My money's on Mahmoud Abbas.
Odds on the crowds tearing his body apart the funeral Iranian style?
https://everquest.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1100149671354688809&num=3
Edit: I'm lazy.
Edited, Thu Nov 11 06:11:55 2004 by Smasharoo
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Arafat's Dead (No, really, this time he is) who steps in?
Arafat's Dead (No, really, this time he is) who steps in?Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I find it awfully coincidental that Ashcroft stepped down just a day before. He has just the right amount of insane fanatical zeal and Mohammad Ashcroft has a nice ring to it.
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Are we sure he is dead this time? Maybe someone should stake him and dismember the body.
My vote goes to Mohammed Dief.
I think making him the new leader of the PLO would consolidate both organizations under the same public philosophy (which they both believe anyway).
We can then go forward to the real resolution to this on-going conflict...all out war and decimation of one side or the other.
I think making him the new leader of the PLO would consolidate both organizations under the same public philosophy (which they both believe anyway).
We can then go forward to the real resolution to this on-going conflict...all out war and decimation of one side or the other.
Better chose wisely. The new leader will be America's public enemy #1 within 10 years.
my vote is for the nuclear bomb.....
arafat deserved to die.
it doesnt matter who takes his place, nothing will change.
someone, somewhere, needs to start addressing the CAUSE of terrorism, instead of trying to force a people willing to die for what thye believe in into seeing things our way.
do that, and moderation will follow. keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are getting.
4 more years....of the same....wooohoooo
it doesnt matter who takes his place, nothing will change.
someone, somewhere, needs to start addressing the CAUSE of terrorism, instead of trying to force a people willing to die for what thye believe in into seeing things our way.
do that, and moderation will follow. keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are getting.
4 more years....of the same....wooohoooo
Nukes...no.
They are great for ending conflicts between unreasonable people but render the region inhabitable and scorched. I say flood the territory with Wallmarts, Taco Bells and Casinos!!! The culture will die on its own and pretty soon everyone will be wondering why Ross and Rachel can’t make it work.
They are great for ending conflicts between unreasonable people but render the region inhabitable and scorched. I say flood the territory with Wallmarts, Taco Bells and Casinos!!! The culture will die on its own and pretty soon everyone will be wondering why Ross and Rachel can’t make it work.
hahaha... if we nuke it tho... at least one good thing will come of the region.....
GLASS!!!!!!!
and my nuke post was a joke btw.... hehehe
Edited, Thu Nov 11 11:26:50 2004 by Maddstarr
GLASS!!!!!!!
and my nuke post was a joke btw.... hehehe
Edited, Thu Nov 11 11:26:50 2004 by Maddstarr
The whole situation there is just going to get even more FUBAR there than it already was now. And Bush's arrogant self goes and says some **** like "Well when they're ready for a democracy, as I'm sure all people in the world truly are, America will be happy to step in and help." **** like that makes me sick. It's so condescending and disrespectful, he may as well just say
"bwahahaha! You fools, the father of your nation is dead! bwahahah! Now come to the light, and we shall heal you with our Christianity and restore your nation to peace! bwahahaha! The only thing you must do is sacrifice your pride, honor, integrity, and dignity! bwahahah!"
"bwahahaha! You fools, the father of your nation is dead! bwahahah! Now come to the light, and we shall heal you with our Christianity and restore your nation to peace! bwahahaha! The only thing you must do is sacrifice your pride, honor, integrity, and dignity! bwahahah!"
I t was fun to listen to all the *** kissing on the news today about how great a leader he was and how he united his people, closely followed by the newscaster telling us that he attually failed to acomplish anything, other than the death of thousands of everyday people both in the terror attcks on Israel and the military responce by them.
There probably will be no solution in the middle east in my lifetime, but with Bush sabre rattling that probably won't be very long.
Both sides are to intrenched with hatred of each other with diametrically opposed views that are almost impossible to overcome.
The best and only chance for peace was squandered by Arafat because he was too greedy to accept only 90% of his demands, the word negotiation does not seem to be in the palastinian dictionary.
There probably will be no solution in the middle east in my lifetime, but with Bush sabre rattling that probably won't be very long.
Both sides are to intrenched with hatred of each other with diametrically opposed views that are almost impossible to overcome.
The best and only chance for peace was squandered by Arafat because he was too greedy to accept only 90% of his demands, the word negotiation does not seem to be in the palastinian dictionary.
What the hell was wrong with his nose? That's what alwayas bugged me about the guy.
I like the glassworks approach myself, and have been advocating it for some time now. Making the land inhospitable would remove the cause for most of the fighting.
I like the glassworks approach myself, and have been advocating it for some time now. Making the land inhospitable would remove the cause for most of the fighting.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
The best and only chance for peace was squandered by Arafat because he was too greedy to accept only 90% of his demands, the word negotiation does not seem to be in the palastinian dictionary.
I'm not an Arafat expert by any means, but that's a misleading statement. Israel systematically forced Arafat to make concessions, to the point he became unpopular amongst his own people.
At least, that's what NPR said.
I'm not an Arafat expert by any means, but that's a misleading statement. Israel systematically forced Arafat to make concessions, to the point he became unpopular amongst his own people.
At least, that's what NPR said.
Quote:
I'm not an Arafat expert by any means, but that's a misleading statement. Israel systematically forced Arafat to make concessions, to the point he became unpopular amongst his own people.
At least, that's what NPR said.
At least, that's what NPR said.
he said no thanks we want all of it even though there has never been a palastinian state since biblical times, and you have as much if not more historical right to be there.
What Smash said. Or at least I hope so.
Abu Mazen seems to have some credibility with the moderates and the radicals. Not sure there's anyone else with a chance of holding back the rabid dogs.
Abu Mazen seems to have some credibility with the moderates and the radicals. Not sure there's anyone else with a chance of holding back the rabid dogs.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Shadowrelm said:
arafat deserved to die.
it doesnt matter who takes his place, nothing will change.
someone, somewhere, needs to start addressing the CAUSE of terrorism, instead of trying to force a people willing to die for what thye believe in into seeing things our way.
do that, and moderation will follow. keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are getting.
4 more years....of the same....wooohoooo
----------------------------
power lies within shadows
===============================================================
I love the theme that it's Bush's fault. Like he has been aound 2000 years stiring up both sides.
Learn a little history. This is a struggle for power/land and the right to live on it (between brothers and cousins actually).
There is no right solution (as both have historical claim to the land).
This comes down to the strong survive. The only solution with historical president is to let THEM kill each other until one side surrenders. A negotiated peace will only last until the leader that agreed to it is assassinated and they all go back to square 1.
Only my asshat opinion.
arafat deserved to die.
it doesnt matter who takes his place, nothing will change.
someone, somewhere, needs to start addressing the CAUSE of terrorism, instead of trying to force a people willing to die for what thye believe in into seeing things our way.
do that, and moderation will follow. keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are getting.
4 more years....of the same....wooohoooo
----------------------------
power lies within shadows
===============================================================
I love the theme that it's Bush's fault. Like he has been aound 2000 years stiring up both sides.
Learn a little history. This is a struggle for power/land and the right to live on it (between brothers and cousins actually).
There is no right solution (as both have historical claim to the land).
This comes down to the strong survive. The only solution with historical president is to let THEM kill each other until one side surrenders. A negotiated peace will only last until the leader that agreed to it is assassinated and they all go back to square 1.
Only my asshat opinion.
Quote:
Only my asshat opinion.
I heard a rumor it might be Fattouh, but it seems he's out of consideration. Probably a good thing; he's more of a behind-the-scenes type.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Heard something about his wife wanting to take charge of things...
With an apartment in Paris and $100,000 donated from the Palestine people each month, I imagine why she want the post so bad...
With an apartment in Paris and $100,000 donated from the Palestine people each month, I imagine why she want the post so bad...
You have to understand that this is more of a lottery for the assets Arafat has hidden around the world.
I think most of the "contenders" fo his old job are more intrested in aquiring his estimated $8B (yes with a B) of foriegn aid he's thought to have hidden.
I think most of the "contenders" fo his old job are more intrested in aquiring his estimated $8B (yes with a B) of foriegn aid he's thought to have hidden.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Jesus Christ.. 8 billion dollars?!
I'd like to win that lottery for sure!
I'd like to win that lottery for sure!
Ahh, the bastich finally bit the dust. Today, we all need to have a drink to arafat.... then **** on his grave. I dedicate a mound of ********* to Arafat! Praise be Allah!
Scholar
32 posts
"They offered him the west bank which was part of israel, the Gaza Strip which was part of Israel, and said sorry our capital city is ours and you can't have it.
he said no thanks we want all of it even though there has never been a palastinian state since biblical times, and you have as much if not more historical right to be there. "
Israel was willing to give the PA control of slightly more than 25% of the West Bank. The West Bank (which was illegally seized by Israel in the 6-day war) was to be separated into a patchwork of three main areas with a network of Israeli settlements, roads and military outposts running all throughout with Israel still having defacto control over the major resources of the area.
If it is implied that it is anti-Semitic to deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination and/or the right to live in what they believe to be their biblical homeland, than it is most certainly equally anti-Semitic to deny the same to the Palestinian people. Neither UN Resolution 242, calling on Israel to retreat to the pre-1967 borders, nor UN Resolution 194, calling on the right of return of Palestinian refugees, were adhered to by Israel in this instance. What would the reaction have been had the Jewish question been referred to as nothing more than a refugee problem back in 1947?
What is the relevance of stating that you believe there has never been an "official" Palestinian state? The fact remains: these people lived on this land for centuries and were driven from there homes in the 1948 war. Because these people had endured successive occupations by the British, the Ottoman Empire, etc., does this then necessarily mean that these people do not have a right to self-determination?
It would almost certainly be deceiving to call Arafat a great leader and nothing more. Arafat did help accomplish one great feat for his people: he helped bring the Question of Palestine to the international community. Despite this, however, he was an extremely corrupt administrator and an incompetent negotiator. He hoarded from his people billions of dollars in international aid and was routinely duped into offering up needless concessions to his Israeli counterparts. He was also responsible for carrying out numerous terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians; a responsibility that is equally, if not more so, attributed to his adversaries in the Israeli military and government. It is highly unconstructive and does nothing to offering up a solution to lay blame solely on the feet of one side in this seemingly never-ending conflict.
Rant over.
he said no thanks we want all of it even though there has never been a palastinian state since biblical times, and you have as much if not more historical right to be there. "
Israel was willing to give the PA control of slightly more than 25% of the West Bank. The West Bank (which was illegally seized by Israel in the 6-day war) was to be separated into a patchwork of three main areas with a network of Israeli settlements, roads and military outposts running all throughout with Israel still having defacto control over the major resources of the area.
If it is implied that it is anti-Semitic to deny the Jewish people a right to self-determination and/or the right to live in what they believe to be their biblical homeland, than it is most certainly equally anti-Semitic to deny the same to the Palestinian people. Neither UN Resolution 242, calling on Israel to retreat to the pre-1967 borders, nor UN Resolution 194, calling on the right of return of Palestinian refugees, were adhered to by Israel in this instance. What would the reaction have been had the Jewish question been referred to as nothing more than a refugee problem back in 1947?
What is the relevance of stating that you believe there has never been an "official" Palestinian state? The fact remains: these people lived on this land for centuries and were driven from there homes in the 1948 war. Because these people had endured successive occupations by the British, the Ottoman Empire, etc., does this then necessarily mean that these people do not have a right to self-determination?
It would almost certainly be deceiving to call Arafat a great leader and nothing more. Arafat did help accomplish one great feat for his people: he helped bring the Question of Palestine to the international community. Despite this, however, he was an extremely corrupt administrator and an incompetent negotiator. He hoarded from his people billions of dollars in international aid and was routinely duped into offering up needless concessions to his Israeli counterparts. He was also responsible for carrying out numerous terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians; a responsibility that is equally, if not more so, attributed to his adversaries in the Israeli military and government. It is highly unconstructive and does nothing to offering up a solution to lay blame solely on the feet of one side in this seemingly never-ending conflict.
Rant over.
Quote:
Israel was willing to give the PA control of slightly more than 25% of the West Bank. The West Bank (which was illegally seized by Israel in the 6-day war) was to be separated into a patchwork of three main areas with a network of Israeli settlements, roads and military outposts running all throughout with Israel still having defacto control over the major resources of the area.
Oh look another reason that America dropped the ball voting Bush in 4 years ago.
Scholar
32 posts
I know your talking about the Clinton negotiated peace package; so am I. I think Clinton was genuinely interested in bringing peace to the region, however, due to many reasons relating to internal american politics, it is simply not politically possible for an american leader to put a significant amount of pressure on Israel for it to come up with some real concessions. Israel faces a very real terrorist threat, although that threat is not going to go away by occupying a foreign land and subjecting its people to military rule. Such actions only work to increase hostilities as it helps foment and further give rise to already existing fanatical attitudes that stem from utter desperation. The Bush "roadmap" is essentially a roadmap to nowhere. It's not even "Bush's" roadmap as his understanding of the situation and it's history are extremely limited and one-sided. It is the roadmap of the ideologically-driven and extremely pro-Israeli neo-cons that run the Bush admin's agenda. I can 100% guarantee you that Bush's roadmap is not going to produce any tangible benefits, which most certainly cannot solely be blamed on "Palestinian terror". How simplisticly reductive. I don't know enough about your views regarding this so I'm not saying you would say otherwise. This is just how I feel.
Recent Visitors: 189
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (189)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Arafat's Dead (No, really, this time he is) who steps in?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC