Terrorists? Of course not.
April 2, 2002 5:18 PM   Subscribe

Terrorists? Of course not. The smoking gun linking the PLO to terrorist organizations and activities [FoxNews link].
posted by hadashi (39 comments total)
Pissed off, not terrorists. Let's just call "terrorists" pissed off from now on. Who's with me?

Could we stop using the word terrorist? I think at least 2 threads today have established that 'terrorism' is a misleading word redefined as powerful nations see fit. So if we cut the crap, the title of this link (which is pretty interesting) becomes:

Pissed off? Of course not. The smoking gun linking the PLO to pissed off organizations and activities (of people who are pissed off).

And war on terrorism becomes "war on people who are pissed off". "People who are pissed off" is much more accurate and what's more it actually means something. It does not simplify complex situations, and it doesn't make the ridiculous implication that when non-terrorists use expensive weapons on more important targets, it is somehow less 'terrifying' to the people (previously) living next door.

We can make it Pissed Off if it's more clear. I'm just sick of this assinine word being used to label people and justify murder. Rally behind Settle mefiers..come on..
posted by Settle at 5:34 PM on April 2, 2002

Yes, remember: If you are pissed off, that justifies walking into a cafe as a human bomb and shredding those standing next to you.

Let's please make sure we remember that the next time someone blows up an abortion clinic or a federal building (neither of which I am in favor of).

After all, they're just pissed off. They aren't terrorists.
posted by hadashi at 5:44 PM on April 2, 2002

Doesn't work for me. I used to be pissed off frequentlyh at my ex-wife but I did not blow up pizza parlors and kill civilians just to show how pissed off I was. The real point, though, is that after all the denials, Arafat seems to have been caught red-handed in being intimately involved in the "pissed off" operation, something he has long denied.
posted by Postroad at 5:46 PM on April 2, 2002

but then TWAT becomes TWAPO! and that doesn't have nearly the pull as TWAT, although... maybe nick drake has something to say :)
posted by kliuless at 5:51 PM on April 2, 2002

Oh and what does TERRORIST mean exactly? Does it mean they scare you?? Or that the only means they have is terror? Tell me, is it right only for wealthy nations to wage war? How come we call the little guys terrorists?

Look, if it were an option, I'm sure every goddamned "terrorist" in the world would like a big legit army but most of these people are extremely poor and extremely desperate, so that isn't really an OPTION.

And look how ch*ck*nsh*t you are, hadashi:
Let's please make sure we remember that the next time someone blows up an abortion clinic or a federal building (neither of which I am in favor of).

Oh good for a second there I thought you were a TERRORIST. Fine, let's not call them pissed off. Let's label them with what they want: in this case a liberated Palestinian state. That's pretty accurate. By necessity they use suicide bombers, which is pretty sickening to most of us, since we fight our wars with maps and moving machines. I'm not sure what Baader Mienhoff would have been called in this case. I'm just suggesting that we stop using a totally meaningless word.

Here is why, in the simplest terms I can presently formulate, we should stop using this word:
1. When you want to kill people, you put yourself at risk. If you are rich you use airplanes, if you are poor you use explosives and your own body. The first option puts you at zero risk and is more effective than the second, which kills you.
2. Both of these events cause terror. That is the nature of the beast you see.
3. Terror is always the result you want when you want to kill lots of people. Since you can't kill all the people, you want to scare them with your suicide bombings/airplane bombs. Similarly, you don't want to kill off an entire nation, you simply kill enough of them off to get what you want from them (oil, liberated palestinian state, independance, withdrawl of troops from france, poland, hungary, russia etc.)
4. Both methods are equally bad. One is more efficient, one is more localized and dramatic, but they're both sickening to any sane person.
5. So, as long as you want a distinction between our terrorism and foreign terrorism, you should use another word besides terrorism - since it applies equally to BOTH it lends meaning to NEITHER.

Yes this was an obnoxious post. But I sincerely think people would have a better understanding of world events if they didn't buy into such an assinine euphemism.

Oh and for the record, I think that Arafat is an ass.
posted by Settle at 6:04 PM on April 2, 2002

Or hey, there's a more obvious answer: call them ENEMIES. I can understand most people's desire to know who is for them and who is against them, so this might be a good compromise. TWAT becomes a war, which is okay, and the Arafat in this case supports enemies of Isreal, which is fair. And if you really wanted to call Arafat a non-american enemy, which is what "terrorist" implies somewhat, you could say he supports enemies of our allies.
posted by Settle at 6:09 PM on April 2, 2002

Arafat is not an ass. Bill Clinton is an ass. Asses aren't mass murderers.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:10 PM on April 2, 2002

Fine he's a murderer. He is more directly involved with people who die. You don't think anyone died from American Interests during Clinton's 8 years? They couldn't have all been bad people.

Anyway, Paris, sir, your point is taken, but I am interested - what do you/others think about removing "terrorist" from our vocabulary?
posted by Settle at 6:17 PM on April 2, 2002

I don't think the word should be removed. I also think semantic debates are interesting, but should not be used to obscure or distract from what's going on.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:28 PM on April 2, 2002

i think it's okay in RL, but keep terrorists in the movies! for the localized drama :)
posted by kliuless at 6:29 PM on April 2, 2002

Bill Clinton is an ass. Asses aren't mass murderers.

"Who's being naive, Kay?"
-Michael Corleone

what do you/others think about removing "terrorist" from our vocabulary?

If we remove a word from our vocabulary just because it's been misused we'll soon be reduced to grunting. We shouldn't allow the word to be taken from us just because the reality of it's definition and application are uncomfortable.

As I wrote in today's other post on terrorism, the definition of terrorism is: the use of force or the threat of force against civilian populations to achieve a political goal.

How about this: does the use of or support for terrorism make one a terrorist? If so, Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. If so, the U.S. is a terrorist state.
posted by Ty Webb at 6:38 PM on April 2, 2002

While Arafat may not be an ass. Much of the American and European media is composed of such beings for giving legitimacy to this individual who has been thrown out of several countries and complicit in the death of so many.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:49 PM on April 2, 2002

Kind of like Sharon, you mean.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:00 PM on April 2, 2002

fff: I'd like to see the proof in court. I don't think the Israeli public would make the guy prime minister if it were true. In any case, and pardon the comparison, even when the Soviets helped defeat Hitler, it was a good thing.

For the present, however, as far as I'm concerned, Sharon has done nothing wrong. But I'm open to convinicing otherwise using a serious standard of judicial scrutiny; not bullshit Arab media "scrutiny."
posted by ParisParamus at 7:06 PM on April 2, 2002

Hmm, I had thought my mentioning that I don't approve of bombing abortion clinics or federal buildings was simply my way of saying "No matter what your cause you don't get to do that."

I didn't want it to appear as though I felt that those particular acts had some sort of justification that the homicide-bombers in Israel did not have.

I do find it rather amusing to be called "chickenshit" by an apologist for... pissed off people, though.
posted by hadashi at 7:21 PM on April 2, 2002

I don't think the Israeli public would make the guy prime minister if it were true.

A fallacious argument on a couple of grounds. And here's some 'not bullshit Arab media "scrutiny"':

"Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed."

That's the generous judgement: and many people who knew too much have mysteriously died in recent months as the search for more evidence progresses. And yes, I'm more than prepared to compare Sharon to Stalin if you're comparing Arafat to Hitler.
posted by riviera at 7:35 PM on April 2, 2002

Oh and what does TERRORIST mean exactly? Does it mean they scare you?? Or that the only means they have is terror? Tell me, is it right only for wealthy nations to wage war? How come we call the little guys terrorists?

there is a fairly widely accepted and standard definition, although you wouldn't know it from the post-9/11 hysteria in the mainstream media. [my senior paper in college was on the ethics of terrorism and the term had to be reasonably defined to be discussed. among academics and practitioners that actually have to adjudicate these issues there was a surprising amount of consensus.] re: consensus on actions by the state - violence, even when unjustly perpetrated, does not necessarily equal terrorism. there are very few instances of state aggression that can be accurately categorized as such, although "state terrorism" does exist. imperialism, by itself, doesn't necessarily equal terrorism, even when aggressive, unjust, and violent. (it sounds good when you're reading Fanon, but it doesn't fly in international law.)

settle's question reminds me of a bit from Dostoyevsky:

'Why does what I have committed seem so hideous to them?' he said to himself. 'Because it was a crime? What does that word mean--'crime'? My conscience is at rest. Of course, I overstepped, illegally; of course the letter of the law was violated, blood was spilled... Given that, of course, we have quite a few benefactors who did not inherit power but seized it for themselves; they should have been executed at their very first steps. But they followed their steps through, and so they were right; and I didn't follow through; and so it turns out I did not have the right to permit myself that first step." (Crime & Punishment)
posted by lizs at 7:36 PM on April 2, 2002

Riveriera: Your link goes nowhere.

