I know exactly how it works. I know what Sharon wants. I know what Arafat says he wants. I even know what Hamas and the like want.

I support a Palestinian state.

I condemn Israel's incursions into the West Bank.

I strongly condemn suicide bombings against civilians.

You are trying to complicate a very simple issue. Let me make it clear: <b>By targeting civilians with suicide bombs, Palestinian extremists give Israel ammunition with which to attack them</b>. Israel can look justified in its actions <b>because Palestinian extremists do what they do</b>. Palestinian extremists can <b>never</b> look justified in their actions because <b>they are killing innocent civilians</b>. Hence all the support of Israel.

Palestinian extremists don't want peace. They don't want their own state. They want Israel to be undone. You seem to be confused on that. So do 80% of Palestinians. By supporting the suicide bombings (80% of Palestinians) they are showing their ignorance in believing that the suicide bombers want peace. Some suicide bombers, such as the 18 year old girl that detonated herself last weekend, have taken the bait. She thought she was fighting Israel. No. She is fighting peace. She is fighting a Palestinian state.

Palestinian extremists will never win a war against Israel. They have to bargain. They have to go to the table. They can't win otherwise. Not in the court of public opinion and not against Israel, which is what matters.

If there were no suicide bombings, what justification would Israel possibly have for its recent actions?

Its not that they are confused they are just _pissed off_
Christ if someone ran a tank over my car, blew up my house, arrested me fo no reason, harassed ambulances, destroyeed my libvelyhood, my sources of food and then blamed me i'd take up a gun and start shooting back too, fuck the concequences you'd just be that furious, they are destroying lives. I've already got zero sympathy for any Isreali settler or Soldier that dies.

I read a large article the other day, which first had the story is an Isreali family, then a palstinian one, even though they tried to even it up it just didn'twork.
"we're scared to take busses" somehow doesn't compare with "Well my house/lifes work was demolished because they claimed snipers were using the roof, then they ripped up the street, oh yea by brother was arrested we havne't heard form him since, my kids can't go to school and by business has been destroyed.:angry:

You cannot apply 3000 BC standards or 2002 AD standards to 1775 AD. In 1775 AD, shooting a soldier from behind a tree, let alone ambush, was as equally reprehensible then as a suicide bomber is today. Washington, Jefferson, et al did not advocate military action or ambushes then as PA authority leaders do not advocate suicide bombing today. But it does not matter. The actions in both cases are a direct result of those same principals stated in the Declaration of Independence.

As I noted before, I advocate more death, equally, on both sides. It is the only way remaining that extremists will lose the support of moderates. Unfortuately when the Israeli / Palestinian death rate is one to one, then peace becomes more likely. Sharon understands that. The death rate had gone from 20 to 1 down to 3 to 1. Therefore Sharon had to escalate - to increase the death rate on the Palestinian side.

We know that Sharon intentionally empowered extremists on both sides as part of his plan to destroy the Peace Process. We know that Sharon wanted this 'to the death' confrontation. It has been his history - how he does things - even back in the 1960s.

I was thinking specifically of Ariel Sharon when I posted on 20 Sept 2001 in "Who is on the "Enemies List" ":
The facts have not changed. George Jr has empowered Ariel Sharon by his inactions - and again by blaming victims for their fate. Do we have a mental midget President, or one who supports ethnic cleansing and the extremist, mass murder, Ariel Sharon? Yes, anyone with kind words for the racist Ariel Sharon advocates ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories. That is the intent of Sharon today as it was the mass murder of 5,000 Palestinian women and children in a Lebanon refugee camp.

The Israeli Army fears to have you know what is happening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/06/in...st/06JOUR.html

The NY Times also reports:
And so the Israelis ignore even George Jr's demand. Stalling for more time? Or is the Green light really still lit?

Also from the New York Times:
Actions by Israel clearly not taken to encourage a peaceful settlement but taken to promote Sharon's agenda.

Back in America, even after a letter signed by many right wing Republican extremists - including that Drug Czar William Bennet - something happened. This from CNN at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...ell/index.html
Correct. Only the US government supports the Israelis. Is every other nation in the world wrong? Is it our President, surrounded mostly by right wing extremists, that cannot see reality. Can being surrounded by too many extremists cloud an issue? Why then did the most minority viewpoint in the George Jr administration - that of Colin Powell - prevail? It is what that CNN article asks.

