Arafat Dead...

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned

I understand that France is going to erect a monument to the eternal glory of Arafat. It will depict Arafat triumphant, holding an AK-47 high in the air, iron boot emplaced on the neck of a fallen Jewish child, standing before a map of Palestine as it was before the creation of Israel.

Your information is not far off:

[Nikolai]

It's never a good thing that a person dies, but for the world, it's a good thing that terrorist leader isn't in charge anymore...

This may have been said before, I have only read some of the first posts in this thread(too long and I'm tired), but: Did you hear of what he said in a speach to his people right after signing the Oslo agreement? He used an expression from Islam which means an agreement made between a Muslim and a non-believer. This expression means that the agreement is only counting as long as it suits the Muslim part...

[Imran Siddiqui]

God, that's so lame...

Yeah, I guess pointing out American terrorism is 'lame'.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah, this...



is really comparable to this.



Congratulations, Imran! You're this week's winner of the coveted Chris Burke award!

[DinoDoc]

Imran: If that's the best example you can come up with from the time period, yes it is.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

God, that's so lame...

Yeah, I guess pointing out American terrorism is 'lame'.

If you really want to accurately point to examples of American terrorism, look at the activities of the CIA during the Cold War -- and also the School of the Americas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Imran: If that's the best example you can come up with from the time period, yes it is.

It's so easy to dismiss killing civilians when it seems trivial and minor to you then?

Destroying villages of Native Americans who backed the Brits can also be swept under the rug quite easily as well .

[Imran Siddiqui]

is really comparable to this.

Killing civilians to make a political point vs. killing civilians to make a political point is that different? Or are you just complaining that technology makes it easier to kill more people?

[Drake Tungsten]

Since when did tarring and feathering necessarily kill people?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... do you think it was cold tar? Why do you think being boiled in oil was such a bad thing? Many people died after the torture, mostly because those burns weren't easily dealt with in that time period.

[Drake Tungsten]

The point was to humiliate, not kill. The same can't be said for Arafat and his terrorist followers.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's so easy to dismiss killing civilians when it seems trivial and minor to you then?

When there are examples of regular troops and irregular fighters roaming the countryside to plunder, rape, and murder, I consider tarring and feathering to be among the least of the charges you could have leveled.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When there are examples of regular troops and irregular fighters roaming the countryside to plunder, rape, and murder, I consider tarring and feathering to be among the least of the charges you could have leveled.

It was just an example. GePap covered the killing of natives.

The point was to humiliate, not kill.

Torture to make a political statement... sounds like terrorism to me . Of course, the 'humiliation' excuse can't be used when we talk about the natives or loyalists .

[Drake Tungsten]

You are a ****wad, and the avatar suits you. Enjoy it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
GePap covered the killing of natives.

Who said I was talking about killing natives?