Don't forget who did 911:

http://windsor.indymedia.org/usermedia/text/9/604_2.txt

I know nobody can bear the thought that 911 was done by Cheney.. but since you publish unbearable photos of "arafat victims" .. maybe you actually can read the above.

In any case .. 3000 plus 1000 americans is not a small sacrifice.

IMHO it was done for the stability of our finacial system (the dollar and dependents).

But maybe its geo-strategic.

Certainly it is humane to liberate people from illegal rulers and torturers.

A country where civil rights leaders are assassinated needs to be liberated.

A country that killed millions in a unprovoked war needs a regime change.

Abu-Graib, Guantanamo, Martin Luther King, Vietnam
were bad, but now everything is better in the USA.

Gold bless.

Charles,

I read the article you cited. Just as I've read many more like it.

Just as I read many tracts published after WWII saying that we'd fought the wrong nation - that we should have allied with Hitler against the Bolsheviks. Just as I've read the tracts claiming the US government was really a Zionist front, and that the IRS and FBI are doing the dirty work for the ZOG. And, for that matter, Mein Kampf in English and German.

The article you plugged above is no different than any of them - a discharging, oozing symptom of a group so divorced from reality that they have to revert to fantasy to explain the unexplainable (to them, anyway).

I'll write about the article. Maybe. Depends on how much of my time I want to waste.

Oh, by the way - while I'm not going to delete your comment (purely in the interest of fighting bad speech with good speech), I'd like to say that it takes [I'll be polite] a particularly adept logical gymnast to connect your puling, "faith-based", moonbat-fundamentalist drivel about the US with the murders of hundreds of innocent Israelis by that monster Arafat.

Just plain sick.

Odd. I had a visit from a moonbat with very similar ideas at my website recently, too.

Anyway, let's ignore the kooks for now.

Mitch, I can totally understand your conflict regarding Arafat's death. Perhaps I can offer a possible solution: be happy that he's now facing the justice that he avoided in this life. It was his life and his choice.

are those images of the hundreds of Israelis that have been killed, or the thousands of Palestinians that have been killed?

Israelis.

You know. The nation that's offered peaceful settlements to the Palestinians for three generations now.

The nation that offered everything but the kitchen sink under the Barak Administration to pacify the Palestinians.

The nation that did everything but that which Arafat and his band of homicidal gangsters really wanted; die and fall into the Mediterranean. The goal for which the real welfare, dreams and very lives of three generations of Palestinians were sacrificed; to keep an angry, hateful ethnic sore-in-being at Israel's gates. Because neither the Palestinians nor their patrons in Amman, Damascus, Baghdad nor Cairo wanted peace as much as they wanted Israel's collective head mounted above their fireplace.

But point taken; when Arafat dies, we should also mourn the thousands of Palestinians who died due to the megalomania of Arafat and his minions.

Mitch,

I am not sure it is our responsibility to forgive. Arafat is the godfather of modern terrorism as a means of gaining political power. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents, including hundreds of Palestinians and Muslims (Black September, anyone?).

If God wants to forgive Arafat, that's his business. But if there is a Hell, and there is not a space reserved for Arafat, what's the point?

(and to those who think that the Israelis are as bad, if not worse than Arafat, what can I say. You are sadly deluded.)

Granted Arafat is corupt, however, the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza must adhere to Israeli military laws, these include:
- no freedom of speech
- their homes can be entered and searched without warrants
- they can be arrested without warrant or charge
- they can be held in jail for up to 6 months without charge or trial
- routinely tortured during interogation
- no freedom of movement between towns
- they can be expelled from the country for no reason

I wouldn't call laws that mimic the apartheid laws that oppressed Blacks in South Africa "peaceful".

I find it difficult to believe that someone can hold to the beliefs expressed by Charles and Dee.

Which side:

- believes in sending young men and women to blow themselves up in order to murder innocent women and children?
- encourages such young people to coat the pieces of shrapnel that are deliberately packed into the explosives with rat poison?
- teaches its children that the other side murders babies and uses the blood when cooking food?
- has a leader who has made millions of dollars illegally while exporting hatred and murder?

There is no justification that can ever be made for these actions.

I'm amazed at the incredible patience and restraint shown by the Israelis.

The kind of moral equivalence displayed by supporting Arafat's regime is frightening and revolting.

Eric,

Don't feel bad for Dee, she really does not kknow what she is talking about. If she lived in a society where infants in baby carriages were TARGETED by terrorists, or where Palestinian children are taught from birth to hate Jews and want to kill them, maybe she would see things a little differently. Maybe if she were confronted by a society that as a mattter of routine had it's children cover their hands in the blood of the Jews, she might think differently.

