Arafat the monster

[drdon326]

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

snip

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.


snip

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/

..................................................................

I didnt forget.

[mrbassman03]

1. More of the pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian state garbage... keep moving...

n/t

[Turbineguy]

5. Arrafat has done the Palestinians few favors

in my view. Peace in his lifetime was illusive. There was a reason for that.

Reports are today that four Palestinians died. Even dead, he takes lives.

Reports are his wife continues to live high on the hog (so to speak) in Paris as she will get a $22 million per year pension for life. This is what people are blowing themselves up for.

Why didn't he appoint a successor? Maybe it's a good thing he didn't.

Maybe now we can move toward some sort of solution.

[Djinn]

41. LOL

"Even dead, he takes lives"

so he'll still be blamed for every death in the vicinity for years to come - well that certainly sounds reasonable :eyes:

[el_gato]

2. He's a saint compared to the murderous IDF fuckwads

[mrbassman03]

9. Very true!

I am getting fed up with the pro-Israel nationalism from the US.

[elsaamo]

27. I suppose

I can be glad that you have the peace sign (or at least that is what I think it is) as your logo- it is good to know that you feel that the lack of violence a positive. I concur.

The rest of your post, though, has more problems, in my opinion. (I'd refer you to a similar discussion I had with bemildred on this topic, if you like. I will summarize my points quickly again, if you prefer not to click on the link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x79203#79796)

Simply put, though we often use the words "muder" and "kill" equally, in fact there is a critical definitional difference between the two. "Killing" refers to any act of ending life. "Mudering" refers to the UNJUSTIFIED act of ending life. Often, the line between them is unimportant. Here, it is of tremendous importance.

I can understand if you are of the opinion that killing is always unjustified. I would strongly disagree. Consider World War Two. If all killing is unjustified, then in your opinion, every American soldier could be tried and convicted for war crimes for fighting the Nazi Regime. As could members of the Jewish Resistance who in attempts to escape ghettos and concentration camps, occasionally killed SS Guards when the opportunity arose.

Soldiers are allowed to kill enemy combatants. They are forbidden by international law to (intentionally) target civillians. One could argue that any death of a civillian would be considered murder. I would strongly disagree. I am certain that some random French sheep farmer happened to be taking a walk on Normany on June 6, 1944. The holder of the above view would argue that the American army be convincted of war crimes for having killed him in their attempts to defeat the Nazi Army. Such a law would make all war illegal, which while that would certainly imrpvoe soem things, would prevent the American army from fighting in World War Two. To those who support such a policy, I would only comment that a true genocide of twelve million innocent civillians occured despite the United States entering the war in 1941. Imagine how much higher those numbers would be had they never entered at all.

So ,we now face the major question. Is the Israeli army targetting civillians? I would argue that they are not.

The Palistinean Red Crescent Society reports the casualty figures from Sept 29, 2000 till today of the Palistineans as 3222(http://www.palestinercs.org/intifadasummary.htm ) Shin Bet says that it is at least 2,124. (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Intifa... ). Ha'aretz, a progressive Israeli newspaper pins the number two months ago at 2736 (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Intifa... ). Averaging the three numbers out, it is roughly 2700. I should also point out that all these numbers probably include people who personally blew themselves up, for which the Israeli army cannot be put directly at blame (though it is reminiscent of those states that make attempted suicide a capital offense). Over roughly four years ( a bit more, but regardless), the casualties are slightly less than 2 per day. This is certainly a significant number, but for those numerically challenged like myself, let us put this in some context.

The CIA puts the population of Gaza Strip at 1.3 million (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gz.ht... ). Another 2.3 million live in the West Bank, (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.ht... ) giving a total number of 3.6 million. At a rate of roughly 675 deaths a year, that is less than 20 per 100,000 people. Washington DC had one of 46.5 last year (http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html ). Baltimore, where I have been living the past year and a half, 37.5 (http://baltimore.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm ). This area, which is a warzone, supposedly, has a murder rate one half the one in some American cities.

