From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shahzaadee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.arabic,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Deep Racism (was Re: Sale of Spy Satellite to ...
Date: 24 Nov 92 05:38:08 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.iranian
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <nabeel.722456252@oracle.sce.carleton.ca> nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul) writes:
>
>   You are just held to prove your views beyond doubt or take them back. If
>you wish, you may carry my trial in email and later post your verdict to
>the world. The sweet darling soul I am, I don't flame people for making 
>unintentional mistakes as I once claimed. I always keep my words. However,
>my word is void where prohibited by law ;-)

Nabeel, I didn't mean to intentionally flame or insult you, but your
remarks about pan-Arabism, Islam, and the Arab world seem very 'far off'
to me.  You show many different faces when posting and responding to
these issues, and quite honestly, it is very confusing.  For instance,
you say that you are a Muslim, but on soc.culture.lebanon, you support
the Christian theology of the 'son of god' and other theories that are
not consistant with Islamic doctrines.  Another example, is, on soc.
culture.arabic, you disagree with and often debate against other posters
about Arab nationalism and politics (during one thread, you were posting
offensive remarks about Egypt - during the earthqualke crisis), while
claiming to be proud to be an Arab.  You flame other posters who are open
and honest about their feelings (regarding 'Ala and his friend), while
hiding behind many masks:  Bulbul, Nightingale, Norm, LeBlond, etc.  In
yet another example of your hypocracy, you used the opportunity to flame
me publically about my usage of Ohm, while you know perfectly well the
reason, under the identity of another poster.  Now you are unhappy at me
bringing this up, but Nabeel, you are a contradiction - between what you
write and what your true feelings are.  That is my point.  Sorry if it
hurt you.

>" Is that Hussein as in your King Hussein, or as in Saddam Hussein?
>
>   My friends always advise me to assume no intelligence for the readers,
>but I am stubborn: you have to decipher it yourself.

Thank God - if you assumed any intelligence for anyone, everyone would
be completely mixed-up!  I'm not going to loose any time thinking about
this matter - it is irrelevant ... My mistake to ask.

>" That is just your opinion, Nabeel.  Khomeini established an
>" Islamic state with Islamic values.  He was opposed from day
>
>   Are you naive or just harassing me? That's what his media says, 
>but what do you know about it?

I am neither.  Do you believe everything the media tells you?  Are
you an apologist?  I think I know a little more about it than you
do, but I don't want to 'get into it' with you.  You have your own
opinions, as I do mine, but I don't know what the motive is behind
your saying this about Khomeini - unless it is to support certain
anti-Khomeinists in soc.culture.iranian.  But it doesn't make you
right and everyone (like me) who disagrees with you wrong.

>" one, while the Devil in Iraq (aided and supported by his-then
>" advocates and associates, the U.S. and Sheikdoms), Saddam
>" Hussein, waged a long and extremely bloody and unmerciful war
>" on not only the Islamic Republic, but also, and namely, against
>" innocent women and children.  No, there is no comparison Nabeel.
>
>   You mean it is like a comparison between recyclable and 
>nonrecyclable trash? Both sides were wrong in that war.

No, you are wrong.  According to Islamic law, Khomeini was protecting
his nation by fighting against the enemy who declared war on Iran in
the beginning.  Khomeini, though he was very strict in his position
socially, was no where near as evil and totalitarian as Saddam Hussein.
Saddam is the trash - recycled again in 1990 - causing further harm
and destruction to Muslim and Arab peoples, natural resources and nature
itself, economic sanctions against innocent Iraqis (while being stubborn
in not complying with the postwar demands), and, the further division in
the Arab world.  Khomeini is dead.  Nabeel, you just don't know what you
are talking about here.  I think you are basing your perspectives on
pure hatred of an Islamic government and that's it.  No constructive or
solid position to support what you are claiming.

>   I do not support Saddam. US is scared stiff from the word Islam 
>no matter how it is implemented. Saudi Arabia and its kid sisters
>are scared also, but more from Shiite influence, and I share this
>latter fear.

Ah ... that's what the whole war was about.  The (former) USSR was
'scared stiff' of Islam also, and managed to murder millions of
Muslims in Afghanistan - just as Iraq did in Iran.  And the casualties
were millions of women and children, frozen dead in their tracks from
the deadly missles carrying gas; not including the men who were protecting
their country.  Khomeini did not start it.  Iraq did - as I said before,
with its ally, the United States, and its hypocritical supporters, the
Gulf States who used Muslim money to murder millions of Muslims just to
protect its interests against a strong Islamic state.  Shiaaism has nothing
to do with it, though you might ask all the Shiaa Muslims who were expelled
from Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states -
whom the cowardly governments feared.

Anisa