Full Version: Time for Arafat to go?
It seems likely that Israel will soon take direct action against Arafat. The options being weighed are forced exile or assasination.
What do think is the best route to follow? The third possibility is continuing to try and work with him, but I see virtually no chance of that happening now.
What do think is the best route to follow? The third possibility is continuing to try and work with him, but I see virtually no chance of that happening now.
I think exile is best, but if it came down to it and he was killed, I wouldn't hold it against Israel. Arafat has been nothing but a stumbling block in the peace process. 
It's time the Palestinians had someone else leading them and had fresh ideas instead of a stagnant terrorist as their figure head.
It's time the Palestinians had someone else leading them and had fresh ideas instead of a stagnant terrorist as their figure head.
Arafat is like Saddam. He will refuse to go into exile because he loves his power and so the only way to get rid of him is to kill him. Working with him will get Israel no where because he is a huge obstacle in the Roadmap to Peace.
Editied to add: Also, if you force him into exile, there will be a hard time trying to make the Palestine gov't legit enough to deal with because buried in the high official positions of the Palestine Gov't, there are tons of Arafat cronies who will just be the saem type of obstacle. Kinda like the situation in rebuilding the governmental body of Iraq and Afghanistan...there are too many supporters of the former regimes in the gov't
Editied to add: Also, if you force him into exile, there will be a hard time trying to make the Palestine gov't legit enough to deal with because buried in the high official positions of the Palestine Gov't, there are tons of Arafat cronies who will just be the saem type of obstacle. Kinda like the situation in rebuilding the governmental body of Iraq and Afghanistan...there are too many supporters of the former regimes in the gov't
Exile, if it becomes necessary, is the only acceptable option. Assassination, the planned murder of someone, especially a leader, should be decried by every civilized nation on the face of the planet and Israel should face severe economic sanctions should they resort to it. Just because you don't like someone doesn't give you the right to kill them, any more than Saddam would have had a right to kill Bush.
The sooner Arafat goes, the better. He is a terrorist and an obstacle to peace. He did everything in his power to undermine Abbas. Personally I don't think peace is possible while either Sharon or Arafat remain in power. Neither are really willing to compromise, and compromise is the only way there will ever be a lasting peace in the Middle East.
EDIT: I favor assassination over exile. Arafat has proved countless times you can't negotiate with him, and he refuses to step down from power. If sent into exile he will still be the self-declared leader of the Palestinian people. I think he has outlived any usefulness he may have had.
EDIT: I favor assassination over exile. Arafat has proved countless times you can't negotiate with him, and he refuses to step down from power. If sent into exile he will still be the self-declared leader of the Palestinian people. I think he has outlived any usefulness he may have had.
Im with Cephus. Assassination is abhorrent, and immoral.
Although why does no one think that Sharon is hindering the peace process just as much? He refuses to stop building settlements, nor does he punish IDF members for going to extremes. I think they both need to go, and there needs to be younger leadership for any peaceful conclusion to happen.
Although why does no one think that Sharon is hindering the peace process just as much? He refuses to stop building settlements, nor does he punish IDF members for going to extremes. I think they both need to go, and there needs to be younger leadership for any peaceful conclusion to happen.
I don't like the character myself, but I think this idea of assassination or exile is stupid. Many of you forget that he was ELECTED by the Palestinian people. You can't just assassinate the leader of a nation and not risk a civil war!!! 
It's a reckless and dangerous behavior. However, I understand that Israel used that argument to try and impress Yasser Arafat, so that he would be more cooperative with Israel. They wanted to diminish his influence in the field. Unfortunately, the exact opposite happened.
It's a reckless and dangerous behavior. However, I understand that Israel used that argument to try and impress Yasser Arafat, so that he would be more cooperative with Israel. They wanted to diminish his influence in the field. Unfortunately, the exact opposite happened.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Sep 15 2003, 12:24 PM)
Im with Cephus. Assassination is abhorrent, and immoral.
Although why does no one think that Sharon is hindering the peace process just as much? He refuses to stop building settlements, nor does he punish IDF members for going to extremes. I think they both need to go, and there needs to be younger leadership for any peaceful conclusion to happen.
Although why does no one think that Sharon is hindering the peace process just as much? He refuses to stop building settlements, nor does he punish IDF members for going to extremes. I think they both need to go, and there needs to be younger leadership for any peaceful conclusion to happen.