Consider other contexts in which to put it. Since March 2003, 1150 American soldiers have died in Iraq. At this rate, 2300 will die by the end of one year from the start of the invasion, just slightly less than the Palistinean casulaties- though in one fourth the time. The numbers get a bit more lopsided if you take more context. It would appear to me that there are three factors determining the numebr of casualties. The firepower of the attacker. (as in, well-armed people will kill more than 4 year olds with sling shots) The training of the defender. (trained soldiers would presumably die less than random untrained civillians like myself). And how much the attacker wants to kill his opponents. Now, this is obviously the hardest one to quantify, but we seem to have some sort of equation here from which lessons can be learned. If we compare the respective firepower of the insurgents vs. the American soldiers to the Israeli soldiers vs. the Palistinean civllians, we get interesting findings. The insurgents are relatively underarmed in comparison to the Israeli army. the IDF has thousands of trained soldiers with automatic firepower, tanks, and missles. The insurgents have some bombs and guns, but much less weaponry and less training. The US army can react to an attack using their training and their immense firepower. The Palistinean civillians have neither. Presuming that the Israeli army wanted to kill Palistinean civillians as much as the Iraqi insurgents want to kill American troops, we would assume that the Israelis would kill much, much more than the Iraqis would. They haven't to the tune of 1/4. We still can't quantify it, but it would appear that at the very least, the IDF is significantly less bloodthirsty than the Iraqi insurgents.

Suppose these facts don't seem true to you. I can understand that you might not believe them- I myself didn't until I looked at all the sources and observed the facts. Let me just make one last point. The Israeli army has killed less than 2 people per day. Assume that there is simply one lunatic in the army who desperately wants to kill any Palistinean he can find- presumably a reasonable assumption. Think about it, though. If a soldier with a submachine gun, let alone a tank or a helicopter really wanted to kill civillians, and was allowed to by his superior officers, wouldn't he himself have killed more than two people a day? I mean, it's not as if anybody on the opposing side could have stopped him. Yet they haven't. Now, this isn't to argue that there has never been a single lunatic on the Israeli side, but it does seem that they must be cracked down on very early, or prevented by some other ways.

This is simply all by way of saying, that if the Israeli army, or any part of the Israeli army was trying to kill civillians intentionally and fake it by calling it forced upon them, the data does not support it. So, unless you can present another thesis, I only see two options. Either they aren't trying to massacre civillians, or they are, and are just damned incompetent. Either way, that isn't too bad.

Put simply, there is little evidence that the Israeli Army is engaging in an active policy to murder people. While I am certain that some maniac at some point did so while wearing the uniform, this is the exception rather than the rule. Yassir Arafat personally directed terrorist attacks against civillians. This is undisputed. He ordered the deaths of hundreds upon hundreds of women and children. No reasonable person, on this board or not, will disagree. To call him a saint shows a misunderstanding of the very word. If you wish to call the Israeli Army as a whole murderous, present your proof. As to their being fuckwads or not, I do not know how to respond to such a childish statement. Educate me, and I shall do my best.

[ashiebr]

37. Yassir Arafat personally directed terrorist attacks against civillians....

......."This is undisputed. He ordered the deaths of hundreds upon hundreds of women and children".

I dispute it. Like many leaders fighting for his people he had to make some diffcult and unpleasant choices. But there is no evidence he targetted "hundreds of women and children". On the contrary, such tactics are generally carried out by Hamas - an organisation he does not control - and which was originally encouraged, supported and funded by israel as a counterweight to Arafat's power and that of the PLO.

A further killing of "hundreds of women and children" - these ones were Palestinian (so perhaps it doesn't count) - occurred in 1982 in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps once the PLO fighters had left at US behest.

As reports put it:

A day later, the IDF moved into West Beruit in violation of the evacuation agreement. Sharon authorized entry of what were presumed to be members of Gemayel's Lebanese Forces (a Phalangist milita) and Saad Haddad's South Lebanon Army into the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, home to 30,000 Palestinians. The camps were completely sealed off by Israeli tanks.

For the next 38 hours, aided by Israeli flares at night, the militiamen raped, tortured, mutilated and massacred civilians. IDF personnel, including General Amos Yaron, IDF Commander in Beirut, were stationed on the rooftop of a seven-story building 200 meters from Shatilla, with a clear view of the camps below. Evidence that a massacre was taking place was communicated to Israeli Chief of Staff, Raphael Eitan, but he approved a request that the Phalangists remain in the camps.

Between 2,400 and 3,000 people were killed or unaccounted for. None could be identified as members of any PLO military unit. An Israeli commission of inquiry ridiculed the claim that a massacre was not foreseen by Israeli officials, and concluded that "indirect responsibility" rested on the shoulders of Sharon, Eitan, IDF commanders, Foreign Minister Yitsak Shamir, and Prime Minister Begin. The qualifier "indirect" was based on the assumption that Israeli soldiers did not actually do the killing.

So let's agree the israelis don't target women and children. They just let others do it, make sure they have all the tools they need, and stand by and watch.

