so says Ahmad Jibril (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/index.php?entry=26228_PFLP_Leader-_Arafat_Died_of_AIDS&only) - an arch-terrorist and the secretary general of PFLP-GC ...

him saying it gives it actual real credibility, so u better believe it kiddies :)

my only regret is that he didn't die sooner

“To be honest, the French gave us the medical report, that stated that the cause of Abu Ammar’s death was AIDS.”

Let me see here. This Ahmad Jibril "an arch-terrorist and the secretary general of PFLP-GC... " can be believed to tell the truth about this? You believe a terrorist.... oh, only when it suits your purpose.

him saying it gives it actual real credibility, so u better believe it kiddies

... however, it seems that he didn't say that at all. What was said was:

When Abu Mazen came to Damascus with his team, I asked them: "What happened to the investigation into the death of Abu Ammar [Arafat]? The Israelis killed him. He was my colleague ever since 1965 and used to sleep at my home. He and I followed the same path." Is it conceivable that when Rafiq Al-Hariri was killed, all hell broke loose, even though he was just a merchant in Saudi Arabia, who later entered politics, whereas the death of Yasser Arafat, who for 40 years had been carrying his gun from one place to another, is not investigate? Is this conceivable? They were silent, and then one of them said to me: "To be honest, the French gave us the medical report, that stated that the cause of Abu Ammar's death was AIDS." I am not saying this, they did. Now they pretend that they miss Yasser Arafat, and complain that [Hamas] entered his house in [Gaza] and so on...I say to every honorable member of the Fatah movement that he should be happy that we got rid of the plague, which had been imposed upon them and upon the Palestinian people. The Fatah movement now has an opportunity to renew itself.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/video/MEMRI-1507wmv.jpg

How does one Partially Confirm something? Either it's confirmed or it's not confirmed. I would think that with all the hate on this man by the powers that be, this information would have been known the day after his death.

Wage War By Deception...

This should help the international HIV education effort.

Of course, there are plenty of hatemongers out there, such as our topic poster, who would hope to use this as some sort of derogatory propaganda against a people he's declared to be sub-human.

Question for our topic poster: Is there anything with positive potential that you won't attempt to ruin in order to further your hateful cause?

Wasn't it you who railed against personal attacks in another thread? Yet, here you are, referring to someone as a "hatemonger"...

Wasn't it you who railed against personal attacks in another thread? Yet, here you are, referring to someone as a "hatemonger"...

That's Tiassa ....he's a moderator, so he can pretty much do or say anything he wants to say without any penalty. But if you or I say something like that, he'd ban us or give us infractions.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Baron Max

Since Arafat wasn't open about this, I don't see how it would help the cause of AIDS at all, especially when it's not much more than a rumour.

oh tiassa... u're real good at twisting words around and cheap agitprop
don't expect me to take you seriously by replying to you
i remember how you ran out on our last serious discussion so you ain't even worth the effort

re: broadandbeaver,
the quote in my original post was a bit misleading. true. BUT: who was Jibril quoting? someone who was informed directly by the doctors checking Arafat. none of which are "agents of Zion". what reason would there be not to believe him?

How does one Partially Confirm something? Either it's confirmed or it's not confirmed.
as far as i'm concerned, it's confirmed.
but to answer your question: if we use numbers, let's say that after Jibril's admission, the likelyhood that it's true went from 20% to 80%. if this was an investment, i'd say it's a pretty sure bet.

You believe a terrorist.... oh, only when it suits your purpose.
it's one thing that i hate Jibril. but at the same time i recognize that he is very capable (or at least was so in the past), well informed, and, in this case, unmotivated to lie.

plus, it's not whether i believe a terrorist or not. those who consider him a truth speaking hero / saint will believe him because he has the street cred.

Why is Arafats cause of death relevant?

because it may help shatter his icon in the eyes of Arabs/Muslims everywhere.
he was a monster but because of the image he's created of himself, he is remembered as a saint.
if it turns out that he was not a saint (in the eyes of his masses) ...e.g. by having AIDS and being a homosexual, it will help crack his sainthood and his actions vis-a-vis Israel will get the serious scrutiny that a saint's actions don't get

because it may help shatter his icon in the eyes of Arabs/Muslims everywhere.
he was a monster but because of the image he's created of himself, he is remembered as a saint.
if it turns out that he was not a saint (in the eyes of his masses) ...e.g. by having AIDS and being a homosexual, it will help crack his icon and his actions vis-a-vis Israel will get the serious scrutiny that they deserve

I think you're confusing the Arabs with some other people. Also you appear to be ignorant about AIDS.

Wait, just because he has AIDS doesn't mean he was a homosexual. It doesn't mean he was a liberal heterosexual, either...

Why is Arafats cause of death relevant?

I would venture a guess that's it's because it has been kept totally secret. for my part, I've sort of wondered at times why it was hidden. Not that eventually knowing the truth would affect ME in any way at all. ;) Quite frankly, it possibly could have been nothing more than just old age shutting him down and it finally got the best of him and his personal doctors. :shrug:

I would venture a guess that's it's because it has been kept totally secret. for my part, I've sort of wondered at times why it was hidden. Not that eventually knowing the truth would affect ME in any way at all. ;) Quite frankly, it possibly could have been nothing more than just old age shutting him down and it finally got the best of him and his personal doctors. :shrug:

Its pretty common to keep cause of death secret in politics. When was the last time you heard that a politician was suffering from a life threatening disease while in power? After the fact, it would be disrespectful to gossip about the dead.

