It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people say Arafat is a terrorist?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Ok, correct me if i'm wrong here, but from what i already know, and from what i've been looking at, The state of Israel took a lot of land away from Palestine when it was created, and took more through illegal occupation.

They took 56% of the land when they only owned 7% when it was created in 1948, AND.... They then went on to illegally occupy the West Bank and settle over 400,000 people there???

www.allaboutpalestine.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

So my question is, why is Arafat called a terrorist? surely he is only fighting to regain his country's original land which was taken away from them in the first place? And then the land was later reduced when the state of Israel invaded the West Bank illegally?

Is Israel not the terrorist here?


[edit on 6-11-2004 by Snoopdopey]

[edit on 6-11-2004 by Snoopdopey]




posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
as the saying goes

one mans freedom fighter
is anothers man terrorist

to the palistinaians he is their leader
some that is leading the fight against israeli occupation

to the Israeli hes a terrorist because they are are using humon bombs
because they have nothing else to fight back with



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
And since America is a strong ally with Israel, they call damn near every Muslim or Arab a terrorist.

When your people are being crushed with tanks, and jets, you fight back any way you can.

When the oppressors need support to keep on oppressing, you call the oppressed "terrorists." That way you can demonize them, and legitimize the occupation.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Nonsense. There has never been a "Palestinian" country - it was British territory, and before that part of the Austrio-Hungarian empire, etc.

On top of that, very many "Palestinian" families don't have particularly deep roots in the area either. Arafat, for instance, comes from Egypt.

But at any rate, the British acted entirely within their power when they agreed to the UN partition. The Jews lawfully accepted this arrangement, despite it being far short of what they believed they had divine right to. The Palestinians and their Arab supporters chose to reject this arrangement and embark on a decades-long campaign to attempt to annihilate the state of Israel. Only the most perverse of interpretations can blame this mess on the Israelis.

As for why Arafat is a terrorist - it's because he was the prime architect of the Palestinian strategy of killing innocent civilians in an effort to break the will of Israel.

---

EDIT: Portions of Arafat's family did come from Gaza. I figured I'd better clarify that before someone labels my entire post a lie due to that omission.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by x_y_no]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Maybe this will shed some light on the subject for you...

Originally posted by twitchy
Paramount, Disney, ICM and CAA New York, Times, Wall Street Journal Washington Post, Boston Globe, Washington Post Barron's, Dow Jones Village Voice Time, U.S. News & World Report Atlantic Monthly, NY Daily News, AOL-Time Warner, CNN News Group (before you say no that's Ted Turner, look up 'Walter Isaacson'), Time Warner's publishing division, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune, Walt Disney Company, Touchstone, Buena Vista, Hollywood Pictures, Caravan Pictures, Miramax Films, Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., ESPN, Lifetime Television, A & E Television Networks, ABC Radio Network, Viacom, Inc., Paramount Pictures, CBS's Country Music Television Nashville Network Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The
Free Press, Pocket Books. Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, New York Post and TV Guide are all owned or controlled by one religous organization.
This is not to mention all the local television and radio broadcast stations and newspapers and magazines that are mostly subsidaries of the companies listed above.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
What the point of the above post twitchy?



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
What the point of the above post twitchy?


I think twitchy is implying that all the world's major media is controlled by the Global Jewish Conspiracy (tm). Have I got that right, twitchy?



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by x_y_no
I think twitchy is implying that all the world's major media is controlled by the Global Jewish Conspiracy (tm). Have I got that right, twitchy?


Thats pretty smart of them trademarking it an all. "This is brought to you by the GJC, looking out for you!"

Im sure thats where he was headed, but its nice when members post stuff and at least give an explanation of thier insights and take on the quote. Most importantly, a link Is REQUIRED.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Here's quite a good link on the History of Israel

www.geocities.com...

According to this, there was a land of Palestine thousands of years ago, which was inhabited by Jews. But over the years the population changed, and the Jews now in Israel have no historic link to the land. Infact the Arabs, have more.

So the Zionists in Israel have no right to the land, it's the Arabs land. And Israel have occupied illegally more land that was given to them by the UN.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Fred, I would provide a link but it comes from one of my other apparently less 'kosher' threads that you had complained about me linking to before. As far as GJC, I didn't say that, but if you look into it, I think you will find my information to be completely accurate. The point of my post is, you aren't going to hear the Pallestinian side of the story becuase most of our major media coporations are owned by pro-Israeli interests.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
History lesion people: the UN created the state of Isreal-thats right the UN vote created it.

The extra land Israel has taken has been from wars in which other countries-Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.... attacked Israel-time after time, after time.

The only reason they stopped attacking is each time they got the "rear ends" kicked by Israel really bad. In fact the last time Syria took a stab at it, they lost almost their entire air force-something like 70+ jets downed. They lost so many radar sites that they actually shut them down, because as soon as one came online-it was destroyed.

I don't see any other country giving up land it won in wars.

Israel has tried to make peace offering most of the land -just like any smart country not giving up the high ground or a buffer from proven hostile countries.

Anyway-why is Arafat a terrorist-he has and always advocated attacking civilians? Not people without uniforms, but with weapons-pure civilians.

One last note-a child with a gun and or bombs is not a civilian.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
There needs to be some serious soul-searching in this thread, along with some serious digging in the historical archives.

Most proponents for or against Israel would agree with my mention.

Lots of half-truths being mentioned in this topic.
Be non-partisan, be non-confrontation, take no bias and research it from both given perspectives and one will see what I am saying here.




seekerof



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
mrmonsoon,

But surely since the land never belonged to Israel in the first place, they have no right to be there. It doesn't matter if the UN gave them the land, that's only because the British handed the decision over to the UN.

It was still Palestines territory which belonged to the Arabs was it not?

Moses led the Jews from Egypt to Canaan in the Bible, but since that time the original Jews who had right to the land had left, been moved, or bred with other peoples. In that case it would mean that the Arabs were the rightful land owners, and it is only because of the Zionists and the UN that the Arabs had their land taken away from them.

I thought it was stated after the 1st World War that there would be 2 states created. A jewish and a non-jewish state in that land. So far it appears that the Zionists have not allowed the non jews to the land, and have in fact invaded it?

[edit on 6-11-2004 by Snoopdopey]

[edit on 6-11-2004 by Snoopdopey]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
That this question was even asked makes me ill. The state of ignorance to have asked such a question blows my mind.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
Here's quite a good link on the History of Israel

www.geocities.com...

According to this, there was a land of Palestine thousands of years ago, which was inhabited by Jews. But over the years the population changed, and the Jews now in Israel have no historic link to the land. Infact the Arabs, have more.

So the Zionists in Israel have no right to the land, it's the Arabs land. And Israel have occupied illegally more land that was given to them by the UN.


How far back are you going to carry this peculiar and ahistoric theory of "right to the land?" Certainly, for instance, the United States has no right to California or Texas according to your way of thinking.

The fact is that many factors play a role in how national borders are formed, and war has historically been a major one. The Arab nations repeatedly attacked Israel - and they got their butts kicked. They lost territory in the process. Now I happen to believe that it would be very much in Israel's interest to give up some of that territory to a Palestinian state - simply because attempting to maintain territorial control there is terribly damaging to their society. But I don't base this opinion on some theory that the Israelis took it illegally - sorry but they're just damn good at defending themselves, and apparently the Arabs and Palestinians are damned incompetent at carrying out their planned genocide.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
That this question was even asked makes me ill. The state of ignorance to have asked such a question blows my mind.


No, from a Palistinian point of view its dead on. He has made a case, however as always there is two sides to the story. Perception and indeed reality always depends on your point of view



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   
it could be that he was the leader of the plo which was a terrorist organization. i guess you could call him a freedom fighter, but you could call pretty much any terrorist a freedom fighter if that is your point of view.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Why is he a terrorist? Maybe you guys are too young to remember, but back in the '70s the PLO, Hamas (both co-founded by Arafat) and other organizations allied to him were responsible for hundreds of terror attacks all over the world. Some of these actions were targeted against Israeli civilians abroad but ended up involving others (Munich 1976), while others were clearly aimed at innocent civilians with no connections whatsoever to Israel (hijacking the Achille Lauro cruiseship, for example). Moreover he ruthlessly eliminated most of Palestinian opposition, people whose only guilt was asking for a non-violent solution or asking for more "power to the people". And he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace together with an Israeli general!



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
That this question was even asked makes me ill.


Actually, deny ignorance *is* asking questions. Believe me, I'm not aiming the following at you... but I do want to say that if someone is not ready to take a long hard look at the facts and will instead ingurgitate whatever is told him, his place, IMHO, is not on this board.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Read this for an overview of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict...
www.mideastweb.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join