Nate Perkins writes:

You've also made the claim that it was a terrorist base under Saddam.
You will have a hard time finding evidence for sponsorship of any
terrorism beyond anti-Israeli causes.

What would I consider acceptable evidence? Hmm. An official government
report. An official CIA report. A military intelligence report. A
report by an outside country; e.g. Interpol, the UN, etc. An article
describing specifics from a major news outlet. An online article
describing the evidence, from a site that is not a blog. Probably many
others.

What I wouldn't consider to be acceptable evidence are unsubstantiated
or vague statements from administration officials.

Well, the US Navy Web site that I quoted in my earlier post clearly
says that Iraq supported and hosted Abu Nidal until 2002 (i.e. after
Sept 11). Also, that website makes clear that while the group may be
ethnically Palestinian there targets extended to 20 countries many of
who are not even supporters of Israel. US interests appear to have
been the object of many of his attacks.

Now of course in your own twisted anti-Semitic views, it would be hard
to say that there is never an Israeli connection since we have already
established that:
A. The vast majority of modern day terrorist acts
(i.e. acts deliberately targeting civilians for death without
any legitimate defensive or military purpose) are
committed by extremist Muslims
B. Most extremist Muslims hate Israel
So of course any connection of terrorism to Iraq will always have at
least some collateral anti-Israel venom.

Rick Cook writes:

Since most terrorist groups include hatred for Israel among their
motivations, you can use that excuse to ignore virtually all terrorist
activity in the modern world.

It gets better... Bigoted anti-Semites like Nate Perkins see the world
this way:
1. If the terrorist group has Israel on its list of enemies, than
obviously it is Israel's fault

2. If by some miracle, there is a terrorist out there who doesn't
hate Israel, then the Mossad (and Israel) must be behind the
terrorist so again Israel is at fault.

So Israel is really in a catch-22. Either it is the victim of
terrorism and therefore at fault or if not the victim than obviously
it must be the colluder (witness the anti-Semitic libels that the Mossad
was behind 9/11 or that Jews knew about it in advance and stayed away).

Such is the twisted mind of the anti-Zionist, which is just
anti-Semitism with a twist. For the old European anti-Semitic canards
similarly put the Jew in a similar catch-22:
1. If a Jew was poor and downtrodden then he was a burden to
society and not fit for living.
2. If a Jew was wealthy and comfortable then he was obviously a
parasite on society and not fit for living.

However, for low life like Nate, calling yourself anti-Zionist sounds a
bit less crass than admitting to the same 2 thousand year old disease of
anti-Semitism that his relatives brought him up in. You can't teach an
old dog new tricks...

In article , says...
It gets better... Bigoted anti-Semites like Nate Perkins see the world
this way:

Apparently your thesis is that "anti-Israel" equals "anti-Semite".
Strange, since there are more people of semitic ancestry in Arab
countries than there are in Israel.

Me, I'm an equal opportunity anti-fanatic - Jew or Muslim. Let'en kill
each other, just leave us out of it.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

blueman wrote in
:

Nate Perkins writes:
Abu Nidal was a threat to Israel primarily. I don't think we ought
to be in the business of fighting wars by proxy for Israel.

Nate hard to know whether you are just ignorant or garden variety
anti-Semitic in your reflexive vilification of Israel.

I think your reply is a little out of date. The message you are quoting
out of context is about six months old.

A while back I finally figured out that debating politics in a woodworking
newsgroup is absolutely pointless. You want to debate baptism, or London
terrorism, or Iraq, supply side economics, or insult whoever by calling
them an anti-Semite ... then debate yourself. I'll be ignoring ya.