HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Iraq Air Force planes that flew to Iran
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:03:34 GMT

ebrahim@ee.umanitoba.ca (Mohamad Ebrahimi) writes:

> >Funny note: During the pilgrimage season to Mecca, Iran was really desperate 
> >for air transport to haul all of it's pilgrims to Saudi Arabia.  So they used  
> >some of the Kuwaiti Airlines' planes that Iraq had captured and had then flown 
> >to Iran.  Unfortunately for Iran, Saudi officials noticed the stolen planes
>and       >confiscated them and they were returned to Kuwait.


>    Would you be kind enogh to add your source of above "Funny note"
>too?

	I'm not sure where I saw the story, but it was probably in the New York Times or The Economist.

>    As far as I know, Kuwaiti planes were painted by Iraqis(I saw some
>of them in different Iranian airports last year, they were painted with
>green and white colors, which are not the color of Iran Air) and a few

	The confiscated planes might have been repainted by Iraq or Iran. I     think the Saudi officials recognized that Iran didn't have any of those particular aircraft types or they looked up some sort of identification/registry number.The interior configuration of the aircraft might have been a clue.

>weeks ago Iran and Kuwait reached to an agreement to return them to
>kuwait. The disscussion was about the maintanance fees payable by Kuwait.

	I think it would be odd that Kuwait would have to pay for the maint-
anence fees while they were in Iranian hands.  It seems like reimbursing an
auto thief for maintanence.

-- 
Daniel R. Sawyer
daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu

--
From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: For Yigal (Was: Re: Computer Science in Israel Ignored)
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:27:29 GMT
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu's message of 30 Aug 92 01:38:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.013819.19765@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>
>  Does everyone remember (it was not too long ago) Yigal getting on
> Bob Werman's case for allegedly  making an artilce thread go to an
> "obscure" (talk.politics.misc - real obscure!) newsgroup?  Well it
> turns out that when I originally replied to this article it was going
> to go to il.board, no doubt an internal Israeli news group.  The
> reason?  It had to do with the followup line. . . .
>
>  I have no doubts that a similar situation is what occured before.
> Will Yigal apologize?

I might have if Mr. Werman had claimed that his strange followup line
(it was not to talk.politics.misc) was an unintentional error.  But he
didn't.  He claimed that it was intentional and justified.
--
Yigal Arens        "You'd think [Bush] was running for First Lady instead
USC/ISI            of for President."     Bill Clinton, commenting on GOP
arens@isi.edu      attacks on his wife.   LA Times, 8/20.
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: RABIN MEETING
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:02:27 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug31.075123.12086@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
=>
=>I guess the kuwaitis had learned of the nature of their "brethren" 
=>during the war - dancing on the rooftops and helping the Iraqis rape
=>Kuwait tends to antagonize the people you rub it in to. The
=>Palestinians are the ONLY one to blame in their plight - they behave
=>like hulligans and expect to be forgiven after the dust settles in.

*All* Palestinians? *Only* Palestinians? Sorry to trouble you with *facts*,
I know they aren't welcome to you, but this is simply not the case. A large
number of Palestinians were active in the resistance to the Iraqis, unlike
the Kuwaiti royal family, who hightailed it out as quickly as possible -
before most of the population even knew there was an invasion. In addition,
perhaps the Palestinians were a little aggrieved that they didn't receive any
of the money or supplies smuggled into Kuwait, and were left by the Kuwaitis
to fend for themselves.


-- 
==================================================================
-Jeremy Henderson            |  Une souris verte
 egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk	     |  Qui courrait dans l'herbe
==================================================================
From: phd21@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A. Jaber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Leave Sudan a lone
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:47:45 GMT
Reply-To: phd21@seq1.kl.ac.uk (A. Jaber)
Organization: University of Keele, England

>From: benali@alcor.concordia.ca ( ILYESS B. BDIRA )
>
> Bdira wrote about the Al-Shaq Al-Awsat Newspaper of Saudi Arabia: 
>
>1)Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he was portraied as another "Salahuddin"
>who is fighting the Shia Kuffar. Up until the day he invaded Kuwait, Saddam
>was a hero, after that, he became the devil (which he is by the way).

	So according to your Khomeinist Wisdom Al-Sharq Al-Awsat has
	finally seen the truth. I am glad to see Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Rag
	and your Khomeinist Wisdom all in one line.

>2) The sudanese government was portraied as a pious government, when it was
>discovered by the CIA that the coup was made by the wrong people (believe or
>not, the CIA initially thought they were their people!), the gulf media
>began supporting Garang and inventing all kinds of stories about Sudan.
>
>I know those news(making)papers are paid to do that.. Are you? if not
>you are doing an injustice to yourself.

	Very intriguing indeed. How do you get the Insider information
	from the CIA files.????

	To your knowledge the Gulf regimes turned against the Sudan 
	only when Sudan Sided with the DEVIL Saddam as you wish to call
	him. May be the CIA asked the Sudan to Side with Saddam, ask 
	Dr Kalim Siddique of London he will tell you that.

>The fact is that the economic and political achievements of the
>current regime in Sudan have never been equalled by any Arab regime:
>-10% official growth in 1991, the highest in the world last year,
>-Complete self-sufficiency in food,
>-initiation of major economic projects including oil production
>and oil refining making the country an oil producing country,
>-2 million people were in the capital to demonstrate in favor of
>the regime last month to celebrate the third anniversary of the regime.

	With due respect to the modest achievements of Sudan Regime.
	They still have a long way to go before they cross the poverty
	line.

>Finally, the fact is that while refugees from other Arab countries are
>abundant (a whole community of Shia Kuwaitis live in my neighberhood and
>all of them are refugees), most Sudanis are now back home. You know the
>nature of a regime from the number of political refugees.

	I wonder if you are aware that Anwar Mohammad is one of those 
	Shia Kuwaitis you are talking about. You know you remind me of
	Dr Siddique when he always speaks he speaks of Shia and Sunni
	why cannot you both become unitarian instaed of Sectarian.



Regards 

A Jaber
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Justice in Sudan (was: Islamic Sabah of Kuwait)
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:13:38 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Sep1.050013.25001@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> barrak@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HADI MOHAMMED F) writes:
>
>The country is involved in civil war because a large part of the
>population (in the south) do not want to be subjected to Islamic law

So they go into Muslim villages and murder?  Sounds a little like
the situation in Bosnia - yet people are denying the concentration
camps there ...

>and they have the right to oppose it since they are not Moslems in the
>first place.

What about the Muslim majority in the other countries?  Do they have
- or not - the right to oppose secular, non-Islamic governments
that are imposing their non-Islamic laws on the people?

Do you have something to say in that regard or are you only
taking this position because of Kuwait's non-support of the
Sudanese government?

> How can you speak of justice when you are forcing your
>beliefs on others by war?

How can you?  How can Kuwait support a dictatorship to force
such an Islamic government - Iran - out of the Middle East
through war?  Shall we bring up the death toll figures again?

What say you about the imposition of a military regime in
Kuwait when the overwhelming majority was forced out and
then later banned?

Talk to me about justice.  I'm listening ...

Anisa

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Computer Science in Israel Ignored
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:18:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


[I've cancelled an earlier copy directed toward both soc.culture.jewish and
talk.politics.mideast by either Bob or David.  This one is just ending up 
here. ]

In article <1992Aug30.013713.19594@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>	Second of all, the University of Arizona denied me admission to
>its graduate CS program because as an undergrad I was a "trouble
>maker" and activist who among other things demonstrated against
>University administration policies when they favored
>Arabs/Iranians/the usual American leftist crowed against Jewish
>students.  I have posted this on the net before, including my proof,
>so I will only repond to inquiries for the proof via email.
>


If you'd like to do a comparative study of the political affiliations of
Arab-Americans and Jews this country, I'm sure that from a _conservative_
perspective, Arab-Americans compare favorably.  The fact that leftists usually
support anything that goes against U.S. government policy only means that they 
and most Arab-Americans generally agree on one issue, the Middle East.  One 
could probably say the same thing about most ethnic groups.

I would not use this net as an indicator.

>
>David Makowsky
>makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu


-- 
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
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:05:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.004013.17392@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

|>In article <1992Aug24.142951.19947@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:
|>>The US is currently
|>>sustaining two trade boycotts, against Cuba and against Vietnam. In both
|>cases
|>>the point in dispute is no more than the indigenous population's
|>unreasonable
|>>beleif that they have more right to chose their government than the US
|>>government.
|>
|>The governments in Cuba and Vietnam are dictatorships.  It is generally
|>inaccurate to speak of dictatorships as chosen by the people.

1) It is not for us in the West to decide the forms of government that other
people live under

2) Despite this it is nevertheless legitimate to criticize other countries
governments for actions which deny human rights.