Arafat wasn't a saint; wasn't perfect; made mistakes. But he was a great man for the Palestinians. Meanwhile, Sharon, a man who even the israelis found "indirectly" responsible for 3,000 deaths of "women and children" remains Prime Minister of israel and drinks tea with US Presidents.

Go figure.

[elsaamo]

38. Greetings

Let me try to explain my comments, and respond to what I believe were your criticisms of the statement, and let us see if we cannot find common ground on this seemingly intractable situation.

I was writing in response to a post by el_gato, saying that " a saint compared to the murderours IDF fuckwads." My argument was that there is no evidence that the IDF engages in a broad polict of murder. Moreso, I argued that Yasir Arafat was a terrorist who directed terrorist activities.

To the first point, you seem to be in agreement. In the one incident you discussed, which occured 22 years ago, I might add, you concur that Israel did not actually commit an action of massacre, but were (or their commanders, rather), as I, as well as the Israeli Army Inquiry agree, culpable for not preventing such an action. I am presuming, therefore, that you will join me in criticizing el_gato for calling Israeli soldiers "murderous fuckwads." If you would like to present other pieces of evidence in support of his claim, I would be more than willing to consider them.

As to the second point, I must admit I do not quite understand you. At first, you seem to aggressively oppose it. Later, though, you agree with me, saying "Arafat wasn't a saint." If you do in fact mean that, then I am assuming you would be willing to criticize the entire statement of el_gato.

It is possible that you feel he made mistakes, but was not a terrorist. I am not certain, though, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding your intentions, that you hold this opinion. Every time you approach saying this, you seem to quickly retreat. You speak in broad language- "he had to make some difficult and unpleasant choices," "wasn't a saint; wasn't perfect; made mistakes." I agree with all those things. I also strongly believe that he was in fact involved in terrorist activities. If you would like to discuss that topic further, I would be willing to do so. In the interests of time, I will merely cite a source brought by LARED, which has not as of yet, I believe, been disputed. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=71935 He also makes a selection of a few higlights and posts them below. I would encourage you to look at that as well. I would also ask you to present proof of why you feel Mr. Arafat was a "great man for the Palistineans."

Finally, you discuss Sabra and Shatila, which while not being the topic of neither el_gato's comment nor mine, I shall try to answer your questions. First of all, in the interests of honesty and peace, I'd ask you not to accuse me of in any way believing that the lives of Palistineans " count." I most certainly do. I think we have an obligation to bring this situation to a peaceful resolve as quickly as possible so as to save the lives of countless people on both sides of the divide. I would hope that you would join me in this effort, and not engage in disrespectful and hurtful libel.

I have one other minor comment. Please, in the future, offer a link to the reports, so that we can both discuss the same material. I tried to find a relatively independent site, and used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Chatila_Massacre . First of all, let me see quite clearly, it was a disaster. Regardless of on whom the blame is placed (a subject which I know interests you greatly, and will be dealt with quite soon), it was a tragedy that shouldn't have happened, and should never happen again. I would like to say that it is to the credit of Israel, that as soon as it did, tragically, occur, a Commission of Inquiry led by its former Supreme Court Justice, was institued to determine blame. This commission did do just that. For reference, the United States has still not established a similar commission to deal with the Vietnam War. Nonetheless, Israel did. After an extensive investigation, it concluded that while neither the Israeli Army nor the Israeli government was directly involved, having done any of the actions, they were nonetheless morally responsible to prevent it, which they were. And not having done so, consequences must follow. And so they reccomended that numerous Israeli military and intelligence officers be censured or fired. Moreso, they called for the resignation of the Defense Minister of the state of Israel, Ariel Sharon. And he did resign.

Their commission seems to be quite fair, and their judgement seems to be correct. Nonetheless, I would comment that they did not blame neither Shamir or Begin. More importantly, this was clearly indirect- no Israeli soldier or commander was involved in the shooting or in teh actual attack, as you yourself state. Moreso, I have yet to see the proof that Sharon "authorized" the attack.

I hope that I have ameliorated your concerns, albeit slightly. If I have not fully responded to your comments, please specify what your question is, and I shall try my best to answer as my ability provides.

[drdon326]

39. Dupe.

lol





nice post...errr....treatise.

[elsaamo]

43. Sorry for the length

But I just wanted to make certain I wasn't misunderstood. Apparently, I was not successful, having still been accused of not feeling Palistineans' lives worth anything, and of quoting propoganda despite my best efforts.

[ashiebr]

40. I'll be brief......

....Since you suggest that the IDF were not culpable of murder, but only culpable for not preventing such an action, then the same might well be said to be true of Arafat.

