two Iraq questions

[Boris]

1. Several days ago 4 U.S. civilian security guards were killed in Fallujah. Who were they working for? No details have been reported in the news and I am curious why civilians were working in such a dangerous area.

2. Bush is sticking to his guns on turning over power to an Iraqi authority by June 30. I think this will be a huge mistake and the decision is being guided by domestic politics rather than sound foreign policy. Unless the Iraqi authority is a US puppet state the country will be thrown into chaos. As distastful as it sounds, the US needs to instill a strict authoritarian dictatorship until radical muslim terrorist groups are sufficiently weakened. There is really no other choice in the near term. All successfull dictatorships ruled with an iron fist to keep the peace. Typically, the strict martial law was necessary both to keep the regime in power and to prevent civil war. In the interest of being humane. the US ruling council must adopt the same strategy until dissident factions are sufficiently weakened. IMO, the governing council is being way too permissive in allowing public dissent. This attitude promotes lawlessness and gives muslim clerics the idea that they can gain power by promoting anti-US sentiment. The US is not feared by the Iraqis right now and that should change if law and order are going to be restored.

[nicky g]

The security guardds worked for a firm called Blackwater Resources, which I beleive does a lot of work on behalf of the US military. I heard a report that they were travelling with a convoy delivering food. To whom or what or if that's accurate, I don't know.

The idea that what Iraq needs is yet another Western-backed dictatorship is too depressing for me to bear.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that what Iraq needs is yet another Western-backed dictatorship is too depressing for me to bear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm not sure what other alternatives are out there. I think it's pretty obvious the country descend into civil war and chaos if the US were to leave tomorrow.

[nicky g]

I'm not criticising. I just find it depressing; too depressing to think about.

Hopefully threre will be no civil war; I would think there probably won't be. Neverthless, it's clearly a distinct possibility. Remember before the war when the anti-war people were told all their fears were groundless or scaremongering? ANd when after the war, they were laughed at for all their dire predictions not instantly materialising? I would suggest they don't look so stupid now.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Several days ago 4 U.S. civilian security guards were killed in Fallujah. Who were they working for? No details have been reported in the news and I am curious why civilians were working in such a dangerous area.

[/ QUOTE ]
I too find this interesting. Also, supposedly dog tags were found on one of the bodies. The security guards were compiled of mostly ex Navy Seals. It is indeed strange why they were there.

[Ray Zee]

any country full of different factions of religious fanatics will go into choas as soon as we leave. the fight for power will consume the country until another cruel ruler takes hold. then it starts all over again. those countries are and wont be democratic. and will be ruled by tyrannts.

[jdl22]

I agree with Ray in regard to Iraq. Iraq should really be three distinct countries. It being united only made sense to outsiders trying to use the resources and location to their benefit.

Too bad we don't just break it up.

Same could be said for Afghanistan IMO.

[ACPlayer]

1. More and more work is being contracted by the military to private companies. Here are some of the (cynical) reasons:
-- The companies dont have to conform to the requirement of Military code of Conduct and justice during ops.
-- The body bags are not of the army so the deaths dont count against military losses
-- The Armed Forces committtees dont have oversight over contractors.

2. In order to rule Iraq properly the govt should have done what it does with other despotic regimes: declare saddam a friend and done business with him. Having gone down this idiotic path chances are that now or in the future (unless Iraq is the 53rd state forever) there will be a Islamic government in Iraq -- whether the dictatorship is directly US or a Shah of Iran type dictatorship. Democracy has no chance in an environment where people have limited prospects for financial self-improvement.

[nicky g]

I sympathise with the idea that Iraq should really be at least two and probably three different countries, at least if the nation state is going to be your model for a country. The Kurds - all Kurds, Turkey's as well as Iraq - certainly deserve their own nation; the Iraqis and Turks, and to a lesser extent the Syrains and Iranians, have treated them horrendously. But in practice it would now be extremely difficult to do and could start a few wars of its own. Kirkuk for example, which the Kurds regard as a Turkish city, was highly arabized by Saddam and has large Arab and Turkmen populations who would take extremely unkindly to waking up in a Kurdish state; plus no sensbel central Iraqi government would willingly wave goodbye tot its oil potential. There are large Kurdish populations in the rest of Iraq and the tensions sparked in Kurdistan could see massive ethnic violence and tit for tat ethnic cleansing across the country. (Although this could happen anyway.) Furthermore the Turks would almost certainly invade such a state. That doesn't make the idea wrong but it's far from an easy fix. As with most things, the situation is more or less entirey the fault of the British.
(Obviously that's a joke. But the more I read about how the British government behaved in the Middle East in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the more disgusted I am.)

I eagerly await Gamblor's post telling me why I this makes me a hypocrite about Israel.

[ACPlayer]

As with most things, the situation is more or less entirey the fault of the British.

Unfortunately you may not be too far off the mark.

See:

Iraq boundaries drawn by the british after deposing the ottomans.

Kashmir conflict left unresolved.

Palestine conflict left unresolved.

The last two could be attributed to the bad shape that the empire was as a result of WW2.

[superleeds]

1. It's cheaper than the armed forces doing it.

2. Whatever the administraition decides in the short term, based on events since the end of hostilities, it will be wrong. There is no easy answer. Bush and his cronies thought there was, that is their tradegy. The fall out from this war will be around for a long long time, that is ours.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
As with most things, the situation is more or less entirey the fault of the British.

Unfortunately you may not be too far off the mark.

See:

Iraq boundaries drawn by the british after deposing the ottomans.

Kashmir conflict left unresolved.

Palestine conflict left unresolved.

The last two could be attributed to the bad shape that the empire was as a result of WW2.


[/ QUOTE ]

Europe has been rearranging its boundaries for centuries (after every major war). Look at a map and you see boundaries carefully carved around valleys and communities.

Why then in recent years has there been this idea that national boundaries are unchangeable? It leaves the middle east and especially Africa all screwed up as a result.

Thoughts?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
As distastful as it sounds, the US needs to instill a strict authoritarian dictatorship until radical muslim terrorist groups are sufficiently weakened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get to this site for a day and look what happens to the neighborhood /images/graemlins/smile.gif. C'mon you can do better than this. This has ZERO chance of happening.

[ACPlayer]

Two thoughts:

1. In Europe there are less religious differences between the communities so that flash point does not exist. Where the religious differences exist there is conflict (see Kosovo etc)
2. Europe is generally more prosperous, with more prospects for growth, than the areas that I mentioned, even the ex-soviet places (and now members of NATO!).

Religions are the cause of plenty of human misery and exploitation.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
Two thoughts:

1. In Europe there are less religious differences between the communities so that flash point does not exist. Where the religious differences exist there is conflict (see Kosovo etc)
2. Europe is generally more prosperous, with more prospects for growth, than the areas that I mentioned, even the ex-soviet places (and now members of NATO!).

Religions are the cause of plenty of human misery and exploitation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the borders of Europe were changed due to religious differences (Thirty Years War and many others). Things may have settled down precisely because borders were carved carefully to put people in the right countries. We should try the same in Iraq.

[Boris]

I don't know why you think it has zero chance of happening. I should have clarified and said I was referring to Iraq only.

If a significant portion of the population was part of these violent groups the US would have many more problems than it currently does. In my view there is a very good chance the US COULD install a stable government institution.

[Cyrus]

"Iraq should really be three distinct countries."

Too late for that. The British and the other colonial powers saw to it that Iraq's frontiers would be demarcated by silly straight lines and such. (Look up the lady who had a big part in the carving up.)

And, truth be told (shhhh): historically speaking, Saddam's Iraq had quite a strong claim over Kuwait. But, don't tell anyone!

"Too bad we don't just break it up."

Well, Iraq is now like Bosnia.

Bosnia's Muslim ruler, Izetbekovic, also tried (foolishly) to create a country where no country should have existed. So, then, Bosnia, a country whose three ethnic/religious groups were so intermingled it looked like a bad day at the Jersey turnpike, had a taste of what it means to carve up a country without anesthetic.

"Same could be said for Afghanistan."

Damn right. See above.

[Gamblor]

I eagerly await Gamblor's post telling me why I this makes me a hypocrite about Israel.

As I understand it, your problem with Israeli policy has more to do with human rights concerns than political and legal concerns, which nobody can deny the Israelis have the upper hand.

My question, is why does anyone deserve their own nation? What defines a nation?

The Jews clearly form a nation: Jewish culture, language, religion, etc.

Even Eddie Said wrote that the Palestinian nation defines itself by one characteristic: Arabs who desire a burning pile of rubble covering what is now Israel.

[MMMMMM]

Interestingly, I just read a column by Dennis Prager in which he stated that 25% of Palestinians are Christians. However we never hear of Palestinian Christian suicide bombers; it seems that these bombers are invariably Muslim. Not sure of the accuracy of his claim as he cited no sources but it rings at least largely true. So how now, all ye who claim that Palestinian suicide bombing springs from circumstance and desperation rather than from ideology? Shouldn't the Palestinian suicide bombers be 25% Christian if such theories are true? And IF these figures are true, or even somewhat true, it would seem to say something significant about the differences between the teachings of the two religions-eh?

[daryn]

what is your point really? i hope you're not trying to say that islam teaches violence, after all islam and christianity share the EXACT SAME GOD.

now, is there a group of people out there teaching a tainted version of islam which glorifies killing of others? i'm sure there is, ... just like christians killed a ton of people during the crusades..

in short, there are nutjobs everywhere, it's not inherent in the religion.

[MMMMMM]

Firstly, I don't know personally that the figures cited by Prager are accurate.

Islam's teachings are quite distinct from those of Christianity even if they do share the same God.

In countless passages in the Q'uran, Mohammed enjoins his followers to fight the infidels, slay them, pour boiling water down their throats, smite their necks untill they confess there is no God but Allah, and so on, ad nauseam. Jesus however repeatedly enjoins his followers to forgive, to turn the other cheek when smitten, to not resist evil done against them, to love one's neighbor as one's self, etc. The teachings are truly poles apart in some very important dimensions although Islam does have peaceful passages in the Q'uran as well. However Jesus basically teaches pacifism and forgiveness while Mohammed teaches fighting infidels in order to spread Islam and to force the entire world to submit to God. Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God being not of this Earth but a spiritual kingdom, while Mohammed calls for the transformation of this world by force into a world which follows God's laws everywhere all the time. Jesus does not teach that God's laws should be imposed by force on others, whereas the Q'uran teaches precisely that it should be so imposed (although dhimmitude, or true second-class citizenry, is an option for Jews and Christians under Islam). If you read the Gospels of the New Testament and the Q'uran, you will see immense differences as well as some similarities. Islam wants to conquer the world to make all the world one under submission to God, while Jesus teaches that we should be examples of love and forgiveness, and that we should demonstrate love rather than resist those who do evil to us, and that we should lay up (spritual) treasures in heaven rather than laying up treasures on Earth. Mohammed however gathered his armies of conquest with promises of the financial spoils of war and the garnering of captured slave women, and promises of sensual delights in Paradise in the hereafter.

[ACPlayer]

From what I understand of the religions and my readings.

The Quran expicitly endorses co-existence with the monotheistic religions and endeavors to spread the word that there is one god with multiple ways to get at it. The Quran recognizes the religions of the Ahl-ul-Qitab (dont have the exact name but it means the religions of the Book - as in the book of Moses etc). Mohammed went after converting the Arabs into the word of the Book from their Pagan roots and brought many into that way of thinking.

The Islamic Sufi thinking also reflects this view and is the foundation of such monotheistic religions as Sikhism.

Even the Dar Al Harb viewpoint you expounded on months ago is an incorrect understanding of the history and word of the Quran.

Your entire argument is predicated on utter nonsense, and an unfounded bigotted fear of Islam rather than the more reasonable fear of the fundamentalist mindset (whether Islamic or Christian -- as I strongly suspect yours is).

[nicky g]

The first suicide bomber in the intifada was a Palestinian Christian, as I understand it. I also believe your source has slightly over-estimated the percentage of Palestinian Christians; it's around 20%. Furthermore, Palestinian Christians tend to come from a more middle class, relatively affluent background than Palestinian Muslims. So desperation and circumstances clearly do have something to do with it. The most prolific suicide bombing organisation in the world in recent times, the Tamil Tigers, is Hindu. Does this show something about Hindu teachings? Maybe you think it does, I don't know.

