Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53791)	10/21/2002 9:01:50 PM
From: jcky	Respond to of 281500

We're are just not going to see eye to eye on this issue, Nadine. I am sure we are boring the rest of this thread to death so let's find something else to discuss. <smile>

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53791)	10/21/2002 9:17:09 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Respond to of 281500

Arafat chose to launch a terrorist war when he had a good deal on the table; Sharon inherited a raging war; his choices were fight or surrender. He chose to fight. LOL! Arafat was given an ultimatum by Barak - something he could not accept. Arafat was not the guilty party here - Barak tried to stampede Arafat into accepting less than pre-67 borders with unacceptable conditions on Jerusalem. Arafat had NO CHOICE, but to reject this deal - if nothing else, the Palestinian people would not have accepted it. Immediately following that, Barak took a series of measures that intensely escalated the conflict. So there were missteps on both sides here, Arafat should have resisted playing to the gallery, and Barak should have followed up with more dialogue instead of trying to protect his right flank against the likes of Sharon. And Arafat did NOT launch a terror war in response. This is an Israeli propaganda lie. As to Sharon and THIS latest conflict - he did not "inherit a raging war" - HE STARTED IT! Or have you forgotten his disgraceful provocation in the famous armed "visit"... where did the name Al Aquasa come from? Btw., go back to the press reports from that time - EVEN BARAK was appalled by Sharon's provocations and warned of what it would bring! This current intifada has a VERY DISTINCT beginning - with Sharon's action - an action the PA begged them not to engage in, warning of frustrations at boiling point among Palestinians. Something Sharon knew perfectly well - and he viciously LIT THE FUSE. So much for the responsibility of Sharon for the CURRENT conflict. As to who is worse between Arafat and Sharon when it comes to the past? Both have blood on their hands. Arafat disgracefully engaged in terrorism involving innocent third parties. Sharon is a war criminal pure and simple - and no, I don't mean just the camps in Lebanon, or the current murderous orders resulting in countless deaths of civilians. It goes much further - anyone interested should investigate the whole sordid story behind Israel's cold-blooded Nazi-style murder of Egyptian prisoners of war... many were involved, and there's a nasty connection to innocent third parties as well (U.S.S. Liberty). Oh yeah, Sharon is a beauty. Anyone who see's Arafat as the terrorist, and Sharon as the statesman must be wonderfully "informed"... by Debka no doubt, LOL!