In the following quotation from your 9/21 post (see entire text below),
Ismail you mention the existence of "deep-seated cultural/religious
sentiments"
> Finally, the idea that Jihad was invented abroad is self-delusion on
> the part of the Government, in my opinion. Frankly, I don't even think
> that the Government really believes that. But the Government can use
> it to thwart demands for democracy for .....'security reasons'. In my
> estimation, it is very unlikely that Jihad would have gained momentum in
> Eritrea had the EPLF/PFDJ acted wisely instead of arrogantly dismissing
> deep-seated cultural/religious sentiments.
What exactly are these "deep-seated cultural/religious sentiments", Ismail ?
It would be very beneficial to me, and may be to others as well, if we truly
understand and discuss the "cultural/religious sentiments" of some segments
of the Eritrean people and how these "sentiments" were "arrogantly dismissed"
by the "EPLF/PFDJ". It serves no purpose to talk about the Turabis of foreign
lands, when we could be talking critically about our own Turabis, who
"arrogantly dismiss" "deep-seated ...religious sentiments" of their own
people.
habte, (Calif.)
**********************************************************************
In a message dated 97-09-21 11:08:39 EDT, you write:
> From: ismail1@JUNO.COM (Ismail Omar-Al)
> Sender: owner-dehai@ftp1.primenet.com
> Reply-to: ismail1@JUNO.COM (Ismail Omar-Al)
> To: mghebreg@GPU.SRV.UALBERTA.CA
> CC: dehai@primenet.com
>
> Selamat Million and seb dehai
>
> you wrote:
> {{{{{{{{{{
> >From my understanding , correct me if I am wrong, you seem to think that
>
> Eritrea is the aggressive part on the Eritro-sudan feud. I think it would
> be a dire mistake to defend the indefensible
> }}}}}}}}
>
> Whenever people start a discussion with this type of remarks,
> it is usually wiser not to respond. The reason being that statements
> like 'defend the indefensible' betray the frame of mind of the
> writer. If this was a one to one discussion, I would probably
> have chosen not to engage in it. As this happens to be a public
> forum, however, I will share my opinions.
>
> Don't misunderstand me, Million. I am not suggesting that
> you are close minded about this issue. All I am saying is that,
> for whatever reason, you have already made up your mind about
> this issue. Since I don't know exactly how much real facts you
> have about the situation, I will not presume that your conclusions
> are wrong. However, if you really are so sure about your opinions
> as to regard any other opinion on this issue as 'indefensible', I
> respectfully submit that you are displaying a political naivete
> about the complexity of the issue - with apologies.
>
> Since you humbly invited me above to correct you, let me do that
> first. I never said that Eritrea is the aggressor ( although that is
> certainly possible.) My only suggestion was to be open minded
> and mature about the whole issue since we don't have solid,
> verifiable information about the situation. Is that too much to ask?
>
> You also wrote:
> {{{{{
> If Turabi was at odds only
> with Eritrea, you would at least get a benefit of doubt on the behavior
> or reaction of our government toward Sudan, However NIF is at odds with
> most of the front-line states namely Ethiopia, Uganda, Egypt, and
> With United States, international organizations like IMF, International
> red cross and UN itself. The list could go on...
> }}}}}}
>
> Valid points. However, don't forget that Eritrea itself was at odds
> with almost all African countries, USA and others during our
> liberation struggle. Recently Eritrea was/is in conflict with Yemen,
> Sudan, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia. This neither proves a
> country as the aggressor nor does it exonerate it.
>
> You yourself admit that:
> " It is undeniable fact that US would like to see the elimination of
> NIF
> regime to protect its own national interest and It is doing its best by
> arming these front-line states to achieve it's objectives"
>
> Doesn't that make you think?
> Million. Don't underestimate the political and diplomatic muscle of the
> US. The US successfully mobilized many countries including Arabs
> against Iraq using various tactics and was able to persuade them
> not only to join the war, but also to agree to a substantial financial
> contribution. Many may have preferred to remain neutral, but the
> leaders of these countries could not resist the lure of future US
> assistance and false promises. It later turned out to be that it was
> the US that gave a tacit approval to the invasion of Kuwait. The
> revelation, as usual, came later.
>
> I am also sure we remember how the US played Iraq against Iran
> while supplying both sides with arms and the whole scandal about
> the Iran-contra affair. One can reasonably conclude that the goal
> of the US was to destroy the military might of the two countries that
> would pose a 'threat' to Israel and US interests. We also know how
> Gadaffi was targeted for the discotheque bombing after the US
> persuaded the world that it had ample evidence that Libya was behind
> the incident. It later turned out to be that Libya had nothing to do
> with it.
> There are many other cases like that.
>
> The US has become so adept at subtly manipulating countries into
> doing its own dirty job that few people question its motivation.
> Sometimes it does it in such a way that leaders start to think
> that it was their idea after all. Those countries that refuse
> to cooperate are targeted one by one while those that follow
> its 'commandments' receive praise and admiration. The US would
> ignore even human rights abuses when its own interests are
> not at stake. Among those that incurred the wrath of the US are
> Iraq, Libya and many other third world countries.
>
> The current victim now seems to be Sudan. We are not discussing
> here the legitimacy of the regime. The regime is undeniably a
> dictatorship. What I am asking is why did Sudan suddenly become the
> focus of US and world attention? Wasn't there a dictatorship before
> in Sudan? Of course, there was. But the US never cared. Although
> there was slavery long before the advent of the NIF, the US never
> cared. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel remain US allies despite
> their oppressive regimes. These are some of the facts that should
> make us pause when considering any situation where the US is
> involved. As I already mentioned above, it has successfully mobilized
> several countries to achieve its sinister goals in the past, it is
> therefore
> plausible to assume it may be trying to duplicate those tactics in the
> horn of Africa with Sudan as the bait.
>
> EPLF that once used to pride itself for its anit-imperialist and anti-
> zionist stand is now in close relationship with both US and Israel.
> The US suddenly decides to give a sizable sum to the 'front-line
> states' for supposedly defensive purposes. Our country that was
> once totally ignored despite its heroic struggles with an oppressive
> enemy now receives praise and support from US.
>
> As you can see, Million, the situation is not as simple as it may appear
> to you. Another point you have to remember is that free press is
> restricted in both countries which makes it difficult for the citizens of
> both countries to ascertain facts. Just look at how easy it was to
> stir people even here in dehai using unsubstantiated rumors about
> Sudan's declaration of war. Some dehaians are still excitedly
> discussing the rumor as a reality and dehai is arguably supposed to
> contain a small sample of the 'elite', the 'educated' and 'the
> discerning'
> relative to the rest of our population! It may be natural for us to
> side with
> our country, but in a matter as grave as an impending war, we should
> at least question our leaders as thoroughly as possible before supporting
> them in such a dangerous venture.
>
> Finally, the idea that Jihad was invented abroad is self-delusion on
> the part of the Government, in my opinion. Frankly, I don't even think
> that the Government really believes that. But the Government can use
> it to thwart demands for democracy for .....'security reasons'. In my
> estimation, it is very unlikely that Jihad would have gained momentum in
> Eritrea had the EPLF/PFDJ acted wisely instead of arrogantly dismissing
> deep-seated cultural/religious sentiments.
>
> your brother
>
> Ismail