RB Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 i have not read this entire thread - so forgive me if i repeat i believe killing anyone is wrong and now killing arafat is wrong. it is not justified and immoral the arafat of the palestine was elected as a leader by the people who want to be governed by such as person, nevermind we disaggree that he has no negiotiation skills, is as akward as he is incompetent - he was choosen. isn't there such a process of "overthrowing" a government by its people. or is it better to have the neighbor decide? there is something symbolic about an elected person that represent identity, identity that have been experience, that had taken it toll of worries, and tribulations - is far too tragic there is media feeding freezy about arafat and bombs whether it is sucide or other but really when it all boils down, no one can point to some shed of evidence to justify a truth association it is not moral to shed someone of their dignity and make them examples of "political martyr" believing this will indeed be a lesson and "standard" for future leaders in the mean time think of the creation of explosive outrage from the people of the land - who knows in what emerging form. these folks are far too rooted in evil to offer a simple solution of killing their direction. Quote
FastNed Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Hello RB - I understand your feelings and concur that, in the normal course of events, the killing of an opponent is counter-productive. I am not convinced that this would be true in the case of Arafat. I do suggest, however, that either he is killed or the Oslo Accord be denounced and the Palestinians be returned to the Status Quo Ante . They can not have it both ways! Quote
Craig Read Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 In the real world men and women determine events and channel society into certain directions. Arafat -an ugly Egyptian- has turned the Palestinian cause into a war - profiting well from the conflicts he perpetrated. He is a despot, an anti-liberal, the worst sort of posturing Roman style Senator and Demagogue. He must be dispatched. Force shown and used against the PA will by necessity rearrange the balance of power against those Palestinians who advocate and abet criminal violence. Arafat is simply a criminal and terrorist and must be killed. Quote
Derek Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 i believe killing anyone is wrong and now killing arafat is wrong. it is not justified and immoral I agree with you there, except the word, anyone. Killing people for Killing other people, is not wrong. (don't go say so killing the people who are killing the people isn't wrong, you know what i mean.) Killing arafat isn't wrong because he supports terrorists blowing themselves up for palestine. Which is very wrong. Terrorists have no right for killing innocent civilians. Sure go up to a tank and blow yourself up. Those people blow themselves up because simply put they are cowards. They go for the easy way out which is martyrism. Which is entirely wrong in their religion. If they die for their religion that is matyrism. Blowing themselves up for their country, however, is not. Quote
Hugo Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 The sixth commandment is not "thou shalt not kill", it is "thou shalt do no murder." Subtle difference. In my estimation, Arafat and his cronies have declared war upon Israel and indeed, upon civilisation as we know it. In war, it is acceptable military practice to target your enemy's command/control structures and personnel. That would mean that, as long as Arafat continues his terrorism and war-mongering, he himself is a valid military target. Quote
RB Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 to be kill is making your own arrangements for this murder no? because the Oslo Accord did not detail a killing or a murder of a leader. if we are intent in killing leaders and setting some precedence, who is next and would bush be a likely choice in this line up of candidates? Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 Dear RB, The precedent of assassination has already been set, many leaders have been killed for various reasons. I would think that Mr. Bush would be considered a prime target for many. To announce that you intend to kill a leader is outrageous. The question is, can mankind ever move forward and rise above this type of behaviour, or will the caveman mentality and the biggest club forever rule? Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
nova_satori Posted September 29, 2003 Author Report Posted September 29, 2003 Yes, because killing the leader and creating a huge martyr which will lead thousands more down on the path to destroying Israel at any cost is better then leaving him alone and dealing with fewer fanatics! Craig's inability to see the other side is getting down right disgusting. Has it occured to you Craig, that people don't think in the same way? We all don't come to the same conclusions. Has it occured to you that you might be WRONG? Quote
Craig Read Posted September 29, 2003 Report Posted September 29, 2003 Extremly poor logic, which does nothing to solve the problems besetting regimes that are being attacked by terrorists or being destroyed by demagogues. According to this appeasement methodology the following leaders should never have been dealt with: -Hitler [the Nazi's might cry and goose step around in anger] -Stalin [the commissar's might get upset and throw borscht] -Mao [the fashion industry would whine, have to love the Mao jacket] -Hussein [France would be angry] -Bin Laden [Al Jazeera would have no news for months] -Mussolini [bald men everywhere would rise up in revolt] -Castro [his starving, unemployed, illiterate people love him too much] -Charles Taylor [swiss banks would object] -Mugabe [Chretien would object] -Arafat [the entire world will be plunged into chaos, and the Arab street will revolt. Okay so this is what we said about Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan....but this time dammit it WILL happen er just like Global Cooling, Global Warming etc.] Nice logic. Twit. Quote
Mr Farrius Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 So let me get something straight Mr Read. You don't think killing Arafat would lead to any drastic consequences whatsoever? I'm really curious. You speak as if killing Arafat would be something quick, effective, and peaceful. But of course, you forget America has already tried something like that once, failed miserably, and made itself the laughingstock of the world. But I'm seriously asking you, what is your vision of the events that would turn out after Arafat was killed? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.