From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ohm Jihad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.lebanon
Subject: Re: The Syrian record.
Date: 8 Nov 92 05:25:06 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <BxCrwu.9ME@ecf.toronto.edu> fahs@ecf.toronto.edu (FAHS Samir M) writes:
>In article <4305@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Ohm Salam) writes:
>
>>CLAO might issue other reports on other similar situations that occur
in the Middle East.  
>
>I am sure if You have read enough CLAO reports you would not have made
>the above comment.

Oh.  I guess I haven't then.  I was just speculating - I didn't know
that is why I said that it "might".  Obviously you know more about
the situation than I do.

>Hitler's propaganda machine always carried updated information especially
>to those who knew very little about the situation.  Usually it is most
>effective on that kind of people.

So you are suggesting that this is all propoganda?  That what was stated
before in this report is false?  I am very aware of the situation in
Syria which the report addressed, but I was suggesting that to those who
are not familiar with it might be a little enlightened.  Sorry, I am not
clear on what exactly you are suggesting here other than what you perceive
as false or misleading information.  Can you support your conclusions?

>>I understand and respect your position, but we should be thankful instead 
>                                                                   ^^^^^^^^
>>of analyzing or criticizing it.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I am certain that you, as a political scientist,  did not mean the above.

Of course we should analyze information to check its accuracy; however,
unless a person can prove the *inaccuracy* of this (or other) report(s),
it should not be criticized solely on this basis.  What I was trying to
convey to the former poster was that news from a legitimate source (though
I am not very familiar the source itself to make such an assertation - but
I can support it on the basis of my own knowledge in that area) making such
a report should appreciate it instead of criticizing it on the grounds that
it is irrelevant or unimportant in comparison to Lebanese prisoners in Israeli
prisons.  That is the point and hope that it is very clear.  And as a
'political scientist', I am doing my best here to apply the principals of
diplomacy.  :-)

>>                                 We should support each other and be
>>sensitive to each other's needs and concerns.
>
>Now, once one starts calling for a support of "each other" they have already
>assumed that they do not view themselves as one.  That's where our
>tragedy lies. The address above views the lebanese as if they are of 
>different needs and concerns, again if that's one's starting point
>then lebanon's current situation is the end one. Maybe we if 
>felt that we were one then there will be no "his/her concern"
>it will be "my concern" and there will be no need to campaign for
>"my support" to  "his/her needs".

I agree with you but I think you mistook what I wrote and if it was ambiguous,
I apologize.  What I *should* have said and what I *meant*, was that when
one part of the body is afflicted in pain, the whole body suffers.  Now, I
would like to tell you this - when I initially responded to another post
about Arab unity (that we should be considered Arabs first before Lebanese -
U.S. Elections posting), I recall very clearly some posters flamming me that
Lebanese are Lebanese before Arabs - that they have their own identity - now
am I seeing somewhat of a double standard here?
 
I see a semi-flammatory response here that I am not sensitive to that Arab
unity.  It is true that we are Arabs first and I believe in unity (which will
probably not occur until people put their differences aside and agree to walk
hand in hand and solve problems on a collective basis), however, there is
obviously division and a separation in philosophy - that is why I suggested
concern and support for each other.

>Fardoun's point (to whom your original response was addressed)
>was simply the lack of the mere mention of a tragedy 
>that touches the lives of thousands of lebanese, which was evident
>in a "report" after "report", while CLAO's claim is that they are working  
>against all "occupiers".  The point is that they are being hypocritical,
>knowing CLAO and the people it represents their aim goes beyond pointing
>out Syria's wrong doings.

I see your point (even if I was not familiar enough with what you are
referring to about the various reports that CLAO produces).  I also
understand Fardoun's point but in my estimation I feel that we should
not attack the *context* of the material in the report to suggest that it
is not as important as the Lebanese prisoners; furthemore; should not be
used as a justification for CLAO's lack of producing extensive reports on
a mutual basis.

Wa Salam,
Anisa
	"The best kind - angry, rebellious, critical - a renegade ..."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.lebanon