US Hugs Another Dictator

Well here you and I diverge. I consider a court verdict and a Libyan admission evidence enough. I know you don't and that's ok. You can live in your little Middle East Affairs 101 by x professor world. The rest of those viewing this can make their own decisions.

Not that this is a really crucial point - as the discussion was whether or not Saddam supported terrorism - not whether or not Saddam supported terrorism that attacked US interests - but his organization made at least two strikes against US interests: one a Pan Am hijacking and one a TWA hijacking.

Hmmm, interesting how wikipedia is good enough for you if the passage supports your point and not good enough if it doesn't, lol. It's referenced. It's a starting point and you are almost devoid of sources saying there was never a connection between Iraq and Abu Nidal.

Bold from the editor

"The Abu Nidal Organization—named for its leader, a veteran Palestinian terrorist known by the nom de guerre Abu Nidal—is an international terrorist group that has been sponsored by Syria, Libya, and Iraq, and has attacked a wide range of Western, Israeli, and Arab targets. Over the years, the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) mounted terrorist operations in twenty countries, killing about 300 people and wounding hundreds more. In the mid-1980s, the group was seen as the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization, but some experts say the group is inactive and no longer poses much of a threat; Abu Nidal was said to be ailing in recent years and in August 2002 was reported dead. The ANO—also called the Fatah Revolutionary Council, the Arab Revolutionary Brigades, or the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims—remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/abu_nidal_organization_iraq_extremists.html

There ya go! Anther source besides wikipedia - oh wait - lemme guess - "that's not proof!" lol.

Not really. I never explained or excused their prior conduct. I merely said this was a good development and that unlike Saddam they had rejected their prior ways. Nice try, slick - well, not really but no one expects much from you, lol.

Hmmm....please explain how that is 'contrary' to what I said? I never denied either of those assertions - and neither disprove any part of my position. Keep trying, slowboy. btw: nice that you've included the passages that DO NOT deny my position - thus legitimizing the passages that back up my position. Ooops!

TWA and Pan Am hijackings - but please don't waste too much time - this is not - at least so far - a relevant tangent you are going off on.

Wow. I think your reading comprehension skills are fairly poor, lol. Maybe you should go back and reread the thread. (or maybe you're just creating a strawman - not too much more intelligent but hey, its a step up!)

Guilt by association? Hmmmm....

Infighting in the nutcase brigade.....me likey.

 

so who has more involvement with Abu Nidal's terrorist operations against US interests? Libya or Iraq?

so simply tell me the reason why the US attacked iraq..

 

and? because one person was wrongfully convicted doesn't mean every person was wrongfully convicted, lol. your just being absurd.

showed your hand too soon, chief. no matter what you'll say 'it was coerced.' that's ok, i understand its useless to convince an ideologue such as yourself. i'm not pointing these things out to accomplish that - rather to provide accurate details for others reading the thread.

So you're willing to use Alan Dershowitz as an arbiter of our disagreements? I dare say I doubt it, lol.

Er, Jewish conspiracy theories are definitely on the fringe, lol. And what, please tell us, makes Finkelstein an expert on terrorism or anything to do with Pan Am 103, lol. Nor, actually, is it suprising that Finkelstein is on your reading list.

Omer Bartov, New York Times Book Review, 2000.

NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN first gained a national reputation with his essay, "Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'Crazy' Thesis," included in the book he wrote with Ruth Bettina Birn, "A Nation on Trial." Much of the essay was a brilliant dissection of Goldhagen's book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners." Its last section, however, revealed Finkelstein undergoing a bizarre metamorphosis, in which he employed the same dubious rhetoric and faulty logic he had identified in Goldhagen's work in order to propound his own, even "crazier," thesis on the dark forces lurking, to his mind, behind his adversary's success.

Now Finkelstein is back, with a vengeance, a lone ranger with a holy mission -- to unmask an evil Judeo-Zionist conspiracy. The main argument in "The Holocaust Industry" is based on a simple distinction between two phenomena: the Nazi Holocaust and "The Holocaust," which he defines as "an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust." The author has little interest in the former, though he readily acknowledges that it happened, since both his parents survived its horrors and since some of the few historians he respects, notably Raul Hilberg, have written on it.

But in one of those strange inversions that characterize his book, Finkelstein speaks of the historical event with the same kind of awe, and demands the same sort of silent incomprehension, that he ascribes to his main foe, Elie Wiesel. In order "to truly learn from the Nazi holocaust," he asserts, "its physical dimension must be reduced and its moral dimension expanded." Whatever that might mean, it comes as no surprise that his views about the origins, nature and implications of the genocide of the Jews are but a series of vague, undocumented and contradictory assertions. Thus, for instance, in one place he writes that the "historical evidence for a murderous gentile impulse is nil," and rejects the notion that there might have been an "abandonment of the Jews" by the United States government. But in another place he charges that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum "mutes the Christian background to European anti-Semitism" and "downplays the discriminatory U.S. immigration quotas before the war," and then goes on to cite approvingly David S. Wyman's book, "The Abandonment of the Jews."

But what really interests Finkelstein is "The Holocaust." The gist of his argument is simple: Had the Jews and the Zionists not had the Holocaust already, they would have had to invent it. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, this is precisely what they have done, in the form of "The Holocaust," despite the distracting fact that, once upon a time, such an event actually took place. And why was "The Holocaust" fabricated? Because it legitimizes "one of the world's most formidable military powers," Israel, allowing it to "cast itself as a 'victim' state," and because it provides "the most successful ethnic group in the United States," the Jews, with "immunity to criticism," leading to "the moral corruptions that typically attend" such immunity.

Finkelstein views himself as innocent of any desire to exploit "The Holocaust" for his own ends, unlike his apparently countless enemies. The fact that his sensational "revelations" and outrageous accusations draw a great deal of public and media attention is no fault of his own. Nor is his vehement anti-Zionism and seething hatred of what he perceives as a corrupt Jewish leadership in the United States anything but a reflection of a reality that only he can perceive through the clouds of mystification and demagogy that have deceived thousands of lay persons, scholars, and intellectuals. From his Mount Sinai, everything is clear and obvious. It's just that his voice is too faint to be heard in the valley.

The main culprit, in the world according to Finkelstein, is "the Holocaust industry," made up of Israeli officials and fat lawyers, Jewish agents well placed in American political circles and ruthless Zionists determined to subjugate the Palestinians. Here he combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Now, however, the Jewish conspiracy is intended to "shake down" (his favorite phrase) such innocent entities as Swiss banks, German corporations and East European owners of looted Jewish property, all in order to consolidate Jewish power and influence without giving the real survivors of the genocide anything but empty rhetoric.

Nowhere does Finkelstein mention that the main beneficiaries of compensation for forced labor will be elderly gentile men and women living their last days in poverty in Eastern Europe, or that German scholars like Ulrich Herbert, hardly an employee of "Jewish interests," have been at the forefront of the struggle to gain compensation from corporations that for decades refused to admit their enormous gains from slave and forced labor. From the author's perspective, this is simply a case of organized American Jewry "lording it over those least able to defend themselves," such as, presumably, the Swiss banks it was "plotting" to boycott, and "the United States and its allies" from whom it "finagled another $70 million."

Thus have the great powers of the world capitulated to what The Times of London called the "Holocash" campaign in the United States, according to Finkelstein. He reserves special contempt for the Claims Conference, an umbrella of Jewish organizations that distributes reparations funds to survivors, and quotes approvingly the right-wing Israeli Parliament member Michael Kleiner, who called the conference "a Judenrat, carrying on the Nazis' work in different ways." Indeed, as Finkelstein says in another context, les extrmes se touchent: in denouncing the "shakedown" of German corporations, this left-wing anti-Zionist uses precisely the kind of rhetoric that Menachem Begin employed when he spoke out against taking "blood money" during the right-wing riots against the restitution agreement with West Germany in the early 1950's, which almost toppled the Israeli government.

There is something sad in this warping of intelligence, and in this perversion of moral indignation. There is also something indecent about it, something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid. As was shown in Peter Novick's far more balanced (though not entirely satisfactory) book, "The Holocaust in American Life," the changing perception of the Nazi genocide of the Jews has also opened the way for a variety of exploiters and small-time opportunists. Yet to make this into an international Jewish conspiracy verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites around the world much better than any lawyer's exorbitant fees for "shaking down" a German industrialist.

Finkelstein speaks of the "Holocaust industry" as "cloaking itself in the sanctimonious mantle of 'needy Holocaust victims.' " Yet he cloaks himself in that very same mantle, while at the same time showing little sympathy for the feelings of the survivors and enormous zeal in exposing the "reckless and ruthless abandon" of the "Holocaust industry," which he calls "the main fomenter of anti-Semitism in Europe." By its "blackmailing of Swiss bankers and German industrialists," as well as of "starving Polish peasants," the "Holocaust industry" seeks endlessly to augment that pile of gold, or "Holocaust booty," on which Jewish and Zionist leaders are now allegedly sitting. "The Holocaust," Finkelstein concludes, is possibly "the greatest robbery in the history of mankind."

What I find so striking about "The Holocaust Industry" is that it is almost an exact copy of the arguments it seeks to expose. It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that "The Holocaust" will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious. Finkelstein can now be said to have founded a Holocaust industry of his own.

Yep, it is.

What difference does it make, lol? One renounced terrorism, one didn't.

 

Well you are the one who advocates intervention to enforce self-determination and universal human rights. Apparently those aren't so universal since you seem pretty sanguine about Libya.

 

That's interesting. Libya has long been a supporter of the Fatah and other Palestinian groups, many of whom have undertaken suicide bombings. I haven't heard anything about Gaddafi giving up that support.

So therefore according to you Libya hasn't given up supporting terrorist.

Since this needs to be repeated in every D&D thread.
SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER GULF STATES ALSO SUPPORT PALESTINIAN GROUPS THAT HAVE CONDUCED SUICIDE BOMBINGS. Therefore the House of Saud and the Gulf Emirates also have ties to terrorists.

 

Thank you S-chang, the lame-a-riffic charge linking saddam to terrorism via his support for palestinians - my god, it's just so heinously stupid when viewed in context. The entire muslim universe, at least outside of SE Asian muslims, is pretty much in lockstep with the Palestinians and whatever jihadists-o-the-day that are going on, as far as Israel is concerened. The amount of monetary support that the House of Saud, as well as regimes in Yemen, UAE, Oman, other places, have funneled to terrorist groups there absolutely dwarfs any rewards saddam was offering.

In fact, after a bit of study it's apparent that Saddam is actually a latecomer to the palestinian cause. He endorsed those payments because the terrorists were popular...among our so callled friends. To put that up there is really quite ignorant.

 

I gotta admit I'm with Hayes here.

Between Hayes and Creepy I'm not sure who to root for?

 

And even most SE Asian Muslims support the Palestinians and feel the Intifada is justified.

 

well it is posited that matter annihilates anti-matter...

 

it doesn't matter? why because iraq has been attacked, lives have been lost, and money has been spent?

well it does matter.. just answer the question..

here's another one, who has more ties to terrorism/suicide bombings: libya, iraq, or SA..

 

Just because others do it, that doesn't excuse Saddam sponsoring terrorists. I am not wild about the House of Saud, Iran, Libya, and the vast majority of Persian Gulf states, most of them are dictatorships that oppress religious minorities and sponsor terrorists. I think we would be justified in attacking any of those monsterous regimes. Saddam had the added history of mass killings of Kurds and Shiites, not to mention the fact that nearly every country thought he had WMDs unaccounted for, which made attacking Iraq easier to sell.

I never made a claim that Libya has given up sponsoring terrorists.

Any administration in this country that sponsors terrorists should be impeached immediately.

 

so, Reagan, Bush I, out the window?

 

Absolutely.

 

Not at all. If you recall I never advocated military intervention in every case. In fact I often state that we should use different methods in different situations. Have I advocated military intervention in China, Iran, or Cuba? No - I advocated constructive engagement. Do you recall that? Libya appears to be another case where engagement has a good chance to affect change.

As al-Qadhafi came under increasing pressure from Western governments for his involvement in international terrorism, Libyan backing dwindled, and the group seems to have been forced by the authorities to remain quiet from the late 1980s. Fatah-RC:s operations in Libya were finally stopped by local authorities in 1999, but by then most of the organization had already left for, or fled to, Sudan and other Arab countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal_Organisation

Of course - who could deny that these states have supported terrorism. As for charges that the point is 'lame-o-riffic': that other states support terrorism doesn't deny that Saddam supported terrorism. Suprisingly spurious logic from an ex-lawyer. Further, that the scope of the sponsorship was less begs the question (although harboring Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas is no small chicken). It would only be relevant if one were to have proposed that the intervention in Iraq was only because of Saddam's link to terrorism. I don't recall anyone doing that.

 

how bout gw? isn't he the biggest sponsor of terrorism.. there are more terror attacks/terrorists/people who wanna be terrorists right now more than ever thanks to gw's decisions..

 

if that were true - dubious at best - he wouldn't be sponsor or supporter of terrorism.

