Elections in Spain

[CapelDodger]

from Ziggurat:

... the threats from different terrorist organizations are not separable: the ideology that drives Al Quaeda is the same one that drives MILF, Hamas, Hesbollah, Ansar Al Islam and others ...

MILF is just a bunch of bandits, have been since basically forever. For them Islamism is just a useful tool for obtaining funds, materiel and the support of believers - aka idiots. (That was true before 1899; the reason they were still Muslim when the Yanks arrived was that the Spanish could never subjugate the people of that region. Any more than anybody else ever has. Parallels with the North-West Frontier there.) Hamas has never been known to act outside the old Mandate territory, nor have Hezbollah outside Lebanon, and neither have any claims to being promotors of Islamic world revolution. Ansar-al-Islam is indeed Wahabbist. So are some others.

from a_unique_person:

You are such a spoilsport, can't you just get with the program and bash the Arabs?

Arabs don't play rugby. I have no problems with Arabs.

 

[Cleopatra]

Arabs don't play rugby. I have no problems with Arabs.

After all you cannot really bash both sides that are implicated in the conflict for the Old Mandate( sic) and you have chosen who you will bash.

 

[demon]

CapelDodger:
"Whatever the reasons, the Iraq War is not connected to the War on Terrorism. It has instead been a massive distraction and a cause of serious breaches in what should be an alliance against a dangerous, reactionary foe."

ziggurat:
"This is incorrect, Iraq is central to the war on terrorism. It is central because we are fighting to win, not fighting to maintain status quo. We want to destroy the threat of Islamofascism completely. Contrary to the delusions of our European "allies", the threats from different terrorist organizations are not separable: the ideology that drives Al Quaeda is the same one that drives MILF, Hamas, Hesbollah, Ansar Al Islam and others - destroying only one organization will not remove the threat."

How many times does this lie have to be exposed before the likes of ziggurat stop repeating it? How blue does Paul O'Neill have to go in the face before he is heard? How many intelligence experts need to remind us that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that they knew the US-UK warmongers knew, and that they were acting out of far more cynical motives?

 

[CapelDodger]

from hammegk (never thought I'd type that):

You guys continue to discuss the movement of irrelevant pawns (including Israel and The Arabs) in the strategic geopolitical game of control of petroleum supplies.

Petroleum as the defining resource is short-lived. When Spain and the Hapsburgs had control of the specie - gold and silver - of the New World, that was the defining resource. When opium was the European coin for Chinese goods, that was the resource. When the woods were being slaughtered on Easter Island, that was the defining resource. When cocaine is a bigger market than oil (and more crtitical for an army's performance), that will be the defining resource. Never forget that one day, long in the future (say 20 years), shallow people will laugh at your fixation with irrelevant petroleum. (My pension's on niobium as the coming thing.)

It's the principle that matters - the identification and control of the current defining resource. This is where the comparison with the Great War comes in, not terrorism. The Gulf War, Saddam's war with Iran, was a power-play of the old style. And the invasion of Kuwait was in the same vein. Saddam could - quite rationally - see himself as a regional power, just like India and China. Had he been a bit more patient he might have achieved that, but he over-reached himself by occupying all of Kumait instead of the northern oil-field that was the proximate cause for the war. Had he limited himself to that, the US would never have intervened. Until it was too late.

I realise that's a contentious interpretation of events, but hey, what you gonna do.

(re Ziggurat's post) And regarding the fundamental nastiness and danger of Saddam, why was Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran in the Gulf War, and against Kurds, waved aside by the Reaganouts? When did Saddam and, say, the Iranians become partners in the world-wide threat? The day that Iraq invaded Kuwait? Apparently: prior to that Iraqi use of chemical weapons was "alleged", but the morning after it was a "widely known fact".

 

[WildCat]

How many times does this lie have to be exposed before the likes of ziggurat stop repeating it? How blue does Paul O'Neill have to go in the face before he is heard? How many intelligence experts need to remind us that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that they knew the US-UK warmongers knew, and that they were acting out of far more cynical motives?

Did you actually read what ziggurat wrote? He didn't claim that Iraq was cooperating w/ Al Queda or responsible for 9-11. The point was that the authoritarian and theocracy-based governments in the Muslim world are breeding grounds for Islamo-fascist terrorists.

