Yassir Arafat is gone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#21
I can't believe this garbage about how wonderful a man Yasser Arafat was. What an innocent grandfather they portray this man as. This man was the grandfather of modern terrorism. What about all the people he killed in the new tactic he pioneered known as airplane hijacking? What about the horrific murders of atheletes in Munich at the Olimpic games? Oh yeah I almost forgot about the cripple man in the wheel chair who was just pushed over the deck of a ship into the sea. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If not for Arafat there might already be implemented a country of Palistine recognized by the rest of the world as a soverign state. This man would take no offer or deal short of having the whole country of Isreal and all the Jews killed, nor would relinquish control to anyone who would have. I can't beleive all the hype. If you ask me, they should have straped his old keaster in a wheel chair and shoved him off the deck of a ship into the sea. It's about what he deserved. How many deaths are attributed to this man? I couldn't began to guess.

I'm sure some of you will find a way to blame those deaths on America to. Won't suprise me.


BTW: The Baathists way of "snuffing out" refers to just killing certain people. Pretty efficient.:xeye:
 
#22
cunningham said:
I can't believe this garbage about how wonderful a man Yasser Arafat was. What an innocent grandfather they portray this man as. This man was the grandfather of modern terrorism. What about all the people he killed in the new tactic he pioneered known as airplane hijacking? What about the horrific murders of atheletes in Munich at the Olimpic games? Oh yeah I almost forgot about the cripple man in the wheel chair who was just pushed over the deck of a ship into the sea. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If not for Arafat there might already be implemented a country of Palistine recognized by the rest of the world as a soverign state. This man would take no offer or deal short of having the whole country of Isreal and all the Jews killed, nor would relinquish control to anyone who would have. I can't beleive all the hype. If you ask me, they should have straped his old keaster in a wheel chair and shoved him off the deck of a ship into the sea. It's about what he deserved. How many deaths are attributed to this man? I couldn't began to guess.

I'm sure some of you will find a way to blame those deaths on America to. Won't suprise me.


BTW: The Baathists way of "snuffing out" refers to just killing certain people. Pretty efficient.:xeye:
Click to expand...


So long as Sharon was handcuffed to the wheelchair at the same time I'd have no problem with your chosen method of dealing with Yasser Arafat.
BTW Killing certain people is a CIA trained South American death squad thing. The Baathists take a more belt and braces approach. If the Fundamentalists appear to have a foothold in a town, they wipe out the town. Brutal, inhumane,uncivilised and all that, definitely. But it is effective. The Baath Party in Syria only had to do this once and the Muslim Brotherhood shut up shop. Probably had something to do with the 10-25,000 dead. Then again it was a daft idea to try to assasinate the then Syrian President. Absolute dicatators tend to take this personally.
 
#26
carlosfm said:


Turkey is the only "arab" country that uses our alphabet, you know?
Yes, an A is an A, and they read from left to right.😎
Click to expand...

Turkey is not an arab country, and there are many other countries where the majority of the people are muslim and use our alphabet (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and others...).
Edit: in some of these countries they use two alphabets, latin and cyrillic...
 
#27
cunningham said:
I can't believe this garbage about how wonderful a man Yasser Arafat was.
Click to expand...
Neither would you ever be able to understand it.
What he was trying to achieve you have for a long time now.
The problem is that while you were kinda alone on your land(the "savages" didn't matter much, right?), theyr are not alone over there. Even worst, both have the right @ land in that area, and nowadays they can't really exterminate the "savages" as the world is not only usa(altho many americans believe it).

Edit: How was george washington labeled by the brits?
 
#28
nice read there:
http://www.richmonder.com/charbeneau/editorial/moralrel.htm

In the long, lamentable record of human misery, few characteristics
are more lamentable than moral certainty. Emperors, kings, popes,
dictators, commissars, and, of course, their armies down through the ages,
were so morally certain that they typically claimed to have God on their
side. (At least the commies made do with "history.") God wouldn't support
both sides, so who is "good" and who is "evil"? Correct! The answer is
relative. George III was certain that George Washington was a terrorist,
and, relative to George III's interests, he was. Relative to American
interests -- again, this is not an exotic concept.
A more recent example of moral relativism inquires whether the 9/11
terrorists were evil incarnate or standard-issue humans driven to evil
extremes. Any history examining America's role in helping to drive them to
evil extremes is considered unpatriotic.
Just as Locke says, critics advance such examinations because "they
went to college," but any public library would suffice. The historical
record is plain concerning America's Cold War antics in the Middle East,
our oil interests propping up corrupt autocrats, our neocolonialist
behavior respecting Israel, the etymology of "sand nigger." Nevertheless,
describing terrorism as one possible consequence of this behavior is
denounced as moral relativism.
Click to expand...
 
