Arab Coalition: Uniting to Defend Against Bush Regime

[member 5645]

Arab unity and resistance


During Palestine war (1948) thousands of Arab fighters from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon joined the Palestinian resistance against the Zionist-English occupation armies. The Iraqi fighters succeeded to save several Palestinian cities from ‘’ethic cleansing ‘’ and for this reason many Palestinian admire the Iraqi people and wish to join the liberation of their country.

From historical point, if one of ME countries under attack, all the other nations give urgent support to stop the attack.

Unless the current world's superpower is doing the moving and shaking. The Arab nations did nothing to stop attacks and divisions by the colonial powers during the 19th and early 20th century and after WWII the US has been given the go ahead on acting in the Middle East on more than one occasion. For example, the first Iraq war was complained about by Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey allowed forces to be launched from their soil and the use of their air space. Historically, the Arab 'nation' has only banded together when it was to the benefit of them as individuals and a collective. Otherwise an aid package breaks that unity very easily.
And let's not get into the fact that the Arab 'nation' can't stop attacking each other. Without Israel as a common enemy, and scapegoat, there'd be little to no unifying force... but wow, that's a whole different argument isn't it?

 

[Tsu]

I never knew he was Arab, and I find it fairly insulting that you say things like "Why does Omin have to be any different than us just because he's an Arab? " Who said he was different because of it?

Excuse me? I am insulting?

You are a person with a skewed bias view of reality.
I wish I could say you were just a troll, but the sad fact is that you probably believe this.

YOU were calling him different because of his "skewed bias view of reality". In my opinion, you have absolutely no business commenting on what his view of reality might be because you are not over there living his life. When he shares his point of view, he is giving his opinions based on his life experiences. What would you like him to use to back up his point of view. Video of the bombings? Pictures of his neighborhood in rubble and his dead family and friends?

You'll notice I said nothing about his post's merit towards his opinion about the fighters in Iraq. I attacked in innaccuracies and disgusting skewing of the US military. He made generalizations that you and he can't back up, and are nothing more than rude demeaning statements towards people who go out in harms way in our country's name.

I believe your military issues were with Mercator. Not Omin. But think of this. His comments were not geared toward 'people who go out in harms way in our country's name' but toward people who are turning his country into a barren wasteland.

 

[member 5645]

1>Excuse me? I am insulting?


2>YOU were calling him different because of his "skewed bias view of reality". In my opinion, you have absolutely no business commenting on what his view of reality might be because you are not over there living his life. When he shares his point of view, he is giving his opinions based on his life experiences. What would you like him to use to back up his point of view. Video of the bombings? Pictures of his neighborhood in rubble and his dead family and friends?


3>I believe your military issues were with Mercator. Not Omin. But think of this. His comments were not geared toward 'people who go out in harms way in our country's name' but toward people who are turning his country into a barren wasteland.

1>Did I say you? IT! Your statement... And again, I asked a question - Who said he was different because of it?
2>Try reading what I quoted him on with that statement It's disgusting.
3>You don't even know where Omin is from. Again, maybe you need to go back and read what I quoted.

 

[Political Prodigy]

I think both of you should calm down before this topic gets locked (there is more than one reason it could get locked). Please calm down or discuss this through PM's so that it does not get locked because I along with many other people, I'm sure would like to read and respond to this thread

OBL and terrorism


OBL is leader of small extremist unpopular group. In fact most of people of ME only hear about this man after 11/9 by American media! May be NeoNazi in Germany and KKK is more popular than Alqaeda in ME.

Historically, USA supported ALqaeda in 80s to fight the communism in Afghanistan (as they did with Saddam against Iran). OBL never and will never win any election in any country I Islamic world, so nobody can claim that he representing Arab or Muslims. Unfortunately, people are tired from the dirty politics of USA in ME; supporting the crimes of Israel and creating corrupted puppet dictators regimes.