3) In both cases the point at issue was not the introduction or preservation of
democracy. The US backed up the previous dictatorships in both countries. 

4) If the people of either country desired their government to be changed by
force they would back the movements which aim to change the government by this
means and the communists would fall. If they do not replacing the government by
force will achieve nothing, democracy cannot be imposed.

5) Communism is an unstable form of government. It's continuance requires a
poweful and charismatic leader. Once Castro has gone Cuba will undergo peacefull
change, a revolution would merely replace Castro with another dictator.



--
Phill Hallam-Baker
From: jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Islamic Sabah of Kuwait: Millions to British zoo.
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:43:58 GMT
Organization: LC

Just recently I heard that the Amir of Kuwait contributing millions 
of dollars to the London Zoo.  The reason being: The British Government
announced that it can no longer afford to feed the animals in the zoo,
so it was shutting it down.  Accordingly, our great man of sympathy,
Amir Al Sabah of Kuwait, contributed millions of dollars to the 
to-be-hungry animals of the zoo.  I wonder who's hungrier,  the animals
or the moslems that look like sticks in Somalia or Sudan? 
Thank God to the Christian missionaries that are attempting to feed
the hungry there.

jle
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: BILL CLINTON ON ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE
Reply-To: horen@rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:17:37 PDT

In article 25239@castle.ed.ac.uk, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.140030.25262@rs.com> horen@rs.com writes:
>=>>In article 8356@dscomsf.desy.de, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>=>>
>=>>At no time have I ever claimed that Shamir is in any way representative of the
>=>>Israeli people. Since most of the Israelis I meet consider Shamir to be at best
>=>>mentaly deficient, this would be a ludicrous statement.
>=>>
>=>>However Shamir is reperesentative of the Likud party, or at the very least
>=>>demonstrates the sort of person they are prepared to tolerate as leader.
>=>
>=>You're quite the presumptuous little twerp, aren't you Phill? Did you ever
>=>stop to consider that perhaps most of the Israelis whom you meet are, themselves,
>=>not too representative of the Israeli people? or is it, since Shamir *was* elected 
>=>in 1988 with a sizeable mandate by the Israeli voting public, that you consider
>=>both him *and* most Israelis to be "mental[l]y deficient"?
>=>
>=>And why use the word "tolerate"? Isn't it obvious to you that Shamir, by virtue
>=>of the fact that he was elected in 1988, and renominated in 1992, is "the [sort
>=>of] person they *want* as their leader"?
>
>I would guess that Phill was giving the Israelis the benefit of the doubt.
>As you point out, the evidence is that they don't merit it.

Fuck you, asshole.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Redefinition (was: BACK TO LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NONAGENDA)
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:38:07 GMT

In article <765200d154604t88@witsend.uucp> dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:
>In <1992Aug13.195729.14717@anasaz>, scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)  wrote:
># In article <1992Aug12.222516.22951@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
># >In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug11131118@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

># >>I would say that terrorism involves violence to achieve

># >In that case, Desert Storm was one giant terrorist action.

># I think I have to agree with Jake; this is a silly definition,

>  On the contrary, it is a VERY useful definition.  By extending the

For some reason, I seem not to be receiving many of Scott's postings
though I AM getting followups to them.  Perhaps one of us is in the
wrong spiralling arm of the galaxy - who knows what lurks out there on
the Internet ether...


-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Religion and Politics (was: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT...)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:35:16 GMT

In article <3694@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh) writes:

>And is the political concept of Zionism?  Why make historical
>claims based on Biblical testament then?

Much of the Bible is non-religious history, and it's on that which
secular Zionism bases its claims, such as are taken from the Bible
at all.

>Anisa

	-Nora
	


-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: horen@west.rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: politics
Reply-To: horen@west.rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:25:09 PDT

In article 2452652@locus.com, jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>
[...]
>
>I personally careless for the name.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yup. That about says it all -- "careless"



Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Where is everyone?
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:53:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

Sounds like good old ARF would be an improvement.

js

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: RABIN MEETING
Organization: LC
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:13:06 GMT

In article <BtnAz1.GCo.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>The point is that this is all a LOT MORE than you could say 
>for any other Arab country.  I've yet to see someone challenge 
>this statement.
>
>Before responding, it is important to point out that I 
>posted that this was a good "first step". 

Question to Mr. Anwar Mxxxxxxd:

Would you rather see Kuwait run by a 100% true moslem government
with a 100% true moslem leader regardless if the leader was Kuwaiti,
Iraqi, or Afghani?  Or you'd rather have the Shabah family continue
to ride Kuwait.

jle


Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:27:45 GMT


In a previous article, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) says:

>>
>>     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.
>
>"Most" here is presumably defined by geographical area.  One could
>easily well choose another measure, such as population or number of
>holy religious sites, which would indicate that Israel has not
>withdrawn from most of the territory.

That's stretching things a bit.

>>     There is ** evidence **
>>     to indicate that  Israel isn't required to withdraw from ** all ** of the
>>     territories. ( That debate has been milked for all its worth). 
>
>Unfortunately, I didn't see that debate.  Perhaps one should ask the
>UN Security Council whether Israel is indeed required under 242 to
>withdraw from all of the Occupied Territories, rather than debating
>based on uncited "evidence".

There was specific consideration of whether or not to include the definite
article before the word "territories."  The decision was to leave out the
definite article, making it clear (to all who don't close their eyes) that
a territorial compromise was anticipated.  (Remember, the pre-67 lines were
not borders, but armistice lines that were supposed to have been replaced
by permanent borders but weren't because the Arabs refused to negotiate.)

To ask the Security Council today, when it has a different composition
by-and-large hostile to Israel, without a personal memory of the
intricacies of the '67 debate and back room discussions, is pointless.

>
>Israel also shouldn't build obstacles (i.e. settlements in occupied
>territories) that both violate international law and obstruct the
>implementation of UN resolution 242.

The settlements do neither.  The Arab refusal, for two dozen years after
the '67 War, to sit down with Israel and negotiate, did both.
-- 
bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Iraqi weaponry, was Re: Soviet Nuclear Weapons Stolen?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:22:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.142258.6203@ncsu.edu> hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.135941.29015@cas.org>, jac54@cas.org writes:
>>
>>      Let's get this right.  There are not, and never were, any U.S.
>>      weapons in the Iraqi inventory.  Soviet, French, Italian, Brazilian,
>>      and others, yes, but no American weapons.  The U.S. loaned the
>>      Iraqis a lot of money that was supposed to go towards other
>>      things, supporting the civilian infrastructure in the main.
>>
>>      The burden of proof now lies with you to demonstrate that such
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>      monies were used, with the knowledge of the U.S., to finance
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>      weapons purchase and development.
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Of course, we can absolutely state that the U.S. government was aware
>that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were giving monetary assistance to Iraq
>during the war with Iran. Furthermore, the U.S. reflagged Kuwaiti ships
>during the war to ensure that they could safely sell their oil. Kuwait
>and Saudi Arabia were as involved in the war as the U.S. was involved in
>WW II before Pearl Harbor; no troops but lots of money.

	This is false logic.  Saudi Arabian or Kuwaiti money does not
	mean U.S. money.  They generate their own revenue and there is
	little that the U.S. could have done to prevent them from
	spending how they see fit, however unwise you may find it.

	All that the U.S. intervention in tanker traffic did was shore
	up the Iraqis until the Iranians ran out of will to go on.  It
	certainly didn't do a great deal for the Iraqi forces.

	I think we will find that the U.S. knew about diversion of
	funds to buy weapons.  The important point is that there must
	be proof, not sloppy polemics.

	Alec Chambers.
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: RABIN MEETING
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:03:03 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <BtMH14.FMo.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
=>
=>Yes, when their "brothers and sisters" who they have supported morally and
=>financially for decades respond to their calls for help with jeers against
=>them and cheers for the man who is brutally raping, pillaging, and massacring
=>the state of Kuwait and its people.  Yes, when they are coldly betrayed by the 
=>people they helped the most.  Yes, when they have spent billions more on poverty 
=>and development in the Arab and Muslim world (as I and others have documented 
=>extensively here and as they are currently doing in Somalia and 
=>Bosnia-Hercegovina) and morons like you insist on repeating complete distortions 
=>and lies about their record.
=>
=>With friends like this, !YES!, Kuwait sought outside help.

Your arguments would sound a lot more convincing if there was any indication
that the people deported were those people who had been shown, after due
process of law in a fair court, to have collaborated with the Iraqis. As
we all know, this was far from being the case.



-- 
==================================================================
-Jeremy Henderson            |  Une souris verte
 egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk	     |  Qui courrait dans l'herbe
==================================================================