Bin Ladin: Reasons to attack US remain Saturday 30 October 2004, 0:15 Makka Time, 21:15 GMT Usama bin Ladin has appeared on Aljazeera television on Friday, threatening new attacks on the United States. Gesturing at the camera with a finger to stress points, bin Ladin once again took responsibility for the September 11 attacks and said reasons to attack the United States remain. He also accused US President George Bush of deceiving the American people. "Despite the fact that we are into the fourth year after September 11, President Bush is still misleading you and hiding the real reason from you, which means that the reasons to repeat what happened remain," bin Ladin said. In his address just four days ahead of the US presidential election, bin Ladin also said the US administration resembled "corrupt" Arab governments. Looking healthy Apparently sitting or standing at a table against a neutral brown background, bin Ladin wore a white head covering and white tunic under a light brown cloak. Reading from a sheet of paper, his voice was strong and he appeared in fair health. He accused Bush of reacting slowly to the September 11 attacks, saying: "I never thought that the supreme leader would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face the terrifying events alone at the time they were in need for him." Refering to next week's elections, he told Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or (President George W.) Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands ...." "We decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation," bin Ladin said. Bin Ladin also said the United States considers "killing innocent people including children in Iraq" a legitimate act. He said the United States has dropped millions of tonnes of bombs on Iraqi children, just for the sake of replacing an old agent with a new one to plunder Iraqi oil wealth. Bin Ladin said the September 11 attacks was in response to the injustices by the United States. Source

Erm, read the article I posted above. Read the biography I posted at the start of this thread. When you ask what have they done, what exactly do you have in mind? (Since all that has been mentioned already didn’t satisfy you!). Is it not enough that they united the Palestinians under one banner? Not enough that they fought the Jewish state for the past thirty years? They’re still fighting, politically and with whatever little military power they have. Again, if you’re going to ask what have they done for their people, you must not be satisfied with what they’ve done. Don’t brush the questions aside, expand on your comments.

Aljazeera TV station broadcast today a tape by Osama Bin Laden. In this tape, he admitted responsibility for the events of 11/09/2001! He spoke eloquently about the American election, President Bush, Arab rulers and the goals of his own organisation. It’s quite ironic that he should resurface now especially when you take into account the rumours that have been circulating in the western press and amongst the conspiracy theorist. These rumours were trying to convince us that Osama Bin Laden has been arrested by the Bush administration and were going to be paraded in front of the world media a few days before the elections. He was supposed to be President Bush’s Ace of Spade! Well, he might still be that. However, the video that was broadcast by the Arabic TV station showed him to be anything but a prisoner. He seemed to speak from a position of power. He also seemed to have abandoned his old rhetoric and has adopted a new political style of delivery. His words seemed to appeal to the average American and attempting to turn them against Bush. He didn’t prolong threats this time but rather made them short and direct. He gave his reasons for the reasons he decided to attack the twin towers. This is a new face for Bin Laden, one where he seemed royal and analytical. He spoke like a man in the know who’s bargaining with equals (he did this in the past of course but it was not believable). It’s quite Ironic that the governments of the enemies of Islam and the fates of their leaders might be decided by the Arabs! Bin Laden for the Americans and Gaza for the Israelis! What’s your take on these events? What do you see happening in the next few days? How do you think the Americans, Arabs and Israelis will react to this new development in world politics? (Puts the fiasco and the vultures of Kenya into prospective, wouldn’t you say?). Excuse my rambling.

Yes. I support these striking workers, saaxib. If they’re in the right, I support them to get what’s theirs. If they’re in the wrong, I support them to sneak back into their jobs meekly and secretly. I agree with J-11 though, some people have lived in the west far too long they forget what it was like to be a Somali. Cajiib! This is the first time ever that I witnessed Somalis decline a gathering! Aren’t you curious, don’t you want to find out what these 100 Somalis are doing? Don’t you think that they’ll turn the place into a mini mafrash/nightclub/grocery and street? Don’t you know that the place will be swarming with boys and girls? Don’t you know it will also become a little market where old women sell dorooc and macawisyo? These thoughts should be second nature to you, what happened to your somalnimo?

^^^ You do make me laugh with your reasonable advice on the one hand and faint-hearted comments on the other.

^^^^ It was "posted October 17, 2003 11:15 AM", saaxib. Since the lion teaser is Somali and since Somalis only got 68% on average, how do you expect him to remember the source of something he wrote over a year ago? Heh. Gives a whole new meaning to the expression “play the foolâ€.

^^^^

When Janet Jackson sang that song she was talking about something entirely different to what the Palestinian people would want. Still, since you brought up the question, what is the minimum that you expected Arafat and his PLO to have done for their people? If you don’t think much of the PLO who do you rate? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Al Aqsa Brigades? (Notice how none of these groups ever criticise Arafat?). In Charles Dickens’ novel “Our Mutual Friendâ€, he has a funny character by the name of Podsnap; here is an extract from that chapter of the book: Podsnappery MR PODSNAP was well to do, and stood very high in Mr Podsnap’s opinion. Beginning with a good inheritance, he had married a good inheritance, and had thriven exceedingly in the Marine Insurance way, and was quite satisfied. He never could make out why everybody was not quite satisfied, and he felt conscious that he set a brilliant social example in being particularly well satisfied with most things, and, above all other things, with himself. Thus happily acquainted with his own merit and importance, Mr Podsnap settled that whatever he put behind him he put out of existence. There was a dignified conclusiveness — not to add a grand convenience — in this way of getting rid of disagreeables which had done much towards establishing Mr Podsnap in his lofty place in Mr Podsnap’s satisfaction. “I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!†Mr Podsnap had even acquired a peculiar flourish of his right arm in often clearing the world of its most difficult problems, by sweeping them behind him (and consequently sheer away) with those words and a flushed face. For they affronted him. Mr Podsnap’s world was not a very large world, morally; no, nor even geographically: seeing that although his business was sustained upon commerce with other countries, he considered other countries, with that important reservation, a mistake, and of their manners and customs would conclusively observe, “Not English!†when, PRESTO! with a flourish of the arm, and a flush of the face, they were swept away. Elsewhere, the world got up at eight, shaved close at a quarter-past, breakfasted at nine, went to the City at ten, came home at half-past five, and dined at seven. Mr Podsnap’s notions of the Arts in their integrity might have been stated thus. Literature; large print, respectfully descriptive of getting up at eight, shaving close at a quarter past, breakfasting at nine, going to the City at ten, coming home at half-past five, and dining at seven. Painting and Sculpture; models and portraits representing Professors of getting up at eight, shaving close at a quarter past, breakfasting at nine, going to the City at ten, coming home at half-past five, and dining at seven. Music; a respectable performance (without variations) on stringed and wind instruments, sedately expressive of getting up at eight, shaving close at a quarter past, breakfasting at nine, going to the City at ten, coming home at half-past five, and dining at seven. Nothing else to be permitted to those same vagrants the Arts, on pain of excommunication. Nothing else To Be — anywhere! As a so eminently respectable man, Mr Podsnap was sensible of its being required of him to take Providence under his protection. Consequently he always knew exactly what Providence meant. Inferior and less respectable men might fall short of that mark, but Mr Podsnap was always up to it. And it was very remarkable (and must have been very comfortable) that what Providence meant, was invariably what Mr Podsnap meant. These may be said to have been the articles of a faith and school which the present chapter takes the liberty of calling, after its representative man, Podsnappery. They were confined within close bounds, as Mr Podsnap’s own head was confined by his shirt-collar; and they were enunciated with a sounding pomp that smacked of the creaking of Mr Podsnap’s own boots. Our Mutual Friend Now, Wiilo, save me the Podsnappery and tell my what you object to in Arafat and his PLO organisation.

X-q? How dare you? I have never seen such blatant display of disloyalty and treachery. I thought I was your special person for these types of arguments? Did I let you down? Did fight anyone else? Was I not sarcastic enough? Not aggressive enough? Did I not patronize you whenever you asked me? What has this guy got that I have not? It’s true what they say then, never trust women.

The whole idea of foreign troops seems like a very daft and simplistic move. The new president of Somalia has been called many things in the past but brainless he’s not. This, I suspect, is nothing more than gesture politics. He make his intention to request foreign troops public (without consulting the parliament), people get up in arms about the whole thing. He insists, they insist. He finally agrees to concede a point here and a point there all the while gaining ground he didn’t have to start with! This whole argument could actually make his presidency. Now, it all depends on the reactions of the various warlords and how they’re going to act on these reactions. He has fired the first political bullet and flexed his presidential muscles (and we’re all impressed, scared or slightly worried). One thing is for sure; nobody is under any illusions now as to the authority of this president. Mission accomplished I suppose. I don’t believe any foreign troops will set foot in Somali soil any time soon.

Call me cold hearted, saaxib. But, I’m not much of a fan of African unity, black power and the multitude of other slogans and movements related to race and colour. I appreciate and respect Mandela’s struggle, admire his unwavering principles, but he is no hero of mine. Other than an accidental similarity in our skin shades, we have nothing at all in common. Arafat on the other hand, shares my religion, my desire to liberate the holly land and most of my other beliefs. Does it surprise you then that I would regard him as the greater man? An Israeli journalist who used to be an active member of the Hagganah (current IDF) and fought for the creation of the state of Israel wrote the article above. He witnessed most of the battles, political games and Palestinian resistance. At some point in the past, he changed direction and began to criticise the obvious oppression and wrongdoings of the state of Israel. It’s ironic that a former Israeli “resistance†fighter should come out on the side of Mr Arafat, wouldn’t you say? At least we’re in agreement on the complications that will arise once Arafat passes away. Let us hope it doesn’t work to the benefit of the occupiers.

The prisoner of Ramallah: A Profile Of Yasser Arafat Yasser Arafat at 74 By Uri Avnery Every television viewer recognizes the bridge between the last two buildings left standing among the ruins of the Mukata'ah (compound) in Ramallah. During one of my last visits, a Palestinian officer pointed to a simple table and chair near one of the windows of this bridge. Through this window a stretch of the Palestinian landscape beyond the town is visible. "Here Abu Ammar likes to sit between meetings and look out," he explained. Abu Ammar is the affectionate name for Yasser Arafat. Twenty-one years ago, when I went to Beirut and met him for the first time, he was one of the most mobile leaders in the world, if not the most mobile of all. Once he told me that during the last five days he had visited seven countries, sleeping on the plane between destinations. At the time, his neck was in a surgical collar. Now he has been imprisoned in the compound for more than two years. For some of the time, the conditions were worse than in an ordinary prison: he lived in a closed room without fresh air and almost without water, with the sewage blocked. He knew that at any moment Sharon's soldiers could storm in and kill him. In a few days, he will be 74 years old. He will spend his birthday in his prison. This is a good opportunity to take stock of the man and his work. He has been on the world stage longer than any other current leader, apart from Fidel Castro. Many of today's world leaders, like Bush and Blair, were infants when he took the responsibility for the destiny of the Palestinian people in his hands. His face is well known throughout the world. He is one of the most maligned statesmen in the world, perhaps the very most. He is the most hated person in Israel. Rightists and leftists compete with each other in expressing their hatred of him. There is hardly an article by an Israeli "leftist" which does not include some words of abhorrence about him. He is the most admired and beloved leader of his own people, and apparently the leader most admired by the masses throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Not bad for a person who is turning 74. The title most often attached to his name is "symbol". Even the Palestinian opposition groups call him "the symbol of the Palestinian people". That is true, but also misleading. Misleading, because a "symbolic" person is usually someone in honour of whom statues are erected and whose likeness adorns the walls. The president of Israel is a symbol, and so are the presidents of Germany and Italy, while Arafat is very much an active leader, dominating the Palestinian scene. Yet the title is also appropriate. Arafat's progress, from leader of a tiny group of refugees to the present stage, when the whole world supports the idea of a Palestinian state, symbolizes the Palestinian struggle for survival. No one symbolizes the condition of the Palestinian people, its suffering, determination and courage, more than the man in the besieged Mukata'ah, a prison within a prison (Ramallah) within a prison (the Palestinian territories as a whole). Much has already been written about his early life, about his father, a merchant from Gaza who had settled in Egypt; about his mother, who died when he was still an infant; about his childhood with his mother's family in Jerusalem. Lately, Arafat likes to recount to his guests - Palestinians, Israelis and foreigners - about those happy years, when he played with Jewish children near the Western Wall. His years with his father's family in Cairo seem to evoke much less nostalgia. He likes to remind people that he studied engineering. He attributes his legendary memory - especially for numbers and facts - to his profession. More than once he has corrected me on numbers - how many ultra-religious members were in the Knesset, exactly what percentage of the West Bank Sharon has said he was ready to "give" to the Palestinians as part of his "painful concessions". His political career started in the Palestinian Students' Association in Cairo. It assumed historical significance when he was the main founder, in the late 1950s, of the Fatah organization, the first Palestinian liberation movement since the catastrophe of 1948. Liberation - from who? Well, obviously from Israel. But in reality, from the domination of the Arab leaders, too. It is impossible to understand Arafat without knowing this important chapter of his life. At the time, the Palestinian cause served as a football in the inter-Arab game. Each Arab ruler used it in order to reinforce his claim for leadership of the Arab world and to beat his competitors. Gamal Abd al-Nasser in Egypt, Abd al-Karim Qasim in Iraq, the young King Hussein in Jordan and their equivalents in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and the other countries - each proclaimed himself the Defender of the Palestinian People while mercilessly suppressing any sign of independent Palestinian activity in his own realm. In the eyes of Arafat and his comrades, the "independence of Palestinian decision-making" became a sacred goal. Fatah was born into this reality. Arafat and his group wanted to wrest the Palestinian cause from the hands of the Arab rulers. The new movement had no power, no money, no arms. It had no base anywhere where it could operate freely. Its activists were at the mercy of the secret services of any Arab country, if they did not fulfil the demands of the local dictator. That happened many times. The climax was reached when the Syrian dictator put the whole Fatah leadership, including Arafat, in prison. Only the wife of Abu Jihad, Umm Jihad (now the minister for social affairs in the Palestinian government) was left outside and so she assumed the command of all Fatah forces. For the movement to survive, Arafat had to manoeuvre between the leaders, flatter people he despised, suck up to leaders who did not give a damn for the interests of the Palestinian people. As an important Palestinian personality told me: "For the survival of our people he had to dissemble, lie, trick, be equivocal, use ruses. At was then that the typical Arafat language evolved." In spite of sabotage by the Arab regimes and with the help of these methods, the power of Fatah slowly