Stockwell Day and Arafat

[ndpnic]

Don't you think it more likely Day didn't want to send condolensces because Arafat was a murdering terrorist scumbag, rather than any possibility he might be gay?

I didn't think they gave Nobel peace prizes to "mudering terrorist" scumbags?

[Guest eureka]

I think that Frum's concluding paragraph might well be said of him.

"The world would be a better place if he had never lived.. and cleaner....."

This is an article by the "Axis of Evil" author. The man who provided much of the justification for the murder of Iraqis.

I will not post any judgement of Arafat. He fought for his people and was no more a terrorist than any of the leaders of the enemy of his people.

[caesar]

Really, Day is an insignificant politician; all he needed to have said was that would be the duty of the party leader. To quote an unproven theory as an excuse was stupid. It , also, gives the impression that he believes that people who contract aids are not to be worthy of sympathy. This is fueling an unfounded rumour and should have nothing to do with any question he was asked. It borders on a hate crime if he is suggesting that gay people with aids are not worthy of condolences being made.

To make any other reference to Arafat and his activities as a "terrorist" there are much more relevant people to quote.

[caesar]

The media should reports facts not wild speculation. Whether Arafat was gay, had aids is really not of any importance and should not be suggested without a little better evidence. I am tired of the media reporting unfounded rumours as there are many gullible people that think if the media reports it it must be true.

[redmos]

I didn't think they gave Nobel peace prizes to "mudering terrorist" scumbags?

Kissinger.

[kimmy]

Did you actually read the David Frum piece before deciding it was implausible and inflammatory? Or did you just base that conclusion on what you've read in this thread and the fact that it's David Frum?

Kimmy, you don't have to read David Frum to know what he's going to say.

So, in short, you drew an inference about Day's intentions based on an assumption of the article's content?

Yeah, that's about what I expected.

Now I did read it, and lo and behold, it was exactly the sort of tripe I expected it to be.

Tripe? I won't argue over the merits of Frum's column. But I don't think anybody who has actually read the article would claim that that "AIDS rumour" is an accurate description of its content.

Frum's point is NOT that "ARAFAT has AIDS and is a FAG and will DIE soon."   

He went out of his way to make it seem otherwise. From the story:

Yes, I did mention that I read the article, didn't I?

Are you seriously going to argue that Frum's main point is that Arafat may have had AIDS? For real?

So what did the reporter say that was out of line?

Well, I for starters I think running it under the headline "Stockwell Day cites Arafat AIDS rumour in email" when it first appeared on Monday night was a misrepresentation. (The article was updated with a new headline and Day's explanation of his meaning on Tuesday morning.)

The report made it seem as if the AIDS comment was the only significant content of Frum's piece and that Day must have been referring to it when he cited Frum's piece in his e-mail.

The article, particularly before being updated with the new headline and Day's response, created the impression that Day didn't send condolences because of AIDS. (see caesar's initial furious reaction.)

So, yes, I definitely think the news report was questionable journalism.

-kimmy

[August1991]

Don't you think it more likely Day didn't want to send condolensces because Arafat was a murdering terrorist scumbag, rather than any possibility he might be gay?

Argus, I agree, but the point is lost.

Stockwell Day should have said the the Canadian Conservative Party sends its condolences to the family of Yassir Arafat as it also sent its condolences to the family of Kim Il-Sung and it will send condolences to the family of Fidel Castro when he dies.

I'd commiserate with Eva Braun. The guy's dead.

Then, you say what you think about the future. (e.g. Colin Powell is finally flying to capitals and talking to leaders.)

----

My take? I've expressed it elsewhere on this forum. I don't know if Abou Ammar was gay and I don't care. But I think he was incompetent. Don't believe me? His death was the perfect example of his incompetence. A mess.

The Palestinians deserve better leadership. (Arabs deserve better leadership. Think! Mubarak. Assad. Arafat. Saddam. Quaddafi. How about Chamoun? Or the Gemayal brothers? Faisal!)

The last time the Arabs had a demagogue was Abdul Nassir. The last time they had a genuine leader was Saladin, a 1000 years ago.

The Arabs have not had a Pierre Trudeau, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Boris Yeltsin, Margaret Thatcher. For a long, long time, they have not had a leader to hate, but angrily admire. Arabic-speaking people have not had "democracy", whatever that is.

[ndpnic]

I didn't think they gave Nobel peace prizes to "mudering terrorist" scumbags?

Kissinger.

Sorry. Forgot about Kissinger!

Still wouldn't class Arafat in that group!!!

[Cartman]

Of course. We all have our prejudices about the people in Ottawa. In Day's case, it goes without saying that a lot of people are prepared to believe the worst about anything he says. That's fine, and maybe even justified.

Well put, we always have to be careful about prejudice regardless of the political stripe of any individual. Day deserves no less. Having said that, however, I have noticed that there is a structure to articulating hate. Canadians will not tolerate overt expressions of hatred, so intelligent people will use coded or ambiguous language to float an idea and see how it is received. If received poorly, then say that others including the media treated and quoted you unfairly. If well received, then connect it to a larger political effort. I am always suspicious when intelligent politicians are unable to be clearly understood.

Gotta love the nature of the fascination about the man. Few people are interested in the political, social and economic effects of his death, how he came to be leader or what lessons can be learned about his leadership. Rather, it is about his sex life; how it fits. Extremely pathetic if you ask me. This is why I think most media is Jerry Springer cloned crap. But go ahead and celebrate the Fox "victory" and take comfort in the fact that you are being "educated" with important news. Whatta joke.

[maplesyrup]

I have often thought David Frum was a Canadian national embarassment.

Yassar Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize.

How convenient it is for us to forget.

If you wish to talk about incompentency, you don't have to look farther than the US administration, that apparently were offered 10 opportunities to capture bin Laden.

[willy]

http://politicswatch.com/day-nov23-2004.htm

Here are just a few other reasons Frum lists elsewhere.

> "He has been waging war on Israel for four decades."

> "He has led the Palestinian Arabs from one disaster to another."

> "His agents hijacked planes, massacred civilians, organized the murder of schoolchildren and Olympic athletes--and even the assassinations of American diplomats."

> "Arafat has enjoyed amazing success in persuading the world's governments to draw a distinction between al-Qaeda terrorism and his own supposedly more acceptable brand."

> "Arafat's diplomatic success has had important and--for him--positive political consequences. Thirty years of Palestinian terrorism have dulled the world's moral outrage."

> "But atrocities against civilians are the only kind of war Arafat knows."

> "Arafat's forces have rarely if ever taken the field against the Israeli military. They have instead waged a war of kidnappings and random murder, very similar to that practiced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq."

Maple are you sure that the Nobel Peace prize is the only measure of this man we should look at.

[Black Dog]

I  have often thought David Frum was a Canadian national embarassment.

Naw. He's not well-known enough to be a truly national embarrasment.

[kimmy]

http://politicswatch.com/day-nov23-2004.htm

Thanks for the article, Willy. It does a good job presenting some of the arguments I've made in this thread.

The CP article itself could lead some to believe that David Frum wrote an article about the possibility of Yasser Arafat dying of AIDS and then "elsewhere" mentioned what a horrible terrorist he was.

The  CP article itself could lead some to believe that David Frum wrote an article about the possibility of Yasser Arafat dying of AIDS and then "elsewhere" mentioned what a horrible terrorist he was.

However, a reading of the full 824-word Frum article shows 145 words are about the AIDS speculation and the rest of the story - or as it is called in the CP story "elsewhere in the article" - is a rundown of the terrorist activities linked to Arafat and his other failings.

In fact, Frum only mentions the AIDS speculation to begin an argument on how Arafat friendly the international media has become.

Either Romeo St Martin is stealing my posts for his articles, or else the concept was obvious to anybody willing to apply some critical thinking abilities. I'm guessing it's the latter.

While CP headlined its story "Stockwell Day points to AIDS story to explain Arafat snub," it could easily have used "Stockwell Day points to atrocities against civilians story to explain Arafat snub."

However, that wouldn't be as newsworthy as a story that accomplishes two journalistic coups in one - floating the "Arafat had AIDS" rumour while at the same time hinting a Conservative MP is leaving open the suggestion to some that he is AIDS phobic.

In other words, the report tries to spin this into bigger news.

And to characterize Frum's article as the "AIDS story" is not accurate. While Frum was the first to write about it, he is not the only one to speculate on Arafat and AIDS. The  New York Times, not considered a conservative organ like Frontpage, wrote an entire news article on the possibility earlier this month, which was later recapped by NewsMax.

In otherwords, the report (and particularly the headline) misrepresented the content of the piece Day referred to in his email, to generate a sensationalist angle to a pretty dull story.

Any comments on any of this, Terrible Sweal?

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

> "He has been waging war on Israel for four decades."

> "He has led the Palestinian Arabs from one disaster to another."

> "His agents hijacked planes, massacred civilians, organized the murder of schoolchildren and Olympic athletes--and even the assassinations of American diplomats."

> "Arafat has enjoyed amazing success in persuading the world's governments to draw a distinction between al-Qaeda terrorism and his own supposedly more acceptable brand."

If Day was using these, and other allegations as his justification, then he is equally to be faulted. They are a one sided view of the man and even more questionable than the not yet confirmed medical speculation.

> "Arafat's diplomatic success has had important and--for him--positive political consequences. Thirty years of Palestinian terrorism have dulled the world's moral outrage."

> "But atrocities against civilians are the only kind of war Arafat knows."

> "Arafat's forces have rarely if ever taken the field against the Israeli military. They have instead waged a war of kidnappings and random murder, very similar to that practiced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq."

[Argus]

I have often thought David Frum was a Canadian national embarassment.

Yassar Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize.

How convenient it is for us to forget.

Yasser Arafat was a violent, vicious, murdering terrorist scumbag who organized and ordered kidnappings, hijackings, explosions and murders, especially those of women and children.

How quickly it is for some to forget.

[Black Dog]

Yasser Arafat was a violent, vicious, murdering terrorist scumbag who organized and ordered kidnappings, hijackings, explosions and murders, especially those of women and children.

How quickly it is for some to forget.

That's a two-way street, sunshine.

[Guest eureka]

I was sort of wondering whether Arafat really was guilty of all those things. Could it be a case of Frum attributing to him all the sins of man?

[The Terrible Sweal]

So, in short, you drew an inference about Day's intentions based on an assumption of the article's content?

Yes, Kimmy, I drew inferences, based on substantial experience with these characters' conduct. I was willing to, and did, check my inferences against the article. It confirmed my inferences. I don't see any grave default on my part there.

And it is still the case that you don't have to read Frum to know what he's going to say. He's more predictable than the tides.

Tripe? I won't argue over the merits of Frum's column. But I don't think anybody who has actually read the article would claim that that "AIDS rumour" is an accurate description of its content. ... Are you seriously going to argue that Frum's main point is that Arafat may have had AIDS?  For real?

It is an accurate description of a substantial portion of it. And moreover, since the rest of the piece has virtually nothing to say, I think it was probably the purpose, if not "the point".

Well, I for starters I think running it under the headline Stockwell Day cites Arafat AIDS rumour in email when it first appeared on Monday night was a Misrepresentation.

I agree; that headline gives an incorrect impression, (though it may be the headline editor rather than the reporter at fault.) Day cited the article, not the rumour.

The report made it seem as if the AIDS comment was the only significant content of Frum's piece and that Day must have been referring to it when he cited Frum's piece in his e-mail.

The report or the headline? If you mean the report, what did it say?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Any comments on any of this, Terrible Sweal?

Yes ...

... to characterize Frum's article as the "AIDS story" ... Frum was the first to write about it, ...

... Q.E.D.

[Argus]

I was sort of wondering whether Arafat really was guilty of all those things. Could it be a case of Frum attributing to him all the sins of man?

No. His history as a terrorist is undeniable.

[kimmy]

... Q.E.D.

QED? What do you imagine yourself to have proven?

It is an accurate description of a substantial portion of it. And moreover, since the rest of the piece has virtually nothing to say, I think it was probably the purpose, if not "the point".

Not true at all. You may not agree with the argument that Frum makes, but to claim that the article was just an excuse to print an AIDS jab is weak.

I agree; that headline gives an incorrect impression, (though it may be the headline editor rather than the reporter at fault.) Day cited the article, not the rumour.

Finally.

The report or the headline? If you mean the report, what did it say?

I meant both. The report for the same reason as the headline: it focuses heavily on the AIDS angle, and barely at all mentions that the Frum editorial focuses primarily on Arafat's violent past.

-kimmy