A Jewish Terrorism Organization? [Archive]

Mediocrates

08-02-2002, 07:47 AM

In CNN.com today the lead article is about how the US Secy Defense, Rumsfeld has instructed the Special Operations Command to take direct initiative from Central Command in rooting out terrorist organizations and staff. Give them more autonomy. Basically let them do what they do best. This is absolutely the correct decision to make.

This is the same decision the IDF must make. Take the specialists and give them a high degree of autonomy. Give them some basic guidelines and objectives and let them out. Eliminate the bureaucratic lines of command, armchairing and second guessing. Eliminate the endless hand wringing. Point them in the right direction and let them kill people and blow things up. This is what they do this is what they're good at.

The time for doubt over how the world will (and it will anyhow) see this as a right wing death squad are over. This is a war and this is how you fight it. History and Western public opinion has already condemned Israel for anything and everything it has, does and will do anyhow, so why not carry forward?

cerulean

08-02-2002, 10:30 AM

This is the same decision the IDF must make. Take the specialists and give them a high degree of autonomy. Give them some basic guidelines and objectives and let them out. Eliminate the bureaucratic lines of command, armchairing and second guessing. Eliminate the endless hand wringing. Point them in the right direction and let them kill people and blow things up. This is what they do this is what they're good at.

But to be clear, what you are describing is not a "Jewish terrorist organization" in the least. It would be counterterrorist activity.

As for Rumsfeld's proposal, here's the CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/02/rumsfeld.memo/index.html

victot

08-02-2002, 10:42 AM

hey rafman,

i remember a long time ago, like a year ago, i heard about a jewish terrorist organization in israel calling themselves the jewish something or other for "road safety" i forgot the exact name, but i remember the road safety part of it...
they killed innocent palestinians in response to shootings of jewish settlers...
here is an articule which mentions them.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/july01/correct.html

Mediocrates

08-02-2002, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by victot
hey rafman,

i remember a long time ago, like a year ago, i heard about a jewish terrorist organization in israel calling themselves the jewish something or other for "road safety" i forgot the exact name, but i remember the road safety part of it...
they killed innocent palestinians in response to shootings of jewish settlers...
here is an articule which mentions them.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/july01/correct.html

It was a year ago. Here's a great sentence:

"But if the attack does prove to have been the work of Israeli Jews, it will signify a potentially dangerous escalation in the situation on the ground."

How pompous! Yeah you wouldn't want to ESCALATE anything would you?

Morpheus

08-02-2002, 12:16 PM

How about giving the Palestinians Merkava tanks, Apaches and F-16s and let the Jews find out that military solutions don't always work.

Moon

08-02-2002, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Morpheus
How about giving the Palestinians Merkava tanks, Apaches and F-16s and let the Jews find out that military solutions don't always work. In case the expression "the Jews" came out by itself (why would it?), don't you actually mean "the Israelis"?

minusthejihad

08-02-2002, 12:32 PM

Woops, bet he meant Israelis in hindsight though.

elke

08-02-2002, 02:36 PM

Morpheus is off his feed again. Why don't you give the Palestinian terrorists whatever military equipment it is you have, and find out what it's like to have terrorists with real guns

ComfortablyNumb

08-02-2002, 02:59 PM

From the limited knowledge that I have of internal Israeli events, I know that there is a unit being assembled of former USSR army special forces that have moved to Israel. Aparently it's quite a large unit ... anyway,they just want teh power to go into Palestinaian territory and eliminate the terrorist threat. ie Shoot now, ask questions later. The government won't allow it ... I don't understand why ... but I would definelty support them all the way!!!
Anyway... just wait till you get a nice Russian presense in teh Knesset... things are gonna get real f#@$@$#ing hot for those terrorist scum!

Faisal1

08-02-2002, 03:55 PM

The Israel Government is alredy "A Jewish Terrorism Organization"
why u asked for this desideration?

this is my opinion ...no body can seize it:)

elke

08-02-2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by FAISAL1
The Israel Government is alredy "A Jewish Terrorism Organization"
why u asked for this desideration?

this is my opinion ...no body can seize it:)

You are welcome to it, I doubt many would want it, except possibly the Iraqi government :rolleyes:

Faisal1

08-02-2002, 04:15 PM

You are welcome to it, I doubt many would want it, except possibly the Iraqi government

thank u ... don't u believe that the Israel Government is a joke of GOD ...and it's like mirage?:)

elke

08-02-2002, 04:17 PM

Do you actually have something productive to say, or are you just trolling? Just curious...

Faisal1

08-02-2002, 04:21 PM

is a truth now like what u say "trolling"
just open ur mind and read well don't be like a parrot ...sorry

elke

08-02-2002, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by FAISAL1
is a truth now like what u say "trolling"
just open ur mind and read well don't be like a parrot ...sorry

No, truth is not trolling. What you are doing is trolling, though. Do you really want to talk about your government? :rolleyes:

Faisal1

08-02-2002, 04:30 PM

No, truth is not trolling. What you are doing is trolling, though. Do you really want to talk about your government?

look my friend ...if I wanna to talk about my government .. there is no body can prevent me ...but just I wanna to reach my point to all members here ..the Israel Government will be overcomed ... sooner or later ... just be patient :)

elke

08-02-2002, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by FAISAL1

look my friend ...if I wanna to talk about my government .. there is no body can prevent me ...but just I wanna to reach my point to all members here ..the Israel Government will be overcomed ... sooner or later ... just be patient :)

This is trolling, Faisal. But just in case you are for real...

Yes, in a democracy the government is "overcome" periodically, usually at set intervals, by other leaders that more closely reflect what the majority of the people in the country wish to see their government like. For example, after the beginning of this Intifadah, many Israelis saw that at this time, peace is not possible. They decided that the lives of their children are precious and need to be protected. Therefore, they elected Ariel Sharon to be the Prime Minister, who they believed would do a better job at it than Ehud Barak.

One day, maybe you can also elect your government representatives. Hopefully, that day will come soon.

ibrodsky

08-02-2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by FAISAL1

look my friend ...if I wanna to talk about my government .. there is no body can prevent me ...but just I wanna to reach my point to all members here ..the Israel Government will be overcomed ... sooner or later ... just be patient :)

Yes, we know Israel's enemies lie when they say they want a just settlement. We know they are lying when they pretend they want peace. They just want to kill and destroy.

We can be patient. Our nukes will be around for a very long time.

Faisal1

08-02-2002, 05:05 PM

This is trolling, Faisal. But just in case you are for real...

Yes, in a democracy the government is "overcome" periodically, usually at set intervals, by other leaders that more closely reflect what the majority of the people in the country wish to see their government like. For example, after the beginning of this Intifadah, many Israelis saw that at this time, peace is not possible. They decided that the lives of their children are precious and need to be protected. Therefore, they elected Ariel Sharon to be the Prime Minister, who they believed would do a better job at it than Ehud Barak.

One day, maybe you can also elect your government representatives. Hopefully, that day will come soon.
thank u elke
first did u asked ur self why Israelies ppl not in the safe side?
did u asked ur self why they are in perdition status?
because of killing innocents childrens in Palestine
as amuslim or as christian I don't accept this thing ... they always talking and drawling about peace but actually they don't know what is this word mean...I'm A Muslim and I don't want any body to hurt me or to hurt my nation ... we don't believe with terrorisim .. but we believe that we can figt for our dignity ..Alquds is our place no body can deny this fact and all the worlds know well that Israelies haven't a land and they just trying to make abig Name or abig place for them
maybe u will disagree for my point but this is what I believe and this is what all the world are believe ...... this is the history no body can wrap it .

Faisal1

08-02-2002, 05:10 PM

Yes, we know Israel's enemies lie when they say they want a just settlement. We know they are lying when they pretend they want peace. They just want to kill and destroy.

don't worry :).. we will be waiting 4 ur nukes just to see what will do ....u always dreaming ... but the truth is the truth

ComfortablyNumb

08-02-2002, 05:12 PM

Faisal1

08-02-2002, 05:24 PM

You "don't beleive with terrorism"??? Ummm ... of course... how silly of the rest of the sane world to think that you are in any way possible linked to terrorism. The Hebrew Uni bombing must have been done by little green men from Mars right?

Oh and one more thing: you are suggesting that by blowing up univesity cafes, resturants, nightclubs, pool halls, etc etc is "Fighting for your DIGNITY"?

yah this is fighting for a dignity ..do u object?
so what about killing the innocents childrens in Palestine ... what about killing civilians ? all these are not a crime? ,,,,,, the problem started from u .... and we have to defend our selves... don't think that u can do every thing ... there is a red line and u have to worry about it

elke

08-02-2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by FAISAL1

thank u elke
first did u asked ur self why Israelies ppl not in the save side?
did u asked ur self why they are in perdition status?
because of killing innocents childrens in Palestine
as amuslim or as christian I don't accept this thing ... they always talking and drawling about peace but actually they don't know what is this word mean...I'm A Muslim and I don't want any body to hurt me or to hurt my nation ... we don't believe with terrorisim .. but we believe that we can figt for our dignity ..Alquds is our place no body can deny this fact and all the worlds know well that Israelies haven't a land and they just trying to make abig Name or abig place for them
maybe u will disagree for my point but this is what I believe and this is what all the world are believe ...... this is the history no body can wrap it .

"Al Quds" is not "Al Quds". It's called Jerusalem everywhere, except for the Muslim world. So - no, "the whole world" is not in your corner on that one.

Your collective dignity is the casualty of your benighted governments, not Israel. Have they accepted the Partition in 1947 and avoided getting whooped 3 times since then, your dignity would still be fully intact.

The Israelis do have a land. It's called Israel. Just because you want it, doesn't make it yours. Majority of the world, including the Europeans, Egypt, Jordan, and Mauretania, believe that Israel has a right to exist. Even your own government has made noises about a "peace proposal", which technically means that they recognize Israel's right to exist. Therefore, yet again, majority of the world is not with you.

As far as history is concerned... well, you and yours are in disagreement with the rest of the world, not us. Other than electronicintifada and its clones, the serious historical information pretty much favors the Israeli version of events, and Jewish presence in Israel for approximately 3500 years continuously.

Faisal, I am one of those Jews, and much of my family is in Israel. So no, you won't get much sympathy from me for your brainwashed views. We are not "on the safe side" because 2000 years ago, your spiritual brothers the Romans, have been able to get most of us out of our country. However, we are back, and we are back to stay , make no mistake about it!

Teacake

08-02-2002, 07:33 PM

I certainly hope that Israeli scientests are studying the brains of these people. Something is very very wrong. The last time entire societied had this blood lust and animalistic serial killing obssession were the Germans.

L@mplighterM

08-03-2002, 07:57 AM

elke

08-03-2002, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by L@mplighterM

What's with the 'overcomed' are you a Martin Luther King reincarnate?

You wish! ;) Comparing this twit with MLK Jr. is like comparing the power of an alkaline battery with the nuclear reactor. ;)

IMO, Martin Luther King, Jr. is exactly what the Arab world needs.

Vic

08-04-2002, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by elke
You wish! ;) Comparing this twit with MLK Jr. is like comparing the power of an alkaline battery with the nuclear reactor. ;)

IMO, Martin Luther King, Jr. is exactly what the Arab world needs. No, he is exactly what Jews need!

The only problem: wont't happen. :mad:

We will always keep running after every last nitwit trying to convince him/her that we are right rather than dig deeper and come up with a decent strategy. Sometimes I want to convert to some nice practical-minded religion...

elke

08-04-2002, 04:22 AM

Face it, everyone needs an MLK, Jr. The more I learn about him, the more admiration I have for that man! No, not a Saint - but something better: a truly Good Man.

Vic

08-04-2002, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by elke
Face it, everyone needs an MLK, Jr. The more I learn about him, the more admiration I have for that man! No, not a Saint - but something better: a truly Good Man. What I admire most about him is is sense of reality, his profound understandment of the other side. The capability to face evil - intellectually, emotionally -, without being influenced, disfigured by it. (It was not only MLK who was capable of it, it seems a main characteristic of the Civil Rights movement before it became lost in ethnic sqabbling.) Frankly, I am envious, this is just the kind of person we need so badly, before it gets too late.

Mohoc

08-04-2002, 09:31 PM

Mohoc

08-04-2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Vic
What I admire most about him is is sense of reality, his profound understandment of the other side. The capability to face evil - intellectually, emotionally -, without being influenced, disfigured by it. (It was not only MLK who was capable of it, it seems a main characteristic of the Civil Rights movement before it became lost in ethnic sqabbling.) Frankly, I am envious, this is just the kind of person we need so badly, before it gets too late.

I agree with you on that.

Vic

08-04-2002, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Mohoc
I thought that is what the IDF already does in the occupied territories. Well...they use torture, bulldozers and F-16's instead of suicide bombers The appropriate answer is quoted here: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=16042#post16042

Northlander

08-04-2002, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Rafman
You know, i don't support terrorism at all in any way, but I'm just thinking how would the world react if a Jewish form of Hamas came to be, killing unmercifully as many palestinians as possible?

As terrible as saying this may sound, i think a Jewish terrorist organization might just work to show the Palestinians and the rest of the world that terrorism doesn't help in anyway.

Rather then refraining from attacking terrorists so as to minimize civilian casualties amongst which arab terrorists always hide like the IDF always does, a group that would kill unmercifully would just show the Palestinians how bad terrorism can be, and maybe then theyll finally decide that its time to fight it and end it

Are you not aware of Israeli history?? Deathsquads and letterbombs are terrorism. White phofor and bombs with delayed explosions are also terrorism but in a nicer package.

The most important thing to understand today in world politics are that in western europe and n.america, terror in the form of airstrikes are considered cleaner and more acceptable than a bomb in a briefcase. Thats a separate discussion but one should understand that.
the result is often the same or even worse but just the fact that its done from air makes a difference. That the man doing it is well educated by a democratic state and in uniform also helps. Its clean and its ok in most westerners mind.

Israel has used terrorism since the creation of the state and even before. It does not need MORE terrorism.

And before you start. I am fully aware of arab terrorism. Its awful but it does NOT mean Israeli terrorism is justified.

Gilgamesh

08-05-2002, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
The most important thing to understand today in world politics are that in western europe and n.america, terror in the form of airstrikes are considered cleaner and more acceptable than a bomb in a briefcase. Thats a separate discussion but one should understand that.

Israel has used terrorism since the creation of the state and even before. It does not need MORE terrorism.

And before you start. I am fully aware of arab terrorism. Its awful but it does NOT mean Israeli terrorism is justified.

According to your this last post of your, you rather Israelis not to defend themselves, in any way other the condemnation of terror attacks. Israel must avoid "terrorism" even if it kills us.

That's makes me laugh. 1. Condemnations will not stop terrorists or advancing arab armies or stop employment of Natzi scientists to kill more Jews. (i mean the misslie development program of the eygiptions). 2. It easy for you to automaticly condem each and every Israeli / American self defense intiative, what do you care? You are not involved in this war, what price to you have to pay by not fighting?

"Make love not war" ... I wish it was so simple, it isn't! there for, we, the Americans, the Indians, the philipeans, the Russians, we fight our wars against Islamist terrorism. It a pity that you choose to defend the Islamists by critising any kind of military action.

Your aproch northlander is either pro-terror or simply unrealistic.

rhodescholar

08-06-2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Northlander

Are you not aware of Israeli history?? Deathsquads and letterbombs are terrorism. White phofor and bombs with delayed explosions are also terrorism but in a nicer package.

Please tell me where and when jews targeted women and children.

The most important thing to understand today in world politics are that in western europe and n.america, terror in the form of airstrikes are considered cleaner and more acceptable than a bomb in a briefcase. Thats a separate discussion but one should understand that.
the result is often the same or even worse but just the fact that its done from air makes a difference. That the man doing it is well educated by a democratic state and in uniform also helps. Its clean and its ok in most westerners mind.

So why does the "world" spend so much time criticising israel, the "educated man" in your absurd example, rather than the arab, who commits the terrorism?

And before you start. I am fully aware of arab terrorism. Its awful but it does NOT mean Israeli terrorism is justified.

Gosh do i love sophistry like this. Like every peacenik, instaed of taking the easy way out and criticising, offer some intelligent suggestions for israel to implement that would end the terrorism and lead to peace with its arab neighbors.

I can imagine your first is to pull out of Judea and Samaria. Except they tried that in lebanon only 2 years ago - maybe even you remember that - and there is STILL terrorism and attacks from the lebanese border.

And what if the israelis pull back, and 6 months later there is still terrorism? What about 5 years later? How about 10 years later?

At what point would a person like yourself start to wonder that maybe the arabs arent serious about obtaining peace, but have other objectives. I frankly am not willing to wait that long, as the arabs decades ago left plenty of clues for those with open eyes and no agenda like yourself - or oil-hungry europe for that matter, to see.

Northlander

08-06-2002, 11:03 PM

I can imagine your first is to pull out of Judea and Samaria. Except they tried that in lebanon only 2 years ago - maybe even you remember that - and there is STILL terrorism and attacks from the lebanese border. Yes, pull out. Without a withdrawl there can never be peace.
Obviously. There are less terrorism from the Lebanese border now than before so clearly it helped. But it doesnt really matter.
Israel should withdraw regardless.

Why is it that people like you think THIS occupation are justified just because this occupied people use terror? Americans objected to Iraqs occupation of Kuweit. Withdraw and THEN expect peace.

And what if the israelis pull back, and 6 months later there is still terrorism? What about 5 years later? How about 10 years later?

What if the occupation continues and 6 months later there is still terrorism. 5 years later? 10 year?

Isnt it obvious that the occupation is not working if you see it as a security issue?

Oil-hungry europe?? Are you aware of the fact that USA uses a third of the worlds oil by themselves?
Europe has larger population no matter how you count but we are using less oil so I think its fair to say USAs foreign politics are more about securing the oil than others.

Do you hoestly belive USA will attack Iraq because Saddam is developing "weapons of mass destruction"? Israel should have been flattened long ago in that case and europe and USA is still doing it. Or because Saddam is terrorising his own population? Do you honestly belive the oil is not the main factor?

I claim that the war in afghanistan was largely because of the oil as well. Europe is hungry I agree, but USA is even worse.

victot

08-07-2002, 01:53 AM

northlander, here is an article about israel's pullout from lebanon, written back in april. http://www.yvelia.com/middle_east/articles/english/danger_Lebanon_Washington_Post_10.4.2002.htm

it's easy to read and interesting, and talks about "occupation" and what not. i believe i remeber seeing you've write several times that you think the pullout from lebanon was obviously the right thing to do, the article sorta disputes that.

also, you shouldn't compare the western world's development of weapons of mass destruction, with iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction... iraq is a dictatorship, and that dictator is particularly crazy and evil.

i saw rudolph giuliani speak in montreal the other day, he said the key thing america should be doing is promoting democracies around the world. he said democractic countries very rarely go to war anymore. They often have heated debates, but they don't kill eachother's civilians anymore.

i agree with this, i think it goes to show that when a country goes through the processe of electing a leader, and then he goes through the process of deciding whether or not to bomb a country, if it is decided that a country should be bombed, it shouldn't be compared to a terrorist, and a culture of terrorists, who are the judge, jury and executioner, for the cause he and they are for. that is terrorism, the former is not.
i think for the most part, the western world has shown that it is wise enough to decide when it is the right time to go to war, and when not to.

Northlander

08-07-2002, 03:02 AM

i saw rudolph giuliani speak in montreal the other day, he said the key thing america should be doing is promoting democracies around the world. he said democractic countries very rarely go to war anymore. They often have heated debates, but they don't kill eachother's civilians anymore.

Not eachothers I agree. Democracy is always the best way for a country to go, I would never oppose that. Other than the fact that West doesnt want a world where all countries are free and democratic. It would tie our hands so to speak. It would be no justified cause of interventions left.

i think for the most part, the western world has shown that it is wise enough to decide when it is the right time to go to war, and when not to.

That I dont agree to at all. There is no such thing as a good cause when you talk about war and a democracy. There is always a reason and its always money in the end. If it costs more than it gives it will not happen. The only difference is that if it costs the public to much in a democracy the government can and probably will fall. Apart from that, its no difference.

The next 20 years it will only be about oil and a few other resources. That is the reason that all other reasons come from.
Rethorics are one thing real reason is another. Without the oil our lifestyle ends, thats is the real and very much eminent threat.
NOT terrorist attacks. In the mind of the western population terrorism is more dangerous but I dont think the men in power are all that worried.

Iraqs regime will fall but not because of the oppression of the kurds or the weapons of mass destruction. Europe will help because we need the oil and the postion in ME as well. After that the saudi hold on us will be less as well, probably as important.

michael

08-07-2002, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Moon
A Jewish Terrorism Organization?

:.

Get info on those three words: Jewish, terrorism and organization
I think you'll find it quite impossible to gather these three identities in one.

Try Google and you'll get 8 matches to that combination.

Try these 3 words- Irgun Zvai Leumi, and you'll get over 1,000.

Or you could try Stern Gang.

The utility of interpretations help explain the convenient memory lapses of Moon. By definition the US and its allies are exempt from such accusations by definition -terrorism ius only carried out by officail enemies such as the Palestinians. A rational analysis would concede that terrorism warrants serious concern and condemnation, that it should be investigated and punished, no matter who the criminals may be.

However this in unacceptable as the results are quite unpalatable - eg US car bombing in Beirut (1985), or Sudan in 1998.

michael

08-07-2002, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by victot

also, you shouldn't compare the western world's development of weapons of mass destruction, with iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction... iraq is a dictatorship, and that dictator is particularly crazy and evil.

.

Investigations by the US Congress and British Government found that supplies to Iraq of missile technology, nuclear technology and biological weapons came from those same countries with official government approval. Why did Britain and the US support him and supply such wepaons. Perhaps before 1990 he was a nice guy - though the Kurds, against whom he used chemical weapons in 1988, may disagree.

And why not compare? Western democracies were quite willing to have dealings with this "dictator" and had little concern for his atrocities while they were directed towards unworthy victims.

Northlander

08-07-2002, 03:56 AM

the western policies now are not much different from earlier.
I think many of us will ask ourself 10 years from now how the hell USA and allies could support s.arabia the way they do now.

That could change and then a new generation of americans would grow up seeing the saudis as the main enemy. Then we might have a friendly iraqi puppet regime. Or a overthrown former friendly puppet regime and a new Iraqi dictator. Things never change. ME can never change because there are different rules all the time and it is west that decides whats going on.

As I have said before I can easily see a scenario where Israel threatens the US balance in ME and then USA will have no problem taking care of bussines.

So I dont think Israelis should be too supportive and too sure about US politics but rather realistic. There are no such thing as
"a special bond" that I saw a whitehouse representative speak of a few weeks ago.

How many in this forum belive that the total removal of dictatorships and militant islam in the muslim world is a goal for the leaders in West?
I dont. Why would it be a goal?

Mediocrates

08-07-2002, 03:57 AM

Europe has larger population no matter how you count but we are using less oil so I think its fair to say USAs foreign politics are more about securing the oil than others.

One reason is that in countries like France about 65%+ of electricity is produced by nuclear. AFAIK you are still shipping the waste to eastern Europe and the third world. How nice for you.

Do you hoestly belive USA will attack Iraq because Saddam is developing "weapons of mass destruction"? Israel should have been flattened long ago in that case and europe and USA is still doing it.

Yes. Israels nuclear program is I guess what you allude to. Even though it is nearly black but becoming less opaque over time they are in fact within the wording of NNPT (non proliferation) because the weapons are not 'active' they are a 'screw's turn away' and are not deployed. According to a report of FAS (Federation of American Scientists) there have been three times IDF has gone on nuclear alert. 1967, 1973 and for 43 days in 1990-1 Desert Storm.

I don't know what the rest of your sentence is about.

I claim that the war in afghanistan was largely because of the oil as well.

To each their paranoid conspiracy theories I suppose.

Mediocrates

08-07-2002, 04:01 AM

There is no such thing as a good cause when you talk about war and a democracy.

But seemingly wars of 'liberation' are noble, to you.

There is always a reason and its always money in the end.
I thought it was 'occupation' and 'land'.

The next 20 years it will only be about oil and a few other resources.

Like Water, Food, AIDS drugs -

And of course 'LAND' and 'OCCUPATION', yadda yadda.

Mediocrates

08-07-2002, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by michael
And why not compare? Western democracies were quite willing to have dealings with this "dictator" and had little concern for his atrocities while they were directed towards unworthy victims.

What point are you trying to make? Everyone is evil? There are agendas? Anything that goes BOOM is terrorism? If so that's pretty naive.

Northlander

08-07-2002, 04:06 AM

I wrote:
I claim that the war in afghanistan was largely because of the oil as well.

Mediocrates wrote:
To each their paranoid conspiracy theories I suppose.

Im not that much into conspiracy theories. The results in reality often exceeds them anyway.
You have given proof before mediocrates of an understanding in what runs ALL nations politics. Its all about whats in their interest.
I think 9-11 had alot to do with the war in afghanistan but its impossible to not see the situation in the former soviet republics in central asia and see the US build up there. Look into it and you will see that USA is increasing both military and economical influence there. Afghanistan is strategically placed. The oil production and also other resources will explode in these areas and USA are already there military.

Its no conspiracy on mine but rather a result of the billions and billions of hard cash that will roll in to US. No muslim separatist can be let to jeopardize all that so its a question of military involvement for the future.

Northlander

08-07-2002, 04:15 AM

so mediocrates if you oppose all our reasons for democratic countries waging war, like money, land and even water as you said, what IS the reason?

fight for democracy in itself? Justice? To fight terrorism? Freedom?
To stop communism? Peace???

Are the western influence all over the world, including the wars, an attempt from us to help them?

Do you always belive the official reasons?

Mediocrates

08-07-2002, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
I think 9-11 had alot to do with the war in afghanistan but its impossible to not see the situation in the former soviet republics in central asia and see the US build up there. Look into it and you will see that USA is increasing both military and economical influence there. Afghanistan is strategically placed. The oil production and also other resources will explode in these areas and USA are already there military.

Actually the usual claim is a Unocal pipeline. Afghanistan has little oil but great location. Perhaps it's a side benefit like building up factories in Europe under the Marshall Plan. Maybe that's the cost of freedom. By the way we're spending about a billion dollars a month there now so the payback is going to be fairly long term.

Its no conspiracy on mine but rather a result of the billions and billions of hard cash that will roll in to US. No muslim separatist can be let to jeopardize all that so its a question of military involvement for the future.

No muslim seperatist would be allowed to blow up a high tech call center in Dublin or Delhi either.

Why do you think we arm the al Aziz Saudi Kingdom? Because we dig their headgear? Nah, it's about our vital national and economic interests. If we had a national strategic obejctive to reduce our reliance on Saudi and/or OPEC oil by 10%/yr for 10 years those advanced F-16's we sold them would get pretty damn rusty pretty quick.

Mediocrates

08-07-2002, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Northlander
so mediocrates if you oppose all our reasons for democratic countries waging war, like money, land and even water as you said, what IS the reason?

fight for democracy in itself? Justice? To fight terrorism? Freedom?
To stop communism? Peace???

Are the western influence all over the world, including the wars, an attempt from us to help them?

Do you always belive the official reasons?

There are no official reasons. You're the folks saying all violence is a war crime except the violence you espouse to resist the zionist devil....

Wars are fought for any number of reasons. But it's become very vogue to sweep your headgear to the winds and march ever oneward to fight the colonialist Satan. OK. But the next brush wars will be fought over water, food, minerals, medical care and a whole host of non ethnic non nationalistic reasons.

Once all the IslamoRads are done killing one another and 50% of the population of Africa is dead from AIDS or famine then whoever is left will slaughter each other over wheat or water or soda bottling factories or god knows what. You want nobility? Sorry but we're all out.

In fact there is nothing under the sun that leads me to believe that when the Palestinians finally gain their independence they won't simply continue killing for economic 'liberation'.

Northlander

08-07-2002, 05:54 AM

In fact there is nothing under the sun that leads me to believe that when the Palestinians finally gain their independence they won't simply continue killing for economic 'liberation'.

Same can of course be said about the Israelis in that case. When they finally gets the WHOLE Israel they will come after the next arab population.

You want nobility? Sorry but we're all out.

Yes I would like to have it but I think there are none. Not with the democratic countries either. I said that. But in some occations people are not fighting to gain more power or richness but rather have SOME power and SOME richness.

There are examples of wars over freedom and liberty as well. Just not so often these days. There are not many colonial powers left.
But I guess the palestinians can have a different opinion there.

Mediocrates

08-07-2002, 06:44 AM

Same can of course be said about the Israelis in that case. When they finally gets the WHOLE Israel they will come after the next arab population

I don't whether I should be insulted or proud. Yeah big bad Israel going on a Jewhad to occupy Jordan.

Onward to Bagdad !!!! Next year in Teheran !!!

Moon

08-07-2002, 08:40 AM

Dear michael,
Try Google and you'll get 8 matches to that combination.Wow, thanks a lot! I never really thought about searching it on Google. It's nice, it only makes my point stronger I am deeply apreciated.Try these 3 words- Irgun Zvai Leumi, and you'll get over 1,000.Try these two words - free sex, and you'll get uncountable matches.The utility of interpretations help explain the convenient memory lapses of Moon.Oh, isn't that sweet? Where did you learn do be so nice? :) But let me add something to that sentence okay? Let's say all together... "The utility of interpretations help explain the convenient memory lapses of Moon or his natural lack of knowledge." It's not so nice but this way we have more to sing! :)By definition the US and its allies are exempt from such accusations by definition -terrorism ius only carried out by officail enemies such as the Palestinians. A rational analysis would concede that terrorism warrants serious concern and condemnation, that it should be investigated and punished, no matter who the criminals may be.

However this in unacceptable as the results are quite unpalatable - eg US car bombing in Beirut (1985), or Sudan in 1998.I would like to comment this, but I was just looking at clock and I have a convinient lack of time. Sorry... But it was nice to read it, I really like it!

By the way, welcome to my Ignore List! You have cookies and tea if you like and some anti-semites are there too. They are sooo smart and cute! Have a nice stay... :)

Vic

08-07-2002, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Why do you think we arm the al Aziz Saudi Kingdom? Because we dig their headgear? Nah, it's about our vital national and economic interests. If we had a national strategic obejctive to reduce our reliance on Saudi and/or OPEC oil by 10%/yr for 10 years those advanced F-16's we sold them would get pretty damn rusty pretty quick. The world would be a safer place if this were your national strategic objective...

I wonder why it isn't.

victot

08-07-2002, 11:54 AM

Northlander:

Same can of course be said about the Israelis in that case. When they finally gets the WHOLE Israel they will come after the next arab population

Mediocrates:

I don't whether I should be insulted or proud. Yeah big bad Israel going on a Jewhad to occupy Jordan.

Onward to Bagdad !!!! Next year in Teheran !!!

:D heheh

Haifa

08-07-2002, 12:59 PM

Yes. Israels nuclear program is I guess what you allude to. Even though it is nearly black but becoming less opaque over time they are in fact within the wording of NNPT (non proliferation) because the weapons are not 'active' they are a 'screw's turn away' and are not deployed. According to a report of FAS (Federation of American Scientists) there have been three times IDF has gone on nuclear alert. 1967, 1973 and for 43 days in 1990-1 Desert Storm.

israel had nukes in 67?

Mediocrates

08-07-2002, 04:49 PM

Yes I'll check the reference tomorrow. From a report published by the Federation of American Scientists in 1999. By 67 during the 6 Day War the Israelis had at least 2 and possibly 6 weapons activated, fused and deployed and up to 30+ weapons in a state of near completed assembly. This is what they call a 'screw's turn away' from deployment. They even admitted they shot down one of their own fighters in the 6 Day war when it overflew restricted airspace over the Dimona reactor.

They may have tested a crude device as early as 61. And it is generally accepted that they worked with the French on the design of Mirage fighter bombers through 1962 specifically to incorporate nuclear weapons delivery.

According to declassified sources, the Israelis may be the world leader in micro nuke technology weapons that utilize only 4 Kg of plutonium. They are also thought to have developed SBLM, aircraft, missile and artillery delivery systems as well as operational neutron (fast fission fusion) weapons. Based on how fast they were able to develop their weapons programs the Israelis probably invented groundbreaking basic technology that no one else has including superefficient high yield plutonium seperation technology. They probably have 300 warheads now.

1234

08-07-2002, 06:10 PM

elke

08-07-2002, 06:16 PM

Good, judging by your name, I guess you can count to four. Now, if you could also learn to read too...that would be real progress!

This **** is not even worth a rebuttal.

michael

08-07-2002, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Moon
By the way, welcome to my Ignore List!

And quite rightly. Our most beloved prejudices must be defended from the the unwanted intrusion of facts.

1234

08-07-2002, 06:22 PM

michael

08-07-2002, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates

What point are you trying to make? Everyone is evil? There are agendas? Anything that goes BOOM is terrorism? If so that's pretty naive.

I'll include an excerpt from as previous post of mine, in response to newsguy, which makes reasonably clear my meaning.
So what does all this mean for “us”. For one we need to careful in our shrill denunciation of the terrorism of others as the West is a major player in that game. As citizens of stable democracies we have a much greater moral responsibility to stop or mitigate these crimes because we have a far greater ability to influence our governments, than do the citizens of some of the oppressive regimes you mentioned. Until we do this, criticism of “terrorism” will have a very hollow ring. Adherence to international law, respect for human rights and regard for the human consequences of our actions will go some way to getting there.

I see you like Jonathon Swift. What about John Stuart Mill? This quote relates directly to your question.

"Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides"

1234

08-07-2002, 06:31 PM

If you are not capable of having a civilized discussion, for whatever reason, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from personal attacks and foul language.

michael

08-07-2002, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by elke
Good, judging by your name, I guess you can count to four. Now, if you could also learn to read too...that would be real progress!

This **** is not even worth a rebuttal.

1234 does have apoint about US involvement in terrorism, about the WTC stuff I don't know.

As for not worth rebuttal - it simply isn't possible. 1234 is wrong about 1 thing, ie the lack of reporting by media. I'll repost (again) a reply to newsguy that offers some verifiable evidence.

There are no shortage of examples, but I’ll give you just a few for the sake of brevity.

Indonesia – a client state of the US thanks to the good work by Suharto in 1965. As always the issue of numbers of casualties is a problematic one, though I’m sure this is as reliable as your figures. According to some, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people died in the ”anti-communist” purge. It sounds unbelievable, but here is a source that may have some measure of reliability, which described it thus: “In terms of the numbers killed the massacres rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century”; (CIA, Directorate of Intelligence – Intelligence Report: Indonesia, 1965). Unfortunately there is more. On US complicity , Marshall Green - US Ambassador, assured General Suharto that “The US is generally sympathetic with and admiring of what the army is doing” (US National Archives, RG 59 Records of Department of State: cable no. 868., Oct.5, 1965.) Did the US really know what was going on?: Howard Federspiel, State Dept’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research “No one cared, as long as they were communists, that they were being butchered. No one was getting very worked up about it”. (reported in San Francisco Examiner, May 20, 1990)
Events in East Timor from 1974 till 1999 are also instructive in determining the Wests humanitarian concerns and abhorrence of terrorism. In this time around 200,000 people, one-third of the population, were killed or died as a result of Indonesian occupation (Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade – “Australia’s Relations with Indonesia”, Australian Government Printing Service, 1993, pg 96.). Who were the main supplies of military equipment – Britain and the US.
These massacres probably take on a most significant moral criterion – that is, they could have been stopped. The events of 1999 show how much influence the US government had over Indonesia. When finally the US told the Indonesian military that enough was enough, they left.

Turkey - Turkeys war in northern Cyprus to remove all traces of Greek culture is an inconvenience best forgotten so that George Bush Snr. can praise Turkey as “a protector of peace” and a country that will “stand up for civilised values around the world” (Reuters, Sept. 26, 1990). The repression of the Turkish Kurds is also interesting given the concern for Kurds in Iraq.

Iraq- In the current paroxysms of fear over the threat of Suddam Hussein its quite convenient to forget that he was a favoured US ally until 1991. A US Congressman (Chairman of the House Banking Committee) noted in relation to a particular item of US trade with Iraq: “There is no question but those $3billion dollars are actually financing the invasion of Kuwait” and “There is no question that the greater portion of that was dealing with armaments” (reported in the Boston Globe, August 5,1990). The US was one of the main arms suppliers to Iraq during its war with Iran, and remained a strong supporter even through such atrocities as the use of chemical weapons against Kurds at Halabja in 1988.
Subsequent inquiries in the US and Britian found that both were involved in the supply of nuclear and missile technology as well as biological agents such as botulism to Iraq. And of course who can forget Madeline Allbrights contribution to humanity when asked about the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children because of sanctions “…we think the price is worth it.”.

And then there is Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua (remember the 1988 World Court ruling?) Or for another example of the Wests over-riding concern for democracy, think back just a few months to a military coup in Venezuela. The coup leader was instantly recognised by the US after having ousted a democratically elected government. Rather embarrassingly the coup fell apart after 4 days and the US had to retreat from its support for the military junta. But not to be deterred the Assistant Secretary of State (I think) said words to the effect of “Let that be a lesson to you”. The reason for the lesson – Venezuela was considering rejoining OPEC, threatening one of the major non-OPEC sources of oil.

So what does all this mean for “us”. For one we need to careful in our shrill denunciation of the terrorism of others as the West is a major player in that game. As citizens of stable democracies we have a much greater moral responsibility to stop or mitigate these crimes because we have a far greater ability to influence our governments, than do the citizens of some of the oppressive regimes you mentioned. Until we do this, criticism of “terrorism” will have a very hollow ring. Adherence to international law, respect for human rights and regard for the human consequences of our actions will go some way to getting there.

elke

08-07-2002, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by michael

I'll include an excerpt from as previous post of mine, in response to newsguy, which makes reasonably clear my meaning.
So what does all this mean for “us”. For one we need to careful in our shrill denunciation of the terrorism of others as the West is a major player in that game. As citizens of stable democracies we have a much greater moral responsibility to stop or mitigate these crimes because we have a far greater ability to influence our governments, than do the citizens of some of the oppressive regimes you mentioned. Until we do this, criticism of “terrorism” will have a very hollow ring. Adherence to international law, respect for human rights and regard for the human consequences of our actions will go some way to getting there.

I see you like Jonathon Swift. What about John Stuart Mill? This quote relates directly to your question.

"Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides"

OK, I'll buy your point, except for one thing: when your house is on fire, you don't worry about the water damage. I agree that adherence to humanitarian laws and respect for human rights, as well as the regard for human consequences of our actions, are essential. However, what do you do in the meantime to control the beast? Do you just give up and let them do whatever they want?

Good quote by Mills, by the way :cool:

1234

08-07-2002, 06:35 PM

"Keep the Arabs full and the Iranians hungry."

Churchill

elke

08-07-2002, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by 1234
If you are not capable of having a civilized discussion, for whatever reason, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from personal attacks and foul language.

"Civilized" does not imply outright lies and disinformation. It implies respect for facts.

elke

08-07-2002, 06:45 PM

But Michael, politics is politics. It's true that various democratic countries have been involved in unsavory practices and haven't done enough to aid fledgeling democracies, but does that mean that they should just wait until everything about them is perfect before protecting themselves from things like terrorism? Sounds unrealistic to me...

1234

08-07-2002, 07:20 PM

Elke,

How do you know it's not true if you haven't even researched it? Is it because the mainstream media hasn't reported it? :rolleyes:
Don't accuse me of fabrication and lies when you haven't even checked it out.

Michael,

I'm talking about the mainstream media. Average people don't have the time to research and read about history. They expect the media (mainly TV) to tell them what's important information. The average Joe is not going to research NY Times archives and read about how the FBI hired an Egyptian general to bomb the WTC (1st WTC attack), and this general actually recorded the head of the FBI ordering him to bomb WTC. This is all documented, and in the open. Average Joe is not going research public documents showing Bush signed an order to stop investigations before 911. Nobody told Joe that the head of the FBI actually quit because Bush was hindering his pre-911 investigation. Joe doesn't know that this same former head of FBI got a new job as head of security at WTC, and died on his first day on the job, Sep. 11. The evidence is too much to list, and overwhelming.

Moon

08-08-2002, 02:00 AM

does that mean that they should just wait until everything about them is perfect before protecting themselves from things like terrorism? Sounds unrealistic to me...Sounds convenient to an anti-semite...

michael

08-08-2002, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by elke
But Michael, politics is politics. It's true that various democratic countries have been involved in unsavory practices and haven't done enough to aid fledgeling democracies, but does that mean that they should just wait until everything about them is perfect before protecting themselves from things like terrorism? Sounds unrealistic to me...

The fire anology is interesting- putting the fire out is reasonable but burning down the house of the person who caused it would be a different matter.

"Unsavoury practices" is the kindest possible interpretation of the recent historical record. Not only have our democracies "not done enough", they have at times been active in suppressing the emergence of democracy in favour of compliant dictators, Saddam being only one recent example.

What should we do about terrorism? Ignore it - of course not, Encourage it, as we have been doing in the cited examples- definitely not.
Again recent history provides examples and analogies that are useful. The Oklahoma City bombing - what was the correct response to this criminal act? Bomb Timothy McVeighs home town or launch a criminal investigation? The answer is clear.

Mediocrates

08-08-2002, 04:24 AM

Until we do this, criticism of “terrorism” will have a very hollow ring. Adherence to international law, respect for human rights and regard for the human consequences of our actions will go some way to getting there.

What rings hollow is the huge gap between international law and the people who scream the loudest for it. It's really rather silly to even listen to Sudan and Zimbabwe and Miyanmar and the PRC complain about someone else's adherence to human rights or law. For it is in those countries where their leaders would never themselves be subject to them or even entertain any discussion about what those rights are.

People seem to cofuse American political military action with a general sense of what might be right and wrong. Sure, we've toppled a few governments like Honduras, Chile, Iran, Hati, Viet Nam, Congo and others. We've aided people who turned out to be monsters. Nobody disputes this. What has that got to do with people and governments that say publically

"We will kill all of you as soon as we have the capacity to do that."

Do you honestly think that were there some huge terror attack on Israel or the US that world opinion would step and in a flurry of bewigged legal gymnastics slam down the offending parties with a rolled up sanction?

It hasn't happened so far and based on responses like yours we seem to deserve it anyhow.

So I would ask you what you therefore think national interest actually is., represents and how is it executed?

Mediocrates

08-08-2002, 04:27 AM

A report on the Israeli Nuclear program:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

27 pages

Abstract

This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using “bomb in the basement” nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.

Mediocrates

08-08-2002, 04:30 AM

The also have sub launched cruise missiles in addition to SBLMs

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm

Mediocrates

08-08-2002, 04:38 AM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/iraqi_mssl.gif

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif97/pg28.gif

elke

08-08-2002, 05:32 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1234
How do you know it's not true if you haven't even researched it? Is it because the mainstream media hasn't reported it? :rolleyes:

No, it's because the only media that has reported it is only fit for the trash can. :eek:

I am not accusing you of fabrication: only of being blinded by your obvious prejudices, to the point of believing in little green men.:rolleyes:

elke

08-08-2002, 05:56 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by michael

The fire anology is interesting- putting the fire out is reasonable but burning down the house of the person who caused it would be a different matter.

OK, agreed.

However, if arson was the reason for the fire, the arsonist is usually severely punished (if discovered, of course). If it's negligence, the person(s) who caused the fire are also punished, albeit not as severely as the arsonist would be (i.e. monetary damages rather than jail term). So, in international politics, should we just let the "arsonist" slide without punishment (used as a deterrent to future attacks)?

What should we do about terrorism? Ignore it - of course not, Encourage it, as we have been doing in the cited examples- definitely not.
Again recent history provides examples and analogies that are useful. The Oklahoma City bombing - what was the correct response to this criminal act? Bomb Timothy McVeighs home town or launch a criminal investigation? The answer is clear.

The Oklahoma City bombing, apparently, was an individual case - possible tie-ins to ME terrorists notwithstanding. Hopefully, at some point in the future, the Palestinian society will disgorge its terrorists with the relative ease that American and Israeli societies do with theirs. At this time, a course of action limited to legal proceedings is impossible, IMO. There is too much tepid and not-so-tepid support for these acts, not only in the Palestinian territories, but also outside. Until the vast majority of people in the world, inside and outside the ME, categorizes mass murder as the absolute evil, "the house is burning".

American Inca

08-08-2002, 06:14 PM

Go to google and look up "Stern Gang" and "Lavon Affair" Jewish terrorism has been around since the inception of Israel and IS responsible for the Palestinians themselves becoming terrorist. Today groups such as the JDL and others front "tolerance" and "equality" while at the same time spy on peaceful dissident groups and even resort to terrorist activities.

Mediocrates

08-08-2002, 06:17 PM

sometimes they lay waste to whole towns with stinging rhetoric..

elke

08-09-2002, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by American
Go to google and look up "Stern Gang" and "Lavon Affair" Jewish terrorism has been around since the inception of Israel and IS responsible for the Palestinians themselves becoming terrorist. Today groups such as the JDL and others front "tolerance" and "equality" while at the same time spy on peaceful dissident groups and even resort to terrorist activities.

What "dissident groups"? Do you even know what the term means? Do you know the amount of support JDL has in the Jewish community?

You go to Google and look up "Palestinian terrorism" and see what you'll find. Then look up "Hebron Massacre" and "Mufti of Jerusalem - Nazi connection", for starters. Make sure your sources are factual , not the garbage the Internet is full of.

michael

08-10-2002, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by elke
Hopefully, at some point in the future, the Palestinian society will disgorge its terrorists with the relative ease that American and Israeli societies do with theirs. At this time, a course of action limited to legal proceedings is impossible, IMO. There is too much tepid and not-so-tepid support for these acts, not only in the Palestinian territories, but also outside. Until the vast majority of people in the world, inside and outside the ME, categorizes mass murder as the absolute evil, "the house is burning".

Your faith in US/Israel "ease is a little misguided. The 1986 World Court decision requested that the US cease its operation in Nicaragua and pay reparations- it did neither. In 1987 there was a UN General Assembly vote condemning terrorism. It passed 153-2. The 2 countries against were the US and Israel.

There is a tendency to portray Palestinian opinion as a single entity and usualy negative. It helps to hear directly from people somtimes.(Quoted in Le Monde, JUne 13.)
"I am against such operations from a moral point of view and yet i believe them to be legitimate in some specific cases - during the attack on Jenin refugee camp for example" Ismail Samir Sammad, Fatah.

"Young Palestinian martyrs don't sacrifice their lives in order to enter some paradise of meet a host of young virgins.... If we has f-16 fighters, we'd use them instead of martys, but we don't have any" Abdel Aziz al-Rantisssi, Hamas.

"The failure of Palestinians...... to grasp the danger of suicide bomb attacks results from their failure to understand Ariel Sharons' aims......He wants to destroy Palestinians civil society" Salch Abdel Jawad, Bir Zeit University.

The simple poin tis that there is a diversity of opinion.

As for your last point I haven't heard anything to make me doubt that is the present case.

elke

08-10-2002, 06:58 AM

Could you point me to the anti-terrorism resolution you are referring to? I found a listing of all the ones passed in 1987, but couldn't find anything that referred to terrorism. The devil, as usual, is in the details: I find it difficult to believe that either US or Israel would be against such a thing as an "anti-terrorist resolution".

Yes, there is a tendency to portray opinions in general as common to a group of people, not just Palestinians. This is the matter of "shorthand": I think most people realize that there is a range of opinions in any society, whether expressed or not.

However, the reality remains that there is an active suppression of dissent in the Palestinian society, complete with executions of those not in complete agreement with the real official policy, which does not allow anyone normal to come to the fore. Therefore, ideas generating in the individual minds become moot: the collective actions are not guided by them.

"The failure of Palestinians...... to grasp the danger of suicide bomb attacks results from their failure to understand Ariel Sharons' aims......He wants to destroy Palestinians civil society" Salch Abdel Jawad, Bir Zeit University.

