Not often, if ever I start a thread but tonight (this week) I have been whole heartedly saddened by the reaction of the press and politicians to Yasser Arafat first becoming ill and then passing away. I am not in any doubt the man would have wanted most of us hanged for daring to think differently, but in so many ways we are kindred spirirts, daring to rise above the expected and the usual. Before he even died and without so much as a thank you to this Noble Peace prize winner the politicians and the press were writing him off as no more than a failed terrorist. It seems every comment in the media has been disrespectful. I would simply like to state that any individual who stands up against the odds, who fights oppression and who favours the underdogs of this world has my respect. I know he wasn't a saint (but then who of us is), I just feel a loss has happened. Billy
They're just selling papers to the masses, and there are still more jews than arabs in this country. When the ratio changes, so will the editorial slant. Cynical but true.
I know you're right Ice Pie. Just winds me up that a man even before his death is being written off. Suppose the real fear is it could happen to anyone of us!!!! Just wondering whatever happened to respect?
Tell that to the families of all the people he had a hand in murdering! Anwar Sadat and King Hussein of Jordan spoke of peace and meant it, Arafat spoke of peace only to claim more land from Israel with which to create more terror bases ad infinitum. This world is a better place as of yesterday. Gadaffi next please! Wishmaster.
You are always going to have situations where one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Personally, I don't keep so many tabs on international affairs as I should. But the effect this has is that sometimes it catches up on me and I get some surprises... A few years back I remember the case of an African politician who was universally proclaimed as one of the biggest stablising forces in that part of the world and was regularly giving talks at the U.N. Now, he's in line for trial for crimes against peace.
Just the fact that we have this discussion is a sign of the PC sickness that pervades our country and most of the western world . We all know exactly what a terrorist is without resorting to a dictionary definition , but we have to make allowances and worse get asked to show respect for these men because the ridiculous correct politics of the world today says so . On this very site we see the likes of these men called freedom fighters and at the same time countries whose democratically elected representatives choose to defend themselves described as some form of despot just because the support of their countrymen and allies allows them the power to do so . History proves that sometimes, no matter how offensive people find it , there has to be a winner and a loser in order to resolve a situation . Especially in a week when we have had the eleventh hour we should all remember that sometimes its right to challenge a person who claims to be in the right , even if they arent subject to our own laws or borders . Sometimes its right to disagree and we dont have to 'respect' someone just because they have managed to achieve a position of power in a delicate and fragile poiltical situation in their own country . Often a situation is all too obvious from the outside but not so clear when youre wrapped up in it . The history books will show the achievements or attrocities that Anwar was responsible for and what he really , if anything , achieved . Its worth noting though that although many experts on the region regret his passing at least as many believe that it is the best chance of peace there has been there for a long time , in fact if Sharon is ousted then maybe with all the military minds gone they can actually talk sensibly . Time will tell , and in the mean time we should stick to the basics about what is right and what is wrong , and maiming and killing indescriminately is always wrong .
I'm not going to take sides on this... personally I think the palistines and the israilies have been just as bad in the indescriminate killing of each other. The only real difference is that one walks into a street and blows up themselves and anyone near, the other does it from a gunship wile wearing a uniform. I'm not 100% sure, but i believe that the number of deaths of palistinians far exceeds that of the israilies... but I wasnt really paying attention to the news article at the time. Both people have a legitimate right to live on the same land... the big problem is trying to knock their heads together to make them see that. The holy places have significence for both people as well. The israilies were only really "planted back" after the second world war... so you can understand why the palistines might feel agrieved, especially as the US turn a blind eye to what the israilies do, instead of telling them both to behave (not really their place I know.. but it was the coalition that re-planted the jews, so we are all, or at least the coilition at the time, partially responsible) Daft thing is, we gave the south africans stick for apartied, yet say nothing about the apartied in that area. Integration is the only real way to resolve the problem especially as the area does belong to both historically and religiously... but I can't see that hapening any time soon.
Quote by Silk and Big G On this very site we see the likes of these men called freedom fighters and at the same time countries whose democratically elected representatives choose to defend themselves described as some form of despot just because the support of their countrymen and allies allows them the power to do so .
I think it's entirely possible to believe that there are freedom fighters acting outside the boundaries of generally acceptable practice and legitimitely elected politicians behaving despotically. Nelson Mandela personally carried out acts of terrorism, but few would doubt that the long term result was positive. However, in failing to move from violent action to political settlement when the opportunity presented itself I think Arafat showed himself to be a violent force of resistance, part of the problem, not part of the solution and that the argument that he was nothing more than a terrorist therefore carries a lot of weight.
Its true that in every disenfranchised or subjugated people a movement and leader will emerge to resist the regime that oppresses them, some espouse violence, some don't but what is always the case is that until a solution is found innocent people get hurt and killed. Until the Palestinian situation is resolved there will be no peace in the Middle East, and the polarisation of Islam versus Christian/Jew cultures will continue. The point I wanted to make is that there are extremists on all sides and its the responsibility of all of us to resist extremism in its many forms. I'm no lover of political correctness (quite the opposite) but words spoken or written without extreme care about emotive subjects, however inoccuous to one group, can have devastating effects on another. This was evident in 1993 when the PLO recognised "the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security" and the various UN resolutions. All looked like it was going to work out until an Israeli extremist assassinated the Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and a more right wing Prime Minister was elected in his place. A classic example of a man of pragmatic vision being murdered at a moment when he could make a difference. Yasser Arafat has been both a terrorist and politician, his methods varied over the years, he may have been a good man or a bad man but he was a product of the situation a situation that does have a solution but only with discussion and compromise - extremism either outlawed or in government knows no compromise. Heavy subject!!! And this is only my view, not necessarily right. SA XX
0 likes
feck!! i always thought that name was some kinda fat free diet.... so is he dead then ? :shock:
Sorry i thought you typed " lesser fat " 