If there are real democracy in ME, people will NEVER vote for pro USA government, therefore nobody believe that American want to create real democracy I the region, which will be against their strategic interest.

Most people heard of "OBL" at the latest in 1993 after he made his first attack on the world trade center. The crimes of Israel are equal in number to those of Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries. No country is innocent by any means and Israel has long been an ally of the United States and it will be a sad day when the US abandons its allies.

 

[Political Prodigy]

If you refer to OBL, he has no support in Palestine for several reasons:

- He belong to Jihadi-Salfai Islamic school, which exist only in some parts of the Gulf and Yemen ... this school has no followers in Palestine. (Its followers are less than 1% of Muslims in the world, many of them do not support OBL ideology)

- Palestinian believes in democracy, we have 15 political parties from extreme left to extreme religious parties. Even the Islamic parties in Palestine (e.g. Hamas) are big supporters of democracy. We have every year election in our universities, so every political party tries to show that they are protectors of freedom. No wondering that Hamas won the election in Beir Zait University (40% of students are from high class Christian), because they show high respect for them.

-Concerning the Arab unity, it is fact that we feel as one body, From Jenin to Falluja ; there are one resistance and one enemy.

- Do not forget; more than 90% of Palestinian are educated ... 60% of Universities students are females. Our education system is combination of American-European education systems (English is used in scientific, engineering and medical sciences). Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (beside pre war Iraq) have similar situation to Palestine concerning the education.

- There are many Christian living in Palestine (30% in 1948) , Syria (18%), Lebanon (30%) and Jordan (9%). They are well educated (due to their ancient relations with Europe) and they are proud by their culture and countries. We can not let person as OBL to touch hair from them.
If you heard about Prof. Edward Saeed , who is good example of Palestinian Christian.

-Most of people admire the western civilization, and want to have good relation with the West, it seems the situation is hopeless with American (who REALLY have bad image after occupation of Iraq; raping, murdering, looting …), but it is still a lot of hope to build bridges of respect with Europe, especially France.

- Palestine (beside Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt) was strong secular societies in 60s and 70s ... after that Islamic awake started in 80s due to the upset from secularism and nationalism. This means, people know well about the Western culture. It could be similar to Turkey, which was extreme secular country toll 90s ... Every society afraid from external enemy start to return to religion as the situation in USA after 11/9.

If relations with America are so hopeless then why did Palestine ask for our http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1312212004 ?
No, relations are not hopeless.

 

[russ_watters]

You see Russ that's the very problem, what you believe to be fact is not what they believe to be fact. You should listen to what they have to say instead of emediatly discounting it as unfactual.

Facts are facts and as such are not debateable. That's why they call them "facts."

 

[member 5645]

Lucky they didn't. The mighty US army has problems enough with boys on running shoes and with old fashioned rifles.

I'd like to once again quote this for hilarious posterity :rofl: :rofl:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4013219.stm

The US military says it has killed about 1,200 militants. Thirty-eight US soldiers have been killed and 275 wounded so far. Six Iraqi government troops have also died.

An Iraqi government delegation is due to go to the marines' headquarters to help assess the condition of civilians.

The Iraqi Red Crescent - one of the few aid agencies operating in Iraq - has offloaded supplies on the outskirts of Falluja after being denied access to the city.

The Americans have said they can take care of Falluja's humanitarian needs themselves.

Military civil affairs teams are poised to begin giving out millions of dollars in compensation.

Let's recap that, since we are having problems with "boys on running shoes and with old fashioned rifles" -

Goals attained:
1200 dead insurgents
hundreds more wounded and captured
hostages freed
largest caches of small arms found so far
a city that can hold 300,000 taken over

Losses:
38 marines
6 Iraqi officers.


While it is surely no consolation to those 44 families, from a military standpoint (and one refuting your grossly inaccurate laughable statement) it was a brilliant and effective siege of the city.

More to come as the last pockets of resistance are removed...

