If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The question is why?
I think because it shows and explains why Israel exists and what it has to do to keep on existing. Does Arab need Israel, and vice versa? Does anyone need peace? The answer to all these questions and a lot more, are not what you expect to hear. It�s not the obvious answers, at least not what the author's think.
Yahoo and Google banned the book from advertising programs, Amazon deleted all reviews, GoDaddy canceled hosting, and Booksurge terminated publishing contract. Denounced by leftists and criticized by the ultra-right, author claims receiving threatening letters from both Jews and what he calls "anti-Semites".
The book, Samson Blinded is claimed to be written by an Israeli politician using a 'pen name', Obadiah Shoher.
The author took a 'pen name' because Israel bans politicians with the views Shoher expresses in his book from the Knesset. Shoher served in several public offices, managed election campaigns, and leads a political party. He wrote dozens of articles and essays on politics, political philosophy, religion, economy, and security matters.
Yes, it's a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict as some like to call it. Shoher deplores both Western and Arab/Muslim myths, yet clearly Israel-biased. But after reading "The Samson Blinded", I can say it is a "War Crimes Manual." Therefore, I'm not surprised that it is banned. After all, its not a manual for individuals, but for nation powers like Israel and US.
After reading the first few pages, it reminded me of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and the author is confirming the relation:
This book is only realistic, and I regret that many people misinterpret it as advocacy of fascism or war crimes. I realize, however, that the book is a boon to Zionist conspiracy buffs, and a valuable replacement for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery. Enjoy.
Enjoy? Damn… It's a must read.
I'm including here the "Theory" of the book. Please read the whole book before jumping to comments… Enjoy!
Theory
Most of us want to believe that peace is the natural state of humanity. At the very least, we prefer to see it as a lasting solution, interrupted sometimes by readjustments in the balance of power by means of armed conflicts. But in the real world, we have to make choices. It is not uncommon to prefer ideological or religious values to one�s own life. Preference is a matter of value judgment; there is no objectively best option. Indeed, in the Ten Commandments, fundamental to modern Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures, the religious prescriptions precede the prohibition of murder. Killing enemies in war is not prohibited.
Once people are ready to die for their values, their religion may condone killing for them, since the commandment of negative reciprocity�Do not do unto another what is hateful to you�is satisfied. It is not hateful to die, and therefore not prohibited to kill. That approach attached moral legitimacy to scores of wars, notably the crusades, but also recent ideologically inspired wars, down to the Falklands. Rational�or honest�minds might argue that the causes for wars are usually silly or superficial, that enmity is forced on people on both sides otherwise content with each other. But that is a different issue, namely, do soldiers really need to die for the goals they fight for? Why does the traditional interpretation of You shall not murder exclude executing criminals and killing in war from the prohibition? Because people are normally ready to die to save their neighbors or their country. Reciprocity allows them to kill.
The prohibition of murder�s place following the religious commandments suggests the subordination of life to ideology. Both the case law of the Hebrew scriptures and the prescribed punishments for religious transgressions support that conjecture.The parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict have shown in numerous wars that they are ready to die for the cause, an attitude not limited to the military. Israeli civilians stand ready to suffer daily losses from suicide attacks, and Muslim civilians likewise have no trouble sacrificing themselves. The maiming of thousands of locals in Osama's attacks on the American embassies in Africa raised no domestic outcry. Israeli rhetorical condemnations of the terrorists and Arab denouncements of Baruch Goldstein aside, only the facts matter: Israelis and Muslims are ready to die for religious or nationalist causes. War is lamentably acceptable to both.
If the Israelis and the Palestinians set out to settle their differences from two irreconcilable sets of axioms, they would never reach an understanding, but conflicting interests are not conflicting axioms. People deal daily with others whose interests conflict with theirs and resolve the conflicts without resorting to violence.
Consider the application of You shall do nothing to your neighbor you do not want him doing to you. No one wants to give way in any conflict, whether bargaining in the marketplace or fighting on the battlefield. Should the buyer pay the asking price without question? Would the seller like someone imposing a price on him? Should he not refrain from imposing prices on others? The two parties would have to bargain since neither should impose a price. The dilemma is superficial. The commandment is fulfilled so long as both parties agree on how to resolve the conflict. A gambler�s winnings at cards or on the stock market fits the definition of stealing, because someone loses without being fairly compensated, but such wins are not criminal since both parties played the game willingly. Arabs condone war as a means of resolving conflicts, so the Israelis are justified in fighting them, since both accept the use of force to resolve conflicts. Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela turned the tables by renouncing violence and turning world opinion against violence done to them. Muslims see their best hope in asymmetric warfare, which justifies Israel�s military ventures.
Why doesn�t normal market bargaining lead to violence? Because neither party is a monopolist. It is easier to buy elsewhere or wait for another buyer than to risk a fight. The situation is different when monopolists bargain. They have to reach an agreement, at almost any cost. Such disputes can be violent. The dispute over jurisdiction is a monopolistic bargain: the Palestinians have assets the Israelis want, namely territory.There are many acceptable systems of conflict resolution. Israel solves other conflicts through trade, diplomacy, or public relations. People choose the costlier�riskier, more intrusive�means only after they exhaust the less costly ones. Can Israel be sure she has exhausted diplomacy in her conflict with the Palestinians and their allies? The answer involves a highly subjective judgment, based largely on the cost-benefit ratio of either means�which is different for both parties. Powerful Israel can go to war easily, so accepting resolution by violence is no great leap.
If both parties agree on the means of resolution and choose one based on feasibility and expediency, they proceed from similar axioms, and each treats the other the way both expect and accept.The notion of means should be treated broadly. In the marketplace, one side cannot insist the other not borrow to pay or buy anywhere else. When the parties are of disparate size, like mega-corporations and their customers, the smaller cannot demand that the bigger act small and desperate to sell. The �means� might be defined in terms of the rules the parties accept. When both sides circumvent Thou shalt not murder by using the reciprocity rule to make murder acceptable killing, they cannot argue about how to do the killing. Israel cannot complain about terrorism nor the Palestinians about helicopter raids on terrorist enclaves in crowded cities.
To put it differently, if the Arabs are ready to fight for jurisdiction instead of appealing to the British Mandate Administration or the United Nations, they should expect the Jews to fight too. Whether military means can be avoided remains to be seen�but peace is unlikely for now.
There are other means of conflict resolution, like competition in humility, for example, but philosophical dispute in such a case is futile, since life does not operate by mathematically formal descriptions, whether in humility or anything else. As Mao Zedong remarked, a statement may be both true and false at the same time, true for one, false for another, when people value their own interests and their enemies� differently.
Righteous people can be just and treat others the way they want to be treated, the positive formulation of the commandment. Compromise based on consideration of others� interests and aspirations, not the cost-benefit ratio of war, is theoretically possible. Politics has never achieved such a thing, however. Establishing a precedent of just conflict resolution would be a greater contribution to humanity than re-establishing the biblical state. Should the Israelis miraculously opt for that solution, opportunist Arabs would exploit their weakness. There is no chance either party will strive to be objective, just, compassionate, and considerate.
Popular opinion pardons some killing as long as the ideology behind it suits them, as contemporary approval of the crusades shows. Only egregious murder is disgusting�the Holocaust, the French slaughter of the Algerians, the Rwandan atrocities. The West condemns the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, where people see the damage as disproportionate, but not the Islamic world. They see the loss inflicted as partial payment for the death and humiliation of countless Muslims. On the other hand, many in the West see Palestinian guerrilla terrorism as an acceptable response to Israeli aggression.
�Justified� killing still may be not just, certainly not between people of different ideological bent. A Quaker pacifist would consider any killing in any war immoral and unjust, but throughout history people have been ready to kill en masse to convert others, religiously or politically. The readiness of militant Jews to conquer a tiny plot of land to practice their religion in is not uncommon. On the contrary, the restraint the whole world urges upon them is without precedent in history.
Any comparison can be subjected to reductio ad absurdum. Many compare Eretz Israel to the Lebensraum the Nazis demanded�most of Europe and possibly the whole world. In that quest, the Nazis purposefully exterminated Jews and Gypsies and reduced Slavs to serfdom. Israeli Jews occupy a tract of land smaller than a county in many states, land around which their national identity and hopes have revolved for millennia, the land every Jew prays to return to: �Next year, in Jerusalem!� The proper comparison is the Russian defense of Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad or the British defense of London in WWII.
Indeed, a century ago most of the population of Palestine (but not, significantly, of Jerusalem) was Arab. But democracy, the best system of majoritarian decision-making (itself a questionable concept, as many philosophers since Plato recognize), is not perfect. Consider California, where the white non-Hispanic population is no longer the majority. Suppose other ethnic groups, projected to reach a super-majority by 2050, amend the state constitution, relegating Caucasians to inferior status by declaring Spanish the official language. Would anyone challenge the right of Caucasians to fight for their own jurisdiction within California? Many would not. Ethnically, religiously, and even ideologically diverse states that fail as melting pots dissolve. Who was there first and who came later does not matter; much of Israel was not settled fifty years ago. A coherent but importantly distinct group living compactly is entitled to sovereignty, or at least it makes sense to give them sovereignty to keep them from living in perpetual conflict with their neighbors. What except anti-Semitism denies the same logic to the Jews in the Middle East?
After reading the book, I can claim that there is something in the book for everyone to disagree about. And something to agree about too. It shocked me at first, but thinking of a lot of what was said, there is plenty of useful material, plenty of extreme opinion, and plenty of what's on map now.
The book is available to download here! [Hat tip: David Sasaki]
Print | | Digg | Stumble | delicious | Tweet | Technorati | Reddit | Yahoo | Google
{ 32 } Comments
Haitham, you shared where we can download the book, but do you know if purchasing it physically will be available anywhere? Were you able to buy it?
No wonder, these people also banned the book of his excellency Saddam Hussein. This is hypocracy "freedom of speech" is excercised to propogate hatred. But the same freedom of speech and freedom to excercise and speak one's own word is not welcome and one cannot excercise.
We live in a world of lies, which are drumbeated to be as truth. The west makes their people believe that they are right and their citizens are like sheep following an elected dictator.BUSH and BLAIR and the HOLY QUEEN
Hal,
It is available at Amazon. They deleted the reviews as I said, but they still sell the book.
Also if you go to the author website (where you download a copy), s/he also have a link to purchase the book.
Haitham, Is there online version of the book of his excellency saddam hussein. A man who tried to safe gaurd his nation, from being a failed state. What the HOLY LORD BUSH and BLAIR have been doing to safe gaurd their nation. Under the blessings of the HOLY Queen.
I was wondering if, we are speeding up the process of granting SAINT HOOD to his holiness BUSH and BLAIR during their life time itself for ethnically cleansing 1 million people and displacing 100's of thousands of families as refugees.
The only mistake a saint would say is " bring them on" other butchering innocent people is not a crime. Tommorrow our children shall surely be praying these saints of GOD.
Well, i have started reading this book. It is very interesting ….
War Crimes manual? War Crimes are Murder, Torture and Rape - when committed by troops in a designated war zone. This book is talking about being cunning, ruthless and cruel - which isn't illegal. Though it may be immoral. Get a grip.
Asadel,
Are you a member of one of these categories:
Sunni
Shi'ia
Kurd
If so, which?
Dear Philip,
I am muslim first. It's amazing to see that how the doctorine of divide and rule are being applied.:). It doesnt matter who you are. What matters is whether you are aligned with the truth or not. We are here to only discuss the truth to reveal it.
I think, for us to survive, for our future generations to exist, we should reciprocate the same way they have done to us.
