[Uday's Carcass]

from the New York Times today

Since the invasion of Iraq, the United States has hiked up pressure on Syria, accusing it of harboring terrorists. After demands by Washington, Syria closed the offices of Islamic Jihad, the larger Islamic militant group Hamas, and other radical Palestinian groups. However, most of the groups' officials continue to work from their homes in Damascus or from Lebanon.

The United States had been pushing Syria to act further and expel Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders, but Damascus has refused.

Harboring terrorists that kill innocents and refusing to do anything about it. Insh Allah, Israel will seek justice against Syria for its direct role in the murder of innocent women and children.

[macvillage.net]

Israel won't handover Jewish-extremists responsible for attacks on Palestinians over the past 20 years.

it's clearly a 2 way street. Israel claims they don't have to hand over jews to non-jewish states. The Palestinians and Syrians claim the same.

It's a never ending battle. I'm starting to see the humor in this. It's like two little kids fighting.

Hopefully they will wander into the street and get run over by an SUV.

Then the world can move on.

I feel sorry for those who perfer progress. But these idiot politicians on both sides just want to hog the headlines. **** them.

[Uday's Carcass]

way to address the topic, robert.

[shmerek]

Israel kills innocent women and children too with their "precision" strikes but I guess that is okay, collateral damage don't you know, **** happens.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
way to address the topic, robert.

What? you mean this pointless topic designed to aggravate flaming?

......so yeah bomb the fvck out of Syria, that would be very progressive.

[kvm_mkdb]

There is a thread already about this.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Israel kills innocent women and children too with their "precision" strikes but I guess that is okay, collateral damage don't you know, **** happens.

There is a huge difference between 'collateral damage' versus what the terrorists do--deliberately target women, children, and babies for slaughter.

Your equivocation of that separation is nauseating and demonstrates that you're willing to tolerate and excuse the deliberate slaughter of women and babies if it fits with your weak-minded views on Palestinian terrorism.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
so yeah bomb the fvck out of Syria, that would be very progressive.

it might not be 'progressive' in line with your pacifist agenda, but if it forces Syria to think twice about its open tolerance of terrorists, then violence will have been a partial success.

violence solves a lot of problems. It liberated europe from Fascist Germany and the threat of violence and the display of power kept Western Europe free from Communism.

Wiping some terrorist trash off the face of the earth is always a good thing.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Wiping some terrorist trash off the face of the earth is always a good thing.

We are in World War III. It's time for people to realize this.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
There is a huge difference between 'collateral damage' versus what the terrorists do--deliberately target women, children, and babies for slaughter.

Your equivocation of that separation is nauseating and demonstrates that you're willing to tolerate and excuse the deliberate slaughter of women and babies if it fits with your weak-minded views on Palestinian terrorism.

Wrong. What is the difference between somebody strapping on a bomb and killing who ever is near by or somebody shooting a missile and not giving a rat's ass who is near by. Take a look at the number of palestinians killed over the last three years to the number of Israelis something like 2200 to 700. I guess that those numbers are okay as long as they fit with your weak-minded views on Israeli policy.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Wrong. What is the difference between somebody strapping on a bomb and killing who ever is near by or somebody shooting a missile and not giving a rat's ass who is near by.

because Israel doesn't DELIBERATELY target women and babies for a gruesome death by explosion or gun-down. Palestinian terrorists make no distinction. Their only goal is to murder Jews. You continue to deny the difference, and it only serves to marginalise your views and further display your willingness to support and excuse Hell-bound groups like Hamas and the Jihad.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
because Israel doesn't DELIBERATELY target women and babies for a gruesome death by explosion or gun-down. Palestinian terrorists make no distinction. Their only goal is to murder Jews. You continue to deny the difference, and it only serves to marginalise your views and further display your willingness to support and excuse Hell-bound groups like Hamas and the Jihad.

Thanks to the fact that the US and Israel have a similar arsonal... we know that's false.

Israel must be making an attempt to kill civilians with terrorists. By definition of weapons capabilities, their capabilities allow them to be much more percise than they are.

You don't have to carpet bomb an entire city block to kill a man driving down a street. A sniper (which Israel is very proud of having a huge group of), is more than capable of. There are many other weapons also capable.

Israel is deliberately attacking civilians , because they have the capability not to, and still achieve their *said* goal, of going after terrorists.

We know their military capabilities. Their weapons are nothing original. The US has them as well, and in most cases, sold it to them. Training is based mostly off of western military training. We know it as well.

There is absolutely no reason why Israel has yet to have a strike in recent times that hasn't had casualties other than the target. In most cases they are very excessive.

As the UN has noted several times. When it's near a Jewish population (border and such), it's done so that no Jewish individual can be harmed. The attack is scaled back to get less colateral damage, and focus on the target more.

It's state funded terrorism by definition of the term. Israel kills civilians intentionally. We know what their weapons are capable of. We know what they have.

If I use a sledgehammer to drive a penny nail... you would say that's excessive. It's the exact same thing, with weapons. It's excessive use of force to harm civilians.

Sadly, it angers the other side, and causes more damage to Israeli's.



I'm of the belief we should invade Israel, because it's a threat to US security. If we take it, change the regime, and force peace in the region once and for all.... we reduce our threat of another terrorist attack. And save millions of lives.

On those terms, we have definitively justified our invasion.

Lets get the troops and go. It's the only way to do it. We will eventually. Bookmark this post. US troops will be in Israel within the next 15 years. With Israel's blessing or not. Most likely part of a larger UN operation.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
because Israel doesn't DELIBERATELY target women and babies for a gruesome death by explosion or gun-down. Palestinian terrorists make no distinction. Their only goal is to murder Jews. You continue to deny the difference, and it only serves to marginalise your views and further display your willingness to support and excuse Hell-bound groups like Hamas and the Jihad.

Wrong again. I don't support terrorist bombings or the Israeli strikes. Just because I am against the MO of the Israeli military doesn't automatically mean I support terrorist bombings.

[Nicko]

IMO retaliations such as this serve little purpose other than to continue the cycle of violence ad nauseum.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Wrong again. I don't support terrorist bombings or the Israeli strikes. Just because I am against the MO of the Israeli military doesn't automatically mean I support terrorist bombings.

[Face Ache]

Terrorism is bad mmmkay? But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Stop pretending the fault is all at one end.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Terrorism is bad mmmkay? But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Stop pretending the fault is all at one end.

Everyone is at fault. It's how one goes about promoting change that is the practice despised.

Groups who oppose Israels policy can protest, organize grass roots campaigns, lobby, and try to affect Israeli elections.

Groups who oppose US policy can protest, organize grass roots campaigns, lobby, and try to affect US elections.

There is no need to have to fly planes into buildings, or to recruit, train, and pay families of young 'martyrs' to strap dynamite around their bodies and explode their bomb in a crowded bus, mall, restaurant, etc.

[slow moe]

What Hamas is really trying to say is that they want comprehensive health insurance for everyone.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Everyone is at fault. It's how one goes about promoting change that is the practice despised.

Groups who oppose Israels policy can protest, organize grass roots campaigns, lobby, and try to affect Israeli elections.

Groups who oppose US policy can protest, organize grass roots campaigns, lobby, and try to affect US elections.

There is no need to have to fly planes into buildings, or to recruit, train, and pay families of young 'martyrs' to strap dynamite around their bodies and explode their bomb in a crowded bus, mall, restaurant, etc.

The methods you propose are totally ineffective and I think you know it.

Although I've often wondered what would happen if every Palestinian, man, woman and child just walked towards Israel unarmed, Ghandi style.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by slow moe:
What Hamas is really trying to say is that they want comprehensive health insurance for everyone.

Don't forget about a prescription medication reimbursement plan.

*KABOOM*

[Troll]

The first point is that Israel has no right to assassinate people who haven't been afforded a fair trial. That is the base. You can't just assassinate people whether by sniper or other means. I know Mr. Bush thinks otherwise but that offends the very basis of modern society and democracy.

The second point is that even if you find a way of justifying murdering people you have arbitarily decided are bad, then you have to use proportional methods of enforcement so that you only get the bad people. Even if Israel does not actually decide to kill civilians, it knows that civilian deaths are a necessary consequence of the measures adopted. It is not possible to imagine a scenario where firing a missile into a car on a crowded street is not going to kill civilians. The people who give the orders know that, which is why they wouldn't ever considering taking a Hamas member out as he drove through downtown Tel Aviv. So even if the intention to kill civilians is not manifest, it has to be attributed to those who order the attacks because they know when they make the order that civilian casualties will necessarily follow. Israel's argument is akin to saying that when you fire a bullet into a crowd, you do not intend to kill anyone! No court would ever find you had no intention in respect of any death that resulted.

You must also remember that Israel's terrorism is not restricted to their use of arms. The arbitrary detention of Palestinians, their torture in custody, the general abuse of human rights committed by Israel within Israel and the Occupied Territories is a form of terrorism too.

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Although I've often wondered what would happen if every Palestinian, man, woman and child just walked towards Israel unarmed, Ghandi style.

Israel would shoot them. It would be Sharpeville all over again. I have no doubt. Hundreds of Palestinians would die there would be international revulsion at Israel's indiscriminate violence, the US would veto any resolution that said anything nasty about Israel and we'd all throw our hands up in disbelief. I personally think Palestinian violence is now justified though I don't like the thought of what that means in practical terms for either side.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Terrorism is bad mmmkay? But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Stop pretending the fault is all at one end.

But all the fault is at one end. The terrorists -and no one else- choose their methods.

Their ideologies may or may not be bad; there have been groups throughout the ages which would now be called terrorist, but which had very just goals. However, the ends do not justify the means.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But all the fault is at one end. The terrorists -and no one else- choose their methods.

There are terrorists on both sides.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
The first point is that Israel has no right to assassinate people who haven't been afforded a fair trial. That is the base. You can't just assassinate people whether by sniper or other means. I know Mr. Bush thinks otherwise but that offends the very basis of modern society and democracy.

The second point is that even if you find a way of justifying murdering people you have arbitarily decided are bad, then you have to use proportional methods of enforcement so that you only get the bad people. Even if Israel does not actually decide to kill civilians, it knows that civilian deaths are a necessary consequence of the measures adopted. It is not possible to imagine a scenario where firing a missile into a car on a crowded street is not going to kill civilians. The people who give the orders know that, which is why they wouldn't ever considering taking a Hamas member out as he drove through downtown Tel Aviv. So even if the intention to kill civilians is not manifest, it has to be attributed to those who order the attacks because they know when they make the order that civilian casualties will necessarily follow. Israel's argument is akin to saying that when you fire a bullet into a crowd, you do not intend to kill anyone! No court would ever find you had no intention in respect of any death that resulted.

You must also remember that Israel's terrorism is not restricted to their use of arms. The arbitrary detention of Palestinians, their torture in custody, the general abuse of human rights committed by Israel within Israel and the Occupied Territories is a form of terrorism too.
Israel would shoot them. It would be Sharpeville all over again. I have no doubt. Hundreds of Palestinians would die there would be international revulsion at Israel's indiscriminate violence, the US would veto any resolution that said anything nasty about Israel and we'd all throw our hands up in disbelief. I personally think Palestinian violence is now justified though I don't like the thought of what that means in practical terms for either side.

That pretty much sums it up.

But I'm sure someone will argue that only Jewish people have true "rights".

And I don't think Palestinians could walk in unharmed. I think there is enough border patrol to stop that.

