Arab leaders back Saddam

HeXp£Øi±

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Ministers reject 'aggression' toward Iraq amid bin Laden exhortation
Wrapping up an emergency summit in Cairo, Arab foreign ministers issued a resolution yesterday rejecting war against Iraq and urging Arabs abstain from supporting any such aggression.

The Arab League statement reaffirmed, "the commitment of the Arab states to maintain the security and safety of Iraq and Kuwait," and called aggression against either a "threat to the national security of all Arab states."

The resolution warned the international community of the "dangers" and "grave implications" of military aggression against "Iraq, its people and its territorial integrity" and war against the region overall, which the resolution asserts continues to suffer "as a result of the continued Israeli policy of occupation and destruction against the unarmed Palestinian people and their legitimate national rights."

In a further anti-Semitic slam, the foreign ministers called for implementation of Article 14 of U.N. Resolution 687 – passed at the end of the Persian Gulf War which seeks to make the Middle East a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone – by specifically targeting Israel, which the ministers claim "is the only one which owns all these types of destructive weapons."

After welcoming "Iraq's continued cooperation with the [United Nations] inspectors," the League urged members of the Security Council to give inspectors "enough time" to complete their mission set under Resolution 1441, and maintained an attack against Iraq would be a "discrepancy" with the U.N. Security Council and a "failure" of the international community as a whole.

Ministers pledged to intensify their international efforts aimed at sparing Iraq war and, in a slap aimed chiefly at Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, stressed Arab states should abstain from providing any help or "facilitation to any military actions that will be conducive to threatening security and peace of Iraq and its territorial unity."

The resolution followed a similar – but more forceful – message from terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, who lashed out at Saudi and other Gulf leaders yesterday in a new audiotaped message posted on the Internet.

In the recording purported to be of bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of the al-Qaida network decried the Arab supporters of a looming U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as U.S. puppets comparable to Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai.

"Who installed the rulers of the Gulf states?" bin Laden asks. "It is the Crusaders. Those who installed Kabul's Karzai and confirmed the Karzai of Pakistan in office also installed the Karzai of Kuwait, the Karzai of Bahrain and the Karzai of Qatar. They also installed the Karzai of Riyadh, bringing him back after he was a refugee in Kuwait a century ago to fight with them against the Ottoman state," he continued in an apparent reference to Saudi Arabia's King Abdul Aziz al-Saud.

Bin Laden then condemned the Saudi Mideast peace plan proposed last year as having "sold the blood of the martyrs and the land of Palestine in order to please the Jews and America."

"Such rulers have betrayed the [Islamic] nation," he declared and urged Muslims to disown "these impotent and treacherous rulers."

The division among Arab states over Iraq played out in headlines across the Middle East today. Egypt's Al-Ahram declared, "Arab Foreign Ministers Reject War," the Jordan Times reports, "Arabs Reject U.S. Military Threats, Build-up Despite Kuwait Anger" and Lebanon's L'Orient-Le Jour carried the front-page headline, "Arabs Repeat Rejection of U.S. Military Campaign."

Meanwhile, Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper retorted, "Kuwait Disappointed With Lebanon, Surprised by Proposal Supporting Iraq," and a front-page editorial by the editor in chief of the Arab Times likens Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to Hitler.

"The Iraqi leadership is not different from Hitler ideologies. Stability in the Middle East region is an impossibe mission without war and giving the Iraqi leadership more time will be useless," writes Ahmed Jarallah.

Arab criticism against Saudi Arabia stems from the kingdom's offer to allow the U.S. to use bases on its territory to launch an attack against Iraq.

Defending its support, a Saudi Arabia's Arab News headline resolutely states, "Foreign Powers Can Not Meddle in Kingdom's Internal Affairs."

The Saudi media has been increasingly critical of Hussein in recent weeks, reports the Middle East Media Research Institute, with columnists urging Hussein to abdicate his presidency.

In the most strongly worded article to date, according to MEMRI, which was published in the Saudi daily al-Jazeera, D. Ali bin Shuwail al-Qarni, Chairman of the Board of the Saudi Society for Information and Communications and an associate professor at King Sa'ud University, called on Saddam to commit suicide.

"As far as Iraq is concerned, the change [in regime] is inevitably coming with or without a war," said al-Qarni. "If Saddam chooses not to abdicate he has no other choice to save the world of a disaster but to reach out to the suicide revolver and fire the shot of mercy to finish the tragedy which he has started."

Despite the warring headlines, the military build-up in the Gulf region continues. The Arab Times reports some 70,000 U.S. troops are now based in Kuwait and double that amount is en route.

The Pentagon has also significantly bolstered its firepower in the region. Tanks, howitzers, and amphibious assault vehicles have been added to battalions standing on alert across a half-mile frontline in the deserts of northern Kuwait, according to the paper.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31078
 
Sometimes it seems that the entire mideast situation has become so systemic that there really is no solution. At best, we can nudge the days events in slightly different directions. But they always return to what has become the balance line. Unfortunately, that balance is only maintained with violence and the political spin that can be put on it. We are treating the immediate symptoms with no real hope of curing the disease....
 
