🚀 go-pugleaf

Again I see the quote marks but no attribution for who said what.  This is
the first I have seen of this post.


"ElectroVox" <local.host@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:ff5366ee901622acde4c9e7c7771efe2@news.teranews.com...
>
> >Remember Anna Lindh? She was the Swedish foreign minister
> >dubbed the "Scandinavian Taliban" for her terrorist apologetics.

Who dubbed her this ?  What specific remarks are being refered to here ?

> >In January 2002 she said: "I think this discussion about equating
> >[Yasser] Arafat with terrorists is both inappropriate and stupid.
> >It is a very dangerous policy."

> Ohhhh-kay. So she thought Yasser Arafat was NOT a terrorist. Check.

The "ohhh-kay" was supposed to be intrepetted by us as delivering your
opinion on this statement ?  Some things in the print media need to be said
rather than attempting by your "style" of typing to get us to infer what you
mean.

She was quite right in this statement.  The "internal colonisation" of the
Palestinians by the Israel is a well documented fact.  The treatment they
are receiving bears similarity to what German did in the 30s and 40s.
Israel is willing to committ quiet atrocities to "conquer" the territory it
feels is necessary for its security.  That this illicits "terror like"
tactics from a group of people using the only means at its disposal to
defend themselves has been seen time and time again by nations currently
deemed legitimate.  The demonisation of Arafat while in some measure based
in fact, is in large part indicative of the policy of peace through power
that Israel is pursuing.  Remember the English spoke the same way of the
Irish less that a hundred years ago.

> >Then, in November, she denounced America for killing six al Qaeda
> >terrorists in Yemen: "If the U.S.A. is behind this with Yemen's
> >consent, it is nevertheless a summary execution that violates
> >human rights," she said. "Even terrorists must be treated
> >according to international law. Otherwise, any country can
> >start executing those whom they consider terrorists."
>
> She thought terrorists should be treated according to international
> law. Terrorists who violate EVERY international law when they commit
> their terrorist acts. Check.

Another way of saying it is that one man's terrorist is another man's
freedom fighter and the apparent crimes of these freedom fighters may not be
crimes at all in the more dispassionate eyes of the International Tribunal.
Why do you think the Amercians are doing everything they can to avoid it ?
Acts they carried out all over the world were nothing short of terror.  So
she is right in this, let the law prevail.

> >Lindh, 46, died September 11, 2003 after undergoing 10 hours
> >of surgery following what may turn out to be a horrific irony -
> >she herself may have been the victim of a terrorist attack:
> >"She was knifed in an upscale Stockholm department store
> >Wednesday by an unknown assailant," reports the AP, which
> >in another dispatch describes her as "an outspoken human
> >rights advocate." Lindh's death is proof, as if any were
> >needed, that "understanding" the enemies of civilization
> >will not stop them from killing you if they get a chance.


> Indeed.

Indeed ?

Wait a minute, the report doesn't say she was killed by a terrorist.  Where
is the parallel being drawn from ?  How is this proof about anything to do
with terrorism ?  She died exemplifying her point that the law must prevail.
When there is no justice, there is no peace.  She would no more have her
assailant summarily killed than she would have the americans go into Iraq
for false reasons.  Blair is paying for his lies but it seems that the
americans are not as civilised as the British.


> Maybe the 19 al Qaeda hijackers will buy Anna a drink if they bump
> into each other somewhere in the hereafter.

I definitely would.  She sounds like anything but a Taliban.  She sounds
like she stood for Justice.  al Qaeda, whatever you think of their tactics
probably wouldn't salute this woman in this life or the next, first because
she is a woman and secondly because she was a westerner, and finally because
she believed we are subject to the law.

> It's the least they can do for all of her past support.

I doubt she ever said one word of support for them, at least it wasn't in
anthing I read here.

> (source): The Wall Street Journal/Opinion Journal Online

Its not like they ever lied in any of their stories or anything ...

> ElectroVox Has Spoken.

sadly, yes.