Jump to content

Another terrorist bites the dust


Maximus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest IrishHand
Some might say that he was a man who devoted his life to helping an opressed people fight against a vastly superior and equally immoral enemy. There's a very fine line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom fighter? LOL! Terrorist, my friend. Just as the US deemed him in 2002. You're right, there is a fine line, "[CODE]helping an opressed people fight against a vastly superior and equally immoral enemy[/CODE]" ..... According to history the Jews were far more opressed. For Arafat to constantly fail at what you are calling as freedom fighting (being led by their own freedom fighter Mr. Arafat) he failed to take control of his own people. In fact, he was in control for most of the killings in Israel against the Jews. READ: [CODE]NEW YORK - In response to media reports claiming that Yasir Arafat is finally arresting terrorists, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has issued a new report documenting Arafat's history of constantly releasing terrorists after detaining them for brief periods. This special report, Letting Killers Go: Yasir Arafat's Releases of Terrorists, 1994-2001, is available by calling the ZOA at 212-481-1500. The report includes Arafat's most recent releases, such as the release of senior leaders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) who were briefly detained after the PFLP murdered Israel's Minister of Tourism. The report notes that after one of Arafat's alleged roundups of terrorists in 1994, then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said Arafat's action was "just public relations," not a real crackdown on the terrorists. Similarly, in 1997, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Arafat had a system of "revolving-door justice" when it comes handling terrorists.[/CODE]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[B]He studied at Cairo University from 1952 to 1956, receiving an engineering degree in 1956. During his college years, he ran guns from Egypt into Israel, his first known action against the State of Israel; soon after graduation, he began recruiting and training Palestinians for military operations against Israel. In 1959, he co-founded the Fatah — a group that would later gain control of the Palestine Liberation Organization. He was named Fatah's leader in 1968, although he had actually served in that role since 1964. [B]Throughout the 1970s, as part of its professed intention to eliminate the State of Israel, Fatah — by then the PLO's foremost faction — allegedly sponsored or launched scores of terrorists attacks against targets in Israel and outside it, among them the massacre of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, Germany in 1972. [/B] By the 1980s, Arafat had established a virtual PLO mini-state in Lebanon, the official government of which was unable to maintain its sovereignty over its territory. But it was not long before factional fighting within the PLO cut into Arafat's control over the organization. Taking advantage of Arafat's weakness, Israel — as a byproduct of its invasion of Lebanon — forced Arafat to flee to Tunis, Tunisia in 1983, where he relocated the PLO. [/B] He 's a terrorist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats Fatah you ask? [B]In the 1960s and the 1970s, Fatah offered training to a wide range of European, Middle Eastern, Asian, and African terrorist and insurgent groups. Carried out numerous acts of international terrorism in western Europe and the Middle East in the early-tomiddle 1970s.[/B] I made my point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IrishHand
I never said he wasn't. I consider both sides of that particular conflict culpable of terrorism. I just don't like the hypocrisy of supporting one side against the other. "US & Israel hard at work." I realize (or at least hope) that comment was made in jest, but it's still in poor taste. A man who was fighting a noble cause sometimes using ignoble means died. I find it distasteful to say the least to celebrate any man's death. By the way, citing the "Zionist Organization of America" is hardly the way to make a rational, defensible argument. It's like citing Al-Jazeera while arguing against the US invasion of Iraq.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "US & Israel hard at work" comment was made becuase there has been some talk that he was actually poisoned. They still do not know why he died (or what actually caused him to get ill). Just as FOX News reported, even the palestinians are saying they are worse off now when compared to the pre-Arafat era. The Zionist Organization post was to make a point. That point being that even organizations such as this knew what he was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Maximus]The "US & Israel hard at work" comment was made becuase there has been some talk that he was actually poisoned. They still do not know why he died (or what actually caused him to get ill). Just as FOX News reported, even the palestinians are saying they are worse off now when compared to the pre-Arafat era. The Zionist Organization post was to make a point. That point being that even organizations such as this knew what he was.[/QUOTE] As Fox News reported oh come on Max take off the neo-conservative religious right blinders of Fox News and see Arafat as a man that used terrorism as a means to an end. That being a homeland for 3 million + displaced peoples. The UN came in in the post WW2 hysteria and gave the Jews a homeland (No problem there, they like everyone else should have a homeland) the problem is the UN displaced the Palestinians without a home of there own. The means that Arafat and the others used and still use are the same the US used to gain independence (terrorism). As Arafat aged he mellowed and used negotiation to give his people a homeland.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jdettbarn
[QUOTE=IrishHand]I never said he wasn't. I consider both sides of that particular conflict culpable of terrorism. I just don't like the hypocrisy of supporting one side against the other. [/QUOTE] My sentiments exactly. There are plenty of valid examples of both sides using terrorism for their own benefit. Neither side is innocent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whose side we are on seems to be directly related to whose ethnic group is needed to get elected in my mind. Morality IMO is a convient word used to justify whatever foreign policy decisions is made by us to advance our economic interests in the world. No one is innocent in the Middle East-no one. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IrishHand
[i]Morality IMO is a convient word used to justify whatever foreign policy decisions is made by us to advance our economic interests in the world.[/i] That pretty much covers it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! I didnt realize there were so many Arafat supporters here. :p The guy needed to die and I will stand by that opinion. He killed alot of his own people. Oh and by the way, it was reported today that his financial backing wasn't as bad as he said it was....... $700,000,000 is far from being poor. Why wasn't this money used to help the palestinians? ... Oh, I forgot, he used it to spend mony on the 50,000 tons of ammo and weapons every year to kill innocent people. Arafat was a terrorist and would still be one if he was alive. I don't really show any mercy to those types of people. He needed to be dead, now he is & more of them need to go as well including the whole Syrian & Lebanese government. No, I am not a jew. I am an American born from immediate Europeon decent. I do, however, feel for the jews. I am glad they are our allies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Tim Plum]As Fox News reported oh come on Max take off the neo-conservative religious right blinders of Fox News and see Arafat as a man that used terrorism as a means to an end. That being a homeland for 3 million + displaced peoples. The UN came in in the post WW2 hysteria and gave the Jews a homeland (No problem there, they like everyone else should have a homeland) the problem is the UN displaced the Palestinians without a home of there own. The means that Arafat and the others used and still use are the same the US used to gain independence (terrorism). As Arafat aged he mellowed and used negotiation to give his people a homeland.[/QUOTE] Arafat mellowed! (?) Hey bud, watch the news more often . Read the paper more often. Wasn't it just over 1 and half years ago where Israel intercepted 50,000 tons of ammo and weapons coming in from Lebanon to Arafat for use against the killing of innocence in Israel. Yes, I think so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1967 Six-Day War Hopes for another decade of relative tranquillity were dashed with the escalation of Arab terrorist raids across the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, persistent Syrian artillery bombardment of agricultural settlements in northern Galilee and massive military build-ups by the neighboring Arab states. When Egypt again moved large numbers of troops into the Sinai desert (May 1967), ordered the UN peacekeeping forces (deployed since 1957) out of the area, reimposed the blockade of the Straits of Tiran and entered into a military alliance with Jordan, Israel found itself faced by hostile Arab armies on all fronts. As Egypt had violated the arrangements agreed upon following the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the south, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the east and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the north. [b] In case you guys need a refresher. [/b] At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights under Israel's control. As a result, the northern villages were freed from 19 years of recurrent Syrian shelling; the passage of Israeli and Israel-bound shipping through the Straits of Tiran was ensured; and Jerusalem, which had been divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule since 1949, was reunified under Israel's authority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jdettbarn
It’s not about supporting anyone, really. The fact is both sides use terrorism in an attempt to reach a goal. Sharon is as much of a terrorist as Arafat and he has war crimes charges to prove it. Terrorism begets terrorism. Nothing is going to change that until both sides make a real effort to use different tactics. Just saying you’re not a terrorist wont work when you’re demolishing homes through a ruthless occupation or blowing up cafes/buses/etc. and killing innocent people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel defends it self. If you look at the history of Israel you will see they were attacked in every war, period. Sharon isn't the nicest guy, but he needs to protect his people. I bet you if the PLO stopped bombing Israel, they would leave the Palastinian people alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IrishHand
[QUOTE=Maximus]Arafat mellowed! (?) Hey bud, watch the news more often . Read the paper more often. Wasn't it just over 1 and half years ago where Israel intercepted 50,000 tons of ammo and weapons coming in from Lebanon to Arafat for use against the killing of innocence in Israel. Yes, I think so.[/QUOTE] Are you a person or a vehicle for stock-and-trade propaganda? The weapons were "for [i]use against the killing of innocence in Isreal[/i]"? I hope that was a simple misspelling and that you were looking for "innocents". Either way, it's always disheartening to me when someone is so blind in their promotion of one side against the other. Far, far more "innocent' Palestinians have been killed in the past 20 years than Israelis. It's not even close.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IrishHand
[QUOTE=Druez]Israel defends it self. If you look at the history of Israel you will see they were attacked in every war, period. Sharon isn't the nicest guy, but he needs to protect his people. I bet you if the PLO stopped bombing Israel, they would leave the Palastinian people alone.[/QUOTE] That's patently ridiculous and contradicts countless actions taken by Sharon during his tenure. He spends his time pushing the borders of Israel in one direction while the PLO tries to reverse the trend. As for looking at it historically, prior to 1945 who owned the land currently known as Israel - and who were the bulk of it's occupants? I'll give clues to both: the first is a major colonial European power while the second is the ethnic group that's been displaced and slaughtered for the past...oh...60 plus years. Israel was a manufactured nation. It was manufactured to provide Jews with a homeland. That's totally fine. But it's naive to think that you can simply shoo the prior residents aside and assume they'll accept that. The short-sightedness which existed in the post-WWII era sadly continues today, as evidenced by your above posts. Both sides are fighting for something that, really, belongs to neither - at least historically. As noted above, until each embraces their neighbor (not likely to happen anytime soon, admittedly), each will likely to continue to rely on terrorism to achieve its means. The only difference is that one side is a heck of a lot more powerful than the other, and has allies which are a heck of a lot more powerful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jdettbarn
But I’m sure if you asked the Palestinians, they’d say they were defending themselves as well. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. I’m not saying either side is right, in fact they’re both wrong. These tactics don’t work and haven’t worked over the 40+ years of this conflict. Innocent people are dying on both sides and there's no excuse anymore. Edit: This is in response to Druez's post. Irish posted *twice* before I could get mine out. :eek:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=IrishHand]Are you a person or a vehicle for stock-and-trade propaganda? The weapons were "for [i]use against the killing of innocence in Isreal[/i]"? I hope that was a simple misspelling and that you were looking for "innocents". Either way, it's always disheartening to me when someone is so blind in their promotion of one side against the other. Far, far more "innocent' Palestinians have been killed in the past 20 years than Israelis. It's not even close.[/QUOTE] No IrishHand, there was no misspelling of the word innocence. [url]http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/innocents[/url] If you really wanted to make fun of my mishaps perhaps you should have caught the misspelling of Israel. :rolleyes: As far as your death toll amount concerning the Palestinians, show me stats, a link and then I will just start to talk about that. You bring up the last twently or so years. Go back just a bit further and lets recall WWII. Dont give me the "last 20 year" deal. I won't but that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...