Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Arafat would say he came from inside Palestine. You don't have to agree with everything he said to see some truth in that. Ask Spanky.
|
Wrong. He came from Cairo.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The terrorism and WMD rationales don't withstand the light of day. He actually let in the UN inspectors, but you and President Bush remember it differently.
I asked you the other day to explain what "terrorism" means as a category. You appear to attach great significance to the fact that some brutal applications of violence are state-sponsored, but others are not. If both Arafat and Hussein were brutes, why does it matter that Hussein had a country and Arafat only had the PLO?
.
|
He let inspectors in and thwarted the process. He didn't let inspectors in and thwarted the process. Effectively he was non-compliant.
The difference is with Hussien, as a leader, putatively elected, we tried to deal with him as you deal with a state. When all diplomatic approacjh failed. wE went to war. TWice.
With arafat,. there was a simpler solutuion, not recognize the false legitimacy. We didn't have to talk to him. We choose to. That was wrong, and it legitimised terrorism as a means to international respectability.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Seriously. What have I said that makes you think I don't denounce him?
|
Because you won't unqiualifiedly denounce him for what he was, a murdering terrorist.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nor did Arafat. Unfortunately, Palestinians saw him as their leader.
|
And trhe Manson family saw Charles manson as a leader, so what?
He was a murderous terrorist and we should have refused to deal with him (as Bush eventually did., see it can be done!) and/or refuse to deal with his terrorist apparatus. If you would refuse the false legitimization of bon Laden as a leader (hypotehtically per my earleir questions) why do you confer the same on arafat?
