quote:

---

Press reports revealed recently that Mr. Day, who is the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs critic, refused to send condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of President Yassir Arafat. Why? Because of Mr. Arafat’s support for armed struggle against Israel? No. Because he might have died of AIDS.

In a November 16 email to his Conservative colleagues Mr. Day stated: "Some of you have asked why I have not released a statement of condolence or sympathy. As you know, there are two sides to the Arafat story. You pick...." He then included in the email an article by David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush, indulging in unfounded speculation about the cause of Arafat’s death. Frum suggested that Arafat’s symptoms “sounded AIDS-like.”

---

I mean...what the hell difference should the cause of Arafat's death have made in terms of whether the Tories, as the official Opposition, offered their respects and condolences?

Yassir Arafaf was a head of state(head of an almost-state, in any case) and automatically deserved the respect any head of state(other than Hitler or Stalin) was entitled to upon the announcement of his death.

Stockwell, you are truly a pig.

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Frum was ..... right?

---

Assuming the original link in this thread is correct. It had to happen sometime, though we have waited lo these many years.

quote:

---

Dr. Ashraf al-Kurdi told the Jordanian Amman News Agency that Arafat did, in fact, have AIDS – but insisted that the HIV virus was injected into the chairman’s bloodstream, and not the result of illicit sexual activity.

---

quote:

---

This shouldn't be turned into another chance to posthumously bash the guy

---

quote:

---

Only a vicious homophobe would consider to be a "bashing" of Arafat to say that he had gay sex. I think that if Arafat was getting fucked by his bodyguards, all the more power to him.

---

quote:

---

all the more power to him. In fact if it's true I actually like him BETTER than I did before!

---

Alexander the Great was gay. Should we also posthumously slap him on the back and forget all the horrendous crimes he committed simply because he walked on the wild side?

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:

Are 'licit' and 'illicit' now medical terms?

---

Well, he was married.

But this is a very stupid debate. It was stupid when Stockboy played the homophobe, and it becomes stupider with every passing post.

If he had AIDS, he could have caught it through any number of ways. How is utterly irrelevant. For that matter, whether he had AIDS is pretty much irrelevant now. What is relevant is that one of our Cabinet Ministers, a man who wanted to be Prime Minister, and actually holds temporal power right now, thinks that it is relevant.

Just because the likes of Frum and Day assume a link between HIV and gay sex doesn't mean it is the case. I find it odd that people on here are doing the same. Creepy, actually, because it hints at other agendas - Stockholm - and because it twists what should not be a twisted tale.

quote:

---

I and many people in the western world might have become more sympathetic to him and more sympathetic to what he had to say on the Palestinian question.

---

If that's all it takes to gain your respect, then you must be a very untrustworthy person:

Steve Harper: I hate women, unions, public health care and First Nations people.

Stock: Go screw yourself, you Fachist prick.

Steve Haper: I'm also Gay...

Stock: Really!? Well that's different. It was certainly couragous of you to come out of the closet Mr. Harper! Gosh I'm sorry I called you a fachist prick!
Could we go out for coffee?
Where can I get my CPC membership?

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Only a vicious homophobe would consider to be a "bashing" of Arafat to say that he had gay sex. I think that if Arafat was getting fucked by his bodyguards, all the more power to him. In fact if it's true I actually like him BETTER than I did before! If he had gone public about his homosexuality and become a champion of gay rights, I and many people in the western world might have become more sympathetic to him and more sympathetic to what he had to say on the Palestinian question.

---

1)I can't believe you tried to imply that I'm a homophobe.

2)You know perfectly well what the motivations of an Israeli source would be here: To posthumously discredit Arafat within the Arab and Islamic worlds by implying that he was gay(which is something that that world would feel differently about than you or I woul).)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with my attitudes about gay people; it has every bit to do with Arafat's enemies trying to discredit his memory among the Palestinian people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:

Well, he was married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The real shame in all of this is that IF it is true and Arafat contracted HIV through gay sex, he could have gone public like Magic Johnson and become a worldwide spokesman on gay rights and the need to treat people with AIDS with compassion. It could have done a lot to make homosexuality less taboo in the Arab world as well. Arafat could have turned his attention to being a role model for gay and lesbian youth in the Arab world who think they are alone. He could have offered to be a grand marshall in a gay pride parade. Instead he kept it all a secret and will be viewed as the Roy Cohn of the Arab world. What a waste.

---

I disagree Stockholm (all the following assuming gay-sex induced AIDS).

It is like these cardinals in the Vatican who order male prostitutes to be brought to the Vatican in limos with tinted windows as if they were ordering a pizza to be delivered - then after they have their gay orgies, they issue homilies to the masses telling them they will go to hell if they have gay sex.

quote:

---

I insist you retract the implication that I'm antigay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
How can it ever be the "right thing" to be a closet case. People like Arafat and J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn are all the same. They have the wealth and power that they can get their rocks of any way they want and they don't give a damn if other people don't have the same rights.

It is like these cardinals in the Vatican who order male prostitutes to be brought to the Vatican in limos with tinted windows as if they were ordering a pizza to be delivered - then after they have their gay orgies, they issue homilies to the masses telling them they will go to hell if they have gay sex.

It's revolting.

---

Gay Palestinians regularly get beaten to death and persecuted and there was no excuse for Arafat to turn a blind eye to this barbarism amiong his own people.

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Sorry, but I don't think it's too much to ask. People should be true to themselves.
[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

---

That's very easy for a rabble poster to say, I've certainly never sought to keep secrets of my identity on this board (sigh).

quote:

---

How can it be slander to say someone is something that we all regard as a good thing???

---

Being gay is neither good or bad. It just is.

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

How can it ever be the "right thing" to be a closet case.

---

quote:

---

Why automatically assume that any man who has AIDS is gay?

---

This is part of what I was trying to get at, too, Michelle, with my rhetorical question above about whether 'licit' and 'illicit' sex were medical terms.

Of course they're not medically relevant terms, because the 'licitness' (legally or morally, however we might define that) of any sexual activity has *nothing* to do with whether or not it leaves one open to the transmission of a disease.

(That is, provided we're not holding to the pre-Enlightenment 'God is angry with us' theory of disease transmission.)

A & B could be in as 'licit' a relationship as anyone could wish for--heterosexual or homosexual--and B could still end up passing something on to A (e.g. HIV, Hepatitis B) even without either of them engaging in anything sexually 'illicit.'

Alternatively, if A were to cheat on B with B's best friend, C (an act most would consider morally 'illicit,' I think), the immorality of A's deed by itself would tell us *nothing* about how dangerous it was, health-wise. A's involvement with C could well be morally reprehensible while exposing no-one to a health risk.

In short, while 'safe sex' or 'safer sex' may be medical terms, useful in evaluating the risk of disease transmission, 'illicit sex' is not.

It seems to me that the writer of the linked article above, however, is interested for obvious political purposes in exploiting a supposed link between homosexuality, AIDS, and so-called 'illicit' behaviour in order to discredit Arafat (as were both Frum and Day, to their disgrace).

And of course it shouldn't matter if Arafat was, in fact, gay(though we have no proof of this and should be very careful to avoid assuming that this is established fact). But in an Arab Muslim cultural context, this news would be earthshaking. Clearly, we should be aware of the strong possibility that the intentions of Arutz Sheva in going with this news are to cause further turmoil in Palestinian internal politics. The last thing the Israeli right would want would be a politically revived Fatah movement, since Fatah represents the idea of a democratic, secular Palestine, in contrast to the reactionary, clearly bigoted Islamist vision that animates the leadership of Hamas(although not necessarily the voters who support it).

A story that depicts the founding father of the Fatah movement as a practitioner of an alternative lifestyle that is, to say the least deeply controversial within the dominant religious tradition of the Palestinian people would badly damage Fatah and bolster Hamas, which would be in the interest of the Israeli right(who have always essentially cheered Hamas on behind the scenes because a stronger Hamas means more votes for parties like Likud and the fascist party led by Avigdor Lieberman.)

It would be incredibly naive to pretend that this wasn't part of the reason Arutz Sheva broke this alleged "news".

And I can't help but feel that it is really icky that you seem to be gloating about this.

[ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Ken Burch:And I can't help but feel that it is really icky that you seem to be gloating about this.

---

Meh. As I recall, Stockholm was gloating at the time, when Arafat passed away. He was joined on babble by a cabal of the usual anti-Palestinian zealots.

quote:

---

Stockholm:I find everything to do with Saudi Arabia loathsome.

---

Is a country that sells it weapons also "loathsome"? Are Israel and the U.S. loathsome?

quote:

---

You can spend the next year trying to find anyplace where I have had anything good to say about the government of that country and you will come up empty handed.

---

That would be a waste of time. My point was merely that no one should believe your "concern" for Palestinians. You've demonstrated nothing but ill-will towards them. And I think I've provided a useful service by pointing that out.

I guess if I was some pro-Bush neo-con ideologue then I would have to be an apologist for regimes like Saudi Arabia and also be supportive of the war in Iraq - in addition to pointing out all the human rights abuses in Iran and under Taliban in Afghanistan. But I'm not a neo-con so I can feel free to call things as I see them. Therefore I regard the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia (among others) to both be horrible.

I'm very concerned with the Palestinians. They are people like anyone else. I hope that they get leaders who want to pursue peace and lay down their weapons and disband all their suicide bombing cells and then negotiate a peace treaty with Israel and start educating their children to think of Israelis as people just like anyone else and then everyone in the Middle East can co-exist like one big happy family and Tel Aviv can become a stop on the Cairo to Damascus railroad.

PS: Saudi Arabia and Israel have no diplomatic relations and saudi Arabia contunues to reject Israel's right to exist. You cannot even visit Saudi Arabia if you are Jewish or have an Israeli stamp in your passport.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Stockholm: I hope that they get leaders who want to pursue peace and lay down their weapons and disband all their suicide bombing cells

---

This is the same old shit and you know it. You're outlining how the Palestinians should surrender. You've mentioned nothing about the occupation and the ongoing, daily horrific Israeli apartheid-like atrocities. Presumably, therefore, you don't have a problem with these things since they don't merit a mention on your part. You've proved my point. Thanks.

quote:

---

Stockholm: Saudi Arabia and Israel have no diplomatic relations ...

---

Less than two weeks ago the Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert, gave a green light for the US to sell that country state-of-the-art weapons. We all know that the tail wags the dog here.

quote:

---

We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran,” Olmert told a weekly Cabinet meeting.

---

There's that word again: moderate. In any case, who gives a shit if they have diplomatic relations. Israel is happy to see the Saudi regime arm themselves to the teeth. Business, it seems, is business. And it looks to be pretty brisk right now.

Debating about continuity, or the lack of it, in Israeli foreign policy would probably wind up with the same conclusions that some of us on the left formulate in relation to US foreign policy; e.g., Clinton and Dubya have real differences but they're still front men for US imperialism. I don't see that there are substantive, fundamental differences between Olmert and most of his predecessors. The occupation continues, quislings among the Palestinians are sought out, settlements continue to expand, (edited to add) there is the occasional war and invasion of neighbouring countries, and so on.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Yes, it would be better if the Arab and Muslim were gay-friendly(as it would be if the United States and the governing party of Canada were, as well) but you and I both know that Arutz Sheva was not acting here out of solidarity with Palestinian and Arab gay activists(who do exist, in surprising strength in many areas in the region)and who are among the bravest people I can possibly imagine.

But, given the number of times the Tel Aviv gay pride parade has been invoked as justification for everything the Israeli government does, you should understand my suspicions here.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Meanwhile, i take a very simple approach to every conflict in the world - which ever side is better on women's rights and gay rights is the side i support.

---

I agree with you.

quote:

---

(why anyone - male or female - would want to have sex with someone as physically repulsive as Arafat is another question)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

I agree with you.

That's a very simple approach.

---