Question for our topic poster: Is there anything with positive potential that you won't attempt to ruin in order to further your hateful cause?
What's the positive potential he's ruining? The fact that a terrorist died of AIDS is supposed to make others with AIDS feel better? Arafat isn't magic Johnson.

Its pretty common to keep cause of death secret in politics. When was the last time you heard that a politician was suffering from a life threatening disease while in power? After the fact, it would be disrespectful to gossip about the dead.

What leads you to believe that final statement is accurate? People have little respect for the well-known after they die. And THAT'S the period of time we're talking about here - not while he was "in office." Think Marylin Monroe, John Kennedy, Princess Di and many others. Why not Arafat since a fair amount of the world's population didn't like him anyway?

What leads you to believe that final statement is accurate? People have little respect for the well-known after they die. And THAT'S the period of time we're talking about here - not while he was "in office." Think Marylin Monroe, John Kennedy, Princess Di and many others. Why not Arafat since a fair amount of the world's population didn't like him anyway?

I was commenting on the ME mindset. You'd be hard put to find anyone willing to spend a week discussing Anna Nicole Smith's death or Princess Di's affairs; likewise for Arafats raison d'etre

just to clarify something: the rumour that Arafat was gay went hand in hand with the rumour that he died from AIDS (though is a completely separate one). when i mentioned the possibility of him being gay i was just mentioning that rumour [which now seems to be more possible than before], not deducting that "since he had AIDS he must have been gay"

Wasn't it you who railed against personal attacks in another thread? Yet, here you are, referring to someone as a "hatemonger"...

Otheadp and I go back a while at this site. How is it that the truth constitutes a "personal attack"?

I bet he was poisoned with AIDS. It was a plot by undercover Israeli doctors and our own CIA. They tried with Castro. OMG! Castro! He doesn't have cancer, he has AIDS.
I wonder what secrets Lady Bird Johnson had to make them put a hit on her. She was never the same after that 'stroke' that put her in the hospital. She got all skinny and loopy, suffering AIDS like symptoms. hmmmm

What's the positive potential he's ruining? The fact that a terrorist died of AIDS is supposed to make others with AIDS feel better? Arafat isn't magic Johnson.

Nor is he Ryan White.

Are folks really so anxious to bash a dead man that they'll make a gleeful spectacle of Arafat and AIDS?

Truth is that prominent people with HIV help the educatoinal effort against the disease. Magic Johnson was, in his heyday, a slut. So was that famous advocate of rape and murder, Easy E. (What? He was a proud lifetime Crip.)

Think of it this way: On May 24, 1990, Andy Lippincott died of AIDS. Major newspapers ran obituaries and editorials about it; Andy has a square in the AIDS Quilt. Who the hell was Andy Lippincott? He was a gay lawyer, a beloved character in the comic strip Doonesbury. I wore a black armband that day, as did a friend of mine. People who asked us about it got the story. For many folks around the country, Andy was the first person we knew who died of AIDS. (If, for instance, my community hadn't lied to the children about one of our teachers, Andy would have been the second.)

Now think of the power Arafat's image commands among many Palestinians and others. It would, translated, sound much like the American response to Magic Johnson: "Holy shit! Arafat had AIDS?"

It will have an effect in a culture with a difficult outlook on sexuality, even if the virus came through a blood transfusion.

For once, the man can do something definitively positive. Let it happen.

Are folks really so anxious to bash a dead man that they'll make a gleeful spectacle of Arafat and AIDS?

I heard that he liked havin' sex with little boys. And I read it on the Internet, so I know that it's true.

Bashing Arafat?? Oh, heavens no, he was only responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, and he was responsible for keeping the Palestinian people in poverty for over 60 years. ...why would anyone want to bash him?

Baron Max

Otheadp and I go back a while at this site. How is it that the truth constitutes a "personal attack"?

I don't give a toss if you go back with this person or not. You're a moderator and you've railed against the practice of personal attacks, and yet in this very thread, you referred to someone you didn't agree with as a hatemonger. Are there two sets of rules for everyone?

For once, the man can do something definitively positive. Let it happen.

I don't think he can do anything. He's dead. I think people who are involved with AIDS education can do something with his legacy and his apparent infection, but that, in my opinion, would be immoral. If Arafat kept his affliction secret, then it's obvious he didn't want to be someone's poster child. Don't make him that because it furthers what you consider to be a worthwhile agenda.

Dr. Ashraf al-Kurdi, personal physician of Yasser Arafat (rahmatallah alayh) told Aljazeera the circumstances of his illness and death remained unclear.

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7616

http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/contributors/11-2004/Article-20041122-60d7acc8-c0a8-10ed-002f-992467d6fc77/story.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6472056/

There was always something of a dirty old man look about him.

There was always something of a dirty old man look about him.

Why, because he's Arab? :bugeye:

Well of course if some Dude from the PFLP-GC said it, it is bound to be true!!!

