Aid to Indonesia [Archive]

Cleon

4th January 2005, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I already referenced Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. Then added Egypt and Qatar. You said Algeria, Bahrain, Libya, Jordan and Turkey also had sent aid... yet none of your links mention Algeria, Bahrain, Libya, Jordan and Turkey.

Jordan I missed because it was mentioned on the Jordanian govt's website, and their search function is fubared, so I couldn't find it again. You're welcome to try yourself--Google "Jordan and tsunami."

In any event, you're not reading carefully--my Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B9DF3081-740E-4C7C-99CA-A1AC4D179196.htm) link does indeed mention Algeria, Bahrain, and Libya. (It's a sidebar, under "Recent aid donations.")

The point is Cleon that aid to indonesia by the Arab world consists of about 40 million bucks and four or five plane-loads of supplies. I am underwhelmed considering Sandra Bulloch gave $1,000,000 alone. Hell Amazon.com raised 14 million.

Yes, yes, I know, and I'm sure they're upset that they don't meet your approval or Sandra Bulloch's contribution. I imagine a fatwa is forthcoming. :rolleyes:

My point was simply that your claim that "only 3 Muslim nations had pledged funds" is simply false, and designed to score cheap points. As is your three-year-old link about Saudi Arabia giving money to families of Palestinians killed during the Intifada. (It's dishonest, too--you're implying that it's earmarked for the families of terrorists, which is not what the story says.)

zenith-nadir

4th January 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
How mych did Isreal send? Theres gotta be jews in the tsunami zone. Unless........thats it, MOSES did his sea parting trick and caused the tsunami. I shouldve known it was the joooooos.;) Israel's army sent 82 tons of medical and humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka, and Israel's civilian rescue service, working with the Red Cross, dispatched a planeload of blood products. An additional 40 tons of supplies collected by private donors flew out Friday.

But an offer to deploy 150 seasoned military medics and support personnel to set up field hospitals was rejected...(by Sri Lanka)....

The Foreign Ministry official said there were no official contacts with predominantly Muslim Indonesia, the country hardest hit by the disaster, but added that Israel stood ready to help if asked.

link (http://cbsnewyork.com/mideast/mideast_story_366134300.html)

Originally posted by Cleon
Yes, yes, I know, and I'm sure they're upset that they don't meet your approval or Sandra Bulloch's contribution. I imagine a fatwa is forthcoming. :rolleyesI feel 50 million bucks and a few plane loads of supplies is underwhelming considering the scale of the disaster and the future needs of the victims, many of whom are muslims. You choose to defend the Arab world, I choose to express my dismay considering the vast wealth of many Arab leaders and countries.

Cleon

4th January 2005, 08:21 AM

Tmy

4th January 2005, 09:06 AM

So Israel has sent $0 dollars?

Hutch

4th January 2005, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Israel's army sent 82 tons of medical and humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka, and Israel's civilian rescue service, working with the Red Cross, dispatched a planeload of blood products. An additional 40 tons of supplies collected by private donors flew out Friday.....

.........and a few plane loads of supplies is underwhelming considering the scale of the disaster and the future needs of the victims, many of whom are muslims. You choose to defend the Arab world, I choose to express my dismay considering the vast wealth of many Arab leaders and countries.

Just a couple of points, then I'll recloak....

'A few planeloads of supplies" can mean a lot or a little. The C130 Hercules (widely available in almost any airforce in the world) can carry 45,000 lbs, or about 23 tons. On the other hand, the Antonov An-124 (which does operate out of the UAE, I have seen them close-up at the airport any number of times) can carry up to 120 tons of material. So no comparative ability.

What we don't know is what the rulers of the various Arab countries are contributing of their own fortunes to help--in my admittedly modest experience with Arabs (I only lived among them for 4 years), most giving is personal and from the family, rather than the Government. And how much has been donated to the Red Crescent by these countires is not known.

Now it may be that ZN is quite right in his supposition that the Arab world is doing less than it could, but his OP statement that only three Muslim countries are giving has been refuted and he must needs go into a new argument.

Which for ZN, is no problem at all...:D ;) :p

UnrepentantSinner

4th January 2005, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
...Sandra Bulloch gave $1,000,000 alone.

Since I didn't want to risk punching a hole in my dashboard I didn't listen to his rationale, but one of the reactionary talk-radio buffoons we have in Dallas was going to plead the case that Sandra Bullock was being "stingy."

Like I said, I just couldn't listen, his show makes my blood pressure raise to dangerous levels if I tune in for too long.

zenith-nadir

5th January 2005, 04:51 AM

So Israel has sent $0 dollars? Yes Tmy, Sri Lanka refused and mainly-muslim Indonesia does not recognize Israel's exsistence, so Israel sent $0 dollars so far because of the racist views of indonesia's government.

Now it may be that ZN is quite right in his supposition that the Arab world is doing less than it could... Here we have the most severe natural disaster in modern times. The victims are mainly muslims and the response by the Arab world is luke warm at best. Movie stars, American corporations and Amazon.com are helping indonesias' muslims more than the Arab world is. Rationalize that anywhay you want. I choose to rationalize it juxtaposed to the millions and millions sent to terror groups by those same Arab governments.

Since I didn't want to risk punching a hole in my dashboard I didn't listen to his rationale, but one of the reactionary talk-radio buffoons we have in Dallas was going to plead the case that Sandra Bullock was being "stingy." Sandra gave $1,000,000, Michael Shumacher just gave $10,000,000. That's more than Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Ohman, Lebanon, Tunisia and Libya combined.

Cleon

5th January 2005, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Yes Tmy, Sri Lanka refused and mainly-muslim Indonesia does not recognize Israel's exsistence, so Israel sent $0 dollars so far because of the racist views of indonesia's government.

Indonesia has plenty of racist views, but not recognizing Israel is not one of them.

In any event, you're incorrect. Sri Lanka refused one Israeli mission because it was overmilitarized (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4130599.stm)). They did not refuse money. Nor did Indonesia.

Here we have the most severe natural disaster in modern times. The victims are mainly muslims and the response by the Arab world is luke warm at best. Movie stars, American corporations and Amazon.com are helping indonesias' muslims more than the Arab world is. Rationalize that anywhay you want. I choose to rationalize it juxtaposed to the millions and millions sent to terror groups by those same Arab governments.

Actually, they're giving quite a bit. You're comparing the donations of a private corporation and movie stars with the contributions of governments.

It's rather obvious at this point that you're not researching this very carefully, so why don't you come back to us with the total amount of aid--both from governments and private individuals and organizations--from the Muslim world.

Sandra gave $1,000,000, Michael Shumacher just gave $10,000,000. That's more than Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Ohman, Lebanon, Tunisia and Libya combined.

Could you please think about these things before you say them? I mean, you're comparing Michael Shumacher's contribution with Somalia?

In any event--in most Muslim nations, the majority of wealth is in the hands of individuals, families, and corporations, not the governments. (Especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other monarchies.) So unless you can show that total contributions from these countries, both public and private, is not comparable with Sandra Bulloch, you really don't have much of a point here.

zenith-nadir

5th January 2005, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Indonesia has plenty of racist views, but not recognizing Israel is not one of them. So why does Indonesia not recognize Israel? Because they like Israel?Originally posted by Cleon
In any event, you're incorrect.I have come to the conclusion that any criticism regarding the level of aid the Arab world has provided so far - to fellow muslims - shall be defended by you any way possible. So be it. I fell different considering facts such as;

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838879/)

In fact, as recently as April 2002, Saudis raised almost $100 million in a national telethon for suicide bombers, particularly those sent into Israel by the radical group Hamas.

Cleon

5th January 2005, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I have come to the conclusion that any criticism regarding the level of aid the Arab world has provided so far - to fellow muslims - shall be defended by you any way possible. So be it. I fell different considering facts such as;

So let me get this straight. You start off this thread claiming that "only 3 Muslim countries" gave money to Tsunami relief. Turns out, that's false.

Then you compare private contributions from wealthy Americans to Muslim government contributions. When asked to document private contributions from the Muslim world, you change the subject.

Do you actually have a point here, or are you just using the tsunami as an excuse to bash Muslims?

zenith-nadir

5th January 2005, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
So let me get this straight. You start off this thread claiming that "only 3 Muslim countries" gave money to Tsunami relief. Turns out, that's false. Which I corrected and added to in further posts. I ammended my original claim, then you pointed out a "sidebar" at Al Jazeera which ammended the information further. To which I am not arguing. If you need to cling to my original post then so be it.

Originally posted by Cleon
Then you compare private contributions from wealthy Americans to Muslim government contributions. When asked to document private contributions from the Muslim world, you change the subject. I have not changed the subject. I am still talking about the Arab world's aid level to fellow muslims. As soon as someone shows that a few celebrities and a few American corporations have provided more aid than Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Ohman, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Libya combined you go woo woo and turn on me for even saying such a thing.

Originally posted by Cleon
Do you actually have a point here, or are you just using the tsunami as an excuse to bash Muslims? Now my dismay regarding the level of aid given by the Arab governments - to fellow muslims - is nothing other than an excuse to bash "all Muslims". Is there a point when you will admit that Saudi Arabia has raised more money for suicide bombers than for tsunami victims?....or will you keep bashing me for pointing that out?

Cleon

5th January 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I have not changed the subject. I am still talking about the Arab world's aid level to fellow muslims. As soon as someone shows that a few celebrities and a few American corporations have provided more aid than Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Ohman, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Libya combined you go woo woo and turn on me for even saying such a thing.

It's not "woo woo" to demand that you supply evidence for your claims.

In this case, you haven't supplied sufficient data to establish that "a few celebrities and a few American corporations have provided more aid than Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Ohman, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Libya combined." You've shown that they've given more than these governments--and what a remarkable accomplishment to send more money than Somalia--but you haven't supplied any data about contributions from private individuals, families, and corporations. You're comparing private contributions from American sources to Arab government contributions. Unless you can do so, your argument is moot because it rests on incomplete data (at best).

