Top Hamas bombmaker killed?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman


very true, problem is how long it will take to elimate then, it seems like the more we kill the more pops us, world is not going to be a safe place to live in soon.

It’s going to be a learning curve trying to co exists with Fundamental Islam in the future. These individuals are more dangerous than venomous spiders and snakes. I think that a good beginning would be western countries changing their constitutions (or the interpretation of the same) and amending their existing laws (no grandfathering). Then kick them the hell out of the west!

I’m afraid that the level of terrorism will most likely have to increase significantly on a global level before serious actions are undertaken to deliver peace loving citizens from their evil.

With a high degree of certainty these various terrorist organizations (with one mother) are well aware of the fact that there’s the straw that breaks the camels back. That’s most likely why the attacks aren’t occurring daily on a daily base. This indicates to me that there’s dialogue between the heads of the major organizations to the point here they are becoming more and more highly organized.

The current actions initiated by various governments are woefully inadequate to deal with the growing problem of Islamic Fundamentalism. As far as I’m concerned containment is the only answer and you don’t get that by letting Islamic Fundamentalists into western countries.

Our forefathers were well aware that one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel and the destruction of Islamic Fundamentalism should be confronted with that thought in mind.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Yes, but unfortunately in most democracies, you are choosing the lesser of 2 evils rather than a great leader.

This is how I saw things when I was younger. However, over time I've come to appreciate the U.S. system more and more.

The dominant media tries to convince us that great leaders are slick and selfish. They want us to believe "they are all crooks" because that lets their favorite politicians, who invariably are crooks, off the hook.

They also want us to believe that any leader who is plainspoken and honest is "dumb."

The reason we are often dissatisfied with the choices is not that both are automatically evil, but that our form of democracy requires compromises. I.e., politicians who completely ignore large constituencies tend to be rejected. Thus, few voters are completely happy with the winner, but even fewer feel totally disenfranchised.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM

It’s going to be a learning curve trying to co exists with Fundamental Islam in the future. These individuals are more dangerous than venomous spiders and snakes. I think that a good beginning would be western countries changing their constitutions (or the interpretation of the same) and amending their existing laws (no grandfathering).

I’m afraid that the level of terrorism will most likely have to increase significantly on a global level before serious actions are undertaken to deliver peace loving citizens from their evil.

I think the strategy is to disarm Iraq first. The US doesn't want to take on all of these groups and the states that support them at the same time. Once Iraq is neutralized, the War on Terrorism can focus on Syria and its Lebanese puppet state/terrorist base.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


I think the strategy is to disarm Iraq first. The US doesn't want to take on all of these groups and the states that support them at the same time. Once Iraq is neutralized, the War on Terrorism can focus on Syria and its Lebanese puppet state/terrorist base.

Hussein might die like a fly on a kitchen wall but then again he may go out with a vengeance. George Tenet from the CIA in his report stated that Hussein was more likely to use weapons of mass destruction if he finds himself cornered.

A statement like that clearly indicated that he feels that Hussein has such weapons at his disposal. So the danger is twofold do nothing and let Hussein build his arsenal or act now and perhaps have him unleash a plaque upon the world.

I would back Bush’s position in this situation but with the condition that any action undertaken should be swift and decisive not drawn-out. In my opinion a nuclear strike would be in order if not initially certainly if chemical and/or biological weapons are launched into Israel.

The current situation in the world is not some electronic or board game this is serious business. I’m old enough to remember the silver tongued emissaries(from Iraq) that were unleashed on the world from Iraq prior to and during the Gulf War. The same old faces from Iraq are appearing again spreading their lies.

The torching of the oil wells in Kuwait should have been enough provocation to drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. The trouble was that NATO had a clearly defined mission and when it was achieved the theatre ended.

I’m certain that behind the scenes the same thing was happening then as it is today. Many European states weren’t willing to continue the war till the mighty Hussein was arrested.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM


Hussein might die like a fly on a kitchen wall but then again he may go out with a vengeance. George Tenet from the CIA in his report stated that Hussein was more likely to use weapons of mass destruction if he finds himself cornered.

More likely, once he is cornered his own people will turn on him. Sure, he can bus people to demonstrations, but how many people are prepared to go down with a man they never elected and who has killed thousands of opponents to stay on top?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by DonR

The idea would go something like this: "Beginning next Tuesday, the State of Israel will recognize the existence of the State of Palestine. For the moment, the new state will consist of all of the Gaza Strip and about 60-75% of the West Bank. Israel will be happy to vacate its Gaza Strip settlements, once a buyer has been found who will pay us a reasonable market price for the land there that was purchased by Jews before 1948. Similarly, Israel (or private Israeli owners) will be happy to sell all pre-1948 Jewish-owned land that lies within the borders of the new State of Palestine.

You treat this war as if it were a homework assignment.

But you have not learned the most basic lessons. Your plan is based on the assumption that the Palestinians are simply unable to take that last courageous step to achieve their "dream" of statehood. You refuse to believe that is not their goal, even though they have made it clear in both words and deeds.

"As a state, Palestine will be held responsible for its behavior and for the behavior of its citizens - just like any other state. Citizens of the State of Palestine have no inherent right to travel through or work in the State of Israel; the same applies to Israelis wishing to travel through or work in the State of Palestine. Israel will be happy to have friendly relations with the State of Palestine - including open borders, cross-border employment opportunities, trade, and so on. But should the government of the State of Palestine fail to behave as a good neighbor, Israel will respond appropriately: The border will become less open, and perhaps be completely closed and fenced; trade will be cut off; and should the State of Palestine explicitly or implicitly declare war on Israel, Israel will feel free to defend itself vigorously.

And since your plan unilaterally imposes a settlement they don't accept, the PA, its terrorist united front, and its allies abroad will all declare it "null and void" and pass many UN resolutions about how the poor, oppressed Palestinians -- not Israel -- will decide the terms of Israel's surrender.

"As far as the remaining territory (25-40%) of the West Bank, including Jerusalem: The State of Israel accepts that this territory remains subject to dispute, and that until relations between Israel and Palestine stabilize it will be difficult or impossible fully to resolve this dispute. Accordingly, this territory is to be viewed as being 'held in trust' - that is, it will not become legally part of either state, pending negotiations.

'Held in trust' as in 'actually belongs to them.'

Israeli settlements within the provisional borders of the State of Palestine will be evacuated. Land purchased for Jewish settlement before 1948 will be bought from the State of Israel (or its private owners) at market prices. The State of Palestine (or private individuals) may offer to purchase the houses and other facilities of those settlements that are to be evacuated; if they are not purchased at a reasonable price, these structures will be demolished.

Sounds like a wonderful scenario for a board game.

But what if they don't go along?

What if the response is to shoot Jews as they are being "evacuated"?

And why should Jews not be allowed to live in "Palestine" as a minority with basic rights?

You accept the Palestinian demand for a Jew-free West Bank but are oblivious to why they require a Jew-free West Bank.

"Such negotiations will be based, at least in part, on several elements of 'international law' - including U.N. Resolution 242 and the San Remo Declaration. (The latter, which is still legally binding according to the U.N. Charter, grants Jews the right of settlement in all of Palestine - especially west of the Jordan River.) Accordingly, the pre-1967 armistice lines will be used as one of the inputs into the negotiating process, but so will pre-1948 Jewish land purchases (made in good faith based on the San Remo Declaration), as well as demographics and the security requirements of both states.

Oh yes, the wonderful UN and 'international law.'

Has it ever occurred to you that the solution to the current war is military victory? This is how all wars end.

You can try to talk the Palestinians, Syria, Iraq, and Iran out of terrorism all you want. They are not going to stop once Israel leaves the West Bank, just as they did not start when Israel captured the West Bank.

"Should the State of Palestine fail to make good-faith efforts to maintain friendly and peaceful relations with the State of Israel, the latter reserves the right to make unilateral changes in the status of the territory 'held in trust'. Areas that might be unilaterally annexed to Israel in such a situation include those that we anticipate would have been retained as a result of negotiations: for example, the 'settlement bloc' extending, roughly, from Alfei Menashe to Tzofim to Karnei Shomron (or possibly Kedumim) to Ariel to Bet Arieh; the 'Gush Katif' block; and possibly some other areas.

This is a rather strained attempt at making what is, in essence, a scheme that rewards terrorism sound as if it is really quite tough.

I assure you, DonR, the terrorists and their allies -- both committed to the destructiion of Israel -- will take whatever you give them for free, but seeing Israeli weakness dressed as toughness is only going to increase their appetite.

Did you notice what happened when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon? No, Hezbollah is not (yet) raining missiles down on Israeli towns, but soldiers have been kidnapped, Hezbollah is now active in the West Bank, and Syria's Lebanese puppet is diverting water from Israel. If a regional war erupts, Hezbollah will be positioned to cause extensive death and destruction in Israel.

"Subject to peaceful relations, an appropriate means of passage between Gaza and the West Bank will be provided. Israel reserves the right to close this passage in the event of war or general border closure.

I'm sure the terrorists will all turn in their bomb belts when they hear these very toughly worded concessions...

"The new State of Palestine is the national home of the Palestinian Arab people, as Israel is the national home of the Jews. Accordingly, refugees who wish to do so will be repatriated into the new state, with the assistance of the international community. Refugees who do not wish to be repatriated to the State of Palestine may be settled elsewhere; but Israel does not recognize any inherent right for such refugees to settle in the State of Israel. Exceptions may be made on humanitarian grounds, but they are at Israel's sole discretion.

I'm sure the terrorists will hire a team of lawyers to study this very carefully.

"The value of the property lost or abandoned by refugees from what is now the State of Israel is more than offset by the value of property and businesses owned by Jews who were forced to leave many Arab states after 1948. Accordingly, Israel is willing to offset these claims, with the result that the Arab states and individuals which benefited by the expulsion of their Jewish populations will now be obligated to compensate the Palestinian refugees commensurately. Should the State of Palestine maintain good relations with the State of Israel, the State of Israel will be happy to assist in refugee resettlement and economic development, as a non-mandatory goodwill gesture.

And what if they don't accept your unilateral "settlement" and only step up their attacks?

Here is what your plan accomplishes:

1. It tells valiant Arab warriors that today's Jews simply don't have the stomach to fight all the way to a conclusion.
2. It tells the Palestinians that Israel is willing to give them a state and other concessions for absolutely nothing in return.
3. It tells them that terrorism is working, and if terrorism continues more concessions will be sure to be offerred.
4. Most important, pulling the IDF back to Israel's 1967 borders makes the job of defending Israel and her citizens a nearly impossible task.

I'm sure there are lots of details I've left out. The essential point, though, is that while on the one hand Israel should structure this deal so that it is reasonably fair to the Palestinians, on the other hand the basic elements are not subject to negotiation. The Palestinians (who, of course, have several times "declared" their state) are to be treated as a sovereign state, whether Arafat likes it or not.

Maybe if you hold your breath and stamp your feet they will realize they have no choice but to be "good neighbors."

From the Palestinian standpoint, such an arrangement would have several advantages: Genuine independence and sovereignty, to name one. Unlike the Palestinian Autonomy, this state would be "for real" - an important difference, given the importance of honor in Arab thinking. Nearly all the Palestinian Arab population (around 97-98%) would be included in the new state, and except for the Gaza-West Bank split (and possibly a shared-sovereignty corridor between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea south of Jericho), there would be territorial contiguity. Settlements such as Yitzar and Itamar would no longer be there, so the roadblocks that now exist to protect them would no longer be needed.

They rejected "genuine independence and sovereignty" because it did not include settling an additional one million Arabs in Israel.

You still don't get it. They have made their demands quite clear: an Arab Israel and a Jew-free Palestine.

BTW, do you think Sharon "needs" Hamas?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


More likely, once he is cornered his own people will turn on him. Sure, he can bus people to demonstrations, but how many people are prepared to go down with a man they never elected and who has killed thousands of opponents to stay on top?

The trouble is that his armed forces (police and government officials) and their families are most likely well fed. These individuals live on the backs of the remaining Iraqis and one should consider them parasites.

I don't have a percentage of individuals that are on the payroll of Hussein but it must be substantial. The west has their idols (rock stars and actors and actresses) and it seems to me that so do the Arabs/Muslims.

Bin Laden is seemingly loved by women throughout the Arab world (even in the west) they adorn him. Strange lot of people these Arabs and they sure have my brains scrambling to figure them out. They sure don't get their logic from the same part of the brain as me (then again I have been called brainless from time to time and perhaps rightfully so).

Still I hope you're right and I hope he ends up with the same fate as Nicolae Ceausescu.