All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is a difference between "working with" and bestowing the title of "peacemaker". I will give you Jonas Savimbi but the Contras were not "terrorists". The were fighting against a government that was a dictatorship and they focused their fire on government troops. Yes, as with all soldiers, some got out of hand, but the labeling of the contras as terrorists was done by people who were sympathetic to the Sandinastas and refused to believe that the Sandinats were totalitarians that could care less about human rights and democracy. Because of the contras we now have a free market, human right respecting democracy in Nicaragua. Without the contras the Sandinistas would never have called an election and would still rule Nicaragua like Castro still rules Cuba.

2.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's not a question of defending him, it's a question of, why can't yoiu denounce him?

Why do you think I don't denounce him?

I would imagine if I polled some of Arafat's supporters I could find some who feel that way. Probably the Nobel Committee. Ward Churchill. Michael Moore. No one on my team though.

No one here, either, which makes your schtick kind of tired.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
So I can get clear, how do you distinguish bin Laden from Arafat? Also, if Hamas appointed him trheir rep, how do you then distinguish him?

For better or worse, Arafat was the leader of the major body representing Palestinians. Bin Laden wants to be a leader, but he has very few followers.

I'm not sure what to say about your Hamas example. If Hamas called him their representative, he's still not Palestinian.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is a difference between "working with" and bestowing the title of "peacemaker". I will give you Jonas Savimbi but the Contras were not "terrorists". The were fighting against a government that was a dictatorship and they focused their fire on government troops. Yes, as with all soldiers, some got out of hand, but the labeling of the contras as terrorists was done by people who were sympathetic to the Sandinastas and refused to believe that the Sandinats were totalitarians that could care less about human rights and democracy. Because of the contras we now have a free market, human right respecting democracy in Nicaragua. Without the contras the Sandinistas would never have called an election and would still rule Nicaragua like Castro still rules Cuba.

In my mind, terrorism is a function of means, not ends. If George Washington had slaughtered Tory women and children in the name of independence, he would have been a terrorist. If I understand you correctly, you're not a terrorist if you're fighting someone bad, like the Sandinistas. If I understand Penske, you're not a terrorist if you slaughter women and children with government troops. I don't get why that should matter.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Arafat would say he came from inside Palestine. You don't have to agree with everything he said to see some truth in that. Ask Spanky.

Wrong. He came from Cairo.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


The terrorism and WMD rationales don't withstand the light of day. He actually let in the UN inspectors, but you and President Bush remember it differently.

I asked you the other day to explain what "terrorism" means as a category. You appear to attach great significance to the fact that some brutal applications of violence are state-sponsored, but others are not. If both Arafat and Hussein were brutes, why does it matter that Hussein had a country and Arafat only had the PLO?

.

He let inspectors in and thwarted the process. He didn't let inspectors in and thwarted the process. Effectively he was non-compliant.

The difference is with Hussien, as a leader, putatively elected, we tried to deal with him as you deal with a state. When all diplomatic approacjh failed. wE went to war. TWice.

With arafat,. there was a simpler solutuion, not recognize the false legitimacy. We didn't have to talk to him. We choose to. That was wrong, and it legitimised terrorism as a means to international respectability.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Seriously. What have I said that makes you think I don't denounce him?

Because you won't unqiualifiedly denounce him for what he was, a murdering terrorist.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Nor did Arafat. Unfortunately, Palestinians saw him as their leader.

And trhe Manson family saw Charles manson as a leader, so what?

He was a murderous terrorist and we should have refused to deal with him (as Bush eventually did., see it can be done!) and/or refuse to deal with his terrorist apparatus. If you would refuse the false legitimization of bon Laden as a leader (hypotehtically per my earleir questions) why do you confer the same on arafat?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think I don't denounce him?

Because you don't do it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


No one here, either, which makes your schtick kind of tired.

Why? I am asking a serious question, how and why do you distinguish Arafat from bon Laden, and further, hypothetically, if Hamas annunce that from now on boin Laden spoke for it, would you argue that we now have to deal with him as leader?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Okay, got all that? Great. So why are you referring to Palestine as if it's a country or something.

1) Correct me if I am wrong - but wasn't present day Israel and the occupied territories, when the area was populated and occupied by Jews in the BCE era, during part of that time divided into two kingdoms - Judah and Israel? Ten tribes in one (Israel) and two tribes in the other (Judah). Then wasn’t Israel conquered and those ten tribes disappeared to no one knows where. The Kingdom of Judah, which incorporates present day Jerusalem and Tel Aviv lasted as a unit until the two tribes of Judah were expelled by the Romans? And isn't it assumed that most Jews today are descendents from those two tribes that lived in Judah? So why is the country that currently contains Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and presumably contains Jews from the two tribes of Judah and not the ten tribes of Israel, called Israel and not Judah?

2) What do you want me to call the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean? I call it Palestine because that is what it has been called since the nineteenth century - has it not? When you say Israel that does not include Gaza and the West Bank, but when you say Palestine most people think of the entire area between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, below Lebanon and North East of the Sinai - am I wrong?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For better or worse, Arafat was the leader of the major body representing Palestinians. Bin Laden wants to be a leader, but he has very few followers.

I'm not sure what to say about your Hamas example. If Hamas called him their representative, he's still not Palestinian.

1./What do you call few folllowers, ie how are you measuring a follwoing?

2. Arafat was from Egypt, what some might call, Egyptian. The problem is there is no Palestine and never was. It is a made up distinction of Arab. Jordian or Transjordian might be more apt.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
you're not a terrorist if you're fighting someone bad, like the Sandinistas.

No you are not a terrorist if the leadership does not directly target women and children. As I said, the contra soldiers sometimes got out of line (like all soliders of all armies do) but the contra leadership never targeted innocent women and children. They targeted government troops.

As I said before the attack against the Cole was not an act of terrorism. The attack on the Pentagon was only an act of terrorism in that they used a civilian airliner to carry out the act.

And sometimes Patriots did target Tory homes for burning and looting and raped Tory women. The difference is such activity was never sanctioned or ordered by the leadership.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Because you won't unqiualifiedly denounce him for what he was, a murdering terrorist.

He was a murdering terrorist. I denounce him as such. Happy? I've never said anything to the contrary. Will you now admit you misconstrued what I was saying?

And trhe Manson family saw Charles manson as a leader, so what?

If they had their own country, we would have to devise our foreign policy accordingly.

He was a murderous terrorist and we should have refused to deal with him (as Bush eventually did., see it can be done!) and/or refuse to deal with his terrorist apparatus. If you would refuse the false legitimization of bon Laden as a leader (hypotehtically per my earleir questions) why do you confer the same on arafat?

Because I perceive it to be in the long-term interests of the United States to do so. Because I think the United States will be better off if there is peace in Israel and Palestine. Arafat, however flawed a vessel, was what there was to work with.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1./What do you call few folllowers, ie how are you measuring a follwoing?

Manson family, Al Qaeda and the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine are all too small, if I remember Life of Brian correctly.

2. Arafat was from Egypt, what some might call, Egyptian. The problem is there is no Palestine and never was. It is a made up distinction of Arab. Jordian or Transjordian might be more apt.

OK. I think our foreign policy needs to proceed from a more practical perspective, but as an academic matter you may raise valid points.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No you are not a terrorist if the leadership does not directly target women and children. As I said, the contra soldiers sometimes got out of line (like all soliders of all armies do) but the contra leadership never targeted innocent women and children. They targeted government troops.

I recall differently.

And there's a point when reckless indifference to civilian casualties becomes functionally indistinguishable from your kind of direct targeting.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The problem is there is no Palestine and never was.

I think the British during their occupation referred to that area as Palestine. In addition, the Arabs that lived in the British Colony refered to themselves as "Palestinian Arabs" and the Jews that lived there refered to themselves as "Palestinian Jews". Am I wrong?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He was a murdering terrorist. I denounce him as such. Happy? I've never said anything to the contrary. Will you now admit you misconstrued what I was saying?

It's tepid and reads somewhat begrudgingly, but it's a start. I don't think I misconstrued what you said, because that is the first time you said, what i said you weren't saying.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If they had their own country, we would have to devise our foreign policy accordingly.

Arafat didn't have a country.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Because I perceive it to be in the long-term interests of the United States to do so. Because I think the United States will be better off if there is peace in Israel and Palestine. Arafat, however flawed a vessel, was what there was to work with.

And what tells you working wiht bin Laden might not be a route to some peace? Your crystal ball? the same way that had Kerry winning in 04?

Different hypo, what if Musharraff gets overthrown and a Shi'a theocracy coems to power in Pakistan and "elects" bin Laden president. He comes out hiding to accept. Do we deal with him then? Do we let him come speak at the UN?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think the British during their occupation referred to that area as Palestine. In addition, the Arabs that lived in the British Colony refered to themselves as "Palestinian Arabs" and the Jews that lived there refered to themselves as "Palestinian Jews". Am I wrong?

But again, Spanky, its made up, by the Brits. Palestinians are indistinguishable from Jordanians, and the truth is that, some quibbling about boundaries in the West bank notwitshtanding, Jordan is the Palestinian homeland. Of course, we need only look to Black September, to see the true measure of Arab brotherhood. The issue is not a homeland or dignity or rights or security for the "Palestinian" people, they and the claims of those issues are solely leverage to wipe Israel off the map.