Your very opposition to doing so leads me to conclude that either A) you're just trying to make a swipe at Muslims, B) that data doesn't back up your preconceived notions, or C) you don't have it, and don't want to admit that really haven't researched this very carefully (as was evident from your first post).

materia3

5th January 2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
They are muslims but they are not arabs. Racial lines run deeper than religious ties. Look at the Sudan mess.

Many racists will consider themselves good christians or whatever. But theyll be damned to send money to a bunch of (christian) hispanics in Panama after some hurricane.

Yes, they are not arabs.

During the 1990s non-moslems in Aceh province are alleged to have spurred a separatrist movement from Indonesia. Jakarta's
moslem government backed "ethnic cleansing" and forced relocation of over 50K mongol asians. population The government said it was going after separatist rebels and killing them or forcing them out. Coincidentally these separatists just happen not to be muslims. If anything the line, between racial and religious differences is very blurry in this part of the world.
There are warring fractions, religious and political on all sides.
These people seem insane. What else is new?

I started another thread on this but it quickly died in favor of the more pressing problems faced by the victims. Now people as Powell and others are pointing out that help is being given irrespective of religion BUT, and that's a big but, he suggests moslems elsewhere should be mindful of the fact that all this aid is pouring in without prejudice or politics to help these victims.

BUMPING: "Aceh Province Scene of Ethnic Cleansing" In particular review the second URL given in the original post:

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cove/4232/9908/INA_aceh9907.html

Jaggy Bunnet

5th January 2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Now my dismay regarding the level of aid given by the Arab governments - to fellow muslims - is nothing other than an excuse to bash "all Muslims". Is there a point when you will admit that Saudi Arabia has raised more money for suicide bombers than for tsunami victims?....or will you keep bashing me for pointing that out?

Lets get this straight, you are comparing the Saudi government's aid given to fellow muslims with [b] non-governmental/b] fundraising for suicide bombers?

So not content with comparing governmental giving in muslim countries with non-governmental donations in other countries, you now want to compare it to non-governmental fundraising in their own country.

And this is relevant to anything how exactly?

Its like pointing out out American people have spent more on guns than the US government has donated to tsunami victims (NB made up statistics - no idea if this is really the case or not and for illustration purposes only) and then saying this is evidence that the US government does not care enough about tsunami victims.

Tmy

5th January 2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So why does Indonesia not recognize Israel? Because they like Israel?I have come to the conclusion that any criticism regarding the level of aid the Arab world has provided so far - to fellow muslims - shall be defended by you any way possible. So be it. I fell different considering facts such as;

The article in your first post said that Sri lanka refused similar help from other countries. That they didnt want/need help on the feild.

Didnt say anything about Isreal offering cash that was refused. I dont have a problem with them not sending money. Just dont forget to add them to your list of cheapskate countries.

Should we imply that Israels lack of support is racailly motivated? Since we are already thinking the worst of everyone.

Cleon

5th January 2005, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Should we imply that Israels lack of support is racailly motivated? Since we are already thinking the worst of everyone.

Not everyone. Just Muslims.

Hutch

5th January 2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Yes Tmy, Sri Lanka refused.....

Which, considering it is primarily Buddihist and Hindu, I wonder why?

.....and mainly-muslim Indonesia does not recognize Israel's exsistence, so Israel sent $0 dollars so far because of the racist views of indonesia's government.

No formal recognition I will give you--as the world's largest Muslim state in terms of population, it is awaiting until the Palestine situation is worked out.

But lack of contact? Well..according to this page (http://www.laksamana.net/vnews.cfm?ncat=22&news_id=6458) the ex-PM of Indonesia has visited Israel for a Conference, and from the same source...

Despite the absence of official diplomatic links, Israel has long maintained covert ties with Indonesia. According to some reports, Israelâ€™s intelligence agency Mossad, under the cover of a business office, has been present in Jakarta for years.

Reports say Indonesian officers have been trained in Israel in anti-terrorist methods, and intelligence agencies of both countries have been exchanging information since the late 1960s.

Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky has said the Israeli agency is very well entrenched in Indonesia, with the knowledge and permission of the Indonesian government.

Some reports imply that Israel in the late 1980s sold 28 US-made Skyhawk fighter aircraft to Indonesia.

Anti-corruption activist George Aditjondro has written about the Suharto regime's purchase of Israeli Uzi guns and other weapons through Mossad-linked arms trader Shaul Eisenberg.

Following the signing of a peace agreement between Israel and Yasser Arafatâ€™s Palestinian Liberation Organization in September 1993, then Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin visited Jakarta in October 1993 as the guest of then president Suharto.

That was the last time an Israeli head of state has visited Indonesia, but informal trade continues between the two nations.

I really wanted to keep my New Years resolution to stay out of the Arab-Israeli threads, but when you post stuff that is so easily countered, whats a fellow to do?.....:con2:

Tmy

5th January 2005, 12:37 PM

Heres an interesting line from Ze's own link:

"India and Sri Lanka are among Israel's biggest arms customers, although details of their transactions are not publicized."

So Isreal doesnt send humanitarian money cause those racist countries dont recognize them, YET their OK with selling them guns and missles? Thats nice.

Cane we hear another non-bias leacture about the cheapskate evil muslim countries? Please? :rolleyes:

zenith-nadir

6th January 2005, 03:58 AM

So Tmy, Hutch and Cleon will do and say anything in order to deny Arab countries - namely Saudi Arabia - raise more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims.

The moral of this story folks is if someone points that fact out others feel the need to obscure it with rhetoric, cover it up with irrelevant points - see Israel's entry into this thread - or they will just plain attack the messenger - me - for taking a swipe at - and here's the dead giveaway - for taking a swipe at all muslims. :rolleyes:

Why can you guys just admit they raised more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims? I really wonder why you can't...

Qatar - $25m, Saudi Arabia - $10m, Kuwait -$10m, Algeria - $2m, Bahrain - $2m, Libya - $2m, UAE - $2 m, African Union - $0.10 m

Aljazeera link (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B9DF3081-740E-4C7C-99CA-A1AC4D179196.htm)In fact, as recently as April 2002, Saudis raised almost $100 million in a national telethon for suicide bombers, particularly those sent into Israel by the radical group Hamas.

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838879/)

zenith-nadir

6th January 2005, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Lets get this straight, you are comparing the Saudi government's aid given to fellow muslims with [b] non-governmental/b] fundraising for suicide bombers?No telethon happens in Saudi Arabia without government approval. Nothing is shown on TV in Saudi Arabia without government approval. Ergo the Saudi Government had to approve a telethon in order for it to be shown on tightly-controlled Saudi media, especially one raising money for suicide bombers.

It's like everyone wants to deny the obvious, for the sake of.... denying the obvious....

Hutch

6th January 2005, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So Tmy, Hutch and Cleon will do and say anything in order to deny Arab countries - namely Saudi Arabia - raise more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims.

I have, in my 13 months and nearly 900 posts, never called anyone a liar before...but you are a liar on the above. To quote my own post in this thread:

Now it may be that ZN is quite right in his supposition that the Arab world is doing less than it could.....

The moral of this story folks is if someone points that fact out others feel the need to obscure it with rhetoric, cover it up with irrelevant points - see Israel's entry into this thread - or they will just plain attack the messenger - me - for taking a swipe at - and here's the dead giveaway - for taking a swipe at all muslims. :rolleyes:

I've posted twice. Once to inform you of the difference in size of aircraft which made comparisons YOU made between Arab and Israeli aid realitively moot, and the second to show that while there may not be formal relations between Indonesia and Israel, there were and are contacts. Which was my only purpose-information.

Why can you guys just admit they raised more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims? I really wonder why you can't...

Mostly because (1) We know only Government and not private donations and (2) You have made so many rash statements (only 3 countries, comparing tonnage vs aircraft with no aircraft figures and lying about me for starters) that you weaken anyone's willingness to accept what you say.

Actually, if you have managed to contain yourself to this point (a 50-50 proposition at best), I am actually trying to help you here--you have gone from being the "website poster" you began life here as as to someone who actually can express themselves in a debate. But when you allow emotion to get ahead of reason, when you don't review your posts and qualify them at the start, when you try to mix two valid topics (the response of Muslim nations to the tsunami and their funding of terrorist organizations) that deserve to be discussed separately but which to tied together, make useful debate harder, then you weaken what may well be a strong case.

Learn, young padawan, if you are to become a better debater.

Cleon

6th January 2005, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So Tmy, Hutch and Cleon will do and say anything

...Like demand you supply evidence for your claims, and calling you on your inaccuracies? How incredibly horrid of us. You'd think this was a skeptics' board or something.

The more you post, zn, the more you establish that you haven't really researched this. You found some nifty soundbite somewhere and you're going to repeat as often and as much as you can because it fits in with your worldview.

In short, you're making an ass out of yourself, you should probably quit while you're--well, "ahead" isn't quite the right word, really.

Cleon

6th January 2005, 05:35 AM

...On the 2002 telethon that ZN keeps linking to:

Turns out it wasn't for "suicide bombers," butfor the families of Palestinian "martyrs." (If you don't believe me, the pro-Palestinian organization AIPAC described it thus: "A recent Saudi telethon raised $150 million for families of Palestinian "martyrs," including the families of suicide bombers." [link (http://www.aipac.org/saudi042502.PDF)] I think if it HAD been a telethon for suicide bombers, it's a safe bet AIPAC would be crowing about it left and right. Especially in that document.)

Now, as I've explained in the past, in Arabic the word "shahid" (quasi-translated as martyr) is used for anybody who dies as the result of warfare. In fact, in the Arab world, their version of Memorial Day is called Yawm Al-Shahid--Martyr's Day.

Due to the way "martyr" is synonymous with "suicide bomber" in the Western world, I think it's a safe bet that MSNBC made a simple mistake. Had it been the point of the article ZN posted rather than a side comment, I'd like to think it would've been researched a little more.

I think even ZN will agree that the vast majority of the Palestinians who have been killed during the Intifada have not been suicide bombers. In short, ZN and other "Israel uber alles" types might not like the message of the 2002 telethon, but it is not the telethon that MSNBC and ZN are making it out to be.

(Incidentally, the Saudis recently announced a telethon to raise money for Tsunami victims after upping the government contribution to $30 million.)

Tmy

6th January 2005, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So Tmy, Hutch and Cleon will do and say anything in order to deny Arab countries - namely Saudi Arabia - raise more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims.
...

Hey Ill admit they support suicide bombers. DUH! These terror groups get money from somewhere.

Not its your turn. Admit that you are a bigot whos dislikes muslims and will take any chance you get to disparage them.

zenith-nadir

6th January 2005, 06:16 AM

Qatar - $25m, Saudi Arabia - $10m, Kuwait -$10m, Algeria - $2m, Bahrain - $2m, Libya - $2m, UAE - $2 m, African Union - $0.10 mTotal= 53.1 millionIn fact, as recently as April 2002, Saudis raised almost $100 million in a national telethon for suicide bombers, particularly those sent into Israel by the radical group Hamas.total=100 million.

100 million is greater than 53.1 million last time I checked. So continue to deflect, deny and play the tired old JREF semantic games that obscure the original fact that Saudia Arabia raised more money in 2002 for...cough... "martyrs"...cough... than tsunami victims today.

TragicMonkey

6th January 2005, 06:17 AM

Perhaps a compromise is in order. Saudi Arabia could continue to fund suicide bombers, but underwrite life insurance policies for them with the payouts to go to tsunami relief efforts.

zenith-nadir

6th January 2005, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Perhaps a compromise is in order. Saudi Arabia could continue to fund suicide bombers, but underwrite life insurance policies for them with the payouts to go to tsunami relief efforts. The funny part is that I am not dissing "all muslims", nor am I attacking Islam. I am just showing that more money was raised for cough..."martyrs"...cough... in a Saudi telethon than for fellow muslims who are tsunami victims. So far that position has several posters trying anything they can to demonize me for saying that.

Cleon

6th January 2005, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Total= 53.1 milliontotal=100 million.

100 million is greater than 53.1 million last time I checked. So continue to deflect, deny and play the tired old JREF semantic games that obscure the original fact that Saudia Arabia raised more money in 2002 for...cough... "martyrs"...cough... than tsunami victims today.

:rolleyes:

I think it's very telling, ZN, that you consider people who demand you supply evidence for your claims a "tired old JREF semantic game."

Cleon

6th January 2005, 06:23 AM

zenith-nadir

6th January 2005, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
:rolleyes:

I think it's very telling, ZN, that you consider people who demand you supply evidence for your claims a "tired old JREF semantic game." Why don't you just admit more money was raised in a telethon for "martyrs" than has been pledged for fellow muslims in indonesia? Why the song and dance arounf that fact? That is more "telling" than me providing you with Arab aid totals which ironically have been posted in this thread several times.

Cleon

6th January 2005, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Why don't you just admit more money was raised in a telethon for "martyrs" than has been pledged for fellow muslims in indonesia? Why the song and dance arounf that fact? That is more "telling" than me providing you with Arab aid totals which ironically have been posted in this thread several times.

And keep changing, because A) they're constantly changing, and B) your initial count was way, way off, as have been a number of the "facts" you've presented in this thread.

Tell you what. The Saudi telethon for Tsunami victims is scheduled for today, January 6. Why don't you sit back, relax, and find out how much is raised, in addition to the $30 million the government has already pledged?

Jaggy Bunnet

6th January 2005, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
The funny part is that I am not dissing "all muslims", nor am I attacking Islam. I am just showing that more money was raised for cough..."martyrs"...cough... in a Saudi telethon than for fellow muslims who are tsunami victims. So far that position has several posters trying anything they can to demonize me for saying that.

After all who could interpret a wholly inaccurate statement like "yet only 3 Muslim countries out of all the muslim countries have pledged funds" as an attack on all muslims (or at least all muslim countries)? And who made such a wholly inaccurate statement in starting this thread? That's right, you did! I notice you are now trying to pretend that this was not the point of the thread. Odd how you chose to include it in your opening post then.

And once again you have NOT shown that more money was raised for martyrs than tsunami victims. What you have done is state amounts of private donations given to the telethon and government only donations given to tsunami victims and claim that the two are somehow comparable.

Your excuse that the telethon must have had government permission and is therefore government spending is pathetic even for you. Charity groups around the globe need to meet government imposed criteria (i.e. be "government approved") but that does not mean that if I donate to the tsunami victims through the British Red Cross then that is government spending because the British Red Cross is "government approved".

Cleon

6th January 2005, 06:33 AM

I just noticed from the Saudi embassy's website that the Saudi-based Islamic Development Bank has pledged an additional $10 million, making the total Saudi known contribution $40 million. Not counting today's fundraiser and private donations.

Jaggy Bunnet

6th January 2005, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
And keep changing, because A) they're constantly changing, and B) your initial count was way, way off, as have been a number of the "facts" you've presented in this thread.

Tell you what. The Saudi telethon for Tsunami victims is scheduled for today, January 6. Why don't you sit back, relax, and find out how much is raised, in addition to the $30 million the government has already pledged?

What? Use directly comparable figures rather than try to muddy the waters by comparing apples and oranges? That's an outrageous suggestion.

For one thing it might not give him the answer he so clearly wants!

[Edit to apologise for poor choice of phrase in above.]

Cleon

6th January 2005, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
What? Use directly comparable figures rather than try to muddy the waters by comparing apples and oranges? That's an outrageous suggestion.

For one thing it might not give him the answer he so clearly wants!

[Edit to apologise for poor choice of phrase in above.]

And obviously, by doing so, we're just trying to "demonize" him.

Tmy

6th January 2005, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
And obviously, by doing so, we're just trying to "demonize" him.

Demonizing is fun!

Hey, has Israel increased their 0 Euros donation to the flood victims yet? WHATS UP WIT DAT??? At least these other countries pretend to care with some nominal donations.

Hutch

6th January 2005, 07:16 AM

Hey, ZN

About 15 posts back, I called you a stone-cold liar about remarks you made directly about me and my opinions.

You want to address that?

Tmy

6th January 2005, 07:33 AM

He didnt call you a liar............he called you an anti-semite terrorist sympathizer.;)

Hutch

6th January 2005, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
He didnt call you a liar............he called you an anti-semite terrorist sympathizer.;)

No Tmy--I called HIM a liar--and given he responded to a number of other posts about that time but not to that....

zenith-nadir

7th January 2005, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Hutch
Hey, ZN About 15 posts back, I called you a stone-cold liar about remarks you made directly about me and my opinions.
You want to address that? Nope. Because I and many here could care less about your "reputation". Especially one that is based upon the position that I called you a liar without ever using the word liar which somehow now has morphed into you calling me a stone-cold liar which am now supposed to address. Neither of which is on topic.Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
After all who could interpret a wholly inaccurate statement like "yet only 3 Muslim countries out of all the muslim countries have pledged funds" as an attack on all muslims (or at least all muslim countries)? I am not responsible for your interpretations, you are.

BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4151241.stm) - Saudis boost aid to wave victims

Oil-rich Saudi Arabia has increased its aid pledge for tsunami victims, after criticisms that Gulf states were not contributing enough.

Arab governments, and the oil-rich Gulf states in particular, have been criticised for not pledging more for the victims - the majority of whom are Muslims from Indonesia.

There has been public criticism from inside the Gulf states that their contributions are not generous enough when the region's huge oil revenues are taken into account.

"We have to give them more; we are rich," Kuwait's Al Qabas newspaper editor-in-chief Waleed Al Nusif told the New York Times earlier this week.

Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper accused governments of "collective miserliness in this hour of human need".

The most-watched Arab TV station, Al Jazeera, has announced its own campaign for donations, describing the comparative paucity of aid so far as "shameful" . Makes you wonder why Cleon, Hutch, Tmy and Jaggy are arguing tooth and nail against a fact that the Arab media and people in the Gulf States are willing to admit is true.

Jaggy Bunnet

7th January 2005, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Nope. Because I and many here could care less about your "reputation". Especially one that is based upon the position that I called you a liar without ever using the word liar which somehow now has morphed into you calling me a stone-cold liar which am now supposed to address. Neither of which is on topic.I am not responsible for your interpretations, you are.

Makes you wonder why Cleon, Hutch, Tmy and Jaggy are arguing tooth and nail against a fact that the Arab media and people in the Gulf States are willing to admit is true.

Liar.

I have never said that the Arab governments are doing enough. All I have pointed out is that your opening post was totally and utterly wrong, that the statistics you have used to try and prove your bigotted point about caring more about suicide bombers than tsunami victims were not comparable and therefore did not support your conclusion and that you lied when you claimed that "all" you were doing was comparing those donations as your original post contained false claims which were unrelated to that comparison.

Can you find me a single country in the world where there was no criticism that the initially announced contributions were not generous enough? I suspect not. Why single out Arab nations for your thread then? I suspect bigottry.

Cleon

7th January 2005, 04:09 AM

Well, zn, the Saudi government upped their contribution to $30 million. The Saudi Islamic Development Bank is now contributing $500 million. And the telethon raised $60 million (as of 4 pm est).

(link (http://www.saudiembassy.net/))

Which makes a total known Saudi contribution of $590 million.

