[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes they are scum. ANY terrorist group is SCUM.

I am glad I make you sick. That means I am thinking in the right direction.

Esp when you try to justify the acts of terrorist scum.

I'm glad too. KNow what, you are right, terrorist groups are scum, utter filth. Which is why i hate the Christian paramilitary groups in N. Ireland, not the IRA mind you, but the loyalist ones. Hizbullah? Terrorists? I don;t think so brainiac, since when did fighting for one's country coutn as terrorism? Israel destroyed the Palestinians, Leabanon fought for them, Israel invaded Lebanon, Hizbullah fights back. Fair is fair I think.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
their wrong doings? according to whom? You? who cares about your opinions, you've bee nshown to be utterly disingenuous in your approach to this.

LOL I have been shown no such thing.

You have been shown you keep changing your stance on this. First I WAS LYING!!!! Then when I proved I wasn't. IT WAS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!

If later I show that, it will be something else right? You'll never admit to it. Ever. You have been blinded by terrorists groups. That is why these groups are dangerous. They take advantage of the weak.

What makes a child blow themselves up in the first place.

By telling them it's a good thing and they will be rewarded. By filling their minds with LIES.

P.s. I think you should get your facts right, it's not the Hizbullah that is sending suicide bombers into Israel, it's the Palestinians.

Oh they are all part of it.

[skio]

Kitten- even if we found a million web pages with that quote, ti still says nothing about where it was said, to whom, the context, etc. It takes one person to twist the sayings of a person, and everyone will just re-print it, without finding out of the person actaully said it, and if they did, what they meant by it, and to whom. That is why I am skeptical of it in the first place, no context whatsoever.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL I have been shown no such thing.

You have been shown you keep changing your stance on this. First I WAS LYING!!!! Then when I proved I wasn't. IT WAS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!

If later I show that, it will be something else right? You'll never admit to it. Ever. You have been blinded by terrorists groups. That is why these groups are dangerous. They take advantage of the weak.
[/b]
By telling them it's a good thing and they will be rewarded. By filling their minds with LIES.

Oh they are all part of it. [/B]

Huh? I have said the same thing over and over. I told you from the very begining that that quote was out of context. that was my point, I have stuck to that. You stil haven't shown me th econtext of it, and therefore it is spurious.

If you can show me the full original article, the quote, wher eit was taken from, I will look at it, That's all I have said. That i want to know where, when, to whom, and the context of said quote, that's all, nothing more.

Don't presume to know how I will react on you producing the full context of that quote.

So my stance hasn't changed. I never said you were lying, I said that the quote was wrong, that what is being said in it, si being taken out of context by you and probalby by the place you got it from, that's all, nothing more, nothign less, so don't ascribe things to me that i never said.

Cheers.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by skio:
Kitten- even if we found a million web pages with that quote, ti still says nothing about where it was said, to whom, the context, etc. It takes one person to twist the sayings of a person, and everyone will just re-print it, without finding out of the person actaully said it, and if they did, what they meant by it, and to whom. That is why I am skeptical of it in the first place, no context whatsoever.

Exactly, that was my point.

[skio]

Zim, I am done arguing with you, it is pointless, you thinly hide your obvious hatred for so many things, yet you have the incredulity to think you have something valuable to say. Your views are so warped, and narrow that i am surprised your eyes aren't joined together.


You are the worst type of human, you really are.

bye.

oh, and thanks for making clear to me that your stance was built on strawmen, pathetic little coward.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by skio:
Zim, I am done arguing with you, it is pointless

Eventually every MacNN member comes to that conclusion. The trend does not have one anomaly.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If I search the web all day and find you the original context, you just put up ANOTHER excuse like you have above. You'll again change your argument.

Just show us the original source of the quote. There are alot of people using it, but they seem to be either quoting Mark Steyn or not referencing their source. Until you can properly reference the basis of your arguement, your arguement will be baseless.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by skio:
Kitten- even if we found a million web pages with that quote, ti still says nothing about where it was said, to whom, the context, etc. It takes one person to twist the sayings of a person, and everyone will just re-print it, without finding out of the person actaully said it, and if they did, what they meant by it, and to whom. That is why I am skeptical of it in the first place, no context whatsoever.

Answer me this:

In precisely what context can you imagine the statement "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." to be a good thing?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL I have been shown no such thing.

You have been shown you keep changing your stance on this. First I WAS LYING!!!! Then when I proved I wasn't. IT WAS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!

If later I show that, it will be something else right? You'll never admit to it. Ever. You have been blinded by terrorists groups. That is why these groups are dangerous. They take advantage of the weak.
[/b]
By telling them it's a good thing and they will be rewarded. By filling their minds with LIES.

Oh they are all part of it. [/B]

LOL you can't even answer a simple question!!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Answer me this:

In precisely what context can you imagine the statement "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." to be a good thing?

Considering that the statement has not yet been verified, I wouldn't even consider the statement to be accurate - never mind out of context. He may well have not even said it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Answer me this:

In precisely what context can you imagine the statement "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." to be a good thing?

IIn any context, it's pretty bad. I would just like to see the original source to know that the statement isn't maufactured by Mark Steyn.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Considering that the statement has not yet been verified, I wouldn't even consider the statement to be accurate - never mind out of context. He may well have not even said it.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=6#post1882400

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

Posted on : 03-15-2004 04:06 PM

LOL - a real question avoider you can be!

He's not asking you what *everyone* thought about it. He's asking you what *you* thought!

Answer the question or say no comment! ssheesh!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
In any context, it's pretty bad. I would just like to see the original source to know that the statement isn't maufactured by Mark Steyn.

Good answer.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=6#post1882400

My point was the same as Wiskedjak's.

Nice try though.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
My point was the same as Wiskedjak's.

Nice try though.

No, you couldn't say flat out whether or not you condemned it. Wiskedjak clearly said "In any context, it is bad."

You dodged. Point that stick at yourself.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Good answer.

Can we agree then that until the original source is referenced the statement in question cannot be considered legitimate?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No, you couldn't say flat out whether or not you condemned it. Wiskedjak clearly said "In any context, it is bad."

You dodged. Point that stick at yourself.

Dodged? hardly. I demonstrated a logical response to the circumstances. The quote has not been verified therefore context at this stage is irrelevant. Yet you decided to jump to context without knowing the validity of the quote. Shame on you for letting your political leanings cloud your thought process.

To clarify further - if the quote is proved valid, then yes I would agree - in any context it would be bad.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

To clarify further - if the quote is proved valid, then yes I would agree - in any context it would be bad.

Thank you for finally answering. It wasn't so painful, was it?

All I asked was, was there a context in which the statement, irrespective of who says it, could be considered good. My 'politics' as you call it, leads me to believe that no, under no circumstances could that statement be considered good.

Meanwhile, I've sent off a couple of emails in search of the source.

[lil'babykitten]

Gotta love the selective quoting you used there Mr Chief-Question-Dodger-Marks.

You still haven't answered a question eklipse asked you three times and Logic asked you a further time - Do you favour a two-state solution?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Gotta love the selective quoting you used there Mr Chief-Question-Dodger-Marks.

You still haven't answered a question eklipse asked you three times and Logic asked you a further time - Do you favour a two-state solution?

You dodged and you know it.

I've answered that before, and you and your cheering section know it. the search function works. But you know what, since I dragged an answer out of you, I'll give you this one:

A Palestinian state can come into being, under a few conditions. It's creation cannot spur more violence. If the way to the Palestinian state is long, brutal, bloody and filled with rancor, in a process in which Israel has not taken the leadership but rather is viewed as having gone down in defeat, the psychological relationship of the two states will be ugly and will perhaps contain the seeds of future conflict. . . . It is important that the birth of the new state not be perceived as an Arab victory born of force and violence, for this will encourage further attempts to use force against the Israeli state.

