MSNBC -- Large Crowd Gathering At Arafat Compound (LIVE 3PM)

[Khephra]

LOTS of people...

[4dsc]

1. The more the better!!!

EOM!!

[Khephra]

2. Back to live coverage again

.

[hippiechick]

3. gathering for what ?

:hi: kef !

[Khephra]

4. To oppose the expulsion of Arafat

:hi:

Just sent you a mail, actually....

[Khephra]

7. There's a HELL of a lot of them and they're really really loud

This isn't going to end well....

[Robin Hood]

5. In support of their ELECTED leader Arafat.

Israel is considering to expel Arafat from the region.

[stopthegop]

21. there should be quotes around 'elected' n/t

.

[Dhalgren]

23. His "election" was at least as "fair" as many other

"accepted" leaders. Let's not apply distinctions to one that are not applied to others.

[damnraddem]

40. Here's the distinction: Arafat was elected, Dubya was not.

Maybe we need some Palestinian observers in the U.S. elections in 2004.

[saigon68]

74. BETTER THAN THE "ELECTION" OF THE MAYOR OF KABUL

Chalabi Lap Dog and Lackey of the U.S State Department--- has hundreds of American taxpayer paid "SECURITY AGENTS" protecting (most of these people are Americans) him from his own people---

I'd say Arafat at least has the 'SUPPORT" of his people as they try to shield him from what is coming

I think they are going to kill him this time.

[Tinoire]

70. No quotes! His election was monitored by Jimmy Carter

and International observers from respected agencies who pronounced it fair and open.

Just because the Likud and certain Americans don't like him does NOT make his election or popularity less valid.

[Emboldened Chimp]

29. He may be elected

but he's by no means a good person. The guy should be behind bars, imho, as should Sharon and *.

[damnraddem]

41. Now, now! Let's not depopulate the world's governments.

As attractive a proposition as that might appear to be.

[Emboldened Chimp]

77. Why not?

Give me one GOOD reason why this shouldn't happen.

[LeftistGorilla]

82. Either him or Yasin....

take your pick...

[Chico Man]

6. This worries me

I hope this does not turn into a blood bath.

[schrodinger_I]

8. It already is a bloodbath

Lots of suicide bombings have been happening. I hope they expel him...Good riddance!

[Dhalgren]

11. Only if they also expell Sharon.

.

[Mari333]

17. I agree...Fair is Fair!

http://www.iraqwar.org/Armageddonupdates.htm

[Skidmore]

69. Who do you suppose will write the book

"The Day after Armageddon?" Old Falwell and his ilk are going to be shocked to find themselves not in heaven but in the very personal hell they've created if this thing blows up.

[markus]

22. Hell, Arafar should offer to leave, if Sharon does.

That would be politically brilliant.

[damnraddem]

43. Well, it wouldn't be fair, since Sharon is so much worse.

But it would indeed be interesting.

But I don't think Arafat has the integrity to do it -- even to offer it, since there is no prospect that the Israelis would accept the deal.

[aquart]

95. Well, that was blithely stated.

What a pile of steaming meadow muffins.

[dutchdemocrat]

13. No more blood.

No more blood.

[Chico Man]

15. I'm not going to get involved in that arguement

But it would certainly be tragic if Israel were to fly one of those American made F-16s and drop an American made bunker buster on the crowd. Or better yet, run them all over with an American made Abrahms battle tank.

This is what I'm worried about.

[Dhalgren]

9. You mean "more" of a bloodbath.

And I'm with you. :scared:

[Maple]

12. And 'expelling' Arafat

will increase the suicide bombing, not lessen it.

[BeHereNow]

26. Which is in keeping

with the PNAC/Ledeen playbook.
As is the hell we are DELIBERATELY creating
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They WANT chaos.
They WANT terrorism.
Then they can justify more war.
Sharon is bankrupting his country with war
the very same way our government is here.
How do you get the sheeple to obey?
Create more terrorism.
This is the agenda, here and in Israel.
Gotta keep those military industrial complex profits up!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[damnraddem]

44. Which is sufficient explanation for why Sharon would consider it.

It fits with his intent to keep the cycle of violence rotating at an increasing rate.

[Khephra]

10. They broke away, but said they'd be back

I still haven't seen anything on it on CNN..wait...they're now going to it.

[Khephra]

14. CNN is reporting it as hundreds

I'd say that's probably downplaying the numbers I saw in the distance shots of the scene.

[damnraddem]

46. The whole world is watching.

Except for the conservative American media.

[GainesT1958]

19. If they do try and go ahead with this...

Odds are Arafat will go ahead and "proclaim" an independent Palestine--just watch. His guys hold cards--for better or worse--that Israel doesn't in that category. Not militarily, for sure--but would Sharon dare try and crush such a POLITICAL move--not terrorism, but political--with a massive military crackdown? In his heart, suuure he would. But in his mind--he knows better--at least I HOPE that he would! :scared:

B-)

[Mandate My Ass]

16. As if this powderkeg wasn't explosive enough already

Looks like Sharon is taking a page from the Rove playbook. Let's see if he's as Teflon-coated as his buddy Bush.*

[twilight]

18. Expel Arafat and witness HELL!

All HELL will break loose that will make 9/11 look like a pile of crap!

Arafat is the ELECTED LEADER OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!

LONG LIVE ARAFAT!!!

:kick:

[Noordam]

24. Elected leaders do not count you have to be SELECTED

by GOD like WhistleAss.

[StopThief]

31. Wow

"LONG LIVE ARAFAT!!!"

Speechless.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. He's terrorist

I won't shed a tear when he dies.

[Dhalgren]

38. There will be plenty

of time for tears later, if his death sets off a regions-wide conflagration. Then there will be tears in abundance.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. It's not like things are going well now

At some point, you have to acknowledge there is no point dealing with the guy. Expelling him is minor compared to what he deserves.

[Dhalgren]

53. I am not defending arafat's past

I have enough trouble defending my own. What i am saying is that, if we could support and defend Pinochet, Marcos, Batista, etc., etc., etc., and do it all for political expedience, then I think that the outcome of this conflict should be more important than revenge for bloodshed from the oppostion. The reason some folks view Arafat as a particularly "evil" personage, is because of his politics and his opposition to Israel. If he had had different backers and supported a more "approved" opponent, there would not be the same "view" of him as there appears to be now.

We have to look past the past and see the future with some realism. You may not like Arafat, but the Palestinians, evidently, do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. The future

Arafat has shown no interest in the future other than his own. His actions and inactions continue the conflict. Whatever happens to him, he brought on himself.

[The Stranger]

59. This has been Sharon and Likud's party line for some time now.

Focus on Arafat to deflect attention from Sharon and his past, which is far, far worse than that of Arafat.

[damnraddem]

48. Arafat has not been a terrorist for a long time.

Sharon, on the other hand, has remained one.

[nn2004]

37. Are you serious?

Arafat is an admitted terrorist. Still looking for a <sarcasm> tag...

[sangh0]

47. So is Sharon

and Begin, and Rabin, etc

I guess you never heard of the Stern Gang or the King David Hotel bombing.

[Mandate My Ass]

49. save your breath

all he cares about is what will make him feel better, not about what is the right thing to do or the consequences or inevitable loss of human life when he exhorts others to carry out acts of vengeance he himself will not.

[Andromeda]

111. Arafat is a terrorist

who doesn't give a damn about the Palestinian people and their welfare. The people who are trying to save him are misguided if they think their "leader" will do anything to help them raise themselves above the poverty level. Arafat's family are living the good life and out of harm's way while the Palestinians are suffering. Arafat may be a prisoner of sorts in his own compound but I doubt he wants for anything. Terrorist groups still operate with his approval because he has taken no action to stop their activities and he wields influence over his people as is evidenced by their response to his anticipated elimination.

Israel won't do anything now because world opinion would be against it but if they're pushed much further they will attempt to kill Arafat---world opinion be damned.

[esse_quam_videri]

20. holy crap...oops, I mean Holy Land crap,

that place is about to blow.

[BeHereNow]

27. Make no mistake-

That is the PLAN.
The fundies are frothing, no doubt.
The investors are counting their coins.
More war-more profits.

[frank frankly]

101. right-o

they make money from every angle on war
it keeps them in power

and makes the people turn into sheeple (great phrase)

[bobthedrummer]

25. The Crusade continues

n/t

[nn2004]

39. Crusade you say

I don't see anybody forcing religion on anyone here. Is there a link or something you forgot to post showing proof of this alleged "crusade"?

[Malikshah]

50. The Crusade was not about conversion

Sorry to burst your bubble.

The Crusades (1095-1280's) was about "liberating" the Holy Lands from the "infidel."

Now, numerous Christians, Jews and Muslims were slaughtered along the way by the Crusaders, but, as the Crusaders cried, Deul lo volt! ("God Wills It")

Conversion was not the issue.

Crusade as a term here, though, although somewhat appropriate is not entirely accurate.

I'm more in line with the idea of a furtherance of colonialism.

The A-I conflict to me is more of an "East-West" issue rather than an Arab-Jew, or Muslim-Jew issue. (there are elements of the latter two, of course, but at the core it's an east-west issue re: colonization by outsiders--at least that was the way it started in the late 19th century and early 20th century) Nowadays--it's not an "outsider" issue as much--somewhat, but not as much as back then.

[damnraddem]

54. What are you talking about?

The Crusades were not about forcing religion on people; they were about taking land. The Christians were out to 'take-back' the Holy Land -- from those who had lived there for millenia. The Muslims attempted to retain control of the Holy Land. The Christians did not attempt forced conversion, by and large, they killed or expelled non-Christians. For example, the Christians destroyed Jewish communities and expelled Jews from Jerusalem. The Muslims in turn expelled invading Christians -- but they did not do so to those who had long lived in the region. When Saladin retook Jerusalem, he allowed Jews back in. And it was not even as simple as Christian vs. Muslim -- many complex turns came about.

And by the way, 'chivalrous Saladin' would be seen today as a religious bigot. In particular, he destroyed the Shia Fatamid dynasty in Egypt and expelled Shias from many areas that he conquered. And he allowed Jews to settle in Jerusalem, but as second-class citizens. The reason Saladin made such a good name for himself was that he was so much better in his dealings than were the Christians. Why bring this up? I offer it as parallel to Arafat vis a vis Sharon. Arafat has good relations with Palestinian Christians -- he has to, because they make up so much of Palestine and of his own movement.

[StandWatie]

80. the Fatimid dynasty had allied itself with the Crusaders

For reasons that I've never found any historian able to explain the Crusaders attacked their ally first but even after this Salah al Deen saw them as dangerous traitors who had to go more than a general animosity towards the Shia.

[happyslug]

90. More complicated than that, here is some background

First you must understand that Islam was on the decline in the 9th and 10th Centuries of the Common era. Constantinople was on the march both in right is now the Ukraine and against the Arabs. Two Emperors during that time period had made plans, built supplies and were about to re-take both Palestine and Egypt. Both emperors died just before they were to launch their conquest (one by old age, the other killed by a deer he was hunting). Do to their Deaths no conquest was made and the Seljek Turks appeared in the Middle East. In 1054 Constantinople attempt to retake Armenia (which the Seljek Turks had just conquered). The Eastern Emperor lead a 40,000 man army into total defeat by the Turks in the Battle of Mazakurt. This opened up all of what is central Anatolia (Asia Minor, now Central Turkey) to the Seljek Turks.

After Mazakurt, Constantinople’s treasury was empty but Constantinople still wanted to push the Turks out of central Asia Minor. The bad finances caused by the Defeat of Mazakurt caused The Eastern Empire to retrench its military establishment. This had far-ranging effect. For example it was one of the reason for the Conquest of England by William I in 1066. Prior to 1054 Constantinople had been the main employer of English, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians as “Viking” mercenaries. With the defeat at Mazakurt, Constantinople could no longer afford to hire these mercenaries into its Army. With that lost of income, the whole of the area around the North Sea went into a deep recession. Also at Mazakurt Constantinople had also hired Norman Knights like William the Conqueror. With that defeat these Knights had no source of Income either. Thus Muzakurt left England in depression AND the Norman Knights with no income and no way to replace that income. Thus William could recruit these knights for his conquest and Harold had problems raising troops to defend his crown for he had less income coming into his treasury than any King of England had before 1054.

Over the next two generations the pressure of the Turks against coastal areas of Asia Minor became stronger and stronger. About 1100 the Emperor ask the Pope for Assistance to defeat the Turks. The Pope seeing this as a chance to end the breach (not yet official but did already exist) between Rome and Constantinople, and agreed to do what he could do.

The Pope than issued an edict asking all good knights to enter into a Crusade against the Turks. To his surprise people responded, first with the Peasant Crusade and than the Knights, still broke from no longer able to earn money as Mercenaries, and seeing a way to get rich (which at that time meant to get control of land) joined into the action with what is commonly called the First Crusade.

The Eastern Emperor demanded that the Knights swear allegiance to him as their “Lord” i.e. the Crusaders would be the Eastern Emperor’s vassels and gave the Crusaders some support, but the interest of both diverged. The Emperor wanted to retake central Asia Minor, while the Crusaders wanted to take Jerusalem. The First Crusade was successful, the knights took Jerusalem, but than forgot their oaths of Vassalage to the Eastern Emperor (who the Knights viewed as having abandon them on the march to Jerusalem) and established the various Crusader Kingdoms that would last off and on for the next 200 years.

The Seljek Turks had tried to stop the Knights but were defeated, than they realized the Knights were headed for Jerusalem not Central Anatolia or Damacus. Once the aim of the knights were clear the Turks left them go. Jerusalem was NOT important to the Turks at that time period. They had prospered since Mazakurt and saw no need to kill (or be killed) over a religion. As long as their economic interests were not threaten (and that was Central Asia Minor. Damascus and Bagdad) the Turks saw no need to attack.

The Fatamids in Eqypt also seem to support the Crusaders, but as a Defense against the Turks. The Fatamids had a weak hold on Eqypt, the majority of Egyptians at that time period were still Christians, Orthodox Christians, but Christians (Egypt would not turn majority Moslem till the Force Conversions under the Mamaluks who came to view their Christian subjects as internal security risks when the later Crusaders attacked Egypt in a effort to free, by than re-conquered, Palestine from Egyptian Rule). The Fatimids also had another problem they were Shia Moslems, while the Majority of Moslems (Including the Turks and it appears most of the Moslems in Egypt) were Sunni. The Caliph still sat in Bagdad (the real power were in the Turks) but he was Sunni. Thus the Fatimids were always in a weak positions AND Constantinople seem to always view Egypt as something it could retake if it had western support.

Thus the Fatimids were attacked by the Crusaders as a easy target AND to satisfy their duties as Vassels to the Emperor at Constantinople. Once the Crusaders were defeated (It appears their attack was more of “I have to do this because I am the Emperor’s Vassel, so lets attack, get defeated and than go home, telling the Emperor ‘See we did out duty’.”) the Crusaders went back to their Cities and Kingdoms in Palestine.

In that attack, as weak as it was, shown the weakness of the Fatimids (It appears even the Crusaders saw that with more troops they could take Egypt). Given this weakness Saladin made his move, taking Egypt from the Fatimids. Within a few years he was ruling Egypt and Damascus. The Crusaders were between his two kingdoms. His attack on the Crusaders had less to do with driving the Crusaders out than securing his lines of communications between Egypt and Damascus. Once he took Jerusalem he had secure that line and his attacks seems to end. He appears not to want to drive ALL the Crusaders out, appearing to want some to stay to support the trade between the Middle East, Egypt and Western Europe that had developed since the First Crusade.

Saladin seems to have understood trade for example when he took Jerusalem he left the Templars take out their treasury. Historians have asked why, and the best answer is that the Templars had developed a very good banking system. You deposited your gold or other wealth with them. The Templars in exchange would give you a piece of paper saying what you have deposited with them. That piece of paper would be honored at any other Templar monastery. Thus you could transfer vast amounts of wealth without actually moving the gold with you. This saved the person who had the paper the expense of hauling his gold, and the expense of guarding his gold. While this seems to have developed as a means for pilgrims to safe guard their gold as they traveled to and from Jerusalem, it could also be used by traders. This banking system was one of the key to the expansion of trade during the period of the Crusades. Saladin knew this and thus knew he would be hurting trade if he just took the Templar’s gold (and Saladin also appears to have deposited his own gold with the Templars so to pay his ambassadors to the Pope, Constantinople, and other Western European Countries who had his ambassadors). Please note Saladin seems to have a better idea on international trade than did Richard II (who kicked out the Templars from England, Richard gave religious excuses, but Richard just wanted to Rob the Bank, he was broke after his Crusade) and the King of France who did the same thing a 100 year later accusing the Templars of practicing Witchcraft. The King of France also had permission of the Pope who also did not appear to understand international Trade, but maybe the Pope did and just wanted it to go to his fellow Italians in Venice than the Templars).

As to the end of the Crusaders by the Mamaluks, that occurred only after the defeat of the Mongols by the Mamaluks. The Mongol empire had already peaked by that defeat (They had taken Bagdad long before) but the Mongols were still a potential threat to Egypt. While technically none of the Crusaders had participated in the defeat of the Mongols (they is some evidence some of the Crusaders did participate in the fight, but the Mamaluks wanted to give the image as good Moslems so any Crusaders who did serve with them did it under cover, something Christian soldiers had been doing with Moslem Armies since the time of the Arab Conquest) the fact that the Mamaluk army was NOT obstructed by the Crusader Kingdoms AND those Kingdoms provided his army with food as their marched to Damascus to defeat the Mongols, show to the Mamaluks how important Palestine was to the Defense of Egypt.

The founder of the Mamaluk dynasty of Egypt was himself an ex soldier of the Mongols and knew their tactics well. The Mongol tactics were not the best tactics in the Mountains of Palestine but if the Mongol Army reached Egypt it would fall quickly to the tactics of the Mongols. Thus the Defense of Egypt from the Mongols had to be fought in Palestine..

The fact that the Mongols themselves seem to have realized that they had to adopt new tactics can be seen in the Mongols NOT killing off the Garrison of Antioch when it had resisted the Mongols (the Mongols had a policy if you surrendered without a fight you were spared, if you resisted in any way the city was wiped out). That this was a Christian city did not endear the other Christian Cities and Kingdoms in Palestine to the Mamaluks for these cities and Kingdoms could switch to support a Mongol conquest of Egypt. All these Cities and Kingdoms had to do is supply any Mongol Army the same support they had given the Mamaluk army when the Mamaluk defeated the Mongols.

Thus the Mamauks looked at the Christian Kingdoms in Palestine as an Internal Security Threat that had to be eliminated at all costs. Salidin had wanted to encourge trade and thus wealth, the Mamaluks wanted to stay in Power in Egypt and that meant they had to keep the Mongols out and that can only be done if Palestine was 100% loyal to the Mamaluks. The Crusaders had to go even at the cost of trade, wealth or lives.

After 1260 the Crusades would come and go, but no where near the success of the First through Third Crusades. The Crusades had started do to a military defeat that changed central Asia Minor from Greek to Turk and bankrupted the Vikings, and ended with the Mongol Conquest of Bagdad which forced Egypt to use all of its resources to defend itself against the Mongols.

http://www.islamiccoinsgroup.50g.com/ArtMamluks.htm

http://www.bartleby.com/86/48.html

http://www.extmin.mn/mongol_empire.htm

[StandWatie]

91. interesting..

I still can't wrap my mind upon why that Crusade thought it could win without even the admittedly weak support of the Fatimid's or why they didn't at least play ball at first with them and then turn on them.

[Malikshah]

97. Interesting--

I agree with most of what you have there, although--the issue of Egypt being majority christian until the Mamluks is a bit off based upon some quantified studies. The Fatimids, Isma'ili Shi'ite in belief, were ever the minority ruling over a majority Sunni Muslim populace.

Lot's of good stuff though.

Sorry, it's late and would love to go into more-- offered a course on the Crusades a while back and had a great time learning about all the intricate alliances.

What was quite interesting is that the later waves of Crusaders were "disgusted" with earlier waves who had settled in the conquered lands and who had taken up the customs (although not the belief system of course)

Salah al-Din is a wonderful example of varying perceptions. He's lauded by both Arabs (both Muslim and Christian) and Europeans (mainly Christian) -- he was Kurdish himself.

What the Crusades and the all the alliances formed and broken during this period show is that the old adage is true

All politics is local.

[Junkdrawer]

28. Arafat's fate now in Hamas's hands...

The last attack in the tit-for-tat was Israel bombing the home of the Hamas leader, killing his son and bodyguard, wounding the leader and his daughter. Hamas has vowed to attack Israeli homes. Since Israel seems determined to link Arafat to Hamas actions, if Hamas does follow through with its threats, Israel would seem to be forced to expel Arafat.

I'm afraid there are many in Hamas that would love to see Arafat go. But Sharon knows that...

[damnraddem]

55. If Hamas thought they could destroy Arafat, and get away with it ...

in the eyes of Palestinians, they wouldn't hesitate. If Sharon is offering Arafat's expulsion as the consequence of Hamas actions, then he is playing to Hamas as well as to his own hard-liners. The thing is, Hamas may have its doubts about an Arafat in exile if they can't get at him -- such an Arafat may be a danger to them as well as to Sharon.

[Junkdrawer]

61. You may be right...

Beating up Arafat seems to be Sharon's way out when the Hamas escallation cycle starts to get out of hand.

[Coventina]

30. I'm so frightened

I can't tell you guys what this is doing to me, psychologically.

See, I was raised by a fundie, pre-millenial mother. This sounds like an "end-times" scenario right out of that playbook. I know I'm letting my prior programming get the better of me, but I'm terrified.
Truly terrified.

[mmm]

32. These events may be an attempt at self-fulfilling prophecy

but this is eerie nontheless.

[Minstrel Boy]

33. I had that conditioning, too.

Not from my family, but I had a born-again experience in high school and spent four years at a fundamentalist Bible College. The most terrifying movie I've ever seen was The Rapture.

I don't worry about fulfillment of prophesies per se. What I worry about is that Bush may believe he could bring about their fulfillment.

[Dhalgren]

34. I feel for you.

I really do. I was raised by pyscho fundies, as well. And over coming the programming is a long and arduous task - that is never really over. But you have to keep consciously removing youself from the mythological stage and stepping back onto the perceptual stage. I wish you luck - and hope.

