On 2002-04-04 14:06, Jenny Genser wrote:
Virgil is technically right. Israel, even under Barak, was not willing to cede all of the parts of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan pre-1967, which includes some very sacred sites that Jews were denied access to pre-1967. Also, there may have been a strip of land that Israel wanted to keep for security reasons.

However, Marc is essentially right in that Barak was willing to give the Palestinians about 95 percent of the land controlled by Jordan prior to the 1967 Six Day War. And Arafat said "phhht!"

Is the greatly enlarged Jerusalem (unilaterally by Israel) part of the land controlled by Jordan prior to 1967? Is it part of the 95% bruited about by the punditry of the United States? Or, is the 95% a figure arrived at by first removing East Jerusalem from the West Bank equation; and then propounding Israeli generousity?

It looks like Arthur Andersen accounting to me. HTH

Ms. Genser, my confusion (and alas, dismay) has always been centered on the fact the neo-liberalism is so entrenched in the notion of seeking a defenseless peace, and yet everything about the very existence of Israel defys this notion. Yet, the Jewish community here in America continue to vote and support those that adhere to such nonsense. Is it really just about taxes? :???:

Mr. Saari I was mistaken, it wasn't all of the West Bank...

"On Monday Barak proposed to give 95% of the West Bank to the Palestinians if Arafat would agree that Jerusalem remain under Israeli sovereignty in a final peace deal; but Arafat rejected any deal that did not grant Palestinian rule over East Jerusalem. PA Minister Jamil Tarifi added: "Any settlement that doesn't place Jerusalem under Palestinian authority will be rejected and Barak won't find any Palestinian who will accept anything less. Israel must return 100% of the West Bank, including east Jerusalem. We refuse to get into games of percentages with the Israelis." Later, Barak's new proposal was to give away about 80% of East Jerusalem which Arafat refused as well, still wanting the remaining 20%."

And, of course, this was all pure folly, imho. It served no purpose whatsoever but to embolden Arafat and his allies to go further for what they really want.

A Worrisome Future:

"While the Camp David Summit ended in failure, there is no doubt that tremendous damage has been done to the State of Israel. Having not budged from their maximalist positions in nearly 7 years of peace talks, Yassir Arafat and the Palestinians now see that Barak is willing to capitulate on almost any position, no matter how sacred to him, the State of Israel and the Jewish people."

And that is... Death to Israel and death to the rich, imperialist pig America!

When, oh when, will we ever learn?

Marc Lamb wrote yesterday,
"It is clear that Arafat wants nothing... except every Jew in Israel dead."

Arafat aligned with Hamas, says the New York Times...

Bombers Gloating in Gaza as They See Goal Within Reach: No More Israel

Banish Arafat Now

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 5, 2002

The suicide bombing that killed 26 Israelis at a Passover Seder last week, the worst slaughter of the 18-month-old intifada, has entered the lexicon of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Passover Massacre. It is more than that. It was the beginning of the Passover Pogrom: seven days of Passover, seven suicide bombings, dozens of innocent Jews murdered, hundreds maimed.

This is Kristallnacht transposed to Israel. Like Kristallnacht, the Passover Pogrom takes the murder of Jews to a new level of fury and national purpose, in this case Palestinian national purpose: making "death to the Jews" not just a slogan but a strategy, a campaign to make Israeli life intolerable and to force Israel's surrender and ultimate abolition.

It was also Israel's Sept. 11, a time when sporadic terrorism reaches a critical mass of malevolence such that war is the only possible response. And as with the American attack on Afghanistan, Israel is going into Palestinian territory to destroy the terrorists and the regime that sponsors them.

American critics, beginning with the secretary of state, object to this goal of destroying Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. As The Washington Post explained in an editorial, we need the continued presence of "the leadership of the Palestinian Authority as well as its principal security services," because they have been "the only available instruments for stopping Palestinian terrorism."

Good God. Instruments for stopping terrorism? They are instruments for aiding and abetting, equipping and financing, supporting and glorifying terrorism, which they call "martyrdom operations." The question of capabilities is irrelevant. Of course they have the capability. But they have no intention of exercising it.

This is like arguing at the beginning of the Afghan war that we should not attack the Taliban because they were the only instrument in Afghanistan available for bringing al Qaeda to heel. Sure. But they were allied with al Qaeda, commingled with al Qaeda and shared al Qaeda's objectives. They had no intention of ever stopping al Qaeda.

That situation is precisely the same in Palestine. The premise of the Oslo accords was that Israel would gradually withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and allow Arafat to build security services so that, as he made peace with Israel, he would have the capability to stop the terrorists. It was a monumental swindle. Instead, he spent 8 1/2 years building a cult of death and a killing machine.

The majority of current suicide bombings are carried out by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a wing of Arafat's own Fatah movement. At Palestinian Authority headquarters in Ramallah, Israel found an invoice (in shekels -- a nice touch) from the terrorists to the Palestinian Authority for five to nine bombs a week. At what point do Western observers allow their Oslo illusions to yield to empirical evidence?

What to do with Arafat? Isolating Arafat is no answer, because the isolation must end at some point. Killing Arafat is no answer, because that will make him a martyr. The important thing is to make him irrelevant by expelling him. Let us not hear any more ridiculous talk about Arafat's being the only man who can make peace. Can? He had 8 1/2 years to make peace. He has no intention of making peace. He was offered his peace, his Palestine, in July 2000 by Israel and then by the president of the United States. Like the Palestinian leadership of 1947, also offered their own state side-by-side with Israel, Arafat rejected the offer and started a war.

"What Arafat really wants is the destruction of the Israeli state," says the preeminent Arab-Israeli peacemaker Henry Kissinger. "He may be willing to make some sort of an interim agreement, which he will consider probably as a stage to the ultimate destruction of the Israeli state."

Why expel him? Because as long as he rules, the Palestinian answer to any offer of peace that genuinely accepts Israel is "No." And there will be no one in Palestine who will dare say "Yes." (If he does, he dies.)

The only hope for any kind of peace is a Palestinian leadership, whether national or local, ready to say yes. And that can only become possible when Arafat has been banished and his rejectionist police state dismantled.

There are reports that Morocco would accept him. Good choice. It is west of Tunisia and thus farther from Palestine. The symbolism will be apposite. He was rescued from his last exile in Tunisia by an Israel offering him the olive branch of Oslo. He then chose war instead.

President Bush yesterday offered Arafat yet another olive branch, yet another rescue. This will achieve nothing. This will only postpone the reckoning. If this fighting is ever to end, it must be shown that there is a price for violence, terror and duplicity. The price is Elba. No, St. Helena.

? 2002 The Washington Post Company
(Posted for educational and discussion purposes only)

[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-05 19:16 ]

Mr. Samuel Blumenfeld plays the HITLER card. Game's over, discussion can cease.

_________________
"I often think it odd that [History] should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention." Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey, Chapter XIV

[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-06 07:03 ]

Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld has got this "Hitler" thing ass-backwards coz "In his weekly column for the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's aide Bassam Abu Sharif charged Jews with 'nailing Jesus to the cross.'"

I say kill all the Jews (and help mama with a $25,000 check from Saddam to boot)!

[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-06 09:06 ]

The basic problem here is that American foreign policy since Reagan left office can best be equated with some naive, optimistic bridge player who plays every hand assuming that every suit will break evenly and every finesse will succeed - and this ethos would appear to emanate from the so-called free-trade camp. As Michael Lind has so correctly pointed out, the foreign policy of the free-trade crowd has perpetual world peace (presumably "enforced" by the mere existence of the United States as the world's only superpower) as Plan A - and no Plan B (emphasis added).

The stark absurdity of this is about to driven home, though: Iran and Iraq have already called for an oil embargo against the U.S., and then there was Bush's recent transparent, cynical play for Rust Belt votes in November's mid-term elections with his slapping tariffs on steel imports.

World trade is about to return to the same conditions as those which prevailed in the early 1930s - and while many of the Boomers running this show may indeed have once turned on and dropped out, they forgot to tune in. They're clueless.

_________________
"An insult unpunished is the parent of many others" - John Jay

[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-04-08 02:00 ]

On 2002-04-08 01:53, Anthony '58 wrote:
The basic problem here is that American foreign policy since Reagan left office can best be equated with some naive, optimistic bridge player who plays every hand assuming that every suit will break evenly and every finesse will succeed - and this ethos would appear to emanate from the so-called free-trade camp. As Michael Lind has so correctly pointed out, the foreign policy of the free-trade crowd has perpetual world peace (presumably "enforced" by the mere existence of the United States as the world's only superpower) as Plan A - and no Plan B (emphasis added).

The stark absurdity of this is about to driven home, though: Iran and Iraq have already called for an oil embargo against the U.S., and then there was Bush's recent transparent, cynical play for Rust Belt votes in November's mid-term elections with his slapping tariffs on steel imports.

World trade is about to return to the same conditions as those which prevailed in the early 1930s - and while many of the Boomers running this show may indeed have once turned on and dropped out, they forgot to tune in. They're clueless.

And keep in mind that the exclusive trade zones of the 1930's were, with few exceptions, not large enough to ensure the regional autarky their dominant powers wanted, which helped fuel the impetus towards World War II. This was certainly true of the Japanese, Italian, French, and German zones, though the U.S., Soviet, and British zones may have been large enough.

Proletarian struggle led by Arafat and Saddam against American-led Israeli imperialism.

Arafat 'teams up with Saddam to plot attacks'
By Charles Laurence and Inigo Gilmore in Ramallah and Philip Sherwell in Nablus
(Filed: 07/04/2002)

COLIN POWELL, the US secretary of state, left Washington on his Middle East mission last night amid reports that Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat were planning to stage joint terrorist attacks in the region.

Senior officials of Saddam's General Intelligence Agency (GIA) are reported to have held talks with Mr Arafat's Palestinian Authority to identify potential targets, according to Western intelligence experts.

Israeli soldiers help priests, evacuted from Bethlehem, out of an armoured vehicle
They have been passed details of a meeting in Baghdad at the end of last month when an Arafat aide is said to have provided a list of strategic sites in Israel and Saudi Arabia that might be attacked in the event of American air strikes on Baghdad. The list of possible targets was presented to officials at the GIA, which is controlled by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son.

Apart from agreeing to share intelligence, the Palestinians are said to have provided Iraqi security agents with 37 blank passports, obtained from a variety of Arab countries, that might be used by the Iraqis when mounting terrorist attacks.

The disclosure that Saddam and Mr Arafat are trying to organise a co-operation pact will complicate Mr Powell's attempts to arrange a ceasefire between the Israelis and Palestinians. Washington is keen to call a halt to hostilities so that it can concentrate on plans to tackle Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

As he left Washington last night Mr Powell said it would be at least a week before he attempted to set up a meeting with the Palestinian leader. Before flying to Tel Aviv Mr Powell will visit Morocco, Egypt and Jordan. He will then travel to Madrid on Wednesday for a meeting of European Union ministers. He was also planning to meet Russian officials.

A convoy of Israeli tanks roll into central Bethlehem
The Telegraph can disclose that, in advance of Mr Powell's visit, CIA agents have held a series of meetings with Mr Arafat in the past week at his Ramallah headquarters. The talks have been aimed at establishing a lasting ceasefire. Mr Arafat has so far refused to accept the ceasefire terms, however, claiming that they were "skewed" in Israel's favour.

Yesterday there seemed no end in sight to the fighting, despite President Bush's protestation that "enough is enough" as he called on the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank territory they had reoccupied in the past week. Israeli troops backed by helicopter gunships broke through Palestinian defences around the old city of Nablus and heavy casualties were reported in the besieged refugee camp at Jenin as bulldozers cleared pathways for tanks.

Nablus and Jenin, two hotbeds of Palestinian extremism, have become the focus of the anti-terrorist operation launched nine days ago by Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister. Both sides reported a high death toll in Jenin, where one Palestinian gunman said that he had counted 30 bodies.

The commander of Israeli forces in the area, Eyal Shlein, said on Israel Radio: "We trapped them in there, attacked them with the intention that they should surrender. Those that don't surrender will be killed."

Four Palestinian militants were killed as they tried to plant bombs near a checkpoint at Nablus, while a man wearing a belt packed with explosives was shot dead in Jenin, according to the Israeli military. Two Israeli soldiers were also reported dead in Jenin.

The Palestinian Authority called for international intervention to stop what it called Israeli "massacres" in the Jenin camp, a militant stronghold. Israeli officials dismissed the appeal as propaganda and denied targeting civilians.

Palestinian gunmen moving through the ancient streets of central Nablus handed out belts laden with explosives and threatened to blow up Israeli soldiers entering the quarter after a two-day siege. The stench of tear gas and the crackle of automatic rifle fire filled the cobbled alleys as fighters scurried for cover and residents hid under tables.

Israel appeared to be using the time before the arrival of Mr Powell to intensify its operations. Palestinian officials threatened to boycott the visit if the secretary of state did not meet Mr Arafat.

In another development, it was suggested that one of the purposes of Mr Powell's visit to Morocco was to discuss plans for Mr Arafat's exile. The US is said to have suggested that Mr Arafat should move to Morocco unless he can prove his ability to halt Palestinian violence and co-operate in progress towards peace talks.

Both the Moroccans and the Israelis are reported to have baulked, however, at Mr Arafat's demand for an entourage of 70 Palestinian officials to be guaranteed safe passage with him, including some who are on Israel's "wanted" list as terrorists.

6 April 2002: Arafat meets envoy as Sharon steps up action
5 April 2002: Bush tells Israel to withdraw
3 April 2002: Arafat 'can leave on a one-way ticket'
3 April 2002: Iraq urges Arabs to use oil as a weapon
31 March 2002: Hold your fire, US warns Sharon as pressure grows for Palestinian state
29 March 2002: Tanks go in as Arafat seeks truce with Israel
28 March 2002: Passover suicide bomber kills 16
24 March 2002: Iraqis begin to wonder: Will there be a tomorrow?

Previous story: Labour fury as Blair backs Bush plan to remove Saddam
Next story: Defiance in the West Bank's capital of terror

On 2002-04-05 19:16, Marc Lamb wrote:

Banish Arafat Now

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 5, 2002

The suicide bombing that killed 26 Israelis at a Passover Seder last week, the worst slaughter of the 18-month-old intifada, has entered the lexicon of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Passover Massacre. It is more than that. It was the beginning of the Passover Pogrom: seven days of Passover, seven suicide bombings, dozens of innocent Jews murdered, hundreds maimed.

This is Kristallnacht transposed to Israel. Like Kristallnacht, the Passover Pogrom takes the murder of Jews to a new level of fury and national purpose, in this case Palestinian national purpose: making "death to the Jews" not just a slogan but a strategy, a campaign to make Israeli life intolerable and to force Israel's surrender and ultimate abolition.

It was also Israel's Sept. 11, a time when sporadic terrorism reaches a critical mass of malevolence such that war is the only possible response. And as with the American attack on Afghanistan, Israel is going into Palestinian territory to destroy the terrorists and the regime that sponsors them.

American critics, beginning with the secretary of state, object to this goal of destroying Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. As The Washington Post explained in an editorial, we need the continued presence of "the leadership of the Palestinian Authority as well as its principal security services," because they have been "the only available instruments for stopping Palestinian terrorism."

Good God. Instruments for stopping terrorism? They are instruments for aiding and abetting, equipping and financing, supporting and glorifying terrorism, which they call "martyrdom operations." The question of capabilities is irrelevant. Of course they have the capability. But they have no intention of exercising it.

This is like arguing at the beginning of the Afghan war that we should not attack the Taliban because they were the only instrument in Afghanistan available for bringing al Qaeda to heel. Sure. But they were allied with al Qaeda, commingled with al Qaeda and shared al Qaeda's objectives. They had no intention of ever stopping al Qaeda.

That situation is precisely the same in Palestine. The premise of the Oslo accords was that Israel would gradually withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and allow Arafat to build security services so that, as he made peace with Israel, he would have the capability to stop the terrorists. It was a monumental swindle. Instead, he spent 8 1/2 years building a cult of death and a killing machine.

The majority of current suicide bombings are carried out by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a wing of Arafat's own Fatah movement. At Palestinian Authority headquarters in Ramallah, Israel found an invoice (in shekels -- a nice touch) from the terrorists to the Palestinian Authority for five to nine bombs a week. At what point do Western observers allow their Oslo illusions to yield to empirical evidence?

What to do with Arafat? Isolating Arafat is no answer, because the isolation must end at some point. Killing Arafat is no answer, because that will make him a martyr. The important thing is to make him irrelevant by expelling him. Let us not hear any more ridiculous talk about Arafat's being the only man who can make peace. Can? He had 8 1/2 years to make peace. He has no intention of making peace. He was offered his peace, his Palestine, in July 2000 by Israel and then by the president of the United States. Like the Palestinian leadership of 1947, also offered their own state side-by-side with Israel, Arafat rejected the offer and started a war.

"What Arafat really wants is the destruction of the Israeli state," says the preeminent Arab-Israeli peacemaker Henry Kissinger. "He may be willing to make some sort of an interim agreement, which he will consider probably as a stage to the ultimate destruction of the Israeli state."

Why expel him? Because as long as he rules, the Palestinian answer to any offer of peace that genuinely accepts Israel is "No." And there will be no one in Palestine who will dare say "Yes." (If he does, he dies.)

The only hope for any kind of peace is a Palestinian leadership, whether national or local, ready to say yes. And that can only become possible when Arafat has been banished and his rejectionist police state dismantled.

There are reports that Morocco would accept him. Good choice. It is west of Tunisia and thus farther from Palestine. The symbolism will be apposite. He was rescued from his last exile in Tunisia by an Israel offering him the olive branch of Oslo. He then chose war instead.

President Bush yesterday offered Arafat yet another olive branch, yet another rescue. This will achieve nothing. This will only postpone the reckoning. If this fighting is ever to end, it must be shown that there is a price for violence, terror and duplicity. The price is Elba. No, St. Helena.

? 2002 The Washington Post Company
(Posted for educational and discussion purposes only)

[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-05 19:16 ]

The Middle East's troubles would indeed be solved with the exile of an Arab leader - but Krauthammer has picked the wrong Arab leader.

The ones who need to go are Jordan's royal family, which has no legitimate claim whatsoever to rule that country. They are nothing but stooges, elevated to power by a bunch of internationalist elitists (with John D. Rockefeller and Edward Mandell House in the lead), who felt that a monarchy would bring "stability" to the region after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. Send these pretenders to Italy (which is the number one "dumping ground" for decadent royal trash, is it not?), turn the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan into the Palestinian Republic of Jordan, and - blamo! - instant peace! The Palestinians won't even miss the West Bank or Gaza, as Jordan is double the size of both combined.

Was the royal family of Jordan descended from Sharif Hussein of Mecca in the nineteenth century? Or do I have my history warped, Anthony '58?

Also, could you provide a source to support your contention? I was vaguely aware the Hashemites had been installed by British/American imperialists but I wasn't sure how.

Last, are the Hashemites really the problem? As I recall they are one of the Arab regimes that are actually frienly to the United States. I think they have been instrumental in suppressing Palestinian terrorism in thier country. Of course, they did abandon the West Bank in 1988 and left the problem in the hands of Israel so it could take the blame. Then Rabin signed the Oslo accords so he could rid himself of the "Palestine" problem.

Maybe Jordan really should be a Palestinian state since they are 70 percent Palestinian and were once part of mandatory Palestine. Of course, one problem with that is I can't think of an alternative more moderate than the Hashemites. The Palestinian and Islamic parties in the Jordanian Parliament that might replace Hashemite rule can hardly be counted on to be more moderate (and probably quite a bit more radical) than the Jordanian monarch. So, I really don't know.

I guess you know more about this than I do, Anthony. (Also, is your knickname Tony? I always liked Italian names like that since I grew up in largely Italian Staten Island as a kid. The Jews and the Italians generally got along pretty well. I've always sort of seen Italians as a kind of extended Mediterranean kin. And, God, I love Italian food a hundred times better than Jewish food. Of course that doesn't qualify me as an Italian.)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27216

TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
Muslim cleric calls
for death of Arafat
Says Israel should continue offensive until he's executed

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27210

James Baker quietlylobbies IndiaSecret visit to gain support for Iraq attack, partner for oil

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=285413

Amid the ruins of Jenin, the grisly evidence of a war crime
From Phil Reeves in Jenin
16 April 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...706933,00.html

Mass defections and absenteeism in Iraqi military ranks

Iran Ready to Hit Back the USA With Terrorism

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/04/25/27995.html

On 2002-04-13 01:55, JayN wrote:
Was the royal family of Jordan descended from Sharif Hussein of Mecca in the nineteenth century? Or do I have my history warped, Anthony '58?

Also, could you provide a source to support your contention? I was vaguely aware the Hashemites had been installed by British/American imperialists but I wasn't sure how.

Last, are the Hashemites really the problem? As I recall they are one of the Arab regimes that are actually frienly to the United States. I think they have been instrumental in suppressing Palestinian terrorism in thier country. Of course, they did abandon the West Bank in 1988 and left the problem in the hands of Israel so it could take the blame. Then Rabin signed the Oslo accords so he could rid himself of the "Palestine" problem.

Maybe Jordan really should be a Palestinian state since they are 70 percent Palestinian and were once part of mandatory Palestine. Of course, one problem with that is I can't think of an alternative more moderate than the Hashemites. The Palestinian and Islamic parties in the Jordanian Parliament that might replace Hashemite rule can hardly be counted on to be more moderate (and probably quite a bit more radical) than the Jordanian monarch. So, I really don't know.

I guess you know more about this than I do, Anthony. (Also, is your knickname Tony? I always liked Italian names like that since I grew up in largely Italian Staten Island as a kid. The Jews and the Italians generally got along pretty well. I've always sort of seen Italians as a kind of extended Mediterranean kin. And, God, I love Italian food a hundred times better than Jewish food. Of course that doesn't qualify me as an Italian.)

Never heard anything about the Jordanian royal family tracing its heritage to Sharif Hussein of Mecca - you got me there. What I do know is that after World War I, the British needed a local face to represent them in their mandate over Palestine, which had been part of the Ottoman Empire before the war - and that it was John D. Rockefeller and Edward Mandell House who suggested using what has since become Jordan's royal family for that purpose.

There is one intersting familial relationship in the Arab world, though, and that is the fact that Arafat's uncle was none other than the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem - yes, the same one who declared jihad against the Allies in World War II and went to the Balkans to recruit Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians into the SS.

Also, what one needs to rememeber here is that the whole "Palestinian" concept is itself a propaganda tool; until 1967 the word was never used in the context in which one hears it today - not even in the Arab world (Alan Keyes went into great detail about this on his cable show one night last week; think it was Monday night but I'm not certain). The original British League of Nations mandate included all of what is now Israel, the "occupied territories," and Jordan, which was known as "Transjordan" at the time of the 1947 partition - all of this land was collectively referred to as "Palestine." One can argue that Israel could have solved this whole problem a long time ago, simply by dispatching Mossad agents to Amman to do to its royal family what the Bolsheviks did to Moscow's; then Jordan could have been handed over to the "Palestinians," and that would have been that.

And as far as Italian/Jewish relations in NYC goes - the alliance dates back to the early 1930s, when the two groups united to unseat the Irish Democratic political machine that had dominated city politics for decades; this happened under the so-called Republican-"Fusion" candidacy of Fiorello LaGuardia. (It was under LaGuardia that Jews came to dominate the city's public school system, a scenario that still exists today). On June 16, 1993, a huge rally was held at City Hall to protest then-Mayor David Dinkins' handling of the Crown Heights pogrom, in which not only visiting rabbinical student Yankel Rosenbaum was murdered but also Anthony Graziosi, a motorist driving through Crown Heights at the time, who was mistaken for a Hasidic Jew because he had a beard. Dinkins lost his re-election bid to Rudolph Giuliani that November, the Jewish vote providing Giuliani with his victory margin.

And the only person who has ever called me "Tony" on a consistent basis was a teacher I had in the sixth grade! You say you grew up on Staten Island, Jay. May I ask where?

[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-05-05 01:21 ]

Eltingville.

Actually, I really didn't grow up entirely there. I spent my first several years there.
The rest is Brooklyn. But that's pretty typical for a New York kid.
I really liked SI. Even with lampoons that everyone has of it.

"Ya wanna go to da bowlin' alley?"

I don't talk like that, usually.

But I am conversant in Brooklynese/SIese.

And interesting that you mention the Grand Mufti/Arafat connection.
Amazing the world ignores it.
Too inconvenient for our PC press, I suppose.

Arafat actually follows a rather interesting pattern.

