« There's Humor Afoot | Main | Lack Of Posting »

August 25, 2005

Another Arafat Heir

If there was ever a reason for a government to indulge in what the KGB used to call mokri dela(wet affairs), the Israelis need to arrange an "accident" for this son of a bitch before he gets comfortable in the Gaza Strip.

He confers often with terrorist groups and regimes and called the attacks of September 11, 2001, "a lesson to the U.S." saying it "was the first time that Arabic names entered every American household."

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | As this column reported last week, the Tunis-based head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Farouk Qaddumi, whose official position on Israel is that it should be destroyed, will move into Gaza this summer. He is a possible successor and key rival to the Palestinian Authority's current leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Mr. Qaddumi will be bringing with him a "volunteer popular army" of at least 1,500, according to Saudi press reports from August 3.

The PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel was reportedly amended in 1996, but on an appearance on ANB TV on April 25, 2005, Mr. Qaddumi said that he "does not accept any amendment." Furthermore, in an interview with an Israeli-Arab weekly on January 3, 2003, he openly stated that there is no difference between Hamas and the PLO vis-a-vis calling for the destruction of Israel. He said, "strategically we are no different from it."

The Israelis definitely don't need an asshat like that coming to town.

Posted by Seth at August 25, 2005 10:48 AM


Let me see if I understand... So you want him to have an accident? Isn't it the same thing we wants to do to americans? So if he is a son of a bitch, then what are you if you want for him the same thing that he wants for you?If you want to think of something positive out of the tragedy of 9/11 is that for the first time in modern history many people started worrying on where Saudi Arabia and the arab world was in the map. Maybe more people is interested in their government foreign affairs than before which means that they will be more careful of letting them arm a guy like Bin Laden that will come years after and crash a plane in their main city.Think it that way, there is more people now concerned about the rest of the world and that realized that there is a world outside of the east and the west coast.9/11 was a shame but look for who armed the guy? and you still keep spreading weapons and money around the world to "save it" (althought I thing that consume it will be the proper word).

Posted by: Caribe at August 25, 2005 05:49 PM

No, it's the same thing he wants to do to Israelis, except less discriminately. His way would be suicide bombers murdering innocent women and children.When you're facing an enemy like that, you leave the niceties at home.Consume the world? LMAO!I was unaware that our country maintained any colonial ambissions. If we did, we would have Germany, Japan, Panama, Grenada and possibly some of the Balkans in our stable.We didn't "arm" bin Laden, the airplanes used on 9/11 were taken by force.So what, basically, is your point?

Posted by: Seth at August 25, 2005 09:03 PM

There is a big difference between deliberatly attacking civilians & accidently attacking civilians. You make a great point about colonialism Seth.

Posted by: NYgirl at August 25, 2005 11:54 PM

The humanitarian concept that the U.S. rebuilds countries we've defeated in war, then leaves them on their own when the job is done is alien to the Caribes of this world.His country would be more likely to lay waste to an enemy they could beat, then their soldiers would loot and plunder among the smoking ruins, raping the surviving women and girls, then the defeated country would be annexed as a spoil of war.

Posted by: Seth at August 26, 2005 06:15 AM

This what's really sad. Very few people differentiate between what we did for Germany & Japan & what we are doing in Iraq, with British & French (yes the French) colonialism in Africa & Asia.

Posted by: NYgirl at August 26, 2005 09:57 PM

Our own liberals and a bunch of ignorant people in foreign countries can say whatever they want and make us out to be as villainous as they want to, the fact remains that the US has, far and away, been the single most benevolent nation on the planet and, allowed to continue with the same form of government, always will be. There is no other single country that has demonstrated the largesse we have in sharing our prosperity with the rest of the world.Unfortunately, there will forever be those who look for and imagine they find evil intentions in every good thing we do, including people in other countries who have/are benefitting from our generosity even as they cast stones at us.

Posted by: Seth at August 27, 2005 02:27 AM

Don't even try telling them that Seth. Facts & reason don't matter to them. Only their own version of reality counts. It's like little kids, they have to get exactly what they want or they start crying & throwing accusations around.

Posted by: NYgirl at August 28, 2005 04:48 AM

Ain't THAT the truth! That's why I have so much fun bating SF liberals, LOL.

Posted by: Seth at August 28, 2005 08:36 AM

Seth said:
"I was unaware that our country maintained any colonial ambitions."

You may be unaware, but it is a fact, nonetheless. It's a new and improved version of colonialism, but it's colonialism, to be sure.

Let's call it neo-colonialism. That's their word for it in Central America.

Instead of maintaining our own gov't in power of these poorer nations so that we might extract their wealth, we advocate for (or simply covertly place in power) a gov't that is friendly towards us or beholden to us, so that we can extract their wealth.

This is why Venezuelan president Chavez is such a thorn in the side to the neo-cons. He won't play nice with the US and he's thus far proven difficult to overthrow (although we have tried).

Doubt that we're living in a neo-colonial world? Just follow the money. Look at who's profiting at whose expense. The fact that it's their own gov't doing it to them (at our bequest), doesn't make it much nicer than the original colonialism.

As I said, just ask folk in Central/Latin America. They can tell you that it's back in full force.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 29, 2005 04:51 PM

Dan, according to the US State Department, there are 192 countries in the world. Like companies, these countries all have individual management, some peaceful, some not, some friendly to us, some not.Our govt's job is to look after our interests(the people's) first, just like those other 191 govts' is to look after their own citizens' interests. Some of the other 191 are managed by people whom, even as they recieve hundreds of millions or more in US aid(OUR money, paid through our taxes), show their gratitude through hostility, through political and other alliances with govts that are our enemies or by playing footloose over deals we made with them before "handing over the loot." Helping their political opposition(there were an awful lot of "crickets chirping" over there on the left when confronted with allegations that Slick William Clinton made some military technology deals of his own with Communist China and was rewarded, by that same enemy, via sizeable campaign contributions) is in our best interests. We. The folks our govt is employed by. Uncle Sam's bosses.Whatever good comes of our largesse is meant to benefit the people of these countries as well as us and help bring them into the current world marketplace so they can take care of themselves. Enhancing the global economy is good for everyone, not just US corporations.The liberal gripe is that our companies are making money helping these countries(true anti-capitalists, they purport to believe that any profit motive negates all good intentions. If the US had been founded thus, we might be a third world style shithole today or a colony of some other country and those same liberals, had they even been born, might well be living in squalor, no Beemers or double lattes). Dan, you are funny. Any move by a Republican administration to help a troubled country is "neo-colonialism". When a Democrat POTUS does the same thing, it is "the benevolence of the American people." We do not occupy any countries we haven't won a war against, and in the latter case, we leave as soon as we've helped them get back on their feet. These countries need our help and we provide it. Our big corporations contribute by expanding their ops into them, creating jobs and improving their economies. Yes, the US firms in question make profits, and why shouldn't they? They are businesses, after all, and have fiscal responsibilities of their own. But... we do not tell anybody else how to run their countries, only interfering if there is a question of human rights violations or other majorly oppressive govt policies. Colonialization denotes controlling another country politically and/or economically, and if that was our policy we'd have far less dissent emanating from the UN, but lots of puppets therein. Ever heard the term, "trading partners?" Ask some of those countries that appreciate the employment we create and the other ways we have helped jumpstart their previously stagnant economies. Sorry, Dan, this accusation of the US being a colonial power is downright silly and, surprise, surprise, seems to originate mainly from the left side of the aisle{and only during Republican administrations}. :-)

Posted by: Seth at August 29, 2005 08:27 PM

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You clearly know not of which you speak. I and many of my friends, as well as nearly all progressives, made the same accusations at Clinton as he signed the neo-colonial NAFTA. As did the people in Central America. They're the ones experiencing it. They know.You, on the other hand, seem to know all about self-interest. Or at least the Republican version of it, which is corporate interest.Open up your heart and mind and learn, friend.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 30, 2005 12:53 PM

Dan. Dan. Dan.Don't "corporate interests" have something to do, in one way or another, with manufacturing, delivering and otherwise providing practically everything anyone needs for anything? Don't "corporate interests" have something to do with millions of Americans having jobs and paying taxes? Dan, you and yours exist on a different plane than the majority of Americans do, which is why there has been a steady increase in elbow room on the left side of the aisle in both the Senate and the House over the last few years. There is this reality, see, that a guvmint's primary responsibility is to its country's citizens, as there does not exist any world socialist government at this time. That gives OUR government plenty of latitude to do its job by looking after the interests of its own.Believe it or not, this is not a new concept, in fact if I'm not mistaken, every country follows that proceedure as aggressively as they are capable: Trade agreements favorable to their industries/corporations almost always lead to increased employment and more taxes collected.The neo-colonial bit is just another element of the never-ending slogan marathon of the left. Sorry, Dan, but the bases of all your reasoning ignore two key elements: Human nature and a firm grasp of reality.

Posted by: Seth at August 30, 2005 05:47 PM

You made comments that were demonstrably untrue (about "us" supporting Dems but not Republicans when they do the same thing) and then, when I correct you, you just change your argument. And then you suggest I'm not based in reality? This seems to be stock in trade reasoning for the neo-cons.Here's another little tidbit that you can choose to ignore. You said:"we do not tell anybody else how to run their countries"And yet that is exactly what we're doing through the WTO and IMF in Nicaragua, as well as other poorer nations. The Nicaraguans (I'll use them for an example, because they're the ones with which I'm most familiar, but it applies to other nations) would like to invest more in their education and healthcare systems. But the WTO and IMF have set up parameters around which Nica must base their expenditures. These involve investing money in setting up global corporations, even at the expense of the local economy.It's all a matter of record. We dictate to Nica and other places what they ought to do so as to best benefit our corporate overlords. I visited the IMF after visiting Nicaragua and asked why in the world they didn't push education over corporate needs. At first they tried to explain, but eventually they acknowledged that they do so because it's what the US wants it to do. This from the IMF!Let me tell you a bit about human nature: You push people and nations around enough and they start to resent you. Consider you a bully nation, a rogue nation. And one thing that this leads to is terrorism.So I think you're suggestion that progressives don't understand human nature or reality is belied by the facts of the matter.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 30, 2005 07:04 PM

Poppycock!Naturally enough, we come full circle to "blame the US."Nicaragua's economic problems are not rooted in the greed of "Evil Corporate America." The country is one of, if not the most heavily indebted countries in the world, even after debt forgiveness by some creditors, and it is the repayment of those debts that's sucking money away from social issues.Your statements about America bullying the world and in so doing being also responsible for terrorism is pure schmutz.The first part is the same paranoid leftism we've come to know so well, the second, if you are applying it to our current terror situation, is completely untrue to the point of total irrelevance: Al-Qaeda and their fellow Islamofascists are engaged in a war against all "nonbelievers."

Posted by: Seth at August 30, 2005 08:04 PM

That's rich! Blame Nica's problems on her indebtedness.Do you know HOW Nicaragua got so heavily in debt? A large portion of it was because of the Somoza regime (US-sponsored). Then another huge amount of money was spent fighting the contras (again, US-sponsored). Then, when we were fined $17 billion for War Crimes, we refused to pay. It's always easier to blame the poor, though, than to look for answers, isn't it?And yes, along the way, many other Nicaraguan leaders have poorly managed money or outright cheated the Nicaraguan people out of money.As to the current batch of terrorists, they are involved for a variety of reasons, as is always the case when you have violent people acting out. Some have been erroneously taught that this is what their Allah wants. Some are out to get the Great Satan that has so negatively influenced their world. Others might be doing it because it has become fashionable, who knows? There are many reasons. It would be in our best interest to understand why and work to change the root of the problem.And to blame it on "evil people" is the height of arrogance and a shallow understanding of humanity.On a more reasonable note, let me say that I am really not about "blaming the US" no matter what. We have great ideals, as I've said before. I want us to live up to those ideals, not wallow in crimes (and they HAVE been committed) and abuse of our wealth.We are the wealthiest nation in the world. We have a huge impact on the rest of the world. We therefore have responsibility. To whom much has been given, much will be expected.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 30, 2005 09:10 PM

It's nice that we have some people here who can try to understand the roots of such problems. Luckily, we also have a lot of brave, violent and dedicated folks of the "break things and kill people" school to protect them while they deliberate.

Posted by: Seth at August 30, 2005 09:26 PM

In other words, are you saying that you can't think of an honest rebut to my arguments so you're just going to imply that "we'll keep kicking butt so you can be right?"

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 31, 2005 12:38 PM

No, Dan, I'm saying that the US, while it is beneficial in major ways to the rest of the world, is not obligated to put other countries ahead of ourselves.Many of the things we do can be construed as unfair, "not bloody well cricket, old chap," even ruthless, but every country in the world does what it has to do to take care of itself and its citizens, and sometimes feels it has to do things that not everybody approves of. Like the song says: "You can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself."The U.S. is the big kid in the schoolyard, and like children, a certain segment of our society here in CONUS cannot stand the idea of anyone being at the top of the hill, it offends their socialist sensibilities. In the case of many foreigners in foreign lands, there is jealousy of the American behemoth.What is amusing to me is that stuff other countries do that is really criminal barely gets a glance from any of our detractors, but you can bet that every tiny thing the US does is under the scrutiny of foreign critics who ignore their own countries' dirty laundry but pounce on the U.S. for many lesser "evils." The same holds true for Americans who enjoy their freedom of speech by abusing it. Sure, it's a right, but it's also a responsibility.As I said before, you come from a totally different level of patriotic thought and a different grasp on reality than I do. The arguments you use would work well with a self-important liberal intellectual, but most of my life, from the time I was in my late teens, has been based periodically in professional pursuits that have been grounded in some of life's grimmer realities, so I tend to have a starker worldview than that of a pacifist whose intercourse with life's "big pictures" has probably been embraced on a theoretical basis.Now, I really must get moving, I have a few things yet to do before heading to SFO to catch my flight.