And even the UN told Israel to stop the inhumain treatment in detention. They refuse. But they still bitch and moan when one of their own is in someone else's prison. Like they are special.

[sanity assassin]

Maybe Israel should keep its mouth shut, and its breaking of international law, to itself, since it goes both ways.

Now, what about the Mossad agents in India, working with the Indian agencies to creats terrorist acts on Pakistan?

Lets bomb Israel for that alone.

http://www.rense.com/general25/team.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/83485.stm

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/...81_comment.php

[Millennium]

Originally posted by eklipse:
There are terrorists on both sides.

Oh, certainly there are. And for the acts of terrorism each does, the perpetrator of that act is the only one to blame.

The question is, what is terrorism and what is not? I would still say that the line is drawn with the intent to harm noncombatants (defined as "those who have not consciously decided to involve themselves directly in the conflict"). Blowing up a random bus is terrorism. Bombing the house of an admitted terrorist leader is not, even if there are willing human shields inside (willing human shields are not noncombatants). Unwilling human shields, such as hostages, would be another matter entirely.

[Logic]

Millenium:

So you would descibe Israels "surgical strikes" as an act of terror? Especially when they attack suspected terrorists(or suspected planners of terrorist attacks) in the middle of a crowded street.

And do you think that people have the right to a fair trial? No matter what they have done? Or is fair trial something that only some should be allowed to get?

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Oh, certainly there are. And for the acts of terrorism each does, the perpetrator of that act is the only one to blame.

The question is, what is terrorism and what is not? I would still say that the line is drawn with the intent to harm noncombatants (defined as "those who have not consciously decided to involve themselves directly in the conflict"). Blowing up a random bus is terrorism. Bombing the house of an admitted terrorist leader is not, even if there are willing human shields inside (willing human shields are not noncombatants). Unwilling human shields, such as hostages, would be another matter entirely.

Not too sure about that analogy. By the time the terrorist act has been committed, the person, that you say is to blame solely, is now dead, why would the Israeli army then go and destroy the family home? It's a bit like if someone comes round and robs your home, do you then go round and rob their's?

The Israeli way of demolishin people's homes is an act of revenge, not justice, and it seems to serve no purpose, it won't disuage suicide bombers, but only harms the innocent occupants.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The question is, what is terrorism and what is not? I would still say that the line is drawn with the intent to harm noncombatants (defined as "those who have not consciously decided to involve themselves directly in the conflict"). Blowing up a random bus is terrorism. Bombing the house of an admitted terrorist leader is not, even if there are willing human shields inside (willing human shields are not noncombatants). Unwilling human shields, such as hostages, would be another matter entirely.

I don't agree with that. Terrorism is the act of using fear to achieve your aims. It doesn't require the presence of violence or even the targetting of civilians. The threat of violence is sufficient. Israel constantly engages in the use of fear and the threat of violence as a tool to pursue its interests. That is terrorism irrespective of whether they kill civilians or not.

Terrorism has such a massive political component that it's very difficult to come to a definition. The core reason why international action against terrorism is so difficult is the fact that people can't agree on any definition. The African National Congress, the French resistance; there are many examples of groups that some saw as terrorists, others as legitimate freedom fighters. I think Hamas is seen very differently in Damascus than it is in Tel Aviv. By way of further example, I get very hot under the collar when the Bush Administration refers to the attacks on US soldiers in Iraq as terrorist activity. For me that is asymmetric warfare and the Iraqis are entitled to employ the means available to battle their better equipped occupiers (just like the French resistance).

Hamas' success rate against one of the best equipped armies on the planet is bound to be dismal. They do try but their attacks against civilian targets are more succesful. Hitting the people that ostensibly pull the strings (Israel is some warped form of democracy) is more efficient politically. It gets results faster than knocking out 1 tank every 6 months. If they could match the Israeli army and if it brought results, they'd probably prefer to take on the army though.

