General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2285213

    Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

    Locked

    by jkaras ·

    With Arafat dead and every militant group vying for control will Isreal strike, or India strike while vunerable over their long standing feud,or the US move in to control yet another area in the middle east? This is a very awkward time in the middle of hottest disputed area that the death of one man could swing the balance of the worlds future? After seeing video of the attempted funeral with thousands of loyal followers and factions in total dissary makes you think. Opinions?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3313036

      Arafat was a murderer

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      Was I a bit strong there? Hmmm, I don?t think so. He controlled an organization that openly and actively sought out innocent Israeli women and children in a concerted effort to push Israel into the sea. He never wanted peace with Israel and was the sword used by the Arabic fascists to eliminate Israel all together.
      I for one am glad he?s dead. I hope and pray that the Palestinians find the leadership needed to truly broker peace with Israel. The only way they can do this is to stop killing Israelis. To do this they must take it upon themselves to distance themselves from the thugs that are the PLO.

      • #3312968

        Who cares , he was lately ineffectual

        by namitswar ·

        In reply to Arafat was a murderer

        ARAfat had lost his grip on PLO>
        Hamas and othe organisations were controlling the PLO.

        So his demise wouldnt harm or benifit the war/peace process .

        btw Whats this question doing in here at Discussions ?

        • #3312964

          should it have been in the technical then?

          by jkaras ·

          In reply to Who cares , he was lately ineffectual

          lighten up,lol, we wax philosophical around here from time ot time to break up the routines, and gain understanding since this site is visited internationally. The middle East concerns all since that is where people are dying daily on both sides of the coin. If a discussion offends you then dont participate, excercise your point of view if you want to, no biggie.

          Your point was something I never considered, that he essentially was or probably just a figure head leaving the waring to the youger militant factions.

          Regardless the minute size of Palestine its impact on who will rule it makes it a very valuable chess piece on the chess board of the middle east. I for one imagine way more bloodshed than peace in the coming three months ahead. The dreamer in me hopes for peace, but the realist in me speaks the latter.

    • #3313027

      Perhaps now rational heads will prevail

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      .
      Yasser Arafat was a terrorist and a thief. He killed innocent people and stole millions (or billions) of dollars from those he presumably represented. To give him the Nobel Peace Prize was a farce. The Israel/Palestinian issue would have never been resolved with him alive. He wanted the issue, not the solution.

      Perhaps now things will change – or not.

      • #3311418

        Maxwell you should visit the area

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Perhaps now rational heads will prevail

        Both sides are just like naughty little preschool children who can not get along together in the sandpit.

        The hatred between the two predates “Christian” times and I really can not see it being solved in the short term.

        Col

    • #3313004

      Well hopefully we can have peace

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      This asshole is the reason why terrorism is as prevelant today. He escalated it and robbed his own people in the process. Indirectly he is responsible for 9/11. Thats why this argument over Israel so called “occupation” is all bulls*it. He never wanted peace, not when all the Arab governments were paying him to keep sending suicide bombers into Israel (Saddam anyone?). He used his own people to kill civilians, and I hope he rots in hell.

      I hope there is a viable, democratic Palisitianian state out of this and it would go a LONG WAY to healing the wounds of the past 50 years. If and when this happens, the Palistinians and the governments of the Arab states will run out of excuses to attack Israel, I wonder what they will come up with next.

      • #3311392

        wanting peace

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to Well hopefully we can have peace

        When the Israelis want peace they will
        1. stop the more than weekly terror raids they are currently perpetrating in the 1967 territories;
        2. start returning the stolen private property to its owners.
        Of course, when they do the latter, Christians and Muslims will eventually be a majority in the 1948 territories and will presumably vote for a reunited Palestine, bringing the Israeli state to an end. That will be a natural consequcne of peace, and may be one reason the Israelis do not want peace.

    • #3311505

      Palestine has a chance at a new beginning

      by av . ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      In Arafat’s death he has finally done one good thing for the Palestinian people and the rest of the world. I hope the Palestinians choose a leader that wants peace. I know there will be more bloodshed and chaos before that happens, but how much violence can people take?

      I think that Tony Blair will play an instrumental role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He will help Bush with his diplomacy and there will be Arab countries involved as well. I hope they all succeed.

      It all depends on who is elected to replace Arafat.

    • #3311467

      An insult to my intelligence

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      Week after week, year after year, decade after decade my intelligence is insulted with the latest update on the so-called peace talks.

      While I am aware that right-wing Americans will not accept this, it is blatantly obvious to me that Israel, supported by Zionist Jews in America, does NOT WANT PEACE.

      They would much prefer that the Palestinians would just disappear.

      Rightly or wrongly, it was the Israelis, not the Palestinians or any of their allies, who crossed the boundary laid down in the UN partition plan. Furthermore, even some weeks before the partition date, the Israeli forces were massacring villages of Christians and Muslims in a successful attempt to get a large number of the local people to flee.

      When I started a discussion on the Israel/Palestine issue about a year ago, the only respondents were John Wills, and some other character who simply dismissed us as racists.

      There will NEVER be peace in this part of the world unless Washington and Israel come clean and admit their real goal — total dominance over the Palestinian people.

      P.S. I am not anti-Semitic — some of the loveliest people I know are Jewish — and that includes liberal Jews and orthodox Jews.

      In order to see the picture clearly, one must recognise the agenda of Zionist Jews, who do NOT represent the feelings of Jewish people in general.

      • #3311452

        LMAO.

        by garion11 ·

        In reply to An insult to my intelligence

        That was quite funny Jules. For a minute there I actually thought you were serious.

        I always wondered why Israel said yes to peace 3x, but all 3x the Arabs walked away.

        I always wondered why Israel was attacked first by all the Arab nations (and they just happen to lose) after the creation of Israel in 1948.

        I always wondered why Palistinian terrorists always targeted Israeli citizens as opposed to their military.

        I always wondered why (if the Palistinians were so opressed by Washington and Israel) their so called “Arab brothers” didn’t give them a shelter and land in their own countries.

        I always wondered why Arafat died such a rich man with several hundred million dollars in Swiss bank accounts, while his own people starved.

        Shall I continue?? Or do you feel like being funny again?

        • #3311436

          My pleasure

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to LMAO.

          I am pleased that my comments provided a source of amusement for you.

          However the fact is that the UN gave the Israelis a chunk of Palestine and I can understand that the Palestinians weren’t too happy about that.

          I am quite unable to see Israel as lily white in the various altercations that have occurred with its Arab neighbours.

