The Construction of Arafat

[Firestarter 0]

Ion Mihai Pacepa, former chief of Romanian intelligence, talks about how the Soviet Union turned Arafat into what he is today - and why. Click here for the full story.

[Vern Gagne 0]

It's amazing how so much of the world considers Arafat a legitmate politician and not the terrorist he's always been.

[Downhome 0]

It's amazing how so much of the world considers Arafat a legitmate politician and not the terrorist he's always been.

But he won the 1994 Nobel Prize in Peace!

 

A terrorist couldn't do that...could they?

[Guest MikeSC]

It's amazing how so much of the world considers Arafat a legitmate politician and not the terrorist he's always been.

But he won the 1994 Nobel Prize in Peace!

 

A terrorist couldn't do that...could they?

Sad, isn't it?

 

It BLOWS my mind that SOME people still respect that sub-human little monkey. Barak gave him ALMOST everything he wanted --- and he STILL walked away from it.

 

You'd think THAT would make the world recognize what he is.

 

But anti-Semitism in the U.N is a VERY powerful force.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If I remember right, the reason he walked away was because of those stupid-ass settlements.

 

The U.S. has recently took away a bit of the funding it gives Israel and noted that it was because of the settlements. It's a step in the right direction, as those have always been a violation and will halt all peaceful attempts, Arafat or no Arafat.

[Vyce 0]

The settlements were nothing more than a convenient excuse.

 

Arafat only wants one thing - and it's not peace with Israel.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Yasser Arafat is just a more extreme example of Jesse Jackson. He wants to cultivate exactly what he claims he's fighting. Money and power are Arafat's ends and suffering and death are his means.

 

And he looks like a rooster.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The settlements were nothing more than a convenient excuse.

But they shouldn't even be there in the first place. Bush showing concern over that and the wall is the secondsmartest thing he's done so far in the middle east, next to shattering the Taliban.

[RepoMan 0]

Barak gave him ALMOST everything he wanted --- and he STILL walked away from it.

 

You'd think THAT would make the world recognize what he is.

 

But anti-Semitism in the U.N is a VERY powerful force.

-=Mike

The West Bank did not have continous borders, was with out acess to a water supply, and the Palistinians wouldn't have been in control of there own border.

 

And condemnation of Isreali repression in not anti-Semitism.

[Guest JMA]

Yasser Arafat is just a more extreme example of Jesse Jackson. He wants to cultivate exactly what he claims he's fighting. Money and power are Arafat's ends and suffering and death are his means.

 

And he looks like a rooster.

I don't really think it's fair to compare Arafat to Jackson. Arafat supports terrorism and hates Jews. Jesse Jackson is just a preacher who uses the race card. It's kind of like comparing Bush to Hussein--in that it holds no merit.

[Guest MikeSC]

The settlements were nothing more than a convenient excuse.

But they shouldn't even be there in the first place. Bush showing concern over that and the wall is the secondsmartest thing he's done so far in the middle east, next to shattering the Taliban.

Why SHOULDN'T they put settlements there?

 

It's not ISRAEL'S fault that Arab states ATTACKED them and LOST.

-=Mike

...Heck, if the Arab states are so darned pro-Palestine, why won't THEY take the Palestinians into THEIR countries?

[Guest MikeSC]

Barak gave him ALMOST everything he wanted --- and he STILL walked away from it.

 

You'd think THAT would make the world recognize what he is.

 

But anti-Semitism in the U.N is a VERY powerful force.

            -=Mike

The West Bank did not have continous borders, was with out acess to a water supply, and the Palistinians wouldn't have been in control of there own border.

 

And condemnation of Isreali repression in not anti-Semitism.

Israel was going to give Palestine almost everything they wanted --- and FAR more than Israel SHOULD have given them. You keep on forgetting that Israel has their current borders because they were ATTACKED and just happened to defeat other countries. Israel did not go out and conquer the area.

 

And nobody is saying that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. But if you can't recognize the blatant anti-Semitism of the U.N, then you are truly blind.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Yasser Arafat is just a more extreme example of Jesse Jackson. He wants to cultivate exactly what he claims he's fighting. Money and power are Arafat's ends and suffering and death are his means.

 

And he looks like a rooster.

I wouldn't go THAT far. Jesse has done some dispicable crap --- but he's never encouraged people to strap bombs to themselves and blow up civilians (or to strap on SECONDARY bombs to kill rescue workers after the first bomb goes off).

 

Hey, but look at the bright side --- the contemptible Dr. Edward Said died last week, so one of the most prominent (if not THE most prominent) apologists for this kind of activity is happily travelling towards hell.

-=Mike

[RepoMan 0]

Israel was going to give Palestine almost everything they wanted --- and FAR more than Israel SHOULD have given them. You keep on forgetting that Israel has their current borders because they were ATTACKED and just happened to defeat other countries. Israel did not go out and conquer the area.

 

And nobody is saying that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. But if you can't recognize the blatant anti-Semitism of the U.N, then you are truly blind.

-=Mike

How is occupieing an area that dosn't want to be ruled by Isreal and incorperating part into Isreal (while some want to take the whole thing) not conquering the area? I'm not saying Isreal dosn't have the right to defend itself, but when they took over the West Bank in 67 no one in the political mainstream of Isreali politics wanted to occupie for a long time. It self evident that the Occupation is a security disaster.

 

When has the UN passed a resolution condemning the Jews? It's all been criticism of the Isreali state.

[Firestarter 0]

Isreal

Israel, dammit, it's Israel. Not "Isreal." I hate it when people do that.

[Guest MikeSC]

How is occupieing an area that dosn't want to be ruled by Isreal and incorperating part into Isreal (while some want to take the whole thing) not conquering the area?

 

Again, you ignore WHY Israel is there in the first place? It's because they were ATTACKED and drove off their enemies. When you lose a war, you lose land. Israel did not attack ANYBODY. They were attacked and just happened to defeat 6 countries.

 

World of difference in taking land when you defeat an invading power (as Israel did) and attacking a country and taking their land (the "normal" means of acquiring land). But, of course, you miss that little distinction.

 

 

I'm not saying Isreal dosn't have the right to defend itself, but when they took over the West Bank in 67 no one in the political mainstream of Isreali politics wanted to occupie for a long time.

 

And if the sub-human monkeys stopped killing innocent Israelis and proclaiming their desire to wipe them off the face of the Earth, they'd be FAR more willing to negotiate. Until then, if they have strategically beneficial land, they'd be idiots to surrender it.

 

When has the UN passed a resolution condemning the Jews? It's all been criticism of the Isreali state.

 

I guess you missed the U.N Racism panel a few years back that decided to focus almost solely on "zionism".

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why SHOULDN'T they put settlements there?

 

It's not ISRAEL'S fault that Arab states ATTACKED them and LOST.

Because it's a flagrant violation of several UN resolutions but hey I guess violating UN resolutions is cool and stuff and only cause for pre-eminent war if you violate the wrong resolution, and we'll just determine right and wrong whenever we feel like it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

World of difference in taking land when you defeat an invading power (as Israel did) and attacking a country and taking their land (the "normal" means of acquiring land). But, of course, you miss that little distinction.

So hold on a minute.

 

Let's look at The World According To TheMikeSC:

 

1. Israel was attacked

2. Israel rallied it's defenses and drove the invaders away from it's homeland

3. Despite this being a defensive operation, Israel somehow acquired territory.

 

No, that doesn't sound right. Conquering territory is offense whether you want to believe it or not.

 

In 9/11, we were more or less attacked by the ruling tribe of Afghanistan. We were hit below the belt, but considering the resources of their country that was more or less an act of war. So we cleaned them out in defense of our thousands of dead countrymen. But did we just take the country as our own and say "Okay, this is USA #2, y'all best step off our border?" No, say what you will about puppet government, but Afghanistan is still it's own country, although it isn't self-sufficient.

[Vyce 0]

We would have taken over Afghanistan if it was in our best interests.

 

But that country is the very definition of "shithole", so we didn't.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why SHOULDN'T they put settlements there?

 

It's not ISRAEL'S fault that Arab states ATTACKED them and LOST.

Because it's a flagrant violation of several UN resolutions but hey I guess violating UN resolutions is cool and stuff and only cause for pre-eminent war if you violate the wrong resolution, and we'll just determine right and wrong whenever we feel like it.

Israel was attacked.

 

The U.N has become a sounding board for every two-bit dictator in the world and God knows I've been saying they serve no useful purpose and we should eliminate any semblance of legitimacy that confederation of dunces has by leaving.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So hold on a minute.

