HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Perot and the Jewish controlled media
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:02:10 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

 
 Article 45573 (17 more) in talk.politics.mideast:
 Subject: Re: Perot and the Jewish controlled media
 From: tb13@ellis.uchicago.edu (leon joel gross)
 
 >ARF says:
 
 >As you have publicly misrepresented or just plain lied about anything I
 >mighthave said to the other party/group, I sugest that you let ME see
 >a copy of the rubbish you are spreading around on your little smear
 >network.
 
 <I just e-mailed you a copy of the letter.
 
 >You can't publish it without my permission but have no compunction about
 >passing it around?  You are sick.
 
 <E-mail is property of the recipient.  I have his 
 permission. You give me yours and I will post the mail.
 
 ARF says:
 
 You are free to publish anything I have said or written.  
 You publish other people's opinions of what I said at the 
 peril of spreading hate and lies.
 
 >Why don't you start with the constant theme of Jews 
 controlling the press,
 
 ARF says:
 
 That is not MY theme.  I maintain and with good reason that 
 "friends of Israel", whatever their other persuasions, have 
 muffled criticism of Israel to the extent that most 
 Americans have a totally distorted view of what is going on 
 over there.
 
 >the boycott of Kosher food,
 
 ARF says:
 
 A legitimate political statement of solidarity with the 
 Palestinians.
 
 > the Hymie and Raghead song
 
 ARF says:
 
 Poetic license.  Fun... humor... extasy over the forthcoming 
 peace talks.  In poor taste, maybe.   Evil... bull shit.
 Finally, I apologized for any offence caused within hours of 
 posting it.
 
 > support of David Duke 
 
 ARF says:
 
 My right as an American citizen.
 
 
 >and Ralph Winston
 
 ARF says:
 
 If you recognize it as qualified support, that again is my 
 right.  How is it any more evil than all the Zionists that 
 support Shamir and his evil actions that speak far louder 
 than Winston's words.
 
 
 >, etc.
 
 ARF says:
 
 Tough to address "etc".
 
 >I just sent ARF a copy of the e-mail I was talking about.
 
 And I responded to you in email as to what I think of it.  
 If you wish to be a part of this hate mongering, I can not 
 stop you nor will I threaten to sue you.  I will simply 
 point out that what I have said about the network of 
 hatemongers seems justified.
 
 >Leon Gross
 >I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
 
 Any chance that you might explain just what the hell that 
 means?
 
 js

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: singer@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Protests
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:29:20 GMT

It's a hoary anti-Semitic trick to equate any aspect of Jewish defensive
behavior to save Jewish lives during the Holocaust with that of the Nazis
themselves. By blaming the victim, by equating Jewish conduct during that
period with that of the Nazi murderers, the parlour-room anti-Semite justifies
the Nazi action as equivalent to Jewish actions to save lives. By further
linking the State of Israel (through its leading figures) or other Jewish
institutions with these past events, the anti-Semite seeks to discredit them as
well. The message of the parlour-room anti-Semite (not to be confused with the
vulgar anti-Semite) is nevertheless palpable: the Jews themselves are
responsible for anti-Semitism; the Jews deserve(d) what they got; it follows
that anti-Semitism is a natural and justified response to Jewish character.-- 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Radio Host Fired After Jewish Prote
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 10:22:25 GMT

In article <6bqml0c.analyst@netcom.com>, analyst@netcom.com (David
Sternlight) writes:

|>Hallam-Baker's description of what my e-mail to him said is both false
|>and a violation of netiquette--one doesn't publish e-mail without
|>permission.

I did *not* post your email. However since you are now claiming that I
mirepresented you I am posting the relevant paragraph :-

---------------------------------------
Your latest post puts you dangerously close to going on my "kill"
list. Calling someone a looney for not meeting some criteria (or in
this case meeting them) which are irrational "make wrongs" that can't
stand scrutiny is pretty near the edge.
 --------------------------------------

In fact the epithet looney was not used to refer to the person starting
said thread but the thread itself. In the context of the original post
it was an obvious use of robust language, especialy since I was
completley unaware of who had started the thread (I thought it was
probably Singer or his Ilk).

|>Further discussion by e-mail, please.

If you make public attacks you must be prepared to defend them in
public. You were trying to deny that you were in the habit of announcing
your kill file in fits of pique whenever you disagreed with a post.

If you read the original guidelines you would see that posting email is
merely described as being described as "bad form". I happen to include
using offensive language in personal emails, disingenuousness and racism
as also being bad form. Thus if an email falls into any of those
categories I don't feel bound by any rules of `good form'.

Thus when Petersen tried to persuade me to post anti-semitic drivel - he
calls them `parodies' to the net after I made some posts *complaining*
about his anti-semitic drivel, I posted the offer to the net. In this
case I felt even less bound by any considerations of `good form' since I
had already warned him.

There is a big difference between keeping the contents of an email
secret and the fact that such an email was made a secret. If someone
sends an email saying X and then someone says "I don't say X" then I
feel that I have the right to say "Oh yes you do".


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: yogi@cs.ubc.ca (Yossi Gil)
Subject: Re: Iraq/Kuwait border dispute?
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 05:56:54 GMT

anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.195953.14935@cs.ubc.ca> yogi@cs.ubc.ca (Yossi Gil) writes:
>>
>>I heard that there are currently discussions on where the border between
>>Iraq and Kuwait should lie. From what I hear the Kuwaitis demand that some
>>land that used to be part of Iraq before Aug 2nd should be part of Kuwait.
>>Apparently, the US supports this claim.

>This land was *never* part of Iraq.  It belonged to Kuwait.  Iraq agreed to
>these borders in a 1963 UN agreement.  Then, throughout the 70's and 
>80's, slowly encroached on Kuwaiti land.  The borders are being surveyed
>by the UN to EXACTLY MATCH those agreed upon by Iraq and Kuwait in 1963.

Does this mean that the land was under Iraqi control before Aug 2nd?
How large is this land? 

....
>In general, though, I disagree with this assessment of the situation.
>Nationalistic stereotypes aside, the region would be much better off 
>if Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the GCC states chipped in to 
>help Iraq rebuild (a Marshall plan for Iraq). 

Interesting you should say this. The same friend claims that it was in
the US best interests to leave Saddam Hussein weak but still in power,
and that this is the very reason why he is still out there. From what
he says, the rise of the extreme shiitis in the south would pose
a danger to Saudi Arabia from the fundamentalist moslem movement.
Similar situation may occur with the Turkey and the Kurds and Turk
tribes at northern Iraq. 



>-- 
>Anwar Mohammed                           Graduate Student
>anwar+@cs.cmu.edu  (NeXTmail welcome)    School of Computer Science
>Voice: +1 412 268 3043                   Carnegie-Mellon University
>Fax:   +1 412 681 5739                   Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
--
Joseph (Yossi) Gil                 {alberta,uw-beaver,uunet}!ubc-cs!yogi
Dept. of Computer Science          yogi@cs.ubc.ca (cs.ubc.ca=137.82.8.5)
6356 Agricultural Road., Univ. of B.C.,             Tel: +1-604-822-8175
Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z2, Canada.       Fax: +1-604-822-5485
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Subject: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NON-AGENDA
Reply-To: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 02:13:33 GMT


In a previous article, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) says:
>
>We paid for a lot more than we got.  We paid for a solution to the
>Palestinian question, ...

I imagine you mean Palestinian Arab, rather than Palestinian Jew.

> and that solution is still pending.  Ask the
>victims of Palestinian terrorism (or their survivors) since the
>signing of the Camp David accords if "reduced tension" has helped
>much.  Ask the Palestinian youths living under military occupation if
>their lives are worth anything more because of "reduced tension".

Of course, the reason they are still living under occupation is that their
leadership has rejected accomodation.  And the primary reason why their
lives are abnormal is their own violence.

>If the Camp David accord were a contract, and Israel and Egypt
>industrial suppliers, and I were the contracting party, I wouldn't pay.
>They haven't delivered, so I wouldn't pay.

One party, Israel, has certainly delivered;  the other, Egypt, hasn't.

The latter got rewarded a year ago to the tune of an extra $7 billion.
-- 
bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: Arab World and Islamic Resources <awair@igc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Date: 20 Jul 92 21:57 PDT
Subject: Defacement of Palestinian Mural
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483500290:000:1195
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!awair    Jul 20 21:57:00 1992


From: Arab World and Islamic Resources <awair>
Subject: Defacement of Palestinian Mural

WIPING OUT CENSORSHIP

Reported by the SF WEEKLY, July 15, 1992, p. 8

On July 5, between 4 and 6 am on the corner of 21st and Mission
Streets [in San Francisco, CA], a mural espousing the rights of
Palestinians was defaced with black paint.  In what seems to be an
act of political censorship, paint was thrown specifically at
parts of the mural that expressed ideas.  A sign in the mural that
was completely blacked out stated, "The Palestinian people will be
free. Everyone has a right to a homeland."  Miranda Bergman, a
muralist and member of the Break The Silence Mural Project - a
group originally composed of four Jewish women artists who went
with Palestinian artist to the occupied territories to paint
murals - said 30 people originally helped paint the mural that was
damaged.  "The defacement was clearly aimed at destroying the
sentiments of the right of Palestinians to have a state," she
said.  The artists are now trying to restore the mural.

------------------------------------------------------

Jennifer Smith awair@igc.org AWAIR: Arab World And Islamic
Resources and School Services
From: oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Turkish Historical Society's Newest Maneuver
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:01:33 GMT
Organization: IMAG, University of Grenoble, France
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
: 
: I must say I appreciate the restraint of Armenians writing in
: this discussion. If I were an Armenian who had been mutlued,
: I'd probably have though seriously about acts best left unspecified.

 I think that not only Armenians are offended by mutlu's posts. His efforts
to play the apologist for Ottomans has irritated several Arabs also, don't
forget that Arabs also lived under the Ottoman occupation (or should i say
the Islamic paradise led by the pious ottoman Soltans ?). Unfortunately,
people tend to forget history very quickly, and several Arabs forget how
badly we lived under the Ottoman rule, and come to join mutlu in his 
revisionism. The latest events in Azerbijan and Bosnia created a phenomen of
paranoia in the Muslim world (which is quite justified, given the hopeless
situation of Bsniac Muslims). Mutlu found the ideal oppurtunity to portray 
himself as "the defender of Muslims over the Internet", and it worked. 
  I really wonder, how many "neutral" Muslims (non-turks) feel that Mutlu
(proven to be a liar by Mr Sternlight and another one who showed how Mutlu
misquoted shamefully the references to distort their meaning) is really their
"hero" ?; Just wondering.

  PS : i've reduced the distribution to tpm only, so if it appears in other
groups it won't be my falut.


--
Sham(u) ya tha (s)seif(u) lam yaghib(i) | Ibaa Oueichek. ouicheck@imag.imag.fr
    Ya jamal(al) majd(i) fi(l) kutub(i) | LABORATOIRE 	BULL-IMAG
Kablak(i) (t)tareekh(u) fi thulmaten    | Grenoble. 
    Baadak(i) staula ala (sh)shuhub(i)  |
					
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Anwar Mohammad And Ajami
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 12:16:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


A. Jaber now posts the material from the New Republic that he claims
supports his wild assertions about Ajami. It does not.

Ajami says he "was born in the hinterlands of Lebanon" so it is quite
wrong to claim that he was Persian.

Not even his parents were Iranian. As Jaber's quote shows, a great
grandfather was, but that hardly makes someone Iranian, unless you
believe in Hitler's definition of who is a Jew, applied to Arabs.

Jaber bases his claim Ajami is a Khomeinist on the fact that he was raised
in Shiite surroundings. That's absurd. It's the same sort of race guilt
the Nazis used. The claim that everyone who is Shiite instead of Sunni is
pro-Khomeini is simply absurd. How many Shiites were murdered by the
Khomeini regime? How many anti-Iranian Shiites live in other countries?

