Arafat is dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Aside from being surprised to see teenwolf posting again, I say farewell to Arafat. Not that I liked him or anything, but it's pretty shitty to say, "Good riddance." I mean, yeah, he wasn't a great guy (I think he wasn't a good human being), but nobody deserves to die, really. Not that Sharon is any better.

---

Horseshit. The man was a fool and a murderer who killed hundreds of Israelis and sent thousands of Palestinians to their deaths. The Israeli athletes at the olympics, that old jewish dude on the cruise boat, the US ambassador to the Sudan, the war with Lebanon, the duplicitous 'attempts' to make peace coexisting with his active support of terrorism, his hoarding of millions of dollars donated by Arabs who meant to support Palestinians - Arafat was a gigantic piece of shit and anyone who thinks differently is an idiot. "Good riddance" puts it quite nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Aside from being surprised to see teenwolf posting again, I say farewell to Arafat. Not that I liked him or anything, but it's pretty shitty to say, "Good riddance." I mean, yeah, he wasn't a great guy (I think he wasn't a good human being), but nobody deserves to die, really. Not that Sharon is any better.

---

Nobody deserves to die? So no matter what someone does in their life, there is nothing so bad as to deserve death? I could kill 1 or 1,000 or 1 million people and should be put up in a cushy protected cell for my entire life? I think there is a definite need for punishment for those that deserve it, and relief or joy when a terrorist criminal like Arafat who never received justice in this life, finally does die. And Arafat was an unrepentant terrorist, and hurt his own people and whatever peace process there was in the middle east.

Riddance: "A deliverance from or removal of something unwanted or undesirable"

I found Arafat completely unwanted and undesirable, his death IS a deliverance.

And Sharon? He is quite a bit "better". One foments a terrorist jihad against a democracy, the other defends and protects a democracy from a terrorist jihad. I do not condone or believe in everything Sharon has done, Israel does have the right to exist and defend itself though. And as that Harvard study has shown, the idea of Palestinian terrorism coming from poverty is completely baseless, terrorism came from a lack of individual and political freedom, something that Arafat wanted and encouraged, especially given his marxist leanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

No. We need to lock Israel down, too. At least until Sharon is out.

---

But they are a sovereign nation with sovereign rights, Israel does have a legal and historical right to exist and protect itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teenwolf

Nobody deserves to die? So no matter what someone does in their life, there is nothing so bad as to deserve death? I could kill 1 or 1,000 or 1 million people and should be put up in a cushy protected cell for my entire life? I think there is a definite need for punishment for those that deserve it, and relief or joy when a terrorist criminal like Arafat who never received justice in this life, finally does die. And Arafat was an unrepentant terrorist, and hurt his own people and whatever peace process there was in the middle east.

---

That's why I didn't put stress on the "deserves" part. Theory and practice are totally different. I wasn't saying it from the point of view that, "Oh my, all life is precious, look at the kitties, let's go commune our minds!" but more from a theoretical area.

Quote:

---

I do not condone or believe in everything Sharon has done,

---

I should have put it that way. :)

Quote:

---

But they are a sovereign nation with sovereign rights, Israel does have a legal and historical right to exist and protect itself.

---

Once again my attempts at being facetious over the internet have failed. Damn you, internet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

blablabla

---

ANTI-SEMITISM!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teenwolf

But they are a sovereign nation with sovereign rights, Israel does have a legal and historical right to exist and protect itself.

---

You could argue that so does Palestine.

Palestinians rejected this:
http://www.ipc.gov.ps/alnakba/Englis...11-29-1947.jpg

And are probably going to get this:
http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/arton3260.jpg

Beggars can't be choosers

Except Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, and no independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. The Peel Commission in 1937 decided that partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states was the solution to the problem. While the Zionists negotiated with the British, the Palestinian Arabs REFUSED the plan because it forced them to accept a Jewish State, they refused any compromise. In 1939 the British White Paper called for the establishment of a Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, they rejected this as well, they did the exact same thing after being given a state with the partition.

The issue is the right for a Jewish state to exist, the Palestinians continually rejected a state for themselves simply because it made compromises that gave the Jewish people a state as well. They have continually denied themselves the right to self-determination, apparently the complete destruction of a Jewish state is FAR more important...

"With God's help, next time we will meet in Jerusalem because we are fighting to bring victory to our prophets. Every baby, every child, every man, every woman and every old person and all the young people — we will all sacrifice ourselves for our holy places, and we will strengthen our hold on them. We are willing to give 70 of our martyrs for every one of theirs in this campaign because this land is ours. We will continue to fight for this blessed land, and I call on you to stand strong." - Yasser Arafat, Speech at a rally in Ramallah, December 18, 2001.

Read that date again..

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/5...1?OpenDocument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teenwolf

Except Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, and no independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine.

---

With that logic every new state doesn't deserve to exist, there was never a European sovereign state in North America proir to the union, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teenwolf

The issue is the right for a Jewish state to exist,

---

But it does and will. The real question is regarding the Palestinian state, when and how much.

Peel Commision
http://palestinefacts.org/images/map_peel_1937_sm.jpg

It's shrinking.



Why can't these arseholes just live in heterogenous democratic states like the rest of us.

Cause they're assholes, Middle Eastern political culture in general is stagnant and based on absolutism (we are good they are evil) this is why you rarely if ever see competing political parties outside of say Lebanon and Israel, and even then Lebanon is Syria's bitch. Compromise is very very slow and almost never in good faith. Sadly the Jewish leadership has adopted a similiar approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Why can't these arseholes just live in heterogenous democratic states like the rest of us.

---

Because it is really really hot there, and they do not have tea nor cake.

Mike, stop being a retard. Sharon, for all of his hardline stancery and shit, is a hell of a lot better than Arafat. Make no mistake, Arafat deserved to die 50 years ago, and he has brought untold misery upon Israeli and Palestinian people alike. Israeli because he's a dirty terrorist, Palestinian because he has chosen violence and continued suffering over actual pursuit of peace. All the while he has used the suffering of "his people" to bolster his own personal fortune. He's a monster, and good riddance. If there was any justice in this world, he wouldn't have died quietly on some French hospital bed, but thanks to some sniper's bullet or a well-aimed missile or something. I can only hope he is burning in hell right now.

Why good riddance? How about because the world is a better place with one less murdering terrorist in it? Arafat has been the world's foremost terrorist for the past 4 decades and now, because late in life he started pretending to care about peace while pocketing 12 billion dollars intended to be spent on taking care of his people, we're supposed to mourn him as some sort of human rights activist? Bill Clinton offered Arafat EVERYTHING he asked for at the end of his administration, and Arafat still turned it down at the last second. Arafat didn't want peace, he wanted to drive the jews into the ocean. Yes, Sharon is scum, but he's a choirboy compared to Arafat.

I'm thoroughly embarassed that so many liberals in this country are mourning this douche's death. I wish I could say I'm suprised, but how can I be when the Democratic presidential candidate's whole platform was based on involving the anti-semitic, terrrorist funding UN in every step of our war on terror? I'm really baffled by liberals of late. I used to respectfully disagree with them, now I just don't understand them at all.

The mainstream media has talked at length about Ashcroft's replacement, Gonzales, as if he were a terrorist ("He supported the abuse and torture of the prisoners, he champions the evil Patriot Act") in between tearful and fond remembrances of YASIR ARAFAT. Why most jews still vote democrat I'll never comprehend, Kerry would sit idly by eating mayo covered fries and talking geopolitics with the french while Israel was pushed into the ocean.

I thought liberals were all about empowering minorities? Also, what's with some of these liberals bitching about "red states" not paying as much in taxes as "blue states" due to their lower income? I thought we were supposed to tax the hell out of the rich? Or does that go out the window if the "poor stupid people" don't vote for you anyway?

Yassir Arafat's getting sodomized with a fiery pitchfork as we speak, and deservedly so.