grew. In order to block it and to subordinate the Palestinians to Egyptian interests, Abd al-Nasser initiated the founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and appointed an ageing and ineffectual demagogue, Ahmad Shukairy, as its leader. But the June 1967 war destroyed the respect for the rulers of Cairo, Amman and Damascus. The battle of Karameh (1968), in which the Fatah fighters, led by Arafat in person, won a victory against the Israeli forces sent to destroy them, caused Fatah's prestige to rise sky-high. After three Arab armies had been shamefully defeated by Israel, the fighters of Fatah had held on heroically. The result: Fatah took over the PLO, the 39 years old Arafat became the leader of the nation. All the Arab leaders with whom Arafat had to contend at that time have in the meantime died natural or unnatural deaths. Arafat remains. Perhaps his greatest achievement as a national leader lies in his ability to hold the Palestinians together. Most liberation movements have known fratricidal wars, bitter splits and desperate internal struggles. The pre-state Hebrew underground, too, experienced the fratricidal "saison" and the bloody Altalena incident. But the Palestinians, whose situation was incomparably more difficult, were spared this fate. Almost all other movements grew from populations that lived on their land, under one particular foreign regime. But the Palestinian people were dispersed in a dozen countries, almost all of them oppressive dictatorships. The name "Palestine" had disappeared altogether from the map, and even the Palestinians who had remained in their homeland lived under oppressive rulers - first the Jordanian and Egyptian, and then the Israeli military governor. When the PLO grew, all the Arab regimes tried to gain influence over it. Damascus, Baghdad, Riyad, Cairo, in addition to Moscow, set up Palestinian organizations in order to impose their agendas on the Palestinian people. Secular and religious, leftist and rightist organization tried to play their games inside the movement. Arafat had to cope with all of them, manoeuvre, cajole, threaten, appease. He became a past master of this art, perhaps its outstanding practitioner in the world. At the same time, he had to lead the national struggle. Like almost all leaders of modern liberation movements, from Garibaldi to Nelson Mandela, he was convinced of the need for the "armed struggle" (always called "terrorism" by the opposing regime.) The PLO organizations carried out many bloody attacks, many of them brutal, some of them outright monstrous, even if most of these were made by organizations who also fought against Arafat. All PLO leaders believed that the "armed struggle" was necessary, considering the vast disproportion between the might of Israel and the almost negligible force of the Palestinians. Arafat himself, according to the testimony of his assistants, is far from being cruel or bloodthirsty. Only in rare instances did he confirm death sentences, and that only when the public demand was irresistible. The number of executions carried out in his domain is incomparably lower than in former Governor George W. Bush's Texas. It is accepted by most authorities that, without the "armed struggle", the Palestinians would not have achieved anything and would have lost their homeland long ago. They believe that the violent attacks enabled the Palestinian people to return to the world map and allowed the PLO to attain its historic achievements: its recognition as the "sole legitimate representative" of the Palestinian people, its invitation to the UN, its international standing, the Oslo agreement, its return to Palestine and the creation of a world-wide consensus supporting the idea of a Palestinian state. But Arafat did not see the "armed struggle" as an end in itself. Violence is for him one means among many. At the end of 1973 he did something that is rare among leaders. After making one revolution (the creation of Fatah and the start of the "armed struggle") he initiated another. (Years later, Yitzhaq Rabin did something similar.) The October 1973 war changed his strategic concept. Until then he believed that Israel could be overthrown by force. The Palestinian struggle was designed, primarily, to cause a general military confrontation between Israel and the Arab world, as happened in 1967. In October 1973 Arafat realized that this hope had no basis in fact. The armies of Egypt and Syria did indeed attack Israel and achieved initial surprise, giving them a resounding victory, but within two weeks the Israeli army had turned the tables and was advancing on Cairo and Damascus. Arafat, forever the rational engineer, drew the logical conclusion: there exists no military option. From there it was but one step to the second conclusion: the Palestinian state can be achieved only through compromise, by a political settlement with Israel. He started to work on it. The necessary effort was immense. A whole generation of Palestinians saw in Israel a monstrous enemy that had expelled half the Palestinian people from their homes and lands and continued to oppress and dispossess the other half. In their time of desperation, the Palestinians clung to their belief that the very existence of Israel is illegitimate and that some day, somehow, it will be eradicated. Arafat had to uproot this belief and to cause his people to accept a compromise that left the Palestinian people only 22 per cent of their historic homeland. He worked as he always has done: with infinite patience, sensitivity to human beings, tactical manoeuvres, zigzags and equivocation. He started secret contacts with a tiny group of Israeli peace activists (including myself), hoping that they would open the way to the heart of the Israeli establishment. He encouraged some of his people (mainly Sa'id Hamami and Isam Sartawi, who were both murdered because of this) to express his hidden thoughts publicly. He caused the Palestinian National Council, the parliament in exile, to gradually change its resolutions. In this effort, which lasted from 1974 to 1988, he was assisted mainly by Abu Mazen. At that time, Yitzhaq Rabin was still an extreme opponent of a peace settlement with the Palestinians, and Shimon Peres was the godfather of the settlements. Both advocated the "Jordanian option" (returning parts of the West Bank to Jordan and making peace with the king, ignoring the will of the Palestinians). If anyone deserved the Nobel Prize for the Oslo agreement, it was Arafat. One of the attributes that endear him to the Palestinian public is his rare personal courage. When Ariel Sharon invaded Lebanon in 1982, in order to expel the Palestinians and kill their leader, Arafat could have easily left Beirut in time. This would have been accepted by everyone as a sensible step. But he remained with his fighters in the besieged city until the last day. After a long battle, his men left with their heads held high, bearing their arms, led by Arafat. Another, almost forgotten, episode brought him even more esteem. A year after the exit from Beirut, the Syrians and their agents attacked the Palestinian forces in a north Lebanese refugee camp near Tripoli. At the time, Arafat was the guest of the UN in Geneva. He did something almost unbelievable: he secretly returned to Lebanon, slipped into the besieged camp and, in the end, left with his fighters, who did not surrender this time either. He has spent most of his life in constant danger, with a dozen secret services trying to kill him. He survived several assassination attempts. Once he escaped with his life when his plane had to perform a tough emergency landing in the middle of the desert. His bodyguards were killed. In the middle of the battle of Beirut I asked him where he would go if he got out alive. Without hesitation, he said: "Home, of course!" Twelve years later, on his first day in Gaza, he whispered to me: "Remember what I told you in Beirut? Well, here I am." As head of the new Palestinian National Authority, he was confronted with one of the toughest jobs of his life. He faced a challenge unknown to any other liberation movement: to set up a kind of state while the liberation struggle was still far from over. Arafat returned together with the veterans of the struggle, who believed, quite understandably, that it was their right to control the Palestinian National Authority. The same was claimed by a new generation of fighters, veterans of the Intifada, the prisons and the underground. The same was claimed by thousands of professionals who had studied in universities the world over. (One of them told me: "OK, let's give medals to all the fighters. But the state must be governed by people trained for it.") Arafat had to give a part of the pie to the Christian minority, to the representatives of the various regions, and, most importantly, to the heads of the great families who have dominated Palestinian society for centuries and without whom one cannot rule. Altogether, an almost impossible task. It cannot be said that the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority was an unqualified success. But, considering the objective pressures, Arafat did not do too bad a job either. One of the weak points was the centralism of the new administration. During the decades of struggle, Arafat has got used to deciding alone and quickly. His colleagues had all too willingly let him take the historic decisions that demanded courage and personal risk. Most of his closest comrade- in-arms had been killed during the struggle, some by Israel, some by the Iraqi agent Abu Nidal and his ilk. Like all leaders who have been at the centre of internal struggles and responsibility for a long time, Arafat has become lonely and suspicious. Some of the Palestinian personalities believed that, with the establishment of the Authority, the struggle had come to an end. They started to look out for their own personal interests, some became corrupt, assimilating the norms of the neighbouring countries (and not only theirs.) This aroused resentment among the Palestinian public. Israeli leftists began to condemn the "corrupt Authority", the official Israeli propaganda machine took the story up and gleefully distributed it around the world. This caused grievous damage to the Palestinian cause at a most sensitive time. But not the slightest hint of suspicion ever attached itself to Yasser Arafat himself. While Ariel Sharon is sinking in a morass of corruption affairs and world leaders like Helmut Kohl in Germany and Jacques Chirac in France have starred in major scandals, Arafat has remained above suspicion. Neither his opponents at home nor the Israeli intelligence agencies have succeeded in discovering any spots. He lives a very simple life, has no home of his own, his clothes are his khaki uniforms. Throughout his life, Arafat has made many mistakes. He may have exaggerated his opposition to the 1977 Sadat initiative, surrendering to the pressure of his enraged colleagues. His support of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf war was a major mistake that cost dearly. More than once he erred in choosing assistants and confidants. But, to his own people, he has remained the only leader who can be trusted unconditionally. Foreigners are unable to understand this. They find it odd that the very same attributes that made him abhorrent to many people in the West make him a hero to his people. For example, when, at Camp David, Arafat emphatically rejected the proposals of Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton, he was condemned by most of the Israeli "peace camp". But, in Palestinian eyes, it was the epitome of courage and national pride. When he went to the summit meeting, many Palestinians were afraid that he was walking into a trap and would not have the strength to extricate himself. It was clear that the "generous proposals" of Barak did not meet the minimum demands of the Palestinians. When he came back without having surrendered, he received a hero's welcome. Now the Palestinians are ready to give some credit to Abu Mazen, who believes that he can get some concessions from Israel and the US. Abu Mazen is an old partner of Arafat and respected by the public. But no Palestinian can imagine entrusting him with the destiny of the nation. One person only enjoys that kind of trust: the man besieged in the Mukata'ah. He remains the ultimate judge. Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist. Link One more link - Have a look.

