be I can say my opinion about this comment:

The neoconservatives (who rule USA) believe that Islam (even Arab culture) and terrorism are the same. Of course top politician (e.g. Bush) can not say that frankly (at least now!) but you should read for those who plan the strategy of the government. Yeah, you know because you know: NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Prove it.

tomahawk

Dec28-04, 08:40 PM

Iam going to included the rest of the world when I say this. I think were all just tired of the middle east problems. There has never been peace there since recored history. What makes us think it will happen now. Because nothing has changed for six thousand years. I suggest this, if the middle easterns want to be left alone then so be it. We can build a wall around the whole middle east. Iam talking one the size of the great wall of China. If they want kick and squabble with thier nieghbhors that's thier problem. Once this wall is complete we as the rest of the world can get together as one and advance and move on.

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 08:47 PM

Smurf

Dec28-04, 09:10 PM

I disagree Russ, his perceptions are not without merit, paticularly about Israel.
Why terrorism is get attention ONLY if Muslims behind it?
The Palestinians are possibly the most terrorized and oppressed people in the world yet the media portrays them as terrorists and 'evil-doers' rather than the freedom-fighters they are. This is not one of your so called 'Conspiracy Theories' which has no merit.

And the answer to the question, because they don't support Foreign Business Interests.

Hurkyl

Dec28-04, 09:19 PM

freedom-fighters they are.

Is that term still applicable if their goal is significantly more than simply freedom? The usually positive connotation associated with the term certainly isn't.

Smurf

Dec28-04, 10:45 PM

I really don't think anyone can say more than "It depends" to that.

The freedom fighters in Chechnya are certainly freedom fighters, they are fighting for the independance of Chechnya from Russia, however they are not supported by the majority of the area they are trying to liberate and there was even a vote to see if Chechnya wanted to become independant which failed. Yet they continued to terrorize the people there. They are indeed "Freedom Fighters" but I would not say they're motives are in any way positive.

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 11:10 PM

I disagree Russ, his perceptions are not without merit, paticularly about Israel.

The Palestinians are possibly the most terrorized and oppressed people in the world yet the media portrays them as terrorists and 'evil-doers' rather than the freedom-fighters they are. This is not one of your so called 'Conspiracy Theories' which has no merit.

And the answer to the question, because they don't support Foreign Business Interests. If they were freedom fighters, that argument would have merit - but they aren't, so it doesn't. The 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' argument just doesn't fly: if you strap a bomb to your chest and get on a civilian bus, you're a terrorist. Period. Motivation is irrelevant.

edit: now that doesn't mean you can't be both at the same time. A Palestinian homeland really is part of the motivation of groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda - but how much? Are they 20% freedom fighters and 80% terrorists? 10% to 90%? When their actions and statements are so dominated by terrorism, the freedom fighter component is lost, and it is right for the world to not acknowledge it.

And "most terrorized and oppressed people in the world"? Spare me. Two words for you: North Korea.

Smurf

Dec28-04, 11:18 PM

Yeap, the North Koreans are in a sore state right now, but comparing them to the Palestinians is like comparing Italian with Dominoes.

Smurf

Dec28-04, 11:23 PM

edit: now that doesn't mean you can't be both at the same time. A Palestinian homeland really is part of the motivation of groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda - but how much? Are they 20% freedom fighters and 80% terrorists? 10% to 90%? When their actions and statements are so dominated by terrorism, the freedom fighter component is lost, and it is right for the world to not acknowledge it.
I don't see the difference, The Chechnyans terrorists are by all means terrorists, but they are also freedom fighters. I'm not going to say they're 40 and 60, I think that the motive is unjustified and that they should shut up and get a job or move somewhere else. But I don't think the same for the palestinians, which have been occupied and oppressed for a very long time and do not deserve their treatment.

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 11:47 PM

I don't see the difference.... The point is that terrorist acts are wrong and the context is irrelevant. Being a terrorist invalidates whatever motivation they may have.But I don't think the same for the palestinians, which have been occupied and oppressed for a very long time and do not deserve their treatment. Um, well, occupied and oppressed since they started a war to wipe Israel off the map...

And speaking of which, if that war hadn't been started in '67, the borders would be exactly where the Palestinians want them now (and Israel would give them if the terrorists would cut it out).

Bilal

Dec29-04, 12:05 PM

My point is:

Timothy McVeigh did terrorist attack, so Timothy McVeigh and his organisation should be punished....

Those who did 11/9 attacks should be punished with their organization ... but it seems the leaders of USA considering the entire Islamic world is responsible!!

Alqaeda for Muslims is similar to KKK in USA or neo-Nazi in Germany. They are just unpopular small extremist group.

It is not secret anymore that what called global war on terrorism effect on all Muslims nations and Muslims minorities around the world.

