Visite Webhosting Latino, el site sobre alojamiento web.
Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (able population) - Mombu the Religion Forum
Mombu the Religion Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Religion Forum > Religion > Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (able population)
User Name
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links

1 6th August 04:08
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (able population)

Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia

Occupied Jerusalem: 17 September, 2003 (IAP News)

Hamas has denied reports disseminated by Israel and pro zionist circles that
the movement receives donations and funds from Saudi Arabia.

"This is part of the over-all Zionist onslaught against Islam and Muslims. I
assure you we don't receive money from Saudi Arabia or any other country. We
don't need money from abroad. We have enough money inside Palestine," said a
high-ranking Hamas official in Ramallah.

Abu Muhammed, who only gave his non de guerre, said Hamas was very sparing
in its spending.

"We don't squander money, and strive to make every dollar count."

Abu Muhammed pointed out that up to 90% of Hamas financial resources come
from ordinary Muslim individuals.

"You know each and every financially able Muslim is required to pay Zakat,
or alms, so Muslims from all over the world pay to us to feed and take care
of the orphan and the needy."

The Hebrew Press on Tuesday quoted some Zionist sources as claiming that
half of Hamas funds came from sources in Saudi Arabia, but no concrete proof
was given for the allegation.

The United States and some European countries have frozen the assets and
bank accounts of several charities that offer financial assistance to
Palestinians, using the claim that they are linked to Palestinian resistance
groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as a pre-text.

The flagrant measures have hit mainly the most vulnerable segments of the
impoverished Palestinian society, namely orphans, widows and people
suffering abject poverty.

According to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) in 2002, per capita gross national income for
Palestinians (which includes non-domestic income) fell to 46 per cent of its
1999 level, almost two thirds of the population in the West Bank and Gaza (2
million) live below the $2-a-day poverty line, and unemployment soared to
unprecedented levels, with the average annual unemployment rate exceeding 40
per cent well into 2003.

The report can be read online at:
Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
10661 South Roberts Rd, Suite 202 Palos Hills, IL 60465
Tel: 708 974 3380 / Fax: 708 974 3389 /Pager: 1 800 481 4306 E-mails:

Proudly serving Palestine and al Quds

To Subscribe visit:

The Islamic Association For Palestine (IAP) is a national grassroots
organization serving the American Muslim, Arab and Palestinian communities
and dedicated to advancing a just and comprehensive solution to the
cause of Palestine.
  Reply With Quote

  sponsored links

2 9th August 02:16
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia

Bullshit !
  Reply With Quote
3 9th August 02:16
kuff \(isaac adams\)
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia

No, really. They did deny it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
  Reply With Quote
4 11th August 07:55
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (case)

And you ... believe them, right?

No. That's the point. Hamas claims 'legitimacy'. In which case, let's
see the invoices, boys.
  Reply With Quote
5 12th August 19:00
kuff \(isaac adams\)
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (charge don)

news:<3f6f8bc1$0$57533$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.c om>...

You made the charge show me the evidence.

Your little trick with Iraq ("prove you don't have WMD") isn't going to work in
future for a good long while.
  Reply With Quote
6 15th August 16:49
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (sense charge time way don)

I didn't make the charge, I just have my suspicions.

Are you suggesting that when Hamas make their public utterances,
inbetween tearing the legs off half a dozen Israeli ****age girls with
one bomb attack and blowing up a bus full of Israeli Arab street
cleaners on their way home with another, we are obliged to think they
are telling the truth? Murderers but not liars?

If we are talking about Hamas, a known terrorist organisation and
enemy of us all, the ordinary legal convention of assuming innocence
is made null and void: we know they are guilty because they say so. We
know they have WFMD (weapons of fairly minimal destruction) because
they use them, all the time. It isn't 'my' 'trick', or a 'trick' at
all; thus, I don't see on what grounds 'it' (if you mean retaliation)
won't 'work' - the IDF retaliate pretty much every day too.