Similarly, since you "have yet to see the proof that Sharon "authorized" the attack", I assume you will reserve judgement on any Palestinian actions in the absence of similar evidence against Arafat.

Let's agree to be even-handed here and neither post propaganda as fact (on either side) nor believe unsubstantiated allegations simply because they have been made many times.

While there is no evidence (that I have seen) that either the IDF or the PLO have a broad policy of murder, roughly 3 times as many Palestinians have been killed as israelis. The israeli authorities do, however, have a policy of extra-judicial killings.

El Gato's statement may be hyperbole, but the above paragraph might explain his view. Probably, like me, he is fed-up of these unsubstantiated attacks on Arafat/The Palestinians.

Incidentally, you seem to dismiss the Sabra/Shatilla massacre because it was 22 years ago. Yet every incident in the first link you posted pre-dates that, apart from Achile Lauro, which occurred in 1985. Once again, I urge you to be even-handed.

[elsaamo]

42. I am glad that you seek even handedness

and let us seek just that. I would ask what propoganda do you believe I have cited?

Let me begin by clarifying your comment- are you arguing that Arafat was not involved in terrorist activities? Furthermore, are you actually arguing that Sharon directly ordered an attack on Sabra and Chatila? If you are, I would be more than willing to dispute that. I will allow you, to clarify these rather surprising comments if you would like.

I agree with you that there is no evidence that that IDF has a broad policy of murder and I thank you for accepting this. It is true that much more Palistineans have died than Israelis, but that does not necessarily prove anything other than that the Israeli Army is stronger than Palistinean military forces. There is strong evidence, though, in fact it is fact, that many of the Israeli civilian casulaties are the product of targetted attacks. I am assuming that you would join me in criticizing targetted attacks against civillians as unconscienable. Considering you are in agreement that the Israeli army does not to such, I would present the possibility that perhaps the "even-handed" judgement would be that in this specific regard, the Israeli Army is morally superior to the Palistinean terrorists.

I would comment that unsubstantiated attacks are not just causes for more unsubstantiated attacks.

I apologize if any implication was made that I dismiss the Sabra-Shatilla massacre. I thought I made it quite clear that it was unconscienable. I merely commented that you quote one incident which occured 22 years ago. If this conflict between the Israelis and Palistineans had ended twenty two years ago, both of us, I am certain, would be quite pleased. It has not. Killing and yes, murdering still occurs far too often. In the past few years, certainly, I would argue that the Israeli army has acted in a far more moral fashion than has the Palsitinean terrorists.

In our attempts to be even-handed, I would once again request that you apologize for implying that I feel that Palistinean lives " count."

[ashiebr]

44. I thought I was debating...........

..........this with someone who was interested in a decent debate. Yet when I see you inviting me to agree that "the Israeli Army is morally superior to the Palestinean terrorists", I realise that I am in fact debating a propagandist. The Palestinians are not occupying israel. On that basis alone I invite you to agree with me that the Palestinians are morally superior to the israelis. You see, we can both do it. It gets us nowhere. But you ignore my point about the extra-judicial assassinations.

You ask what propaganda you have quoted. Yet the whole basis of your postings is that Arafat is a mass-murderer. As I pointed out, the terrorists attacks today are, in the main, carried out by groups like Hamas - a group opposed to the PA and to Arafat. Or are you implying that Arafat actually controlled these groups?

I do, however, note the subtle shift in your argument away from Arafat to "Palestinian terrorists". Good. But that is a different argument.

You ask if I join you in condemning targetted attacks aginst civilians. I condemn the killing of all civilians in this tragedy. I am sure the mother of the dead Palestinian child will be comforted to know that her baby's death was not the result of a targetted killing, but just a demonstration of the strength of the israeli armed forces.

[elsaamo]

45. I apologize if I misled you in any way,

I can assure you that your suggestion that I am a propagandist surprised me just as much as it did you.

Let me try to respond civilly to your comments. It is true that the Palistineans are not occupying Israel, and that Israel does often conduct operations in Palistinean towns. I was not aware, though, that occupation is necessarily immoral. For example, at the close of World War Two, American troops "occupied" Germany, and to some extent, still does. Personally, I do not consider that to be an immoral action. If you disagree, I would be more than willing to discuss the issue. This does not of course defend all occupations. I, personally, feel that Israel should withdraw from the territories and think it will. This discussion began though, yet again, with a description of Israeli soldiers as "muderous fuckwads." I have tried to keep my responses as close as possible to the refutation of this claim. Targetting civillians is a necessarily immoral action, in my opinion at least. Again, if you would like to dispute my assumption, please tell me and we shall. Considering there is immense evidence that the terrorists are targetting civillians, while there is virtually no evidence that the Israelis are, I would yet again submit that a judgment on morality can be placed on this issue rather than the other.

I have never said that Arafat was a massmurderer. One of my personal peeves is the misuage of powerful words. I often wonder whether people truly understand the definition of the word "genocide." At no point did I suggest in any way, shape or form, that Yassir Arafat ordered the killing of a massive amount of people. I have noticed a number of times your willingness to fit a straw hat on me, accusing me of not considering a Palistinean's life to "count," now claiming that I think Arafat is a mass murderer. Considering the high emotions of this subject, I would ask that you apologize, and be more careful with your attributions to me.

My point has been that Yassir Arafat is not a "saint," as was first suggested, but rather involved in numerous terrorist activities. I agree that this is a braod issue that isn't just to be placed at Arafat's head but also at Hamas, etc, which is why I also use the phrase "Palistinean terrorist."

I have one comment on your last point. You rightly point out that the death of any civillian is a targedy. I concur. This can be easily misinterperted though. While it is a tragedy, an unintentional killing, as opposed to a murder, of a civillian, is not punishable or immoral (presuming, of course, that all plausible precuations were taken beforehand to prevent such a tragedy). Again, if you would like to oppose this point, please tell me, and I shall be more than willing to discuss it. I would only comment that should you dispute this, then you would be accusing every American soldier in World War Two of having committed war crimes, for certainly every one of them was involved in some unintentional killing of a civillian.

[ashiebr]

46. It's difficult to know where to begin..............

...........but Americans (and Brits, Russians, and Uncle Tom Cobbley) occupied Germany only after Germany had forcibly occupied most of Europe. The analogy for Israel is therefore with Germany, rather than with the US/UK/Russia. But I am glad you agree that Israel should withdraw from the illegally Occupied Territories. I assume you also agree that this withdrawal should include those in the illegal settlements.

However, as to the 'murderous fuckwads' claim, this came only after the originator of this thread quoted: "In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg" (and there's your mass-murderer reference, elsaamao).

Obviously the originator wished to be provocative. He was and got a reply in kind. And in terms of crude numbers, el_gato has a valid point in comparing Arafat to the IDF. As we know, the latter have killed many times more Palestinians than Israelis killed by Hamas and Co. At best, many of them have been criminally reckless. At worst.....!

Arafat was certainly involved in militant action at the beginning of his tenure as head of the PLO. But his was a people without hope and without a home. His actions brought their plight to the attention of the world and eventually brought many of them back home to Palestine. His direct parallels are therefore with the likes of Begin and others in the Irgun and Stern Gang who used terrorism as a means of setting up the Jewish state.

So he wasn't a saint. But nor was he a monster.

[nine23]

3. Yea, right...

Here's to 50 years of Israel keeping their hands squeeky clean.

Hardly suprising, coming from a country with their very own, brand new Gaza Strip.

[knowbody0]

4. when the enemy is goliath, you throw stones and aim for the eye

[ArthurDent]

21. or at their children, I supposed? n/t

[displacedtexan]

6. I didn't forget, either. eom

[ArthurDent]

7. Arafat is the UN's biggest problem

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan praised Arafat's struggle to win international recognition for the Palestinian cause, as he ordered flags to fly at half-mast at the United Nations.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20041111/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_arafat_world_reax

:puke:

Regardless of where you come out on the PLO/Israel divide, at least you should be able to agree that the UN should be agnostic on the issue.

[Djinn]

23. and they'd say the same things

if Sharon died - don't be so dramatic

[ArthurDent]

30. Baloney.

The UN rarely orders its flags lowered to half-staff; they didn't after Reagan's death (not the best example here, but still).

http://www.unog.ch/protocol/flagcode.htm

The flag is flown during times of UN mourning, as ordered by the SecGen of the UN. I can't see this being ordered for Sharon, and it shouldn't be ordered for Arafat.

[Englander]

31. Did you not read all of your posted link?

V. MOURNING

a. Upon the death of a Head of State or Head of Government of a Member State, the United Nations Flag will be flown at half-mast at United Nations headquarters, at the United Nations Office at Geneva and at United Nations offices located in that Member State;

f. The United Nations Flag may also be flown at half-mast on special instructions of the Secretary-General on the death of a world leader who has had a significant connection with the United Nations;

[Djinn]

36. you wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of a good

"Israel is discriminated against" rant though! ;-)

[IndianaGreen]

8. I thought Saddam was the monster...

Or was that Noriega? Milosevic? Castro?