To comment to that, both Sharon & Arafat are obstacles but i think it's like picking the lesser of 2 evils and Sharon is better than arafat in the way of keeping the peace.
Sharon has never launched a strike against Palestine unless they had been bombed. And Sharon could possibly have no idea that settlements are being built. You tear down one settlement, then the people who lived their will just build another one elsewhere
Quite apart from it's blatant illegality, and the utter hypocrisy of the Sharon government contemplating the assassination of Arafat because he hasn't committed himself to peace (they've all been angels, after all), assassination will do nothing except create a new and well-known martyr.
Exile is better - Amin was a horror more terrible than a thousand Arafat's and after he was chucked out of Uganda, nobody even remembered him until he died.
Better still, the Israeli governmnet could realise that fruitful peace negotiations might require some compromise on their part - halting the building of settlements on non-Israeli soil, and removing the wall they are building, (or at least moving it so it reflect their legal land borders, rather than just pushing it out around land they fancy that doesn't belong to them, no matter what a 4000-year-old book says).
All credit to Jack Straw for hauling the Israeli ambassador over the coals in London today - he apparently told him that Britain would "stongly disapprove" if Israel went ahead with an assassination attempt. (Unfortunately I can't find any links to this anywhere - I heard it on BBC radio today.)
Exile is better - Amin was a horror more terrible than a thousand Arafat's and after he was chucked out of Uganda, nobody even remembered him until he died.
Better still, the Israeli governmnet could realise that fruitful peace negotiations might require some compromise on their part - halting the building of settlements on non-Israeli soil, and removing the wall they are building, (or at least moving it so it reflect their legal land borders, rather than just pushing it out around land they fancy that doesn't belong to them, no matter what a 4000-year-old book says).
All credit to Jack Straw for hauling the Israeli ambassador over the coals in London today - he apparently told him that Britain would "stongly disapprove" if Israel went ahead with an assassination attempt. (Unfortunately I can't find any links to this anywhere - I heard it on BBC radio today.)
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Sep 15 2003, 05:24 PM)
Although why does no one think that Sharon is hindering the peace process just as much? He refuses to stop building settlements, nor does he punish IDF members for going to extremes. I think they both need to go, and there needs to be younger leadership for any peaceful conclusion to happen.
How about we give Sharon and Arafat guns, stick them in the middle of the desert and see which one comes out alive. Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll both die.
At least it would be an honest confrontation for once.
I am not against a forced celebrity death match for Sharon and Arafat, or Bush and Saddam for that matter.
However, once again, situaltion ethics applies, and somehow the "didn't mean to kill innocents" argument is used for the "good guy" Isrealis while th "bad guy" palestenians "intentionally" harm innocents- I don't think either side gives a damn about innocents, only personal power.
The only poeple that can decide for Arafat to go are the palastenians themselves. Personaly, we need to force the Isreali goverment to accept a power sharing goverment of elected palestanians and Jews in Isreal, anything else is just continueing the cycle
However, once again, situaltion ethics applies, and somehow the "didn't mean to kill innocents" argument is used for the "good guy" Isrealis while th "bad guy" palestenians "intentionally" harm innocents- I don't think either side gives a damn about innocents, only personal power.
The only poeple that can decide for Arafat to go are the palastenians themselves. Personaly, we need to force the Isreali goverment to accept a power sharing goverment of elected palestanians and Jews in Isreal, anything else is just continueing the cycle
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 15 2003, 05:01 PM)
I don't think either side gives a damn about innocents, only personal power.
or more like vengence.
Hamas always cries vengence after Israel bombs a Hamas group
QUOTE(goamerica @ Sep 15 2003, 10:56 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 15 2003, 05:01 PM)
I don't think either side gives a damn about innocents, only personal power.
That is where I disagree. I beleive that Sharon legitimately cares about the people of Israel. They are a very united country.
Arafat, on the other hand, has no concern for the well-being of the Palestinians.
He is a man with evil intentions, who is using his "people" as pawns in his
own political schemes.
Once again, that is a matter of your guy being the good guy and thiers being the bad guy, totally subjective. Do either really care about thier own poeple? We will never know. I believe that every single person that ever lusted after the highest offices in thier political worlds are sociopaths with no concious at all- just guidelines to keep them in power- I see no difference in personality between Stalin, Churchil, FDR, Bush, Clinton, Arafat, Bush Jr, Reagan etc- sociopaths every one, just some of thier behaviors are harder to stomach than others- Assasinating the recognized leader of a poeple, recognized by the very poeple he leads (and Arafat is popular with palastenians)- you simply give new resolve to his legacy. This will be a great rallying point if anyone outside the palastenians removes him from power- we should learn from our mistakes with the palastenians so far- Abbas was a failure simply because he had US support.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 16 2003, 02:55 AM)
I believe that every single person that ever lusted after the highest offices in thier political worlds are sociopaths with no concious at all- just guidelines to keep them in power- I see no difference in personality between Stalin, Churchil, FDR, Bush, Clinton, Arafat, Bush Jr, Reagan etc- sociopaths every one, just some of thier behaviors are harder to stomach than others-
This is the saddest commentary on humanity I've ever read. Hopefully you're not serious. I go the other way. I believe most political leaders have the good of their people at heart. They may think that they are the only one's with the answers on how to achieve it though.
As for Arafat, I hope he's removed soon. His exile has to be along the lines of Idi Amin though, completely powerless. If that can't be achieved then killing him is the only option. He believes the only path for the Palestinians is one of terror attacks. Ultimately he wants to see Israel removed from the map.
Once he's removed the world can be more direct and demanding of Israel. That's impossible right now since they are viewed by many, if not most, as defending themselves against terrorist assaults.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 16 2003, 02:55 AM)
I believe that every single person that ever lusted after the highest offices in thier political worlds are sociopaths with no concious at all- just guidelines to keep them in power- I see no difference in personality between Stalin, Churchil, FDR, Bush, Clinton, Arafat, Bush Jr, Reagan etc- sociopaths every one, just some of thier behaviors are harder to stomach than others
That is true. But some use their politicial power more than other leaders do. Take Hugo Chavez. He sues his democratic powers and turns Venezuala into a nation of commnism after his "role models" Kim Jong and Castro.
I say kill him, dead. If we exile him we'll be asking for terrorists to try to free there brave leader. We kill him, terrorists want to be martyrs like him, well, we've got plenty of weapons to make them happy.
CP
CP
Uh, would anyone like to tell us why they think Arafat is an obsticle to peace or a terrorist or a puppy-killer or whatever?
America has made their postion more than clear on this matter. They want him dead.
US veto
Horyok is right. Arafat is an elected leader, how killing him can further the peace process is beyond me. Especially as Sharon is as guilty of destroying the peace initiatives as Arafat is.
US veto
Horyok is right. Arafat is an elected leader, how killing him can further the peace process is beyond me. Especially as Sharon is as guilty of destroying the peace initiatives as Arafat is.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Sep 16 2003, 02:41 PM)
Uh, would anyone like to tell us why they think Arafat is an obsticle to peace or a terrorist or a puppy-killer or whatever?
Although that question is laughable beyond words, it probably doesn't belong here. Maybe you can start a new thread dealing with his (cringing here) "character".
I beleive this thread has more to do with the political and moral consequences of firing a missle up his left nostril. But hey, I could be wrong.
It sure is easy for some folks to sit back in their armchairs and contemplate with certain glee the murder of another human.
Conservpat, we're sending you in. I'm glad you have no moral reservations about this, our country needs people like you!
We'll have you killing some Commies soon, too!
Goamerica, do you mind my asking what your source is for your Chavez remark?
Conservpat, we're sending you in. I'm glad you have no moral reservations about this, our country needs people like you!
We'll have you killing some Commies soon, too!Goamerica, do you mind my asking what your source is for your Chavez remark?
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Sep 17 2003, 09:10 AM)
It sure is easy for some folks to sit back in their armchairs and contemplate with certain glee the murder of another human.
Conservpat, we're sending you in. I'm glad you have no moral reservations about this, our country needs people like you! We'll have you killing some Commies soon, too!
Goamerica, do you mind my asking what your source is for your Chavez remark?
Conservpat, we're sending you in. I'm glad you have no moral reservations about this, our country needs people like you!
We'll have you killing some Commies soon, too!Goamerica, do you mind my asking what your source is for your Chavez remark?
Actually, I would call Arafat more sub-human than human.
But seriously, even if you don't agree, here's the premise of why some of us think he should be killed. Let's say some pshycho has 100 bodies lying around him that he just killed. He has a knife to someone's throat. Wouldn't you shoot to kill him?
Police use lethal force everyday to save lives. We don't consider that murder.
Although Arafat's not doing the actual killing, the results are the same. If the use of lethal force reduced the number of innocent casualties, it's not really murder.
A fair argument can be made however that killing him won't stop the violence. Personally, I don't think that to be necessarily true. With him gone and with no control, the chances of getting another Abbas in there to affect change are much higher. Which leads to something closer to peace. Which saves lives on both sides.
In summary, you've oversimplified the premise of some of us wanting him taken out. It's not murdering an innocent to us. It's saving the life of another.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Sep 16 2003, 11:20 AM)
As for Arafat, I hope he's removed soon. His exile has to be along the lines of Idi Amin though, completely powerless. If that can't be achieved then killing him is the only option. He believes the only path for the Palestinians is one of terror attacks. Ultimately he wants to see Israel removed from the map.
Killing Arafat will only turn him into a martyr and you'll get *MORE* attacks on Israel, much larger and more deadly than anything they've seen so far. There are very few suicide bombers now and they aren't well funded. Kill Arafat and you'll see the whole Arab world walking into Jerusalem with ABC weapons strapped to their backs.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Sep 17 2003, 11:32 AM)
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Sep 16 2003, 11:20 AM)
As for Arafat, I hope he's removed soon. His exile has to be along the lines of Idi Amin though, completely powerless. If that can't be achieved then killing him is the only option. He believes the only path for the Palestinians is one of terror attacks. Ultimately he wants to see Israel removed from the map.
Killing Arafat will only turn him into a martyr and you'll get *MORE* attacks on Israel, much larger and more deadly than anything they've seen so far. There are very few suicide bombers now and they aren't well funded. Kill Arafat and you'll see the whole Arab world walking into Jerusalem with ABC weapons strapped to their backs.
Exile won't make it any better. The suicide bombers will target the new government of Palestine to boot them out and reinsert Arafat or one of his cronies
I'll say it again, please tell us why you think he's the epitome of evil. No one has even presented hearsay or false statistics to condemn him with, they've just called him an "obstacle to the peace process" and "a terrorist." From what I can see, he's no more hawkish than Sharon, and maybe even less.
Hi, I'm new!
I have been talking this up over at another Forum and Yes, without a doubt, it is WAY past time for Arafat to go. His tactics for "peace" have been to give terror groups free reign and unfettered control over "Palestinian" affairs. Where in the last 50 years (30 of which he was in control) has it gotten? Nowhere.
The man is an obstruction to ANY progress at all. Get him out!
I have been talking this up over at another Forum and Yes, without a doubt, it is WAY past time for Arafat to go. His tactics for "peace" have been to give terror groups free reign and unfettered control over "Palestinian" affairs. Where in the last 50 years (30 of which he was in control) has it gotten? Nowhere.
The man is an obstruction to ANY progress at all. Get him out!
I say kill Sharon FIRST and all his supporters, and then the peace proccess will move forward. Sound radical and inhumane? No more than the "kill palastenians" camp. Why not just advocate genocide and concentration camps for the palastenians? Oops- that is already where they are at!
The Jews are already being killed, nothing new there. Least Sharon is targeting the right people. Hamas, IJ et al. They serve no purpose but to promote intolerance.
Arafat was so terrified that Abbas would take attention away from him that he rendered the poor jerk impotent.
Arafat was never about peace, never will be. The sooner that dinosaur becomes extinct the sooner these folks can get back on the road...
Arafat was so terrified that Abbas would take attention away from him that he rendered the poor jerk impotent.
Arafat was never about peace, never will be. The sooner that dinosaur becomes extinct the sooner these folks can get back on the road...
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Sep 17 2003, 09:41 AM)
Police use lethal force everyday to save lives. We don't consider that murder.
This action results in an intense investigation to prove that the officer committed a legitimate shooting. Police don't get to shoot people because they are the bad guys.
Arafat should not be kicked out of the Palestine now because it is bad political timing. We had been marginalizing him some by focusing on the Prime Ministers he appointed. We were, I believe, undermining his political base. However now the Israeli government has turned the spotlight back on Arafat and this has encouraged people to rally to Arafat, the symbol of Palestinian nationalism.
That is not a good way to get rid of Arafat.
unfortunately, I agree Eeyore. Arafat cannot tolerate being side-stepped.
Had Abbas just hung in a little longer... Well the Fat one saw to that! No more Abbas.
And what better way to badmouth those meany americans by putting us in a corner with that Syrian brokered one-sided resolution. ARGH!
Had Abbas just hung in a little longer... Well the Fat one saw to that! No more Abbas.
And what better way to badmouth those meany americans by putting us in a corner with that Syrian brokered one-sided resolution. ARGH!
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 17 2003, 02:26 PM)
I say kill Sharon FIRST and all his supporters, and then the peace proccess will move forward. Sound radical and inhumane?
Yes it does sound radical and inhumane. Thank God you are not running for President because you would definetly be off my list of choices. Sharon's only incited violence when Hamas has started something.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Sep 17 2003, 09:02 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 17 2003, 02:26 PM)
I say kill Sharon FIRST and all his supporters, and then the peace proccess will move forward. Sound radical and inhumane?
Sharon's only incited violence when Hamas has started something.
time and time again, Sharon has expressed the safety of Israelis as his one priority. Arafat, in 30 years, has given Sharon and others before him NO reason to believe that while Arafat remains in office, Israelis won't be murdered.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Sep 17 2003, 05:25 PM)
Exile won't make it any better. The suicide bombers will target the new government of Palestine to boot them out and reinsert Arafat or one of his cronies
Arafat isn't in charge of the bombers now. They don't take orders from him, he couldn't stop them if he wanted to. If he's dead, they'll continue, but if Arafat dies at Israeli hands, the whole Arab world will be up in arms about it. Not only will you have Hamas attacking Israel openly, but you'll have pretty much every terrorist group in the Middle East, with a whole lot more resources and money than Hamas could ever hope for, blowing things up in the streets of Jerusalem.
I can't stop them from killing Arafat or anyone else (Israel doesn't seem to listen to anyone), but if they do, they deserve what happens to them.
SoCaliente_1 writes:
QUOTE
time and time again, Sharon has expressed the safety of Israelis as his one priority. Arafat, in 30 years, has given Sharon and others before him NO reason to believe that while Arafat remains in office, Israelis won't be murdered.
Sharon cares about Israelis. It's the Palestinians he couldn't care less about and it shows to the whole planet. It isn't while Arafat remains in office, for some Muslims, so long as Israel exists, there will be attacks. Israel is considered by some hardline Muslims as a blasphemy against Allah.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Sep 17 2003, 10:10 AM)
It sure is easy for some folks to sit back in their armchairs and contemplate with certain glee the murder of another human.
Conservpat, we're sending you in. I'm glad you have no moral reservations about this, our country needs people like you! We'll have you killing some Commies soon, too!
Goamerica, do you mind my asking what your source is for your Chavez remark?
Conservpat, we're sending you in. I'm glad you have no moral reservations about this, our country needs people like you!
We'll have you killing some Commies soon, too!Goamerica, do you mind my asking what your source is for your Chavez remark?
Quark, questioning my morals? How many people do you think that Arafat has watched die, or ordered to be killed
He is not an innocent man by any stretch. There is no reason to let him live.CP
Maybe there is no reason to let him live, but there's no reason to let him die either, ConservPat. 
hardcore Islamists, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, ALaqsa Brigade (sp?) et al, who comprise the the Govt of "Palestine"...let's not kid ourselves...and sanctioned by Arafat, want nothing more than to rid the ME of "Infidels."
This nest of intolerant sub-humans is no different from the Taliban is no different from AlQaida is no different from the Islamofascists taking up residence in Iran and Suadi Arabia.
If you ain't a "believer" then you have a choice between death or conversion.
Sharon, and anyone with a brain recognizes this. His people are NOT safe from murder as long as Arafat is there.
This nest of intolerant sub-humans is no different from the Taliban is no different from AlQaida is no different from the Islamofascists taking up residence in Iran and Suadi Arabia.
If you ain't a "believer" then you have a choice between death or conversion.
Sharon, and anyone with a brain recognizes this. His people are NOT safe from murder as long as Arafat is there.
Hmm- lot's of calls of being "sub-human"- isn't this what the KKK and the Nazi's call the Jews? I guess it is okay to advocate genocide or assasination if they don't have your point of view of this war? Sharon is a war criminal himself, doesn't mind killing a few women and children for personal power any more than Arafat or GW for that manner. There are no innocent leaders in this issue, all are the bad guys and until they all are gone, there will be no solution.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 17 2003, 09:22 PM)
Hmm- lot's of calls of being "sub-human"- isn't this what the KKK and the Nazi's call the Jews? I guess it is okay to advocate genocide or assasination if they don't have your point of view of this war? Sharon is a war criminal himself, doesn't mind killing a few women and children for personal power any more than Arafat or GW for that manner. There are no innocent leaders in this issue, all are the bad guys and until they all are gone, there will be no solution.
I think anybody that is a leader of murderous thugs that target and massacre innocent civilians, and the leader of a people that allows his own people to be killed for PR purposes qualifies as sub-human.
Yeah, I have no problem with that label.
38% of the non-combatants killed in Israel are women. 95% of the non-combatants killed in the Palestinian areas are men. 95% male is not random killing or excessive collateral damage. The numbers are solid and do not lie.
Arafat sends his thugs out to blow up innocent Israelis at random. Then, Arafat sends innocent kids out as human shields in front of the IDF when they come looking for the terrorists cells that just slaughtered their civilians. And the world is shocked when they get hurt and/or killed.
I changed my mind. You are correct. Sub-human is not a good term for him. That term gives him too much credit. The world would be a better and safer place if Israel sent him to the hell he belongs in.
QUOTE
I think anybody that is a leader of murderous thugs that target and massacre innocent civilians, and the leader of a people that allows his own people to be killed for PR purposes qualifies as sub-human.
Who told you that? Someone's only sub-human if they're literally lower on the evolutionary chain, as in being a chimp or a gorilla. I know Arafat's no looker, but he's not an ape. You might call him inhuman or inhumane, but he's not sub-human. Second off PLEASE CITE SOURCES TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. I could say that Sharon ordered the murder of millions of Palestinians, but if I have no proof of that I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me. What makes the anti-Arafat side of this argument believe they are exempt from this?
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Sep 18 2003, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE
I think anybody that is a leader of murderous thugs that target and massacre innocent civilians, and the leader of a people that allows his own people to be killed for PR purposes qualifies as sub-human.
Who told you that? Someone's only sub-human if they're literally lower on the evolutionary chain, as in being a chimp or a gorilla. I know Arafat's no looker, but he's not an ape. You might call him inhuman or inhumane, but he's not sub-human. Second off PLEASE CITE SOURCES TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. I could say that Sharon ordered the murder of millions of Palestinians, but if I have no proof of that I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me. What makes the anti-Arafat side of this argument believe they are exempt from this?
Sure...no problem. This data was posted on this board days ago (and curiously, ignored...hmmm...)
QUOTE
International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism
specifically, about a third down the page is a link called "An Engineered Tragedy Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian". You need to hit that link because going to it does not change the address in the browser (at least in mine anyway). So, there was nothing I could copy and paste.
Note, this is not light reading. It is detailed analysis.
specifically, about a third down the page is a link called "An Engineered Tragedy Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian". You need to hit that link because going to it does not change the address in the browser (at least in mine anyway). So, there was nothing I could copy and paste.
Note, this is not light reading. It is detailed analysis.
When in doubt, this study has even given the benefit of the doubt to the Palestinians. This study is as conclusive and scientific as anything I've ever seen. However, you really need to read the entire thing (not just the summary) to get a grasp of it or you'll start disputing stuff that actually explained is in the full report (been there - done that).
Here is what George Bush said today :
Well, at least George Bush is 'talking' to the Palestinians here. Does he mean to ask the Palestinians to go vote for another leader?
QUOTE
Mr. Arafat has failed as a leader...The people of the Palestinian territories must understand that if they want peace, they must have leadership who is absolutely 100 percent committed to fighting off terror
Well, at least George Bush is 'talking' to the Palestinians here. Does he mean to ask the Palestinians to go vote for another leader?
QUOTE(Horyok @ Sep 17 2003, 06:40 PM)
Maybe there is no reason to let him live, but there's no reason to let him die either, ConservPat.
Au contraire mon amis francais. He allows innocent Israelis to be killed, doesn't try to restrain terrorists, and constantly disrupts the peace process.
CP
QUOTE(Horyok @ Sep 18 2003, 11:10 AM)
Here is what George Bush said today :
Well, at least George Bush is 'talking' to the Palestinians here. Does he mean to ask the Palestinians to go vote for another leader?
QUOTE
Mr. Arafat has failed as a leader...The people of the Palestinian territories must understand that if they want peace, they must have leadership who is absolutely 100 percent committed to fighting off terror
Well, at least George Bush is 'talking' to the Palestinians here. Does he mean to ask the Palestinians to go vote for another leader?
Yes but that doesn't mean the "vote" will be fair because we all know how Arafat works. Just like saddam, he probably gets people to change their mind his way or he kills the political opponents
ConservPat, I don't think there is any way we can agree. Condemning an assassin to death won't bring the victims back. Therefore, killing Arafat means nothing to me.
GoAmerica, do you think that we should 'force' democracy in Palestine (by ousting arafat for instance)? If so, what would be your method if you could choose?
GoAmerica, do you think that we should 'force' democracy in Palestine (by ousting arafat for instance)? If so, what would be your method if you could choose?
QUOTE
Sure...no problem. This data was posted on this board days ago (and curiously, ignored...hmmm...)
Dayton, I don't read every thread on this board. I've never seen this before. Generally, it's no conducive to intelligent debate to imply that your opponents are deliberately suppressing the truth.
Furthermore, what you posted was a link to a webpage that apparently published a small book on Arafat. If you expect me to read through that entire psychological analysis, you're crazy. It's 101 pages and 40,000 words. Please, pick out the evidence you want to show me and I'll take a look at it.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Sep 18 2003, 04:21 PM)
If you expect me to read through that entire psychological analysis, you're crazy.
Please refrain from insinuating anyone here may be crazy.
QUOTE(Horyok @ Sep 18 2003, 04:08 PM)
ConservPat, I don't think there is any way we can agree. Condemning an assassin to death won't bring the victims back. Therefore, killing Arafat means nothing to me.
GoAmerica, do you think that we should 'force' democracy in Palestine (by ousting arafat for instance)? If so, what would be your method if you could choose?
GoAmerica, do you think that we should 'force' democracy in Palestine (by ousting arafat for instance)? If so, what would be your method if you could choose?
Killing him would show any possible followers we mean business. He is disrupting the peace process, period. If he is allowed to live, he will continue to do so.
CP
I read the psychological and strategically analysis of Arafat, why two such studies are lumped together is rather odd to me.
First of all, if you have not even read a book or took a class that relates to social sciences i would like to make some points regarding Arafat’s profile.
Language has an impact on thought, we don’t know to what extent yet, but we know it does. This profile is giving from a certain point of view, this view may not fully understand what it is studying. Such differences in design or what not in a culture is rather large, as a word like suffering replaces the about 750 words English has for emotions in just one culture. To get into more on such, different cultures give people that different world view, or humans living with each other and being raised to that culture.
The profiles seem to only show negative points, to say an American mindset, or worldview, i am not saying its propaganda, i am just saying the people behind may have made some fallacies. Such is a personality test that i just learned about, the current argument against it working is that the psychometric load from the test itself concentrates more on i.q then personality, but what is personality then, studies have shown that all humans have genetic dispositions, and to get Freudian, maybe the person has a sick grandma, that might also effect the test. Overall psychology is a new science that already has about 50 fields in it, so its far from perfect, and in itself is a battle.
Another thing i would like to bring up, they made a statement about some kind of cycle or something about being close to the goal or the dream, is that the same when you have to use the restroom real bad then you finally get to one.
To sum it up, the test was done via actions on a person that lives in a volatile part of the world and has lead a volatile life, such a study at a distance may have some errors in it. As it stands, I would not use it as a warrant for an assassination.
First of all, if you have not even read a book or took a class that relates to social sciences i would like to make some points regarding Arafat’s profile.
Language has an impact on thought, we don’t know to what extent yet, but we know it does. This profile is giving from a certain point of view, this view may not fully understand what it is studying. Such differences in design or what not in a culture is rather large, as a word like suffering replaces the about 750 words English has for emotions in just one culture. To get into more on such, different cultures give people that different world view, or humans living with each other and being raised to that culture.
The profiles seem to only show negative points, to say an American mindset, or worldview, i am not saying its propaganda, i am just saying the people behind may have made some fallacies. Such is a personality test that i just learned about, the current argument against it working is that the psychometric load from the test itself concentrates more on i.q then personality, but what is personality then, studies have shown that all humans have genetic dispositions, and to get Freudian, maybe the person has a sick grandma, that might also effect the test. Overall psychology is a new science that already has about 50 fields in it, so its far from perfect, and in itself is a battle.
Another thing i would like to bring up, they made a statement about some kind of cycle or something about being close to the goal or the dream, is that the same when you have to use the restroom real bad then you finally get to one.
To sum it up, the test was done via actions on a person that lives in a volatile part of the world and has lead a volatile life, such a study at a distance may have some errors in it. As it stands, I would not use it as a warrant for an assassination.
QUOTE(Horyok @ Sep 18 2003, 03:08 PM)
GoAmerica, do you think that we should 'force' democracy in Palestine (by ousting arafat for instance)? If so, what would be your method if you could choose?
All i said was that his version of elections are unfair. He uses the same tactics saddam uses: Scare the heck out of everyone and kill the opposition. Use monitored elections by someone, say the UN (oh boy) and let the elections go on. If Arafat interferes in ANY way, he gets booted from the ballot.
Of course, that doesn't stop some psycho from taking his place so yeah..i guess we need to kinda oust him
Sharon is a war criminal yet no one cares about that, as long as Arafat's out of the picture.
http://www.indictsharon.net/warcrimes.shtml
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html
http://www.indictsharon.net/warcrimes.shtml
QUOTE
Then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon encircled the camps, sealed them, and sent in his closest allies amongst the Lebanese militias to "cleanse" the area of the "2,000 terrorists" which he insisted had remained there. As a result, hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were subject to three days of relentless torture, rape and killing, while hundreds more were arrested and trucked away, never to be seen again: an estimated 2000 civilians were killed or disappeared.
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html
QUOTE
Sharon's first documented sortie in this role was in August of 1953 on the refugee camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza. An Israeli history of the 101 unit records 50 refugees as having been killed; other sources allege 15 or 20. Major-General Vagn Bennike, the UN commander, reported that "bombs were thrown" by Sharon's men "through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons".
"'They came at night and began marking the houses they wanted to demolish with red paint,' said Ibrahim Ghanim, 70, a retired labourer. 'In the morning they came back, and ordered everyone to leave. I remember all the soldiers shouting at people, Yalla, yalla, yalla, yalla! They threw everyone's belongings into the street. Then Sharon brought in bulldozers and started flattening the street. He did the whole lot, almost in one day. And the soldiers would beat people, can you imagine? Soldiers with guns, beating little kids!'
As defense minister in Menachem Begin's second government, Sharon was the commander who led the full dress 1982 assault on Lebanon, with the express design of destroying the PLO, driving as many Palestinians as possible to Jordan and making Lebanon a client state of Israel. It was a war plan that cost untold suffering, around 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese lives, and also the deaths of over one thousand Israeli soldiers. The Israelis bombed civilian populations at will. Sharon also oversaw the infamous massacres at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. The Lebanese government counted 762 bodies recovered and a further 1,200 buried privately by relatives.
The slaughter in the two contiguous camps at Sabra and Shatilla took place from 6:00 at night on September 16, 1982 until 8:00 in the morning on September 18, 1982, in an area under the control of the Israel Defense Forces. The perpetrators were members of the Phalange militia, the Lebanese force that was armed by and closely allied with Israel since the onset of Lebanon's civil war in 1975. The victims during the 62-hour rampage included infants, children, women (including pregnant women), and the elderly, some of whom were mutilated or disemboweled before or after they were killed.
"'They came at night and began marking the houses they wanted to demolish with red paint,' said Ibrahim Ghanim, 70, a retired labourer. 'In the morning they came back, and ordered everyone to leave. I remember all the soldiers shouting at people, Yalla, yalla, yalla, yalla! They threw everyone's belongings into the street. Then Sharon brought in bulldozers and started flattening the street. He did the whole lot, almost in one day. And the soldiers would beat people, can you imagine? Soldiers with guns, beating little kids!'
As defense minister in Menachem Begin's second government, Sharon was the commander who led the full dress 1982 assault on Lebanon, with the express design of destroying the PLO, driving as many Palestinians as possible to Jordan and making Lebanon a client state of Israel. It was a war plan that cost untold suffering, around 20,000 Palestinian and Lebanese lives, and also the deaths of over one thousand Israeli soldiers. The Israelis bombed civilian populations at will. Sharon also oversaw the infamous massacres at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. The Lebanese government counted 762 bodies recovered and a further 1,200 buried privately by relatives.
The slaughter in the two contiguous camps at Sabra and Shatilla took place from 6:00 at night on September 16, 1982 until 8:00 in the morning on September 18, 1982, in an area under the control of the Israel Defense Forces. The perpetrators were members of the Phalange militia, the Lebanese force that was armed by and closely allied with Israel since the onset of Lebanon's civil war in 1975. The victims during the 62-hour rampage included infants, children, women (including pregnant women), and the elderly, some of whom were mutilated or disemboweled before or after they were killed.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.