What bothers me is your apparant glee in the assumption that
opposition to the Iraq invasion (from people who, having changed the
basis of their opposition from the stoking of fears of conflagration
in the ME, which never happened, and of the 'millions dead' who never
were - except at the hands of Saddam - to an after-the-event latching
on to the Case of the Undiscovered Weaponry, which they believed
existed all along, to the extent of wishing further humiliation on the
UN inspectorate in its fruitless hunt for them) might stop the only
people with the power to prevent even more terrorism from doing their

Will you only be happy when the democratic world is so paralysed with
fear of Islamist terrorism that it can no longer react to ... Islamist
terrorism? Where's the sense in that?
  Reply With Quote
7 15th August 16:49
kuff \(isaac adams\)
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (sense clear primary correlation way)

news:<3f70617b$0$57533$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.c om>...

Fair enough. I have suspicions too. But just because they're the "bad guys"
doesn't mean you should believe all the unsubstantiated statements by the "good
guys" about them.

Now you might think it doesn't matter one way or the other but it does. The
invasion of Iraq thing was apparently based on unsubstantiated statements by the
"good guys" with an insufficient demand for evidence to back the charges.

There are two parts to Hamas - the military arm and the political arm. So
which one are we talking about here?

When the military arm takes credit for blowing up a bus your suspicions about
their statements seem to melt away. Yet when the political arm says it doesn't
receive donations from SA your suspicions are present in full force.

There's a ratching effect here you need to be careful with or you're in danger
of needlessly demonizing your opponent. That interferes with clear thinking.

To you specific question: is a murder a liar? If the murderer doesn't see
himself as a murderer then he could be the most truth telling person you'd ever
want to meet. I mean a soldier isn't automatically a liar simply because he
kills is he?

If a murderer does see himself as a murderer then he is likely to lie to the max
to try and hide the fact of his murders. However he's not automatically going
to lie about wheher he paid Inland Revenue - what would be the point?

If a murderer, whether or not he saw himself as a murderer, did not lie about
his killings then why would he then be likely to lie to Inland Revenue?

Basically I don't see a strong correlation between Hamas' military arm and it's
activities and whether or not Hamas' political arm would lie about SA funding.

However Hamas might have other good reasons to lie about SA funding so if you
have evidence or supposition about that then please give.

Better, if you have records of cash flow from SA to Hamas as evidence then so
much the better. We could work backwards from that to try and figure out why
they would lie about it. But they aren't lying about it, IMO, simply because
the Hamas military arm is blowing up Israelis.

Um, see above. I'm not assuming they're innocent. Only that you may be
guilty of too hasty demonsization.

My opposition was based on it being an illegal, unjust and immoral invasion.
Secondary posibilities, such as conflagration in the ME, millions dead, weren't
primary. They were risks. Risks that you evaluate *AFTER* you decide to
consider what you might do. I never even got to the risks parts - I was stuck
back on it being the wrong thing to do period.

And "imminent threat" is the only possible excuse for invading Iraq and such a
threat was very questionable before the invasion and, as we now see, a complete
tissue of wishful thinking and geopolitical game playing.

No. Does the democratic world really fear Islamist terrorism? Most of the
democratic nations of the earth opposed the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps they
fear Islamist terrorism but not to the point of acting immorally, illegally and

This is where the paralysis will come from - a moral paralysis when the US
realizes its acted like the worst bastard of the 20th century at the behest of
ideological neocon crazies and is paralysed precisely at the point where it has
pissed off the greatest number and a real Islamist threat has been created by
its own hand.

In other words, when and if it says to itself "Omigod, look at what I've done"
in doing the wrong things and freezes up so that it can't do the right things.

The sense is in maintaining the principled moral high ground. The
despair/cynicism that will occur when you realize you've been slogging around in
the muck with the "bad guys" is the risk.
  Reply With Quote
8 17th August 04:05
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (sense charge mass law definition)

Do you *really* think those inverted commas are necessary? Isn't that
a knee jerk moral relativism?

Inverted commas are necessary there. You're right, obviously.