Funny that we never apply the monster label to some of the real monsters we have supported over the years.

When it comes to the I/P conflict, there are plenty of war criminals on both sides to keep the ICC occupied for decades to come!

[American Tragedy]

34. At what point did the poster say that others WEREN'T monsters

Why do you immediately presume that criticizing one implies approval of others?

[IndianaGreen]

35. The poster never sees the Occupation as 24/7 terrorism

and that's exactly what the Palestinians have experienced from Israel since June 1967, 24/7 terrorism.

[Djinn]

10. I agree with not lionising terrorism

while there are black and white areas, can states commit acts of terrorism (in my view absolutely) is fighting against a universally despised regime acceptable even if massive force disparities mean targetting civilians is a neccesity (Jewish resistance against the Nazi's and the ANC in SOuth Africa) BUT whether you come down on the side of neccesary evil, righteous self defence or outright terrorism I don't see the need to glorify killers whatever their motives. Unfortunately it's something humans have down throughout history.

Personally my only sorrow in Arafats passing is that the unstability that may follow will put Palestinians in a worse position and that Hamas, as the most popular and non corrupt, organisation, may well take a leading role which I'd prefer they not have.

I wont mourn Arafat anymore than I mourn the rotten corpse of another killer, Menachim Begin - who also beleived in his cause and thought that made it OK to bomb hotels, embassies, buses, taxi's and marketplaces and to kidnap and hang opposing troops in an attempt to free fellow terrorists.

Maybe Arafat and Begin can compare notes in whatever hell they both descended to.

[LARED]

11. A monster's legacy

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=71935

Among the murderous exploits he inspired were the following:

* the Savoy Hotel attack of March 1975, in which seven hostages and two soldiers were killed after Fatah terrorists landed on the beach and seized the hotel.

* the Maalot massacre in May 1974 in which a school building was taken over while children from Tzfat on a school trip were sleeping there. Three teachers and 22 schoolchildren were killed.

* the Munich Olympics slaughter, in which eleven Israeli athletes were killed in September 1972.

* the Nahariya/Avivim school bus attack, May 1970. Palestinian terrorists crossed the border from Lebanon, ambushed the bus with a barrage of gunfire, and murdered 12 children and 3 adults, and left several others crippled.

* the Lod Airport Massacre, May 1972, carried out by three Japanese Red Army terrorists in an operation planned and supported by PLO faction PFLP-GC, killing 26 and wounding 78.

* the Kiryat Shmonah apartment building attack in April 1974: PFLP-GC terrorists penetrated the Israeli border town, entered an apartment building on Yehuda HaLevy St. and killed all 18 residents they found there, including 9 children.

* the Coastal Road bus hijacking of March 1978, in which 11 Fatah terrorists ,who infiltrated by sea, killed a photographer and a taxi driver and hijacked a bus filled with adults and many children. The terrorists fired on passing cars from the bus, and when they were finally stopped, they began firing missiles. The massacre left 35 people dead and 100 injured.

* the brutal murder of three U.S. diplomats held hostage in Khartoum, Sudan, in March 1973. The terrorists demanded the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. Arafat was recorded as having given the execution orders.

* the Achille Lauro hijacking of a cruise ship in October 1985, in which wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, 69, was shot and thrown overboard into the ocean. Israeli intelligence later showed that the terrorists had been in contact, via the ship's radio telephone, with a PLF coordinator in Genoa, who in turn was in touch with PLO headquarters in Tunis for final instructions.

Arafat was famous for denying responsibility for the terrorism committed by his underlings. Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former Romanian intelligence official who defected to the West after working closely with Arafat, writes that Romanian dictator Ceausescu advised him how to do this:
"In the shadow of your government-in-exile, you can keep as many operational groups as you want, as long as they are not publicly connected with your name. They could mount endless operations all around the world, while your name and your 'government' would remain pristine and unspoiled, ready for negotiations and further recognition."

Describing Arafat in his memoirs, Pacepa writes that Arafat represented "an incredible account of fanaticism ... of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss banks, and of homosexual relationships, beginning with his teacher when he was a teenager and ending with his current bodyguards. After reading that report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand."

Internationally, in 1972 alone, PLO groups blew up a West German electricity plant, a Dutch gas plant and an oil refinery in Trieste, Italy. In 1975, the presence of Arafat and his 15,000-strong army in Lebanon triggered a bloody civil war that raged on for nearly two decades, costing 40,000 lives.

Arafat was banished from Jordan to Lebanon in 1970 in the course of a violent war against the PLO by King Hussein, and from Lebanon to Tunis in 1982 following the Peace for Galilee War. He orchestrated the first "intifada," beginning in 1987, from Tunis, though it had supposedly started spontaneously.

In 1994, following the Oslo Accords, Arafat was allowed to enter Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Israel essentially forbade him from leaving Ramallah for the last three years of his life. Palestinian terrorists, funded and encouraged by the "statesman" Arafat, have murdered over 1,300 Israelis since the signing of the Oslo Agreement.

[Djinn]

12. A record that Begin

and his Irgun mates could equal - and I wouldn't need to resort to heavilly biased and religiously fundie sites to back it up either.

Did Begin's (and the rest of Irgun, Stern Gang, Hagannah, Palmach) victims deserve to die anymore than any other civilians? Did the bombs and bullets that tore their flesh hurt less?

[LARED]

14. Do you dispute Arafat's legacy?

Also the thread is about Arafat. When Sharon and his ilk kick the bucket have a filed day posting his legacy.

For the life of me I can't understand why bringing up the ghoulish legacy of Arafat automatically has people posting stuff about the Israelis.

Does pointing out the other side has blood on its hands somehow make Arafat's actions Okee-dokee?

[Djinn]

22. no not at all

although I don't think he's responsible for quite as many deaths as teh Israeli's say he is that's not exactly a glowing recommendation - I mean "sir I only killed 100's NOT 1000's" doesn't really make you into a good guy.

The reason - and it's really kind of obvious - is that many people here (I've only noticed you in the last few days so I can't make any judgements) act like this dispute is all one sided, can you tell me where I said one sides blood makes the other "Okee-dokee?" however Arafat wouldn't have had quite so much support or willing helpers had the vast majority of Palestinians not experienced horror themselves.

It's VERY easy for people here (and they do it often beleive me) to write off Israeli violence because they're a state "defending" themselves, and that it isn't "equal" to the terrorism of Palestinian groups - in fact I beleive you made a point about "moral relativism" yourself in another thread stating that there is no similarity between Sharon and Arafat - the point I'm making is that if you want to discount state terrorism on the grounds of dubious self defence FINE - but you can not make any similar claims in relation to Zionist terrorists who killed MANY civilians and used ALL the tactics used by Al Aqsa, Hamas etc etc.

Arafat was a terrorist, no argument - Begin was a terrorist - do you disagree.

BTW - Given that you're so keen to stick to the EXACT topic I guess we'll never see you in any threads about IDF violence, the occupation or the Bantustan creating wall, posting how "if the palestinians renounce terror blah blah blah" Somehow though I think you're desire for thread purity will diminish somewhat.

[drdon326]

15. And that is why he will rot in hell.

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

16. There is no Hell, and you know that being Jewish like moi

But if we were to invent such a place to confine all those we despise, there will be quite a lot of people eligible for it, including entire governments.

[drdon326]

17. I'll play , Indy.....

So you feel bad about Arafat?

Terrorist or statesman?

Think he's guilty of murder and war crimes ?


And now the really tough part , indy....see if you could actually
respond to the above without the usual insipid "but-they-do-it-too" response.

G'head....make me proud.

[IndianaGreen]

18. To be totally honest and frank, here it goes...

Arafat was behind the Munich Massacre. Arafat was a liar, a thief, and a murderer. By any definition of the word, Arafat was a terrorist.

I will only mention one piece of evidence, for the sake of brevity, the vouchers that were found in Arafat's Ramallah office paying for the manufacture of suicide belts would have convicted Arafat in any American courtroom.

Arafat's vision of peace was not a just land settlement, a return to the pre-June 1967 borders if you will, but to bring about the end of the State of Israel.

We can only wonder as to how the Palestinians would have fared had they had leaders like Nelson Mandela or Jomo Kenyatta, or even someone like Gandhi. Speculation will get us nowhere!

Of course, I could now say what I think about Arafat's opposite number on the Israeli side, but I think I have said enough.

May he rest in peace!

[drdon326]

19. INDY.....I take back.........

*MOST* of what I thought about you.


I.......AM.......IN........SHOCK !!!!!!

i'm giving you a standing ovation !!

That was SO good i'm reposting it before you change your mind.

..................................................................

"Arafat was behind the Munich Massacre. Arafat was a liar, a thief, and a murderer. By any definition of the word, Arafat was a terrorist.

I will only mention one piece of evidence, for the sake of brevity, the vouchers that were found in Arafat's Ramallah office paying for the manufacture of suicide belts would have convicted Arafat in any American courtroom.

Arafat's vision of peace was not a just land settlement, a return to the pre-June 1967 borders if you will, but to bring about the end of the State of Israel.

We can only wonder as to how the Palestinians would have fared had they had leaders like Nelson Mandela or Jomo Kenyatta, or even someone like Gandhi. Speculation will get us nowhere!"

...................................................................

unfortunately, he still should rot in hell....but thats ok

Indy.....you have my respect.

[Forkboy]

25. No answer for me though?

who knows,maybe I'll end up giving you a standing O too.

C'mon...at least TRY...

[drdon326]

28. Forkboy

#1. Sorry i missed your post....unfortunately , unlike you , I'm not on i/p EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY SINGLE DAY. I congratulate you...I'm unable to do that.

#2.We've discussed Sharon before

#3. I'm not going to participate in your M.O. of threadjacking every thread you dont like so the mods lock it.



So to maintain the "purity" of this thread...(i know youre heavily into "purity") I will ask you what i asked Indy.


So you feel bad about Arafat?

Terrorist or statesman?

Think he's guilty of murder and war crimes ?

Think he's a monster ??

[Forkboy]

32. Don

I have NOT ONCE seen you mention in all my time here anything about your feelings on Sharon.Please be so kind,seeing as though you expect others to be truthful and explain thier feelings,to return the favor just this once.I could easily say that I've spoken about my feelings on Arafat many times,and I have,but just for you I'll repeat them.

1-I dont feel bad that Arafat is dead.

2-Terrorist who was able to morph into a statesman,though not one I would have ever followed,taken seriously or liked in any way,shape or form.

3-Yes,I do

4-Yes,I do

See how simple that was?

Now,onto your other drivel;

#1. Sorry i missed your post....unfortunately , unlike you , I'm not on i/p EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY SINGLE DAY. I congratulate you...I'm unable to do that.

My question was already there when you came back to respond to Indy.You don't have to spend all your time here,just actually pay attention to the bleeding obvious when you do find the time between patients.


#2.We've discussed Sharon before

That's possible,but as I say I dont remember it.I would honestly appreciate hearing your feelings on him again.

#3. I'm not going to participate in your M.O. of threadjacking every thread you dont like so the mods lock it.

I'm willing to bet you can't point to ONE SINGLE thread that I've gotten locked.Care to to back it up? Want to place a wager? More drivel and BS Doc.I'd say you can do better but I'd be lying.How is asking you the exact same thing you asked others "threadjacking" Doc? It isn't,and you know it.

So to maintain the "purity" of this thread...(i know youre heavily into "purity") I will ask you what i asked Indy.

So,Don,to maintain the purity of this thread I'll ask YOU what you asked me.

1-Sharon-Terrorist or Statesman?

2-Think he's guilty of murder and war crimes?

3-Think he's a monster?

I eagerly await your reply.

[drdon326]

33. My pleasure....

1-Sharon-Terrorist or Statesman?..neither, I view Sharon as a PM who
is trying his best to deal with a terrorist enemy bent on the destruction of his country that has murdered hundred of its citizens. Very tough jobb given the circumstances. And he has made mistakes.. the one I condemned VOCIFEROUSLY was bombing that building with the kids inside to get at that sub-head of hamas.But given the
unique circumstances I think he's done what any PM of israel would have to do.And now,even with part of his own coalition against him, he has made the decision to leave gaza to hamas ...er...to the PA , I mean. And i suspect you see some moral equivalency between the two...I don't.

2-Think he's guilty of murder and war crimes?....absolutely not

3-Think he's a monster?....not even going to dignify that with a response.

[Forkboy]

20. Can I ask how you feel about Sharon and Likud?

And now the really tough part , Don....see if you could actually
respond to the above without the usual insipid "but-they-do-it-too" response.

G'head....make me proud.

[drdon326]

29. Thank you.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[Djinn]

24. as soon as you can respond

to ANY posts about IDF violence against children without

"those kids should have been in school"

or to Rachel Corrie/ISM/VAnunu posts without

"she/he was a terrorist/traitor"

or to posts about the wall without

"it's a peace fence"

or to pretty much anything with

"if they give up terror blah blah"

[tnliberaldemocrat]

13. May Arafat burn in hell (n/t)

n/t

[newyorican]

26. Not a monster...

Humans are capable of monstrous deeds...

Yet they are still human. Just like any of us. The difference is in the choices one makes, that's all.