All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The difference Ty is what the symbolism is. The super duper majority of people in the world not only do not give a flying fuck who Pearl Buck or who gets the Nobel Prise for Lit or what books she wrote but all of those things will have absofuckinglutely no affect of any kind ever on their lives. 0. beyond nothing.

The nobel peace prise, while at the end of the day while conveying no tangible power, is symbolic. Giving it to Arafat is symbolic of the fact that the liberals in the West, the US and Europe and the UN have legitimised this guy as a respected world leader to the point where an international organisation will give him its preeminent declaration of being a person who strives for peace. We both know I could go and google and find websites that detail the thousands of innocent civilians who died at Arafat's orders, including instances where he was on site for terrorist killings of civilians. But the liberals in the media, in the US and Europe were willing not only to overlook this, but to give a mass murdering terrorist who espouses a doctrine of hate and race extermination the legitimacy to have an international platform, again, with the Peace Prise being a symbol of that legitimisation.

It's as if GErmany had fought WWII to a stalemate and then HItler got the nobel peace prise. Would you have supported that?

The result of this symbolic legitimisation is that terrorist organisations are now the most powerful entities in the region at issue and are legitimised from being terrorist organisations to being political parties. The result is War.

Perhaps, if the liberals in the West had been willing to differentiate between a terrorist and a statesmen and could call out the former as being persona non grata in the peace process, there would have been an impetus on the Arab populace of the region to find, develop and support responsible statesmen. Instead the West said, we leigitimise terrorists who espouse hate. And those terrorists exploited the hate, tjhe dark side of the force, iyw, and we end up with a region that has no mechanism for a peaceful solution.

Congratulations!

He's not the first terrorist legitimized by the West and he won't be the last. Think of the contras in Nicaragua or Jonas Savimbi, to take just two examples. Think of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. It's like you're waste-deep in manure and worrying about some shit on your hands. I'm not saying it's not shit -- I'm saying, try to keep your perspective, man.

And, BTW, it's not like I voted to give either him or Pearl Buck the Nobel Prize. Take it up with the academy, or the dynamite heirs, or whoever.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's not the first terrorist legitimized by the West and he won't be the last. Think of the contras in Nicaragua or Jonas Savimbi, to take just two examples.

I am not sure those guys are terrorists, as much as military leaders in civil war.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Think of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. .

He was the leader of the country. Not a terrorist artificially legitimsed to a leader..

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's like you're waste-deep in manure and worrying about some shit on your hands. I'm not saying it's not shit -- I'm saying, try to keep your perspective, man.

I think the problem is people refuse to open their eyes to a realistic perspective. This guy was a terrorist. A murderer and a thug. And the anti-semites in Europe and the UN turned him and the terrorism he espoused into legtimate political actors in probably the hotest hot spot in the world over the last 30 years.

Because of this, we and Israel are left in a position we the choices are either war or negotiate with terrorists, for a peace that will be illusory at best, i.e. will last until they decide to drive the jews into the sea.

The contras or Jonas Savimbi don't come close to rising to the level of affect that Arafat's successors do.

And the liberals of the West, even in 20/20 hindsight, live in the bliss of denial regarding Arafat.

why not say, unqualifiedly, the guiy was a terrorist baby killer and he never should have been dealt with (any more than hitler should have). But you can't. You have to try to water it down somehow with the contras and Savimbi (translation: Reagan's terrorists).

Why the hate for true peace makers and statesmen?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Because Judah sounds lousy. Say it a few times. Its clumsy, awkward sounding and has no kick. Flat... too many vowels. "Israel" has a nice run to it. Rolls off the lips crisply.

Wikipedia has some good background on this issue, but Sidd ruined that site for me. Why the hate? Why,why,why?!!?!?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Perhaps, if the liberals in the West had been willing to differentiate between a terrorist and a statesmen and could call out the former as being persona non grata in the peace process, there would have been an impetus on the Arab populace of the region to find, develop and support responsible statesmen.

You can only play the cards you're dealt. There are a lot of foreign leaders who are pretty unsavory. It's not like this is an Arab thing. We accepted Ferdinand Marcos as the leader of the Philippines until the Filipinos decided they'd had enough. Calling a foreign leader a terrorist doesn't always have a useful effect.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not sure those guys are terrorists, as much as military leaders in civil war.

I think that distinction falls apart the closer you look at it.

He was the leader of the country. Not a terrorist artificially legitimsed to a leader.