[Mister Elf]

"More Explodng Palestinians"

So what else is new...idiots don't know how to get what they want with peace, so they blow something up, so they get blown up, so they retaliate and blow something up, and on and on and on.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
"More Explodng Palestinians"

So what else is new...idiots don't know how to get what they want with peace, so they blow something up, so they get blown up, so they retaliate and blow something up, and on and on and on.

Are you talking about the Israeli government or Palestinians?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are you talking about the Israeli government or Palestinians?

Good question!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You dodged and you know it.

Whatever - I still think I gave a logical response. But this is petty.

Originally posted by vmarks:
A Palestinian state can come into being, under a few conditions. It's creation cannot spur more violence. If the way to the Palestinian state is long, brutal, bloody and filled with rancor, in a process in which Israel has not taken the leadership but rather is viewed as having gone down in defeat, the psychological relationship of the two states will be ugly and will perhaps contain the seeds of future conflict. . . . It is important that the birth of the new state not be perceived as an Arab victory born of force and violence, for this will encourage further attempts to use force against the Israeli state.

Heh it still amazes me to see Israelis who think that they have any sort of right to present 'conditions'.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by vmarks:
So, the correct response to the prevailing attitude that martyrdom is an honor that the Westerner can never know is to cover it up because it is unpleasant?

No. The point I was making is that these suicide bombings are the resull of despair. You replied by quoting a fascist (Sadeq), but you identified him as an expert in the field of psychiatry (psychological structure of suicide bombers), instead of condemning his opinion right from the start. That was plain dishonest from you.

It feeds more hatred because you gave him credit by calling Sadeq an expert.

His opinion is not the prevailing one. His opinion is not the one we are met with daily, not the one the children are being taught. More's the pity.

Possibly his opinion is not making it in Middle East propaganda, but certainly a healthier one; we agree on that!

Correct. However, he is taken seriously by the people who do us harm, and his words can definitely be a point of reference for knowing what is the misguided and warped motivation for the act of suicide bombing.
(...)
How much credibility he has is related to how much the Palestinian people who prepare to martyr themselves believe in his view.

I wish you had mentionned that before, it would have avoided a lot of grief between the 2 of us. Especially about your impression of Sadeq's opinion being a prevailing one!

That is the definition of the word credible: believable.
You and I believe in Sarraj's words, but until those who martyr themselves, those who teach and encourage martyrdom in the schools and Mosques also believe, we will arrive nowhere.

I wish we could read you write more about your belief in Sarraj's words and I am glad you did here; I think you may have less radical opponents here as a result (if not warmer supporters) because of that!

I believe in Peace, which is far more than the simple absence of violence, but I do not have the luxury of acting on that belief.

Call me idealist, but even the coldest hearts warm up at the most unexpected times.

Sadly, there are many who choose to view only that which is appealing to them. Your view of Sarraj as a better opinion, therefore the only one we should look at and talk about, is one such.

Unfortunately, you show up sometimes as completely insensitive and demeaning at times. And not always very understanding of others weaknesses. You did hurt my feelings iin that other thread about my quoting style and the choice of the quote itself. You discarded the whole text and blame me for a possible bad choice of word by the author of that text.

The fact that you show up as "Moderator" in the MaCNN Lounge hikes our perception of what you are and what you do here. Your sig comes as a contradiction and people are bound to react much more because of the contradiction.

It would be ignorant of us to ignore that the Professor's opinion is the prevailing one, and we practise such ignorance at our peril.

Who said we should ignore it? How about simply doing the right thing and emphasize the scientific opinion of a psychiatric expert whom you agree with????

My hatred? Rather, my love of life and justice is eating me.

did you fail to read where I wrote:

The honor of ending this war - this jihad - which causes so much suffering on both sides, rests primarily with Arabs, who are in the best position to do something. The first step would be to reject the leadership of the ideological descendants of Hajj Amin Al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who even in death dominates his people�s political life and distorts their aspirations, leading them down a path of intolerance and war. The peoples of the Middle East deserve better. They deserve peace. That is a truly pro-Palestinian position.

Yes, I failed to read that last part. And I apologize for that. And I am glad I did now. Thank you very much for that.

And I hope you will read me better too.

I wish you Peace.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Good answer.

Again, can we agree then that until the original source is referenced the statement in question cannot be considered legitimate?

This should be anymore difficult than Kitten's answer to your question. Just a simple yes or no.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
I said that the quote was wrong, that what is being said in it, si being taken out of context by you and probalby by the place you got it from, that's all, nothing more, nothign less, so don't ascribe things to me that i never said.

Cheers.

ANd I told you no matter WHAT context, it is going to be bad.

There is NO WAY that statement could be made to seem ok in ANY context.

As if it is SO hard to believe such a evil man wouldn't say such a thing.

I wish I could delude myself so easily.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Eventually every MacNN member comes to that conclusion. The trend does not have one anomaly.

No, just leftist haters.

Exaggerating or lying whichever the case my be here, doesn't make you look right.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Answer me this:

In precisely what context can you imagine the statement "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." to be a good thing?

Exactly.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
ANd I told you no matter WHAT context, it is going to be bad.

There is NO WAY that statement could be made to seem ok in ANY context.

As if it is SO hard to believe such a evil man wouldn't say such a thing.

I wish I could delude myself so easily.

And, have you found the original source for that statement, one that doesn't trace back to Mark Steyn? Because, until you do, context doesn't matter since the only person we can attribute that statement to is Mark Steyn.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And, have you found the original source for that statement, one that doesn't trace back to Mark Steyn? Because, until you do, context doesn't matter since the only person we can attribute that statement to is Mark Steyn.

I haven't been home all day. I tell you what I haven't found.

Of all the googling I did earlier. I found TONS of people making claims he said that.

And not one person claiming he did not. Not even Hussein himself.

I don't know about you. But if someone was going around telling people I said that, I would be darn sure to clear my name if it wasn't true.

So why haven't there been any sites debunking it? Or he himself saying it's not true?

Amazing huh.

[Zimphire]

I did find this.

http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html

Is Hezbollah a terrorist group?

Yes. Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against America, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:

A series of kidnappings of Westerners, including several Americans, in the 1980s;
the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;

the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane's pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;

and two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina�the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy (killing 29) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing 95).

Was Hezbollah�s campaign against Israeli occupation considered terrorism?
Lebanese officials and most Arabs insist the anti-Israel attacks were legitimate. Most Western countries, including the United States, disapproved of Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon and called Hezbollah's campaign against it resistance rather than terrorism.

Sounds innocent to me.

[Zimphire]

And...

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/ml_gen/ml9_12_03.htm

So yes, Hezbollah IS a terrorist group. No matter what former members try to say.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I haven't been home all day. I tell you what I haven't found.

Of all the googling I did earlier. I found TONS of people making claims he said that.

And not one person claiming he did not. Not even Hussein himself.

I don't know about you. But if someone was going around telling people I said that, I would be darn sure to clear my name if it wasn't true.

So why haven't there been any sites debunking it? Or he himself saying it's not true?

Amazing huh.

So, what you're saying is that a lack of evidence contradicting a claim is enough to prove the claim correct?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I did find this.

http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html

Is Hezbollah a terrorist group?

Yes. Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against America, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:

A series of kidnappings of Westerners, including several Americans, in the 1980s;
the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;

the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane's pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;

and two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina�the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy (killing 29) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing 95).

Was Hezbollah�s campaign against Israeli occupation considered terrorism?
Lebanese officials and most Arabs insist the anti-Israel attacks were legitimate. Most Western countries, including the United States, disapproved of Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon and called Hezbollah's campaign against it resistance rather than terrorism.

Sounds innocent to me.

They're a threat that needs to be eliminated.

What's the US doing about it?

I'm gonna write my congressman and ask him to do whatever it takes to rid the world of terrorists.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Good answer.

Again, can we agree then that until the original source is referenced the statement in question cannot be considered legitimate?

This should be anymore difficult than Kitten's answer to your question. Just a simple yes or no. (You've gone strangely quiet in this thread suddenly ...)

[Spliffdaddy]

Hezbollah kills innocent people and you dolts are gonna argue over a quote from its leader claiming they want to kill innocent people.

DOH!

Forget the words. Look at their actions.

There is no doubt they kill innocent people in the name of their god.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, what you're saying is that a lack of evidence contradicting a claim is enough to prove the claim correct?

No, I am saying it doesn't look good for the people claiming it's false.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Hezbollah kills innocent people and you dolts are gonna argue over a quote from its leader claiming they want to kill innocent people.

DOH!

Forget the words. Look at their actions.

There is no doubt they kill innocent people in the name of their god.

Yeah that is what cracks me up. They are defending a terrorist regime claiming they are somehow above that.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Again, can we agree then that until the original source is referenced the statement in question cannot be considered legitimate?

This should be anymore difficult than Kitten's answer to your question. Just a simple yes or no. (You've gone strangely quiet in this thread suddenly ...)

Heaven forbid that I don't post for a few hours while at work. Sheesh.

I am attempting to verify the origin of the quote. Until I can, we cannot prove that it was said by Masawi. Which is why I phrased my question the way I did when I asked, in what context could such a statement be considered a good thing?

I didn't ask anything relating to who is purported to say it. I just noted that people like yourself and LBK were holding off on commenting on it, wanting to place it in context.

Given that the question of context had been raised, I felt comfortable asking what would context help that statement- and you affirmed that no context could render it a good statement.

The remaining task is to verify that the statement was said. We know that other vicious statements calling for extermination of all Jews have been said by leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Fatah, and even the official Palestinian Authority government. So it isn't a far reach to accept this statement as believable, the only question is of it's specific veracity.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I am attempting to verify the origin of the quote. Until I can, we cannot prove that it was said by Masawi.

See. I knew that wouldn't hurt too much.

Originally posted by vmarks:
We know that other vicious statements calling for extermination of all Jews have been said by leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Fatah, and even the official Palestinian Authority government. So it isn't a far reach to accept this statement as believable, the only question is of it's specific veracity.

The statement is plausible, but just because it's plausible doesn't mean people can get away with putting unverifiable statements into other people's mouths. I find it plausible that George Bush's motivations for invading Iraq had less to do with WMDs and liberation and more to do with oil. I could even find alot of websites with "evidence" supporting that claim and may even be able to find websites with "quotes" from Bush to that effect. I might even try to find those websites if I didn't know that most are run by crack pots. I probably won't find any statements from Bush refuting those claims (which by Zim's logic would suggest that the claim must be true).

Would you let me get away with making such a claim about Bush if that claim had the same merits as Zim's does currently?

[vmarks]

The question of veracity has been answered.

The quote is accurate. Pay particular attention to how it doesn't all point back to Steyn, and how it predates Steyn's writing. Check out the books at the bottom at your local library.


Mr. Masawi led the Hezbollah group that destroyed the US barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 marines. He made the remark in the context of a discussion of that attack.


Christopher Andrew in 'The Times' of London ('There Is Worse To Come' September 13th, 2001)

Simon Mann in the 'Melbourne Age' of Australia (A Will To Die', pg. 3, September 15th 2001)

Alasdair Palmer in 'The Sunday Telegraph' of London (September 15th, 2002)

Stephen Pollard in 'The Wall Street Journal Europe' (October 23rd, 2002)

You can also find the quotation in Hansard, the official record of the British Houses Of Parliament, When Mrs Louise Ellman, MP for Liverpool Riverside quoted Mr Masawi in the House of Commons on November 1st, 2001.
(See Hansard, pg. 26, column 1075 for that day)

The quotation also appears on page 96 of Bruce Hoffman's book' Inside Terrorism' (Columbia University Press, NY, 1998)

and on page 7 of Amir Taheri's book 'Holy Terror: The inside story of Islaamic Terrorism
Sphere Books, London 1987)

[Wiskedjak]

Links please.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Links please.

God forbid you should actually set foot in a library. I've done your homework proving it true and not original to Steyn. If you expect me to find links, you ought to be capable of doing the same with what I've given thus far.



Two books referenced. Text not online, go and check them out.

Can't be helped if newspapers choose to charge for their archives.
Microfiche. At your local library or university.

The Times site is www.timesonline.co.uk. The archives are pay-for-use. Go to your library.

Theage.co.au has the last ten days online. Go to your library.

http://www.sid-ss.net/911/dunce.htm is a copy of the Alasdair Palmer op-ed from the Telegraph. It cites the quote as a section heading, without much else for that quote, but goes on to find quotes of similar sentiment that were published in the Arabic daily Al-Hayat. If you can't believe what people say in the publication biased towards them, what source is ever going to be good enough.

Public Record of the UK Parliament.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...1101-26_spnew0 contains the quote on its own.

Pollard published it on his blog: http://www.stephenpollard.net/000323.html

Again, I've given you the quality of the context, you've accepted that there is no context in which the quote can possibly be anything but bad, and there are two books which cite it and I'm not typing up both books for you. The quote is true. I begin to believe that the only thing which would satisfy you that the quote is genuine is if I had you and Massawi sit in the same room looking in your eyes as he repeats it for you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The question of veracity has been answered.

The quote is accurate. Pay particular attention to how it doesn't all point back to Steyn, and how it predates Steyn's writing. Check out the books at the bottom at your local library.


Mr. Masawi led the Hezbollah group that destroyed the US barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 marines. He made the remark in the context of a discussion of that attack.


Christopher Andrew in 'The Times' of London ('There Is Worse To Come' September 13th, 2001)

Simon Mann in the 'Melbourne Age' of Australia (A Will To Die', pg. 3, September 15th 2001)

Alasdair Palmer in 'The Sunday Telegraph' of London (September 15th, 2002)

Stephen Pollard in 'The Wall Street Journal Europe' (October 23rd, 2002)

You can also find the quotation in Hansard, the official record of the British Houses Of Parliament, When Mrs Louise Ellman, MP for Liverpool Riverside quoted Mr Masawi in the House of Commons on November 1st, 2001.
(See Hansard, pg. 26, column 1075 for that day)

The quotation also appears on page 96 of Bruce Hoffman's book' Inside Terrorism' (Columbia University Press, NY, 1998)

and on page 7 of Amir Taheri's book 'Holy Terror: The inside story of Islaamic Terrorism
Sphere Books, London 1987)

The sig stays.

[Zimphire]

BTW skio I expect a apology for your outburst at me for having said sig.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The question of veracity has been answered.

Yet there is still no quote from the man himself. So what if other people quoted him in other books? Where did *they* get it from?

lol I don't care anyway, Zimps sig is a constant reminder of his foolishness to all.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yet there is still no quote from the man himself. So what if other people quoted him in other books? Where did *they* get it from?

lol I don't care anyway, Zimps sig is a constant reminder of his foolishness to all.

When was he supposed to say this? If it was in the 80s then online sources may be scarce.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yet there is still no quote from the man himself. So what if other people quoted him in other books? Where did *they* get it from?

THEY MADE IT UP!! IT'S A CONSPIRACY !

Even though he has never denied it.

Zimps sig is a constant reminder of his foolishness to all.

Yes indeed. Hussein Massawi is a foolish man. We need to be reminded what a foolish man he is.