Best;
-- 
David Sternlight        David Sternlight Inc.        email:analyst@netcom.COM
From: analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:20:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


Horen says:
>>1) In the U.s systems the PACs and the secial interest groups are
>>the ones who determine the agenda of the President and Congress.

>You ignorant twit. While "Fact #1" is quite correct, "Fact #2" is a crock.

You ignorant-twit-caller (sorry, couldn't resist), not everybody
agrees that Fact #1 is correct, either. The President and Congress
often determine their own agenda items, or determine agenda items
as a result of opinion polls of the electorate (including elections).

-- 
David Sternlight        David Sternlight Inc.        email:analyst@netcom.COM
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Things That Make You Go Grrrrrrrr....
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:56:08 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul21.124824.3425@corax.udac.uu.se> flax@mizar.docs.uu.se writes:
=>In article <23959@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
=>|> In article <1992Jul20.122826.4926@corax.udac.uu.se> flax@mizar.docs.uu.se writes:

Jonas's little philosophy pop-quiz deleted, because as I've said before,
what you or I believe is not the point here - the point is to avoid
saying you're for something when in fact you're not.

=>|> [whizzzzzzzzzzz.......piiinnngggggggg]   <-sound of Jonas missing the point

=>Nice onomatopoetic effect,

Glad you appreciated it, but I think you'll find that there isn't a "t" in
that long word. I know language flames are cheap-shots, but I feel justified
since most Swedes speak better English than most native-speakers, plus you
criticised my Swedish, so naah naah.

=> but not very appropriate, since you included more than
=>90 % of my posting, just in an attempt at being funny.

How does this affect the appropriateness. No, don't answer that.

=>|> What you think is one thing, but saying that you think one thing but acting
=>|> like you think another is called "hypocrisy" (well, almost).
=>
=>Oh? I _really_ believe we should all be nice to each other, I often say I think
=>that, but if someone punch me in the face I punch back. Hypocricy? I guess I'm
=>not the only one then.. I'll settle at _trying_ not to be, oh so perfect one.
=>Now, if you can take time off from running the world for us, I'd be 
=>overjoyed to have answers to my questions.

I'm afraid that Swedes have a reputation for being boring, and this is
where it comes from. Now I know that telling you that some of my very
best friends in the whole wide world are Swedes (and live in Uppsala!)
won't stop people from howling about my disgraceful anti-Swede attitudes,
but I'd be really grateful if you'd read my reply carefully and let this
thread drop.

Tack saa mycket.

Stora kramer,  [  <-  yes! it's completely inappropriate!!!  ]



-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: serdar@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Serdar Boztas)
Subject: Re: U.S. territories vs. Israel territories
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:45:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.143532.1796@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, 
diaz@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Rafael Diaz) writes:

> I would like to raise an issue of comparing U.S. territories vs.
> Israel territories. To be more specific I will use the Island
> of Guam in the South-East Pacific ocean.
> 
> * The people of Guam are U.S. citizens, but they have NO voting power
>   in the presidential election.
> 
> * The people of the W.B. & Gaza are NOT Israeli citizens and have
>   no voting power in the Israeli elections.
> 
>   Could somebody explain why is it O.K not to have presidential 
>   voting power in U.S. territories?

It is quite easy to raise a strawman and then shoot it down. There doesn't
seem to be widespread opposition to US in Guam. If there is, please
enlighten us.

In Israel's case the issue is one of invasion, expulsion and widespread
repression. This pseudo-comparison just does not wash.
 
