Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can only play the cards you're dealt. There are a lot of foreign leaders who are pretty unsavory. It's not like this is an Arab thing. We accepted Ferdinand Marcos as the leader of the Philippines until the Filipinos decided they'd had enough. Calling a foreign leader a terrorist doesn't always have a useful effect.
|
He wasn't a leader. He was a terrorist. Do you remember the 70s? Marcos never hijacked planes to make symbolic points.Marcos never sent armed terrorists into the Olmpic village to kill another nation's athletes. Marcos never blew up busloads of children of his political enemies.
I am not arguing that Marcos was a great democratic leader. But he was a leader. Arafat was a terrorist, who did all of the above, and the ant-semites in Weurope and the UN used the profile he gained from murder and hijacking to promote him to leader.
Why can't you bring yourself to denounce him without qualification?
If bin Laden requested free (unfettered by threat of arrest or other imprisonment) passage into NYC to speak at the UN on the theory that he is the leader of a certain groups of Arab muslims would you argue that he should get it? What if Hamas told the UN he was its (and by extension the Palis) designated rep to the UN? Should he be up for a Nobel Peace Prise for offering some type of cease fire or wahtever that was he offered in one of his tapes last year?
