Something Open to Everyone's Reflection

[MVB]

An article in our University Daily Newspaper, the Cavalier Daily, sparked my thoughts on historical perception of two-faced leaders.

I'm going to type out the article below, and then add my thoughts and why I found this interesting. I'd like to hear what others have to say about it as well.

Cavalier Daily, November 16, 2004
Joe Schilling

A Murderous Legacy

He was responsible for and complicit in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civillians over the past 40 years. His cells committed heinous crimes: suicide bombings, attacks on children, execution-style murders and more. Yet, astonishingly, there was his casket, draped in the Palestinian flag, carried to a plane by a French honor guard past thousands of well-wishers. Unfortunately, while history may remember Arafat for his Nobel Peace Prize and his "long effort for statehood," as The New York Times so myopically put it, nothing will change who the true Arafat was: a heinous brute and a notorious terrorist.

Arafat and his various terrorist fronts began their evil long before the well-documented wave of homicide bomgings that encompassed Arafat's second intifada against Israel began in 2000. In 1970, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), operating under Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), bombed a SwissAir flight bound for Tel Aviv. Many forget that a "Black September" group, responsible for the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olypics, was in fact comprised of eight PLO henchmen. In 1973, another Black September cell, this time in Sudan, kidnapped and executed U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel and two others. Forgotten in history is the charge, though never proven, that Arafat himself directly ordered the killings in a phone conversation to his operatives in Sudan.

Another tragically forgotten episode occurred in Ma'alot, a town in northern Israel. On May 15, 1974, PLO terrorists stormed a school taking dozens of children hostage and demanded the release of jailed colleagues. When the gunfire ended and the smoke cleared, 21 children lay dead. Even the handicapped were fair game for Palestinian terror. In 1985, a cell called the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked an Italian cruise ship named the Achille Lauro. The terrorists then proceeded to shoot Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew in a wheelchair, and dump him overboard to drown in the sea.

-- cont'd --

[MVB]

-- cont'd --

The list of violence and atrocities coulud go on and on, but what is nearly as abhorrent are the various alter-images of Arafat crafted over the last decade. The image of Arafat as the peacemaker reached a pinnacle in the mid-1990s after he signed the Oslo Peace Accords with Israel and won the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize, trivializing the accomplishments of every winner before and every winner since. But Arafat never cared about a lasting peace in the region; he rejected a proposal at Camp David in 2000 that would have granted the Palestinians their own state in Gaza and the majority of the West Bank, and proceeded to launch the violent insurrection of the second intifada.

The other false image of Yasser Arafat, Arafat as the victim, came about in more recent years. The inauguration of President George W. Bush, and the subsequent Bush doctrine, signaled the beginning of the end for Arafat. For more than two years, he has been holed up in his compound in Ramallah surrounded by Israeli forces, his relevancy stripped away, much like the lives of his victims. But Arafat's internment did not grant him reconciliation for the atrocities he has committed. It did nothing more than elevate his status as a cause celeb among Israel's detractors.

The image of Arafat as the peacemaker and the victim are dangerous because they conceal the true Arafat: Arafat the terrorist. Most of us were not alive during Arafat and the PLO's violent heyday or know little of the aforementioned attacks and others. And while, granted, the next generation will be similarly unfamiliar with the Bali nightclub bombing or names like Abu al-Zarquawi or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, their deaths will not be mourned with flower-adorned memorials or lamenting world leaders.

History will ultimately decide in which light Yasser Arafat is cast. Will students 50 years from now read of his Nobel Peace Prize, see pictures of him smiling with distinguished world leaders and hear President Bush's almost inconceivable remark, "God bless his soul"? Hopefully, they will instead see the pictures of his victims, read of his malevolence and rightly cast him alongside Hitler, Hussein and bin Laden as one of the most notorious murderers of the 20th century.
-- End article --

[MVB]

Call me a history buff (which I suppose I am), but this immediately made me think of the famed American President Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was, overall, probably a good man, or so history would dictate. He was FIRM in his religious beliefs, and acted on them before ANYTHING else ... the current President Bush would look like QUITE the lay man next to him. During his Presidency, Lincoln violated MORE civil rights, statistically, than ANY leader in American history. He had thousands of civillians held in prison without charge or trial. He had many more executed on little premise. He suspended civil liberties in many states, and imposed Martial Law in cities like Baltimore. All of these actions were in NORTHERN states loyal to the Union, NOT southern states in rebellion. He had his reasons, but nonetheless Abraham Lincoln was, in every definition of the word, a tyrant. His aims were clear -- preserve the Union. His initial goals HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH LIBERATING SLAVES. Lincoln was an abolitionist, but would be the modern-day equivalent of John Kerry -- i.e. no he'd never commit abortion, but he's not going to force everyone to change to follow his views -- except that Lincoln HOPED for freedom for all people whenever possible.

He promised not to act against the rights of the South, yet the South rebelled anyway, and Lincoln went into "end the rebellion at all costs, including any liberties I need to take away" mode. One could argue that by even running for President when the Southern states PROMISED to secede if he were elected was the "wrong" thing to do. America was moving towards emancipation of the slaves already by that time -- it was not in doubt anywhere but in the minds of the mad and the hardcore pro-slavists (and there really weren't that many of those) that eventually slavery would go, but people wanted it to happen gradually, and overreacted to the election of an abolitionist as President. By running and being elected instead of a moderate, even if he didn't have radical plans, Lincoln's election -- and no other single event -- sparked the United States Civil War, which to date cost more American lives than EVERY AMERICAN WAR BEFORE AND SINCE COMBINED, including the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm and the current War in Iraq, plus all smaller engagements and actions.

Yet, despite the fact that Lincoln was in every way, and at best, a "grey" figure in American history, he is viewed with almost global respect and admiration. The same could be said of many of America's and EVERY nation's best-remembered and most-loved leaders. England's Henry (the 8th?) established the Church of England, but had his closest friend executed. France's Charles de Gaulle blatantly lied about French partisan actions in World War II (of which there was NONE) to gain popular support. The list goes on and on and on.

My big question is, why are leaders who are at BEST unevenly "good" so often remembered ONLY for the good, as if they were wonderful human beings out for nothing but the good of their people and their fellow man? I'm not sure I really have a good answer.

[JADezimar]

Dun know o0. But I think the civil war was inevitible o0. Lincoln did what it took during dire times and thats sometimes needed. Not that I like lincoln or anything. But desperate times call for desperate measures. And Us would be maybe 1/3rd of what it is now without the south. South like wise. You say 2/3rds dont divide into 100% well it does when it takes both halves to =the full production you get.

[MightyDWC]

Maybe because people then and now have been and always will be afraid to think about or discuss the bad things that people have done, like they don't want to except that this man did (a) good deed but also did (b) and (c) bad things. They want to grasp onto the good of something and or someone and hold on to that for inspiration and hope. The above article, as far as civil rights go, makes me think of something I saw on MSNBC the day after the election. I don't remember who it was that said this but basically the south is to dumb to help themselves and should just suceed from the US becuase they didn't vote for Kerry. The statement was more detailed than that, im just getting to the point here. But it caused one of the other people on the show to bring up a fact that many people forget about civil rights. It was the democrates in the south at the time of the civil rights movement that opposed civil rights until the Republicans in the north basically told them "your going to have to live with it". The dems then said "we can't pay for it, so why should we support it?" At which point the north said "we will pay for it, and your going to deal with it". Sorry if I got off topic there, but you're right MVB, the good is always the first thing someone remembers.

[DJTheBaron]

NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MM

[LardGibs]

I didn't vote for Lincoln, so what the fuck d'ya want me to do about it!!!

as far as the rest ... israeli athletes, a few kids, and a dude in a wheelchair > Hitler or Saddam Hussein? plz. :rolleyes:

Terrorism is sometimes the only viable strategy for non-state actors like the
PLO. What else are they really going to do?

I think you need to acknowlege him as an innovator in towelhead fashion.:hail:

[tom]

thats like, too long mikey

Summarize it for us who have to read through ~300 posts from the day. :O

[Justice]

Stealth = lazy.

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-

[DrunkenUno]

Call me a history buff (which I suppose I am), but this immediately made me think of the famed American President Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was, overall, probably a good man, or so history would dictate. He was FIRM in his religious beliefs, and acted on them before ANYTHING else ... the current President Bush would look like QUITE the lay man next to him. During his Presidency, Lincoln violated MORE civil rights, statistically, than ANY leader in American history. He had thousands of civillians held in prison without charge or trial. He had many more executed on little premise. He suspended civil liberties in many states, and imposed Martial Law in cities like Baltimore. All of these actions were in NORTHERN states loyal to the Union, NOT southern states in rebellion. He had his reasons, but nonetheless Abraham Lincoln was, in every definition of the word, a tyrant. His aims were clear -- preserve the Union. His initial goals HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH LIBERATING SLAVES. Lincoln was an abolitionist, but would be the modern-day equivalent of John Kerry -- i.e. no he'd never commit abortion, but he's not going to force everyone to change to follow his views -- except that Lincoln HOPED for freedom for all people whenever possible.

He promised not to act against the rights of the South, yet the South rebelled anyway, and Lincoln went into "end the rebellion at all costs, including any liberties I need to take away" mode. One could argue that by even running for President when the Southern states PROMISED to secede if he were elected was the "wrong" thing to do. America was moving towards emancipation of the slaves already by that time -- it was not in doubt anywhere but in the minds of the mad and the hardcore pro-slavists (and there really weren't that many of those) that eventually slavery would go, but people wanted it to happen gradually, and overreacted to the election of an abolitionist as President. By running and being elected instead of a moderate, even if he didn't have radical plans, Lincoln's election -- and no other single event -- sparked the United States Civil War, which to date cost more American lives than EVERY AMERICAN WAR BEFORE AND SINCE COMBINED, including the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm and the current War in Iraq, plus all smaller engagements and actions.