The evidence was unobtainable. When the Iraq committee published its
report next month it will probably say that no WMD have been found in
Iraq but a systemic attempt to deceive the UN *has* been discovered.
Saddam was hiding something, or getting ready to hide something, but
we have no evidence of what it was, or whether he had started to hide

This means that the US and UK intelligence agencies were correct
(Saddam *did* appear to be hiding something, and *was* lying to the
world) but the inference drawn by the politicians (that because Saddam
*appeared* to be hiding something he must *be* hiding something) may
turn out to be mistaken, or unprovable.

This may be one of those deeply irritating instances when the French
president can say to les Anglos, 'See, my judgement of the man was
correct: he was bluffing'. Unfortunately, les Anglos cannot respect
the judgement of French presidents to quite that extent, let alone the
word of Iraqi dictators.

And of course the assumed presence of WMD was just one of three or
four justifications (or 'justifications' if you prefer) for the invasion.

I don't make a distinction. By my definition in another thread, we are
dealing with a political organisation (an organisation that exists in
a political community) with a single loyalty (to the Palestinian cause
in creating a worldwide caliphate) and a single ideology. Whatever
means it uses to further its ends, it is by its ends, its intentions, that we judge it.

That's the reverse of my accusation, yes.

Killing and lying are both consistent with Hamas's cause. They don't
take 'credit' when they kill Muslims, only Jews, so they lie even when they're killing.

I demonise their cause, not them.

No, and a terrorist isn't simply a murderer. These are not
individuals, in the sense that their actions can be understood in
isolation. They are part of a collectivity, with a collective
(political) loyalty. It is because of the nature of that loyalty, and
their ideology, that we judge them to be liars, but only in this

Whatever Hamas do we have to judge what is in their interests. Is it
in their interests to be discovered taking funds from Saudi? No,
because the US can apply pressure to the Saudi government and possibly
stop it. So they lie. But if they were discovered taking funds from
mosques all over the world, they wouildn't lie, because it's in their
interests to be seen by Muslims as a popular militia.

They aren't pathological liars or killers, they are terrorists. They have a *plan*.

Like I said, you're confusing a pathology - the individual's need to
kill - with ideology - the terrorist collective's need to achieve its
political ends by any means necessary.

That's because you're looking for what motivates the individual
instead of the collective. You're American right? Say no more... ;-)

Sure they are. Israel, USA, the Saudi gvt - they are all enemies of
Hamas. Hamas wants them destroyed. But Hamas needs something too: the
support of the mass of Muslim people. So they are involved in
propganda and party politics as well as terrorism (not unlike the IRA,
who publicly lie whenever it suits them), to win that support.
Everything they do and say must be judged by a pair of criteria: will
this confound Hamas's enemies; will this win Hamas friends?

I can think of reasons why Hamas would not want us to know they get
their money from Saudi, and I can think of reasons why they *would*
want us to know. Hence my 'suspicions'.

Not illegal (no 'law' broken), unjust needs defining, immoral is a
ludicrous charge given that Saddam would still be in power had the
invasion not taken place.

Actually, they were scaremongering. The idea that a bunch of students
understand these risks better than the military is silly.

What does 'imminent' mean?

What if you only suspect that a threat is imminent, but can't prove

What about the mistreatment of the Iraqi people?

My implied question was, *should not* the democratic world fear Islamist terrorism?

Debatable, but the people certainly did, yes.

....which are loaded terms and unhelpful. The question is, how *should* we act?

Really? Worse than Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Osama?

This is the reason your charge of immorality is so worthless. Your
criteria is wanting, to say the least. The US/UK have just remioved
the worsty living tyrant from power - and *they* are immoral? Madness...

You're sounding somewhat 'tribal' Isaac...

Well, I agree that if that *is* the USA's reaction, it's screwed.
Let's hope it isn't persuaded to do so.

But you haven't *got* one. Saddam is a tyrant. The Iraqis wanted us to
remove him. We are all safer. Why is that immoral?

The bad guys in this context are Hamas, who I wouuld traet a great
deal more forcibly than you, I think.
  Reply With Quote
9 17th August 04:05
kuff \(isaac adams\)
External User
Posts: 1
Default Hamas denies receiving donations from Saudi Arabia (case population primary time way)


No. It a definitional/situational relativism. It's meant to set off a name
rather than a description. Instead of reading as "the so called 'bad guys'"
it's meant to be read as "what you named 'bad guy'". Similar but not the same.