If Iraq can be transformed into a stable democracy it can serve as a model for the rest of the Islamic world, proof that Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive. If prosperity can be achieved there it will make the populations in nearby countries want the same. This is why the recent terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at civilisn targets, the Islamo-fascists would rather see a theocracy run by a few mullahs.

Without a transformation to democracy the entire region will be a breeding ground for terrorists for many, many years to come. Just like it is today. There really is no choice, IMHO. The status quo serves no one. This is the long-term aim of the Iraq war and reconstruction.

 

[demon]

Wildcat:
"Did you actually read what ziggurat wrote? He didn't claim that Iraq was cooperating w/ Al Queda or responsible for 9-11. The point was that the authoritarian and theocracy-based governments in the Muslim world are breeding grounds for Islamo-fascist terrorists."

Iraq wasn`t before but it cetainly might be now. That was my point. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism...to say it has now is a post hoc justification for the war. You could probably do this to any country you want to in the Middle East and you`ll get terrorism as a result.
I`m not against your desire to see democracy in the Middle East, but what sort of democracy? A kind of stitched up Iraqi council under the auspices of a Bremer or Garner with guys like Chabli setting the parameters for poltical parties in the future? I`m sure that won`t work.
Do you agree that democracy can`t be forced on a nation? I belive it can`t. We need to stop using these countries and treating them like fair weather friends...our values draped in the rhetoric of "democracy" just aren`t cutting it as the way to go for a lot of Muslims. They aren`t stupid and can see the double standards at a thousand paces.
I do share your hopes though.

 

[WildCat]

Do you agree that democracy can`t be forced on a nation? I belive it can`t. We need to stop using these countries and treating them like fair weather friends...our values draped in the rhetoric of "democracy" just aren`t cutting it as the way to go for a lot of Muslims. They aren`t stupid and can see the double standards at a thousand paces.
I do share your hopes though.

We'll see if democracy can be forced on Iraq. But clearly, the idea of it threatens the terrorists which is why they are now targeting the Iraqi people. What is happening now in Iraq is a low-level civil war, the results of which have lead to democracy many times in the past.

We'll see how it works out, it could be for the worse. But, IMHO, not any worse than leaving it to it's own devices.

Do you agree that the curreent political repression and theocratic influences in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. just lead to more terrorism?

 

[CapelDodger]

Hey Cleopatra:

After all you cannot really bash both sides that are implicated in the conflict for the Old Mandate( sic) and you have chosen who you will bash.

I haven't spent the time that I might on denigrating the non-zionist side of the Palestinian question, but then I'm normally involved on a "that isn't actually so" response to other people's posts. I obviously have no time for the "Holy War" of Hamas and the like, and I'm well aware of the failure of the Palestinians/non-zionists to organise themselves into an effective opposition at any point. But I'm also well aware that the zionists instigated the conflict with a European nationalist and political inheritance that the Arabs had never had a chance to experience. I'm also aware that every effort has been made by the zionists to prevent any Palestinian modernisation, including encouragement of Hamas in its early days as a religious counter to the secular PLO.

When I see Israel today I see the only surviving example of the European colonialist and racist mind-set of the 19thCE, and I hate that. I also hate the loss of the olive trees and everything else under the bulldozer that really should be represented on the Israeli flag.

When Arafat gained control of the PA - by democratic election - what did he do? Reverted to type and cronyism. Any regime can be judged by the number of its police forces. Having many makes coups difficult to arrange, especially when several report directly to El Presidente. Arafat loses out there (just like Milosevic). But he didn't "launch" the Second Intifada, any more than he had any influence on the first. So I may seem to favour one side but in fact I'm just exasperated.

 

[hammegk]

from hammegk (never thought I'd type that):

Sorry to disappoint you.

Petroleum as the defining resource is short-lived. ....Never forget that one day, long in the future (say 20 years), shallow people will laugh at your fixation with irrelevant petroleum. (My pension's on niobium as the coming thing.)

Other than I suspect many decades rather than just a few, sure. Yet, here, now, and anytime soon, petroleum has no peer. If we achieve zero-point energy, cold-fusion, or something else far out, that will just extend the amount of time petroleum will be valuable. If we can manufacture crude using free energy & free source material -- or at least undercut price -- the strategic value of supply would be moot.

It's the principle that matters - the identification and control of the current defining resource. ...... Had he limited himself to that, the US would never have intervened. Until it was too late.

Umm, I think you underestimate our perceived need for a strong military presence near mid-east reserves. If we can save production facility destruction that would just be a plus but is again basically irrelevant too.

Stepping into other waters, Saddam had to go. Who needs a madman in the area who has "infinite funding" courtesy of oil revenue. 9'11, Al-Q, are again irelevant. Would Saddam have nuked -- allah forbid -- the Ras Tanura area at some point not far in the future. Iran and a nuke is the next scary problem. And Libya? Who woulda guessed, although I suspect those in the know had a fair idea how far along they were, and that had some impetous in the "diplomatic solution".

 

[subgenius]

Here's the depth of the administration's philosophical reaction:
""The Spaniards are courageous people. I mean, we know it from their whole culture of bullfighting," Wolfowitz said. "I don't think they run in the face of an enemy."

They haven't run in the face of the Basque terrorists. I hope they don't run in the face of these people."

Carlota Duce, a waitress at the Retinto Bar, where a bullfighting sword, lance and hat hung on a wall above patrons sipping beer and eating tapas, said she had no use for such comments.

"It's drivel," she said above the strumming of flamenco guitar on the stereo. "There is absolutely no comparison between bullfighting and Spain pulling out of Iraq."

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2030589,00.html
Let's say it together slowly.....patronizing.
Our adversaries are our benefactors.
Iraq is a different issue than Al-Qaeda. For the US to tie them together is to tie a noose around our necks.
For Spain to not vigorously condemn terrorism while asserting its right to object about Iraq is to tie a noose around its neck.

 

[demon]

Wildcat:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
Do you agree that democracy can`t be forced on a nation? I belive it can`t. We need to stop using these countries and treating them like fair weather friends...our values draped in the rhetoric of "democracy" just aren`t cutting it as the way to go for a lot of Muslims. They aren`t stupid and can see the double standards at a thousand paces.
I do share your hopes though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wildcat:
We'll see if democracy can be forced on Iraq. But clearly, the idea of it threatens the terrorists which is why they are now targeting the Iraqi people. What is happening now in Iraq is a low-level civil war, the results of which have lead to democracy many times in the past.

We'll see how it works out, it could be for the worse. But, IMHO, not any worse than leaving it to it's own devices.

Do you agree that the curreent political repression and theocratic influences in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. just lead to more terrorism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you write:
"...clearly, the idea of it (i.e. democracy) threatens the terrorists which is why they are now targeting the Iraqi people",

What's your evidence that fear of democracy is behind the violence? There are clearly different groups involved in the resistance. Most will be motivated by nationalism - a desire to end a foreign occupation. Some will be Islamic and some may include foreign fighters although all the journalists who know Iraq such as Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn (they do provide an alternative narrative to what most of the media are supplying on this), argue that foreign jihadists are few and far between.

Apart from being innocent bystanders of attacks on military personnel, Iraqis seem to be targeted in two circumstances. Firstly, there are those who are working with the "coalition" and are, presumably, seen as collaborators. Their treatment is very brutal especially since there are so few jobs around. Many of those killed will have had no love for the US/UK - they were just trying to look after their families. However, from time immemorial, swift and harsh punishment has been meted out to those who've collaborated with occupying powers. It was entirely predictable that this would happen; it's not unique to Iraq and it is entirely possible that this has nothing to do with opposition to democracy.

The second circumstance where Iraqis are targeted is the car or suicide bombing where the intention is massive loss of life. It's unclear who or what is behind these incidents. So far, the victims have been largely Shiites and Kurds. I don't see nationalists committing such atrocities - strategically, it makes no sense for them to alienate most of their fellow-Iraqis.
So who is responsible for them? Possibly covert actors trying to foment civil war and the partition of the country.

You ask:

"Do you agree that the current political repression and theocratic influences in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. just lead to more terrorism?".

Political repression is one element amongst many - Palestine & US support for Israel, western (and particularly US) support for corrupt and/or brutal dictatorships, the American military presence throughout much of the Middle East, the sense that Muslims are always at the sharp-end whether in Palestine, Chechyna or Kashmir and so on.

If the US wants to help democracy develop in the Middle East or anywhere else, it could always try breaking with the past and not supporting repressive regimes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ba'athism and Islamism are diametrically opposed.

No, they aren't. They have cosmetic differences, and they are competitors for power, but they are actually pretty similar in the ways that matter most. Both devalue the individual, enshrine violence as the primary tool for wielding political power, and worship death. Once you encourage these qualities, once you destroy the social bonds necessary to form a civil society (as Saddam worked so hard to do), switching from Ba'athism to Islamofascism is easy.

We see this kind of crossover all the time. Dr. Khan, for example, was an islamofascist himself. And he pursued his ideology by helping fascist islamic regimes try to aquire nuclear weapons. So he gave centrifuge technology to Libya and Iran and North Korea. North Korea isn't Islamic of course, but that doesn't matter to him: the most important thing was a shared common enemy, the United States.

It is essentially secularist. 9Saddam was never seen in a mosque until he realised he had a problem after the Kumait invasion.)

And yet you miss the significance of this: Saddam opposed Islamofascists because he saw them as a challenger to his complete control, not because he had some fundamental philosophical objection. These groups will very gladly join hands to fight what they correctly see as their greatest enemy: the United States.

It has nothing in common with what you refer to as "Islamofascism" - an infelicitous term in my opinion - by which I take you to mean Islamic fundamentalism.

Let's clear up one misconception: the Islamofascists are frequently NOT fundamentalists in the true sense of the word. The Khomeinists, for example, are not fundamentalists at all, but radical revolutionaries, whose ideology has no history beyond Khomeini. I use the term Islamofascists because that captures the essence of what they strive for: to use their religion as a political ideology in an attempt to conquer the world and subject all of humanity to their barbarous and fascist ideals.

The Iranian regime did not export terrorism to the western world except against their own internal opposition.

Which makes it OK then? And somehow terrorism against Israel gets a free pass? No, I don't think so. The Khomeinists plan on world conquest, this is the stated goal of their ideology. They will not limit themselves so cleanly in the future. You think it's irrelevant then that Iran holds an anual terrorism conference? Where the likes of even non-Islamic terrorist groups (including the ETA) make regular appearances?

No, it is a myth that these problems are separable. They are not. That is why the IRA (a nominally Catholic group) was found in the company of Islamic (PLO) and Marxist terrorists (FARC). Much as you might like to think these groups should not play together because of their different ideologies, they ultimately have no such compunctions, and what unites them is ultimately stronger than what divides them. And Iran is going to be a part of the problem because a country that terrorises its own citizens, at home and abroad, will try to terrorise its neighbors as well. You cannot escape by hoping they confine their wrath to Israel.

Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, launched themselves immediately against the developed world - first against the Soviets and then against the US. Their preliminary, immediate aim, as stated, is the overthrow of the Saudi regime, but they have gone straight to the organ-grinder, not the monkey (as they see it).

Yes indeed. But again, you miss the obvious implication: the other groups who find themselves attacking the monkey (Israel, India, whatever) also see us as the organ grinder, and we WILL be drawn into those conflicts.

So I stick by my contention that the Iraq war and the War on Terrorism are unconnected, except insosfar as the propagandists of both ends of the spectrum try to make it so.

You're kidding me, right? If propagandists on BOTH sides are trying to make is so, doesn't that in fact make it part of the war on terrorism?

 

[Ziggurat]

How many times does this lie have to be exposed before the likes of ziggurat stop repeating it?

How many times are you going to call me a liar without addressing the substance of my post? Go start a new flame thread, worm.

How blue does Paul O'Neill have to go in the face before he is heard?

Heard saying what? That Bush planned an Iraq invasion before 9/11? As I already said, GOOD. That should have been a contingency plan even BEFORE Bush came to office, and for all I know Clinton was doing the same thing (I certainly hope so). Beyond that, O'Neill's got nothing to say.

How many intelligence experts need to remind us that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that they knew the US-UK warmongers knew, and that they were acting out of far more cynical motives?

I never claimed that Iraq was part of 9/11, and neither did Bush. Complete strawman. And if you'd actually listen to what the intelligence community has been saying and not just the Dean campaign spin, you'd know that they believed Saddam had WMD's. As for the true motive, well, you can ascribe whatever motive you want to anyone's actions, it doesn't mean much in the absence of actual evidence. For example, I could claim your opposition to this war was motivated by sympathy for a tyrant, that you actually liked Saddam, that you in fact support the terrorists. That motive would fit your actions, but it's likely not true. You can't use the ascribed motives of others as a foundation for arguments. But I guess that doesn't matter to you, you're not arguing so much as vomiting rhetorical bile.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you agree that democracy can`t be forced on a nation? I belive it can`t.

Nonsense. We've done it before (Japan, for example). And the Iraqis want it.

We need to stop using these countries and treating them like fair weather friends...our values draped in the rhetoric of "democracy" just aren`t cutting it as the way to go for a lot of Muslims. They aren`t stupid and can see the double standards at a thousand paces.
I do share your hopes though.

Indeed, which is part of why Iraq is important. By turning Iraq into a genuine, functioning democracy, we can show that we're serious this time, that democracy really does matter, and that we'll step up to the plate. Imagine, if you will, the impact our success could have on the arab mindset. And we already have some successes to show for it: Iraq has a free press, the only one in the entire arab world. Do you think other arabs are too stupid to notice that?

 

[demon]

Lyingrat:
"How many times are you going to call me a liar..."

You reap what you sow.
I wasted time addressing the "substance" of one of your posts before...you must still have the taste of "vomiting rhetorical bile" in your own mouth from the cheap smears and accusations that you hoped would masquerade as adequate replies.
I see that you are at it again.
You are a minor league lying blowhard and you know it.

 

[CapelDodger]

from hammegk (it's a slippery slope):

Umm, I think you underestimate our perceived need for a strong military presence near mid-east reserves.

Which the US didn't have until the invasion of Kuwait, although each US carrier fleet packs an enormous punch. If Iraq had only occupied the northern oil-field - which I suspect the US was expecting and had given the nod to - it may well have stayed that way. It was reported at the time that George I had a bit of a "wobble" before deciding to liberate Kuwait, so a more limited incursion might have been let go (after some huffing and puffing).

Iran and a nuke is the next scary problem.

Presumably because Pakistan having nukes is the current scary problem.. It was created as an Islamist state (with no attempt to define what that means) and is constantly on the verge of chaos. But the recent "revelations" from there have been swept under the carpet. Very odd. It's hardly surprising Iran wants one of their own, what with India and Pakistan to the south-east, China to the east and Israel to the west all having them. (And the French, which is what concerns most of us.) Nukes are much too valuable and expensive to actually use.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Ziggurat:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ba'athism and Islamism are diametrically opposed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, they aren't. They have cosmetic differences, and they are competitors for power, but they are actually pretty similar in the ways that matter most. Both devalue the individual, enshrine violence as the primary tool for wielding political power, and worship death.

Ba'athism doesn't worship death; perhaps you're confusing it with Ba'alism. Apart from that, you could be describing any kind of authoritarian government. "Fascist" doesn't simply mean "authoritarian", it's more specific than that, although just what the description should be is a matter of debate. One thing it enshrines is a national myth, and there isn't one of those in Iraq, which was created as new in the 1920's by the British Foreign and Colonial Office. Saddam was a gangster who ruled, as gangsters do, for his own benefit and through patronage, fear and military force. The sort of regime that the US has always been comfortable with. The Shah's regime in Iran was closer to fascism, since he could and did use the national myths of Persia. Theocracy, which is what is sought by the Shi'ite and Wahabist fundamentalists, is not fascism.

... switching from Ba'athism to Islamofascism is easy

So Ba'athism isn't "Islamofascist". Sorry, but I'm not going to adopt that term. It is an abomination. If you get your jollies by calling people nasty names that's your business.

And yet you miss the significance of this: Saddam opposed Islamofascists because he saw them as a challenger to his complete control, not because he had some fundamental philosophical objection.

Gangsters don't have philosophical objections, they have business concerns. And Saddam opposed mainstram Islam itself, since the mosques could otherwise serve as alternative power-bases - not something his regime was going to tolerate. The mosques were kept under strict supervision. Ba'athism itself was strongly influenced by French political thought, which has been anti-clerical since the Revolution, and Ba'athism was and is anti-clerical. In Ba'athist analysis, Islam is the problem, not the solution. Ba'athism may have been hi-jacked by gangsters but they have their own concerns about alternative power-bases.

These groups will very gladly join hands to fight what they correctly see as their greatest enemy: the United States.

The US really should get over itself. Iraq was not fighting the US for the sake of it, but because the regime wanted to dominate the Arab Middle East. After Kuwait they were gripping on to power, inflating their status on the cheap by rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers and pretending to have chemical weapons. They were hardly about to sit down with the Shi'ite movement they'd spent years fighting just because they were both enemies of the US. The Iranian regime was a potential dagger in Saddam's stomach via the Shi'ite majority of Iraq. Helping them to boost their radical standing by some atrocity would be potential suicide. Similarly, the Wahabists want to replace the Saudi government - and all the other Gulf governments. Was Saddam about to assist these sworn enemies of his to gain power along a huge stretch of border? Unlikely.

The Khomeinists, for example, are not fundamentalists at all, but radical revolutionaries, whose ideology has no history beyond Khomeini.

Sharia law. For instance.

They read their ideology from the Koran and the works of Shi'ism. It may be a new reading in some ways but it's still a fundamentally Shi'ite reading. Shi'ism has a long tradition of revolution and radicalism, they're almost what defines it.

You think it's irrelevant then that Iran holds an anual terrorism conference? Where the likes of even non-Islamic terrorist groups (including the ETA) make regular appearances?

Could you give a reference to the agenda of the last one?

That is why the IRA (a nominally Catholic group) was found in the company of Islamic (PLO) and Marxist terrorists (FARC). Much as you might like to think these groups should not play together because of their different ideologies, they ultimately have no such compunctions, and what unites them is ultimately stronger than what divides them.

The IRA has long been a socialist organisation, when it hasn't been avowedly Marxist. The PLO isn't Islamic - its Christian members might have a problem with that - but secular. It's just that most of its members are Muslim. It also has socialist and Marxist strands. So their ideologies are not very different.

And Iran is going to be a part of the problem because a country that terrorises its own citizens, at home and abroad, will try to terrorise its neighbors as well. You cannot escape by hoping they confine their wrath to Israel.

The Iranian Revolution was in 1979, IIRC. Where have we seen this terrorising of its neighbours in the 25 years since?

You're kidding me, right? If propagandists on BOTH sides are trying to make is so, doesn't that in fact make it part of the war on terrorism?

Cute bit of sophistry. But if it takes propaganda to make the propaganda itself true, your point doesn't really get us far. Take the propaganda out of the situation and - bam! - no connection any more. So let's leave it aside - after all, we none of us fall for propaganda.

 

[rikzilla]

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism...to say it has now is a post hoc justification for the war.

Nothing at all? You are either mistaken, or you are a liar.

Why was the Mukhabarrat found to be running terrorism schools by UNSCOM #150 inspectors in 1996?? Why was Saddam personally sending $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian "brain-wash" bombers?? Why was the terrorist Abu Nidal living freely in Baghdad? Why was Abdul Rahman Yasin, the last indicted conspirator of the 1993 WTC bombing living freely in Baghdad? Why was Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, free to roam Baghdad prior to the invasion? (of course this Al Qaeda operative is still there and is responsible for many attacks)


The fact is, Saddam was a well known and documented supporter of terrorism. Maybe not Al Qaeda(tm) brand....but he certainly had something to do with terrorism.

-z

PS: So what do you think of Sheik Yassin's sudden exit from the world stage? I'd have thought you'd be fulminating on one of these threads, but somehow have not found it yet? Look, here's the sheik now:

 

[Cleopatra]

Now that the political discussion is over I can reply here.

Fascinating! This is just like 15th century Spanish with odd spelling (which, of course, you admit to not knowing). It's obviously after the palatalization shift which happened somewhere around the 12th century, but not with the changes to "mas" and "por" that happened later.

The odd spelling epepke is because of the method we , the ladino speakers in various countries use in order to communicate. The method is called Aki Yerushalayim
Voila:

Ortografia del Djudeo-espanyol en sistema de "Aki
Yerushalayim."

No uzamos = Q, W, C (aparte de en nombres propios). (X solo para
biervos komo exodus, exilo, etc.)

Para el sonido de la C ke se sona komo (s), uzamos la S, si se
sona komo (k), uzamos la K.

Y es konsonante solo (yerno, yorar, etc.); no se uza sola.

Uzamos i para el konjunktivo ( “y” en Kasteyano, “and” en Inglez),
no Y.

Abasho representamos los sonidos del alfabeto, aziendo apareser detras
de kada letra un nombre konosido:
A – Albert, B – Baruh, CH - CHarlie (en Inglez), D – David, DJ –
Joe (en Inglez), E – Ester, F – Franko, G – Galanti, H – Hayim, I –
Izak, J – Jacques (en Fransez), K – Kaden, L – Leon, M – Miriam, N
– Neama, O – Oro, P – Pola, R – Roza, S – Salamon, SH – SHemuel,
T – Tuvi, U – Uziel, V – Vitali, Y – Yavuz, Z – Zakuto.

Egzempios de biervos: alhad (Sunday), djugeves (Thursday), kaza
(house), kuando (when), tu i yo (you and me), meldar (to read),
eskrivir (to write)

So since Sephardi jews were expatriated for so many centuries and lived among other people the ladino idioma acquired several new branches. Interestingly, I speak the idioma the Greeks Jews speak and my grandmother the Ladino the Sephardi Jews that lived in Amsterdam used to speak because her father came to Salonika from there my mother speaks the ladino of the sephardi jews that grew up in Israel.

People who know Ladino can trace your origin by the use of language.

Ladino is the Ark that carries our tradition. Each place we passed by gave us words and new customs. Ladino is a language with which you can follow four centuries of history and of course is a lovely musical and playful language.

We try to establish a Ladino Society in Athens as well and to separate the teaching of Ladino from the Synagogue. In Salonika that they did that many Christians joined the Ladino Society to learn Ladino and to participate to the cultural events of the jewish community of the city. As many of them have pointed out you cannot really imagine Salonika without a present jewish community. It's a pity, four centuries of strong presence to be commemorated by a small monument in a corner, if you think that only 50 years earlier the Jews were the heart of this city but we will return eventually.

Pesah Alegre-Hag Sameah a todos

 

[Ziggurat]

from Ziggurat:

Ba'athism doesn't worship death; perhaps you're confusing it with Ba'alism.

It does worship death: death is the ultimate expression of power for the Ba'athists, it is their favorite tool. Yes, I'm using "worship" rather broadly, but what else to call the obsession with killing of those who make mass graves? Is a mass grave not an alter to death?

Apart from that, you could be describing any kind of authoritarian government. "Fascist" doesn't simply mean "authoritarian", it's more specific than that, although just what the description should be is a matter of debate. One thing it enshrines is a national myth, and there isn't one of those in Iraq, which was created as new in the 1920's by the British Foreign and Colonial Office.

You've got to be kidding me. Saddam was in the business of MAKING a national myth: he presented himself as the leader of the entire Arab world, built endless statues and palaces to agrandize himself, and created a myth that he would one day lead the arab world in reconquering Israel. Saddam did indeed enshrine a national myth: himself as the Arab hero, on a quest to regain Arab pride. That's how he gained support from the populaces in his neighbors, that's why he put countless foreign journalists on his payroll.

So Ba'athism isn't "Islamofascist". Sorry, but I'm not going to adopt that term. It is an abomination. If you get your jollies by calling people nasty names that's your business.

I never said Ba'athism was Islamofascist. I said Ba'athism is facist. The Islamists are also fascists, which is why I call them Islamofascists. I frankly don't care what terms YOU use.

Here's some writing of the nature of fascism in the arab world, whch expresses much more eloquently than I can why that's an appropriate term to use:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3044

Sharia law. For instance.

They read their ideology from the Koran and the works of Shi'ism. It may be a new reading in some ways but it's still a fundamentally Shi'ite reading. Shi'ism has a long tradition of revolution and radicalism, they're almost what defines it.

Evidently you haven't been paying close attention. The Supreme Guide has the authority to overturn ANY aspect of Islam, including Sharia, but strangely enough doesn't have the authority to overturn any of Khomeini's fatwas. How, exactly, is that fundamentalist? No, the Khomeinists are not fundamentalists at all, though they certainly are extremists.

As for Shiite tradition, you're off base on that too. Traditional Shiism is waiting for the hidden Imam to return in order for the world to unite under a single Caliphate - in that sense, it's mesianic. Khomeinism wants to conquer the world under a single Caliphate ruled by the Supreme Guide right now.

The Iranian Revolution was in 1979, IIRC. Where have we seen this terrorising of its neighbours in the 25 years since?

Um, you're kidding, right? They regularly assasinate disidents abroad, and are a leading sponsor of terrorism against Israel. Oh, but then that never seems to count. They also support the PKK, which attacks Turkish targets. And Turkey counts as a neighbor, doesn't it?

Don't ask questions unless you actually want to know the answer.