Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAnalyst: Polonium found on Arafat's clothing was planted
Excerpt:
Responding to an Al Jazeera report published Wednesday, which said that specialists at the Institut de Radiophysique in Lausanne, Switzerland, discovered abnormally high levels of polonium on Arafat's belongings, Karmon said that the half life of the substance would make it impossible for polonium to have been discovered at such high levels if it had been used to kill Arafat eight years ago.
According to the Al-Jazeera report, polonium has a half-life of 138 days, "meaning that half of the substance decays roughly every four-and-a-half months."
And yet, eight years after Arafat's death, the Swiss scientists reported finding polonium levels of 54mBq and 180mBq on his belonging, considered to be high levels.
"If it had been used to for poisoning, minimal levels should be seen now. Yet much higher levels were found. Someone planted the polonium much later," Karmon said.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=276447
The plot thickens.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
King_David
(14,851 posts)Mosby
(19,491 posts)I read somewhere that his symptoms were not consistent with HIV/AIDS.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)was never anything but Israeli propaganda. If there'd been anything to it, the French medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Arafat would have announced it. France had no reason to cover for Yassir Arafat's sex life.
shira
(30,109 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Is a so called progressive thinking that having AIDS has anything to do with someone's "sex life " and that anybody is somehow "insulting " Arafat by claiming he died of AIDS ( this from someone who "claims " to be a progressive )
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)there are other ways you can get it.
And, in much of the world these days, it's a heterosexual disease.
But your purpose in keeping the AIDS claim alive isn't to imply that Arafat may have received a tainted blood transfusion, or that he was an IV drug user, or that he visited female prostitutes, or that he was actually born in Port-au-Prince. You're dredging this up because you want to discredit the guy in the eyes of Palestinians(who, unfortunately, are more sexually conservative in some cases than they should be)by falsely implying that he was engaging in unprotected same-gender sex or even(and there's no way THIS could have been kept secret if he'd actually done it)that he'd sexually forced himself on his own bodyguards(a claim that's been repeated in at least one of yesterday's threads on this subject).
You are being a hypocrite...you're a supposed LGBT activist who is using homophobia to attack someone whose objective(the end of the oppressive status quo Palestinians are forced to live under and a return to Palestinians of the land the illegal West Bank settlers took from them by dubious means)you happen to oppose. Shame on you for your hypocrisy.
shira
(30,109 posts)There are very good reasons to suspect Arafat had AIDS. His personal doctor and other allies say so. The French and PA won't comment on Arafat's medical reports, etc....
What's FAR worse is the anti-Israel contingent claiming without absolutely any evidence whatsoever that the Jews poisoned Arafat. That old blood libel should be beneath genuine liberals and progressives.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)see here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113413613
and BTW why do you consistently use Jews instead of Israeli's? Is every Jew on Earth a citizen of Israel?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:31 PM - Edit history (2)
I say "Jews" because that's the claim throughout the mideast. Western fans of that blood libel pretend it's only about Israelis. So let's cut the shit, okay? Here's what the mideast is subjected to 24/7 WRT allegations and rumors about Arafat's death...
Now of course we can pretend there's no element of bigotry in the poisoning charges. I just don't see the point. Maybe you could make a case. Go for it...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and that it is only transmitted via 'Gay" sex, I can tell you that it is not either I worked in a maternal/infant health clinic where a good number of the pregnant women were HIV positive, some had been infected via their husbands boyfriends or customers, a couple had been 'medically infected', others were IV drug users and on this last item it is something that for some reason 'ProIsrael' people ignore in what could seem an obsession to prove Arafat was Gay, but why?
shira
(30,109 posts)I never claimed it's solely a sexually transmitted disease.
You're fishing again....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Not only do most Jewish people on the planet not see the Israeli government as synonymous with Jews as a collectivity, most Israelis don't see their government-of-the-day as synonymous with THEM as a collectivity. If they did, we'd see Israeli elections where one party received a majority of the popular vote, rather than endless and sometimes politically schizophrenic coalition governments.
Or that Ariel Sharon(the person Uri Avnery thinks is responsible for Arafat's death)equates to "the Jews".
It is truly disgusting, and in fact somewhat frightening, to hear YOU make these knowingly false accusations and insinuations over and over and over again.
You know perfectly well that neither I nor anybody else who raises questions about Israeli government policy on this board(other than the occasional crazyhead that ALL of us join forces to drive off)thinks that way.
Do the decent thing and give up such tactics.
They are beneath you and they are unworthy of the state that you claim to defend.
Oh, and Arafat's doctor simply said the man had HIV-if you knew anything about this, you'd know that many people are HIV positive but do NOT have AIDS. Some don't develop it for years. In some cases, it doesn't develop at all. And in any case, Arafat's doctor also said that the HIV didn't KILL Arafat.
shira
(30,109 posts)They're not at all afraid to call it for what it is.
It's all over those disgusting PMW videos that you deny too.
Very ugly stuff. Why defend that neo-nazi crap?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You only raise those meaningless videos as deflection...you don't really give a damn about what they might say, you just want to carry on your tactic of saying that everybody ELSE has to change before the Occupation can end or even be made less repressive.
shira
(30,109 posts)Keep it real.
Stop pretending this isn't as ugly and vile as it's been for centuries. The same old, nasty, vulgar accusations.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why, then, would they have protected the Jewish communities in Arab countries from extinction during World War II when EVERY European "Christian" country(and, to their everlasting shame the United States and Canada as well)either turned the Jews of Europe over to Hitler without contest or barred them from getting sanctuary within their lands?