The question of defining who is a terrorist and who isn't is an age old one. What is scary is the increasing acceptance of vigilantiism in international relations when it comes to dealing with terrorism. In the good old days, only rogue states like South Africa and Israel argued that full on war could be fought against people they defined as terrorists. Only rogues argued for pre-emptory self defence as a principle of international law. Today, the greatest power on the planet makes the arguments that were on the fringes before. Israel's implementation of those principles shows just why this is such a bad idea. What are we going to do when Spain starts bombing houses in the Paris suburbs to out ETA activists or when the UK sends cruise missiles into downtown Belfast? In the interim, I think all of us need to think a little more about what we might be prepared to do if we were Palestinians who had been living in these dismal conditions. Frankly, I don't support violence on the part of Palestinians. I wish they didn't do it. But I think I understand why they feel they have no other option.

[slow moe]

For the past four decades, the Palestinians have blindly followed Arafat and groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Fatah, yet they have received nothing in return for this support except missile strikes from Israel. All the money the PA gets from sympathetic supporters is totally wasted. If I was a Palistinian, I would be pissed too.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by slow moe:
For the past four decades, the Palestinians have blindly followed Arafat and groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Fatah, yet they have received nothing in return for this support except missile strikes from Israel. All the money the PA gets from sympathetic supporters is totally wasted. If I was a Palistinian, I would be pissed too.

Just like *all* Jews want to kill arabs.



No, just ultra-conservative jews... who also happen to have a decent sized role in the government.

That's far from the entire population.

Same for the Palestinian side. Ultraconservative Arabs who happen to have some weight in the beurocracy of Arab states.

It should be noted that mass generalizations of entire populations into the beliefs of a minority (of a minority) aren't really accurate... regardless of what side you do it to.

Making everyone fit into this minority is pretty damn bias.

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't agree with that. Terrorism is the act of using fear to achieve your aims. It doesn't require the presence of violence or even the targetting of civilians. The threat of violence is sufficient. Israel constantly engages in the use of fear and the threat of violence as a tool to pursue its interests. That is terrorism irrespective of whether they kill civilians or not.

Troll makes many good points, but I like this one most. The United States State Department specifically noted after 9/11, that an act of violence isn't necessary to be considered a "Terrorist Group". The capacity, intent, or threat is all that's necessary. Again to be a terrorist by the state department, you must be a threat to US or US Allies. Hence if Al Queda starts attacking in the Congo, or some other African land we don't like)... they could potentially loose their Terrorist status (if the US is true to their word).


Israel's government is a terrorist group because they persistantly apply a threat to Civilian groups who have nothing other more than the same religion in common with a political group.

If Israel is after a Jewish criminal, it's done so that nobody around the criminal is injured. If it's an Arab criminal, they attack from 15,000ft+ using weapons excessive for the job.

Because Israel intentionally makes an effort to have collateral damage, and intentionally destroys property along with the intended target (note when it's done near a jewish settlement, it's done so that no harm is done to the jewish population's property).

Israel is a terrorist because they go beyond the scope of the mission with the sole purpose of killing civilians, and destroying civilian property. On top of the fact that they do it in a bias manner, that it's Arab civilians that suffer.

Israel is more than capable of hitting percise targets. They don't do that, because they don't get the civilian damage that way.

State funded terrorism is still terrorism.

Note: The US has done the same thing in South America (columbia), as well as in the Middle East throughout the 70's and 80's.... so it's not like the US is innocent. The US did it on the premise of destabalizing governments. Though the US methods weren't direct military, the CIA often trained militant groups in methods of attack. Still wrong. It caused many problems, and thousands of lives.

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We are in World War III. It's time for people to realize this.

If that's the case, wouldn't it then be your patriotic duty to drop what you're doing and join your army to go and fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Usama's Carcase]

Originally posted by theolein:
If that's the case, wouldn't it then be your patriotic duty to drop what you're doing and join your army to go and fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

hardly. The Army doesn't want to increase the size of the military because of the huge money and capital involved in creating and sustaining new divisions. Not every American's duty is to serve in the military; some can help in other ways on the home front.