It seems it’s not just me who did some changes recently, eh FF? Still, do you like my new name? Think x-quzit will like it?

^^^ Erm, not interested in a male-female fight. If you have anything to add about FGM then I’m looking forward to reading what you have to write. However, if you want to bash men and expect me to bash women back, sorry can’t be done. I’m booked for the next three months (Scheherazade and x-quizt (plus sidekick) are more than enough to keep me occupied for a very, very long time to come). :cool: Sarcasm and joking apart, this is a very good topic (FGM) and it would be a real shame if this opportunity were wasted with quarrels and pointless fights.

Why bother with google when I have various knowledgeable members to summarise it for me?

^^^First of all, welcome back. Hope all is well in your corner of the world. Secondly, hang in there, dear. Less than four hours to go now. Hang in there. PS The “Malakul mawd†comparison is a tad heavy and might look slightly tasteless. (Edit please and then edit this message too). Don’t worry; nobody is here this time a day. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions, people

MOONWALKS through thread again Same old, same old

Reminds me of the time I was a guest at a wedding party. The place was very crowded and more people were still coming in. Some lady relative of the bride stopped me and asked me to help out at the door! (I wasn’t even related to either family!). Anyway, I welcomed the people. So, welcome. That looked cold, right? WELCOME

As Winston Churchill said while referring to Russia during WWII, you sir is “A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigmaâ€. Keep fighting the good fight and prepare to be disappointed on Tuesday I liked your motivational tools in the student’s section by the way