Stop collectively demonizing Arabs and Muslims. It's just as wrong to do that as to express hatred of Jews.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and there were plenty of pogroms that happened there throughout the centuries.
That's nothing to brag about, Ken.
Compared to Germany, Russia wasn't so bad to Jews either; using that ridiculous logic. But tell that to Russian Jews. I dare you. Maybe you should read some history on Jews in Russia, come back here, and then claim it wasn't so bad compared to the Holocaust. Of course nothing is as bad, but it seems you'll prop it up as if it's progressive. FWIW, both sides of my family hail from Lithuania. No family member I know of wants anything to do with that hellhole, over a century later.
Here you go WRT the latest about Arafat poisoning...
Par for the course. Same, typical centuries old vulgarity that you're incapable of condemning. Maybe because Israelis aren't victims in this conflict? You tell me...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's a vile place. I join you in condemning it, and all the other European places you mentioned.
What they did, and what all the Europeans who collaborated with Hitler did, was unspeakable. And so were the pogroms of Russia(I would never minimize any of that, and you know it).
But ONLY the people of Lithuania, Russia, Germany, and the rest of "Christian Europe" were responsible for that vileness. NOT Palestinians and not Arabs. If you were a Jewish person living in North Africa or Iran, you were certain to survive World War II. You weren't confined to Warsaw-style Ghettos. You weren't turned into lampshades. And you weren't put on a boat to Europe so that the Europeans COULD do that to you(as every Arab or Muslim country in the region could have done had they wished to). The Arabs weren't saints...but they were never anywhere near as bad as the European monsters whose deeds led to the creation of Zionism(among other movements, such as autonomism and Jewish socialist Bundism, and including the Jewish militias that actively fought against Hitler and his minions all across Europe)
You are raging now at people on one continent for what people on another continent did. That's a major part of the problem...the massively misdirected anger.
And it's enough that I'm against all bigotry. I don't have to accept the argument that the Palestinian leadership is more important than anything else in this situation just to prove that.
It serves no purpose for you to keep pretending that the Israeli government's policies haven't given Palestinians legitimate grievances, or that that government's choices were always justified and played no role in perpetuating the conflict. What I'm saying is that it's not a one-sided "good vs. evil" thing, shira...and acting as if it is, acting as if nothing has changed since 1948, is pointless and destructive.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Give it a rest already.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to announce that you don't respond to my posts is somewhat contradictory, don't you "QJ"?
King_David
(14,851 posts)It is not a very nice , but common "slur",and stands for " Queer Jew"
I beat up a kid in high school who called me QJ !!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Queer Justice who posts at a site called "Prosemite undercover " and some here have been of the opinion that Queer Justice posts on DU under a different user name
King_David
(14,851 posts)Definately knows that it's common vernacular for Queer Jew, sometimes instead of QJ redneck racist skinheads will say FJ ( same slur )
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I've seen quite similar things posted about him by Queer Justice but with antisemite thrown in
King_David
(14,851 posts)Nor any interest.
It is just deflection .
I don't expect to hear such disgusting
Lingo on a progressuve website such as
DU and I will not discuss it any further .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but of course you will have to deflect from that I do understand really I do 
King_David
(14,851 posts)But it seems your very caught up in the intra-forum web "wars".
I don't have time or interest in such so I'll leave it to you.
Enjoy...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it could make one wonder why you post at all seeing as how comprehension of an opponent or even what you previously wrote does not seem to be your strong suit , but it is a 'free' site so go ahead with what pleases you
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I referred to your OLD, banned posting name, which is something else. Anyone who wants to know what it was can pm me.
I would never use the vile phrase you just quoted...because I'm not an antisemite and neither is anybody else on this board that you disagree with on this issue. We're ALL opposed to all forms of bigotry...and the Occupation and the settlements are bigotry, with no possible humanist justifications.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I have no other name but the one you see.
I have never been banned.
Why alert ? I want people to see that
You are bitter and bigoted .. I don't want
your post hidden.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)So do a lot of people who ARE Jewish...and even quite a lot who are Israeli.
I'm not even anti-Israel...I support a two-state solution...a REAL two-state solution, which has to mean the Palestinians get the entire West Bank and a guarantee of an unterrupted water and electric supply.
There's nothing you support that someone HAS to support just to avoid being a bigot.
btw...are you EVER going to explain why you have an Australian flag in your posts, when you actually live in the Canadian province of Ontario?
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm for physical RoR for the elderly who were kicked out in 1948...few, if any of whom were driven by hatred of Jews...
for the descendants, I favor compensation with APOLOGIES and ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WRONGDOING.
The way to get post-1948 refugees to move on is to admit that they were victims and to apologize for the wrong. This is what decent human beings everywhere would naturally do, and it would set a great example for the other refugee situations in the world. Acknowledgment matters and helps to get people to change.
Saying "your side lost and that's all that matters" is not ever going to be an acceptable or workable position.
My position would not threaten Israeli security in the slightest. Everybody who lives in Israel now would be just fine.
So no, I don't favor your nightmare scenario.
(as, of course, you knew perfectly well already).
At the same time, I'd also ask(as I've already done)for the refugee camps in other Arab countries to be closed and for those people to be allowed to resettle somewhere...while acknowledging, as should be acknowledged, that Palestinian identity IS real and that Palestinians were never "generic Arabs" and were never part of CAMERA/FLAME's mythical "unrelenting Arab campaign".
So, I've taken a moderate, workable, and responsible position on this issue that harms no one.
shira
(30,109 posts)They'd totally reject it.
What do you think of that?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They would, however, consider YOUR total refusal to acknowledge that they were the victim of a massive injustice(an acknowledgment that wouldn't harm Israeli security in the slightest)to be a far GREATER insult than anything I'd propose.
You asked me what I felt...I gave you an answer...an answer you can't demonize me as "anti-Israel" for.
You, by contrast, have only supported proposals that NO Palestinians, leadership OR rank-and-file, could ever seriously be expected to accept.
They could never accept a proposal that doesn't give at least the elders of 1948 RoR(accepting that would be simply human decency).
They could never accept a proposal that left the major settlements in place(since the point of putting those settlements where they were was to make it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state by making Palestinian territory non-contiguous).
They could never accept a proposal that makes them recognize Israel on the exact words Bibi wants to make them say(when we both know recognizing the State of Israel would be all that they can fairly be asked to do). The point of Bibi insisting on his childish phraseology is to make the Palestinians say "you are totally right and we are totally wrong".
They could never accept a proposal that gives Israel control over Palestinian access to water and electricity. C'mon, even YOU would have to admit that they couldn't possibly accept that one, shira.
They could never, in short, be expected to accept anything that Bibi and Co. are currently offering...his government's proposals are all based on privileging "winning" over peace...on being able to say "we made THEM crawl and we made them say it all the way WE wanted it said". They are not how a real government negotiates. They are, instead, the way a two-year-old engages with the world immediately before throwing a tantrum. If you really support Israel and want it to be a country at peace and with security, Bibi's proposals and his tone SHOULD embarrass you.
Any deal that stuck would HAVE to be a deal that treated Israelis and Palestinians, and the states each live in, as equals, with neither holding the power of life and death over the other.
This would need to include, in my view, an agreement to extinguish all Palestinian claims to land on the Israeli side of the Green line in exchange for the extinguishing of all Israeli claims to land in the West Bank. In exchange for this, Israel could then fairly argue for the repatriation(possibly with dual Israeli/Palestinian citizenship)of members of the pre-1948 Jewish communities in the West Bank...communities that should never have been forced out by Jordan(as the pre-1948 Palestinians should not have been forced out by the Zionist forces)and who, unlike the illegal and ultra-aggressive post-1973 West Bank settlers, actually had a personal connection to the areas Likudniks insist on calling "Judea and Samaria"
I say Likudniks because those terms were never used by an pre-Likud Israeli officials, at least to my knowledge).
There could even be a compromise on the RoR issue based on the idea of an equal number of pre-1948 Jewish resettlements in Palestine AND pre-1948 Palestinian resettlements in what is now Israel...do it on a 1:1 basis.
None of the ideas I've outlined(and I speak only for myself and have never claimed to speak for anyone else, before you once again ask)would put either side at a disadvantage...none would jeopardize the security or the dignity of either side.
shira
(30,109 posts)I challenge you to find me any evidence that your version of RoR is what the Palestinians would accept, including Hamas and IJ.
You won't find it, but that won't stop you from claiming "you're not sure" they'd be against it.
So what do you say to the Palestinians for utterly rejecting your goodwill RoR offer?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You're only saying that I "know" that because insisting on asserting that is crucial to your narrative in which all Palestinians are inhumane, reason-free psychopaths(you don't use those words, but they are behind every assumption and statement you make).
As I've understood it, Abbas himself has talked of having only a small number of people get physical RoR.
You can't assume that they're 100% united in demanding all or none.
BTW...if you were correct that they wouldn't accept my idea(solely for the sake of argument)wouldn't you ALSO have to admit that it's impossible to get them to accept no RoR at all, no matter what Israel proposed in return?
Why would you think your absolutist demand could possibly be more acceptable to the Palestinian side than my suggestion of a humane compromise?
By this time, you can't STILL think that it would ever be possible to use military force to get them to accept the terms YOU insist on in this. You just can't. This conflict is at a permanent state of military standoff. Only compromise on a negotiating basis of parity of esteem can end this.
shira
(30,109 posts)...something, anything at all to show they'd accept, I'm sure you'd be able to point to it.
The Israelis have offered the Palestinians their own state along with over 35 billion in compensation for refugees (Clinton Initiatives). The Palestinians countered with Intifada 2 rather than a reasonable counter-proposal. Two states would exist today 12 years later, but you don't hold the Palestinians accountable at all for that. Only the Israelis. Heck, you don't think the Geneva Initiative is worth a crap either, since it doesn't meet your demands - even though Chomsky and Carter are for it. It's too "rightwing" for your tastes.
So basically, if it were up to you there wouldn't be peace, ever. If you could go back 12 years you'd have told Arafat to reject the offer. You'd advise Abbas to reject the Geneva Initiative as well.
You're against a reasonable 2 state solution.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)since all the settlements are illegal.
It's enough for Israel to have the land on its own side of the Green Line. That's contiguous and defensible. The settlements create more security problems then they solve.
The insistence on holding the settlements is based on the paranoid assumption that even peace doesn't mean peace.
shira
(30,109 posts)We may disagree with the settlements, even hate them. But they're not illegal.
If it were up to you, there'd never be a Palestinian state.