 

Wow. Interesting. So wikipedia is not an adequate source if you don't like the information, but IS when you do - or more appropriately when it mentions a conspiracy theory that fits into your worldview, lol.

Sigh. This gets old. Look at the first article in the other Libya thread. If you dispute the facts laid out then present some argument saying so - that is enough to substantiate my claim both that Libya was responsible for and took responsibility for, AND paid compensation claims for Pan Am 103.

Let's take these two gems together. Don't forget the extended critique of Mr Finkelstein I have already posted, but I love this block too much to pass it up. This is what Alan Dershowitz has to say about Finkelstein:

My objection was two-fold: first, Finkelstein’s book is a self-proclaimed sequel to an earlier book that the New York Times described as “a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and which several reviewers characterized as bigoted and anti-Semitic. Finkelstein is a Holocaust revisionist who is lionized by neo-Nazis for his absurd claims that a worldwide Jewish conspiracy exists, headed by Steven Spielberg, Leon Uris, Elie Wiesel, Daniel Goldhagen and others. Almost no one—except neo-Nazis—takes him seriously. He suspects his own mother of being a kapo and cooperating with the Nazis during the Holocaust. Leon Weiseltier was correct when he characterized Finkelstein as follows: “You don’t know who Finkelstein is. He’s poison, he’s a disgusting self-hating Jew, he’s something you find under a rock.” The professor who stimulated Finkelstein’s “juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid” book on the Holocaust—Peter Novick of the University of Chicago—made the following statement about Finkelstein’s scholarship: As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein . . . the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) “debate” but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. . . . No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites. Professor Novick called Finkelstein’s book “trash” and a “twenty-first century updating of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’” Now Finkelstein has decided to write a book about Israel, a country he boasts of never having visited and says he knows “very little about.” This lack of knowledge surely shows in his work. Nor has he bothered to interview the relevant people on either side of these complex and divisive issues. When asked why he doesn’t conduct interviews or do original research, he responded, “Why should I interview people?” It is shocking that a university press would hide behind academic freedom in defending its decision to publish such trash by an author of such low scholarly repute. This is not about academic freedom—the University of California Press is free to publish whatever it chooses. It is about academic standards. Plainly, the University of California Press’s decision to publish Finkelstein’s drivel was influenced largely by sympathy for his radical ideology.

So as usual it seems you have a problem with the sources you quote. Who to believe? Who is credible and trustworthy? This is not as aggregious as your last transgression, which was to present an author as an authority while completely contradicting the authors conclusions, lol, but its a close second. I will continue to point, and no doubt you will continue to ignore, the fact that Finkelstein has NO basis on which to speak or write an opinion about Libya's connection to terrorism. As one can see from his articles, none of them are about anything but Israeli/Palestinian affairs or the holocaust. None of it (I am hesistant to call it scholarship) is about Libya.

I don't think there is a popular sentiment in Libya to overthrow Ghaddafi, nor has he slaughtered thousands of his compatriots. While his regime is undeniably despotic - that manifests itself mainly in control of the press and policy, much as the PRC does. Unlike you and the extreme minority you belong to, I believe the FEWER states with WMD the better. Hence Libya sans WMD is a good thing. I also don't care too much for terrorism and Libya has renounced their support of that as well, which considering their record on terrorism is a pretty good thing. Now, as to the repressive environment in Libya, I have addressed this already in the post to SC.

Now, if I may retort: you, of all people, seem to be in the fairly interesting position of claiming that Libya never engaged in any terrorism and has a right to WMD while criticising them and simultaneously criticising both sanctions and intervention. I fear you leave us little in the way of options, lol.

And for the kicker - boy this is rich:

"Mr. Dershowitz stressed that the "doubtful" eyewitness identification of Mr. Megrahi likely meant that the legal standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt," required by the Scottish law to convict him, had not been met. And he believes there is an equal probability that the leading conspirator of the bombing is Mohammad Abu-Talb, a Lebanese member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command." At the trial, the defense argued that the bombing was masterminded by Iran, backed by Syria and executed by Palestinian terrorists directed by Mr. Abu-Talb, who is serving a life sentence in Sweden for separate terrorist attacks. The prosecution claimed that the two Libyan agents, who were employed by Libyan Airlines in Malta, placed a bomb disguised as a cassette-recorder in a suitcase on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to Pan Am 103.

The alternate theory is that IRAN SPONSORED the attack, lol. Choke on that one, slick! I swear, even glynch knows when to pick and choose his arguments to avoid the noose - you just walk into it. Adios.