We're Being Set Up for Wider War in the Middle East

[Nur]

We're Being Set Up for Wider War in the Middle East

 

by Paul Craig Roberts

 

07/17/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The old adage, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" does not apply to Americans, who have shown that they can be endlessly fooled.

 

Neoconservatives deceived Americans into an illegal attack and debilitating war in Iraq. American neoconservatives are closely allied with Israel's Likud Party. In the past, some neocons lost their security clearances because of "mishandling" of classified information. According to Insight magazine, "the Pentagon has banned security clearance to Americans with relatives in Israel. Government sources and attorneys said the Pentagon has sought and succeeded in removing security clearance from dozens of Americans, mostly Jews, who either lived, worked, or have relatives in Israel."

 

Despite questions of dual loyalties, neocons hold high positions in the Bush regime. Ten years ago these architects of American foreign and military policy spelled out how they would use deception to achieve "important Israeli strategic objectives" in the Middle East. First, they would focus "on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." This would open the door for Israel to provoke attacks from Hezbollah. The attacks would let Israel gain American sympathy and permit Israel to seize the strategic initiative by "engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

 

Today, this neoconservative plan is unfolding before our eyes. Israel has used the capture of two of its soldiers in Lebanon as an excuse for an all-out air and naval bombardment against Lebanese civilian targets. However, a number of commentators have pointed out that such a massive attack requires weeks if not months of preparation that could not be done overnight in response to the capture of the soldiers.

 

Regardless, in the first two days of the Israeli military attack on Lebanon more than a hundred civilians, including Canadians, have been killed by Israeli bombs (gifts from U.S. taxpayers). The Beirut International Airport has been repeatedly bombed, as have residential neighborhoods, roads, bridges, ports, and power stations.

 

Soldiers are a legitimate military target. Civilians, civilian neighborhoods, tourists, and international airports are not. Under the Nuremberg standard used to sentence Nazi war criminals to death, the Israeli government is clearly guilty of war crimes.

 

Meanwhile, the Israelis are committing identical war crimes in Gaza. Again Israel's excuse is the capture of an Israeli soldier. However, the distinguished Israeli professor Ran HaCohen said that the Israeli army "had been demanding a massive attack on Gaza long before the Israeli soldier was kidnapped."

 

By blocking UN Security Council action against Israel for its massacre of civilians in Gaza, the Bush regime has made itself complicit in these monstrous war crimes. Just as Germans who supported Hitler were deemed to be complicit in his war crimes, Americans who support Bush are complicit in Bush's war crimes.

 

Hezbollah is not the Lebanese government. It does not rule Lebanon. Hezbollah is the militia organization founded in 1982 in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah defeated the Israeli army and drove out the Israeli invaders six years ago.

 

According to the BBC, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that the two Israeli soldiers "were captured to pressure Israel to release the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in its jails," especially the women and children.

 

The BBC also notes that although Hezbollah operates "from Lebanese territory and the militant group has two ministers in the Lebanese government, the central government is almost powerless to influence the militant group." (Note that the BBC applies the loaded word "militant" to Hezbollah but not to Israel.) Hezbollah, reports the BBC, "is also very popular in Lebanon and highly respected for its political activities, social services, and its military record against Israel."

 

The prime minister of Lebanon, who was installed with President Bush's approval when Syria, under Bush's pressure, recently withdrew its troops from Lebanon, has twice appealed to Bush to pressure Israel to stop its criminal attacks. Our great moral, democratic, Christian leader has twice rebuffed the appeal from the legal representative of the Lebanese people. Instead, Bush is willingly going along with the 1996 neocon script. Bush is laying the blame on Syria and Iran, exactly as the neocon script calls for him to do.

 

When Bush demands that Syria "stop Hezbollah attacks," he forgets that he was the one who forced Syria out of Lebanon (to enable Israel to attack Lebanon). If Americans were attentive, they would be ashamed to witness "their" president acting as an Israeli propagandist.

 

Fox "News," CNN, and the rest of the Bush propaganda ministry are echoing the lie that innocent Israel is under attack from the "terrorist states" of Syria and Iran through their surrogate, Hezbollah. Americans, who are sick of the Iraq occupation and want the troops home, are being fooled again and set up for wider war in the Middle East.

 

Evangelical "Christians" are part of the propaganda show. Three thousand of them, under the lead of the Rev. John C. Hagee, are heading to Washington for a "Washington/Israel summit" to demand, needlessly, that the neocon Bush regime show "stronger support for Israel."

 

It is difficult to see how Bush could show any stronger support without using the U.S. military to assist Israel in its attacks, which is, of course, what the "Christian" Rev. Hagee intends when he declares: "There's a new Hitler in the Middle East [he doesn't mean Bush or Olmert]. The only way he will be stopped will be by a preemptive military strike in Iran."

 

Present at Rev. Hagee's "Washington/Israel Summit" will be Israel's former Minister of Defense, Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, Republican Senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Gary Bauer.

 

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful lobby in Washington, expressed its thanks to Rev. Hagee for demonstrating "the depth and breadth of American support" for Israel. Recently, AIPAC has been under investigation as a suspected nest for Israeli spies.

 

David Brog, former chief of staff for Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, has gone to work for Rev. Hagee. Brog, who is Jewish, says he works for Hagee's evangelical enterprise because "we're bringing into a pro-Israel camp millions of Christians who love Israel and giving them a political voice. Israel's enemies are our enemies, and this group instinctively understands that." Brog goes on to say that Hagee's evangelicals understand that they are not supposed to talk about Jesus, only about saving Israel: "Christians who work with Jews in supporting Israel realize how sensitive we are in talking about Jesus. They realize it will interfere with what they are trying to do."

 

Gentle reader, is this an admission that evangelicals have set aside Jesus for war? Do these bloody-minded evangelicals really believe they will be wafted to Heaven for helping Israel involve the U.S. in more war? Have evangelicals forgotten that "an eye for an eye" is Old Testament? "Turn the other cheek" is New Testament.

 

On July 14, Reuters reported that alone among Christians, the "Vatican condemns Israel for attacks on Lebanon."

 

Whose delusion is the greatest – the evangelical "rapture" delusion, the neocon delusion about American power, or the Zionist delusion? The three together mean disaster for America, Israel, and the world.

 

One of the great evangelical/Zionist/neocon myths is that "tiny Israel" armed with 200 nuclear weapons is threatened by Muslim Middle Eastern countries. In actual fact, Egypt and Pakistan, which have the bulk of the Middle Eastern Muslim population, are ruled by American puppets. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates are totally dependent on U.S. protection and, thereby, are also under the American thumb. Iran is Persian, not Arab, and has no common borders with Israel. Hezbollah was created when Israel tried to seize Lebanon in 1982. Hamas is a Palestinian response to the atrocities Palestinians have suffered for a half century at Israel's hands.

 

Israel's land-stealing policy is the source of Middle Eastern instability. America is hated because American money and weapons are what enable Israel to steal Palestine from Palestinians.

 

As numerous Middle East experts have pointed out, what is decried as "Arab terrorism against Israel" is, in fact, the only tactic Muslims have for calling the world's attention to the plight of the Palestinians, about which Americans are generally ignorant.

 

It is absurd for Bush to condemn Syria for not behaving as an American puppet and for not fighting Israel's battles by taking on Hezbollah. Syria and Iran (and Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion) are the only Middle Eastern countries independent of American control. It is far beyond the boundaries of reason and morality to expect these two remaining independent countries to give up their independence in order to enable Israel to steal Palestine and southern Lebanon.

 

It is the refusal of Syria and Iran (and Saddam Hussein's Iraq) to stand with Israel against Palestine that has made them targets for American attack. Neocons have total control of U.S. foreign policy in the Bush regime, and they have morphed our strategic interests into Israel's.

 

As the neoconservative architects of Bush's wars revealed in 1996, their concern lies with Israeli strategic objectives.

[N.O.R.F]

Times are getting tense. Things have been brewing for a number of years. It is only a matter of time.

[Caano Geel]

thanks nuur.

if any one is interested,, this is the source

[Socod_badne]

There's no doubt Isreal is exploiting Hezbollah's blunder. How does destroying a country's infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airports, seaports etc -- ensure save return of two kidnapped soldiers? I think Isreal had it's sights on neutralizing Hezbollah for sometime, waiting for a pretext.

[me]

They want to trap Hezbollah, then get in with ground troops in and clean it up, just like 1982. Just replace PLO with Hezbollah. This will start a new Lebanese civil war. Unless the Lebanese govenment falls and they get a new Pro-Syrian government. That will allow the Syrian troops back in.

 

Or maybe Israel wants to neutralize both lebanon and Syria. Hmmm this can get very very ugly. It will be ugly for the Arabs, but it can also get ugly for the Zionists.