I really don't think you have much of a point here.

zenith-nadir

7th January 2005, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Liar. I have never said that the Arab governments are doing enough. This is what I don't get, the Arab media admits the Arab response is lacking. There is public criticism on the Arab street that the Arab governments are not doing enough to help fellow muslims. Yet disregard all that....Zenith is a liar and a bigot for even suggesting such a thing. Zenith is a liar and a bigot for even suggesting such a thing. Zenith is a liar and a bigot for even suggesting such a thing.

Simply amazing the mental gymnastics you kids will go through....

zenith-nadir

7th January 2005, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, zn, the Saudi government upped their contribution to $30 million. The Saudi Islamic Development Bank is now contributing $500 million. And the telethon raised $60 million (as of 4 pm est).

(link (http://www.saudiembassy.net/))

Which makes a total known Saudi contribution of $590 million.

I really don't think you have much of a point here. It was a point 3 days ago when none of those things exsisted. That is when the thread began. You've just spent the past three days agruing against the original fact that was relevant three days ago.

Cleon

7th January 2005, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
It was a point 3 days ago when none of those things exsisted. That is when the thread began. You've just spent the past three days agruing against the original fact that was relevant three days ago.

No, I've been arguing against your "facts," which turned out not to be true, and your suppositions, which also turned out not to be true, and your lack of desire/ability to substantiate the claims you were making.

Now then, since you now don't have a legitimate point, are you going to let this thread die, or are you going to move the goalposts around a little more?

Jaggy Bunnet

7th January 2005, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
This is what I don't get, the Arab media admits the Arab response is lacking. There is public criticism on the Arab street that the Arab governments are not doing enough to help fellow muslims. Yet disregard all that....Zenith is a liar and a bigot for even suggesting such a thing. Zenith is a liar and a bigot for even suggesting such a thing. Zenith is a liar and a bigot for even suggesting such a thing.

Simply amazing the mental gymnastics you kids will go through....

No Zenith is a liar for saying that I claimed the Arab governments were doing enough when I did not. Zenith is a liar for claiming only 3 muslim countries had donated when that was untrue.

Zenith is a bigot for condemning only muslim countries for not doing enough. Zenith is a bigot for attempting to compare unrelated figures to support his preconceived notion of reality, rather than appraise them in an objective fashion. Zenith is a bigot for pretending that only Arab governments have been criticised by their population for not doing enough and have subsequently increased their donations.

Jaggy Bunnet

7th January 2005, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
It was a point 3 days ago when none of those things exsisted. That is when the thread began. You've just spent the past three days agruing against the original fact that was relevant three days ago.

You really are a stranger to the truth aren't you? Your original "fact" from your original post was that only 3 muslim countries had donated. That was, is and always will be utterly untrue. Because it fitted what you wanted to be the case (as it complied with your view of muslims as evil) you posted it anyway.

Jaggy Bunnet

7th January 2005, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Makes you wonder why Cleon, Hutch, Tmy and Jaggy are arguing tooth and nail against a fact that the Arab media and people in the Gulf States are willing to admit is true.

You also have an interesting interpretation of the word "fact".

If the Arab media don't think their governments are doing enough, that is an opinion. To say that it is a "fact" that the Arab governments are not doing enough is meaningless. The amount they should be doing cannot be determined objectively, therefore any assessment of whether they are doing enough is an opinion, not a fact.

Strange how the government controlled media felt able to criticise the government. Did you not tell me that they were government controlled and did nothing without government say so?

Leif Roar

7th January 2005, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
This is what I don't get, the Arab media admits the Arab response is lacking. There is public criticism on the Arab street that the Arab governments are not doing enough to help fellow muslims.

And? There were criticism on the Norwegian streets that the Norwegian government had given too little to the affected countries too, and a while later the Norwegian government increased the amount pledged quite substantially. I would be surprised if this was not true for just about all the donating countries - so why is it in any way significant that we can see similar behaviour in Saudi Arabia?

Incidentally, where do you get the "to help fellow muslims" part of the criticism? The BBC article you quoted earlier mentioned "tsunami victims," and not "fellow muslims." Do you have any sources that the lack of help to fellow muslims is the gist of the criticism, or is it yet another of your own inventions?

Hutch

7th January 2005, 07:46 AM

*sigh* I really don't have time for this gross display of immaturity, but I will spell it out again, ZN

YOU wrote, and I quote:

So Tmy, Hutch and Cleon will do and say anything in order to deny Arab countries - namely Saudi Arabia - raise more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims.

To which I replied:

Originally posted by Hutch
I have, in my 13 months and nearly 900 posts, never called anyone a liar before...but you are a liar on the above. To quote my own post in this thread:

Now it may be that ZN is quite right in his supposition that the Arab world is doing less than it could.....

Then you manage to say in your defense...

Nope. Because I and many here could care less about your "reputation". Especially one that is based upon the position that I called you a liar without ever using the word liar which somehow now has morphed into you calling me a stone-cold liar which am now supposed to address. Neither of which is on topic.

Now lets see--ZN says "I called you a liar" Nope, I never said that and I love to see him prove in his own posts that he (ZN) called me a liar. I CALLED YOU A LIAR, ZN.

Not on topic--Well, see who posted first.

Look, YOU made a DIRECT and SPECIFIC accusation--saying that I (by name) would, and I quote "do and say anything in order to deny Arab countries--namely Saudi Arabia--raise more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims" And I called you a Liar for that and I stand upon that ground unless you care to prove your point. Which you cannot do. And you know it.

But you are incapable of apologizing. I see that now. I see that now. I do not believe it is my reputation you should be not worrying about.

Jaggy Bunnet

7th January 2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Hutch
I do not believe it is my reputation you should be not worrying about.

I think it is far, far too late for zenith to bother worrying about his own reputation.

zenith-nadir

8th January 2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Hutch
I have, in my 13 months and nearly 900 posts, never called anyone a liar before...but you are a liar on the above. Originally posted by Hutch
Hey, ZN About 15 posts back, I called you a stone-cold liar about remarks you made directly about me and my opinions. You want to address that?Originally posted by Hutch
Now lets see--ZN says "I called you a liar" Nope, I never said that and I love to see him prove in his own posts that he (ZN) called me a liar. I CALLED YOU A LIAR, ZN.:s2:

Originally posted by Leif Roar
There were criticism on the Norwegian streets that the Norwegian government had given too little to the affected countries too, and a while later the Norwegian government increased the amount pledged quite substantially. Wow, someone who can admit that there was criticism on the Norwegian streets that the Norwegian government had given too little. Change the word "Norway" to the word "Saudi Arabia" and you'll be branded a liar and a bigot by Cleon, Hutch and Jaggy.

I am not backing down. Saudi Arabia has given more to islamist terror organizations than to rescue fellow muslims in Indonesia.

msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838879/)

In fact, as recently as April 2002, Saudis raised almost $100 million in a national telethon for suicide bombers, particularly those sent into Israel by the radical group Hamas.nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray070102.asp)

The payment sheet provided by the Saudi Committee, which spearheaded the infamous $109 million telethon this spring, lists not only the names of terrorists, but in many cases the locations of the attacks â€” laying bare any myth that Saudi petro-dollars reached families of homicide bombers inadvertently.....Even before the bonanza telethon, the Saudi Committee had transferred at least $55.7 million to various groups in the West Bank and Gaza; according to informed sources, the actual amount most likely is significantly higher than that.house.gov (http://www.house.gov/nadler/archive108/SaudiHamas_092403.htm)

As reported in numerous publications, including the New York Times and Time Magazine, over half of Hamas' $12 to $14 million a year budget comes from Saudi Arabian donors...."Living up to its reputation as a sponsor of hate, the Saudi Arabian government has sponsored subsidies for families of suicide bombers. One 'charitable' event came in the form of a telethon, where Saudis donated nearly $100 million to family members of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saudi officials told the United States government that the proceeds went to general humanitarian aid to Palestinians, yet their own records reveal that the money went to families of terrorists.washingtoninstitute.org (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt063003.htm)

None of this, of course, is new. A recently disclosed 1996 CIA document shows that as early as 1994 Washington was warning that in 1992 Saudi nationals gave some $150 million to Islamic charities active in Bosnia and implicated in terrorism. Similarly, computer files uncovered in the March 2002 raids on the Benevolence International Foundation in Bosnia revealed a 1988 al Qaeda memorandum listing 20 Saudi financial backers described by bin Laden as "the Golden Chain." But neither did Saudi support for terror cease after 9/11. The Los Angeles Times recently published some extremely interesting Italian intelligence wiretaps. One captures a senior al Qaeda recruiter in Europe telling the Egyptian imam of the Via Quaranta mosque in Milan not to worry about funding because "Saudi Arabia's money is your money." That was in June 2002.

Cleon

8th January 2005, 05:39 AM

Ye gods....GIVE IT UP.

At this point, it's obvious to anyone and everyone reading this you really don't know what you're talking about--especially when you have to repeat the bit about the Saudi telethon "giving $100 million to suicide bombers." Dude, when AIPAC says that the telethon gave money to the families of Palestinians who've been killed, I think even you have to admit you're probably wrong. I mean, it's AIPAC. We're not talking about the Islamic Association for Palestine, ok? Repeating yourself after you've been shown to be wrong isn't exactly rational--there's an old joke about the definition of insanity being "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

The Saudis are giving a total known contribution of $590 million. If that's not enough for you, I'm sure the Saudis will apologize heartily.

In the meantime, you're not doing yourself any favors by grasping at these straws.

Your premises for this thread were wrong. The "facts" you keep bringing up to try and justify your original idea have about as much truth and accuracy as a Kent Hovind lecture.

Give it up.

Jaggy Bunnet

9th January 2005, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Wow, someone who can admit that there was criticism on the Norwegian streets that the Norwegian government had given too little. Change the word "Norway" to the word "Saudi Arabia" and you'll be branded a liar and a bigot by Cleon, Hutch and Jaggy.

I am not backing down. Saudi Arabia has given more to islamist terror organizations than to rescue fellow muslims in Indonesia.

To be absolutely clear, when you say you are not backing down do you mean you stand by your claim in the first post of this thread that only 3 muslim governments had donated at that time? IE do you stand by your lies?

Or do you mean you are not backing down over your failure to criticise any non-muslim country over the level of its donations, but only to criticise muslim countries? IE do you stand by your bigotry?

I see you are repeating your lies by comparing government aid and private spending. Do you never get embarrased by how stupid you look by repeating nonsense after is has been pointed out to you how idiotic your comparison is?

zenith-nadir

9th January 2005, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Ye gods....GIVE IT UP. At this point, it's obvious to anyone and everyone reading this you really don't know what you're talking about--especially when you have to repeat the bit about the Saudi telethon "giving $100 million to suicide bombers.This is exactly why I am not caving in to you guys. Just one post above yours are four different respected sources that say Cleon is wrong about the telethon. Your rebuttal to those links and sources is "it's obvious to anyone and everyone reading this you really don't know what you're talking about". So I provide sources and links to support my position and you provide nothing except to say everyone else, my sources included, "don't know what we are talking about".

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
To be absolutely clear, when you say you are not backing down do you mean you stand by your claim in the first post of this thread that only 3 muslim governments had donated at that time? IE do you stand by your lies?When I wrote my first post on 01-04-2005 at 10:04 AM those were the aid totals for the Arab world listed in the popular media. If you go to the third post in this thread you will see I personally searched further and found additional aid totals at 10:31 AM which I posted in this thread. Then Cleon pointed out an additional sidebar of totals that I did not see and I acknowledged those totals as well in this thread.

Yet your position is 1) I never did that, 2) I am a liar, 3) I am a bigot and 4) I am wrong. Yet another reason I am not willing to be brow beaten into submission by you guys.

{edited to add} Oh ya, and you called me stupid and idiotic too a couple posts up... hell of a debating style Jaggy.

Cleon

9th January 2005, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
This is exactly why I am not caving in to you guys. Just one post above yours are four different respected sources that say Cleon is wrong about the telethon.

Repitition does not make true, you know. You link to the same MSNBC story you did the first time--which mentions it in passing. Then you print an opinion piece from the National Review--which also mentions it in passing, and then only as a report of a question asked to Colin Powell. Your third link is a press release from a politician. Your fourth link doesn't even mention the telethon.

These are not substantial sources. If you can find a news report that describes the telethon as one to "raise money for suicide bombers," then you've rebutted my point. As it is, you haven't. Since you've decided to shun google, here is a link for a Google News search for "saudi and telethon and 2002:" link (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=saudi+and+telethon+and+2002&btnG=Search+News). Notice how each news story, even pro-Israeli sources, describe it as a telethon raising money for the families of Palestinian "martyrs." Pro-Israeli sources that want to hammer home the point use phrases like "families of Palestinian 'martyrs', including the families of suicide bombers." Which not only backs up my claim regarding the nature of the telethon, but also backs me up in that "shahid" is not a synonym for "suicide bomber."

See, those are news sources, as opposed to sidebar commentary during an interview, third-hand reporting from an opinion column, and press releases from politicians.

Meanwhile, let's review how AIPAC described it at the time:

"A recent Saudi telethon raised $150 million for families of Palestinian 'martyrs,' including the families of suicide bombers."

So ZN, either AIPAC is lying in order to present Saudi Arabia in a more positive light--*snort*--or your links aren't particularly accurate.

Your rebuttal to those links and sources is "it's obvious to anyone and everyone reading this you really don't know what you're talking about". So I provide sources and links to support my position and you provide nothing except to say everyone else, my sources included, "don't know what we are talking about".

You're really only paying attention to what you WANT to pay attention to, aren't you? See above.

When I wrote my first post on 01-04-2005 at 10:04 AM those were the aid totals for the Arab world listed in the popular media.

No, it wasn't, you just decided not to spend the additional thirty seconds researching it. As I pointed out in my 10:27 am response.

If you go to the third post in this thread you will see I personally searched further and found additional aid totals at 10:31 AM which I posted in this thread. Then Cleon pointed out an additional sidebar of totals that I did not see and I acknowledged those totals as well in this thread.

Oh, for crying out loud. You made the claim that only three countries gave aid. To which I responded with a laundry list of others at 10:27 (the second post in the thread). Your response to that was "Please feel free to verify your claim. I would be happy to see the data." You didn't bother to actually "personally search further" until I pointed out that you were full of it; and then, you demanded proof. When supplied with said proof, you didn't bother to read it, as you said "yet none of your links mention Algeria, Bahrain, Libya, Jordan and Turkey." Which was, of course, incorrect.

You're making this sound like you voluntarily amended your claim. Not so. You had to be browbeaten with the fact that you were wrong. Even then, you decided not to accept it.

Yet your position is 1) I never did that, 2) I am a liar, 3) I am a bigot and 4) I am wrong. Yet another reason I am not willing to be brow beaten into submission by you guys.

So it's simply foolish pride, then, that keeps you from admitting that you're wrong. What an amazing attribute for someone on a skeptics' board. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, let's look at the evolution of your claims:

only 3 Muslim countries out of all the muslim countries have pledged funds; 10 million from Saudi Arabia, 2 million from Kuwait and 20 million from the UAE.

Turns out that was way off. But, not deterred, you keep going:

I feel 50 million bucks and a few plane loads of supplies is underwhelming considering the scale of the disaster and the future needs of the victims, many of whom are muslims. You choose to defend the Arab world, I choose to express my dismay considering the vast wealth of many Arab leaders and countries.

Of course, I wasn't "defending the Arab world" so much as pointing out that you're wrong. As in, your "facts" were wrong, and your comparisons invalid. I suppose in your little world "proving zenith-nadir wrong" and "defending the Arab world" amounts to the same thing. Still going:

Sandra gave $1,000,000, Michael Shumacher just gave $10,000,000. That's more than Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Ohman, Lebanon, Tunisia and Libya combined.

I still can't believe you're including countries like Somalia and the Sudan here--that's just too funny for words.

When I pointed out that you were comparing private American donations with Arab government contributions, and asking you to supply data on private Arab contributions, you responded thus:

have not changed the subject. I am still talking about the Arab world's aid level to fellow muslims. As soon as someone shows that a few celebrities and a few American corporations have provided more aid than Algeria, Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Ohman, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Libya combined you go woo woo and turn on me for even saying such a thing.

How incredibly woo-woo, demanding crazy things like "evidence" and "accurate comparisons." :rolleyes:

Nonedeterred, you then change your claim:

So Tmy, Hutch and Cleon will do and say anything in order to deny Arab countries - namely Saudi Arabia - raise more money for suicide bombers than tsunami victims.

Well, ok, it turns out that the Saudis weren't raising money for suicide bombers. And it turns out that they were in the process of organizing a telethon for the tsunami (god forbid you should wait until it's over to make a comparison of the contributions). And it turns out that the Saudis wound up contributing more for the tsunami victims than your oh-so-scandalous telethon raised.

In the meantime, you decided to switch your claim yet again:

There is public criticism on the Arab street that the Arab governments are not doing enough to help fellow muslims. Yet disregard all that....Zenith is a liar and a bigot for even suggesting such a thing.

Suddenly "only three countries are giving aid" transformed into "the Saudis are raising more money for suicide bombers," which then mutated into "the Arab governments are not doing enough to help fellow Muslims."

then you decided to backtrack:

I am not backing down. Saudi Arabia has given more to islamist terror organizations than to rescue fellow muslims in Indonesia.

Then providing several links that establish no such thing. You return to the telethon, talk about a $150 million contribution to a Bosnian charity, supposed donations to Hamas--none of which, even if true, adds up to the $590 million that youalready knew Saudi Arabia was contributing.

Even as your claims have changed, they're still wrong. Hell, even your math is wrong. But no, you're "not backing down." Out of pride, of all things. :rolleyes:

Jaggy Bunnet

10th January 2005, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
{edited to add} Oh ya, and you called me stupid and idiotic too a couple posts up... hell of a debating style Jaggy.

Well lets look at the paragraph that you are so upset about shall we? I said:

"I see you are repeating your lies by comparing government aid and private spending. Do you never get embarrased by how stupid you look by repeating nonsense after is has been pointed out to you how idiotic your comparison is?"

Note I never called you idiotic, I called your comparison idiotic. So that's yet another lie.

You still refuse to acknowledge that government spending and private spending are not comparable. As has been pointed out to you there are comparable figures available to you (from the tsunami telethon) yet you continue to make claims based on incomparable numbers. That DOES make you look stupid, whether you like it or not.

Perhaps you would be more at home with a debating style where I made up some lies about claims you had made? After all that is exactly what you did when you claimed I was "arguing tooth and nail against a fact [that Arab countries were not doing enough] that the Arab media and people in the Gulf States are willing to admit is true".

Two points for you:

Arguing that an opinion is a fact is both stupid and idiotic.

Provide evidence that I have ever argued that Arab countries are doing enough for tsunami victims or admit that what you posted was a straight out lie.

zenith-nadir

10th January 2005, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Repitition does not make true, you know. You link to the same MSNBC story you did the first time--which mentions it in passing. Then you print an opinion piece from the National Review--which also mentions it in passing, and then only as a report of a question asked to Colin Powell. Your third link is a press release from a politician.....These are not substantial sources. MSNBC, The National Review, washingtoninstitute.org and the United States House of Representatives are not substantial sources according to Cleon. Why even bother debating...

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Note I never called you idiotic, I called your comparison idiotic. So that's yet another lie.Semantic games are boring. You called me a liar about 20 times now, you called me stupid and so far you haven't provided a single link or a shred of evidence to back up your position. But don't listen to zenith, he is a liar, he is stupid and his comparisons are idiotic...and that's how we debate at JREF. ;)

Hutch

10th January 2005, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Provide evidence that I have ever argued that Arab countries are doing enough for tsunami victims or admit that what you posted was a straight out lie.

Too bad, Jaggy, ZN doesn't do admitting lies (or perhaps slanders would be more accurate). So don't hold your breath.

Jaggy Bunnet

10th January 2005, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
MSNBC, The National Review, washingtoninstitute.org and the United States House of Representatives are not substantial sources according to Cleon. Why even bother debating...

Semantic games are boring. You called me a liar about 20 times now, you called me stupid and so far you haven't provided a single link or a shred of evidence to back up your position. But don't listen to zenith, he is a liar, he is stupid and his comparisons are idiotic...and that's how we debate at JREF. ;)

Here's a clue for you. If you post lies, you are likely to get called a liar.

If you don't want to get called a liar, don't post lies. Or when you do get caught posting them, admit it and apologise. Here's a chance for you to start:

Provide evidence that I have ever argued that Arab countries are doing enough for tsunami victims or admit that what you posted was a straight out lie.

Cleon

10th January 2005, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
MSNBC, The National Review, washingtoninstitute.org and the United States House of Representatives are not substantial sources according to Cleon. Why even bother debating...

Your capability of dishonesty never ceases to amaze me.

The MSNBC was not a news story. It was an interview, where the comment was made in passing.

The House of Representatives link wasn't a study. It wasn't an investigation. It was a press release by a single congressman--one in which he's quoting his own statements in front of a Jewish organization. So not only is the "US House of Representatives" not the source, no, it's not a substantial source.

And the Washington Institute link didn't even mention the telethon.

Whereas every actual news report on the telethon describes it as one raising money for the families of those killed. Every single one. I even provided the Google link, since using that particular tool seems a bit beyond your capabilities. Even AIPAC, in a press release trying to establish the very same thing that you are (that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism), described it that way.

You're right, why even bother debating. Especially when, since the beginning of this thread, you've chosen to fabricate your own reality based on your preconceived notions.

Art Vandelay

10th January 2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
Due to the way "martyr" is synonymous with "suicide bomber" in the Western world, I think it's a safe bet that MSNBC made a simple mistake. Had it been the point of the article ZN posted rather than a side comment, I'd like to think it would've been researched a little more.

I think even ZN will agree that the vast majority of the Palestinians who have been killed during the Intifada have not been suicide bombers.
Not to imply a position on the rest of ZN's statements, but I take exception to the implications that the Western world is responsible for suicide bombers being referred to as martyrs, and that the vast majority of Palestinians killed in the Intifada have been innocents victims.

The idea that suicide bombers are "martyrs" is one promoted by Muslim extremists themselves, not the West. It is completely understandable that when a Westerner hears talk of "martyrs", he suspects that it's code for "murderers". In the entire history of the Intifada, how many true martyrs have there been? That is, how many were specifically targeted by Israel for peaceful acts?

And while it may be true that the vast majority of supposed martyrs have not specifically been suicide bombers, I do not take it as given that the vast majority are not even partially responsible for their deaths. I have seen no evidence that Israel targets civilians, and many of the people who die do so because of choices they make. And many of the Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians, not Israelis.

And finally, why is it that the telethon raised money specifically for Palestinians? Are the Palestinian "innocent victims" more innocent than Israeli innocent victims? They claim that they accept Jesus as a prophet, but they don't seem to pay much attention to the "love your enemy" advice.

Cleon

10th January 2005, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Not to imply a position on the rest of ZN's statements, but I take exception to the implications that the Western world is responsible for suicide bombers being referred to as martyrs, and that the vast majority of Palestinians killed in the Intifada have been innocents victims.

The idea that suicide bombers are "martyrs" is one promoted by Muslim extremists themselves, not the West. It is completely understandable that when a Westerner hears talk of "martyrs", he suspects that it's code for "murderers". In the entire history of the Intifada, how many true martyrs have there been? That is, how many were specifically targeted by Israel for peaceful acts?

This is a linguistic thing, not a political thing. Don't let your political sentiments get the best of you.

The West's use of the word "martyr" is a quasi-translation of the Arabic word "shahid." We don't have an exact translation in English--we use "martyr" because it's the closest. A "shahid" is anyone killed as a result of conflict. Yes, this includes suicide bombers; it also includes Rachel Corrie, who--whatever you think of her politics--never killed anyone in her life. (Earlier in this thread I referenced the Arab world's equivalent of Memorial Day--called Yawm Al-Shahid, "Martyr's Day.")

Yes, Palestinians and other Arabs use the word "shahid" to describe those killed. Frequently. Because, by definition, they are "shahids." When this is translated in the West, the word "martyr" is used (again, having no equivalent ourselves). Unfortunately, the English word "martyr" involves a moral aspect of the death that isn't included in the word "shahid." The end result of this is that Westerners--through no fault of their own, really--take a political context out of an apolitical word.

Like I said, this is not a poltical issue. It's a linguistic issue. Arabic is not English, and not all words have an exact translation.

And while it may be true that the vast majority of supposed martyrs have not specifically been suicide bombers,

Well, you may qualify this by saying "it may be true," but in reality, it's really bloody obvious. If Israel killed them, they weren't suicide bombers. Or the "suicide" part went rather poorly.

I do not take it as given that the vast majority are not even partially responsible for their deaths. I have seen no evidence that Israel targets civilians, and many of the people who die do so because of choices they make. And many of the Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians, not Israelis.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into questions of whether Israel does or does not target civilians, but I will point out you make a number of unsupported assertions here.

And finally, why is it that the telethon raised money specifically for Palestinians? Are the Palestinian "innocent victims" more innocent than Israeli innocent victims?

Obviously, they sympathize with the Palestinians' plight. As do I. Raising money for the families of those killed--just as there were fundraisers in the US for the families of those killed on September 11--is a way of showing solidarity.

Another way to look at it is that Israel receives billions of dollars per year from the US. Far more than the Palestinians--or any other country in the world, for that matter. Even the $300 million+ that Washington is giving to tsunami relief is a drop in the bucket to the financial, military, and economic aid Israel gets every year. If Bill Gates' kid gets leukemia, and a homeless child gets the same disease, who are you more likely to raise money for? They might both be "equally innocent," but let's face it, one needs it a whole lot less.

On a more cynical note, many of the ruling Arab regimes--Saudi Arabia included--use the massive Arab support of the Palestinians as a way to deflect from their own misgovernment. Any time the al-Saud family does anything for the Palestinians, this is usually the first thing I attribute it to, not human kindness or goodwill. (Contrary to ZN's assertions, I am not a fan of the Saudi government. I'm just even less of a fan of blatant BS.)

They claim that they accept Jesus as a prophet, but they don't seem to pay much attention to the "love your enemy" advice.

Who does?

zenith-nadir

11th January 2005, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Your capability of dishonesty never ceases to amaze me. The MSNBC was not a news story. It was an interview, where the comment was made in passing.So now MSNBC interviews with Prince Faisal by Andrea Mitchell are not news stories.... they are interviews with comments "made in passing" and therefore somehow invalid.

Originally posted by Cleon
The House of Representatives link wasn't a study. It wasn't an investigation. It was a press release by a single congressman--one in which he's quoting his own statements in front of a Jewish organization. So not only is the "US House of Representatives" not the source, no, it's not a substantial source.So a press release by a member of the House of Representatives is not a substatial source because "he's quoting his own statements from in front of a Jewish organization".

Originally posted by Cleon
Unfortunately, the English word "martyr" involves a moral aspect of the death that isn't included in the word "shahid." The end result of this is that Westerners--through no fault of their own, really--take a political context out of an apolitical word. So the latest semanic game regarding the word "martyr" is; A) It is "westerners" that make martyr a bad word, B) When Arafat said "A million Martyrs to Jerusalem" a thousand times in english and arabic he really didn't mean warriors who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause he meant "anyone killed as a result of conflict" to Jerusalem!

Originally posted by Cleon
I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into questions of whether Israel does or does not target civilians, but I will point out you make a number of unsupported assertions here. So in your opinion Art Vandelay is making unsupported assertions. In your opinion I am dishonest and my sources are not substantial enough and in your experience westerners misuse the word "martyr"....I think I am begining to see a pattern here.

Cleon

11th January 2005, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So now MSNBC interviews with Prince Faisal by Andrea Mitchell are not news stories.... they are interviews with comments "made in passing" and therefore somehow invalid.

Not necessarily invalid, just not necessarily accurate.

So a press release by a member of the House of Representatives is not a substatial source because "he's quoting his own statements from in front of a Jewish organization".

More because he's quoting himself, and it's a press release.

Again...Every single news story from 2002 that describes the telethon describes it as one giving money to the families of those killed. Including AIPAC, in a document trying to establish that Saudi Arabia is giving money to terrorists. If they can come to terms with that simple reality, why can't you? Pride, again? An inability or unwillingness to admit that you're wrong?

So the latest semanic game regarding the word "martyr" is; A) It is "westerners" that make martyr a bad word,

No, it's a translation issue that turns "shahid," an apolitical word, into "martyr," with a moral aspect nonexistent in "shahid." Again, oddly enough, AIPAC's document backs me up on this.

Don't mistake a linguistic issue for a political issue; it only makes you look dogmatic and unwilling to look at evidence if it contradicts your worldview.

B) When Arafat said "A million Martyrs to Jerusalem" a thousand times in english and arabic he really didn't mean warriors who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause he meant "anyone killed as a result of conflict" to Jerusalem!

You say that as if they're mutually exclusive. Rachel Corrie is a "shahida" even though she never killed anyone. Someone who sacrifices himself for a cause is also a "shahid."

So in your opinion Art Vandelay is making unsupported assertions.

Well, he is.

In your opinion I am dishonest and my sources are not substantial enough

Well, when every single news story contradicts you, yet you refuse to even acknowledge that you might be wrong, I would say that's a given.

and in your experience westerners misuse the word "martyr"....I think I am begining to see a pattern here.

Of course you do. :rolleyes: I have never claimed that the West's (mis)use of "shahid" is part of some conspiracy to make Arabs look bad. Hell, I can't think of a better word than "martyr" for "shahid." But it's far from an exact translation.

But claiming that "shahid" is a synonym for "suicide bomber" or "terrorist," as you have, is simply incorrect. And no matter how much you protest, that doesn't change. You're still wrong.

Jaggy Bunnet

11th January 2005, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So in your opinion Art Vandelay is making unsupported assertions. In your opinion I am dishonest and my sources are not substantial enough and in your experience westerners misuse the word "martyr"....I think I am begining to see a pattern here.

I am definitely seeing a pattern.

In the paragraph quoted, Art did make assertions - "many of the Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians, not Israelis" - and they were unsupported. Does not mean they are necessarily wrong (which of course is not what Cleon claimed) but is is certainly accurate to describe them as unsupported assertions. If you disagree please spell out whether you believe Art made no assertions, or whether you believe that he supported any assertions he made.

You ARE dishonest. If you weren't you would have been able to back up your claim that I said Arab governments were doing enough. You have been asked several times to do so, yet have failed. This is because I never made such a claim, you know that and you are too dishonest to admit it. If you want to prove you are not dishonest, all you have to do is provide evidence to back that claim.

It has been explained to you why the word martyr is not a direct translation of the word "shahid". Unfortunately you are unwilling to take the opportunity to learn something (or provide contrary evidence - for example a source stating that shahid does NOT mean what Cleon claims).

The pattern I am seeing is ZN makes false claim. ZN is asked to back up said claim. ZN fails to do so. ZN cries about being demonized because people ask for evidence. ZN tells lies about other peoples claims. ZN sticks fingers in ears and shouts "la, la, la" at the top of his voice to avoid hearing information that doesn't fit his bigotted world view.

I take it that is the pattern you meant?

zenith-nadir

11th January 2005, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, when every single news story contradicts you, yet you refuse to even acknowledge that you might be wrong, I would say that's a given. So let me get this straight Cleon and Jaggy;

MSNBC - In fact, as recently as April 2002, Saudis raised almost $100 million in a national telethon for suicide bombers, particularly those sent into Israel by the radical group Hamas. link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838879/) Wrong and a Zenith-lie.National Review - The payment sheet provided by the Saudi Committee, which spearheaded the infamous $109 million telethon this spring, lists not only the names of terrorists, but in many cases the locations of the attacks â€” laying bare any myth that Saudi petro-dollars reached families of homicide bombers inadvertently. link (http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray070102.asp)Wrong and a Zenith-lie. UPI International - Saudi Arabia makes no distinction in compensation to families of suicide bombers and those killed by Israeli military action. As of January 2001, the Saudi government had paid $33 million to families of 2,281 prisoners and 358 "martyrs," link (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=09042002-050314-4015r) Wrong and a Zenith-lie.CNN - The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, claimed Arab Bank served as "paymaster" to families of suicide bombers and worked as the banker for a Saudi government-supported fund-raising campaign that has funneled more than $4 billion to Palestinian terrorist groups.

It also charged that Arab Bank's New York office converted Saudi funds into U.S. dollars and then routed the funds back to the Middle East.

Saudi Embassy spokesmen were not immediately available to comment but the Saudi government has repeatedly said it has never sponsored or engaged in fund-raising for militant activities.Wrong and a Zenith-lie.Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) - As reported in numerous publications, including the New York Times and Time Magazine, over half of Hamas' $12 to $14 million a year budget comes from Saudi Arabian donors. In fact, as stated by Israeli and American law enforcement and diplomatic officials, much of this money comes from government-controlled charities.

"Living up to its reputation as a sponsor of hate, the Saudi Arabian government has sponsored subsidies for families of suicide bombers. One 'charitable' event came in the form of a telethon, where Saudis donated nearly $100 million to family members of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saudi officials told the United States government that the proceeds went to general humanitarian aid to Palestinians, yet their own records reveal that the money went to families of terrorists.Wrong and a Zenith-lie.

And the coup de grace that I, Zenith, am wrong and lying;
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
The pattern I am seeing is ZN makes false claim. ZN is asked to back up said claim. ZN fails to do so. ZN cries about being demonized because people ask for evidence. ZN tells lies about other peoples claims. ZN sticks fingers in ears and shouts "la, la, la" at the top of his voice to avoid hearing information that doesn't fit his bigotted world view.

Jaggy Bunnet

11th January 2005, 06:21 AM

You seem to have reading comprehension problem so let me make this simple for you. From my previous post:

"In the paragraph quoted, Art did make assertions - "many of the Palestinians are killed by other Palestinians, not Israelis" - and they were unsupported. Does not mean they are necessarily wrong (which of course is not what Cleon claimed) but is is certainly accurate to describe them as unsupported assertions. If you disagree please spell out whether you believe Art made no assertions, or whether you believe that he supported any assertions he made."

And

"You ARE dishonest. If you weren't you would have been able to back up your claim that I said Arab governments were doing enough. You have been asked several times to do so, yet have failed. This is because I never made such a claim, you know that and you are too dishonest to admit it. If you want to prove you are not dishonest, all you have to do is provide evidence to back that claim.

And

"It has been explained to you why the word martyr is not a direct translation of the word "shahid". Unfortunately you are unwilling to take the opportunity to learn something (or provide contrary evidence - for example a source stating that shahid does NOT mean what Cleon claims).

Now if you look at the bits in bold, you will see that in each case, you are given an opportunity to sustain your argument or justify your conclusion. I invite you once again to do so. I predict you will once again fail to do so and will repost some quotes that are totally unrelated to the points made.

I have told you EXACTLY what you need to do for me to retract my statement that you are a liar. The problem you have is that you are not capable of doing so because you did lie.

On the other hand, it was nice of you to give such a perfect illustration of the pattern I had described.

Cleon

11th January 2005, 06:50 AM

lol...Zenith-nadir, you really don't read the links you fish for, do you?

Never mind. Just never ******* mind. You've pretty much established your honesty level as fairly Clintonesque.

zenith-nadir

11th January 2005, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I have told you EXACTLY what you need to do for me to retract my statement that you are a liar. The problem you have is that you are not capable of doing so because you did lie. Translation: I do not agree with your position, I do not agree with your links, I do not agree with your quoted sources. And these are the hoops you have to jump through for me to retract my claims that you are a liar and a bigot. ;)

Originally posted by Cleon
lol...Zenith-nadir, you really don't read the links you fish for, do you? Never mind. Just never ******* mind. You've pretty much established your honesty level as fairly Clintonesque. Translation: You are as dishonest as Clinton.

Cleon

11th January 2005, 07:03 AM

Jaggy Bunnet

11th January 2005, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Translation: I do not agree with your position, I do not agree with your links, I do not agree with your quoted sources. And these are the hoops you have to jump through for me to retract my claims that you are a liar and a bigot. ;)

You claimed that I had said Arab governments were doing enough to help tsunami victims.

The only source or link that would support your claim is one where I made such a claim. The problem you have is that there is no such source or link, because you lied when you made that claim. Posting links on completely unrelated topics does not change the facts. No matter how many you post.

I see you are still avoiding the questions in my previous post after they were repeated in bold for the hard of thinking. Looks like the fingers are well and truly back in your ears again.

So having proved you are a liar, lets move on to bigot.

Throughout this thread you have lied about and misrepresented the actions of muslims always in a negative manner. You have not had a word of criticism for Israel, despite the fact they are doing less. Your behaviour fits with that of a bigot, so I am happy calling you one.

Art Vandelay

12th January 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
The West's use of the word "martyr" is a quasi-translation of the Arabic word "shahid." We don't have an exact translation in English--we use "martyr" because it's the closest. A "shahid" is anyone killed as a result of conflict.
First, I remain unconvinced that the decision to use the word "martyr" to convey the sense of the word "shahid" is a purely Western one. Most of the translators I have heard have spoken with an Arabic accent, which suggests that they are Arabic. Furthermore, many of the extremists speak English themselves, making translation uneccessary. I therefore see wide agreement, both in the Western world, and in the Arabic world, that "martyr" is the appropriate translation. Claim that this exposes the limitations of translating the concepts of one culture into another if you like; what I objected to was the suggestion that the fault lies with Westerners.

Furthermore, the very fact that there is so much trouble in translation supports my earlier point, which was that Westerners are justified, when Arabs speak of "martyrs", or words translated as "martyr", in wondering if this refers to terrorists.

Well, you may qualify this by saying "it may be true," but in reality, it's really bloody obvious. If Israel killed them, they weren't suicide bombers. Or the "suicide" part went rather poorly.So now "martyrs" only includes people killed by Israelis? :confused:

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into questions of whether Israel does or does not target civilians, but I will point out you make a number of unsupported assertions here.
I suppose I can't argue with that; after all, zero is a number. I count a total of four assertions in the part that you quote. Two of them are assertions about my mental state, and therefore the mere fact that I claim that they are true is support. While I did not post support for the other two, the support for them is well known. You aren't going to seriously claim that suspicion of "collaborating" with the Israelis is not something with often results in death, are you?

Obviously, they sympathize with the Palestinians' plight. As do I. Raising money for the families of those killed--just as there were fundraisers in the US for the families of those killed on September 11--is a way of showing solidarity.I don't think that unqualified solidarity for the Palestinians is appropriate. The idea of "solidarity" is that an attack on others is an attack on oneself. I don't think that attacking terrorists is an attack on me, and I have little sympathy who do think this.

Another way to look at it is that Israel receives billions of dollars per year from the US.The Isreali government receives aid. It's not like the average Israeli is getting rich off American aid. Much of that aid goes to security (which is needed because Palestinians and other Arabs keep attacking Israel).

Don't mistake a linguistic issue for a political issue; it only makes you look dogmatic and unwilling to look at evidence if it contradicts your worldview.

It is the idea that linguistics and politics can be separated that is flawed.

zenith-nadir

13th January 2005, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Er, no zenith-nadir, your "sources" simply aren't. That's the point. The point is you do not like what the sources - MSNBC, National Review, UPI International, CNN and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) - say, so you claim those sources are unsubstantial. You then claim "Every single news story from 2002 that describes the telethon describes it as one giving money to the families of those killed", when in fact I just showed that is not the case using the sources - MSNBC, National Review, UPI International, CNN and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Then you go even further and state;Originally posted by Cleon
There's no point to this, though. You've established repeatedly you will believe whatever suits you, evidence be damned.I believe several news stories from different origins more than I believe Cleon's opinion that they are incorrect and unsubstantial.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
So having proved you are a liar, lets move on to bigot. Throughout this thread you have lied about and misrepresented the actions of muslims always in a negative manner. Your behaviour fits with that of a bigot, so I am happy calling you one. So now I have went from a liar, to a bigot to now, horror of horrors, maligning all muslims on earth. :rolleyes:

When people complain about Bush is that maligning all Americans? When people complain about Blair is that maligning all Brits? Nope, that would be a childish and ridiculous statement. Yet as soon as one is critical of Arab governments one is maligning all muslims. How goofy.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
You have not had a word of criticism for Israel, despite the fact they are doing less.You obviously refused to read the 12th post in this thread which clearly states;Israel's Tsunami Efforts Get Cool Response - Dec 31, 2004 1:40 pm US/Eastern (http://cbsnewyork.com/mideast/mideast_story_366134300.html)

Israel has offered its hard-won expertise in handling disaster to Sri Lanka and India in the wake of Asia's tsunami tragedy but it has met with a lukewarm response, Israeli officials said Friday.

Israel's army sent 82 tons of medical and humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka, and Israel's civilian rescue service, working with the Red Cross, dispatched a planeload of blood products. An additional 40 tons of supplies collected by private donors flew out Friday.

But an offer to deploy 150 seasoned military medics and support personnel to set up field hospitals was rejected, Israeli security officials said....Neither Israel nor Sri Lanka made any official comment on the island nation's rejection of Israeli army medical teams.

A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official said help had also been offered to India. But the government in New Delhi was not interested at the moment...The Foreign Ministry official said there were no official contacts with predominantly Muslim Indonesia, the country hardest hit by the disaster, but added that Israel stood ready to help if asked. So that is Israel's story Jaggy. Yet I bet you do not see anything wrong with the need to "derail to good old Israel" in a thread about Arab governments and tsunami victims.

Cleon

13th January 2005, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
The point is you do not like what the sources - MSNBC, National Review, UPI International, CNN and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) - say, so you claim those sources are unsubstantial. You then claim "Every single news story from 2002 that describes the telethon describes it as one giving money to the families of those killed", when in fact I just showed that is not the case using the sources - MSNBC, National Review, UPI International, CNN and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Then you go even further and state;I believe several news stories from different origins more than I believe Cleon's opinion that they are incorrect and unsubstantial.

I can't quite tell if you're an intentional liar or just an idiot at this point. First of all, your CNN and UPI stories did not reference the telethon at all. Therefore, they're not sources.

Second, the MSNBC interview was from April 2004. So far, at least, my statement that "every single news story from 2002 that describes the telethon describes it as one giving money to the families of those killed" remains valid.

Third, press releases are not "news stories." They're propaganda pieces. (I don't mean that in a bad way; but press releases are designed to present a particular point of view in order to gain the media's attention. They are not news stories in and of themselves. They're not intended to be.)

Finally, opinion pieces are certainly not news stories.

Whereas--again, based on my google link of actual 2002 news stories that talk about the event, every single news story at the time that discusses it backs up my point of view.

You still haven't responded to AIPAC's description of it. I wonder--could it be because you don't like what it says?

So now I have went from a liar, to a bigot to now, horror of horrors, maligning all muslims on earth. :rolleyes:

When people complain about Bush is that maligning all Americans? When people complain about Blair is that maligning all Brits? Nope, that would be a childish and ridiculous statement. Yet as soon as one is critical of Arab governments one is maligning all muslims. How goofy.

And yet, when someone criticizes Israel, they're immediately maligning all Jews. You're right--how goofy.

Meanwhile, you start this thread with false information (information easily shown to be false, at that) in order to criticize Arab countries for not "giving enough." Nary a word about Israel, India, Russia, or any other country. Yet I'm sure you had the most noble of intentions. :rolleyes:

Jaggy Bunnet

13th January 2005, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So now I have went from a liar, to a bigot to now, horror of horrors, maligning all muslims on earth. :rolleyes:

Glad to see you no longer bother to dispute you are a liar. I am disappointed but not surprised that you choose to pretend your previous lies do not exist rather than apologise for them, but that is your choice.

Also glad to see you found the post showing how little Israel had offered. Even if all of the aid referred to had been accepted it would be far, far lower than that provided by the governments you are criticising for not doing enough. However, seeing as India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia rejected Israeli aid, there must have been millions pouring into Thailand from Israel, right? Feel free to provide links.

rikzilla

13th January 2005, 09:59 AM

For purposes of comparison, Herr Schumacher's donation is the same as that of oil-rich Kuwait. As for even oil-richer Iran, its Government has earmarked $US627,000 for disaster relief.

For purposes of further comparison, that's barely a twentieth of what was raised at the Sydney Opera House concert this weekend. Today's all-star cricket match between a World XI and an Asian XI at the MCG will do more for the beleaguered Muslims of Banda Aceh than Libya, Syria and Egypt combined.

In fairness to the Saudis, they've just upped their pledge to $US30 million. But for purposes of one final comparison, consider this: a single Saudi telethon in 2002 managed to raise $US56 million. That was for widows and orphans of Palestinian suicide bombers, those deceased as well as those yet to blow. It seems nothing gets the wealthy elite of Riyadh and Jeddah adding the zeroes to the cheques like self-detonating on an Israeli bus.

The (sane) Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11894914%5E7583,00.html)

Z-N isn't a bigot or a liar. He's telling you a truth and you're making noise to drown him out. The Steyn opinion piece goes on to mention people who act just like Jaggy and Cleon:

It shouldn't be necessary to point out the good deeds of Australia and its allies these past two weeks. But it is, because of the grand panjandrums of Western self-loathing. Peter Jennings, the smug Canadian who anchors America's ABC News (which is broadcast on Sky News Australia at 10.30am AEST), reported the other day that "in the oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf, citizens are being urged to do more . . . Ironically, the controls on Muslim charities after 9/11 may be keeping contributions down."

Ah, yes. If it weren't for the US cracking down on Saudi money-laundering to terrorists, Sumatrans would be able to wallpaper their new homes with Arab cheques. Maybe it's time for the western self-loathers â€“ Jennings, The Guardian, Melbourne Age cartoonist Bruce Petty â€“ to ask themselves: Why do we hate us?

So Cleon,...Jaggy,...why do you hate you?

-z

Jaggy Bunnet

14th January 2005, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
do you hate you?

-z [/B]

ZN made a specific claim that I had said Arab governments were doing enough for tsunami victims. This is a lie. Therefore ZN is a liar. Unless of course you can show where I did say that? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do so because such evidence does not exist.

You may not think it evidence of bigotry that ZN has made repeated reference to muslim countries not doing enough but has not criticised any other country. I will choose to draw my own conclusions as to his motivations based on his words rather than accept an assertion from you.

The quote refers to people blaming the US for Arab nations not doing enough. As I have never done this, I fail to see how it is relevant.

All I have done in this thread is point out that ZN's claims were inaccurate (3 nations donating, remember?), his conclusions wrong due to comparison of unrelated data (Government and Private giving) and request that his claims be backed by evidence.

Not tell me Rikzilla, which of those do you disagree with? Why do you hate accuracy & evidence?

zenith-nadir

15th January 2005, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
I can't quite tell if you're an intentional liar or just an idiot at this point. So let me get this straight. For three pages now you and Jaggy get to call me names, "liar, a bigot, stupid, idiotic..." and then you expect people to accept your positions as rational, mature and well though out? I find that hilarious. :D

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
You may not think it evidence of bigotry that ZN has made repeated reference to muslim countries not doing enough but has not criticised any other country.Because this thread is about aid to indonesia by muslim countries. If you want to start another thread be my guest.

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
All I have done in this thread is point out that ZN's claims were inaccurate (3 nations donating, remember?)....I added to my original post with totals from an Aljazeera article and then Cleon added to those totals further with a sidebar in an article. It was pointed out several times now. Yet you return over and over and over again - ad nauseum - to the first post in this thread as your "smoking gun" for zenith's bigotry.

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 13 (IPS) - The new-rich, oil-blessed nations of the Middle East and North Africa, whose national revenues have skyrocketed in the aftermath of rising oil prices last year, have come under fire for their relatively tightfisted response to the tsunami tragedy in south and southeast Asia. link (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27030)
5 January, 2005 (BBC) - We Arabs have failed in war as we have in peace. We have also failed all democratic and human rights tests - and here we are now adding fresh failure to our human rights record by not responding effectively to the tsunami victims.
London-based Arabic Al-Quds Al-Arabi link (http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4148447.stm)