While his assessment of Sharon's aims is dead wrong, it's good to see that this gentleman sees the danger of suicide bomb attacks. However, again, what is he doing to stop them?

As far as what Rintissi says, I wouldn't pay any attention to his prevarications, and wouldn't elevate his drivel to the status of "opinion". His organization's ultimate goal is the complete destruction of Israel.

I am sorry, I am not sure what you are referring to as my "last point"?

Moon

08-10-2002, 07:00 AM

I'm sorry, but this thread is getting confusing. For me and for other people who actually know what Judaism is or what isn't there's no such thing as Jewish terrorism. If some other people wish it to be, it's their problem, but just be careful with what you wish, you just might get it.

Philip

08-10-2002, 07:24 AM

After Ben-Yosef's execution, the Irgun launched a series of operations against the Arabs. The central acts were the explosions in the Arab markets of Haifa and Jerusalem. On July 6, 1938, a member of the Irgun, disguised as an Arab porter, went into the Arab market in Haifa, placed a large parcel beside one of the barrows in the center of the market and left. Shortly afterwards there was a heavy explosion, which killed 21 Arabs and injured more than 50. A week later a similar incident took place in Jerusalem. A member of the Irgun concealed an electric mine in the Arab market in the Old City. It exploded shortly after the end of the prayer service in the mosque, when a large crowd had emerged onto the street. Eight Arabs were killed and more than 30 injured.

NewsGuy

08-10-2002, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Philip
http://www.zmag.org/

Well, again we get back to disinformation and propaganda. Zmag is a rabidly anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Capitalist, and anti-any-mainstream-Western-value that has ever brought benefit to the world.

This despicable collection of leftist, anarchist drivel instructs its readers with a how-to for getting started in "radical politics" and proceeds to publish the opinions of every radical pariah as fact.

Quoting from Zmag, or any of its professional Leftists is really like asking Mullah Omar about whether he agrees with the American Bill of Rights and then publishing his opinion as fact.

The 'Z' in Zmag stands for Zero credibility.

shoshannah

08-10-2002, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Northlander
Yes, pull out. Without a withdrawl there can never be peace.
Obviously. There are less terrorism from the Lebanese border now than before so clearly it helped. But it doesnt really matter.
Israel should withdraw regardless.

Why is it that people like you think THIS occupation are justified just because this occupied people use terror? Americans objected to Iraqs occupation of Kuweit. Withdraw and THEN expect peace.

Just a reminder: There where terror attacks on Israel before 1967[1]. Let's say Israel withdraws- how can you ensure it's safety? Make sure katusha's are not shot to Israeli cities? And what amkes you so sure that the voilnace would end with a withdraw? The Hamas (who did many many terror attacks) never said so- to the contrary[2]. The PA itself, when it didn't like Barka's offer, did not start a counter offer but started a war.

I am not happy about rulling other people. I feel truly sorry for the children in Gaza and hte camps.
However, my first priority is to live, safely.
I do not see how your suggestion gives me that- or even makes sure that situation does not become worse.
-------
[1] http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ldc0
[2] "if you want to be safe and secure, leave Israel and go to the country where you came from. Otherwise, everywhere in Israel, schools, universities, markets and houses will be a target for us."
http://highmarkfunds.stockpoint.com/highmarkfunds/newspaper.asp?Mode=xin&Story=20020804/216h1691.xml

Mediocrates

08-10-2002, 06:44 PM

All these red herrings - - the people who dredge up Stern Gang (which BTW was attacked by Irgun to stop them from executing more bombings - betcha just forgot that one!!) are the first ones who are screaming for the streets to run with blood anyway.

Adversary2Arabs

08-10-2002, 08:23 PM

The JDL is NOT a terrorist organization.

Adversary2Arabs

08-10-2002, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Moon
I'm sorry, but this thread is getting confusing. For me and for other people who actually know what Judaism is or what isn't there's no such thing as Jewish terrorism. If some other people wish it to be, it's their problem, but just be careful with what you wish, you just might get it.

Moon, these people they call terrorists (most aren't but for the ones that are), they are people who are Jewish, but don't necessarily follow all laws. Some people don't keep kosher, but instead commit murder. Weird analogy but it works I guess. A law(meaning Mitzvot) is a law no matter how small it may seem. Anyway, some people believe that all Mitzvot that don't directly specify gentiles only are meant towards other Jews. This post is kind of a mess so I probably left some stuff I meant to say out. :) hehe sorry

michael

08-12-2002, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by elke
[B]Could you point me to the anti-terrorism resolution you are referring to? I found a listing of all the ones passed in 1987, but couldn't find anything that referred to terrorism. The devil, as usual, is in the details: I find it difficult to believe that either US or Israel would be against such a thing as an "anti-terrorist resolution".
]

A/RES/42/159. The voting records can be found at UNBISnet. Use the search term "terrorism 42".
There is also a press release available which gives a little more detail - UN Press Release GA/7603, Dec. 7, 1987. The UN press release archive only goes back to 1995, so you'll have get a paper copy. As a matter of interest there was another vote in the same year (A/RES/42/92) regarding the strengthening of international security by using the UN and the UN Charter. The vote was 131-1. The lone dissenter was the US. Unfortunately there are many examples like this.

And your last point was "Until the vast majority of people in the world......."

Philip

08-12-2002, 02:59 AM

In case there is any confusion, my earlier quotation regarding Jewish terrorist activity in 1938 was from the Irgun historical web site (http://www.etzel.org.il/english/), which is written by a former commander of the Irgun, and not from the Zmag article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=2106) of my signature. I expect that reasonable people can agree that the Irgun would not exaggerate its terrorist roots, even if it raises doubts about certain people's claims about the paternity of modern terrorism.

ibrodsky

08-12-2002, 06:57 AM

1. Does anyone claim Israelis stage unprovoked attacks in the territories for the purpose of killing as many Palestinians as possible? How often do such attacks occur? Do thousands of Israelis pour into the streets to celebrate such attacks? Do Israeli schools, synagogues, and media glorify such acts?

2. How many times have Jewish groups attacked Arab civilians with the intent of killing as many as possible? When was the last time such an attack occurred? Do the leaders of Israel say that attacks against Arab civilians were (or are) "understandable"? Are groups advocating such attacks allowed to operate in Israel? Have they ever?

The apologists for Arab terrorism are desparately trying to show that Zionists invented terrorism. They want to sweep aside centuries of Arab attacks against Jewish communities. They want to pretend that Jewish attacks against British authorities somehow provide moral justification for Arabs killing thousands of Israeli civilians.

This is like focusing on rare cases of political censorship in Israel when there are examples of far more severe and fully institutionalized censorship in almost every Arab country.

NewsGuy

08-12-2002, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
The apologists for Arab terrorism are desparately trying to show that Zionists invented terrorism. They want to sweep aside centuries of Arab attacks against Jewish communities. They want to pretend that Jewish attacks against British authorities somehow provide moral justification for Arabs killing thousands of Israeli civilians.

Exactly right.

It is ridiculous to think that the activities of the long-defunct Irgun, which targeted the British colonialist military, has any bearing whatsoever on today's events.

The simple fact remains that Arab terrorism is part of a sinister Jihad war to massacre non-Muslims and to destroy Israel, America and the rest of Western civilization.

Philip

08-12-2002, 11:09 AM

Whatever else we may think, surely we can all agree that it is either lying or a malicious disregard for the truth to call Yasser Arafat, evil as he may be, "The Father of Modern Terrorism."

Mediocrates

08-12-2002, 12:16 PM

Well ok the idiot bastard son, then.

After y'all, the flood.

michael

08-16-2002, 05:19 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ibrodsky
[B]
How many times have Jewish groups attacked Arab civilians with the intent of killing as many as possible? When was the last time such an attack occurred? Do the leaders of Israel say that attacks against Arab civilians were (or are) "understandable"? Are groups advocating such attacks allowed to operate in Israel? Have they ever?

QUOTE]

"Israeli civilians, especially settlers, harassed, attacked, and occasionally killed Palestinians in the occupied territories. There were credible reports that settlers killed at least 14 Palestinians during the year. Three Jewish extremist groups, believed to be associated with settlers, claimed responsibility for the killing of five other Palestinians, including an infant, in three separate attacks. Although Israeli officials criticized the acts and promised to take action and detained one suspect, they made no other arrests in any of these cases by year's end. Settlers also caused significant economic damage to Palestinians by attacking and damaging greenhouses and agricultural equipment, uprooting olive trees, and damaging other valuable crops. The settlers did not act under government directive in the attacks; however, they were at times accompanied by Israeli soldiers whose standing orders are to protect, not arrest or restrain, Israeli civilians in the occupied territories. The Israeli Government generally did not prosecute the settlers for their acts of violence. In general settlers rarely serve prison sentences if convicted of a crime against a Palestinian."- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 4, 2002. US State Department.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Zionists invented terrorism - that is clearly untrue. Yes, censorship in Arab countries is far worse than in Israel, but, obviously, that does not make it OK. The crucial difference is however, the rhetoric of freedom and democracy that is used, while such abuses are occurring. Of course Israel is by no means alone in this, amongst the western democracies.

Mediocrates

08-16-2002, 05:34 AM

Slippery as a two eels ****ing in a bucket of snot.

Are cops terrorists? Teachers? People who say mean things?

You define terrorism not as an act but as how you personally feel about it.

ibrodsky

08-16-2002, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by michael
[QUOTE]

"Israeli civilians, especially settlers, harassed, attacked, and occasionally killed Palestinians in the occupied territories. There were credible reports that settlers killed at least 14 Palestinians during the year. Three Jewish extremist groups, believed to be associated with settlers, claimed responsibility for the killing of five other Palestinians, including an infant, in three separate attacks.

It's well known there is a substantial pro-Arab faction in the State Department. There were also "credible reports" that Palestinian terrorists killed hundreds of Israelis during the same period. And there were "credible reports" that Palestinians savages broke into a settlement and killed a five year old girl at point blank range in her bedroom. This was not killing out of despair, or killing an oppressor, it was a crime motivated by anti-semitism.

Is it surprising that Jews living in the disputed territories would fight back?

Settlers also caused significant economic damage to Palestinians by attacking and damaging greenhouses and agricultural equipment, uprooting olive trees, and damaging other valuable crops.

Olive trees used by gunmen as cover have been uprooted.

The settlers did not act under government directive in the attacks; however, they were at times accompanied by Israeli soldiers whose standing orders are to protect, not arrest or restrain, Israeli civilians in the occupied territories. The Israeli Government generally did not prosecute the settlers for their acts of violence. In general settlers rarely serve prison sentences if convicted of a crime against a Palestinian.

These are totally unsubstantiated charges. Where did the State Dept. get this "informaton"? Did they accompany the IDF on these alleged missions? It is well known that Israel has banned certain groups and the fact they are not able to operate in the open suggests the ban is being enforced... unlike the PA's phony claim that it was going to root out terrorist groups.

Where is the outrage over nearly a decade of Palestinian deceit and support for terrorism?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Zionists invented terrorism - that is clearly untrue. Yes, censorship in Arab countries is far worse than in Israel, but, obviously, that does not make it OK. The crucial difference is however, the rhetoric of freedom and democracy that is used, while such abuses are occurring. Of course Israel is by no means alone in this, amongst the western democracies.

Perhaps you should take another look. Israel's leaders are elected in real, contested elections. Israel has a free press. The Israeli government has real opposition and no one is shot for criticizing the PM. If only the Palestinians' "suspected collaborators" received an open and fairly conducted trial as terrorist Marwan Barghouti surely will!

Michael, your concern for the alleged abuse of democratic rhetoric is touching, but if Israeli democracy is not perfect it may have something to do with the fact that Israel is under attack by barbarians. The U.S. has also set aside certain peacetime practices since 3,000 Americans were massacred by Islamists, and with good reason.

As I said before, freedom of speech is a sacred right, but it does not apply to someone who shouts "Fire!" to cause a stampede in in a crowded theater. Tiny Israel is not obligated to treat Palestinians -- who have built an entire culture around death, destruction, and glorification of the same -- with kid gloves just to satisfy an assortment of European and American leftists.

elke

08-17-2002, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by michael

A/RES/42/159. The voting records can be found at UNBISnet. Use the search term "terrorism 42".
There is also a press release available which gives a little more detail - UN Press Release GA/7603, Dec. 7, 1987. The UN press release archive only goes back to 1995, so you'll have get a paper copy. As a matter of interest there was another vote in the same year (A/RES/42/92) regarding the strengthening of international security by using the UN and the UN Charter. The vote was 131-1. The lone dissenter was the US. Unfortunately there are many examples like this.

And your last point was "Until the vast majority of people in the world......."

OK, here is an exerpt from this resolution, which would render it useless for all intents and purposes, given that the definition of Terrorism seems to be highly elusive to the terrorism apologists:

14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right...

...particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, ...the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;...

As to my last point, don't thousands of people living with severe disabilities, as well as hundreds dead from this scourge, qualify as "burning"?

michael

08-21-2002, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky

These are totally unsubstantiated charges. Where did the State Dept. get this "informaton"? Did they accompany the IDF on these alleged missions? It is well known that Israel has banned certain groups and the fact they are not able to operate in the open suggests the ban is being enforced... unlike the PA's phony claim that it was going to root out terrorist groups.

Where is the outrage over nearly a decade of Palestinian deceit and support for terrorism?

If you go to the US State Dept website you'll find that the Country Reports also cover Palestinian human rights abuses and terrorist acts. AS for the"well-known pro-Arab sympathisers"- IYO

"The Israeli government has real opposition and no one is shot for criticizing the PM." - remember Yitzak Rabin?

michael

08-21-2002, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by elke

OK, here is an exerpt from this resolution, which would render it useless for all intents and purposes, given that the definition of Terrorism seems to be highly elusive to the terrorism apologists:

I would have though that the UN Charter would have been fairly uncontroversial.

I'm also unsure how the resolution is "rendered useless". The same principles justify Western support for the Kurds in Iraq, the Kosovar Albanians etc.

elke

08-21-2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by michael
[QUOTE]I would have though that the UN Charter would have been fairly uncontroversial.

The devil, as I realize I am fond of saying, is in the details. In law in particular, these pesky details have to do with word definitions.

The UN, by its charter, is a very noble institution. It was created for the right purposes, and its general goals are very commendable. The trouble arises in the implementation of these goals, which for various reasons is sorely lacking.

I'm also unsure how the resolution is "rendered useless". The same principles justify Western support for the Kurds in Iraq, the Kosovar Albanians etc.

Exactly! That's because the common belief seems to be that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Again, those pesky details...I mean, definitions. ;)

Adversary2Arabs

08-21-2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by elke
The UN, by its charter, is a very noble institution. It was created for the right purposes, and its general goals are very commendable. The trouble arises in the implementation of these goals, which for various reasons is sorely lacking.

Yes, the UN was started for all the right reasons, but since the World hates Jews in general, and because there are so many Arab(anti-Semitic) countries, as well as all the European countries (France, England, Sweden, Belgium, and a few others) which are anti-Semitic, the UN is saturated in anti-Semites. Therefore whenever a pro-Israel resolution comes, it gets smashed and throw away because of these anti-Semites ganging up on Israel - the only Jewish State. If Israel was a Christian OR Muslim country, most people wouldn't even know what Israel was except through religious texts.

elke

08-21-2002, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by michael

If you go to the US State Dept website you'll find that the Country Reports also cover Palestinian human rights abuses and terrorist acts. AS for the"well-known pro-Arab sympathisers"- IYO

"The Israeli government has real opposition and no one is shot for criticizing the PM." - remember Yitzak Rabin?

But Rabin was the PM! The man jailed for assassinating him is a criminal, wouldn't you say? :confused:

Adversary2Arabs

08-21-2002, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by elke

But Rabin was the PM! The man jailed for assassinating him is a criminal, wouldn't you say? :confused:

A Jew killing a Jew is wrong. Period. I would not have done it, but he did what he had to do. Land for Peace is Land for Death. NO ONE has a right to give up land given to us by HaShem himself.

Mediocrates

08-23-2002, 10:52 AM

- - or you could ask for clarification instead of assuming something.

Mediocrates

08-23-2002, 10:53 AM

-- or you could ask for clarification.

Haifa

08-23-2002, 01:07 PM

minusthejihad

08-23-2002, 01:27 PM

There are many actually

IZR, Irgun, Lehi, Stinger, Kahane Chai, and many many more individuals.

Have you read this whole post? probably not.

If there are so many, how come the only place I ever here about them is on this forum, where the likes of you try your hardest to scrape the smallest bit of dirt to characterize an entire people?

Why do the most antisemetic news channels, never report anything on these groups. Irgun? When, 1939? Kohane - dead for years, minimal support. Besides, none ever acted out "killing unmercifully as many palestinians as possible". Keep trying though, and when you pull out your next card, about 2 fanatic Jews who either killed the PM or shot up a Mosque, just remind yourself, that even if you were right, there are very few instances in Jewish culture like this. Why? Pride, Intellect, and Integrity

elke

08-23-2002, 04:11 PM

Haifa,

Irgun and Lehi have been disbanded longer than you have been alive.

The only mention I could find regarding IZR was a series of Chech sites, which talked about "wisdom of Solomon, son of David". It's doubtful that they were referring to anything remotely resembling terrorism.

"Stinger" completely stumped me: there were plenty of sites about some computer company. but somehow I don't think this is what you were talking about...

So, what were you talking about? ;)

Haifa

08-23-2002, 05:13 PM

minus mujahid im not trying to charactarize any people.

Have you read this whole post? probably not.

hmm he asked the question and I replied. And yes I did not read the other posts because I did not need to :)

If there are so many, how come the only place I ever here about them is on this forum, where the likes of you try your hardest to scrape the smallest bit of dirt to characterize an entire people?

because all of them were dismantled and joined up with the Haganah after 1948 except Kahane Chai! You know what the Haganah is dont you?

Why do the most antisemetic news channels, never report anything on these groups. Irgun? When, 1939? Kohane - dead for years, minimal support. Besides, none ever acted out "killing unmercifully as many palestinians as possible". Keep trying though, and when you pull out your next card, about 2 fanatic Jews who either killed the PM or shot up a Mosque, just remind yourself, that even if you were right, there are very few instances in Jewish culture like this. Why? Pride, Intellect, and Integrity

You do not hear about them because they're no longer here. This only shows that people who do not have a country/army resort to terrorism. After the IDF was established, the Irgun and others joined up. Why in earth would you use terrorism if you have an army?!

Same will probably happen to Hamas and PFLP and others if a palestinian state is found. They'll probably join the police force.

About if they tried to kill as many people sa they could, yes, they did. They used bombs and granades in residential areas killing thousands of farmers. One bomb in the Haifa market killed almost a hundred. I have a list of 500 terrorist attacks within a few years!

elke

Haifa,

Irgun and Lehi have been disbanded longer than you have been alive.

The only mention I could find regarding IZR was a series of Chech sites, which talked about "wisdom of Solomon, son of David". It's doubtful that they were referring to anything remotely resembling terrorism.

"Stinger" completely stumped me: there were plenty of sites about some computer company. but somehow I don't think this is what you were talking about...

So, what were you talking about?

about being disbanded, read above :)

About stinger, yes, I mistyped the word. It is not stinger, it is Stern, established by Avraham Stern. The stern part sounds german to me.

I also mistyped IZR! It is IZL - Irgun Zeva'i Le'umi. I do not recognize the hebrew words so I'll leave this to you, but apparently its just another name for Irgun. My bad again :/

Again this is not about charactarizing anyone with anything. it is merely an answer to the question,

Jay

08-23-2002, 05:53 PM

Jewish terrorist organization? Ha, when the world sets upon the Jews , it is written off as "unfortunate incident"; When the Jew responds in like and kind, or takes a defensible action, it is classified as an agressive act.

Wanna know what? It's high time that we respond "with interest" to these incidents; Kill one Jew, take ten of them down, Kill one Jew, wipe out the assailants total family , Unless we teach them that Jewish blood is not cheap,we're still going to get hammered.

Kahane was right, get rid of all of the Arab trouble makers,swiftly, and forcefully and you will see peace in Israel.

How come that in 1970 Jordan machine gunned 10,000 Palestinians with nary a world outcry? We defend ourselves, and there is a world outcry! Ok world, dont like it? Too bad!!!

Heres some more food for thought; There is an unwritten rule in Egypt, Palestinian gunrunners are fair game, get caught smuggling guns(or just being there)(and your'e a Palestinian) your'e dead, no questions asked(Jewish terrorist,huh?)

If the rest of the Arab world is so sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, why dont they take them in, in a rescue mission and leave us alone? Seems that no one wants them because they are perpetual trouble. Jewish terrorists,huh?

I have an idea, all of the trouble makers, exile them to Afghanistan and FORCE them to live there and rebuild the country!!!Dont want to go andf assist your Arab bretheren in trouble, OK, stay and suffer the consequences. Were in control in OUR LAND!!!

Jewish terrorists,Huh? Ha,ha,ha,

Haifa

08-23-2002, 06:10 PM

Kill one Jew, take ten of them down, Kill one Jew, wipe out the assailants total family

Kahane was right, get rid of all of the Arab trouble makers,swiftly, and forcefully and you will see peace in Israel.

Did you say there are no jewish terrorists, minusthejihad? :rolleyes:

And this is till his first post lol!!

Mediocrates

08-23-2002, 06:37 PM

So now words are terrorism? - I do believe your poor little heart can't take the strain. :p

Jay

08-23-2002, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
So now words are terrorism? - I do believe your poor little heart can't take the strain. :p

First the words, then the terrorism, then the ********, after the ********, its the empty accusations and then more terrorism, C'mon,mac, get with it the world sees through the Arab lies, andthe twisted half truths that only they and the Nazis know how to do.

As far as words being terrorism, I was a combatant in two wars that I"volunteered for"; 1)Viet Nam, 2)Yom Kippur that the "poor misunderstood,mistreated Arab soul"started . nLook to your own heartand see if your words are a form of benign terrorism. I have no problem telling it like it is, where it is, and, when I so desire to. When you finally "learn" what strain is, then lets ay the cards out on the table .

Haifa

08-23-2002, 09:50 PM

hmm you mentioned the 73 war and the vietnam war. are you trying to say that you:

1- are old?

or that you

2- were the reason you were defeated in both wars?

:cool:

Mediocrates

08-24-2002, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Jay

First the words, then the terrorism, then the ********, after the ********, its the empty accusations and then more terrorism, C'mon,mac, get with it the world sees through the Arab lies, andthe twisted half truths that only they and the Nazis know how to do.

As far as words being terrorism, I was a combatant in two wars that I"volunteered for"; 1)Viet Nam, 2)Yom Kippur that the "poor misunderstood,mistreated Arab soul"started . nLook to your own heartand see if your words are a form of benign terrorism. I have no problem telling it like it is, where it is, and, when I so desire to. When you finally "learn" what strain is, then lets ay the cards out on the table .

I was responding to Haifa's claim that the previous poster was a terrorist based on his words alone. I'm on your side.

5-alef

08-24-2002, 02:12 PM

- were the reason you were defeated in both wars?
ehmm......... tell me Haifa, how exactly did we lose in 1973?
by reaching 12 km from Damascus? or by crossing the Suez canal and getting within 101 km from Cairo? did we lose by encircling the 3rd army of egypt and preventing it from getting war supplies?
did we do it by destroying 85% of Syrian Armor?
did Egypt and Syria Demanded Cease fire because they were winning?

how pathetic............ :cool:

Haifa

08-24-2002, 03:31 PM

ah ok yea what you said.

So this is the real reason why Moshe Dyan resigned.

He just could not handle the victory :rolleyes:

5-alef

08-24-2002, 04:37 PM

snickering is the weapon of the defeated.
you didnt answer a single fact i said.
should i understand that you agree?

did we or did we not crossed the suez?
did we or did we not encircle the 3rd army, and neutralized it to the extent they went on an all out offensive, and lost 600 tanks in the process?
did we or did we not get within 101 km from cairo?
did we or did we not get within 12 km from Damascus?
did or did not Egypt and Syria demanded ceasefire as a result of their military defeat?
did or did not the Soviet Union accepted Egyptian request and threatend to send in airmobile divisions to Egypt, unless ceasefire would be accepted?

answer me this.

Haifa

08-24-2002, 05:37 PM

*did we or did we not crossed the suez?
you probably did after you managed to regroup yourself after egypt's attack

*did we or did we not encircle the 3rd army, and neutralized it to the extent they went on an all out offensive, and lost 600 tanks in the process?
I do not know about this

*did we or did we not get within 101 km from cairo?
You probably did get there, but I doubt that the cease fire was the reason you stopped. Invading cairo would've been a suicidal mission especially that over 5 million people live there.

did we or did we not get within 12 km from Damascus?
*same as above

*did or did not Egypt and Syria demanded ceasefire as a result of their military defeat?
No and yes. Egypt had been asking for Sinai for 6 years, and all peace offers were turned down.The reason of the attack was not to destroy Israel but to make the following point: Egypt can still fight. After destroying the Berlief Wall, the point was made and Sadat wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.

A few years after the war, Sadat offered peace again and it was accepted.

*did or did not the Soviet Union accepted Egyptian request and threatend to send in airmobile divisions to Egypt, unless ceasefire would be accepted?
That's what allies are for :cool:
& also see above

________________________

My over all understanding of the conflict is that Egypt prevailed for the first few days, and inflicted heavy casualties after destroying the Berlief Wall and making their point. When Israel began regrouping themselves, egypt asked for cease fire, and offered peace again.

My questions are:

-had it not been for the 73 war, Sinai would be still with Israel now. Is this correct or is it not? If this is correct, the war achieved its objectives and was won!

-Did Moshe Dayan resign because of the war or did he not?

And btw, calm down. This is just a historical debate and I am willing to admit that i was mistaken if my points were disproven. You do not need to get mad. And I would expect you to do the same.

5-alef

08-24-2002, 06:10 PM

the Bar-Lev was defended at the time by 486 Infantry soldiers 7 tanks and 7 artillary battaries and was attacked by more then 100000 troops.
thats why Moshe Dayan resigned.
he failed in his role as a defence minister, to prepare the army for war and to prevent both tactical and strategic surprise.
in the first week the arab armies held the upper hand, until the reserve army got into the picture. then all turned back.
the egyptians actually meant to reach the mitla passes but surprisingly the single armor battalion was able to delay them enough until the reservists arrived.
all in all, cease fire was demanded when it was apperant to egypt that the Egyptian army was effectivly neutrelized.

by the way, its apperant today that egypt played gambit with syria in order to achieve thier goals. Haffes El-Asad, hadnt forgiven for it till his death.

the approachment of Cairo and Damascus wasnt for physical conquest. the mere fact that an army stations itself a short distance from the capital can have a very large moral effect.
add to that the need to move the govt. and top military commanders to alternate loaction.

fact is that egypt was very close to lose more then it could gain, the USSR came to aid at that point and litteraly saved egypts day that time.

now to the questions. the one about moshe dayan i answered.

now the other one.
i really cant tell what would happen if '73 war hadnt occured.
in the years after '70 moshe dayan and its faction pressed to get an agreement with egypt first and formost to remove it from the immidiate circle of threat.
so the Israeli side had been thinking about that for some time.
the war itself hadnt achieved its objectives.
after '74 the lines went back.
its both his courage, and bad Israeli politics that gave egypt the Sinai back.
Sadat had pair of Iron balls, i must say. Hadnt he arrived Jeruslem, who knows how many wars would be fought till now?

thats what brought a peace accord. as the say, the word is mightier then the sword (okay, i distorted a bit :D )

last of all.
what makes me mad is when instead of talking fact and discuss, people snicker.
it seems to be a trend in these forums.
"you yell, i hear. you talk, i listen". i think it sums it.

danholo

08-26-2002, 01:09 AM

The Arabs tried to annihilate Israel in 1973. They did not succeed and in the end their armies were crushed.
This is why Israel won the war.
Arabs think they won the Yom Kippur war like the Iraqis believe they won the Gulf War. Meaning they lost.
It was a great idea by Arabs to attack Israel when it was the most vulnerable: Yom Kippur. Israel suffered heavy casualties in the beginning, but then Israel got itself together and drove the Arabs back and was close to invade their capitals.
Israel did not enter the capitals because of international pressure and since the Arabs understood that they were in dire straits and about to lose completely.

Arabs have no chance at beating Israel at war. Even if the Arabs had better weapons, they could not succeed.
In the war of independence, the Israeli Army had about a dozen WW1 airplanes, no armor and some old hunks of artillery.
Arabs had a moderm army, with almost the latest equipment.

There's a funny story from the 1948 war concerning one of those old pieces of rusted metal that were supposed to be cannons.
One old cannon made a hell of a sound and the Jordanians thought the Jews had some sort of secret weapon.
The Arabs fleed after hearing the goring sound of the old weapon. What luck!