posted on April 12, 2002 07:23:22 AM new
Musta been Islam at work in there somehow, I just know it! Certainly, others will agree with me on here ... twinsoft, plsmith, etc. ...
posted on April 12, 2002 08:14:26 AM new
Maybe we should send in the armed forces to neutralize the neighborhood in order to kill the bad guys.
Isn't that the Bush/Sharon answer?
posted on April 12, 2002 08:33:45 AM new
Borrilar, the problem isn't Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity, to the extent that religious precepts aren't twisted to serve political ends. Palestinians are merely pawns of the Arab nations. For that they should be pitied. However, for whatever reason, Palestinians are waging a war, and so pity must be put aside until terrorism is stopped. If terrorists hide in towns and strap explosives onto children, then there are no "innocent civilians."
KRS, how lucky for you that you live in a democracy which grants you the right to spout your anti-government rhetoric. You sure love that part of democracy. In Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations in the Middle East, you'd be dragged into the street and shot. What a hypocrite.
posted on April 12, 2002 09:26:49 AM new
Helen, if you've follwed my posts, I have repeatedly said that the time for pity is past.
On one side, you've got PLO-based actions aimed at killing as many civilians as possible. On the other, the Israelis are taking responsive military action, while trying to preserve civilians, even at the Israelis' own risk. There's no question who is morally "right."
Perhaps you are unaware that in the small twon of Jenin, 20 bomb factories were discovered? I really don't see how anyone can wail about innocent civilians. At least the Palestinians are given a chance to surrender peacefully. If they choose not to, they know the consequences.
The fact that Palestinians want to martyr themselves, or perhaps sell their children as human bombs, does little to encourage my pity.
posted on April 12, 2002 09:46:38 AM new
To the people posting here, the Middle East is an abstract at best. To me it is not. I lived in Israel and was nearly killed in a terrorist attack outside Haifa. I have sat in coffee shops in Jenin and Nablus. I have known many good Palestinians and have no animosity towards them. I personally disapprove of building Jewish settlements in disputed territory.
However, at some point, a line is crossed and there is no possible peaceful response. Although the Palestinians are merely the tool of Arab nations, ultimately they must bear the responsibility and results of their actions. Nablus would never have happened were it not for the daily terror attacks.
The world has stood idly by, despite Bush's terrorism rhetoric. Anyone can see what's going on with the PLO. Shuttling diplomats is a joke. As always, Israel stands alone against all the nations of terror. Considering the buildup of WOMD, it's in everyone's best interests (including America's) to pursue peace in the Middle East.
As an aside, Bush should begin to realize that his anti-Israel stand will hurt him. The Congress, Senate and the American people see the Middle East conflict for what it is. Despite his words, Bush is obviously playing patty-cake with terrorist nations. Bush needs to get in line quickly or he will be out of office.
posted on April 12, 2002 09:50:36 AM new
Well, I do have compassion for innocent people being murdered, abused and used. I have compassion for the children who are being trained by a fanatical faction to carry bombs and also for those people who are their victims. I have compassion for all of the innocent people like you and me who are being killed and bulldozed in both Israel and Palestine.
With Bush, Sharon and Arrafat as leaders, we will never live in peace.
posted on April 12, 2002 10:11:11 AM new
In the news the Palestinians are always lumping the US in with Israel. They burn American flags at the same time as Israel's.
Their signs mention Bush as often as Sharon.
Maybe Bush will think it means something when a couple suicide bomber hit crowds in Washington or New York. Then we will see what he wants Arrafat to say......
I would bet money on it happening. Seems obvious.
posted on April 12, 2002 10:22:57 AM new
I don't think the leaders make much difference in the war on terror. We were hit when Clinton was president and Reagan, Israel was being terrorized before Sharon.
The PLO was killing civilians before the IDF went into the West Bank, and unless decisive action is taken by the IDF, there will be more suicide bombers killing civilians. This isn't ablout a Palestinian state, it is about the destruction of Israel. Arafat was offered a state and refused it.
The avenues for peace are being closed by people like Arafat, Hussein, and bin Laden. When they say they want America and Israel destroyed, they mean it. How many more muderous attacks must they perform before people will believe it ? Does anyone not believe that if Arafat or Hussein, or bin Laden had nuclear, bio, or chemical weapons that could reach us they wouldn't hesitate to use them ?
If the west waits too long and practices appeasement, the war will become 10 times as destructive than if the West acts decisively now.
"Yes, Yasser Arafat also has poisoned the ground under his feet and shares responsibility with Sharon for the breakdown of the peace process. But until recently, Arafat has been unrelentingly reviled by the news media while Sharon, no less monstrous in his behavior, hardly has been criticized.
Both are killers of the innocent. Both are to be roundly condemned by all, and the failure of prominent moderate Arabs to do their part to restrain Arafat is all too obvious. No less a moral offense is the acquiescence of too many Jews, in Israel and abroad, to the comparable crimes of Sharon."
From the getgo they've been the victims in that stupid schoolboy quarrel, as they were there first (leave out the biblical crap about things that can't be verified).
These jews have the gall to slaughter without limit all the while appearing on television and pleaing for our help with bigger foes?
Or blame all of Arabia for not supporting the palestines. Sure, they're crazy, so why don't they do that? Couldn't be that they'd prefer to avoid the wrath of the U.S.? Nah.
No, I think that the U.S. is to blame. This country could have turned it's back on Israel like the rest of the world did, and if we'd have done that there'd be no problem today as the Israelis would have had to go it without the untold billions in dollars and arms that gives them their fighting capabilities. Without those advantages the arab world would have driven them into the sea, and unless they could part the water and walk they'd be just a footnote in history today.
posted on April 12, 2002 05:13:58 PM new
" ... the arab world would have driven them into the sea..."
Hey, isn't that the "hyperbole" you were disavowing just a week or two ago?
But you're damn right -- the "arabs" (as you call them -- even though there are Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraquis, Iranians, etc., in the bunch) would have "driven the Israelis into the sea" ages ago had they felt capable of doing so with impugnity. If that sort of wholesale hatred doesn't tip your decency/morality scale, you're due for an overhaul with the dept. of weights and measures.
posted on April 12, 2002 09:18:38 PM new
>>"the problem isn't Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity"<<
I've said this many times before. Christianity isn't the problem, Christians are! A religious belief may have high ideals, but if the people who practice that religion ignore those ideals they make the whole thing stink....
posted on April 12, 2002 11:54:53 PM new
Helen, everyone has compassion. But should an individual be paralyzed by compassion? In truth, everyone has their limits as to how far they can be pushed. I do and you do too.
Isolationists believe that America should stay out of the Middle East. What would that accomplish? Private donations would fund Israel's military, and Israel would just buy its arms from somewhere else. Without the U.S., Israel would go to Russia and of course Russia would sell it arms. That would not be in America's best interest.
It's anybody's guess whether Islamic Jihad would be satisfied with the destruction of Israel. Were Saddam Hussein powerful enough to accomplish that, would it be enough? That's a risky bet. We tried to stay out of WWII, even after we knew the truth, and as a result we were nearly overrun by the Japanese.
If we ignore the conflict in the Middle East, what might the results be? Perhaps we should prepare by learning to herd sheep and speak Arabic.
posted on April 13, 2002 02:32:03 AM new
It isn't isolationism to know a bad bet. Israel is a bottomless pit, and despite the concern of all jewry the world's welfare does not hinge on their ability to keep the little piece of dirt. They've had more than enough help, so now let them sink or swim in a survival of the fittest environment like every other country on earth deals in.
Private donations couldn't fund even this most recent murdering escapade. Every day some jew is on TV making a loosely veiled plea for more money.
This is only one more case of United States misguided foreign policy. No one should have supported the theft of those Palestinian homelands by decree of the brand new united nations and most did not. But this country did, whether from guilt over not having responded to the atrocities during the recent war, or from political pressure from jewish immigrant organizations, or from the wish to establish a base of operations in order to control oil. And now it's a bad bet. It's been a bad bet since soon after we 'adopted' the bunch of them, but the charm of the underdog held sway.
Now they aren't charming any more. They're just another tribe of murdering heathens no better than all those that they would have us set against.
posted on April 13, 2002 05:17:18 AM new
Stop giving Israel our taxpayers money and free wepons and if Some here want Israel to have things let them donate like they did when American born Jews Piloted the Planes that murdered American servicemen on the USS Liberty. Israel is not an ally she is a parasite.
posted on April 13, 2002 11:38:27 AM new
Israel doesn't need money from the U.S. government. As you observe, that money is a bribe at best. It certainly doesn't give Bush the right to dictate Israeli policy.
If all-out war were to happen in the Middle East, with all the Arab nations ganging up on Israel, extra money would be needed and there would be support from Jews worldwide. However, without U.S. "support" I believe Israel would pull out all the stops. That would be a terrible thing to see. The fact that Israel has a strong defense is what has prevented all-out war from occurring.
I don't know where you get your information, but Israel doesn't have its hand out. In fact, Israel is doing America's dirty work in the Middle East. Your isolationist "blame the Jews" mentality is what enabled Hitler during WWII.
Who's going to help America next time in the Middle East? Saudi Arabia? Not if their oil isn't threatened. You'd have to be crazy to want Arafat, Hussein or another Arab nation in that place. As REAMOND pointed out, if terrorism isn't stopped, we will all pay the price.
posted on April 13, 2002 12:55:29 PM new
Nothings ever going to change until some body with some common sense asks these aholes "what in the hell is the matter with you ?" These people are in love with hate. Both sides. Lets get out and let the whole middle east kill each other off, then we can go get the almighty oil with nobody to contend with.
posted on April 13, 2002 01:40:12 PM new"but Israel doesn't have its hand out"
You should have seen the Israeli Minister of Finance on Chris Mathew's 'Hardball' last night. He repeated several times how much this incursion was hurting and made a host of entreaties for money. Though that was perhaps the most blatant it certainly is not the only such plea that i've seen lately.
If the only thing holding back the Israelis from letting it rip then I'd redouble my belief that this country should back off and get out of their way. Let it rip, and we'll deal with the victor come what may. at least there'd be some sort of peace in the area.
posted on April 13, 2002 02:57:54 PM new
The US can't let it rip for fear of another oil embargo.
The US can influence Israel where Israel has real choices. Sending the IDF into the West Bank wasn't a choice, it was a necessity. No leader of Israel can set idle while his people are being blown to pieces.
And these innocent Israeli civilians are being blown to pieces AFTER Arafat was offered a Palestinian State. You can not negotiate or have peace if only one side has these goals.
If the PLO wants Israel destroyed, then there is nothing to negotiate. Israel should just make the partition as it sees fit, and any agression by the PLO across these lines constitute an act of war and Israel can respond as it finds necessary.
Arafat will keep the terror up until either Israel is destroyed or there are no Palestinians left.
posted on April 13, 2002 04:59:12 PM new
If things don't change, we may have to start at one end of the Persian Gulf and link up with Israel on the other side.
The clerics are calling for death to Israel and the US from Libya to Pakistan.
9 months ago I would have thought it was just hot air. Now I harbor no doubt that if they gain the means to destroy us they will not hesitate.
Appeasement just buys them time to garner the weapons. I can see no peaceful resolution of the matter when people are taught hatred for the West and its ideals in the schools and mosques.
posted on April 13, 2002 06:18:15 PM new
I don't know if they understand the physical reality that if it came to a real knock down winner take all slug fest the US could take on the entire middle east without Israel's help and destroy every nation there within a couple week period.
Perhaps restraint is such an alien quality that they can not imaigine that being the case.
The US was prepared to fight the Soviet Union
who would have the ability to respond in kind with THOUSDANDS of nuclear weapons and the doctrine was to be able to hit every target worth hitting in that vast area with three to six weapons. They said it was not a matter of destroying the targets - it was a matter of how fine do you want to pound the gravel.
Look at a map of the former Soviet Union and look at the area of the middle east and tell me it couldn't be done.
posted on April 13, 2002 08:40:51 PM new
There's quite a variance of opinion as to the worth of the offer which arafat all by his lonesome supposedly did not take. Apparently most of the land would have had no access to any port or other method to transport whatever marketable goods might be produced, for one thing according to a description I saw. What good is a place upon which people can have no hope of survival? It sounds similar to the reservations 'offered' to indians in this country.
All of the focus is on arafat as badguy, but one analyst proposed that had he taken that meager offer he'd have been killed forthwith for betrayal of his people. Could it be that he is aware of the responsibility he bears to those who elected him? To the will of his people? I know that such an idea has become completely foreign here, but perhaps it still has meaning elsewhere. Hard to imagine isn't it?
Reamond, you continually cry out about our impending doom at the hand of all of these fearsome everybodies. You're young enough - why not enlist and put a stop to it. Save us all and your tearducts as well? A man must fight for what he believes at least once lest he be judged not to be a man, you know, and you live in exciting times. It's your chance for glory now, and to hear you talk it may be your last. How can you live with the knowledge that you will forever be likened to chicken little?
posted on April 13, 2002 09:06:44 PM new
"All of the focus is on arafat as badguy..."
Au contraire. Some of the focus is on Arafat as ineffectualguy. Maybe in this post-modernist, cynical-chic age, Ineffectualguy is destined be marketed as next Christmas's hot item -- a superhero without a country or a conscience.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