> -Rafy

Serdar
-- 
Inhabited by absurd fears,  they only discuss  the puerilities with which 
every fool is familiar, and dare not, by turning a bold hand to the human 
heart, offer its gigantic idiosyncrasies to our views.     Sade, 'Justine'
Serdar Boztas \\ serdar@fawlty1.eng.monash.edu.au \\ +(61)3-565-5722 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Mr. Arens, what would you have done?
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:01:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.005235.2778@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> ejk@coral.JPL.NASA.gov (Elya Kapelyan) writes:
>
>	To be absolutely honest, I don't know.  Lehi's approach seems to have
>been based on the idea that if the Jews of Europe were to be saved, it would
>have to be done _during_ the war, and not after.  Lehi's approach was mad, 
>but maybe it had to be.  The fact remains that "mainstream" Zionists did 
>almost nothing to save the Jews of Europe.

Unless you consider fighting the Nazis directly to be "nothing". It is
at very least a reasonable position to take that, when you are dealing
with someone who is threatening to take over the world and implement 
their death-machine throughout all of it without possibility of escape,
and who is coming far too close to being able to do it for anyone's
comfort, the first priority is to see to it that they are prevented
at all costs. Negotiating with the Nazis for the lives of some Jews
would have, IMO, even if successgful only have saved them for a few
years unless you could also defeat their war effort. Otherwise, they'd
simply have picked up the ones they'd released later, when there was
nobody to stop them. I think offering them help of any kind, even in
exchange for Jewish lives, was a very bad idea.


>	I am not ignorant of the fact that Ben-Gurion and the majority of the
>Yishuv (including the Irgun) sided with the Allies.  And I am well aware of 
>the existance of the Jewish Brigades.  However, the mainstream Zionists also
>seemed to believe that there would be Jews left after the war, who could then
>be rescued, and did not realize the full enormity of the danger facing the
>European Jewry.

Or they recognized the danger to the Jews of the entire world if the
Nazis were allowed to proceed. Elya, you phrase the above as though
the proper course of action would have been to side with the Nazis in
the war, if they would agree to let Jews go in exchange. Do you really
think they'd have kept that promise when they had total control?

>	As to the question of whether I am happy with the actions of the
>mainstream Zionists, it is a hard question for me to answer.  I lost over 100
>members of my family during the Holocaust, so somehow I can't help but wonder
>what if?  The position of the majority of the Yishuv doomed six million Jews,
>so I don't know if anyone can be "happy" with that decision.  

Wait a second. The position of the Yishuv was what doomed the Jews of
Europe? This is roughly equivalent to saying that someone who looked
nastily at the Boston Strangler one day was responsible for dooming
his victims. The Holocaust was the responsibility of those who caused
it, Elya; not those who fought it but with tactics that perhaps differed
from yours. Do you really think the fate of all six million was entirely
dependent on the Yishuv's policy?

>	Elya
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Withdrawl from Territories
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:49:08 GMT

> > >
> > >
> > >       I belive he sez that thelast time Israel returned Sinai
> > >[endded in 82?] was not the first time Israel returned Sinai - thus
> > >yes, there was an exchange before the last time.
> > 
Not to nitpick, but wasn't the Sinai deal completed with the return of  
Taba, after Israel lost the case in arbitration (something about original  
maps not being precise, etc)? I seem to remember that they returned it not  
too long ago (certainly after 1985- I stayed at the Aviya Sonesta there,  
and it most certainly was not inside the Egyptian border then).





shalom
j skorecki-weiss
formerly the "Dread Accountant"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: NUKE IRAQ
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:39:49 GMT

In article <AeS6EJq00WB44aNIoJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Radu Eugen Edelstein <re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Mark writes:
>   While it is true that Sadam Hussein deserves to die a slow and
>painful death, the people of Iraq have suffered enormously.  What
>I would like to see done is Sadam Hussein executed, to give these
>poor people a chance to create their own government.  I would not
>object to nuking Sadam Hussein!
>
>I say:
>Iraqis don't know what democracy is and they are bound to make the
>same mistakes again.  

This is a variety of prejudice about on a level with "Jews don't
understand anything about business ethics," and I have the same
objections to it. Neither the Iraqis nor anybody else deserve this
kind of blanket description, let alone this kind of blanket condem-
nation. If you don't want to see it done to us again, cut it out
yourself -- now.

>Rad

	-Nora