 

[Bilal]

Thank you, Bilal. If I may ask, where in Palestine are you located?

Nablus area (North of WB)

Unless the current world's superpower is doing the moving and shaking. The Arab nations did nothing to stop attacks and divisions by the colonial powers during the 19th and early 20th century and after WWII the US has been given the go ahead on acting in the Middle East on more than one occasion. For example, the first Iraq war was complained about by Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey allowed forces to be launched from their soil and the use of their air space. Historically, the Arab 'nation' has only banded together when it was to the benefit of them as individuals and a collective. Otherwise an aid package breaks that unity very easily.
And let's not get into the fact that the Arab 'nation' can't stop attacking each other. Without Israel as a common enemy, and scapegoat, there'd be little to no unifying force... but wow, that's a whole different argument isn't it?

- UK and France occupied ME till the end of 2WW. They installed puppet regimes before withdrawing.
- There are difference between Arab nation, who fight for unity, democracy and freedom.. and our dictators who working hard to protect their position. Most of them get external help to stay in power.
- Israel is created based on ‘’biblical and racist ideas’’. They forced complete nation to leave his homeland and gave the land for new nation! They have no fixed borders till now and they waiting suitable time to expand more and more.. also to force the native people to leave their homes and lands for new Jews immigrants. Zionism is strategic challenge for ME nations, the same as crusaders in the past; their goal is to change the demography of the region by using all possible tactics.

If relations with America are so hopeless then why did Palestine ask for our http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1312212004 ?
No, relations are not hopeless.

Our leaders need help, but our nations DO NOT HATE the American as nation, just they believe that the American governments since 60s are completely support Israel and there is no hope to change …

 

[Political Prodigy]

Our leaders need help, but our nations DO NOT HATE the American as nation, just they believe that the American governments since 60s are completely support Israel and there is no hope to change

We do support Israel and no we will not change because they are our ally. But that means nothing. Peace between Israel and Palestine is not impossible! They just have to stop hating each other so much. The best possibility for peace lies in the children of the two countries, the only problem is that if their parents pass their hate for the other country on to their children, then the process has to be started all over again. I think if the peoples of the two countries understood each other and could look at the entire situation instead of their own problems, there would be so much less fighting.

 

[Gza]

You are a person with a skewed bias view of reality.

I chuckled after hearing this from you phatmonky. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[member 5645]

I chuckled after hearing this from you phatmonky. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Please, feel free to elaborate and quote posts of mine showing this. Until then this post of yours is typical - no substance.

I am aware of reality and choose a different course than you do. I don't purport insane generalizations like "Brave Arabs have volunteered, whereas American soldiers only joined because of the finantical safety they get from military pay ". Come on now Gza, you can do better than just calling me out...back it up.

 

[omin]

Yep, they cared when Saddam was in power too, right?

Yes, they did care when Saddam was in power. I was once under your clear misunderstanding. You assume that the Saddam regime was only 100% evil vs. being a mixed bag which all leaders consist of. Saddam was mostly good for Iraq and Arabs in general, but you won't get that unless you take a look at a nonpropoganda version of history in Iraq and the Middle East.

I see comments on your part show support against the attack on Iraqis. Your comments toward me show why you and those who fall to the left will never win a presidency in this kind of situation or stop the terror upon Iraqis. Since you and most Democrats are compromised fundamentaly, this war is occurring. For example, because many Democrats fell hook line and sinker for this "Evil", "Hitler"miscocpetion of Saddam regime, which actually fits Bush regime more, this served as a basis to mutilate and murder Iraqis. If you didn't support this about Saddam regime and the Democrats didn't, we couldn't have invaded, because the country would have been split. The Republicans only needed wimpering-spineless support of Democrats to tip the scales and because of this characteristic cowardice, Iraqis are being murdered.