Posted by: Seth at August 31, 2005 01:32 PM

Yes, we have different grasps on reality from each other. Makes you wonder who's right, sorta.So, what grimmer realities and professional pursuits has your life been grounded in that makes your view valid and mine only worthy of self-important liberal intellectuals? (And what is the opposite of a self-imporant liberal intellectual, I wonder?)The grim realities that I've chosen to base my life in are inner city urban poverty, pollution and violence, rural poverty, the desperate poverty and violence of my brothers and sisters in poorer nations...those realities and the pursuit of workable solutions in the real world to these problems, not the ivory towers of militarism, corporatism and consumerism. You reckon my reality is less valid than yours?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at August 31, 2005 09:23 PM

Let me put it another way, Dan.Back in the day, when I was a young studmuffin with little regard for my personal safety and a job to do that was more important than said personal safety, I learned, the hard way, about human nature. I cannot give specific examples on a public forum, nor can I explain why I can't.However, I had some in-your-face violence encounters, on an occupational basis, with people who were not looking to negotiate and couldn't care less whether I strove to understand them or not. A few times, shots were fired. I've been in some barrios where people were living so far below any poverty level you'll find in CONUS that it made our poorest and most squalid look like the upper middle class. Ever seen kindergarden age children with running sores on their legs, splashing around gleefully in open sewers, their poverty an inheritance of generations so they have no idea there's anything amiss, while their dictator-led governments could care less?I've watched, restrained, while soldiers of a latin American country I can't name beat and tortured a couple of people in ways that would give you nightmares for some time to come.I don't get the impression that you've had any first hand experience of or exposure to any of these kinds of things, and I'm happy for you there, that your POV comes from reading and studying, a far more desirable method, but not as "potent" nor informative an experience as being there.Back then, I learned that there are people "out there" who are purely evil and not even remotely reasonable with, and I've encountered people who would smile and be friendly to you, make deals with you while trying to decide whether they should murder you by either cutting your throat or shooting you in the back. I've lost friends to violence, good friends, and watched them die.Have you? And some of my nightmares refuse to go away.You are one of those peaceful, well meaning intellectuals who believe that everyone has a good side that can be reached "if we only make the effort to understand their motivations." That's very nice, really. And sometimes you're right.Unfortunately, there are times when you can be DEAD wrong, as in your assuming that an accommodation can be reached with religiously motivated terrorists or ruthless South American dictators. There are a lot of truly bad people out there who cannot be reasoned with, and their intentions are easily misread by the optimism of pacifists.I've met people like you before, who would sit there, never having been "in the soup," and tell those who HAVE been there that they don't know what they're talking about.There's no arguing with such people, they are of the indelible opinion that they know whereof they speak. For you, the only convincing argument would be the realtime confrontation with life's starker realities, some of which I wouldn't wish on any decent person.Point being, there is a time for pacifists and other well meaning people to step back and allow those who embrace the real world outside your little Utopias to do their jobs.

Posted by: Seth at September 1, 2005 07:48 PM

Sorry I don't have the creds that you do, studmuffin. I'll just go quietly back to my little utopia that you've graciously created for me.But I have been in violent situations. I have been in Nicaragua and seen children playing in sewers. I've friends who've lived in the poorest sections of Nicaragua, India, Mexico, Morocco, etc. and I do know all sorts of people.And what I've learned in my isolated little utopia that there are all sorts of people, but they're all people. They have wants and needs, hopes and desires, greeds and lusts, not to mention quite a few mental illnesses. But I've never met anyone purely evil. And you know why? Because that just isn't the real world. Monsters don't exist. And I'm sorry for you that your experiences and choices have caused you to view life that way.I understand to a degree why some prefer to think that way. If monsters exist, then they're not humans like us and we can more easily justify their torture and murder. If they're not human like us, that relieves us of the possibility of becoming like them.But again, that's not reality. They are just people like you and me.I'll continue to hope that, since you have seen the worst of humanity, that you would join me in supporting the US in not going down that road.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 1, 2005 09:09 PM

If you've been around the block thus and not learned that there ARE some really evil "monsters" in human form, I don't know what else to tell you, except "good luck."Why am I thinking of the annual ritual of Lucy holding the football so Charlie Brown can come running up and kick it?

Posted by: Seth at September 2, 2005 12:10 AM