waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <22APR93.23368145.0079@VM1.MCGILL.CA> B8HA <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes: >In article <1993Apr22.093527.15720@donau.et.tudelft.nl> avi@duteinh.et.tudelft.nl (Avi Cohen Stuart) writes: >>From article <93111.225707PP3903A@auvm.american.edu>, by Paul H. Pimentel <PP3903A@auvm.american.edu>:  >>There is one big difference between Israel and the Arabs, Christians in this >>respect. >> >>Israel allows freedom of religion.  >Avi, >   For your information, Islam permits freedom of religion - there is >no compulsion in religion.  Does Judaism permit freedom of religion >(i.e. are non-Jews recognized in Judaism).  Just wondering.  	In Islam, there is no compulsion, just a tax on dhimini.  In Judaism, non-Jews are allowed to do as they wish, and there is no effort made to convert them.     Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu
eeb1@kimbark.uchicago.edu  writes: > In article <1993Apr27.203456.9605@Virginia.EDU> > ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes: >  > >	The Jews that were stranded on the polish border since > >no country accepted them are like the arabs stranded on the > >lebenese border. No trials, no hearing, just expulsion based on > >guilt due to race.  >  > Not due to race.  Due to membership in an organization which > publically proclaimed it would destroy the state which expelled them > -- and furthermore kill a large segment of the citizens of that state, > based on race. >
In article <C5I6JG.BM1@eis.calstate.edu> mafifi@eis.calstate.edu (Marc A Afifi) writes: >pgf5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Peter Garfiel Freeman) writes: > > >Peter, > >I believe this is your most succinct post to date. Since you have nothing >to say, you say nothing! It's brilliant. Did you think of this all by >yourself? > >-marc  >--
jovanovic-nick@yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:  >In article <1sufneINNe4f@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes: >> >>In article <1sueslINNa6g@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, >>jovanovic-nick@yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:  >> >>> "Muslim" in ex-Yugoslavia was a *nation* not a religion.  In fact, not >>> all Muslims in B-H are followers of Islam.  Therefore, there do (did?) >>> exist in ex-Yugoslavia "Christian Muslims."   >> >>Yeah!  That's it! :)  You've really outdone yourself this time Nick... >>Don't forget the "Davidian Muslims"... :) >> >>Islam is not a race.  It's a religion.  You can be white, black, >>Fijian or Alaskan.   >This does not change the *fact* that "Muslim" is a legal and political >term defined constitutionally in former Yugoslavia, and therefore has >meaning and consequences entirely *independent* and *immaterial* of >any religious considerations. Not to muslims :) >   >>> It is a >>> civil war in which the terms of secession are being negotiated with guns >>> instead of pens.  The Croat, Muslim, and Serb political leaders *all* >>> chose to fight over the terms of secession instead of compromising and >>> peacefully negotiating multilateral secession agreements.    That could be arguable.. (for bandwith and flames sake, I wont say more)   >> >>Terms of secession?  You are, of course, joking, right Nick?  Nobody >>*chose* to fight.  Bosnia and Croatia were *internationally* >>recognized nations when the Serbs attacked and started on their >>well-documented genocide.  That makes them an outside aggressor.  It's >>a simple genocide, a classical example of ethnic cleansing.  There is >>no question of civil war...  >You only wish it were so. It is a civil war, but the serbian generals who allow rape are not fighting fair.  Yah I know .. war is hell  ..  those serbian generals are propretuating both..  >More than 2,000,000 residents of Croatia and B-H have *not* accepted the >terms of secession which Tudjman and Izetbegovic unilaterally forced upon >them.  Croats and Muslims may have a right to negotiated secession but >they do not have a right to grab the *entire* territories of the former >Yugoslav republics of Croatia and B-H. Lines and bordres .. money .. power .. fear ..   >Oh, BTW, *Yugoslavia* was *internationally recognized* when it was  >destroyed by Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Milosevic, and the international >community led by Germany.  If Yugoslavia's borders could be changed >against its will, then certainly Croatia's borders and B-H's borders >can be changed as well.   Let's change canadian bordres while we are at it :)  I see this as civvil war.. (sp borders)  >As I have stated many times: the civil war in ex-Yugoslavia will end >when the terms of secession (borders, etc.) for Croatia and B-H are >finally agreed upon.  Serbs, Croats, and Muslims will *all* have to >make territorial concessions to reach such an agreement.     Possibly..  I do agree that it is a civil war, which makes the donation of humanitarian aid even more complex...  I mean serbs are bleeding too and I heardthat a few croats had raped serbian women.. (unconfurmable at this point)   >-Nick
Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:  Here you give positive, accurate "facts" about what happened to the beduins and the land:     After the creation of the State of Israel, 80 percent of the Negev    Bedouin were expelled to the Sinai or to Southern Jordan. The    10,000 who were allowed to remain were confined to a territory of    40,000 hectares in a region were annual mean precipiation was 150    mm - a quantity low enough to ensure a crop failure two years out    of three. The rare water wells in the south and central Negev,    spring of life in the desert, were cemented to prevent Bedouin    shepherds from roaming.     A few Bedouin shepherds were allowed to stay in the central Negev.    But after 1982, when the Sinai was returned to Egypt, these    Bedouin were also eliminated. At the same time, strong pressure    was applied on the Bedouin to abandon cultivation of their fields    in order that the land could be transferred to the army.  And now you say noone knows anything about what happened there:     No reliable statistics exist concerning the amount of land held    today by Negev Bedouin. It is a known fact that a large part of    the 40,000 hectares they cultivated in the 1950s has been seized    by the Israeli authorities. Indeed, most of the Bedouin are now    confined to seven "development towns", or *sowetos*, established    for them.     (the rest of the article is available from Elias Davidsson, email:    elias@ismennt.is)  So what you basically say is that "we know for sure that nothing good happens there now,  we know for sure that the beduins prospered before the Jews arrived and that they were driven away by the Jews,  noone on earth knows about what the Jews did there."  Is that what you said?  Could you proove any of the nonsense you wrote?  BTW,  try asking beduins in Sinai how they mis the Israelis.  Not to mention that there are enough valotaring beduins in the IDF to have at least one full brigade of them.
In article <C5IFH7.3q4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes: > >What the hell do you know about Israeli policy?  What gives you the fiat >to look into the minds of Israeli generals?  Has this 'policy of intimidation' >been published somewhere?  For your information, the actions taken by Arabs, >specifically the PLO, were not uncommon in the Lebanon Campaign of 1982.  My >brain is full of shit?  At least I don't look into the minds of others and  >make Israeli policy for them! > ... deleted  I am not in the business of reading minds, however in this case it would not be necessary.  Israelis top leaders in the past and present, always come across as arrogant with their tough talks trying to intimidate the Arabs.    The way I see it, Israelis and Arabs have not been able to achieve peace after almost 50 years of fighting because of the following two major reasons:   1) Arab governments are not really representative of their people, currently     most of their leaders are stupid, and/or not independent, and/or     dictators.