Very well. But I must assume you are Sunni, since only someone in Saddam's favored group (he for one DID use the doctrine of divide and rule) would call him "excellency." It's pretty much all Shi'ia and Kurds that I have watched tell their stories of being tortured and being forced to watch as family members were raped, beaten and murdered in cold blood — all by Saddam's orders. Saddam wasn't guarding his nation. He was guarding the billions of dollars and tremendous power he acquired from the blood and bruises of his fellow Muslims.
Philip,
If I may interject here. Saddam may have been Sunni, but he was a Baathist first and foremost. Iraq was a secular state prior to the US invasion. What we are seeing now is an unleashing of the various religious factions which Saddam held together (albeit with brute force). I am absolutely no Saddam fan, not even one little bit. Look here to an explanation of the Baathist party
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2886733.stm. Sadam was revered in other Arab countries for his Pan-Arabism, not his Sunni background. Iraq was not even a county until it was put together after WW1 with an agreement between the British and the French http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq. By putting a diverse population under one flag the Sykes-Picot agreement forced the western notion of nationalism on a diverse people. We are now seeing the wiseness of this decision. Once again, I am absolutely not condoning any of Saddam's actions, he was a horrible man who killed thousands of his own people. But there is much more to the story than meets the "American" simplistic view of the situation. (please correct me Asadel if I am incorrect in my statements)
Post #5 "War Crimes manual? War Crimes are Murder, Torture and Rape - when committed by troops in a designated war zone. This book is talking about being cunning, ruthless and cruel - which isn’t illegal. Though it may be immoral. Get a grip." This is absolutely the most assanine post I have seen in a while. Cunningness, ruthlessness and cruelty are all part and parcel of war crimes. The writer needs to get a grip!!
Haitham,
This book is one heck of a homework assignment. I'm taking my time to read it and reread it. Inside the mind of a Zionist, CREEPY. I won't be suggesting this one for Oprah's book club anytime soon!! But then again, maybe I should so the American public can be exposed. The problem would be that too many "Americans" would agree with the authors suggestions. A very big sigh.
Dear Philip,
We haven't investigated the western funding to assisinate Saddam. This was funded by the British and American Forces through the Kurds. A Governing authority would react the same like how saddam has reacted. Atleast, his moves are justified. You speak of torture and murder, Hitler, Blair and Bush and other colonial powers have ethnically cleansed people in Africa, Asia. They massacred, thats the reason why they are hated so much in every part of the world.
By the way, i am kurdi. Our people have just been mislead and have been setup to destablise the country. If you spend some time and do some research. You will learn that British intelligence and American Intelligence agencies, have been even funneling money to fight the turks and the iranian through the kurds.
Robin,
Sorry…I was just focusing on one of Saddam's cute little quirks! It's true; he is not a theocratic type like the Taliban or Iran's government. As a Ba'athis (Arab Nationalist), he had a different goal. In fact, his party was what led the US to erroneously support him against the religious extremists in Iran 20 years ago. So I'm aware of that; but Asadel's revering of him … well … kinda freaked me out. And since there was one group Saddam did have a special liking for (the Sunnis), I decided to question him about it. As for diverse groups in the Middle East, maybe I am a western idealist, but why can't there be diversity in one nation? The US has it, and despite RELATIVELY small problems between the cultures, it works pretty well. And there is diversity in other Middle Eastern countries. I truly believe the Iraqis can work it out if they manage to have a government that has a strong emphasis on civil liberties, functions as a representative democracy, and takes a zero tolerance policy toward terrorists. And call me myopic, by I think they can pull it off. I, like 67% of Iraqis (oddly compared to 35% of Americans), expect things to get much, much better there and that they have a bright future ahead.
Asadel,
You are misled. First, the US does tend to like the Kurds. This is mainly because they tend to favor democracy and are a constant irritation to the religious extremists. The US is not using them to fight the Turks, though. Turkey, being a secular democracy, is an ally of the US. They have been very helpful providing intelligence and the like. The administration has praised them along with many other Muslim nations who celebrate and practice democracy. Beware of "research," my friend. There are a lot of people with various agendas out there that will try there best using any kind of deception to achieve it. Yes, Bush has been accused of this, and that's an ongoing debate. But let's assume he is trying to fool people out there to do his bidding. Realize anti-westerners are doing the same. I just got into a long debate with a guy who quoted Ariel Sharon as saying that Israel controls the US. This quote was from a supposed Israeli radio broadcast. The date was documented, and it has been widely circulated (interestingly enough, mostly by white supremacists and Islamo-fascists). The thing is, Sharon never made the statement. It was concocted by a pro-Hamas propaganda group and sent out as a press release, then published in a widely-circulated column.
But whatever you believe, do NOT believe Saddam has anything but loathing for the Kurdish people. There is a reason he used poison gases and chemical agents against your people. And you have not been set up to destabilize Iraq, but to actually help provide stability…and have a voice for once. Good heavens, the last thing we want there is instability! Our soldiers are dying because of the existing Have all the suspicions you want about the Americans, but no one, Democrat nor Republican, in the US government wants our troops to remain. The American people want to see a stable, secure, free Iraq.
Finally, neither Bush nor Blair is involved in ethnic cleansing. Bush is a conservative, and Blair is a liberal. Both merely want 2 things accomplished: the spread of democracy and an end to terrorism (the ultimate goal of terrorism being to destroy democracy). Whether it be John Kerry, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton or Condi Rice, Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, there is no hatred of anyone based on religion nor race. The problem of diversity in Iraq (I touched on this with my reply to Robin) is not really a problem with diversity. It's a problem with extremism. The issue isn't that Kurds, Shi'ia, Sunnis, Christians and even Yezidi coexist there. It's that certain elements of some of those groups think that their own religious views should dictate Iraq's governing policies, and some want a return to tyranny. But if the extremists are removed from places of influence, and the criminal activity that they use to forward their goals are effectively squelched, then the various cultures in Iraq can coecist and even learn from each other. Imagine that!
Philip, it is wrong to "assume" with such generalization.
As if some one would be asking you this:
Are any part of these categories?
Catholic
Christian
Protesant
"Which people "must assume" that if you are either a Christian or Catholic you would support some one like Hitler, or Bush"
As you have stated above:
"But I must assume you are Sunni, since only someone in Saddam’s favored group (he for one DID use the doctrine of divide and rule) would call him “excellency.”"
Muslimah,
If a leader favored one group over all others and heaped benefits on them at the expense of others, I would make such an assumption and, as in this case, risk being wrong. So, let's say Bush frequently sent thugs out throughout the country throwing Muslims and Jews and Buddhists into prison. Let's also say he more or less ignored the existence of atheists and agnostics. Finally, let's assume he poured money into Christian neighborhoods, made sure they had fresh water and electricity and such while the others were deprived of the same. Then I would assume anyone from the US who admired him, holding him in high esteem, was a Christian.
Of course, Asadel did correct me, and dare I say…I was wrong! And you are correct, Muslimah, in stating that assumptions are wrong (in the sense of being erroneous).
Philip, it was never said that assuming is wrong, but that making wrong assumptions is not right!
It is wrong to say that every Sunni must have liked Sadaam, because let me be one to tell you, I didn't.
I am Sunni, and being Sunni doesn't equal favoring Sadaam.
Forgive me; I also did not mean to assert that all Sunnis favor him, even Iraqi Sunnis. I rather meant that if someone in Iraq truly admires Saddam, then that person is likely a member of the favored group. Clearly many Sunnis (most, even) seem to be enthusiastic about taking part in the fledgling democracy there. It's a struggle, but even the formation of the democratic republic that would become the US had a great deal of fighting, rewriting, arguing factions and even bloodshed when the War for Southern Independence (commonly known as the US Civil War) occurred. SO trust me: my statement was not an indictment against Sunnis! I would also say that likely the only Sunnis worldwide (with a few exceptions) that actually favored Saddam would be the ones in Iraq that he heaped benefits on.
Perhaps a better way tho explain my assumption statement is this: Anyone who supports Usama Bin Laden is most likely a Muslim. But, of course, most Muslims do not support him.
Or, something with less baggage: If you drink breast milk, you are most likely a baby or very young child. But not all babies/young children drink breast milk.
…Although all babies should, but that's a whole other argument!
Philip,
If I may venture to suggest you have a totally Western view of the Iraqi situation. You are an American, and from what I have read of your statements here, assuming you know more about them than they know about themselves. LISTEN. This is THEIR country we invaded and you cannot assume to know what they are thinking by listening to the western media and certainly not our administration which has it's own agenda in telling us what they want. No one in their right mind with even a smidgeon of knowledge of Arab or Iraqi culture would think that they would have rolled out the red carpet for us no matter HOW much they disliked Saddam. One size does NOT fit all. Yes it's absolutely great, WONDERFUL that America is a melting pot. But get real, we have our own racist problems here to. These are CENTURIES long disputes between the different factions of Iraq and just going there and saying "Why can't we just all get along" ain't going to cut it. Of course it's the extremists. But by invading Iraq, with inadequate troop numbers (I take that back, invading Iraq in the first place) opened up a kettle of fish that was simmering for many moons. You said over on the other link that you favor a limited federal government entrusted with certain powers, defense being one of them. There has not been ONE SINGLE PROOF FOUND that Saddam was any threat to the US. Conjecture all you want. It's been more than three years since the invasion and the only thing we are finding out about is more lies this administration hoisted on the American public. America is hated in other countries because of it's foreign policy, not because of democracy. You cannot FORCE democracy with a machine-gun. You cannot be responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths and then say, "Aren't you so lucky we chose you to be the next recepient of our largesse". LISTEN Philip. There is a whole lot you can learn here straight from the horse's mouth.
I agree in part, and "can't we all just get along" is certainly a pipe dream, at least at present. I used the term "relatively" regarding the US, because racial and cultural divides have always existed to one degree or another, but yet all in all, we've managed to function as a melting pot (or at least salad bowl) without the iron fist of dictatorship. I understand that it is all very different elsewhere. But I can't help thinking that somewhere, in the pure humanity of the Iraqi people, that there is room to settle those differences. Certainly US troops with machine guns and artillery are not going to solve it. But if it were not for the extremists attempting to take control, we would be long gone, to the delight of everyone from the top hair George W. Bush's head to very soles of a peace activist's Birkenstocks®. But the extremists are opposed to democracy. If they just hated the US, they would do what it took to get us out, which is … nothing! Don't blow up Iraqi police stations, don't burn down Shi'ia mosques, don't sabotage oil wells. And guess what? We're outta there!
Bush lied and he will keep on lying to protect his ass.
Philip, you can say anything you want. Israeil will do anything they want and the US will support them.
Haitham,
Is the image you have up the book cover? It's quite an impressive painting of Samson. If you found it elsewhere, I'd like to see the entire painting.
Very well, Philip. Thanks for a hypocratic lecture. I am not surprised how you are trained and influenced and blindly believe in hypocratic ideologies of America.
British and America would go on to any lengths to setup their colonial empire. Dont be such an idiot to just blindly believe in your hypocratic values. The very existence and foundations of your society are so weak on these hypocratic values. You are only surviving with the help of a gun and threatening.
If U.S and British were Holy Souls, why is there bias in the United Nations. Why isn't there a democratic structure, why is that they need to hold Veta Power. If there had been no Veto Power or your GUN with which u threaten to blow up nations, force families into prostitution, drug trading, ethnically cleanse.
In the academia itself, there is debate about 911 itself now, suspicious isn't it. Saddam certainly has been a hero he stood by the truth. He tried to safe gaurd his nation, his people. He has been misled by British and Americans, to wage war against iran.
There are alot of middle east academicians, who have realised this and have traced it out, the master sketch.
By the way Mr.Philip are you an israeli spy or british MI5 agent or CIA analyst who is trying to bully people the right to speak, to reflect the truth.
Hope you wouldnt threaten to kill people or blow up television or news broadcasting stations.
I am certainly not misled and we are not goats or sheep or pigs that we blindly follow a dictator like bush or hitler or blair or the holy queen.
MI5 and CIA have a policy of setting up cover up operations to mobilise their objectives. Have u seen "arlington road", unfortunately a couple of our politicians have been in such a situation.
Philip, certainly you are on your way to obtain a first certificate towards saint hood or knight from the Queen like Bill Gates .
Toast for Philip.
Philip and asadel:
Kindly refrain from personal attacks. I'm not going to tolerate this here. Neither I nor other readers here are interested to read them. If you are here just for this (which I don’t think you are), then you are in the wrong place. Please read the note just above this comment box which will remind you of the policy here.
Philip,
The picture you see on top of the post is not from the book. It is a painting called "Samson Blinded" and you can find here:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/corinth/samson_blinded.jpg.html
To Hal:
The book is not currently available from publisher, though some copies are still sold on Amazon. Booksurge terminated Shoher's publishing contract with no explanation whatsoever.
Here you go, Hal.
Thanks for the clarification, Alex!
Quite an amazing work of art! I'm kind of an art guy, so I appreciate a great painting like that, especially of biblical subjects.
I apologize if I appeared to be making personal attacks, I was not making attacks of any kind (except on Saddam, but, well…you know…). I was just hoping to grasp where Asadel was getting his info and view of Saddam as anything other than a murderous tyrant.
Asadel,
I am merely trying to point out to you some logical inconsistencies with whatever you are being taught. There are a lot of convincing people out there, especially those who have the opportunity to influence you face to face. I am simply trying to help you understand that the US, like them or not, WANT stability in Iraq, if ONLY for our own good! And for what it's worth, the Kurds are one group that seems to share that goal as much as we do. But if you need proof that you are being sold a lie: You were told that the US wants Kurds to fight the Turks. But the US is a Turkish ally! We thing they're the best thing since sliced bread (or something like that). So you are being taught a lie. I can't make you reject the lie; I can only provide you with some basic, politics-free facts and hope you will give them consideration. Just clear out the emotion and such and try to look at it all from a straight rational/logical standpoint.
Neither i am being emotional, I am certainly speaking after considerable research. Iran's move to sue Saddam for waging war against IRAN, is very tactical for it would reveal, the western countries role. Subsequently, there are alot of kurdish people, who have openly acknowledge u.s funnelling money to wage war against saddam and turkish. Similar case as the somalian embassy official who has raise voices against funnelling money to create trouble.
It would wiser if one could properly manage its own country rather than dictating the freedom of other countries. None of us have given Americans nor west the authority to dictate our lives. We havent elected you. So your choice should be limited to your country or nation you consider.
Even the turks realise that the westerners are not to be trusted. If they had been a staunch ally, IRAQ would have certainly been invaded from their bases. Why was there huge outcry about U.S presence in turkey, when there was a vote in the parliament.
I would also request you to consider it on a logical standpoint as well. To brush up your knowledge about your countries policies.
It is certainly untrue my friend the true intentions are to serve your nations belly (Oil interests). Well, Bush, Blair and Holy Queen are elected tyrants who enforce their will on other nations. Even the process of their election has been widely criticised by your own media. I think saddam is lesser evil than them. For having ethnically cleansed more than a million people and displaced more than those as refuges, as prostitutes in europe.
One simple question, a world of 6 billion odd people had to listen to a few idiots enforcing their will by the gun.
I pray, may god grant you the right knowledge, may god grant you the knowledge adn the strength to question the motives of your leaders.
Have a nice day!
Asadel,
"Even the turks realise that the westerners are not to be trusted."
The USA is not all 'westerners'.
Consider this:
- Several European countries did not trust USA's motives in Iraq either.
- Several European countries were bullied into participating in Iraq with 'token participation' even though a majority of the people in those countries did not trust USA's motives.
- Only one European country, the UK, fully participated in justifying the motives for a war in Iraq.
- Geographically, about half of Turkey is in Europe.
- Though primarily Muslim, Turkey is a secular state and it does have a democracy - it has its problems, but so do everybody else.
- Turkey is in negotiations about becoming part of the European Union.
- There are roughly as many 'western' countries that are either the USA or members of the EU as there are 'western' countries that are not the USA or members of the EU.
Both 'Westerners' and 'Arabs' are groups of people and countries that have just as many things in common as they have differences.
If I am not mistaken, then there are actually 'Arabs' who participate in the war on Iraq. Does that mean that 'Arabs' are not to be trusted either?
My point is: 'Westerners' are just as trustworthy as 'Arabs' and 'Arabs' are just as un-trustworthy as 'Westerners'!
This book reveals the dangerous but very real thoughts that many Zionists have and provides the way to destroy any chance that peace may have.
Nevertheless, establishing Judea could turn out to be a paradox as when they try to fully follow the Torah, they will find that they have no problems with the Muslims like these people have found out at jews-for-allah . org
Philip, you stated that "the ultimate goal of terrorism being to destroy democracy" which is simply untrue as anyone who has studied terrorism will tell you. Terrorists almost always are the product of injustice when those who are wronged feel that the injustices done to them cannot be redressed through other means.
To these less fortunate to learn about the truth. Please go and search for news videos on google videos. They will surely learn how controlled your media is . How you are fooled by your own governments.
First have the guts to question your own governments and learn the truth. Please do come back later boasting.
Good Lord! Hello once again Sabbah's blog and sorry for the lapse in my entries. Becoming a lawyer is hard and time consuming. And if anyone can believe it I am trying to become an International lawyer to boot. What can I say, I love a good mess and international law is such a glorious mess
First thing first, thank you, Sabbah, for such a wonderful blog. It is most interesting to read all the wonderful blogs you have posted and and the rather interesting,
, posts made by everyone.
Second, I suppose this blog is all about putting folks into categories and making them representative of an entire group. Well I'll join, I as much as anyone love stereotypes. I am a Irish, Catholic, American, White, Democrat from California. Well lets see that makes me a drunken idiot, a guilty zealot, a racist colonist, a pinko liberal, and a tree hugging hippy. It is funny that all those categories seem contradictory but what the hell, stereotypes. Go figure.
Third, I love that Sabbah picked this book to talk about. It is at least honest about a persons view of a difficult situation. Even if people don't agree and are diametrically opposed to each other, I have always felt it is better to let a person speak their piece even if you can't agree. So much better to argue than fight as a much wiser man than me once said. Today I drove home past an anti-immigration rally on my way home. On the other side was a pro-immigration rally on the opposite side of the street. Though they clearly did not agree they spoke and did not degrade their messages with violence. (I suppose California might not be doomed so soon
)
Lastly, I would like to say I love every single one of you for all your quirks. All your loving comments and hateful snides. If such an unoriginal book (If something is called Machavellian it must be derivative) can cause such intelligent witty banter than there must be intelligent witty people typing that banner. So thanks to you one and all. I have broadened my horizons listening to you all and am a wiser geezer because of it.
Stay safe, God bless, and keep on blogging.
The whole problem goes back to the US telling the world on how to react.
The US is the biggest country that is now telling the world what to do.
Somebody please assasinate Bush. It will help the world.
NSA will search me and attack me for this one.
Kimmy,
With all due respect, please stop trying to get the NSA to come after you! They are not concerned; trust me.
{ 1 } Trackback
[...] in the cabinet of Olmert who visited Egypt over and over unfortunately.Please read this review from Haitham Sabbah , it is kind of old from 2006 , pardon me but I found this book but I accident and I was surprised [...]
Post a Comment