June 9, 2006

What to Make of Zarqawi's Death

I've been rather silent on the big news that US forces aided by Jordanian intelligence were finally able to get their hands on Abu-Musaab Zarqawi. This usually happens to me when a political event this important occurs, especially when the media is all over it. I prefer to sit back and take it all in and then begin to rationalize and organize my thoughts, which are many.

My initial reaction was of course shock, followed by excitement and relief, and finally ended with a lot of skepticism and concern. I didn't doubt that he had really been killed or ponder any conspiracy theories, god forbid. The skepticism was related to the idea that bringing down this large terrorist figure would put an end to the violence and terror in Iraq.

It has been constantly drilled in our minds that Al-Qaeda is a unique network because it is not organized in a strict hierarchical way. It consists of cells, splinter groups, and different types of leaders who are immediately replaced if they are compromised. So then why should we even begin to believe that such an event will hurt the insurgency in Iraq?

Most observers have correctly noted that his death is more of a symbolic event, which might slow down Zarqawi's men, but they will be back with a vengeance soon. That's not to mention the hundreds of other similar groups and even more gangs and thugs who usually do not have much in common except their criminal acts. The "insurgency" is such an overused and nebulous term that its simply pointless to even use it. The diversity of the groups makes it that much harder for the Iraqi government to crack down on them, that is if they are even trying.

Many people have said that the US is the one who created Zarqawi. While I do not completely agree with this notion, it is obvious that the embarrassing planning for the post-war phase in Iraq by the "coalition" forces was and continues to be the main cause of the chaos and lawlessness that has overtaken the lives of Iraqis. The dismissal of the former army and the focus on the initial military aspects of the war overshadowed any consideration for what would happen once Baghdad fell.

The US is not solely responsible for Zarqawi, however. The fact that he has many supporters in the Arab world who might not support his attacks on civilians, but do agree that resistance against the occupation in Iraq is legitimate. Even when this "struggle" is taken outside of Iraq, to Jordanian wedding halls, the anger at such terrorist activity is short-lived and soon forgotten. The problem is that in the Arab world, if you are condemnig Zarqawi, most people presume that you are supporting the US. Even with members of my extended family, I have trouble convincing them that just because I condemn Zarqawi or Bin Laden that doesn't mean that I support Bush. Millions across the Middle East are simply sick and tired of the United States' policies in the region and subsequently refuse to blame any other party for the ills that plague their populations. I agree with fellow blogger Lina that education is one of the best ways to put an end to this kind of thinking and foster healthy dialogue and debate.

On a final note, I would've much rather seen Zarqawi caught like Saddam (like a rat) and would've liked to hear him attempt to defend himself. But then again that might've given him a platform to spew his radical thoughts and gain more popular support. Maybe his death is better.

[technorati tags: , , , ,, ]

Labels:

29 Comments:

At 5:09 PM, Anonymous tommy said...

I think the thing that surprised me the most was the complete reversal of Hamas regarding Zarqawi. Previously they tried to dissociate themselves from him in much the same manner as Hezbollah did. After he was killed, they lionized him as a "brother fighter" and a "martyr."

Hamas and al-Qaeda are just two sides of the same coin. Zarqawi's death is one more reason we shouldn't provide Hamas with money or a state.

 
At 6:28 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

Arabs and Palestinians specialy don't have to love the guy to praise him.

As the saying goes, "Your enemy's enemy is your friend."

 
At 7:34 PM, Anonymous tommy said...

Hasan,

You are absolutely correct.

Since the Palestinians regard us Americans as enemies, we have an obligation to help their enemies: the Israelis.

 
At 8:06 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

But the Palestinians and Arabs only egarded the Americans as enemies ONLY because of its support for Isreal.

So no, you don't have an obligation to help Israel.

Your logic lacks historical context.

And this tit-for-tat attitude won't get you anywhere to solving any issue.