Assuming it's true, during a war campaign, failing to let one group of people who hate people who want to kill you (Lebanese militia not prevented from killing Palestinian refugees) may not be nice, but I'm not sure it's a crime (then again, it's late, so I say that with some reserve). I think you're, or rather, the Sharon is evil crowd
are grasping at straws. Proof: It's 20 years later, and no convictions, even in abstencia.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:51 PM on April 2, 2002

hadashi - sorry. I retract the statement I made about you being chickenshit. I think the thread needed it at the time.

lizs - I didn't want to open that particular can of worms, I don't think any sort of discussion is able when all things are taken into consideration.

I am not irritated about the what or why or who or was it just, but that we use a loaded word selectively. I don't care that it favours the USA, I care because it means nothing when it is not used evenhandedly. The people we call terrorists are indeed terrorists, but for the accepted definition to be made accurate, the word must be used to characterize all such behavior, including our own.

Last - Paris (brooklyn in the hiz-owse), I'd argue that not only are semantic debates interesting, they are necessary for clear discussion. My intent was not semantic debate but consensual semantic change, which as I've been trying to tell all y'all, would allow meaningful debate, or at least debate elevated from the same crap about who is a terrorist and who isn't. Not too elevated though. Not up to the consideration of a criminal's conscience...etc....etc.....
posted by Settle at 8:44 PM on April 2, 2002

Why Sharon has not yet been convicted of war crimes.

Furthermore, am I the only one who is reluctant to accept "evidence" provided by the Israeli military? Not the most impartial source, even for Fox News ...
posted by hipstertrash at 10:16 PM on April 2, 2002

Let's put Sharon vs Araft aside for a minute and look at the sheer numbers of people willing to blow themselves to bits in the name of a free Palestine. Recent events, recent attempts to quell the so-called terrorism, have bred more suicide bombers, not less. These people are not being co-erced into their actions, they're not doing it for the money; they believe in their cause to the very end. And their cause isn't unjust - few people would argue that Israel's increasing occupation of Palestine is right and proper.

Contrast this with Israeli soldiers, many of whom have been refusing to take part in actions against occupied Palestinians. So blaming Arafat, who may or may not be involved, is somewhat beside the point. It's ridiculous to believe that he would ever single-handedly be able to stop the actions of these people.
posted by skylar at 12:02 AM on April 3, 2002

I'm waiting for the IDF to present us next with incontrovertible evidence of Arafat's links to 9/11, the AIDS epidemic and the Hindenburg disaster.
Arafat does not control Hamas, Jihad or whoever else: Spain, an organised country with real resources in its hands cannot extinguish its own domestic Basque terrorism for some decades now, how can you expect the head of a Bandustan-style state to have any control over organisations that are probably better armed than his own police force and probably have infiltrated the PLO in many levels, in a matter of two-three years? If I remember correctly there were riots and near civil war the last time Arafat tried to arrest the head of Hamas in Gaza- and he had in jail most of the leadership of the PFLP (Habas's group). Really now, the idea that Arafat is behind the suicide bombings fails miserably on two counts: It is not consistent with his strategic moves for the past 10 years and it strenghthens his opponents (Hamas and Jihad etc.) in Palestine. Not to mention that it is the pinnacle of stupidity to assume that NOW, Arafat can communicate with anyone in Jerusalem or Haifa from a building with no power, water, phone lines, with IDF jamming frequencies and no bloody battery for his cell phone! How does he do it folks? ESP?
BTW I would find it amazing if Arafat hadn't started arming his security forces the moment that Sharon (a war criminal and an Arab hater) was elected to office.
posted by talos at 4:08 AM on April 3, 2002

I think we can all agree at least that the situation in Israel and (dare I say it) Palestine is pretty abominable and that it needs to end soon. With that in mind, the frustrating thing is that Sharon is the one who can stop it, not Arafat, yet he insists on perpetuating the situation demonizing Arafat as he goes.

Sharon's determined continuation of his war (as much against Arafat himself as the Palestinian people), is fuelled by his repeating the word Terrorist over and over and over as he looks up to his US pals for approval.

I'm with Settle on this (think I might be the only one mate ;), only the problem isn't the word but its hijacking by those with no justification of their own.
posted by flimjam at 4:27 AM on April 3, 2002

The point is not whether Arafat is the Arab mafia boss; and not whether he can control the terrorists or not (however much evidence of orchestration there is) The point is that he represents himself to be the leader, and he either has to be able to stop the terrorism, or GET OUT OF THE WAY. He has done neither. So he will be pita toast.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:37 AM on April 3, 2002

he either has to be able to stop the terrorism, or GET OUT OF THE WAY. He has done neither.

So by that logic Sharon has failed as well, not to mention Aznar in Spain with the Basques, or Jospin with the Corsicans.

As for the pita comment:
1. It's nice living on the other side of the world and not caring if a huge war erupts around somebody else's area isn't it?
2. Pita is Greek and we're willing to fight to defend it.
3. Now that is certainly a troll.
posted by talos at 4:58 AM on April 3, 2002

By necessity they use suicide bombers

Who in turn attack grocery stores and coffee shops killing civilians not military members.

A liberated Palestine ? They want more than that. They want a mid-east void of Israel. Hence the war that started in post WWII times when Israel was created.

It seems to me that Israel has only started responding to aggression with aggression after having learned it from their neighbors.

As for the statement that all terrorists would naturally prefer to have real legit armies is total BS. Terrorists by their very nature tend to stick to violent acts against the most defenseless. When is the last time you saw a terrorist attack an armed encampent of soldiers? No, they much prefer the grocery store where all people are packing are their bags to bring home to feed their families.

I have no sympathy for anyone who feels justified in blowing up a grocery store, or pizza parlor or any such target of such an obvious non military nature. Lets not forget the bus loads of people who have taken it in the ass from these losers lately either.
posted by a3matrix at 5:18 AM on April 3, 2002

"The people we call terrorists are indeed terrorists, but for the accepted definition to be made accurate, the word must be used to characterize all such behavior, including our own."

what would you consider "our own" behavior that would fit the definition?

the commonly accepted version i referred to has to include the following conditions [paraphrased]:
intent - purposefully aiming at civilian targets with the express intent of harming civilian targets
means - some form of violence or threatened violence
ends - creating "panic" [terror] within the target civilian population in order to destabilize a secondary target (state, regime, organization, etc.)

Stalin's "purges", for example, qualify, but I can't think of anything the U.S. has done that meets all of those conditions. i can think of plenty of *evil wrongheaded* things we've done, but nothing (off the top of my head, at least) that fits the accepted definition of terrorism.
posted by lizs at 6:34 AM on April 3, 2002

Rare is the day I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan.
posted by revbrian at 6:49 AM on April 3, 2002

revbrian: I am ashamed, by so do I. Great link.
posted by talos at 7:01 AM on April 3, 2002

I can't think of anything the U.S. has done that meets all of those conditions.

in the cowlix links in the other "definitional terrorism" thread caleb carr mentions "that the atomic bombing of Japan in World War II met the definition of state conducted terror."

here's how gerald holton defines it, btw:
There has been an historic transition in which Type I terrorism and Type II terrorism are being combined. Type I terrorism consists of acts by individuals or small groups that aim to impose terror on other individuals and groups, and through them indirectly on their governments. Type II terrorism is the imposition by a government on groups of local or foreign populations. The new type of terrorism -- Type III -- is carried out by a substantially larger group of individuals, is aimed directly at a national population, and has all the components for success. The article deals with how this new terrorism, at very little psychic cost on the perpetrators, disrupts personal and historic memory through large-scale catastrophe organized for that purpose. Type III terrorism is made easier by the ready availability of high-level technology. Target nations will not have open to them the conventional responses, and will have to devise new, preventive measures.
although as a "professor of physics and professor of the history of science" he may not be in the best position to espouse his views :) still, makes you think!
posted by kliuless at 7:09 AM on April 3, 2002

i can think of plenty of *evil wrongheaded* things we've done, but nothing (off the top of my head, at least) that fits the accepted definition of terrorism.

The carpet bombing of North Vietnam.
posted by Ty Webb at 7:52 AM on April 3, 2002

First off, it is refreshing to see that Arafat's PR machine has been so effective. I only wonder how many "intellectuals" would be praising Hitler's unconventional ideas had he simply been driven back to Germany instead of destroyed.

As Bush put it (and I'm paraphrasing), it seems awfully funny that Arafat keeps saying that he can't do anything to stop terrorism while being pinned down in his office complex but he sure has a lot of time to be doing interviews where he fails to order his people to stop the suicide bombings.

Over and over and over again, whenever reporters go in and interview these suicide training centers they all claim they would halt the attacks if Arafat told them to. If you don't think Arafat is the puppetmaster then you need to go back and read up on the guy. I'm not tipping my hat to Sharon either but Arafat is either in control or somebody else is. If he's in control, he should have requested assistance from Israel or the US a long time ago just like Yemen and many other nations on the US list of nations harboring terrorists are now doing. How has Arafat responded? He puts leaders of known terrorist organizations under house arrest with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge. Like I said, I have to agree with Sharon's logic on this one. If you are in control, you have the power to either stop the suicide bombers or make a very public and very exhaustive effort to deal with the problem; or Hamas, Jihad and ?? are in control in which case WTF are we doing negotiating with you for since you can't deliver on anything you agree to?

Also on the thought of terrorism, let's quit trying to let Arafat or whoever off the hook because the US dropped a bomb on Japan 50 years ago. It's a cop-out argument to try and justify the terror of today with events in history that are only weakly related. The bottom line is that if the idea was terrorist simply use suicide bombers because they don't have a strong military, then explain to me why Arafat has 20,000 - 30,000 armed "policemen" (who are actually an army but since Arafat can't officially have an army they call them policeman) and has not sent one of them into battle but hides behind shadowy groups who execute his orders for him? It's not because Palestine doesn't have an army but because it's easier to negotiate when you have a gun to someone's head. This is why it cannot ever be accepted as a form of resistance from any group that can be taken seriously. This is why we don't negotiate with people who hold hostages. If you do it once, it gives the next guy a "well you did it for the last guy who put a gun to the clerk's head" mentality. If you allow Arafat or ?? to use terrorism as a legitimate form of resistance, every group with a gripe will see this and learn that blowing up civilians is the path to your goal.

And to end on the line of thought I started off on, I find it just amazing that someone who questions every single word that comes out of the US government, believes every line of bs spouted out of Arafat or other leaders in that area of the world. I was never so aware of this flat out ability to lie until watching the Taliban news conferences where they would claim to have shot down a US plane and when the reporters would ask to see photos or pieces of wreckage, this was nearly an exact quote "I do not understand the question. The plane was shot down near [whatever the city was]. That was there. We are here. How could I show you something that is there from here?" Of course, if we're playing the "Best of the Taliban Lies Vol I", how can we ever forget the "We will turn Osama over for arrest if the US provides evidence of his involvement in these actions." You need to start pulling your head out of the sand and realize that lying is a way of life and Arafat has been lying to both sides for so long that it's difficult to even tell what the truth is any more.
posted by billman at 8:19 AM on April 3, 2002

talos: even if one believes that Arafat has no connection with or control over Hamas and Islamic Jihad, you must admit that he is closely associated with the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which is openly an offshoot of Fatah -- which is the militant group headed by Arafat, by whose participation in the PLO umbrella group he is chosen chairman. A cynic's view is that he started Al Aqsa for two reasons -- one, to flank the Islamist elements in the Hamas/Islamic Jihad wings, and two, to have a suicide bomb squad that he controlled directly and could use strategically. Some estimates and collations of claims suggest that Al Aqsa is responsible for 70% of bombings and terror attacks in the West Bank since the Second Intifada (the Al Aqsa Intifada, in fact, as Arafat's propaganda names it) began, and in recent months has started bombing within Israel itself, openly crossing a boundary it had previously asserted as a moral claim.

The claim is now made that Al Aqsa can be directly linked to an Arafat lieutenant.
posted by dhartung at 8:36 AM on April 3, 2002

Pita is Greek and we're willing to fight to defend it.

Surely you jest! Pita is Turkish!!! Now we will see a real war begin.
posted by cell divide at 8:53 AM on April 3, 2002

let's quit trying to let Arafat or whoever off the hook because the US dropped a bomb on Japan 50 years ago.

i don't think anyone (me!) was suggesting this. as for implying it... :)

i like what cell divide had to say in response to, How could we possibility criticize Israel for doing precisely what we did ourselves? -- "Because we wouldn't do it today, we wouldn't do it again."

i was just responding to lizs' point that "state terrorism" could not be applied to the US with an example of a difference of opinion or an alternative interpretation, if you will. whether state terrorism applies to israel or not, i dunno, but i think a case can be made for structural violence.
posted by kliuless at 9:01 AM on April 3, 2002

The carpet bombing of North Vietnam.
i don't think that fits the definition i outlined. unless you argue that the sole purpose of carpet bombing North Vietnam was to scare the hell out of the civilians (and that may be the case, but i haven't seen any evidence that it was), it doesn't fit. there were certainly individuals that exhibited reckless disregard for non-combatant immunity, but that doesn't necessarily equal terrorism and there wasn't a macro-level state directive backing them.

Kliuless - holton's definition doesn't really conflict w/ mine. he's categorizing the perpetrator; not the act itself. when i was working on the paper, i started to classify groups in the a similar fashion and realized that it had little to do with the framework of the core discussion, although state morality is different from individual morality, and there are relevant distinctions.

incidentally, i would *agree* with carr's statement that the bombing of Japan could be construed as state terror, although i think at the time U.S. officials severely underestimated the resulting damage - physically and morally. (There's a reason why that weapon hasn't been used since.) Nonetheless, it's probably a valid example. you win :)

i don't think, however, that sort of behavior (and thinking) is generally representative of decision-making in U.S. foreign policy. what the public doesn't see and the media doesn't highlight are the number of lawyers in the target selection room, the hardcore realists that still spend 90% of their time agonizing over how to get the bad guys without hurting innocent people, or the policy analysts faced with no-win situations and forced to pick the lesser evil. bad decisions are sometimes made, but there's no systematic rejection of non-combatant immunity or programatic perpetration of wanton violence.
posted by lizs at 9:20 AM on April 3, 2002

kliuless: Sorry if you took that as applying directly to you but I was using your post as a launching point for a bigger frustration over people who try to equate two events that have little or nothing to do with each other as a justification for terrorism. For instance, both of the examples given in this thread were done during times of war between the two states (ok, Vietnam was not a war -- it was a conflict -- just remember to tell that to the guys who were over there fighting). And, I agree that even then, it was a bad call which hopefully will never be repeated and to date, our military actions have displayed a tendency to avoid similar actions.

The bigger point being is that there is NO justification for terrorism, period. I think the point about abortion clinics is so dead on. While I'm not going to try and create a pro-choice/pro-life debate, based on the arguments of the pro-life camp, abortion is murder. Should they not be justified in blowing up clinics and killing doctors? Why not? Aren't they pissed off too? Have not more abortions been performed than Palestinians been killed by Israel? Obviously, I am not suggesting any of the above to be a legitimate debate because it is absurd. Yet, somehow, people can attempt to apply logic, and even understanding to people walking into civilian areas and blowing people up because they happen to be pissed off.

And worse is you have Arafat and Sharon like two little kids in the back seat of the car playing "I'm not touching you" attempting to provoke reactions from the other side that will sway world opinion to their cause. Both know how the game is played, allow themselves to play into the hands of the other, and then use each other's reactions to justify racheting up the violence another notch.

Although I don't side with Sharon (other than perhaps agreeing with his assesment of Arafat), I do tend to look at Arafat with a more critical eye. Why? Because, if you told Sharon and Arafat, you have 48 hours to work out a deal or we're going to just carpet bomb the entire region and kill every living thing in the area, based on Arafat's past actions and my personal opinion of him, he would let his people die. He counts on the fact that Sharon actually might care about his people, while he couldn't give a crap about his. For him, power is more important than the security and wellbeing of the Palestinian people which is why I find the guy to be such a danger.
posted by billman at 9:52 AM on April 3, 2002

okay :)

i win!

maybe remove the 't'?
statistics: the war on error :)

which suggests a t-statistic :) see, statistical analysis fighting error, SAFE for you!
posted by kliuless at 5:33 AM on April 4, 2002

Late but necessary:
Debunking the "smoking gun" evidence
posted by talos at 7:09 AM on April 5, 2002

« Older A good New Yorker piece   |   Nick Drake Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments