Please pray for either his revcovery or swift and easy end, as he needs our help. And yes, I know who he is, but Jesus commanded us ot lov eour enemies.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20041027/ts_nm/mideast_arafat_dc

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 27, 2004

Answers

aNOTHER LINK.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-27-arafats-health_x.htm? csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 27, 2004.

Sorry Zarove, Arafat is not just an enemy, he's evil in every sense of the word. I could pray for his conversion, but not his recovery. He will likely see the fires of hell very soon.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 27, 2004.

David, I think as Christians our desire should be to do all that we can to help others find God and see heaven. Perhaps a recovery could lead to that for him -- we just don't know. Praying for him is what he needs most, not people predicting he will go to hell (which may happen, but not what we should focus on). I prefer to hope in God's mercy that people may have repented, even if at the last moment.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Gosh, I predict that there’ll be an awful lot more than 123 people die in the next three years Elpidio. Or do only celebrities count as people?

David, Arafat is far from perfect but don’t you think you’re getting just a LITTLE carried away? “evil in every sense of the word”?!? LOL!

Emily, as he has believed in the one true God all his life I don’t think he needs your help to “find God”. Who are you to say that he needs to “repent”? Sure he's done some bad things a few decades ago in the course of his long life, but don't you think the fact he is no longer doing them is evidence he has repented of them?

Zarove, in what sense is he “our enemy”? America’s enemy? When we REALLY needed him he was the one urging his fellow Arabs to support America after 9/11, and even donated his own blood for the victims. Christians’ enemy? He has spent all his adult life putting all his resources into trying to free Palestinian Christians and Muslims. He even married a Christian! Hardly the act of an "enemy"!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 28, 2004.

Steve,

Please do some research into Arafat's personal biography, then come back and let me know what you think before dissing my assertion. I rank Arafat up there with Hitler and Stalin in terms of evil murders. He is actively engaged in killing as many Jews, including women and children, as possible because he believes the Jews should be wiped out as a race. He's directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in Israel. That's what you know of him today, isn't that sufficient? His past is filled with all kinds of atrocities. I repeat, he is evil and I have no sympathy for him.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 28, 2004.

Steve, I did not know much about him or his actions, but was simply responding to how the others had referred to him. If what they say is true, that's how what I said applies. Sorry that was not more clear.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.

Actually, neither the question of whether Arafat is our enemy, nor the question of whether he is evil has any bearing on the original post of this thread. Jesus told us ... "I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous". (Matthew 5:44-45)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 28, 2004.

David, Arafat is far from perfect but don’t you think you’re getting just a LITTLE carried away? “evil in every sense of the word”?!? LOL!

Emily, as he has believed in the one true God all his life I don’t think he needs your help to "find God". Who are you to say that he needs to "repent"? Sure he's done some bad things a few decades ago in the course of his long life, but don't you think the fact he is no longer doing them is evidence he has repented of them?

Steve, perhaps you're right about NCC Dave but aren't YOU now getting a LOT carried away? What in the world are you thinking smacking Emily like that? Arafat doesn't need her prayers? "Who are you to say that he needs to 'repent'?" Get a grip for crying out loud. She didn't even say that, but I guess through your Arafat apologist glasses it looked like she was attacking him. He donated blood for the victims of 9/11? Wow, I didn't know that. What a great guy. I used to think he was a terrorist, and a terrorist sponsor, but now I know that he's just a guy using all his "resources" to "free" Christians and Muslims. Thanks for the 411.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 28, 2004.

lets face it, arafat is niether as bad as the worst we have portrayed him, nor as good as the best he has been portrayed here. has he sponsored terrorism in the past? certainly. Is he currently a major player in seeking to bring peace to the region? likewise yes.

The fact of the matter is this, he is a sinner, just like you, me, and even dave non catholic christian. he needs our prayers for conversion and repentance as much as we need others to pray for us. we should not project that he is going to burn in hell, but hope fervantly for his salvation, as we should hope that all men will be saved.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 28, 2004.

I know; BUT: Love of neighbor has its logical limits. We must pray for our neighbor as if he were one's own self.

But alongside the wheat in this field, the kingdom of God, are evil growths, weeds and thistles. Jesus had the land-owner explain, ''An enemy has done this.'' The weeds cannot become as neighbors to the faithful. They are allowed to stay until Christ comes again. Then they'll be cast into the oven and burnt.

Evil men do live upon the earth; and this one is very evil. He has not been, for instance -- the neighbor of Israeli women & children ANYPLACE. He went to endless troubles to blow them to bits where ever he could. God hates evil; of this there's no question. We are taught in the Holy Bible that in this life reprobate souls will not come to repentence. If wanton killers of God's own can't become reprobate, who is?

They'll die in their sin. If it weren't for this truth, we could rationalize the fate of men like Arafat, and pray for them. But, somehow, sinner that I myself am; I can't believe it will do any good in this case. God forgive me if I'm mistaken.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2004.

But, somehow, sinner that I myself am; I can't believe it will do any good in this case

you arent called to believe that it will make a difference eugene, the chances are indeed slim.

HOWEVER, you ARE called to hope and pray for the man's conversion, as in God all things are possible. Those who recieve the miracles they pray for don't need to believe it probable of coming true, they place their hope in God, as we all should do. I have no doubts that if Mr. Arafat truly repents, even on his death bed, that God could forgive him. Is it a long shot? probably, im not qualified to say. will i hope and pray for it? yes, i pray all the time for the reconciliation of sinners to the church.

Bottom line: if we are celebritory in the death of mr. arafat, then we are no better than the palistinians who celebrated the occurance of september 11th. the death of people who have not repented is never cause for joy, it is cause for sadness, no matter who that person is. as long as mr. arafat is alive, his status as a creation of God demands that we be as hopeful for his salvation as for our own brethren here in the US.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 28, 2004.

"..who are you to say he needs to " repent"?

She is a Christian with common sense! If this evil man don't need to repent than who does?

".Arafat was a murderer from the beginning. He founded Fatah in 1956 and became the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1968. For the next two decades, the PLO launched bloody attacks on Israel, and Arafat gained a reputation as a ruthless terrorist. He did not confine his targets to Israel, however, as he also attacked U.S. and other foreign interests that he saw as supportive of Israel. During his reign of terror in southern Lebanon, Arafat and his PLO murdered as many as 30,000 Lebanese Christians. In 1982, Arafat masterminded the kidnapping and murder of 13 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games. In 1984, he assisted Syria in blowing up 241 U.S. marines in Beirut, Lebanon. In 1985, Arafat oversaw the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of American passenger Leon Klinghoffer.

However, in 1988, Arafat decided to continue his war with Israel under the guise of peace. He told the United Nations that the PLO would recognize Israel as a sovereign state, then in 1993 signed a 7- year peace treaty with Israel. He was awarded the Nobel Prize, but as God said in Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" Events of the past year have proven that Arafat had no intention of making peace. Arafat is the type of person that David spoke of when he said, "My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war (Psalm 120:6-7)."

-- - (David@excite.com), October 28, 2004.

Events of the past year have proven that Arafat had no intention of making peace.

I don't think that this is true though. I think Arafat truly does want peace. But for him peace means a seperate Palestinian State. I also don't believe that he should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

However I do think that it is interesting that no one every condemns Israel for the problems that they cause in this mess. Israel is just as much to blame for the relations with the Palestinians as the Palestinians are to blame for the opposite.

There can never be peace in the Middle East until the West wakes up and starts treating Israel like every other state, instead of a state that is above everything.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 28, 2004.

You're wrong. Israel is only existent by sheer force of arms and determination. They had finally offered surrender of an immense territory and the self- government of Palestine; and Arafat still demanded sovereignty over the holy city of Jerusalem. He KNEW this would not be conceded. Knowing it, he persisted and defeated the peace process. Unilaterally.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2004.

Well, Steve, the line included politicians, actors, newscasters, evangelists, singers, dancers, food gurus,...

If I saw them in Black and white, that's how I saw them. Those I saw only in Black and white were Marlene (1954 movie by Hitchcock), Fay Wray (original King Kong Movie), Maria Antonieta Pons (cuban ballerina, actress in Mexico)....

Some I saw in both: Black and white and color.

Janet Leigh (original Psycho movie)...

Rest in color.

Rest of list here

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.

There's an awful lot of naivte regarding Arafat and what he has done. Please listen to Eugene, David and me when we say he was and STILL IS a mass murderer of the worst kind. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's the one in the Middle East who speaks of peace while waging war - organizing, funding and authorizing terror attacks that have killed thousands over many years and he's STILL AT IT. For those of you who do not recognize this, you are in the same position that so many held regarding Hitler until they uncovered the concentration camps. No one believed someone was capable of such horrors, so much of the world lived in denial ignoring the warnings and truth. Arafat is no better than Hitler, the only difference is circumstances, he simply doesn't have the power to kill every Jew, but he would if he could.

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), October 28, 2004.

Arafat is no better than Hitler

which is all the more reason to follow our christian duty to pray for the reconciliation of ALL sinners, arafat included, to the church. Nobody is saying he's a good guy. what we're asserting is that it is innappropriate to ever give up hope that an unrepentant sinner will convert before they die.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 28, 2004.

You are safely unctuous and beatific, but the admonition's quite useless. It's like Saint John the Baptist praying for the salvation of Herodia's soul. Who, incidentally was an arab.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2004.

I’m sorry that the theory that we have treat everyone as equal despite their race is intolerable to some of the so-called Christians here. Eugene, why don’t you look up Jesus’ answer when asked “Who is my neighbor?” He specifically referred to the non-Jews living in the Holy Land.

I’m not an “apologist” for Arafat, I said straight off, he has done some bad things in the past. Maybe if, like him, you had seen your whole country invaded and taken over, and your whole people exiled or made second class citizens in their own country, maybe you would have resorted to killing people when all other forms of defence had failed.

I wasn’t “smacking” Emily and I understand she was merely responding to the misinformation previously posted. Of course all men need to repent. I just question the arrogant racist assumption that Arafat cannot possibly have already repented.

David (“excite”), if you’re going to quote whole slabs of distorted history, at least have the guts to tell us which ultra-Zionist website you cut and pasted it from.

Arafat’s predecessors in the Palestinian leadership demanded their whole country back and ended up with none of it. After decades of argument with his fellow countrymen Arafat managed to convince most of them to settle for just getting one-third of it back, mostly the least fertile areas. Contrary to the far-right Israeli cant which you quote, Eugene, Israel did not “offer to surrender” anything. They “offered” an insulting broken jigsaw puzzle of Palestinian areas crisscrossed by Israeli territory, an offer they knew no Palestinian could dream of “accepting” as a “final solution”. Far from “immense territory” it was just a group of tiny areas far, far smaller even that the Bantustans of apartheid-era South Africa. As 100% of the Holy Land belonged to the Palestinians just 56 years ago, the Israelis were “surrendering” only a tiny portion of the Palestinian patrimony they had stolen. Even so, Arafat went along with the Israeli “plan” as far as he possibly could without losing the support of the Palestinian people, nearly all of whom regard him as far too tolerant of Israeli oppression.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 28, 2004.

We are equal. Steve. But all of us don't mix hatred of Jews with worship of Allah. This is something you shouldn't downplay.

