From: samir@tfs.com (Samir Elias)
Subject: Re: Saddam
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:14:31 GMT

In article <5011@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.105936.17116@tfs.com> samir@tfs.com (Samir Elias) writes:
>>
>>When the "west" conspired with the kuwaitis to try to break
>>the iraqi economy by overflowing world markets with cheap
>>oils those same sholars where quiet can i ask why,what were
>>they busy doing,making money may be??
>
>Samir, let me tell you something first before I proceed with this
>post.  The scholars whom I quoted are not from the Gulf nor are
>they apologists for the Kuwaiti government.  They are representatives
>of the Brotherhood in Algeria and Jordan.  I don't have the time or
>the energy at this point to research every perspective of the Islamic
>scholars or Brotherhood.  But I can tell you that the material that I
>quoted from my last posting is in accordance with mainstream Islam.
>
>Your statements are extremely biased and you are making judgement calls
>without knowledge or understanding of what you are saying.  

Which part do you consider a judgement call and why you started
personal refferences. And even if you consider it as a judgment call 
why not respond appropriately to a question,i did not insult anybody
or did i? even if i did a person who follows islam should respond
appropriately without saying "you do not understand what you are
saying",how did you arrive at such a conclusion,and why? what are your
bases??

>															Furthermore,
>the statement that you made above reflects the type of propoganda that
>Saddam Hussein used to justify his attack and *invasion* on Kuwait.
>

Do you know me to say that i am easily swayed by this type or
propaganda or that?? why shouldn't i after living continuosly in the
u.s. without leaving it for the past 8 years,be affected by the 
more powerfull u.s.  propaganda?? is it that the iraqi propaganda 
is stronger,(although the last time i read any iraqi 
newspaper/book/magazine/etc.. was almost 15 years ago). 
One method people with weak arguments usually try during any type
of discussion,
is to putdown the otherside's (personality,thoughts,etc..) and any
other personal trates (sp?) that has nothing to do with issues discussed, 
I hope that you do not resort to this tactic.

>>if you think that this is not correct,what then do you call,
>>and this comes from an iraqi oil engineer,the theft of iraqi
>>oil from iraqi Al-rumaila fields using special drilling techniques
>>from the kuwati side of the border?? this was done under 
>>supervision of the us oil companys,do you think this was
>>for the good of the iraqis?? by the way do you know who
>>controls these iraqi fields now?? u.s. oil companys.
>
>I don't have inside knowledge into this matter, so I will
>not comment.
>

I respect this attitude,and again i assure that this came from an
on site iraqi oil engineer.

>>if you call iraqi takeover of kuwait an invasion what then
>>do you call u.s. actions against iraq?"intervention"? can'nt
>>you be a little more harsh?what prevents you,or the scholars ?
>
>But it WAS an invasion!  Iraq crossed the Kuwaiti border and used
>military force to take over while killing, pillaging, and raping
>Kuwait and its citizens.  Despite the fact that Kuwait paid the
>U.S. several million dollars for their cause and the United States
>eagerly wanted to intervene for its own interests, this was still
>a violation of the security and sovereignty of a nation and of
>international law.  

Do you call what is being done to iraq now? even russia and france
declared that the u.s. has gone far beyond international law.
Or is it ok? since iraq is in no position now to offer "financial" 
rewards??


>					Kuwait did try to make concessions with Iraq
>over the issues of dispute, but Saddam refused to listen.  He
>poised his tanks on the Kuwaiti border weeks before the invasion.
>He planned to invade Kuwait regardless of what agreements were made,
>because this is how ruthless Saddam is.  But this has been a dream of
>Iraq since 1963.  Qasim said, "the Republic of Iraq has decided to
>protect the Iraqi people in Kuwait and to demand the land, arbitrarily
>held by imperialism, which belongs to Iraq." [Iraq: The Contemporary
>State].  In the early 70's there were continual border clashes and in
>1972, Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait until Britain was called in.
>Eighteen years later, Latif Nassayif Jassim reiterated Qasim's words as
>he announced that "Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq and this fact will
>not be changed whatsoever, even if we fight a long war."  [Rocky Mountain
>News/October 16, 1990]  Before the invasion, Saddam resorted to propoganda
>by accusing Kuwait of conspiring with the U.S. as a way of ruining Iraq's
>economy, and of stealing $2.4 billion in oil revenues, which, has been a
>source of contention [the oil well in southern Iraq] since 1961. 
>

Your point above confirms my repeated statement that the issue is and
will never be the "ruthelss/brutal dictator",and it is more the "west"
trying to enfoce what they want on iraq, and remember again and again
the U.N. enforces "international law" only when the "west"
wants,doesn't this make you wonder??.

>If you want to blame the U.S. for its "actions against Iraq", you should
>look to the Arab League FIRST and its failure to reach an agreement on 
>how to handle the situation.  I am one of the last to ever support the
>corrupt policies of the Kuwaiti/Saudi government, nor do I hope to ever
>find myself in that position; however, when it comes to wanting to elevate
>Saddam Hussein as an Arab hero, you will know exactly where I stand.  In view
>of the opinions by the scholars, I told you that they both rejected and
>condemned Iraq of its invasion of another Muslim country, Kuwait of "amassing
>colossal fortunes against God's Will", and that American intervention and
>presence in Saudi Arabia was completely wrong - that "the holy places belonged
>to all Muslims and their management should be entrusted to the ulama".  [Dr.
>Abassi Madani]  I already explained the position of the Brotherhood in Jordan
>and how strongly they condemned the United States.
>

Please, the Arab League,especailly after it moved to egypt became more
a tool for who ever pays more to egypt than anything else.
And again verbal condemnation is the weakest tool that allows for a
way for retractions if need be.

>>I hold a great respect and admiration to the brotherhood movement,
>>and i wish it will show more backbone in dealing with tremondous
>>problems.
>
>What more do you want?  The Brotherhood in Jordan is a majority in parliament
>and limited in power.  The movements around the Arab world are not even
>recognized, and as you know, in North Africa, especially in Egypt, are being
>oppressed.
>
>>You know you can resist passively for so long but then at some
>>point you must actively react?? when will that come from this
>>movement?? was this western attack not a big enough action to
>>warrant an active reaction from the movement?? or does the movement
>>also have its hands tied becuase of saudi money??  please react to
>>these questions calmly.
>
>I don't know how much more calmly I can!  How dare you accuse such an
>organization with such pure philosophy and beliefs of being bought by
>the Saudi government?!?

I dare,since it was not an accusation but a question,which should be 
aswered by simply researching and revealing the financial statements
for the movement,which again i assure you that i respect and believe
in its philosophy and beliefs,BUT again i hope that it does not stay
as a theory,but instead show itself as a practical and a living body,
which i know that it tried to do in (ALGIERS).

>						I did not say that the Brotherhood was financially
>dependent on the Gulf States - I said that the Arab countries were;
>therefore, were "caught between public opinion favorable to Saddam Hussein
>and its financial dependence on the Gulf States".  The overall attitude WAS
>that the Gulf War and INVASION of American troops in Saudi Arabia was wrong
>Islamically!  But Saddam's invasion and rape of Kuwait was not condoned
>either.  Do you expect the Brotherhood to deal in unfair practices as
>favorable to one side only?  And I only quoted you a few sources. Why don't
>you do some research yourself instead of criticizing?
>

Most muslims i hope should expect actions more than words,
and actions can take many forms,that i do not want to go into,it does
NOT have to be violent acts. Can you tell me what islam tells you
to do when you see something wrong?. and does islam support enforced
borders between muslims?? shouldn't the movement be more aware about
the islamic history and try to take lessons from it?? did they forget
how "al-andulus" was lost?? 

>>Trying to stick to "imposed" ideas that what iraq did was something
>>that should be condemned and that it should be reversed,ignors the
>>fact that the same "western" countries that imposed the borders on
>>the arabs are the ones trying to inforce them. The assumption always
>>was that the brotherhood movement was in conflict with these "western"
>>powers, should we assume now that this is no longer true?? and the
>>brotherhood platform is going to change to mirror that of the 
>>"u.s. republican party" or should it mirror this of the 
>>"u.k. conservative party",or should it follow whoever pays more??
>
>The Movement IS in conflict with the West and WILL NOT change to appease
>the West.  I strongly urge you to read Mujmu'at Rasa'il Al-Imam Al-Shahid
>Hasan Al-Banna.  If you wish to continue the discussion of the "platform
>of the Brotherhood", I suggest taking this via email.  Concerning the
>border disputes and imposition of, the difference here is that Kuwait was
>a recognized state in 1961.  Iraq refused to recognize this; therefore,
>has, since then, wanted desparately to annex Kuwait.  Whether or not Kuwait
>was actually once a part of Iraq is another discussion.
>
>>Sometimes we muslims do not chose our enemys,they choose us.
>>The jihad is an essential part of islam,it has not been declared
>>yet after all what has happened to muslims?? when do you think it
>>will be declared?? who will declare it?? and who is the enemy??
>
>What do you think about all the Movements around the world?  What
>about the Intefada?  Algeria?  Sudan?  Egypt?  Syria?  Jihad does not
>come overnight, and it comes in different forms and through different
>methods.  Of course you have to look at the root of Jihad itself, and
>what it means.  Striving in the Path of Allah Subhanna Wa Ta'ala.  Can
>you suggest that there has not been any striving fi sabeel Allah?  What
>I am saying, is that the Muslim Ummah need to shake itself of such
>anti-Islamic ideologies and leaders, like Saddam Hussein et al.
> 

I understand quite well what jihad means,(since i read quran and sunnah),
and i beleive also that we should not follow what the "west" is
telling us,and try to acheive our ultimate goals without having a bare
land to start with,(e.g. a flattened out iraq),since even an idiot can
spread ideas where no people,(or people who are powerless), exist.

>>Does any muslim have any doubt that "western colonialism" can be
>>a target of jihad??. do'nt you think that it will lose its value
>>if never defined and never declared?? do you think that jihad
>>will only be decalred once in the islamic history,
>>after which we all die or become victorious??
>
>Jihad will NEVER lose its definition or value!  Jihad is not a single
>act in a specific time frame.  It is the continual struggle of good
>against evil.  Perhaps you, as a Muslim brother, should read the chapter
>of Jihad in Riyad Asalaheen or Sahih Muslim for a clearer picture of
>what Jihad is.
>

I try to read quran and "seirat al rasool salla alahu aliehi wa
sallam",and from this i try to understand jihad which i think i have a
clearer picture about it than you think.

>>I think the brotherhood leaders should be very carefull who and
>>what to condemn, and pull themselves away from following whatever
>>they are told by the "west" and by their "financial" supporters,
>>since they are responsible for the goodwill of there followers 
>>and they will be judged by allah "subhanahu wa ta'alla". 
>
>Samir, it appears that you took my entire article out of context and
>misunderstood the quotes to try and legitimize your position.  People
>who criticize something they do not understand should be very careful
>whom and what they condemn, 

I read both kinds of literature,islamic and non-islamic,trying more to
concentrate on islamic being a muslim,i am not afraid of pointing
where i think the wrong is where ever i find it,and in the case of muslim 
brothers i try to be more "constructive" in my arguments than any
thing else.

>							and pull themselves away from following whatever
>they are told by facist leaders and its followers, since they are responsible
>for what they say and do and will be judged by Allah Subhanna Wa Ta'ala.
>

I personally follow only my own personal thoughts which i try to
improve and develop by THINKING and READING from sources with 
different viewpoints,so i can develop my own viewpoint.

I urge the arab/muslim people to THINK and not FOLLOW before 
THINKING.
And Please Do not resort to tactics of accusations to the person
you are having a discussion with,since this will lead directly to
the assumption that you have a wrong/weak argument.

>>And please explain to me what the word "hero" means,and why is
>>it that everybody trys to caution the arabs/muslims from considering
>>anyone of them a "hero"?? is it that they should never have someone
>>to follow?? is it that their "hero" should only be their "masters"
>>who will contorl them by money and "protection"??
>
>The Muslims are only to look to the Prophet Mohammed [saws] as their
>leader - and NOT secular governments and ideologies.  Most Arabs consider
>Saddam Hussein and others as their god.  This attachment to a figure
>this evil has done more to destroy the people than anything else, since
>they are blinded by false propoganda and mislead away from Islam and The
>Truth.
>

Again iraq has the weakest "propagand machines".
The attachment to a figure is being reinforced and promoted by the "west",
by its continual emphasis on the "facist/ruthless/brutal dictator".
To Which again i say the issue is,should and will never be the 
"facist/ruthless/brutal dictator".