          I was abhorred when they used a helicopter gun ship in a public place in their endeavour to assassinate the Hamas leader.

        • #3311416

          Actually Garion Jules isn’t all that wrong

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to LMAO.

          The very first State Sponsored Terrorism in modern times was done by the emerging State of Israel. While I really do not think a hell of a lot for the Palatines the Jews are not that much better either.

          In all honesty they create a lot of their problems with what they justify as indiscriminate killing of civilians for minor infractions of their Martial Law in the Occupied Lands that they grabbed after the 6 day war & never handed back. Two answers as to who was on that land prior to the attack and who where not involved in the attack?

          Currently Israel is supporting an expansionist policy and the last Leader of Israel who even looked as if he would achieve some sough of peace in his time was assassinated by a Jew.

          You can not just do a goggle search for data you have to see exactly what is going on over there personally and not rely on some sanitized polluted News Service for your information.

          Col

        • #3311390

          who attacked whom

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to LMAO.

          The Arab states sent their soldiers into the the territory of the “Arab State in Palestine”, not into the territory of the Israeli state. It was the Israelis who broke the boundary decreed by the UN. I am not sure that this is relevant for the modern search for justice and peace, but the Talmud does say (in Avoth) that truth comes before justice and peace, so let us get our facts right. Furthermore, the UN decree declared that “non-Jews” in the Israeli state would have the right to stay there, but the Israelis pushed large numbers of them out in the first few days of their state – and had even destroyed some villages a few weeks before partition.

      • #3311449

        Islam Causes its Own Problems

        by olprof67 ·

        In reply to An insult to my intelligence

        The Arab states (as opposed to the people within them) and their piratical terrorist allies are the best empirical proof that some parts of this globe just don’t yet have the socio-cultural underpinning for the establishment of democracy.

        Fueled by the simplistic attachment to land which most of us manage to outgrow to some degree, and the hatreds intensified by the us/them nature of the most fundamentalistic of all the major religions, these entities have resorted to the ugliest of tactics in an attempt to have their way.

        Granted, the establishment of the state of Israel will likely be viewed in the long run as a mistake. The Jews, more than any other people on this earth, should be able to recognize that a great culture does not require a landed state in which to thrive.

        But there is an ugly counterpart to this mode of thinking — the blindness of collectivism. And all the failures and losers in any culture gravitate to it, to breed little failures in an attempt to tear everybody’s accomplisments down under the dead weight of idleness and stupidity.

        But within this dismal swamp, it should be noted that successes remain. A handful of sheikdoms — those with the freest ecomomies and the least interference from a state religion — flourish.

        And just about every nght on my job, I speak with a member of some progressive Arab family who have emigrated, and are as disciplined and prosperous as any other group.

        The causes of, and cures for the problem, should be obvious. But unfortunately, a substantial bloc of the Arab world remains bent on the use of violence and terror. Their course of action has brutalized and alienated a wide spectrum of the remainder of the world.

        If the current impasse leads to a battle in which the ugliest of these savages can be led into expending their destructive energies on each other, it might prove preferable to some less-principled state taking more-decisive action.

        In the wake of 9-11, Yasser Arafat had the opportunity to turn his back upon the mad dogs among his ranks; he turned it down. It remains to be seen whether Palestine can produce a leader with more integrity.

        • #3311427

          About Islam

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Islam Causes its Own Problems

          You refer to Islam as: “the most fundamentalistic of all the major religions.”

          I will take issue with you there. What seems to be largely unknown in the Western world is that, in the Middle Ages, when the Christian church was burning books and burning witches, Islamic scholars travelled to all corners of the earth gathering knowledge.

          Western countries owe the major part of their scientific knowledge and philosophy to this movement in Islam, which revived the teaching of the ancient Greek scholars and philosophers, as well as collecting other knowledge from Asian countries. Our numerical system — 1 – 9 — came to the West from India via these Moslem scholars.

          When Islam went into decline, this knowledge was kept alive largely by Jewish people in Europe.

          For sure in the past two decades a portion of Islamic peoples have reverted to fundamentalism. However the largest concentration of Muslims in the world — 130 million — reside in Indonesia which is a secular state.

          In parallel with the reversion to fundamentaism in Islam is the return to fundamentalism in Christianity, most notably in the US, where at the recent election it was estimated that Evangelical Christians accounted for some 20 – 25 per cent of eligible voters.

          Fundamentalism or extremism in any form is potentially dangerous. And the so-called militant Christians in America appear to be lusting for blood just as surely as the Islam fundamentalists.

          IMHO one of the greatest challenges facing the world today is for Christians and Muslims to acknowledge the reality that there is NOT going to be any mass conversion from one religion to the other, and that followers of these two faiths have to accept this and learn to love rather than hate one another.

          [End of sermon — the offertory will now be collected]

        • #3311253

          Lets compare shall we?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to About Islam

          Let us suppose for the sake of argument that what you are postulating is true. Given this what would happen to a Muslim who lives in a community of Christians? Nothing? Right! Conversely, what would happen to a Christian who lived in a Muslim community? He would be killed.
          One can see here the major difference between the religions; Islam preaches violence against the infidel (non-believer) whereas Christianity preaches love and compassion to the non-believer.
          I would consider myself a student of history and so I am very familiar with the crusades and the Inquisitions. These were acts of barbaric men who claimed that they were doing God?s work when in reality these acts were done out of greed and avarice. Anyone can claim that they are doing God?s work but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. God?s work brings freedom and peace. Christians pray for Gods will to be done and as he is the supreme being and creator of the universe I think we could reasonably say that his ?will? will be done whether we want it to or not.
          I have also heard it said that God does not condone war. If you believe this I strongly suggest that you read the Bible. There are multiple instances of warfare in the Bible that God had his hand over (Read about Sampson and Joshua to get you started).

        • #3311243

          Muslim-Bashing Republicans

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Lets compare shall we?

          re:
          Given this what would happen to a Muslim who lives in a community of Christians? Nothing?
          -=—- -=—- -=—- -=—- -=—-

          Tell that to the Muslims children who were attacked in school, at church and at home in the US – simply because they are Muslims.
          Tell that to the Muslim store clerks who were attacked, beaten and even murdered in their stores – simply because they are Muslims.

          re:
          Conversely, what would happen to a Christian who lived in a Muslim community? He would be killed.
          —- —- —- —- —-

          Perhaps you didn’t know? LOTS of people in Iraq’s government were Christians.

          To claim that Muslims are just out to kill Christians is dishonest, unAmerican – and VERY Republican.

        • #3311968

          I know this is silly but…

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Muslim-Bashing Republicans

          I thought I?d try one more time to get you to put your money where your mouth is and provide some shred of evidence for these allegations you post here. Show me one article where a devout Christian killed a Muslim. Your example of Iraq is not a very good one. Iraq was not a Theocracy but a dictatorship lead by an atheistic dictator who persecuted Muslims with equal fervor as he did Christians.

        • #3311231

          Well if you know any History at all

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Lets compare shall we?

          You should be aware that the Crusades where in fact nothing more than wealth gathering exercises firstly for the church and then after 60 days of fighting the people involved namely the Knights got to keep 60% of the spoils of war. Prior to that while fighting for the church all the proceeds went to the church.

          Actually the Christian Ideals of showing the other cheek is something new the old idea used to be an eye for and eye.

          But getting back to the Crusades the Knights where obliged by the church to fight for the church to for a 60 day period and after that time they could continue to fight for the church but gain benefit for themselves which of course they naturally did as all the expenses for the 60 days of church fighting came directly out of their pockets so they needed to recoup the outgoings so they naturally stayed. Of course the church helped by appealing to their greed by allowing them 60% of the spoils.

          Now do you still believe that these where evil men or the church of the time was evil?

          Col

        • #3311189

          Gangstas

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Well if you know any History at all

          re:
          Now do you still believe that these where evil men or the church of the time was evil?
          —– —– —– —– —–

          Quite clearly, it was a combination – an evil organization, made up of evil men, doing evil deeds. They were the Republican party of the day.

          “If you want to find a crooked man, look in a church” – Anon.

        • #3311963

          I think we’re saying the same thing here.

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Well if you know any History at all

          I do know a bit about that time in History. The Catholic Church at the time had become largely corrupt with power and greed. The leaders of the Church at that time also persecuted the Jews as they believed in a false humanistic doctrine that replaced the Catholic Church with God?s people. I am not defending the crusades nor am I defending the actions of the Muslims of that time. The entire middle ages was marked with terror, destruction and such a low regard for human life as to be unimaginable by today?s standards. I think we are saying the same things here. It is a matter of record what the Church did at the time and it wasn?t until Martin Luther did a literalist view of the Bible reenter the Church.
          I think my point is that the Church is nothing more than a compilation of people and at the time the leaders of the church were corrupt. As for evil ? ?for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?.

        • #3311177

          “I would consider myself a student of history”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Lets compare shall we?

          And who wrote the history book that you studied? was it Jerry Falwell perhaps?

          If you had been paying attention to what is going on in the world today, you would have noticed that the “Muslim” terrorists ( they in no way represent the true teachings of Islam or the attitudes of Muslims in general) have NEVER said that their target is Christians.

          They have repeatedly stated that their targets are Zionist Jews and the USA and its allies.

          NEVER have they said that they are out to kill the “infidel Christians.”

          I won’t diverge into the reasons that they hate the USA and its allies, but Christians per se are NOT the object of their wrath.

          I invite you to visit my website

          http://www.thechristianwebsite.com

          On the opening page you will see a long article by a Christian bishop, which outlines the many ways that Muslims and Christians have interacted peacefully over the years.

          On the page: “Other Faiths,” you will see an outline of the Islamic faith in general.

        • #3312207

          And if you want to go further

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to “I would consider myself a student of history”

          IN the Koran there is a mention of “The Nazarene” who supposedly went about reconciling the differences between the then Judaism and the Muslim faith of the time.

          Once you reconcile the years stated back to the Roman Calender you will find that this was around 33- 34 AD on wards for about 30 years.

          This person whom ever he may have been actually had a form of peace between the religions at that time. However this has been lost over time.

          Col

        • #3311415

          Well that was entraining

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Islam Causes its Own Problems

          But I wish to draw your attention to what was once known as Yugoslavia there it was the Christian who systematically attempted to wipe off the face of the earth the Muslim population in that country.

          Even to this day the leaders have not been caught and brought to justice but they are helped by their Loyal followers who think of them as Saints and other religious icons who must be protected at all costs.

          Before you start ranting about one religion you should first look at the actions of others who attribute their atrocities to their GOD no matter what they call their creator.

          Incidentally with the explosion of Evangelical Christian churches in the USA who all seem in a feeding frenzy of “Blood Lust” I’m wondering just how long it will be before in a fit of Righteousness that country attempts to convert the world to their belief system.

          Incidentally just how many of these Evangelical Leaders have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar so to speak with the money in it or up some female followers skirt? Funnily enough they all come out claiming that they are sinners and require repentance which is mostly accepted by their followers when in the right place that they should be facing a Court of Law.

          Now I do find that very Hypocritical!

          Col

          Col

    • #3311354

      If you’re not scared of militant Christians, this may cause you to rethink

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      This is an email which I received from an American whom I had counted as a good friend and unbiased.

      This person has told one outright lie of which I am personally aware: “I’m not even a Republican.”

      I happen to know that this person has twice stood as a Republican candidate.

      So read on: warning — this diatribe is NOT suitable reading for anyone who has a weak stomach.

      It scares the s**t out of me, as it should do to every sane American.

      “The US election was a referendum on morality. the Democratic ticket has left behind completely any tie to absolute morality given by God, and
      that is specifically why Bush won the election and specifically why John Kerry rightly lost.

      Issues like ‘the war in Iraq’ are problematic but debatable. Issues like full term no-questions asked abortion on demand (live birth
      abortion) and issues like gay marriage or even civil unions are issues that are wholly incompatible with the Christian worldview and NEED BE REJECTED by any God fearing voter.

      John Kerry and most Democrats have demonstrated in their actions, not their words they are anti-Christ in their philosophy and that is not
      something any Christian wishing to please God can be behind.

      There is no ‘blood thrirsty’ group of which you speak.. you have gotten sucked into the biased bs media hype I’m afraid. You get your news
      through the communist news network (CNN) or something?

      I wish that there was a fair way to choose a leader in this or any other country, but it’s very very rare that a Democrat ever sides with
      something that can be aligned with values taught in the Bible, they always cave into liberal agendas like ‘gay rights’ or ‘abortion on
      demand’, sadly it makes any of the ‘good works’they might have on their plate a moot point… Biblical moral truths are a trump card.

      Sorry to inform you but it’s purely political tripe… the BS about ‘lust for money and blood’ that is an absolute lie. The motivation of
      the peace-loving majority that just said ‘hell no’ to hiring an evil man devoid of good as commander-in-chief of the USA was to hire
      somebody that openly admits he’s a Christian, who actually prays on his knees for guidance and wisdom and has millions of people praying for
      the same.

      You are a very misguided surly person, it’s very sad that you are grouped in with the majority of the world that has lost sight of what is most important (pleasing God first) and have bought into this liberal ‘me first’ mentality that has plagued Europe and most of the world…. the very thing that has turned Europe into a godless majority society… basically completely secular.. well DUH.. of course the
      secular majority of ‘the rest of the world’ doesn’t like Bush.. Bush
      stands for Biblically based moral truths.. that really pisses off ‘the world’ that thinks they can make their own moral laws… It’s false and
      always will be.

      Putting ‘the right of a fish’ in front of
      the ‘right of a created being’ will always be one of the most important issues of all history.
      A man that will openly say that ‘harboring a culture of life’ is the solution has a trump card of righteousness over a man that will openly
      say “regardless of your thoughts, I will spend YOUR money to KILL unborn humans, and you have no say in the matter”. .that is pure-concentrated-evil there is no way around it.

      The war in Iraq can be considered ‘a mess’.. I’ll let you in on a secret… IT IS A WAR… by definition it’s a mess. There is nothing
      fundamentally wrong with that war. It is a war of righteousness.. a holy war which is what ‘the war on terror’ is.. it is quite literally a
      war between Christians and Muslims … an analog of ‘good and evil’. Something that the mainstream media is too chickenshit to say aloud.

      From here on out ’til the 2nd coming of Jesus, there will be an ongoing war between Islam and Christianity. The only true threat to
      Christianity on this planet is Islam. The majority of people that call themselves Muslim have no idea what that means, but a very large and growing minority do know what it means, and those are the people we ‘call’ extremists.. those are actually as they accurately call
      themselves the ‘true’ Muslims.

      So.. YOU have chosen to ‘side yourself’ with the Islamic fantasists… do you have a good reason to back that up? If you believe there is some
      ulterior motive for the Bush administration that has an evil root I will ‘call you on it’ and tell you point-blank you can be further from
      the truth.

      I’m not even a Republican, I’m not tied in any way to ‘the Bush crowd’, but I’ve followed plenty of the important decisions and actions by our
      president and I have no problem with most of the truly important decisions… Like anything that keeps us more separate from the UN (most evil organization in history).. and any of the actions that side with Israel to help out the only God-fearing nation in the middle east…

      There are political ‘trump cards’ and Bush has several. It would be nice if there was a Democrat that hadn’t sold his soul to the devil for
      political gain but I’ve yet to see one… if you have an example I’d sure like to see it.

      You can not resolve ‘God fearing Christian’ and ‘abortion rights’.. not at all, not in the least.. anybody that is pro-abortion is point-blank anti-God, they are absolutely incompatible… most Demonocrats are more
      worried about the spotted owl than the 4000 babies being killed in America DAILY…

      Whine whine whine.. oh the poor kids dying at the rate of 3 a day in Iraq.. well.. let’s start with 4000 vs 3 for starters.. lets move on to
      .. righteous cause vs wholly evil cause rooted it nothing by selfish greed.

      To say that the war in Iraq is a ‘trump card’ over the completely evil ‘abortion is a constitutional right’ mentality of the liberals all over the world can not possibly be more of a lie. Yeah it’s an unfortunately difficult mess, but there is no reason the end result won’t be not only peaceful but righteous and it’s absolutely wrong of YOU to judge the
      heart and soul of the president on what is intentions are.

      I know liberals just can’t stand being told they are wrong, but sorry.. you are wrong.. check your facts.. you are basing your judgments on lies and believing them. The actions of our president by in large are in-line with what the Bible teaches… the actions of most liberals are
      absolutely out-of-line with what the bible teaches.. and that is the only trump card… somebody that votes or acts out of line with the
      Bible ought NEVER be in power of anything.

      • #3311341

        For what’s it’s worth

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to If you’re not scared of militant Christians, this may cause you to rethink

        .
        Your friend said, “The US election was a referendum on morality……and that is specifically why Bush won the election and specifically why John Kerry rightly lost.”

        I completely disagree. Let me explain.

        There was a poll taken shortly after the election asking (I’m paraphrasing) what issues were important to voters. The poll actually listed several issues, one of which was “morality” (or something like that). It was kind of a multiple choice poll. You know, the choices were morality, the price of tea in China, the state of the coral reefs in Australia, and something else – maybe even Iraq. (I’m making a joke, you know; the list actually included real issues like education, the economy, morality and Iraq.) However, when limited to just a few choices, of course “morality” scored relatively high – at least high enough for someone to say something like, 40 percent of all Americans blah, blah, blah. Thus the contrived “morality” issue. The interesting thing is this. In another poll that asked an identical question, but one where no “answers” were provided, morality issues scored quite low, while Iraq and/or the war on terrorism and the economy scored quite high.

        In my opinion, there are people who are trying to make an overall “morality” issue out of a couple of things. One is the sudden appearance of the gay marriage arguments all over the place. Eleven states actually had gay marriage ballot questions (either asking people to vote for or against), and there has been talk of attempting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There will also be at least one, perhaps as many as three, Supreme Court appointments to be made over the next four years, and the pro-abortion crowd (or pro-choice, as they prefer to call themselves) is scared to death that President Bush will appoints justices who will vote to overturn our “abortion-on-demand” court decision, Roe versus Wade. And with a Republican controlled Congress, it becomes more of a scare for them, even though there are plenty of pro-abortion (or pro-choice, as they prefer to call themselves) Republicans currently holding many of those seats, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine being only one of them.

        So in my opinion, for what it’s worth, I believe that there are forces that wanted to make overall “morality” an issue, but it’s really just another typical scare tactic. And it might be easier to do because President Bush wears his Christianity on his sleeve. But whether or not he advances policy decisions based on his faith is a matter of opinion – and disagreement, I suppose. But John Kerry is a devout Catholic, and the Catholic church is against both gay marriage and abortion – as is John Kerry personally.

        So if overall “morality” was an issue at all, it might be in the context of which candidate might be more true to his principles – and this especially is true when it comes to the war in Iraq and/or the war against terrorism. Not only did John Kerry appear to violate his Catholic principles, but he wavered back-and-forth on the war in Iraq as well.