Alexander wasn't Greek.
Napolean wasn't French.
Stalin wasn't Russian.
Hitler wasn't German.
Saladin wasn't Arab.
The Manchu Emperors weren't Chinese.
And Arafat isn't a Palestinian, even if there is such a thing.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/islam_restoration.html

Hashemite Restorations of the Islamic Holy Places in Jerusalem The Hashemite clan ruled over parts of the Hijaz region of Arabia from 967 CE to 1925 CE in unbroken succession. Moreover, the late King Hussein?s branch of the Hashemite family ruled the holy city of Mecca from 1201 CE until 1925 CE. The history of Hashemite leadership in the Arab and Islamic world finds Jordan's current monarch, King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein, at the head of a family which represents over a thousand years of rule in the region, and with a long history as guardian of the Islamic faith and the holy city of al-Quds al-Sharif (or Jerusalem).
In the center of the Old City of Arab East Jerusalem sits a sprawling compound known as al-Haram al-Sharif (The Noble Sanctuary). The compound, which contains two mosques, many shrines and public fountains, as well as the tombs of Muslim saints, is so holy and dear to Muslims that in the advent of Islam the faithful turned towards Jerusalem, and not, as they later did and continue to do so today, towards Mecca. Al-Haram al-Sharif is described as the first qibla (direction to which Muslims turn in prayer), and the third holiest shrine after Mecca and Medina.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/in...-20425,00.html
Middle East
Long Live the King
Hussein of Jordan returns to battle the ghosts of his Hashemite heritage
BY SCOTT MACLEOD

Monday, Feb. 01, 1999
When King Hussein fell ill with cancer last July, his departure to Minnesota's Mayo Clinic prompted reports about palace intrigue. Many Jordanians were mortified by media speculation portraying the royal family as conniving characters from a soap opera. Yet when the 63-year-old monarch arrived home last week, he hardly dispelled the image of a family divided.
Crown Prince Hassan, 51, who stood in for the King as regent during his absence, greeted his elder brother by kissing him on the hands. But Hussein, gaunt from chemotherapy, gave Hassan the worst news of his life. You have been my heir apparent for 33 years, he told him, but I am considering another successor. By week's end the palace made it all but official. Jordanian press reports said Hassan would be replaced by Hussein's eldest son, Prince Abdullah, 37. Hussein's current, U.S.-born wife, Queen Noor, pushed for her son, Prince Hamzah, 18. But the reports said he would settle for becoming Abdullah's No. 2.

Hashemite Restorations of the Islamic Holy Places in Jerusalem The Hashemite clan ruled over parts of the Hijaz region of Arabia from 967 CE to 1925 CE in unbroken succession. Moreover, the late King Hussein?s branch of the Hashemite family ruled the holy city of Mecca from 1201 CE until 1925 CE. The history of Hashemite leadership in the Arab and Islamic world finds Jordan's current monarch, King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein, at the head of a family which represents over a thousand years of rule in the region, and with a long history as guardian of the Islamic faith and the holy city of al-Quds al-Sharif (or Jerusalem).
In the center of the Old City of Arab East Jerusalem sits a sprawling compound known as al-Haram al-Sharif (The Noble Sanctuary). The compound, which contains two mosques, many shrines and public fountains, as well as the tombs of Muslim saints, is so holy and dear to Muslims that in the advent of Islam the faithful turned towards Jerusalem, and not, as they later did and continue to do so today, towards Mecca. Al-Haram al-Sharif is described as the first qibla (direction to which Muslims turn in prayer), and the third holiest shrine after Mecca and Medina.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/in...-20425,00.html
Middle East
Long Live the King
Hussein of Jordan returns to battle the ghosts of his Hashemite heritage
BY SCOTT MACLEOD

Monday, Feb. 01, 1999
When King Hussein fell ill with cancer last July, his departure to Minnesota's Mayo Clinic prompted reports about palace intrigue. Many Jordanians were mortified by media speculation portraying the royal family as conniving characters from a soap opera. Yet when the 63-year-old monarch arrived home last week, he hardly dispelled the image of a family divided.
Crown Prince Hassan, 51, who stood in for the King as regent during his absence, greeted his elder brother by kissing him on the hands. But Hussein, gaunt from chemotherapy, gave Hassan the worst news of his life. You have been my heir apparent for 33 years, he told him, but I am considering another successor. By week's end the palace made it all but official. Jordanian press reports said Hassan would be replaced by Hussein's eldest son, Prince Abdullah, 37. Hussein's current, U.S.-born wife, Queen Noor, pushed for her son, Prince Hamzah, 18. But the reports said he would settle for becoming Abdullah's No. 2.

Arab groups demand Armey apology for ethnic cleansing remarks

i have to admit I will have to disagree with pro-israel people just this once.

On 2002-05-05 15:51, JayN wrote:
Eltingville.

Actually, I really didn't grow up entirely there. I spent my first several years there.
The rest is Brooklyn. But that's pretty typical for a New York kid.
I really liked SI. Even with lampoons that everyone has of it.

"Ya wanna go to da bowlin' alley?"

I don't talk like that, usually.

But I am conversant in Brooklynese/SIese.

Eltingville; hey, I lived there for a while in the late '80s and early '90s, just before leaving New York altogether. Tottenville's really awesome, though; that's where I lived most of the time I was growing up (at least neither of us ever had to worry about becoming a crime statistic, living in those neighborhoods!)

From the Islamic magazine

http://www.khilafah.com/home/lograph...D=4141&TagID=2

Ground-Imaging Forensic Radar Exam Of WWII Treblinka Camp
uploaded 18 May 2002

A detailed forensic examination of the site of the wartime Treblinka camp, using sophisticated electronic ground radar, has found no evidence of mass graves there.

For six days in October 1999, an Australian team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination of the soil at the site of the former Treblinka II camp in Poland, where, Holocaust historians say, more than half a million Jews were put to death in gas chambers and then buried in mass graves.

According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1997), for example, "a total of 870,000 people" were killed and buried at Treblinka between July 1942 and April 1943. Then, between April and July 1943, the hundreds of thousands of corpses were allegedly dug up and burned in batches of 2,000 or 2,500 on large grids made of railway ties.

Krege's team used an $80,000 Ground Penetration Radar (GPR) device, which sends out vertical radar signals that are visible on a computer monitor. GPR detects any large-scale disturbances in the soil structure to a normal effective depth of four or five meters, and sometimes up to ten meters. (GPR devices are routinely used around the world by geologists, archeologists, and police.) In its Treblinka investigation, Krege's team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil core samples.

The team carefully examined the entire Treblinka II site, especially the alleged "mass graves" portion, and carried out control examinations of the surrounding area. They found no soil disturbance consistent with the burial of hundreds of thousands of bodies, or even evidence that the ground had ever been disturbed. In addition, Krege and his team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes.

"From these scans we could clearly identify the largely undisturbed horizontal stratigraphic layering, better known as horizons, of the soil under the camp site," says the 30-year old Krege, who lives in Canberra. "We know from scans of grave sites, and other sites with known soil disturbances, such as quarries, when this natural layering is massively disrupted or missing altogether." Because normal geological processes are very slow acting, disruption of the soil structure would have been detectable even after 60 years, Krege noted.

While his initial investigation suggests that there were never any mass graves at the Treblinka camp site, Krege believes that further work is still called for.

"Historians say that the bodies were exhumed and cremated toward the end of the Treblinka camp's use in 1943, but we found no indication that any mass graves ever existed," he says. "Personally, I don't think there was a mass extermination camp there at all."

Krege prepared a detailed report on his Treblinka investigation. He says that he would welcome the formation, possibly under United Nations auspices, of an international team of neutral, qualified specialists, to carry out similar investigations at the sites of all the wartime German camps.

Krege and his team are associated with, and funded by, the Adelaide Institute, a south Australia revisionist "think tank." Its director, Dr. Fredrick T?ben, was jailed in Germany for seven months in 1999 for disputing Holocaust extermination claims.

(Sources: "'Vernichtungslager' Treblinka: archaelogisch betrachtet," by Ing. Richard Krege, in Vierteljarhreshefte f?r freie Geschichtsforschung, June 2000 [4. Jg., Heft 1], pp. 62-64; "'No Jewish mass grave' in Poland," The Canberra Times, Jan. 24, 2000, p. 6; "Poland's Jews 'not buried at Treblinka'," The Examiner [Australia], Jan. 24, 2000. [The latter two newspaper items are reprinted in facsimile in VHO-info, May 2000, p. 30.]; Information provided by Richard Krege; M. Weber and A. Allen, "Treblinka," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp. 133-158; "German Court Sentences Australian Holocaust Skeptic," The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1999, pp. 2-5; Y. Arad, "Treblinka," in I. Gutman, ed., Encyclopedia of the Holocaust [New York: 1997], pp. 1481-1488.)
Source: Institute for Historical Review

subscribe | web links | Quotation | email

Sounds to me like they 'found' what they *wanted* to find at Treblinka. How reliable can such a 'revisionist' group be, especially when we have all that mountain of other evidence that proves, to my satisfaction at least, that the Holocaust *did* occur, and was at least as bad as it has been described as being?

JDS

Just demonstrating the mentality of some of these fundamentalists.

I will post some of thier articles from time to time to give a concept of the struggle they are in with the Western way of life. Here is another article. I think it's rather timely. It discusses the ideological struggle between the fundamentalists and the West.

Next Stop: Iraq

uploaded 12 May 2002

As Afghan opposition groups and U.S. armed forces continue their media designed successes in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida, the American debate has quickly turned to the question of where the so-called fight against terrorism should go next. In numerous public statements, President Bush has talked about a wide-ranging campaign against global terrorism. He has not committed to military operations against any other country or terrorist organisation, but he has made it clear that the broader struggle against so-called terrorism will be a long-lasting effort that could include the use of military force in regions beyond Afghanistan. Here we look at the history and reasons for foreign presence in the Gulf, and link that to the present policy of the U.S in that region, and the possibility and reasons for extending the war on terrorism to one of the key "axis of evil" member states, Iraq.

U.S. Oil Policy in the Middle East after the 1991 Gulf War.

Securing the flow of affordable oil is a cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy. The U.S. strategy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq, designed to ensure that neither Iraq nor Iran is capable of threatening neighbouring Gulf countries, is inextricably linked to Washington's oil policy. Currently, U.S. domestic oil production supplies about 50% of total U.S. consumption. Foreign sources provide the rest, primarily Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and several African countries.

The U.S. is strongly committed to protecting Gulf oil, although only about 10% of oil used in the U.S. is imported from the region. During the Cold War, U.S. strategy was primarily aimed at ensuring that Gulf oil did not fall into hostile hands (i.e. the former Soviet Union). Gulf oil was and remains important because of its impact on the global economy. U.S. competitors in Europe and Japan depend much more on Gulf oil than the U.S. does: 30% of European oil imports and nearly 80% of Japan's come from the Gulf. The U.S. exerts significant influence on these countries through control of the Gulf oil.

The Gulf Co-operation Council states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain) and Iran and Iraq together jointly possess 64% of the world's proven oil reserves. The most important among the Gulf-states is Saudi Arabia, which alone controls 27% of the world's oil supplies. Saudi Arabia's light crude is particularly sought after in the market by U.S. industries for sophisticated uses such as production of airplane fuels. Furthermore, money generated from Saudi oil sales to the U.S. often translates into Saudi arms purchases from the U.S. weapons dealers (thereby allowing the U.S. to keep as much of the oil revenues as possible).

For the last decade or so, Gulf monarchies have invested higher percentages of oil profits in land, hotels, real estate, factories, and other enterprises in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. As a result, increasing income of the oil-exporting states is linked to profits from unrelated businesses in oil-importing states rather then from the sale of the oil itself. This gives the Gulf oil states some stake in keeping the oil prices relatively moderate, since they share financial interests in the oil-importing countries.

The Gulf-war made clear the U.S. commitment to the security of the Gulf States and the supply of oil. Washington maintains military and naval installations in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, regarding the presence of these U.S. forces as central to keeping the pressure on Iraq and Iran to secure the flow of oil and prevent any threat to oil in the international waterways. According to the U.S. based Institute of Policy Studies, the U.S. is far too dependent on oil, and its policy puts little emphasis on developing energy alternatives. Therefore, in effect, the task to control the Middle East oil involves the removal of foreign competition.

Recent US-Iraq Policy

There are many potential targets for a possible post-Afghanistan phase of the ?war on terror?; Abu Sayyaf guerrilla bases in the Philippines, so-called terrorist bases and training camps in Somalia, Syria and the Lebanon as well as Iraq (along with Iran and North Korea as the three states making up the "axis of evil" defined by the U.S. President in his State of the Union address to the U.S. Congress in January this year). Numerous outside analysts and Bush administration officials are already making the case that the next phase in the war on terrorism should be an effort to overthrow the Iraqi regime-if necessary, with U.S. military force. As early as November 26, President Bush himself appeared to raise the ante on the Iraq debate, stating that Saddam would, "find out", what was in store for him if he failed to heed international demands to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. While Bush's statement may have been nothing more than a reiteration of existing U.S. policy (a follow-on from Clinton's era), it was interpreted by many as a conscious effort to remind the world of the dangers posed by Saddam and to begin to create a legal and political predicate to justify an eventual American attack against him.

It is clear from the recent machinations by the new Bush government that it intends to aggravate the situation in the Gulf and incite agitations therein under the pretext that Iraq did not abide by the ceasefire conditions of the Second Gulf War related to the removal of weapons of mass destruction. She depends upon United Nations reports, reports emanating by the Ministry of Defence or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or press reports published by the media, which are all of her making e.g. the recent satellite photographs produced, at the Security Council's Iraq sanctions committee, where before and after pictures of lorries entering military bases near Baghdad and emerging as rocket launchers were presented.

The U.S. had started rigorously and actively, from the first day of the Bush administration taking over, to assemble what she calls "allied states" to review the regime of sanctions with a new system which they call "smart sanctions" that permits the entry of consumer goods and prevents military goods or those with dual usage. Many states, including the Arab ones, have agreed and she is in the stage of putting down the details.

Iraq occupies a large space in the thinking of the new administration. This became clear since the time of the previous administration. On 9/1/2001 then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright said: "The United States will continue putting pressure on Iraq even after the period of President Clinton". Accordingly, Bush announced his policy in the early days when he said in his press conference on 22/2/2001: "...We will review the current sanctions policy and will review the options about how the sanctions will be effective...and we expect from him (Saddam) not to develop weapons of mass-destruction. If it appeared to me that he is doing that, then there will be consequences."

What those consequences are, only time will tell, but from observing the events in the region since the Second Gulf-war, one can begin to see what the broad outlines of the U.S. policy with respect to Iraq are, and identify the specific American interests in the region.

American Interests in the Region

Only the naive would not see that America had concerns other than the damage caused by so-called weapons of mass destruction. After all, nobody is disarming Israel, which has proven weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the U.S. cares little for anything when it comes to her interests. One such interest (within Iraq) is the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. This has been the long-term U.S. interest in the region with respect to Iraq for some time now. In 1997, acting spokesman of the U.S. government, James Foley was asked, "Would autonomy for the Kurds in northern Iraq be consistent with U.S. support for the territorial integrity of Iraq?" His carefully worded answer made it clear that there is a lot of sympathy in Washington for such a possibility in Iraq. In contrast, Richard Perle (former U.S. assistant secretary of Defense for International Security) did not beat about the bush. In an article he wrote for the Washington Post on the 8/2/1997, he wrote, "this strategy aims at eliciting a full-blown insurrection against Saddam Hussein, taking off from territory he does not control..."

The proposed territories of Kurdistan are highly strategic. They encroach upon many other territories, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. It is therefore no surprise neighbouring countries and others are concerned about America's attempt to create a Kurdistan. In fact, the colonialists of old had great designs on Kurdistan. One of the clauses of the "Sayfar" agreement (Paris, 1920) related to the Kurds. This agreement determined how the fragmentation of the Islamic State's territories should take place. It stated that Kurdish territories situated east of the Euphrates should be granted self-rule, and a committee consisting of British, French and Italian officials should be in charge of implementing the clause.

America merely continued where the old colonialists left off. America has been working for this from the time that Abdul Kareem Qasim took authority in Iraq in 1958. For decades she has been supporting the Kurdish separatists. The U.S. press reported the full extent of CIA funding for Kurdish separatist groups, "In the first years after the 1991 Gulf War, the CIA funnelled tens of millions of dollars to the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella group of members of Iraq's Sunni Muslim, Shi?ite Muslim and Kurdish communities. From bases in Salahuddin and near Irbil, in northern Iraq, the congress operated radio and television stations, published a newspaper and conducted military raids into government-held territory." (The Washington Post, 16 November 1997). Following on from that, in recent times, the ?Iraq Liberation Act? allowed the U.S. president to spend up to $97 million to provide military assistance and training to Iraqi opposition groups.

However, we know from history, any plan will require time to come to fruition. And so we saw the Americans refuse to aid the Shi?ite and the Kurdish uprising at the end of the Gulf war, for fear of bringing to power (amidst the resulting power vacuum that would naturally ensue) an "unknown entity", hence the U.S. preferred to live with a crippled devil they knew rather than the devil they did not. As well, the crippled Saddam served to remind timid Arab and third world regimes what would be in store for those who did not toe the line of the "sole superpower" and the new world order. Some spin-off's for the U.S. of isolating Iraq (in the short to medium terms) were the access to cheap oil and ability to sell weapons that consumed as much of the oil revenue as possible, by allowing Iraq in a periodic manner to seemingly threaten its neighbours. Another policy advanced by the U.S., was to ensure that none of Israel's enemies developed or acquired weapons of mass destruction as a counterpoise to Israel's arsenal of dozens of nuclear missiles targeted at the Arab capitals. This factor led to a profound power imbalance in the region. It also forced the weak Arab regimes to continue arming and relying on U.S. protection, whilst at the same time paying for the costs of a U.S. protection force, as in the case of Saudi Arabia.

In 1998, the Clinton administration?s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Sandy Berger, defined the strategy that the U.S., "can and will pursue is to contain Saddam in the short and medium terms, by force if necessary, and to work towards a new government over the long-term". How long is the long-term? At the time, the U.S. was not committing itself to a date or deadline. "Change will come to Iraq at a time and in a manner that we can influence but cannot predict", explained Clinton's Assistant for National Security Affairs. Perhaps that time is fast approaching.

Conflicting Interests over Iraq

The Gulf War was brought to an abrupt end by Britain. She was the one who pulled out her forces first and declared an end to her fighting. This forced the Americans to pull out as well, instead of going all the way to Baghdad to instigate a regime change. The U.S. had to pull out; otherwise the alliance would have been exposed as not an alliance to liberate Kuwait alone, but a one-state U.S. agenda to install its own puppet in Iraq over the sitting British puppet. In a similar vein, Britain continues to play her snake like role in this affair.

Saddam himself also foiled US plans, for example, when in April 1996 America tried to reconcile the two main Kurdish groups. America scheduled a ceasefire between the two fighting Kurdish groups in August 1996. However, Saddam disrupted this plan, by aiding the KDP in seizing the PUK strongholds of Irbil and Suleimaniyya. He did this to restore the balance of power between the two Kurdish parties, thus protracting their struggle. America though was running, in parallel, covert operations in northern Iraq to overthrow Saddam. The CIA called its programme the Iraqi National Accord or Wifaq. When Iraqi forces moved into Irbil, the CIA agents and members of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) were flown out to Guam and then to America.

America then retaliated by bombing military targets in the south of Iraq and declared the widening of the no-fly zone in the south. This indicated that America was still keen on dividing the south as well as the north. All of these events serve as the backdrop to Saddam's showdown with America.

After the post-September 11th threats to Iraq, at the time of writing Washington had considerably toned down its military dictate, as disclosed by the National Security advisor Condeleeza Rice, who said on the 7th of April ?The President has not decided to use military force? (CNN). Further clarification was as outlined by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the US will deploy new weapons inspections to resume their hunt for Saddam's suspected arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. All this to portray America with the moral authority, provide justification for a future conflict, or a US presence in the Gulf. As friction between the inspectors and Saddam is inevitable, America could use this avenue to accrue real justification to meet her aims.

Volatility of the International Arena

More than anything, the drama over Iraq revealed yet again that international relations boil down to competing interests. The image of fairness, morality, justice, goodwill and seeking to remove weapons of mass destruction is merely a very thin veil to conceal the actual mechanics. In the post-September 11th world, in fact, in the post-1924 world (after the destruction of the Islamic Khilafah State) human life, misery and despair are inconsequential when it comes to material interests. Furthermore, the current crisis (and previous crises) highlights a fundamental characteristic of the interplay between nations. There is no such thing as a collective will or a harmonious international community. Rather there are perpetual jealousies between nations, evolving around their perpetual competing interests. It is this that leads to perpetual conflicts between them as seen in Iraq.

These two facts have great implications when the Khilafah State returns to represent the Islamic Ummah on the international arena. Firstly, the Ummah must expose to the world the ugly face of current international affairs. This will help to win over the hearts of the nations that are victims of it, nations such as those within South America and Africa. Nations that have for decades and centuries been the feeding grounds for nations like America and the European powers. The Prophet (saw) showed how important it is to do this. Initially Quraish were held in high esteem by other tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. They were seen as the model of karamah (dignity). Over a period of years, the Muslims exposed their real nature. One such ayat was revealed in the year 2 AH, just before the Great Battle of Badr,

"They will ask you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say, fighting therein is a grave offence, but graver in the sight of Allah is to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the sacred Masjid and drive out its people from there. Tumult and oppression are worse than killing" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 217].

Secondly, the Ummah must realise that the enemy nations have conflicts with each other. In the time of the Prophet (saw), it was noticed that former allies of Quraish deserted them, when they saw that the Islamic State had a greater benefit for them. Many of them left pacts with the Quraish to establish pacts instead with the Islamic State. As the late British peer Lord Palmerston would put it, they had no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. When the Quraish were eventually conquered by Islam, no tribe came to their defence. These are but two of the principles that the upcoming Khalifah will bear in mind Inshallah when steering the State in the international arena. They reveal that the material benefit not only serves as a drive for secular nations to engage in the international arena, it is also their Achilles heel. This surely must be borne in mind for those that have the noblest of all motives to engage in the international arena, the dominance of Islam.

Finally, as Muslims we know that forces of evil have always been present in this world and will remain so, but they become dominant only when the forces of good are weakened by internal problems. Today, the great problem facing the Muslim world in the face of the American hegemony and attack is that we lack a true, just and sincere leader to give direction to the 1.5 billion Muslims throughout the world. We need to take lessons from history. In 1258 CE, Halaku Khan ransacked Baghdad, killing 1.6 million people in the city. It was a complete scorched earth policy. They came, they looted, they destroyed, they burned, they killed, they left. After Baghdad, Halaku Khan marched towards Syria and Africa wreaking his destruction and pillaging lands in his path. Everyone who came in the way of Halaku Khan was routed and destroyed. He seemed so invincible. In 1260 CE, at 'Ain-Jalut, in Galilee, the forces of Sultan Bayburs dealt him a terrible defeat. The inspiring force behind the Sultan was Shaykh Izzuddin, a great scholar and reformer who urged the Sultan to move on and turn back the Mongol tide. His rousing sermons drew back the Muslims to Islam in thousands. When a people turn to Allah (swt), Allah's (swt) help turns to them. Within two years the whole of Ash-Sham (modern day Syria) had been liberated from the Mongols. What is more, due to the great work carried out by the scholars of that time, within 40 years of Halaku's invasion of Baghdad his descendants had accepted Islam. Today, the Ummah, faces a situation not too dissimilar to the time of Halaku Khan. No one knows upon whom and where the self-declared U.S. war on terrorism will turn upon next, and what country will be unfortunate enough to be next in the U.S. firing line. At this time, like the Mongol invaders, the U.S. also seem invincible. Likewise, it may be hard to envisage a rolling back of the U.S. hegemony, a removal of U.S. forces from the Hijaz, and the opening up of Kufr lands to Islam, but history shows that when the Muslims are united under a single Khalifah, they are able to accomplish many things, by the leave and will of Allah (swt).

Indeed, the need of the hour is to work to re-establish the Islamic Khilafah State, which is that entity which will work to secure the interests of this Ummah against the hegemony of the Kuffar, and will seek to establish its own Islamic world order so as to take the people from the darkness into the light.

"So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for you must gain mastery if you are truly believers" [TMQ Ale-?Imran: 139].

Asim Khan

Source: Khilafah Magazine May 2002 edition

Marc Lamb claimed back on 2002-04-04 14:13 in this thread:

"And with Bush getting on the Colin Powell board today, in basically pooh poohing Arafat and demanding Israel cease and withdraw in the face of terrorism, I would say the world is a very beautiful place right now.

Kissy, kissy, can't we all just get along? All we are saaaaaaaying is give peace a chance!

I did predict, back in October, you paleos [Mr. Saari](and neo-libs) would win thing thing, didn't I?"

Well, hot off the AP wire today...

MAY 24, 13:30 ET
Rumsfeld: No Plans to Invade Iraq
By MATT KELLEY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The United States has no plans to invade Iraq or any other country, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday, but he refused to discuss the Bush administration's thinking about how to deal with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

I don't like the fact that I was right... don't like it one bit.