Howard wins award on Human Rights ?

Kem, a terrorist is a terrorist no matter how you sugar coat it. Same as the ones who ran into the WTC buildings and the Pentagon.

John Howard is NOTHING like Yassar Arafat.
 
I'm not trying to sugar coat anything and I've not once said terrorism is the way to go about things.

John Howard is nothing like Yasser Arafat because they were brought up in completely different circumstances. Consider yourself lucky that you were brought up in Australia.
 
Which is worse though?

Killing people because (you believe) that they're oppressing you and your people and fucking you out of you land, and no one is interested in your problems until you start blowing them up.

OR

Sending your soldiers to a distant part of the world to kill (and be killed by) people who've done nothing to your country, because you can benifit economically and politically from it.

As far as I'm concerned both are pretty bad.
 
Obviously the bias against Howard has reached ridiculous proportions now.

Yassar Arafat is a terrorist and kills innocent people because he doesnt get his way. John Howard, however misguided, is trying to act in the best interests of our countries security and economical health. He doesnt send car bombs to the Labor offices, doesnt have his cronies shooting people in the streets and doesnt try and justify his ideals by murder, fear and intimidation.
 
There's no comparison between Howard and Arafat.

I just found it funny that given the handling of refuges (many of whom were not considered refugees when running from the Taliban and Iraq, as they were considered safe in their own countries..then we went to liberate them), detention of kids et al, that he was given a humanitarian award.
 
Yeah I think comparing Howard to Arafat is going a bit far. My argument was that neither should have even been nominated for the awards they got. You can't go around giving humanitarian awards to a leader whose policies keep people in concentration camps, anymore than you can give a peace prize to someone whose ideology encompasses terror, even if they've recanted. By that argument I suppose Nelson Mandela shouldn't be eligible either.
 
The point I really wanted to make is not that Arafat is some saint who deserves praise for what he's done. More that as semi-intelligent people we should try to understand why he and other people have resorted to terrorism. And I thought Arafat's case was a good example.
 
Kem said:
The point I really wanted to make is not that Arafat is some saint who deserves praise for what he's done. More that as semi-intelligent people we should try to understand why he and other people have resorted to terrorism. And I thought Arafat's case was a good example.
Click to expand...
Because the Middle East as a whole fosters hatred. Can you name a period in history when everyone has gotten along there? The religions there foster hatred, they are indoctrinated into it from birth, even the less radical wings of religion there are still deplorable, look at how they treat women, and thats not just the extremist zealots doing it. A man can have a woman stoned to death simply because he suspects she cheated on him. If a woman is raped over there, they have killed the woman because she must have "tempted" him. This isnt some isolated incident, that is by and large the way of life over there. I read an article by a woman who lived there and escaped to the US as her family wanted to kill her because she was raped and had brought shame to her family.

Im definitely not siding with George "He tried to kill ma daddy" Bush mind you, but you cannot reason or make peace with a religion like that.

Yassar Arafat is a terrorist and coward, and should even be mentioned in the same breath as John Howard.

Anyway, I think I have beaten this dead horse enough :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jurched
100 Days of Barack Hussein is like a thousand
Replies
13
Views
2K
Billy Milano
Papa Josh
P
Top Bottom
Back