The war is a huge finantial and diplomatic mistake, but those who are ignorant of the natural physical fundamentals that determine how efficient of a decision and how intelligent of a decision and action the terror acts upon Iraqis is may only see it's inferior effects from hindsight. If you don't comprehend this simplicity inherent in it, I'll have to say, like to the impatient child who just doesn't get a clear explanation of the obvious, "we'll see".

 

[kat]

You assume that the Saddam regime was only 100% evil vs. being a mixed bag which all leaders consist of. Saddam was mostly good for Iraq and Arabs in general,

That's interesting...why dn't you expound on this..how was Saddam "mostly" good for Iraq and Arabs in general? as opposed to be a murderous oppressive thug with a perversion towards watching snuff films.

 

[Gza]

Please, feel free to elaborate and quote posts of mine showing this. Until then this post of yours is typical - no substance.

I am aware of reality and choose a different course than you do. I don't purport insane generalizations like "Brave Arabs have volunteered, whereas American soldiers only joined because of the finantical safety they get from military pay ". Come on now Gza, you can do better than just calling me out...back it up.

Just trying to lighten the mood a little. Apologies if I was being out of line.

 

[omin]

That's interesting...why dn't you expound on this..how was Saddam "mostly" good for Iraq and Arabs in general? as opposed to be a murderous oppressive thug with a perversion towards watching snuff films.

Pretty obvious. Look at Iraq before the most recent invasion and after. Do you see an difference? The Bush regime is responsible for the cold blooded murder of civilian Iraqis. Saddam is couldn't come close to Bush regime numbers.

You can interpret things by Bush regime propoganda or you can be honest and judge things physically, as a scientist would, that is by actions and results.

Got any more questions?

 

[tumor]

That's interesting...why dn't you expound on this..how was Saddam "mostly" good for Iraq and Arabs in general? as opposed to be a murderous oppressive thug with a perversion towards watching snuff films.

What snuff films? who told you about that?

Your oppinion is the result of listening to much to the US medias.

 

[member 5645]

. Saddam is couldn't come close to Bush regime numbers.

You can interpret things by Bush regime propoganda or you can be honest and judge things physically, as a scientist would, that is by actions and results.

Got any more questions?

If you are going to purport scientific analysis, the least you could do is put up some data:

The following logic only looks at things on a short term. If we wanted, we could extrapolate the data for forecasted deaths if sanctions were left in place (or even go back to Saddam in the 80's) to set the numbers MORE in favor of war.

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

If X => 0 THEN
WAR = RIGHT
SANCTIONS = WRONG
GOTO END
ELSE
IF X < 0 THEN
WAR = WRONG
SANCTIONS = RIGHT
END IF
END

Mortality in the Iraqi Population

before and after the imposition of the embargo



Year No. of Deaths
1989 (before the embargo) 27,334
1990 (embargo imposed in 6/8/1990) 32,464
1991 95,942
1992 123,463
1993 128,023
1994 133,681
1995 138,784
1996 140,281

Mortality in under 5 age- per month

No. of Deaths per Month
July 1990 (1 month before the ambargo) 539
July 1998 6,452

Mortality in under 5 age- per year

Year No. of Deaths
1989 7,110
1990 8,903
1991 27,473
1992 46,933
1993 49,762
1994 52,905
1995 55,823
1996 56,997


http://www.unesco.org/delegates/iraq/effects_health.htm

 

[tumor]

Iraq under Saddam almost achieved standard of living comparable to the industrial nations.Women had full rights,hospitals and education was for free.
And of course Iraq was a secular nation.
I guess that was enough for America,this "Bad" example had to stop one way or another.

 

[russ_watters]

Pretty obvious.

Pretty obvious that its an invalid comparison for several reasons, especially since you have asserted elsewhere that Iraq is in a state of war. Your comparison is like comparing Germany in 1939 with Germany in 1947. Its laughable. How about comparing it with Germany today?

