The suicide bombing a week ago in the Israeli city of Netanya prompted a frank admission from the Israeli army. They told Yediot Aharnot that the territories cannot be hermetically sealed. For their part, Yediot Aharanot titled the relevant article: 'Netanya attack: Security fence fails, again'.
A few days later, the Israeli army made a chance discovery of a tunnel from Gaza in to Israel. As the Commander of the Gaza Strip Northern Brigade, Colonel Moni Katz, said: "The tunnel threat against Israel existed before the IDF's departure from the Strip…I estimate that in the future there will be further attempts to dig tunnels from the Strip in the direction of Israel."
This is true, though I don't remember a tunnel from Gaza in to Israel being found within the last five years. What Katz doesn't mention is that the IDF has moved non-essential personnel away from the Gaza border due to the tunnel threat. The threat may have always existed, but the seriousness of that threat has increased.
Also in the south, the threat of infiltration from Egypt in to Gaza has increased so much that the government has altered the rules of engagement to make it easier to open fire at individuals crossing the 'peaceful' border with Egypt. The IDF and Defence Ministry had presented a plan to seal the border, which included a fence, electronic sensors, and a force to patrol smuggling routes, estimated at $320m. Prime Minister Sharon vetoed the plan due to the cost.
The soldiers and police who patrol the border estimate that they stop about half of the smuggling/infiltration operations that they know of. Given the apparently firmly-rooted al-Qaeda presence in the Sinai, their well-established ability to strike multiple targets at once, and the growing terrorist presence in Gaza, one might think that a plan to seal the porous Egypt-Israel border wouldn't be referred to as an 'extra-budgetary request', as the deputy prime minister did.
In Gaza itself, the Qassams and mortars continue to be fired at Israeli communities on a daily basis. For their part, the Israeli artillery responsible for firing in response to Qassam attacks ensure that the fields they fire in to are empty of people, and even livestock. Yaniv, an Israeli artillery commander, says, with reason: "It would be inhuman to fire into the population". Indeed it would - so why bother firing at all?
In the 'west bank', a rocket has been fired near Afula. Rocket-fire from and within Yehuda and Shomron is rare; a Hamas lab was found and destroyed in March; another Hamas cell produced and even fired several rockets, before they were killed in Operation Defensive Shield in 2002; the three terrorists caught in the Negev were carrying Hezbollah Qassams-for-dummies booklets. The communities around Gaza aren't ideal targets for the Qassam's poor accuray and small warhead. The towns and villages within easy reach are small enough to miss altogether, and the suburb-style layout makes hitting a live target even less likely.
However, the towns and cities around the 'west bank' are large and densely populated. Rockets fired at those communities would cause more casualties than those fired in to the Negev.
So what do these incidents have to do with each other? Each of these items reflects quite clearly that Israel is in a defensive posture, more reminiscent of pre-intifada years, despite the heightened threat.
Take Majdi Amar from the Nablus area. Amar is a fully-salaried member of the PA's 'security forces' and - as a known member of the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades - a recipient of a PA stipend conditional on a promise not to engage in attacks on Israel. Togther with a local Tanzim leader and five others (all 'security forces' members), he organised funding from Hezbollah member Abu Raviya, based in Lebanon. Raviya contacted Amar in the last few months, telling him that all future contacts would be made through Abu Louay - based in Gaza.
This is from the communique issued by the Prime Minister's Office:
In recent months, Hizbullah has set up a forward HQ in the Gaza Strip to provide a direct link with terrorist in Judea and Samaria in order to transfer funds and instructions. Hizbullah conditions the receipt of such funds on the perpetration of terrorist acts against Israeli targets, regardless of the particular ideology of the cells and terrorists involved.
The regional character of the terrorist campaign against Israel was demonstrated further by the meeting in Damascus on November 15th, between Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, with Khaled Meshaal (Hamas leader) and leaders of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the PFLP-GC. As Ahmed Jibril put it,
“We all confirmed that what is going on in occupied Palestine is organically connected to what is going on in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon.”
In other words, the suicide bombings in Israel, the assassination of anti-Syrian journalists in Lebanon, the attacks on Iraqi civilians and American forces in Iraq, and the development of nuclear arms in Iran are all part of the same campaign.
The policy of separation and negotiation pursued by the Israeli government ought to be viewed in the context of this regional war. Caroline Glick notes:
As many former and current Bush administration officials have acknowledged behind closed doors, the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, like the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria this summer, strongly influenced the terrorists battling the Americans and their Iraqi and international coalition partners in Iraq. For the terrorists, Israel and America are two sides of the same coin.
And the repurcussions of that? Glick again:
Abu Musab Zarkawi and his ilk in Iraq see that their Palestinian and Lebanese partners managed to demoralize the Israeli public to the point where it allowed its government to curb the IDF and hand victory after victory to the terrorists. By the same token, an American rout in Iraq would inspire terrorists fighting Israel to believe that through attrition they can destroy the Jewish state.
As the two main targets of the terrorist campaign against the West, the 'Great Satan' and the 'Little Satan' are in effect the flak jackets of Western civilisation, just as the Israelis of Gush Etzion take pride in calling themselves the flak jacket of Israel. The choices and actions taken in Israel are taken to heart by the same people blowing up buses full of Iraqis or using IEDs against American forces.
The links aren't just ideological or potential - they're well-established. Let's go back to Majdi Amar. Who paid him? Hezbollah. Who train and fund them? The IRGC's Qods Force. Who founded them? President Ahmadinejad. Or take the suicide bombing in Netanya - the Israelis and the PA say the orders came from Damascus.
What do you think Amar, his sponsors, their trainers and their president see when they read about the idiocy surrounding Gaza's borders? Having given up the Egypt-Gaza border to total PA control under heavy U.S. pressure, the Israeli government belatedly realises that the PA is unlikely to do anything to prevent terrorists operating in their midst. They find that al-Qaeda and listed palestinian terrorists are crossing in to Gaza through PA customs, so they aren't exactly keen to let convoys of trucks and buses cross from Gaza to the 'west bank'. The U.S. applies the pressure again.