It is morality neutral and avoids implicitly accepting your descriptive phraseology.

Any of those others address the missing "imminent threat" issue?

Then, should the mood and available resources coencide, by all means take
DoD(sic) to task about his seperation of the US Deptartment of State from the US
Administration as a whole.

And do you really think the Palestinians are motivated by the desire to create a
worldwide caliphate? Not that they would necessarily be opposed to such a
development but I don't think that is their objective.

And what ideology do they have other than the classic turf one?

It seems to me that in attributing worldwide ideology driven motivations to the
Palestinians themselve you are really projecting the US's ideology driven desire
to establish it's own worldwide caliphate on what amounts to bedraggled and desperate population.

You mean the ideologically motivated desire to establish a worldwide caliphate?
I don't see them as having that cause. They seem much more tactically focused.

But "terrorist" is simply a label. What I might label a soldier doesn't affect my argument.

And what unique characteristic do you attribute to their collective, as opposed
to yours, which makes you automatically ("we judge them to be liars") disbelieve
everything they say?

It seems to me you have already gone beyond my warning about demonizing the
opponent and thereby losing the ability to think clearly.

In a way you are saying there is no evidence that SA is giving money to Hamas.
For if there were the US would already have it and already be pressuring SA.
So this story about "Hamas denies...etc" seems meant for internal political
consumption by your own collective.

Again, "terrorists" is a label. You can hang it on anybody engaged in the
violence biz especially if they oppose your collective or its precepts.

Would such means involve invading another country?

But you are correct, killing by and for a collective is much different than
killing by and for an individual as far as motivations and the nature of the
killers is concerned.

And collectives kill best when their ideology overcomes the individual's
reluctance to kill.

In the case of Palestine however I don't see a world spanning ideology at work -
just somebody who wants their own turf. Not that the Palestinian situation
isn't being used by opposing collectives with world spanning ideologies but that
the Palestinians themselves have no such thing as a primary motivator.

Western Hemisphere. New arrivals and all that. Were trying to get away from
the collectivist bullshit from the old world.

If SA is an enemy of Hamas then why would it be sending them money?

Sounds like Washington should try their consultants for a while. They could use some pointers.

Invasion is, by default, illegal.

Unjust rests on "imminent threat".

Immoral is lying about why you are undertaking an illegal and unjust action.

Um, the military understanding is not looking too good right now.

Regardless, the military executes policy they don't make it. Such risks would
be evaluated the policy makers and not the policy executers

Real, certain and immediate.

What if you don't suspect that a threat is imminent but you try to convince
people that based on secret evidence there is an imminent threat that no one
else can see. It is apparent in hindsight there was no imminent threat. It
is apparent in foresight that there wasn't one either.

What about it?

That's fine. There are many diaries yet to be converted to memoirs. Let's
bide our time and agree to disagree.

My answer is unchanged. However I need to remind you you have no primary
political loyalty to the democratic world but only to your particular collective.

Well if the people opposed it then how is debatable that the democratic nations
opposed it? Perhaps "democratic" is just a label too?

In an open, proportinant fashion consistent with the principles you claim gives
you superiority. Not with invasion and torture and illegal detentions.

Yes - potentially.

He is not your measuring stick. The civilized principles you claim are your
measuring stick.

And you didn't remove him for the reason you imply above. You removed him
because you wanted military force where he happened to be.

That's what Bush Sr. called them. And I don't see how calling a mob a mob
makes me a mob.

Really? Perhaps you are so immersed in your own collective thought you can't
see how enemies can be created by your own actions.

Start singling out and persecuting people with size 8 feet and you will create
"Size 8 Liberation Fronts".



Let's hope it does the right things. But I fear it will not. This type of
madness usually ends in poverty and/or rubble.

It's a means/ends thing. Collectives have lots of trouble with that as they
are given to consuming their individuals a means to the collective's ends. A
too close consideration of means vs ends and the collective is weakened.

around in

More forcibly than assassinating their leadership? Palestine is too small for
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Copyright 2006 - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -