chicot

I see. So because some people in these countries commit these acts you consider that justification for slaughtering every man, woman and child in the country. Congratulations, you have the exact mindset of a terrorist. Great, we now have another genocidal imbecile to take the place of dear old Boomer

Superior Iraqi science has perfected the matter teleporter.

You're not exactly setting the bar very high there. Is there anyone less trustworthy than Chalabi?

?! It's extremely premature to regard that link as proof positive of the existence of WMDs. I'm not saying that the link is completely bogus, rather that we should wait and see. Richio used to pop up more or less every week and say "aha" when some new "evidence" came to light. In each and every case, it came to nothing. As for the fact that Syria and Iraq were both Baathist countries, don't assume that this means they were on good terms. In fact, the rival Baathist regimes hated each other with each claiming theirs was the "true" version of Baathism.

Speculation built on speculation. Why on earth should Iran give one of it's precious nukes (when and if it manages to make one) to Al-Qaeda? Where is the evidence that Iran is allied to Al-Qaeda? Why should Iran (overwhelmingly Shiite) ally itself with an organisation which regards them as heretics and has slaughtered Shiites by the thousand in Iraq? How could Al-Qaeda actually hit the US? Does it have intercontinental ballistic missiles? Are you assuming that they could just sneak one into the US in a suitcase or something? Even assuming that technology exists, how easy would it be to get an atomic bomb through customs?

Seems I was somewhat premature in thanking you for a sensible debate. Oh well... Did you miss this? "Many muslims would like to see Israel/Palestine as a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for Jews and muslims, some would probably like to see the Jews expelled in much the same way that the Palestinians were driven out. I certainly don't agree with the latter view but even that is not the same as wishing for "wholesale slaughter"." I have said on many occasions that I favour a multi-ethic secular state with equal rights for both Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine. Try reading the post properly next time before jumping to (wrong) conclusions.

Thank you for actually attempting a sensible discussion rather than another of these "Palestinians want to extermininate all Jews" posts. I am not sure that there are no Jews whatsoever living in the non-Israeli Middle East - for instance, there was a small Jewish community in Iraq prior to the invasion. I'm also not convinced that the expulsion of the jews from other middle-eastern countries had nothing whatsoever to do with Zionism in pre-Israel Palestine. Nonetheless, the expulsion of jews from other countries is just as bad as the expulsion of the Palestinians from Israel and I believe the right of return should apply both ways. In any event, it would be fair to say that an Arab muslim in Israel proper (that is to say, one that actually has citizenship) does indeed have greater rights than a jew in an arab muslim nation, although there is certainly still some discrimination even then. My problem is with those Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that do not and cannot be allowed to have Israeli citizenship as to do so would dilute the "Jewishness" of Israel. My knowledge of the pre-Reich Nazi party is somewhat sketchy and I don't have the time just now to do the necessary research. Anyway, my point is not that Hamas is a praiseworthy organisation, it is that there are other reasons that Palestinians could have had for voting for it, rather than just it's hardline stance on Israel and the corruption of Fatah contrasted with the social funding of Hamas is a prime example of this.

? I think the UN statement was merely to do with the fact that the election was peaceful and fair and would have been made had the election gone the other way. As for Hamas winning the election, I hardly see how the result of a Palestinian election is proof positive that "people in the muslim world in general" desire the "complete annihilation of Israel and the wholesale slaughter of the Jews who live there". Was the muslim world in general voting? The muslim world in general probably does wish for the end of Israel in it's current state, that is a state in which any Jew regardless of where they were born or lived has a greater right to settle in Israel than Palestinians who have lived in that land for generations. That does not mean that they wish for "the wholesale slaughter of the Jews who live there" - the number who actually want that is likely to be tiny. Many muslims would like to see Israel/Palestine as a multi-ethnic state with equal rights for Jews and muslims, some would probably like to see the Jews expelled in much the same way that the Palestinians were driven out. I certainly don't agree with the latter view but even that is not the same as wishing for "wholesale slaughter". Perhaps the Palestinians voted for Hamas due to it's hardline position on Israel, perhaps they voted for it because it puts a lot of money into social programs and is untainted by corruption, unlike the current PA. Perhaps it was a bit of both or perhaps it was some other reason. Whatever, I wouldn't be too suprised if there was a softening of Hamas' stance now that they are in power. It is easy to take a very hard line when you are in opposition, it is somewhat different when you have to deal with the realities of government. Ariel Sharon was thought of as a hardliner before he actually became prime minister and yet now many hardliners regard him as a traitor.

They may be reporting them but I would guess that they wouldn't receive very prominent coverage. It's not really all that suprising that rallies expressing anger at the US receive a lot of coverage in the US. Same goes for over here - if there's an international incident involving Britain and there are demonstrations against Britain in the country in question, it's bound to make the headlines.

Actually, that's not quite true. There have been plenty of marches in Iraq protesting about terrorist attacks (despite the fact that these too are sometimes targetted. Just because something doesn't make the headlines in the US media does not mean that it's not happening.

Never said that. I was pointing out that expecting Pakistanis not to be a bit upset when the US blows up civilians is somewhat unreasonable. It's also worth remembering that the current Pakistan government is a key ally in the war on terror. This sort of thing only serves to undermine Musharraf and if is he is overthrown (there have been 2 assassination attempts already) it would not be a very good result for the US.

How dare they protest the killing of civilians. I'm sure you'd be quite willing to accept the bombing of a house in your hometown by a foreign power so long as their intentions were good

The muslim population of the UK is some 1.6 million. How many people do you think were there listening to him preach? I happen to live in the UK. Also, my father is a muslim and I happen to know plenty of British muslims. I can assure you that the vast majority of British muslims regard Hamza as a nutcase. Do you actually know any muslims or is your only point of contact through the media?

So what? Hamza is about as representative of the muslim population of the UK as Pat Robertson is of the Christian population of the US, perhaps even less so.

You'd think the fact that this happens virtually every year would prompt the Saudi authorities to do something about it. If they can't adequately police the numbers that make the pilgrimage then they just have to limit the numbers to a greater degree.

It seems to be a slightly odd statement if you assume that most of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of Sunni Arabs and are therefore responsible for most of the coalition deaths in Iraq. There are however going to be differences even within the various communities - it could be that most of the Shiites they have come into contact with in Baghdad are followers of Al-Sadr (I think there is a million or so Shiites in Sadr city) and are therefore more likely to be hostile to US forces than Shiites in, say, Najaf or other parts of the south.

I think this is the story the monkey is referring to: US teen runs off to Iraq "Given his heritage, Hassan could almost pass as Iraqi. His father's background helped him secure an entry visa, and native Arabs would see in his face Iraqi features and a familiar skin tone. His wispy beard was meant to help him blend in."

I think I read something about this. If it's the same one, then the kid in question was an American of Iraqi descent so no, he wasn't likely to have been a "blonde, blue-eyed Nordic" looking kid. In any event, just because one person manages to do it doesn't mean it's safe for everyone - he could just have been very lucky. Given all the hostake-taking that is going on, you'd have to have a deathwish to try it.

How about Hindus fighting Buddhists? Is today current enough for you? Tamil Tigers attack

True. Revenge is a pretty powerful human motivation.

I think you know me well enough by now to know that I wouldn't claim that. However, one atrocity does not excuse another. You can't justify massacreing civilians by saying that the other side also kills civilians. That's an excuse that Hamas and their ilk frequently uses - "Israel kills our civilians so we have a right to kill theirs". It doesn't wash when they use it and it shouldn't work when used by others either.

? For all their faults, I'm not sure that the apartheid South African government ever used that procedure. If I remember rightly, it was usually done by ANC supporters to people suspected of "collaboration". Winnie Mandela was involved in one such incident I believe.

If Sharon did indeed know what the phalangists were up to in Sabra and Shatila then I have little problem with the comments of Douchebag #1 on this occasion. I have little sympathy for someone who facilitates the massacre of hundreds if not thousands of old men, women and children (any men of fighting age had left the camps). Sabra and Shatila Strange that the chief witness against Sharon happened to be killed in a car bombing before he could give his evidence.

And Sharon's legacy is the Sabra and Shatila massacres.