From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Answer to Anwar
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:37:56 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <Bw2I2w.Fz5.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>Don't be a baby, Anisa.  I'm just pointing out that you've resorted to 
>worse.  Need I dig up the disgusting insults you've resorted to in your 
>posts?  Nah, I'll just remind you of your embarrasing obsession with 
>things anal.

I'm not obsessed with anything 'anal' though I did make reference to
it where you are concerned.  If you feel the need to 'dig up' the
dirt and wallow in it, that is your problem.  I might have resorted
to worse insults but for you to insist on dragging this on so as to
try and prove anything is only childish on your part.
 
>My sources and information are not my own?  Of course not.  Neither are
>yours.  How pathetically ridiculous.  I realize that you may be under
>the delusion that you are free to create your own facts (as you have
>in the past), but let me enlighten you about something:
>unless I am accorded some status as Supreme Keeper of Information,
>the information will never be *mine*.  

I don't create anything.  I read from many different sources, which,
of course you try to discredit and disprove.  That certainly doesn't
make you right, better educated, or more informed of anything.
 
>No pay attention.  In order to fulfill the definition of Research,
>I have gone to those people who know best, or who have best access 
>to the information I need.  The sources of information gathered in the
>course of research a topic do not own or have a right to take credit
>for the conclusions drawn from this information.   For example, UPI
>does not own my opinions on the elections in Kuwait, despite the fact
>that I've used them as a source of information.  Likewise for  your
>opinion regarding the election and AP.  

I don't want to debate with you over the issue of who is better
according to what information is accessible or convenient at
hand.  I believe that your information concerning statistics on
the economy (or other proven facts) are probably more accurate,
no argument here, but on the political agenda, I believe that it
is biased and controlled.

>IMF, and World Bank reports in the Library, I happen to know someone
>who has all this information and can fax it to me.  Would you begrudge
>me the chance to use this incredible resource?  I mean, outside of the
>ridiculous rhetorical ploy you've used here.

No, you certainly did post, in response to my previous article on
Kuwaiti GNP, GDP, loans, and aid (although it was not, in my
estimation, very thorough and a little sketchy), but you did not
address the other issues that I brought up.  You conveniently waited
for several weeks and used excuses to delay it.  I said that if you
couldn't post it for whatever reasons, just say so.  You countered
with personal attacks such as, 'I don't care about the Emir's wives'
and 'You are reduced to counting the nose hairs of Yassir Arafat',
which only proved the point.
 
>Responses to what?  To foreign aid questions?  I've posted plenty.
>To questions regarding women's rights?  I refer you to my most
>recent response to you.  Now we're waiting for you to respond 

I didn't see the 'foreign aid questions'.  And you only stated in
your previous posting about so-called 'women's rights' in Kuwait
that you were proud of the role that Kuwaiti women had in resisting
Saddam Hussein's occupation.  The original questions in terms of
voting and equal rights for women have *never* been addressed, and
futhermore, in response to my posting about the elections in Kuwait,
you countered with the fact that the al-Sabah regime recently
dissolved its cabinet to form a new one.  That still does not comply
with democratic processes, nor does the issue of the elitis status
of certain males in Kuwait whom elect it.

>to the questions  I've asked regarding Palestinian popular support
>for Saddam Hussein. How do you account for the demonstrations and
>popular support in Jordan and the West Bank?  Don't you see anything
>wrong with these demonstrations?  Or are you all above reproach?

I don't recall your specifically asking me to answer this question.
It was brought up by yourself and I recall stating that not everyone
supported Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait.  I know that there
were demonstrations and rallies to support Saddam namely because of his
charisma and approach to dealing with the Palestinian plight, his promises
to liberate Palestinian and for justice for the poor Arab countries.  And
due to the fact that Kuwait has generally treated Palestinians as third
class citizens (despite the fact that they lived and were employed in
Kuwait - and it doesn't detract from the issue here).  Obviously, anyone
who supported Saddam was an outcast in the eyes of the rich and powerful
Kuwait government, whose money and influence bought the support of the
United States.

I never denied this.  I have only emphasized on the point that this
was absolutely NO justification for Kuwait to legally dehumanize
Palestinians and subject them to expulsions, death sentences, and
human rights violations.

>I already think you are a freud and I suspect the rest of the
>newsgroup will think so as well if you persist in dodging the 
>question.

Anwar, I will not lose any sleep at night worrying about what
you think of me.  I know who I am and I have a lot of pride
and dignity that you can never threaten to take away from me
by using these silly little tactics.  I've proven my case and
I am content with what I said.  Obviously you have some motive
not to comply with my questions directly and that's okay.  It only
proves to the newsgroup, who probably doesn't care anyway, that
you are the phoney.

>>Go back to sleep, Anwar.  You just are speaking incohesively!
>
>"Incohesive"? Now if I were *you*, I might childishly resort (a la
>"KuwIAti") to pointing out your use of a word that I can't find in 
>Webster's dictionary.  I'll take the higher ground though. Besides 
>I admit it....I am a little worried about being accused of getting 
>my "overall thinking and philosophy" from Webster's.

My mistake.  I meant, incoherently.  I wouldn't accuse you of anything
except that you didn't recognize even the root of the word, which is
cohesion, meaning being unified or sticking together.

At least I should give you credit for looking something up on your
own.
  
Anisa