Careful -- you're starting to question the last remaining justification for our invasion.

Arafat had legitimacy, in the Weberian sense of the word.

I think the problem is people refuse to open their eyes to a realistic perspective. This guy was a terrorist. A murderer and a thug. And the anti-semites in Europe and the UN turned him and the terrorism he espoused into legtimate political actors in probably the hotest hot spot in the world over the last 30 years.

His legitimacy came from his position among Palestinians, not from anything Europe or the UN did. And if Israel wanted him dead, they could have killed him many times over. I think they figured the alternatives were worse, or no better.

Because of this, we and Israel are left in a position we the choices are either war or negotiate with terrorists, for a peace that will be illusory at best, i.e. will last until they decide to drive the jews into the sea.

Not because of this. The roots go a little deeper, as Spanky was suggesting.

The contras or Jonas Savimbi don't come close to rising to the level of affect that Arafat's successors do.

I think you are trying to say they talk funny. I agree.

And the liberals of the West, even in 20/20 hindsight, live in the bliss of denial regarding Arafat.

Bite me.

Your schtick, over and over, is to paint the left as absurd. If you want to have a real conversation, stop doing your level best to paint the other side as absurd. Maybe some lefties are in denial about who Arafat was. Until they show up here to argue with you, you're wasting your breath.

why not say, unqualifiedly, the guiy was a terrorist baby killer and he never should have been dealt with (any more than hitler should have). But you can't. You have to try to water it down somehow with the contras and Savimbi (translation: Reagan's terrorists).

Because in the real world, we sometimes find ourselves dealing with the moral equivalent of terrorist baby killers. Saddam Hussein. The current leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And so on.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can only play the cards you're dealt. There are a lot of foreign leaders who are pretty unsavory. It's not like this is an Arab thing. We accepted Ferdinand Marcos as the leader of the Philippines until the Filipinos decided they'd had enough. Calling a foreign leader a terrorist doesn't always have a useful effect.

He wasn't a leader. He was a terrorist. Do you remember the 70s? Marcos never hijacked planes to make symbolic points.Marcos never sent armed terrorists into the Olmpic village to kill another nation's athletes. Marcos never blew up busloads of children of his political enemies.

I am not arguing that Marcos was a great democratic leader. But he was a leader. Arafat was a terrorist, who did all of the above, and the ant-semites in Weurope and the UN used the profile he gained from murder and hijacking to promote him to leader.

Why can't you bring yourself to denounce him without qualification?

If bin Laden requested free (unfettered by threat of arrest or other imprisonment) passage into NYC to speak at the UN on the theory that he is the leader of a certain groups of Arab muslims would you argue that he should get it? What if Hamas told the UN he was its (and by extension the Palis) designated rep to the UN? Should he be up for a Nobel Peace Prise for offering some type of cease fire or wahtever that was he offered in one of his tapes last year?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
He wasn't a leader. He was a terrorist. Do you remember the 70s? Marcos never hijacked planes to make symbolic points.Marcos never sent armed terrorists into the Olmpic village to kill another nation's athletes. Marcos never blew up busloads of children of his political enemies.

I am not arguing that Marcos was a great democratic leader. But he was a leader. Arafat was a terrorist, who did all of the above, and the ant-semites in Weurope and the UN used the profile he gained from murder and hijacking to promote him to leader.

The fact that he was a leader doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist. Savimbi was both. So was Idi Amin.

Why can't you bring yourself to denounce him without qualification?

Why do you think I'm definding him? Are you that thick? I'm saying the world is an unpleasant place, and we have to deal with it. And sometimes flowers grow from manure.

If bin Laden requested free (unfettered by threat of arrest or other imprisonment) passage into NYC to speak at the UN on the theory that he is the leader of a certain groups of Arab muslims would you argue that he should get it? What if Hamas told the UN he was its (and by extension the Palis) designated rep to the UN? Should he be up for a Nobel Peace Prise for offering some type of cease fire or wahtever that was he offered in one of his tapes last year?

No to all of the above. Have you encountered anyone who feels differently?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Spanky
The thrust of my question was why is Israel named Israel and not Judah?

Well because in the Bible both Judah and Israel were names for individuals, or groups of persons (i.e., tribes), and Judah's dad was sometimes called Israel but sometimes Jacob (but sometimes he'd let you call him Ray). But whereas Israel and Judah were thrown around as names for individuals or groups of persons, Judah was never referred to as a place (except for Kingdom "of Judah" which is different), whereas Israel was sometimes used to describe land.