In a further anti-Semitic slam, the foreign ministers called for implementation of Article 14 of U.N. Resolution 687 – passed at the end of the Persian Gulf War which seeks to make the Middle East a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone – by specifically targeting Israel, which the ministers claim "is the only one which owns all these types of destructive weapons."
Click to expand...

....aside from the silly article 14 posturing, I always find it ironic that media reports include the term "anti-semitic" in any feeds...

....Then again..I wonder how many people actually know that the group "semites" include the arabs...

:confuse2:

MADrin
 
Depending on which definition you accept;(Merriam-Webster)
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3 : JEWISH

Anyway, no one ever accused the media of being anywhere near genius.

There is however no question in my mind that the UN itself(not just Arab nations) is Anti-Jewish.
 
I have to disagree, Hex...The problem lies in seperating 'Israel' and 'Jewish'. That line is kept fuzzy for the advantage of political spin. I can disagree with Israel's position on something without being anti-jewish. But either term leaves open the chance of being called anti-semetic. One is a nation. One is a religion. Both are protected, seemingly, by that catch phrase.
 
Well you may be able to separate the two, but infact many can't or won't and many claim to separate the two when in fact they are anti-Jewish. I know because i see it all the time. It's true that many peoples are anti Israeli and not necessarily anti-Jewish but it's also true that for many peoples/nations anti-israel and anti-jew mean the same thing.
 
well at the heart is the fact that these people..all of 'em..are of a distinct bloodline. They are brothers...blood brothers.

The irony is beautiful...and wicked.

People may not be able to comprehand the fact, but it is, most definitely, fact...

ignorance can't change that...

MADrin
 
MAD, you could carry that same point through the entire human race. Nonetheless humans are generally ignorant racist sheep.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Well you may be able to separate the two, but infact many can't or won't and many claim to separate the two when in fact they are anti-Jewish. I know because i see it all the time. It's true that many peoples are anti Israeli and not necessarily anti-Jewish but it's also true that for many peoples/nations anti-israel and anti-jew mean the same thing.
Click to expand...

Even if one does seperate the two and speaks in terms of 'Israel', a valid point is often negated by someone, sooner or later, deeming it antisemetism. The spin is more often used to derail a valid argument against Israel than in the other direction. Its been an unfair practice of pro Israeli press forever....
 
I COULD....but I don't carry it that far because it isn't germane to the topic at hand....it's as ironic as Americans fighting each other in the Civil War

there isn't anything particularly "wrong" with being a racist....

but I draw the line at being a sheep....

MADrin
 
I can see that philosophical debate playing out already, however i would argue that to be a racist 'is' to be a sheep. To be a racist is to follow in a path of ignorance or a false teaching because believing an entire race of people are all the same in character or are of a lesser value is misinformation. Racism is learned so you must follow a path to come to such a conclusion(to become racist).
 
I agree, Hex. I've personally never known racism. People find that hard to believe, claiming that all people are racist to some degree but I don't buy it. Its something people are taught or conditioned to be.
 
Ooooh , Hex...set yourself up for this one then...

....within any species there may or may not be subspecies ..or a "race"..however you want to view it...that for whatever reason does NOT possess the traits required to succeed in the world...

That group will be avoided, ostracized, killed, maybe....but in the end it is either oppressed or it vanishes....

Horrid? Maybe..Natural? Many would argue so....

....being a "sheep" is nothing more than allowing oneself to simply "follow" the lead of others without question..and sheep...go to slaughter...

....many many religious faiths have "shepherd" component to them.....

OH THE IRONY!!!!

MADrin
 
Squiggy said:
Even if one does seperate the two and speaks in terms of 'Israel', a valid point is often negated by someone, sooner or later, deeming it antisemetism. The spin is more often used to derail a valid argument against Israel than in the other direction. Its been an unfair practice of pro Israeli press forever....
Click to expand...

Change the references to any minority group & the same can be said. The days of intelligent discussion seem limited, if not over, when one discusses anything racial/ethnic. :(
 
True these things have happened to peoples throughout the generations but now we're 'civilized'.
You're speaking as one with the preconceived notion that if one lacks the mental/pyysical/physiological traits to survive then they're very possibly a less valuable human being. However in a civilized society don't we value the content of ones character above most if not all things? Take that little boy who lives in a wheelchair with a terrible disease(forget what it is) who only has one lung yet he spends his time writing poetry for other kids and tries to teach them how to value life. I bet if there was a poll in America asking who is most worthy of life this kid would win over the president or even popular athletes. Why? His advantages only reside within his character. So if someone dies because they were physically/mentally limited it's justified to value or mourn them less than an intelligent healthy individual? Because it's been a fact throughout history does that make it ok today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top