After all, it only makes you like the enemy you are fighting which in turn illuminates the real reasons for fighting, self-rightiousness and selfeshness.

 
At 8:51 PM, Anonymous tommy said...

Actually, here is something that I posted on Freedom for Egyptians a brief moment ago. It should demonstrate your own lack of historical context:

From Andrew Bostom's article: "America’s First War on Terror" concerning the Barbary states:

During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:

… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22314

So you see, Hasan, we Americans have always been hated by Muslims, most especially the kind that take the Qur'an literally. The United States was a relatively unimportant country back in the days of Jefferson and Adams. The jihadists hated us because we were not Muslims. It is that simple.

One other comment, in fact the one I was originally responding to on FFE's site, posted by a commentator named Issa was revealing.

Issa said this in response to FFE's article on a Saudi television show in which a 3 year old girl denounces Christians and Jews as "apes and pigs." As you can see, Issa was upset about FFE condemning the video:

First of all I was SHOCKED that you are a Muslim. You are a shame to Islam. This girl is only saying what Allah said in the Qur'an, no one need to teach her this, if you read Qur'an (obviously NOT) you would know that this is Allah’s words. And yes we have to teach our children what the Jews did to us and to our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Whether you want to hate them or not, it’s up to you, but if you live the miserable life the Palestinians live every single day, you will be the first to hate the Jews and it will be the first thing you teach your kids, even before you teach them how to say Mom or Dad.

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/06/hitlerism-on-saudi-islamic-channel.html

The problem with Issa attempting to suggest that her hatred of Jews is motivated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that she also references the Qur'an in justifying her hatred of Jews (and presumably Christians, since they are one-half of the 'apes and pigs' gang). If hatred of Jews and Christians is, in fact, sanctioned by the Qur'an, then there is nothing Jews or Christians can possibly due to mitigate that hatred. After all, the Qur'an is around 1500 years old; while America is only a few hundred years old, and Israel is only about fifty years old. Qur'anically motivated hatred of Jews and Christians predates the ascendance of the West and the creation of Israel.

 
At 9:14 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

Again, your logic is false.
By that logic, why then didn't the Muslims slaughter all the christians and Jews in jeruslem when they took over? Why was it the christian crusaders who massacred the local Christian and Jewish population?

And by your logic, the Arabs would have killed all the christians in spain which would have surely avoided the christians in spain taking control in 1492. And then they inslaved all the Jews there.

-Its funny how historicly Christians have done more damage to and killed more Jews but somehow!! Jews hate muslims more today.

So why is it that in this case "if its a true quote" muslims intent to kill all non muslims is obvious when history has shown otherwise right next door in Syria, Palestine, Egypt to name a few?

You can bring me qoutes from all sorts of arabs and fanatics included. That does not reflect the religion. Look at history and see how Muslims who followed Islam at that time lived peacefuly with Christians and Jews.

Your logic contradicts itself. So does this mean that our peaceful history with the Jews and Christians prior to ottomans proves that Islam promotes cooexistance? Why dont you see it this way? hmm I wonder why. Its funny what splatters out when emotions take over common sense.

 
At 9:37 PM, Anonymous tommy said...

Hasan,

why then didn't the Muslims slaughter all the christians and Jews in jeruslem when they took over? Why was it the christian crusaders who massacred the local Christian and Jewish population?

The short answer is the Islamic institution of dhimmitude. You've never heard of the dhimmi? The longer answer is that I suggest you read Robert Spencer's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)." Muslims (and many westerners) have a very distorted, sugarcoated, and romanticized view of the Crusades and other early conflicts between Muslims and their Christian and Jewish enemies.

And by your logic, the Arabs would have killed all the christians in spain which would have surely avoided the christians in spain taking control in 1492. And then they inslaved all the Jews there.

Again, dhimmitude is the short answer. Christians and Jews in Muslim Spain were much more severely oppressed than many people imagine today. For instance, there are a number of cases where Muslims would slaughter an entire local community for the crimes of a single non-Muslim. Again, I recommend reading Robert Spencer's book.

Its funny how historicly Christians have done more damage to and killed more Jews but somehow!

For one, you are minimizing the harm done to Jews in Islamic societies. Second, modern Christians do not have the sort of serious conflicts with Jews that modern Muslims do.

Look at history and see how Muslims who followed Islam at that time lived peacefuly with Christians and Jews.

Trust me. I've studied the history. Again, your perception of relations between Muslims and Christians and Jews is heavily romanticized and inaccurate. I recommend reading a few titles by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and Andrew Bostom to get a glimpse of the way things really were.

That does not reflect the religion.

If it were an isolated comment it wouldn't. Unfortunately, it is symptomatic of larger problems.

So does this mean that our peaceful history with the Jews and Christians prior to ottomans proves that Islam promotes cooexistance? Why dont you see it this way?

Hasan, you are in need of some serious history lessons if you believe what you just said. Again, start with Spencer's book. If you don't think it accurate, let me know why.

 
At 12:16 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

All your references here are books written westerners using references from orientalists.

Its basicly come down to "my word against your word."

I don't care what that book says, just look at the fact that Jews lived in the muslim world for centuries before 1948 no problem. The famous Israeli spy Eli Cohen took part in operations to attack Jewish and american targets to create friction between the Jews and Arabs to promote their flight to Palestine. It's no secret and even admitted on a webpage created by his family.

Again, History have shown how Jews and christians alike prosperd in Islamic Lands, specificly in Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate.

The 1st you learn about the mess today is how the western world distorted the History of this part of the world, starting from Marco Polo.

Even John Paul apologized for the past “errors of the Church” that included Crusades, Inquisition and anti-Semitism.

What about todays history. Was Hitler Muslim? Was Stalin Muslim? Was Pol Pot Muslim? Was Lenin also Muslims? Genghis Khan?? Mao Zedong's regime?? Roman empire?

What about all the colonial wars in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Algeria to name a few in the Arab world. What about the colonial wars in South america? Africa?? Apartheid south Africa. Were all these committed by muslims?

Todays History which is well documented is proof alone of the habits of the real violant aggressive lot.

All this and no one complains about it or dares call the West as terrorists with a terrorist racist History. No one today calls for aboloshing this dangerous supremacist racist attitude which has murdered 100's of millions collectivly.

But when Bin Laden bombs a few thousdand people (5000 people total?), the whole world points the finger at Islam and says it teaches violance. (By the way, most muslims hate bin laden but ofcourse you dont want to hear that.)

What arrogance is that, what hypocracy. The ones who terrorized the world are now teaching us about morals and calling others terrorists.

What planet do you live on.

You truely are in need of some serious history lessons.

 
At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

It always baffles me when a non-Muslims writes a book and is claimed the "Leading authority on Islamic Studies!" Like Bernard Lewis.

Not only are they not of that culture, but they dont even speak the language. The Quran is meant to be read in Arabic only to be fully understood. Unlike other holy books which have been translated and re-translated into 100's of languages which produces 100's of versions and in turn produced 1000's of different churches.

The Quran hasn't changed since day 1 for that very reason. And anyone wanting to cricize Islam should have the decency to atleast learn the Language.

When Dr. Ahmad Dedaat challanged the famous Jimmy Swaggart (America's leading television evangelist) in "Is Bible God's Word," Ahmad had the whole Bible memorized, both the King James version and the New International Version. Jimmy didn;t even have his own Bible memorized.

Do your part 1st, read the History from more than one side.

And no, Robert Spencer doesn't count, he's just like Micheal Moore, inventive and very biased.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous tommy said...

Hasan,

Not only are they not of that culture, but they dont even speak the language.

