HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:07:56 -0400 
From: Radu Eugen Edelstein <re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: NUKE IRAQ


Ilyess Bdira writes:
>It is a fact that most (if not all) Arab dictatorships are
>not sincere about anything including the conflict with Israel. They
>always offer lip service to the Palestinians while stabbing them
>in the back and benefit from the situation to prolong their
>reign of terror just because they are "War-front states.."

Do you mean Arab dictators did not start wars against Israel ?  How
absurd can your comment be ?  Both politically and militarily many
such dictators compromised their nations' immage by attacking Israel.
Your solution:  let's do it again:

>A democratic government will be by definition sincere (it has to be,
>since it represents the people) and it will pressure Israel into
>giving away to Palestinian demands or face a REAL WAR..


You still did not answer my question about what do Irakis themselves
have to share with the Israelis and when did the Israelis agress the Irakis.
It seems that it is your belief that Irakis are the type of people who like
to give their lifes for someone else, that they are still in the era of
tribalism-vendetta.  If you think that once you're a democracy you have
the option to wage nationalistic world-policing wars, you're totally wrong.


>The superiority of Israel is a myth, because they never faught a
>sincere army that is determined to win. They faught some losers who
>used the conflict to prolong their dictatorship.
>Israel can not survive a month of war, that is why all the past wars
>were so short.

Yeah, as the democratic Iranians proved it in their years long, determined
war against Irak, it takes a sincere army to win [sic].
You'll never unerstand us, the Jews.  We hate the idea of armies, wars,
and the military establishment itself.  The Israeli one is in place because
it is the only one that can assure us survival in a sea of war-minded
people like you.  The superiority of Israel might be a mith, or a thing of
the past, but if we'll have to fight for our lifes, we'll be the sincere ones.
Irakis would fight for glory or self-righteousness, we would fight for our
own existence.  I wish a day would come when Israel won't need an army,
but if you teach your children the same bigotry I guess we'll have to keep
it for quite a while, even after the "REAL WAR".




Rad
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:24:06 -0400 
From: Radu Eugen Edelstein <re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Lehi and nazies
 <1992Aug11.152038.1571@dscomsf.desy.de> <1992Aug12.221202.22829@bony1.bony.com>
	<1992Aug17.124742.22031@dscomsf.desy.de>

Could anybody translate this :
	"Wa ta'kuluunat turaatha aklaal lammaa

	Wa tuhibbuunal maala hubban jammaa

	Kallaa itha dukkatil ardu dakkan dakkaa

	Wa jaa'a rabbuka wal malaku saffan saffaa

	Wa jee'a yauma'idzin bijahannam - yauma'idzin
	 yatadzkkarul insaanu wa annaa lahudz dzikraa

	Yaquulu yaalaytanee qaddamtu lihayaatee

	Fayauma'idzin laa yu'adzdzibu 'adzaabahu ahad

	Wa laa yuuthiqu wa thaaqahuu ahad

	Yaa'ayyatuhaan nafsul mutma'innah

	Arji'ee ilaa rabbiki raadiyatan mardiyyah

	Fadkhulee fee 'ibaadee

	Wadkhulee jannati"

Sullallaho aleihi wa sallam.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Muslims killed in Yeguslavia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:24:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bsznns.GBB.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>In article <1398@yetti.UUCP> aboelaze@cs.yorku.ca (Mokhtar Aboelaze) writes:
>>In article <Bsy071.7K9@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>>
>>>    The mourners that were shelled in front of the TV cameras were
>>>    attacked with RIFLE GRENADE LAUNCHERS.  I do not know the exact
>>>    range of this type of weapons, but I doubt that the attack could 
>>>    come from the Serb-controlled hills surrounding Sarajevo.  
>>>
>>>    Some "friendly fire", perhaps???
>>>
>>>
>
>
>Nonsense.  This was the Serbian line, until journalists *in* Sarajevo
>completely debunked this claim.  Serbian mortars and shells are very 
>capable of reaching this portion of the city.