Do you know about Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Kaczinski (the "Unabomber")? They are both American terrorists. McVeigh killed over 200 people when he blew up a government building in Oklahoma. Kaczinski killed several professors with mail bombs. Both received a lot of attention in America. There are certainly groups in America that the FBI considers to be potential terrorist groups—largely what are called "white supremacist" groups (meaning groups who believe white Europeans are a favored race, and often take parts of their philosophy from Nazism; their hatred is largely directed against black Americans, but also Jews and sometimes Catholics; the best known example is the Ku Klux Klan). McVeigh was connected with such groups. Kaczinski was motivated by his own peculiar (and extreme) theories of environmentalism and hatred of corporations.

However, it is also true that since 9/11, the American people and media have focused on Muslim terrorists. And I doubt any white supremacist group has ever been arrested on evidence as flimsy as that which was used to justify imprisoning Arab-Americans (and Canadian and British Arabs) in Guantanamo.
I think (though I may be wrong) that the FBI believes that the anthrax letters were not sent by Muslims, but rather by an American group (perhaps one with aims similar to McVeigh's).

Bilal

Dec29-04, 12:12 PM

I have to worry about crusade because the president of USA is religious and he belong to extremist church, just check this site to see how educated people of his church thinking:

http://www.armageddonbooks.com/iraq.html

These books are written by very educated christian (most of them PhD holders) who are members in the same church with Bush.

Here is good article:

Bush, the Bible, and Iraq

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf2003037_4103_db056.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/schmahl1.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859

[edit]I posted something nasty, and now deleted it. I have a real problem with people "reading between the lines" things they didn't say (which is all there is to the 'this is a religious crusade' thing) - and I may have done the same thing.

Bilal

Dec29-04, 12:21 PM

1) Richard Perle , one of well known neoconservatives and one of three people who planned the war on Iraq wrote recently book called end of evil :

DAVID FRUM, RICHARD PERLE "

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...014322?v=glance

Yeah, you know because you know: NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Prove it.

klusener

Dec29-04, 12:29 PM

I am just trying to get rid of my ignorance on this subject here, but I think the thing over both sides clash is the justification of the existence of Israel... The west and Israel justifies it because after WWII some countries in the West got together and took land from Palestine and gave it to Israel.. but you got to look at what countries did this.. Malcolm X describes it as some white countries got together and took land from a dark nation ... i feel that is how it is percieved in Asia and the ME, none of us were even given a voice in this act in the 1940s.. you took Palestine's land and then you give it to Israel and you make it lawful.. How do you expect Palestine to accept it?

But I understand that the Jews have suffered throughout history and need a land, but i wish that everyone had had a hand in it, so i think the Palestinian retribution is justified in Eastern thinking, of course in the West, you are going to think it is illegal, cause Israel is lawfully a nation, but you gave it that status, how do you expect us (Palestine and Asia) to accept it when we were not given a hand in this?

Of course, it is been years since this and people have accepted it, but again i think that Palestine is justified in their retribution.. at the same time, do i like them strapping bombs to their chests and getting on Israeli buses, no.. i wish they would adopt a more peaceful way to protest, but i also understand that if they do that, Israel would blow their heads off with their tanks and take their land..

Bilal

Dec29-04, 12:33 PM

Dear Tom,

Your information is not accurate :

- Wars in Europe and Africa, also in East Asia were the bloodiest in human history. In last century , 137 Millions people killed in wars, among them 1% in ME and the rest in Europe (50%) , East Asia and USSR (20%) and …
- ME was peaceful more any place on the earth except in these periods:
11th till 13th century: Crusaders wars in the name of Jesus
13th century: Mongolian wars (invaders from Asia)
peaceful era: 14th century till 19th century
19 the century: Napoleon invaded the east, France occupy Algeria, Russia invade Turkey …
20th century: End Of Ottoman Empire and new colonization era by France and UK.
- UK created Israel in 1948 (permanent Palestinian problem with 5 wars), Divided Kurdistan (permanent Kurds problem!) , Divided Kashmir (permanent problem with three wars).
- UK and France withdraw from ME and North Africa after establishing new complex and fake political map for every country in ME and installing powerful dictatorship to protect their interests.
- USSR and USA support the dictators during the cold war to protect their interest.
- Nations of ME lost between: pro USA/UK dictators, fake borders , Zionism, and recently the new crusade (beside the extremists groups-Alqaeda)!

Iam going to included the rest of the world when I say this. I think were all just tired of the middle east problems. There has never been peace there since recored history. What makes us think it will happen now. Because nothing has changed for six thousand years. I suggest this, if the middle easterns want to be left alone then so be it. We can build a wall around the whole middle east. Iam talking one the size of the great wall of China. If they want kick and squabble with thier nieghbhors that's thier problem. Once this wall is complete we as the rest of the world can get together as one and advance and move on.

