BS: Arafat's $300 million

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 04:34 PM

If a person who happens to be Arab, Palestinian, Muslim, male, is criticised that does not mean that hatred is spread against Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, males

It does if it's relentless and entirely unbalanced with regard to who gets criticized and how often, as is the case in this country with regard to Israel and the Palestinians. You need to understand the context in which this kind of discussion takes place here in the US, to understand how I arrive at the position I take in threads like this one. And you can't do that unless you spend quite a bit of time here, and you are continually bombarded with anti-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim propaganda as we are here.

I found a statistic that says that even the majority of Israelis believe that the US is too biased in favor of Israel and against the Palestinians. I'll find it for you and post a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 04:29 PM

Please don't even attempt to assume what I am or am not doing. I asked you a simple question.You are unable or unwilling to answer that.An enquiring mind is healthy. Yours is very sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 04:28 PM

Carol,

I shall gladly respond to your questions in a thread in which they fit but I won't help you in derailing this thread. You have tried it in your first post to this thread and you did try it again now. The "I'd rather talk about something else" tactic is too obvious.

I am by far not the first in this thread to state the obvious but I have the impression it is worth repeating: If a person who happens to be Arab, Palestinian, Muslim, male, is criticised that does not mean that hatred is spread against Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, males except for people with an implicit or explicit racist world view.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 04:21 PM

Not really, Guest. I was using that point to illustrate your double standard. Worked quite well, too, I think.

My answer to your direct question is in my 15 Feb 04 - 11:30 AM post. My answer is that that question, as well as its answer, are irrelevant to the bigger picture.

The point is that you and others here in this thread are saying certain things must be done and it is in the best interests of the Palestinian people them to be done. But you don't really give a shit about the Palestinian people. If you did, you would be calling for an end to the violence committed against the Palestinians by the government of Israel, and you would be calling for an end to the occupation.

What you are really doing here is to use the issue of Arafat's money as a way of justifying further violence committed against the Palestinians by the government of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 04:06 PM

But no one has the right to dictate to the Palestinians who will be their democratically elected president.

-CarolC talking about Arafat on Feb. 14, 2004

what we need to do, obviously, is get rid of the government of Ariel Sharon.

-CarolC talking about Sharon on Feb. 15, 2004


CarolC,

Your double standard is, as always, quite astounding.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 12:49 PM

Your inability to answer a direct question is amazing. And also very telling. Good bye and Good luck with your narrowminded fanaticism. Why don't you go and help those you think are oppressed? Bit too uncomfortable? Easier to spout rhetoric from an armchair.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:46 AM

How about Cheney's $300+ million, if you want to talk corruption?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:42 AM

...so if we reallly are concerned with whatever is in the best interest of the Palestinians, what we need to do, obviously, is get rid of the government of Ariel Sharon. (And get the Israelis out of the Occupied Territories, and get international observers into the Occupied Territores as the Palestinians have been begging us to do for years).

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:36 AM

I think it does matter. I think it is a very legitimate question. Out of pure interest, how do you think he accumulated it?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:30 AM

Doesn't really matter in the end though.

And we definitely know what happened to the millions of dollars the world community gave to the Palestinians that did end up being used for the infrastructure of the Palestinian Occupied Territories, such as schools and the school system, the security and police forces, and pretty much everything else that makes it possible to have a civil society.

What happened to it was that the government of Ariel Sharon gratuitously destroyed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:21 AM

Doesn't answer where it came from and where it is going though.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:19 AM

The obvious solution to the problem is for the US taxpayers to give the Palestinians the three billion dollar welfare payment they would otherwise be giving to Israel this year (and maybe in future years as well), and make it dependent on the Palestinians holding free and open elections to decide who will be the next president. Then, Israel can get out of the West Bank and Gaza entirely, and leave the Palestinians in peace to get on with the business of building their country.

Three billion should more than compensate for the missing 300 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:45 AM

I would imagine it would be in the Palestinians interest to find out where it came from and where it will go. I don't think they will be given an answer though.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:31 AM

For argument's sake we will assume that Arafat has 300 Million. For logic's sake we will ask what he is doing with it, what help it is to him in his current state, where or who will it go to in the inevetible, and at his age with the health problems he has, imminent demise, who has paid it to him into what banks (presumably not the West one). We could also ask in whose interest it is to tell such tales and perhaps consider who publishes Forbes rich list, why, and from what sources. Most estimates of rich peoples wealth are little more than conjecture. You don't plaster posters on billboards and the backs of buses advertising how much you have. Some bugger might tax it.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 03:31 PM

As I mentioned back before this thread became dormant (and thankfully so) the Bushes and other high level US government officials are guilty of corruption that causes just as much suffering on the part of US citizens as Arafat and Qureia do to Palestinians. The only difference, for the purposes of people who start threads like this one, is that people who start threads like this one do so specifically in order to stir up and spread hatred toward Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.

Someone said, not too long ago, that if the government of Israel really wanted to get rid of Arafat, the best way to do it would be to stop making him such a big issue. They don't want Arafat gone. He's too usefull to them. But no one has the right to dictate to the Palestinians who will be their democratically elected president.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST,CPA
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 01:22 PM

CarolC,

There are some very important distinctions to be made between the alleged corruption scandals of Arafat and Sharon.

In Sharon's case, he is alleged to have profited from illegal business dealings. The masses of Israelis are not the victims. Furthermore, Sharon is being investigated by Israeli authorities and it is widely assumed in Israel that the scandal will end his political career.

In Arafat's case, he has accumulated enormous personal wealth at the expense of the Palestinian masses. Despite this, there is no move from within the Palestinian authority to have Arafat account for how he could have possibly accumulated $300 million.

And now it appears that Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia's family firm is directly profiting by supplying cement to the Israelis to build the security wall.

It would appear that Sharon's alleged corrouption is day to day stuff that happens in almost any democratic society and that it will bring him down. Meanwhile Arafat and Qureia and in the tradition of dictators like the Duvaliers of Haiti, Idi Amin of Uganda, Saadam Hussein of Iraq, the Shah of Iran, etc. who amass enormous wealth at the total expense of a people mired in poverty. Not the same thing at all.


CPA

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: DougR
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 06:21 PM

Well gee, Walter, a guy's got to pay his bills!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 05:50 PM

I've never started a single one of these threads, with the exception of a part 2 (or 3 or something) of one that was started by someone else. I'd be very, very happy if no one ever started another one of them ever again.

So why is it so important for some people to be constantly starting Palestinian-bashing threads? Why hasn't anyone started a thread about the fact that Ariel Sharon is also being investigated for corruption? Maybe it indicates a bias against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims by some people around here. If someone starts a Jew-bashing thread (or a male/femaale, Midwesterner/Easterner, etc. bashing thread), I'll speak up against it, as I have in the past. I'll speak up about people bashing of any sort, as often as needed.

When they start them, I will post to them, as often as I think it's justified. But I won't be starting any, nor will I start any threads that are critical of Israel or the US, or any other country or people. It's not me who's obsessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST,Sgt. Carter
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 05:02 PM

Gomer, you nincompoop! CarolC was referring to the "A very Arab obsession" thread that Wolfgang started and posted to nine times. Does nine times make an obsession? Not compared to CarolC. CarolC posted thirty-nine times to the "A very Arab obsession" threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST,Gomer
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 04:53 PM

Golly gee, Sgt. Carter, CarolC has posted sixteen times to this thread and she accuses Wolfgang, who has posted twice, of being obsessed.

Wolfgang points out that Arafat and his wife are corrupt, so CarolC implies he has anti-Arab/Musilim attitudes. Even a PFC from Mayberry can follow that logic and conclude that anyone who points to Sharon as corrupt is anti-Semitic and that anyone who points to Bush as corrupt hates each and every American. Now that just ain't so. CarolC herself has said such things about Sharon and Bush and she doesn't hate us Americans, does she Sgt. Carter?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 03:46 PM

Wolfgang, are you sure it's not you who has the "Arab Obsession"? It seems like just about every time things start to calm down a little around here on the subject of the Middle East, you start a new thread or refresh an old one that is bound to stir up a lot of muck and bad feelings.

Do you have a lot of Arab and/or Muslim immigrants living in your area these days? If so, how do you feel about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 01:12 PM

On a related theme. It was reported the other day that Palestinian firms, including one owned by Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia's family, are supplying cement and other materials that Israel is using to build its security wall.

Read the AP story.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 03:44 AM

A follow-up to the original theme of this thread: A few days ago, Le Canard Enchaine, a French left-wing magazine which is known both for satirical articles and for investigative reports has published documents showing that the French prosecution has started to investigate the bank accounts and the money flow of Soha Arafat, the wife of Jassir Arafat. She has a residence in Paris.

A monthly money transfer of 1,000,000 Euro from a Swiss bank to the Paris account of Soha Arafat has led the prosecutor to suspect money laundering. These transfers have been seen from Juli 2002 to Juli 2003 and have involved the Arab Bank and the BNP Paribas.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Peg
Date: 11 Aug 03 - 10:34 AM

Joe you crack me up!!!!!!!

peg

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 09:46 PM

Hey, I just want a million....

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:45 AM

Oh Gervase, perhaps we should take it easy on Teribus. I can see where a person who is not well educated and not well read, might mistake the phrase "of the first order" for "first in order". If poor ole Teribus has hired a solicitor who is that stupid, he has problems enough. **GRIN**

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:22 AM

Libel's an interesting case - in the UK the definition is often regarded as that which exposes one to hatred, ridicule or contempt. Now class, the question is - can Teribus be said to have libelled him/herself?
However, with legal aid being denied for dafamation suits, libel remains the preserve of the well-heeled and the pompous, and we don't know if Teribus fits both those criteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:47 AM

I recall a heckler at an open mike night being told. "Hey man, at least it's free. And I'll even play for free at your parents' wedding."

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 03:41 AM

Teribus: I hope that both your mother and your father are alive and well. If not, I hope that they lie in peace, because I am confident that they were worthy parents.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 03:34 AM

JtS,

You are absolutely priceless:

"Teribus you ignorant slut! Thank you! I am enjoying this game of "point-counterpoint" with you. It's not often one encounters such an accommodating straight man."

As for accommodating straight men - how about this

"As for your idiotic claims of "Libel". I welcome you to bring suit. For one who is so pompous, you do not seem to be familiar with some of the subtleties of the English language."

"BTW when you go to see your barrister or solicitor, please show him the following. It is the Webster's dictionary definition of "bastard". You may be interested IN THE THIRD MEANING. It is my supposition that Carol could not have chosen a more apt word.

Yours Truly
Rob Dale (CaroC's proud husband)

Main Entry: bas·tard
Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
Date: 14th century
1 : an illegitimate child
2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin
3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse"

Now were I to go to a solicitor - no doubt he himself would look up the definition in Websters dictionary as that is source referenced by yourself. He would then re-read the words written by Carol in her post, which were:

"You, Sir, are a bastard of THE FIRST ORDER."

Now, given that its your definition, and her choice of words - you don't have to be all that subtle to distinguish the difference. But just in case you can't get your brain round it - what was detailed as being the FIRST definition of the word?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 06:31 PM

I voted Gnu!

Corrupt Politicians!

What's the opposite of an oxymoron? an Oxyrighton, maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: gnu
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM

...."even Canadian politicians are not completely free of corruption. " Whoa, there's an understatement.... when Mulrooooney was in, 22, 22, TWENTY TWO !!!, cabinet ministers were brought up on chrages. And, of course, so was he in the Airbus scandal, after he left, but we paid him $1M and he dropped the defamation suit. Marg, Princess Warrior for PM.... did ya vote yet, bye ? Go to the 22 Minutes website and cast your vote.... even better than having Stockwell change his name !

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 04:29 PM

The Plain English Handbook is another good one, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 04:08 PM

French Bank accounts? Surely you mean "Freedom" bank accounts. :) I guess the allegation that the money is kept in a French bank rather than for instance and Israeli one can be taken as proof positive that he is corrupt. Gnu's right, if it were about money Arafat would be long gone. He's also right is his remark about Tobin which was a cute way of saying that even Canadian politicians are not completely free of corruption.

Arafat is corrupt! That was you point "Water Pricehouse" wasn't it? Now I have agreed. I am confident that everyone who has posted will agree. Arafat's corruption has never been a secret. Is Sharon corrupt? Does Bush make shady deals and climb into bed with the wrong people? I think so, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is simply a matter of degree.

It would seem that this debate has come to a logical conclusion. Is there anything else you would like talk about?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:58 PM

Sure, katlaughing. I used to have a lot of problems with distinctions like that one until I got a book on grammar and punctuation called, Woe Is I, The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English. It's a lot of fun, and easy for me to understand, grammarphobe that I am.

Well, GUEST, until I came to live with my hubby, JtS, I was using a computer that was built from spare parts and given to me by my brother-in-law (and for a few months, I was using one that belonged to my neighbor because he didn't have room in his apartment for it). I spent a nominal amount of money each month to have a connection to the internet because I couldn't get out very often to be around people (I didn't have a car, I didn't have enough energy to make the effort to make and keep friends.). Sometimes I didn't see any people at all for weeks at a time. I had a telephone with local and long distance service for the same reason.

So the small amount of money spent on the internet connection (and telephone) was as important for my health as fresh vegetables (isolation being just as bad for one's health as poor nutrition... any doctor will tell you that). It was a good call, I think, because it kept me from giving in completely to dispair. And it's how I met my husband.

These days, I count myself a very fortunate woman. I have a wonderful husband, and my needs are being met.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: gnu
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM

You certainly do, you sick pup. Ya know, my old man used to have a saying for people like you... "Fuck em, they're not worth it."

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM

It's interesting that a person living in poverty, who cannot afford to feed herself fresh fresh vegetables, has the resources for a computer and internet connection.

I guess some people have different priorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:08 PM

As I said, I understood what you meant; just didn't think the examples were as clear as they could be. It doesn't really matter, though.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 12:14 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Some of the best men in the world come from Canada's Atlantic provinces ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: gnu
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 12:02 PM

$300M ? Wow. I wish I had that kinda dough. I might even try to help an oppressed people gain political, religeous and economic freedom or something. Gee, is it hot in here or is just me ?

Yeah riiiight ! If he was just a crook, he'd be long gone. With $300M, he could buy an island somewhere cosy and screw happily ever after. Now, I do not purport to know even the slightest about any of this discussion or the conflict(s), but I can add and subtract. And, if I was crook, I woulda subtracted myself at far less that $100M and let the discussion and conflict(s) continue without me. Ergo, if he stole $, he didn't steal it for personal gain... and I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I'm only saying what I said.

BTW JtS, give em anudder right twixt the lookers fer me. I gotta go ice me knee and Bud me brain now. As for this thread and the conflict, too bad we all ain't Newfs... did a job this morning where the owners, an eldery couple, were both from the Rock. I was about to get me ladder out of the back of the truck when the Mrs. of the house hollered at his nibs an he went into the garage an brought one out so's I didn't hafta go out in the cold to the truck. Salt of the earth I says. Hmmmm, has anyone checked Tobin's offshore accounts ?

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM

I should have paid more attention to Forum Lurker's post. He explained it well.

Forum Lurker, Water Pricehouse is not a newbie. He/she has been here a long time and is just trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:10 AM

"Same goes for everyone in the world who has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government."

In this sentence there is more than one possible way to interpret what is being said. There is the meaning I had in mind, that I am including only those people who, among all of the people in the world, has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government. I gave an examiple of that meaning with this sentence, "I feel sorry for that guy who just died in a car accident. Same goes for everyone else who has or will die in a car accident". With this example, it should be pretty clear to most people that I am talking about a specific group of people, ie: those who have or will die in car accidents.

In this example, "Same goes for everyone in the world, who has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government". The comma after "world" could be used to separate the two parts of the sentence. ie: Same goes for everyone in the world. Everyone in the world has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government.

As I said, it would be quite a stetch to get that meaning out of my sentence, even with the comma.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 10:04 AM

GUEST,Water Pricehouse-It's posts like this that lead to the impression of xenophobia here. Getting involved in a flame war that was petty for established members probably isn't the best way to introduce yourself.

katlaughing-the difference is that the first one is a qualifier, those members of the set "everyone in the world" who also belong to the set "has or will suffer because of George Bush and the U.S. government." The second one is saying that the two sets are equivalent, that everyone who is in the first is also in the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST,Water Pricehouse
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 09:06 AM

Funny thing about that, GUEST. Every time I try to provide some balance in a discussion of Israel/Palestine, someone rakes me over the coals for it. It's the darndest thing. Personally I would prefer that the discussion not be about me.

Funny thing, CarolC. This thread was not started as a discusussion of Israel/Palestine. It was supposed to be about how a leader with no obvious sources of great uncome, other than stealing from the billions in foreign aid that the Palestinian Authority has received from the Eestern democracies that he hates so much, came to have $300 million in his personal French bank accounts, while most of his people live in abject poverty.

But somehow, anytime there's a Mudcat thread about Arafat, you end up making it about yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:29 PM

Carol, some clarification, please? I understand what you meant, but your examples up above are exactly the same except for the comma which, imo, doesn't make enough of a difference to illustrate your point:

Didn't you say earlier in this thread:

"Same goes for everyone in the world who has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government."

Etc..., then:

If my sentence were to have the meaning you have chosen to give it, it would need to look more like this: "Same goes for everyone in the world, who has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government".

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM

Funny thing about that, GUEST. Every time I try to provide some balance in a discussion of Israel/Palestine, someone rakes me over the coals for it. It's the darndest thing. Personally I would prefer that the discussion not be about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 09:53 PM

If you go back and look at past threads that start out as being critical of Arafat, CarolC will make it about somebody else, in this case Dubya, and then, ultimately, the thread becomes about CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 08:42 PM

Teribus-I didn't say there was no such thing as a win-win situation. What I said was that it cannot result from two people exploiting each other, as exploitation is deriving benefit from someone to that person's detriment. Cooperation is what produces win-win situations.

Teribus, CarolC, and Jack the Sailor- PLEASE, can you continue your squabbling somewhere other than a public forum? Regardless of who is in the right, you are displaying the sort of immaturity that gets four-year-olds sent to their rooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 06:23 PM

Teribus you ignorant slut! Thank you! I am enjoying this game of "point-counterpoint" with you. It's not often one encounters such an accommodating straight man.

Yes indeed I am Carol's husband. I'm in her corner and I'm sticking up for her.

You started the personal attacks by, in a very snide and patronizing way, calling Carol a hypocrite. You couldn't have been more wrong. Putting MAY in there doesn't get you off the hook. If it did, I could say "Teribus MAY f*** donkeys". But of course I cannot.

As for your idiotic claims of "Libel". I welcome you to bring suit. For one who is so pompous, you do not seem to be familiar with some of the subtleties of the English language. Calling someone a "bastard" is not always meant to be taken literally. In this case, I believe she was trying to communicate to you that you are behaving like an insufferable ass. Please feel free to contact me if you require further clarification.   

As for the supposition that "you know jack shit about poverty", judging from what I have read, I see a huge gap between what you think you know and what actually are able to communicate. It is difficult to suppose that you know "jack shit" about ANYTHING.   

My supposition is that you are rude and thoughtless. I also suppose that you don't put much thought into your political posts. I would be pleasantly surprised and delighted if you were to prove me wrong.

BTW when you go to see your barrister or solicitor, please show him the following. It is the Webster's dictionary definition of "bastard". You may be interested in the third meaning. It is my supposition that Carol could not have chosen a more apt word.

Yours Truly
Rob Dale (CaroC's proud husband)

Main Entry: bas·tard
Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
Date: 14th century
1 : an illegitimate child
2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin
3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse

Subject: RE: BS: Arafat's $300 million
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 04:41 PM

Didn't you say earlier in this thread:

"Same goes for everyone in the world who has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government."

I certainly did. And it is quite a stretch for you to extrapolate from it that I was suggesting that all of the world's suffering is the fault of Bush and the US government.

For instance, if I said, "I feel sorry for that guy who just died in a car accident. Same goes for everyone else who has or will die in a car accident", would I be saying that I think everyone in the world is going to die in a car accident? I don't think so.

If my sentence were to have the meaning you have chosen to give it, it would need to look more like this: "Same goes for everyone in the world, who has or will suffer because of George Bush and the US government".

And even then it would be a stretch to get your meaning out of it.