--------------113646002219F8D95B0757C6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Groosagi16@cs.com wrote: > I am sorry, but an insult is never a reason to go to blows. Add > further, that one does not attempt to discern the meaning and actual > intent of what is taken as an insult, and blows are less valid. > Finally add that the violence ends up not being directed at the > speaker, but rather random people who appear to share some > characteristic with the speaker, and the violence is as unjustified as > violence can get. The reason they went riot because of the insult is too many.. their background, human behaviour, mob mentality etc... first, look at their background... we as an educated people can always resort to open discussion and dialogue in good manner but sometimes it can also resort to a heated flamming which can go up to changing fists if they meet each other.. These kind of people involve in the riot in Nigeria are poor people with minimum education can resort to such violent conduct as they think that's the only thing to solve the issue... they don't think or have abilities to argue in an open discussion... Look at their educated people... they I believe, involve in a dialogue/discussion on this matter.. That's why only this group of people involve in the riot on both sides... as what Groo will do when somebody call him a mendicant... he will do what Groo does best... Calling him a mendicant is an insult to him... he will slay them... Sergio pointed this to us in form of Groo... Then eventhough he is violent.. he is a soft hearted kind person too... Then psychologically when they are in a mob/goup .. people tend to turn violent as they felt safe as they are in a huge number.. nobody can take action against them that's why some peaceful demonstration turn violent after the police are trying to disperse them... Then there is a pack mentality in all human.. be it is a religion/race/political or even football group (even when they are not a supporter of the 2 playing team as what my friend told me in MU mailing list ) (I went to see the Ireland/England game that was abandoned on Feb 15th 1995. I wore the United green/yellow shirt to the game & in the panic that ensued to get away from Landsdowne Road after the debacle, a guy who looked remarkably like Begby from trainspotting gripped me by the throat as I left. "You f***ing English?" he said to me in a Scottish accent. I told him I wasn't & he went berserk wanting to know why I support United. "Support an Irish club or Celtic" he said & let go of me & walked off. The irony was not lost on me. A Scot who was over to support Ireland V England was telling me to support a Scottish club, instead of an English club. Crazy. ) To know this behaviour in details.. maybe we should open our psycology/sociology books back.... I think this somehow a part of human behaviour. Maybe the end part in "the island of Dr. Monreau" says something about this... > ------------->You realize, of course, that the host nation is chosen > based on the previous year's winner. This is respect. Thus, India > won the pagent the year prior to your example. Last year the Nigerian > representative won the pagent. Both of these countries allowed > participation, by law, and further accpeted the host status, by law. > I will not tell any one they have to like, or even watch, the pagent. > I will not tell anyone that they can not protest against the pagent if > they so chose. That's freedom. As you said, in India, certain groups > did not like the pagent as run, and they made their opinions known. > Were there riots? Was there murder? Not as far as I know. And you > know what, the pagent people made some concessions. Huh, respect, > imagine that. In nigeria... there was no murder/riot against the pagent up until the insulting article.. as the pagent contestants was there for many days before the riot broke out.. and in India, there was no such insulting article.. thus there was no riot there... there was no fuel thrown into the fire... What those women groups in India done was made some peaceful demonstration and campaign to stop the pagent... it's like telling people not to drink whiskey as they had not resort to physical action to stop it. Insulting another person's religion is a serious thing to do as it raised the sentiment and willing to defend it at any cost. > said that somehow some american > government action will gives some illfeeling to muslim.. and this was > proved by the > report that the Bali bombing happen because the person was so angered > by the > american government action towards muslim especially Afghans, Iraqis, > Palestinians.. etc... and its bias towards Israel... and these > illfeeling will > incite more terrorist attack as they don't have other way to express > it...... > ------------>Let me see if I understand this. If your policy against > an actor who has without question attacked you is resented by me I > have a right to attack you myself. This just does not compute. I > think the real crux is the last item you mention, the relationship > with Israel. The Afghans, the Iragis, the Palestinians find > themselves on the short end of the American policy stick because they > engage in terrorism in order to acheive their ends. If they want war, > how can they justifiably cry when they get it. > You say