Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's neither tepid. I denounce him. Moreover, it's in no way inconsistent with anything I've said. My point is, we have to deal with these unpleasant people. Why can't you just admit it?
|
It's a little tepid, but I don't understand the construction of your first sentence. Are you affecting the linguistics of Savimbi?
I am not saying that we don't have to deal with unpleasant people. In the pursuit of money I do that every day (that explains the self-loathing Sidd or Wonk or SHP or one of those dudes once cited). I am saying we did not have to and should not have done it with him. He was nothing more than a terrorist and a killer and we and others artifically conferred legitimaxtry on him. It was blackmail and we should have called his bluff.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He had a people.
.
|
so does bin laden. If his people wanted a seat at the table they should have been told to send a responsible party. not a terrorist killer.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did I say that was the test?
|
Your post implied it. If there is not some minimum test of the utility then why would argue that we have to deal with Arafat? If there is some minimum test what is it? Asked another way, what becomes a bar to the end or what negative outweighs the utility?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I doubt it. Whatever Pakistan does can't immunize him for his past criminal acts.
|
Why? How did Arafat get immunised then? His kills were certainly int he hundreds? The symbolism and effect of the Olympic attack was huge, how are you distinguishing them?