 

If Lebanon and Syria become failed states because of this war, the jihadists will get an opportunity in those countries and those guys will not hesitate in taking Israel out. The Lebanese and Syrian govermnets want to kling to power, but the jihadists don't care about anything except the paradise in the herafter.

 

This will be beautifull.

 

Is it me or is the west working hard on creating Islamist states and empowering these groups? because everything they do seems to be encouraging these people. I think teh west wants to create an enemy. They need an enemy.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

There's no doubt Isreal is exploiting Hezbollah's blunder. How does destroying a country's infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airports, seaports etc -- ensure save return of

two

kidnapped soldiers? I think Isreal had it's sights on neutralizing Hezbollah for sometime, waiting for a pretext.

Yep - but I wonder whether they will in the end be effective at neutralizing Hezbollah. Iran/Syria will still be there to support them when Israel finishes the current round of bombing and the Shiites of South Lebanon will still be around to support Hezbollah and thus they will be part of any Lebanese government for the forseeable future. It seems to me all Hezbollah has to do to claim victory is to remain standing at the end of all this. And what will have the Israelis accomplished if it plays out like this - simply to engender more enmity from Arabs/Muslims.

[Tahliil]

I try very hard to be as objective as possible about these kind of conflicts...It's hard you know...you always remain to be on one side believing in them and their causes...We are all preconditioned when it comes to the morality and the lawfulness of war…A lot of external interferences are always there...I think we can’t rid ourselves such things. They are always there to support our stands. That's one of the many reasons why I stop when I see myself inclining toward one way or the other...because every one When it comes to warring...everyone, every side is right...they all defend causes….and rightly so

 

Didn't you see the tens of people on TV arguing against every point you present in a debate against the other side’s cause and reason...they are always right and justified. This side argues that they are simply doing this to better matters, they are trying to bring about peace, an ever lasting one and so on...defending themselves from the aggressors, eradicating them, waving the way for a brighter future, fearing, claiming that they are being held under the gun, cities and all…

 

But while that side cites all these deeply-held beliefs you think them as morons, you think they are missing the main point, that they are doing more harm than good, that they are basically worsening life not only for the enemy over there but for themselves over here too...war you say destroys, you say those on the other side is just people like you, go and talk to them, share, it is only a land, let bygones be bygones…history doesn’t matter the future ahead is significant, you try to reason with them, show them the pain and the suffering on the other side too…you talk about root causes, creating a rift between the two worlds, you pluralize your words, try to be inclusive, embrace if you could

 

But they distance themselves, your logic hardens them farther, they don't listen to your corrupt analysis simply because they believe that you are a bunch of pacifists, and pacifists are naturally cowards…they claim that you are not looking the bigger picture, that your actions and words are putting everybody in jeopardy, with your attitude, we will lose more than what we are trying to protect right now, that you are basically aiding the other side thus your point of view simply becomes null and void. you can't win them over, they can't win you over...war divides good minds and that's why it's always a good thing to stay away from taking sides on issues that are deeply, deeply HELD...

 

however, I think at the end of the day we, as humans, all need and desire the same things, rights and all, regardless of our affiliation and the color of the uniform we are wearing.... May peace prevail in all the LANDS.

[Mr.Faarax]

 

funny

[Asxabul_kahf]

Didn't you see the tens of people on TV arguing against every point you present in a debate against the other side’s cause and reason...they are always right and justified. This side argues that they are simply doing this to better matters, they are trying to bring about peace,

 

When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"

 

 

however, I think at the end of the day we, as humans, all need and desire the same things, rights and all, regardless of our affiliation and the color of the uniform we are wearing.... May peace prevail in all the LANDS. [/QB]

As long as there is Kufr and iman - they nulify each other like light and darkness.

 

explanation of kufr

 

The Qu'ran uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities. The Qu'ran uses this word to identify those who denied Allah's favors by not accepting His Dominion and Authority. Kufr thus is an antonym for Iman or disbelief in Allah and a Kafir is a non-believer. This type of Kufr is called AL-KUFRUL AKBAR or major kufr. There are many types of Al-Kufrul Akbar

 

1. Kufrul-'Inaad:

 

Disbelief out of stubborness. This applies to someone who knows the truth and admits to knowing the truth and admits to knowing it with his tongue, but refuses to accept it and refrains from making a declaration. Allah(swt) says: Throw into Hell every stubborn disbeliever [surah Qaaf (50), Ayah 24]

 

2. Kufrul-Inkaar:

 

Disbelief out of denial. This applies to someone who denies with both heart and tongue.