they have no other alternative, but, for example, The > Palestinians were as closest to sovereignity when they were using > their words, not their fists. Its a simple formula, if you engage in > terror you do not get respect. If you engage in honest and good faith > discussion you gain respect. In this case, many muslims viewed that, 1. Afghan/ Taliban had nothing to do with terrorism directly.. The US accused them of hobouring Al Qaeda/Usama... and they, the Taliban request for proof from the US about the involvment of Alqaeda in Sep. 11... as as part of their culture, they will not handover their guests until proves is shown and they didn't get it.. but somehow they were attacked... those who died in the war against terrorism in afghanistan are mostly civilians and children resulting from the bombings and most of they know nothing about america... 2.The Iraqi before the gulf was did not involve in terrorism as they attack Kuwait against Kuwaiti army.,. and that's a valid war.. not an action or terrorism... If they had shelter some of the Palestinian leader in Baghdad... that on their viewpoint and muslims viewpoint, these palestinians are freedom fighters.. same as what US viewed the Contra rebels in Nicaragua... and these contra rebels did also involve in terrorising people at that time... so do we say US is engage in terrorism...? no... we cannot... as from their point of view, it is a valid action to support Contra as contra rebels are freedom fighters... So the definition of terrorism must be established here... 3.The palestinian initially resort to stones in their initial intifada activities and as a result thousands of them women and children were shot dead... (remember Muhammad al Durra, a boy who was shut dead and somehow it was captured in camera by a european TV station) and as a desprate means.. they somehow resort to suicide bombing.... some people viewed these palestinians as fighting for their country and these people are muslims and non muslims too.... and in th same time the US is on the Israeli's side... The Palestinian Israeli peace process slowed down after Netanyahu be the PM and stopped after Ariel Sharon's turn to be the PM as both are from the right wing party and making Palestinian frustrated waiting for the soverign Palestine state. Then for the forming of a Palestinian state many people who are not on the Arafat's side want the boundries of 1948 compared to the 1967 border as in the peace plan.. thus making them not to agree to the peace plan. This means both sides are responsible for the failure of the peace plan... not just palestinians only... Because of this, many muslims and non muslims viewd that somehow muslims are becoming victims of many US actions... thus, forms the ill feeling towards america... and somehow become one of the roots of terrorism... The view of Malaysian Prime minister is... When fighting against terorism.. US only engage on the war against terrorism without looking to the root of terrorism and why it is targeted to the US... You can read this "Different yardsticks on terror " point of view article by a chinese malaysian (a non muslim) at http://www.malaysiakini.com/editorials/2002112401279.php > -------------->Isolationism? I agree we have a lot of work to do in > our own country, but I disagree that means we should close our eyes to > the rest of the world. We have a lot of bad going on in our country, > no doubt, but we ain't got nothing like this. I believe what Gary was referring to is to rid any of intolerence and stupidity in the US so that the same thing won't happen in the US. BTW.. killing people in a riot incited by some simple reason happened everywhere.. the 1992 LA riot for example.. > respected for her submission to God but when a muslim woman do the > same, she was > branded as being oppressed...? > 2. Why when a western woman stay at home to look after the children, > she > was regarded as sacrificed for her family but when a muslim woman do > the same > thing, she need to be libertised....? > > ------------->Simply put, because they have a choice as to which they > would like for themselves. Not all muslim women who covered their head are being force to do so... they choose to cover it as they feared god... but in the same time many were force to open their head cover as what happen in Turkey where women who wears head cover are not allowed to enter parliment or university... Not all muslim women who stay at home to look after their children was forced to do so and they do have choice.. and the choice is, they choose to be with their children, not at the workplace... > I apologize for going off-topic on this one, but I feel it is > necessary that I address this topic: > > Don't believe what you read in the "news" media about Iraq. > > ----------------->Or this e-mail The e-mail I forwarded is initially to support Gary's point that the media had their own agenda in reporting... it was an opinion of a friend in my man. Utd. mailing list and it is as same as what we muslims and many non muslims around the world think.. even a non muslim in UK. > ------------------------->Is the US's war against terror unjust? If > the answer is no then the next question is: Does Iraq engage in > terrorist activity, in any form? If the answer is yes, then the > looming war is justified. I do believe fighting