[BeHereNow]

51. Blessed are the peacemakers...

I saw your post asking for a collective consciousness
focus on harmony.
Don't worry, you have nothing to fear,
you are a peace maker.
I'm sorry you were hurt by the fundies-
I am a Christian- by grace not works.
And as a Christian, NOT a fundie,
although I too am alarmed by what I see happening,
I know that you and I are on the right side of the fence
as it goes down.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
(((HUGS)))))
BHN

[TrogL]

56. Relax, this isn't End Times

Even if the fundies are trying to hurry it along.

[Selwynn]

68. Be at peace, my friend

Please allow me a little liberty in what I'm about to say, because yes, the word God is going to come up and I know that's really not going to make me popular with many.

If you were rasied being told to take scripture as literal truth, then here are a collection of things that you can take literally while you are afraid -- if you're fighting your past programing that tells you the bible is literally true in all respects, then just think on these scriptures and turn that lie back on itself. Say to youself, well of fundamentalists are right and the bible is literally turn then I guess it means these things are literally true too:

-I have come that you might have life and life more abundantly
-I will never leave you nor forsake you
-I am persuaded that neither life nor death or angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come - nothing can separate us from the love of God
-For it is not his will that ANY should perish
-I know the plans I have for you... plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans for a future and a hope.
-My strength is made perfect in weakness
-God was in Christ *reconciling* (note - NOT destroying) the world unto himself
-Blessed are the merciful.. the humble... the peacemakers... the pure in heart
-I will never against destroy the world, as I have done (yes, that's in the bible, God's covenant to Noah in the story of the flood - hard to reconcile with Revelations to be sure hehe)

And finally...

-- Do not be anxious about *anything*, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding (which I like to call CR-azy peace!!), will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.


So.. if you have trouble separately yourself from fundamentalist upbringing when you hear news like this, just think of the many scriptures in the bible like these that fundamentalists would demand you take literally. And above all, be at peace.

Blessings to you,
Sel

[janx]

36. There are now thousands outside of Arafat's compound.

Thousands!

[Nottingham]

45. CNN says Arafat declared War against Israel then I read the ticker

Arafat said that sense Israel is deporting him that Its a Act of War

CNN better get their facts right in this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It looks like the Bush Peace Treaty is Gone!:bounce:

and example of how a puppet doesn't work if the masses doesn't buy it

[reprobate]

52. Well Bush is still batting 1000.

NOTHING this fool has touched has been successful. Whether it be business or politics, it has all failed. He has been bailed out by his daddy's buddies. Couldn't even win an election for himself.

You might call it the "Merde Touch"

[LeftCoast]

57. Prayer for Peace

A prayer for the world - can be said by anyone of any faith

Let the rain come and wash away the ancient grudges. The bitter hatreds held and nurtured over generations.

Let the rain wash away the memory of the hurt, the neglect.

Then let the sun come out and fill the sky with rainbows.

Let the warmth of the sun heal us wherever we are broken.

Let it burn away the fog so that we can see each other clearly.

So that we can see beyond labels, beyond accents, gender, or skin color.

Let the warmth and brightness of the sun melt our selfishness.

So that we can share the joys and feel the sorrow of our neighbors.

And let the light of the sun be so strong that we will see all people as our neighbors.

Let the earth, nourished by rain, bring forth flowers to surround us with beauty.

And let the mountains teach our hearts to reach upward to heaven.

Amen


Rabbi Harold S. Kushner

[Nottingham]

58. LeftCoast I Pray with ya!

:bounce:

[JNelson6563]

72. me too!

and I'm an atheist! :-) That was a nice reflection/prayer.

Prayer=Meditation IMO. That is a good thing BTW.

Julie

[duhneece]

79. I need to be brought back

to all of that. Beautiful.

[Khephra]

60. Not that I'm conspiracy minded....

But if the WH had a tip-off on the move to exile Araft (at least symbolically at this point) and that's the real reason that led to the Bushies not playing up 9/11 this year? Could it have been that they knew they'd be fighting for coverage against a different story today?

:tinfoilhat:

[Junkdrawer]

78. The BIG 9/11 extravaganza is planned for 2004...

Guess I'll stock up on DVDs, because TV will be unwatchable for about two weeks then. :puke:

[soleft]

81. planned by who

PNAC or Alquaeda

[Junkdrawer]

83. I'm talking about the Republican convention planned for NYC on 9/11/2004..

It's not like they worry about being obvious or anything. :eyes:

[soleft]

88. I know, but since Alquada waits several years between major ops

Sept 04 with Bush and the GOP all in NY....anyway, I may plan to be out of town that week

[Cooley Hurd]

62. Holy shit... there's hundreds of Palestinians ringing Arafat's compund...

CNN coverage shows crowds in the compound. I doubt the Palestinians will give up... This could get bloody.

[lumpy]

86. Arafat declares he is not going

Thousands of Palestinians agree he is not going. Anyway it turns out retributions will not cease. The world is watching to see what Sharon's next move will be.

[Walt Starr]

64. That is an act of War

Arafat should declare an independent Palestinian state and start seeking help from his neighbors to expel the aggressors who are occupying Palestinian lands.

[reprobate]

66. Oh, yeah Walt. That would really help.

The only answer to the clusterfuck going on in the middle east, that has been going on for decades, is for Palestinians to stop the suicide bombings and for isreal to stop the retaliations.

As long as Arafat believes that Isreal must be destroyed there will be no peace. I'm very much afraid that the result of all this will be for Isreal to use it's military to push the palestinians out of their territory, and that will result in a true conflagration.

[Walt Starr]

92. The Intefada didn't start until years after the illegal settlements

went in.

The Palestinian people were patient.

I can no longer consider the Palestinians anything other than freedom fighters.

[LastDemInIdaho]

93. Palestinians anything other than freedom fighters

Fair enough. Does that include the suicide bombers too?

[PsychoDad]

98. Only because they don't have helicopter gunships.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable if the Palestinians used jets, helicopters and missles to kill innocents, like the more civilized Israeli terrorists ?
Sorry, As I see it... Differnt delivery systems, same result. neither is more ethical.

[LastDemInIdaho]

103. neither is more ethical?

Sorry indeed.

[The Magistrate]

67. Indeed, Mr. Starr

It has long puzzled my why the Palestine Authority has not simply declared itself a sovereign state of Arab Palestine. It has every bit the right to do so the Yushiv had in '48. The political consequences of an Israeli attempt to crush it would be incalulable, save for the certainty they would be disasterous. It would certainly receive immediate recognition from many nations, including numerous European states. It would alter the situation of settlers past recognition.

[htuttle]

75. I thought they did, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned much

If you ask google about 'palestinian declaration independence', you find dozens of links to this document:

Declaration of Independence
November 15th ,1988

(snip...it's quite long)

In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947;

And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory,

The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).

(much more)
http://www.palestine-net.com/politics/indep.html

Does anyone know why this document seems to have slipped down the memory hole into oblivion? Is there something wrong with how it was composed or who released/declared it?

Was it considered 'invalid' by most Palestinians? If not, it seems that they DID declare independence in 1998.

I don't remember much at all being mentioned about it at the time, and now it seems to have never happened at all. (?) I've been kind of confused about this since I came upon it a couple of years ago.

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. Arafat

He is afraid of real independence, because his incompetence would be obvious. He can lead terrorists and funnel money into his own accounts, but he can run a nation any more than any common thug.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. I've wondered the same thing...

The only thing I can come up with is that maybe it's not possible to declare a sovereign state when that state is being occupied by another state?

Violet...

[Career Prole]

65. Our editor here just e-mailed me the AP wire story...

wish I had a link, and I know I'm not allowed to post the whole thing, but...

"Palestinian protests erupted across the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In Gaza City, hundreds of gunmen rushed to the parliament building, some firing in the air. Thousands of marchers carried Arafat posters and flags, chanting: “Sharon, listen well, we will send you to hell.”

The incoming Palestinian prime minister said expelling Arafat would destroy the last prospects for peace. “We call upon all wise people in the world to stop this crazy decision,” Qureia said."

That's some newsroom we have in Abilene...out of six televisions, five are turned off and one's got Judge Judy.

[smallprint]

71. arafat is not going anywhere

from haaretz: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/339400.html

"Poraz said that the United States was opposed to
any attempt to harm Arafat, and that he had
heard a similar message from U.S. Ambassador to
Israel Dan Kurtzer.

Israeli officials also said earlier that the
U.S. continues to oppose Arafat's expulsion. "


the usa has not changed its stance: they do not support the removal of arafat. and if the usa says no, that means no. sharon and the knesset can scream all they want.

this is just a show for the right-wingers.

[hang a left]

84. They say no publicly

no=maybe
maybe=yes

[Tinoire]

73. Fatah calls on people to shield Arafat round clock

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Sept. 11 — Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement urged Palestinians on Thursday to stay around the clock at his headquarters to protect the Palestinian president from any Israeli attempt to force him into exile.