Since 1948, the Palestinians rtepresented (for now) by Arafat, have wanted one thing, and one thing only: death to the Jews of Israel.

I have the same problem, my Mom raised me too well to rejoice at another's death.
However, I am certain there is a small corner in hell reserved just for him, where he can experience all of the fear, pain and grief that he has inflicted upon the Israeli people.

While it may not feel "right" to experience some glee at the thought of Arafats death, we are indeed human beings brought forth from GOD, built in with a wealth of emotion. We do have the right to express righteous anger,joy or relief when the situation calls for it. So I'm saying "good call" on that one Mitch.

It would have been better had he never lived.

JamesPh
Are you denying that the Palestines in Gaza and the W. Bank are forced to live as the way I stated above? If so, you should go there and see for yourself, as I have.

Dee,

The question is, why are they "forced" to live like that?

As mentioned above - and throughout the history of the last 60 years - the Arab nations that could have reached an accomodation with Israel and resolved the problem, *repeatedly*, have opted instead to maintain their desire for the elimination of Israel. Toward that end, keeping the Palestinians in a state of perpetual victimhood, poverty and artificially-stirred hatred is in their best interests.

Israel under Barak gave the Palestinians nearly everything they asked for. The only thing missing was the one thing that'd make their Arab puppetmasters happy; mass Israeli suicide and/or relocation elsewhere.

Failing to recognize that, Dee and Charles, is racist.

Eric-
What astounds you about my posting? Is that I see that the suffering in Israel is not only felt by the Israelis but also by thousands of innocent Palestinians, who are in no way connected to the terrorist activities but are forced to live as prisoners.
No where in my email did I praise Arafat, I'm aware of his corruption and hopefully with his death someone will take his place who will be better able to work towards a peaceful existance for the Israelis and Palestinians.

Mitch- puh-leeze about the racist comment. Do you believe every Palestinian is a terrorist? Agreeing with those types of living standard is not only inhumane but will continue to stir the hatred that exists there.

Dee,

Puh-leeze nothing. Did you actually read what I wrote? The bit about Arab leaders for the past 56 years repudiating and reneging on Israeli offers that would resolve the Palestinian issue, because they *need* Israel to have a bleeding sore in its flank. Nowhere did I say every Palestinian is a terrorist. I DO say that *every single arab leader of the past fifty years*, without exception, has actively squelched any possibility for the Palestinians leaving the camps for anything short of the complete liquidation of Israel - something the left refuses to acknowlege in the US. And I DO say that the Arab leaders want it that way - as long as there's an Intifada to keep their people jacked up against a harmless (to them) external enemy, they need to worry less about their own people killing them.

Failing to acknowledge those *facts* and act accordingly makes one complicit in the eliminationist anti-Semitism that is killing both Israelis AND, indirectly, innocent Palestinians - which is, by definition, racist.

Mitch-

Barak meeting the country’s obligation under international law (withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967) is not generous; in fact it isn’t even an offer.

The Camp David proposal (dubbed as “Barak’s ‘Generous’ Offer”) did not provide Palestine with an individual state allowing them to live as equal neighbors to Israel. What it did was divide Palestine into 4 separate regions that would have been controlled by Israel (including border, airspace, and water resources); and encouraged the expansion of illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. His offer was a very clever reconstruction of military occupation.

Here are some inconvenient facts about Yasser Arafat and the "palestinians."

Mr. Arafat was a frequent guest of that paragon of humanitarianism, Nicolae Ceaucescu of Romania. I mention this to help establish Mr. Arafat's bonafides as a pillar of moral rectitude and someone to whom we should all pay rapt attention.

Prior to the twentieth century there was no such thing as a palestinian people. The person who created this myth was Amin al-Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This friend of Adolph Hitler used this myth as an excuse to murder Jews. al-Husseini met with Hitler in 1941 and encouraged him to slaughter Jews so that they would not be able to escape to the British mandate.

He also ordered Arab families to leave Israel after independence so that Arab armies could invade in 1948.

He also founded the PLO, groomed his nephew Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini to take over the PLO. Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini is none other than Yasser Arafat.

Arafat's purpose has never been to establish a palestinian state but to slaughter every Jew in Israel. This is the ideological inheritance left to him by his uncle.

"Barak meeting the country’s obligation under international law (withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967) is not generous; in fact it isn’t even an offer."

Any leader that puts "international law" (which is, indeed, no more than a series of gentlemens' agreements, worth no more than the sincerity with which they're enacted) over the security of the leader's people, should not be a leader. Ever.

"The Camp David proposal (dubbed as “Barak’s ‘Generous’ Offer”) did not provide Palestine with an individual state allowing them to live as equal neighbors to Israel. What it did was divide Palestine into 4 separate regions that would have been controlled by Israel (including border, airspace, and water resources); and encouraged the expansion of illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. His offer was a very clever reconstruction of military occupation. "

Conditions, conditions. Israel's offer was more generous than any other *conquered* people through history have ever gotten.

And do try to remember that there *is* a Palestinian state; Jordan. Which refuses to allow the Palestinians into the country for the very reasons mentioned above, as well as the potential dilution of the Hashemite, pan-Arabist throne's power.

Mitch-

In response to your comment:
"Israel's offer was more generous than any other *conquered* people through history have ever gotten."

NOT TRUE- After several centuries of British rule, in the early 1920s Ireland (except the north) achieved liberation and the ability to govern themselves, i.e. form (or reclaim) their own country.

Your comment: "Any leader that puts "international law" (which is, indeed, no more than a series of gentlemens' agreements, worth no more than the sincerity with which they're enacted) over the security of the leader's people, should not be a leader. Ever."

My response: So basically you agree that Barak never really offered a deal (let alone a generous one) to the Palestinians.

In response to "conditions, conditions"- (where do I start) how easily you dismiss the deplorable conditions the Palestinians endure. They lost the battle so they must live like animals? Is that what you are saying? If so, then you are the racist and that kind of belief will prevent any kind of peace for either side. You know what- you go there and live among the Palestinians for one month and then right back to me.

Dee:

"In response to your comment:
"Israel's offer was more generous than any other *conquered* people through history have ever gotten."

NOT TRUE- After several centuries of British rule, in the early 1920s Ireland (except the north) achieved liberation and the ability to govern themselves, i.e. form (or reclaim) their own country. "

Whoop di doo. You came up with one example - and it happens to reinforce MY point and render yours untenable.

It doesn't strike you as the least bit ironic, I guess, that the British, like the Israelis, are a liberal democracy, while every single Arab goverment backing the Palestinians ranges from autocratic to fascist. The British saw that it was in their interest to give the Irish their independence.

"My response: So basically you agree that Barak never really offered a deal (let alone a generous one) to the Palestinians. "

Um no, Barak offered a deal that was a gamble: it was in his nation's interest, *had* the Palestinians (and their Arab backers) been acting in good faith. Of course, they weren't.

"In response to "conditions, conditions"- (where do I start) how easily you dismiss the deplorable conditions the Palestinians endure."

Dee, do you actually READ the posts that disagree with you? I don't dismiss their conditions - I merely correctly appraise their origin.

" They lost the battle so they must live like animals? Is that what you are saying? If so, then you are the racist and that kind of belief will prevent any kind of peace for either side."

Dee, your reading comprehension certainly qualifies you to be a liberal. Read the thread again.

I'll spell it out in a sentence - please don't respond again without evidence that you've absorbed this next:

*The ARAB governments of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia and Hussein's Iraq found it in their interests to keep the Palestinians from making any settlement that didn't involve the extinction of Israel. They have made sure no such settlement happened.*

You continue the tropes about "states", etc etc etc etc, while ignoring the simple fact that if land, security and peace were what the Palestinians and their Arab "benefactors" wanted, it could have happened thirty years ago, to say nothing of under Barak.

Do not address this thread again without accounting for that fact, if you have the faintest shred of intellectual honesty. It is a key factor - and your "position", such as it is, is only possible if you completely ignore it.

" You know what- you go there and live among the Palestinians for one month and then right back to me."

You know what? If I went to live among the Palestinians with a brain full of unfocused anti-semitic mush and a desire to undercut Israel's existence, and spent a month uncritically absorbing Palestinian propaganda, I'd probably feel just like you.

You walk through Dachau and get back to me.

But not until you've responded to the paragraph above, without which no more conversation is possible.

Mitch,

Thank you. I wasn't able to be as clear as you were in responding to Dee. I find it very frustrating trying to have a debate with someline like Dee. It hard to respond logically to non sequiturs.

Mitch-

Don't you dare downplay my point(s) because they don't agree with yours. Here's my bottom line- The main reason an agreement between Palestine and Israel has NOT been met is because there never was a FAIR deal presented for the Palestinians. PERIOD! (Fair = allowing them to govern themselves, have the same rights most normal people want and expect out of life). Read the "generous" proposal offered by Barak and then let me know if you'd enjoy living like that. Let me know which part of living in an occupied state you'd enjoy.

I have been to Dachau - what does that have to do with this discussion- other than providing another example of man's inhumanity to man.

Your whoopi-di-do comment- real mature. One example is enough to prove you WRONG. The British saw it in their best interest to give Ireland independence because of what? Perhaps to stop the fighting???