What you are engaging in is what we in the United States call "identity politics." It is the idea that because you don't live somewhere or aren't something that you cannot comment upon it. It is absurd position. I assume then that you will leave off commenting on Christians, Jews, Americans, Israel, women, non-Muslims, or dogs because you are not a Christian, a Jew, an American, an citizen of Israel, a woman, a non-Muslim, or a dog, correct? Don't be silly.

(For the record, Robert Spencer, from what I understand, does indeed speak Arabic.)

The Quran is meant to be read in Arabic only to be fully understood. Unlike other holy books which have been translated and re-translated into 100's of languages which produces 100's of versions and in turn produced 1000's of different churches.

Three points: so what? Are you stating you cannot explain anything out of the Qur'an on the basis that it is written in Arabic? So, for instance, I cannot really infer that able-bodied Muslims are expected to make the hajj at least once in a lifetime because I cannot actually read it in original Arabic in the Qur'an. Again, don't be silly.

Second point: the Arabic of the Qur'an is different than the Arabic modern speakers of the language use. It is obscure and often difficult to translate. A German scholar of ancient Arabic actually believes that some of the idioms used in the Qur'an are derived from Aramaic and that many verses are typically mistranslated by Muslims.

Does that mean that Muslims themselves cannot draw an inferences about their own faith? Again, don't be silly.

Third point: what does any of this have to do with Christians? Are you assuming I'm a Christian? If so, you are assuming too much.

When Dr. Ahmad Dedaat challanged the famous Jimmy Swaggart (America's leading television evangelist) in "Is Bible God's Word," Ahmad had the whole Bible memorized, both the King James version and the New International Version. Jimmy didn;t even have his own Bible memorized.

Jimmy Swaggart was a notorious con-artist. He has little credibility among most Christians. Furthermore, in a tour de force of silliness, you transfer your own cultural assumptions as a Muslim onto Christians. Christians, unlike Muslims, don't place a great emphasis on mindlessly memorizing huge chunks of scripture. Instead, they place a greater emphasis on interpretation of scripture and on applying it to ordinary life.

The Christian would respond to your argument by pointing out that you can always pick up and read a Bible; it is the understanding and application of what it states that is most important.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reportedly memorized the entire Qur'an while in prison in Jordan. Do you think he had an appropriate interpretation of Islam?

Finally, agaain, I don't know what Christians have to do with any of this.

And no, Robert Spencer doesn't count, he's just like Micheal Moore, inventive and very biased.

Michael Moore makes statements that are not factually true. His Fahrenheit 911 movie was riddled with such untruths. If you can point out similar factual errors in Robert Spencer's work I would love to hear it but I don't think you could. Many have tried to rebuke Spencer and all have failed. That is why his opponents so often to resort to ad hominem attacks and tawdry attempts at character assassination.

 
At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

Tommy,

I brought the Christian Bible as an example of how translation can produce many serious errors.

But you in your self centered nature got self defensive.

The Quram was written in Arabic for a reason, once translated, its is dubbed "translation of the Quran." Thats for the very reason that people tend to misinterprate things when translated.

And who are you to say that 1.4 billion muslims continiously misinterprate the Quran while the all so wise Chrisitans understand and apply what it states.

The reality is the true opposite. Dont associate economic prosperity to the "trueth and wisdom" of the bible. The US is the last place to prove Bible teaching. The nation is rampant with Corporate fraud and theft. Family values are at an all time low. Alcohol is consumed heavily, and I know that the Bible teaches otherwise. It teaches people not to drink, lie, cheat, kill innocents and monogomy. While the western culture behaves otherwise.

So no, Christian's "all so wise" understanding techniques of the bible are not reflected by the day to day economical successes of the US and the West.

Don't let money be the gauge for morals and standards. Its the deeds that matter.

And no, I didn't assume that you are christian, because I my self reside in the US and have well realised that the majority here are non active christians and their actions are definitly not of christian standards. Athiesm is increasing, so the last thing I would assume of you is that you are a christian.

This just shows your polarized view of the ME proplem. You see it as one faith against the other. We see it as super powers interfering with our domestic politics and placing scum to govern our nations to keep us stupid and ignorant.