Let's face it, you'd have told both Arafat and Abbas to reject the Clinton Initiatives and Geneva - now wouldn't you? There could've been 2 states for 12 years now, but you're against that aren't you? You think the last 12 years are worth holding out for. All the thousands of lives wasted....
Pathetic.
King_David
(14,851 posts)You have problems on the LGBT front too.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I favor same-sex marriage, full equality for LGBT people(and I include transgender people, the "T" in LGBT, in that, which is more than some gay men and lesbians can say) and an end to all forms of discrimination, repression, and violence against LGBT people everywhere.
I simply reject the idea that LGBT issues require a person to defend the Occupation of the West Bank. The Occupation is not good for LGBT people, in Israel OR Palestine, and cannot lead to victory for the Palestinian LGBT movement. This is why I listen so much to Ezra Nawi(a progressive gay Israeli of Iraqi Jewish ancestry who was in a long-term relationship with a Palestinian, a relationship that ended because the Israeli government made it difficult for both of them to live in the SAME country. Ezra was put on trial for the horrible crime of trying to stop the completely unjustified destruction of a harmless Bedouin village. I never heard you condemn the way the Israeli government treated him, when you SHOULD have been in solidarity with him as a fellow LGBT person).
If I had problems with LGBT people, I'd never support the inclusion of QAIA in the Toronto LGBT Pride parade(an inclusion you oppose because you oppose free speech on the I/P issue within the LGBT community).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)the hospital in France would have announced it. The French doctors and medical examiner would have had no reason to cover for the guy.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)then they must have been planted later. You would not expect anywhere near that level 8 years down the track.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Do you think they will actually end up exhuming his body and conducting an autopsy?
My hunch is that they won't - and just leave everyone to speculate what they will.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)unless they actually exhume his body, I agree that there is probably not much point in pursuing the matter.
Its a hell of a ruse, though, if it is one. I don't think the Palestinians have the ability to do this sort of thing, unless they have their own version of the radioactive boy scout:-
http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/0059750/
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And what reasons they give for doing so.
Assuming that is what indeed ends up happening, which is, as I said, what I am predicting (but not what I am hoping for - not a fan of unsolved mysteries).
bemildred
(90,061 posts)For the reasons others have stated. Would not want to speculate otherwise.
On the one hand, the Polonium came from somewhere, it does not just hang around, but OTOH the facts as presented are not consistent with it being what killed Arafat, or how he died. Compare this with the Litivenko case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko#Poisoning_and_death
MADem
(135,425 posts)were not Jews, they were HAMAS. People forget how contentious the relationship between al Fatah and Hamas was. Those factions were getting shitty and nasty before the body was cold.
Of course, if someone did kill the guy, and then came to suspect that someone was going to test the clothing, what better way to throw investigators off the scent by making it look like an incompetent liar was planting evidence?
eyl
(2,499 posts)with a half-life of about 140 days, after 8 years there should be less than one-millionth of the original amount left.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)
1 / 2(22) = 0.0000002384185791015625
give or take.
Archae
(47,245 posts)To gin up a "conspiracy theory" when it is pretty obvious Arafat died because he was getting old.
My BIL's Mom just died today, she was 72.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Arafat's doctor: There was HIV in his blood, but poison killed him
http://www.haaretz.com/news/arafat-s-doctor-there-was-hiv-in-his-blood-but-poison-killed-him-1.227303
Archae
(47,245 posts)"He was poisoned, but had been injected with AIDS!"
Sounds more like that doctor is covering his own ass, maybe he botched something that led to Arafat dying of a stroke, or heart disease, or whatnot.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Arafat was gay and used to shag all of his bodyguards, or so the rumour goes, and thats how he caught HIV.
Ironically, its a fairly deliberate ploy to try and incite some kind of homophobic sentiment, but as Ive remarked before, hypocrisy is mother's milk to a lot of people around here.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/after-polonium-revelation-israels-pr-hacks-revive-lies-arafat-was-gay-and-died
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The folks at Electronic Intifada do their usual thing with their usual agenda - not surprising.
Everybody's got their own angle on this. That's part of why I predict that they will not exhume the body and no autopsy will be done. Everyone likes being able to cling to their own conspiracy theory.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)if Arafat really was gay and shagging his bodyguards, it would mean that the Palestinian establishment was more liberal and tolerant than they were usually given credit for. After all, how long do you think Netanyahu would last if he were shagging his bodyguards?
And the folks at any given place do their usual thing with their usual agenda, the same as you're doing now. The difference is that they have backed up their opinion with facts.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)To your second point first, if the Electronic Intifada folks wanted to write a similar piece proving that the Arafat-Polonium story to be false - and one that is promoted by certain elements for political reasons - applying their similarly diligent research tactics towards that end, I am confident that they would be able to put together an equally convincing presentation.
However, that is not their agenda. And in fact, it is almost amusing to see how differently they approach two equally shaky theories. The one that they don't like they attack with vigor and they one that they don't mind so much they leave alone. Similarly, the pro-Israel sites you mentioned do something along those lines in reverse.
The actual facts are that there is not much evidence to support either theory and there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that they were both being pushed by different corners for ideological reasons.
And to your other point, It is ridiculous to think most Palestinians would take the news of Arafat being gay and, in your words, "shagging his bodyguards", as a mark of how liberal and tolerant the Palestinian establishment is. In fact, I don't think that there are a whole lot of people on the Palestinian side who are interested in showcasing their society as one that would tolerate that sort of behavior from their leaders.
