waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
To all the readers of talk.politics.mideast,alt.flame,alt.stupidity  I am posting this message on behalf of a staff member at UCDavis whose  account had been broken into and used to post offensive messages to all these groups.  	--Dave  ----begin included message from szljubi@othello.ucdavis.edu   Please be advised that the person(s) sending to you the inflammatory remarks you have been receiving have been doing so by ILLEGALLY accessing my account.  Our campus Information Technology security group has cut off my account's access to this hacker, and every effort is being made to track down this person.  I apologize profusely that you have been subjected to the derogatory comments made by this person and I detest that my name was attached to them.  Thank you to those of you who alerted our campus security about the nature of this problem.  Sincerely, P. Ljubi
... Wayne McGuire?  Did someone prove he's anon15031@anon.penet.fi, and he ran off to restock on PCP?
In <1993Apr24.145704.12104@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:  >cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah) writes:  ># Well said Mr. Beyer :)  >He-he. The great humanist speaks. One has to read Mr. Salah's posters, >in which he decribes Jews as "sons of pigs and monkeys", keeps >promising the "final battle" between Muslims and Jews (in which the >stons and the trees will "cry for the Muslims to come and kill the >Jews hiding behind them"), makes jokes about Jews dying from heart >attacks etc, to realize his objective stance on the matters involved.  And now he is posting lies about Benjamin Franklin in talk.politics.misc. Seems our Mr. Salah will stoop to any level (or is that *climb*) to spread his hate.  >-Danny Keren.
In article <1srespINNsua@mojo.eng.umd.edu> josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:  > ... Under such >conditions, it is very easy for Serbs to play a "divide-and-conquer" >game, and to get the Muslims and Croats (who have strong common   It is the Serbs who were divided when Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina  attempted to secede from Yugoslavia, ripping more than 2,000,000 Serbs and their property out of Yugoslavia.    The Croatian and Muslim nations had the right to secede, not the Republics. Additionally, the secessions were to be negotiated, which would probably have required international mediation; instead the secessions were illegal, unilateral, and acts of war against Yugoslavia and those who did not want to be ripped out of Yugoslavia by the secessions.
To my fellow Columbian, I must ask, why do you say that I engage in fantasies?  Arafat is a terrorist, who happens to have  a lot of pull among Palestinians.  Can we ignore the two facts? I doubt it.
In article <16BD8EF34.00081100@ysub.ysu.edu> 00081100@ysub.ysu.edu writes:  [R2D2] Benjamin, my Zionist friend: [R2D2]     It is amazing that there are still pigs like you left on this planet. [R2D2] Occupied Palestine has become a prison for its own inhabitants, thanks  [R2D2] to you, the Zionist network around the world, and those who call  [R2D2] themselves "the chosen people of God". [R2D2]     If there is a God, and for as long as we have a breath left, we will [R2D2] fight for our freedom.  Benjamin, don't rest too easily...  Thanks for writing your name and identifying yourself, you coward. That is right hide behind your blind rhetoric, but beware JLE the  Mossad agent wil come and get you.  Tsiel
ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes:  > First of all I never said the Holocaust. I said before the > Holocaust. I'm not ignorant of the Holocaust and know more > about Nazi Germany than most people (maybe including you).   Uh Oh!  The first sign of an argument without merit--the stating of one's  "qualifications" in an area.  If you know something about Nazi Germany,  show it.  If you don't, shut up.  Simple as that.  > 	I don't think the suffering of some Jews during WWII > justifies the crimes commited by the Israeli government. Any > attempt to call Civil liberterians like myself anti-semetic is > not appreciated.
narain@ih-nxt09.cso.uiuc.edu (Nizam Arain) writes:  >Mark Ira Kaufman writes >>    ... ... ... >>    A perfect example is the outcry over the temporary removal of >>    400 men who advocated murdering Jews and destroying the State >>    of Israel, compared to the deafening silence over the abusive >>    treatment of Jews in Arab countries during the past 50 years.  >Never mind the fact that these people were denied the right to a fair trial.    Repeat a lie often enough and people will start to believe it, eh?  The Hamas terrorists were given the opportunity to appeal.  They've chosen not to, obviously because they get better propaganda mileage out of refusing.  Israel also agreed that they could return immediately, provided they agreed to stop killing Jews.  Their refusal speaks for itself.
In article <C50wJJ.J4r@newsflash.concordia.ca> ilyess@ECE.Concordia.CA   (Ilyess Bdira) writes: > > 1)why do jews who don't even believe in God (as is the case with many > of the founders of secular zionism) have a right in Palestine more > than the inhabitants of Palestine, just because God gave you the land? G-d has nothing to do with it. Some of the land was in fact given to the   Jews by the United Nations, quite a bit of it was purchased from Arab   absentee landlords. Present claims are based on prior ownership (purchase   from aforementioned absentee landlords) award by the United Nations in the   partition of the Palestine mandate territory, and as the result of   defensive wars fought against the Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, et al.  *** > 2)Why do most of them speak of the west bank as theirs while most of > the inhabitants are not Jews and do not want to be part of Israel? First, I should point out that many Jews do not in fact agree with the   idea that the West Bank is theirs. Since,  however, I agree with those who   claim the West Bank, I think I can answer your question thusly: the West   bank was what is called the spoils of war. Hussein ordered the Arab Legion   to attack Israel, which was a poor move, seeing as how the Israelis   promptly kicked his butt. The territory is therefore forefeit.  Retaining   possession of ALL of the West bank is  not desirable, but it beats   national suicide for the Israelis. Put another way, one could ask why it   is that so many Palestinians seem to think that Tel-Aviv belongs to them   and the future state of Palestine. As long as this state of affairs   continues, it seems that to give the Palestinians a place from which they   can launch attacks on Jews is a real poor idea. Giving up the entire West   Bank would be idiotic froma security standpoint.  In addition, there is   the small matter of Jerusalem, which is considered to be part of the West   Bank. The chances of the Israelis giving up Jerusalem are nil. Even   leftists who think Yasser is a really cool dude, like Yossi Sarid, aren't   going to propose giving up Jerusalem. If he did, he'd get run out of town   on a rail.
In article <1483500357@igc.apc.org> Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:  >The Israeli Left's inability to cope with the challenges it is >presented with by reality becomes obvious at those moments when >the reality does not line up with the expectations of the left. We >were able to see this clearly during the Gulf War.  Because of the >Palestinian's popular solidarity with Iraq, Yossi Sarid - >currently Minister of the Environment - made his infamous >statement: "You look for me !", i.e., I'am not making any more >efforts to speak with you. From Yossi Sarid's point of view, >Palestinian reality during the Gulf War was not the lengthy curfew >or the danger of hunger it brought with it, but whether or not the >Palestinians accepted what was acceptable to the party. Similarly >MERETZ, MK Deddi Tzuker, recently faced with criticism from >residents of the West Bank town of Beit Sahour over his >government's and his party's lack of action for human rights and >peace, responded by asking those present at the discussion whether >they would rather have a Likud government. From the Leftists' >perspective this is the best government because it is THEIR >government, regardless of what it does. > >These members of the Israeli Left have already decided how the >future of the Occupied Territories will look, and they want to >dictate to the Palestinians how to get there.   When someone starts criticizing the Leftists for not being Leftist enough, we get a pretty clear idea of what they believe to be normal. I hope that your not still calling yourself fair and unbiased, Elias.
Congratulations also are due to the Hamas activists who blew up the  World Trade Center, no?  After all, with every American that they put  in the grave they are underlining the USA's bankrupt imperialist policies.  Go HAmas!  Blah blah blah blah blah  Brad, you are only asking that that violence that you love so much come back to haunt you...............
In article <C5rxH0.LJy@imag.fr> maler@vercors.imag.fr (Oded Maler) writes: >In article <C5HJBC.1HC@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:  >|> Typical Arabic thinking.  If we are guilty of something, so is >|> everyone else.  Unfortunately for you, Nabil, Jewish tribes are not >|> nearly as susceptible to the fratricidal murdering that is still so >|> common among Arabs in the Middle East.  There were no " killings >|> between the Jewish tribes on the way."  >I don't like this comment about "Typical" thinking. You could state >your interpretation of Exodus without it. As I read Exodus I can see  >a lot of killing there, which is painted by the author of the bible >in ideological/religious colors. The history in the desert can be seen >as an ethos of any nomadic people occupying a land. That's why I think >it is a great book with which descendants Arabs, Turks and Mongols can  >unify as well.  You somehow missed Nabil's comments, even though you included it in your followup:     >The number which could have arrived to the Holy Lands must have been   >substantially less ude to the harsh desert and the killings between the   >Jewish tribes on the way..  I am not aware of "killings between Jewish tribes" in the desert.  The point of "typical thinking" here is that while Arabs STILL TODAY act in the manner you describe, like "any nomadic people occupying a  land", killing and plundering each other with regularity, others have somehow progressed over time.  It is not surprising then that Arabs often accuse others (infidels) of things that they are quite familiar with: civil rights violations, religious discrimination, ethnic cleansing, land theft, torture and murder.  It is precisely this  mechanism at work that leads people to say that Jewish tribes were killing each other in the desert, even without support for such a ludicrous suggestion.
In article <AMOSS.93Apr25163327@shuldig.cs.huji.ac.il> amoss@shuldig.cs.huji.ac.il (Amos Shapira) writes: >cy779@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Anas Omran) writes: > >                                                           The Israelis >   used to arrest and sometimes to kill some of these neutral reporters. > >Eh????  Could you please give me details about an event where a "Neutral >Observer" was killed by purpose by an Israeli soldier? > >--Amos > Actually, I'm still trying to understand the self-justifying rationale behind the recent murder of Ian Feinberg (?) in Gaza.
I wrote:                  @ From:  Kayhan Havai # 1026 @ -------------------------- @                           @ o Dr. Namaki,  deputy minister of health stated that infant @   mortality (under one year old) in Iran went down from 120  @   per  thousand before the revolution to 33 per thousand at @   the end of 1371 (last month). @      @ o Dr Namaki also stated that before the revolution only @   254f children received vaccinations to protect them @   from various deseases but this figure reached 93at @   the end of 1371.        Something funny happens to the percent sign. In paragraph above, the vaccination rate went from 25 percent to 93 percent.                       - Farzin
In article <18APR93.15729846.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, B8HA000 <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes: |> Just a couple of questions for the pro-Israeli lobby out there: |>  |> 1) Is Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon temporary?  For Mr. |> Stein:  I am working on a proof for you that Israel is diverting |> water to the Jordan River (away from Lebanese territory).  Yes it is, as has been evidenced by the previous two stages of withdrawal from the area and by the reductions in troops. Currently the troops are kept at a level consistent with light and armored patrols.  No permanent installations have been built in the area, nor are any planned.  As to the prodigal "water question",  you can continue to waste your time looking for non-existent proof, or you can accept the testimony of people here, some Lebanese, who have acknowledged that they know of no evidence for these allegations.  |> 2) Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan |> temporary?  If so (for those of you who support it), why were so |> many settlers moved into the territories?  If it is not temporary, |> let's hear it.  It depends which of those territories you refer to. In general, settlers were moved into the territories because at the time, in the context of the situations, it seemed the logical move.  This is not to say that views don't change or that mistakes are not made.  Currently, I would say that the only "disputed territory" that does not appear to be temporary is that of Eastern and northern Jerusalem.  |> Steve |>
In <1993Apr15.135934.23814@julian.uwo.ca> mrizvi@gfx.engga.uwo.ca (Mr. Mubashir Rizvi) writes:  >It is very encouraging that a number of people took so interest in my posting.I recieved a couple of letters too,some has debated the statement that events in Bosnia are unprecedented in the history of the modern world.Those who contest this statement present the figures of the World War II.However we must keep in mind that it was a World War and no country had the POWER to stop it,today is the matter not of the POWER but of the WILL.It >seems to be that what we lack is the will.  The idea of the U.S, or any other nation, taking action, i.e., military intervention, in Bosnia has not been well thought out by those who  advocate such action. After the belligerants are subdued, it would require an occupation force for one or two generations. If you will stop and think about it, you will realize that these people have never forgotten a single slight or injury, they have imbibed hatred with their mother's milk. If we stop the fighting, seize and destroy all weapons, they will simply go back to killing each other with clubs. And the price for this futility will be the lives of the young men and women we send there to die. A price I am unwilling to even consider.  >Second point of difference (which makes it different from the holocast(sp?) ) is that at that time international community >didnot have enough muscle to prevent the unfortunate event,  There is no valid comparison to the Holocaust. All of the Jewish people that I have known as friends were not brought up to hate. To be wary of others, most certainly, but not to hate. And except for the Warsaw uprising, they were unarmed (and even in Warsaw badly out-gunned). It is very easy to speak of muscle when they are someone else's muscles. Suppose we do this thing, what will you tell the parents, wives, children, lovers of those we are sending to die? That they gave their lives in some noble cause? Noble cause, separating some mad dogs who will turn on them.  Well, I will offer you some muscle. Suppose we tell them that they have one week (this will give foreign nationals time to leave) to cease their bloodshed. At the end of that week, bring in the Tomahawk firing ships and destroy Belgrade as they destroyed the Bosnian cities. Perhaps when some of their cities are reduced to rubble they will have a sudden attack of brains. Send in missiles by all means, but do not send in troops.  >today inspite of all the might,the international community is not just standing neutral but has placed an arms embargo which  By all means lift the embargo.  >is to the obvious disadvantage of the weeker side and therefore to the advantage of the bully.Hence indirecltly and possibly >unintentionally, mankind has sided with the killers.And this,I think is unprecedented in the history of the modern world.  Which killers? Do you honestly believe they are all on one side?
The above headline is much better than the original one. read on..  In article <yugoslav-greeceU3A6430pe@clarinet.com> clarinews@clarinet.com (DEJAN ANASTASIJEVIC) writes: >	BELGRADE, Yugoslavia (UPI) -- Greek Prime Minister Constantine >Mitsotakis visited the capital of the Serbia-Montenegro federation >Tuesday in an apparent attempt to press Serbian leaders into accepting >the international plan to end the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  So far so good...  >	``I came here as an old friend of this country...to help in solving >the burning problem of Bosnia-Herzegovina,'' Mitsotakis told reporters >after talking for two hours with President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia.  Old friend, whatever....  >	``I did not come here to discuss any particular plan. I came to hear >the Serbian point of view,'' he said, adding that Serbia is ``sincerely >trying to bring peace to the region.''  That is a great attitude for someone who wants to pressure the Serbs to accept a peace plan that gives them most of the territory they got by force and terror.  >	Milosevic said that Serbia and Greece had ``practically identical >views'' on the Bosnian war, which started late in March 1992 when the  this is a good thing to hear. Anybody wondering why Serbia is not really under any boycott? Anybody remembers the Gulf war? Did Saddam kill 100,000 people and rape 50,000 women?   >	In an effort to pressure Milosevic, who is considered to be the main >patron of Serbian territorial conquest in Bosnia, the U.N. Security >Council has threatened to impose new sanctions against Serbia and >Montenegro and implement a no-fly zone over Bosnian skies.  Still in the threatening stage.. Maybe when there is no more Bosnians, the UN will lift the arms Embargo on them! Military intervention? that is reserved for Muslim countries.  NOW HEAR THIS: >	After meeting Milosevic, Mitsotakis had separate talks with Radovan >Karadzic, the leader of Bosnian Serbs. >	``I encouraged Mr. Karadzic to proceed with his efforts to achieve a >just peace in the region,'' he said. >	``We are ready to play a positive role in the Balkans,'' said >Mitsotakis.  real positive I might add, in favor of his old freinds of course!  >	Karadzic said that he was ``honored'' to meet the Greek premier. >	``Greeks are not one sided, and they do not tend to condemn only one  You bet they are not!  >side in this war,'' said Karadzic. >	``We will continue to negotiate on all levels,'' he said. >	Before meeting with Milosevic, Mitsotakis had talks with President >Dobrica Cosic of the federal Yugoslav union of Serbia and Montenegro, >and Patriarch Pavle, the head priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
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.
arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:  >Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, April 13, 1993.  P. A1.  >NEW DETAILS OF EXTENSIVE ADL SPY OPERATION EMERGE  >	* INQUIRY: Transcripts reveal nearly 40 years of espionage >	  by a man who infiltrated political groups  >By Richard C. Paddock, Times staff writer.
From Israeline 4/27/93  Peace Talks Resume Today; Israel to Offer Palestinians New Proposals   Israel Radio, KOL YISRAEL, reports on today's resumption in Washington of the bilateral peace talks, following a recess which lasted over four months. According to the report, Israel is expected to offer the Palestinians new proposals regarding the authority of the Palestinian Executive Council, general elections, control over land and human rights issues in the Territories. Israel will express its readiness to give the Palestinians control of more land than previously offered. According to the radio report, one estimate is that Israel will give the Palestinians control over as much as two thirds of the administered lands, as well as broad authority on water issues. Israel will seek to promote its offer to hold elections in the Territories in hopes of strengthening the position of the Palestinian delegation to the peace negotiations. According to Israel Radio, the Israeli delegation to the bilateral talks with the Palestinians will offer greater responsibilities to the Palestinian Executive Council allowing it certain legislative capabilities, without making it a symbol for Palestinian sovereignty. U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher invited all the heads of delegations to a gathering tonight. It will be the first such event since the Madrid conference. Head of the American team at the bilateral peace talks, Edward Djerejian, said that tonight's gathering is meant to demonstrate the U.S.' active role in the peace process.
Although I realize that principle is not one of your strongest points, I would still like to know why do do not ask any question of this sort about the Arab countries.     If you want to continue this think tank charade of yours, your fixation on Israel must stop.  You might have to start asking the same sort of questions of Arab countries as well.  You realize it would not work, as the Arab countries' treatment of Jews over the last several decades is so bad that your fixation on Israel would begin to look like the biased attack that it is.     Everyone in this group recognizes that your stupid 'Center for Policy Research' is nothing more than a fancy name for some bigot who hates Israel.
In article <93332@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1091a@prism.gatech.EDU (gt1091a gt1091a KAAN,TIMUCIN) wrote:  [KAAN] Who the hell is this guy David Davidian. I think he talks too much..  I am your alter-ego!  [KAAN] Yo , DAVID you would better shut the f... up.. O.K ??  No, its' not OK! What are you going to do? Come and get me?   [KAAN]  I don't like your attitute. You are full of lies and shit.   In the United States we refer to it as Freedom of Speech. If you don't like  what I write either prove me wrong, shut up, or simply fade away!   [KAAN] Didn't you hear the saying "DON'T MESS WITH A TURC!!"...  No. Why do you ask? What are you going to do? Are you going to submit me to bodily harm? Are you going to kill me? Are you going to torture me?  [KAAN] See ya in hell..  Wrong again!  [KAAN] Timucin.  All I did was to translate a few lines from Turkish into English. If it was so embarrassing in Turkish, it shouldn't have been written in the first place! Don't kill the messenger!