4/3 Extra: Palestinian Girl
 

http://www.metastudios.com/images/salute.jpg

I'm not going to bother re-writing what MSNBC said. Here's the caption.

The first thing I thought was "She's not saluting. She has no clue what the hell's going on." Look at her. She must be two years old, <b>maybe</b> three. <b>Maybe</b>. Some guy's even holding her hand up. I'm not sure what purpose these pictures serve or why Palestinian militants keep taking them. About the only effect it has on myself (and most people, I assume) is to instill thoughts like "Wow, those Palestinian extremists are pretty fucking nuts, turning their kids into soldiers." The mind boggles.

I saw for the first time yesterday a suggestion (it wasn't backed up) that the families of suicide bombers get a nice stipend (the suggestion was $25,000).

That would explain a lot.

Thanks for posting the pic.

What bothers me is the guys in the background..

The one on the left is auditioning for the next Matrix sequel.

Next to him is what looks like a Quake model (no real features)

The guy just to the right of the arm looks like he was expecting this to be something usefull rather than a bunch of loonies

and as for the two blokes on the far right, do they look like their students waiting for the bar to open or what?

On a more serious note, when we (royal, refering to humans in general) are trying to persuade two / three year olds to kill someone I think it is about time to let go of our claims to being the most evolved species on the planet.....

Datalas

(not entirely amused)

Update: that "suggestion" yesterday was talked about in today's Rumsfeld press conference. Still don't know whether it was verified.

Eh, it's been known for quite some time that familes are rewarded for producing a "martyr". I first read about it probably a year ago - some guy was going to blow himself up and one of the "bonuses" of doing so was that the money his family would get would help them out. Most suicide bombers are poor and come from families that live in abject poverty. The organizations (like Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, etc) raise funds to build the bombs and whatnot. Then they recruit some poor kid to go detonate himself in a supermarket or whatever. His family is paid accordingly.

Same planet, but we live in totally different worlds.

[ Edit - Oops! ]

Heh heh heh heh..

Linkage to more information - http://www.msnbc.com/news/733574.asp

Suffice it to say...
 

The most moderate among them may have more hatred inside them than anyone you will ever meet in your life, but they are not crazy. They're reacting to events in a rational way - the same way you might, perhaps. Truthfully I'm glad you can't imagine what would drive a person to this. It's not the sort of knowledge that makes life easier to live.

I don't want to say it's anyone's fault - all this is is a fight over land; oldest sort of fight around, after fighting over spouses. It's just been prodded and poked and carefully fostered by a variety of people (U.S., Soviets, Gulf states) to serve various ends, and now it's hit a certain critical mass.

Ironically Bush's amateur night foreign policy is most directly responsible for this latest round of escalation; Clinton had been putting unprecedented pressure on the Israelis to cut a deal, and seeing an opportunity, succeeded in getting them to the table. They were within months of clinching something plausible. Then, rapid-fire, Clinton and Barak were gone. Bush's people put the word out that Israel had carte blanch, and Sharon built his election campaign on starting that riot at Al Aqsa. 10 years of progress down the tubes. Leave it to the oil barons.

FYI, the suicider's family usually does get money from the organzations, sometimes a lot depending on who'se paying. But most of them would do it for nothing. They've been brought up for three generations to believe murdering a Jew will get you straight into heaven. Even if we wake up tomorrow and start doing everything right, it's going to take a long time for that to fade...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bomber_money_3

I don't think they're crazy as in "mentally insane". As a matter of fact, I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian cause. But stuff like this does nothing to help them - it only hurts them. The rest of the world looks at this picture and says "What a bunch of savages." Admittedly, I can't say that I feel differently. Steering children into extremism is disgusting, whether it be the KKK here at home or Islamic Jihad in Palestine.

Martyrs payday
 

The IRA used to raise a lot of money in the States for widows and orphans, of course they siphoned more than a bit off the top for arms.


Maybe we should stop funding funding the various thugs? $3 billion a year translates into an awful lot of wind mills and solar panels.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul26.html

From what I've read, it's more near $10 billion. :\

A billion here a billion there pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Awww, look at the cute wittle machine gun .. complete with twin magazines stuck together. That's really nice that companies are willing to make such wide range of product. No matter your size, we have a gun for you. Of course, a fully loaded gun might be a bit heavy for a two-year-old, but we have a complete range of tripods too.

-B

I think the idea is just a show of solidarity, otherwise its pretty meaningless. Some kinda of swearing in or something.

And jsut because MSNBC doesn't show picture of Isreali protests with kids covering their hands with red paint symbolising thier calls for more blood doesn't mean it doesn't happen, i've seen it.

Most of the world is saying the Palestinians have so little left as to commit suicide. Throughout most of the world, suicide bombing is no longer considered terrorism. In most of the world, suicide bombing is considered a Palestinian self defense act. There is only one nation left on earth in support of the Israeli invasion - the US as noted by both ABC and CBS news. Most of the world is not openly condemning Israel, but only the US is encouraging the invasion.

Throughout the entire Middle East, this statement is so commonly acknowledged as to be considered fact. George Jr has given Sharon the Green Light to annex the West Bank and ethnic cleanse the land. There are no reasons to believe this is not true.

Today the Vatican called in diplomats of the offending nations for a dressing down. The Vatican outrightly blames only the Israelis and the US for the current violence. Rarely does the Vatican respond to such world events so forcefully.

Ironically, the State Department had recalled diplomats from throughout the world in a conference on why the US has such a poor reputation lately throughout the world. Duhhhhh. Makes one wonder what mental midget is framing US foreign policy.

Let's see. Rumsfeld suggests torture may be necessary to get information from a recently captured leader of al Qaeda. Only right wing ultra extremists would imply such things. Curious this is the same man who fears to see naked statues. Where did he get his morality? He fears a naked statue but cuddles up to a dichead.

Last year, noted was that extremists drive moderates (the source of most intelligent people) into the arms of adversary extremists. That picture of a little girl in fatigues and carrying a rifle is just what happens when a dichead advocates the murder of a peace seeking Prime Minister, then creates an intafada, then escalates violence - all with a single adgenda - to destroy UN 242, UN 338, and the Oslo Accords.

None of us would be here today if the dichead had his way. He, more than any other person, is directly responsible for bringing the world closest to nuclear world war. He did so by outright lying, insubordination, and a 'screw everyone else' attitude. So what has changed? Now that he is Prime Minister, he has become an honest man?

That picture is exactly what happens when the world does not prosecute a dichead who massacres 5,000 women and children in a refugee camp, and when a naive people elect him their Prime Minister.

Listen to the BBC, et al. Most of the world, outside of official channels, really does not comdemn the Palestinians for suicide bombings. The dichead has obtained exactly what his plans called for years ago when he intentionally started Intafada II.

Wow tw, you certainly have an interesting view of the world.

Most of the world doesn't consider suicide bombings terrorism (I'd like to see a poll on that)... Rumsfeld advocates torturing detainees... George W. Bush supports ethnic cleansing... and the Vatican "called in diplomats" for a forceful dressing down, like we somehow report to them?

:(

I hate to see you wrong because it weakens your arguments, but you've been mislead (or have misremembered) here. Rumsfeld has stated pretty clearly that the al Qaeda leader recently captured will <b>not</b> be tortured. He also had nothing to do with the naked statue in the Great Hall of Justice - that was Attorney General John Ashcroft that ordered the curtains to cover up Lady Justice's breasts.

and you believe him on the torture?
pffftHAhahahahaha

<i>George Jr has given Sharon the Green Light to annex the West Bank and ethnic cleanse the land. There are no reasons to believe this is not true.</i>

Except of course for the UN resolution where we voted to demand they leave Ramallah. You must have missed that one?

<i>Listen to the BBC, et al. Most of the world, outside of official channels, really does not comdemn the Palestinians for suicide bombings.</i>

I would expect that a proper news reporting organization would not take sides.

Meanwhile, now that Bush has mentioned 242 and Oslo many times in the last few weeks I would have expected a new take on it from you. Bush is pressing that direction; take notice.

Lest we start getting the impression one side might be right...
 

The seminal moment was when Faisal Al-Husseini went to an Egyptian newspaper and said that the peace negotiations were a Trojan Horse, and the only real goal of them was the elimination of all Jews in the levant...

"...our ultimate goal is the liberation of all historical Palestine from the River to the Sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations."

Al-Husseini wasn't the only person with this opinion and he wasn't the only one who said it, but he was the PLO Executive Committee member in charge of Jerusalem Affairs, and he got in all the damn newspapers with it.

You don't conduct peace negoations while bragging to the press that your real goal is to manipulate your negotiating partner into giving you political, economic and military concessions which will help you exile or genocide them. By now, everyone in Israel has read those words.

Frankly, if you talk like that, you may never be able to negotiate for peace again.

And while I'm on the subject, I see a lot of EU condemnation of Israel's conduct, especially from the Vatican, but Europe is not the place I'd go for unbiased opinion on the Jewish state, and the Catholic Church... don't get me started.

I'm glad you're a cynic and all, but the fact of the matter is that he's going to be forced to stand by those words. The captured are monitored by Red Cross and if anything is wrong, they cry foul.

Action speaks louder than words. So far only empty words, no action. Ariel Sharon is known as a supporter of annexing the West Bank. His slogan is "Palestine lies east of the Jordan river", suggesting that the Isrealies should drive palestinans further into Jordan. (The West Bank is/was Jordanian territory)

He has been pushing the hardest to support Isreali settlers (currently 200,000!) on the West Bank. Because it gives "proof on the ground" and effectivly forcing the outside world to accept the West Bank as Israeli territory once it's emptied by force.

Without Bush more openly opposing that, it will happen. It took Bush several weeks of international condemnation to finally speak out against the Isreali "lebensraum" policy. But he need to take action when they keep doing it again and again. (The "security" excuse, is just that, an excuse. Has Isreal gotten more secure with aggressive military action? No. And it will not work in future either, even Sharon knows this)

US threats to stop the millions of $ in military support would be a start. Preferably along with threats to stop the uncoditional polical support it has given Isreal in the last 50 years. Punisment for the Sabra and Shatila massacre (2700 innocents killed by Isreali trained christian forces, supported by IDF soldiers): 3 months of no free arms from Uncle Sam! Again, all empty words. No action.

I think there is a misconception that Europeans support the Palestians. We don't. We support peace. There is a difference. Suicide bombings are disgusting and Arafat is a coward for not accepting the Palestian state he was offered. But two wrongs don't make a right, blunt reprisals against an entire society for the actions of few create nothing but hate.

Unless peace means killing everybody on the other side, which is not exactly a foreign concept to Sharon considering that he allowed the massacre in Sabra and Shatila. (Minister of Defense at the time.)

Too bad Clinton is gone, he had the best (and most critized by US right wingers) middle east policy of any US president. It resulted in historic peace talks and two years of cease fire. Without that kind of commitment from the US the savagery will continue, because it's the only nation powerful enough to pressure both side to the negotiating table.

Palestine Red Crescent Society
 

http://www.palestinercs.org

An interesting site maintained by the Palestinian equivalent of the Red Cross.

"Israeli Army uses confiscated wireless devices from detained PRCS medics to interfere with ambulance services" ;

"PRCS has to-date documented two cases in which paramedics were used as human shields by the Israeli Army (Mar 30 and Apr 2)"

And so on.

In other news Canada's Svend Robinson is off to Ramallah:
(http://canada.com/vancouver/news/story.asp?id={CDCDFC52-A607-45E4-8429-AAE01E5A6E05})

What the US votes in the UN and what we really do are two separated events. It is quite likely that even Tony Blair would have scolded George Jr if we had not voted that way. Bush's Middle East position is not held by any other nation in the world - except Israel.

In the meantime, Sharon had promised (I believe it was Colin Powell or George Jr) on the same day he attacked Arafat's HQs that he would pull out of Ramallah. Instead, Sharon moves deeper into Ramallah and many other West Bank cities since then - lying just as he did in Lebanon 20 years ago when ordered by the Israeli Prime Minister - multiple times - to halt. Is George Jr just another backboneless leader to lie to - or just naive - or is George Jr as racist as Ariel Sharon? Did we hold Sharon to his word? Of course not. Does our President endorse ethnic cleansing? We know Sharon lies as he has since he nearly took the world to nuclear war - and George Jr does not care. Sharon has been given a Green Light. Even Charlie Gibson suggested same tonight on ABC Network news when he noted that everyone in the Israeli government he talked to knows they will only have this Green Light for a short time. Another damning fact that suggests this George Jr. Green Light does indeed exist.

The Arab world is right to believe we have given Sharon a Carte Blanc - to do as he pleases for a few weeks - as Charlie Gibson reports. There are no facts to say otherwise. That UN Resolution (I beleive it was a Security Council proclaimation) is simply window dressing - not the real opinion of George Jr. - who blames the victim - Palestinians - for their own predicament.

The BBC has not taken sides. They have reported facts - noted how suicide bombings are not comdemned throughout large segments of the world - and not on the streets of any Arab nation. [Tobiasly - do not again misrepresent that as "Most of the world doesn't consider suicide bombings terrorism"]. I don't remember which news service (maybe Bloomberg) reported that only 2 nations out of 57 condemn suicide bombings. When confronted by outright oppression, is it immoral to defend your people with everything you possess? Of course not.

Even George Jr is not immune from criticism from most of the world. When the Vatican dresses down your diplomats, then you can be sure the rest of the world is not happy either. Note Tony Blair's stony silence. George Jr. has antagonized or strained American relations with most of the world. Eventually even George Jr will have to confront UN 242 and 338. But currently, George Jr is limiting comments to UN 1402 - something about suspending violence. Geroge Jr talks only of the Mitchell and Tennant accords (concepts, agreements, findings?). He actually does not mention UN 242 or 338 much - not at all as far as I have heard. In yesterday's news conference in mid afternoon, he talked of 1402 - not 242 and 338 nor the Oslo Accords as far as I heard.

George Jr talks about Israel's right to defend itself. What he does not say is damning. What about Palestine's right to defend itself? Palestinians were under attack long before the wave of suicide bombings. Death rates of Palestinian civilians were in excess of 20 to 1. Where was George Jr when Palestinian farmers has their olive trees chopped down because a terrorist **might** hide there. A terrorist that would be attacking Jews traveling to an illegal West Bank settlement - just another minor point so conveniently forgotten. Where was George when the Israeli courts refused to hear that famer's petition? Where was George Jr when the government confiscated famer's land without due process either for unpaid taxes or for eminent domain - steal farmland to build a larger highway to that illegal West Bank settlement?


And so those people defended themselves using terrrorism - as defined by George Jr. They immorally ambushed, attacked, and murdered British soldiers. They rioted in the cities in response to oppressive government actions. They even threw tea into Boston harbor. What makes 18th Century British any different from 21st Century Israelis? Well, the British did not openly murder 20 Yanks for every dead Brit. They did not attack policemen in Boston because of rebel ambushes in the countryside. When the British used live bullets to quash an anti-British demonstration, the shot was heard round the world - excessive force to quash a just cause. Israel's army routinely violates principals of a peace keeping force using violence even the British would not have used.

Previously Israeli army censors even attempted to censure all news reports - or shot at reporters - because honest news reports cannot be trusted. All reporters killed recently (ie one from Italy) were killed by Israeli soldiers - who are so careful not to kill innocent people?

Israeli troops keep 'accidentally' killing Palestinian children? They accidentally shot at American newsmen - the most recent being an ABC cameraman trying to fix water on their hotel. They have stolen other men's livelyhoods - outright oppression. The Palestinians have every right to defend themselves as violently as the American Colonists did in the 18th Century. That quoted principal that justified American violence - the reason that also justifies Palestinian rebellion - is from the American Declaration of Independence.

If there is plenty of blame to go around, then Americans who demanded justice in the years before the Declaration of Independence were also just terrorists - per George Jr's definitions. But then George Jr prefers to blame the victim for his own problems - not to mention that George Jr gave the Green Light to one of the world's most vile men - Ariel Sharon.

The Israelis are doing in Palestine what the Serbs were doing in Bosnia - except the Serbs did not have a Green Light from the President of the US.

<i>He actually does not mention UN 242 or 338 much - not at all as far as I have heard. In yesterday's news conference in mid afternoon, he talked of 1402 - not 242 and 338 nor the Oslo Accords as far as I heard. </i>

I've heard him mention 242 and Oslo three times and that was before today. Wait until you see what he said today -- you'll have to swallow your tongue. I think you'll enjoy the new take - a sudden shift in your direction.

Here is an interesting interview with Ariel Sharon from 2001, it answers a lot of questions.


http://www.humanityonhold.com/sharon/quotes.html

How can there possibly be peace when such a person is leading Israel?

No doubt there is a change in George Jr's actions. He has finally relented and got involved - after every EU country (an ironic reverse) begged him to get involved. George Jr said he wanted to get involved many days ago, but was waiting for the right time. Others say the last Sunday bombing and the 18 year old Palestinian girl suicide bomber was what changed his mind. So where was he all week? Why the stall?

Again, if we are to take Charlies Gibson's ABC News report, George Jr was stalling to give the Israelis more time. Charlie then noted how long Powell will take to arrive in the Middle East - more time for the Israelis to do at they want.

Yes, George Jr may have mentioned 242 and Oslo (as I suggested), although he has been rather quiet about this fundamental requirement for peace. IOW he has permitted, indeed encouraged, the final destruction of the Oslo Peace Accords - either out of ignorance or intentionally. However the final act would be to remove Arafat. George Jr stopped at letting that happen. Had George not said anything, we all but know that Arafat would have been removed or murdered. The international response would have been too much even for Geroge Jr - despite what Rumsfeld and Ashcroft were probably saying. This is probably where Colin Powell just saved either Arafat's life or the last remaining shred of the Oslo Accords.

The fact remains in spades from the time Sharon started the Intafada in Sept 2000, that the entire purpose has been one - to make the Oslo Accords and UN 242 irrelevant. There can be no doubt that Ariel Sharon wants to annex the West Bank and Gaza strip. Too much proof of that has been posted in The Cellar and even in this thread. Ariel Sharon has started the violence and escalated the violence to one end - destroy the peace process and make those resolutions and accords irrelevant by military force. This amounts to ethnic cleansing.

Furthermore, lets take last night's Nightline. The report was quite explicit. 200 Israeli demonstrators were before the US embassy in Tel Aviv demanding the US get involved and end this massacre. The Israeli police did not just break up the demonstration without warning and for no legal reason. They attacked the demonstarators with violence that even the deep south 1960 police would never have done. The Nightline reporter next said that if this is the acceptable violence where the press exists, then how much more violent are the Israelis in those areas where the press is being removed (by firing live ammunition at press and their vehicles)? Previously, the Israeli army at least read a statement before they removed the press - which is unacceptable anywhere the warrior is honest. But now the Israelis fire their weapons instead of ever reading the statement.

How violent and racist? In the same ABC News boardcast, an American women living in Ramallah talks about how Isreali troops marching into her home and ransacked it. She told them up front that she was an American and that they had no right to do these actions. So instead, the Israeli troops pissed on her floors. What can we expect from a racist nation. They outrightly too out their penises and pissed on her floor.

It is quite obvious that the world's most racist nation is Israel. Furthemore it is obvious that Sharon's plan to destroy the peace process and the Oslo Accords is right on track. Escalate the violence and then blame the victim for that escalation. That is not just Sharon's current plan. It is what Sharon has done all his life. Did we mention his long history of insubordination and outright lying? Did we mention the suspected massacre of Egyptian prisoners by Sharon during the 1967 war?

Sharon's outright lying over the decades has been so consistent that any Palestinian 'document' relating Arafat with terrorists must be doubted. As too many US reporters keep reminding us - the authenticity of that document cannot be verified. It is not that they have not tried. US press is saying they can't trust the authencity of the Ariel Sharon's proof - for obvious reasons.

As too many others also note, Sharon's purpose is to destroy the peace process. George Jr has successfully contributed to that effort - either intentionally or because he is a mental midget with advisors as right wing extremist as Sharon.

We've tried engagement. It does not work. No financial or military committment to any of these thugs is in the interest of the American people. We should offer one thing, free trade. No more guns, no more planes, no more cash, simple trade or nothing.

I just want to point out a difference between 1776 USA and 2002 Israel/Palestine:

Palestinian suicide bombers target civilians.

If they were fighting soldiers... okay. And some do. But for the most part, civilians are targeted.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson... they didn't advocate the killing of innocent British civilians. They were right in what they <b>wanted</b>, the same as the Palestinians are right in wanting their own state.

The means are entirely different. That is what makes it hard to support the Palestinians. Their extremists ruin it for them and the public doesn't unilaterally condemn the suicide bombers' actions. Many of them support it (to the tune of 80%). How do you say "yeah, we should support these guys" when they advocate killing innocent citizens?

There is a difference between supporting palestinian action without condition and trying to support peace. The world is not black and white you know.

Peace makes the extremists irrelevant. Right now there is no moderate movement in palestine because how could your possibly support talks with people who want to openly drive you from your land? Ariel Sharon and his cronies have generated this on purpose because they need a situation where deporting people for "security reasons" are acceptable.

Nobody with any kind of brainpower supports suicide bombings against civilians. It's just that the extremists run the show on both sides, the moderates have been made irrelevant in this war like situation.

It's interesting to note that suicide bombings used to be the actions of 30 year old hardcore palestinian fanatics with long involvement in Fatah/Hamas/Al Aqsa etc etc. Now it's the action of god damn 18 year old children. Why? Because military action nurtures extremist action.

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?

Moreover, tw, you can't have both Sharon took advantage of a pushover president, and Sharon started the whole thing with the visit to the Temple Mount. Since that visit took place 4 months before Bush took office.

You're right, I meant to say al-Qaeda and said Taliban instead. Regardless, you have stated several times that your opinion is fact when that is not the case. How do you know about "active discussions" within the DoD? Anonymous sources in news articles you've read, I'm sure. The point is, you left out part of that story (i.e. Rumsfeld's response to those accusations) because it made your point seem stronger. That leads me to wonder whether you're really seeing the whole picture on other issues.

I find it interesting that you quote yourself ("Rumsfeld suggests torture may be necessary") to prove your point, when that statement itself is either false or unprovable. Rumsfeld never suggested torture may be necessary, at least not publicly. If you have proof otherwise, please share it.

Call me a cynic but i don't find it hard to beleive rumsfeld would support torture, or that the DoD was talking about hwo to do it but i also have ot agtree, there is no evidence

Hey, I never said it didn't happen.. I don't consider it out of the realm of possibility either.

Two different events have been erroneously merged into one. George Jr was not on the scene when Sharon, et al restarted the Intafada.

What part of the word 'immediately' is not understood? Currently Sharon is outrightly thumbing his nose at a what looks like a backboneless president. "Read my lips. Now means now." Will we hear that paraphrased quote? It certainly explains Sharon's mocking of the US President. When ordered to pull out of the West Bank, Israeli tanks stepped outside of two towns, then instead put both towns to siege. "Oh, we are getting out..." was the expressions also used to continue an invasion right up to Beirut. The man has a history of lying. Why should he have been any better when he ran for Prime Minister? The real question is why no one is discussing his trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity.

The pushover president is obvious and was not in office when a different event, the desecration of Temple Mount, was conducted.

Details were not included because those discussions within the DoD were already reported by numerous news services. Your were expected to know basic news reports or then first ask for details before accusing. I cannot be sure which news services reported that day, since I had listened to Bloomsberg, CBS, and BBC. But later that day, Rumsfeld was asked about those discussions already reported by the press. I never mentioned any of this because you are responsible for knowing basic news reports, or then simply asking for details. We know from news stories that these ongoing discussions included keeping the man at sea, or taking him to another friendly country where torture was legal and routinely used.

Instead, because you were not informed at the time, you now accuse me of leaving "out part of that story because it made [my] point seem stronger."? Nonsense. What I posted was then and is now correct. Your objections are only based on not being informed.

Cute. But nothing on the archives of bloomberg.com, www.bbc.co,uk, or cbsnews.com has any such story, suggesting that what you heard was idle speculation, not reporting of fact. If they had one fact that confirmed such discussions, certainly they would report it, would they not?

I can tell you -- only because I watched Alan Dershowitz explain it on Hardball -- that there would be only one case where they would consider such a thing. If there is a clear and present danger, where a plan is underway and the torture of an individual would result in the facts necessary to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, then they would consider extraditing him to a country where such things are done.

Instead, all we know is that this guy is the third in charge, could identify all the other Al Queda bigwigs on sight, and probably knows of bin Laden's whereabouts.

If that's not enough for the Dod to actually torture him -- and not just to discuss it -- then we can rest assured that we still live in a righteous nation. And I'll tell you what... even if they did discuss it, if all they did was to clarify the conditions under which they would consider such a thing, it's simply not a big deal.

Tobiasly's point remains... you're being disingenuous by ignoring the relevant bits that WERE reported.

I'm not interested in the particulars of how the torture misinformation came to light, and I'm not trying to accuse you. I'm simply noting that when you intentionally leave out half of a story, you lose credibility.

Instead, give all the facts and let people make informed decisions. You have a lot of good points, so there is no need to obscure the whole picture to try to prove a point.

Another example quote: "I don't remember which news service (maybe Bloomberg) reported that only 2 nations out of 57 condemn suicide bombings." I'm sure what you meant to say was, "only 2 nations out of 57 Arab nations condemn suicide bombings".

See how that changes the meaning somewhat?

A point appreciated and acknowledged. However in the case of "only 2 nations out of 57 ", that was a abbreviation to a previous post where I had noted what those 57 nations were AND listed the two Islamic nations as Bosnia and Malaysia. IOW I saw no reason to repeat what those 57 nations were because they had been defined previously - and (some will not believe this as they read on) was trying to keep my posts short.

There have been many inciteful explaination of how Sharon is playing George Jr. and how George Jr really does not understand this entire event. George Jr did not even know until a recent trip that Israel has a nine mile wide waist - he is that ignorant of the world. Sharon has a perfect president to 'play like a fiddle'.

This last weeks The Economist had at least seven inciteful articles on events and background. On last night's (9 Apr) Charlie Rose, the columist noted, as so many others have, that George Jr did not consider this Israeli / Palestinian event as significant. It was Clinton's mistake. It was a distraction from what he considers important - the elimination of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq. The NY Times provides background in
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/09/in...st/09ASSE.html :
That realization finally occured last week. What is Bush thinking now that Sharon has repeatedly thumbed his nose at George Jr - as he did to Ronald Reagan and George Sr? George Jr clearly gave Sharon a green light. Now even the press is noting how aggressively Israel is trying to hide facts - what the real intent is in the occupied territories. An ABC Network News reports explicitly, journalists are intentionally being targeted by Israeli troops - targeted with live ammunition. The BBC reports that Israelis may be intentionally removing water, sewers, sidewalks, and homes - claiming they must make way for heavy armor. That is what numerous West Bank residents are saying on the phone. Reality is that Israel is removing Palestinian infastructure from the West Bank - to drive Palestinians from the occupied territory. After all, is a TV station a terrorist organization? Of course not. Reported would be Zionism in its most racist flavor. But then history has proven Sharon is racist. No reason to understand what 'immediately' means? There is too much critical infastructure to shatter.

To have Powell wander around the Mediterranean for a week as world leaders keep asking him "What are you doing here? Why are you not in Israel?" - what is that nonsense? But then what is a wind dummy? Powell describes Christy Whitman as a wind dummy as used by helicopters, thrown out to see which way the wind blows. Powell must constantly watch his back in an administration that is deeply divided and dominated by the right wing extremists. Moderates live a very precarious existence in this administration - as demonstrated previously during what should have been a low key event during the China Spy Plane incident - an event that had some administration advisors demanding war. They might have gotten it if Powell had not stepped in.

Don't fool yourself. Some major players in this adminstration are both extremist hawks AND very closely allied with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Top of that list is a name all are cautioned to watch - Paul Wolfowitz.

Sharon is only proving he is as described long ago when he was renamed Prime Minister dichead. Not many people like Arafat either - not even many Arab leaders. Peres(?) once said that he did not like the man but it was who he had to negotiate with. However no player in this Middle East drama is as dangerous as Sharon. Sharon is the reason for all problems. Sharon is why Israel was declared a racist nation. Sharon created Intafada 2 as part of his current program. Everything else, including Saddam, is irrelevant to US interests - Everything.

As that columist on Charlie Rose noted, with so much incite and background, this is the worst time ever in the history of Israeli Arab relations. Most Americans don't appreciate how 24 Hour Arab news has so many Arabs sympathetic to anti-American terrorist groups. America's image in the Arab belt has never fallen so far so fast. Does your news sources report that?

So distressed was this man that, instead, he scheduled a trip to Argentina - to visit a crisis that might be resolved and to stay away from the futility called Middle East.

Sharon is playing his game plan exactly as he was doing before he was Prime Minister. This violence was exactly what Sharon planned then and wants today. It is why he can outrightly thumb his nose at the President who sends him $3billion every year - most of it in military aid.

Israel had less than half the combined defense budgets of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria combined in 1967. Thanks in part to that $3billion, Israel now spends 30% more than the combined defense of those nations. And yet Sharon can still thumb his nose at the only country in the world that does not condemn Israel? Of course. He is Sharon as he has always been. A liar, a mass murder, insubordinate, and with no respect for any international laws, treaties, etc that would get in his way of land theft. All those deaths - collateral damage to Sharon. That is his history.

Calm down. Any military operation takes a while to pull back, and besides -- would it really be better for the US if it appeared that Sharon WAS a US lackey? Would it really be better if we jumped over there at the first sign of trouble?

Now the Arabs are mad at us for NOT being the world's policemen? I thought they were mad at us for sticking our nose in there at all.

A week ago, you said that George Jr green-lighted the entire operation -- parrotting the Egyptian propaganda on the topic, which was weird. Today he's a know-nothing dupe while last week he gave the go-ahead for the operation?

Sharon's 'pullback' is smoke and mirrors, and the same itme they mvoed into another 2 towns as they pulle dout of two others, leving a trail of destruction behind them.

Now thats a freudian slip if i ever saw one.

Hahaha, I thought the exact same thing but wasn't gonna say anything!

I am a pretty big fan of George Jr.'s, I think he has handled his presidency very well thus far, but I do think he was a little naive on this whole situation until last week. Not that I think he was lax, but rather that he didn't understand the whole scope.

Of course, a year ago I thought probably about 75-80% of the world thought the U.S. was pretty swell, and about 99.5% of people agreed that blowing up a nightclub full of innocent teenagers was terrorism. Looks like I was wrong on both counts, and so were a lot of Americans.

I'd always heard criticisms about how Americans were concerned only with themselves and were oblivious to everyone else. I dismissed it because we're bigger than most countries... for most of the rest of the world, knowing what's going on in the countries around you is like me the Hoosier knowing what's going on in Illinois. Being up-to-date on foreign policy means knowing what referendum California just passed this year.

But we can't be oblivious any longer, and as Undertoad points out, it's very difficult to strike a balance between playing policeman and letting everyone deal with their own problems. I think Dubya happened to calculate a little too far on the latter side regarding the Middle East, but he's coming around very quickly, and my kudos to him.

--toby

I heard him say last week than Arafat should do more to reign in terror *now*, while he has no ploce, communications etc, i'm sorry but eitehr that is colossal stupidity or a serious case looking in the other direction.

tw's sharp, he just has problems spelling. It's actually pretty common among a lot of really sharp people I know. No Freudian slip at all - just misspelled the word.

dham, relax, i just thought it was funny. Hell i if anyone shouldn't bag people about spelling/typing its me but that one i couldn't pass up, too funny.
i was j o k i n g