In article <1qg1gdINNge7@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu> karbasi@cis.ohio-state.edu writes:  > >	1- "nehzat-e aazaadee"'s member have many times been arrested >	and tortured and as we speak some of them are still in prison. > >	2- The above item confirms the long standing suspicion that  >	the only reason this regime has not destroyed "nehzat-e >	aazaadee" completely is just to show off and brag about the >	"freedom of expression in Iran" in its propaganda paper. > >	Get serious!  If this regime had its way, there would be  >	absolutely no freedom of expression anywhere, not even in SCI.   						      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In article <1t1k2l$10cs@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, steel@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Nick Steel) says: > >In article <93133.155403YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes: >So why not condemn the Mufti for his Nazi leanings, and ... > while also condemning the similarly genocidal killing of >innocents, Muslim or not, in Bosnoia-Herzegovina? Hatred and bigotry >remain just that, no matter who practices them.  Indeed Yaqouv, just like the ugly hatred spread by Kahane and Kahanists, right?   Or they are exempt from condemnation, and allowed to hate?  No, fool, not at all like hatred of one's sworn enemies, enemies who have said time and again that they mean to kill you, and have, by mur- dering innocent men, women and children, shown that they really mean it.  The late rabbi never hated anyone merely for having been born into a par- ticular group, but he (and I) hate and would/will kill anyone who comes to kill Jews. I recall VERY well Rabbi Kahane's words to the Iraqis at a demonstration: "You want peace? Here is our hand (holding out an open hand)! You don't want peace? Here is our hand (holding out a fist)!"  I know you'll answer me indirectly, it doesn't bother me a bit. Keep it up.  Indirectly? The wonder of it is that I bother answering the likes of you at ALL!  Steel (who's never pissed off).   --                   /       ..                          /  .                 /_______/_/__________/_/_/      _<  /____/          /___ /       ..                     /____/
In article <Apr15.175334.72079@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@lance.colostate.edu writes:  >Most of the  >people in my village are regular inhabitants that go about their daily >business, some work in the fields, some own small shops, others are >older men that go to the coffe shop and drink coffee.  Is that so hard to >imagine ????  ...quickly followed by...  >SOME young men, usually aged between 17 to 30 years are members of >the Lebanese resistance.  Even the inhabitants of the village do not  >know who these are, they are secretive about it, but most people often >suspect who they are and what they are up to.    This is the standard method for claiming non-combatant status, even for the commanders of combat.  >These young men are >supported financially by Iran most of the time.  They sneak arms and >ammunitions into the occupied zone where they set up booby traps >for Israeli patrols.  Every time an Israeli soldier is killed or injured >by these traps, Israel retalliates by indiscriminately bombing villages >of their own choosing often killing only innocent civilians.    "Innocent civilians"???  Like the ones who set up the booby traps or engaged in shoot-outs with soldiers or attack them with grenades or axes?   >We are now accustomed to Israeli tactics, and we figure that this is   And the rest of the world is getting used to Arab tactics of claiming innocence for even the most guilty of the vile murderers among them. Keep it up long enough and it will backfire but good.
In article <1993Apr25.221603.3260@Virginia.EDU>, ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes: > jaa12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu  writes: > > Dear Mr. Beyer: > >  > > It is never wise to confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom" > > of racism and violent deragatory." > >  > > It is unfortunate that many fail to understand this crucial  > > distinction. >  > 	In fact, if a speach was not offensive to some, its > protection under Freedom of speach laws would be useless. It is > speach that some find questionable that must be protected, be > it religiously blasphemous or inherently racist. It is only > through civilized discourse and not scare tactics that one can > enlighten those that one perceives to be ignorant. That is the > idea behind freedom of expression. > 	What you find offensive might be perceived as truth by > some and what they might find offensive might be your belief. > It is only through free exchange of ideas (and insults as the > case seems to be with this channel) that one can change > another's erring ways.That is why Jefferson said that here  > we are not afraid to "tolerate error so long as reason is left to  > combat it".   Those who forward offensive posts to the sysadmin aren't curtailing anyones' freedom of speech.  The neo-nazi movement has a right to make speeches, say anything they want.  They do not have a right to have these speeches published by the N.Y. Times.  That depends on the Times analysis of the economic and to somewhat extent newsworthy value of those speeches.  Likewise to the sysadmin of this fellows system.  If he feels his resources are being used in a manner that is not in his best interests, or are perhaps embarassing to his organization, he will act just as the New York Times does, not to be a conduit for these ideas. The poster is after all free-loading off of someone else's pocket book when he posts.  He who controls the purse strings has the right to make the decision how he wants those funds spent or not spent.  Noone is going to put the poster in jail, unless he bombs a local building as a symbol of his hatred.  Freedom of Speech in no way equates to accessibility to conduits of information.  The market of ideas has its own "natural selection" process that weeds out the ga-ga from the credible ideas that are of importance.   		Seth Rosenthal
From article <93111.225707PP3903A@auvm.american.edu>, by Paul H. Pimentel <PP3903A@auvm.american.edu>: > What gives Isreal the right to keep Jeruseleum?  It is the home of the muslim a > s well as jewish religion, among others.  Heck, nobody ever mentions what Yitza > k Shamir did forty or fifty years ago which is terrorize westerners much in the >  way Abdul Nidal does today.  Seems Isrealis are nowhere above Arabs, so theref > ore they have a right to Jerusaleum as much as Isreal does.   There is one big difference between Israel and the Arabs, Christians in this respect.  Israel allows freedom of religion.
In <1993Apr25.221603.3260@Virginia.EDU>, ab4z@Virginia.EDU () (Andi Beyer)  wrote: #  # jaa12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu  writes: # > Dear Mr. Beyer: # >  # > It is never wise to confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom" # > of racism and violent deragatory." # >  # > It is unfortunate that many fail to understand this crucial  # > distinction. #  # 	In fact, if a speach was not offensive to some, its # protection under Freedom of speach laws would be useless. It is # speach that some find questionable that must be protected, be # it religiously blasphemous or inherently racist. It is only # through civilized discourse and not scare tactics that one can # enlighten those that one perceives to be ignorant. That is the # idea behind freedom of expression. # 	What you find offensive might be perceived as truth by # some and what they might find offensive might be your belief. # It is only through free exchange of ideas (and insults as the # case seems to be with this channel) that one can change # another's erring ways.That is why Jefferson said that here  # we are not afraid to "tolerate error so long as reason is left to  # combat it".     Does this mean that YOU are volunteering to wade through the   Mutlu/Argic deluge that comes in every day?  Some of us are   tired of being dragged into content-free pissing contests   with reflexive bigots.  We INTENSELY dislike being stuck between   letting this crap pass without comment as though it were   unremarkable and replying to it and getting sucked in again.    Let's keep some perspective here.    IMHO, the Josh's policy of forwarding the garbage in question,   without comment, to the relevant sysadmin strikes a good   balance.  The stuff was, after all, PUBLISHED on a public   forum -- from that very site, yet.  Hardly a matter of   confidentiality or copyright.  If the local administration   wants to do something about it, they have that right.  If   not, nobody's twisting their arms.
In article <C6xKnC.285@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Godada Shi) writes: >In article <1993Apr30.083345.15696@nuscc.nus.sg> eng10511@nusunix1.nus.sg (RAM VIKASH TIWARY) writes: >> >>Now that all the parties are back to the negotiating table, the stakes  >>as I see is are indeed high and the future stability of the region and  >>perhaps the world is in the balance. >> >>	While Israel continues to refuse to talk to the PLO, labelling >>it a "terrorist organisation", the window of opportunity for peace is >>narrowing by the day.  If the present talks are allowed to deadlock >>without agreement for a long term and lasting peace that taken into >>account the interest of all involved, the chances of peace will indeed >>receed.  The PLO, by its decision to rejoin the talks, has staked its >>reputation on the success of the talks.  The longer the talks continue, >>and they started 1 and half years ago, without any tangible progress, >>the further will the PLO support in the territories erode. >> >>If a land for peace agreement can be reached, and real soon, the chances >>of a comprehensive peace treaty is good.  The Arabs, once and for all, >>recognise Israel's right to exist inside secure borders, and Isreal >>would in turn recognise the legitimate right of the Palestinians to self >>deternimation and statehood.  With peace guarantee by air tight >>treaties, the region can then hope to dwell on the economic and social >>well being of its population, rather than prepare for the next war. >> >>Ram Vikash Tiwary                       > As we see right now, the position of influence enjoyed by parties favoring the negotiation process is tenuous at best. The local "elections" in Hebron that the PLO was expected to win (perhaps adding a bit to its flagging position of "legitimacy" in the eyes of Palestinians and the Middle East) have been disrupted by Hamas actions overtly directed towards undermining those (and all West Bank) elections. The present ruling Israeli  Labor coalition seems to be one rather thin political ice. The Palestinian delegation has been reduced from 14 to three to protest Israel "lack of seriousness" in the talks and refusal to reverse all the deportations immediately.  Hopefully, however, each of the parties will begin to learn that just the fact that negotiations are taking place *does not mean* they are giving  anything away to "the other side" (which was/is the favorite argument of  the "rejectionists"). Let's hope that discusion and inevitable disagreement on major issues leads at the same time to some agreement on smaller "interim" ("phase", whatever term we prefer) steps to be taken.
In article <israel-palestiniansU3yG115pe@clarinet.com> clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI) writes: >	GAZA CITY, Israeli-Occupied Gaza Strip (UPI) -- Palestinian gunmen >Sunday shot and killed two Israelis who entered Gaza to buy cheap >produce, and two Arabs who were assisting them. >	Elsewhere in the crowded strip, Israeli troops killed a 18-month-old >infant and a 12-year-old boy during rock-throwing clashes at two refugee >camps. can anybody guess this from the title?  Not me, I thought that a clash between Israelis and Arabs resulted in four deaths on one side and two on the other.  >	The drive-by shooting outside the Jewish settlement of Gadid in >southern Gaza prompted Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to warn Israelis >they were ``endangering their lives'' by doing illegal business in the >occupied territories.  How about being illegally settled there? I am not sure about the signals the Israelis are sending, one day they are willing to accept a Jordan/West Bank federation, the other they do not recognize the west bank as occupied territory (neither did the U.S, "the honest brocker") (details of the killings omitted, PLO,Hamas graffiti both claim responsability)  >	The Israelis had entered Gaza in a car driven by the man from Hebron,  Now don't tell me that this could not be an Israeli spy. We will know later.  >which carried the easily identified blue license plates of Arab vehicles >in the West Bank. When Israelis enter Gaza with their own cars, which >carry yellow plates, they are usually stoned and burned by angry 			********************************* >Palestinian residents. Now the UPI shows its ugly face once and for all. USUALLY? It happened once this year, once last year. out of possibly thousands or more. Man how low can you get.
In article <1993Apr16.130037.18830@ncsu.edu> hernlem@chess.ncsu.edu (Brad Hernlem) writes: > >In article <2BCE0918.6105@news.service.uci.edu>, tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes: >| >|> In article <Apr15.175334.72079@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@lance.colostate.edu writes: >|> >   >Tim, you are ignoring the fact that the Palestinians in Lebanon have been >disarmed. Hezbollah remains the only independent militia. Hezbollah does >not attack Israel except at a few times such as when the IDF burned up >Sheikh Mosavi, his wife, and young son. Of course, if Israel would withdraw >from Lebanon and stop assassinating people and shelling villages they wouldn't >make the Lebanese so mad as to do that. Furthermore, with Hezbollah  >subsequently disarmed, it would not be possible.   Just to address this one point, what about the two Katyusha rocket  attacks made within Lebanon, for which Fatah claimed responsibility. I didn't realize that one can use Katyushas while onr is disarmed. Also, Page 8 of today's New York Times, Faisal Saleh, a high ranking  Fatah official, and his 9 month old son were gunned down in Beirut  by members of Abu Nidal.  There have been 46 assasination attempts  in 1993 alone in the fued between these two factions, resulting in 11 deaths.
In article <1993Apr24.023039.1485@cs.rit.edu> bdm@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) writes: >In article <1r94f9$ge3@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.VXF@forsythe.stanford.edu (Vic Filler) writes:  >>You have a lot to learn when it comes to historical methodology. > >That's true.  I try to learn from people who know more than me, >not from useless farts.  And anyone who doesn't agree with you is, by your own definitions, a "useless fart".  Just like any text that disputes your own "findings" is always described as "flawed" or "biased".  In other words, you trumpet the things you like and dismiss those that might embarass you. We've seen you play these games here for a long time.  One thing is for sure: When it comes to "useless farts", you sure know  what you're talking about.
I like what Mr. Joseph Biden had to say yesterday 5/11/93 in the senate.  Condemening the european lack of action and lack of support to us plans  and calling that "moral rape".  He went on to say that the reason for that is "out right religious BIGOTRY"
tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock) writes: :  : "But Hadas might be a fictitious character invented by the two men for  : billing purposes, said Mohammed Mehdi, head of the Arab-American Relations Committee." :  : Tim  I would remind readers of the fact that the NY Daily News on March 5th  reported the arrest of Joise Hadas. Foreign newspapers reported her release shortly afterwards. I can provide copies of the articles  upon request.