        Who can you trust to do the right thing – as he believes it to be? The hands-down winner, whether you agree with his “right thing beliefs” or not, was President Bush. And somehow that got twisted and skewed to give the impression of some sort of Christian revolution, which is far removed from reality.

        (Okay, now that I’ve responded to that very first sentence, perhaps I’ll go back and read the rest of your friend’s email.)

        • #3311309

          Unfortunately Maxwell

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to For what’s it’s worth

          That is very similar to the way that the Bush win is being portrayed on the news this side of the pond.

          A win for the Christian Beliefs against the evil almost “Anti Christ Kerry!” Now I do not believe that most Americans feel this way but for certain a growing number do and that is something to at the very least be cautious of. It is admitted that the “Evangelical Vote” most likely swung the election and was most likely for his father not being reelected because Bush Jr was not working on his fathers campaign on the second time as he was away pursuing his own Political Career and the Evangelical Vote that Bush Senior previously had was not taken advantage of as Bush Jr was not around to give them direction.

          While I do not know if it is correct it certainly at the very least appears plausible. I’ve seen several people who are GWB supporters behaving that way and honestly it scares me just as much as the fanatics on the other side. If I can have a civil conversation with someone who I might not agree with but it doesn’t degrade into “Bible Bashing” then I’m quite happy and even if I do not agree with that person I at least get to know how they think and why they think like they do but when people resort to claiming that their leader is “Doing Gods Work” whatever he is a Christian God Muslim God Hindu God Buddhists God or whatever it honestly scares me and it only gets worse when I see this repeated all the time. If it is one isolated case no big deal but if there are a lot of people who appear to think this way then all form of possibility of peaceful settlement or mutual understanding has gone and there is very little hope of it returning before a lot of people die needlessly.

          Actually I do not care if it is an American sprouting off this rubbish or a Muslim Cleric accused of masterminding the Bali Bombing entering court chanting “God is Great!” both worry me.

          Col

        • #3311299

          Abortion – False Flag

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to For what’s it’s worth

          What a field-day for the heat,
          A thousand people in the street,
          Singing songs and carrying signs,
          Mostly say hurray for our side.

          re:
          There will also be at least one, perhaps as many as three, Supreme Court appointments to be made over the next four years, and the pro-abortion crowd (or pro-choice, as they prefer to call themselves) is scared to death that President Bush will appoints justices who will vote to overturn our “abortion-on-demand” court decision, Roe versus Wade.
          —– —– —– —– —–

          There’s absolutely no chance the Supreme Court will be able to outlaw abortion procedures. They don’t make law – they just apply the constitution.

          Criminalizing medical procedures like abortion would require a constitutional ammendment – at least. That requires a lot more than a 1% margin on 50% turnout.

          Even if they passed an ammendment, the supremes upheld it, and a whole new beaurocracy was created to prosecute it – at best a *few* communities would be free of abortion. It would still be as easy, as common, and as widely accepted as speeding on the freeway.

          Abortion is an issue Republicans use to trick televangelical christians into supporting the mass murder of muslims.

        • #3311273

          Overturning Roe versus Wade

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Abortion – False Flag

          .
          I fully understand the role of the Supreme Court, Bucky, and I realize that they don’t make law. However, overturning Roe versus Wade would not be making law; and they could overturn that previous ruling on one of two counts — or both.

          First, the original decision actually overturned individual states’ laws against abortion — laws enacted by individual states’ legislators and upheld by individual states’ courts — including your very own state of Texas. In fact, the “Wade” in question, against whom the challenge was filed, was Dallas district attorney Henry Wade who argued for states’ rights in the matter. The Supreme court could rule to overturn the original decision and return the issue to state jurisdiction.

          The second count could ask the court to rule on the constitutional protection afforded the unborn child. After all, scumbag Peterson was just convicted of second degree murder by taking the life of an unborn child; and there have been a few other cases of people being convicted of the murder of an unborn child, all of which, I believe, came after the Roe versus Wade decision. So I think that any reasonably person might conclude that one of those two decisions — either Roe versus Wade or the Peterson conviction — could be overturned because they contradict each other.

          Disclaimer: I’m not arguing one way or the other as to whether or not the court should overturn Roe versus Wade, but simply suggesting that there would (or could) indeed be grounds for a new court to hear the new arguments and consider overturning the original decision. And Supreme Courts in the past have, after all, overturned previous courts’ decisions.

        • #3311244

          Legal Exercise

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Overturning Roe versus Wade

          I think it’s just a LOT of self-contradictory, and pointless, legal exercise.

          Even if the Court were to delcare all abortion illegal, there’s a massive stockpile of other decisions supporting it – for both medical and legal reasons.

          That’s why I think that outlawing it would require a constitutional ammendment. What the NeoCons are doing now is just paying lip-service to the slave-state Christians.

          The regime has other, less Christian, more sinister agenda – now that he doesn’t need them anymore and is willing to “spend” that capital on his wars.

          Between Rumsfield’s torture brigades and death squads, Bush’s concentration camps and the charges of treason in the Plame case – Bush is going to be appointing justices in self-defense – or he’s going to go down like Nixon.

        • #3311225

          I see a few legal problems here Max

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Overturning Roe versus Wade

          Firstly a disclaimer I’m not at all interested one way or the other and while the wording that I’m going to use here is strictly a medical definition which I may or may not necessarily believe in it however from a medical stand point accepted as correct.

          Firstly if the court was to over turn the Roe V Wade decision how long would it be before more stringent laws where passed to protect the rights of the unborn?

          Now the reality of the situation of unborn Humans is that from a medical standpoint the fetus is nothing more than a parasite on its host {The Mother} until it can support its own life’s functions. SO just what would be the legal position if a woman was to have a spontaneous abortion that could be read as a miscarriage?

          Would states setup laws to specify how expectant mothers should behave? What they could involve themselves in and how to live to protect the unborn child?

          Would a mother be held criminally liable for an accident where the fetus was lost if no other parties could be held to blame?

          Take for example a pregnant woman falling down a flight of steps and miscarrying, now would the owner of the steps be held responsible if they where poorly maintained?

          Would the mother be held responsible if she just tripped and fell unintentionally though this would be impossible to prove?

          Who would be held responsible if the woman was tripped and fell but the person responsible was untraceable?

          Giving a legal status to an unborn child has a myriad of potential problems associated with it and the shorter the time that the fetus is viable the less rights it should have conversely the longer that it is viable the more rights it should have. Incidental who should shoulder the cost for long term premature births? This often involve hundreds of thousand of $ to maintain life and often has an unsatisfactory outcome with either the infant dying or having massive injuries that are impossible to overcome. In a case like this who should be held responsible for the ongoing costs of maintaining the life of this child?

          I mean long term if the infant lives not just the 4 – 5 months involved in the ICU ward of the Post Natal Hospital Ward?

          Now if a State was to legislate that the Fetus has all the rights of a human being conversely should;’t the State then take responsibility for that child? If this was to happen what exactly would be the role of the parents?

          Currently we have the ability to keep a fetus of 26 weeks Gestation alive and hopefully achieve a long term survival rate and as time goes on I’m sure that this will improve to a greater extent so where exactly should we draw the line?

          Should we stop medical advances in the care of preterm deliveries? Should a line be drawn in the sand that the medical people will not offer any treatment for a preterm delivery before a certain number of weeks gestation?

          If that was to be enacted doesn’t it fly in the face of the Hypnotic Oath that is taken by all Doctors which effectively says “Do No Harm?”

          Now I’m personally not taking a stand one way or the other but I believe that issues like these must first be addressed before we can begin to decide if a Fetus has all the rights of a human life. Until we address these issues the rest is nothing more than hype by special interest groups which should be avoided at all costs.

          But I’m open to other points of view.

          Also should a viable fetus that is brought about by a criminal act {rape} be given the same rights as one that is not?

          Maybe if a lot of people are interested in discussing these potential problems we should start a seperate discussion on this topic alone.

          Col

      • #3311312

        Profile of the author of this email

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to If you’re not scared of militant Christians, this may cause you to rethink

        I probably should not reveal the identity of this person, as I have not obtained her permission to publish her comments on this website, albeit that she would probably be pleased to reach a wider audience.

        I met “X,” a mature aged married woman from the USA, at a Christian website about two years ago.

        She was cheerful, quite open minded as regards other people’s political and religious beliefs, and very well informed.

        She described herself as a Libertarian/Republican.

        She stated that she had twice stood as a Republican candidate in her local area and, whilst not winning because it was a Democrat stronghold, said that she had received more votes than any previous Republican candidate.

        She continued to email me and send E-greetings and so forth right up until shortly before the US election.

        I received an email from her on November 2, (probably November 1 US time) stating that she was in fact a Republican, and then gave a long description of her life and beliefs.

        On November 13 I emailed her with a few comments about Bush and Christian fundamentalists — no vitriol, no hatred, but expressing astonishment that she could not see through the propaganda of the Christian right.

        The response to THAT email is this piece of irrational bigotry, contradicting statements she had previously made to me, and as you can see, full of vitriol and hatred to a frightening degree.

        So if one woman whom I had formerly highly respected for her honesty, integrity, and insight, could throw away not only all reason, but also all courtesy, you will see why I regard the militant Christians as a frightening new development in the USA.

        • #3311306

          We’re all human

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Profile of the author of this email

          I’ve met all kinds of people with various political and/or religious convictions, as I’m sure you have. And almost without exception, these people share a commonality that binds them — they all just want to live a decent life, raising their families, not infringing on others, not trying to force their values on others, but not having the values of others forced on them either. The differences might lie in their opinions and desires on how to best achieve that. There are, to be sure, people with deeply rooted convictions in their faith, whether that be Christianity or a myriad of others. And a big factor, as you know, behind the creation of America was to guarantee the free and unencumbered practice of that faith. But, for the most part, they prefer a secular society and a secular government.

          Abortion is an issue that’s the most divisive, probably because there isn’t really much room for compromise — they’re either performed or their not. And many people who argue against them do so in a way similar to that as the ones who argued against slavery, calling it an abomination and contrary to the intentions of God — and/or the intent of America — that all people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those folks certainly believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to become a mother, but they believe that the time to make that decision is before she becomes a mother; and in their estimation, abortions are always performed after. Whether or not these kinds of thinkers are correct in their thinking carries the differences a bit further.

          Personally speaking, I’m one of those who believe as I described, but I also know some very good women who’ve had abortions. I don’t presume to judge them or condemn them, and I certainly don’t think any lesser of them for it. But I also know some women (actually one, in particular) who also struggled with the heart-wrenching decision of how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but who decided to carry the child to term and give him up for adoption. And I’ll tell you what, Julian, I am certainly glad that I’m not a woman, if for any other reason, so that I don’t (or didn’t) ever have to make such a decision myself. I don’t know where or how these differences will eventually be resolved, but I highly doubt that I’ll be around to see it. I can understand both sides of the argument, but I certainly do fall squarely on one side. And as a disclaimer, I don’t think anyone, myself included, can even discuss it without showing their own bias. As an illustration, I will say this last thing on abortion. The people who eventually do find the wherewithal and the wisdom to resolve this issue, will have been, themselves, the result of a pregnancy that was not aborted.

          With the ideological balance of a future Supreme Court now on the table, we’ll see a no-holds-barred effort from both sides of the argument to drum-up support for their side. There will be people who speak out, thus revealing their religious convictions, who would otherwise remain silent. And there will be those on the other side of the debate attempt to demonize them for doing so. And I truly do believe that this current demonization of the Christian right is only but a tactic in the struggle. Whenever I see any group of people demonized by anyone, it gives me cause to step back and consider the motives.

          I know, it looks as though I’ve digressed or taken off on the tangent of abortion. But it’s only to set the stage for describing my take on what might be behind the message from your friend. Considering the mind-set of the messenger might be, in some cases, more revealing than the message itself. In the very least, it could shed some light on things.

          As to the person who sent you that email, I might suggest that her passions are acting in overdrive, and she’s succumbed to the current media twist of the day that suggests a new Christian uprising in America is taking place. The reason for the media twist is that a big issue for the left, namely abortion on demand, has suddenly become susceptible to deeper scrutiny, and possibly becoming a thing of the past. The ones who preach from the moral pulpit are doing their side no favors, as they fail to understand the power of the media to twist and skew and, in some cases, actually create an issue. Consider this. Media organizations actually conduct a poll on a subject that may be far removed from the public’s awareness, and they then report on the results of that poll. And depending on the way it’s reported, and depending on how often it’s repeated, it has the potential to take-on a life of its own and become an issue where there was none to begin with. Is that creating an issue, or am I missing something here?

          Remember the series of messages you and I recently had when I concluded that, perhaps, giving the benefit of the doubt might be the prudent thing to do? Well, perhaps giving this person the benefit of the doubt might be equally as prudent. As I said, absolutely everyone I personally know is a decent person just wanting to live a decent life. But we’re all human — and you know what that means. Sometimes our emotions overtake our reason. So don’t let this one email change the favorable opinion you had of this person. And certainly don’t let one email determine your opinion on the direction of an entire nation — a nation of mere humans.

        • #3311302

          A fair comment

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to We’re all human

          and I will follow your advice:

          “So don’t let this one email change the favorable opinion you had of this person. And certainly don’t let one email determine your opinion on the direction of an entire nation — a nation of mere humans.”

        • #3311298

          Gimme that old time religion.

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Profile of the author of this email

          re:
          I regard the militant Christians as a frightening new development in the USA.
          —– —– —– —–

          There’s nothing *new* about these folks. 100 years ago they justified slavery from the pulpit (“Slaves submit to your husbands”). 75 years ago their Klans were growing “Strange Fruit” in the “Red” states. 50 Years ago those same Klans were blowing up churches full of kids – forcing the president to call the National Guard down upon them.
          25 years ago they were telling us the Commies were the enemies of good Christians.

          Nothin new about these guys at all.

          “I stuck around St. Petersburg,
          When I saw it was a time for a change.
          Killed the Czar and his ministers,
          Anastasia screamed in vain.
          I rode a tank under General’s rank,
          While the blitzkrieg ran and the bodies stank.
          Pleased to meet you,
          Won’t you guess my name?”
          – da Stones

        • #3311257

          So your Satan now? Hmmm…

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Gimme that old time religion.

          You need help mate. I feel sorry for you. Honestly, what rubbish!

        • #3311250

          Lyrics for Bucky (In Bucky’s voice)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gimme that old time religion.

          Remember when you ran away
          And I got on my knees
          And begged you not to leave
          Because I’d go berserk?
          Well…

          You left me anyhow
          And then the days got worse and worse
          And now you see I’ve gone
          Completely out of my mind
          And…

          They’re coming to take me away, HA HA
          They’re coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
          To the funny farm
          Where life is beautiful all the time
          And I’ll be happy to see
          Those nice, young men
          In their clean, white coats
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          You thought it was a joke
          And so you laughed
          You laughed when I had said
          That losing you would make me flip my lid
          Right…

          You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
          You laughed, you laughed and laughed
          And then you left
          But now you know I’m utterly mad!
          And…

          They’re coming to take me away, HA HA
          They’re coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
          To the happy home
          With trees and flowers and chirping birds
          And basket weavers who sit and smile
          And twiddle their thumbs and toes
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          I cooked your food
          I cleaned your house
          And this is how you pay me back
          For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds?!!
          Hah…

          Well you just wait
          They’ll find you yet
          And when they do they’ll
          Put you in the ASPCA, you mangy mutt!
          And…

          They’re coming to take me away, HA HA
          They’re coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
          To the funny farm
          Where life is beautiful all the time
          And I’ll be happy to see
          Those nice, young men
          In their clean, white coats
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          To the happy home
          With trees and flowers and chirping birds
          And basket weavers who sit and smile
          And twiddle their thumbs and toes
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          To the funny farm
          Where life is beautiful all the time
          And I’ll be happy to see
          Those nice, young men
          In their clean, white coats
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          – Jerry Samuels (ak.a. Napoleon XIV)

        • #3311248

          Edited Lyrics just for Bucky

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gimme that old time religion.

          Remember when I told you all
          About those nasty NeoCons
          And I begged you to believe
          Because I’d go berserk?
          Well…

          You left me all alone
          And then the the voices in my head
          Got worse and worse
          And now you see I’ve gone
          Completely out of my mind
          And…

          They’re coming to take me away, HA HA
          They’re coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
          To the funny farm
          Where life is beautiful all the time
          And I’ll be happy to see
          Those nice, young men
          In their clean, white coats
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          You thought it was a joke
          And so you laughed
          You laughed when I had said
          That NeoCons would make me flip my lid
          Right…

          You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
          You laughed, you laughed and laughed
          And then you left
          But now you know I’m utterly mad!
          And…

          They’re coming to take me away, HA HA
          They’re coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
          To the happy home
          With trees and flowers and chirping birds
          And basket weavers who sit and smile
          And twiddle their thumbs and toes
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          I warned you once
          I warned you twice
          About those NeoCons
          And all about
          Their ruthless power-grabing deeds!!
          Hah…

          Well you just wait
          They’ll find you yet
          And when they do they’ll
          Put you in the clink, you mangy mutt!
          And…

          They’re coming to take me away, HA HA
          They’re coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
          To the funny farm
          Where life is beautiful all the time
          And I’ll be happy to see
          Those nice, young men
          In their clean, white coats
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          To the happy home
          With trees and flowers and chirping birds
          And basket weavers who sit and smile
          And twiddle their thumbs and toes
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          To the funny farm
          Where life is beautiful all the time
          And I’ll be happy to see
          Those nice, young men
          In their clean, white coats
          And they’re coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

          – Jerry Samuels (ak.a. Napoleon XIV) and edited by Maxwell Edison

        • #3311258

          Relevancy Please?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Profile of the author of this email

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

        • #3311227

          Absolutely nothing at all

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Relevancy Please?

          But it is an interesting Tangent.

          Isn’t it?

          By the way shouldn’t that be the price of tea in India or the price of rice in China?

          Col

        • #3311194

          Correction re author of the email

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Profile of the author of this email

          I was so stunned by the hate and misinformation in the aforementioned email, that I didn’t notice it was actully sent by the woman’s son.

          But HE has also previously communicated with me on a regular basis, and had not demonstrated any of this bigotry.

          In fact he is the ONLY Mac-freak with whom I have been able to have a sensible discussion about Mac versus Windows.

          He has been extremely helpful to me, answering all my Mac questions promptly.

    • #3311300

      Control *another* area?

      by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      re:
      US move in to control yet another area in the middle east
      —– —– —– —– —–

      I think it’s kinda naive to think the US controls any area of the mideast now, much less that they’ll be controlling more in the future.

    • #3312204

      Attempted assasination of PLO chief — more Israeli opression folks!

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Arafat dead, what’s to happen to Palestine?

      Mahmoud Abbas (search), the temporary successor to Yasser Arafat (search), escaped unharmed Sunday when militants firing assault rifles burst into a mourning tent for the deceased Palestinian leader, killing two security guards and wounding six other people.

      The shooting raised grave concerns about a violent power struggle in the post-Arafat era. Some of the gunmen shouted slogans calling Abbas, a moderate who has spoken out against violence, an agent of the United States.

      The bursts of gunfire came just hours after Palestinian officials set Jan. 9 as the date for elections to choose a new leader ? the first vote in nine years.

      The temporary Palestinian leadership, headed by Abbas, has been trying to send a message of unity since Arafat’s death Thursday. Arafat’s responsibilities were divided among several leaders, and officials held talks with rival factions in Arafat’s Fatah (search) movement and the militant opposition groups Hamas (search) and Islamic Jihad (search).

      However, those rivalries burst into the open minutes after Abbas, the new PLO chief, entered the Gaza City mourning tent, where some 10,000 people ? including about 3,000 armed men, most of them police officers ? gathered Sunday evening. Abbas, accompanied by Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan and surrounded by security guards, shook hands with mourners.

      Moments later, a group of at least 20 gunmen barged into the tent shouting, “Abbas and Dahlan are agents for the Americans!”

      Gunfire then popped through the tent. It appears most of the shots were fired in the air ? the casualty toll likely would have been far higher had the gunmen taken aim at the large crowd.

      Abbas’ bodyguards hustled him into a corner as frightened mourners scrambled over plastic chairs to flee. Abbas was taken to Palestinian headquarters.

      The gunmen reportedly melted into the gigantic crowd and escaped arrest.

      Speaking to reporters, Abbas tried to play down the incident.

      “While we were receiving condolences, a huge crowd gathered there and then random shooting broke out, but not in my direction,” he said.

      Abbas said he did not hear any slogans against him and planned to continue talks with rival Palestinian factions. Abbas has tried in the past, as prime minister, to persuade militants to halt attacks on Israel.

      However, militants signaled Sunday they were not interested in a cease-fire. In a Gaza City parade, masked militants unveiled a new rocket, which they claimed had an extended range that could reach the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. The long, green “Al-Yasser 1” rocket, named after Arafat, was shown to a cheering crowd as Palestinian security looked on.

      Sunday’s shooting raised questions about the ability of the Palestinians to carry out their election peacefully.

      Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, is widely expected to run for Palestinian Authority president. However, victory is far from certain. None of the likely candidates, including Abbas, has the stature of Arafat, and many Palestinians consider Abbas’ generation of politicians to be tainted by corruption and out of touch with the masses.

      “They realize very clearly that without a popular mandate, they can’t make any important decisions,” said Mouin Rabbani, senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan.

      Abbas is expected to be a nominee of Arafat’s dominant Fatah movement, but not necessarily the only one. He told the Arab satellite TV station Al Jazeera that Fatah would soon choose a candidate.

      Marwan Barghouti, a leader of the Palestinian uprising who is jailed by Israel, plans to run, according to a person close to him. In recent opinion polls, Barghouti emerged as the most popular politician after Arafat.

      Abdel Sattar Qassem, a political science professor and political outsider, said he plans to run as an independent candidate. Qassem, a leading Arafat critic, said his campaign would focus on cleaning up corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

      The largest opposition group, Hamas, also is considering whether to field a candidate.

      Who emerges as the winner could largely depend on Israel and whether Abbas can produce results during the next two months.

      Israeli officials say privately they would like to bolster Abbas, but fear any public embrace of him will weaken his standing.

      Palestinian officials called for international pressure on Israel to ease conditions in Palestinian areas to permit the vote to go smoothly. They called for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian population centers and said residents of disputed east Jerusalem must participate.

      Israel has barred most residents in east Jerusalem from registering to vote. Many Israelis fear that allowing the city’s 228,000 Arab residents to vote in a such a ballot would strengthen Palestinian claims to the city.

      Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon signaled flexibility on the matter Sunday, telling his Cabinet he would not rule out the possibility of allowing east Jerusalem Palestinians to vote, meeting participants said. No decisions were made.

      Israeli security sources said on condition of anonymity they were considering turning over security responsibility in Gaza and West Bank cities to Palestinian forces. They gave no details on the timing.

      U.S. Embassy spokesman Paul Patin said Washington would like Israel to help ensure that the Palestinian elections go smoothly. Patin declined to say whether the United States was pushing for specific goodwill gestures.

      British Prime Minister Tony Blair, meanwhile, said he believes President Bush, who kept his distance during his first term, plans to get more involved in the Mideast conflict.

      “There was a very powerful, confident expression of his desire to get this done,” Blair said Sunday. “You aren’t going to get that progress unless we can build democratic institutions on the Palestinian side.”

      Wow I see a lot of Israeli and American governments trying to disrupt and wreak havoc in the Palistinians lives. Death of Arafat was the best thing to ever happen to this region. I am curious to see what excuses the Arabs will come up with this time.

      • #3312200

        Big Nuthin

        by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

        In reply to Attempted assasination of PLO chief — more Israeli opression folks!

        re:
        Death of Arafat was the best thing to ever happen to this region.
        —- —- —- —- —-

        It won’t change nuthin. The Israelis will still be blowing up refugee camps, and the Palestinians will still have nothing to *live* for.

        • #3311957

          Are you really this obtuse?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Big Nuthin

          The gunmen were PALISTINIAN! Not Israeli or American. It is the Palestinians who are killing Israeli children by targeting schools. You refuse to see any other side of the issue than the one dictated to you by the DNC. You are an automaton incapable of reason or individual thought or analysis.

        • #3311833

          Deny and Deflect

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Are you really this obtuse?

          re:
          The gunmen were PALISTINIAN! Not Israeli or American.
          —– —– —– —– —–

          So – it still won’t change anything. Israelis will continue to firebomb refugee camps, and Palestinians will continue to fight back.

        • #3311928

          I am sure the Beslan incident is Israel’s fault, not Islam or Muslims

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Big Nuthin

          I am not Christian or Jewish, so please stop there before you go your “militant Christian rant”. I don’t give a shit what happened in the dark ages/middle ages…right now today, in this day and age, its Islam, radical islam that is the problem (and it is widespread, not confined to a few wackos). Recognize it and acknowledge it by getting past your stupidity.

        • #3311802

          No mate is it

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I am sure the Beslan incident is Israel’s fault, not Islam or Muslims

          Radical whatever which is the problem!

          It was radical Christians in Yugoslavia which began killing indiscriminately the Muslim population in an attempt to wipe them off the face of the planet in that part of the world at least.

          Whenever we encounter Radical Religions we have a problem that needs addressing because they believe they have the only truth and will accept that no one else has a right to express their views.

          Col

Viewing 7 reply threads