I wouldn't discriminate against an arab on civil grounds or with regard to his rights. But the ones we're discussing are simply animalistic. The motives for their hatred and iniquity have been equated to Islamic ''truths''. That's an evil sham. The Jews at their very worst and most acquisitive haven't involved God in their crimes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2004.

It's like Saint John the Baptist praying for the salvation of Herodia's soul. Who, incidentally was an arab.

maybe, but i was thinking more along the lines of it being like Jesus praying for caiaphus to be forgiven. who, incidentally was crucifying Him at the time.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 28, 2004.

Eugene, you don’t seem to have any problem mixing YOUR hatred of Arafat and other “animalistic” Arabs with your worship of Allah.

“The Jews at their very worst and most acquisitive haven't involved God in their crimes.” Obviously you’ve never encountered any of the right-wing religious Zionists who have increasingly called the shots in Israel (and often in the US) in recent years.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 28, 2004.

Hey Steve dont sacre off the girls theyre few and far between here! OTM as usual re Paelstine State plans. Eugene is well aware of this farce, he just repeatedly puts his head in the sand and cries "say it aint so".We had an indentical discussion on this forum many years ago. Can't teach an old dog new tricks though.... or can you? The old warrior Sharon has certainly surprised most taking the lead on Jewish settlements, there may be hope yet for dear old Uncle Eugene. With Pakistan talking concessions in Kashmair with India, very interesting times.

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2004.

No spell check on this computer and look what happens to me, Im a slave to a machine :)

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2004.

..I feel ashamed on the behalf of my faith when I read such statements as "I will not pray for his recovery" or like the american state not even doing the same for Castro. Feel free to call this people "evel"..but watch your step in front of God..you are not the one titled to judge.. As a Catholic living among muslem people I do clearly see that they do know our faith much more then a chriatian know about Islam and the average muslem are much more brode minded then my friends in church.. God Bless you all..

-- Arild (vorse49@yahoo.co.uk), October 29, 2004.

The Catholic Church does not need any more broad minded people. That is one cause of our problems. Speaking about Muslims, I a;lso live among them. Some are nice, some not but when you go into a muslim grocery, more likely than no theywill not say thank you.

As for prayin for the converson of Arafat, of course we can do that, but what we cannot do, (except conditionally), is to pray for anyone who dies outside the Catholic faith. That applies to protestants, jews, muslims, etc. It is a teaching of ex cathedra, (cantate domino)

-- Bucky (Zoo@if.com), October 29, 2004.

All prayers for the dead are "conditional". We don't know for certain that any specific deceased person, Catholic or non-Catholic, is saved, except for canonized saints. And we don't know for certain that any specific deceased person is damned. Therefore any time we pray for the soul of a deceased person, Catholic or otherwise, it is understood that we are praying for that person's timely entrance into heaven IF in fact that person is eligible for salvation.

The Church teaches that Catholics can be saved IF they meet certain basic requirements for salvation. The Church also teaches that non-Catholics can be saved IF they meet certain basic requirements for salvation. Therefore there should be no difference in our prayers for the deceased, whether they are Catholic or not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 29, 2004.

I wasn’t "smacking" Emily and I understand she was merely responding to the misinformation previously posted. Of course all men need to repent. I just question the arrogant racist assumption that Arafat cannot possibly have already repented.

You're really a piece of work Steve. Arrogant racist assumption? I know in your world everyone is racist (except Arafat perhaps), but I don't see any racism in the posts above yours, least not of all Emily's. So do us a favor and put your race card back where you found it.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 29, 2004.

"..I just question the arrogant racist assumptiom..."

This is the "spin doctor" doing what he does best. Steve you have to cry " racism" when there is none.

I think its safe to say that Emily doesn't have a "racist" bone in her body.

Sure Steve make all the excuses you want for this sick killer just like you did for "T"'s sexual abuser.

-- - (David@excite.com), October 29, 2004.

Hey there, Kiwi! I'm going to be in Adelaide this November; and flying to Sydney a few days as well. It mot be nice to meet up, Mate. Unfortunately, right now my email's unable to send my outgoing messages. But you can contact me at the above. Just for a clue.

Oh, yeah. Well. It's clearly wrong to write off anybody while they're still living, even an Arafat. I'd certainly thank God if He were somehow to save the killer's immortal soul. My comments weren't meant to judge as to his salvation. God has a big job there, if He's going to do the impossible. But He could, we know. I just hope He'll save ME in the bargain. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2004.

Hi Gene, great to hear from you again you sound like youre in great health and spirits! Youll love Adelaide and Sydney!

Ive never been to Adelaide myself but it sounds wonderful- the City of Churches, been to Sydney, I was young - mind boggling beautiful women and beaches, mainly indulging in activities less than holy, dens of iniquity and all that but it must be said, great fun. If I drank like that today I would be crook for a month.

I would love to meet up with you but I think we will just miss each other, Im back to work on the 3rd Nov but if you get out to Kalgoorlie WA let me know as I sometimes get back to town, otherwise its all real outback stuff, caravans and tents . You would love the churches though in Western AUstralia- early 1900's SPanish DOminican style, very traditional, gorgeous I wish we could still post pictures on the forum . I fly back to NZ through SYdney around 15 Dec but Im guessing youll be long gone?

Stay well Gene

Courtenay

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2004.

'Fraid so; We leave on Nov 16, stay in Adelaide to 24 Nov, on to Sidney, and coming back weekend after our Thanksgiving. My birthday's the 22nd, Saint Cecilia's feast day. Maybe I'll bump into Kiri Te Kanawa. Yvonne Goolagong, or a great white shark? Tell me what to order from the menu in Sidney; an Aussie delicacy? Haha! Roo tail and pickeled kelp? Si, --

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 30, 2004.

I don't like Arafat. Never have, and everything at an emotional level tells me "good we're well rid of him." THat being said, Zarove raised a good point and as a Catholic, as hard as it would be for me personally to pray for this man, I think Zarove is right.

Its in our teaching, and nothing bad comes from true prayer with correct intention. Its not always easy to do the right thing. If I understand anything behind the teaching about loving our enemy, then this might be where we find this (more than difficult to follow) instruction.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 30, 2004.

Ha ha yes Kangaroo steak is fairly common and cheap, dont know about the tail though, a delicacy you say- crocidile maybe?? .

SYdney dinning?-Hmmm Im not the person to ask really, fine dinning isnt my strength, but Dad raves about Doyles. ENjoy!

http://www.bestrestaurants.com.au/booking/select_rest.asp?Rest_ID=466

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2004.

OK, thanks; Doyle's in Sydney. I'll definitely be there. Don't forget to pray for Arafat. Back in the 70's a goofy leftist priest in San Diego (Later quit the priesthood & married a goofy leftist nun) raised his arms to heaven during his homily and called on us to pray for the repose of the soul of: Ho Chi Minh. This Arafat talk brings that to mind.

To some folks the saying ought to be, ''Prayer is cheap.'' But somehow I feel true prayer means you take God seriously. Not just as a great big fool up in heaven.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2004.

“Steve you have to cry " racism" when there is none. I think its safe to say that Emily doesn't have a "racist" bone in her body. Sure Steve make all the excuses you want for this sick killer just like you did for "T"'s sexual abuser.”

David you know very well I made no excuses for T’s abuser. You had accused me of making excuses for T’s action in not reporting the abuse (which I didn’t do either) many years before he even met me. I repeat I made no accusations against Emily, certainly not of racism. But you and Brian try to tell me the racism is all in my mind when I see abuse such as “animalistic” directed at Arabs merely because they don’t want to be second class citizens in their own country - ! It was Eugene (as usual) who played the “race card” with his arrogantly dismissive attitudes to Palestinians and all Arabs, not just Arafat, and his snide reference to Herodia’s race.

I wonder if you guys have prayed for the former terrorist, later Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin?

Bucky, saying please and thank you is a purely cultural thing. In Russia Christian people in shops rarely say please and thank you. That doesn’t mean they’re evil.

“To some folks the saying ought to be, ''Prayer is cheap.'' But somehow I feel true prayer means you take God seriously. Not just as a great big fool up in heaven.” Well said Eugene. God doesn’t want US to tell HIM who’s good and who’s evil.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 31, 2004.

I appreciate your frank opinion. I say let God judge who pleases and displeases Him. It was always that way. If I muse on the liberal tendencies of some well- meaning Catholics it's only when they prescribe mercy and forgiveness for godless fiends, with no thought to God's infinite wisdom and justice. As if Almighty God was constrained somehow to allowing them more slack than for repentent sinners. He isn't.

Judgment is God's. It can work out both ways. We have to recall what Christ said about this: ''As you sow so shall you reap.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 31, 2004.

Yes Eugene. But where you are mistaken is in implying that Arafat is one of the "Godless fiends". When he could have lived in comfort and luxury like most Arab rulers, he chose to devote all his earnings, all his energy and all his time to the welfare of his people, and to live with them in their suffering. He has worshipped the compassionate and merciful God all his life, and we have no grounds for presuming that God will not show compassion and mercy to him.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 01, 2004.

How did you discover that marvel of grace God lavishes on muslims; martyrs for Allah; destroying buses and schoolyards out of brotherly love? A great man like Arafat, dedicated to the eradication of Israel even if it takes forever; who is this true believer?

Would you care to buy a used flying carpet? I can get it for you cheap, Steve. It belonged to a little old lady who who slices off clitorises of preadolescent girls with a sharp glass; following the prophet's command. How devoted these wonderful servants of Allah are. Did I tell you how much they love Christians? OK. Some other time, I'm sorry. Good-by, Steve. Ciao & keep praying for Yasser.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 01, 2004.

Here's a new example of muslim piety for your scrap-book, Steve. It took place Tuesday in the Netherlands. I'm not trying to change your mind, my friend. I'm telling you there's much work to be done, before the darkness closes on us all.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041102/D863NRS80.html

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 02, 2004.

A pause in a persons life, especially an occaision of near mortality, can lead to a re-consideration of ones life. We could pray for a change of heart. It is a both a possiblity and a good thing to have happen.

It is better that your enimies become your friends than that they die. It is just that killing is so much easier and simpler.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 02, 2004.

Eugene, no matter how much you deny the facts I have stated above, they do not cease to exist. If you had the slightest evidence to disprove them, you would have produced it by now, but you can't; so instead you pump out sordid stories and blatant propaganda.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 03, 2004.

Let's see . . . facts. Oh?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 03, 2004.

Our ability to pray for our enemies gives us a leg up as far as I can see. And it breaks no rules for being a Catholic. It can be distastful to do and I find it so in Arafat's case but I still think the instruction is there. I don't think we have to be real specific. i.e. we don't pray he suffers or dies or goes to hell.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), November 03, 2004.

G’day Eugene, if you would like to meet up with me in Sydney (maybe at Doyle’s? Sydney has probably the best range of fresh seafood in the world), please email me. I know we’ve had our differences but I would be interested to meet you. Looking back over my posts, I apologise for the nasty things I said about you. I still disagree with you about the same things but I was extremely uncharitable the way I spoke to you. Please forgive me, I just plead the heat of the argument. You will find Sydney is a beautiful city and we actually do like Americans.

Kiwi, there are quite a lot of practising Catholics in Aus. But it’s true most Australians keep their religion well hidden. I’d like to meet you too next time you’re in Sydney.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), November 04, 2004.