Bilal

Dec29-04, 12:48 PM

Dear Klusener

You wrote many interesting points.

I am as person who suffered directly from creation of Israel. You can not imagine my feelings now, after they surrounded my town completely by concrete wall and leaving our farms and water outside the wall!! The entire town has one gate open 15 minute morning and 15 minutes evening! Also we need Visa to reach our farms and crops!!

They doing for us the same as NAZI did for Jews in 2WW.

In 40s, they gave 530 Palestinian towns to the European Jews leaving 5 million Palestinian living in miserable conditions in refugees’ camps.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/

You can see the map of the wall ion this Israeli site and pictures.. Also you can see my town (at the end of the page).

http://gush-shalom.org/thewall/

Under occupation t, they never treat us as human. Everyday they should beat us on check points. They do their crime daily by support of American and Europe since 37 years. Such miserable conditions forced some hopeless people so start suicide bombers attacks.

Palestinian accepted to give 78% of their homeland to the Zionists in 1988. On the other hand, the Zionists are not willing to give us WB and Gaza (only 22% of historical Palestine).

Zionism is racist ideology believe that native people of Palestine are not equivalent to the Jews, so they should lose their homeland and their culture...

I am just trying to get rid of my ignorance on this subject here, but I think the thing over both sides clash is the justification of the existence of Israel... The west and Israel justifies it because after WWII some countries in the West got together and took land from Palestine and gave it to Israel.. but you got to look at what countries did this.. Malcolm X describes it as some white countries got together and took land from a dark nation ... i feel that is how it is percieved in Asia and the ME, none of us were even given a voice in this act in the 1940s.. you took Palestine's land and then you give it to Israel and you make it lawful.. How do you expect Palestine to accept it?

But I understand that the Jews have suffered throughout history and need a land, but i wish that everyone had had a hand in it, so i think the Palestinian retribution is justified in Eastern thinking, of course in the West, you are going to think it is illegal, cause Israel is lawfully a nation, but you gave it that status, how do you expect us (Palestine and Asia) to accept it when we were not given a hand in this?

Of course, it is been years since this and people have accepted it, but again i think that Palestine is justified in their retribution.. at the same time, do i like them strapping bombs to their chests and getting on Israeli buses, no.. i wish they would adopt a more peaceful way to protest, but i also understand that if they do that, Israel would blow their heads off with their tanks and take their land..

Bilal

Dec29-04, 12:57 PM

edit: now that doesn't mean you can't be both at the same time. A Palestinian homeland really is part of the motivation of groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda - but how much?

Alqaeda has nothing to do with Palestine. Even OBL called the Palestinian as ‘’non religious’’ and rejected to fight with them in 80s.

Bilal

Dec29-04, 01:13 PM

The point is that terrorist acts are wrong and the context is irrelevant. Being a terrorist invalidates whatever motivation they may have. Um, well, occupied and oppressed since they started a war to wipe Israel off the map... .
- 100 years ago, the Palestinian (70% Muslims, 25% Christian and 5% Jews) were living in peace as one nation. UK and European Zionists decided to create Jews State in Palestine in 1917. The Zionists got weapon and start to immigrate to Palestine to build settlements ignoring the basic rights of the native people.
- Palestinian decided to defend their country , so they decided to fight back with few weapons, while all Arab world under Anglo-French occupation.
- In 1948, Most of European Jews immigrated to Palestine and got a lot weapons and money as compensation to the Holocaust. They got green light to create Jews State, even they represent only 30% of the people of the Holy Land.
- Due the unbalanced war, 60% of Palestinian people forced to leave to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon leaving their houses and farms to the European Jews settlers.
And speaking of which, if that war hadn't been started in '67, the borders would be exactly where the Palestinians want them now (and Israel would give them if the terrorists would cut it out).
- In 1967, Israel attacked the Arab countries in (pre emptive war) because Egypt closed Tiran strait.. (National Egyptian water). In that time, most of Egyptian army was in Yemen to stop the civil war, Syria faced series of military revolutions and Iraq was busy in Kurds revolution.

- Palestinian live peacefully under occupation from 1967 till 1991, in that era: Israel built 200 settlements on 60% of the best agricultural lands of WB and Gaza. The settlers got 85% of water resources leaving the Palestinian with few lands and water.

- Military resistance (or terrorism) started after 1994, after racist America Jews called Barukh Goldstein attacked mosque in Hebron and murdered many civilians.

http://www.pflp.de/hebronmassacre.html

russ_watters

Dec29-04, 02:25 PM

So many factual inaccuracies, I'll just hit a few highlights: Alqaeda has nothing to do with Palestine. Even OBL called the Palestinian as ‘’non religious’’ and rejected to fight with them in 80s. That surprises me coming from a Palestinian. HERE (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html) is the full text of Bin Laden's "Letter to America." Palestine is number 1(a) on the list: (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily. - 100 years ago, the Palestinian (70% Muslims, 25% Christian and 5% Jews) were living in peace as one nation. There has never been a country called "Palestine." The chunk of land called "Palestine" was part of the country called the Ottoman Empire. England tried (poorly, admittedly) to create a Palestinian homeland, and that plan was rejected the other arab nations. The power vacuum caused by the destruction of the Ottoman Empire is a leading cause of the trouble in the Middle East today.

Two for one sale: -Palestinian live peacefully under occupation from 1967 till 1991...
- Military resistance (or terrorism) started after 1994, after racist America Jews called Barukh Goldstein attacked mosque in Hebron and murdered many civilians. That's so wrong, its insulting. Modern terrorism started in 1970 - with the PLO and Yassar Arafat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack Tell me - what was "military" about that schoolbus?

Smurf

Dec29-04, 02:53 PM

Russ your own site proves the point.
66 AD, Israel : Sicarii, radical Jewish Zealots, murder Roman officials and high-ranking Jews who were Roman allies. This led up to the Jewish war for independence against the Romans.
See, the jews started it.

Bilal

Dec29-04, 03:48 PM

So many factual inaccuracies, I'll just hit a few highlights: That surprises me coming from a Palestinian. HERE (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html) is the full text of Bin Laden's "Letter to America." ?

OBL just recently started to talk about Palestine to get more support from Muslims. Alqaeda never attack any Israeli target till now and they have no supporters in Palestine.

Palestine is number 1(a) on the list: There has never been a country called "Palestine." The chunk of land called "Palestine" was part of the country called the Ottoman Empire. England tried (poorly, admittedly) to create a Palestinian homeland, and that plan was rejected the other arab nations. The power vacuum caused by the destruction of the Ottoman Empire is a leading cause of the trouble in the Middle East today./?

Palestine was state in the Ottoman Empire, the same as Syria, Iraq, Egypt .. etc. After fall of Ottoman Empire, it is logical that every State will be independent. Texas is not independent country, it is part from USA, so you can not claim that Texas never exist, and you can not give it to another nation!!
The problem is not with political borders or the name of the State, but with bringing ''new group of militant immigrants'' to steal by force the land of other people.

Two for one sale: That's so wrong, its insulting. Modern terrorism started in 1970 - with the PLO and Yassar Arafat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack Tell me - what was "military" about that schoolbus?

I am talking about the people of West Bank and Gaza ... PLO and Israel was fighting outside (Jordan, Lebanon ....). Israel lost around 30 soldiers and 5 settlers in WB and Gaza from 1967 till 1987; this proves that the resistance was peaceful.

Your link also shows the starting of terrorism in 40s by Jews terrorists (so you can not claim that Jews accepted to divide Palestine peacefully!!)

Here is the start of new terrorism (after UK decided to withdraw from Palestine), which cause the war of Palestine in 1948:

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

((On July 22, 1946, members of the Jewish underground militant organization Irgun Tsvai-Leumi in the British Mandate of Palestine planted a bomb in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. A telephone call was then placed to warn occupants of the impending explosion and to urge that the building be evacuated. The telephone call was ignored. The bomb exploded. The hotel was the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). 91 people were killed, most of them civilians: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured.

The attack was initially ordered by David Ben Gurion, who was in the United States, but he later changed his mind and ordered the bombing to be cancelled. But Menachem Begin, the head of Irgun, went ahead anyway. Both Ben Gurion and Begin would later become Israeli Prime Ministers. The attack was commanded by Yosef Avni and Yisrael Levi.

The attack on the hotel was the largest attack against the British in the history of the Mandate. Some claim this act should be considered in light of the escalating violence in the region, and the continuing conflict between the three main forces in the region: British, Israeli, and Palestinian. In particular, the attack was made in retaliation for the British Operation Agatha.))

David Ben Gurion, = First Israeli PM and father of Israel!!
Menachem Begin, = Israeli PM in 70s and early 80s!!

This attack was the starting of Palestine war .....

Bilal

Dec29-04, 04:13 PM

russ_watters

Thank you very much for your link !

Please read about Irgun , which united with Hagnah to form the Israeli army in 1948. Also, I advise you to look at their ‘’national flag’’ … They claim that both : Palestine and Jordan should be Jews Land …. You could see the gun on map referring to military solution ……….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun_Tsvai-Leumi

Flag of Irgun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irgun1.jpg

(Jordan + Palestine = Artz Israel!! + Gun!!!) ------ are they peaceful immigrants or militants who want to steal the land by force?! Who reject dividing of Palestine?

Irgun actions
• 1937-1939 - A large number of attacks against Arabs, sometimes en masse, were carried out, especially under the command of Moshe Rosenberg and David Raziel. For example, 24 Arabs were killed and 39 injured by a marketplace bomb in Haifa, February 27, 1939, and further casualties were caused by bombs in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv on the same day. (Sources: Palestine (now Jerusalem) Post 2/28/39; Y. Ben-Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory; Memiors of the Irgun (1982))
• July 22, 1946 - Irgun bombs King David Hotel in Jerusalem, headquarters of the British civil and military administration, killing 91 people (17 Jewish). The Irgun gave a warning to evacuate the building, which was ignored by the British (Source: [1] (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/jay/jew/firgun1931.htm))
• October 31, 1946 - Irgun bombs British Embassy in Rome, Italy. (Source: [2] (http://www.cdiss.org/)).
• May 4, 1947 - the Irgun breaks into the Akko prison and releases 27 Jewish activists (Source: [[3] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Acre.html)] , [[4] (http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac13.htm)])
• September 29, 1947 - Irgun bombs police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing four British and four Arab policemen, and two Arab civilians. (Source: [5] (http://www.cdiss.org/)).
• December 29, 1947 - Irgun throws grenades into cafe in Jerusalem, Palestine, killing 11 Arabs and 2 British policemen. (Source: [6] (http://www.cdiss.org/)).
• 9 April 1948 - The Irgun together with the Stern gang attacked the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, killing at least 107 civilians. See Deir Yassin massacre.

The second terrorist Zionist group :

Lehi :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29

((Lehi was founded by Stern in 1940 as an offshoot from Irgun. It was initially named Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel). Following Stern's death in 1942, and the arrest of many of its members, the group went into eclipse until it was reformed as "Lehi" under a triumvirate of Israel Eldad, Natan Yellin-Mor, and Yitzhak Shamir. Shamir became the Prime Minister of Israel forty years later :rolleyes: .))

Colabration between Lihi and NAZI!!!! :surprised

((Late in 1940, the Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig and delivered a letter from Lehi offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich". Von Hentig forwarded the letter to the German embassy in Ankara, but there is no record of any official response. Lehi tried to establish contact with the Germans again in December 1941, also apparently without success.))

Gokul43201

Dec29-04, 09:03 PM

Bilal, you repeatedly state that al Qaeda has no support in Palestine. Is this not a mischaracterization ? Don't they sympathize with each other through their common hatred for the United States ? Didn't 9/11 make a large majority of Palestinians happy ?

Bilal

Dec30-04, 07:16 AM

Dear Gokul43201,

Palestinian does not hate you because you are American!! We are very educated nation (90% of Palestinian are educated, 60% of graduate and post graduate students are females). We use the best American / European academic systems in our universities. Most of our Professors graduated from (Purdue , Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Alberta ....). On 11/9 CNN succeeded to get pictures of some kids and women in refugees camps (who have no TV or even electricity to see what really happen ) celebrating and spread it as part of propaganda.…

We had problem with USA as government but not as nation. We believed that American have little knowledge about the other cultures and conflicts, so it was our duty to discuss with every American we meet about the situation and to tell them the other side of the story. During my studies in the school, our teachers used to tell us, if you meet any European/American try to explain for him/her our views bout the conflict and the crimes done by their governments against our nation.

May be after invasion of Iraq, public opinion in USA is not important any more, but surely few years ago it was so important. We believed they are civilized nation and they will not accept these crimes in the name of their country.

AL qaeda strategy is completely different. They are group of extremists who do not care about others: Muslims or non Muslims. They bombed USA, but also they bombed many Islamic countries … they are serious problem for Muslims! In 80s, they distributed many tapes about Afghanistan (by the help of USA) in our countries asking to fight ONLY the infidel communists and to leave Palestine. They think that Palestinian should first ‘’return to Islam’’ if they want the help of Alqaeda. OBL just recently started to talk about Palestine because he wanted support among Muslims and it is the most sensitive issue in Islamic world.

Many Palestinian are blaming OBL for the current situation, because he gave excuses to Israel to destroy the Palestinian cities by complete support from USA in the name of the ‘’war on terrorism’’ the same happen in Chechnya, Thailand, Kashmir and Philippine …currently every country in the world can bomb the Muslims minorities.

Alqaeda was pro USA in 80s during the war with USSR, while Palestinian never had good relations with American governments (for 5 decades). In spite of that, no Palestinian organization bombed American targets.

USA called all Palestinian groups as terrorists and helping Israel to annihilate them for decades, but we still have some hope that those people review their strategy , therefore most of Palestinian against bombing American civilians targets.

Most of Palestinian against OBL, and you can not find any cell related to ALqaeda in Palestine. Of course few ignorant people willing to support the “Satan” if accept to fight USA.

The differences between ALqaeda and Palestine are more than political views. Alqaeda belong to Salafi Jihadi School, such school has no followers in Palestine. Muslims in Palestinian follow (Shafiee school), which is moderate and tolerance school.

Here are some points about political powers in Palestine:

- Christian represented the most powerful group. George Habash and Naif Hawatmeh are the leaders of two large Palestinian groups (Palestinian Popular Front and Palestinian Democratic Front). Hanan Ashrawi , Azmi Besharah , Edward Saeed … are well know thinkers and political leaders who have a lot of respect among the Palestinian.

- Abu Mazen is not Muslim , we did not hear any Palestinian group (including Hamas and Islamic Jihad) refer to his religion. Recently, OBL called him Kaffir and surprised because the Palestinian will vote for him!!

- All Palestinian parties , including the Islamic parties, beive in democracy , which is not the case of Al Qaeda ideology

Bilal, you repeatedly state that al Qaeda has no support in Palestine. Is this not a mischaracterization ? Don't they sympathize with each other through their common hatred for the United States ? Didn't 9/11 make a large majority of Palestinians happy ?

plover

Dec30-04, 08:41 AM

In spite of that, no Palestinian organization bombed American targets.
I assume you mean organizations based in the West Bank and Gaza again? (Hezbollah bombed US embassy in Beirut etc...)

Bilal

Dec30-04, 08:58 AM

You mean the attacks against Marines and French forces in 1983.

Hezbollah is Lebanese Shia organization..... . As I know those who bombed the Marines are unknown Shia group, because they bombed also French forces, which supported Syria against Israel in 1982. In that time Hezbullah just started to split from AMAL organization …

There were several attacks against American/French/Iraqi/Saudi Arabian targets by Shia secret groups who support Iran. These attacks were revenge for the support of Saddam against Iran in the first Gulf war (1980-1988).

I assume you mean organizations based in the West Bank and Gaza again? (Hezbollah bombed US embassy in Beirut etc...)

plover

Dec30-04, 09:03 AM

I found this page (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html) when I looked up Beirut embassy bombing, which also has this description of the reaction to the Beirut marine barracks bombing:
[The president's national security team planned an attack against] the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon ... Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission ... Instead, President Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the coast of Lebanon, to the hills near Beirut. The move was seen as largely ineffective.
Hmm... I didn't know the US Navy had amphibious battleships... :rofl:

plover

Dec30-04, 09:18 AM

Hezbollah is Lebanese Shia organization.....
Sorry – a stupid mistake... :redface:
You mean the attacks against Marines and French forces in 1983.
A few months before the attack on the Marine barracks, the US embassy in Beirut was bombed—and this was apparently done by Hezbollah.

kat

Dec30-04, 10:12 AM

russ_watters

Irgun actions
• 1937-1939 - A large number of attacks against Arabs, sometimes en masse, were carried out, especially under the command of Moshe Rosenberg and David Raziel. For example, 24 Arabs were killed and 39 injured by a marketplace bomb in Haifa, February 27, 1939, and further casualties were caused by bombs in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv on the same day. (Sources: Palestine (now Jerusalem) Post 2/28/39; Y. Ben-Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory; Memiors of the Irgun (1982))
• July 22, 1946 - Irgun bombs King David Hotel in Jerusalem, headquarters of the British civil and military administration, killing 91 people (17 Jewish). The Irgun gave a warning to evacuate the building, which was ignored by the British (Source: [1] (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/jay/jew/firgun1931.htm))
• October 31, 1946 - Irgun bombs British Embassy in Rome, Italy. (Source: [2] (http://www.cdiss.org/)).
• May 4, 1947 - the Irgun breaks into the Akko prison and releases 27 Jewish activists (Source: [[3] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Acre.html)] , [[4] (http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac13.htm)])
• September 29, 1947 - Irgun bombs police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing four British and four Arab policemen, and two Arab civilians. (Source: [5] (http://www.cdiss.org/)).
• December 29, 1947 - Irgun throws grenades into cafe in Jerusalem, Palestine, killing 11 Arabs and 2 British policemen. (Source: [6] (http://www.cdiss.org/)).
• 9 April 1948 - The Irgun together with the Stern gang attacked the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, killing at least 107 civilians. See Deir Yassin massacre.

The second terrorist Zionist group :

Lehi :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29

((Lehi was founded by Stern in 1940 as an offshoot from Irgun. It was initially named Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel). Following Stern's death in 1942, and the arrest of many of its members, the group went into eclipse until it was reformed as "Lehi" under a triumvirate of Israel Eldad, Natan Yellin-Mor, and Yitzhak Shamir. Shamir became the Prime Minister of Israel forty years later :rolleyes: .))

Colabration between Lihi and NAZI!!!! :surprised

((Late in 1940, the Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig and delivered a letter from Lehi offering to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich". Von Hentig forwarded the letter to the German embassy in Ankara, but there is no record of any official response. Lehi tried to establish contact with the Germans again in December 1941, also apparently without success.))

Lest we be led to believing that Irgun developed out of a vacumn and that Arabs and Jews lived in peace until the introduction of British Joooo compassions or perhaps a compassion to get rid of a mega headache created by the contradiction of Euro Anti-semitism and their own vision of their own humanitarian tendencies... Please remember that attacks on the jews started waaay back in 1882 during the Ottoman period and then continued throughout the Mandatory period, throughout the period of civil war, throughout the period of international war, and continue right up into this day.
Perhaps the most important of those attacks between 1882 and 1914 during Ottoman period were the Arab attacks on Jewish villages, namely the attacks on places such as Ness Ziona, Kineret, Sejera, Degania, Yavniel, Ben Shemen, Hadera, Petah Tikvah, Rehovot, Gedera, and Merhavia. Those attacks effected the attitude of the jews towards the possibility of existing in peace was later negatively reinforced by two massive country-wide anti-Jewish pogroms, the first in 1920-21 which gave rise to the Jews forming a defense army for the first time, (the Hagannah) and the second in 1929 in which Jews were attacked and killed by Arab mobs in every major city of Palestine.
And lest we continue to think that overall Jews were well treated and lived peacefully with the Arabs of the Palestinian REGION..lets not forget that there was a historic Muslim practice in several places of treating the Jews as second class citizens (dhimmi). Many times and in many places Muslim authorities forbade the Jews from owning land, from being witnesses in their own trials, forced Jews to wear special clothing and markings, did not allow the Jews to build synagogues or repairing the existing ones, forbade Jews from riding a horse in the presence of a walking Muslim and charged Jews more taxes than Muslims.
Do you think this history left the Jews unaffected? Do you think that it's more unfair that among the jews there might not be many who grabbed at the historic opportunity for revenge or a fight for freedom born out of oppression directly at the hand of Arabs? The cycle of oppression and violence against jews began long before the Brits seemingly convenient nod at Zionism.

Bilal

Dec30-04, 11:03 AM

Daer Kat,

First wave of Jews refugees to Palestine was on 9 August 1882 from Russia. These people were welcomed by Palestinian. They built for them two cities: Beteh Teqwa and Hudaira ...

In the end of 19th century, Jews counted 40000 people (most of them refugees).

Could you tell me about any Israeli or Zionist leader who has one of his parent born in Palestine? All those who created Israel and destroy Palestine are born in Europe.. few of them born in Palestine , but their parent born in Europe.

Here is information about demography in Palestine from extremist Zionist site:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html

In 1800: Muslims 246,300; Christian 21,800 and No Jews
In 1882 (Jews refugees from Russia): 24,000

Concerning history of Jews in Islamic world:

- Muslims got Palestine from Roman. As you know, Roman annihilated Jews of Jerusalem and destroyed their temple. One of Roman conditions to give Jerusalem to Palestinian: No Jews are allowed to live in this city.

This means: Muslims did not take Jerusalem from Jews or destroyed them. The city already empty from Jews by Roman …

- In 1095, Crusaders invaded the Holy Land. They murdered all the citizens of Jerusalem: 60000 Muslims, 4000 Jews and few thousands of orthodox Christian.

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

((Almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. ))

- After Muslims Liberated Jerusalem in 1187, they built the Jews quarter before starting to build the Islamic quarters. This shows how Muslims admired the Jews and felt for their pains under the rule of Crusaders.

- Jews golden age: under Islamic rule of Spain (Andalusia) from 10th century till 12th century. In Israel many Jews celebrate that golden age.

- In 10th century, many Jews lived in Baghdad (The capital of Islam) till they became more than 15% of the city (2 millions in that time). They got a lot of respect and gifts from Khilafa because they were educated and translated many old documents and books from Hebrew to Arabic.

- In 1494, Andalusia fall … Catholic Spanish annihilated Muslims and Jews of Spain within 40 years. Muslims Ottoman sent several ships to Spain to save thousands of poor Jews from the hand of the Catholic Church. The rest of Jews left to Morocco..

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

((in 1492, Isabel and Fernando ordered the expulsion of all Jews from their dominions, having imposed physical segregation in 1480 (two years after the establishment of the Inquisition) and, in 1502, Muslims were forced to convert to Christianity or be banished.))

- In 19th century, Ottoman Empire supported the Jews of Russia and welcomed them as refugees.

- In 2WW: Muslims of Balkan and Turkey saved of thousands of Jews families from the NAZI.

Dhimmi means in Arabic ‘’people of the conscience or under protection’’. This means those people should be protected by the rules of the State. Theories about wearing different clothes or not owing land is just ‘’myth’’. If they discriminated by Muslims, I do not think they will call it golden ages of Jews.
Concerning Jezia (tax): Muslims should pay Zakat and non Muslims should pay Jezia .. both taxes more or less the same. They used in ‘’Beit ElmaL’’ to help the poor people and to build charitable projects. Beside the fact , that every Muslims FORCED to join the army during war time , but for non Muslims it is their choice to pay Jezia or to join the army.

Here is information from the link provided by russ (international western sources):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Judaism#The_Golden_Age

((In 711 CE Muslim armies invaded and occupied most of the Iberian peninsula, which had until then been under Christian rule. At this time Jews made up about 8% of Spain's population. Under Christian rule, Jews had been subject to frequent and intense persecution, but this was alleviated under Muslim rule. This is widely considered to be the beginning of the Golden Age for Jews in Spain.))

((Jews residing in predominantly Muslim Ottoman empire lived in a tolerant environment with Turkish, Arab and Christian neighbors.))

You can read more about early history of Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Bilal

Dec30-04, 11:23 AM

Kat,

You can read more about Dhimmi from western academic sources instead to follow ''propaganda''. This source does not represent my views , but at least it should be accepted by western people because it is academic-scientific-documented westren site:

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

((A Dhimmi, or Zimmi (Arabic ذمّي), as defined in classical Islamic legal and political literature, is a person living in a Muslim state who is a member of an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion. The term literally means "protected person."))

((Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society, on the condition (also required of Muslim subjects) of submission to their rulers. An example is the Muslim state of Cordoba in Southern Spain where Christians and Jews prospered. Maimonides, by some considered the greatest Jewish philosopher and Talmudic sage, lived in Muslim Spain, North Africa and Egypt. As late as the 16th century, religious tolerance in Europe was greatest within the Ottoman Empire.))

Status of Dhimmis

For several centuries following the codification of the Quran, the Islamic Caliphate expanded its political control rapidly through warfare. Conquered peoples - including Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sabians, and Hindus - became dhimmis: protected citizens under Islamic law, allowed the rights listed below on condition of loyalty or acquiescence to the government and paying the taxes mentioned below:

Rights:

Protection of life, wealth and honor by the Muslim state (even against other co-religionist states)
Right to reside in Muslim lands
Right of worship according to their own religion
Right to work and trade

Exemptions:

Exemption from paying zakah "alms to the poor"
Exemption from being drafted in military service
Exemptions from religious duties specific to Muslims
Exemptions from personal Muslim laws (e.g. marriage, divorce)

Obligations:

Paying jizyah (Poll tax)
Paying land tax

Dhimmis in Islam vs. minorities in non-Muslim societies

It is interesting to compare dhimmi status in Muslim societies with other laws and restrictions imposed on minorities in non-Muslim societies in the medieval period.

Severe and harsh restrictions were imposed on Jews in Europe before Islam came to Spain. The Visigothic Code (or Forum Judicum), has an entire book dedicated to laws concerning Jews, with severe restrictions, and often one-sided laws. King Ervigius additions to the code are even more restrictive. It forced Jews not to prevent their children from baptism, prohibited them from celebrating Passover, undergoing circumcision, marriage of relatives, observing dietary laws, reading books that the Christian faith rejects, testifying against Christians, as well as forbidding Christians from defending or protecting Jews, and forcing Jews to abstain from labor on Sundays and Christian holidays.

Dress code and other restrictions were forced by Christians on Jews, as well as Muslims in Europe. In Spain it was enforced, and penalties were levied if mudejars did not observe it. As early as 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran under Pope Innocent III issued a decree that Muslims and Jews shall wear a special dress to distinguish them from Christians. This concept is thus common to medieval Christendom and Islam.

It is even more interesting to compare dhimmis status in Muslim societies with other laws and restrictions imposed on minorities in non-Muslim societies in the modern period. While Europe has repealed all of the restrictive religious-based measures mentioned herein, and repealed them without exception, not a few Muslim countries still impose dhimmi restrictions up to the present day.

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

((There is a hadith that prophet Muhammad indeed did order the execution of a Muslim because he killed a dhimmi, as narrated in Abdul Razzaq and Al Baihaqi. This hadith's authenticity is disputed. Moreover, Ali almost ordered the execution in a similar case had it not been for the dhimmi victim's brother asking for the Muslim not to be executed. Ali said : "Those who have our dhimma have their blood equal to ours ... [they paid the jizyah so that their life and our lives are equal]". Moreover, Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz ordered his regional governors to execute those who kill any dhimmis.This view is adopted by the Maliki and Hanafi schools, as well as many other jurists, such as Al Laith Ibn Saad, Al Sha'bi, Ibn Abi Laila, and Al Nakh'i.

Most Islamic states followed this view, as it is evident above during Ali's and Omar II's reigns. It should be noted that the Ottoman Empire also followed this view until its end in 1924.))