My own personal opinion is that part of the reason the Palestinians won't exhume the body and do the autopsy is not only just because so many would like to keep alive the idea that Arafat was poisoned by Israelis, but a fair number of Palestinians are also keen on keeping alive the whispers that Arafat died of AIDS, as a means of, in their eyes, tarnishing his legacy.
I would point out that, unlike Electronic Intifada, I don't have any agenda. I don't run a website. I don't have a blog. I'm just posting on a message board sub-forum read by maybe 50-100 people with whom I like to exchange ideas and arguments. Electronic Intifada has a clear agenda, and make no bones about it.
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but thanks for the incisive and informing video
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that such a Gay loving country as Israel would attempt to create a homophobic response from others, I just don't understand............
shira
(30,109 posts)So here’s my totally unsubstantiated conjecture based on what I’ve read: Arafat died of AIDS.
Think about the sham marriage to a much younger woman. Think about her living much of their marriage apart from him in the lap of European luxury. Think about this seemingly asexual man wedded to no one but his country. Think about the terrible opprobrium attached to homosexuality within Arab society. I know next to nothing firsthand about what it means to live one’s life as a closeted homosexual. But still I’d have to say that Yasir Arafat is a classic candidate for this status. While Arafat’s wasted appearance in the pictures of him boarding the French military helicopter as he left for France could be the way any dying man might look, I was reminded of the “wasting” nature of AIDS on the human body.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2004/11/18/arafat-why-did-he-die/
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)from your link
Thanks to Katherine Falk, who points out the following story from news.com.au, an Australian news site: Cirrhosis of the liver killed Arafat.
Cirrhosis of the liver ‘killed Arafat’
November 19, 2004
PALESTINIAN leader Yasser Arafat died of cirrhosis of the liver, but French doctors were loath to say so because of a common public belief that the disease is the result of alcoholism, reports indicated yesterday.
Doctors described Mr Arafat as “a true water drinker” and not an alcoholic, according to the paper, Le Canard Enchaine. The weekly is well known for political satire and accurate investigations.
Allegations that Mr Arafat was a heavy drinker, which is forbidden in Islam, would have clouded the mourning that began on November 11, when he died.
The report that Mr Arafat, 75, was suffering from cirrhosis was bolstered by an article in Le Monde, which said he had suffered from “intravascular coagulation”, a blood clotting condition that can be a sign of late-stage liver failure and can be consistent with cirrhosis.
BTW “intravascular coagulation”can be related to many conditions, some AIDs related, some not such as Strep A also know as flesh eating bacteria
eta I do not accept either story as absolute truth, there are many conflicting stories, an autopsy is needed to determine the truth
bemildred
(90,061 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Is thinking that it is an insult or a slur ,that he was Gay and died of AIDS.
What kind of Liberal thinks that this is insulting?
Do you think anything less of him that he was Gay?
I certainly do not think any more of him,
but then again,I am NOT homophobic.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)lot's of dithering, subject changes, and that ain't me sort of stuff but strangely no real answers
interesting
King_David
(14,851 posts)Please explain.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)perhaps it will enlighten you?
however if you did not understand what you were answering then why bother to reply at all, unless it was to slip in some underhanded insult or insinuation, but even then it makes no sense seeing as how you did not understand what you replying too
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)as if the former inference is conclusive evidence for the latter. Then again, I guess that's how homophobes think.
King_David
(14,851 posts)You shouldn't rely on info from your wife (the one you told us is against Gay Marriage) when forming your opinion on Gay topics. (A jury hid your post so I can not link to it )
But I believe BTA (senior host in LGBT group) answers your 'concerns' here :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=13379
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)you have made the insinuation that Arafat was gay, therefore he died of AIDS. The implication is that it is somehow natural or expected for gay men to die of AIDS, which is disgusting.
Further, you are trying to imply that the accusations of Arafat being a sexual deviant have nothing to do with the accusations of Arafat being gay. BtA made reference to some equally uncorroborated allegation of Arafat being a pedophile, which is straight from the first page of the homophobe handbook. I doubt that there's a single homophobe out there that hasn't made an unsupported allegation of child sexual abuse against a gay man. Its the first thing that homophobes do when they're confronted, then they claim that they don't hate anyone, they're only trying to protect children. Its disappointing to see such chapter-and-verse homophobic tactics appearing on DU, but as I say, hypocrisy is mother's milk to a lot of people around here.
Further, the only allegation that appears alongside the accusation that Arafat was a sexual deviant is that he was gay. There are no references to rape of a woman or anything of the sort. It was obvious that the Israeli hacks that fabricated this line of attack believed him to be a deviant because he was supposedly gay.
This is nothing short of a disgraceful defence of homophobia. I will certainly be bookmarking this thread and I will remember it for a long time.
King_David
(14,851 posts)But, Oberliner's answer here may help you sort out the 'confusion'.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=13437
(What does your wife,who is strongly oppossed to Gay Marriage,(as you told us in your now deleted post) say about this all ?)
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)but I would expect no less from homophobes.
King_David
(14,851 posts)YOU calling me a Homophobe is ,umm, well, RICH !!
Ha Ha
shira
(30,109 posts)Can't make this up.
King_David
(14,851 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Your posts in this thread amount to a defence of homophobia. If you think otherwise, feel free to put the question to a jury of our peers and let them decide.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Now because your last one was deleted , I am unable to link to that horrible one about your wife strongly opposing gay marriage.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)I, on the other hand, do strongly support gay marriage. Other than some tenuous guilt-by-association tactic, what else have you got?
Maybe you should delete your own posts accusing Arafat of being a deviant for being gay. Because believe me, I will be making reference to that post until the end of time.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Cheers 'mate'
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)
Must be disappointing for all the homophobes out there.
King_David
(14,851 posts)An HIV test result ?
Whos result is that though?
Yep , that settles it !!
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Strange. You really want to seem to believe that all gay people have HIV. A bit like some people refuse to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, even after he produced his birth certificate.
But I guess facts are irrelevant where homophobia is concerned.
Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #94)
King_David This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Does it really matter what the man did in bed?
It's creepy that you're this insistent on keeping the "Arafat died of AIDS" thing alive, when there's virtually no evidence for it. If nothing else, there should probably have been Kaposi's lesions on his body that would have been detected at autopsy.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Imagine someone saying that about another minority group ?
Like a 'Black loving country' or a Muslim loving country' .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)IMO your grasping for something and coming up empty handed
King_David
(14,851 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)because I do not do code well
but I do get the hair splitting over the terms loving and friendly, unless of course you are saying that Israel will be 'friends' with its LGBT community but not actually loving? otherwise I really do not understand what the fuss is, because a reference to any entity as loving any 'minority' or protected group such as women who really are not a minority in most places but are indeed discriminated against should indicate that that entity is friendly towards their civil rights
King_David
(14,851 posts)AS IF...that is an insult , or a slur?
That is Electronic Intifada for you, bastion of liberalism ,Ha ha ha ha
Ha Ha Ha
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)because one of your favorite liberal Gay friendly we're told Israeli publications did just that
Times of Israel that was what the EI article was about something you'd know if you actually read it
shira
(30,109 posts)Also, in that EI article they admit Arafat's personal doctor said Arafat had the AIDS virus.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so according to you Times of Israel says Arafat was a deviant because of the sounds he supposedly made during sex, but not because of who he was having sex with? Seems a spurious statement to me but if you say so 
oh and BTW you do realize that what is called "Gay sex" by some usually homophobes, is not the sole cause of AIDs or way of becoming infected with HIV virus, it's just a fact in point nothing more or less
Behind the Aegis
(56,108 posts)Or, it could be for his alledged pedophilia (though they never "age" the child(ren) in question).
I find it interesting that EI is tryiing to accuse Israel of homohopia, when it is clear they are the ones who see homosexuality as disgraceful, which is why they incorrectly quoted the TOI article.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)But make no mistake. Yasser Arafat was a murderous, genocidal, diabolical, duplicitous sexual deviant who died at the age of 75. He was despised by Arab and Israeli alike. Syria’s Hafez Assad tried to jail him. King Hussein of Jordan once said of Arafat, “He never came to a bridge he didn’t double-cross.” And Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak considered him a cur.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/for-the-palestinians-sake-its-time-to-kill-off-arafat/
several paragraphs later it then accuses Arafat of attempted rape of a women and pedophilia (boys) one can draw ones own conclusions of what what we are to infer
Behind the Aegis
(56,108 posts)This is the bigoted EI quote: "While Israel markets itself as the most gay-friendly country in the world, its PR hacks are busy reviving homophobic rumors that Arafat was a gay “sexual deviant” who died of AIDS due to his promiscuity.
It is pretty obvious that some, as well as EI, are inferring "sexual deviant" means his alleged homosexual actions, and that is homophobic. I have also NEVER seen Israel market itself as "the most gay-friendly country in the world" which is straight up homophobic baiting! It is so refreshing a bigoted POS site like EI is so concerned about homophobia. (
, just in case)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you can convolute that into anything else you wish but the point stands
Behind the Aegis
(56,108 posts)You can avoid it all you desire, and given the topic, I don't think this conversation will be productive. Homophobia is more than "name-calling."
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)do you have the courage to state that plainly here on DU?
King_David
(14,851 posts)In all his posts appearing in this thread.
100 %
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)are you calling me homophobic do you have the courage in your convictions to state that openly here on DU as King_David?
All I said was that I agree with BTA's posts 100% .
Nothing more nothing less.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and seeing as how you replied in his place apparently I thought perhaps you would be so kind as to actually answer the question that was asked in the comment
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)why shouldn't it come to this? After all, defence of racism and imperialism is par for the course around here. Is it really so surprising that they'd go out to bat for homophobia as well?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)But make no mistake. Yasser Arafat was a murderous, genocidal, diabolical, duplicitous sexual deviant who died at the age of 75. He was despised by Arab and Israeli alike. Syria’s Hafez Assad tried to jail him. King Hussein of Jordan once said of Arafat, “He never came to a bridge he didn’t double-cross.” And Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak considered him a cur.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/for-the-palestinians-sake-its-time-to-kill-off-arafat/
King_David
(14,851 posts)You do know that being a Sexual Deviant has nothing to do with being Gay,right?
Probably has more to do with what he was alleged to have done with his bodyguards.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so explain exactly what that means were you inferring that Arafat's bodyguards were dogs, horses, what? The article makes no insinuations to such so exactly what are you getting at here?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Bestiality , may be Sexually Deviant behavior,but not exclusively. Try DSM 4 for further info,then we can proceed with this discussion.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I answered your comment gave an example and asked what you meant by deviant sexual behavior apparently you can not answer that or chose not too, but why?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Hence I told you do some research .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)no I believe bestiality is indeed a deviant sexual behavior albeit not the only one, it seems that indeed you may be the one who is confused about that?
"Bestiality , may be Sexually Deviant behavior,but not exclusively" may be only may, as in may be or may be not?
you seem grasping at straws here to accuse and not actually answer anything and claim you just can not understand........
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're really bad at framing arguments.
Lenny Ben-David is the one tying together "sexual deviant," "gay" and "AIDS," and he does so in an editorial very openly advertising itself as a character assassination piece (not that there's much character to assassinate, but apparently ben-David thought there was enough left to justify the effort.)
Your attempts to portray the posters pointing this out as being homophobic is... well, it's fucking low, is what it is, and that's considering the low standards I hold Team Israel to on internet message boards.
It's not Shaayecanaan or Azurnoir linking those terms together and presenting them as truth; it's Lenny Ben-David, and his reason for doing so is very obviously to demonize Arafat by linking those terms to him; it is in fact his stated intent. Anyone who knows how to click a link can see that for themselves.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Who doesn't get it .
(and your argument is a little muddled , just saying. Sorry for pointing that out when you do actually believe you have a superior grasp . )
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"a little muddled?" Dude, you're the one pimping editorial as indisputable fact, and insinuating that people who point out the flaws of this are homophobes.
If you don't like the spin the EI article gave, fine, that's understandable. I think it's over-the-top myself. But it does link to Lenny Ben-David's editorial. In that editorial, Lenny Ben-David does link gayness, AIDS, and "sexual deviance." The article's title, "It's time to kill off Arafat" (eight years after he died, mind) does make it pretty obvious he links those terms together, and then ties them to Arafat, in an effort to denigrate Arafat.
Azurnoire and Shaayecannan's point is that the "Arafat died of AIDS" rumor is exactly what Ben-David is showing; a rumor, designed as an attempt at character assassination. If you think that sort of thing is "below the belt" (pardon the term) then take it up with Ben-David, or whoever else is giving you that story.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Ben-David does not link gayness, AIDS, and sexual deviance. Certainly not explicitly, and only implicitly to those who wish to believe that he did.
The article does describe Arafat as a sexual deviant and, in doing so, presents three illustrations to support that claim, being gay and/or having AIDS not being among them.
The three illustrations are:
1. "Playing tiger" and making "squawling noises" while having sex with his bodyguard, knowing his "roaring" could be heard via microphone by his monitors.
2. Tearing the clothes off of a woman for being friendly with a Jewish family, and then attempting, unsuccessfully, to penetrate her.
3. Having a boy (age not listed, but presumably under 18) whom he loved castrated for refusing to denounce his parents.
You may or may not agree that these incidents represent sexual deviancy. And whether or not they are true is a different topic altogether. However, it is clear that this is not an article that is asserting that Arafat was a sexual deviant simply by nature of his being homosexual.
The article makes a point of identifying specific incidents that are at least possibly reasonable examples of sexually deviant behavior.
King_David
(14,851 posts)That is why I said 'muddled' .
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)or "gayness" as you so artfully put it.
So having gay sex is not a sign if deviance, but if you make tiger noises during gay sex, you can be branded a deviant with a clear conscience? A pretty threadbare and desperate argument, I must say, particularly from someone who pretends to have no agenda. I doubt that Ben-David would have penned his article if the allegation was that Arafat made tiger noises during sex with a woman.
King_David
(14,851 posts)"Playing tiger" and making "squawling noises" while having sex with his bodyguard, knowing his "roaring" could be heard via microphone by his monitors. ''
and
''2. Tearing the clothes off of a woman for being friendly with a Jewish family, and then attempting, unsuccessfully, to penetrate her.
3. Having a boy (age not listed, but presumably under 18) whom he loved castrated for refusing to denounce his parents.''
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It was how was the poster I was responding to put it.
That poster wrote: "Lenny Ben-David does link gayness, AIDS, and "sexual deviance.""
I simply referenced the terminology that poster used in my response.
I guess I'll file that under the "see what you look for" file.
In any case, if Arafat was simply a closeted gay (or bisexual) man who engaged in gay sex would this writer had referred to him as a sexual deviant? Who knows? What is clear, however, is that the article lists various behaviors that one could reasonable conclude to be deviant irrespective of anything to do with homosexuality. Certainly the incident of attempted rape and the ordering of the castration of a young boy are deviant behaviors. The animal noises example, maybe not.
And odd that you would put in a dig about my "pretending" not to have an agenda. So strange that you are unable to grasp the idea that people on a discussion board just like to discuss things, share opinions, provide insights, ask questions. Maybe the fact that you cannot imagine the idea of someone being agenda-free speaks more to where you might be coming from than anything else.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Not simply for that reason, no. It's stirred in with the rest of it. But here, allow me to show you.
""Playing tiger" and making "squawling noises" while having sex with his bodyguard, knowing his "roaring" could be heard via microphone by his monitors. "
People make odd noises during sex. There's nothing deviant about that. Now, if they were dressed in fursuits, maybe that counts, but apparently all there was was audio. So... What's deviant here? The "deviance" being implied here isn't just that there were weird sounds being made... but also who they were being made with. (Maybe if Arafat had taken a note from Qaddafi, this wouldn't even be a "thing." Seems the Fish Speaker tradition didn't extend far past Arakkis / Libya)
Point is, Ben-David is linking homosexuality with Arafat's supposed "sexual deviance," and with how he is supposed to have contracted HIV, according to the rumor. Whether Ben-David regards gay sex "deviant" as EI implies, or if it's just "special treatment" for Arafat, I can't say and wouldn't presume. It's not his only point, but you can't argue it's not there.