I need a day or two to get my email working properly; I can't receive-- only send. Yes; it would be very pleasant. Nothing we've differed about here would take away from a casual and friendly meeting together. Let me get to you around this weekend, Peter. Thanks for your kind offer.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2004.

For Steve and all Arafat's supporters Along those thirty years, UN, USA, EU etcetera gave a lot of money to Palestinians for their difficult situation, but this money made rich Arafat instead! He gave only a tiny part to his people. The rest was for terrorism and for his bank account (now legacy for his wife). Lady Arafat took 100,000 (one hundreds thousands) dollars per month for her necessity living in Paris. This money belonged to Palestinians. They lived in tents, among the sand and stones, becoming martyrs for liberation that Arafat did his best to avoid. That’s why the peace with Israel would stop his huge power and terrific income. This really means to steal, dear Steve, don’t be blind. He stole the money, the soul and the faith of his people. ARAFAT WAS NOT ONLY A TERRORIST. HE WAS A TRAITOR AND PALESTINIANS’ BIGGEST ENEMY! Allah will punish him as well he deserves.

-- Angela Rossi (Angelarossialba@hotmail.com), November 10, 2004.

You’re strong on propaganda Angela but your claims are in direct contradiction to the facts. I'm not Arafat's "supporter", I'm just refuting the fanatical lies posted about him.

"The USA gave a lot of money to the Palestinians"? LOL! The US has never given a cent to the Palestinians but on the contrary has spent the lions share of its so-called “foreign aid” in arming to the teeth Israel, an already rich country, to allow it to continue to oppress and kill Palestinians.

Arafat’s young son has leukemia. He has no hope of getting effective treatment in the Holy Land, thanks to Israel’s oppression, which the US has backed to the hilt. So Mrs Arafat took him for treatment in Paris where she has family ties. President Arafat chose to remain living in a virtual hovel in Ramallah among his people rather than flee to Paris with his family. It is only by the compassion and mercy of Allah that Arafat has narrowly avoided becoming a “martyr for liberation” dozens of times. He didn’t run away.

Why don’t you read what the Catholic leaders in the Holy Land say about Arafat’s apparently imminent demise? They fear that after he’s gone, the Palestinians will say his moderate and tolerant policies towards Israel failed, and extremists will take over the leadership.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 10, 2004.

"..why don't you read what Catholic readers in the holy Land say......."

Sure Steve we'll read what ever opinion that suits you? Is the Catholic opinion different when you want it?

Maybe you should learn how the Church operates? It doesn't matter what land we are in?

-- - (David@excite.com), November 10, 2004.

Arafat has always been a killer of innocent people. You may attempt a whitewash, Steve, but it can't be done. He ranks right there with Herod who slaughtered the infants when the Holy Family fled into Egypt. Just as ruthless and just as guilty of wholesale murder.

And Ms Rossi is correct about his stolen wealth. It may be as much as 1.5 billion dollars, siphoned off the funds meant to aid the Palestinean people. Nobody knows how much. It might well be one reason announcement of his death is late in coming. The buzzards are trying furiously to discover where his bank accounts are concealed. --His wife alone, in France-- is holding more than 60 million which he left in her possession.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2004.

The US has never given a cent to the Palestinians

Steve,

How can you be so wrong so often. It's like a curse. US aid to Palestinians is in the billions. And you have the nerve to "LOL" to the contrary. Your errors are piling up like firewood.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 10, 2004.

in one very serious way, steve is right. the US military is looking very carefully at the possible outcomes of the power vacuum which is going to emerge when arafat dies.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 10, 2004.

He did die. Just saw it on the news.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 10, 2004.

Here's an article from the Boston Globe this morning that I think finally says what I feel about this situation.

The link --> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/ 11/11/arafat_the_monster?mode=PF

And a few snippets:

Arafat the monster By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | November 11, 2004

"YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

. . ."

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), November 11, 2004.

i pray for you david, that you will learn to love your enemies and hope for their salvation as Jesus commanded, instead of condemning them to hell. i think you're a great guy, but this is a character flaw...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 11, 2004.

Listen please, paul:
Our friend is crediting the words to their author, Jeff Jacoby. Harsh words we see; but not so hard to understand.

Let David exercise his freedom. If we can put up here with jerks who demonize our President, we can allow David some space.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2004.

AH, i see, my appologies david, on my misunderstanding.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 11, 2004.

Thanks Eugene and Paul. I appreciate the latitude. Just needed to get that off my chest. I probably wouldn't have as much a problem feeling sympathetic toward Arafat if the world wasn't so quick to pretend that he's some sort of honorable hero, ignoring the atrocities he's committed and ignoring the fact that he's the modern pioneer of terror diplomacy, a philosophy that eventually launched the 9/11 attacks.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), November 11, 2004.

Death..the great Equalizer..

To put the news of Arafat's life and death in a different perspective, it is as if Osama Ben Laden 20 years from now would be welcomed into the United Nations with a semi-automatic weapon slung over his shoulder, patted on the back by various Heads of State and declared by Time Magazine to be it's "Man of the Year" because he had announced his mission as "Peace in the Middle East." Folks who had barely reached puberty in 2001 wouldn't have a clue why many others would be jumping up and down crying "NO NO NO !!!!" As the world watched, Ben Laden would publically decry continued terrorism while shrugging his shoulders and saying "What can I do?" "I am a man of peace." Pray for him? Of course. Do we only pray for those who are on the path of goodness and righteousness? My goodness. We are ALL sinners, every last one of us. Some of us are in the public eye every day and have our sins seen by millions..most have our sins seen only by God. Is there any human being UNWORTHY of prayer? How arrogant to think so. I may not like a certain individual..I may condemn their behavior, yet I will willingly and lovingly pray for them, as one sinner for another.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

The death of evildoers is an occasion for us to examine our own consciences, no doubt. Insofar as we are not sinless, and hope to be forgiven, a fleeting petition for Arafat's eventual salvation has value in God's sight. It's much preferrable to the spite and condemnation some are venting as they send him off to hell. God forbid, and yes, let's be ready now to forgive.

He was certainly an evildoer. Not very heroic, in fact; all his works were crude and surreptitious. The blood of his countless victims has to cry out of the ground to God in heaven. Nevertheless, we should ask mercy for the sinner; as in the Rosary ''--Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are in most need of your mercy.'' That covers even terrorists and fiends.

Those events right now most offensive to me are the sight of so many people praising Arafat and mourning his loss. He doesn't deserve any adulation on earth. The world seems already better off without his feet standing on it. Just cover him with dirt and get it over with.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2004.

Yes, by all means we must pray for all people - especially those most in need of conversion. The trouble is "to pray for you" has been converted into a sign of approval or affection in most colloquial speech... thus people take umbrage when they hear of Catholics "praying for" Bin Laden or Clinton or Hillary.

Yet that isn't the point of "praying for you". Sure we can pray for protection on some king or president and thus show our affection, but there are also prayers for grace and changes of heart - St Paul with King Agrippa in Acts comes to mind.

King Agrippa wasn't a great guy - he did his own sins and problems, but Paul evangelized him none the less.

We must learn what it means to love our enemies - to truly seek their good in time and eternity. Some people think that to fight terrorism means we ought to hunt every last mother's son of them down and kill them. Not so. That's not even the US Marine Corps modus operandi - we take prisoners and lots of em! And many are subsequently released.

But more than that... we try to convert or at least pacify those who were once buffaloed into hating us! The dear Japanese people come to mind - they were willing to fight to the last man - (or woman and child if Okinawa is included), but by 1946 all but the few die-hards were happily co-existing with their American occupiers and praising Gen. MacArthur.

This was in large part because after the bloodshed the negotiations treated them with respect and honor - precisely as we have dealt with the Afghanis and Iraqis - respect and honor. That moves people - as does the decent AMERICAN GI's sense of fairness, humanitarian support and charity.

Defending one self with deadly force is only the last resort to mayhem. Most of the time what is required is negotiation, dialogue, conversation and conversion - at least from murderous rage to respectful antagonism.

I don't know any "conservative" who wishes the Palestinian people misery, suffering, and death. Indeed lots of us wonder why the Muslim countries who claim to support them so much don't treat them very nicely (indeed they treat them savagely) in their own countries. And like the Iraqis who expected the Americans to be baby-eaters but found that we actually love babies (most Soldiers are pro-life), changed their views, I hope that the PA people will also change their tune and find peace, at last.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

David (excite) for someone who pretends to be more Catholic than the Pope, your attitude is disgusting. The Catholic bishops in the Holy Land have endured more hardship for their faith than you could ever dream of, and they HAVE still remained true to Catholic teaching. Their opinions are not for sale. That is NOT “how the Church operates”.

Brian, maybe you have some evidence that the USA at one time (probably under Clinton) gave some small amount of money to “the Palestinians”(no doubt with heavy strings attached). I’m absolutely certain it was nothing like “billions”. In any case any such amount is absolutely negligible compared to the exponential billions upon billions which the USA CONTINUES to spend on hi-tech arms for Israel for the express purpose of killing Palestinians.

I did make one error though. The Arafat child is actually a girl. Sorry Brian, you haven’t even got enough “firewood” to re-warm a coffeepot.

Maybe one day those who plug their ears and insist that the Palestinians are baby-eaters, will realize every man is a mixture of good and evil.

Yasser Arafat, requiescat in pace. De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 11, 2004.

It's you whose attitude is disgusting today, Steve. You totally forgot how to present any case fairly. Just for instance your morbid squealing: ''any such amount is absolutely negligible compared to the exponential billions upon billions which the USA CONTINUES to spend on hi-tech arms for Israel for the express purpose of killing Palestinians.''

Absolutely; exponential; express; billions UPON--- billions! Where did you go to school, Darth? The university of Mars?

Israel is armed for self-defense; for survival. She is totally surrounded by hordes of fanatics who have only one intention. To eradicate the population of Israel, every living Jew. If not for her advantage in modern weaponry Israel would not even exist anymore.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2004.

I’m absolutely certain it was nothing like "billions".

Steve, The US Agency for International Development alone has contributed 1.3 billion to Palestinians since '93. USaid to Palestinians

And the State Department gives more earmarked money to Palestinians through the UN Relief Works Agency.

(no doubt with heavy strings attached)

Well depends on what your definition of "heavy" is. Apparently Palestinian groups think a pledge not to support terrorism is too heavy a price to pay for aid. Palestinians refuse aid

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 11, 2004.

22 millions of dollars per year to Suha Arafat!!! Arafat’s personal treasure is estimated in 4 billions dollars in various bank accounts in Tel Aviv, London and Zurich. Palestinian organization is in deficit instead because he destined to it a very small amount of what he took. Steve, you are wrong. Do you read the news or watch television? No, I suppose. For example, you talk about an Arafat’s son with leukemia, but he has only a daughter and in good health. In occasion of Oslo’s agreements (’93), Clinton paid some hundreds millions of dollars on Arafat’s personal account (CNN). Those are the last known. He was able to internationalize the Palestinians problem, he was smart indeed. However, he lacked the moral stature or superior spirit of G. Washington or C. Cavour (the Italian State maker). He had kind of delirious megalomania (he believed himself immortal) to which he sacrificed his people’s destiny. He loved to have them ready to die at his command. Now you can understand why, along these decades, was impossible to make peace or replace him. He had in his hands the money of all Palestinian administration and every decision had to be approved by him or no money would be done. Some years ago, the UN decided to build houses for the Palestinian refuges, to relieve them to live in the sandy desert, but Arafat refused saying that his people must continue to live there, continuing to hate the Jews, to suffer and to die. Ignorance and poverty are good supporters of tyrants, how could he renounce them! UN and EU have a great responsibility making their donations and trusting this man only, without see back any substantial improvement all these years long. Arafat pretended to accept the Oslo agreements, but secretly continued to support and to encourage Hamas’s terrorism. After such agreements in fact the terrorist attacks against Israel increased dramatically and nobody could understand why. In spite the world’s efforts, no solution was reached in more than 40 years and this is a very long time to resolve territorial problems in our age. Of course, many actors in this drama must be blamed (the Cold war and Soviet Union’s support to Middle East terrorism, for example), but he is the most personage, and after 1990 is difficult to find a reason out of the precise willing of this man. Because his enormous power over Palestinians, if he wished to stop violence and war, the peace would be affordable. He was thirsty of power, an absolute tyrant as Louis XIV or kind of. As him, he liked to think “the State is me”. Never mind if his people came thorough sufferings and suicide for years. He corrupted their souls and turning them in innocents’ killers. What a monster!

-- Angela Rossi (Angelarossialba@hotmail.com), November 12, 2004.

Steve,

I see you putting another "spin" on something when you were refuted by Brian.

How about ok Brian I was wrong and you are correct instead of ya BUT that was Clinton....etc....... This is so unbecoming of you for the upteenth time.

And I don't pretend to be just as much of a Catholic as the Pope. I know I am just as much of a Catholic as the Pope! I know the holy Father is a very holy man unlike myself.

Can you explain to me how one is more of a Catholic than another?? You either are, or you are not. There are no inbetweens friend like you try to make out for excomunicated John Kerry.

Your latest hero Yassser Arafat was a murdering dictator and uless he repented went straight to hell.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 12, 2004.

David:
Steve may suggest Arafat is heroic in a way; but I never thought he was Steve's hero. Steve never said so. He just leans over backward so extremely to include Yasser among the saved that he's about to hit the ground. In fact, he thinks we can pray Yasser into heaven. Just like the strange priest (a hippy) back in the 70's who prayed for Ho Chi Minh when his daeth was announced. A man who murdered millions of innocent people!

Prayer is cheap, to men like Steve. They spread it around freely, like confetti. They think this pleases God, because He said love your enemies. Steve doesn't care if God said ''As you sow, so shall you reap.'' Arafat sowed destruction. That's ALL he ever sowed. But, we hope God has mercy on him anyway. It doesn't cost us much.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2004.

Arafat is a murderer and dictator,he is using the Islam to manipulate his own people;he never did anything good for the Palestinians,not even to speak about the Jews

Zarove,wouldn't it be better that you posted something more in the way of 'lets pray for a peacefull solution and for the end of this terrible war' or 'lets pray for the families and friends who lost somebody in this war that God gives them strenght and courage' instead of this...

-- Superjew (...@....com), November 13, 2004.

Eugene, why don’t you buy a dictionary. "Absolutely, exponential, express, and billions" are perfectly good English (not Martian) words and I used them in their correct sense.

You describe people who invade a country, drive out or force into subservience the original inhabitants, and unleash devastating weapons on them every time they step out of line, as acting purely in “self-defence”. If it wasn’t so tragic you would be very funny. It reminds me of Napoleon solemnly claiming in his memoirs that all his wars were "defensive".

Brian, as I recall Clinton was in power in ’93. I also seem to recall you were one of those arguing that we should give NO money to the UN, but quit it and have nothing to do with it. Now you’re praising us for contributing to it.

Angela, you are wrong. Do you read my posts before unleashing your torrent of propaganda? No, I suppose. For example, you complain I spoke of Arafat’s son when I already corrected myself that his child is a daughter. I treat with all the respect it deserves, the US commercial TV report claiming that Clinton paid hundreds of millions into Arafat’s personal account.

You say Arafat “lacked the moral stature or superior spirit of G. Washington” (who murdered in cold blood a whole company of French troops who came in peace when there wasn’t even a war on) "or C. Cavour" (the “noble” plutocrat patronized by Napoleon, who oppressed the Church, insulted the Pope and stole nearly all of their property, getting French help to do so in return for giving the French the Italian provinces of Nice and Savoy, which were not his to give).

“he believed himself immortal” – You obviously don’t know the the first thing about Muslims' beliefs. They don’t even think Mohammad was immortal.

“He was thirsty of power, an absolute tyrant as Louis XIV”. I don’t recall Louis XIV or any other tyrant getting 87% of the vote in a UN-supervised popular election.

“In spite the world’s efforts, no solution was reached in more than 40 years and this is a very long time to resolve territorial problems in our age. Of course, many actors in this drama must be blamed (the Cold war and Soviet Union’s support to Middle East terrorism, for example), but he is the most personage”. Yes of course it’s Arafat’s fault, no blame can be attached to those who invaded and brutally occupied his country purely on the pretext that some of their ancestors may have lived there a hundred generations ago. Nor to the mega-rich superpower which CONTINUES to bankroll their oppression with a blank cheque, while claiming it can't afford any real contribution to peace, and quibbles about its dues to the UN because of minor faults in the UN's programs.

David, “more Catholic than the Pope” is a common expression for those like you who adopts extreme fundamentalist positions (such as “Arafat is going to hell”, “Kerry and anyone who voted for him is automatically excommunicated and going to hell”) which are not endorsed by the Church.

Eugene, I’m sorry if I offend you by praying too much for too many people, even those you consider unworthy of being prayed for. That doesn’t make my prayer cheap. No, it comes at a cost, part of which is the abuse I get from you for mentioning it.

"Superjew" your opinions don't make you "superior" to any other Jew. Many Jews are sincerely working for peace with the Palestinians and have rejected the Old Testament idea of genocide against non-Jewish people. They have learned a lesson from the terrible Holocaust visited on them by the Nazis, unlike those who use it as an excuse to violently oppress another people totally unrelated to the Germans.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 14, 2004.

Steve,

You may have noticed my "non-Catholic Christian" signature. I'm not "more Catholic than the Pope". I'm not Catholic, so don't paint Catholics with my viewpoint.

And while you may disagree with it, and the Catholic Church may officially disagree with it, it's certainly not extreme. Scripture clearly says that murderers can not inherit the kingdom of God. There, of course, could be deathbed repentence in which he repented and turned to Jesus for atonement, but I view that as a 0% chance, thus my conclusions. So my extremism isn't as foolish as yours, to assume that God would allow an unrepentent mass murderer into Heaven. At least my extremism aligns with scripture, a position I'm quite comfortable with. Your extremism, however, is just your own folly.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), November 15, 2004.

Ok everyone, please let's just cool it. The thread is about prayer for a deceased soul who is either in purgatory or hell. If he's in hell, no sense in praying for him...but we don't know for sure that he didn't some how make peace with God in the end.

Steve, please don't presume to know for sure that Arafat was a saint or good man when proof abounds that he was not a nice guy. The rest of us should be careful not to presume him damned just because he wasn't a good guy (or because he was a notorious thug).

As Catholics we all learned that God can visit anyone at any time with the grace of repentance and mercy. So while we hope for the best and pray for his soul we aren't praising his actions or life.

To "pray for" someone isn't the same thing as being in favor of all they do, say, or think.

Every power and people involved in the middle east has blood on its hands - the US and USSR, the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Muslims in general and the EU, the UN and the non-aligned nations such as the Chinese or Yugos. "Where the dead body is, there the vultures will gather." to quote our Lord.

But what some (Steve I presume) try to do is place most blame on "our" side as though we Americans are so supremely important and powerful that peace would break out if only we spent money (as bribes perhaps?) or put more attention into the issue.

The problem is, our involvement up to now has not reduced the free will of all the other actors - and they have their hatreds and ambitions and irrational urges and internal squabbles just as we do here at home. When looking at the huge differences between the Clinton and Bush administrations we can't presume that the Syrians or Jordanians or Iranians are any different. Decades and different kings really affect sweeping changes in policy and proceedure. The "situation" may not improve for the better until a whole new generation takes the reins of power in all the nations involved.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.

Brian, as I recall Clinton was in power in ’93. I also seem to recall you were one of those arguing that we should give NO money to the UN, but quit it and have nothing to do with it. Now you’re praising us for contributing to it.

Steve,

I've not made any statement pro or con about aid to Palestinians--go ahead and check. I have merely corrected your errors about US aid, not once but twice.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 15, 2004.

David NCC, my remarks were directed at David Excite, not you. I certainly don’t “assume that God would allow an unrepentent mass murderer into Heaven.” He most certainly would not. I was merely pointing out that Arafat is not an unrepentant mass murderer.

Joe, you say “cool it”, then you make inflammatory statements like “you presume to know for sure that Arafat was a saint”. I certainly do not. Arafat was certainly no saint as I have repeatedly made clear. But some here refuse to tolerate ANYTHING positive being said about him. Nor do I seek to place “most” blame on the USA for the tragic situation in the Middle East. I was merely refuting the idea that Arafat was principally to blame.

Brian I apologize for my false assumption about your argument.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 15, 2004.

Dear Steve:

''I was merely pointing out that Arafat is not an unrepentant mass murderer.'' You speak now for God?

Unrepentent is for God to decide. Arafat definitely murdered a raft of innocent people in his lifetime. That's not disputable, and God wouldn't begin to dispute it. Herod himself was innocent, if Arafat is.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2004.

Steve,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but even more sorry to see that you appear to be the only one who denies that Arafat is indeed a mass murderer and by all accounts, never repented. Even his advocates acknowledge his direct involvement in planning, funding and authorizing countless murders over decades.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), November 16, 2004.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth Steve. What are you trying to say? Arafat is not a saint, not a good man, did kill lots of people, but isn't to blame for all the PA bloodshed?

Let's see...who started the Intifada #1 and #2? The IDF? Nope. OK, lets roll back to the 1980's...who was launching all those rockets into northern Israel (not "occupied territory")? Before that, who was responsible for terror attacks in Germany?

The IDF has been reactionary - they reacted in 1948, 1953, 1967, 1973, and 1982. In only one case (1980) did the Israelis launch an unprovoked, pre-emptive strive: blowing up the French built Nuclear reactor in Iraq.

They have proven themselves to be worthly partners in peace with the Egyptians and Jordanians. They have a tentative peace with Syria and Lebanon. They aren't routinely bombing outside their borders or specifically targetting civilians.

In all this then, the only player who has consistently stirred up trouble has been the PA party, Arafat in charge, flush with funds and guns.

I don't think you can deny the time line or details of who started what. You may want to think or spin it as Israel always bad, PA always innocent victim, but the facts don't play out that way.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 16, 2004.

steve,

i argued for praying for arafat, so you know that i am neutral in this... but honestly, when i die, i hope that everyone will spend less time defending me than you are, and more time praying for me, because the latter is what i will need more than any innocence i have proven.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 17, 2004.

“Arafat definitely murdered a raft of innocent people in his lifetime. That's not disputable, and God wouldn't begin to dispute it.” (Eugene) You speak now for God?

Paul h, you’re right, but the only reason I am “defending” Arafat is to refute the claims that he cannot be prayed for because he is too evil. I don’t know how many times and in how many ways I have to say this before people will understand; but Arafat was a mix of good and evil, neither devil nor saint, in other words, A MAN. There is no evidence that he ever murdered anybody (much less “murdered a raft of innocent people”) nor told anyone else to murder. He was, at least in theory, CEO of an organization of which certain splinter groups targeted unarmed people (albeit people who had invaded, made war on and settled in the Palestinians’ native land). He has proved a poor administrator (though severely hampered by the conditions Israel placed him under)and has marginalized Christians in the Holy Land (albeit not to the extreme extent to which Israel has done so). But for the past two decades he has made huge efforts and concessions, in the teeth of fanatical opposition from his own countrymen and unbridled hostility and aggression from many in Israel and elsewhere, to bring peace to the Holy Land. If not for the murder of Yitzhak Rabin he may well have achieved it before his death. If that doesn’t demonstrate repentance I don’t know what does.

Joe, I agree the IDF has been “reactionary”, but I think you mean “reactive”. Every violent action the Palestinians have taken has been “reactive” to the violent invasion of their native land. The whole of Israel is “occupied territory”. Arafat, against all the odds, convinced the bulk of his countrymen to recognize Israel, give up their right to restitution of the land occupied by “Israel proper” and settle for less than a third of their homeland – something for which some here give him no credit at all. The first intifada was launched by youths throwing stones at tanks when Arafat was in exile in Tunisia. No doubt the IDF had to "react" by killing them and bulldozing their houses to teach them a lesson. The second intifada was started by the war criminal Sharon (who has consistently stirred up trouble) deliberately provoking violent reaction with a mocking display of Jewish military might and religious ceremony on Islam's holiest site in the Holy Land, just when it had seemed peace might be possible.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 17, 2004.

And no, Joe, I have never claimed Israel is “always bad” or the PA “always innocent”. It seems the loudest voices on this site can see only in absolutes. They think everyone is either totally good or totally evil. A few months ago, on the death of another highly controversial national leader, anyone who attempted to post any comment that declared him anything less than a saint, was promptly deleted for being “insensitive” and “disrespectful”. It seems with Arafat the opposite applies; regardless of the dictum "speak no evil of the dead" I get hounded just for suggesting he was not quite as bad as Old Nick himself.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 17, 2004.

Steve,

Your putting "the spin" on something again!

Back in the Ronald Reagan thread Ed Lauzon was deleting many many posts. I think Ed has since retired.

And your anology is a bit warped comparing Ronald Reagan to a murdering dictator.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 17, 2004.

“Murdering dictator”? Reagan never got 87% of the vote. Half of his own people hated him. You can’t say that about Arafat. And the murders Reagan authorized in Central America, Lebanon, Grenada ….

But I actually wasn’t comparing Reagan to Arafat. I was comparing my fellow forumites’ treatment of comments on Reagan’s death versus their treatment of comments on Arafat’s death. Yes it was Ed who deleted the posts, but he did it with the almost unanimous approval of the regulars, including even Anti-Bush as I recall.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 18, 2004.

I refrained from going off into my spiel about how Ronald Reagan is a war criminal and one of the worst Presidents we've ever had out of respect for the deceased. I think Steve's analogy is right on the money. I see Arafat and Reagan as two equaly evil individuals. Only difference is one's murders were covered on the evening news and the other's were not. Some "liberal media".

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 23, 2004.

Anti-bush,

You 'almost' refrained....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 24, 2004.

Excuse me? Point out a post where I used Reagan's death as an opportunity to bash him. I really want you to.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 26, 2004.

Reagan never murdered a single person. Your ignorance in these matters is colossal.

No military decision is intent on murder unless the injustice of that decision is clear and indisputable. If this weren't so, we could convict every single person in authority over others of murder, including our most prudent judges.

Leaders such as Stalin, Mao, and lesser despots cannot claim immunity from the indictment, because they held absolute power. They murder people at will, cementing their personal power. But presidents in a democracy act in the name of the people, not from autocratic advantage or malicious injustice. Our presidents aren't always perfect. But they aren't despots or mafiosos. Only unthinking folks will accuse somebody like Reagan of murdering anyone.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2004.

Eugene, welcome back, we "missed" you. No-one suggested that Reagan personally fired the guns and hurled the bombs. And he didn’t order as many murders as Stalin or Mao. But you can’t blame the US population (at least not entirely) for the murders Reagan ordered, just because they democratically (more or less) elected him.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 30, 2004.

Wait a second...Reagan ordered murders and the Democratic controlled Senate and House didn't find out???? Where was Dan Rather and the New York Times? Had Walsh known about murders in Grenada and Nicaragua, he'd not have tried so hard to break Ollie North!

In other words... BS. Reagan didn't order hits on anyone. Military action isn't the same thing as murder. And as for war crimes...Reagan helped bring down the USSR, which is guilty for 100 million civilian deaths! Thanks to Reagan, the Nicaraguans and rest of latin america is safe from totalitarian dictators like Daniel Ortega. Thanks to Reagan, the world is safe from IRBL's like the Pershing II and SS-20, the Eastern Bloc fell, mostly peacefully.... that's not the legacy of a war criminal.

But hyperbole, inability to see nuance or shades of gray, "absolute" thinkers who are loudest can't see the difference between Stalin and Reagan. Sad

As for Arafat...he was a terrorist - by his own admission, he killed Jewish civilians - not as "oops" collateral damage or mistakes, but as the primary target!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.

This is from Steve, the odd one who teaches us to co- exist with militant Is lam, and in the same breath weeps over Reagan's militarism. How can anyone take you seriously, Steve? I recommend to you a long look at Tony Blankley's latest column, http://www.washingtontimes.com/op- ed/tblankley.htm

Lay off the American presidents and face our true problems, virtuous one. Arafat's soon forgotten, gone to be with his beloved prophet. Reagan will not be meeting with either of them. No more than the prophet Moses has kept company with Pharaoh's soul; though Reagan was no Moses. God will be merciful to him, we faithfully hope.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 30, 2004.

I consider funding death squads that roamed the jungles of central America killing civilians and nuns MURDER. I'm not claiming he killed as many people as the USSR. Stalin had decades; Reagan only had eight years. Reagan sure accomplished a lot with what he had, though. Ask the average Nicaraguan how they feel about Reagan. The contras were not freedom fighters. Freedom fighters don't indiscriminately murder women and children by the thousands. Freedom fighters don't traffic drugs. Freedom fighters don't terrorize a civilian population. Freedom fighters don't try their damndest to prevent free elections.

The contras didn't kill as many people as the Soviet Union? What the hell kind of argument is that? Hitler didn't kill as many babies as abortion does, but does that not still make him a murderer? As much as you whine about Kerry's "moral relitivism", that's an incredibly hypocritical argument to make.

Oh, and the United States really has no right to talk about democracy in Latin America. We sort of lost dredibility in that area after we supported murdering tyrants likeBatista, Somoza, Duvalier, Pinochet, Banzer, Trujillo, Branco, Matinez, Christiani, and countless others. The United States has been the biggest ENEMY of democracy that region has ever seen.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 30, 2004.

BTW, I never said I supported the Soviet Union. Quite the contrary. I despise it, and it makes me sick to hear people on the left today try to rationalize it. A dictatorship is a dictatorship. Murder is murder (yes, that includes abortion). Reagan is a muderer, and Arafat is a murderer. I held my tongue after Reagan's death out of respect, and I did the same with Arafat. It saddens me that you don't have enough respect for the dead in your heart to do the same. It saddens me even more that you presume to know who is going to hell and who isn't. Judge not, lest ye be judged...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 30, 2004.

"But hyperbole, inability to see nuance or shades of gray, "absolute" thinkers who are loudest can't see the difference between Stalin and Reagan. Sad" (Joe) What are you prattling on about, no-one said Reagan was anywhere near as bad as Stalin.

"As for Arafat...he was a terrorist - by his own admission, he killed Jewish civilians - not as "oops" collateral damage or mistakes, but as the primary target!" And there's the difference. Arafat admitted his crimes and spent his last two decades working for peace with his former enemies. Reagan not only showed no sign of repentance but admantly refused to admit or even talk about the atrocities committed under his orders, and created every possible obstacle to the public finding out about them. Unlike others here I do not presume to judge men's souls, but the publicly observable facts are clear - Arafat repented, Reagan did not. And I don't buy this argument that Reagan was just a demented figurehead who had no idea what was being done in his name. He was a lot smarter than he seemed. As for the ludicrous idea that Reagan defeated the USSR by calling it "the evil empire" and invading small third world countries - puh-lease give us credit for some intelligence. The USSR was brought down from within, to Reagan's enormous shock.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 30, 2004.

Dear Steve:

''--the difference. Arafat admitted his crimes and spent his last two decades working for peace with his former enemies. Can you prove this? --YOU CAN'T. ''Reagan not only showed no sign of repentance but admantly refused to admit or even talk about atrocities committed under his orders and created every possible obstacle to the public finding out about them.'' What are the signs you expected, of repentence? Where were there atrocities committed? If the ''public'' was kept from discovering them, HOW have you arrived at these conclusions? Are you privately informed whenever a president commits atrocities? Were you advised of Arafat's acts of repentence; and particularly of his conversion to God's Holy Son? Yeah, in a pig's eye.

''Unlike others here I do not presume to judge men's souls,'' You certainly DO presume, and you make it adamantly clear. '' --but the publicly observable facts are clear - Arafat repented, Reagan did not.''

Please prove these observable ''facts''--

Did you examine Reagan's conscience? Not only CAN'T you prove him wrong, you can't even understand his actions.

He never claimed to be a demented figurehead. Evil wasn't ''done'' in Reagan's name, but evil men can pass off their bad deeds as following of orders.

Notwithstanding his warlike hatred of communism, when the USSR dissolved, it was as the result of Reagan's personal presence and foreign policy; and internal pressures inevitably arising from the EVIL within that empire. He called it correctly; holding fast even against the fury of our own government and of other western nations.

Reagan never demanded credit for defeating the communists any more than Pope John Paul II or Lech Walesa claimed credit. God brought their collapse about. God acts through the good will of men and Reagan was surely one of those good men.

What sin he committed is between God and himself, and Reagan believed in his Redeemer with great faith. That's what makes me and many others think he repented in his heart. The public has no right to know.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2004.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2004.

That's right. Please verify your claims anti-bush before claiming all sorts of evil for the contras. Or thinking that only US backed folk are capable of evil and not Salvadorans on their own without US suggestion or backing... you do it all the time for the Left - if some nut case pulls a trigger you blame him and leave it at that without runing the moral responsibility as far up the chain of command or ideology as you can... (ie. bad company dumps chemicals and suddenly it's Bush's personal fault not the forklift driver being an idiot).

So Reagan is to blame for Salvadoran hit squads? How about a rouge CIA agent or simply a bad politico with no direct ties to the the US? Not possible? Why not? Anti-US Mexican agents have gunned people down for decades without US involvement, what makes you think a government that receives aid from the US is a robot that can do nothing on its own accord and thus all it does is directly attributable to the US President?

Reagan didn't directly or indirectly through policy order the hit of nuns and priests in El Salvador or Nicaruagua. It happened, but no one has proven a link - direct or indirect to the CIA or USA.

If I give pablo an M-16 to fight against Juan who got an AK-47 from the Soviets (*who are raping, killing, pillaging and massacring his villiagers) and he goes off and kills a nun on his own accord, that doesn't make me the direct accomplice to the murder. Especially when I insist and train him only to attack Soviet supported troops.

As for the contras not being loved... you haven't been on the ground in Nicaragua have you? People in the whole region recall the days when the Nicaraguans had a 100,000 man army, several hundred tanks and Hind helicopter gunships... whereas no other nation in the area had anything like that kind of firepower... it was clear they weren't amassing that force for peaceful parades - and this was long before the Contras were created! They WERE FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND THEY WERE THE UNDERDOG. But of course, you only read one side's propaganda don't you?

Sometime the person pulling the trigger has to be morally responsible for his own illegal and immoral actions without passing the buck to another hemisphere.

Or you gonna blame Ford for the drunk driver who kills a child? If the company hadn't made the truck and sold it to Joe Smith, he wouldn't have used the truck as a weapon... according to your moral ethic Joe isn't to blame at all. It was the sinister Ford company who intentionally wanted the child dead.

and. thats. crazy.

And it's also not how you judge OTHER folk around the world so it's also hypocritical of you to use on Reagan.

At most we can complain about Reagan for the military actions in Lebanon, Libya, and Grenada as these were all directly called for by the President.

Now Arafat launched wars AFTER winning the peace prize! He ordered hits on civilians directly and no, never apologized for it. So we are really talking apples and tanks with respect to him and Reagan.

Just because you don't like Reagan or Bush doesn't mean that they have to be murderers (I know, that's the only moral crime you believe is truly bad... and hence, they have to be guilty of for you to justify your hatred of them).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.

As for the ludicrous idea that Reagan defeated the USSR by calling it "the evil empire" and invading small third world countries - puh-lease give us credit for some intelligence. The USSR was brought down from within, to Reagan's enormous shock.

Whether Reagan was shocked or not (I think, not), it is almost beyond debate that he came to office with a mission to take down the Communist Soviet Union, the evil empire. He called a spade a spade and upped the ante to the point that the USSR could not keep pace and "was brought down from within, to Reagan's enormous shock." He was not the only player as Eugene has aptly stated, but his contribution was very significant. An interesting read is from the lefty webzine Slate: Ron and Mikhail's Excellent Adventure

God brought their collapse about. God acts through the good will of men and Reagan was surely one of those good men.

Yes, very well said. I would also like to add that the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1984, as Our Lady requested in Fatima in 1917, was the ultimate blow.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 01, 2004.

Eugene, your empty arguments speak for themselves. I've got nothing to say.

Joe,

I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again: how can you call yourself a Christian when you support murderers such as the contras and Pinochet? They didn't kill as many people as the Soviets did. Ok, we've established that, and it's totaly irrelevant. Murder is still murder, and the contras were infamous for running around the jungle and engaging in mass murders of civilians. No Christian would give them support, much less money and guns.

Do you honesty think the contras were good? Do you honestly think these people were fighting for some noble cause? Do you honestly beleive that they did the right thing? It's no secret that they regularly targeted civilians in their fight against the Sandinistas. Don't beleive me? Well since you seem to have an unhealthy blind trust in our government, here's the Senate report on them, detailing their involvement in grug trafficing and terrorism.

Joe, did you even read my last post? Stop using this same talking point, that I am an apologist for leftist attrocities and I only concentrate on right-wing attrocities. That's not true at all. I have expressed over and over again my disgust with most of the modern left for trying to rationalize murder and genocide in the USSR, Vietnam, ect. I am strongly against authoritarian regimes on both sides of the political spectrum. You, on the other hand, kid yourself into beleiving that Reagan and Nixon did the right thing by supporting murdering tyrants and right-wing death squads because they killed less people than the Soviets did. That is the epitome of moral relativism. Pinochet and the contra fighters were cold-blooded killers. There is no way around that. Do you honestly believe they were not?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004.

I honestly believe that in 1985, when the idea of supporting the Contras began to pick up steam - in response to the military build up in Nicaragua and the rebel attacks spilling over into Honduras and El Salvador - that something had to be done by arming those Nicaraguans who weren't Communists.

They were fighting a civil war - and losing to the combined military might of the Soviets, Cuban "advisors" and lots of tanks and helicopters. They were freedom fighters, not terrorists and the only stories of atrocities came from PRAVDA, not independent and non- ideologically blinkered sources such as the NYT.

Lo and behold, they won - and took power after the USSR imploded and ceased funding the sandinista regime.

Funding and arming soldiers to fight a war is not the same thing as funding and arming a group of thugs or terrorists whose aim is senseless slaughter. The Contras weren't a threat to the regime because they killed unarmed civilians (they didn't) but because they could go toe to toe with the Soviet-backed regime's army - and that forced the regime to stop exporting "revolution" abroad, hence stopping the domino effect.

But you are sure they were nothing but thugs. Fine. And your proof is?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.

He or She has no proof.

''Do you honesty think the contras were good? The Contras were Salvadoreans and Nicaraguans in their own civil war against communists, as Joe stated. Their cause was just. If they numbered among them some savages, it doesn't change the justice of the cause. --''Do you honestly think these people were fighting for some noble cause? Do you honestly beleive that they did the right thing? It's no secret that they regularly targeted civilians in their fight against the Sandinistas.'' They targeted Sandinistas, not innocent civilians. Sandinistas were Marxists; defeated not just in the fight. The elections went against them too; which says civilians voted the Sandinista party OUT. The civilians you claim were ''targeted''. ''Don't believe me? Well since you seem to have an unhealthy blind trust in our government, here's the Senate report on them, detailing their involvement in drug trafficing and terrorism.'' I don't see it.

I never had unhealthy blind trust in anybody. You, of course, have an unhealthy blind hatred for anti-communists. But mostly you've had, throughout these arguments, totally negative things to say about Republicans. With hardly any basis in fact. You also keep arguing politics, when we aren't a political party here. This is a Catholic religious forum. Can't you stick to your unhealthy, blind criticisms of the Church? At LEAST?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2004.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2004.

My bad, forgot to post the link to the Senate report:

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/contracoke.html

Human Rights Watch also documented the contras' human rights abuses.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Nicaragu.htm

Here's a great interview from democracy now that pretty much says it all:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Authors/Nairn_Reagan_DNinterview.html

It's not exactly a secret that the contras were terrorists and human rights absusers. The World Court aknowledged that. But the United States obviously knows better than the rest of the world what to do with Nicaragua, right?

By the way, I'm interested to know why you suddenly stopped talking about Pinochet on the "is George Bush the antichrist" thread...you kept posting, but you completely veered off the subject of Pinochet. Did you realize you were wrong to support a murdering tyrant like him and just not man enough to admit it?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 01, 2004.

"You also keep arguing politics, when we aren't a political party here. This is a Catholic religious forum." ROFL!! Coming from Eugene of all people!! I really have missed you Eugene, that was my best chuckle for a month!

BTW I don't think Reagan HIMSELF believed he was demented. That would be a Catch-22 situation wouldn't it?! And I hope this doesn't shock you, but it's quite possible for a non-Christian sinner such as Arafat to repent without becoming a Christian.

I didn't say "the ''public'' was kept from discovering" Reagan's atrocities, I said he and his goons like North did their best to TRY to stop anyone wfrom discovering them. In a few cases they failed.

"What are the signs you expected, of repentence?" Well for one thing I never saw Reagan shaking hands and signing peace agreements with the people he tried to exterminate. It's you, you pompous blabbermouth, who claims to read minds. You have no way of knowing whether Reagan, despite his total lack of signs of repentance, actally repented in his mind somehow at the last moment. Nor have you any way of knowing whether his much vaunted Christian faith was a sham. His behavior both in his public office and in private towards his family, suggests that it was.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 01, 2004.

Steve:
I'll have to repeat: ''Unlike others here I do not presume to judge men's souls,'' --You certainly DO presume, and you make it very clear.

But why stick to mens' souls? Your vague ideology is concerned with WHO holds power, not faith or souls. I know you aren't aware of God's infinite Wisdom, or His Divine Will. Your every post shows how indifferent you are to justice.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2004.

You don't remember seeing Reagan sign the peace deal with Gorbechev?

Anti-Bush, what do you know about the Human Rights Watch that makes you sure they are not biased?

I got my info from Chileans both young and old who lived through those days and the aftermath, not leftist American or European agitators and sympathizers of all socialist and communist atrocities.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

''And I hope this doesn't shock you, but it's quite possible for a non-Christian sinner such as Arafat to repent without becoming a Christian.--''

There's a new howler from Steve. I suppose it was meant to answer my challenge: ''Were you advised of Arafat's acts of repentence? And particularly his conversion to God's Holy Son?''

But WERE you; ADVISED-- of that change of heart? NO. You have been wishfully thinking --''Why not?'' Why wouldn't the noble statesman and Nobel laureate Yasser come to salvation as a matter of course? ''I'll give that a whirl, Steve thinks. Because after all, Yasser is ***NOT*** the terrorist everyone makes him out to be.'' (Yeah; and he died broke.)

''On the other hand, Reagan doesn't come close to having repented. -- I, Steve, the defender of the faith (Muslim) say so. Reagan ain't Kosher!''

Hahaha! good try, Steve!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2004.

"..Its you you, pompous blabbermouth..."

Steve the young Lady mentioned your anger the other night in a thread. I see it coming out AGAIN!

Please no personal insults. Thats very unbecoming of you.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 02, 2004.

If I'm pompous, forgive me. I'm a blabbermouth for God and the Church, not to achieve something for myself.

Why don't we return to the religious subject and let go of our partisanship? I don't think Arafat repented of his atrocities. Arafat's Islamic faith will not earn him heaven. That's all I said, and they challenged me, as if I were an enemy. I defended Reagan then, which got me another spiteful reply. Is it a sin to believe in the True Faith, and in our country's leaders? Then I'm sinning.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2004.

Eugene, my “vague ideology” is simply the must unvague teaching of the Catholic Church, and is not at all concerned about who holds power. That a sinner can repent without becoming a Christian is not “a new howler from Steve”, but a very clear teaching of the Catholic Church. If you really “believed in the true Faith” you would not spend your time demonizing and condemning your real and imagined enemies.

“WERE you; ADVISED-- of that change of heart?” I’ll repeat again as you obviously didn’t bother reading it, I was speaking only of the conclusions we can all make based on the publicly observable facts, not what anyone was privately “advised” of.

“You don't remember seeing Reagan sign the peace deal with Gorbechev?” (Joe) You don't remember Gorbachev had to push him every step of the way to sign the nuclear arms limitation treaty (NOT a "peace" treaty) against Reagan's continual carping, mistrust and attempts to weasel out? You don’t remember Reagan's vainglorious boasting afterwards that he had thereby “won the Cold War”?

David, I’ll try not to use any unbecoming personal insults in future and I would appreciate if you and Eugene do the same.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 02, 2004.

Steve:
I don't demonize anybody, and in the case of a jihadist Islamic enemy, nothing is ''imagined''. That enemy exists.

You must think that because I deny emphatically Muhhammed was a prophet of God, I've descended to the level of a bigot. But I hope and pray God might enlighten the followers of the false prophet before they are damned in their heresy. Nothing would please me more than to see Muslims everywhere find salvation through Jesus Christ.

You maintain a heretic could repent of blowing up market places, Olympic villages, airliners and public transportation in sovereign countries, and even a New York City district--

And somehow receive their dubious absolution because they had acted in stupidity and fanaticism. Meanwhile denying vehemently and violently the divinity of Christ, (in invincible ignorance, naturally) for which Muslims would rather die than repent? It's all the same to you?

Whereas, if I deny it, I'm demonizing the ''imagined'' enemy?

Pardon me, Steve, but-- Are you crazy?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.

"You don't remember seeing Reagan sign the peace deal with Gorbechev?"

Do I remember seeing it firsthand? Nope, I wasn't born yet. Have I learned about it since? Yes. Not sure what your point is.

"Anti-Bush, what do you know about the Human Rights Watch that makes you sure they are not biased?"

Biased towards whom? They've come out against oppressive regimes on the right and the left. What do you know about them to make you think they ARE biased? Or is this just a smokesreen to hide the fact that you support a gang of notorius drug dealers and human rights abusers?

"I got my info from Chileans both young and old who lived through those days and the aftermath, not leftist American or European agitators and sympathizers of all socialist and communist atrocities."

Point to me a single post where I have sympathized with the Soviet Union. What a pantload. You don't have to be a communist to know that Pinochet was a murdering tyrant. Salvador Allende was DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED. At no point in time did he ever kill off his political opponents, or declare martial law, or make any authoritarian measures. The United States VIOLENTLY OVERTHREW his government, murdered him, and installed Pinochet, who would go on to commit countless human rights abuses. THIS IS HISTORY. You haven't been able to refute any of it. Pinochet was a murderer, but you try to rationalize things and sympathize with his attrocities because you can't accept that the United States government does the wrong thing sometimes.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.

Arafat needs our prayers... ... now more than ever?

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.

“I don't demonize anybody” (Eugene) Really? I guess it was a compliment when you called the Arabs “animalistic”?

“You must think that because I deny emphatically Muhhammed was a prophet of God, I've descended to the level of a bigot.” Nope. I emphatically deny that too. But I don’t believe that my denial of his status as a prophet requires me to declare that his followers are damned regardless of whether they repent of their sins.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 05, 2004.

Admit it, Steve:

This cop-out ''--my denial of his status as a prophet [wouldn't] requires me to declare that his followers are damned regardless of whether they repent of their sins,'' means nothing. They may repent of blowing up buses with innocent people on board (Hardly.) It won't mean they didn't deny the Son of God. Nor mean they didn't violate human rights, nor mean they haven't practiced barbarous terrorism.

It's not demonizing to see the truth; hell on earth is characteristic of fanatical Is/lam.

Even so; I don't deny some innocent minority of good muslims may exist, by God's grace. Just as some minority of lukewarm or bad Christians are going to damnation. If this were Paradise we wouldn't need the promise of an after-life.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2004.

Wait a second...so Allende was a great guy BECAUSE he was elected but Hitler was a bad guy...and he was elected? So winning an election in and of itself can't be indicative of a politician's morality or moral standing since both the good and bad have been elected. Why, you despise Bush even though he won election twice.

So clearly, having a plurality of votes in one's favor doesn't make one's politics pure and harmless.

What else do we know of Allende? He was a communist during the cold war, he had socialist friends and go-betweens with communist regimes, all pointing to the real threat that once in power, he would turn Chile into another communist state.

I know you want to believe the Chileans are incapable of doing anything on their own without the CIA or the US, but that coup wasn't lead by US soldiers or CIA operatives. Pinochet did get western backing - insofar as he was anti-communist, but not everything he or his men did was plotted out ahead of time by Washington or himself.

Or what? we give the communists a pass on atrocities because Marx didn't specifically mention them and thus they were "accidents" but this excuse isn't applicable to their enemies? why not? what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There was a civil war and the Left lost. They, like the terrorists today claim all their dead were innocent victims, while all the Chileans on the right who died were evil henchmen fighting for repression... it's always the same bs. Why can't there be good guys on either side mixed with nuts who do the atrocities? Why must you think Pinochet was totally evil and Allende et al totally good?

That's ideology my young friend . you have been taught by those who love Allende and the communists and thus give them the pass and you've been taught that Pinochet was satan himself so don't explore any other possibility. Anything accusation that supports the Left is good argument is accepted at face value, any scrap of evidence pointing to either a more complex situation (and thus not pure black/white world) or that the Pinochet coalition was justified in any way or place is immediately rejected.

And then you claim to being openminded and fair.

You're young. Hopefully you'll learn the whole truth and not just one story.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.

"Wait a second...so Allende was a great guy BECAUSE he was elected but Hitler was a bad guy...and he was elected? So winning an election in and of itself can't be indicative of a politician's morality or moral standing since both the good and bad have been elected."

Wow, maybe you should actualy READ the post. I never said Allende was a great guy. All I said was that he was elected by the Chilean people, and therefore the United States does not have the right to remove him simply "because he was a communist". You don't murder an elected leader because you don't agree with his economic policy. Allende didn't spend death squads around to murder people. Allende didn't imprison his political enemies. Was he a great guy? Can't really say, I never met him, and I didn't follow Chilean politics that closely (seeing as how I wouldn't be born for another 15 years). But he wasn't a murder and a criminal, like Pinochet, and the United States had NO RIGHT to intervene in Chile. The best argument you've been able to come up with so far is "can you prove Allende didn't plan to do something bad?"

Here are the FACTS, regardless of whether or not you agree with Allende's policies: He was a democraticaly elected leader. He had taken no authoritarian measures. He did not use the armed forces to murder his political enemies. The United States violently overthrew him and installed Augusto Pinochet, a fascist with a violent history. Pinochet then assembled hit squads to kill anyone who spoke out against him (with the full backing of the US). He ruled for three decades without ever holding an election, and racked up quite an impressive list of human rights violations to boot.

But, since you agree with Allende's politics, you are willing to overlook all the people slaughtered or "dissapeared" under his regime...long as he's not a commie.

"Why, you despise Bush even though he won election twice."

Once, actualy. But that's a discussion for another forum.

"What else do we know of Allende? He was a communist during the cold war, he had socialist friends and go-betweens with communist regimes, all pointing to the real threat that once in power, he would turn Chile into another communist state."

He was in power for three years and didn't do that. Ample time to turn Chile into a communist state, considering Pinochet got right to work turning it into a fascist nightmare.

"Or what? we give the communists a pass on atrocities because Marx didn't specifically mention them and thus they were "accidents" but this excuse isn't applicable to their enemies?"

POINT TO ME ONE ATTROCITY ALLENDE COMMITTED. Are you illiterate? At what point did I give Stalin or Mao a "pass" on their attrocities? I have explained to you again and again that I am AGAINST all forms of totalitarianism, communist or fascist. ALLENDE DID NOT COMMIT ANY ATTROCITIES. PINOCHET MURDERED THOUSANDS. How can I make this any clearer?

"Why can't there be good guys on either side mixed with nuts who do the atrocities? Why must you think Pinochet was totally evil and Allende et al totally good?"

Name me a few "good guys" in Pinochet's government. I would really like to know. I never said Allende was totaly good. But Pinochet was a murderer. Plain and simple. For a Catholic who speaks about "non-negotiable" issues when it comes to supporting a candidate, HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THIS MAN?

"you have been taught by those who love Allende and the communists and thus give them the pass and you've been taught that Pinochet was satan himself so don't explore any other possibility."

I don't love Allende. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but I'm really not into that...maybe we should just be friends...

Pinochet isn't Satan. Satan is Satan. Will Pinochet ever MEET Satan? It's quite possible, but it's not my call.

What other possibilities are there? On the one hand, you have a leader who was not a murderer. On the other hand, you have one that was. Seems pretty simple to me.

"You're young. Hopefully you'll learn the whole truth and not just one story."

Let's hear the whole truth. I want to hear you try and explain to me how Pinochet really was a great guy who only wanted the best for his country. Then let's hear how you can still call yourself a Christian in the face of brazen human rights abuses.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.

“They may repent of blowing up buses with innocent people on board (Hardly.) It won't mean they didn't deny the Son of God. Nor mean they didn't violate human rights, nor mean they haven't practiced barbarous terrorism.”

Yes and even after they have repented they must still pay for their sins in Purgatory. But we have God’s solemn assurance that there is NO sin so terrible that it cannot be forgiven. St Paul was a “terrorist” who helped murder innocent Christians. Now he is in Heaven. (And no, before you twist my words again, I am NOT equating St Paul with Arafat.)

“It's not demonizing to see the truth; hell on earth is characteristic of fanatical Islam. Even so; I don't deny some innocent minority of good muslims may exist”

It IS demonizing when you condemn the vast majority of the more than a billion Muslims because of the actions of a few. The vast majority of Muslims ARE innocent of participating in or supporting terrorism. Their position is similar to that of the vast majority of US Catholics towards IRA terrorists; while they sympathize with the reason for their struggle they do not endorse their violent means and in fact see it as immoral and contrary to their religion.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 06, 2004.

I do not --I can't ''demonize'' any majority, anywhere, Steve; but I denounce terrorists. I denounce whoever helps them or approves of them or instigates hatred against non-muslims. If we are intellectually honest we can admit; muslims hate outsiders as infidels. But there are exceptions. I've had muslim friends. As friends they are delightful, I know from experience.

I've demonized, if you wish, the false prophet. He taught ignorant people a heretical version of the God of Abraham. He misled them and today they believe Christ is just a holy man, a prophet like Muhammad, who is His superior. I'm sorry, but ranking a sinner over Our Lord and Saviour is tantamount to idolatry in my book.

I would hope God will forgive them. I don't know if or how they will come to redemption. First they'd have to deny Muhammad. We can be sure of what Christ told us in regard to these bad men who were to arise and call away the faithful: ''By their fruits you shall know them.''

Well; the sad fact is Isla/m bears fruits which hurt and destroy innocent people. Fruits too frightening to ignore in our day.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.

As far as the 1 billion Muslims go, I don't think we can honestly say the terrorists number "only a few". There are too many Muslim regimes doing too many acts of terror on their Christian or animist or Hindu neighbors for us to conclude that Islam is a religion peopled by a majority of wonderfully nice people, besmirched only by a small percentage of nuts.

There was a time when you could say that. That generation of peaceful Muslims (don't tell the Armenians I say this) has largely past. The demographics show a population largely under the age of 40... and from the Phillipines to Indonesia to East Timor, to Malaysia, to Thailand, Western China, Pakistan and Kashmire, Afghanistan and Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kurdistan, and Turkey, Lebanon, to Saudia Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Somalia, and Nigeria, to say nothing of Algeria and Sudan... we can spell out the innumberable cases of Muslim controlled regimes persecuting the minorities in their midst or Muslim minorities fighting wars of rebellion.

When Ethiopians were starving in the 1980's it wasn't the Muslims who came to their aid...it was the West.

When Somalians were starving in 1992, it wasn't Osama who came to their aid, it was the US Military and UN.

And we didn't conquer and colonize those "nations" - both operations were purely humanitarian. Yet we don't get credit in some quarters.

Well, lots of other nations have suffered calamites. When was the last time you heard of a Muslim nation offering free food and shelter to disaster victims?

If Islam is indeed a religion of peace... why are so many Muslims fighting wars among themselves in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Sudan....