 

Allah(swt) says: They recognize the favors of Allah, yet they deny them. Most of them are disbelievers. [surah Nahl(16), Ayah 83]

 

3. Kufrul-Kibr:

 

Disbelief out of arrogance and pride. The disbelief by the devils (Iblis) is an example of this type of Kufr.

 

4. Kufrul-Juhood:

 

Disbebelief out of rejection. This applies to someone who aknowledges the truth in his heart, but rejects it with his tongue. This types of kufr is applicable to those who calls themselves Muslims but who reject any necessary and accepted norms of Islam such as Salaat and Zakat.

 

Allah (swt) says: They denied them (OUR SIGNS) even though their hearts believed in them , out of spite and arrogance. [surah Naml(27), Ayah 14]

 

5. Kufrul-Nifaaq:

 

Disbelief out of hypocrisy.This applies to someone who pretends to be a believer but conceals his disbelief. Such a person is called a MUNAFIQ or hypocrite.

 

Allah( swt) says: Verily the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of Hell. You will find no one to help them. [surah An Nisaa (4), Ayah 145]

 

6. Kufrul-Istihaal:

 

Disbelief out of trying to make HARAM into HALAL. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful (Halal) that which Allah has made unlawful(Haram) like alcohol or adultery.Only Allah(swt) has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundries of faith.

 

7. Kufrul-Kurh:

 

Disbelief out of detesting any of Allah's(swt) commands. Allah(swt) says: Perdition (destruction) has been consigned to those who disbelieve and He will render their actions void. This is because they are averse to that which Allah has revealed so He has made their actions fruitless. [surah Muhammed (47), Ayah 8-9]

 

8. Kufrul-Istihzaha:

 

Disbelief due to mockery and derision.

 

Allah (swt) says: Say: Was it at Allah, His signs and His apostles that you were mocking? Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after you have believed. [surah Taubah (9), ayah 65-66]

 

9. Kufrul-I'raadh:

 

Disbelief due to avoidance. This applies to those who turn away and avoid the truth.

 

Allah(swt) says: And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of his Lord's signs but then turns away from them. Then he forgets what he has sent forward (for the Day of Judgement) [surah Kahf(18), Ayah 57]

 

10. Kufrul-Istibdaal:

 

Disbelief because of trying to substitute Allah's Laws. This could take the form of: (a) Rejection of Allah's law(Shariah) without denying it (b) Denial of Allah's law and therefore rejecting it, or © Substituting Allah's laws with man-made laws.

 

Allah (swt) says: Or have they partners with Allah who have instituted for them a religion which Allah has not allowed. [surah Shuraa(42), Ayah 8]

 

Allah(swt) says: Say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely (that) is lawful and this is forbidden so as to invent a lie against Allah. Verily, those who invent a lie against Allah will never prosper. [surah Nahl (16), Ayah 116]

[Tahliil]

Asxabul kahf

 

So is co-existing possible then between kufr nations and iman nations in the world? For instance, say we brand China as a Kufr nation (X), can in your explanation China coexist, and live in peace with a nation of Iman (XX) in the world? Does the Iman nation allow that kind of coexisting? Or is Kufr, the word and its meaning pertained to an individual character, a possessive word that only applies to a person’s mischief and evil-doing which then, as I think, could be found on both sides…amongst us and amongst them?

 

I am trying to make sense of your direct explanations because to me the world is a bit more dimensional and diverse...Is the person who cheats on his/her spouse Kufr? Do you mean Kufr as someone with a different ideology then? Are Kufr people to be punished for their Kufr by people like you and me, claiming to have the Iman or do they wait their justice from Allah?

 

Please don't take this as though I am questioning the holy quotations you posted but I’m trying to clarify that issue of living with each other, with other human beings who are different from us in many regards including the fact that they lack Iman…Is that possible? Light and dark co-exist in the world harmoniously as day and night. I’m sure you can convince me so easily, I am curious that’s all.

[Asxabul_kahf]

Salaam

 

with respect- I wish not to engage in any debate' for the simple reason that so many earlier ones have steered the wrong way and I only pointed out to you the previous ayah and comment to start you on the thinking process and research. Also wish to share the adab of debates said by our earlier scholars for all others who are viewing this.

 

“A debate is only justified to unveil truth, so that the more knowledgeable should impart knowledge to the less knowledgeable, and to stimulate a weaker intellect.†- adh-Dhahabi

 

“I never talked with someone but sincerely wished that Allah guard him, protect him from sin and misdeed, and guide him; and I never debated with someone but sincerely wished that we would come upon truth, regardless of whether he or I should be the one to think of it first.†- Imam al-Shafi`i

 

“Cooperation in seeking truth is inherent to religion, but sincerity in the pursuit of truth can be distinguished y certain conditions and signs. A diligent seeker of truth may be compared to one who is looking for his lost camel. It would be immaterial for him if he or another person should be the one to find it. Likewise, a sincere truth-seeker would perceive his partner as a helper rather than an adversary, and would be grateful to him if he should guide him to truth.†- Al-Ghazali

 

“If quoting, maintain accuracy; if claiming, provide proof.†[An aphorism of Muslim scholars]

 

“Some scholars used to excuse anyone who disagrees with them in debatable matters, and did not insist that he should accept their view. - Ibn Qudama [Al-Mughni]

 

“My viewpoint is right, but can be wrong; and my adversary’s viewpoint is wrong, but can be right.†[An aphorism of Muslim scholars]

 

“I have never debated with a knowledgeable person but beaten him, and I have never debated with an ignorant person but been beaten by him.†- Imam al-Shafi`i

 

“Let each one of the debaters accept statements of the other party supported with proof. By doing that, he would demonstrate a nobility and self-respect, and he would prove himself to be an acceptor of truth.†- Ibn Akeel

 

“Over-enthusiasm is a mark of corrupted scholars, even when the case they are defending is true. By showing excessive enthusiasm for truth and their contempt of their opponents, the latter would be stimulated to retaliate and react in the same manner. They would be driven to stand for falsehood and to be true to the label attributed to them…If the champions of truth had spoken kindly to them avoiding publicity and humiliation they would have succeeded in winning them over. But as it is, a person who enjoys a place of prestige is strongly inclined to preserve his position by attracting followers, and the only way to that is to boast and to attack or curse adversaries.†- Al-Ghazali

 

“I never debate with someone and he accepts my proof except that I hold him in high esteem, and I never debate with someone and he refuses my proof except that I lose all esteem for him.†- Imam al-Shafi`i

 

“If you sit with scholars, my son, be more interested in listening than in speaking. Learn good listening just as you learn good speaking. Never interrupt a speaker, even if he takes long, until he comes to an end.†-Advice of Al-Hasan ibn Ali (radhiallahu `anhu) to his son.

 

“Learn good listening just as you learn good speaking. To be a good listener, you should give a speaker time until he concludes, not seeming anxious to reply. Have your face and look in the direction of the speaker and try to understand what he says.†- Ibn al-Muqaffa`

[Baashi]

Poor Muslims! My heart goes out to innocent people who are caught in the middle.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Asxabul_kahf:

with respect- I wish not to engage in any debate' for the simple reason that so many earlier ones have steered the wrong way and I only pointed out to you the previous ayah and comment to start you on the thinking process and research. Also wish to share the adab of debates said by our earlier scholars for all others who are viewing this.

Who're you jiving with that cosmic debris, heh? This is the Adab of debates:

 

 

The Argument Sketch

 

From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"

Originally transcribed by Dan Kay (dan@reed.uucp)

Fixed up and Added "Complaint" and "Being Hit On The Head lessons" Aug/ 87

by Tak Ariga (tak@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu)

 

 

The Cast (in order of appearance.)

M= Man looking for an argument

R= Receptionist

Q= Abuser

A= Arguer (John Cleese)

C= Complainer (Eric Idle)

H= Head Hitter

 

 

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.

R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

M: Well, what is the cost?

R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.

R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.

Pause

R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.

Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

M: Thank you.

 

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

 

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

M: Well, I was told outside that...

Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

M: What?

Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

Q: Not at all.

M: Thank You.

(Under his breath) ****** git!!

 

(Walk down the corridor)

M: (Knock)

A: Come in.

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

 

A: Yes it is!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

Pause

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!

A: (Hums)

M: Look, this is ridiculous.

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Oh, all right.

(pays money)

A: Thank you.

short pause

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: I just paid!

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: No you didn't.

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well, you didn't pay.

M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh Shut up.

 

(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

 

M: I want to complain.

C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.

M: No, I want to complain about...

C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.

M: Oh!

C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.

 

 

(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)

 

M: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!

H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.

M: uuuwwhh!!

H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.

M: No.

H: Now..

M: Waaaaah!!!

H: Good, Good! That's it.

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: What?

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: Stop hitting you?

M: Yes!

H: Why did you come in here then?

M: I wanted to complain.

H: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.

M: What a ****** concept.

 

 

The Arguement Sketch

[Zafir]

^