After Arafat: who could replace him? Palestinians and the wider world wonder if transition can go smoothly Chris McGreal in Jerusalem Thursday October 28, 2004 The Guardian Yasser Arafat's sudden health crisis has again raised the question, in Palestinian circles as in the wider world, of who ultimately will replace the 75-year-old president - and whether the succession will be smooth or volatile. Until now, Palestinian politicians have been reluctant to speak openly about the next leader, mainly because Mr Arafat would not allow it but also because it would be seen as a betrayal, a surrender to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who has been successful in marginalising him. Mr Arafat's ill-health, which has dogged him for years, was apparent only a fortnight ago when he met a small group of British journalists. He frequently rambled from issue to issue, and raised odd conspiracy theories that ranged from Iran to Chile. The sudden deterioration in his condition came less than 24 hours after his arch-rival, Mr Sharon, pushed through the Knesset his planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last year. That offered a chance to break the Middle East stalemate. If Mr Arafat is unable to continue as leader of the Palestinians, that too will change the politics of the region. The US and Israel, and latterly Britain, have refused to work with him, claiming he is unreliable and untrustworthy. His successor could come from one of the new generation of politicians, either the younger Palestinians who came to the West Bank and Gaza with him from exile in Tunis 10 years ago, or the generation that was brought up in the West Bank and Gaza and led the first intifada in 1987 and participated or led the second one that began in September 2000. The successor could be a figure such as the existing prime minister or finance minister, or one of the warlords, such as Jibril Rajoub or Mohammed Dahlan, or Marwan Barghouti, at present in jail in Israel. But the succession might not be that simple. Groups outside Mr Arafat's Fatah organisation might want a claim on leadership, not least the Islamist organisation Hamas that dominates life in Gaza. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been careful not to attack Mr Arafat but might not feel the same trepidation about confronting his potential successor. Mr Arafat's glory days were as a revolutionary leader but he has been less successful as an administrator of the West Bank and Gaza after the Oslo agreement with Israel. His Palestinian Authority became synonomous with corruption and lost much popular support. He has expressed scepticism about Mr Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan, claiming that the Israelis would keep Gaza as an open prison and that Israel remained intent on expanding its hold on the West Bank. A successor would probably share the same view, but might be more inclined to take what is on offer and try to make the most of it, something Mr Arafat was reluctant to do. Hamas was swift to claim that the Israeli parliament's vote to pull Jewish settlers out of the battered Gaza Strip was a victory for Palestinian resistance. But Palestinian leaders say there is little to cheer even if Mr Sharon carries through his pledge to remove about 7,500 settlers and the army from one part of Palestinian territory. "We should look on it as rearranging the occupation in a way that is more comfortable to the occupier," said one Palestinian cabinet minister, Ghassan Khatib. "It's clear that Sharon is linking the withdrawal from Gaza to consolidation of occupation in the West Bank. It's not going to be realised." The Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, said he feared that the Gaza withdrawal would be Israel's "first and last" pullout. "The Palestinian people will be happy when they see them withdraw from all of Palestine," he said. Mr Sharon has justified taking unilateral action on the grounds that there is no one to negotiate with on the Palestinian side because he says Yasser Arafat "will not fight terror". A new, more robust leader could neutralise that argument, though no Palestinian leader would find it easy to take on the militants without risking all-out civil war. Source

Now that we have an off-topic forum, I assume most “chitchats†and ill-thought posts will be found in this section! Where would that leave the spin-doctors in the political section? Where would that leave me? (For those raising an eyebrow just about now, read my post above). Still, it’s an ingenious idea to “organise†our random thoughts. See you in five hours, I’m off to bed now (wouldn’t have told you that bit of info if we were not off topic).

Yet another subject; yet another occasion for moral panic; yet another burst of emotion! Would love to hear of the ideal conditions for Shariah law to be applied. Would love to learn of the various approaches of different madhab’s of Islam in such cases. Would love to know more about the Northern states of Nigeria and their autonomy from the predominantly Christian State. Would love to find out the specifics of this case; the plea of the accused; the “excuse†of the accomplice; the reaction of the state; the comments of “human rights†organisations, etc. Most of all, would love to know the source of this article and the leanings of its authors (a link will be gratefully appreciated). *** Beats chest to fit in ***

X-q, that is so you. FF: Thanks to you, we're now good mates. I can just imagine her response. You do realise all this flirting has nothing to do with the topic, don’t you? Remember that you still didn’t answer my question.

^^^ You should know by now that I only deal with things in relation to ME. If I am not in the centre of it all then they don’t concern ME. After all, everything I write is about MY point of view. You could talk about ME. You could criticise ME. But I will talk about ME more and I will criticise ME more. I hope you liked MY summary. If you think it’s not accurate, tell ME and I will try to correct it. I remain, sincerely, your respectful self-centred narcissist