Cat Stevens

Hmm...'democratic elections in Iraq in Januray 2005' eh?

I think the biggest fallacy of all is the idea held by Bush & Blair that they could just pile in militarily to a country with which they are completely unfamiliar and then attempt to superimpose their idea of what constitutes a democracy and expect all that country's people to accept it without question.

This is, of course, only once the occupying powers have suitably cherry-picked those figures/exiles they consider 'acceptable' whilst alienating others who probably have a much greater following, thus disenfranchising millions of people at a stroke.

No wonder the militants/insurgants are running riot in Iraq right now.

JonR

Jon,

Our sad little consolation after Bush wins (assuming that he does) is going to be watching all of this go to hell on his watch.

These Iraq elections will be very bloody, and there's little indication that they will have anything to do with democracy as we know it. For example, Rumsfeld said today that some regions in Iraq may not be able to vote. Obviously, he's not interested in what we think of as enfranchisement.

Bush's pathetic whitewash to the contrary, things are going to get very much worse.

Eric

Great to see that you guys & Gels ? have all hung drawn and quartered Mr Stevens Gutter-Press style, even though he is a British Citizen. I wonder How Mr Lennon would react to this situation, Mr Harrison for that matter too, you do love your convenient little boxes don't you all !
If in any way he'd broken UK or US law and not simply been subject to the normal speculative withchunt I'd say bang him up in UK with the other long term jailbirds who've not yet been charged with anything G-Bay style, such fucking hypocracy is beyond belief sometimes, then you all rant on on the sidelines "Clique-Style" as ever, as if you all own the bloody world, like an arrogant teacher who's never been quality tested years after graduating from some mickey mouse provincial Uni, cos their Dad knew the Top Don.
A nice cup of tea methinks.

Graham George Von Engineeringisn'ttheonlyprofessiononearth

There remains a question that, despite all the rhetoric above, remains unasked, let alone answered.

Are we saying that Iraq would be better off if it had not been invaded?

There is no doubt that large numbers of Iraqi civilians are dying, as have over 1000 US soldiers since the major warfighting phase stopped. I know personally Brits that have been blown up - mercifully, no fatalities.

These figures are dreadful - but ISTR that in Abu Ghraib prison, something like 2000 Iraqis where killed by Saddams' regime.

In a single day.

Regards

Mike

http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?040517ta_talk_remnick

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

[This message was edited by mike lacey on Fri 24 September 2004 at 10:08.]

The terror is hugging the world with a bear hug. The terror doesn't care where are you from, what is your gender and also it doesn't care what your age is.

The world is sleeping – the terror is not!

I’m afraid that we are going to a period of time in which there will be a balance of terror that will prevent the West World to fight against terror because of the weapon that the terror will be able to response with.

Cat Stevens and others are giving money to terror organizations to help them achieve this goal.



Arye

Arye,
And the USA, the UK, and Israel, are doing more than enough to fan the flames of resentment, and provide the various psychos who make up terror groups with an excellent recruitment weapon for dissafected angry young men.
regards
Simon

Did you know, Ayre, that Nelson Mandela was once considered a terrorist? I wonder what your views of the man are today: do you think of him as a terrorist; a diplomat; a respected leader; an inspiration; something else?

Putting aside whatever axes you have to grind about your homeland, how does one, in your opinion, become defined as a terrorist and what do you think the word actually means?

Thanks for any reply you can give.

"Are we saying that Iraq would be better off if it had not been invaded?"

Yes.

It's not just the fate of the Iraqi people that you take to account for -- in addition you have to consider the impact of the actions on Bush and Blair in increasing terrorism, undermining the world order, impact on deomestic poitics, setting precendents, etc. etc. All in all the world in general, as well as Iraq in particular, is basically a much worse and a much more dangerous place.

And the US has a long and "successful" history of intefering with other countries affairs -- often democratic ones -- so I am not sure why they couldn't have doen the same with Saddam if the target was not just to get rid of him.

Matthew

Simon,

Israel acts only in the close region here. You can't blame Israel of what is going in Russia, for example.
And what is going in Europe with the Muslims convention? Why did Germany deported one of the people behind this convention?
Blaming Israel for responsibility to international terrorism is a mistake. I can assure you that if Israel will disappear in this moment out of the globe, the international terror will stay with you.

Arye

starbuck,

Killing civilians is a murder. And if made by a group for some reason, it is a murder under a terror act.

Arye

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arye_Gur:


Israel acts only in the close region here.

---

That's a very amusing statement:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3609832.stm

quote:

---

starbuck,

Killing civilians is a murder. And if made by a group for some reason, it is a murder under a terror act.

Arye

---

That's interesting, Ayre, but what do you think of Nelson Mandela?

I didn't think that we are talking about spying ????

Arye

Your statement was that Israel acts only in the local region. My link would suggest that this isn't the case.

Did Nelson Mandela kill people? I'm not familiar with this, please explain to me if he did so.

Arye

starbuck,
I'm talking about terror and acts that are connected with terror. Israel does many things around the world.

Arye

I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. It seems only fair, given that I asked my question asked first.

It also seems fair to deal with this in a childish and evasive manner.

You asked me for my opinion about Mandela conected to terror acts, and my answer is that I don't know.

Arye

http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fwgbh%2Fpages%2Ffrontline%2Fshows%2Fmandela%2Fetc%2Fcron.html

You may find the link useful. Alternatively, typing 'Nelson Mandela History' into Google should bring back a fair few matches for you to investigate, if you're suspicious of the link I've provided. Have a read of some, re-read my original questions and then come back to me. No rush.

By the way everyone, I'm not expressing any opinions, either positive or negative, about Cat Stevens, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, etc. here, merely trying to ascertain how one defines a terrorist as being deifferent from a politician. As far as I can tell at the moment, it's got something to do with tailors.

1960

quote:

---

Sharpeville: Anti-apartheid protesters gather to challenge South Africa's pass laws that prescribe where blacks can go. The police open fire and 69 people die--most of them from bullet wounds in the back.

---

I remember well that Matthew Robinson (suggesting about the crimes that the IDF is committing against the Palestinians) stated that he has nothing to be ashamed of about the behavior of the UK army, which these acts and others were under his command.

If Mandela wanted to kill officials who had violated the freedom of the blacks, and killing them wasn't something of self defense, then I think that it is a murder and an act of terror.

Arye

So your opinion of Nelson Mandela is that Matthew Robinson was responsible for shooting 69 people in 1960? That's very interesting.

Ayre

Back to form... mentioning in the same sentance the British Army in Iraq with the IDF in the Occupied Territories...

Oh well. At least you are consistent.

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

"I remember well that Matthew Robinson [...] stated that he has nothing to be ashamed of about the behavior of the UK army"

You remember incorrectly. I have never said any such thing and, indeed, quite the opposite. I have frequently used examples of British Army's behaviour -- for example in Northern Ireland -- to make exactly the opposite point.

Matthew

For future reference...

Starbuck,

Whatever you do, please please please pleeeaaasse do not get Arye started on Israel - especially when it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread!

Thanks

Regards,

JonR

Matteehew,

It seems that I misunderstood you so I'm sorry about my last words about what I thoght that you said.

Mike,
I thought that you are on your way to Haifa to make peace here ... (as Omer suggested).

starbuck,

I understand that mandela wanted to act against officials who supported the limitation that were ruled on the blacks. If he was responsible for the death of such officials, then it is an act of terrorism.

Arye