waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C6x44y.3xD@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sadek@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sadek) writes: > >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"  Parts of Sen. Biden's statement were quoted by the Washington Post today:     Let me put it plainly, Mr. Secretary.  You are required to speak    diplomatically; I am not.  I cannot even begin to express to you    my contempt for a European policy that is now asking us to     participate in what amounts to a codification of the Serbian victory.    ...    What you have encountered is a discouraging mosaic of indifference,    timidity, self-delusion and hypocrisy.    ...    After they held our coats on Kuwait and Somalia, they are asking us    to put in a few thousand troops on the ground in order to have the    right to speak and in order to implement their new idea of 'safe    havens' for the Bosnians...    Let's not mince words.  European policy is based on cultural and    religious indifference, if not bigotry.  And I think it's fair to say    that this would be an entirely different situation if the Muslims    were doing what the Serbs have done, if this was Muslim aggression    instead of Serbian aggression.  Too bad the Washington Post did not include his next sentence, which  pointed out that a consequence of such policy is a rising anger within the Islamic world, the consequences of which we cannot begin to predict.  Later, Biden told a reporter why he spoke out:     I think someone has to respond to Europe to make it clear    this is a big deal... so they will understand.  and it IS a big deal.  By refusing the fundamental human right of self-defense to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Europe and the world have  aided the Serbian aggression.  Moreover, the arms embargo has forced a situation in which Bosnian Serbs have 10 times more heavy weaponry than Bosnian Croats and Muslims combined.  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 interests and who were allied against the Serbian aggression)  to start fighting each other, which leads to their mutual catastrophe.  One final quote:  U.S. Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, has said in Rome last week that "In practice, the embargo had the opposite effect intended.  It made aggression certain."  All diplomats who deluded themselves that they could negotiate peace while enforcing a 10:1 imbalance of power on the ground have contributed to this tragedy.
In article <93111.225707PP3903A@auvm.american.edu> Paul H. Pimentel <PP3903A@auvm.american.edu> writes: >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 orfifty yearsago 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.  If "ownership" were rightly based on "worthiness" there wouldn't be any owners. What is your point?  As I understand it, Israel's "claim" on Jerusalem is based on 1) possession, and 2) the absolutely CENTRAL (not second, not third) role it plays in jewish  identity.
In a previous article, ai843@yfn.ysu.edu (Ishaq S. Azzam) says:  > >In a previous article, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) says: > >> >>   How many of you readers know anything about Jews living in the >>Arab countries?  How many of you know if Jews still live in these >>countries?  How many of you know what the circumstances of Arabic >>Jews leaving their homelands were?  Just curious. >> >> >> > >I thought there are no jews live in Arab countries, didn't hey move >all to Palestine?  "Only the happy jews did not move!!" > >Would you tell me which Arab country is prohipiting the Jews from >migrating to Palestine?  the last arab country was syria. but not all of them migrated due to the jewish state economical and  securital dilemma!  >
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 article <1993May12.025019.22419@das.harvard.edu> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes: >In article <2703@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:  >>It is not a question of an individuals standing. When a party puts up >>an Arab for a Cabinet post and that Arab is rejected but the position >>is given to a Jew from the same party we are not talking about power >>but racism.  >       Not necessarily.  As Shai points out, political appointments are >based on power.  They are also based on favors owed, coalition >building, and deal making.  Actually I am not sure you have understood what I have said. On several occasions a minor party has put up an Arab for a Cabinet position. That is the major party (Labour in this case) has agreed that a minor party can have so many seats and that party nominates an Arab for one. This is not acceptable to the major party which insists on the minor party appointing a Jew. The favours owed, deals done, have all been settled. What remains is exactly who is going to sit in Cabinet. The party that gets the seat wants an Arab but that is not acceptable. This *is* racism. It has nothing to do with politics at all.  Joseph Askew
In my postings I have made a proposal for comments and discussion. Those who don't want to discuss its merits and drawbacks are not forced to do so.  However I would make anybody who incites others to harm me or harass in a personal manner, legally responsible for their deeds. I cannot accept and will not accept threats to my personal integrity and I urge anybody who opposes terror to refrain from direct or indriect threats.  PS: My proposal has nothing to do with Nazi eugenics. It has to do with the search for peace which would enable justice. I don't consider that justice is done, when non-Jews who fled or were expelled in 1948/1967 are not permitted to return to their homeland. This can at best be called pragmatism, a nice word for legitimizing the rule of the strong. It can never be called justice. And peace without justice will never be peace. It is my conviction that the situation in which a state, through the law, attempts to discourage mixed marriages (as Israel does), is not normal. Such a state resembles more Nazi Germany and South Africa than Western democracies, such as the United States, in which Jews are free to marry whom they wish and do so in the thousands. My proposal may have drawbacks but it is meant to force anybody to anything, just to compensate for a certain time mixed couples for the hardships tehy endure in a society which disapproves of intermarriage.When the day will come and Israel will become a truly civil and decmoractic society, in which the state is not concerned with the religious or ethnic affiliation of its constituency, such a Fund would not be needed any more. I don't mind if Jews wish to marry Jews and keep their traditions, why not ? But this is not the affairs of a state. Western democracy clearly separates these domains and I am certain that most American Jews enjoy this fact and would not love to live in a state termed Christian State and to have their Green cards stamped with a mark JEW.  I would ask those who are genuinely interested in an exchange of views and personal experiencces to refrain from emotional, infantile outbursts which might leed readers to infer that Jews who respect Judaism are uncivilized. Such behaviour is not good for Judaism.
In article <93y04m18d459@witsend.uucp>, "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:  |>   Please clarify your standards for rules of engagement.  As I |>   understand it, Israelis are at all times and under all |>   circumstances fair targets.  Their opponents are legitimate |>   targets only when Mirandized, or some such? |>  |>   I'm sure that this makes perfect sense if you grant *a*priori* |>   that Israelis are the Black Hats, and that therefore killing |>   them is automatically a Good Thing (Go Hezbollah!).  The |>   corollary is that the Hezbollah are the White Hats, and that |>   whatever they do is a Good Thing, and the Israelis only prove |>   themselves to be Bad Guys by attacking them. |>  |>   This sounds suspiciously like a hockey fan I know, who cheers |>   when one of the players on His Team uses his stick to permanently |>   rearrange an opponent's face, and curses the ref for penalizing |>   His Side.  Of course, when it's different when the roles are |>   reversed. |>  |> --- D. C. Sessions   Well, you should have noted that I was cheering an attack on an Israeli  patrol INSIDE Lebanese territory while I was condemning the "retaliatory" shelling of Lebanese villages by Israeli and Israeli-backed forces. My "team", you see, was "playing fair" while the opposing team was rearranging the faces of the spectators in my team's viewing stands, so to speak.   I think that you should try to find more sources of news about what goes on in Lebanon and try to see through the propaganda. There are no a priori black and white hats but one sure wonders how the IDF can bombard villages in  retaliation to pin-point attacks on its soldiers in Lebanon and then call the Lebanese terrorists.
In article <EGGERTJ.93May8143340@moses.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@ll.mit.edu writes: >In article <C6M7JG.3J1@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes: >>   I am not aware of any such incidents.   >>   I have asked you to document your accusation. >>   I repeat my request, nay, demand, that you either substantiate your >>   accusation or else desist from spewing more "Baseless Eggert Blabber". > >And in article <C6Kn27.7FH@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> avr@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (adam.v.reed) writes: > >> I've read most of the history books dealing with this period, >> good and bad, and while it is possible that I missed one or two, >> none of those I've read documents any razing of mosques. So I >> think that this remarkable claim requires specific documentation. > >Jake disrespectfully demands, and Adam requires specific documentation >of the razing of mosques in Jerusalem.  If either of them had been >reading t.p.m for a while, they would already have seen such >documentation.  For the forgetful or newcomers, however, here are the >references.  Well, -I've- been reading t.p.m. for a while and here is what I saw YOU write:  In article <EGGERTJ.93May4220241@moses.ll.mit.edu> you wrote:    >For balance, perhaps you should mention the mosques in Jerusalem that   >were razed after the Israeli victory in 1967.  An eye for an eye, I guess.  Your statment clearly tries to "balance" Arab atrocities by noting a single incident by the Israelis in war-time at their most holy site. You even characterize it as "an eye for an eye".    You also wrote:    >That would be false.  If you read your history, you will learn that   >right after the 1967 war, the victorious Israelis decided to raze a   >section of the newly captured East Jerusalem, near the Wailing Wall.   >It is in this section that mosques were razed.  so now you have to find some source that notes that more than 1 mosque was razed.  You then followed it with:    >This episode is an example of a good government running amok with   >newly acquired power.    Really?  Do you still feel that Israelis are comparable in the running amok with power with, say, the Iraqis?  Your "eye for an eye" comparisons don't match the realities that most of us are familiar with.  >Quoting from The West Bank Story, pages 35-36: >"On the night of June 10, an Israeli officer marched from door to door  This happened to be during a war!  And a fierce and mighty war it was, too.  Would you say that the Jordanians "indiscriminately shot up ancient structures as is their custom" in describing bullet holes in the walls of the city?  This was war!  It was certainly not any "eye for an eye" characterstic.  Israelis do not harbor the same feelings of revenge as the Arabs generally do.  This is one of the reasons that the Peace Now movement exists in Israel and nowhere else in the M.E.
In article <1993Apr27.011549.7010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> hamid@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Hamid Reza Mohammadi Daniali) writes: > >In article <C63r8F.76s@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes: > >|> Israel - Happy 45th Birthday! >|>  > >Anybody has any information about the number of the people have been killed >by Israel  during these 44 HAPPY YEAR? > >Hamid   What's this?  Another idiot from McRCIM.McGill.EDU?  Or are these all the same dope using different accounts?
In article <1rbn60$gs7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Hamaza H. Salah) writes: >In a previous article, ai843@yfn.ysu.edu (Ishaq S. Azzam) says: >>In a previous article, bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) says:  >>>   How many of you readers know anything about Jews living in the >>>Arab countries?  How many of you know if Jews still live in these >>>countries?  How many of you know what the circumstances of Arabic >>>Jews leaving their homelands were?  Just curious.  >the last arab country was syria. but not all of them >migrated due to the jewish state economical and >securital dilemma!  I have no idea what this guy means but the Syrian Jews are not allowed to leave Syria because Assad welshed on his promise and is not letting them go. Israel has nothing to do with it.  As for the other Arab countries there are still small communities left in some Arab countries. Morocco has the largest group I think comprising perhaps just over a thousand (but I have lost the exact figure. Maybe someone will be so kind as to post it). There are communities left in Yemen (which went to the polls yesterday in what might appear to be a free-ish election), Algeria (this is a tiny group, a couple of leftist intellectuals I think), of course Syria and Lebannon.  The circumstances of the departure of the Jews from various Arab countries is controversial in some cases - like Iraq - and I do not want to get into a dispute about it. Egypt expelled most of its community outright. Most of the French North African Jews left rather than face Independence. I think that Moroccans might have been encouraged by some AntiSemitic acts but I am not sure. Someone else around here will know for sure. There are claims that Israeli intellegence officers spread rumours around Algeria that the Jews would not be welcome but this is probably just propaganda. It would take a very stupid person not to realise the benefits of a move to France (as most did) or to Israel. Yemeni Jews were airlifted to Israel. Those left were rumoured to have another airlift last year but I heard nothing about it so I guess it was just a rumour. Any I left out except Iraq?  Joseph Askew
