From: samir@tfs.com (Samir Elias)
Subject: Re: Saddam
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:49:20 GMT

In article <5039@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.133258.26805@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash) writes:
>>
>>Is that relevant to the discussion about Saddam and the gulf crisis ?
>>
>>I was trying to find some good analysis to the whole situation, but
>>unfortunately the whole talk was concluded by those final statements,
>>given above. Was there a need for all that ?  Is it common among 
>
>Well, why you are trying to figure it out, it is pretty obvious (to me,
>anyway) that this was initiated by the pro-Saddam Hussein supporters
>as a way of offsetting the subject matter to their convenience and
>personal biasedness of the situation.
>

It seems that whenever anybody says anything pro-iraq the most 
convinient way to react is by using labels like the above.
If anybody followed my posts will deduce that the above label is
an attempt to divert attention from what i was posting all the time.
And if not aware of previous posts, i can give the summary of them
by saying:

The "tyrant/blood-thirsty/ruthless/brutal dictator" IS not and WILL
never be the ISSUE, Iraq as people/nation IS the issue.

>>Arabs that they respond and react when it is not needed, while they stay
>>dumb, blind and deaf when they are required to respond. 
>
>And it seems that you follow your own theories.
>
>What I see is how you conveniently let the other flammatory posts by
>Samir ("thank God some Muslims still use COMMON sense") and Nabeel pass.

It seems any discussion with you detiriorates (sp.) immediately to name
calling and labeling people with whatever that is "catchy" again
to divert attention from whatever this or that other person is
saying. Please stick to responding to issues in the posts 
rather than the method you are using,which tells that your
arguments are weak,and from there no one will even need to 
attack you personally,since you are taking care of that yourself.

The above label attributed to me is another one of the methods
you are using,that is changing the contents of what was said,
which was in response to a person talking about his common sense,
to which i responded.  

Can you please tell me what the context of the above lable,
in this post,or are you now talking out of context??

Again as everybody can see that name calling and labling people
will lead people to respond to the name calling issue and 
divert their attention from what the discussion originally was
about.

>Are you using your own inclination when stepping into arguments, or do
>you practice impartiality as a rule of thumb?
>
>I've always made my political and religious point of view very clear and
>tried what was in my power to post clear-cut and legitimate postings here
>(especially with regard to this thread), but I will not tolerate personal
>attacks and prejudices based on what I say.  That is, I will respond *and*
>react whether some like it or not.
> 

Your religious point of view are not based on any verse taken from 
quran or seera,if so please include any verse that you are relying
upon in you discussions.

If you read your own posts you will findout where the personal attacks
are coming from.
And if you think that YOU are right and that YOUR posts are:

"clear-cut and legitimate postings"

then continue to post similar posts without resorting to the methods
that will not make things any "clearer".

And just as you expect others to respect your intelligence,
please respect others intelligence.

And remember when you attack others personally,then you leave 
yourself open for similar or may be stronger attacks,so please
use some restraint to prevent this and other discussions with you
from ending up as a namecalling tournament.

Again,remember bush??.

>
>Anisa




















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

Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic