I'm saying that the extremists in Israel did not help the matter at all. When Rabin and Arrafat had brokered land and independent leadership for the Palestinians, Rabin was murdered by one such said extremist.

 

Here's a thumbnail description of what happened:

 

On 4 November 1995 Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a radical right-wing Orthodox Jew who opposed the signing of the Oslo Accords and believed he was saving the country from a dire fate. The shooting took place in the evening as Rabin was leaving a mass rally in Tel Aviv in support of the Oslo process.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin

 

The Oslo Accords was the first formal recognition of the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and Israel's first overtures to setting up a Palentinian Authority to help rule a Palestinian Province.

 

After the Assassination, the new Israeli government began to back away from the plan.

 

I should have put a smiley face. I understood what you were saying and you were proving my point.

Read my above posts or dig a little into the history of this event and you might realize how non-descript you are on that photo.

 

Regardless of his motives, Arrafat was the leader of an organization utilizing terror as a means to get their adversary to succumb to their demands. Now, if your next post is to remind me of Israel's methods of taking back Palestine, then you can call it the President and two terrorists or as I'm sure some would say, three terrorists.

We're not talking about negotiating with the Russians who hijacked Harrison Ford's Air Force One. We're not talking about chatting with rogue agents. It's not the same thing. It is heads of these parties that I'm talking about dealing with. So you're saying if the leader of Hizbollah sits down with Obama and talks about relations its going to cause a backlash that will see an increase in terrorism? I don't see it.

 

You're losing me. Are you saying only the poor soul who straps on the bomb and walks into a crowd is the terrorist but the cowards who sent him are to sit down and have tea and cookies with the leader of the free world?

UKPat, I understand your point and don't necessarily disagree. However we cannot sit down unconditionally with these people. That said when have we ever not used diplomacy first when that was an option? Let's not act like the attack on Irag came out of left field. Saddam was given every chance, probably too many chances, and he continued to thumb his nose at the rest of the world. He called our bluff and lost.

But you remembered the birth of Islam in the 7th Century?

 

Those of us who were around remember it very well!! It was all over Fox and CNN for months.

 

Actually, the "crusades" remark was tongue in cheek only.

Regardless of his motives, Arrafat was the leader of an organization utilizing terror as a means to get their adversary to succumb to their demands. Now, if your next post is to remind me of Israel's methods of taking back Palestine, then you can call it the President and two terrorists or as I'm sure some would say, three terrorists.

 

No. I would remind you that the person who killed Rabin, submarined the process that might have led to better relations thought just like you are advocating.

UKPat, I understand your point and don't necessarily disagree. However we cannot sit down unconditionally with these people. That said when have we ever not used diplomacy first when that was an option? Let's not act like the attack on Irag came out of left field. Saddam was given every chance, probably too many chances, and he continued to thumb his nose at the rest of the world. He called our bluff and lost.

 

Recently, I agree. We usually are diplomatic. Some would say we should have given more time for diplomacy to work with Iraq but that's debatable.

 

Historically speaking I would say we weren't diplomatic with the Spanish in 1898 and not too diplomatic with the Mexicans in 1846.

Those of us who were around remember it very well!! It was all over Fox and CNN for months.

 

Actually, the "crusades" remark was tongue in cheek only.

 

I thought as much. Anyone with those helmets on their avatar could say anything and I'd still respect'em. :thumb:

You're losing me. Are you saying only the poor soul who straps on the bomb and walks into a crowd is the terrorist but the cowards who sent him are to sit down and have tea and cookies with the leader of the free world?

 

Crumpets, but that's beside the point. You have to understand these parties have power because they represent a portion of the populations ideas and views, be they right or wrong. Hizbollah is actually a very well organized party that provides many social services. They have a leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who has been in power since 1992. This is not a "faceless" organization like suicide bombers in Iraq.

UKPat, I understand your point and don't necessarily disagree. However we cannot sit down unconditionally with these people. That said when have we ever not used diplomacy first when that was an option? Let's not act like the attack on Irag came out of left field. Saddam was given every chance, probably too many chances, and he continued to thumb his nose at the rest of the world. He called our bluff and lost.

 

I agree that some conditions need to be put on holding talks. It doesn't need to be a haphazard process. I'm not even saying we have to do it, I'm just saying the option should be put on the table, which it hasn't been for the past 8 years.

This is not a "faceless" organization like suicide bombers in Iraq.

Well, if they don't straighten up and play nice, perhaps they should be rendered faceless.

Crumpets, but that's beside the point. You have to understand these parties have power because they represent a portion of the populations ideas and views, be they right or wrong. Hizbollah is actually a very well organized party that provides many social services. They have a leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who has been in power since 1992. This is not a "faceless" organization like suicide bombers in Iraq.

 

 

Why should I care if a very well organized terrorist group provides social services? They also lob missiles into Israel and assinate those who would prefer peace.

 

Those faceless organizations in Iraq were called Al Qaida, along with Iraqi insurgents and Iran supported Shiite clerics.

Edited September 9, 200818 yr by Pepper II

Well, if they don't straighten up and play nice, perhaps they should be rendered faceless.

It bothers me that Obama says that terrorist groups have "legitimate claims", but it is easy to understand why people want our officials to talk to them, because cliche, neo-con talking points like this are disturbing as well.

Well you can't just end the story there. Obama has no clue about what?

 

I'm sorry, I really could have ended it there though. The answer to your question is....................................................

"Anything" imo, unless maybe it is a written, rehearsed and staged act on a teleprompter and is sympathetic to terrorist and anyone else that wants to destroy or change the American way of life along with any values that our miltary men have fought and died for throughout history.Other than that, it would depend on who he is talking to at the time as to what he stands for. :walk::walk:

Crumpets, but that's beside the point. You have to understand these parties have power because they represent a portion of the populations ideas and views, be they right or wrong. Hizbollah is actually a very well organized party that provides many social services. They have a leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who has been in power since 1992. This is not a "faceless" organization like suicide bombers in Iraq.

 

Why should I care if a very well organized terrorist group provides social services? They also lob missiles into Israel assinate those who would prefer peace.

 

Those faceless organizations in Iraq were called Al Qaida, along with Iraqi insurgents and Iran supported Shiite clerics.

Agreed with you, Pepper. The means do not justify the end, and the ends do not justify the means (I can't figure out which is appropriate in this situation, but you get the point. :lol:) The fact that they give out social services (I'd say, a ploy to get those votes) does not excuse them of their misdeeds, or differentiate them from less organized terrorist organizations.