If Islam is a religion of universal brotherhood, why are the Palestinians treated with utter disrespect everywhere in the Middle East (when in reality, they were there before the Jordanians, indeed the land was called Palestine before Jordan)?

Ah, because Islam is still tribal and tribal/racial tensions are more powerful than their theology.

Not for nothing are most Shiites non-arab Persians, whereas most Sunnis are arab in the ME.

In Indonesia, Asian muslims account for hundreds of millions more Muslims - and they too are divided into clans and tribes.

Maybe Islam is more peaceful than paganism and communism...but it's not a religion of peace but of submission.

Whereas Christianity has promoted Peace as a virtue to be sought and has a highly sophisticated moral ethic embodied in the just war doctrine, the Muslims don't have such restrait.

For example: for a Catholic, it would be absolutely immoral to wage the type of guerrilla war fare that the Muslim terrorists are waging in Iraq because they are breaking all the criteria for just war:

No authority for their actions (the private citizen can't licitly wage war).

No last resort - hostilities were over, the coalition forces were not impeding basic human rights, indeed were restoring sovereignty etc.

No attempt at diplomacy No proportionality - targetting civilians, other Iraqis, many unarmed civilians... is not a licit military target. No real chance for success.

That's our criteria... but not theirs because their goal isn't peaceful co-existence but unconditional victory on their terms and then theocratic, totalitarian rule.

I think Muslims in many places have learned to live in peaceful congress with non-Muslims - but in the places this has worked, they were the unquestioned masters and the Christians were second class citizens, or BOTH were second class citizens under some overwhelming hegemon.

I'm all in favor of Us LIVING PEACEFULLY WITH THEM, but I don't think we ought to be blind to the reality of Muslim warfare and violence which does seem to be at least a cultural and historic fact of life if not theology.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

I should add, given today's date, that prior to 1945, the Japanese Empire had had a couple hundred year spate of violence and oppression of other Asians (with a few brief spells of peaceful admiration for the West such as in the 1500's when St Francis arrived, then in the 1850's when the US openned Tokyo to trade (gun boat diplomacy) and then in the early 1900's when Japan was an ally in WW1.

But they were always an empire, always on the advance, and for a good 30 years were unchecked in the far East for their savage behavior in Korea, Manchuria, China, and later in the war, everywhere else.

Many people at the time argued that Japanese were culturally and religiously fanatical (true) and that therefore could never adopt democracy or another religion (untrue).

Since 1946, the Japanese have been one of the most peaceful and peaceloving peoples on earth. They have funded and participated in countless humanitarian missions, they are great friends when it comes to subsidizing the arts and are open to many religions... Personally they can be very gracious and polite.

That this complete transformation is possible is a testimony to the United States and MacArthur's rule - unlike the way they treated their conquests, we behaved honorably and wowed them over.

So I think the precedent is there. Since Islam has no Pope or analog to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, there is really no reason why some Muslim Mullah couldn't give his blessing to democracy and peaceful co-existence within the framework of a constitutional republic whereby the Muslims are accorded fundamental freedoms and rights along with others.

For example, Iraq could very well become a place were Muslims have no reason to fear persecution for their belief or tribal differences.

If that idea were to catch on, imagine the impact for world peace this would have in all the other dozen or so Muslim countries where tribal and ethnic tension leads currently to bloodshed.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

Look you two, every time I say that most Muslims are not terrorists you come out with the same stuff telling me, as if I didn’t know, that Muslims follow a sinful false religion etc. Of course they do. But the point is the vast majority DON’T support terrorism. They DON’T hate all non-Muslims. Of course they’re not “all wonderfully nice people” in “a religion of peace”. A few are wonderfully nice, a few are very bad, the vast majority are a mix of good and bad. And God can certainly save them if they repent, even outside the visible Church, and even using the structures and practices of their man-made religion.

“That generation of peaceful Muslims …has largely past. The demographics show a population largely under the age of 40... and from … Kashmire,... we can spell out the innumberable cases of Muslim controlled regimes persecuting the minorities in their midst or Muslim minorities fighting wars of rebellion.” Joe, not everyone under 40 is an angry young man with a gun in his hand. A friend of mine is a Muslim Kashmiri in his 20s. The most gentle and peaceful man you could ever meet. The Muslims who make up the vast MAJORITY in Kashmir are being brutally oppressed by the Hindu/secular Indian government. You never read that in the papers do you? Or about the Chinese brutally suppressing the Muslim population of East Turkestan ("Western China").

“When Ethiopians were starving in the 1980's it wasn't the Muslims who came to their aid...it was the West.” Perhaps understandable given that Ethiopia has been fighting wars against the nearby Muslim states for more than a thousand years. And the aid the West gave to Ethiopia was small compared to its mountain of crippling debt to Western countries, which some Western countries have refused to write off. This is what KEEPS Ethiopia poor and prone to famines.

“When Somalians were starving in 1992, it wasn't Osama who came to their aid, it was the US Military and UN… Yet we don't get credit in some quarters.” With hefty contributions from Muslim states who could afford it like Saudi Arabia. Interesting how the UN which you have so often scarified has now become “we”.

“why are the Palestinians treated with utter disrespect everywhere in the Middle East (when in reality, they were there before the Jordanians, indeed the land was called Palestine before Jordan)?” Interesting also to see your newfound concern for the Palestinians. The MidEast regimes (including Lebanon when it was controlled by Christians) use the Palestinians as pawns in their own political games, but it’s nothing compared to the “disrespect” they get from Israel. Palestine was and is the land WEST of the Jordan River. Jordan (formerly Transjordan) is the land EAST of the Jordan River. It has always been inhabited by Jordanians. When the Israelis drove Palestinians out of the West Bank in 1967 many of them settled in Jordan. When they became a nuisance, Jordan kicked them out.

“Islam is still tribal and tribal/racial tensions are more powerful than their theology. Not for nothing are most Shiites non- arab Persians, whereas most Sunnis are arab in the ME.” An outsider could argue with similar lack of logic, that Christianity is racial/tribal because most people of the Germanic races are Protestant while most people of the Latin races are Catholic and most people of the Greek and Slavic races are Orthodox.

“the Japanese Empire had had a couple hundred year spate of violence and oppression of other Asians (with a few brief spells of peaceful admiration for the West such as … in the early 1900's when Japan was an ally in WW1.”

WHAT? Joining in a pointless and genocidal trade war between Western powers is “peaceful admiration for the West”? Just because the USA happened to LATER join the same side that Japan fought on?

“Many people at the time argued that Japanese were culturally and religiously fanatical (true) and that therefore could never adopt democracy or another religion (untrue).“

The Japanese have always been religiously diverse. Yes they persecuted Christians for 200 years but they have always been divided between Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and others, with only a small minority adhering to the official Shinto religion.

“Since 1946, the Japanese have been one of the most peaceful and peaceloving peoples on earth.” Pacifism has ALWAYS been a feature of Japanese culture alongside militarism. The sword and the chrysanthemum have been in tension for centuries.

“That this complete transformation is possible is a testimony to the United States and MacArthur's rule - unlike the way they treated their conquests, we behaved honorably and wowed them over.” I’d like to think you are pulling my leg again but I don’t think so. Murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent unarmed civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (many of them Christians) is “behaving honourably”?!?!?!!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.

I'd like to add that Saudi Arabia actualy gives a larger percentage of their GNP to humanitarian aid than any other nation. The US gives the largest gross sum of money, but in proportion to how much money we have, we actualy give less than most other industrialized nations. Kind of sad, really.

Joe,

I would really like to see a reply to my last post...you always seem to drift away from topics that you are losing ground on...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

I used to wonder why others would bash christianity, the church, the pope and all christians in general, due to the evil actions of a few. Now I understand why. If we do the same to others, it's no wonder that it should happen to us. Comparing the actions of a few and painting the whole community as evil, especially about muslims, and this is said by catholics of all people. I can't imagine what those who do this now would have done in the ancient days where massacres and torture were done in the name of God. The real threat to the church is not from those who persecute us or humiliate and hurt us, but from those among ourselves, who have received the knowledge and the enlightment who still forget what God has taught us. It's painful to see this happen but I believe it's going to be only worse.

-- Abraham T (Lijothengil@yahoo.com), December 10, 2004.

Which post are you referring to anti-bush?

Steve, I agree that lots of individiual Muslims are nice. At least here in the USA. But that's a long way from proving that the majority of Muslims are peaceloving people. If they were, then how do you explain that in virtually EVERY majoritarian Muslim nation there are serious domestic repression against religions minorities (including Muslim sects) and often bloody conflict across borders too?

If the majority are so damn peaceful and loving, how is this possible?

Are you willing to believe that a minority in every case is to blame? Well, those minorities, if added up may well number over 100 million people. Still a minority but one hellava minority!

In their great pan-islamic convention in Jakarta of last year they couldn't even agree to define who or what is a terrorist or terrorism except to condemn anything the Israelis do.

If therefore the leaders of the Muslim world, arab and non, can't define the intentional slaughter of innocent arab, christian, and jewish civilians whose only crime is to be on a bus or in a pizzaria as a crime against humanity and God, then what pray tell does this mean for Islam as a whole?

As for everything else... GNP blah blah blah. How many people live in SA? 14 MILLION. And how much oil wealth does the kingdom produce per year? Hundreds of billions. You do the math. If you add all the wealth given by the US government, plus all that given by NGOs, and individuals you'd get the real number. Fact is, America as a nation gives more money by percentage and in gross numbers than any other nation on earth. It's also true that private donors to charitable causes is a relatively unique (and largely Christian) phenomenon found only in the WEST or in those eastern enclaves influenced by Christianity. The Muslim idea of aid is largely to help Mosque schools, not give aid to anyone based on need.

Oh but right, we are supposed to always feel guilty for being such a horrible people while everyone else on earth gets a pass and excused for their atrocities and problems right? Wrong.

The firebombing of Japanese cities were terrible. But the honor MacArthur used was to rule them with fairness - he didn't rape, pillage and burn the occupied Japanes as they were wont to do with their conquered peoples in Korea, China, Vietnam and elsewhere.

That's what I refer to. But of course the knee jerk need to blame the US for all ills and evils in the world makes what good we do vanish in the presence of the evil we do right? Well then who in the world is good? No one? What system has done better or more good than ours? Surely not the socialist regimes you seem to favor.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 10, 2004.

Excellent post, Joe; Almost every Muslim passes the good neighbor test, we have to agree. If you live next door, they respect you & your children. If you shop at their food market or liquor store, they give back correct change, say thanks.

You grow to appreciate these folks. But, notice we have no mullah up in a minaret in our neighborhood.

In a middle east country, you and I are simply uncircumcised pigs and monkeys. We can't please a muslim; as george W. Bush is finding out late.

Certainly it's Christian to forgive; to love our enemy. But no Christian is commanded to take his enemy for a friend. We should know better; we must open our eyes.

Religions that keep a people faithful by way of fear are not from God. God is Love, not Fury.

Islam is an enforced religion in every enclave where the minarets stand out. A people who aren't shocked when women have acid tossed in their faces and their genitalia slashed, is hardly based on love and/or justice. It's fine to pray five times a day. But why is God expected to bless that society? He didn't bless Herod.

And we're sure Herod was friendly to his neighbors. Now and then he just murdered innocent babies. (Of course, he didn't pray five times daily. Lol!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2004.