Judging Arafat

[SmackdownHotel]

Arafat has no real power and Sharon is a dangerous man. Why either of them are still in the positions that they are is beyond me.

 

[Passner]

Dually, Sabra and Shatilla was at MOST 800 people. Aside from the fact that no court found him guilty. A group of Israelis who hated Sharon's political views conspired to find him NEGLIGENT (very different from guilty) so that his sphere of influence could be weakened
Thankfully it did not work, although I think Netanyahu would be the better PM for Israel now. Sure beats Barak or Peres. Anyway, Sharon did not stop the murder becuase he did not know it was going on, because the Phalangists used knives so as not to be too loud and awaken the Israeli army.
Sharon was merely guilty of not guarding the militia men he trained. Contrast this with Arafat who knowingly endorses suicide bombings, and started Intifada 2 and tried to make it seem like it was Sharon's fault.

 

[SuperTool]

<< Dually, Sabra and Shatilla was at MOST 800 people. Aside from the fact that no court found him guilty. A group of Israelis who hated Sharon's political views conspired to find him NEGLIGENT (very different from guilty) so that his sphere of influence could be weakened
Thankfully it did not work, although I think Netanyahu would be the better PM for Israel now. Sure beats Barak or Peres. Anyway, Sharon did not stop the murder becuase he did not know it was going on, because the Phalangists used knives so as not to be too loud and awaken the Israeli army.
Sharon was merely guilty of not guarding the militia men he trained. Contrast this with Arafat who knowingly endorses suicide bombings, and started Intifada 2 and tried to make it seem like it was Sharon's fault. >>


Arafat doesn't endorse suicide bombings. He is "merely guilty of not guarding" the terrorists organizations operating in Palestinian Authority. Of course you have double standard for Israel sponsored atrocities than Palestinian sponsored ones.

 

[Passner]

innocent people die in conflicts, there is no getting around that. Innocent Israeli soldiers have been killed while defending their posts. Innocent Afghani civilians die because of the US bombing. Innocent Palestinians die because the terrorists hide in schools and hospitals.
I do not say that any of those things are right, but sometimes they have to happen, and if rioters are throwing Molotov cocktails and shooting bullets along with those rocks they throw at soldiers, you can bet a few in that crowd are gonna die, and they are often kids because the snipers hide behind the kids.

 

[Random Variable]

<< Arafat doesn't endorse suicide bombings. He is "merely guilty of not guarding" the terrorists organizations operating in Palestinian Authority. >>


Maybe you should get yourself a copy of the newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida and have someone translate the Arabic for you.

 

[SuperTool]

<<

<< Arafat doesn't endorse suicide bombings. He is "merely guilty of not guarding" the terrorists organizations operating in Palestinian Authority. >>


Maybe you should get yourself a copy of the newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida and have someone translate the Arabic for you. >>


Do they have Dilbert in Arabic in there ?

 

[syzygy]

<< Arafat doesn't endorse suicide bombings. He is "merely guilty of not guarding" the terrorists organizations operating in
Palestinian Authority. Of course you have double standard for Israel sponsored atrocities than Palestinian sponsored ones. >>


what ? ? ? arafat implicitly endorses by not acting to arrest the groups and individuals who openly espouse their intentions and
designs to destroy the state of isreal or at the very least work to ensure that the peace process collapses. the terrorists are
not secretive. ever asked yourself why they're not ? think. do they need to be ? do they fear apprehension, harrassment,
or possible arrest ? could that possibly be why isreali security forces run regular covert ops do bring justice to killers who
walk about in the open without a worry in the world their own elected leaders will ever persecute them ?

look at the apparent fact that the groups like hamas or islamic jihad work to undermine the isreali-palestinian entente,
which arafat is supposed to represent and uphold, yet he doesn't act against these supposedly malignant forces. why ?
if they are a threat to the peace process, and he claims to want 'peace', and these so-called terrorist groups are
working to thwart his designs on peace, why doesn't he act to crush them ? he's not lacking in manpower. his
police force is 40,000 strong and serves as a de facto army. avowed palestinian extremists number in the very
low thousands. his forces are well-equipped, far in excess of the wye and oslo arms quotas. you think, perhaps,
he finds some use for them ? methinks, its just possible

 

[Passner]

<< Do they have Dilbert in Arabic in there? >>



Yes, but all that Dilbert says is translated to "Praised be Allah."

 

[SuperTool]

<< what ? ? ? arafat implicitly endorses by not acting to arrest the groups and individuals who openly espouse their intentions and... >>


Well, what I was saying is that Sharon is guilty of exactly the same thing, and the distinction that Passner is trying to make does not exist.
Sharon knew that if he didn't restrain the militias, the massacre was likely to happen. Just like Arafat knows that if he doesn't restrain terrorists, they are likely to blow up more Israelis. There is no moral distinctions. So don't try to defend Sharon. He is a war criminal, and he has to go. And by voting for him, Israelis are supporting atrocities that he has committed.

 

[extro]

<<Sharon knew that if he didn't restrain the militias, the massacre was likely to happen. Just like Arafat knows that if he doesn't restrain terrorists, they are likely to blow up more Israelis. There is no moral distinctions. So don't try to defend Sharon. He is a war criminal, and he has to go. And by voting for him, Israelis are supporting atrocities that he has committed. >>


What nonsense. The real reason people hate Sharon is because he's symbolic of Israel's victories over the Arabs in war. People who despise Israel use Sharon as a whipping boy.

You want to blame somebody for the massacres in Lebanon, blame the perpetrators: the Lebanese Christian Phalange.

 

[Rison]

Arafat is getting near the end (of his life), one would think that he'd want to make his mark and have a lasting legacy (by bringing peace to Palestine). Instead he goes the other way. You guys can call Sharon whatever you want, but Arafat brought him to power (via the intifada). And he's exercising those powers.

 

[syzygy]

<< Well, what I was saying is that Sharon is guilty of exactly the same thing, and the distinction that Passner is trying to make
does not exist. Sharon knew that if he didn't restrain the militias, the massacre was likely to happen. Just like Arafat knows that
if he doesn't restrain terrorists, they are likely to blow up more Israelis. There is no moral distinctions. So don't try to defend Sharon.
He is a war criminal, and he has to go. And by voting for him, Israelis are supporting atrocities that he has committed >>



you can't compare arafat's (alleged) complicity with sharon's tenure as defense minister during the sabra-shantila massacre. sharon
had contracted with the phalangists before on missions of mutual interest and they never displayed a thirst for blood beyond the
defined objectives of the war. the fact is sharon did not command the phalangists - a not so small fact lost in your comparison with
arafat - nor did he have direct oversight of their operation in the area; his field commander or maybe whoever the political leader
in the region was at the time did.

the kach commission, a partisan affair equal to america's bork hearings, cleared him of all direct culpability, and found him only
indirectly responsible for his supposed failures to predict ahead the phalangist's innermost desires for revenge. in essence, sharon
had to know their secret intentions !! read the report. his supposed 'guilt' is strictly qualified and defined and certainly does not
meet any rational definition of war criminal.

isreal has banned their 'terrorist organizations'; both kach and kahane chai were banned even though neither of these groups
committed a single violent act against arabs ! read this u.s. navy link to learn why these 2 groups were
banned by the isreali government. kach's activities which earned them their ban include:


<< Organize protests against the Israeli Government. Harass and threaten Palestinians in Hebron and the West Bank. Have threatened
to attack Arabs, Palestinians, and Israeli Government officials. Have vowed revenge for the death of Binyamin Kahane and his wife. >>


there is no justification to make any moral distinctions since the facts do not support complicity for both parties. one acts to against
their own groups, even though these groups did nothing more than exercise their right to assembly and free speech, while the other
allows them to commit massacres year after year after year. the differences should be obvious, if only . . .

 

[Halogen]

<< Rison -- Your words apply equally well to another terroist, Ariel Sharon. Today, Isrealis killed another Palestinian activist accused of killing Isrealis. Whether or not he was guilty as charged, murdering him outside his home is not the same as arresting him bringing him to trial. Isreal also bulldozed more Palestinian homes, today, after pledging to stop such actions.

Sharon has a long history of being a murdering terrorist. I don't have time to dig up all my old links, right now, but keeping things in perspective, if either side really wants peace, they are going to have to stop this crap. I'm in favor of cutting off all relations, including financial support, for whichever side keeps it up, starting right now. :| >>


dude is right
it's either Sharon or the guy before him who is being tried for crimes against humanity or genocide or something in Hague

the faster both sides kill each other off, the faster this will be over

 

[Passner]

Halogen, you are wrong. The court is only trying to see if there is enought evidence (there isn't) to bring Sharon to trial. They are also looking into Arafat for the same types of crime.
It doesn't mean a thing.

 

[extro]

An interesting article on Arafat and the Christians of Lebanon here..


"In all, 582 people were killed in the storming of Damour, with many of the bodies having been mutilated. Damour itself was then transformed into a stronghold of Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and one of the main centers of international terrorism. The Church of St. Elias was turned into a repair garage for PLO vehicles and a shooting range for PLO terrorists.

Although the main ?Butcher of Damour,? Saiqa commander Zuhayr Muhsin, was assassinated in Cannes, France in 1979, the PLO leader whose legions were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Christians in Lebanon, Yasser Arafat, is still alive to bemoan the fact that Israel prevented him from attending Christmas services in Bethlehem."