    This claim was put forward on McNeil-Lehrer by the commander of the
    UN peacekeeping troops in Bosnia (I think his name was Gen. McKenzie).
    I am sure there are other readers of this newsgroup who watched
    the same commentary and who can corraborate my story (remember the 
    three generals who were against a military intervention, and a
    defense expert who was for it?).  When it come to distinquishing
    between grenades and artillery shells, I trust generals more than
    journalists.

    Chances are, the grenades were launched from the Muslim-controlled 
    territory.  One thing is certain - the only beneficiary of the
    attack was the Bosnian Muslim war propaganda machine.




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: politics
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:23:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.184253.10830@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss) writes:
>>I think we have (not just you and I, but most everyone in t.p.m.) a
>>basic difference-of-understanding with regard to the meaning of
>>"concession". In fact, it is more of a "double-standard". That is,
>>Israeli concessions are/must-be physical/tangible, while Arab
>>concessions are/must-be ideological/conceptual.
>
>>Israel *returns the Sinai Penninsula* (physical concession), while
>>Arabs  *recognize the existance of Israel* (conceptual)
>
>No the second line should be:
>Egypt   *signed a peace treaty and opened diplomatic relations with Israel.

Israel signed a peace treaty and opened diplomatic relations with Egypt,
too. That should have been quid pro quo. Instead, Israel *also* had to 
fork over a lot of land.

>I did not benefit whatsoever from this concession.

Clue time, Nabil -- YOU WEREN'T MEANT TO. The treaty was between *Egypt*
and Israel, not between the Palestinians and Israel. Egypt, quite prop-
erly, asked for and got things that benefited *Egypt*, not that benefited
the Palestinians. They threw a bone to the Palestinians in the form of an
autonomy principle, and Rabin's working on that one now. But why the hell
you think Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else, has to arrange its national
affairs for your benefit, is beyond me.
 
>>Israel *stops building new settlements* (physical concession), while
>>Arabs  *depart from the idea of liberating Palestine...* (`major'
>>        ideological concession)
> 
>Again the second line should be:
>
>Palestinians *depart from the idea of liberating Palestine. We don't
>have anything physical left to offer.

Pressure Syria and Jordan into physical concessions. You could make
Jordan do a lot; its population is over half Palestinian anyway. And
you could stop killing off Jews in a random fashion, that'd help.

Or you could do it the simpler way -- offer conceptual concessions,
and ask only conceptual concessions in return.

>>So, "Yes", Israel gave up this right *not for the loan guarantees*, but
>>for peace.
>
>>And again I ask, "What are the Arabs giving up? Where are *their* 
>>concessions?"
> 
>What about the pr-1948 land? isn't that a physical concession?

Nope. That's ours, plain and simple.

>Do you want WB and Gazza too? what is left? Jordan ofcourse.

Clue time, Nabil -- we've *got* the WB and Gaza. The only question is
whether we are going to give them to you, and in exchange for what, if
we decide to do so.

>Nabil Idriss      


-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Arab/Isreali Wars
From: cshuy@zeus.calpoly.edu (No One Knows)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:39:53 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Excuse me, but does this discussion really belong in this newsgroup?
-- 
"Five to one against and falling...four to one against and falling...three to
one...two..one...probability factor of one to one...we have normality, I repeat
we have normality.  Anything you still can't deal with is therefore your own
problem."		-from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Nabil Idriss)
Subject: Re: politics
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:43:59 GMT

>Well, if one side has nothing physical to offer, then doesn't it seem
>like one helluva lot of audacity to always be demanding "concessions"
>from the other side?
>

I myself think that the idea of one waiting on a concession from the other is
silly. They just need to sit down and solve the problem. 

>>>Exactly. When one country is attacked by its neighbor (who, 19 years earlier
>>>earlier, stole some of that country's land), and defeats that neighbor and
>>
>>Who stole who? in 1948 we stole the land from you? come on!