Who's dumber - the Israelis for letting the PA have the Egypt-Gaza border, despite the obvious dangers, or the U.S. for pushing them to concede the basic security measures Israel tried to retain? The confrontation between terrorist forces and the West has long centered on Israel, a confrontation that 9/11 and the rise of al-Qaeda have brought in to stark relief. So when eve Israel won't protect its own backyard from the world's most dangerous terrorists, and the U.S. pushes for even more hazardous concessions, perhaps the faith terrorists across the world have in the brittle character of Western nations is not as misplaced as we might like.
Well, what's your solution, Colt?
Put all the Palistinians on railroad cars and ship them off to.....
.......oh wait a minute, I'm so sorry.
The solution has been to begin democratic reformation in the Middle East. But Hezzbollah won't disarm and we won't force the issue, Sadr and shiite militias won't disarm and we fold them and their dual allegiances into the Iraqi security services, Abbas won't crack down on terrorists and instead they take over the Pali parliament.
Wretchard has pointed out that this may be the last moment for the Muslim world to avert it's own destruction, but the truth may be that we have waited too long to confront this enemy and the civilization it springs from. My hope is that isn't true, but these are signs that it may be. We won't lose this struggle. The question is how many will die in the process.
"The solution has been to begin democratic reformation in the Middle East."
So, now that the Palestinians have had their land confiscated ( mostly a generation or two ago, but the memory still burns), suffered several massacres themselves at the hands of the Israelis (especially in the years immediately following WW2), were relagated to second class citizenship without equal rights under the law nor political staus generally, etc, etc.....you propose democratic reformation.
Right. sure. Let by-gones be by-gones (as long as my side got away with the goods).
And what if the Democratic republic of Palestine votes to effectively arm itself and go to war with Israel (which it would)?
Deocracy has nothing to do with this, regardless of how many times you repeat in this echo chamber that it does.
You can even present a reasonable hypothesis as to why democracy would make a difference. You are lost in magical thinking.
should be."...you can't even....." though I'm sure you can and will present an unreasonable hypothesis
The Palestinians have no chance while the Saud regime exists, because the latter funds the terrorists. The next biggest source of funding for Palestinian terrorists is the European Union.
Western intelligence agencies reportedly have a consensus that the Saud regime will collapse in five years or less. This opinion is shared by John R. Bradley, author of Saudi Arabia Exposed, who had a WOC thread a few months ago at:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007382.php
We won't find out until the Sauds go down how much of the lost Saudi funds the EU will pay. An EU official pointed out that it funds the Palestinians as part of its covert war on Israel and the U.S.
Funny, back when I was in Beirut, long time ago, these guys were running amok with Kalashnikovs.
Now they're mostly armed with M16s - some AKs, true, but it seems that every time I see footage of their hardcore uniformed regulars, they are brandishing M16s - and not all old surplus A1s either. There are some M4s too.
Now this is all an exercise in minutia, I'm sure, but is the M16 now manufactured in Saudi Arabia?
Dig a moat next to the GAZA fence. Fill it with from the sea.
It's all rather simple:
One side is saying, "We can destroy you, and we will destroy you. Eventually. Even if we haven't yet succeeded---though we tried and failed in 1948 and 1967 (the world conspired against us); but we've never given up our fervent hopes, we've never wavered; we're patient, and in the interim we'll settle for being the victims, which these days is very worthwhile, in fact, exceedingly profitable, especially with enemies like you Israelis (thank Allah you're not Russians or French or English or Americans...or, especially, Arabs). So why should we stop this fight to the death when we have the best of all worlds?
"But you can't destroy us because:
- You don't have the will to do so.
- You will not be allowed to do so.
- If you even dare to do so, you will be destroying yourself (and so we will win, anyway)."
And so far? So far, they're right. So far.
They are armed with M16s because after Oslo the US armed and trained the Palestinian Security services. The same security services which suppport the terrorists.
Clinton and his enablers lived in a fantasy world and unfortunately the Bush administration is continuing along the same lines.
"avedis, what in the world is that supposed to mean?"
It is supposed to possibly suggest that someone - utlimately an American someone - is supplying the Palestinians with arms.
I just think that it's a bit odd, given the either you're for us or your against us rhetoric, that Colt (FN didn't make the A1 that is seen so frequently with these palestinians) or some related US arms dealer, is profitting from the Palestinian cause.
"But you can't destroy us because:
- You don't have the will to do so.
- You will not be allowed to do so.
- If you even dare to do so, you will be destroying yourself (and so we will win, anyway)."
Ah yes, there it is. If only the Zionists were free to do what they want to do - complete the job they started in 1948 with a thorough genocide of their Arab brothers.
So thats at least three on this thread, Apologist, Colt and Meislin that are unabashedly for a Zionist "final solution" to the Palistinian problem. The rest sort of accept that the Palestinians will probably ultimately just have to be killed.
Hollinger, through some astounding mental gymnastics, manages to blame the Saudis for the fate of the Palistinians. Jewish theft of land, slaughter of innocents, etc means nothing to Hollinger or others here.
God's chosen can do no wrong I guess.
This is a great thread. You people are revealing your true selves.
Fortunately, recent polls in this country confirm that you are an increasingly small minority; a true fringe element.
Ah, Davod is probably correct re: M16s.
It also sounds like he is another unmitigated supporter of God's chosen and, no doubt, an advocate of Palestinian extermination.
"Clinton and his enablers......" that statement has the flavor of one who believes "there is just no way to reason with these people".
E-gad avedis. Do we all even live on the same planet?
Assuming the zionist pigs (as some would call them) moved in, killed thousands, used the jackboot of oppression, and are generally bad to live beside -- so what?
The days of having some high moral cause to fight an intergenerational war are over, unless you are fighting for your survival, which the Pals aren't. Suicide bombings, no matter what the cause, on innocent people are immoral and not accepted in civilized society. Blaming the Jews for your own problems? Good lord man, that went out of favor with the Nazis. Please tell me people aren't still spewing that tripe.
I don't even care which side is better or more right than the other -- the Pals live in a self-imposed hellhole. Watching the neighboring countries refuse to accept them while writing checks in a undercover war with Israel is despicable and the Pals themselves should be outraged. But they are not. Instead they run a gangster state where as long as the payoffs keep coming in they stay in their pen. It's atrocious.
I don't have to be pro-Jew or pro-Pal. I want them both to succeed. You could take the Jews and make a country for them anywhere and they'd do okay. On the other hand, you could give the Pals all the land they wanted, write them big checks every year to prop them up, and they'd still be a mess. The Pals need to look in the mirror some here, and quite frankly, you're no friend of theirs if you continue supporting this fantasy life death-cult they have. Who cares who the victim is? At some point, wallowing in self-pity is anathema to your existence. Build a society with what you have, become successful, use non-violence to reach your long-term goals.
Nothing quite like a good, well-reasoned argument (though a certain minimum skill in reading comprehension might come a close second).
Especially like the following two axioms:
a) Israel has no right to protect itself, not only because such self-defense causes harm to others but, more practically, because such self-defense is ineffective, causing more damage to itself--and creating more enemies--in the long run. (We'll overlook the overriding conundrum of how a country whose existence is, to begin with, manifestly illegal even imagine that its self-defense can be justified.)
b) Palestinian violence and its repeated, longstanding desire to erase the Zionist entity is understandable and entirely justified.
"...erase the Zionist entity is understandable and entirely justified..."
There is no combination of reason and argument that could support that statement.
Either you understsand that, or not. You have my pity if you do not.
avedis #12 mockingly remarks:
"there is just no way to reason with these people".
implying that of course there is a way to reason with these people. Yet in #3, avedis states:
And what if the Democratic republic of Palestine votes to effectively arm itself and go to war with Israel (which it would)?
So if as you're saying the Democratic [People's - can't forget that, right?] Republic of Palestine would go to war with Israel immediately, can you explain how exactly you could "reason with these people"? Isn't the war the exact absence of reason?
On the facts, avedis is wrong as well:
So, now that the Palestinians have had their land confiscated ( mostly a generation or two ago, but the memory still burns)
Actually, their personal land was not confiscated. In real life, Jews bought their land with money. Now, perhaps you consider that fact confiscation...
By and large, the land in Judea and Samaria was owned by the Ottoman government, which ceded it to the British, which ceded it to the Jordanians. The Jordanians decided to launch a war on Israel, which they lost, and a result they lost that land. Key lesson - don't start a war that you can't win.
Most Palestinians left their homes of their own volition when Israel was created. At the time they were not considered Palestinians, but were called Southern Syrians, as Choukairy, head of the Arab League at that point, noted. The number of Palestinians who left their homes at this time was considerably less than the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries who had their property and their land taken from them. Including my family, incidentally. avedis does not seem to have sympathy for these people, since, I suppose, they are only Jews.
suffered several massacres themselves at the hands of the Israelis (especially in the years immediately following WW2)
False. There is no other way to characterize this.
Meanwhile, in Morocco, family friends of ours hid behind a butcher who had a shotgun while the rest of the Jews in their village were burned alive by a vicious Arab mob in the years immediately following WWII.
were relagated to second class citizenship without equal rights under the law nor political staus generally, etc, etc.....you propose democratic reformation.
Those Arabs who are Israeli have equal rights under the law, apart from their lack of requirement to serve in the Army - which is an obligation, not a right. There are more Arab MKs in Israel than their are Jewish representatives in all of the parliaments (ha!) of the Arab world - and I would venture that there are more Arabs in the Israeli Knesset than Christians in the Arab worlds' parliaments as well. There is a Supreme Court Justice in Israel who is Arab.
Those Palestians who lived in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were people who lived in territories that were ceded by Jordan and Egypt after they had gone to war with Israel. Those people did not truly belong to any state - since Jordan and Egypt stripped them of their citizenship. If you don't like this, I'd suggest speaking to the countries that stripped them of their citizenship which also happen to be the countries that launched the war in the first place.
Oh my god, we've got the Gaza withdrawl opponents against the Israel haters.
May i suggest that Sharon knows what hes doing?
No, the fences wont stop everything. But the level of terrorism now is very low compared to he second intifada. Meanwhile the withdrawl from Gaza has NOT stopped the IDF from taking out terrorists quite effectively both in the West Bank AND in Gaza. The Qassam hits have generally been ineffective, and have received Israeli artillery responses. Which responses have made the terrorists unpopular in the towns they fire from.
Abbas continues to be weaker than we would like, but I dont think that project can be written off yet. And even if it is, Israel is in a stronger position to deal with Gaza than it was before.
It has also gained diplomatically, with new outreach from the arab and muslim world. Which will be especially important if it comes to war with Iran, a much greater threat to Israel than a few Qassams in Gaza.
I agree with Liberalhawk. Israels problem has been that as an occupier in the WB and Gaza they cannot respond to attacks as the agression of one state against another. When Israel has withdrawn to something approximating the Green Line, the entire situation changes in their favor. Under such a circumstance, i would have little problem with rocket attacks being replied to with an artillery barrage against the position, even in the midst of civilian areas. Rocket attacks will fall off sharply. Israel needs to pick up their ball and go home, and if the Palestinians keep throwing rocks at the windows fire back with a cannon.
Ariel
Actually I believe Jordan was the ONLY Arab state that offerred citizenship to the Palestinians, in both the West and East Banks of the Jordan.
Nor did either Jordan or Egypt "cede" the territories in question. Rather Israel occupied them as part of a defensive war. That war was brought to an end with a UN sponsored ceasefire, under UNSC res 242, which called for the arab states to recognize Israel, and for Israel to withdraw from territories (the word "all" being excluded at US insistence) occupied during the war. Ergo, the territories are not ceded to Israel - they are disputed territories, whose ultimate disposition is to be determined by negotiation.
"Ergo, the territories are not ceded to Israel - they are disputed territories, whose ultimate disposition is to be determined by negotiation. "
So Egypt is de facto in charge of Gaza? I think it is important to recognize that there is no historical state of Palestine to restore, mainly because you can be sure the Palestinian side starts with the position that Israel is a construct with no right to exist as a majority Jewish state. The point is, neither side has a claim on historical soveriegnty (at least in the last two-thousand or so years) and hence a political solution must be laid out along the lines laid out under the original partition. Otherwise (if you want to accept the Palestinian version of things) Israel should be negotiating with Transjordan and Egypt.
Ariel, actually the Jews only purchased about 6% to 7% of the land they ended up with in the end. Much of the confiscation came about as a result of the British "mandate"; the rest through simple agressive actions.
Yes A.L, both Israel and the Palestinians will have to compromise, neither is clean or innocent. Both have committed atrocities and both continue to push the others buttons in the worst ways. Also, I'm just suggesting that the Pal.s are not the wholey without justification for their hatred of the Jews. That shouldn't be a radical notion, but it seems to be here.
I, personally, certainly do not advocate the Pal.s killing of women and children, etc. I find their actions to be appalling, to tell the truth.
Yet, I also find the actions of Israel to be equally appalling. Many women and children have been killled by them, homes bulldozed, etc, etc.
I am first and foremost concerned with the security of the United States and the protection of our Constitution.
I do not wish to jeaprodize either by taking sides in an ugly dispute in which both sides have displayed behavior I cannot condone.
Furthermore, I do not wish to see our troops, some of whom are people I personally care deeply about, put in harms way to protect a country that insists on win/lose policies with a population that exists within and on its borders.
A Palistinian, a Jew... as an American they are the same to me. We should be using our influence to cause both of them to behave. The transgressions of either should be met with equally harsh treatment.
I think such an approach would increase our stature in the Arab world and increased stature just might help get us where we need to go in our fight against terrorists who would do us, the USA, harm.
I am always interested in the psychology of the lunatic fringe. This site never fails to supply ample fodder for my interest.
How many here are actually advocating an genocidal anhilitation of the Pal.s if they don't come around to seeing things our way? Several by my count.
So when Juan Cole makes statements about certain segments desiring to effect a de-Arabization policy, perhaps certain writers here will not be so quick to pooh pooh the notion as a paranoid lefty pipe dream.
...
avedis, take a look at the Winds comment policy, specifically Rule #5:
Accusing posters and authors of advocating genocide on the specious grounds that they're less than enamoured with the palestinians crosses that line. If you've got something to contribute to intelligent debate, let's have it. It isn't hard - everyone else here managed it.
If I see this again, or anything like it, you will be banned. Thank you at least for having the honesty not to cloak your hatred with the term 'Zionist'.
But its so very hard for them to hide their true self for more than a sentence or two, isn't it Colt?
Usually they insist it is Israel and Zionism they hate so much, but avedis is quite comfortable using 'Jew'.
Colt:
I would suggest that avedis's rhetoric is probably motivated by the fact that he seems to view commenting on right-wing blogs (under which he classifies WoC) as something of a psychological exercise to confirm his own views rather than a serious interest in discussing things with people who have a different perspective than himself.
Da money quote:
... I often surf hard right blogs and make a nuisance of myself at those sites just to see what's really on the minds of the denizens. I find that if you tick them off in a manner in which they they don't take you entirely seriously they are more likely to reveal themselves as they really are.
I think that the commentary here is probably true to that form and would suggest that the proper response here is the same way you regarded the people who acted in a similar manner (abeit minus the hatred of Israel, though I too noticed that he doesn't have much a problem substituting "Jew" on that score) back in high school. He's already decided that the Israelis are just as bad as the Palestinians, that Bush is just as bad as Ahmadinejad, that you advocate genocide, and so on and so forth and given the low regard he apparently holds for our opinions, there is no serious reason to believe that anything you can say will change his mind.
And I thought avedis was simply a closet racist, quick to make racial observations where none was apparent and quick to argue racial or ethnic motivations where race or ethnicity was unknown.
Us simple folk can't keep track of trolls, else it would be easy to quit feeding them.
This from Apologist,
"Wretchard has pointed out that this may be the last moment for the Muslim world to avert it's own destruction, but the truth may be that we have waited too long to confront this enemy and the civilization it springs from."
Isn't racism?? This isn't speaking to genocide?
I'm too lazy at the moment, but I could easily paste in multiple similar quotes from the commentors at this site (and some from the authors of the posts).
I think you people should take a good long look at the snakes you have slithering around in your heads.
For the record, I am not an anti semite. Your ceaseless - and childish, I might add - reference to anyone who doesn't go down on their knees for Israel as antisemite is utterly revealing of your inability to approach geopolitical realities in anything resembling a diplomatic - and, again, adult - manner.
You people are not worth engaging in a serious discussion because that is not why you're here. You are here to reinforce each others' hatred of muslims and muslim society. You are here to reiforce each other's belief that muslims - and muslims alone - are the source of trouble in the world. You are here to amp up each other's lust for war without end against any muslims that don't buy into your world view.
You are convinced that you are right and they are wrong. You will selectively cite whatever is avaible that proves the evil of them and the good of you. Israel, you have decided, is part of you.
Because of this, you people are lousy warriors. You have failed to understand you enemy. You have failed to understand your allies. You have failed to understand the "terrain". You are zealots, crusaders... and your blind one sided ideology will be your the source of your demise. Saddly, similar dolts in places of influence, have already allowed fouled this country's efforts and caused un-necessary and/or unproductive costs in terms of US blood and treasure.
Now some idiot here will comment something along the lines of "I know all I need to know about Palestinians. Those people blow themselves up and kill babies. What sort of moral equivalence...blah blah blah...."; missing the point entirely, of course and then causing the rallying forth of others who will state things about "lefties" and then, the coup de grace, a comment about Bill Clinton.
And you wonder why I find you people to be nothing more than interesting fodder for a casual psychological study.
Very rarely in history have crusaders built anything that lasted. The peoples whose cultures were converted at the point of a weapon invariably rebel and exact their revenge.
As for Isreal, it is as much, if not more, of an albatros than it is a good friend.
You people should examine why you think that Israel should be given carte blanche, why we should back her regardless of her actions.
I can't think of any reason. I think Israel owes us, not vice versa.
But then I'm not a racist crusader.
Finally, the only one amongst you that deserves any respect - albeit in a twisted sort of way - is "Colt". At least he's up front.
He doesn't want to serve our country. No. He's more concerned with Israel than the US.
Whatsmore, he's pretty forthright about his overwhelming desire to simply get some trigger time and to score some rag head KIAs.
Colt, you're a friggin' lunatic, but you're the kind of lunatic I can respect.
The rest of you are a joke.
"Isn't racism?? This isn't speaking to genocide?"
There is a vast gulf between self-destruction of a civilization and genocide. The same difference as a mass murderer and suicide by cop.
"You are here to reinforce each others' hatred of muslims and muslim society."
To the contrary, there are many of us here trying desperatly to get the Muslim mainstream back from the ledge their fringe has pulled them towards. Or havent you heard about Irans nuclear program? Keeping nukes away from the mullahs will save more muslim lives than anything i've heard out of you for certain.
"You are here to reiforce each other's belief that muslims - and muslims alone - are the source of trouble in the world."
Do you deny that the extreme fringe of muslims, either silently or actively abetted by a good chunk of the nations of the Middle East, is our gravest enemy? Who exactly is a greater threat to us? The Chinese have not bombed our embassies, rammed our ships, executed our citizens, nor rammed planes into our buildings. No one is claiming they are the only threat, but to argue they are not the greatest threat? Please.
"You are here to amp up each other's lust for war without end against any muslims that don't buy into your world view."
'A bad peace is even worse than war.' -Tacitus
Truer words never said.
"You are convinced that you are right and they are wrong."
Obviously. It would be truly unconsciounable to go to war otherwise.
"Israel, you have decided, is part of you."
Democratic, multi-ethnic, capitalist, with freedom of speech and religion? Yeh, Israel is part of us and I will never deny that, nor sell them out for false security and cheap oil.
"Because of this, you people are lousy warriors."
There are some Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Iraqis who would beg to differ with you, if they were in any position to speak.
"You have failed to understand you enemy."
We understand them better than you can imagine. Certainly well enough to know they can be appeased no more than the Nazis or any other fascists. Who is the one ignoring their words? Did not Bin Ladin call for the Caliphate from Spain to the Pacific? Do the Mullahs not call for the destruction of the Little Satan and the Big? WHO EXACTLY IS IT THAT REFUSES TO SEE OUR ENEMIES FOR WHAT THEY TRULY ARE, INDEED WHAT THEY OPENLY PROCLAIM THEMSELVES TO BE? And if you are fool enough to believe Hamas, Jihad, Hesbollah, and Al Asqa are anything other than tiny fingers of that hand, you are an ever greater fool than i thought.
'You hold out your hand to me and I percieve only a finger of the claw of Mordor. Cruel and cold! Even if your war on me was just - as it was not,for were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine, for your own profit you desired-even so, what will you say of your Torches in westfold and the children that lie dead there? And they hewed Hama's body before the gates of Hornburg, after he was dead. When you hang from a gibbet at your window for the sport of your own crows, I will have peace with you and Orthanc.'
"There is a vast gulf between self-destruction of a civilization and genocide. The same difference as a mass murderer and suicide by cop."
Suicide by cop????
What cop?? What law???
I hear you saying that might makes right. We have the guns and so we call the tune. You dance the dance we want or you're dead.
That's what I'm talking about. That's no way to win people over to your side. It's no way to make a lasting peace. It's not even a good way to win by "might makes right"
It's a losing approach any way you look at it. It will back fire. The history of the worls and the history of the region proves it.
Now someone will bring up WW2 and the Marshall plan.......
Mny reasons that was different. Plus, the argument would be that we'd have to totally destroy the muslim world and leave them prostrate.
Fine if that's what you want, but don't call me racist and don't justify that kind of slaughter with glorious aphorisms about freedom on the march.
Still, in that part of the world, I think it would come back to bite our society in the ass in a generation or two.
"The Chinese have not bombed our embassies, rammed our ships, executed our citizens, nor rammed planes into our buildings. No one is claiming they are the only threat, but to argue they are not the greatest threat? Please."
AQ is a minor threat in the big scheme of things. You are upset because, due to our pathetically lax national security and our ignoring of repeated warnings and multiple serious signs, they were able to make a successful strike inside our country. That gave the US a black eye and you want pay back.
Tough. You don't get it. Bin Laden got away because we f--ked up in Afghanistan.
We will leave Iraq after how many ever lives are lost and how much money is spent and the place will disintegrate into civil war and Iran, the very guys your so scared of, will come out owning a good sized chunk of Iraq. There's nothing you can do to stop it at this point.
The Chinese are a threat, a huge threat - not just militarily, but eonomically - and that is why we will compromise and work with them on win/win solutions.
And when Iran has the Iraqi oil we will work with them and they with us. At that point we will have to decide what to do with Isrel. There will be much jockeying, intrigue and trouble over that issue.
All the other ideological crap spewed by Dan Darling et al is just so much soma for the masses.
It will be interesting to see how it shapes up.
You are quite wrong on all counts. Look at the true Iraqis out voting today for their own country. You are the one not hearing the voices and seeing what is truly happening. Iraq will be a soveriegn, multiethnic democracy and a counterweight to Iran. Iraq will be the beacon that emboldens the Iranian people to rise up and cast off the fascists. You have everything quite backwards in fact, because if there is any racism in this discussion its the lack of belief that the Iraqi and Iranian people desire liberty and democracy and will fight for it if they see a chance to. It comes comes to either a fundamental lack of faith in liberty or a lack in faith of the Arab and Persian people to seize it. And so long as America stands able to keep the fascists at bay until the Iraqis can stand for themselves, nothing will stop that.
avedis:
I'm actually quite flattered that you think I'm important enough to be in a position to influence "the masses," maybe I'll get my own Media Matters profile pretty soon ...
As to the more substantive points ...
Isn't racism?? This isn't speaking to genocide?
For one thing, Muslims are a religion rather than a race. As for genocide, it's important to distinguish between the fall of a civilization vs. the eradication of its inhabitance. The communist civilization of the Soviet Bloc is no longer around, for instance (and the world is better for it) and that seemed to be accomplished without genocide. As for myself, I am rather skeptical of the thesis that Islamic civilization has failed because of the similar claims that could easily have been made concerning the Chinese, Russian, Indian, and Japanese civilizations at some point during the last century and they're still trucking along.
I'm too lazy at the moment, but I could easily paste in multiple similar quotes from the commentors at this site (and some from the authors of the posts).
I think you people should take a good long look at the snakes you have slithering around in your heads.
Well, the comments carry a wide range of opinions so that's to be expected - we've also had stated supporters of al-Qaeda post back in the al-Ghamdi thread a little while ago. Moreover, I would note that your whole argument here is basically the playground equivalent of "Well, they did it too!"
For the record, I am not an anti semite. Your ceaseless - and childish, I might add - reference to anyone who doesn't go down on their knees for Israel as antisemite is utterly revealing of your inability to approach geopolitical realities in anything resembling a diplomatic - and, again, adult - manner.
I think that it was the shift away from Israelis to talking about Jews that's kind of a key way to distinguish between the two, as is attributing to Israel all or most of the classical tropes associated with traditional anti-Semitism. I don't know whether you're an anti-Semite or not, but I would just be advised that whatever you think about Israel, its inhabitants, and its policies that you not use the terms "Israelis" and "Jews" interchangeably. As William F. Buckley noted in his famous smackdown of Pat Buchanan some years back, that kind of language if nothing else presents the appearance of anti-Semitism.
Moreover, I would note that Colt is actually quite critical of the current Israeli government over the Gaza withdrawl (a position not shared by liberalhawk and several other posters, myself included) and the fact that both seem perfectly capable of making their arguments without any declarations of allegiance to Jerusalem (though you might prefer Tel Aviv) might suggest that we are quite capable of discussing geopolitical realities but that you don't like the conclusions that are being reached.
You people are not worth engaging in a serious discussion because that is not why you're here. You are here to reinforce each others' hatred of muslims and muslim society. You are here to reiforce each other's belief that muslims - and muslims alone - are the source of trouble in the world. You are here to amp up each other's lust for war without end against any muslims that don't buy into your world view.
I would note that your little rant here has a number of lapses in logic. If we aren't worth engaging in any serious manner, then why are you here (oh wait, we already noted that in #25)? Moreover, how can we hate Muslims and Muslim society and then want war without end against any Muslims that don't buy into our worldviews - isn't the implicit meaning of the latter a recognition that there are Muslims out there that we do like and perhaps our hatred for them is not as all-consuming as you believe it to be?
The ironic thing about this, of course, is that the WoC contributors, myself included, are some of the biggest supporters of the democratization agenda, a worldview that is directly contrary to that of the "nuke Mecca" crowd.
As far as Muslims being the center of evil and seeking to reinforce one another's hatred, that's pretty ironic given your own stated view that because we can't acknowledge what you see as the heinous flaws of Israel that we can't discuss serious geopolitical realities. Near as I can tell, you see anything remotely critical of the political culture of the Islamic world, certain Islamic sects, or countries containing majority Muslim populations as being indicative of some deep-seated desire to murder a billion people - even though many of the people sounding the alarm bell are Muslims themselves. I think if you consistently applied that same standard to your own stated views of religious conservatives in the US that you'd see just how absurd a position this is.
You are convinced that you are right and they are wrong. You will selectively cite whatever is avaible that proves the evil of them and the good of you. Israel, you have decided, is part of you.
Which is exactly why this post is sharply critical of the Israeli decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip out of the belief that it will lead to the area turning into a terrorist haven (the substantive points of which you have failed to address throughout this entire thread, I might add). My those Israelis are clever conspirators ...
Because of this, you people are lousy warriors. You have failed to understand you enemy. You have failed to understand your allies. You have failed to understand the "terrain". You are zealots, crusaders... and your blind one sided ideology will be your the source of your demise. Saddly, similar dolts in places of influence, have already allowed fouled this country's efforts and caused un-necessary and/or unproductive costs in terms of US blood and treasure.
No doubt. Too bad we live in a democratic country where us poor fools have the right to vote on areas of foreign policy, isn't it?
Now some idiot here will comment something along the lines of "I know all I need to know about Palestinians. Those people blow themselves up and kill babies. What sort of moral equivalence...blah blah blah...."; missing the point entirely, of course and then causing the rallying forth of others who will state things about "lefties" and then, the coup de grace, a comment about Bill Clinton.
Well if you think they miss the point, you could always try to correct them, explain where you're wrong, and so on. So far, your preferred MO here on WoC has usually been trying to change the subject and/or resorting to ad hominem attacks, righteous indignation, and moral equivalency.
And you wonder why I find you people to be nothing more than interesting fodder for a casual psychological study.
It's not really wonder, as I doubt many of us care very much what someone who thinks so little of us thinks. If you are going to continue in your study, however, might I suggest a bare minimum of professionalism on your part? By the way, where's the control group?
Very rarely in history have crusaders built anything that lasted. The peoples whose cultures were converted at the point of a weapon invariably rebel and exact their revenge.
The more you talk on and on about the Crusaders the less I'm convinced that you know all that much about it except for the cartoon version. Outremer lasted from 1099-1291, the County of Edessa from 1098-1146, the Principality of Antioch from 1097-1268, and the County of Tripoli from 1102-1289. In each case the Crusader States were destroyed by the various Muslim powers (that was one of the ways that Saladin got his reputation), not rebellions, popular or otherwise. So even if we're to assume that your right about everything we plan to do in Iraq, that means that we can expect the US to hold onto the place until 2195 or so, right?
As for Isreal, it is as much, if not more, of an albatros than it is a good friend.
You people should examine why you think that Israel should be given carte blanche, why we should back her regardless of her actions.
I can't think of any reason. I think Israel owes us, not vice versa.
If Colt were inclined to give Israel a carte blanche, I doubt he would have written this post. I'm also missing where the US "owes" Israel anything, no more than we "owe" Britain, Italy, Poland, et al. anything. It is quite possible to have a system of alliances in place without a debt/repayment standard for determining who you're aligned with.
But then I'm not a racist crusader.
That's good to know.
Finally, the only one amongst you that deserves any respect - albeit in a twisted sort of way - is "Colt". At least he's up front.
He doesn't want to serve our country. No. He's more concerned with Israel than the US.
Whatsmore, he's pretty forthright about his overwhelming desire to simply get some trigger time and to score some rag head KIAs.
Colt, you're a friggin' lunatic, but you're the kind of lunatic I can respect.
The rest of you are a joke.
I'll let Colt take this apart on his own, except to say that based on what you've written in this thread alone I'd have to say that respect from you is a club I wouldn't want to join if it would have me for a member.
Suicide by cop????
What cop?? What law???
I think you're (probably deliberately so as to provide better fodder for your little experiment) mistaking the point that Mark was trying to draw, namely that most sensible people draw a distinction between one who kills out of malice and one who kills to prevent another from harming others.
I hear you saying that might makes right. We have the guns and so we call the tune. You dance the dance we want or you're dead.
Not quite. The Middle East is quite free to continue to wallow in its cultural and political decay as far as most Americans were concerned before 9/11. However, a sizeable minority of its population have chosen to embrace hostility towards us as the solution for these problems, which leads us on a diametrically opposed course in which they wish to do harm to us, thereby leading to the "suicide by cop" example that Mark gave earlier when they lose.
That's what I'm talking about. That's no way to win people over to your side. It's no way to make a lasting peace. It's not even a good way to win by "might makes right"
It's a losing approach any way you look at it. It will back fire. The history of the worls and the history of the region proves it.
Given that the attackers in question also have most of the people in the Middle East (as well as the rest of the planet) in their crosshairs, it would seem that an alliance between the two of us is forced whether we like it or not - that's pretty much how Israel got itself allied with Turkey and even Iran prior to Khomeini. I'm also not sold on the idea of unconquerable self-determination that you seem to be advancing - if that were true, India wouldn't still have the Mughal Empire conquests, China those of the Qing Dynasty, Russia those of the tsars, and so on and so forth.
Now someone will bring up WW2 and the Marshall plan.......
Mny reasons that was different. Plus, the argument would be that we'd have to totally destroy the muslim world and leave them prostrate.
Depends on whether we're talking about the Muslim world or a specific political culture(s) within it. Going back to the Palestinian issue, I think it's open question as to how long Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be able to stay in business deprived of their external support, for instance. Moreover, most open advocates of the summary destruction of Muslim civilization don't usually call for a Marshall Plan but rather some grand display of nuclear force that will awe and cow the Islamic world into submission against any future attacks by the West. I would note that this is one of the two solutions that is more or less advanced by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, in Imperial Hubris.
Fine if that's what you want, but don't call me racist and don't justify that kind of slaughter with glorious aphorisms about freedom on the march.
Still, in that part of the world, I think it would come back to bite our society in the ass in a generation or two.
Here again, you are failing to distinguish between two competing views that have been advanced as far as how to deal with the threat of Islamic extremism: democratization or large-scale destruction. I favor the former, though I also think that the phenomenon of Islamic extremism becomes a lot easier to understand, accept, and formulate policy towards if you do so through a Gunaratnan framework.
AQ is a minor threat in the big scheme of things. You are upset because, due to our pathetically lax national security and our ignoring of repeated warnings and multiple serious signs, they were able to make a successful strike inside our country. That gave the US a black eye and you want pay back.
Tough. You don't get it. Bin Laden got away because we f--ked up in Afghanistan.
But if neither he nor al-Qaeda are a major threat, then what does it matter to you if he got away? Also, I have to ask based on the last sentence in that first paragraph if you think that it was a mere desire for "payback" that sent the US into Afghanistan - do I take then that you also oppose (or have strong revelations concerning) the use of military force there?
We will leave Iraq after how many ever lives are lost and how much money is spent and the place will disintegrate into civil war and Iran, the very guys your so scared of, will come out owning a good sized chunk of Iraq. There's nothing you can do to stop it at this point.
The Chinese are a threat, a huge threat - not just militarily, but eonomically - and that is why we will compromise and work with them on win/win solutions.
And when Iran has the Iraqi oil we will work with them and they with us. At that point we will have to decide what to do with Isrel. There will be much jockeying, intrigue and trouble over that issue.
So Israel becomes Taiwan East then, I take it? The scenario you sketch is actually rather interesting, because if you believe that the end-result of the Iraq war will be for us to come to win/win solution with them (which I assume you see as a positive development) then, except out of the belief that since the outcome is already inevitable and you wish to see as many American lives spared as possible, I'm honestly failing to understand the level of animosity being displayed here. You've already said that it's over for us in Iraq, the neocons are defeated or soon will be so, and that the end-result will be that we get to be best buddies with the mullahs and rid of that meddlesome Israeli albatross. So for someone who seems to be more or less convinced that they're getting everything you want as far as foreign policy is concerned, you seem awfully cranky these days.
All the other ideological crap spewed by Dan Darling et al is just so much soma for the masses.
Which goes back to the whole issue of why you care since you already possess the gifts of both prophecy and telepathy (I assume, given you are able to reveal our true thoughts and plots). As I said, you're pretty cranky for someone who claims that they're winning.
How could anyone in their right mind possibly construe remarks such as "God's chosen can do no wrong" as the twisted ravings of a vile anti-semite?
Such an absurd leap can only further indicate the lack of seriousness and judgment, and the raw, philo-Zionist bias of "you people" on this scurrilous site.
Meanwhile, Daniel Pipes adds more questionable commentary (but then we know where he's coming from), lambasting, of all people, Kofi Annan, whose inspiring regard for "the chosen" is something, no doubt, to be applauded and imitated.
Barry Meislin:
Re-read the comments, it wasn't the snarky quote you refer to but rather the shift away from "Israeli" to "Jewish" in terms of talking about theft of land or slaughter of innocents. I addressed my own take on the anti-Semitism charge in #33, but I would think that you would recognize that not making an appreciable distinction between Israelis and Jews, if nothing else, uses the same language as those who are anti-Semitic.
As for Pipes, he appears to be trying to make the point that while Ahmadinejad's remarks are being roundly condemned that the UN has long paid heed to groups that pretty much believe the same thing. If you look at the debate over UN reform in the US House of Representatives over the summer, you can see any number of prominent Democrats saying pretty much the same thing in the floor debate. In any case, what you appear to be utilizing is the two wrongs make a right argument, which is a logical fallacy.
Fine if that's what you want, but don't call me racist . . .
To be clear, I thought avedis might be "a closet racist" based on the comments in this thread and a previous thread, but have concluded that avedis is actually a distraction "troll." Its all there: accusing people of racism, Nazism or loyalty to some foreign group or ideology. Name-calling. Religious bigotry. The chickenhawk slur, including an instance of effectively levelling it at a retired army major here. All to distract any meaningful dialogue. A dirty tricks campaign that Tricky Dick would love.
First things first: avedis is no longer to comment on any post I author. This thread is ample justification.
#17 liberalhawk
1. I never said the fences would stop everything. But one of the main justifications for 'disengagement' is that the Arabs will have to contend with themselves since they won't be able to get at Israel. The guy who blew up the Sharon mall went through an unlocked, unguarded gate for farmers.
2. The level of terrorism is about as high as it has been since the beginning of the intifada (I'd guesstimate 70% of 2002 levels), but the Israelis are very, very good at reaching the cells and destroying them before they can actually carry out attacks. Thus, their successes are down. What is being proposed - a major withdrawal from the 'west bank' - will render that ability useless, if Israel is to grant the palestinians the sort of autonomy Mark Buehner has suggested, which would in turn allow Israel to respond harshly.
Another point: with Gaza, the most immediate threat is from Qassams and mortars. They rarely cause injury or death, so essentially letting them come without interference won't incur large numbers of casualties. In Yehuda and Shomron, the jihadis are still enamoured with the bomb-belt and rifle. Letting them come, on the grounds that Israel can retaliate overwhelmingly, is obscene. And if you are about to suggest Israel maintain counter-terror operations in the territories, how can you say that the Arabs have their own sovereign territory, and are therefore liable as a state for the actions of their citizens? With Israeli troops leaving every week with flex-cuffed jihadis, it would be difficult to argue the territories are no longer 'occupied' and all that entails.
3. Yep, Israel can still kill and arrest terrorists. Didn't suggest that would change post-Gaza.
4. I've not seen any evidence that the jihadis are unpopular due to the artillery fire. Perhaps in a few villages in the north of Gaza, but it isn't like the tide is turning.
How is Israel in a stronger position to deal with Gaza?
The interests of Arab countries in Iran staying a non-nuke power are permanent, and Gaza won't have changed their mind. I'm not sure I understand why an end to the Saudi trade embargo, or Pakistan's committment to future relations, will help in a war between Israel and Iran. Will they rally to Israel's side? No. Will they allow overflight? Unlikely, but Gaza won't have changed that.
#18 Mark Buehner
Can you cite a recent instance of the world not condemning massive civilian casualties inflicted by a state acting in self-defence? I'm genuinely curious about this. You seem awfully sure on this.
#33 Dan Darling
avedis's screed deserves to be ignored, IMO.
As for his respect, I've no idea how I got that. But then I'm not sure how he decided I was in favour of genocide, cared more about Israel than the U.S., have an "overwhelming desire to simply get some trigger time and to score some rag head KIAs", or most of the other crap he's spewed forth.
Avedis, Winds comments policy allows Colt to set such conditions. Posts by other authors are still open to you.
Be aware, however, that disregarding an author's clear dis-invitation from their comment threads will force me to enact a site-wide ban to enforce it.
"Can you cite a recent instance of the world not condemning massive civilian casualties inflicted by a state acting in self-defence? I'm genuinely curious about this. You seem awfully sure on this."
Well i wasnt advocating inflicting massive casualties, and certainly not under the banner of collective punishment. I think there is a logical compromise between fire bombing entire villages and shelling empty fields (the current policy). I think counterbattery fire or better yet UAVs armed with hellfires synched up to counterbattery radar can provide a level of 'due dilligence'. That will not end collateral damage completely, of course, but it will make it quite clear that Israel is trying to respond to a military threat leaving the perpetrators culpable for using human shields.
#39 Mark
I'm well aware that artillery is much more accurate than it used to be, but remember that it was phased out in Iraq because the civilian casualties were too high.
Israel has taken out the occasional Qassam crew with a UAV, but they're a shoot-and-scoot sorta group.
"I'm well aware that artillery is much more accurate than it used to be, but remember that it was phased out in Iraq because the civilian casualties were too high"
I dont believe this is the case. My information has been that counterbattery artillery fire is in practice all over Iraq and has apparently become quite effective. I understand that it is standard practice in mortar attacks and is the main reason mortar attacks have fallen off significantly compared to 2003-04.
Hmm. My understanding was that they could pin-point the mortar crew so quickly that they could have troops and/or helicopters on the scene within 30 seconds or so, and that they'd started doing that after a few 155s went astray.