Arafat Dead

[King]

Three cheers for the red, white, and blue (NOT France)!

USA: 3
France: 0

Point Overview
Team USA
1st - Re-Election of President Bush
2nd - French invasion of the Ivory Coast without UN approval (freethrow)
3rd - Death of Yassar Arafat

Team France
Scoreless

[Defarge]

God bless his soul.

Hopefully, his death will usher in peace in our time

[J-Mann]

No one would mourn if Osama bin Laden were to die.  No one shed a tear when Saddam Hussein was captured.  Arafat was just another terrorist, not to mention a complete fool of a "leader".  While the media will be going on and on about his "accomplishments", we shouldn't forget the terror that he's brought to Israel for 35 years.

[ATFFL]

It's a damn shame. 

Mainly that it took him so long.

I only hope his replacements can undo the massive damage he did.  Hopefully in short order, but I doubt it.

[shankbear]

Stoking up the fires for Fatty.  Another terrorist bites it.  Riddance.  Au revoir.  Adios.  Burn baby burn, disco inferno.

[Beet]

Three cheers for the red, white, and blue (NOT France)!

USA: 3
France: 0

Point Overview
Team USA
1st - Re-Election of President Bush
2nd - French invasion of the Ivory Coast without UN approval (freethrow)
3rd - Death of Yassar Arafat

Team France
Scoreless

Well... I was breaking out the champagne, but when you put it like that, I almost wish he had lived.

However that would be crazy. Arafat- another uncompromising nationalist zealot. Just like bin Laden.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I have kept a bottle of champagne (American) chilled to celebrate the demise of that vicious terrorist.

Looking forward to the death soon of Castro too.

Wouldn't it be a trifecta of Osama, Castro, Arafat and their good buddy and cheerleader Chirac were to all die within the same week.

The world would be better for this.

If Chirac gets called to hell soon, I hope that Bush will delay the pro forma 'regrets' for a week to show the despicable, contemptiblle and treacherous frogs a taste of their own medicine.

[Beet]

Don't you realize that Chirac is just the French version of Bush.

[shankbear]

au contraire mon ami.  Chirac is roundly disliked in France, more than Bush is here.  I have spent a substantial amount of time in France over the last 4 years and they talk ill about him in many circles.  Industry, education, farming, etc.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No!

Chirac is a very evil man.

Even the lefties who know about him detest the lying, thieving sob.

He has allied himself with every evil regime and group of terrorists around the world.

One can understand Putin, and while disagreeing with some of his actions, understand them as based on more or less rational self-interest.

Chirac by contrast is like a psychopath who, when a brigade of firefighters arrives to fight a fire in his neighberhood will sabotage their efforts with the reasonable expectation that by so doing he is endangering his own home.

Chirac is NOT acting in rational self-interest, but rather is dedicated to taking the evil course of action whenever he can.

[Gabu]

It's one thing to look forward to what the world will be like after someone's death and to be happy about that.  It's certainly true that things can probably only get better now that Arafat is out of power and that certainly is a good thing.  There's absolutely nothing wrong about being happy about the changes that will occur as a result of Arafat's death.

However, it's another thing to actually be happy about the death itself.  If we start to celebrate death and to be happy at the thought of someone going to hell, the separation will grow ever fuzzier between us and the Palestinian children seen cheering after 9/11 that everyone decried so harshly (and no, I'm not equating Arafat's death with the deaths on 9/11, for anyone who wants to make that comment).

Should we mourn the death?  No, absolutely not, not unless you want to.  Respect certainly doesn't have to be shown when respect is not due.  You don't even have to stop hating someone after they've died, although it would be good for your blood pressure.  However, a death should not be something to be celebrated.

That said, flame away.  I know that most will disagree and will likely call me a terrorist sympathizer.

[John]

well he was Saved he is with Jesus
But if was not he is in Hell

[Nym90]

It's one thing to look forward to what the world will be like after someone's death and to be happy about that.  It's certainly true that things can probably only get better now that Arafat is out of power and that certainly is a good thing.  There's absolutely nothing wrong about being happy about the changes that will occur as a result of Arafat's death.

However, it's another thing to actually be happy about the death itself.  If we start to celebrate death and to be happy at the thought of someone going to hell, the separation will grow ever fuzzier between us and the Palestinian children seen cheering after 9/11 that everyone decried so harshly (and no, I'm not equating Arafat's death with the deaths on 9/11, for anyone who wants to make that comment).

Should we mourn the death?  No, absolutely not, not unless you want to.  Respect certainly doesn't have to be shown when respect is not due.  You don't even have to stop hating someone after they've died, although it would be good for your blood pressure.  However, a death should not be something to be celebrated.

That said, flame away.  I know that most will disagree and will likely call me a terrorist sympathizer.

I agree completely. Death is always a bad thing in my opinion. Good things can come of it, but death in and of itself is never good.

[Beet]

Gabu- I don't call you a terrorist sympathizer but I respectfully disagree that a death can never be celebrated. I think that good people can rationally celebrate a death when it might mean better things, e.x.: the death of Hitler. This should actually be phrased as, celebrating the thing that comes from a death.

Understand that the reason Arafat was such a disastrous leader is that he effectively snuffed out the hopes of his own people, whom he was supposed to be leading, choosing to take a hard line at his best opportunity in 35 years. After the 1993 Oslo agreements, he denounced terrorism, but he allowed suicide bombings by radical Islamic groups to derail the peace process. Then, he recieved a miraculous second chance at Camp David in 2000. However, instead of committing to a deal that would have saved 1,000s of lives, he was unable to see past his own suspicion or even to negoatiate seriously.

CARL- I also respectfully disagree. Chirac believes he is acting in France's interest. Although this may be contested, it would be by fewer people than would say that Bush's foreign policy has hurt America's interests around the world. Both men share the same penchant for unilateral action and lack of qualms about allying with authoritarian regimes when convenient.

[shankbear]

Did the world hesitate to celebrate the death of Hitler?  A leader, as distinguished from a dictator or terrorist is deserving of respect.  To extend the title of leader on Arafat is a stretch.  The long suicide bombing campaign in Israel is the handiwork of Arafat.

The world should not shed a single tear over this guy's grave.  And Gabu, this guy made his deal with the devil when he started his terror career.  No 72 virgins waiting on him.  No , you are right, hell is not a joking matter but he will reside there as surely as any lost soul.  May God comfort his family.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the people of Palestine are much better off, at least if they choose a better leader.

Good summary on DU:

Clinton handed Arafat a Palestinean state on a silver platter, basically giving him 98% of what asked for. He spit back and ruined the plan. Then after he initiated waves of suicide bombings of innocent Israeli civilians, Israeli voters chose Sharon to crush Arafart, and after Sharon attacked, Arafart begged for the terms hammered out with the former Israeli Prime Minister and Clinton, but by then it was too late.

Let's hope they chose a much more reasonable leader. And that the violence can drop down so the Israelis drop that just as much thug Sharon.

[Nym90]

Gabu- I don't call you a terrorist sympathizer but I respectfully disagree that a death can never be celebrated. I think that good people can rationally celebrate a death when it might mean better things, e.x.: the death of Hitler. This should actually be phrased as, celebrating the thing that comes from a death.

Understand that the reason Arafat was such a disastrous leader is that he effectively snuffed out the hopes of his own people, whom he was supposed to be leading, choosing to take a hard line at his best opportunity in 35 years. After the 1993 Oslo agreements, he denounced terrorism, but he allowed suicide bombings by radical Islamic groups to derail the peace process. Then, he recieved a miraculous second chance at Camp David in 2000. However, instead of committing to a deal that would have saved 1,000s of lives, he was unable to see past his own suspicion or even to negoatiate seriously.

CARL- I also respectfully disagree. Chirac believes he is acting in France's interest. Although this may be contested, it would be by fewer people than would say that Bush's foreign policy has hurt America's interests around the world. Both men share the same penchant for unilateral action and lack of qualms about allying with authoritarian regimes when convenient.

And that's what's wrong with our foreign policy; we have to support democracy EVERYWHERE and dictatorship NOWHERE. If our foreign policy was more consistent and less hypocritical, we'd be much better liked and thus have a lot more financial and troop support when we do want to establish democracy.

[12th Doctor]

He is dead now.  May God have mercy.  Now let's look to the future.

[Beet]

Gabu- I don't call you a terrorist sympathizer but I respectfully disagree that a death can never be celebrated. I think that good people can rationally celebrate a death when it might mean better things, e.x.: the death of Hitler. This should actually be phrased as, celebrating the thing that comes from a death.

Understand that the reason Arafat was such a disastrous leader is that he effectively snuffed out the hopes of his own people, whom he was supposed to be leading, choosing to take a hard line at his best opportunity in 35 years. After the 1993 Oslo agreements, he denounced terrorism, but he allowed suicide bombings by radical Islamic groups to derail the peace process. Then, he recieved a miraculous second chance at Camp David in 2000. However, instead of committing to a deal that would have saved 1,000s of lives, he was unable to see past his own suspicion or even to negoatiate seriously.

CARL- I also respectfully disagree. Chirac believes he is acting in France's interest. Although this may be contested, it would be by fewer people than would say that Bush's foreign policy has hurt America's interests around the world. Both men share the same penchant for unilateral action and lack of qualms about allying with authoritarian regimes when convenient.

And that's what's wrong with our foreign policy; we have to support democracy EVERYWHERE and dictatorship NOWHERE. If our foreign policy was more consistent and less hypocritical, we'd be much better liked and thus have a lot more financial and troop support when we do want to establish democracy.

That is true. I think our current government fails to see the long term costs of supporting unjust actions by governments and even allying with undemocratic regimes or turning a blind eye to oppression when convenient. However it does fit in with their general free-for-all view of foreign policy.

[Sam Spade]

Good riddance to this terrorist.

I hear Jimmy Carter wants to head a delegation to go to his funeral.

Maybe they'll send him a one-way ticket.

[Rococo4]

good news.

I dont know if your joking about Jimmy Carter - but something tells me your not.

[MHS2002]

Well, hope something good comes of this. It's probably best just to put this in the past and look toward the future, a future that will hopefully lead toward peace in the Middle East.

[Gabu]

Gabu- I don't call you a terrorist sympathizer but I respectfully disagree that a death can never be celebrated. I think that good people can rationally celebrate a death when it might mean better things, e.x.: the death of Hitler. This should actually be phrased as, celebrating the thing that comes from a death.

Hitler's death was probably the best thing to happen to the world in the first half of the 21st century.  It signified the end of an extremely dark era and the end of a terrible, terrible regime.  I absolutely think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with viewing the death as a turning point after which the world can start to heal.  Hitler's removal from power was an extremely good thing to happen to Europe and no sane person could argue otherwise.  I would certainly not argue with anyone who felt happy looking at what could now happen now that Hitler was out of power.

However, I would argue with anyone who was happy at the death itself.  I personally feel that the lives of people like that are extremely lamentable cases: often a horrible childhood and bad circumstances in the world lead to what would have otherwise been a normal life turning into a horrible calamity for the world that fills everyone involved with hatred of something.  I would certainly deal with it as appropriate, but I would not celebrate the inevitable end of it.

The world should not shed a single tear over this guy's grave.  And Gabu, this guy made his deal with the devil when he started his terror career.  No 72 virgins waiting on him.  No , you are right, hell is not a joking matter but he will reside there as surely as any lost soul.  May God comfort his family.

As I said, I'm not asking people to mourn his death.  I'm certainly not going to.  The world will probably be much better off without him.  I'm just saying that I don't feel that it's right to derive happiness from a death.

[Sam Spade]

They said so on MSNBC.  I don't know whether MSNBC is telling the truth or not, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. 

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gabu, you may be right. You are certainly right as applying to certain people. It's kind of hard to see in these particular cases, however. It's hard to see what happened in Hitler's development that may have led him to do what he did. It's more likely that he forsaked everything but Nazism, and hence, when he failed, did not expect any of his enemies or those who generally disapprove of him to do anything but be happy. Similarly, Arafat understood the benefits that might have been accrued from seriously negotiating a deal, he also knew the costs if a deal were to fail, or at least he should have. He had a strong hold as Palestinian leader and long experience as a figure on the international scene. It's hard to see how exactly his failures throughout the 1990s to act decisively against terrorism, then again in 2000-2001, can be somehow blamed on environment or childhood. More likely it was something willful, relating to his desire to maintain power within Palestinian security structures. Though, admittedly, he probably regretted his mistake at Camp David. So it's hard to say. Overall, he was not a good leader and supported terrorism over and over again, even though he had plenty of opportunity to act differently. He certainly did not deserve to be leader of the Palestinians and caused 1,000's of deaths.