Today at his burial Arafat the former "terrorist" is hailed by many as a great statesman and the leader of the Palestinian people.
Arafat's transition from terrorist to statesman came about because his opponents and detractors, after his violent appearance on the international scene, had the courage to sit down with Arafat and discuss the aspirations and needs for the Palestinian people. Just as we did with the IRA and other similar so-called "terrorist" organizations.
Today Ben Laden and his followers are considered the terrorists. Their cause apparently different from that of Arafat, but nevertheless very similar.
Isn't it time we at least try and find out what makes Ben Laden and his followers really tick, and take it from there?
Is this defeatism? No, not at all. It is based on historic precedence.
Arafat's death has reminded us again that today's terrorist could very well be tomorrow's statesman. Those who can not accept this reality should at least be aware that history one day could brand them as the terrorists.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a poll in October, concluding that nearly 1/3 of Americans hold negative stereotypes of Muslims, such as (1) Islam encourages oppression of women; (2) Islam teaches violence and hatred; (3) Muslims value life less than other people; and (4) Muslims teach their children to hate unbelievers. The report from Front Page is in response to the above statement by the Council on American Islamic Relations. Note by A-News: The comments, even though it seems to group all Muslims under the same umbrella, focus mainly on actual policies of Arab Muslim Nations.
In the heyday of our multicultural utopia, the Dutch political and intellectual elites believed that radical Muslims and radical libertarians could co-exist peacefully in the same society. In recent years it becameclear that this was an illusion, although the subject continued to be avoided in the politically correct media. Fortuyn broke the taboos surrounding the problem of immigration and paid with his life. Van Gogh paid the same price for a provocation which, had he attacked Christianity rather than Islam, would hardly have raised an eyebrow in today's largely secular Holland. But he aimed his barbs at Mohammed, not Jesus, and found himself in a cultural minefield laid by young radical Moslems in Holland's urban districts.
From an editorial in the Wall Street Journal