 

Let's look at The World According To TheMikeSC:

 

1. Israel was attacked 

 

Well, if going with FACTS is the world according to me, then guilty as charged. But, yes, correct.

 

2.Israel rallied it's defenses and drove the invaders away from it's homeland

 

You're doing swimmingly so far.

 

3. Despite this being a defensive operation, Israel somehow acquired territory.

 

No, that doesn't sound right. Conquering territory is offense whether you want to believe it or not.

 

Ah, at this point, you get confused.

 

Israel was attacked by 6 Arab states.

 

They drove them off an back to their countries --- which, of course, means that Israel had to LEAVE ITS BORDERS in order to do so.

 

Israel, as the WINNER, GETS the land. That simply is the way it's been done --- FOREVER. Those shit boxes over there conquered somebody for their lands as well.

 

If Israel was neve attacked, there is no reason to assume that they would have their current borders (seeing as how Israel could basically wipe out every country in that region without a great deal of difficulty and has not done so, there imperial aspirations are minimal). They would have had what was originally given to them.

 

I know this heady stuff, but I'm sure you can eventually figure this out.

 

In 9/11, we were more or less attacked by the ruling tribe of Afghanistan. We were hit below the belt, but considering the resources of their country that was more or less an act of war. So we cleaned them out in defense of our thousands of dead countrymen. But did we just take the country as our own and say "Okay, this is USA #2, y'all best step off our border?" No, say what you will about puppet government, but Afghanistan is still it's own country, although it isn't self-sufficient.

 

If Afghanistan, the country, remained as a constant threat to our citizens, then yes, we'd keep land there until they ceased being a threat.

 

Our beef was never with Afganistan. It was with Al Qaeda. Afghanistan the country was a non-issue to us.

 

Is it really that hard to grasp?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Israel, as the WINNER, GETS the land.

Can't think of any time I've ever seen that as a rule in war.

 

If it was so, we'd have Germany and a few Arab countries now.

[Firestarter 0]

Um, Germany lost the last war. Or did you skip that chapter?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Correct. He was saying that if Mike's stance held true, we would "own" Germany, and Japan, too, I'd figure.

[Firestarter 0]

...oh, for fuck's sake. <slaps herself on the forehead> Don't know what the hell I was thinking. Sorry, Jobber, and thanks, Agent. Remind me never again to post before I've had my morning coffee.

[Guest MikeSC]

Israel, as the WINNER, GETS the land.

Can't think of any time I've ever seen that as a rule in war.

 

If it was so, we'd have Germany and a few Arab countries now.

Go back and read a LITTLE bit of military history. How do we have Puerto Rico? Heck, how do we have the tiny few possessions that we have? How did modern Europe get their current boundaries? How did ANY country get its current boudaries?

 

I'm shocked at how asinine you are here.

 

Oh, wait, I'm not shocked.

-=Mike

...We could take whatever country we choose to, honestly. We don't WANT colonies as they aren't worth the trouble and they go against our current moral character

[Skywarp! 0]

The more I think about the fact that we put the Jews on a strip of land that used to belong to Palestine, the more I don't think it's right, and can understand why the Palestinians fight just to get back what they owned.

[Styles 0]

The more I think about the fact that we put the Jews on a strip of land that used to belong to Palestine, the more I don't think it's right, and can understand why the Palestinians fight just to get back what they owned.

With no offense meant, your opinion means nothing since you have no idea what you're talking about.

Go here: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html and read a little and learn some history.

 

EDIT: In fact, jump to this page which will answer your questions specifically. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Regardless of whatever propoganda you may see about the Israel-Palestine situation, one thing is clear: for there to be any semblance of peace, both sides need to give up their egos and compromise. Israel needs to stop with the settlements and oppression, and Palestine obviously needs to stop state supported terrorism and cut ties with Arafat.

 

Unless those two things happen -- and unless we actually act completely neutral in any potential peace talks -- there will never be peace in the Middle East.

[Styles 0]

It's not propoganda, Israel has tried to make peace many times, and it's either been completed ignored (Oslo) or rejected outright in favor of terrorism (Camp David). Israel should not have to jeapordize it's survival for the sake of a group of people who want nothing more for it to cease to exist. The disputed territories will be turned over only when there is a legitmate Palestinian authority that wipes out their terrorist groups and makes serious advances in promoting peace, democracy and acceptance of Jews. Otherwise, there's no neutral issue here.