[nicky g]

From some brief research, it looks like the first suicide bombing inside Israel was carried out by Hamas so I doubt the bomber was a Christian. The reason I thought this might be the case was a comment made my a Muslim sociologist on a British news commentary programme (Newsnight) the other week following the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury's speech on Islam; he mentioned something about one of the first suicide bombers of the intifada being a Christian, but I can't find what he was referring to on the Guardian site, which is the most easily searchable as it has a timeline of the intifada. I'm going to get fired if I carry on like this, but I'll have a more detailed look if I have time when I get home tonight.

On a related note, why would you take seriously an article by someone who can't be bothered to properly research his main point ("yet if there are any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers, I am unaware of them")? He then goes on to claim there have been no Palestinian Christian "terrorists", a point he is defintely wrong on; George Habash was a Palestinian Christian and there are countless other prominent Palestinain Christians he would consider to be terrorists. Most people on this forum put more effort into researching their posts than Mr Praeger clearly does in writing his articles. Hardly serious commentary.

[nicky g]

I've seen several websites that say that although Plaestinian Christians historically made up around 20% of the Palestinian community adn make up a similar figure of Palestinians worldwide, they now only make up 2% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't know if this is accurate; maybe someone else can shed some light on the matter.

[Gamblor]

No Arab-Islamic country in history, with the exception of secular Turkey, allowed non-Muslims full citizenship, rather bestowing dimmi status, which basically means nobody can hurt them, as long as they sit in the corner and shut up. Naturally, any excuse was often found to "hurt" them.

[Gamblor]

According to Israeli Arabs I know (hearsay, obviously) Palestinian Christians for the most part took Israeli citizenship because they feared that Arafat and the Islamic Palestinians would treat them like dogshit. Given Arab history of treatment of minorities, I doubt these fears are unfounded.

[nicky g]

"According to Israeli Arabs I know (hearsay, obviously) Palestinian Christians for the most part took Israeli citizenship because they feared that Arafat and the Islamic Palestinians would treat them like dogshit"

Er, most Palestinians weren't and aren't able to take Israeli citizenship. If offered it, the vast majority probably would take it, Muslim or Christian. Pinning the blame for any such discrimination on Arafat or the PA is more than a little absurd given that his wife is an Arab Christian, as are several prominet PA members (Hanan Ashrawi, for example).

To get back to the question about suicide bombers, I did a bit more looking around and still couldn't find any reference to one; I suspect the Newsnight sociologist may have been wrong, though it's difficult to say as info on a lot of the bombers' backgrounds seems to be virtually non-existent (for example, I did a google search on several variations of a bus bomber's name and only one - Guardian - article came up). Unfortunately Newsnight doesn't provide transcripts so I can't clarify what he was referring to. M's guy is defintely wrong to day that there have been no Palestinian or Arab Christian terrorists, however.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, I have in the past posted many precise passages from the Q'uran which literally call for killing of infidels, smiting their necks until they confess there is no God but Allah, pouring boiling water down their throats, not making friends with unbelievers, etc. etc. etc. That is not to say that alternate passages do not exist but that the number of such enjoinments of violence towards unbelievers is many. Also, the Q'uranic passages I have posted with THREE alternate translations each by a different Muslim scholar; all translated versions were pretty similar, yet you refused to accept them because you don't speak Arabic yourself. Passages such as "Smite their necks until they confess there is no God but Allah" don't exactly strike me as something which would be easily subject to mis-translation; do they strike you as such? Maybe you would care to offer an alternate conception of the meaning of this injunction?

The living in co-existence with other religions "of the Book", which you mentioned, is a form of compromise, but it is a very one-sided form of compromise. The Jews and Christians living under such "protected status" are still forced to live under Islamic law, and to pay a special (exhorbitant) poll tax, and to defer to Muslims in manners such as stepping aside to allow them to pass down the middle of the sidewalk. While some such quainter customs may be only of times past the one thing that is not is that the "protected peoples" still must submit to Islamic law even if they do not accept the Islamic religion.

Islam means, literally, "submission": Muslims are supposed to submit to God. I do not have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with Muslims trying to force others to submit to Islam or to Islamic law (and yes, I do have a problem with the religious Right in the USA trying to impose their standards of morality on the rest of us). And while the Q'uran in one place says "There shall be no compunction in religion" it also calls for the dominance of Islam and Islamic law, and in many many passages it calls for followers to fight the infidels, force them to accept Allah or be killed, etc. etc. etc.

You seem to presume this just couldn't be, that everyone and every major religion share some common ground and that people at the deepest levels think more or less like us. While there is some basis for thinking this, it is also true that some ideological conflicts are possibly philosophically irreconciliable, and that some people do NOT think like us at all.

If you read the Gospels and you read the Q'uran you will be AMAZED at the very fundamental differences. Jesus preaches love and forgiveness, and emphasis on a spiritual kingdom (rather than on an earthly kingdom); the Q'uran preaches individual submission to God and also bringing the entire world to submit to Allah (or Allah's law)--even by force at times and when necessary, as detailed in countless Q'uranic passages. This is the ultimate Islamic vision of peace: one world under Islam, happily and devoutly submitting to Allah's law. And apparently, and most unfortunately, many Muslims see nothing wrong with the concept of forcing others to submit to God's law. Mohammed, who wrote down the direct word of God as told to him by the archangel Gabriel, did not have a problem with that concept so why should the ordinary Muslim have a problem with that concept.

Jesus did not enjoin anyone to fight. Mohammed led army after army. Leaving all the BS moral relativism and BS multiculturalism aside, I leave it to you to decide which of the following is the higher spiritual teaching: to forgive others their trespasses, or to fight the unbelievers.

[ACPlayer]

I offer the follopwing thoughts to help dispel your continued confusion:

1. Christianity in practice, like Islam in practice has not always been the peaceful loving religion you profess it to be.

2. Islam divides the world into: Dar al Harb, Dar al Islam and Dar al Ahd. Harb is the one Islam is at war with, Ahd is the one that Islam is at peace with and of course Islam is the one that practices Islam. These divisions are post Quranic. The Quran itself professes to live peacefully with those who believe in one god, but not necessarily in the prophet.

3. Islamic states have not practiced forced conversion unlike some Christian states. Nor have Islamic states purged groups of people (except during war) as have Christian or Jewish states.

4. There are more missionaries trying to coerce people, though not by force, into converting to Christianity than other religions.

5. Fundamentalist Christians dont want to make peace with Islam and hence end up in the House of War.

Unfortunately, Islam does say that a friend of an enemy is an enemy. This is why the US is in the sites of many Islamic extremists.

Now, Islam was born in a region of violence and the Societies in which Islam has a root are violent societied regardless of religion. This primarily because some of these areas (the Arabian peninsula) for example has limited resources so people eked out living by plundering. Those roots are very strong, and coupled with poor living conditions (who ever is to blame) provides the extremists lunatics with cannon fodder in their stupid pursuits.

So, while the Arab states have violent roots, Islam itself is not violent -- on that I suppose we must agree to differ.

Unfortunately, I am travelling extensively in SE Asia at the moment and dont have access to my books or could provide you with references.

[MMMMMM]

HOWEVER these religions may have been practiced at various times and in various locales, the Q'uran itself calls for violence against infidels in a great many passages. All you have to do is read it to see for yourself this plain fact.

Your confusion is due to reading books about these religions rather than reading the sacred texts themselves. Read the Q'uran and read the Gospels and see if you don't agree that the Q'uran frequently enjoins violence whereas the teachings of Jesus do not.

All radical Islamists are doing is following the Q'uran literally. However someone following the teachings of Jesus literally would probably be a pacifist--as were the early Christians.

[Gamblor]

Er, most Palestinians weren't and aren't able to take Israeli citizenship. If offered it, the vast majority probably would take it, Muslim or Christian.

This is before the concept of "Palestinian" was invented. i.e. before 1967. And many were indeed able to take citizenship even after the war.

Pinning the blame for any such discrimination on Arafat or the PA is more than a little absurd given that his wife is an Arab Christian,

He forcibly converted her to Islam. Look it up.

as are several prominet PA members (Hanan Ashrawi, for example).

I have a friend who is of from Nevis. He is black. His nickname is "Token".

More importantly, not all PA members are terrorist. They may associate with terrorists, but they are not terrorist nor are they terrorist supporters themselves.

Arafat, however, is.

[Gamblor]

Nor have Islamic states purged groups of people (except during war) as have Christian or Jewish states

Jewish States? When did a Jewish state "purge" when it wasn't at war? Even the notion of a "purge" is disputed. How many Jewish states are there? How many Jewish states forcibly converted Arabs to Judaism?

Furthermore, Islamic states forcibly converted millions across Northern Africa and the Far East during the era of Pan-Arab imperialism, allowing them to choose between Islam or death.

What is your problem with those damn Jews?

[Gamblor]

HOWEVER these religions may have been practiced at various times and in various locales, the Q'uran itself calls for violence against infidels in a great many passages. All you have to do is read it to see for yourself this plain fact.

Much has been made by neo-Nazi groups about obscure passages in various tractates of Jewish law about "killing gentiles". It has all been taken out of context and more importantly, has never been practiced by any significant Jewish community.

I don't believe this is enough to indict a billion people.

I like sushi, but I hate Wahhabi.

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the information. You're talking about "obscure passages" in certain tractates of Jewish law. The passages in the Q'uran, however, which enjoin Muslims to the killing and torturing of infidels, and the forcing of them to submit, are not in the least obscure; they are fairly plentiful, bold and straightforward.

[ACPlayer]

One Jewish State that I know of.

No problem with Jews at all. Only with religious fundamentalists waving documents of dubious provenance and disputed value and using unlimited force to push people out of their homes.

Plenty of problems with Zionists, plenty of problems with Islamic fundamentalists and for that matter christian, hindu fundamentalists.

Also problems with idiots who equate criticism of state policies with hatred of people of any faith.

[Cyrus]

"Europe has been rearranging its boundaries for centuries (after every major war). Look at a map and you see boundaries carefully carved around valleys and communities.

Why then in recent years has there been this idea that national boundaries are unchangeable?"

Trans-national trade and the resulting relaxation of border laws may be the future, with borders becoming less important for governments. So, perhaps we may witness one good thing out of turbo-capitalism, yet.

Man's progress comes usually with blood and misery.

[Chris Alger]

First, the 25% figure is high. It's closer to 8%. Second, the suicide bombers tend to come from the refugee populations in the W. Bank, which are the more poor, more oppressed, more likely to be killed by occupation forces and more likely to have lost livelihoods and property in what is now Israel. The are also disproportionately Muslim, partly as a result of Israel's policy of targeting Muslim communities in Israel, while cultivating certain Druse and Christian communities, which in turn grew from the greater resistance to Zionism by Muslims, the concentration of Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem and other cities and a variety of other variables.

Your assumption that "Islam" is the central variable in suicide bombings is therefore so much uninformed bigotry.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for correcting Prager's figures and shedding additional light on related factors.

Are there ANY Christian Palestinian suicide bombers? Even given the facts you mention, it would seem that there ought to be perhaps, say, at least 1% or so?

[Chris Alger]

(According to the CIA World Fact Book, about 9.6% of the Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories are Christian, almost all of those in the W. Bank.)

No, it doesn't follow that there "ought" to be Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. Most of these attacks are organized by the Izz al-din al-Qassam brigades (which the press calls the "Hamas military wing"), an Islamicist group with no more than a few hundred members (out of a population of 3-4 million). The bulk of the rest are carried out by Islamic jihad. The secular (and two-statist) Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade originally limited its attacks to military targets. Like IJ, it began focussing on civilian targets supposedly as a way of retalliating against Israel's assasination of its leaders, although the breakdown of leadership might also have been a factor. There other tactical (non-religious) roots of suicide bombing that the anti-Islamic propagandists like to ignore.

The Palestinians acquired their undeserved reputation uniquely terrorist when their leaders were largely secular. Two Palestinian leaders notorious for their connections with terrorism, Dr. George Habash and Nayif Hawatmeh, were both Christians (Habash became a Marxist). Habash's group pioneered Palestinian skyjacking and Hawatmeh's carried out the infamous suicide raid on Ma'alot in 1974. During the 1970's, it was argued that Palestinian nationalism should be ignored or put on hold because so many Palestinian terror groups were dominated by Marxists (or, like Abu Nidal, didn't have the slightest interest in Islam) that had no legitimacy in the eyes of the Muslims they purported to represent. Now the line is that Palestinian nationalism should be ignored or put on hold because "Islam causes terror," therefore making Palestinians as a whole unworthy of the same human rights as other groups.