>But of course! Read your history of the area -- it's been our land for
>thousands of years, and even the thieves British) gave it back to us.
>
 
Yes, but this is not what you said. You said 19 years earlier which means
that in 1948 Jordan stole it and in 1967 you got it back. By the way, the
Romans not the British took the land from the Jews.

>Do you mean the *rest* of Trans-Jordan? If you're saying that (a) the
>Palestinians are Jordanians; and (b) that you're willing to give the
>East Bank to Israel as a Palestinian concession; then that sounds like
>it might not be a bad idea!

No, that is not what I am saying.

>Uh-h-h, no. First of all, the "Arabs" that were in Israel 3000 years ago were not
>Arabs -- they were members of peoples called Moabites, Jebbusites, Hittites, etc.
>Secondly, there were not Muslims -- they were (pretty much) idol worshippers and
>other brands of pagans.
>

May be that is why I have green eyes.

>Now, as for "Arabs" in the Israel of 2000 years ago, they were very few, and
>they *still* were not Muslims, and most of them were nomadic tribes who criss-
>crossed the entire Middle-East area (although there were some who sold themselves
>as `indentured servants' in Israel, as well as in other countries).
>
 
Yes, but the Palestinians are traced back 2000 years in Palestine. Ask your father.

>The Philistines were *never* in Israel -- and their name *never* evolved into
>"Palestinians". That's a shameful lie which is bandied about all too often.
>

I am not going to claim the the Palestininas are Philistines because I don't know.

>Fine; they didn't have mobile homes. OK. They lived in tents and/or caves. But
>it's fiction to think that they lived in Haifa and Yafo 2000 years ago. And
>Tel-Aviv?? Hell, Tel-Aviv was only built 75 years ago!

75 years is a long time too.


-- 
Nabil Idriss                           |       FOR EVERY ACTION AN OPPOSITE  
NCR - Midrange Products Division       |       AND EQUAL REACTION.
      Columbia, South Carolina         |      
email: nabil@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Those Rich Palestinians
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 22:04:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.120643.6138@ilx018.intel.com> bval@ilws61 (Valentine Bob) writes:
>I just saw Jakes article on the rich Palestinians (or Israeli Arabs)
>who've made their fortunes selling inferior cement to settlements on
>the West Bank. 

Yes, you saw it but clearly you didn't read it.

I didn't say anything at all about Arabs selling INFERIOR cement
because they don't.  I avoided the technical side of this issue, in my
previous posting but I'll add some of it here. 

The cement used in a structure must meet strength standards to ensure
public safety and private investment in infrastructure.  If a sample
of cement turns out to be inferior (perhaps because the truck driver
added too much water to it en route or there was a large delay in it's 
pouring) then the structure may have to be re-inforced with steel or
cement additions.  If the inferiority is severe, the cement will have
to be removed entirely and replaced.

The suppliers of the cement generally guarantee that the product they
deliver will be satisfactory.  If the cement has to be removed and
replaced, this cost is born by the cement company.  Because it may
take a few days for the test sample to set and be tested and
construction may continue on top of the cement in question, potential 
for financial loss in such a case is considerable.  (And there
wouldn't be any gains to anyone, either, just more delays and
expense.)  

These rules apply equally to all cement companies, irrespective of
their ownership, Jewish, Arab, Martian or other.  The kind of people
who can get into this business are not small-fry; they are
significant operators with large financial backing who take
considerable risks.  They make good money out of it, too.  Enough to
drive fancy new Mercedes' around, and a Benz costs a heck of a lot
more in Israel than it does in the USA or in Germany.

My previous posting did NOT accuse Arabs of getting away with some
kind of fraud or abuse.  Quite the contrary, it showed that Arabs are
capable of and able to compete in a very competitive environment and
make big bucks for themselves in Israel.  That you saw this as some
kind of derogatory discussion says something about the bias you had
when reading the post (or vaguely skimming it, seeing as you probably
hadn't read it).

I don't often ask for an apology on the net but you seem to owe me one
here.  

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:18437 misc.headlines:5536 talk.politics.misc:39091 alt.conspiracy:9930 alt.censorship:6888
From: bv652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ilan Uri Woll)
Subject: Top Ten List (assorted Pot Shots at Mutlu
Reply-To: bv652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ilan Uri Woll)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 22:28:41 GMT


From the Home offices in  the state of confusion.

It's 

TOP 10 THINGS HASSAN MUTLU HAS NOT ACCUSED ARMENIANS OF:

10. Fixing the Tyson rape Case
9.  Secretly being the arch-villain Joker
8.  Controlling the U.S. State Department
7.  Serving white wine with red meat.
6.  Creating Gorbachev's head splotch.
5.  Oprah, Oprah, Oprah!
4.  Hassan's own insanity.
3.  Beying behind the Big Bang.
2.  Tying up the NET with hundreds of postings filled with ranting
    and raving on some revisionist historical theoretical BS.
1.  Anything true.

More slams to come.

See ya.

-- 
---  !      ^    !\  !
 !   !     /-\   ! \ !
___  !__  /   \  !  \!  
                        Avoid cliches like the plague" George Shaw
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: U.S. Plans to overfly & control southern Iraq, improper?
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:44:21 GMT

In article <7759@public.BTR.COM> rem@btr.btr.com writes:
>From biz.clarinet.sample: <<... the U-S plans to establish air patrols
>over southern Iraq in order to keep Saddam Hussein's planes from
>attacking Shiite villagers. A Pentagon official who asked NOT to be
>named said the U-S will enforce what he called a ``NO-fly'' zone in
>southern Iraq.>>
>
>Isn't this a violation of Iraq's airspace and sovergnity? It's one
>thing for the U.S. to act under U.N. banner to support a U.N. sanction,
>but it's another for the U.S. to unilaterally commit an act of war on
>another nation, even if the other nation has been naughty lately.

If I remember correctly, the fact that we are not still slaughtering
Iraquis is the resultof a cease-fire, not an end to hostilities. They're
lucky they can fly warplanes at all. True, a state of war doesn't exist, but
the US IS OPERATING UNDER A UN BANNER. The aforementioned sanctions DO exist.
If Iraq is being "naughty" Should Stalin have been spanked?
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: The left lies pathetically (was Re: 3rd WORLD RESOURCES: PAMPHLETS
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:43:05 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <4eWpCF_00WB6AQlhxN@andrew.cmu.edu> Radu Eugen Edelstein <re0x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>David Ben Ami writes:
>Arab propaganda used to lure "the loony left" into bashing Israel and
>Zionism to no end with the same nutty arguments of "Israel stealing
>and oppressing poor Arabs". "The Arabs are just claiming their own
>and have justified claims".
>
>The same isolationist and bleeding-heart liberals are the spearhead of
>the "Anti-Zionist" (c.f. Arf and Yigal Arens). It is indeed engrossing
>to see these 2 opposite groups unite against Israel amd later against
>Kuwait.
>I say:
>Most of my friends in New York are liberals (the others are
>Ortodox Jews :-)).  While some of them do have an anti-Israel
>attitude, most of them *are* supportive of Israel.  In their
>view liberal ideology is not in conflict with support for Israel.
>At the same time, I don't know too many extreme left people.

Indeed, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and the Democratic party are another 
bunch of liberals who support Israel strongly.

>
>Rad


-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel Cancels Building in the West Bank
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 11 Aug 92 20:59:27 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az


I owe Mr. Livni an apology or two. 

In article <1992Aug11.000540.25474@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>
>Firstly, I don't recall accusing you of being anti-semitic.  
>Do you truly recall such an incident or have such a posting or email?

No, I don't.  Since you don't place any credence in my words,
I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed on your behalf a reason for
why you think I post them.  I suppose this was unwise of me,
since there could arguably be other reasons for you to settle
on.  In any event, I apologize.

>Secondly, I haven't earned a penny from debating you and certainly
>don't make a living from accusing you of anything.

I used the phrase "make a living" far too loosely.  I did not intend
to imply that you, in fact, garnered income from any Usenet activity.
I did not intend for the phrase to be taken at all literally.

Again, I apologize.



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: BACK TO LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NONAGENDA
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug14.181935.23236@bony1.bony.com>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug15150742@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug21.210349.442@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:44:25

In article <1992Aug21.210349.442@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>   Without going into ancient history to dig up things that Israel may or
>   may not have been responsible for and which may or may not fit into
>   some definition of "terrorism",

I see that Israeli and Zionist terrorism is a topic that you'd rather
avoid.  In some of your postings you deny it completely, in others you
characterize it as "ancient history", and in yet others you merely
ignore it.

>   isn't it plain to see that the PLO is
>   today STILL primarily a terrorist group?  Now that almost all the
>   Western hostages have been freed has everyone forgotten who the true
>   terrorists in the M.E. are?  When Jews are being killed daily in their
>   own country by armed professionals who have dedicated their very lives
>   to the killing of those they disagree with, can you still be yelling
>   that Israel is actually the terrorist state that must be stopped?

Please show me where I have called Israel a terrorist state.  Please
show me where I have said that Israel must be stopped.  Until you do,
I shall assume that you are lying.

Let's see what else is a lie here.  "Jews are being killed daily in
their own country by armed professionals ..."  Surely you jest.  That
would amount to at least 365 fatal terrorist attacks a year, a number
that you cannot support with facts.  On the other hand, there are
certainly more Palestinian Arab deaths these days at the hands of
"armed professionals" than Israeli Jewish deaths.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:18780 talk.politics.soviet:7093 soc.culture.greek:7691 soc.culture.europe:7463
From: sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Where Does 'Tam*'s Ignorance Stem From? Greek Anti-Semitism.
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:12:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug18.170353.7955@uwm.edu> craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson) writes:
>
>Ahh, look guys this is TALK.POLITICS.SOVIET so keep your stupid turkish-greek
>flame war off this news group.   As far as I see it and I am sure that
>many out there will agree that posts of this nature have no place on 
>this newsgroup.  
>
>Actually I think this group should be moderated so to keep the endless
>posts of Mutlu and others who wish to waste our time having to read 
>posts which have little to do with the soviet union.
>
>What do you other people think???

 Here is what I think:

/: *soc.culture.turkish*/a:=:j
/: *soc.culture.greek*/a:=:j
/: *han@*/h:=:j
/: *hbm@*/h:=:j
/: *dbd@*/h:=:j
/: *cosar@*/h:=:j
/: *ahmet@*/h:=:=j
/: *cza@*/h:=:j
/: *ko@*/h:=:j
/: *KA506@*/h:=:j
/: *yuksel@*/h:=:j
/: *camas@*/:h=:j
/: *ka506@*/h:=:j 
/: *camh@*/h:=:j
/: *avrat@*/h:=:j
/: *orhan@*/h:=:j
/: *ccetinka@*/h:=:j
/:  *Armen*/=:j 
/:  *armen*/=:j 
/:  *azer*/=:j 
/:  *Turk*/=:j 
/:  *turk*/=:j
/: *mutlu*/a:=:j
/: *Mutlu*/a:=:j
/: *MUTLU*/a:=:j
/: *FHM100F@*/h:=:j

Nevertheless, sometimes my 'rn' fails to kill unwanted articles as
it happened with yours - I'm trying to remove ALL replies to that
stupid discussion. Sure, somebody might find my kill file to be
too simple, however it works most of the time and I don't have
problems with the freedom of speech. The problem is your replies.
Ignore those excited fanatics.

Moderated news group has been discussed and the idea did not collect
the enough support. And I, personally, don't support it too.

 S.B.

>* The usual meanless disclaimers apply * craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu       *
>************************************************************************

 S.B. 

 P.S. To mad turks : DO NOT bother to reply - you all are there.
      if not all - I'll add.