As for Identity politics, this term was invented by apologists to get away from the responsibility to do their homework before spitting out their opinion.
The Quran is written in the most elequent form of the Arabic language. Arabic grammer is compared to the Quran for perfection, and for Muslims that is one of its many miracles. No human has been able to recreate one verse of the quran in richness, elequence and weight. To us arabs, its the most perfect form of poetry if you will.
And if you studied the early Islamic history, you would have already realized that the Quran's content is what amazed so many in the 7th century as poetry was the ultimate sword at that time. No one could beleive that a human can come up with such lines of text and many converted based on this reason alone.

But I dont expect you to understand because you dont speak the language, just like I dont understand what the hell Americans see in "Everybody Loves Raymond."



Jimmy Swaggart was indeed famous and his fortune only shows his popularity. And yes there is a chance that zarqaqi memorized the Quran, but that is not an indication to his true and geniun intention to understand it fully.

Any monkey with an agenda will go to great lengths to get his cause some credibility. And unfortunatly, many people use religion to boast their causes like bin laden. And there is always a minority who is dumb and blind enough to follow the cause, especialy with the high unemployment rate, bordom and frustration of not having enough money to get merried.

Some people drink their own urine, but what do I know.


As for Robert Spencer, I added him to my "to-read" list as I'm trying to finish a book on Oswald Spengler and couple more. (he's good, you should check him out.)

 
At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

Also, can you please give me your opinion on the violant past of the rest of the world as I have stated in my previous post.

I think its of great importance for people to remember, yes to remember that the most destructive wars and genocides in history were commited by non muslims.

 
At 6:28 PM, Blogger Akram said...

Without actually getting into the actual content of this two-man debate, I think it would be wise to remember that history is NOT an unbiased endeavor. Many people assume that because it's "history", then it must be true. Whether it's Islamic history in the eyes of a Muslim scholar or a Western interpreter, it's bound to have its biases, which is what both of you have pointed out, yet failed to concede (i.e. Islam's adherents and scholars over-romanticization and the West's orientalism; I'm sure both sides have elements of truth to them, but to disqualify one completely is irresponsible).

Making generalizations also doesn't help. Making a truth claim about a particular race, much less a whole religious group, is unproductive. I don't think we get anywhere when we start an argument with an assumption that all Muslims hate the West, or that most Muslims hate Bin Laden, or that Christians don't memorize huge chunks of the Bible (Tommy, have you ever been to the South? I remember Southern Baptists at Vacation Bible School that were required to memorize). We often forget that humans of all races, religions, etc. have committed atrocious crimes, using religion and other ideology (secular nationalism, for example) as justifications for their greed, power hunger, and small-man syndrome. To generalize, in my opinion, is worthless.

Tommy, I also don't see how you can recommend a few certain books/authors while ignoring a vast literature in Islamic history. Yes, there might be romanticization, but most history books fall into that same trap. That's like recommending that no one read a high school American (or French, German, whatever)history book because it only illuminates the goods, while ignoring the bads. You seem to label this problem as strictly a Muslim or maybe an Arab one.

 
At 7:10 PM, Anonymous tommy said...

I agree with you, Akram. History isn't an unbiased endeavor. However, there is a reason Robert Spencer calls his book the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." He is pointing out the whitewashing of Islamic violence and oppression by much of the West's historians. The bias in mainstream history has been in the favor of the romantic and apologetic view of Islamic history. It is a grossly inaccurate perspective yet it remains, among our left-wing academia, a popular one.

I am certainly open to alternative viewpoints. Feel free to suggest some books if you like.

 
At 11:28 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

tommy,

You still havn't given me your opinion on the perpetrators of the worst crimes in our history. I'm still curious to see how you view your own people's violent history.

 
At 1:06 AM, Anonymous tommy said...

You still havn't given me your opinion on the perpetrators of the worst crimes in our history. I'm still curious to see how you view your own people's violent history.

LMAO!

OK. Worst perpetrators of crimes in our history? Hmmmm.... Mao Zedong, Stalin, and Hitler. Communists and Nazis.

Of course, there have been a whole slew of lesser killers and despots throughout history. I'm not a big fan of Qaddafi, Saddam, Khomenei, Mubarak, Castro, Chavez, Ben Ali (in Tunisia), Bashir (in Sudan), the Saudi royals, Assad (in Syria), the Communist Party in China, etc.

My own people's violent history? Well, I'm mostly German, my ancestors came to the United States around the time of the American Civil War in the late 1800s. I'm also 1/4 Cherokee. My maternal grandfather was a Cherokee man from Oklahoma. So, I guess I would say I'm personally proud of my people's violent history. My German ancestors fought for the Union against slavery during the Civil War and my Cherokee ancestors fought to retain their rights whenever possible. My paternal grandfather was a decorated World War II veteran. I'm proud of that. I've had relatives on both sides of my family who have fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars. I don't know if my country is wise to go about trying to bring democracy to Mideastern ingrates who don't seem to want or appreciate it, but I think it is a noble venture nontheless. All in all, I guess you would say I'm proud of my country's violent history. For the most part, it has been good.

 
At 1:52 AM, Anonymous Moab said...

Tommy - greetings history expert! History after all is down to perception of the truth ... want a more telling example than the recent 'discovery' of The Book of Judas?

Funny how perception and prejudice begin with the same letter. You say "Trust me. I've studied the history. Again, your perception of relations between Muslims and Christians and Jews is heavily romanticized and inaccurate. I recommend reading a few titles by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and Andrew Bostom to get a glimpse of the way things really were."

Funy how you only read history through tainted specs.


And when you say "Hasan, you are in need of some serious history lessons if you believe what you just said". Again, start with Spencer's book. If you don't think it accurate, let me know why" ...

.... There is only one comment I have for you - I dare you to read "The Ornament of the World - How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain" by Maria Rosa Menocal..foreword by Harold Bloom.

And then tell us what you think.

 
At 1:57 AM, Anonymous Moab said...

PS - the Los Angeles Times said of this book "An illuninating and even inspiring work - By showing us what was lost, Menocal reminds us of what might be."

 
At 2:08 AM, Anonymous iman said...

Your comparison of Saddam to zarqawi is very appalling!

 
At 2:14 AM, Anonymous tommy said...

To Moab,

History after all is down to perception of the truth

I disagree. I am a historical objectivist not a subjectivist. I believe absolute historical truth does exist. Granted, sources of history may be inaccurate, incomplete or slanted, but that doesn't mean history itself is merely a perception.

Funny how perception and prejudice begin with the same letter.

So does poontang but what is your point?

Funy how you only read history through tainted specs.

That isn't true. I've read Bernard Lewis, Fisk (yuck!), and even (yikes!) Edward Said. I just happen to think Spencer, Bostom, and Co. are more on the mark.

As for your book, I will try and locate it. Hell, I might even order it from Amazon. (Even if it was recommended by Pravda West.) Thank you. I haven't heard of this author before.

 
At 9:48 AM, Blogger moi said...

iman--in what sense is my comparison appalling? Please elaborate so that I can try to explain my point.

 
At 10:23 AM, Blogger Osaid Rasheed said...

Tommy : You made very good points in your discussion. Akram's point of view was very strong : history is not simply what you read.

You started saying that America has to support Isreal because "Your enemy's enemy is your friend." ...since when Americans think that Palestinians are thier enemies ?
Running through history can proof nothing I supose. I still support Moi's point of view that we have to start to educate people about violence ( regardless of its origin: ethnic, religion or wtever )
A question to you Tommy : What do you think of religions in general ?

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Hasan said...

Tommy,

You have completely ignored the point of my question. You refused to admit that even though your own people "west" or "non-muslims" in this case have commited the worst attrocities in histories, no one still paints the image of violane on Germans on Americans today.