>>The "Islamic" positions you claim are either non islamic,or they
>>extremely lack the sight and vision needed to be of any ligitimacy,
>>since they participated directly or otherwise in much more murders
>>and misfortunes to muslims in iraq than any one can envision.
>
>I'm afraid that you misunderstood.  As I stated before, it would be
>in your best interests to do a little more research instead of
>spouting off false judgements and propoganda to support your position
>in favor of Saddam Hussein.
>

My position is hoping for the good of the arab/muslims in iraq and
elsewhere ,which i beleive will not come by total humilation and 
destruction of iraq,just becuase the u.s. is well paid to hate the
"facist/ruthless/brutal dictator".

>>I think that the arabs/muslims who opposed the iraqi people are
>>actually applying a "jihad" against the iraqi people under 
>>the lead of the "west",so please
>
>Tell me, who opposed or is opposing the Iraqi people?
>

Look around you and you will find out.They are the ones who prevent
the iraqis from having their livlyhood back,the ones who prevented
medicine from coming into iraq,and then after noticing that iraq
was using that against the "west",allowed only meager amounts to
reach the iraqis and used propaganda to show that they have 
provided a lot,mind you as charity,which the iraqis hate.


>>tell me who is more "islamic",(based on you interpretation), the
>>"west" or the "ruthless/brutal dictator"?? and why should muslims follow
>>the "jihad" lead by the "west" and not follow the "jihad" called by
>>a self proclaimed muslim "ruthless/brutal dictator"?? what reasons
>>can there be other than lack of vision,immidiate financial gains,
>>or simply being "puppets"??
>
>Neither one is "more 'islamic'".  Infact, they are both partners in
>crime against Muslim peoples, Kurds, and Iranians - whom the United
>States supported to stop the Islamic government of Iran under the
>leadership of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.  

If you understand what the late Khomeini was trying to do in iraq and
elsewhere in the arab/muslim countries,
you wouldn't say what you said,and instead ask yourself what did
he do for the kurdish population in iran and iraq,before asking
anything from the "fascist/ruthless/brutal dictator".

>											It was the billions of
>dollars that Saddam received from his-then allies (including the sheikhs
>in the Gulf) to massacre millions of Muslim men, women, and children
>just to put a 'lid' on Iran.
>
The money they gave to iraq was out of fear of both iran and iraq
and just to make sure that the war continues to make both countries
weak,iraq in recognition of this appealed many time for iran to end
the war but the late khomenie thought that was a sign of weakness and
preferred to continue the war.

>>Also when the "west" started declaring that they helped iraq with
>>what "800 million dollar" loans,everybody started pointing at the
>>"ruthless/brutal dictator" as the puppet of the west,without even
>>knowing that the yearly iraqi gnp is approximatily "20 billion dollars",
>>which means that what iraq recieved was a drop in the bucket 
>>compared to its financial power,mind you that this power was weakened
>>by the iran-iraq war but was starting to get back to normal,and that
>>the only reason to take this loan was a "western" condition for 
>>supplying iraq with some high tech equipment,that it wanted to use
>>to develop its own industrial technology,using iraqi brains 
>>to achieve iraqi goals.
>
>And you omitted the fact that Kuwait had provided Iraq with a $2 billion
>(interest free) loan for post-war damages, and promised Iraq extensive
>financial assistance to build gas pipelines which would have brought Iraq
>an estimated $500 in annual revenues.
>
I know this fact as everybody else does,and know as well the fact that
i told about the Al-rumaila oil field,which basically is like 
i steal from you 10$ and then give you 5$ and for the next month give
you 0.10 $ a day which eventually leaves you with 2$ of stolen money.

>>I support the iraqi people and respect whatever choice they make
>>without the influence of any outside powers,persons or personalties
>>or "heros" matter less for me,what matters is the well being of 
>>iraq and its people.
>
>I think every Muslim agrees with you.  But the Iraqi people have been
>subjected to tyranny and the blood-thirsty rule of a leader whom they
>are forced to support, which has caused the greatest damage to their
>well-being than "any outside power".
>

Most of the iraqis were living at a higher standard of living than
you think as long as they do not use political reasons to attack 
and kill other iraqis.

>>Also quran tells muslims to protect themselves from those who
>>want to kill them,even at the personal level,i think that the
>>"ruthless/brutal dictator" has had his share of attempts on his
>>life by hired killers,the last one being ex-president bush.
>
>So, the Muslims in Iraq should do everything in their power to uproot
>evil at its direct source, so as to "protect themselves from".  And 
>we are obligated by the Holy Quoran to strive in the Path of Allah by
>ridding ourselves of such dictators who inflict pain and suffering on
>the Muslim Ummah.
>

So if you agree that the iraqi people should be the one to "uproot"
the "tyrant/blood-thirsty/fascist/ruthless/brutal dictator",then you
agree that nobody but the iraqi people should do it,and they should do
it with NO outside interference.
It strike me as interseting to notice that in the world there is only
one "tyrant/blood-thirsty/fascist/ruthless/brutal dictator".

But again i know for sure that if/when that 
"tyrant/blood-thirsty/fascist/ruthless/brutal dictator" goes,the
u.s. propaganda machine will invent another one here or there,just
to fullfill the apitite of some people who cannot survive unless they
have a common "BAD enemy" to pour all their frustrations and hatered
towards that person/country, remember (russia,nicaragua,etc...).
And also remember the defense industry needs such a "threat" just
to continue to have basic work.

>>The shiit in the south have never claimed that they were
>>gassed,the shiits who revolted against iraq were sent over
>>the border from iran to insite disturbances after the war,
>>and they were dealt with quickly.
>
>Never?  What about in 1988?  "Saddam's Army launched a chemical attack
>on the town of Halabja, killing 5,000 Kurds and forcing hundreds of
>thousands to seek refuge in Turkey and Iran".  [Newsweek/April 15, 1991]
>

I regret that you resort to such discussion tactics by removing the
source that i quoted you regarding "Halabja" and then quoting another
source that negate my argument,since previously i thought highly of
your arguments but you do not seem to conduct a discusion in a very 
good way.
Out of respect for other netters i will not delete your sources,but
try to answer them.

>Yes, dealt with quickly - "The Iraqi newspapers reported 'death,
>destruction, chaos and looting beyond description', in the predominantly
>Shiite Muslim south.  They said hundreds of bodies, some of them mutilated
>beyond identification, had been left in the streets of Karbala, one of the
>two Shiite holy cities, and nearby Hilla.  Al Thawra, the newspaper of the
>ruling Baath Party, said devastation in Karbala was immense, and it blamed
>rioters for the violence.  The newspaper quoted the local governor, Ghazi
>Mohammed, as saying that government offices, party headquarters, banks,
>police stations and civil defense offices had been destroyed and that dozens
>of people were killed when rioters attacked the city's main hospital."
>"Al Thawra and Al Qadissiyah, the Defense Ministry newspaper, both carried
>pictures showing bodies, including that of a child, as well as damaged public
>buildings." 

So,they were showing what the iran supported instruments were trying to
do.And do you blame them for showing what happened after the iranian
tools did,and what do you expect an iraqi soldiers to do when
confronted with anti tank weapons being fired on his tank?. do you
think that the ones who started the riots gave any thought to the
lives of the people they were endangering?.

>			"Jawad Malki, a spokesman for the Shiite Fundamentalist Dawa
>Party, said 'thousands of women and children' were burned to death and their
>'bodies are still strewn on the ground'." [Denver Post/ March 18, 1991]
>
Did he make his statement from inside iraq,is "Malki" an iraqi name
i know it is not,can you say for sure it is?? are you willing to say that
he personally was able to count the dead and wounded,or is he sure
that all were killed by iraqi bullets and not iranian,are you willing
to say that he was not influenced by any "western" power,to claim what
he did,and may be exagerate,to hit a nerve in the "western mind"?

>>The kurds ,who with support of the west started killing
>>government officials after torturing them(one point here
>>not all government officails are "ruthless/brutal dictators"),
>
>Where do you obtain that information?!

The kurdish leaders themselves declared that,some of their units
did some murderous actions,and that they were going to investigate,
after that we heard nomore.And that was the main reason that all
government officials were withdrawn from northern iraq to protect
them from being murdered,some of murdered one had their bodies 
mutilated and their eyes extracted.

>
>>have never claimed that their movement was/is an islamic
>>movement that calls for an islamic state,and they proved lataely
>>how "brutal dictators" they are when they murdered their own
>>brothers with the help of TURKEY,which is another proof of to
>>what length the kurdish leadership will go to assert itselt.
>
>I never said that the Kurds wanted to establish an Islamic state.
>I stated that they want autonomy.  "All we want is the right to till
>our land in peace, the right to local government, the right to speak
>our language and have it taught in our schools." "We realize that an
>independent Kurdistan is out of the question."  [Quotes from Barzani
>from Time/April 15, 1991]
>
If you notice that this statement was made after they failed,and after
they had to resort to "western" forces. You failed to reply to what
i mentioned about the treatement they dealt to their turkish
brothers.