against the terrorist > is a just cause. I further believe that Iraq is involved in terrorsit > activity from top to bottom. From my ability to analyze action > against Iraq has thus far been justified. Loading a sentence with > emotionally charged words may sound good, but it certainly does not > make truth. Who has made the estimates above? How were the > connection between sanction and death arived at? Iraq is not a poor > nation. The vast throngs of its underpriviledged are poor, but not > the country itself. And certainly not its leader and his agents. Somehow many people, muslim and non muslim look the Iraq latest issue had drifted from war against terrorism to vangence and to get control over oil after the US did not provides any proof to the world of any relation between alQaeda and Iraq and somehow the Iraqi weapon of mass destruction emerged as a reason...and the e-mail I forwarded was an example and it came from a non muslim in UK... > -------->Umm, the people of Iraq's welfare is not the impetus of this > current beef at all. Hopefully, they will be able to get out of the > way when (hopefully, if) things go down. This is about going after > the next biggest link in the terrorist chain. Saddam has been doing > his thing for years, and now, the terrorists, have found that the US > has chosen to act in response to being attacked. Of course Saddam > doesn't like it. > And by the way, a great great great many Iraqis have been killed by > Saddam, and his agents. Iraq is not defenseless. Nor is it > offenseless. The thing is that compared to the US anybody is > basically defenseless, or offenseless. Is the US supposed to allow > attacks on her person go unanswered simply because she has the power > to take all comers. I think not. You realize, of course, that Iraq > routinely fires missles on American airplanes patroling on the UN's > behalf. If defenseless, why such conduct? As Iraq is a sovereign country.. one country cannot act like a world police deciding who should govern Iraq... If Sadam is oppressing its own citizens, then all countries thru UN should give pressure to Saddam.. not declaring war to overthrow him.. if not.. we are no better than him... declaring war only made the Iraqi people to suffer further more... not Saddam. Is Saddam is the biggest link in the terrorist chain simply because he has weapon of mass distruction...? if yes.. how about Israel.. and other countries that have nuclear/biological/chemical weapon...? and so far, the UN weapon inspectors had found nothing and the Iraqi had submitted documents concerning the weapon issue which the US had taken from the UN office in NY. If people said that he had used such weapon against his own people.. than it's an act of tyranny... as he act cruelly on his own people... and the world community thru UN should take action. Did Saddam attack US after the gulf war...? no... Btw.. the no fly zone is on the Iraqi airspace... not on the US air space.. it was an act of self defence and to guard their country soverignty... It is only an American declared no fly zone, and both, the no fly zone and the military strike has not been authorised by any UN resolution... http://www.malaysiakini.com/editorials/2002112401279.php > If the west gets > its way, there will merely substitute one dictatorial government for > another. The Iraqi people will be no better off in a post-Saddam > world. This is about oil and geo-politics not about the rights of a > people, or about ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction. > Bush, blair and company are the weapon of mass destruction, not > Saddam. A war will only result in more misery and hardship being > inflicted on the average Iraqi. > > ----------------->Speculation and short sighted vision. This is > exclusively about fighting terrorism. The average Iraqi must either > rid themselves of their terrorist leader or expect to have him > removed. If he were just a dictator, say like King Hussein, there > would be no need to remove him. Its his extracurricular activities > which got him in trouble. I truly hope that Iraqis don't have to > suffer. Sadly, the situation looks like they may have to. >From what is happening now in the Iraq case.. a lot of people viewed that this is not exclusively about fighting against terrorism but about oil... That's why we have this views not only from muslims but non muslims around the world too and that's why US closest allies in the middle east like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc are not suporting the war against Iraq and they want the weapon inspectors to go there first. The war against Iraq will only incites more hatred towards US and thus more terrorists and terrorism acts will appear as people don't have any means to fight with a superpower, or even worse.. the tension between muslims countries and the US... BTW, the late King hussein of Jordan was under the CIA payroll for many years... and Jordan practice a monarchy system, and thus he was not a dictator, he was a king with absolute power like what we always read in Groo comic books.... --------------113646002219F8D95B0757C6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> Groosagi16@cs.com wrote:I am sorry, but an insult is never a reason to go to blows. Add further, that one does not attempt to discern the meaning and actual