No one calls all germans today Nazi's (can I call you a Nazi?), no one calls all americans racists because just only 40 years ago, blacks couldn't get any job.

No one calls afrikaans or dutch for that mater racist because only 15 yrs ago they savaged a whole nation.

So how come, for the acts of scum like bin laden, and zarqawi, youpaint this picture of violance on a whole people and whole religion?

This was my point, but you chose to avoid it because it onyl shows your biased and self-rightious attitude. After all, what are you even doing here?

You said "I don't know if my country is wise to go about trying to bring democracy to Mideastern ingrates who don't seem to want or appreciate it"--- by that sense, what are you doing here trying to bring sense to us? Yes we don't want to appreciate it. So what are you still doing here.?? Or you just need some attention?

What makes you think that we don't want democracy? Our history has witnessed the fruits of democracy and we want it back. But ofcourse, the US supports all of our dictators there, and operating the largets CIA offices int he world to keep any uprising ar bay.

So why don't you go tell your government to leave the arabs alone, so they can bring democracy to themselves?

I've also read bernard lewis, edward said, and I ALSO just happen to think that Said even Benny Morris are on the mark.

So basicly, my perception of the trueth against your own perception of the trueth. What gives you the authority to claim which book is truethful and which isn;t. What arrogance, your superior attitude is what caused the west to colonize half the world and inslave its people.

So tell me, do you think a publishing company in the US would risk publishing fabricated lies?

 
At 11:14 AM, Anonymous Hasan said...

p.s Tommy, please dont use "LMAO!" and ROFLFLFL" here, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a 15 year old kid. Seriously, I'm already starting to assume many things about you. Like, spending all your time on forums and blogs arguing with people.

Which in turn leads me to beleive that you just love to argue, play devils advocate, which means that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall...

you know stuff like that...

 
At 1:37 PM, Anonymous tommy said...

Look Hasan, if you want to get nasty, you can quit talking to me already. I was going to leave you to your own devices, but you insisted on me giving you a response to your stupid question.

First, I do enjoy debate, that is true. Second, you obviously don't know the meaning of the phrase "devil's advocate." If you did, you would realize that if I were playing devil's advocate I would be taking a pro-Palestinian or pro-Islamic position rather than a pro-Israeli, pro-Western position. To play devil's advocate means to argue for a side you don't naturally sympathize with.

You've already insulted me on another thread and stated you believe talking to me is useless, yet you continue to pester me with your inane drivel. If you don't like what I have to say, ignore me. I'm going to ignore you from here on out.

 
At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Hasan said...

What an easy way to ignore a question you can't answer. Are we taking this personal now?

Face it, a debate is not a debate if you are talking to someone who agrees with you 100%.

"but you insisted on me giving you a response to your stupid question." Oh my stupid question about how come the world doesn;t associate these atrocities with anyone anymore, but the acts of bin laden and his little fart zarqawai happen to reflect back on all arabs and muslims? Is that a stupid question?

Just so your know, I joined this discussion because I thought you "tommy" having a western name might teach me a few things. But after realising your bias to the extremity, I don't think it is safe to take anything from you as objective and benifecial anymore.


And yes, you are like a brink wall. Walls stop people from advancing and moving forward. Walls keep people imprisoned. Walls keep people ignorant of whats behind them.

 
At 6:40 PM, Anonymous hasan said...

I thought you might be playing devils advocate because I assumed we are both on the same side, the side of truth and objectivity.

 
At 10:15 PM, Blogger Peter42y said...

Hi.Check my board.

Click here to acess the board.TY

 
At 10:19 PM, Blogger Peter42y said...

these arguments about palestinian israeli always get heated. As far as I am concerned I already was acused of killing small children..,stalking people..,being adolf hitler, being sharon .., etc etc etc

Check why in my board



Click here to acess the board.TY

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home