You guys are incredible, just like that other thread as below

when sokme fatah dude said Iran was aiding Hamas,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68489

~~~~~~~~~~~~

take it ez
zak

hasn't this been floating around for years? If enemies of Arafat hadn't said it, would we believe it?
Is it the source or just the fact that we don't want to believe it?

Why, because he's Arab? :bugeye:

No, it's because he was a dirty old man, and

“ When Abu Mazen came to Damascus with his team, I asked them: "What happened to the investigation into the death of Abu Ammar [Arafat]? The Israelis killed him. He was my colleague ever since 1965 and used to sleep at my home. He and I followed the same path." Is it conceivable that when Rafiq Al-Hariri was killed, all hell broke loose, even though he was just a merchant in Saudi Arabia, who later entered politics, whereas the death of Yasser Arafat, who for 40 years had been carrying his gun from one place to another, is not investigate? Is this conceivable? They were silent, and then one of them said to me: "To be honest, the French gave us the medical report, that stated that the cause of Abu Ammar's death was AIDS." I am not saying this, they did. Now they pretend that they miss Yasser Arafat, and complain that [Hamas] entered his house in [Gaza] and so on...I say to every honorable member of the Fatah movement that he should be happy that we got rid of the plague, which had been imposed upon them and upon the Palestinian people. The Fatah movement now has an opportunity to renew itself. ”

I have no interest either way, but this is a crappy thread. Ditch it!

because it may help shatter his icon in the eyes of Arabs/Muslims everywhere.
he was a monster but because of the image he's created of himself, he is remembered as a saint.
if it turns out that he was not a saint (in the eyes of his masses) ...e.g. by having AIDS and being a homosexual, it will help crack his sainthood and his actions vis-a-vis Israel will get the serious scrutiny that a saint's actions don't get


Most Muslims I know looked at Arafat as an American/Israeli puppet so in their/our eyes, nothing could make him worse than he already looks.

An Israeli puppet? The man walked away from a deal that would have given the Palestinians most of what they wanted. Was he doing this to please Israel?

If it is partially confirmed that Arafat died of AIDS, what is the part that's confirmed. The dead or AIDS part? He's dead of something else or he's alive with AIDS??

heh
reading Buffalo's red highlights i see the proof is of even higher quality than i thought.

i thought that the French doctors told somebody who then told Jibril

but in fact, Jibril's info came straight from the French doctors who issued the report

If enemies of Arafat hadn't said it, would we believe it?
no. which is why no one has believed it until now. but now that one of Arafat's closest allies for decades has revealed what's in the French report, it is certain.

The Universe has properly respected both Arafat and his Nobel Peace prize.

Symmetry.

Love it.

I don't give a toss if you go back with this person or not. You're a moderator and you've railed against the practice of personal attacks, and yet in this very thread, you referred to someone you didn't agree with as a hatemonger. Are there two sets of rules for everyone?

No Counte, there has only ever been one set of rules at the max. Typically, it was the rules that nobody paid attention to. However, I do need you to answer a question. Recognizing that you don't give a toss how far Otheadp and I go back, I would appreciate it if you would address the point you willfully ignored:

How is it that the truth constitutes a "personal attack"?

Othedp is known as a hatemonger around here. He is known as a rabid, hateful, Zion-supremacist. Given his posting history, to call him a hatemonger is at the very least arguably valid.

How is it, Countezero, that the truth constitutes a "personal attack"?

Are you proposing, then, that people shouldn't be honest? That there is no place for the truth if it offends corrupted souls? Or are you just begging cover for the hatemongers, so they can pretend that their assertions are justifiable existence?

You're smart, right Countezero? You're officially invited to show off your mental wizardry: How does truth equal a personal attack?

tiassa

The people of Storm Front use the same argument, in their eyes they are only speaking the truth, Just because you claim to be speaking the Truth does that make it so? You hide in your truth even though others can see that your truth isn't even factual, and giving your posting history I could call you a hate monger to, from my perspective that is true, so then I must be correct, don't you agree?

You hide in your truth even though others can see that your truth isn't even factual, and giving your posting history I could call you a hate monger to, from my perspective that is true, so then I must be correct, don't you agree?

I would agree if I limited my consideration to such a superficial picture. In order to move beyond that superficial point, I'm more than happy to consider your definition of a hatemonger. Generally, I seek to avoid enacting the very points I find problematic, but I'm also aware I can fail in this.

I will be so speculative as to remind you, though, that hatemongers have generally failed in recent years to consider the rejection of racism, sexism, and other forms of hate an equivalent bigotry. Beyond this, unlike our friend Otheadp, for instance, I don't delineate between "human" and "not human" according to such superficial classifications as "Jew" or "Israeli" and "Muslim" or "Palestinian".

Let's use the Bush administration, for example. How important is it to the Bush administration to give the appearance of honoring human rights? Yet how much effort will they put into finding a way to exempt as many people as possible from human rights considerations?

Or illegal immigration. Something rather creepy that has come about of late is the assertion--more concentrated at places like Sciforums than in the general discussion--that the U.S. Constitution only applies to American citizens. See, apparently it is really important to some people to be "constitutionalists", yet they find ths aspiration rather inconvenient since they can't treat the people they dislike (hate?) according to a separate standard.

There is a difference between a racist and hatemonger. It's subtle, but if someone really wants to go live in a quiet corner by themselves, not bothering anyone, afraid that the nee-grows are coming, the nee-grows are coming, that's their business. If they want to teach their children to treat people poorly, and advocate that the public authority treats people poorly for such stupid criteria as skin color or ethnic heritage, that becomes a problem for the rest of us to cope with.

So I'm hoping you can give me something substantial to work with.

I would agree if I limited my consideration to such a superficial picture. In order to move beyond that superficial point, I'm more than happy to consider your definition of a hatemonger. Generally, I seek to avoid enacting the very points I find problematic, but I'm also aware I can fail in this.

I will be so speculative as to remind you, though, that hatemongers have generally failed in recent years to consider the rejection of racism, sexism, and other forms of hate an equivalent bigotry. Beyond this, unlike our friend Otheadp, for instance, I don't delineate between "human" and "not human" according to such superficial classifications as "Jew" or "Israeli" and "Muslim" or "Palestinian".

Let's use the Bush administration, for example. How important is it to the Bush administration to give the appearance of honoring human rights? Yet how much effort will they put into finding a way to exempt as many people as possible from human rights considerations?

Or illegal immigration. Something rather creepy that has come about of late is the assertion--more concentrated at places like Sciforums than in the general discussion--that the U.S. Constitution only applies to American citizens. See, apparently it is really important to some people to be "constitutionalists", yet they find ths aspiration rather inconvenient since they can't treat the people they dislike (hate?) according to a separate standard.

There is a difference between a racist and hatemonger. It's subtle, but if someone really wants to go live in a quiet corner by themselves, not bothering anyone, afraid that the nee-grows are coming, the nee-grows are coming, that's their business. If they want to teach their children to treat people poorly, and advocate that the public authority treats people poorly for such stupid criteria as skin color or ethnic heritage, that becomes a problem for the rest of us to cope with.

So I'm hoping you can give me something substantial to work with.


So you still claim to be the arbiter of truth? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

So you still claim to be the arbiter of truth?

Still? When did I ever claim such a role?

Oh, that's right, you assigned it to me. Not much I can do about that; it's all up to you. But then again, that's how it always is, isn't it, Buff? Whatever you say, and that's the way it goes?

Or will you agree that there is an actual truth as to what happened in any given event?

In other words, if Bill says it was self-defense, and Maggie says it wasn't, can we at least agree that Bill shot Pete, so to speak? If yes, then it's fair enough to move on to why Bill shot Pete. But if a dead Pete with a bullet in his chest, a weeping Maggie who says Bill did it, and a miffed Bill who says he shot Pete for good reason, can we at least agree that Bill shot Pete?

If Arafat died of AIDS, and someone says it's because he raped little boys (infected little boys, at that), and someone else says it's from blood transfusions after this or that wound or illness, can we at least agree that Arafat died of AIDS?

If you drop an apple and it falls to the ground, and Newton says it was the work of a force called "gravity" while Aristotle says it is because the apple is endowed with "falling qualities", can we at least agree that the apple dropped and fell to the ground, since we both watched it?

Does one need to be an "arbiter of truth" to say that Pete is dead, that the apple fell, that Arafat died of AIDS? (I suppose the AIDS story could be wrong, but we're working within certain confines here.)

As such, what, other than consistent and repeated hateful actions does one need to judge a hatemonger? If only you would be so civilized as to offer up your definition of hatemonger, we might be able to make some progress exploring that notion. But since genuine discussion is apparently quite far from your purpose here, I won't waste my time waiting. If you get around to it, let me know.

No Counte, there has only ever been one set of rules at the max. Typically, it was the rules that nobody paid attention to. However, I do need you to answer a question. Recognizing that you don't give a toss how far Otheadp and I go back, I would appreciate it if you would address the point you willfully ignored:

How is it that the truth constitutes a "personal attack"?

Othedp is known as a hatemonger around here. He is known as a rabid, hateful, Zion-supremacist. Given his posting history, to call him a hatemonger is at the very least arguably valid.

How is it, Countezero, that the truth constitutes a "personal attack"?

Are you proposing, then, that people shouldn't be honest? That there is no place for the truth if it offends corrupted souls? Or are you just begging cover for the hatemongers, so they can pretend that their assertions are justifiable existence?

You're smart, right Countezero? You're officially invited to show off your mental wizardry: How does truth equal a personal attack?I found this quite the most peculiar post from Tiassa in quite some time. (And as he is a purveyor par excellence of peculiar posts, that says quite a lot.)

Technically the points he makes above are wholly valid. A statement of the truth is not, of itself, a personal attack. However, (and what a large however it is) there are two glaring caveats that make Tiassa's post at best ill thought out and at worst manipulative and dishonest.

Firstly, there is his presumption that his statements regarding Othedp are factual. They may well be, but in the absence of offered evidence they can only carry the mantle of opinions.

Secondly, and more importantly, this is snide, dissembling way of pretending that a personal attack has not taken place. It is equivalent to me saying that I am attacking Tiassa's actions, not Tiassa himself. Yet Tiassa is defined, at least in the context of the forum, by his actions, so that an attack upon them, is an attack upon him. In the same way, assigning a perjorative term to an individual, regardless of how well warranted it may be, then broadcasting that term, is clearly a personal attack on that individual.

Tiassa you mounted a personal attack on Othedp. That is an absolute. (The appled did fall, Pete was shot.) The attack may have been warranted, it may have been mild, it may even have been necessary, but please do not try to pretend that it did not occur. It irks me that this has already required me to stand in the same acreage as Buffalo, please do not make me stand in the same paddock.

Tiassa you mounted a personal attack on Othedp. That is an absolute. (The appled did fall, Pete was shot.) The attack may have been warranted, it may have been mild, it may even have been necessary, but please do not try to pretend that it did not occur. It irks me that this has already required me to stand in the same acreage as Buffalo, please do not make me stand in the same paddock.

Well and fine. I only object that you remove to the abstract. Telling Ted Bundy he's a murderer constitutes a personal attack by this abstraction. Whatever works.

Do I plead here the criteria of hatemongering? Easy enough: the first is that one has an irrational negative image of someone or something else, and the second is that they promote their bigotry. As to the facts? Well, can you tell me, reasonably, Ophiolite, what justification there is for using ethnic heritage as a disqualifier from the human species? Or can you explain to me how the basic argument that, "We're only equal if I'm superior," doesn't qualify as hateful? These are the basic criteria I'm applying. To wit, a creationist isn't a hatemonger simply for being a creationist. A homophobe isn't a hatemonger simply for being a hatemonger.

But the creationist who demands scientific validity without a testable hypothesis while flinging abusive rhetoric at real scientists qualifies as a hatemonger. A homophobe who demands that his constitutional rights are only observed when he has the ability to approve what other adults do in their own home graduates to the hatemonger level.

Think of it this way: Once we were in a bar (the Northlake in Seattle) and a discussion of local events led one of my friends to state to my brother, "Well, you're a Republican, anyway, so ...." And that's as far as he got. Hold on to that point for a moment.

Is it hateful to ask of Christians, "Why are the Commandments so important to you that you should demand to display them in public buildings when you won't even obey all of them?" Hold on to that point for a moment.

Now, I remember when our American racists were proud to be racists. I remember when our misogynists were proud to hate women. I remember when our Christians were proud to stand united in favor of oppression.

Yet, these days, Americans have bought into the counter-PC movement. You know, how people don't like to be obliged to use words like "African American" in official correspondence when they would prefer to say "nigger" or "coon"? The kind of backlash that has Americans honestly wondering why blacks can call themselves nigger, but whites can't use the word? When did people stop being able to tell the difference. PC accused of going awry: one shouldn't call women "chickies". PC that did go awry: an alleged paper by a university professor suggesting the word for a woman's period be changed to "femstruation". PC that nobody notices? Anyone? Anyone? "Collateral Damage". (This last is also included under the umbrella "Bureaucratically Suitable", or BS language.)

Something happened. Instead of getting over our racism or misogyny, it seems the culture turned against equality. Now the racists realize it's a bad thing to be seen as a racist. The haters know it's a bad thing to be seen hating. But they think it feels so good, or something like that because the one thing they won't do is to stop.

So it has become wrong to call people racists, wrong to identify hatred. Whatever, fine. But my response is that if you don't want to be called a racist, don't act like one. If you don't want to be called a homophobe, don't act like one. If you don't want to be called a hatemonger, don't act like one.

Now for those points I asked you to hold onto. The word "Republican" was so offensive that the discussion stopped right there with a furious explanation of how wrong it was to call someone a Republican when they weren't. To the other, how was anyone supposed to know? He supported Republican candidates regularly, advocated their political line, and voted on the public ballot--as far as he told anyone--according to the conservative wish. That ten years later someone should presume him a Republican doesn't seem so outlandish. But the accusation was hurtful, and, smart guy that he is, he realized that if he didn't want to be seen as a Republican he ought not spend so much time acting like one.

As to the Christians and their Commandments? I've been called hateful for asking such questions before. Our atheists here at Sciforums have been called hateful for asking such questions. So what, then, when a Christian asks the question? Is a prominently-placed Christian preacher with a multi-million dollar ministry really an anti-Christian hatemonger?

We run into a problem with this. Is the only difference between hatred and wisdom a superficial label (e.g. "Christian")? And doesn't that seem rather hateful, incidentally? Okay, that last is irrelevant, but here's the deal: What qualifies me as a hatemonger? You'll notice that Buffalo won't actually respond even though I've asked him for his definition. It would be useful to have, although we must remember that, by his own confession, he's not being serious about any of it.

Remember that in history, various figures can be called hatemongers: Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Mother Teresa .... What can possibly be said of this?

To the other, some criteria are useful. For instance, not all Christians are hatemongers. But the political voice representing the flock has the tone of a hatemonger. How so? Because supremacy is the underlying principle. Remember that for most people, equality is a step up. For the elite and privileged, it's a step down. I'm sorry, but for that latter group it's time to just suck up and take it. Oh horror of horrors! You must be equal to your neighbors!

How is a gay couple seeking to wed oppressing Christianity? Answer: By not giving Christians their expected sociopolitical privilege. That is, by seeking to wed, gays are hating Christians by refusing to believe as they do. My response to this? Fuck 'em.

Or think of this one: American history textbooks paint an awful and inaccurate picture of blacks and indigenous tribes. One objection to fixing this problem seems to me insane: It is wrong to put white students through it. So what we have, then, is that while hordes of black and indigenous students come home from public school in tears because of the things said about their people--things contradicted by the actual historical record--we should not tell the truth about American history because the truth would be distressing to whites. Let's look at that for a moment. I think lying consciously about ethnic groups as part of the required school curriculum falls into the realm of being hateful. We know it's not true, but we insist on telling the stories as fact, anyway. To the other, there are those who think that consciously striving to tell the truth is hateful.

Shall we flip a coin, or can you see the problem?

To consider part of the issue at hand: anyone's welcome to go read through pages 20 and 21 at least of the "One Thread to Rule Them All" discussion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I took my stand against Otheadp's rhetoric then. When you read through those posts, note the correlation of arguments that the homes razed are those of the attackers (e.g. terrorists), and that terrorists lose their status as human. Combining those points with the subject of that portion of the discussion, the result is obvious. Add to that the notion that a man with sympathy for innocent Palestinians ought not participate in his nation's government, and I think the nails are pretty firmly driven. Yes, I call it hateful. If excluding someone from the human species on the basis of ethnic heritage and identity is not hateful, then I may well go down attempting to bring the revolution.

Would anyone accept the argument that someone is not human because they are a Jew, and therefore not to be considered in relation to human rights?

Is that any more acceptable than saying the same thing about anyone else? Palestinian? Brit? American?

Am I expected to restate this argument every time I decide to engage Otheadp's hateful drivel? Just say yes, and I'll make by best effort to install an integrity requirement to posting here. (And people thought the moderators were fascist before? Right. Leave the definition of integrity in our hands, and you won't get the worst possible outcome. But nobody, mods and administrators included, will enjoy the process or the outcome.)

It will certainly improve the general posting quality around here. Or maybe not. After all, consider how much work would be erased if a moderator decided you'd flipped too hard on a certain point, and that the change was a matter of convenience. What's the most time you've ever put in on a post? It, as well as any of mine, can go away in seconds.

However, Otheadp knows what he is. And he knows what I think of him.

In the meantime, perhaps you can answer me a question, or at least pass it off to the next in line: Why is it that when I ask a specific question, anybody but the person I asked will answer?

I get what you're after, Ophiolite. An attack? Sure. Whatever. A "personal attack"? Since when is calling someone what they strive to be a "personal attack"? That's what I don't get. Is Otheadp ashamed of being considered a hatemonger? Then why does he act like it? If I called him "conservative", would that be an attack?

Some would say so.

Help me out, please: I've seen someone offended by being called a Republican. Is "conservative" a personal attack? How the hell are we supposed to address anything if we're only allowed to say glowing, rosy things?

Really, if Ted Bundy was offended at being called a murderer, would you care? If Lon Mabon, who led a campaign for nearly a decade to outlaw gays in Oregon, is offended at being called a bigot, would you rush to his defense? There is someone out there who considers people less than human based on their ethnic identity and heritage (e.g. Palestinian). Would you rush to his defense?

What am I supposed to think of someone who looks past every potential positive aspect of a situation in order to continue excoriating a dead man? If I called his actions futile, would that be a personal attack? Or need we figure out if we agree that beating dead horses is pretty much futile?

Ah, yes, what about the guy who beats dead horses because he likes beating dead horses? If I say he needs psychiatric help, is that a personal attack?

Really, calling Otheadp a hatemonger is the equivalent of calling the guy standing behind you in line at the grocery store "alive". It's observable, and occasionally relevant.

Jesus, you must have spent all the time since I posted my 'rebuke' writing that. At least the thought brought a smile to my face. I'll read it properly later and respond as seems appropriate.

No, only about half of it. Hope I didn't kill the smile.

Oh, wait ... that's not a personal attack, is it?

Late edit: I see people still use winks and rolleyes (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1462539) emoticons. Does that disarm the personal attack? Maybe we should all use emoticons?

tiassa

What am I supposed to think of someone who looks past every potential positive aspect of a situation in order to continue excoriating a dead man? If I called his actions futile, would that be a personal attack? Or need we figure out if we agree that beating dead horses is pretty much futile?

Arafat's life is his Obituary, and people have made comment of that life, and it seems that Life's good is far out weighed by the Evil that it brought into the world, His final act on the stage of life his death exposed him, as a pervert, and in your words a Observable Truth.

tiassa


Arafat's life is his Obituary, and people have made comment of that life, and it seems that Life's good is far out weighed by the Evil that it brought into the world, His final act on the stage of life his death exposed him, as a pervert, and in your words a Observable Truth.

you realise that your post vindicates this?


What am I supposed to think of someone who looks past every potential positive aspect of a situation in order to continue excoriating a dead man? If I called his actions futile, would that be a personal attack? Or need we figure out if we agree that beating dead horses is pretty much futile?


Or do you just not understand what tiassa is writing?:confused:

Arafat's life is his Obituary, and people have made comment of that life, and it seems that Life's good is far out weighed by the Evil that it brought into the world, His final act on the stage of life his death exposed him, as a pervert, and in your words a Observable Truth.

So it's a proven truth he contracted HIV from an infected boy he raped? I hadn't read that report yet. Perhaps you could be so ... kind ... as to provide the citation? (After all, you've made a point that this is one of my faults of late, or need I cite that?)

I'll make the observation that nobody's taken me to task for trashing Easy E. Maybe this is because everyone agrees? Who knows. The point being that, while I have a fairly low opinion of Easy E, I can say that the revelation that AIDS was killing him had quite the effect. Someone might look at him and mutter, "Bastard, it's all he deserved." But some of the kids who looked up to him muttered, "Easy was no pillow-biter. What the hell just happened?"

And, suddenly, HIV education has yet another foothold on people's consciences that has nothing to do with stuffy teachers euphemizing all meaning out of the discussion.

That is of considerably greater value than continuing to beat Easy's dead horse of Cripdom.

Especially for those with direct reason to despise Arafat: Here you have an opportunity to get something positive out of this man. The only reason to not take it is that you were never really that genuine about him to begin with.

And that, of course, would be even worse. The thought of bloodthirsty hatemongers is enough to deal with. That the lust and hatred are bollocks? No. In that case, the Arafat haters need to shut up and go fester somewhere.

Remember that men who bombed women and children grew older and became respected world leaders. And some of those men, who would, in the modern day be called "terrorists" for their actions, fought to destroy Yasser Arafat. The only difference between Arafat and Sharon, for instance, is that Arafat was Arafat, and Sharon became the Prime Minister of Israel.

So we are to ignore the evil that the life of Arafat brought into this world? make no comment to his Obituary? his Obituary was written in His life, and actions, we should ignore those actions and make a Hero of Him and point to His life as a Exemplary example to live by? Why? because he is a Hero of yours? There are many people in this world who hold Hitler to be a Hero, there are many people in this world that hold Stalin as a Hero, the French hold Napoleon as a Hero, but does that make the lives and actions of these supposed heroes anything to emulate? Arafat is what he is, his life is His Obituary, all of it, and to discuss His actions, and his position in history is fair game.

tiassa, what's wrong with you? just say you're sorry, or at least that you didn't mean to "stoop down to my level"... that it just happened

or do u get some strange kicks from writing long-ass essays over and over (which people won't even bother reading since they're too long)

stop being a dishonest hack already (hey, i'm just telling the truth here, ergo it isn't a "personal attack" :D)

I'm an honest hack, Otheadp. And it's not that I get some strange kick, but rather that I'm still painfully aware that the brief, semi-literate form that people would prefer out of me might raise my ratings but would do little for my end of the communicative transaction.

As to stooping to your level, Otheadp, it's not that I won't, but that I can't. It would be a felony for me to stick my head there.

Oh, yeah ... right ... the emoticons.

Why should I apologize for the truth, Otheadp? You're a hatemonger who excludes people from the human species for being Palestinian.

Oh, oh, right. Whoops. I do owe you an apology: I'm sorry for pointing out what's true, since that truth isn't complimentary to your self-image.

Really, man, you're bloodthirsty. Get over it. Besides, I'm pretty sure that getting off beating on a dead man counts as necrophilia. And sadomasochistic necrophilia at that. Should I even mention the horse?

So, otheadp, do you think that Palestinians are non-human, sub-human, second class human, or in some other way subordinate to, lets say your average WASP?
I ask in order to better understand Tiassa's justification for his comments. Please note that if you say no to all of these things I shall not expect to find contradictory posts from you that explicitly or implicitly take such a stance.

too bad you're wasting your literary talants on posting crap and lying about people. you could really use it to write stories, publish, at least work as a columnist.

maybe despite having learned all the grammar and spelling and the correct format of footnotes and endnotes, and even message board tags, you don't have a single interesting thing to say that will get any publisher's interest in you.

because you're such a dishonest, boring hack

as for this:
Really, man, you're bloodthirsty. Get over it. Besides, I'm pretty sure that getting off beating on a dead man counts as necrophilia. And sadomasochistic necrophilia at that. Should I even mention the horse?

it bounces off my skin like you wish a quarter would bounce off your wife's ass. other than that, through this latest most blatant ad hominem you've shown yourself yet again to be a dishonest, boring, and hypocritical hack

So, otheadp, do you think that Palestinians are non-human, sub-human, second class human, or in some other way subordinate to, lets say your average WASP?
I ask in order to better understand Tiassa's justification for his comments. Please note that if you say no to all of these things I shall not expect to find contradictory posts from you that explicitly or implicitly take such a stance.

i find terrorist murderers who come from the "Palestinian" population to be sub human and deserve the most painful death. the rest of them aren't and don't.

all of the crap tiassa attributes to me come from his dishonest hackery... either just smearing me on purpose, or because he actually believes it, in his paranoid and delusional mind

i won't bother writing here "my position on things" because he is not worth my time. but let me assure you, i am not at all what he says i am.

if u wish, ask me specific questions and u'll see what i really think about the palis.

i find terrorist murderers who come from the "Palestinian" population to be sub human and deserve the most painful death. the rest of them aren't and don't.

all of the crap tiassa attributes to me come from his dishonest hackery... either just smearing me on purpose, or because he actually believes it, in his paranoid and delusional mind

i won't bother writing here "my position on things" because he is not worth my time. but let me assure you, i am not at all what he says i am.

if u wish, ask me specific questions and u'll see what i really think about the palis.

Why do you put "Palestinian" in quotes?:confused:

Is there some doubt about their nationality?

i'll just write you a PM to explain, just so i dont get the discussion diverted

All you had to do was look at that guy to know somehting was not quite right.

You mean Arafat?

it bounces off my skin like you wish a quarter would bounce off your wife's ass

I have a wife?

Hell, every time I start a summary of the situation, I realize that on page 21 of the "One Thread to Rule Them All" discussion, I've already done so:

• #590946 (402) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=590946)
• #592205 (405) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=592205)
• #592220 (406) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=592220)
• #592927 (409) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=592927)

I'm trying to figure out what else to include. The topic, and our discussion within it (the round in question starts on page 20 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39119&page=20)), are utter disasters. However, some highlights, including posts #410-412, in which you attempt to appeal to my emotions by invoking my daughter. (Especially considering your point in #385, that, "appeal to emotion is not an argument".) There's also your desperate public appeal in posts #417 and 418: "why hasn't anyone else responded to this thread? accepting the operational reality of checkpoints and searching ambulances upsets you people? ... G-d forbid the Israelis will do something successful to protect their children huh?"

Perhaps it was that other people don't find acts like razing homes, largely acknowledged to "create terrorists" by building resentments among individuals, is protecting Israeli children. Who knows? I'm not the rest of them. Maybe they were wise enough to stay out of it and let us have it out.

wow no wonder it took you so long to reply
you were reading all of my posts from 4 years ago! lol
you can put this experience on your resume and use me as a reference when applying for work as a spellchecker at the local highschool newspaper :)

i hope some of it sunk in through your thick skull

However, some highlights, including posts #410-412, in which you attempt to appeal to my emotions by invoking my daughter.

you didn't make any point here ("however" what?)

if i remember correctly, my reference to your daughter was exactly what made you run away. my guess is that the possibility of having your daughter in imminent danger from people who want to die shahids has completely overwhelmed your senses and your system crashed since you're not capable of dealing with the fact that you'd have had to use lethal force

if people will go through all my posts back in the day (not your posts quoting mine, with nice steering comments) and then see your replies, they'll see that you haven't changed one bit, and that all charges you ascribe to me (that i hold palis to be sub-human) in fact stick to you - where you imply by not denying it, that in a ticking time bomb scenario (which has been only hypothetical in the American debate about counter-terrorism, but at the time, and sometimes even today, is very real in Israel) Israel is not allowed to go after a cell that's sending in a 14 year old boy to his death (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E), so Israeli lives are worth less than palis'.

in the above case, the boy was stopped with out any bloodshed (which should show you the modus operandi of the IDF when they have a choice -- they could have just shot the boy, him being a suicide bomber). but in some cases there isn't a choice, and bloodspilling is necessary. you see it on the streets of America too when lethal force is used in dealing with a criminal situation.

but you're a dishonest ideological absolutist grandstanding hack that will either refuse to get it or is simply not capable of it.

anyway, i'm not really posting this lengthy reply for your benefit, because it won't change your mind anyway, nor do i care to.

and to tell you the truth, i am thoroughly disgusted by this discussion (which you have started, btw) about whose life is worth more. i've always been disgusted by it, which is why i haven't dignified any of your drivel on the topic with responses.

I have a wife?
whoever the poor woman is...

you didn't make any point here ("however" what?)

Excellent point. You can probably go with, "However, there are some highlights ...."

Certainly, you've made the most important point ever stated here at Sciforums. Excellent job.


if i remember correctly, my reference to your daughter was exactly what made you run away

It's okay. I can't possibly expect you to be aware that at around 5:30 pm on Thursday, May 27, 2004, I was probably heading out for dinner and drinks with friends to celebrate my birthday. Hell, I would have to check my whole posting record from those days, but Sunday afternoon around 1:00 sounds about right for me to have been back and wondering how much time to waste on you.

The fact that you think you scored a point with an exploitative attempt to appeal to my emotions says more about your outlook and justifications than you might realize. It would seem, since the point is that important to you, that creating a sense of triumph is a more important aspect of our discussions here than actually figuring anything out. One must be careful with such a notion, though, since it fits very well with the bloodthirsty image you've carved of yourself.

But I will respond to your appeal to emotion because it is, in its own way, fascinating:

If my daughter was in imminent danger, how, exactly, would assaulting innocent people actually protect her?

Seriously, man, at best I would be pissing off the people putting her in danger. What possible purpose can I achieve by injuring, killing, and displacing the innocent?

Ah, yes. I can stoke my holy, righteous lust for human destruction.

Except that I've been working to put that fire out for years. It serves no purpose but to destroy and pollute.

I only hope you can figure that out before your time is done. If Israel is a place where a man with a conscience has no place in the Knesset (see #589690 (393) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=589690)), then the solution becomes very, very clear.

The United States should cease all aid to Israel. No more loans, no more cash, no more hardware. If human dignity has no place in the Knesset, then Israel truly is a rogue theocratic state.

What will you do then? Nuke the world in order to protect the children?

I was probably heading out for dinner and drinks with friends to celebrate my birthday
and u never replied to anything i wrote since until a few days ago (that's 4 years). this was when you took upon the declared task of proving me once and for all whatever it is you set out to prove

your attempt at spinning in the previous comment is so bad, it's self evident. i don't even have to comment on it.

your nuttiness speaks for itself. i have nothing to add.

and u never replied to anything i wrote since until a few days ago (that's 4 years)

Uh, dude? That's only three years. Unless you're rounding up by about ten and a half months. Maybe I should ask what calendar you're using.

But, anyway, you're allegedly human; it's beyond my capacity to ignore you forever.

this was when you took upon the declared task of proving me once and for all whatever it is you set out to prove

All I set out to do was figure out why you hate so much that you'll attempt to rob any situation of its positive potential in order to satisfy your hatred.

You could easily have left it where it was, Otheadp. After all, you could have just held to your own words:

don't expect me to take you seriously by replying to you
i remember how you ran out on our last serious discussion so you ain't even worth the effort (#1476560 (7) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1476560))

And yet you decided to go back on your word. And this before you were ever informed of the error of your presumption.

What changed your mind, Otheadp? That itching lust of hatred? Or did you realize the folks who came to your defense probably wouldn't stay there long? What compelled you to wait four and a half days before going on the offensive?

And, besides, you have not explained what you're demanding an apology for. If it's the notion of a personal attack, I still need it explained to me how truth equals attack. If it's the notion that you're a hatemonger, well, I just don't see why you're so upset that someone recognizes you for what you strive to be.

Hell, you could have high-roaded out of here and scored points with the audience. But I do understand why you didn't. After all, as you once said, "it is impossible to claim higher moral ground and win". And since winning, however you define it, is the desired goal (as opposed, for instance, to human progress), well, thank you for demonstrating your priorities.

What changed your mind, Otheadp? That itching lust of hatred? Or did you realize the folks who came to your defense probably wouldn't stay there long? What compelled you to wait four and a half days before going on the offensive?
what offensive? :D
man you're taking yourself way too seriously

i haven't changed my mind. i'm not arguing with you. i'm giving more context to my "audience," as you call them. you are not worth the effort.


you've made up your mind about your delusion that i think A, B & C about the "Palestinians"
you've made up your mind about what kind of person i am (sub-human, evil, bloodthirsty, ad hominim ad infinitum)
there's no changing your mind about it (with debates or any other method)

so what's the fucking point? and you've done more than enough already to expose yourself and your ideas as the garbage that they both are. i don't even need to give "my audience" more context than which you already have.

Churchill said "a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject". do you suppose that description fits you?

Who said "a coward runs"?

I did.

Churchill said "a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject". do you suppose that description fits you?

As you pointed out, I gave you wide berth for a period. In the meantime, you've continued to be a hatemonger and supremacist without changing your tone.

Hmm ....