Ok. My Aykut., what about the busload of Greek turists that was torched, and all the the people in the buis died. Happened oh, about 5 years ago in Instanbul. 	What about the Greeks in the islands of Imbros and tenedos, they are not allowed to have churches any more, instead momama turkey has turned the church into a warehouse, I got a picture too. 	What about the pontian Greeks of Trapezounta and Sampsounta, what you now call Trabzon and Sampson, they spoke a 2 thousand year alod language, are there any left that still speek or were they Islamicised? 	Before we start another flamefest , and before you start quoting Argic all over again, or was it somebody else?, please think. I know it is a hard thing to do for somebody not equipped , but try nevertheless. 	If Turks in Greece were so badly mistreated how come they elected two,m not one but two, representatives in the Greek government? How come they have free(absolutely free) hospitalization and education? Do the Turks in Turkey have so much?If they do then you have every right to shout, untill then you can also move to Greece and enjoy those privileges. But I forget , for you do study in a foreign university, some poor shod is tiling the earth with his own sweat. 	BTW is Aziz Nessin still writing poetry? I'd like to read some of his new stuff. Also who was the guy that wrote "On the mountains of Tayros." ? please respond kindly to the last two questions, I am interested in finding more books from these two people.
In article <12MAY93.20580569@edison.usask.ca> f54oguocha@edison.usask.ca writes: >In a previous article, sadek@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sa  >>I.................. 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"  >>  > >Mohamed, > >What has he got to say about the carnage and genocide in our own SUDAN? >The two scenarios must be viewed from the same perspective or don't you >think so? well, methinks. no flames intended!!! > >oguocha > > >>Mohamed      I too noticed that in all this screaming and shouting, not one  person brought up the question of atrocities being commited on non-muslims  by the Sudanese Government. Could it be that they are Africans and so who cares? I suggest that everyone cut the hypocrisy and bleating about Bosnia  and go on to discuss something even more meaningless.      The report below shows that the Sudanese are acting in the finest traditions of Islamic law as expounded by some die-hard people on the  net (who shall remain nameless).   Sudan -----  Government troops 'steal women, children'   WASHINGTON - Government troops in Sudan are involved in massacres, kidnapping and the transporting of forced labor into Libya, according to a State Department document declassified Wednesday.      The report compiled by the U.S. embassy in Khartoum said government forces, particularly Arab militias organized as the Popular Defense Forces, "routinely steal women and children" in southern Sudan.
In <1993Apr21.104330.16704@ifi.uio.no>, michaelp@ifi.uio.no (Michael Schalom Preminger)  wrote: #  # In article <20APR93.23565659.0109@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, B8HA000 <B8HA@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes: # > In Re:Syria's Expansion, the author writes that the UN thought # > Zionism was Racism and that they were wrong.  They were correct # > the first time, Zionism is Racism and thankfully, the McGill Daily # > (the student newspaper at McGill) was proud enough to print an article # > saying so.  If you want a copy, send me mail. # >  # Was the article about zionism? or about something else. The majority # of people I heard emitting this ignorant statement, do not really # know what zionism is. They have just associated it with what they think # they know about the political situation in the middle east.  #  # So Steve: Lets here, what IS zionism?    Assuming that you mean 'hear', you weren't 'listening': he just   told you, "Zionism is Racism."  This is a tautological statement.
There are basically three alternatives for Gaza:  1.  To throw the Jews to the sea. that is basically to make them leave    the Middle-East and go back to where they came from (russia, Europe, USA, etc) 2.  To throw the Gazans into the sea, in accordance with Yitzhak Rabin's      wish and that of many Zionists. 3.  For Israelis and Palestinians to come to an honorable and fair (I    don't attempt to say just) settlement, which would allow each person    to live in dignity in his country in freedom and equality.  I personnaly opt for the third alternative. How about you folks ?
Would it be asking too much for you to DOCUMENT these allegations of "Israel used to arrest and kill neutral reporters"? I think you confuse Israel with other nations of that geographical region to which the notion of a free, unmonitored by the government, press corps would be a joke.
In article <1993Apr27.023914.9453@Virginia.EDU> ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes: >jake@bony1.bony.com  writes: >> In article <1993Apr25.222120.3411@Virginia.EDU> ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer") writes: >> >waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu  writes: >>  >> >> ALL Jews suffered during WWII, not just our beloved who perished or were  >> >> tortured.  We ALL suffered.   >>  >> >	All humans suffered emotionally, some Jews and many >> >others suffered physically.  >>  >> I'm just waiting for Andi to tell us that African Americans should >> start paying compensation to White Americans who "suffered" from being  >> slave owners.  >	Do you have a problem with the language? I said >everyone suffered emotionally because they sympathyzed with the >victims of Holocaust.   There were a great many Germans, Poles and others who did not sympathize with the victims of the Holocaust but instead participated with enthusiasm in the killing.  The Holocaust wasn't a massacre, it wasn't even killing for sport; it was an entire Industry of Death.  German engineers, architects technicians and bureaucrats proudly put their best efforts into as efficient and methodical a Killing Machine as they could devise and operate.  And it certainly was something extraordinary.  Please don't bleat to us about how the Nazis suffered from the Holocaust.  >I wasn't implying that anyone suffered >more than the actual victims.   But what you DID do, when Waldo wrote:   All Jews suffered during WWII [...] was "correct" him with:   All humans suffered [...]  So what WERE you implying?  >Neither was I implying any >wrongdoing on the part of the Jews as the cause for the >Holocaust.   Are we supposed to thank you for your generosity?   Or should we be pleased with your minimal common sense?  >What is wrong with you guys? Regardless of what one  >says you keep hearing what you want to hear.   Why is it that when someone writes something simple like "All Jews sufffered during WWII" that YOU feel the burning need to add commentary?  Regardless of what people write, you keep trying to twist things into what YOU want to hear.  People with similar tendencies in more extreme form are sometimes called Historical Revisionists.  Is this something that you aspire to?
The Armenians were deeply anti-semitic as well. In the May 10, 1936  edition of 'Hairenik Weekly' the vice-mayor of Bucharest, Rumania is  quoted as saying:  "The Armenians helped us not to become the slaves of the Jewish  elements in our country."  In another edition, an author named Captain George Haig writes:  "And the type of Jew who is imported to Palestine...is not anything  to be proud about. Their loose morals, and other vices were  unknown to the Arabs prior to Balfour Declaration, on top of   all communist activities were the cause of most of the Arab  criticism."[1]  As Uzun exposed, the Armenians were fascist. Before Pearl Harbor,  the Dashnak daily 'Hairenik' (not to be confused with the Tzeghagrons 'Hairenik Weekly') expressed pro-Nazi sentiments:  "And came Adolf Hitler, after herculean struggles. He spoke  to the racial heart strings of the German, opened the   fountain of his national genius, strock down the spirit  of defeatism...At no period since the World War had Berlin  conducted so realistic, well organized, and planned policy  as now, since Hitler's assumption to power...And whatever  others may think concerning Hitlerism and Fascism as a   system of Government, it is proved that they have revitalized  and regenerated the two states, Germany and Italy."[2]  [1] Captain George Haig, 'The Case of Palestine,' in Hairenik     Weekly, Friday, September 25, 1936. [2] 'Hairenik,' official organ of the Dashnaktsuitune, Sept.      17, 1936; quoted in John Roy Carlson, 'The Armenian Displaced     Persons' (see endnote 1), p. 21.   Serdar Argic
In a previous article, sadek@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mohamed.s.sa  >I.................. 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"  >   Mohamed,  What has he got to say about the carnage and genocide in our own SUDAN? The two scenarios must be viewed from the same perspective or don't you think so? well, methinks. no flames intended!!!  oguocha