Next, how does comparing it to bad conditions now say anything about Saddam being good? IMO, it went from really bad to slightly worse. You need to compare Saddam's regime to conditions in other countries. How did pre-war Iraq rank in civil rights? Per capita GDP? Poverty? Literacy? Women's rights? Disease? Etc.

omin, your arguments are utterly, utterly absurd.

 

[russ_watters]

Iraq under Saddam almost achieved standard of living comparable to the industrial nations.

Well, at least you are making the right type of comparison - but "almost" is pretty subjective. How about some actual statistics? Allow me...

Infant mortality: 52/1000 (15 is "good" - that qualifies as dismal)
Life Expectancy: 68 (75 is "good" - that qualifies as an "almost")
Literacy (male): 56% (90% is "good" - that qualifies as awful)
Literacy (femal): 24% (that qualifies as bad for both literacy and women's rights)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

 

[member 5645]

Iraq under Saddam almost achieved standard of living comparable to the industrial nations.Women had full rights,hospitals and education was for free.
And of course Iraq was a secular nation.
I guess that was enough for America,this "Bad" example had to stop one way or another.

Under Hitler Germany was a great power and the populous had great incomes. We shouldn't have interfered!

 

[tumor]

Under Hitler Germany was a great power and the populous had great incomes. We shouldn't have interfered!

Not only we should not have interfered, but we should make friends with Germans and crush true evil.. Communism.
And after gettig rid of Stalin, next we should have get rid of God damned stock brokers! in our own backyard!

 

[omin]

Saddam did not get this income through genecide and conquering other states. Saddam simply used the oil that was in Iraq to achieve this wealth.

The number may not always be legitimate. That is why we need to use common sense. Who is the one directly behind the deaths occurring today in Iraq? Who was behind the deaths during starvation sactions? Who was behind screwing Iraq economically forcing a war? ON and on.

 

[Polly]

I wouldn't worry about them Omin.

 

[member 5645]

1>Saddam did not get this income through genecide and conquering other states. Saddam simply used the oil that was in Iraq to achieve this wealth.

2>The number may not always be legitimate. That is why we need to use common sense.

3>Who is the one directly behind the deaths occurring today in Iraq?
4>Who was behind the deaths during starvation sactions?
5>Who was behind screwing Iraq economically forcing a war? ON and on.

1>Depends on whether you are speaking directly or indirectly, thus using the situation he developed to line his own pockets (wooh to the oil for food scandal)
2>I have used common sense in a direct logic statement above, followed with numbers to plug in. Morality is relative. If the end goal is to save lives, and to many here it seems it is, then my post was common sense and logical. Arguing morality is like arguing against religions - while it's great mental masturbation, it's a moot discussion.
3>Directly is the US military and insurgents a> capturing and slaughtering civilians b> using tactics such as car bombs to kill and spread fear to the populous
4>Saddam and the UN. We looked to end said sanctions, the rest of the UN, and the Arab world, looked to prolong them indefinitely
5>I dunno, Iraq? Afterall, they invaded Kuwait and did not leave even after the UN amassed a 500,000 person force near by.

 

[member 5645]

I wouldn't worry about them Omin.

What and odd statement to make in the middle of a worthwhile discussion...

 

[Burnsys]

America Gov. has no moral autorithy to invade irak, not after rumsfeld helped suport sadam in power.. give him helicopters, chemical weapons precursors, and inteligence to help him... Ohh right saddam had tricked rumsfeld into thinking he was a good person. hahaha. what hipocracy..

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein,"
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm

 

[omin]

America Gov. has no moral autorithy to invade irak, not after rumsfeld helped suport sadam in power.. give him helicopters, chemical weapons precursors, and inteligence to help him... Ohh right saddam had tricked rumsfeld into thinking he was a good person. hahaha. what hipocracy..

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein,"
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm

Those helicopters and weapons were paid for. The right to bear arms was actually operating fine back then. We should have remaind friends. Iraq would not be a mess today.

 

[Gza]

Don't worry Omin, Bush is in power for another 4 years, he'll figure out the right thing to do.