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

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that distinction falls apart the closer you look at it.

Not really. Those groups both came out internal struggles. Arafat was outside of Israel, and attacked from outside. One was a civil war. Teh arab-israeli conflict is not.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Careful -- you're starting to question the last remaining justification for our invasion.

I still believe that there are lots of justificiations. None of them are that Hussien is a terrorist. He supported terrorists. He also had WMD programs. Refused to cooperate with UN inspections., TRried to assassinate our ex-President.. etc etc OK City.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


His legitimacy came from his position among Palestinians, not from anything Europe or the UN did. And if Israel wanted him dead, they could have killed him many times over. I think they figured the alternatives were worse, or no better.

I disagree. Israel was forced tod eal with him becaseu to kill him would sent the Euros and the UN through the roof, and Israel was trying to play by some rules. I imagine we leaned on them too, as the Euros leaned on us and we needed them in the Cold War.

For that I criticise us and apologise to Israel. Reagan, for one, should have had more principle. Bush did, and cut him off. Another reason I admire Bush.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I think you are trying to say they talk funny. I agree.

Whateverr,m Im not editing this shit for perfection. Althoughm that is sort of funny.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bite me.

Your schtick, over and over, is to paint the left as absurd. If you want to have a real conversation, stop doing your level best to paint the other side as absurd. Maybe some lefties are in denial about who Arafat was. Until they show up here to argue with you, you're wasting your breath.

No schtick on this one. Why can't you denounce him without watering it down? I think that is absurd. SEriously.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Because in the real world, we sometimes find ourselves dealing with the moral equivalent of terrorist baby killers. Saddam Hussein. The current leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And so on.

And maybe we shouldn't. Maybe principle should be more important, but none of the nations or individuals you cite above are solely terrorists who gain their traction as legitimate political axctors from acts of terrorism.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I can't interpret this as saying anything. Maybe I am intellectually fatigued......was it directed at me, the sicilian thing?

Have you eaten?

I think I had just had a sweet corn tamale.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The fact that he was a leader doesn't mean he wasn't a terrorist. Savimbi was both. So was Idi Amin.

Dissent. They were political or military leaders who used terroristic tactics. Arafat was a terrorist, who was wrongly legitimsed by the anti-semites of Weuopre and thge UN as a leader.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Why do you think I'm definding him? Are you that thick? I'm saying the world is an unpleasant place, and we have to deal with it. And sometimes flowers grow from manure.

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No to all of the above. Have you encountered anyone who feels differently?

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.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No to all of the above. Have you encountered anyone who feels differently?

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?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think I had just had a sweet corn tamale.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, tamales!~

Good, I was starting to worry about you. Any dessert, iykwimaittyd?????

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's not the first terrorist legitimized by the West and he won't be the last. Think of the contras in Nicaragua or Jonas Savimbi, to take just two examples. Think of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. It's like you're waste-deep in manure and worrying about some shit on your hands. I'm not saying it's not shit -- I'm saying, try to keep your perspective, man.

And, BTW, it's not like I voted to give either him or Pearl Buck the Nobel Prize. Take it up with the academy, or the dynamite heirs, or whoever.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Not really. Those groups both came out internal struggles. Arafat was outside of Israel, and attacked from outside. One was a civil war. Teh arab-israeli conflict is not.

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.

I still believe that there are lots of justificiations. None of them are that Hussien is a terrorist. He supported terrorists. He also had WMD programs. Refused to cooperate with UN inspections., TRried to assassinate our ex-President.. etc etc OK City.

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?

I disagree. Israel was forced tod eal with him becaseu to kill him would sent the Euros and the UN through the roof, and Israel was trying to play by some rules. I imagine we leaned on them too, as the Euros leaned on us and we needed them in the Cold War.

Imagine what you like, but those were never the explanations I saw. You can try to reduce the larger of problem of Palestinian nationalism to Arafat's particular character flaws, but if it wasn't him it would have been someone else.

For that I criticise us and apologise to Israel. Reagan, for one, should have had more principle. Bush did, and cut him off. Another reason I admire Bush.

Reagan supported a lot of unsavory characters. We were fighting the Cold War.

No schtick on this one. Why can't you denounce him without watering it down? I think that is absurd. SEriously.

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

And maybe we shouldn't. Maybe principle should be more important, but none of the nations or individuals you cite above are solely terrorists who gain their traction as legitimate political axctors from acts of terrorism.

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