>"In northern Iraq, Kurdish rebels last week raised their red and green
>flag over the main border crossing into Turkey; they control most of
>the region despite savage pounding by Iraqi helicopter gunships.  Troops
>patrolled the streets of Baghdad and manned roadblocks at entrances to
>the city.  In the south, refugees said Iraqi Republican Guards stafed
>crowds, burned the wounded alive and hanged captives from tank barrels."
>"Loyalist Iraqi units retaliated with tanks, artillery and helicopter
>attacks, indiscriminately blasting civilian areas.  'The tanks fired on
>the houses randomly', said Muhsen Khamas, a 53-year-old shopkeeper who fled
>to Iran last week.  Kazwan Fiyasser Kasaf, a teenager who fled from al-Amara
>to a refugee camp in the Iranian border towwn of Bostan, 

As you can see that these people did,come and go to iran,which proves
that they were iranian tools,and that they are just using word of
mouth to spread fear and panic amongst the population.

>														said Saddam's forces
>'burned young pepole with gasoline and threw women from the top of the bridge'.
>U.S. intelligence officials last week said they had reports of rebel areas
>hit with artillery rounds and short-range FROG-7 missiles loaded with white
>phosphorus."  [Newsweek/March 25, 1991]
>

Did you expect that "Newsweek" will say anything otherwise? this weak
argument can be refuted simply by saying if these forces were killing
everybody,why is it that they could not prevent "Khamas" and "Kasaf"
from going to iran? And who are these "U.S. intelligence officials"
why were we bombarded with anonymous references to them during the
war?? don't you think that that was part of the u.s. propaganda?

>"When the people of Zakhu caught a glimpse of the helicopters in the distance,
>they started to flee the town in terror.  'When our people see aircraft
>coming, they panic', said Khalil Ibrahim.  'They know what Saddam's chemical
>weapons and bombs can do'."

Don't you think that the kurdish leaders will resort to any tactic to
acheive their goals,including spreading fear between the kurds,to 
attract attention to their false cause?

>							"The fleeing Kurds were disppointed, more than
>angered, by the lack of support from the United States and other gulf allies.
>They were not asking for weapons; they captured a small arsenal from Saddam's
>forces a month ago.  But they did want air support against Iraq's helicopters
>and tanks, as well as more food and medical aid.  Fearing an uprising among
>their own Kurdish populations, the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran and
>Syria have offered little if any assistance."  [Newsweek/April 15, 1991]
>
What you just said above is a good indication about the alliance of
the kurdish leaders with the countries that want to destroy iraq and
a proof that the rest of the kurds and other iraqis should recognise
this.
What you have also mentioned about turkey,syria and iran is another
thing that should make you wait and THINK why is it that iraq is 
required to do more than anyone of these countries??
Do not tell me that they did not kill kurds? since you know better.


>[deletions]
>
It was here that i quoted a study that was conviniently deleted by
you,the appropriate response should have been to refute it,even if
you do not like it or consider it irrelevant or weak or whatever,
you chose what you did and i do not respect what you did.

>>No treaty that iraq signed says anything about the 2 nofly zones,
>>that iraq still refuses to aknowledge, also the border 
>>arrangement was done solely between kuwait and the U.N. forced
>>by the U.S. and enforced using the oil money from stolen 
>>Iraqi oil fields in AL-Rumaila,
>>iraq was not envolved in this and does not recognise it, and remember
>
>The treaty DID say that Baghdad is PROHIBITED from sending Iraqi army
>troops, special police officers and border guards into the security zones!

Can you quote from the treaty?

>"'We have made it clear to Iraq that we maintain the capability and the
>willingness to undertake further action if necessary', Defense Department
>spokesman Pete Williams said."  [Rocky Mountain News/July 13, 1991]  Iraq
>did not recognize the boundary, but that doesn't mean that they are exempt
>from complying with the U.N. Resolutions.  And they knew what the consequences
>would be.  

Yes it does,unless force is used,which is not in the U.N. charter
which does say that any two country with border disputes should be
involved in solving these disputes? and i think even common sense
says that.

>			The defiantly opposed this, and the result was that more Iraqi
>people were killed.  "Told to move his missiles out of the no-fly zone that
>protects Shiites in southern Iraq, Saddam dismantled some sites -- no one could
>confirm that he actually withdrew them -- then thumbed his nose at Washington
>by moving missiles into the northern no-fly zone, where U.S. air patrols
>protect the Kurds.  

Didn't you see the "tyrant/blood-thirsty/fascist/ruthless/brutal dictator" 
working hard to dismantle XX from YY, not even when he using his big
"tyrant/blood-thirsty/fascist/ruthless/brutal" body to widrow VV from
ZZ?? or did you only see his big 
"tyrant/blood-thirsty/fascist/ruthless/brutal" nose when he thumbed it??
you may be using small binoculars,or quite frankly you are just

another misinformed illguided arab/muslim who beleives what (s)he sees
and hears on the "western" media/propaganda which is i assure you much
stronger than that of the  
"tyrant/blood-thirsty/fascist/ruthless/brutal dictator".

And did you consider that the U.N. still considers YY and ZZ to be
part of iraq??and that the U.N. charter recognises its member nations
sovernity (sp??),regardless of how much they pay???



>					Condemned by the U.N. Security Council for violating
>Kuwait's frontier, Saddam continued to send Iraqi work crews across the border
>-- for four days running, under the very noses of U.N. truce observers -- then
>rubbed salt in the wound by restating his claim to the emirate.  'Kuwait shall
>return to Iraq in defiance of the Security Council and America', Saddam's
>press secretary, Abduljabbar Muhsen, wrote in the government newspaper al-
>Jumhouriya.  'Kuwait will remain in Iraq's shadow'."  [Rocky Mountain News/
>January 14, 1993]
>

Do you think this is false?? forget about what i think(since its
biased and influenced by this and that as you say),
i ask you what do you think??

>>Finally i hope someday arabs/muslims will recognize that the
>>issue is not this person or that and look at a bigger picture
>>and look behind the motives and behind the advertised news.
>
>What about advertised propoganda from the Iraq?  The bigger picture is
>TO LOOK at the real issues at hand and the people who are determining
>the outcome of events yesterday, today, and tomorrow!  When will you
>recognize that you are promoting the stereotypes against the Arab and
>Muslim people?
>

I am promoting the arab/muslim people to THINK and not just LOOK
since looks are almost always misleading, and the only stereotype
i am trying to avoid is that of an arab/muslim slave

>>If we all try to participate in each of our nations well being
>>without regards to our own personal immediate benifit but at
>>the good that may come to our childrean and theirs,then our
>>good people will live and prosper and no power can attempt
>>to force us to do what we do not want to do.
>
>What personal benefit DO I and other Muslims people have in this?  WE
>ARE looking for the IMMEDIATE BENEFIT of MUSLIMS around the world.
>GOT IT?
>

From the above i answer,"IMMEDIATE BENIFIT",what is the benifit
of having a dismantled and destroyed iraq?? is it our benifit or is 
it the other people's?? and should we be concerned with "IMMEDIATE BENIFIT",
or long term benifit?? who is to assure us that the "IMMEDIATE BENIFIT",
is for our long term benifit?? the "west"??.

>>John F. Kenedy (of all people) said:
>>"Ask not what your country can do for you,ask what you can do
>>for your country"
>>
>>A great statement from,may be a not so,great person.
>
>I'm not about to support a tyrannical, secular government who calls on
>the death and destruction of anyone who steps in his path.
>
>>Our religion has a lot to offer but some of us chose some of it
>>distort it,and then tell the rest of us that their 
>>distorted interpretations is the way to go. 
>
>Who is distorting it?  Who quoted accurate sources?
>
The only accurate source is and should be taken directly from
quran. Neither i nor you qouted directly from quran.
And what is the point of qouting while discussing anything
if the otherside selectivly deletes whatever points that is not
agreeable.

>>I wish we can try to understand it and not allow our selfeshness 
>>take the better part of our judgment.
>
>And I wish that YOU can UNDERSTAND it and not allow your personal
>biasedness and influences to take the better part of your judgement
>and rational!!
>
This can be put directly also back at you,but that is not the point
we should as arabs/muslims THINK and have the courage to discuss and
differ without resorting to personal or personality attacks since that
as i prevously stated is the tool of the weak and the argumentless
thinking.

>Anisa
>

















P.S.:
-----
The above reflects only my opinions,they by no means reflect those
of my employer.