"It is true the Palestinians do not own tanks but they own the determination to resist this Israeli decision. We call on the Palestinian people to be present at Abu Ammar's ((Arafat's)) compound day and night so the (Israeli) occupiers realise that the people will defend their leadership," <snip>

Tens of thousands of Palestinians took to the streets throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip in defiant rallies <snip>

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters09-11-141752.asp?reg=MIDEAST

[mmm]

100. I wish I were there

alas

[NaMeaHou]

85. Calls for blood

http://english.aljazeera.net/Articles/News/ArabWorld/Israeli+paper+calls+for+Arafat+death.htm
<snip>
An Israeli newspaper called on the government to kill Palestinian President Yasir Arafat.

The Jerusalem Post told its readers on Thursday: “We must kill Yasir Arafat because the world leaves us no alternative … if we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it."

Murder

The editorial justified its incitement to murder, saying "the current jihad against us is being fuelled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself".

[lumpy]

87. So now, in effect, Arafat is under seige

protected by the Palestinian people. Sharon's next move could be bloody and unforgivable.

[tinnypriv]

89. Hey, Arafat has been under siege for months

He hasn't been able to leave the Muqata for months.

[LastDemInIdaho]

94. As unforgivable as suicide bombings?

More or less?

[lumpy]

96. Sorry, I meant to say bloodier.

Look, there are no sides to be taking here. I feel saddened for Israeli & Palestinian innocent citizens who have been bereft of decent leadership. Innocent citizens have been killed on both sides, killing is killing whether from bullets or bombs, IDF or 'suicide bombers.

[PsychoDad]

99. Suicide bombing....

Ah yes, So much worse than sitting in a helicopter and firing missles into an apartment building.
Or, for that matter, sitting a thousand miles away and firing a tommahawk.

Somehow a bit more personal I guess, and requireing a bit more conviction from the person doing it. Somehow the one doing the killing from afar, from a more sanitized position seems a bit more cowardly, but certanly more impersonal.
Fireing missles means you don't have to look into the eyes of the men, women and children you are about to kill. I guess if you are the one wearing the bomb that will distroy a shop or town square, you do see your victims, you can see their eyes.

But the result is the same. Launched from a helicopter or worn. The result is the death of innocents, people who may never had any hate for you. People who never had any reason to die. Same result, differnt delivery systems.

[LastDemInIdaho]

102. In summary, do you condone or accept suicide bombing as valid?

Yes? No?

[Section_43]

106. jesus, he doesn't condone or accept suicide bombing

killingiskillingiskilling

that's all he is saying.

there is no valor in killing.

one method more acceptable than another?

jesus, both are premeditated murder.

[PsychoDad]

108. A bomb is a bomb

Death is death and terror is terror. The result is the same.

I do not condone the killing weither by a single person personaly delivering death, or by a state delivering the same by means of a more sophisticicated system.

A dead child is a dead child. Can you condone a dead child because he or she was killed by a missle, or a bullet and not a suicide bomber? Either way, that child is gone, a human life, never to be brought back.

Differnt methods, same result. Evil is evil.

So, Do you think the use of such weapons is somehow better? Somehow more civilized? Somehow more western and proper? Do you think the dead child is somehow better off because they were killed by a million dollar missle produced in a factory and not by a crude bomb made in a garage?

Or is it that this child's life worth less because they are palistinian and muslim?

Please answer me. I would like to know if you condone dead children, And if that reason has something to do with the technology employed to kill them, or if it because they wern't worth anything to begin with.

Dead is dead. Evil is Evil. I hope most here understand that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. Another commentary on the brave suicide bombers

I need to vomit. Anybody got the Hamas charter handy so I have something to spew onto?

[PsychoDad]

109. Brave?

Interesting that you use the word brave.

I would have used desperate. I'm not so sure bravery has anything to do with it.. hate maybe, desperation certanly. A last act to strike out against the oppressor. Suicide is not the choice of a people who belive they anything more to live for.

I was saying that the suicide bomber delivers his package of death in a more personal way. But it all boils down to the same result.

Let us not forget the brave IDF. The act of using human shields, shooting children from tanks and guard posts, and firing missles into apartment complexes. Bulldozing homes and families under... Is this not also murder?

Murder is murder. Wrong is wrong. Irregardless of who is commiting the evil. If we do not understand this,If we cannot cry for all the blood spilled, cry for muslim and jewish children, then our hearts have become so hard and dark, we are no longer human.

Evil is Evil, Murder is Murder.. To whitewash it is to aid in comitting it.

[dudeness]

107. this may be a simple question

so please be tolerant in your replies..what i wish to have explained or answered is by what legal conventions does Israel have the right (for want of a better word) to expel a democratically elected leader ? and also are lands lived on palestinians recognised by international law..?

[tinnypriv]

110. Blame Washington if the explusion happens:

"ISRAEL WAITING FOR GREEN LIGHT" - Israeli press.