* Islam is to be the official religion of the Palestinian state, with all aspects of Palestinian state law to be subservient to fundamental Islamic law, modeled on Saudi Arabia law. No other religion except for Islam is to have juridical status. All religious schools and religious institutions of " Christianity and other religions are under the supervision of the Islamic Law. The PLO concept of a "democratic secular state" appears nowhere in the document. Sources in the Vatican have expressed their deep concern about the prospect that Christian schools and Christian institutions that would be thrown under the jurisdiction and arbitrary control of a Moslem authority. Meanwhile, there is no system of human rights or civil liberties mentioned anywhere in the Palestinian State constitution.
In other words, the Palestinian constitution establishes an Islamic state under (Saudi style!) sharia law. That's Islamist.
I have trouble with Pacepa's claim that Nasser was a "Soviet puppet." Mind you, I'm not going for any whitewashing here, but can't a man be a hard-working, power-mad despot in his own right (who finds Soviet aid useful) without being called a puppet!? Disgraceful... {snort}
And, no, Arafat didn't have to be a Soviet puppet to prefer Soviet military hardware. Using Soviet stuff makes sense for Arabs, since the Soviets engineered their stuff to be simple, robust, and maintainable by uneducated dolts who wouldn't understand "attention to detail" if you tattooed it on their forehead.
The M-16 is in many ways a superior weapon to the AK-47, but its effective use requires soldiers who are willing and able to spend a considerable amount of time and energy in maintaining their weapon. I'm sure Mr. Harris can regale us with his training on the M-1 Garand. Or were you lucky enough to get hold of an M-14, Arnold?
Point being that "Western" equipment -especially American stuff- requires a lot of upkeep. The Soviet stuff is more appropriate when you know your troops are going to slack off the maintenance. It's just good sense.
BTW, Dean: I find it ironic that you find this distinction to be so important, when you tend to get your pants in a bunch when someone observes that the United States are (properly speaking) a Republic.
Jaymaster: Bollox. He's still held up as a heroic freedom fighter all over the world. It's worth multiple postings to expose this murdering ratface terrorist (and oppressor of the Palestinians) for what he always was. It's also worth reminding the Islam-obsessed that there's more than one political force and ideology behind terrorism.
Mary: That Constitution was finalized and dated in 2003. The rise of Islamism in Palestine has been quite recent. Indeed, it seems to have spread throughout much of the Middle East in part as a reaction to the fall of the Soviets and the death of Marxism as a viable political philosophy. Extremists began looking for a substitute, and look what they found.
Casey: The Soviets didn't pass out money, munitions, and training just because they were nice guys. They expected things in return. Were there people who took all that from them who weren't puppets? Perhaps, but I don't know of many.
No matter; Arafat was a KGB man his whole life, even before he got power, and he stayed a KGB stooge until there was no more KGB.
Anyway, I did not suggest that Soviet arms were the primary proof of Soviet domination. But it would be silly to suggest that we have all that Soviet military equipment all over the Middle East solely because Arabs find it innately superior. The Americans and the Soviets were not the only arms manufacturers in the world, and the Soviets were not the only ones who made simple, easy to maintain weapons.
As for the "republic/democracy" distinction, puh-leeze. Democracies and Republics are not mutually exclusive. It's not me who gets my panties in a bunch over that, it's conservatives who run around claiming that America is one but not the other. They need to learn how to use a dictionary, consult an elementary political science text, and consider that this is the 21st century not the 18th. And if you think a non-democratic republic is such a great thing, then I suggest you hightail it to Iran or China, seeking your fortunes in those much more enlightened, non-democratic republics.
Mary: That Constitution was finalized and dated in 2003. The rise of Islamism in Palestine has been quite recent. Indeed, it seems to have spread throughout much of the Middle East in part as a reaction to the fall of the Soviets and the death of Marxism as a viable political philosophy. Extremists began looking for a substitute, and look what they found.
The Constitution is proof that the PLO/Fatah, like any pampered whore, is willing to change appearance to suit wealthy sponsors.
They're also willing to change their makeup to suit their sponsors in the EU. Even Israel sends these whores money. They change their 'ideology', or their words, to suit the customer.
It wasn't the death of Marxism as a viable political philosophy that motivated their change of "ideology", it was the loss of Soviet funding. If they're changing their makeup to suit Saudi tastes, where's their money coming from now?
The PLO/Fatah remains an officially secular party even though they've gone ahead and endorsed these religious insertions into the Constitution. I believe you are correct that these things were added mostly to make some Saudis happy.
In any case, you can ask people from that region and they'll tell you a lot of former Marxists are now running around talking like Islamists instead. What a shock (not).
Casey, I'm just too damned old ever to have been issued an M-14 when I was young enough to have served. My military service began at age 18 in a US Army Reserve unit right after I finished high school in the summer of 1952. The following summer I was called to active duty just before the armistice was called on the Korea war.
So I spent the next two years in this or that training or administrative unit stateside, where I got to shoot just about everything that could be classified as a firearm, except for M-14 rifiles.
Which, from what I know about the ones I've seen, are based sort of on the good old M-1 Garand except that they make they are chambered for the NATO 7.62mm round (smaller than our old .30-06 cartdridges) in both full-auto (select fire) and semi-auto versions). I also understand the Marine Corps still uses M-14s for their snipers, and a number of foreign armies use them. tell me it will fire full-auto. Is that more or less correct, Casey?
(I also got to fire 155-mm Long Tom heavy artillery. But I don't think anybody would classify that as a "firearm" who was within 100 yards of it when the lanyard was pulled on a live one. And jacking one of those babies in and out of battery was what I would classify as a unique cultural experience. Maybe an industrial experience as well, because that gear is heavy.)
After 1955, my only experience with an M-1 Garand was at the Oconomowoc Sportsmens Club near the city of that name in southeast Wisconsin a few years ago. My Viet Nam era buddy, Ken Wagner, owns a pristine early WWII M-1 which he gracefully brought out for my use on afternoon, complete with a bandoleer of 64 /30-06 military issue rounds loaded eight rounds to each of eight clips.
Somethat to my surprise, and using iron sights only, I was able to put all the rounds in 24" wide piece of cardboard stationed a couple of hundred yards out. What a sweet-handling rifle the old M-1 was and remains!
You seem to be trying to assert that Arafat was a true communist believer when he was taking Soviet money, but merely an opportunist when taking Saudi money. It seems to me that the reverse could just as easily be the case.
Personally, I am of the opinion that he was a thug who would take anyone's money, and spout any one ideology if it would give him the most money.
That said, I don't know that that necessarily makes him not an 'islamist' as well. Perhaps I have a slightly broader definition of Islamist than you, but I include not only true believers but also those who are willing to work for that end for whatever reason, be it political expediancy or simply they enjoy the chance to beat up on defenseless people.
However, even given that there is not good evidence that Arafat was an Islamist of any stripe.
As for Arafat's gun, in this image it is a Polish Pm-63. I also understand that he was fond of the 1911.
Dave: Please be sure to read this. He was a devoted KGB man and Marxist for 40 years and never spouted a word about wanting to establish Islamic rule. And given the officially atheist position of his Soviet master, he would have had to spend decades concealing his "true agenda" from them while going to their special schools and taking most of his marching orders from them, as well as getting most of his money and weapons from them.
Even after the Soviets collapsed, you'd have a hard time finding anywhere that Arafat suddenly started talking like an Islamist. He never really did. Not in any significant way anyway. The Islamist ideology only started creeping into PLO politics very recently, historically speaking.
Yes, there are almost certainly "Islamists" who don't give a rat's ass about the Islamic faith but who use the "true believers" for their own aims. Heck, Hezbollah has a number of secular supporters because they support Hezbollah's non-religious aims and just don't take the religious component seriously.
12.29.2006 3:32pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
in stupidsville.As Abba Eban once said, "
theyhe never miss(ed) an opportunity to miss and opportunity".Hitler was a white man raised Christian. Significance? I find none worthy of more than academic merit.
Distinctions matter, dammit.
* Islam is to be the official religion of the Palestinian state, with all aspects of Palestinian state law to be subservient to fundamental Islamic law, modeled on Saudi Arabia law. No other religion except for Islam is to have juridical status. All religious schools and religious institutions of " Christianity and other religions are under the supervision of the Islamic Law. The PLO concept of a "democratic secular state" appears nowhere in the document. Sources in the Vatican have expressed their deep concern about the prospect that Christian schools and Christian institutions that would be thrown under the jurisdiction and arbitrary control of a Moslem authority. Meanwhile, there is no system of human rights or civil liberties mentioned anywhere in the Palestinian State constitution.
In other words, the Palestinian constitution establishes an Islamic state under (Saudi style!) sharia law. That's Islamist.
He means nothing now.
Let’s think about the Palestinian future, not its ridiculous past.
And, no, Arafat didn't have to be a Soviet puppet to prefer Soviet military hardware. Using Soviet stuff makes sense for Arabs, since the Soviets engineered their stuff to be simple, robust, and maintainable by uneducated dolts who wouldn't understand "attention to detail" if you tattooed it on their forehead.
The M-16 is in many ways a superior weapon to the AK-47, but its effective use requires soldiers who are willing and able to spend a considerable amount of time and energy in maintaining their weapon. I'm sure Mr. Harris can regale us with his training on the M-1 Garand. Or were you lucky enough to get hold of an M-14, Arnold?
Point being that "Western" equipment -especially American stuff- requires a lot of upkeep. The Soviet stuff is more appropriate when you know your troops are going to slack off the maintenance. It's just good sense.
BTW, Dean: I find it ironic that you find this distinction to be so important, when you tend to get your pants in a bunch when someone observes that the United States are (properly speaking) a Republic.
Didn't you just say that "Distinctions matter?"
Mary: That Constitution was finalized and dated in 2003. The rise of Islamism in Palestine has been quite recent. Indeed, it seems to have spread throughout much of the Middle East in part as a reaction to the fall of the Soviets and the death of Marxism as a viable political philosophy. Extremists began looking for a substitute, and look what they found.
Casey: The Soviets didn't pass out money, munitions, and training just because they were nice guys. They expected things in return. Were there people who took all that from them who weren't puppets? Perhaps, but I don't know of many.
No matter; Arafat was a KGB man his whole life, even before he got power, and he stayed a KGB stooge until there was no more KGB.
Anyway, I did not suggest that Soviet arms were the primary proof of Soviet domination. But it would be silly to suggest that we have all that Soviet military equipment all over the Middle East solely because Arabs find it innately superior. The Americans and the Soviets were not the only arms manufacturers in the world, and the Soviets were not the only ones who made simple, easy to maintain weapons.
As for the "republic/democracy" distinction, puh-leeze. Democracies and Republics are not mutually exclusive. It's not me who gets my panties in a bunch over that, it's conservatives who run around claiming that America is one but not the other. They need to learn how to use a dictionary, consult an elementary political science text, and consider that this is the 21st century not the 18th. And if you think a non-democratic republic is such a great thing, then I suggest you hightail it to Iran or China, seeking your fortunes in those much more enlightened, non-democratic republics.
The Constitution is proof that the PLO/Fatah, like any pampered whore, is willing to change appearance to suit wealthy sponsors.
They're also willing to change their makeup to suit their sponsors in the EU. Even Israel sends these whores money. They change their 'ideology', or their words, to suit the customer.
It wasn't the death of Marxism as a viable political philosophy that motivated their change of "ideology", it was the loss of Soviet funding. If they're changing their makeup to suit Saudi tastes, where's their money coming from now?
In any case, you can ask people from that region and they'll tell you a lot of former Marxists are now running around talking like Islamists instead. What a shock (not).
So I spent the next two years in this or that training or administrative unit stateside, where I got to shoot just about everything that could be classified as a firearm, except for M-14 rifiles.
Which, from what I know about the ones I've seen, are based sort of on the good old M-1 Garand except that they make they are chambered for the NATO 7.62mm round (smaller than our old .30-06 cartdridges) in both full-auto (select fire) and semi-auto versions). I also understand the Marine Corps still uses M-14s for their snipers, and a number of foreign armies use them. tell me it will fire full-auto. Is that more or less correct, Casey?
(I also got to fire 155-mm Long Tom heavy artillery. But I don't think anybody would classify that as a "firearm" who was within 100 yards of it when the lanyard was pulled on a live one. And jacking one of those babies in and out of battery was what I would classify as a unique cultural experience. Maybe an industrial experience as well, because that gear is heavy.)
After 1955, my only experience with an M-1 Garand was at the Oconomowoc Sportsmens Club near the city of that name in southeast Wisconsin a few years ago. My Viet Nam era buddy, Ken Wagner, owns a pristine early WWII M-1 which he gracefully brought out for my use on afternoon, complete with a bandoleer of 64 /30-06 military issue rounds loaded eight rounds to each of eight clips.
Somethat to my surprise, and using iron sights only, I was able to put all the rounds in 24" wide piece of cardboard stationed a couple of hundred yards out. What a sweet-handling rifle the old M-1 was and remains!
Happy holidays to you, Casey.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
You seem to be trying to assert that Arafat was a true communist believer when he was taking Soviet money, but merely an opportunist when taking Saudi money. It seems to me that the reverse could just as easily be the case.
Personally, I am of the opinion that he was a thug who would take anyone's money, and spout any one ideology if it would give him the most money.
That said, I don't know that that necessarily makes him not an 'islamist' as well. Perhaps I have a slightly broader definition of Islamist than you, but I include not only true believers but also those who are willing to work for that end for whatever reason, be it political expediancy or simply they enjoy the chance to beat up on defenseless people.
However, even given that there is not good evidence that Arafat was an Islamist of any stripe.
As for Arafat's gun, in this image it is a Polish Pm-63. I also understand that he was fond of the 1911.
Even after the Soviets collapsed, you'd have a hard time finding anywhere that Arafat suddenly started talking like an Islamist. He never really did. Not in any significant way anyway. The Islamist ideology only started creeping into PLO politics very recently, historically speaking.
Yes, there are almost certainly "Islamists" who don't give a rat's ass about the Islamic faith but who use the "true believers" for their own aims. Heck, Hezbollah has a number of secular supporters because they support Hezbollah's non-religious aims and just don't take the religious component seriously.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.