Jimmy Carter Praises Arafat

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-12 10:57am

His options to resist militarly are greatly handicapped by Israel's tanks and aircraft, not that they didn't try some times

He had tanks and pissed them away against Jordan in 1970! And it's strange how gurilliea movements can take on supierior militaries without resorting to child butchery in many other places of the world. When you strap on explosives to the chest of 17 year olds and tell them it's their duty to seek out the most defendless members of the enemy population and kill has many has possible, you have crossed a line.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 10:59am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Life is tough Perinquus? That's the most pathetic and irrelevent reason anyone on this thread has tried offering. It doesn't change the fact that nuking innocent civilians on purpose is a terrorist act, try again.
We have already established that the majority of the Japanese civil populace were illegal combatants and therefore legitimate targets.

Really? I missed the establishment of this "fact". Where is it?

Truman took the option that would cost theleast lives on either side. All these points are established facts, and the fact that you refuse to accept them makes you either an idiot or some idealist with no basis in reality.

Once again I'm not arguing whether it saved lives and ended the war quicker. I'm arguing it was terrorism. How many times do I have to point this fucking out? Why are you people so hard of reading?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-11-12 11:04am

Wow, somebody saying nice things about a dead guy.

Who would have thought? Color me surprised. *coughNixoncough*

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 11:06am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Really? I missed the establishment of this "fact". Where is it?

It's all over the web, US government records. And virtually every WWII reference book available.

Once again I'm not arguing whether it saved lives and ended the war quicker. I'm arguing it was terrorism. How many times do I have to point this fucking out? Why are you people so hard of reading?

And we've established that it wasn't terrorism. It was well within the rights of the USA under the Geneva Convention and the established rules of war.

You just refuse to accept the facts.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-11-12 11:15am

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Perinquus wrote:
Oh, I see. You don't equate them with each other. You just equate them both with a third term. And that doesn't, in any way equate them with each other. No. Not at all.
Think fuzzy, not black and white.

Terrorism ={0,1}, 0 = white dove, 1 = Bin Laden

You can say Truman =0.3 and Arafat = 0.6, you're still equating both to terrorism and not equating them to each other

And I still don't accept that the comparison is well taken. Terrorism is the attempt to break your enemy by attacking his will to fight - spreading terror and fear an an attempt to intimdate and cow him into submission. A terrorist uses this as his primary strategy - generally because he's a poorly equipped irregular, and he lacks the means to wage more conventional war. Arafat unhesitatingly resorted to such methods, and what's more important, he did so when it was not necessary. As I said, after Oslo, he had most of what he wanted. A reasonable man, a man open to compromise, and one who was devoted more to peace, would have accepted this. A good example of this type of "terrorist" is Michael Collins from Ireland's brief war of independence (though I am reluctant really to apply this label to Collins because he didn't use these tactics to spread terror among civilians, and never targeted them; he targeted British security forces in an attempt to render them ineffective by eliminating key personnel). Collins was able to use these methods to bring the British to the negotiating table, after the "Cairo Gang", a group of highly trained, skilled intelligence operatives were all killed in a single day by Collins' men. At the negotiations, Collins along with Arthur Griffith and the other members of the Irish negotiating team soon realized that their goal of full independence for Ireland (all of Ireland, including the north, which today is separated from the rest of the country) was simply not going to be achieved. It just wasn't within the bounds of what the British were willing to concede. It wasn't going to happen. So they made the best deal they could get. Instead of a fully independent republic, comprising the entire island, they got a free state, which would remain a part of the British commonwealth (and require an oath of allegiance to the British crown), and which would separate the predominantly Protestant north. Collins was himself killed in the civil war that erupted back in Ireland when the hard liners refused to accept the treaty, even though it got ratified in the Dáil Éireann (the Irish Senate), and was supported by the great majority of the Irish people. The deal Collins made turned out to be a very costly one, both politically and personally, but he made it because he realized that further war was not productive, would not get the Irish people what they wanted, and that unsatisfactory as it was, you just don't always get what you want, and this was a deal they could live with.

Now, when it came time for Arafat to make a similar principled choice at Oslo, he showed his true colors as a terrorist hard liner, not a man of reason, willing to make acceptable compromises.

Now the most you can say about any similarities between Truman and Arafat is that they both attempted to use means that would cow the enemy into submission. Truman hoped that, quite apart from the destruction of the industrial cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the injury this would do Japan's ability to prosecute the war, the shock of seeing whole cities wiped off the map with only a single bomb would cow that Japanese into submission. The difference is that for Truman, this sort of strategy was objectionable and difficult, but forced upon him by necessity, since Truman was basically a reasonable man. He simply took the course that looked to him less costly than the other one available.

Arafat, on the other hand, was not so reasonable, or so inclined to make the best of unpalatable choices. He was a terrorist hard liner who insisted, unrealistically, on achieving all his goals. No compromise was to be considered. He was offered a deal that he and his people would have been able to live with, and he repudiated it. If he couldn't get everything he wanted by negotiation, he was quite prepared to plunge the whole region into another round of bloody violence. For him, the use of terrible weapons to creat fear was not a choice reluctantly taken as the lesser of two evils, as it was for Truman - it was a method he embraced. This is the man, after all, who presided over a regime that used Sesame Street-like children's programs to indoctrinate small, pre-school-age children with hatred for Jews and for Israel.

A real statesman, concerned for the welfare of his people, would have behaved more like Michael Collins did. Arafat was an intransigent, hard-line terrorist, and for that he deserves condemnation, not praise.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-12 12:22pm

Perinquus wrote:Arafat unhesitatingly resorted to such methods, and what's more important, he did so when it was not necessary. As I said, after Oslo, he had most of what he wanted.

Bullshit.

A reasonable man, a man open to compromise, and one who was devoted more to peace, would have accepted this.

In 1947 Palestinians had Palestine taken from them, and were later promised some of it back to form a soverign state again; why should he had deviated so greatly from what was promised and ratified by the international community? Because Michael Collins conceeded to the British under different circumstances? Yeah, what an uncompromising asshole, good argument that.

Now, when it came time for Arafat to make a similar principled choice at Oslo, he showed his true colors as a terrorist hard liner, not a man of reason, willing to make acceptable compromises.

Define "acceptable".

He was a terrorist hard liner who insisted, unrealistically, on achieving all his goals.

Prove it.

No compromise was to be considered.

Prove it.

He was offered a deal that he and his people would have been able to live with, and he repudiated it.

They could easily live with what they've got now, but they don't, why is that?

In summary, you argue that Arafat was a hard liner terrorist using his non concession of Oslo as your main point, even though Oslo probably wouldn't have been accepted by the people (what's the point of making concessions if your people wouldn't accept them) and falls so far short of what was OWED AND PROMISED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW (did Michael Collins have such promises to work on? No? Didn't think so).

Then, you use Michael Collins within a completely different situation to show how a non-terrorist does things.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-11-12 02:00pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Perinquus wrote:Arafat unhesitatingly resorted to such methods, and what's more important, he did so when it was not necessary. As I said, after Oslo, he had most of what he wanted.
Bullshit.

A reasonable man, a man open to compromise, and one who was devoted more to peace, would have accepted this.
In 1947 Palestinians had Palestine taken from them, and were later promised some of it back to form a soverign state again; why should he had deviated so greatly from what was promised and ratified by the international community? Because Michael Collins conceeded to the British under different circumstances? Yeah, what an uncompromising asshole, good argument that.

The land promised to the Palestinians under the agreement of 1947 was only taken from them after they gambled on war against Israel (along with Israel's Arab neighbor states) and lost it. If they hadn't done so, they might still have that land today. Yes, certain land was promised to them by international agreement. But what you seem so keen to overlook, is that that same agreement also promised other land to Israel, and the Palestinians therefore repudiated that agreement. Basically, you are defending their right to land promised under an agreement that they themselves were not prepared to live with. Well, if they weren't prepared to abide by it, why should they automatically be entitled to anything promised under it?

Like it or not, the fact is that in '47, the Palestinians rolled the dice and lost. Now, with the Oslo accords, the realistic thing to do would be to accept that you are playing from an inferior position than you were half a century ago, and negotiatiate based on the current situation, rather than on the basis of fifty year old agreements that you yourself repudiated at the time.

BoredShirtless wrote:
Now, when it came time for Arafat to make a similar principled choice at Oslo, he showed his true colors as a terrorist hard liner, not a man of reason, willing to make acceptable compromises.
Define "acceptable".

He was a terrorist hard liner who insisted, unrealistically, on achieving all his goals.
Prove it.

No compromise was to be considered.
Prove it.

He was offered a deal that he and his people would have been able to live with, and he repudiated it.
They could easily live with what they've got now, but they don't, why is that?

In summary, you argue that Arafat was a hard liner terrorist using his non concession of Oslo as your main point, even though Oslo probably wouldn't have been accepted by the people (what's the point of making concessions if your people wouldn't accept them) and falls so far short of what was OWED AND PROMISED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW (did Michael Collins have such promises to work on? No? Didn't think so).

See above. I don't see how one can claim one is owed anything based on agreements which repudiated oneself. This looks a lot like a willingness to invoke such agreements when they are of benefit, but being quite willing to repudiate when it looks like it might be more advantageous to do that.

And at least part of the reason that Oslo might not have been acceptable to the Palestinian people is that they've been indoctrinated with venomous hatred for so long.

Palestinian kids raised for war
Taught to hate, kill Jews through 'Sesame Street'-type TV show

What a fucking surprise that the Palestinian people might be unwilling to compromise when they're fed a steady diet of fanatical hatred from the time they're toddlers. Fanatics tend not to be too willing to compromise.

BoredShirtless wrote:Then, you use Michael Collins within a completely different situation to show how a non-terrorist does things.

Completely different you say? The Palestinians, you say, are oppressed. Well, so were the Irish, who from the 17th to the 19th century had to deal with penal laws, the declared purpose of which, like that of the apartheid laws of recent South African history, was to disenfranchise the native majority from all power, both political and economic.

But the Palestinians were forced off their land to make room fro settlers imported into the country from outside you say. And most of the land in Ulster was taken away from the Catholic, Gaelic Irish in order to give it to transplanted Presbyterians from the Scottish lowlands.

But the Palestinians were promised their land by international agreement! (Which they themselves rejected, as I've said, but let's not digress.) Well, two bills passed in the house of commons which would have allowed the Irish home rule (a prior one had been narrowly defeated), and yet somehow the Irish never did get their own parliament. After the second bill passed, it was suspiciously delayed in taking effect till after WWI, and when the war did end, the Irish still didn't get their own parliament as promised.

No, there's nothing remotely similar here. Clearly because Collins was willing to make compromises, there's no reason to expect Arafat should have done so.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-11-12 04:21pm

Somebody mentioned that old bullshit line "Life isnt fair".

"Life isnt fair" is a descriptive, non-normative statement about the world. It's accurate at telling us what generally happens.

It is not a normative statement, prescribing the manner in which we should behave. Do not confuse it with "life shouldnt be fair", or "we should ensure that life remains unfair", or "we should do nothing to try and make life more fair" or any of the other readings so many love to take of it.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-11-12 04:21pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
And all that, Perinquus, doesn't change the fact that the bombing successfully terminated the war by terrorizing the japanese into submission. What course of action would you have taken if you were in Arafat's shoes? Talk nicely to the Israelis will they kick you in the nuts and generally don't care?
I think he should have accepted the Oslo Accords. Yeah, they were a totally shit deal, but at least he would have gained official statehood, and that would have given Palestine at least some official status and strengthend its bargaining position and its PR with some of the rest of the world.

Or he could have made a counter offer, or even showed some interest in the fate of his people.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-11-12 05:28pm

In world war II all cities were legitimate targets for bombing, if a belligerent wished to protect the civillians within a city they could declare it to be an open city. It was totally and completely within the power of the Japanese to stop the bombings, all they would have to do would be to move their military assets out of the city.

From the records recovered after the fall of Japan, Ketsu Go makes it abundantly clear that when the US landed there would be a massive battle in which more Japanese civillians would die than ever did from the nuclear bombings. That of course ignores the fact that the home islands were utterly incapable of feeding their population and were blockaded.

Second Arafat wasn't fighting for some noble cause, he began Fatah before Israel entered the west bank and admits to fighting against Israel in the independence war. In a nutshell he wanted to destroy Israel and had no problem killing anyone who stood in his way be they men, women, children, Jordanians, Israelis, Lebannese, Jews, Christians, Mulsims, or Druze. There is NOTHING comparable between bombing a city in attempt to limit death tolls and killing so you could push the Jews into the sea.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-11-12 06:35pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Life is tough Perinquus? That's the most pathetic and irrelevent reason anyone on this thread has tried offering. It doesn't change the fact that nuking innocent civilians on purpose is a terrorist act, try again.
We have already established that the majority of the Japanese civil populace were illegal combatants and therefore legitimate targets.

Bullshit. PPOR.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-11-12 06:36pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Elfdart wrote: Only those civilians who actually take up arms are legitimate targets, unless you subscribe to the doctrine of Col. John Chivington, who said "Nits grow into lice."
How does this change our arguement? The Japanese civilians were being armed and formed into units. They took up arms, and were ready to fight. Ergo they are targets.

All Japanese civilians? Most of them? What percentages are we talking here? PPOR.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-11-12 06:38pm

tharkûn wrote:In world war II all cities were legitimate targets for bombing, [snip]

No, deliberate attacks against civilians are war crimes.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-12 06:42pm

Elfdart wrote:No, deliberate attacks against civilians are war crimes.

Hmm. So who started the warcrimes in WWII first? The British or Germans?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 06:43pm

Elfdart wrote:
Bullshit. PPOR.

PPOR? What's that in english?

Elfdatr wrote:All Japanese civilians? Most of them? What percentages are we talking here? PPOR

We are talking about every ablebodied man, woman and child. Even the infirm. The Japanese military planned to throw them onto the invasion force with bamboo spears and choke the Americans with the dead. Then the military would hit them.

Japan in that era was a nation of fanatics, loyalty to the Emperor was absolute.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 06:45pm

MKSheppard wrote: Hmm. So who started the warcrimes in WWII first? The British or Germans?

The Germans. They bombed Rotterdam during the invasion of The Netherlands. This is long before the attacks on London or the British retalation on German cities.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-11-12 06:47pm

You know, this exact same conversation started The Weekend of Hell...

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-12 06:50pm

Frank Hipper wrote:You know, this exact same conversation started The Weekend of Hell...

Whats the weekend of hell?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-12 06:53pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:You know, this exact same conversation started The Weekend of Hell...
Whats the weekend of hell?

An ugly all out nutty flamewar over a variety of topics.

One of the reasons of the supermods after a point(the other was the debacle we call TK invasion)

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-11-12 06:55pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:You know, this exact same conversation started The Weekend of Hell...
Whats the weekend of hell?

A very bad time, Shep got temp-banned, Ted got either a temp or perma-ban, he's perma-banned now either way, and people tore into each other with shitty ferocity for a couple days. February of '03, I think it was.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-12 06:57pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:You know, this exact same conversation started The Weekend of Hell...
Whats the weekend of hell?
A very bad time, Shep got temp-banned, Ted got either a temp or perma-ban, he's perma-banned now either way, and people tore into each other with shitty ferocity for a couple days. February of '03, I think it was.

Shep and Ted got Temp Banned. Ted's perm ban was related a lot into Kelly and Dalton.

Post by **The Wookiee** » 2004-11-12 07:14pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Shep and Ted got Temp Banned. Ted's perm ban was related a lot into Kelly and Dalton.

Not as much me as you may think. Ted was banned for being a complete fucking insensitive prick to just about everyone.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-11-12 07:27pm

The Wookiee wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Shep and Ted got Temp Banned. Ted's perm ban was related a lot into Kelly and Dalton.
Not as much me as you may think. Ted was banned for being a complete fucking insensitive prick to just about everyone.

I know...but it was his attack on you about being Irish that was one of the final straws, which is why I mentioned it.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-11-12 07:33pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Elfdart wrote:No, deliberate attacks against civilians are war crimes.
Hmm. So who started the warcrimes in WWII first? The British or Germans?

What the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

By the way, PPOR means "Post Proof or Retract" -a fancy way of saying "put up or shut up" or "prove it".

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-11-12 07:35pm

Cpl Kendall wrote: The Germans. They bombed Rotterdam during the invasion of The Netherlands. This is long before the attacks on London or the British retalation on German cities.

Bullshit detected. The bombing of Rotterdam was ordered when German paratroopers where locked in combat against Dutch troops. A defended city is subject to bombardment, and the raid was directed against those very Dutch troops. What happened was that while the raid was still in the air the Dutch began negotiating surrender; they however dragged the process out for hours. As a result when the abort order was given to the bombers, they had proceeded so far that many didn't get it, though about half the raid did turn back or bomb secondary targets outside of the city. The rest bombed the target area as ordered, which was mainly docks and warehouses where the fighting had been going on. The warehouses however where full of flammable materials, and as a resulting fires easily spread and burned a large chunk of the city. However fewer then 600 civilians died, and the city with its horribly antiquated fire brigade was spared total destruction mainly as a result of German action, with fire trucks being brought in from as far away as the Ruhr to fight the blaze.

Allied Propaganda of course twisted the raid into an intentional act of terror which killed 10,000 people.