I disagree that it would be fruitless to compare Sharon and Arafat's records. The only problem would be the passions that are generated.
An odd post, C. So I'm not certain just where to begin with a reply.
I've said, repeatedly, that it's my view that both the Sharon govt and the PA are headed toward, metaphorically, a repeat of the Algerian situation. I am extremely troubled by that conclusion but can find only glimpses of hope that won't be the outcome. In my view, both sides are, at the moment, in the hands of "semi-zealots" but, frighteningly, may be in the hands of zealots in the future.
That's not only not a pretty picture, it's one I would love to be convinced is not the case. Bill and Nadine have been offering their views about that.
That's one conversation.
A second conversation has to do with not objecting to posts that fail to include the full context. As you can surely tell, I rarely object to those. The thread is full of them. But I consider Bill a friend and, in the interests of friendship, decided to let him know that there was a parallel problem with the "Arafat is a terrorist thug" admonition. I expected him to come back with some sort of reply, which we could discuss.
As for the tone of your response, I simply don't know what to say to you. If you meant the post as offering some grounds for a conversation, then you need to read it again and see why anyone who received that post is not going to talk with you. The tone is meant to demean not to engage.
I'm afraid that one of my responses, when you start this demeaning bit, is to fire back. That clearly is not helpful to anyone and certainly not to thread civility.
Nuff said. |