Lastly, I'm so sick of anti-semitic accusations constantly being tossed around. When did I ever say that I was out to undercut the existance of Israel. IF YOU READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE, you'd see that I'm in favor of a plan that provides an existance of both states (Israel and Palestine) that are TOTALLY SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT. I bet if that kind of proposal ever made it on the table no Arab leader would turn it down. (for the record when I was in Israel my time was spent on a kibbutz working and living with the Israelis who like any normal person want the fighting to end and realize the only way to do this is to SEPARATE!!) But as I said, go there and see EVERYTHING for yourself.

Eric-

You sound like a wimp. If this frustrates you, life is going to be hard for you buddy.

I have a thought. What if Palestinian children were not taught from birth to hate Israelis? What if the PLO and every Arab state said Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state? Until both those happen, to hell with the Palestinians.

Dee,

It's got more to do with the feeling of talking to a brick wall than with being wimpy. But, if it makes you feel good, feel free to hold that opinion.

Dee,

For starters, I WILL "downplay" your points, because I don't agree with you. You're wrong.

And I gave you an assignment - to consider the role of the Arab governments and their intransigence in re Israel. You continue to ignore that, betraying a level of intellectual dishonesty that is, frankly, beneath contempt.

"Don't you dare downplay my point(s) because they don't agree with yours. Here's my bottom line- The main reason an agreement between Palestine and Israel has NOT been met is because there never was a FAIR deal presented for the Palestinians. PERIOD! (Fair = allowing them to govern themselves, have the same rights most normal people want and expect out of life)."

Look, Dee, just because you say "PERIOD" doesn't make it real. I've read the Barak deal. It was as legitimate and generous an offer as the Israelis could make - and it doesn't matter, becasue any offer the Israelis made that didnt' involve them all dying or leaving would be rejected.

"I have been to Dachau - what does that have to do with this discussion- other than providing another example of man's inhumanity to man."

Dee, tell me you're not really that dense? Or if you ARE that dense, that you don't vote? It's an illustration as to why the Israelis are as careful about their survival as they are.

"Your whoopi-di-do comment- real mature."

And you're metaphorical sticking of fingers in ears and chanting "nya nya" when I ask you to account for the Arab governments' manipulation of the Palestinian situation is immature and intellectually cowardly.

" One example is enough to prove you WRONG."

That is so typical of how lefties "debate" - like the Irish example invalidates my point in any way?

"Lastly, I'm so sick of anti-semitic accusations constantly being tossed around. When did I ever say that I was out to undercut the existance of Israel. IF YOU READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE, you'd see that I'm in favor of a plan that provides an existance of both states (Israel and Palestine) that are TOTALLY SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT."

Unfortunately, you completely ignore - again, and after repeated requests - the *fact* that NO Arab government will allow the Palestinians to achieve peace; it's not in THEIR interests.

"But as I said, go there and see EVERYTHING for yourself. "

Yeah, well, I wish I had the time and money to go galavanting around playing Roving Social Conscience. I have kids to raise and bills to pay.

But I submit that you didn't see EVERYTHING - merely everything you wanted to see.

Please don't write again without addressing the point I've asked you, nicely, three times to address.

I doubt you can, but hope springs eternal.

Mitch: Until a deal offering Palestinians independence is put on the table, your belief that it would be rejected is speculation.

Thanks for the discussion.

No part of it is speculation while the current regimes rule the Arab world.

Fascinating. A fairly insightful discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without a single mention of the Soviet influence over Arab regimes, all of which were installed and prompted to engulf the United States in the Middle East by calling for the annihilation of the Jews and failing repeatedly in the process of attacking Israel militarily. The situation as it now stands is the result of the vacuum created by the collapse of Soviet influence, which occasioned the rich concessions by the Barak Administration and the esteemed Bill Clinton, only to be shattered on the sharp cold rocks of maniacal genocide by the dashing Yasser Arafat, that genial prince of peace.

There is a distinction between the Palestinian people and their "leadership" not unlike with the people of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Those who fail to make such distinction denigrate the human element which Arafat and his terrorist organizations have now for a generation strained so hard to erase, as did Saddam.

In the final analysis, if there is to be peace there must be justice, and for justice to be achieved, there must first be victory. There is no substitute, of which Arafat was well aware, but who preferred instead the power of terror, even at the expense of his own people, to any possibility of peace with Israel.

He accomplished nothing.

All I know is that Arafat is dead which means someone else will have to take the lead for their national sports of camel rape and strapping bombs onto children.

For crying out loud Arafat was freaking egyptian. Only good can come of this.

Mitch-

And you call me racist? have you read any of the other postings under this article?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent death threats to the Presbyterian churches because some group (not sure who is responsible) thought they were acting anti-Israel. I only recently heard about it yesterday so I don't have too much info.