[Wiskedjak]

Just out of curiosity, what would be an acceptable way for the Palestinians to deal with their concerns about Israel?

[slow moe]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Just like *all* Jews want to kill arabs.



No, just ultra-conservative jews... who also happen to have a decent sized role in the government.

That's far from the entire population.

Same for the Palestinian side. Ultraconservative Arabs who happen to have some weight in the beurocracy of Arab states.

It should be noted that mass generalizations of entire populations into the beliefs of a minority (of a minority) aren't really accurate... regardless of what side you do it to.

Making everyone fit into this minority is pretty damn bias.

If the majority hasn't followed Arafat, their elected leader, for the last 30 or 40 years, or any of his henchmen, then just who have they followed?

Nobody else that's who, and the results of that have been disastrous for most Palistinians.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Just out of curiosity, what would be an acceptable way for the Palestinians to deal with their concerns about Israel?

stop terrorism. As a people and society, rise up against it.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Just out of curiosity, what would be an acceptable way for the Palestinians to deal with their concerns about Israel?

A good start would be to begin addressing their own socio-economic problems now, so that, in a few years, a independent Palistinian State can be created responsibly. If it were created tomorrow, there simply wouldn't be enough jobs and infrastructure in place to support such a political entity.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
stop terrorism. As a people and society, rise up against it.

So say the suicide bombings stop, (very unlikely) then what? does this solve the problem? and by that I mean do the Palestinians get their land back?

[Lerkfish]

The only way a war like this will end is if one side commits complete genocide, or if both sides simultaneously come to the same conclusion that ending future violence is of more value than avenging past violence.

Of the two, sadly, I think the first is more likely.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So say the suicide bombings stop, (very unlikely) then what? does this solve the problem? and by that I mean do the Palestinians get their land back?

what land? if you mean Israel (pre-1967), then no. If you mean the West Bank and other territories occupied/taken in 1967, then yeah, they'd get it back if they could show that as a people they are capable of stopping terrorism and acting as a good neighbour to Israel, not some wanna-be state ready to start developing nukes or importing loads of weapons.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by slow moe:
A good start would be to begin addressing their own socio-economic problems now, so that, in a few years, a independent Palistinian State can be created responsibly. If it were created tomorrow, there simply wouldn't be enough jobs and infrastructure in place to support such a political entity.

Arafat has plenty of money. He's been stealing it all these long decades.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We are in World War III. It's time for people to realize this.

If you actually believe this, suddenly all your ravings make sense.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
what land? if you mean Israel (pre-1967), then no. If you mean the West Bank and other territories occupied/taken in 1967, then yeah, they'd get it back if they could show that as a people they are capable of stopping terrorism and acting as a good neighbour to Israel, not some wanna-be state ready to start developing nukes or importing loads of weapons.

I'm not going to embark on another 'who's land is it?' debate again, I've already been through that.

Picking up on your last part though, you really think Israel will give any land back to the Palestinians? Think about what all these terrorist attacks are about. Land. The Palestinians tried for a long time, through peaceful means to get the international community to address their problem. They got precisely nowhere. Unfortunately it seems in order to get yourself heard you need to start killing people. Now isn't that a sad state of affairs.

The fact is that the Palestinians have had enough. Israel didn't budge before the intifada and I don't see how you think they are going to have a sudden change of heart if the bombings stop. It would go back to how it was before.

The Palestinians won't give up this time unless they see a combined effort by the international community to address the issue at the heart of this conflict.

We know this to be true because the Palestinians demonstrated their willingness to ceasefire during the time the 'road map to peace' was alive. Here we saw that it was Israel's unwillingness to end the violence when they continued to assassinate militants. Soon after, the cycle of violence began again.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We are in World War III. It's time for people to realize this.

Wow I never saw this the first time because you are on my ignore but who is the enemy in WWIII ? Is it the US christian saviors vs. the evil Muslim Arabs?

[Troll]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So say the suicide bombings stop, (very unlikely) then what?

Well that actually happened. The suicide bombings stopped, Israel negotiated with the Palestinians. Then a radical jew assassinated the Israeli prime minister, the new government went back on their promises and bobs your uncle, the Palestinians went back to bombing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Theolein:
If that's the case, wouldn't it then be your patriotic duty to drop what you're doing and join your army to go and fight in Iraq or Afghanistan

Originally posted by Usama's Carcase:
hardly. The Army doesn't want to increase the size of the military because of the huge money and capital involved in creating and sustaining new divisions. Not every American's duty is to serve in the military; some can help in other ways on the home front.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Troll:

LOL!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
stop terrorism. As a people and society, rise up against it.

The Palestinian concerns existed BEFORE their terrorist campaign began. The terrorist campaign resulted out of frustration with the lack of results from more "peaceful" attempts at a solution. Ending the terrorism would simply place them back at square one with the US vetoing any UN resolution requiring Israel to give back to Palestine land grabbed after 1967.

If some nation vastly more powerful than yours took your land and you received no support from the international community, how would you respond?

[thunderous_funker]

Remember how successfull Emperor Nero was at stamping out Terrorism? And every other State or Leader?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Just out of curiosity, what would be an acceptable way for the Palestinians to deal with their concerns about Israel?

IMHO the best method would be to lobby with the other Arab nations and completely embargo. No trade, no oil, no medical, even baracade roads leaving Israel. Making Israel only accessible by Air or sea.

It was actually considered seriously for a time... But Israel threatened serious military response including larger weapons ... so I think it was scrapped.

Originally posted by slow moe:
If the majority hasn't followed Arafat, their elected leader, for the last 30 or 40 years, or any of his henchmen, then just who have they followed?

Nobody else that's who, and the results of that have been disastrous for most Palistinians.

Again, you lump the majority into the minority.

Following your model, I assume every male in America was a sexaholic during the Clinton Administration, willing to sleep with any female with a hole.

[or more logically, Clinton was just a figurehead, and Americans went about their everyday lives... an argument you don't buy]

And every Israeli was figuring out exactly how large of a weapon could be used to kill as many Palestinians as possible, including schoolchildren...

[or more logically, just military planners and people close to Sharon... another argument you don't buy]

And all Brazilians are gay.


Why must all groups be lumped into 1? Is every American a liar because Bush frauded America during the State of the Union Address? Or did individual Americans have nothing to do with that?

I assume you are personally responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing... which was committed by an American Citizen... based on your statements, we can safely put everyone into a group.



Not fair when you put it that way eh?

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The only way a war like this will end is if one side commits complete genocide, or if both sides simultaneously come to the same conclusion that ending future violence is of more value than avenging past violence.

Of the two, sadly, I think the first is more likely.

I agree. For both sides, during election time, the campaign slogans will be "Genocide for bust".

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
what land? if you mean Israel (pre-1967), then no. If you mean the West Bank and other territories occupied/taken in 1967, then yeah, they'd get it back if they could show that as a people they are capable of stopping terrorism and acting as a good neighbour to Israel, not some wanna-be state ready to start developing nukes or importing loads of weapons.

Israel has claims in the past that land into North Africa (mainly Egypt) Saudi Arabia, all of Jordan, and Syria are Israel's. Which would give it more square milage than Turkey.

They won't stop short until they Achieve the goal in getting the desired land.

Doubt they will do that without the use of Chem/bio weapons.

They use the weapons... the US of course will back them.... but Europe won't. Causing serious problems.

So they will always be in this stalemate. Trying to achieve the goal of getting the land they want. And not destabalizing it's allies relations (US foreign relations).


Lerkfish put it best.