Attempted rape and castration are no doubt fucking weird. But... you don't catch HIV from that. And a supposed HIV-related death is part of ben-David's piece, and also the entirety of King_David's argument on this thread.
At any rate. I'm inclined to think the New York Times has the right of it
weirdly enough, I think this position makes me an Israel apologist in some quarters
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If Arafat was discretely having sex with his bodyguards in private and there were no incidents like the attempted rape or ordered castration would the author still called him a sexual deviant? I don't know. If the author meant to assert that Arafat was a sexual deviant simply because he was gay then why include the other stuff? There are plenty of folks who do think gay sex is deviant and would have no problem writing an article explicitly saying as much. This author did not do that.
In any case, I am happy to drop this subject.
I am curious to see if his body does get exhumed and tested. My personal belief, at this point, is that he was not poisoned and did not die of AIDS. Neither case seems particularly convincing.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Read BTA's post please.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=13379
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)have used its policies on LGBT issues in order to argue that the world should ignore the Occupation and the illegal settlement program.
King_David
(14,851 posts)A positive test ..
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Things like that can't really be kept secret anymore.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He was 75 years old.
He'd had probably one of the most stress-filled lives possible
He was an extremely heavy smoker
He'd been confined to his offices in Ramallah for two years without adequate medical attention, and probably had a piss-poor diet for that time too.
Basically, anything that could possibly kill a guy, could have killed the guy.
And the simple truth of the matter is... Israel would have had absolutely nothing to gain from killing him, and in fact quite a bit to lose from doing so.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=160181It is the same proportional amount tha killed Litvinenko.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Sweet.
I can't believe this back and forth.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)everywhere else on DU feels like a bit of a church service compared to here.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)It can be worse.
Several Pro-Israeli posters effectively think 5 or 6 of us are spawn of the Devil.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That one is to a Rachel Maddow video about money in politics.
180 mBq now would mean an original (i.e. 8 years ago) amount of 360 kBq. Litvenko was poisoned with 2 GBq - about 5,000 times or so greater. While the median lethal dose is much less, it's still around 25 times the amount found.
Also, Arafat's doctors have stated that his symptoms were not consistent with Polonium poisoning.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)There are 20 half lives. That's 180 to the twentieth power. That isn't 360kBq.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/was-yasser-arafat-killed-by-polonium.html
The Swiss researchers at Lausanne disagree with you.
eyl
(2,499 posts)The relevant equation is:
N=N0*(1/2)^(t/t0)
where:
N - the amount of the material currently present
N0 - the original quantity
t - the time which has passed
t0 - the half life
So the original quantity would be
N0=N*(1/2)^(-t/t0)
Let's say that, as you say, t/t0 is about 20 in this case. So the original quantity would be
180 mBq*0.5^-20=188,743 Bq
As for the amount present in Litvinenko, I was going by the Wikipedia article, which states an amount of 2 GBq, much higher than this.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)You negated the fraction the second time you stated the equation. 180 mBq to the 20th power is NOT 188,743 Bq. It is far larger, more like 1.27 x 10 to the 45th power. You can check this on many online calculators.
eyl
(2,499 posts)The value of 180 to the 20th power is meaningless (BTW, look at the units - if you raise 180 mBq to the 20th power, you get about 1.27 *10^(-15) Bq- since one mBq is 1/1000 of a Bq - which should suggest to you that your answer is incorrect).
Consider what half life means. let's say you start with a mass of 128 grams of a given radioactive element with a half-life of 100 days. After 100 days, half of that has decayed, leaving you with 64 grams. After another 100 days, half of the remainder has decayed, leaving you with 32 grams. And so on.
Therefore, if 4 half-lives have passed (400 days in the above example), the amount of material remaining is 128 grams times 0.5x0.5x0.5x0.5 (0.5^4), or 8 grams. More generally, for a starting amount of N0, and a half-life time of t0, the amount N of remaining material after time t is given by:
N=N0*0.5^(t/t0)
In the example above, N0 is 128, t0=100 and t=400 so we get N=128*(0.5)^(400/100)=128*(1/16)=8.
Inversely, if you have a given amount of material N, and you want to know how much material was originally left, the formula would be
N0=N*0.5^(-t/t0)=N*2^(t/t0)
In our case, we have (converting all units to Bq)
N0=0.18*2^20=188,743
TomClash
(11,344 posts)According to the Institut, polonium 210 activity decreased by a factor of 1 million. Your calculations don't support that.
eyl
(2,499 posts)180 mBq is about one million
188,000 Bq is .188 mBq according to the radioactivity unit converter provided by the U of Illinois here - http://www.drs.illinois.edu/rss/toolscalcs/unitconv.aspx.
.188 mBq divided by 180 mBq is .00104444,, not 1 million.
Bradlad
(206 posts)now you've got me interested. My brief research shows that there are both MBq and mBq untis used in such measurements.
Unless radioactivity measurements use a set of multiplier prefixes that are opposite to those used throughout the rest of science,
it seems to me that 188,000 Bq would be .188 MBq - not .188 mBq.
And also, 188,000 Bq divided by 180 mBq is about one million. It's exactly 1,044,444.
Or, maybe I'm missing something?
eyl
(2,499 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)in order to perform the necessary tests and make sure, as Mrs. Arafat is seeking to have done?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I'm all for it.