You can try to justify it all you want Jaguar.. no one is saying the Israelis are squeaky-clean. I'm sure you're correct on many of your points.

Regardless, walking into a nightclub and blowing up a dozen teenagers will never be justified. Besides that, it will never get the extremists anywhere. It will just continue the spiral of violence.

You say people are justified to be pissed off in retaliation for soldiers destroying property and making unwarranted arrests. Don't you think someone has a right to be pissed off if someone's child is killed by a religious extremist for something they had nothing to do with?

Sharon is in power because there are enough Israelis who either know someone who has been killed or is, as you put it, too scared to ride the bus, and they're tired of living in fear.

You see, senseless violence begets more violence and it's never justified. I agree that it's not justified when it's done by Israelis, but I also know it's unjustified when it's done by Palestinians. No matter how just their cause, no matter how pissed off they are, no matter whether you say others would do the same thing in the same situation.

P.S. I hope you realize your signature about Mariah Carey isn't true.. http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/carey.htm

I'm not trying to *justify* it i'm simply understanding the mentality that drives people to do these things. Its understandable, doesn't mean its right, or logical.

You have it backwards. Too many are scared to ride the bus because of Sharon and Likud exist. These were not problems when Rabin was negotiating the Oslo Accord. Likud had to all but advocated the assination of Rabin because the Oslo Accords are the enemy of Likud. Sharon is personally responsible for creating Intafada 2 in Sept 2000 - as part of a greater plan to annex occupied territories. This violence and terror was started by Likud, in general, and by Sharon, in particular.

The first step in destroying the peace process was to murder Rabin - as all but called for by most every right wing extemist such as Sharon. The following violence was directly traceable to the right wing program to destroy the peace process. From the man who bangs pots in Arab neighborhoods on every Islamic Sabbath to the men who steal Arab land to build highways to illegal West Bank settlements. The total lack of judicial review or law enforcement makes violence inevitable.

Murder and death was always necessary in the possession of land. It is why we created court systems - to make that murder and death unnecessary. It is why the Israeli Supreme Court was all but gutted - so that land could be stolen without even a fair hearing. No legal protection means that murder and death will always be the only alternative.

Why does all this violence occur? We keep coming back to the same point - Pax Israel and a greedy right wing extremist Likud mentality.

They never forgot humiliation when their illegal settlements were removed, by force, by the Israeli Army, from the Sinai - as required by peace. Elimination of those West Bank and Gaza settelements are also irrefutiblely necessary for peace. Likud, et al will never let elimination of illegal settelements happen in the West Bank. Thereforewe have the current violence - in part so that you will forget how illegal every Israeli settlement in the West Bank and Gaza is. So will you not see the latest programs to steal possession of the land. So that you will not notice the extensive building boom ongoing in those occupied territories. These are why death rates should actually be higher.

Middle East violence is all about who gets the land - as it has been since before there was organized religion. A peaceful solution is clearly defined. But one party is doing everything it can to destroy that Internationally defined peace settlement. The one man most destroying an International peace is the same man who all but tried to get every reader here killed in nuclear war and who organized the massacre of 5000 women and children. Creating violence and war is a normal part of this man's life.

There is plenty of blame to go around - and it all now centers around Ariel Sharon. Sharon is in power because he wants to destroy peace. That peace sits directly in his path to stealing the occupied territories. One would have to be blind to not see that. Although others are culpable, there is only one man who is cuplable in every violent act today - Ariel Sharon.

Arafat started the currant infeda, but we all know sharon jsut loves letting blood. Hizbolah seem to be getting on the scene too, good, they know how to bloody the Isrelis in such a way as to make them actually sit up and listen.

oh btw thx bout the quote, ah well, time for a change anyway ;)


What you're missing is that each sides 'knows' that even if they stop, the other side won't. If Hamas staged a peaceful sit-in in Ramalah they'd either be a: shot b: beaten c: arrested d: nothing. But it woudl do nothing to help agains't an enemy that doesn't want peace, or to make concessions.

No prob, I remember getting that same quote in an email.. whenever I get something like that I'm not sure to believe, I go over to Snopes and look it up. It's a great site, and even if something is false, the explanation behind it is usually interesting.

From the very first sentence from an article in Economist.com entitled "The intafada" date 4 Apr 2002:
From a 5 Oct 2000 article entiled "War in Palestine" cited by that 4 Apr 2002 article:
Bottom line - Sharon started the second intafada - for reasons obvious and defined earlier.

This also from The Economist magazine in an article entited "Sharon's War" datad 4 Apr 2002:
Bottom line: Sharon's history is to create war (Lebanon invasion and the second Intafada) while routinely lying to everyone. Will the world step in, like in Bosnia, to stop a slaughter of a defenseless people by a racist government that is armed and financially supported by the US while protected by a naive US president? The answer is, like in Bosnia, the other world powers have no backbone - no balls - no military commitment to all those fine principals they claim to stand for. Even in Bosnia, Europe could not stop mass genocide until a president with intelligence and backbone said "enough" and told Europe how it would next act. The current US president has a political history of fearing anything that involves risk. His solution to the massacre in the Middle East - do nothing more than permit your representative to now talk to all parties. That for George Jr is a major action? Yes, if your support is behind a racist with history of subordination and mass murder.

Sharon sees a pushover president and it taking every advantage. A mental midget president who is shocked by a turn of events that everyone knew was coming. Barak's people, during the last election, sent out simulation draft notices to demonstrate what those people would get if Sharon was Prime Minister. Guess what. Barak's simulation was perfectly accurate. Just how much more can Sharon escalate? With George Jr, are there any limits to Sharon's violence?

What will happen next? Death rates on both side must increase drastically above the 300+ deaths this last month (which includes the massacre of five PA policemen - shot in the head execution style by unknown Israeli soldiers only because they were policemen and one of the few organizations not actively involved in any fighting). Sharon's agenda is ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories. Does the name Milosevik sound familiar? Does the military executions of another race sound familiar? Different nations. Same agenda. Article is entitled "Sharon's War" because he started and is THE reason for all current violence.

Fill in X with either "Palestinian" or "Israeli", and Y with the other, it doesn't matter.

There will always be some X who would like to see every last Y either killed or driven from the land. But there will also be both X and Y's who want nothing more than to be able to live their life in peace.. go to the store, walk their kids at night etc. without fear of being blown up, attacked by overzealous soldiers, caught in some gunfight, etc.

Unfortunately jaguar's right, neither side even trusts the other enough at this point for a cease-fire to be meaningful. If X calls for a cease fire, some idiot from Y will kill some more X, forcing X to retaliate and here we go again.

Thankfully Bush is starting to get serious about the need to intervene and push both sides into some sort of agreement.

Tw, you seem to have a lot of hatred towards Israelis.. how would you feel if the tables were turned, and the Palestinians became the ones with the more powerful army, making incursions into Israeli land, tearing up buildings, arresting citizens.. would you then be screaming just as loudly against them?

The one thing I definitely agree with Bush on is that Arafat has failed his people. If he were halfway serious about stopping terrorism, this process would be much further along today. It is time for him to step up to the plate, and get serious about peace. Forget whatever grudge he has with Sharon, I hope he realizes that once Israel withdraws from his HQ, this may be his last chance to lead his people towards peace.

Last thing i heard bush say was that he though arafat should curb militants. Gee thats easy to do when you have ENEMY SODLIERS in your compund, no phone, power, or water and most of your force has got to pissed off with being shot at while trying to do thier job so has left to attack Isrealis. WHne bush stops licking Sharon's ass ill agre he's doing something.

At the same time, Northern Ireland got passed that, if you relaly wnat peace you have to irgnore them long enough to start a peacefire, Isreal is not *willing* to do that, and has made sure there is a continual circle of violence thereby making the 7 days of peace bullshit impossible.

Tw, i believe Arafat wielded enough power at that point to stop it, but blood on the streets is unquestionably a powerful negoitating tool. The other issue is that arafat has always been preoccupied by the way he'll be protrayed in history, the only way to keep the dream of a true palastininan state with Jerusulem and without a few hundred thousands settelers is to fight to the death, because Isreal will never give thsoe concessions willingly. As for a palastinian state, Syria and JOrdan shoudl also give territory if they were serious about the area where palastine should be.

You have accused me of making decisions from emotion. I take that to be a cheap insult because clearly if 'tables were turned', then so would be my posts. Israelis actions here are aggressors because they are led by a government of Likud whose interests are to steal the occupied territories.

If I had the hate as you state, then why praise for Rabin or Shamir? Read the long posts in 'Man vs Tank'. Problems created between the Palestinians and Israelis involves Likud aggrevation. Likud are extremists - enemies of honest humans. Even worse, extremist conservative religious beliefs are central to their thinking process meaning that racism may also be rampant.

Lie, cheat, massacre other people, even invade another country while ordered not to do so by the Prime Minister - do anything to steal land. All logic says Likud is the problem - not Israel. That should have been obvious - if reading carefully. Yes carefully because this is not a simple black and white issue even though I have attempted to simplify it in so many posts.

BTW, what part of 'immediately' does Sharon not understand. He is Likud meaning he has again thumbed his nose at America.

Likud all but called for the assassination of Rabin and got their wish. A little public morning for the cameras. Then they went home to 'celebrate' another murdering of the peace process. There is no doubt that Likud and especially Sharon wants Oslo, UN 242 and all related agreements destroyed. Show me facts otherwise or also acknowledge the evil of Likud.

Stick to logic. Logically you did not carefully read what was posted, or interpreted it according to your own biases. Facts so irrefutible must be stated bluntly - and without being political correct.

You want something nice about Sharon? I also posted that prevously. He is shrewd - like 1930's Hitler. The difference - Sharon's country is not big enough to make world war. Ohhh, Sharon almost did create a world war. Even Hilter's world war would not have been as destructive as the one that Sharon almost created. That's logical fact - no emotion.

You're right tw, I haven't read every word of each of your long posts, so my intention wasn't to offend but to see where you were coming from.

I specifically remember you making statements such as Rumsfeld supporting torture of captured Taliban prisoners (a statement that was conjured up by the news without proof, which Rumsfeld then denied when asked about it), while either inadvertently or intentionally dismissing the other side of the story.

That's my whole problem, people on both sides who think all the blame rests with the other. For example, it seems like very few Arab countries will agree that suicide bombings of innocent civilians is terrorism. They say "if someone believes something enough that he is willing to kill himself for it, how can we say he is a terrorist?"

Statements like that are simply closed-minded, and a shallow attempt to ignore half the issue. When someone does that, all their arguments take on much less weight as far as I'm concerned (not to say you were doing that, that's why I asked). Everything you say about Sharon may be correct, but unless we deal with the whole problem, it won't go away.

The statement was not conjured and your memory is in error.

1) There was active discussion in this adminstration about how to interogate the Al Qaeda 'second in command' prisioner. They wanted information from him desperately and without delay. That meant keeping him out of Camp X-ray. Techniques being discussed were illegal in the US. So where do they take him? Active discussion in the DoD was to keep in on a ship in international waters or in a prisioner in a third country where those unacceptable 'questioning methods' would be legal.

2) I never mentioned torture of Taliban.
There is a major difference between Taliban and Al Qaeda. I referred specifically (although not by name) to interogation methods that the DoD wanted to execute. And yes, torture of this man was being discussed which is why Rumsfeld had to finally deny that torture would be used.

Dhamsaic has responsibily noted (I believe multiple times) my mistakes such as confusion between Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. I want and welcome such criticisms when I make a mistake. But I expect corrections to be done carefully as I have used facts to make those posts. Criticisms of Sharon are not wild speculation nor based upon emotion. They are backed by facts as best that we can obtain. The man is that much of a danger to every reader of this post - as he has been in decades previous. Part of the reason he is so dangerous is that he is so intelligent as to make 'mince meat' of a current US President.

So what is the definition of 'immediately'? Why is a man responsible for the massacre of 5,000 women and children not in The Hague?