#29
rfbrw said:



So long as Sharon was handcuffed to the wheelchair at the same time I'd have no problem with your chosen method of dealing with Yasser Arafat.
BTW Killing certain people is a CIA trained South American death squad thing. The Baathists take a more belt and braces approach. If the Fundamentalists appear to have a foothold in a town, they wipe out the town. Brutal, inhumane,uncivilised and all that, definitely. But it is effective. The Baath Party in Syria only had to do this once and the Muslim Brotherhood shut up shop. Probably had something to do with the 10-25,000 dead. Then again it was a daft idea to try to assasinate the then Syrian President. Absolute dicatators tend to take this personally.
Click to expand...


I agree Sharon is also a block to a viable, agreed upon peace in the region because he is unwilling to comprimise; probably thinks he appears weak to do so. Actually this would make him apear stronger, well to the western world, but probably would make him apear weaker to the Arabs. Different culture. But with the recent departure of Muhammad Abdel Rahman Abdel Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini, it kind of depends on who will have power and how much control they will have. Hopefully power will be divided forcing a more discussed course of action for the establishment of a Palestinian state, peacfully. It will only work peacfully, both sides. Of course that also depends on if and when the Palestinians can track down all of their money Yasser was in control of and somehow 'dissappeared':xeye: :dodgy: . Dissappeared might not be the right word though. Anyway, I think the US could do more to pressure Sharon to co-operate with whomever is in charge of the fate of the Palestinians. Even HE doesn't want to jepordize THAT aliance.
 
#30
roibm said:

Neither would you ever be able to understand it.
What he was trying to achieve you have for a long time now.
The problem is that while you were kinda alone on your land(the "savages" didn't matter much, right?), theyr are not alone over there. Even worst, both have the right @ land in that area, and nowadays they can't really exterminate the "savages" as the world is not only usa(altho many americans believe it).

Edit: How was george washington labeled by the brits?
Click to expand...

I am not criticizing why he did what he did, I am criticizing the 'how he was doing it' part. And mostly I was criticizing the western media establishments for pandering to such a man and trying their best to make him look like a man who supported peace. This is far from the truth and you know it. This man was NOT innocent.


And, BTW no race now on this earth was destroyed, persecuted, killed, and driven from their land like the American Indians. This is a sad chapter in American history that is always overlooked for what it was....Genocide. However, this was partly due to different cultures. For example, in most American Indian culture, the idea of land ownership was non-existent. Everyone owned the land, or just alike, no one owned it. Nature owned it. Didn't fit with the European system. Culture always sets boundries, it's just how you cross them that matter.
 
#31
First :

Terribly terribly terribly sorry about my triple post. I am shamed:bawling:

Second: I am forced once again to sycophantically agree with SY.

My wife runs a non-profit that among other places, did work in Egypt with seminars, etc. First trip they gave the guy in charge various thousands for him to diburse for lunches, projectionists, room rental, etc. On seeing how he rewarded only his favorites, her group decided to try to do all the organizing themselves. All hell broke loose. They guy went ballistic, and shut down the program in cahoots with his buddies.

So..... now my wife is funneling money through him again and everything is running smoothly, AND it appears that he isn't really dishonest, in that he doesn't seem to be keeping any for himself personally- just rewards all his cronies. It's just as SY said - a different system.
 
#32
cunningham said:

I agree Sharon is also a block to a viable, agreed upon peace in the region because he is unwilling to comprimise; probably thinks he appears weak to do so.
Click to expand...

you assume Sharon's intransigence is based on something amenable reason. I tend to think it is based on religious dogma, Greater Israel and all that.
 
#33
rfbrw said:


you assume Sharon's intransigence is based on something amenable reason. I tend to think it is based on religious dogma, Greater Israel and all that.
Click to expand...


Either way, he will never bring this conflict under control unless he is willing to negotiate. The new leadership of the Palestinians will also. This was part of the problem with Yasser. Sometimes you have to give a little in order to get a little. But Yasser wanted it all, and the destruction of Isreal. Big brick wall for him and the poor people that he soposedly represents when your out-gunned.:headbash:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom