Israel invades?

[darkhanamaru]

Well now that President Abbas has officially dissolved the government will Israel invade gaza? what do you think? I am thinking it is not long before there is military action on the part of Israel. Israel I don' think will tolerate Hamas controlling Gaza.

[Drew Van T.]

Don't you mean the Gaza Strip? Israel can't "invade" the West Bank because they never pulled out of the West Bank. They only ever pulled out of the Gaza Strip.

[darkhanamaru]

Don't you mean the Gaza Strip? Israel can't "invade" the West Bank because they never pulled out of the West Bank. They only ever pulled out of the Gaza Strip.

yes i meant gaza

[Paul McEnery]

Nope.

Dumb and dangerous invasions is what got Olmert in trouble. And a zero popularity rating.

Not to mention that ugly little memo that got leaked from the UN, which should turn the screws a little bit.

[Charles RB]

What Israel should do is get one of its business leaders to create a fake alien monster (including the stolen brain of a psychic) and teleport it into the centre of Gaza, thereby making both sides think an alien invasion is imminent and forcing them to team up.

[Iangould]

Why invade when your enemies are doing such a splendid job of screwing things up for themselves?

If HAMAS does actually get control of Gaza (and lets remember they won the last election overwhelmingly there) Israel probably won't move back in but they will use airstrikes and limited ground sorties to make the place ungovernable - which is really what they've been doing all along.

[Drew Van T.]

Hamas appears to be on the brink of gaining complete control of Gaza, which should, at the very least, end the bloodshed and restore some stability to the area.

Israel invading at this juncture would actually throw it back from that into turmoil and cause more civilian suffering.

While it certainly looks like Hamas and Fatah are having a civil war between them - with Gaza in the hands of the former and the WB in the hands of the latter - it can't exactly be said that Hamas has staged a putsch or a military coup by taking control of Gaza. They won the elections, after all.

What you have here is the classic division that exists all over the Middle East: secular but authoritarian and corrupt forces on the one hand (Fatah) squaring off with relatively fundamentalist-religious forces that have more popular backing (Hamas).

But Israel has added to the destructive potential by pulling out of Gaza but keeping it closed-off, isolated and encircled at the same time, unable to sustain itself economically, while also making sure that the Palestinian government (Hamas) gets no tax money. As one international commentator put it: "when you lock up two brothers in a room that is too small to live in, and deprive them of outside contact and other means, of course they'll take their misery out on each other at some point."

[Theophilus]

To be fair to Israel they are not exactly in a great position. When they cede territory their enemies use it as a base to fire rockets. I don't think there is an ideal solution here.

[Paul McEnery]

To be fair to Israel they are not exactly in a great position. When they cede territory their enemies use it as a base to fire rockets. I don't think there is an ideal solution here.

The peevish part of me wants to say: Perhaps they should have thought about that before they took the territory, and treated everyone else like subhumans.

But I think it's clear what the precondition of an ideal solution is:

Recognize the Hamas government.

[Sean Walsh]

What Israel should do is get one of its business leaders to create a fake alien monster (including the stolen brain of a psychic) and teleport it into the centre of Gaza, thereby making both sides think an alien invasion is imminent and forcing them to team up.

Bah. I seriously doubt even Thrakadoom and the disembodied brain of Dionne Warwick would ever get the Israelis and Palestinians to ever team up.

[TheLazy]

The peevish part of me wants to say: Perhaps they should have thought about that before they took the territory, and treated everyone else like subhumans.

But I think it's clear what the precondition of an ideal solution is:

Recognize the Hamas government.

You should reconize and respect billy's little gang from across the street that got together to beat you up every day on your way to school. ;)

:)

[Paul McEnery]

You you should reconize and respect billy's little gang from across the street that got together to beat you up every day on your way to school. ;)

:)

See, that's where the joke thing fails miserably to cover up chauvinism and ignorance.

[TheLazy]

See, that's where the joke thing fails miserably to cover up chauvinism and ignorance.

I thought that Chauvanism implied some form of sexism, and ignorance of what?

:)

[Drew Van T.]

Recognize the Hamas government.

At this point, though, it doesn't matter to Fatah whether Israel views Hamas as legitimate rulers or not. So it would make no difference while the territory is effectively carved into two and the two parties haven't reconciled.

[moebius]

I would imagine it's to Israel's benefit to having Hamas and Fatah continue to fight. It's aggressive energy not being directed at Israel.

Divide and Conquer.

[Roquefort Raider]

But I think it's clear what the precondition of an ideal solution is:

Recognize the Hamas government.


Will Hamas recognize Israel if Israel recognizes Hamas?

[Sean Walsh]

But I think it's clear what the precondition of an ideal solution is:

Recognize the Hamas government.

Why? They're terrorists voted in by a populace who seemingly endorse terrorism in the first place.

And if this civil war is how they treat themselves, why on Earth should anyone - ESPECIALLY Israel - want diplomacy with them or recognize anything about them as legitimate?

[BlairH]

What Israel should do is get one of its business leaders to create a fake alien monster (including the stolen brain of a psychic) and teleport it into the centre of Gaza, thereby making both sides think an alien invasion is imminent and forcing them to team up.

Israel should quickly and covertly construct a giant black 2001-esque monolith in the middle of Gaza. Perhaps then the militants will get a life and evolve.

[darkhanamaru]

But Israel has added to the destructive potential by pulling out of Gaza but keeping it closed-off, isolated and encircled at the same time, unable to sustain itself economically, while also making sure that the Palestinian government (Hamas) gets no tax money. As one international commentator put it: "when you lock up two brothers in a room that is too small to live in, and deprive them of outside contact and other means, of course they'll take their misery out on each other at some point."

it should also be said that the israel and the u.s. have been opening arming fatah since 2006 which of couse doesn't help the situation at all

[Typo Lad]

Yeah, Israel's not invading Gaza. They'd like nothing better than for it to go away at this point.

[darkhanamaru]

Nope.

Dumb and dangerous invasions is what got Olmert in trouble. And a zero popularity rating.

Not to mention that ugly little memo that got leaked from the UN, which should turn the screws a little bit.

as usual i had to turn to the bbc to find out what memo you were talking about. i didn't see it in the american papers (then again i usually only get to look at the nytimes and the excuses sf has for papers). do you really think this leak is that embarassing or will have any impact? i mean it isn't great pr for the un but nothing in it seemed to me surprising or unknown to anyone paying attention to the situation. i mean we already knew that the us will continue to back israel and that neither isreal nor the us will negotiate with hamas.

[Paul McEnery]

Why? They're terrorists voted in by a populace who seemingly endorse terrorism in the first place.

And if this civil war is how they treat themselves, why on Earth should anyone - ESPECIALLY Israel - want diplomacy with them or recognize anything about them as legitimate?

You're not allowed to read comic books or watch TV or movies any more until your brain grows back. Sheesh! For those people not living in a GI Joe comic, the situation is much more complicated.

Like Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon, Hamas is the legitimate voice of the people. Why? Because Fatah is completely corrupt and useless. It's sole purpose is to collect the check from the US and Israel for being their butt boy. Whereas Hamas has actually been organizing in the communities to get things done, and very effectively.

But of course the US and Israel couldn't deal with that political reality -- not having spent so much to create a puppet government with Abbas that ignored the political reality for Palestinians. So they cut the Palestinians off. Oh, and imagine what happened then.

Meanwhile, Fatah decided to hell with the elections, they were going to screw with Hamas. With Israeli and US collusion. So, prevented from properly taking government, and with many of their government leaders imprisoned by Israel, Hamas decided to take the fight back to Fatah.

And this surprises you why?

See if you can understand this: You win an election, so your leaders are imprisoned and the president suppresses your electoral victory (on the orders of two foreign powers) and carries on as usual. What do you do?

Oh, I'm suuuuuuuuure you roll right over. That's what you do, right?

[Paul McEnery]

as usual i had to turn to the bbc to find out what memo you were talking about. i didn't see it in the american papers (then again i usually only get to look at the nytimes and the excuses sf has for papers). do you really think this leak is that embarassing or will have any impact? i mean it isn't great pr for the un but nothing in it seemed to me surprising or unknown to anyone paying attention to the situation. i mean we already knew that the us will continue to back israel and that neither isreal nor the us will negotiate with hamas.

That's true.

But the memo, while skewering Hamas as the gangsters they are, does place the blame flat at the feet of Israel and the US.

Here's the Guardian leader (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2102341,00.html):

Alvaro de Soto is not the first experienced diplomat to have entered the Middle East a moderate and to have left it two years later angry at the role of Israel and the US in subverting the search for peace. Nor will he be the last. In his confidential 52-page report, published by the Guardian this week, the former Peruvian foreign minister describes the reality of diplomacy. Informed observers already suspected that US pressure had "pummelled into submission" the UN's role as an impartial negotiator, that it had made the Middle East peace process subservient to wider policies on Iraq and Iran, and that the US had got the other members of the Quartet negotiating team - the EU, Russia and the UN - to impose sanctions on the government formed after painful negotiations between Fatah and Hamas. The sanctions did not encourage the unity government to function properly. They killed it off.

[Paul McEnery]

I thought that Chauvanism implied some form of sexism, and ignorance of what?

:)

The meaning and spelling of chauvinism, for a start.

[darkhanamaru]

The meaning and spelling of chauvinism, for a start.

wow i really learned something today. never knew the original meaning of the word before it was hijacked by gender studies.

from answers.com:

chauvinism: derived French chauvinisme, after Nicolas Chauvin, a legendary French soldier famous for his devotion to Napoleon

so originally it meant fanatical devotion to one's country

[FBHthelizardmage]

well, after the rather humilating lose israel suffered against Hezbollah, does the goverment really have the support for any more military action, even against a much weaker group like Hamas?

[Tages]

But the memo, while skewering Hamas as the gangsters they are, does place the blame flat at the feet of Israel and the US.

Heh. Gangsters is right.

In the old ethnic neighborhoods of NYC, Chicago, Boston etc. organized crime often formed not just as a profiteering enterprise but because it was the only place for immigrants to go for protection and arbitration, since the cops would regularly ignore immigrant communities when they weren't actively harassing them. If you were a poor Italian, Jew, Irishman or what have you you didn't go to the police if you had a problem. You went to the local boss.

Hamas has done some horiffically evil things but naturally they're going to earn the most support because there's no alternative.

I've also read some interesting pieces on the ways that elements in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States have been alternately funding both Hamas and Fatah to hamstring the cause of Palestinian statehood, since Israel's treatment of Palestinians siphons away much of the anger that would otherwise be directed at the governments of those countries.

[lonewolf23k]

I would imagine it's to Israel's benefit to having Hamas and Fatah continue to fight. It's aggressive energy not being directed at Israel.

Divide and Conquer.

Yeah, the only thing Israel needs to do right now is set up walls around the Palestanian border, then put down chairs and break out the popcorn to enjoy the fireworks..

[moebius]

In the old ethnic neighborhoods of NYC, Chicago, Boston etc. organized crime often formed not just as a profiteering enterprise but because it was the only place for immigrants to go for protection and arbitration, since the cops would regularly ignore immigrant communities when they weren't actively harassing them. If you were a poor Italian, Jew, Irishman or what have you you didn't go to the police if you had a problem. You went to the local boss.


It's all about patronage.

That, and the police is just another gang.

[Tages]

Meh. Snark.

[Charles RB]

I'm confused as to how Israel recognising Hamas will help at this point when the current conflict is Hamas VS Fatah with no concern for civilians. Would Hamas really go "oh, that's all right then" and stop shooting?

[Tages]

I'm confused as to how Israel recognising Hamas will help at this point when the current conflict is Hamas VS Fatah with no concern for civilians. Would Hamas really go "oh, that's all right then" and stop shooting?

Well, it would just about destroy Fatah's position, since Fatah receives a lot of funding from Israel.

And to be fair, while I'm no fan of either, Fatah shot first.

[moebius]

Meh. Snark.

I think the point being that it's in Israel's rational interest just to do nothing. The Palestinians are too busy attacking each other to bother with Israel, so anything Israel could do to intervene in the situation (invasion or taking sides) would only make people angry at Israel.

Whether this is normatively appropriate is a different quetion.

The British and French were always the masters of this in the Colonial 19th Century.

[Tages]

I think the point being that it's in Israel's rational interest just to do nothing. The Palestinians are too busy attacking each other to bother with Israel, so anything Israel could do to intervene in the situation (invasion or taking sides) would only make people angry at Israel.

Whether this is normatively appropriate is a different quetion.

No, I agree that Israel should stay out of the Gaza Strip. I also think that a fourth party is necessary to mediate some kind of peace deal between Hamas and Fatah. The question is, who?

[BlairH]

The question is, who?

http://salug.hosting.cri74.org/Bureautique/openclipart-0.11/png/logos/masonic_square_and_compass_01.png

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, the only thing Israel needs to do right now is set up walls around the Palestanian border, then put down chairs and break out the popcorn to enjoy the fireworks..

What is this? "The ovens are too good for them" week?

I know nobody here really thinks like that, so WTF?

[Paul McEnery]

No, I agree that Israel should stay out of the Gaza Strip. I also think that a fourth party is necessary to mediate some kind of peace deal between Hamas and Fatah. The question is, who?

You've gotta be kidding me. Fatah are dead in the water. So the only thing the international community can do is wash our hands of them like we washed our hands of our guy in Vietnam.

[moebius]

You've gotta be kidding me. Fatah are dead in the water. So the only thing the international community can do is wash our hands of them like we washed our hands of our guy in Vietnam.

And then, in a generation or two Hamas will be in power and they'll be Fatah, and we'll have to wash our hands of them as well.

[TheLazy]

The meaning and spelling of chauvinism, for a start.

Wow, talking down to people must really be the highlight of your day.

:)

[Paul McEnery]

And then, in a generation or two Hamas will be in power and they'll be Fatah, and we'll have to wash our hands of them as well.

Different kettle of fish.

Who have we ever supported in our half-arsed colonialism? Governments who roll over for us and implement our business practices for buckets of graft.

Now, does it strike you that Hamas will ever do that?

[Paul McEnery]

Wow, talking down to people must really be the highlight of your day.

:)

I prefer setting people straight about their misconceptions, but you've got to know your limits, don't you.

[Tages]

You've gotta be kidding me. Fatah are dead in the water. So the only thing the international community can do is wash our hands of them like we washed our hands of our guy in Vietnam.

Well, yeah, but in the meantime I think it's a good idea to get the fighting to stop rather than trust that Hamas will wipe them out.

[moebius]

Different kettle of fish.

Who have we ever supported in our half-arsed colonialism? Governments who roll over for us and implement our business practices for buckets of graft.

Now, does it strike you that Hamas will ever do that?

You could have said the same thing about the PLO in the 70s.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, yeah, but in the meantime I think it's a good idea to get the fighting to stop rather than trust that Hamas will wipe them out.

Too late for that. Fatah started a gangster war, and there's only one way that comes to an end.

[Charles RB]

Well, yeah, but in the meantime I think it's a good idea to get the fighting to stop rather than trust that Hamas will wipe them out.

BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6744713.stm) quoted the Egyptian mediation team as saying Fatah & Hamas don't actually want to talk. Specifically: "They have killed all hope. They have killed the future."

Because who wants peace, stability and lack of civilians being fucked over when you can shoot each other instead?

[Paul McEnery]

BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6744713.stm) quoted the Egyption mediation team as saying Fatah & Hamas don't actually want to talk. Specifically: "They have killed all hope. They have killed the future."

Because who wants peace, stability and lack of civilians being fucked over when you can shoot each other instead?

Egyptian mediation team.

Boy, this is a laugh a minute, ain't it?

[TheLazy]

Q: What do the extremists think is going to happen if the west completley pulls out of the middle east, iraq, saudi arabia, ect?

:)

[Paul McEnery]

Q: What do the extremists think is going to happen if the west completley pulls out of the middle east, iraq, saudi arabia, ect?

:)

That we'll no long have control over their oil, and our entire way of life will go down the tubes.

Oh, wait. You didn't mean our extremists, did you?

[TheLazy]

That we'll no long have control over their oil, and our entire way of life will go down the tubes.

Oh, wait. You didn't mean our extremists, did you?

I mean over there

:)

[Paul McEnery]

I mean over there

:)

See, not only do I not understand what you're trying to achieve with that smiley, but I don't understand what you're trying to do with that question.

Let me see if I've got you right though, because there might just be a communications problem here.

Do you think there's something weird about wanting self-determination?

[TheLazy]

See, not only do I not understand what you're trying to achieve with that smiley, but I don't understand what you're trying to do with that question.

Let me see if I've got you right though, because there might just be a communications problem here.

Do you think there's something weird about wanting self-determination?

The smiles a sign

No there's nothing wrong with self-determination. I just can't understand why in the 21st century people still support isolationist attitudes. Yes The US invading Iraq has got to be the biggest fuck-up since someone decided that horses where built out of respect, but whats going to happen to the economy in the middle east if all of the western companies pull out? Thats not meant to be smart or anything its a serious question, but I suppose sarcasm is easier than discussion.

:)

[Paul McEnery]

The smiles a sign

No there's nothing wrong with self-determination. I just can't understand why in the 21st century people still support isolationist attitudes. Yes The US invading Iraq has got to be the biggest fuck-up since someone decided that horses where built out of respect, but whats going to happen to the economy in the middle east if all of the western companies pull out? Thats not meant to be smart or anything its a serious question, but I suppose sarcasm is easier than discussion.

:)

Wait a sec.

Are you saying that all corporations are the enemies of self-determination?

Hmm.

Guess we'd all better shut them down then.

[AJTalon]

The smiles a sign

No there's nothing wrong with self-determination. I just can't understand why in the 21st century people still support isolationist attitudes. Yes The US invading Iraq has got to be the biggest fuck-up since someone decided that horses where built out of respect, but whats going to happen to the economy in the middle east if all of the western companies pull out? Thats not meant to be smart or anything its a serious question, but I suppose sarcasm is easier than discussion.

:)

You're missing the point. The main goal of the fundamentalist Muslim leaders is to create a Caliphate. Essentially, a new Islamic Empire. Theocratic in nature, it is the primary reason for the division between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

Now, I emphasize that this is the interpretation of the Koran used by the fundamentalist leaders of Islam in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Most Muslims are, like any other people, content to live their own lives and not bother other peoples. However, Islam was designed to be a political religion nearly from the start. Basing a government on a religion is seldom a good idea, because it essentially gives the government the power of God.

Western democracies are, for the most part, based on Christian ideals ("imbued by the Creator with certain inalienable rights"), but the government itself is not the mediator between God and the people. And it shouldn't be. Governments should govern for people, not for God, because so many different interpretations of scriptures exist and clash and contradict eachother. And believing you have the power of God at your disposal is a surefire ticket to corruption.

Under the Shariah interpretation, the Caliphate is supposed to encompass the entire planet. All of humanity under the rule of Islam. Christians and Jews under the most fundamentalist laws (Shariah) would be second-class citizens at best. Bhuddists and Hindus would be converted or exterminated. And women would be little better off. It sounds cruel, but from a cultural perspective it makes sense. The actions of Muhammad were no bloodier than other Arab war leaders at the time. Taking women and slaves, pillaging, rape, marrying children, etc. However, it has no place in modern societies. The West in particular has learned the hard way that "all men are created equal" does not simply apply to white land-owning males. True, there still remain problems, but compared to the Colonial Era things are orders of magnitude better.

The biggest problem as I see it is that Islam is still stuck in the 6th century. Infidels should be killed or enslaved, women are at best second-class citizens and at worse breeding stock, prisoners are ransomed back to their nations for treasure, etc. Until Islam undergoes a Renaissance, a Rebirth, a Reformation, the conflict will continue.

Now, while Iraq is indeed a mess, consider that it is in essence the beach head for an over-all campaign to initiate cultural revolution in the Middle East. Iran's youth oppose the tyrannical regime and culture they are under, the terrorist attacks in Iraq are becoming more and more desperate, and numerous terrorist factions fight amongst eachother. I'm not saying the end of the road, victory, is close at hand. But I compare it to a patient with cancer. Do you do nothing and allow the cancer to spread throughout the body of the patient and kill him? Or do you attempt long, difficult treatments to save the patient?

I would like to emphasize that this is just my opinion. If you disagree with it, I respect your right to do so, but please don't call me a "right wing nut", or "lap dog of Bush", or anything of that sort.

[TheLazy]

You're missing the point. The main goal of the fundamentalist Muslim leaders is to create a Caliphate. Essentially, a new Islamic Empire. Theocratic in nature, it is the primary reason for the division between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

Now, I emphasize that this is the interpretation of the Koran used by the fundamentalist leaders of Islam in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Most Muslims are, like any other people, content to live their own lives and not bother other peoples. However, Islam was designed to be a political religion nearly from the start. Basing a government on a religion is seldom a good idea, because it essentially gives the government the power of God.

Western democracies are, for the most part, based on Christian ideals ("imbued by the Creator with certain inalienable rights"), but the government itself is not the mediator between God and the people. And it shouldn't be. Governments should govern for people, not for God, because so many different interpretations of scriptures exist and clash and contradict eachother. And believing you have the power of God at your disposal is a surefire ticket to corruption.

Under the Shariah interpretation, the Caliphate is supposed to encompass the entire planet. All of humanity under the rule of Islam. Christians and Jews under the most fundamentalist laws (Shariah) would be second-class citizens at best. Bhuddists and Hindus would be converted or exterminated. And women would be little better off. It sounds cruel, but from a cultural perspective it makes sense. The actions of Muhammad were no bloodier than other Arab war leaders at the time. Taking women and slaves, pillaging, rape, marrying children, etc. However, it has no place in modern societies. The West in particular has learned the hard way that "all men are created equal" does not simply apply to white land-owning males. True, there still remain problems, but compared to the Colonial Era things are orders of magnitude better.

The biggest problem as I see it is that Islam is still stuck in the 6th century. Infidels should be killed or enslaved, women are at best second-class citizens and at worse breeding stock, prisoners are ransomed back to their nations for treasure, etc. Until Islam undergoes a Renaissance, a Rebirth, a Reformation, the conflict will continue.

Now, while Iraq is indeed a mess, consider that it is in essence the beach head for an over-all campaign to initiate cultural revolution in the Middle East. Iran's youth oppose the tyrannical regime and culture they are under, the terrorist attacks in Iraq are becoming more and more desperate, and numerous terrorist factions fight amongst eachother. I'm not saying the end of the road, victory, is close at hand. But I compare it to a patient with cancer. Do you do nothing and allow the cancer to spread throughout the body of the patient and kill him? Or do you attempt long, difficult treatments to save the patient?

I would like to emphasize that this is just my opinion. If you disagree with it, I respect your right to do so, but please don't call me a "right wing nut", or "lap dog of Bush", or anything of that sort.


Meh, at least your conducting rational discussion (or mildly amusing bable *burn*:p )

I'm not just on about Iraq, I mean the West support of Isreal and opposition of Iran. Personally I think going into Iraq was a mistake, but we're there now so we can't pull out without having hte blood of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians on our hands. Just look at whats going on in Sudan. But if the Iraqi people want independant Islamic control then we should follow their wishes. That doesn't mean that they have to act like the rest of the world doesnt exist as some factions are.

:)

[AJTalon]

Meh, at least your conducting rational discussion (or mildly amusing bable *burn*:p )

I'm not just on about Iraq, I mean the West support of Isreal and opposition of Iran. Personally I think going into Iraq was a mistake, but we're there now so we can't pull out without having hte blood of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians on our hands. Just look at whats going on in Sudan. But if the Iraqi people want independant Islamic control then we should follow their wishes. That doesn't mean that they have to act like the rest of the world doesnt exist as some factions are.

:)

Look, Israel is about 50 percent native, ARAB Jews. So it's not just Western domination here. We support Israel because we didn't want the Holocaust to happen again, and it was their land before the Muslims got it. The Arab Jews in Israel were much happier under Israeli rule than they ever were under Muslim rule.

If the Iraqis vote for us to leave, then we'll probably leave. I just hope they do it when they're strong enough to put down the terrorists on their own.

If they support Islamic control, then things will only get worse. Perhaps to the point that terrorists manage to nuke one of our cities. And if that happens, we will have to respond in kind.

And I doubt anyone really wants that, but the choice may come down to either letting more Western cities be nuked or attacked with WMDs, or wiping out the source of the attacks. And without a cultural reformation, that will be Mecca, Saudi Arabia. We will be forced to wipe them out and essentially erase Islam from existence.

We do not have easy choices in this war. I would prefer the long and difficult one where we don't wipe out an entire culture and millions of mostly innocent people.

[Tages]

The biggest problem as I see it is that Islam is still stuck in the 6th century.

This would be difficult, considering that Islam was founded in the 7th Century.

[AJTalon]

This would be difficult, considering that Islam was founded in the 7th Century.

Fine, 7TH century. I suck at math. ;)

[Tages]

Look, Israel is about 50 percent native, ARAB Jews. So it's not just Western domination here. We support Israel because we didn't want the Holocaust to happen again, and it was their land before the Muslims got it. The Arab Jews in Israel were much happier under Israeli rule than they ever were under Muslim rule.

If the Iraqis vote for us to leave, then we'll probably leave. I just hope they do it when they're strong enough to put down the terrorists on their own.

If they support Islamic control, then things will only get worse. Perhaps to the point that terrorists manage to nuke one of our cities. And if that happens, we will have to respond in kind.

And exactly what motive would any government in the ME have to give terrorists nuclear weapons, given that said terrorists are just as likely to use it on them?

[Paul McEnery]

You're missing the point. The main goal of the fundamentalist Muslim leaders is to create a Caliphate. Essentially, a new Islamic Empire. Theocratic in nature, it is the primary reason for the division between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

This is completely untrue in every single respect.

Fundamentalist -- there is, in fact, no such thing as a fundamentalist muslim. Fundamentalist is an exclusively neo-Christian term. The people preaching what we call Islamism in fact diverge greatly from the teaching in the Koran; suicide bombing, for instance, is expressly condemned in principle by the Koran.

Caliphate -- a drink-raddled fantasy of right wing racist nutjobs. Applies nowhere.

Theocracy -- has nothing to do with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.


Christians and Jews under the most fundamentalist laws (Shariah) would be second-class citizens at best.

What's with the "at best"? Would you like to point out where Jews in any Muslim country suffered genocide? Or indeed where Jews or Christians suffered any meaningful loss of civil rights in any muslim country?

Bhuddists and Hindus would be converted or exterminated. And women would be little better off.

This is completely untrue.

And incredibly offensive.


It sounds cruel, but from a cultural perspective it makes sense. The actions of Muhammad were no bloodier than other Arab war leaders at the time. Taking women and slaves, pillaging, rape, marrying children, etc.
exterminated. And women would be little better off.

You really ought to knock this shit off.

And read a real book about Islam and Muhammed. I recommend Karen Armstrong's studies about each. It may cure you of the racist filth you've obviously been paying attention to.


The biggest problem as I see it is that Islam is still stuck in the 6th century. Infidels should be killed or enslaved, women are at best second-class citizens and at worse breeding stock, prisoners are ransomed back to their nations for treasure, etc. Until Islam undergoes a Renaissance, a Rebirth, a Reformation, the conflict will continue.

What the fuck?


Now, while Iraq is indeed a mess, consider that it is in essence the beach head for an over-all campaign to initiate cultural revolution in the Middle East.

Oh don't even try that.


Iran's youth oppose the tyrannical regime and culture they are under, the terrorist attacks in Iraq are becoming more and more desperate, and numerous terrorist factions fight amongst eachother. I'm not saying the end of the road, victory, is close at hand.

Of course it is. America will be chased out of Iraq any day now.

But I compare it to a patient with cancer. Do you do nothing and allow the cancer to spread throughout the body of the patient and kill him?
Ah, now you're getting it. The cancer will be chased out of Iraq any day now.

I would like to emphasize that this is just my opinion. If you disagree with it, I respect your right to do so, but please don't call me a "right wing nut", or "lap dog of Bush", or anything of that sort.
Wouldn't dream of it.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm not just on about Iraq, I mean the West support of Isreal and opposition of Iran. Personally I think going into Iraq was a mistake, but we're there now so we can't pull out without having hte blood of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians on our hands. Just look at whats going on in Sudan. But if the Iraqi people want independant Islamic control then we should follow their wishes. That doesn't mean that they have to act like the rest of the world doesnt exist as some factions are.

:)

Yeah, but you're a victim of a false dichotomy here.

Do you honestly think there would be no opportunity for trade with the Middle East if the West stopped acting like colonial arseholes?

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry, AJ, but this is incredibly misinformed.


Look, Israel is about 50 percent native, ARAB Jews.

I think you mean Sephardic Jews. Arab Jews just doesn't make sense. If you're talking about being semitic, then yes, all Middle Easterners are semitic. Er, but so what?

So it's not just Western domination here. We support Israel because we didn't want the Holocaust to happen again, and it was their land before the Muslims got it.

Wrong again.

Read up your history on the British mandate in Palestine and the history of Zionism. You might also want to consider the value to the UK and the US of having an outpost and a stalking horse in the middle east, especially considering their history of colonialism in the region (both before and since) and their habit of invading countries that have oil in them.

Oh, and in what sense exactly was the land "theirs" before the "Muslims" "got it"?

The Arab Jews in Israel were much happier under Israeli rule than they ever were under Muslim rule.

You might want to question the Sephardim about.

If the Iraqis vote for us to leave, then we'll probably leave. I just hope they do it when they're strong enough to put down the terrorists on their own.

Were there any terrorists there before we arrived? Is that the issue? Oh, and yes, Iraqis want us gone gone gone. They never wanted us to occupy them. Never. Not at all. Not one tiny bit.

If they support Islamic control, then things will only get worse. Perhaps to the point that terrorists manage to nuke one of our cities. And if that happens, we will have to respond in kind.

What have you been reading? This makes no sense.

And I doubt anyone really wants that, but the choice may come down to either letting more Western cities be nuked or attacked with WMDs, or wiping out the source of the attacks. And without a cultural reformation, that will be Mecca, Saudi Arabia. We will be forced to wipe them out and essentially erase Islam from existence.

Come on, dude. I know you've got a learning disability, but you ought to be able to do better than that.

We do not have easy choices in this war. I would prefer the long and difficult one where we don't wipe out an entire culture and millions of mostly innocent people.
Yeah, we do.

We coulda not started it. But since we have, we can act like responsible grown ups and quit it.

Because this isn't anything to do with Islam or terrorism; it's all about colonialism.

And if you hadn't noticed, people don't like living under colonial administrations.

[TheLazy]

Yeah, but you're a victim of a false dichotomy here.

Do you honestly think there would be no opportunity for trade with the Middle East if the West stopped acting like colonial arseholes?

No I don't, I think there would no oppertunity for trade if one of these ultra right wing extremists got into power though. Sure the west are arseholes, everyone knows that, I just don't like how its being precieved as a one sided fight.

:)

[Tages]

No I don't, I think there would no oppertunity for trade if one of these ultra right wing extremists got into power though. Sure the west are arseholes, everyone knows that, I just don't like how its being precieved as a one sided fight.

:)

It is a one-sided fight. Every single country in the region put together poses no realistic strategic threat to the U.S., or to the UK, or any other EU country. Similarly, there's no real strategic threat to Israel either, since the only two countries in the region that could realistically stand up in a fight are Turkey (an ally) and Iran (too far away with too many countries in-between, and unlike Iran, Israel has nukes).

An Islamic Caliphate is a realistic possibility only in the fevered dreams of a very few.

[Paul McEnery]

No I don't, I think there would no oppertunity for trade if one of these ultra right wing extremists got into power though. Sure the west are arseholes, everyone knows that, I just don't like how its being precieved as a one sided fight.

:)

Just to be clear, do you think these are the only two alternatives in the Middle East?

1) Tyrannous rule on behalf of Western corporations.
2) Tyrannous rule that excludes Western corporations.

And to be even more clear, what do you think is most likely to create tyranny?

1) Colonial intervention, with the intention of creating tyrannous rule on behalf of corporations.
2) Self-determination.

[AJTalon]

This is completely untrue in every single respect.


Well, glad to see you're making your point right off the bat.


Fundamentalist -- there is, in fact, no such thing as a fundamentalist muslim. Fundamentalist is an exclusively neo-Christian term. The people preaching what we call Islamism in fact diverge greatly from the teaching in the Koran; suicide bombing, for instance, is expressly condemned in principle by the Koran.


Considering the contradictions within the Koran itself, it's little wonder there's so much conflict. That includes martyring yourself for Allah.

From the Source:

[3.169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;
[3.170] Rejoicing in what Allah has given them out of His grace and they rejoice for the sake of those who, (being left) behind them, have not yet joined them, that they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.
[3.171] They rejoice on account of favor from Allah and (His) grace, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers.
[3.172] (As for) those who responded (at Ohud) to the call of Allah and the Apostle after the wound had befallen them, those among them who do good (to others) and guard (against evil)shall have a great reward.
[3.173] Those to whom the people said: Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear them, but this increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector.
[3.174] So they returned with favor from Allah and (His) grace, no evil touched them and they followed the pleasure of Allah; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.

"[O]ver time, Husayn's death took on the significance of martyrdom. Today, Husayn's shrine at Karbala [Iraq] is one of the great pilgrimage sites of the Muslim world. [His] death at the hands of the Umayyads divides Muslims more than any dispute over law or theology or any antipathy between tribes, races and linguistic groups. Ali [father of Husayn] is the Ancestor of Shi'ism; Husayn is its martyr." [Lapidus 59]

While in 4:29 of the Koran it forbids suicide, 3:169-174 praise martyrs in Allah's service, often interpreted to mean in warfare. And Husayn's death only complicates matters. I use the term 'fundamentalist' only because it seems to be the socially accepted term. I could use another, more accurate term if you so wish.


Caliphate -- a drink-raddled fantasy of right wing racist nutjobs. Applies nowhere.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070480.html

Considering the terrorists themselves have endorsed the idea, I sincerely doubt that.



Theocracy -- has nothing to do with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.


The main division between Sunnis and Shiites has to do with how the leader of Islam, the Caliph, should be chosen. Sunnis believe the Muslims themselves should choose the leader, Shiites believe it should be a direct descendant of Mohammad. Either way, it's still a religious-based government-In other words, a theocracy.


What's with the "at best"? Would you like to point out where Jews in any Muslim country suffered genocide? Or indeed where Jews or Christians suffered any meaningful loss of civil rights in any muslim country?


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html

Many sources provided in the article thereof.



This is completely untrue.

And incredibly offensive.


Considering the treatment of Hindus and Bhuddists in the area between Pakistan and India, and the Islamic jihads that reached all the way to China, I 'm being generous. And this is if the current leaders continue their quest for their vision of Islam to dominate the planet.



You really ought to knock this shit off.

And read a real book about Islam and Muhammed. I recommend Karen Armstrong's studies about each. It may cure you of the racist filth you've obviously been paying attention to.


I've actually read the Koran, and Robert Spencer's "The Truth about Muhammed". They are where I get many of my convictions about all this, alongside heavy research of the Hadiths, Arab history, and other sources.


What the fuck?


And I suppose the current culture that the leaders of the Muslim world espouse is better?



Oh don't even try that.


Hey, it is a near-lone democracy in a sea of tyranny. What else would you call it?


Of course it is. America will be chased out of Iraq any day now.


So, we are the cancer because we are attempting to bring freedom to a region that has never known it? You're saying you support dictatorships and theocratic regimes that oppress their people?

Granted, we have not done so perfectly, but it is not the total disaster the media portrays it to be. I actually have friends who have served in Iraq, and read blogs of actual Iraqis who live there. Things are bad, but they are improving, bit by bit. Compared to the occupations of Japan and Germany after World War II, Iraq has been rather bloodless.


Ah, now you're getting it. The cancer will be chased out of Iraq any day now.


If that is your true belief, then I will not try to change it. I will simply speak my own in response to offer another viewpoint.


Wouldn't dream of it.

Indeed.

[TheLazy]

Just to be clear, do you think these are the only two alternatives in the Middle East?

1) Tyrannous rule on behalf of Western corporations.
2) Tyrannous rule that excludes Western corporations.

And to be even more clear, what do you think is most likely to create tyranny?

1) Colonial intervention, with the intention of creating tyrannous rule on behalf of corporations.
2) Self-determination.

I know answering a flamebater can only lad to trouble but here goes.

A) No, but either of the responses are the easiest and most obvious, and you know what good ol' Murphy says.

B) The same thing thats happened in the US. Hyperbole and propaganda (I can't believe I actually forgot this word and had to search wikipedia for it:o ), mostly of the religious kind, creating two extremes so polorized to each other that the moderate solution is ignored.

:)

[Tages]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070480.html

Considering the terrorists themselves have endorsed the idea, I sincerely doubt that.

"Three middle-aged men sitting in an Indian restaurant in Jordan's capital" constitute "the terrorists?"

[Paul McEnery]

I know answering a flamebater can only lad to trouble but here goes.

A) No, but either of the responses are the easiest and most obvious, and you know what good ol' Murphy says.

B) The same thing thats happened in the US. Hyperbole and propaganda (I can't believe I actually forgot this word and had to search wikipedia for it:o ), mostly of the religious kind, creating two extremes so polorized to each other that the moderate solution is ignored.

:)

Flamebaiter, is it?

Oh, the irony.

My point is that your posts led me to believe this was the way you were thinking. I'm glad you're not, but you might want to consider the impression you create.

Though I'm curious why you'd think polarized political idiocy is an innate feature of self-determination.

[TheLazy]

Flamebaiter, is it?

Oh, the irony.

My point is that your posts led me to believe this was the way you were thinking. I'm glad you're not, but you might want to consider the impression you create.

Though I'm curious why you'd think polarized political idiocy is an innate feature of self-determination.

It isn't, it just seems to be the most popular one at this moment it time. As the saying goes, "The biggest waves get the most attention"

Sorry about the flame bater thing too, I thought you were one of these left wing nuts who calls anyone who doesn't agree with them a nazi. I hate being moderate sometimes.

:)

[Charles RB]

the choice may come down to either letting more Western cities be nuked or attacked with WMDs, or wiping out the source of the attacks. And without a cultural reformation, that will be Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

I'm confused - you think dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca would stop Islamist terrorist attacks, rather than leading to more of them (bombing the foremost Muslim holy site would be a massive PR fuck up)? And how would that prevent terrorist attacks at all, when the terrorists aren't operating out of Mecca? If we're talking about hypothetical ones setting off dirty bombs on American soil, they'd be on American soil, not Saudi.

It would make as much sense if, during the Troubles, Westminster had gone "let's stop the IRA by bombing the Vatican and Dublin!".

Back to the hypothetical nuclear terrorists - where would they get the nuke from? Which of the pre-existing nuclear powers is going to sell them one? Are they going to steal one?

-

On the subject of Islam being a dangerous religion in its current state that leads to deaths, I defer to an Iangould post from last year (which I keep bookmarked for such purposes):


"The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy."

Yeah all those Muslims in the southern provinces of Thailand who "die in custody" are obviously beating themsleves to death to make their Buddhist neighbours look bad.

Same for the several hundred Muslism who died in anti-muslim riots in Burma last year.

and the muslim victims of the Gujarati riots

and the muslims killed by Christian Dayaks and Ambonese in Indonesia

and the hundred or so muslims killed in southern Nigeria in the last couple of weeks

and the thousands of muslims killed by the "Christian" Lord's Resistance Army.

I guess the muslims in Srebrenica all shot themselves to make the Christians look bad too.

Evil murdering shits are not unique to Islam, sadly, even in the 21st Century.

[AJTalon]

Knew this was a bad idea... Every time, I try to resist the urge to post in response to anti-Americanism, pro-tyranny, anti-Israel stuff, and I fail.

I'm not saying anything more because it'll just lead to a flame war and that's the last thing I want. So by all means, please keep your beliefs, as I will keep mine and try to bite my tongue.

[Paul McEnery]

Considering the contradictions within the Koran itself, it's little wonder there's so much conflict. That includes martyring yourself for Allah.

One of the problems of being raised in America, isn't it, the belief that authoritarian chapter and verse works with anyone but crazy Christians.

Ain't the way it works with Judaism or Islam. The Koran is supposed to be full of contradictions as a way of forcing people to think for themselves.

Shocking!


Considering the terrorists themselves have endorsed the idea, I sincerely doubt that.

I'm always fascinated by people who can use the phrase "the terrorists" with a straight face.


The main division between Sunnis and Shiites has to do with how the leader of Islam, the Caliph, should be chosen. Sunnis believe the Muslims themselves should choose the leader, Shiites believe it should be a direct descendant of Mohammad. Either way, it's still a religious-based government-In other words, a theocracy.

Well, you've got the difference right. But still I don't see what that's got to do with theocracy.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html

Many sources provided in the article thereof.

It doesn't help you any to cite insane bigotry.


Considering the treatment of Hindus and Bhuddists in the area between Pakistan and India, and the Islamic jihads that reached all the way to China, I 'm being generous. And this is if the current leaders continue their quest for their vision of Islam to dominate the planet.

See, I was cutting you slack before as simply being uninformed. I'm beginning to wonder.


I've actually read the Koran, and Robert Spencer's "The Truth about Muhammed". They are where I get many of my convictions about all this, alongside heavy research of the Hadiths, Arab history, and other sources.

Then again, maybe not.

I think you need to read someone with less of an axe to grind. Really. I mean, the subtitle of the book is "Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion". Now that's got to be telling the truth, doesn't it? After all, Islam's famous for its genocide against other religions. They've killed their way across the entire planet!

Oh no. Wait a minute. That was us.

Here's what Karen Armstrong's got to say about Spencer (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4a05a4a4-f134-11db-838b-000b5df10621.html). (Thanks, Jihadwatch! Very helpful.)


So, we are the cancer because we are attempting to bring freedom to a region that has never known it? You're saying you support dictatorships and theocratic regimes that oppress their people?

Dude! Read a book or something. You're aware that we install and support dictatorships all over the place, right? That we're responsible for Saddam Hussein in Iraq? For the Shah in Iran? For whatsizname in Egypt right now? Etc. etc.

Granted, we have not done so perfectly, but it is not the total disaster the media portrays it to be.

You're right. It's much, much worse.

Compared to the occupations of Japan and Germany after World War II, Iraq has been rather bloodless.

Okay. Now I know this is a put on.

You had me going, though.

[Paul McEnery]

It isn't, it just seems to be the most popular one at this moment it time. As the saying goes, "The biggest waves get the most attention"

Sorry about the flame bater thing too, I thought you were one of these left wing nuts who calls anyone who doesn't agree with them a nazi. I hate being moderate sometimes.

:)

That's okay.

I can be a bit shrill about the whole demonization of Islam thing.

[Tages]

Knew this was a bad idea... Every time, I try to resist the urge to post in response to anti-Americanism, pro-tyranny, anti-Israel stuff, and I fail.

Bullshit.

No one here has said anything anti-American, anti-Israeli or pro-tyranny. That is a blatant lie, as is most of the other stuff you've posted on this thread. Whether the lies are yours or you're repeating the lies of others is tough to say. But lies they are.

Like, for example, the smooth bait and switch you pulled with "the leaders" (of Islam?) wanting a caliphate. Which leaders? Bin Laden isn't a leader of anything but his private army, same with Zarqawi when he was alive. Care to specify who you're talking about?

Or that bit about the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. Cite your sources, because that one stinks to high heaven.

I'll say it again for emphasis: bullshit.

[Charles RB]

I'm not saying anything more because it'll just lead to a flame war and that's the last thing I want.

But now I'm really curious as to how bombing Mecca would take out terrorists.

[TheLazy]

Bullshit.

No one here has said anything anti-American, anti-Israeli or pro-tyranny. That is a blatant lie, as is most of the other stuff you've posted on this thread. Whether the lies are yours or you're repeating the lies of others is tough to say.

http://www.familyguy.com/images/search/osama.png

"Death to America!"


:)

[Tages]

But now I'm really curious as to how bombing Mecca would take out terrorists.

Or how we're the people agitating for a flame war while he's merely insulting every single Muslim on the planet.

[TheLazy]

But now I'm really curious as to how bombing Mecca would take out terrorists.

Because that's where they hatch from their egges. Have you never seen aliens? The same idea.

:)

[Paul McEnery]

Because that's where they hatch from their egges. Have you never seen aliens? The same idea.

:)

You are H.P. Lovecraft, and I claim my five pounds.

[Iangould]

You should reconize and respect billy's little gang from across the street that got together to beat you up every day on your way to school. ;)

:)

HAMAS won what was possibly the most democratic election ever held in an Arab country.

Democracy is a right - not a privilege to be bestowed or withheld on the whim of Israel or the US.

[Iangould]

it should also be said that the israel and the u.s. have been opening arming fatah since 2006 which of couse doesn't help the situation at all

Let's not forget than HAMAS was originally funded and supported by Israel to undermine Fatah.

[Iangould]

The smiles a sign

No there's nothing wrong with self-determination. I just can't understand why in the 21st century people still support isolationist attitudes. Yes The US invading Iraq has got to be the biggest fuck-up since someone decided that horses where built out of respect, but whats going to happen to the economy in the middle east if all of the western companies pull out? Thats not meant to be smart or anything its a serious question, but I suppose sarcasm is easier than discussion.

:)

So when the various countries of Africa wanted independence in the 50's and 60's was that "isolationism"?

Also, who said anyone but the most extreme minorities want an end to trade with the west?

One of the biggest drivers of radicalism in the region is the view that corrupt and incompetent governments in the gulf states have been squandering the oil money, what's the point of getting rid of those governments if you don't get to control the oil money?

[moebius]

This can be seen as either politically incorrect or a deep theological question, but:

If you were to use nuclear weapons on Mecca, how would Islamic society square that with the Hajj? I just know this question and debate exists somewhere within the Defense Department's war planning section.

[Iangould]

Before people engage in further denunciation of the subhuman Arab beasts (Hi Blair!) they might want to pause briefly to consider the following:

"...between January 2006 and April 2007, 712 Palestinians were killed and 3,711 injured by the IDF or Israeli settlers. Over the same period, 29 Israelis (IDF and civilians) were killed and 439 were injured by Palestinians."

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20933

But hey I'm sure those dirty Arabs were Asking For It.

In a shocking recent development, for the first time ever, an Israeli settler was actually tried for murdering for a Palestinian. (A TV crew filmed the attack so it could just be shrugged off like the rest of more or less daily attacks by settlers.)

The attacker was convicted of assault and got something like a six month jail sentence - because apparently the court felt that when you smash a large rock into someone's head while they're lying unconscious on the ground you aren't necessarily trying to kill them.

But hey he was only an Arab anyway.

[cactusmaac]

And I doubt anyone really wants that, but the choice may come down to either letting more Western cities be nuked or attacked with WMDs, or wiping out the source of the attacks. And without a cultural reformation, that will be Mecca, Saudi Arabia. We will be forced to wipe them out and essentially erase Islam from existence.

We do not have easy choices in this war. I would prefer the long and difficult one where we don't wipe out an entire culture and millions of mostly innocent people.

You're really overstating the effectiveness of Islamic terrorists.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=148279

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3837652&postcount=19

[Typo Lad]

Yeah, the only thing Israel needs to do right now is set up walls around the Palestanian border,

Like this one? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Gaza_Strip_barrier)

Still waiting to see how that work.

Look, Israel is about 50 percent native, ARAB Jews. So it's not just Western domination here. We support Israel because we didn't want the Holocaust to happen again, and it was their land before the Muslims got it. The Arab Jews in Israel were much happier under Israeli rule than they ever were under Muslim rule.

Do you know a lot of Mizrachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jew) Jews? Because I know a few who would disagree with that.


I think you mean Sephardic Jews. Arab Jews just doesn't make sense. If you're talking about being semitic, then yes, all Middle Easterners are semitic. Er, but so what?


No, he means Mizrachi Jews. Call a Mizrachi a Sephardi and you're likely to lose a tooth or two.

HAMAS won what was possibly the most democratic election ever held in an Arab country.

Democracy is a right - not a privilege to be bestowed or withheld on the whim of Israel or the US.

I could not possibly agree more with this.

[AJTalon]

Not going to say anything, not going to say anything, not going to say anything...

[Typo Lad]

AJ- if that's in response to me, just an FYI -

I'm an Orthodox Jew who's spent more than a little time in Israel. My family is heavily involved in both US and Israeli politics and I've spoken to people on both side of the issue.

So please, don't dismiss me out of hand.

[Michael P]

Morts, sometimes you're the only person in these threads I *don't* dismiss out of hand.

[Typo Lad]

Morts, sometimes you're the only person in these threads I *don't* dismiss out of hand.
You say the sweetest things sometimes.

[Michael P]

You say the sweetest things sometimes.

That's a damn lie, and you know it.

[Theophilus]

HAMAS won what was possibly the most democratic election ever held in an Arab country.

Democracy is a right - not a privilege to be bestowed or withheld on the whim of Israel or the US.

Well, yes and no.

This is a problem we encounter because of the clumsy language politicians use. Ideally it's true and maybe there's no way of getting around the fact that we should speak to the ideal, but there's also something to be said for the honest approach. When a situation is as volatile as the Middle East then superpowers are going to try and work the situation to their advantage, and of course Israel is going to fight for survival. (I'm not saying that Israel will always be right about what is necessary for survival.)

So maybe one day a politician will be frank and say that if area X is threatened by a populace of people who generally sympathize with leaders who want to destroy Israel and the US, we might be better off with a monarchy that negotiates on the basis of personal interest and not leaders who are solely concerned with ideology.

[Typo Lad]

Actually, generally speaking, the Palestinian people one the ground support a two-state solution, as do most Israelis.

It's the politicos screwing everthing up.

[AJTalon]

AJ- if that's in response to me, just an FYI -

I'm an Orthodox Jew who's spent more than a little time in Israel. My family is heavily involved in both US and Israeli politics and I've spoken to people on both side of the issue.

So please, don't dismiss me out of hand.

I'm just finding it difficult to believe how anyone would willingly support the people who are trying to destroy their nation and people because of the interpretation of their religion by the insane leaders of said people.

And how anyone can honestly believe a terrorist organization won an election fair and square. Hitler's Nazi party also won an election after all.

Sorry if that sounds insulting or condescending. I'm just trying to understand, honest. Please explain your viewpoint to me.

On other matters: I did not mean my statements on Islam to seem racist (which is ridiculous, seeing that 'Muslim' is not an ethnic qualifier). And I worded my statement about nuking Mecca incorrectly. I should have said that unless the Islamic world undergoes a change that stops their jihad against the West, we may have to destroy Islam itself. Wipe out their mosques and holy cities and isolate or reprogram the survivors. This is the worst case scenario.

Great, now I'm going to be hounded by the rest of the forums because of my poor writing skills and different views.

[Typo Lad]

We don"t "hound" here.

The first thing you need to do is throw away your concept of the Israel/Palestinian conflict as being religiously motivated. It's not. It's both an artifact of colonialism and based on tribalism to an extent, but it is not a Jew vs Muslim issue. There are Israeli Muslims who serve in the IDF and there are Jews who have supported Hamas and Fatah. It's about land, period. Rleigious language may be used, but it's not a factor.

As for the election, you have to be aware of the facts on the ground. For staters, The PA was seen by many Palestinians as crooks and traitors to the cause. Further, Hamas was funding the welfare services in the area to replace the funds the PA was stealing. To the average Palestinian, Hamas is going to look like a better deal.

The best way Israel, et all could have dealt with Hamas was say 'Okay, you're in charge. Great. Since you're a new administration, we have to start negotiations from scratch".

[Winslow]

Great, now I'm going to be hounded by the rest of the forums because of my poor writing skills and different views.

It's actually kind of nice to have someone new. The conversation was becoming so predictable it's almost cliche.

I'm just finding it difficult to believe how anyone would willingly support the people who are trying to destroy their nation and people because of the interpretation of their religion by the insane leaders of said people.

Israel has been persecuting and oppressing Palestinians for a long time.

Hamas is not insane, they're responding to a threat.

IAnd how anyone can honestly believe a terrorist organization won an election fair and square. Hitler's Nazi party also won an election after all.

I believe it once you understand all the humanitrian aid Hamas gives Palestinians.

On other matters: I did not mean my statements on Islam to seem racist (which is ridiculous, seeing that 'Muslim' is not an ethnic qualifier). And I worded my statement about nuking Mecca incorrectly. I should have said that unless the Islamic world undergoes a change that stops their jihad against the West, we may have to destroy Islam itself. Wipe out their mosques and holy cities and isolate or reprogram the survivors. This is the worst case scenario.

Racist is kind of a catchall description of a point of view that someone is less than human because of their race, beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation.

I suggest recanting your thought that "we may have to destroy Islam." (trying not to invoke Godwin's Law here). I oppose that thought with every moral fiber of my being. If defending freedom mean annhilating another creed, I don't want that kind of "freedom."

[Titan76]

The best way Israel, et all could have dealt with Hamas was say 'Okay, you're in charge. Great. Since you're a new administration, we have to start negotiations from scratch".
The problem with this is and correct me if I'm wrong Hamas won't recognize Israel. So how do you negotiation with someone who won't recognize you exist?

[Titan76]

On other matters: I did not mean my statements on Islam to seem racist (which is ridiculous, seeing that 'Muslim' is not an ethnic qualifier). And I worded my statement about nuking Mecca incorrectly. I should have said that unless the Islamic world undergoes a change that stops their jihad against the West, we may have to destroy Islam itself. Wipe out their mosques and holy cities and isolate or reprogram the survivors. This is the worst case scenario.
This would make us(the US)more worse then Nazi Germany.

[Typo Lad]

The problem with this is and correct me if I'm wrong Hamas won't recognize Israel. So how do you negotiation with someone who won't recognize you exist?
Actually, when Hamas first won, they made several comments about negotiating with Israel, which is a defacto regonition.

In addition, Israel did the slightly dramatic but cute revoking of passports, which made sense - "If we don't exist, then you won't be needing that passport".

[moebius]

The problem with this is and correct me if I'm wrong Hamas won't recognize Israel. So how do you negotiation with someone who won't recognize you exist?

Wasn't this originally the situation with Fatah?

I'm telling you...same shit, different day. Hamas takes over, figures out they have to negotiate with Israel to survive as a govt., gets used to the costs and benefits of power, and 20 years from now some young punks are trying to displace them.

[Theophilus]

Actually, generally speaking, the Palestinian people one the ground support a two-state solution, as do most Israelis.

I'm skeptical about the Palestinian people supporting a two state solution. It doesn't appear that they do.

It's the politicos screwing everthing up.

It's a little hard to separate politics from the people's attitude that completely. It's the nature vs. nurture debate playing itself out.

[Titan76]

Actually, when Hamas first won, they made several comments about negotiating with Israel, which is a defacto regonition.
If they made comments about negotiating with Israel then why not just say then, "Yeah, you know Israel does exist"?

Would this have piss off there voter base or something?

[Typo Lad]

I'm skeptical about the Palestinian people supporting a two state solution. It doesn't appear that they do.

Not trying to be snarky when I say this Theo, but how many Palestians have you spoken to? How many papers have you read? How many polls have you followed, etc.

Your average Palestinian wants a land. Period. They don't care if Israel is next door as long as they leave them alone.

It's a little hard to separate politics from the people's attitude that completely. It's the nature vs. nurture debate playing itself out.

I can't completly disagree that it gets worse as more and more generations are born hearing the "company line", but that's true of any peoples in any place.

If they made comments about negotiating with Israel then why not just say then, "Yeah, you know Israel does exist"?

Would this have piss off there voter base or something?

More like piss off some of those who fund them.

Just like the PLO couldn't negotiate with Israel until the USSR collapsed, Hamas won't be able to do much in regard to that until whoever is holding their purse strings goes away.

...

I did not just call for an invasian of another country. Really. I mean that in an entire non-combatative way.

[Charles RB]

And how anyone can honestly believe a terrorist organization won an election fair and square.

They got more votes than the other candidates. That's generally the definition of winning an election fair and square.

unless the Islamic world undergoes a change that stops their jihad against the West, we may have to destroy Islam itself. Wipe out their mosques and holy cities and isolate or reprogram the survivors.

As with nuking Mecca, genocide is really not going to help undermine Islamist terrorism and extremism.

Let me also remind you that a lot of mosques exist in the west, in our major cities. Do you really want to see what'd happen if the Western democracies began an open campaign of destroying mosques and brainwashing Muslim citizens? Best case scenario would be for the Queen to call for the dissolving and reforming of parliament the instant it started, because then at least my country doesn't get hit by civil war and/or ethnic cleansing.

[AJTalon]

They got more votes than the other candidates. That's generally the definition of winning an election fair and square.



The Nazi party also won an election "fair and square".



As with nuking Mecca, genocide is really not going to help undermine Islamist terrorism and extremism.


I state this as a worst-case scenario only. Because if they nuke our cities, we are going to nuke them back.

After doing further research, I believe I can submit a more convincing, overall theory regarding terrorism.

The current wave of terror can be traced to the Wahhabi movement. This article from GlobalSecurity.Org explains it far better than I:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm

To summarize, Wahhabiism was a reformation movement in Islam to return to the strictest, most literal interpretation of the Quran. Over emphasizing previously minor or ignored points. It arose in the 1700s and was in response to practices of pilgrims seeking guidance and trying to talk to dead imans, similar in concept to how the Catholic church views saints. This, as well as other movements to adapt Islam to more Western standards (because it made better business sense) led to Wahhabiism essentially stating that Islam could not be reinterpreted. Espoused by Saudi Arabia, the movement spread throughout the Muslim world and became the norm, and has remained that way for the last 200 years.

Such strict interpretations of the Quran inevitably led to economic depression, as many things in the Quran that were banned were imports from the West. And like all oppressive regimes with unhappy people, the Arab leaders needed scapegoats. The political nature of Wahhabi Islam gave the governments the voice of Allah in essence, and their power-hungry ambitions soon filtered down to the rest of the populace. Jealousy of the West by the rulers became a jihad against the West to the average Muslim.

Not all subscribed to it, obviously, and we don't have the entire population of the Middle East trying to destroy us. But propaganda works to instill a certain mindset in people, and it is this mindset which is the threat.

Therefore, I submit that the best way to end the War with the Islamic world is to restart cultural change, and phase out Wahhabism. The more liberal Islam becomes, the more prosperous and open-minded the people. Which means the terrorists become marginalized in their own society.

[Charles RB]

The Nazi party also won an election "fair and square".

I'm not sure of your point here, as undesirable people winning democratic elections are still winning democratic elections (unless they rig it, which AFAIK Hamas didn't).

Because if they nuke our cities, we are going to nuke them back.

"They" are terrorist groups, which cannot be pragmatically nuked because there's no obvious target to nuke due to how they operate. Nuking a random country in response is hardly going to damage the group - "hey, see? The Great Satan is killing civilians!" As for nuking Mecca... Saudi Arabia is currently a sort-of ally and where a lot of oil comes from. Nuking it is hardly a good idea.

Plus there was a recent conviction of seven members of a UK cell (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6755797.stm), and they were musing about dirty bombs. Now, they didn't have the means to make one or get one - but if they had, under your logic, we would've had to respond to the nuking of London by nuking London.

Such strict interpretations of the Quran inevitably led to economic depression, as many things in the Quran that were banned were imports from the West.

Aside from the fact that the Middle East does import from the West, I'm not entirely sure how not importing links into economic depression as opposed to not exporting (except they also export). Exporting is them selling to others and importing is them buying, after all.

And like all oppressive regimes with unhappy people, the Arab leaders needed scapegoats.

This is true - however, last I heard, Al-Queda and those like it wanted to get rid of the Saudi Arabian government. There have also been, among other nations, Islamist terrorist attacks on Lebanon recently and clashes with Pakistani troops a few years ago (up until 2006).

Therefore, I submit that the best way to end the War with the Islamic world is to restart cultural change, and phase out Wahhabism. The more liberal Islam becomes, the more prosperous and open-minded the people. Which means the terrorists become marginalized in their own society.

Indeed. However, you can't liberalise a region through military force - the use of military force demonstrably leads to growing radicalism and extremism, with paramilitaries gaining influence and power. Which is what's happened with Hamas.

[Typo Lad]

The best way to end the "war with the Islamic world" is to stop fighting one.

It's a silly, stupid thing to do that assumes every person in a religion thinks the same. It would be tantamount to starting a "War with Christianity" and lumping Mormons, Catholics and Protestants all into one huge homogenues group.

Hell, that's part of the root cause of this whole conflict! When the Ottoman Empire fell, England shuffled people around without paying any attention to tribal histories, including old feuds.

If you want to create a Shining Western Beacon for people to want, sure.

Just don't force it at gunpoint.

[Charles RB]

When the Ottoman Empire fell, England shuffled people around without paying any attention to tribal histories, including old feuds.

Isn't colonialism great?

[Typo Lad]

Isn't colonialism great?
Let's ask my friend Michael Whitefeather.

Great guy, Michael. He's a bartender. It's odd though, anytime someone orders a "Manhattan", he charges them twenty-four bucks.

[AJTalon]

I'm not sure of your point here, as undesirable people winning democratic elections are still winning democratic elections (unless they rig it, which AFAIK Hamas didn't).


Yes, the terrorist group supported by Iran won the election fair and square. If it did, then it means the Palestinians support their ideas. If they didn't, we're still in a quandry.


"They" are terrorist groups, which cannot be pragmatically nuked because there's no obvious target to nuke due to how they operate. Nuking a random country in response is hardly going to damage the group - "hey, see? The Great Satan is killing civilians!" As for nuking Mecca... Saudi Arabia is currently a sort-of ally and where a lot of oil comes from. Nuking it is hardly a good idea.

Saudi Arabia is the source of our problems, even though they are slowly changing they are still in the grips of Wahhabism! If we could get oil from offshore or Alaska it wouldn't be able to tug our chain!

There is a difference between terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. Maybe I should be more specific. Terrorism funded by a state is essentially warfare. Since the terrorist groups are funded by Islamic governments, charities, and organizations it can be construed that, in a worst-case scenario, we may decide that Islam itself is the funder of this war and thus is our enemy.

And the quickest way to defeat your enemy is to destroy it's heart. Wipe out Mecca and Medina, the mosques, destroy their entire culture and wipe it from history. This is what the Spaniards did in the ReConquista, when Muslims conquered much of modern-day Spain and threatened to take the rest of Europe.

Again, this is a worst-case scenario. I am not hoping for this. I am merely saying if we do not do something to change the Middle East, or it does not change at all, this may be the conclusion drawn by future leaders. If you cannot change the culture that is trying to destroy you, you destroy it first.

Let me say again: This is a POSSIBLE, WORST-CASE SCENARIO that I warn MAY HAPPEN if something is not done.


Aside from the fact that the Middle East does import from the West, I'm not entirely sure how not importing links into economic depression as opposed to not exporting (except they also export). Exporting is them selling to others and importing is them buying, after all.


I fucking hate my ADHD...

Fine, I'm wrong on this.


This is true - however, last I heard, Al-Queda and those like it wanted to get rid of the Saudi Arabian government. There have also been, among other nations, Islamist terrorist attacks on Lebanon recently and clashes with Pakistani troops a few years ago (up until 2006).

So our enemies fight amongst themselves. It only provides more credence to my argument that Islam must (and can be) changed, and that Wahhabism is the source. Al Quaeda is after Saudi Arabia's government because they've been leaning away from Wahabbism since 1990.


Indeed. However, you can't liberalise a region through military force - the use of military force demonstrably leads to growing radicalism and extremism, with paramilitaries gaining influence and power. Which is what's happened with Hamas.

Force is something the culture of the Middle East understands. Democracy has never actually blossomed there on it's own.

To be honest I would have preferred we used the Reagan Doctrine in Iraq. Support the local resistance groups and provided military supplies and intelligence to help them overthrow Saddam. Unfortunately, such groups were not strong enough to be effective, at least not for a number of years. And to be honest, I think we were trying to make up for our mistake of not liberating Iraq from Saddam the first time around.

Well, what is done is done. We can still win, it's just going to be long and difficult. But then it always was going to be.

[Winslow]

How old are you AJ?

[AJTalon]

How old are you AJ?

How old are you?

[Typo Lad]

Yes. The Regan Doctrine. Because that's never, ever come back to bite the United States on it's arse.

[Winslow]

How old are you?

45


. . . . . .

[AJTalon]

Yes. The Regan Doctrine. Because that's never, ever come back to bite the United States on it's arse.

I'm sorry, I was of the impression you were against the war in Iraq. I was trying to present an alternative that didn't leave Iraq's people under the boot of Saddam Hussein, and didn't involve our troops.

Winslow: I'm 21. Is there relevance to your question beyond the idea that age = greater experience and wisdom? It can, but it can also mean becoming set in one's ways and not accepting that anything else can be truth.

Unless I am jumping to conclusions... Again.

[Winslow]

I'm sorry, I was of the impression you were against the war in Iraq. I was trying to present an alternative that didn't leave Iraq's people under the boot of Saddam Hussein, and didn't involve our troops.

Winslow: I'm 21. Is there relevance to your question beyond the idea that age = greater experience and wisdom? It can, but it can also mean becoming set in one's ways and not accepting that anything else can be truth.

Unless I am jumping to conclusions... Again.

You tend to be very binary in your thinking (more typical of teens).

I suggest you lighten up a bit and try conversing rather than debating.

I didn't mean to insult you with an ageist subtext.

And yeah, I'm pretty set in my ways, and get offa my lawn while you're at it, dammit. ;)

[Typo Lad]

I am absolutely against the war in Iraq. I think it was a stupid move that's wasted the lives of countless soldiers. Further, I think the entire concept of starting (yes, we initiated this) a war on a second front while we were (still are) in Afghanistan was suicidal, to say the least. I think it's a quagmire and now we need to find a way to get "our boys" out without causing even more chaos.

That doesn't mean I support the Regan Doctrine either. Using Middle Eastern nations as proxies is what caused all this mess in the first place (The Cold War may have been cold for some, but in the Middle East it was hot-hot-hot!).

It was not, and still is not, the job of the United States (or any nation) to unilaterally police another nation. It is not the place of the US to fake evidence or to lie to the American public and the world at large as an excuse to go to war. It is not the job of the US goverment to enact "regiem change" either.

If the Iraqi people had invited us in, that'd be on thing. They didn't. We invited ourselves.

That's called "invading", kids.

[AJTalon]

You tend to be very binary in your thinking (more typical of teens).

I suggest you lighten up a bit and try conversing rather than debating.

I didn't mean to insult you with an ageist subtext.

And yeah, I'm pretty set in my ways, and get offa my lawn while you're at it, dammit. ;)

You didn't insult me. (sigh) To be honest, I have become accustomed to being attacked by liberal posters on other boards when I disagree with something said. That is why I kept out of this forum-I ended up harassed and attacked by overwhelming liberal-supporting majorities in previous forums so I quit.

I get carried away in debates and because of my ADHD I become overfocused on one aspect or on something that I have concluded, often erroneously, from another's statements. So I become defensive and essentially "go to war" before my brain catches up with my fingers.

I try not to make assumptions but so far on other boards I have only encountered people who hate on America, hate on the military and everything else I support and yet claim not to support our enemies. You can understand how I may have adopted a certain mindset from this experience.

My life is the definition of irony.


I am absolutely against the war in Iraq. I think it was a stupid move that's wasted the lives of countless soldiers. Further, I think the entire concept of starting (yes, we initiated this) a war on a second front while we were (still are) in Afghanistan was suicidal, to say the least. I think it's a quagmire and now we need to find a way to get "our boys" out without causing even more chaos.

That doesn't mean I support the Regan Doctrine either. Using Middle Eastern nations as proxies is what caused all this mess in the first place (The Cold War may have been cold for some, but in the Middle East it was hot-hot-hot!).

It was not, and still is not, the job of the United States (or any nation) to unilaterally police another nation. It is not the place of the US to fake evidence or to lie to the American public and the world at large as an excuse to go to war. It is not the job of the US goverment to enact "regiem change" either.

If the Iraqi people had invited us in, that'd be on thing. They didn't. We invited ourselves.

That's called "invading", kids.

We didn't fake or lie about anything. We got wrong intelligence about Weapons of Mass destruction, we went in on it. The UN supported the move and evidence, actually, and recanted later to embarrass the US.

And as time goes on, we've found the remains of Saddam's WMD programs that indicate maybe we weren't so wrong after all. I will not comment more on that however.

I would just like to point out that, if we were going to war for the hell of it without ANY evidence, we wouldn't have gone. It convinced the Democrats who voted for going to war in Iraq (who then later recanted-I'm sensing a trend here).

Me, I support changing the Middle East because if we'd left them alone nothing would change. It could be handled and managed better, but no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. On the other hand, it is certainly not as bad as Vietnam was in terms of lives lost.

[Charles RB]

Saudi Arabia is the source of our problems, even though they are slowly changing they are still in the grips of Wahhabism!

So why do the extremists and paramilitaries hate the government?

Not being reliant on it for oil sounds good, though I'd prefer to not be reliant on oil at all ('tis finite, after all).

There is a difference between terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. Maybe I should be more specific. Terrorism funded by a state is essentially warfare.

True, but first you're going to have to prove a terrorist attack was funded by a specific state. Also, terrorists being funded by fake charities and front organisations is not the same thing as state-funding, as the terrorists tend to be in charge of 'em.

in a worst-case scenario, we may decide that Islam itself is the funder of this war and thus is our enemy. And the quickest way to defeat your enemy is to destroy it's heart. Wipe out Mecca and Medina, the mosques, destroy their entire culture and wipe it from history.

Except Muslims live in our nations. They are neighbours, workers, policemen & soldiers, politicians... Again, what do you think is going to happen if you declare war on the religion of a sizeable number of your own people and attempt to brainwash them? It's not the worst-case scenario, it's "oh fuck our entire government has been replaced by Skrulls, and they're retarded Skrulls" scenario.


Force is something the culture of the Middle East understands.

The IDF has used force continuously. What happens? The extremists gained more power. This has happened repeatedly in modern history.

Democracy has never actually blossomed there on it's own.

Iran was a democracy in the early 50s.

MI6 and the CIA organised a coup. Yay us.

[AJTalon]

So why do the extremists and paramilitaries hate the government?

Not being reliant on it for oil sounds good, though I'd prefer to not be reliant on oil at all ('tis finite, after all).


I think I said why they hate the government. Though the reasons are more complex than just Wahhabism, I accept that, the government is NOT the source of the problem. The cultural change Saudi Arabia induced IS.

Duh, but that will take time.


True, but first you're going to have to prove a terrorist attack was funded by a specific state. Also, terrorists being funded by fake charities and front organisations is not the same thing as state-funding, as the terrorists tend to be in charge of 'em.

Considering that their governments allow these charities to work and fund terrorism, I would say they have some responsibility in the matter.



Except Muslims live in our nations. They are neighbours, workers, policemen & soldiers, politicians... Again, what do you think is going to happen if you declare war on the religion of a sizeable number of your own people and attempt to brainwash them? It's not the worst-case scenario, it's "oh fuck our entire government has been replaced by Skrulls, and they're retarded Skrulls" scenario.

Considering CAIR's links to terrorism I would not discount this. And hello? Worst-Case scenario!



The IDF has used force continuously. What happens? The extremists gained more power. This has happened repeatedly in modern history.

No, they just got more obsessed with "cleansing" Palestine of the "Zionist infestation".



Iran was a democracy in the early 50s.

MI6 and the CIA organised a coup. Yay us.

That is the biggest lie in history. The Shah was overthrown by Ayatollah's supporters, and the resulting government became little more than his puppet.

[Typo Lad]

I
We didn't fake or lie about anything. We got wrong intelligence about Weapons of Mass destruction, we went in on it.

Clearly, we are not living in the same country.

Of course, we knew Sadam had WMD at one point. Because we bloody sold them to them.

[B]Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East (November 1983 – May 1984), Rumsfeld was the main conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein,

There's that Regan Doctrine again, making us friends!

The UN supported the move and evidence, actually, and recanted later to embarrass the US.

Can you back this up? At all? The UN voted against sanctions.

And as time goes on, we've found the remains of Saddam's WMD programs that indicate maybe we weren't so wrong after all. I will not comment more on that however.

A shame, because I'd like to know when and where.

I would just like to point out that, if we were going to war for the hell of it

I don't think we went to war "for the hell of it". I think our President had reasons. I just don't think they're the ones the public was told about.

without ANY evidence, we wouldn't have gone. It convinced the Democrats who voted for going to war in Iraq (who then later recanted-I'm sensing a trend here).

So wait... you excuse the goverment for going in on false evidence, but those who voted based on it get derision? Huh?

That said, I would not vote for any Democratic candidate who voted to go to war in Iraq. Period.

Me, I support changing the Middle East because if we'd left them alone nothing would change.

...

This statement is so ludicrous that I almost fell out of my chair, sir. You assume Middle Eastern Nations are incapable of change without the assistance of ourside forces? Really?

I guess the fact that my ancestors were living in cities while the Anglo-Saxons were still mucking about with huts is just a fluke?

It could be handled and managed better, but no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

Especially when you go in without an exit stratagy at all.

On the other hand, it is certainly not as bad as Vietnam was in terms of lives lost.

In other news, being kicked in the anus is not as bad as a kick to the nuts.

[Winslow]

Typo, you quoted AJ, but your post indicated Theophilus.

[Typo Lad]

No, they just got more obsessed with "cleansing" Palestine of the "Zionist infestation".

Um...no.

Here's how it works.

Someone attacks you.

You attack them back.

A father of three is killed in the crossfire.

One of those three grow up to hate you.

This is exactly what's been happening, over and over, on both sides of the Israeli conflict.

Force begets force. Nothing more. Peace can only come when someone says "You know what? I'm sick of killing your children. I'm sick of you killing mine. Here's a line in the sand. I am not crossing it. Have a good life."

[Typo Lad]

Typo, you quoted AJ, but your post indicated Theophilus.

C.....razy.

[Michael P]

And hello? Worst-Case scenario!


Well, then why do you keep harping it like it's your position? Why not offer up some practical solutions that don't involve nuking people?

[Michael P]

Um...no.

Here's how it works.

Someone attacks you.

You attack them back.

A father of three is killed in the crossfire.

One of those three grow up to hate you.

This is exactly what's been happening, over and over, on both sides of the Israeli conflict.

Force begets force. Nothing more. Peace can only come when someone says "You know what? I'm sick of killing your children. I'm sick of you killing mine. Here's a line in the sand. I am not crossing it. Have a good life."

You ever read those "411" comics Marvel put out?

[Typo Lad]

You ever read those "411" comics Marvel put out?
Nah. As I recall they were by some writer I loathed.

Why?

[Theophilus]

Not trying to be snarky when I say this Theo, but how many Palestians have you spoken to? How many papers have you read? How many polls have you followed, etc.

That's certainly a valid criticism, so don't worry that I'll take it as anything less. But even persepective is a matter of perspective, and there are things you can see from a distance that you can't see up close. That's why we need each other.

Your average Palestinian wants a land. Period. They don't care if Israel is next door as long as they leave them alone.

One problem I have with your argument is that there is quite a lot of "destroy Israel" rhetoric in the region that passes for valid political commentary. I'm not saying that's all there is to the problem, mind you, but it's prevalent there. I think it would be naive to assume that there isn't more than land at stake here. It's a little like the saying, "I don't want all the land in the world...only all the land that's touching mine." The problem might be the constanlty evolving definition of "a land".

I'm sure that on the street the average person will say they just want a land..and they might mean it or they might be fooling themselves. You could say "the Palestinians just want peace" and "the Palestinians are anxious for violence" and it wouldn't necessarily be a contradiction just because any nation consists of different kinds of people with different solutions. Another example of this kind of statement might be "America is greedy" and "America is charitable"--both are actually defensible positions, depending on which part of America you focus on.

I think when the stakes are this high results are an important consideration. There might be several extenuating factors that make the region what it is but it's hard to get around the fact that peace candidates don't really seem as viable in Palestine. Israel has its problems, but you seem to believe they are proportional..and they aren't.

[Michael P]

Nah. As I recall they were by some writer I loathed.

Why?

Many writers, actually. I can't imagine you hated all of them.

It's just that, the theme of most of those stories was pretty much what you posted.

[Typo Lad]

Many writers, actually. I can't imagine you hated all of them.

If there's one thing you should know by now, it's that you should not underestimate the human capacity for hatred.

[Michael P]

If there's one thing you should know by now, it's that you should not underestimate the human capacity for hatred.

Ah, but if we did not have such capacity to hate, would we have such capacity to love?

[AJTalon]

Um...no.

Here's how it works.

Someone attacks you.

You attack them back.

A father of three is killed in the crossfire.

One of those three grow up to hate you.

This is exactly what's been happening, over and over, on both sides of the Israeli conflict.

Force begets force. Nothing more. Peace can only come when someone says "You know what? I'm sick of killing your children. I'm sick of you killing mine. Here's a line in the sand. I am not crossing it. Have a good life."

Considering that the Palestinians put their civilians in the line of fire ON PURPOSE, they have no room to be self-righteous.

Typo Lad:

This statement is so ludicrous that I almost fell out of my chair, sir. You assume Middle Eastern Nations are incapable of change without the assistance of ourside forces? Really?

I guess the fact that my ancestors were living in cities while the Anglo-Saxons were still mucking about with huts is just a fluke?


And the fact that the current Islamic doctrines forbid reinterpretation of the Quran, and that such interpretations are used for running their governments and societies REALLY promotes change?

I'd prefer we start cleaning up the cesspool the Middle East has become before it's current policies threaten to destroy the free world, thank you.

The UN resolution 1441 was Iraq's last chance to comply with disarmament. They didn't. And considering Saddam's track record I doubt he really destroyed them. The White House claimed false intelligence, but I'm willing to bet he had most of his stuff moved to Syria before we invaded.

We'll leave when the job is done. Personally I'd like to take out Iran and Syria as well, only this time we leave and let them sort their governments out with our support, but not our troops.

[Typo Lad]

Theo: You raise some point.

"Detroy Israel" is the battling cry because, well, Israel is on the land they want. One could argue that the British had no more right to relocate the Palestinians than the Romans had to relocate the Judian people.

I'm going to confess something - I was thrilled when Gaza was set aside to establish a Palestian state. I was thinking "Great. Now Israel builds that wall, says 'you have a state, see ya.' and the Palestians can focus on building an infrastructure.

Instead, we see rocket launches into Sdorot, in-fighting, the desolution of the goverment by Abbas (If I can't be President, NO ONE CAN!) and basically the geo-political equivilent of a pot of boiling water with the lid glued on.

You know what's sad? Next year is Shmitah, the Jubilee year. It's forbidden to eat fruits harvested in Israel all year. Usually, those in Gaza make a killing selling fruits and vegitables to Israelis. This year? The greenhouses are all smashed and the Rabbis of Israel have issued an advisory suggesting that if one buys Gaza fruit, one may be supporting terrorists.