intent of what is taken as an insult, and blows are less valid. Finally add that the violence ends up not being directed at the speaker, but rather random people who appear to share some characteristic with the speaker, and the violence is as unjustified as violence can get.The reason they went riot because of the insult is too many.. their background, human behaviour, mob mentality etc... first, look at their background... we as an educated people can always resort to open discussion and dialogue in good manner but sometimes it can also resort to a heated flamming which can go up to changing fists if they meet each other.. These kind of people involve in the riot in Nigeria are poor people with minimum education can resort to such violent conduct as they think that's the only thing to solve the issue... they don't think or have abilities to argue in an open discussion... Look at their educated people... they I believe, involve in a dialogue/discussion on this matter.. That's why only this group of people involve in the riot on both sides... as what Groo will do when somebody call him a mendicant... he will do what Groo does best... Calling him a mendicant is an insult to him... he will slay them... Sergio pointed this to us in form of Groo... Then eventhough he is violent.. he is a soft hearted kind person too... Then psychologically when they are in a mob/goup .. people tend to turn violent as they felt safe as they are in a huge number.. nobody can take action against them that's why some peaceful demonstration turn violent after the police are trying to disperse them... Then there is a pack mentality in all human.. be it is a religion/race/political or even football group (even when they are not a supporter of the 2 playing team as what my friend told me in MU mailing list )(I went to see the Ireland/England game that was abandoned on Feb 15th 1995. I wore the United green/yellow shirt to the game & in the panic that ensued to get away from Landsdowne Road after the debacle, a guy who looked remarkably like Begby from trainspotting gripped me by the throat as I left. "You f***ing English?" he said to me in a Scottish accent. I told him I wasn't & he went berserk wanting to know why I support United. "Support an Irish club or Celtic" he said & let go of me & walked off. The irony was not lost on me. A Scot who was over to support Ireland V England was telling me to support a Scottish club, instead of an English club. Crazy. )
To know this behaviour in details.. maybe we should open our psycology/sociology books back....
I think this somehow a part of human behaviour. Maybe the end part in "the island of Dr. Monreau" says something about this...
------------->You realize, of course, that the host nation is chosen based on the previous year's winner. This is respect. Thus, India won the pagent the year prior to your example. Last year the Nigerian representative won the pagent. Both of these countries allowed participation, by law, and further accpeted the host status, by law. I will not tell any one they have to like, or even watch, the pagent. I will not tell anyone that they can not protest against the pagent if they so chose. That's freedom. As you said, in India, certain groups did not like the pagent as run, and they made their opinions known. Were there riots? Was there murder? Not as far as I know. And you know what, the pagent people made some concessions. Huh, respect, imagine that.In nigeria... there was no murder/riot against the pagent up until the insulting article.. as the pagent contestants was there for many days before the riot broke out.. and in India, there was no such insulting article.. thus there was no riot there... there was no fuel thrown into the fire... What those women groups in India done was made some peaceful demonstration and campaign to stop the pagent... it's like telling people not to drink whiskey as they had not resort to physical action to stop it. Insulting another person's religion is a serious thing to do as it raised the sentiment and willing to defend it at any cost.said that somehow some american
government action will gives some illfeeling to muslim.. and this was proved by the
report that the Bali bombing happen because the person was so angered by the
american government action towards muslim especially Afghans, Iraqis,
Palestinians.. etc... and its bias towards Israel... and these illfeeling will
incite more terrorist attack as they don't have other way to express it......------------>Let me see if I understand this. If your policy against an actor who has without question attacked you is resented by me I have a right to attack you myself. This just does not compute. I think the real crux is the last item you mention, the relationship with Israel. The Afghans, the Iragis, the Palestinians find themselves on the short end of the American policy stick because they engage in terrorism in order to acheive their ends. If they want war, how can they justifiably cry when they get it.In this case, many muslims viewed that,
You say they have no other alternative, but, for example, The Palestinians were as closest to sovereignity when they were using their words, not their fists. Its a simple formula, if you engage in terror you do not get respect. If you engage in honest and good faith discussion you gain respect.
1. Afghan/ Taliban had nothing to do with terrorism directly.. The US accused them of hobouring Al Qaeda/Usama... and they, the Taliban request for proof from the US about the involvment of Alqaeda in Sep. 11... as as part of their culture, they will not handover their guests until proves is shown and they didn't get it.. but somehow they were attacked... those who died in the war against terrorism in afghanistan are mostly civilians and children resulting from the bombings and most of they know nothing about america...2.The Iraqi before the gulf was did not involve in terrorism as they attack Kuwait against Kuwaiti army.,. and that's a valid war.. not an action or terrorism... If they had shelter some of the Palestinian leader in Baghdad... that on their viewpoint and muslims viewpoint, these palestinians are freedom fighters.. same as what US viewed the Contra rebels in Nicaragua... and these contra rebels did also involve in terrorising people at that time... so do we say US is engage in terrorism...? no... we cannot... as from their point of view, it is a valid action to support Contra as contra rebels are freedom fighters... So the definition of terrorism must be established here...
3.The palestinian initially resort to stones in their initial intifada activities and as a result thousands of them women and children were shot dead... (remember Muhammad al Durra, a boy who was shut dead and somehow it was captured in camera by a european TV station) and as a desprate means.. they somehow resort to suicide bombing.... some people viewed these palestinians as fighting for their country and these people are muslims and non muslims too.... and in th same time the US is on the Israeli's side...
The Palestinian Israeli peace process slowed down after Netanyahu be the PM and stopped after Ariel Sharon's turn to be the PM as both are from the right wing party and making Palestinian frustrated waiting for the soverign Palestine state. Then for the forming of a Palestinian state many people who are not on the Arafat's side want the boundries of 1948 compared to the 1967 border as in the peace plan.. thus making them not to agree to the peace plan. This means both sides are responsible for the failure of the peace plan... not just palestinians only...Because of this, many muslims and non muslims viewd that somehow muslims are becoming victims of many US actions... thus, forms the ill feeling towards america... and somehow become one of the roots of terrorism...
The view of Malaysian Prime minister is... When fighting against terorism.. US only engage on the war against terrorism without looking to the root of terrorism and why it is targeted to the US...You can read this "Different yardsticks on terror " point of view article by a chinese malaysian (a non muslim) at http://www.malaysiakini.com/editorials/2002112401279.php
-------------->Isolationism? I agree we have a lot of work to do in our own country, but I disagree that means we should close our eyes to the rest of the world. We have a lot of bad going on in our country, no doubt, but we ain't got nothing like this.I believe what Gary was referring to is to rid any of intolerence and stupidity in the US so that the same thing won't happen in the US.BTW.. killing people in a riot incited by some simple reason happened everywhere.. the 1992 LA riot for example..
respected for her submission to God but when a muslim woman do the same, she wasNot all muslim women who covered their head are being force to do so... they choose to cover it as they feared god... but in the same time many were force to open their head cover as what happen in Turkey where women who wears head cover are not allowed to enter parliment or university...
branded as being oppressed...?
2. Why when a western woman stay at home to look after the children, she
was regarded as sacrificed for her family but when a muslim woman do the same
thing, she need to be libertised....?------------->Simply put, because they have a choice as to which they would like for themselves.
Not all muslim women who stay at home to look after their children was forced to do so and they do have choice.. and the choice is, they choose to be with their children, not at the workplace...I apologize for going off-topic on this one, but I feel it isThe e-mail I forwarded is initially to support Gary's point that the media had their own agenda in reporting... it was an opinion of a friend in my man. Utd. mailing list and it is as same as what we muslims and many non muslims around the world think.. even a non muslim in UK.
necessary that I address this topic:Don't believe what you read in the "news" media about Iraq.
----------------->Or this e-mail
------------------------->Is the US's war against terror unjust? If the answer is no then the next question is: Does Iraq engage in terrorist activity, in any form? If the answer is yes, then the looming war is justified. I do believe fighting against the terrorist is a just cause. I further believe that Iraq is involved in terrorsit activity from top to bottom. From my ability to analyze action against Iraq has thus far been justified. Loading a sentence with emotionally charged words may sound good, but it certainly does not make truth. Who has made the estimates above? How were the connection between sanction and death arived at? Iraq is not a poor nation. The vast throngs of its underpriviledged are poor, but not the country itself. And certainly not its leader and his agents.Somehow many people, muslim and non muslim look the Iraq latest issue had drifted from war against terrorism to vangence and to get control over oil after the US did not provides any proof to the world of any relation between alQaeda and Iraq and somehow the Iraqi weapon of mass destruction emerged as a reason...and the e-mail I forwarded was an example and it came from a non muslim in UK...-------->Umm, the people of Iraq's welfare is not the impetus of this current beef at all. Hopefully, they will be able to get out of the way when (hopefully, if) things go down. This is about going after the next biggest link in the terrorist chain. Saddam has been doing his thing for years, and now, the terrorists, have found that the US has chosen to act in response to being attacked. Of course Saddam doesn't like it.As Iraq is a sovereign country.. one country cannot act like a world police deciding who should govern Iraq... If Sadam is oppressing its own citizens, then all countries thru UN should give pressure to Saddam.. not declaring war to overthrow him.. if not.. we are no better than him... declaring war only made the Iraqi people to suffer further more... not Saddam. Is Saddam is the biggest link in the terrorist chain simply because he has weapon of mass distruction...? if yes.. how about Israel.. and other countries that have nuclear/biological/chemical weapon...? and so far, the UN weapon inspectors had found nothing and the Iraqi had submitted documents concerning the weapon issue which the US had taken from the UN office in NY. If people said that he had used such weapon against his own people.. than it's an act of tyranny... as he act cruelly on his own people... and the world community thru UN should take action. Did Saddam attack US after the gulf war...? no... Btw.. the no fly zone is on the Iraqi airspace... not on the US air space.. it was an act of self defence and to guard their country soverignty... It is only an American declared no fly zone, and both, the no fly zone and the military strike has not been authorised by any UN resolution... http://www.malaysiakini.com/editorials/2002112401279.php
And by the way, a great great great many Iraqis have been killed by Saddam, and his agents. Iraq is not defenseless. Nor is it offenseless. The thing is that compared to the US anybody is basically defenseless, or offenseless. Is the US supposed to allow attacks on her person go unanswered simply because she has the power to take all comers. I think not. You realize, of course, that Iraq routinely fires missles on American airplanes patroling on the UN's behalf. If defenseless, why such conduct?If the west gets>From what is happening now in the Iraq case.. a lot of people viewed that this is not exclusively about fighting against terrorism but about oil... That's why we have this views not only from muslims but non muslims around the world too and that's why US closest allies in the middle east like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc are not suporting the war against Iraq and they want the weapon inspectors to go there first. The war against Iraq will only incites more hatred towards US and thus more terrorists and terrorism acts will appear as people don't have any means to fight with a superpower, or even worse.. the tension between muslims countries and the US... BTW, the late King hussein of Jordan was under the CIA payroll for many years... and Jordan practice a monarchy system, and thus he was not a dictator, he was a king with absolute power like what we always read in Groo comic books....
its way, there will merely substitute one dictatorial government for
another. The Iraqi people will be no better off in a post-Saddam
world. This is about oil and geo-politics not about the rights of a
people, or about ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction.
Bush, blair and company are the weapon of mass destruction, not
Saddam. A war will only result in more misery and hardship being
inflicted on the average Iraqi.----------------->Speculation and short sighted vision. This is exclusively about fighting terrorism. The average Iraqi must either rid themselves of their terrorist leader or expect to have him removed. If he were just a dictator, say like King Hussein, there would be no need to remove him. Its his extracurricular activities which got him in trouble. I truly hope that Iraqis don't have to suffer. Sadly, the situation looks like they may have to.