Yet, despite the fact that Lincoln was in every way, and at best, a "grey" figure in American history, he is viewed with almost global respect and admiration. The same could be said of many of America's and EVERY nation's best-remembered and most-loved leaders. England's Henry (the 8th?) established the Church of England, but had his closest friend executed. France's Charles de Gaulle blatantly lied about French partisan actions in World War II (of which there was NONE) to gain popular support. The list goes on and on and on.


I both agree and disagree with your views on Lincoln.

As a history buff, you quite obviously know that the Civil war was nearly inevitable, and the fact that it took so long to happen is thanks to the efforts of such great Americans as Henry Clay and Webster, and to a lesser extent, Calhoun. However, it was Calhoun himself who nearly cause the civil war during Jackson's tenure, and it was through his Nullification Act that South Carolina nearly "seceded," though at the time the South was no where near as unified as it was in the future, as every other southern state thought SC was mad. And I would also say that while Lincoln DID violate insane amounts of civil rights, suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning anyone suspected to be a Confederate sympethizer, he also did what was necessary to preserve the Union and win the war. No matter his faults, I doubt another candidate could have held the Union together as Lincoln did. Kentucky, Ohio, and Maryland specifically all had strong Confederate sympethys, and if Maryland had seceded, Washington would be surrounded by Confeds, and would soon fall, which would essentially mean the South would win. While others in the government favored ending the war as casualties began to mount, Lincoln held firm. As radicals in his own party began to favor stripping the defeated South of everything and basically making them the North's bitches, Lincoln said no.

But I digress... it was more the fault of the South's extreme conservatism and paranoia which caused the Civil war more than Lincoln's election itself, the election was just the calalyst. Similarities can be seen between the recent election and that one, as I would say that right now the South (and Midwest too, but I'm using south for the comparison) is more unified and powerful a regional bloc than anytime in history since the Civil War. While the South also was unified early in the 1900s, it was not as powerful as it is now. And as recently as 1996, the democrats won Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennesee, Kentucky, and Florida. However, with the last 2 elections, the South (and midwest) have been completely unified, and have been the driving force behind the election and reelction of Bush. The South is unified on their beliefs (usually anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-religion, etc), and if Kerry had been elected, they would once again be put in a situation where a man who was a devil to them would be place at the highest position in their country. I'm not saying that the South would secede again, as there isn't an issue as polarizing as slavery, as well as the fact that no one in their right mind wants a US civil war, but there are definatly similarities.

[DrunkenUno]

As for Arafat:

While he certainly is not a good man, you cannot even come close to comparing him to Hussein or Hitler. Compare him to Qaddaffi.

And how will Arafat be remembered? It depends who writes the history books, us or the Europeans.

[JADezimar]

Giver arafat the power hitler had......... AND WELL C if arafat would be worse or better. Its simple arafat hasnt cuased near as much trouble but he doesnt have a power like germany behind him.... and he probably wasnt as intelligent. But the both shared the same hatred. And I dont know terrorisms is the same thing as gassing someone in a chamber.


And I love my quorky english, You should all appreciate it ;)

[Ummon]

Actually Arafat's father or grandfather (I don't remember exactly atm) was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He met Hitler and provided the SS with 9000 palestinian volunteers who fought with the Nazists to the bitter end.

Call it random...

Although Arafat is nonetheless not as dark a figure as Hitler.

The matter of the American Civil War is quite interesting. It's one of the reasons why I think there are a LOT of similarities between the Roman Republic and the U.S.

The Romans had the Social Wars, were the Italian populations fought for citizenship in the Republic. They also had the slave revolts of Sicily and Spartacus. The U.S. history has been much more democratic but nonetheless many of the themes are similar, including the tendency to suppress citizen rights during the said conflicts.

There are recurrent trends in history, in a sense.

But this was mostly a ranty post. Mine, I mean.

[Karmashock]

I guess I just don't see where this thread is going... Are we comparing Abe to Arafat and hitler?... or arafat to abe and hitler?...


The first thing you learn about history is that it's messy... so keep your definitions firm but use a thick marker when you draw lines... because everything is blurred.

[shutupandshave]

Henry VIII was seen as an effective tyrant in my history class. He established the Church of England because the Catholic church wouldn't allow him to remarry.

He also killed most of his wives.

I dont think Arafat can be singled out for being a badass. Sharon's background is just as hazy, as are many other leaders in the middle-east. I think you need to have a lot of battle experience to be able to lead a nation in that area.

[Karmashock]

he has little or no "battle" experence... unless you consider terrorism battle...

If you do, you must know that terrorism won't protect a country... what you would need to protect yourself would be 'true' battle experence...

wise governments retain generals for that job... you don't need to be one yourself to run a country.

[shutupandshave]

Why is it - that if I consider terrorism "battle" I must know it won't protect a country?

Those statements don't follow for me...

Are you talking about Arafat, or Sharon?

[Karmashock]

If battle is something that a leader should understand to protect his people, then isn't terrorism. Terrorism can't protect you... if anything it will destroy you.

Terrorism is the art of unpredictability... lawlessness... subversion... you target weak points even if they're none combatants... that generates instability within yourself... because all of your people will think in those terms... any government that practices it will be less stable and more prone to overthrow. That is why NO government does practice terrorism. Also, terrorism cannot stop invasions.. which is the FIRST thing that anyone should try to stop.

Saddam's forces were mostly conventional... tanks, planes, soldiers... he funded and promoted terrorism... but he did his best to not involve his own people in it... to do so would make him vulnerable... both to blame and to overthrow.

[shutupandshave]

I dont understand again

Did you miss a word out in that first sentance? If you did, it completely changes what you're saying, and if you didn't, the second statement seems to completely contradict the first....

Were you talking about Arafat or Sharon?

[MVB]

The purpose of this thread, for the person that asked above, is to simply make whatever comments one wishes on why shady characters in history are remembered so fondly at times.

The US Civil War was inevitable, most likely, Drunk, but slavery was on its way out *anyway* ... mediation would have seen that end one day with or without war. You'll recall it was not until 2 years into the war that Lincoln actually freed the slaves. He did things, however, which were arguably entirely unnecessary either in the preservation of the swing border states or in any reason whatsoever. In cold, hard fact Lincoln was a true Tyrant.

Suas, as for your history class, I have found that at least my history major, serious history classes here at UVA have all done their best to analyze the "truth" of history, rather than the spin, whether in regards to the US or the wider world. I'm glad that trend carries over to British Universities as well.

[JADezimar]

Karma Is talking about Arafat and his lack of battle experience or HIs knowledge of said terrorism does not equal battle experience =(. Someone Was defending arafat as a peacekeeper, cuase he won the nobel prize thats why I compared him with hitler and explained why arafat hasnt done everything hitler had done. Easily xplainable cuase he doesnt have the same means. (who knows maybe he wouldnt have invaded the whole world but one thing is for sure he wouldve went to the ends of the earth to eliminate the jews nonetheless) I For one was xtremely happy to c your posts Mvb on this subject. cuase My wife came home one day and said did you hear the middle east might go bad. Cuase that good man Arafat died. And I asked who informed you on this subject ? She didnt really answer. I was quite obliged to have her read that study.

And an explanation of saying why George Bush said god bless his soul, Is cuase nations and ppl would just look down on him and the united states that much more for Saying something bad about him anywayz. :p And If you want you can read deeper and go ya Bush means Arafat really needs his soul blessed :p. Thats my own interpretation so plz forgive me on that one. But Most decent human beings are better than me and when someone dies that deserves it, they dont dance on there grave.
So When you do you are looked down upon.

[shutupandshave]

The US government has also funded and promoted terrorism in the past - it has not made the US weak.

I think perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the place where the funding is intended for (in Saddam's case, Palestine, in the US's case Afghanistan) are weakened... as opposed to the country bank-rolling terrorism is weakened.

I think Saddam's support of Arafat throughout the years actually strengthened his position within the Arab community.

Of course it could also be argued that the US would be stronger in the international community if it had not bank-rolled Al-Q, and that Saddam would not have been attacked if he had not bank-rolled Arafat... but I am not sure that's the case.

[JADezimar]

Uh the states dont fund al Q ............. Thats who did 9/11. Under bin ladens command.

[Critta]

Are you kidding?

The CIA funded and trained Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for you in the 80's.

Good job!

[/<yle]

Arafat robbed the palestinian state blind. Hes a terrorist and a thief

[MightyDWC]

My big question is, why are leaders who are at BEST unevenly "good" so often remembered ONLY for the good, as if they were wonderful human beings out for nothing but the good of their people and their fellow man? I'm not sure I really have a good answer.

Even though it was a long post, this was MVB's goal, or purpose in writing it. So far I think i'm the only one who's attemped to answer the question LOL, although all the other posts are great.

[shutupandshave]

It's very true.

The US/Bin Laden fell out when the Saudi Government asked for US support instead of Al-Q support... although the US is still friendly with many of the Bin Laden family (and why shouldn't it be if they've not done anything wrong!)

[JADezimar]

Ok critta again.

We did not fund the terrorists al-q We may have funded a militia for the goal and event to fight off the Russian invasion you just said it yourself clear back in the 80's. But we havnt funded em in nearly 2 dcades and they became terrorists on there own.
Now Good job!

[shutupandshave]

And Saddam hasn't gassed someone in nearly two decades, but people still that it's relevant to bring up.

In the 80's they were terrorists - from the Russian's point of view. Now they're terrorists in our point of view.

[Critta]

The MUK (group that Bin Laden was involved with in Afghanistan pre-Al Quieda) was a terrorist group - pure and simple, it's just they were fighting your enemies rather than you.

You were funding terrorism and training terrorists. It's just at the time they were blowing up Russians rather than Americans.

You trained and supplied many terrorist groups at the time, without bothering to consider the long term implications of this. At the end of the day, it has back-fired on you and the terrorists are now knocking at your door.

More examples of the same:

Funding and training of Saddam Hussain to fight against Iran for you.
1986 - Arms sales to Iran - Profits go to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragura
Funding of the IRA

I'll do a little more research and see if I can find any more recent for you.

It's amazing the difference perspective can make.

[shutupandshave]

I think however, the difference that - to my knowledge the MUK never killed 3000 people and destroyed the twin towers (or the Russian equivelant), and the Russians just burled in there.

[Critta]

Maybe not, but all of the founding members of Al Quieda were taken from those who Bin Laden met whilst he was with the MUK.

So in a way they did.

[JADezimar]

i dont think so. WE have had bad choices in who to support in the pasts and it has backfired grant you that. But we never directly ever funded terrorism. You claiming that were responsible is like. Me stopping in the middle of an intersection cuase a pedestrian dartred out in front of me and blaming me for the accident when someone rear ends me. o0 Thats pretty arrogant critta.

Great job !

[MVB]

Dez, we trained people who are today terrorists or descendants of them. It was a calculated gamble that backfired. It does not make America today wrong or evil, or responsible for its own woes, because Guns don't kill people, people do. They're not wrong in saying that Americans funded terrorists, but they'd be horribly wrong if they didn't think Britain, France, and any number of other nations have all done the same thing at one time or another in history. Hell, it happened in Rome -- the Romans equipped and supported various marauding tribes against other marauding tribes all the time. At the time, the US was finding ways to get at a very dangerous enemy without provoking nuclear conflict, and I think they did a good job in that -- people like bin Laden were major thorns in the sides of the Russians. They renegged on their promises not to attack America, making THEM the bad guys, not the Americans for trusting and supporting them.

[JADezimar]

So waht your saying is We directly funded a group of ppl, to car bomb, behead and bomb civilian targest of russia ? I should just leave it at that. But I find that highly unlikely o0. Yah we may have funded A group that became terrorists like I just siad above. But, At the time they werent doing waht there doing today.

[MVB]

No. We directly supported "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. It was up to them what to do with the weapons and cash we gave them.

[JADezimar]

sooooo We didnt give them dull beheading knives and Weapons that translated directly into ...... car bomb ?

[Karmashock]

I dont understand again

Did you miss a word out in that first sentance? If you did, it completely changes what you're saying, and if you didn't, the second statement seems to completely contradict the first....

Were you talking about Arafat or Sharon?
Yes, I missed an "it" in the first sentence.

I was talking about Arafat... JAD figured it out...
=========================================
The US government has also funded and promoted terrorism in the past - it has not made the US weak.
First, I don’t believe we ever did. Freedom fighters and terrorists is a fine line… and I think we kept on the right side of it.

Second, I never said funding OTHERS to do terrorism ELSEWHERE made you weak. I said cultivating it within yourself makes you weak.

I think perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the place where the funding is intended for (in Saddam's case, Palestine, in the US's case Afghanistan) are weakened... as opposed to the country bank-rolling terrorism is weakened.
I would agree; that was my point.

I think Saddam's support of Arafat throughout the years actually strengthened his position within the Arab community.
Likely… while at the same time weakening the Arab community.

Of course it could also be argued that the US would be stronger in the international community if it had not bank-rolled Al-Q
We never did bank roll them… ever.


and that Saddam would not have been attacked if he had not bank-rolled Arafat... but I am not sure that's the case.
Arafat never got money from us directly… his government got it… but it was given in good faith that he would start a government… he bought bombs…
=====================================
Are you kidding?

The CIA funded and trained Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for you in the 80's.

Good job!

Yeah it was a good job, the US is PROUD of what it then. We are in no way responsible for what those people did later.

The only thing we ARE responsible for is disappearing from the area after the soviets left. We should have helped them rebuild and stabilize.

That was our only mistake.

Get a clue…

[shutupandshave]

Second, I never said funding OTHERS to do terrorism ELSEWHERE made you weak. I said cultivating it within yourself makes you weak.
No, you said that participating in Terrorism makes you weak. Dont you think that funding terrorism is participating in it - or are people that fund terrorism not guilty of it at all?

As for the rest - I disagree, but I cant be bothered to go into the details.

[Karmashock]

No, you said that participating in Terrorism makes you weak. Dont you think that funding terrorism is participating in it - or are people that fund terrorism not guilty of it at all?
I made the distinction very clear.

Reading comprehension is a basic skill… you’re not representing your people very well…

Terrorism is the art of unpredictability... lawlessness... subversion... you target weak points even if they're none combatants... that generates instability within yourself... because all of your people will think in those terms... any government that practices it will be less stable and more prone to overthrow. That is why NO government does practice terrorism. Also, terrorism cannot stop invasions.. which is the FIRST thing that anyone should try to stop.

Saddam's forces were mostly conventional... tanks, planes, soldiers... he funded and promoted terrorism... but he did his best to not involve his own people in it... to do so would make him vulnerable... both to blame and to overthrow.

There you go… I made the distinction… You’re either unable to read or you’re sunk to changing my argument instead of making a good one yourself.


As for the rest - I disagree, but I cant be bothered to go into the details.
Yeah, kind of hard when you don’t have a point isn’t it?…

Well, I’m sure you can concocted something… give it a try…

Love, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Saddam's forces were mostly conventional... tanks, planes, soldiers... he funded and promoted terrorism... but he did his best to not involve his own people in it... to do so would make him vulnerable... both to blame and to overthrow.
He was vulnerable to blame and overthrow BECAUSE he funded terrorism, and Iraq was apparently a hotbed of terrorism... involving his people has nothing to do with it. That was the reason the we invaded. Christ. The point is, having anything to do with terrorism makes you weak.

I agreed with your first statement - that participating in terrorism makes you weak. I disagreed when you suggested that funding terrorism in other countries doesn't count as participating terrorism.
You said that Saddam was strong because of terrorism, however even went so far as to point out that it may have weakened the whole region...
Christ, we're agreeing with other, and you still feel the need to start throwing insults around... If you ever wonder why I dislike you - it's for things like this.


Fine, you want me to disagree with you publically - I will.
First, I don’t believe we ever did. Freedom fighters and terrorists is a fine line…
and I think we kept on the right side of it.
Yeah well Russians and the Chinese disagree, and there's more of them than there are of you so stfu. Go democracy!

As for the fact that the US never bankrolled terrorists

"Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured in at least US $6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin [in Afghanistan]. Other western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more. ...

"Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. ... Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction."

(Norm Dixon, "How the CIA created Osama bin Laden" [autumn 2001])
With Al-Q being formed in 1987-88 - hmmm...

We are in no way responsible for what those people did later.

The only thing we ARE responsible for is disappearing from the area after the soviets left. We should have helped them rebuild and stabilize.

That was our only mistake.
Have you considered the fact that Bin Laden might have not attacked the US if it hadn't abandoned the country?

[MVB]

SUas, on that last point, bullshit. bin Laden isn't retaliating against the US for abandoning him; even if we pulled out, w egave them billions of dollars according to you; plus we didn't "disappear" until the greatest threat -- the soviets -- left. Bin Laden attacked us because he HATES us for who we are, and as developed his ideology, that's what happened. He's a Muslim extremist, which means anyone not Muslim must either convert or die, in his mind, and we are the symbol of all that is not Muslim, to people like Osama.

Also, an earlier comment wondering whether the US participated in terrorism by funding it; I say -- no. They funded people fighting one of their enemies; they did not participate in the actions of those individuals. You might as well indict the weapons companies who built the equipment originally, blaming them for participating, since after all -- if they hadn't built their weapons, no one would have used them to kill people, and of course they knew people were going to be killed as a result of using them. You can't escape the hard fact that terrorists like Osama are evil people, and we weren't fully aware of that. The US is at fault for thinking that by being kind and generous and helpful in the process of attacking their enemy covertly, they'd gain a friend, instead of inexplicably -- to western lines of thought -- gaining an enemy.

[shutupandshave]

I never thought he is retaliating against the US for abandoning him. I am merely suggesting that if the US had stuck around - put a nice free government there, then perhaps some of Karma's (freedom eliminates terrorism) law might have applied. I am not saying it definitely would have - but don't you think there's a chance?

However what interests me that I can't escape the hard fact that terrorists like Osama are evil people... well it's fact that escaped the CIA for 15 years while they funded him.... "oh shit we never realised he'd turn out like this"

[MVB]

Hope and optimism are trademarks of a free people, as a general rule. I do not find them at fault for hoping and expecting the best from Osama. This perhaps links to the original discussion of that Abe Lincoln and Arafat thread -- if they're not attacking us directly, it's much easier to see and remember them in a more positive light.

[Karmashock]

He was vulnerable to blame and overthrow BECAUSE he funded terrorism, and Iraq was apparently a hotbed of terrorism... involving his people has nothing to do with it. That was the reason the we invaded. Christ. The point is, having anything to do with terrorism makes you weak.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you even know?… You’re so intent on kicking up dust and clouding this discussion that you’re not even making compete arguments… you’re flailing around like a little girl.

I agreed with your first statement - that participating in terrorism makes you weak. I disagreed when you suggested that funding terrorism in other countries doesn't count as participating terrorism.
You fail reading comprehension… again.

I stated that involving your own people in terrorism makes you weak. Just funding it elsewhere can make you strong. You stated that his support of terrorism “strengthened” in him with arab street… I mean… just listen to yourself… you’re doing such a plastic dance that you lost all shape.
You said that Saddam was strong because of terrorism, however even went so far as to point out that it may have weakened the whole region...
His support of terrorism gave him access to the Shiite terror networks around his country… that made him stronger… however, those very networks weaken his neighbors… so you see it?… read it few times and think about it… it’s very clear, simple, and difficult to disagree with.
Christ, we're agreeing with other, and you still feel the need to start throwing insults around... If you ever wonder why I dislike you - it's for things like this.
Not at all, when you agree with me or make an honest argument I treat you well. When you disagree with me, we are in conflict. When you make a dishonest argument, I will flame you.


Fine, you want me to disagree with you publically - I will.
I could honestly couldn’t care less.
Yeah well Russians and the Chinese disagree, and there's more of them than there are of you so stfu. Go democracy!
About what?… terrorism?… The Russians and Chinese have the same stance as us… Kill them.

As for the fact that the US never bankrolled terrorists


With Al-Q being formed in 1987-88 - hmmm...
Not with our funding… in fact the Northern Alliance, the people that added us in our take over of Afghanistan from the taliban were the descendents of the Mujahiddin. NOT the Taliban… NOT Al –Q.

Have you considered the fact that Bin Laden might have not attacked the US if it hadn't abandoned the country?
this might be true… letting Afghanistan fall to the Islamic radicals was a mistake… we were fighting the soviets… so long as they lost we were pretty happy.

We’re cleaning up our messes… shut up or help.

[shutupandshave]

Karma, nothing you have said there was of ANY substance what-so-ever. Good job.

[Karmashock]

Riiiiight suas... Based on that cutting and in depth analysis... there can be nooooo doubt.

You're just getting lazy now... :D

[shutupandshave]

You give me something to reply too - and I will.

If I filled a page with half-truths and assumptions you'd probably come up with a reply. After a while you, like me would get bored with pointing out the obvious.

[DivinerSage]

Hey yall dont forget none of us were there to personally witness any of this and we didnt know any of these peoples. History will be written, re-written then falsified. Everyone writes their version of the story. Honestly I take everything I read about politics and religion with a huge grain of salt. I can honestly say its everyones fault in the middle east. We know the palistinians and muslim extremeists do terroristic acts and Israel always retalites quite severely with their superiorly equipped military we all gave them. This shit has been amassing for centuries there is so one person who even knows enough about the whole deal to even be an authority on the matter in my opinion. everyone always finger points and tries to lay the blame on someone else.

We could never know the extent of Arafats "terroristic" ties we dont know him never met him, we could never know if Ariel Shannen has a shady background all I know is he was a member of the isralie special forces and participated in some hostage resue operations in the 60's I think. We could never know Osama's true motives for hating us it stems back during his Mujohadeen days so I hear which was a while ago.

Folk heroes like Davy Crockett, Daniel Boon, Jim Bowie were all scoundrels so I hear and everyone views them as true american heroes and the such. Most impressions are from peoples assumptions and from he said she said bullshit. We'll never know the truth because the facts are litterally lost in time and forever therefore its quite irrelevant to even discuss or argue on these topics. Everyone equally has no idea what they are talking about its physically impossible for them to know.

[Critta]

First, I don’t believe we ever did. Freedom fighters and terrorists is a fine line… and I think we kept on the right side of it.

Second, I never said funding OTHERS to do terrorism ELSEWHERE made you weak. I said cultivating it within yourself makes you weak.

First paragraph:

I do not know enough about the MUK's activities to know whether they could be classed as terrorist or not. I have a feeling they probably acted as any other group of that nature would do - achieve their aims in any way necessary, including car bombs and the like if needs be.

One group however that I do know a lot more about (having been in London when a couple of their bombs went off - killing scores of people) - The IRA, funded by the US, acting as pure terrorists against purely civilian targets, you cannot argue they were freedom fighters, because they had crossed the line a long time ago. Don't give me your bullshit "we only fund freedom fighters" and "there's a fine line" because it's just not true.

Your nation has taken a complete about turn on it's attitude towards terrorism because 3 years ago you were affected by it on a large scale for the first time. Thus every time Bush or other of the shmucks in your government make a speech about the evils of terror, and start invading countries because they think there might be some terrorists there. I think back, and realise that this isn't something which has been a firm belief for some time and that it's just another excuse to try and make yourselves look "strong".

Personally I think it just makes your "great" nation look like a stupid dog, chasing its own tail.

[MVB]

Critta, normally you're a voice of reason. That thread sounds like nothing but a large mound of hatred, all being directed at the focal point you've chosen -- the US.

[Karmashock]

Critta,
First
They only had Russian soldiers to attack and I doubt very much if they were targeting their innocent afghan civilians like the terrorists in Iraq are.

The US never funded the IRA. Did some Irish civilians from that LEFT Ireland because of what the English were doing to their country send some money?.... Yeah... was that right?... NO... Was that supported by the US?... NO.

As to the line, no we haven't crossed it.

As to any turn around... we haven't... we've been sleeping... we've ignored the threats... ignored our enemies... no more... The sleeping giant is awake... and woes betide our foes.

Peace be upon you, Karmashock.

[JADezimar]

Critta just wants to blame someone other than his own people. Sad but true o0

[shutupandshave]

Karma, US business (not US government) has been PROVEN to fund the IRA.

[JADezimar]

Saus again you misinterpreted karma o0. Karma is talkin about A us citezen (Irish leftie in the states) That cuold possibly own a business I guess. Either way......... Did you know alot of us business is owned by foreingers o0. #2 The U.S governemnt isnt politically responsible or obligated to take blame for us business funding the IRA. #3 what businesses are doing it o0 ?

And You cant link A U.S. business funding the IRA the united states its self or the general acceptance or want of its public........ Thats like saying cuase the IRA wants ireland Freed that all of ireland agrees with them. IF that were the case UK would have way bigger problems with Ireland as a whole. So critta think about that one o0

[shutupandshave]

JAD, you misunderstood me in fact.

I was deliberately making the differentiation between US business and US government, and stating that there IS no evidence (that I know of) that states the US government funded the IRA. However Karma said the US, not just US government.
If someone says "the US does this", it means the whole of the US (government AND business - in this situation) does it.
To say that US did fund terrorism is just as incorrect as to say the US didn't fund terrorism - especially after the line had already been drawn between US business and US government.

[JADezimar]

An american When uses the term US does not use the term lightly. We do not Say that A Us business lets say at&t for instance if it were to support the IRA would be representing the US when there are several other business, the government and the Majority of population to thinkj about. Usually we never are thinking of US business In this term We are usually talking about our government and the majority want of the United States. Critta on the other hand uses the term lightly and says that a US business far as we know could be 1 dude with a small business making a contribution etc etc represents the states. I find this apalling and so would most americans. To say that US did fund terrorism is just as incorrect as to say the US didn't fund terrorism - especially after the line had already been drawn between US business and US government. So not its not incorrect to say the USA doesnt fund the IRA, Or we could say the UK is Funding the IRA too o0. And Generates and wants terrorisms. When in fact its only a small group of people that Are for the IRA and support. When the majority of UK are against it. So i would say its incorrect to say the uK supports the IRA but with your theory you are saying they do o0.

[shutupandshave]

No JAD, my posts are agreeing with the statement that the US as a whole never supported the IRA.

My statement to Karma was purely that. That US BUSINESS had supported the IRA. I am not agreeing with Critta, and am in fact openly disagreeing with him.

So no, my theory would NOT agree with you if you said that the UK supported the IRA, Critta's however would.

[JADezimar]

Sounds good.

Great JOb Critta :)

[Karmashock]

Karma, US business (not US government) has been PROVEN to fund the IRA.

Indeed... the US has a large Irish population... That population participates at all levels of our society... That includes CEOs... The US Government never supported the IRA and in fact prohibited the actions you're talking about.


Don't pretend like America supported the IRA... SOME private citizens did... but the country and people at large are blameless.

[shutupandshave]

Karma
When did I EVER say America supported the IRA.

I have stated quite clearly in my last few posts that I never said that, I dont think it, and in fact I believe the opposite.

[Karmashock]

You were defending Critta who DID say that the US did AND you didn't say that the US didn't support the IRA.

A responsible non-allied person in this discussion would have first said that critta was wrong and THEN stated that some people in the US supported the IRA. That would have been fine and I would have said nothing.

However, when I told critta that the US did not support the IRA, which is true. You supported critta by stating that some US businesses gave some money or support to the IRA.

By not providing a complete argument in that instance you did nothing to promote the proper understanding and everything to support Critta except lie.

[shutupandshave]

My statement to Karma was purely that. That US BUSINESS had supported the IRA. I am not agreeing with Critta, and am in fact openly disagreeing with him.

You supported critta by stating that some US businesses gave some money or support to the IRA.

So you're complaining because you didn't completely understand what I was trying to say the first time round.

I will bear this in mind Karma and from now on - any time that you make a comment that can be perceived as slightly inaccurate (even if you go on to fully explain what you mean) I will ignore all subsequent revisions and just comment on the initial statement. As this is exactly what you have done.

Now, lets go back to when you initially said "the UK is a republic" not "the UK can be seen as a republic" or "the UK has is not a republic but it does have certain leanings in that direction tendancies" (which is a synopsis of what you claim to have said"
THE UK IS NOT A REPUBLIC YOU FUCKTARD. EVEN THE CIA SAY IT'S NOT.

"oh suas, why do you drag this up again" because you're retarded - and you never admitted you were wrong. That's why. Every comment you now make that is not fully explained (and 100% correct) will be dragged through the mud (along with what's left of your name) as you have decided to do to me because you had no weight left to your argument.

I was agreeing with you Karma, and you STILL decided to pick a fight with me...for what I can only see as the sake of it.

[Karmashock]

I was agreeing with you Karma, and you STILL decided to pick a fight with me...for what I can only see as the sake of it.
I actually didn’t read the rest… I looked for the last response to what I said then scanned the rest… I missed the bit where you said you weren’t backing up critta.

I just assumed all of that was you and JAD going back and forth…

Love, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Which is kind of ironic considering the number of times you've lectured me (wrongly) about reading comprehension.

[Karmashock]

not really... had you made the same mistake I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it... but you're all bitter and snarky again... so nothing is too low is it?... :disagree:

[shutupandshave]

No - you wouldn't have told me that I need to learn to read, or that I need to take an economics class, or make a big deal about trying to make me apologise when it is YOU that's wrong?

Oh - yes you would.

[Karmashock]

no... i really wouldn't... If you had admitted that you didn't read it and gave a reasonable explanation I would have just accepted that... I'm not petty.

[shutupandshave]

I strongly disagree with that... so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
;)