A representative of of the Israeli government (Ambassador to the UN) called President Carter a "bigot" for speaking with Hammas, all the while the Israeli government was negotiating with Hizballah for the release of two corpses. What do we call that?

Isn't this a joke; the terrorist state of US_Israel accuses the Iranian military of being a terrorist organization. Hilarious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402758_pf.html

David says:

"borders established in '48". Established? The UN can't do that, it can only suggest borders to the two parties. The Arab Higher Committee, representing local Arabs, and the Arab League, representing the rest, rejected UNR181 and a Jewish State, saying the land should be part of Greater Syria, as it was in the Ottoman and other Islamic Empires. Also, even most Arabs aren't demanding the UNR181 borders, but that the armistice line become a border.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s the truth David, which you wouldn’t recognize if it bit you in the arse:

Here is the map that is relevant:

http://www.ccmep.org/delegations/maps/palestine.html

The one on the left represents the relative ownership of Palestinian and Jewish land in 1946, prior to the illegitimate UN partition. Since, Palestine was not the UN’s to give away (as you readily agree); this is the map we will go back to.

Here is a summary of the Brief History of Palestine:

http://www.cyberus.ca/~baker/pal_hist.htm

Note that just prior to the turn of the 20th century, the total population of Palestine was 500,000 of whom 47,000 were Jews who owned 0.5% of the land.

In 1917, at the time of the illegal and immoral Balfour Declaration, and after 22 years of illegal and immoral Zionist immigration, the total population was 700,000 of which 56,000 (8%) were Jews.

In 1947, after 30 more years of Zionist immigration, the illegal UN partition of Palestine allocated 47% of the land to the Arab Palestinians who accounted for 70% of the population and owned 92% of the land.

In 2005, the Jewish population stood at about 5,200,000 (50.7%) compared to the 5,056,000 (49.3%) Arab Palestinian population.

So clearly, even you can see that the only fair and equitable thing to do is to evacuate the 5,153,000 illegitimate Zionist Jews and descendents to Texas, leaving the Jewish population at the original legitimate 47,000 that were there at the turn of the 20th century. We could leave a few more than that to account for normal population growth demographics, without the illegal and immoral Zionist immigration.

Islamaphobes,

Here is a good article that highlights what should be the focus of the Islamaphobes: the Israeli Lobby that is pushing us over the edge of the abyss. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26308§ionid=3510302

‘In my analysis, which is shared, for example, by Ilan Pappe, Israel's leading “revisionist” (which means honest) historian, the answer is that it's mainly the Zionist tail that wags the American dog. As I demonstrate in my epic, two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of The Jews, it is a fact that, with the arguable exception of Lyndon Johnson, every American President, including the idiot in the White House at present, tried to draw red lines that Israel should not cross; and on most occasions Israel put two fingers up and crossed them. There is no mystery about why the Zionist lobby (AIPAC plus) has such power. What passes for democracy in America is for sale to the highest bidder, and one of the highest bidders, and certainly the best organized and the most effective, is the Zionist lobby, now in association with Christian evangelical fundamentalism and parts if not all of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The Zionist lobby has three main weapons of influence:

- money, apparently unlimited, to fund election campaigns (candidates who offend Zionism can be and are destroyed - outspent);

- the organized Jewish vote in close election races (in half a dozen critical constituencies); and

- the use of the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust as a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel and suppress informed and honest debate. (On this front the Zionist lobby is assisted by the fact that, out of fear of offending Zionism, the mainstream media in America and throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world is complicit in Zionism's suppression of the truth of history. What, really, does the media fear? Punishment by the withdrawal of advertising revenue).’

i have to applaud you both for having polar opposite views, but maintaiing a reasonalbe and cordial discourse here-
that seems to be a rarity
peace

So back to the question:

The question is: Should we negotiate with terrorists?

The answer is it depends. For the case of the South Koreans, who had no business in Afghanistan in the first place, and had a chance to save a dozen or so of its captured citizens; the answer was yes. And they did negotiate and saved their peoples lives.

For the case of the British, who were being terrorized by Menachem Begin’s Irgun, history has shown that the answer should have been no. Because the British caved in to the terrorists demands, we have had 60 years of uninterrupted war and terror in the so called ‘Holy Land’. Countless thousands of innocents (women and children) have been slaughtered, and millions of families have been driven into refugee camps in neighboring countries.

In today’s Washington Post we see that the Israelis are threatening to cut off the Gaza strip’s fuel and electricity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901156.html

Rick : Your wrong !

Zuni,

There is little need for ‘original thought and brain processes’ in this friendly discussion. The record is clear.

The Balfour Declaration essentially took Palestine away from the Palestinians and gave it to the Jews. This was illegal and immoral of course, because Palestine was not Britain’s to give. It belonged, and still belongs, to the Palestinians who tended their herds and orchards, and farmed the land for millennia.

The relevance of the Irgun is that this was one of the more vicious terrorist groups, under the leadership of Menachem Begin, who drove the Palestinians from their land and the British from the country.

Shalom.

Rick : My last comment is still under review, so in the meantime I say you still have not dealt with the issue. You are cutting and pasting. Again I state there is nothing "illegal or immoral " about the Balfour declaration nor Jewish immigration.What the Irgun has to with anything is a mystry to me. You are not using original thought and brain processes. You are copying Anti-Israeli diatribes you can find anywhere on the web. Rick, I bid you adieu until we meet again. Shaloem !

Zuni,

You say: ‘There never was a legitimate state of Palestine.’

I say: True, but following WWI, there was a British Mandate of Palestine that included Palestine and Transjordan, in which Palestine occupied the region now occupied by the illegitimate ‘State of Israel’, the West Bank and Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You say: ‘What in the hell is illegal and immoral about the Balfour declaration and Jewish, nee Zionist immigration?

I say: From Wikipedia ‘The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated November 2, 1917) was a classified formal statement of policy by the British government on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the World War I.

The letter stated the position, agreed at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there. (In jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society.)’

So the result was the forceful injection by the Crusaders, of the Zionist Jews, who had been expelled from the region 2000 years ago; they could not coexist in peace with the native population. They had invaded and occupied this region following their great escape from slavery in Egypt; they had a Holier than Thou attitude, and claimed to be God’s chosen people.

Who would have thought that such a Zionist immigration could ever satisfy: ‘the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities’ of Palestine?

The British soon recognized the folly of this policy and attempted to halt the Zionist immigration. They were attacked by a group named Irgun (some call it Etzel), established by the Right-Wing of the Zionist Movement in Palestine and the violent wing of the Zionist movement. The most well-known of these attacks was the King David Hotel bombing which occurred on July 22, 1946. This was a well-planned act engineered by the Irgun's Leader and future Prime Minster, Menachem Begin.

So the Balfour Declaration, and resulting Zionist immigration, was a terrible mistake. The British tried and failed to reverse this terrible decision.

Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian occupied territories, Syria, Iran etc.

The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not corrected.

Rick : First of all who the hell is MASS ? Second, there never was a legitmate state of Palestine. Third what in the hell is illegal and immoral about the Balfour declaration and Jewish,nee Zionist immigration ? Fourth, Muslims and Christians were not forced out of the Mandate; but over 800,000 Jews were tossed out of Muslim countries. Fifth, I see no reason for Israel to comply with any UN resolution simply because the various states who want Israel to comply refuse to comply with the resolution by the same UN establishing Israel and Palestine. Sixth, Arab Muslims have always recited the mantra "from the river to the sea there is none for thee its all for me. " Seventh,one state results in no Jewish nation. Everyone knows that. Eighth, the best soultion is move the illegal and immoral Muslim squaters out of Israel and settle them in their native Muslim land of Jordan. It's a lot closer than Texas. Now Rick I am getting a little tired of bashing Israel. It is not leaving. All these other diatribes are merely attempts to de-legitimize Israel. Lets move on to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq; all parts of former mandates. Rick seriously it was swell talking to you. Enough already. Ihad all this stuff in college.

Now, back to business; here is an excellent post from MASS which I think captures our dilemma perfectly. Serious criminal mistakes were made last century by the UN, Great Britain and the USA: e.g. the Balfour Declaration of 1917 accelerating the illegal and immoral emigration and Zionist infestation of Palestine, and the UN partition of Palestine in 1947 leading to the establishment of the current illegitimate ‘State of Israel’. The question of this century is what are we going to do about it? The UN obviously needs to be restructured to negate the terrorist state of US_Israel’s ability to veto any attempt at a just solution to this crisis.

MASS:

‘The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not handled adequately. The legitimate state of Palestine was removed from the world map to be replaced by the illegitimate state of Israel with new immigrants from all over the world. Palestinians, being Moslems or Christians, were kicked out into refugee camps to be replaced by Jews from Europe, Russia, Ethiopia, Poland etc.

Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian occupied territories, Syria, Iran etc.

The unlimited support of US to Israel has been encouraging the latter to reject all UN resolutions on the Palestinian Issue including Resolution 194 which calls for the return of all Palestinian refugees home. It is time for the US admin to wake up to the real cause of all problems in the area and to resolve this chronic issue in a fair way to all concerned parties immediately. The only feasible solution to this chronic problem is to set up one secular state for all Israelis and Palestinians regardless of their religion to live in peace on all the land of historical Palestine.’

I would only add that we have proven the hard way that Israelis and Palestinians cannot live together. We must evacuate the 5 million illegitimate Jews from Palestine and relocate them to Texas.

Rick : I love you my Bro !

Zuni,

Relax buddy, you must be all shook up, if you are signing your posts with my name.

Actually, I do like you. We have much in common. We both feel very strongly about what we perceive to be just and unjust. We just happen to be coming from opposite poles of the political spectrum.

I won’t be leaving the good ole USA any time soon. I feel that I am a strong patriot, much more so than the air heads who salute and blindly follow our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite as he tries to lead us over the cliff.

I am very much enjoying our amicable exchange of ideas and look forward to the continuation of it.

Peace.

heres the report on internation religious freedom from a US government site-

it details all of the religious restrictions and violations that israel has imposed on the palestinians- simply way too many to enumerate here-

also, it doesnt even call palestine -palestine, but israeli occupied territories (hows THAT for denying their existence?)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71423.htm

Rick, sorry the last post was from me addressed to you. Forgive me.

You may not like me, but yo mama does ! She coming to Texas and then Israel, while you go the Saudi desert to tend camels, chant and learn how to wear a suicide vest. Remember, learn well; you only get to use it once. Since you claim Israel and the USA are terrorist nations, I'm sure you want to leave the USA right away and have already bought your one way ticket to Saudi Arabia or Iran. If you leave from New York try to visit the site of the twin towers. Don't laugh however. Tell me when you are leaving and I will try to visit you at the departure gate. To recap you feel Islam is not a violent religion. Muslims cutting off Buddists heads in Tahiland; Muslims blowing Christians up in the Phillipines; Muslims killing Christians in Russia; Muslims cutting of a Jew's head in Pakistan, as well as machine gunning Christain churches; Muslims blowing up night clubs in Indonisia only becaue Christains were inside; Muslims blowing up Hindu pilgrims in India; Muslims blowing up buses in Israel because Jews were inside;and lets not forget Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq. This is peaceful ? Rick you are ill and a few clowns short of a full circus.

So let's recap:

The question is: Should we negotiate with terfrorists?

The answer is no.

Islam is not a violent religion, but it does reserve the right to defend itself from the world's one and only terrorist nation, US_Israel.

Therefore, the message to the world's one and only terrorist nation, US_Israel:

Stop your Holy War on Islam.

Vacate the occupied Muslim holy land in Palestine and Iraq.

Vacate the 5 Million jews from Palestine and bring them to Texas.

Don’t worry so much, you will love Texas. We will partition it so that your half is contiguous, while the other half is divided into separated quarters.

You will have the prime real estate including the Dallas-Fort Worth and Crawford areas.

You will have control of the fresh water supply.

You can keep your Army, Navy, Air Force and nuclear weapons. We will back you up with the full power of the world’s last remaining super power.

We will immediately stop all federal aid to the native population, while continuing your $3 B annual aid.

Feel free to launch all the settlements that you wish in the native half’s real estate.

Assassinate the opposition leadership to create chaos on the other side.

See, it will just be a Grand Old Party.

I’m sure that you will get along famously with our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite in the White House.

Rick : I will be with yo Mama.

Zuni,

Whew! You had me worried there for a minute. Good bye and good riddance, and God bless your black little heart.

Now slither back to the dark hole that you came from.

Rick : My bro, I see you and Victoria are trying to play tag team. I would be careful. American Observer and Hondo may be watching. I have a "dark heart " 'as you put it' soley for bigoted,tunnel vision Israel bashers, who blame Jews for dandruff and the common cold.You fit the mold.If I were you I would never venture into Texas little Ricky. On the other hand you won't be able to. You and your friends will be living in the middle of the Saudi desert raising camels and doing a lot of chanting. I'm sure if you plead loudly, Hamas will let you see how to make rockets to kill Jews. As I said earlier Israel has survived 3000 years and will survive at least another 3000. Now Rickie go out and play. I'm done with you. Regards to yo mama.

Zuni,

Thanks for allowing us a glimpse into your dark heart. It is amazing what one can learn on this site and quite gratifying.

Don’t worry so much, you will love Texas. We will partition it so that your half is contiguous, while the other half is divided into separated quarters.

You will have the prime real estate including the Dallas-Fort Worth and Crawford areas.

You will have control of the fresh water supply.

You can keep your Army, Navy, Air Force and nuclear weapons. We will back you up with the full power of the world’s last remaining super power.

We will immediately stop all federal aid to the native population, while continuing your $3 B annual aid.

Feel free to launch all the settlements that you wish in the native half’s real estate.

Assassinate the opposition leadership to create chaos on the other side.

See, it will just be a grand old party.

I’m sure that you will get along famously with our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite in the White House.

Hi Victoria,

I love you baby.

What Melman fails to understand is that it is the
military occupation of the remaining Palestinian
territories that convinced some to fight Israel.

As Israel's Ethnic Cleansing, Land Grab, more
Expulsions, Strangling Palestinians' Life in over
a 1,000 Roadblocks, Destroying the Palestinian
Economy, Disregard to International Obligations,
Killing Hundreds of Children...

Countless Violent "IDF Operations" that all combined
to become the ROOT CAUSES which support TERRORISM.

He who wants to defeat Terror must end the ILLEGAL
OCCUPATION. There is no other way out.

I want to end by wishing my Jewish friends:
Shana Tova - Happy New Year

and to my My Moslem friends:
Peaceful Ramadan.

May True Peace and Justice Return to Rule the Minds -
- and Replace the Evils of Terror and Counter Terror!

[Ramadan and the Jewish New Year are today!
Let this coincidence bring us all Peace!]

rick- as my mother used to say- let the headbangers bang

peace

Could't deal with the issue and questions huh Rickster ? Actually, Rickster The Jews will Have Israel as long as the Lord G-D will permit. Israel will continue long after you and your mama lay a moldering in your pine boxes somewhere that cannot be described herein. Get my drift Rickster ? Happy New year to your mama.

Zuni,

Don't worry, there will be no gas chambers in the Sinai. We will partition Texas and you can have half. Crawford can be your new capital. There will be plenty of room for the current 5,140,000 Jewish population of Israel as of the April 24, 2007 census.

Thanks Victoria. I signed the petition, but it seems way too mild. Where does it say return to the original September 1947 UN partition borders?

heres a link to sign a petition to implement the resolutions,
however since 1955 almost 200 toothless and unenforced resolutions have been passed by the UN against israel.

0 resolutions have been passed against the palestinians
http://www.petitiononline.com/84766866/petition.html

Zuni says:

'If we had no Israel tomorrow Bin Laden would still be plotting against the west.'

Yes, but if we were not illegally occupying Palestine and Iraq, slaughtering millions of innocents (mostly women and children), and driving millions of families into refugee camps; then, we would have the moral high ground, not OBL.

Hey gang : We seem to be all over the place. What's the question ? Please Rick what part of Palestine is being illegally and immorally occupied ? The total mandate; the resolution establishing Israel;the 1948 border; the 1967 line ? What resolutions has Israel violated that have not been sponsered and supported by an Arab nation; the Arab League; Islamic council. How many Muslim nations supported the resolutions and how many Jewish countries opposed it ? How many Muslims echo your "illegal occupation " theory (I will help) about 1.7 billion; how many Jews oppose it Rickster( about 12 million )? God bless the USA, without the veto you seem to dislike you could start helping the poor picked upon muslims set up the gas chambers in the Sinai. I have seen enough of theories blaming Jews for everything. Bin Laden wants the west to become Muslim. If we had no Israel tomorrow Bin Laden would still be plotting against the west. Leave off Rickster,leave off.

Rick, AO & others:

The fact is that Iraq war has taken one away from chasing Osama bin Laden. This is a report that appeared on the Rediff. It was written by an ex-ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) personnel in Pakistan.

The report is interesting, and shows the flaws in the thinking process of Osama's enemy. Its a clash of civilizations that Osama is pushing ahead and wants success.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/11hamid.htm

Deb Chatterjee wrote:

'...why would it be immoral (not to be confused with "illegal") to get into the neighbors home, and take those thugs (Taliban) out...? '

It would not be immoral to take them out in Afghanistan; and we did. However, we have no obligation, nor unlimited resources (young men's lives and national wealth), to remain forever. At some point, the locals have to learn to defend themselves. If they are not able, or lack the will; then perhaps they deserve to be dominated by the stronger sect.

Pakistan is different. We don't have the capability to take out Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri in the Mountains of Pakistan. Hell, we couldn't even take them out when we had them surrounded at Tora Bora.

Plus we must not destabilize the already shaky Musharraf government.

In Palestine, we are spending $3 B per annum to support the immoral and illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine. We should stop this aid immediately and insist that Israel comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions against them, for which our veto provided the sole dissent.

Victoria:

The doctrine of Islam is about inclusion only when one unconditionally surrenders to Islam. Its otherwise pure hate who would question/ridicule Islam and want to remain defiant to the bloodthirsty Allah.

My guess is that OBL is planning on a bloodlust right after the "sacred months have passed" (Ramadan period). (See Quran[009:005]).

who mentioned pakistan deb?
are you suggesting the US invade pakistan also?
the exiled prime minister sharif has vowed that he would go to prison to insure the democratic process be instituted in pakistan.

wouldn't it be to america's and the world advantage if america stopped suporting musharraf?

now, Ramadan starts tomorrow in america. it is a month long observation. we fast from sunup to sundown, in america that is approximately from 5:30 am to 7:20pm.

no water no food- gum anything passes our lips during our fast, and we spend the evening in prayer.

ive suggested to the local imam that we invite local congregatins of different faiths to celebrate our iftar with us. iftar is the meal at sundown when we break our fast.

ive engaged many times before in inviting those of different faiths to participate with us always with excellent and community building effects.
breaking bread together in peace has built friendships and strength of purpose that lasts far beyond the ramadan season.

the turks just held their election recently-
they are trying to build a strng democracy- so far quite successfully.

the algerians just held a protest with 10s of thousands against terrorism in their country.

the pakistanis have an election coming up.

without interference muslims are finding their own way to self determination.

islam is in itself about unity of people.

it says in the qu'ran "ALLAH has created you from many different nations, that you may know each other."

inclusion, not brute force.

Rick wrote:

"This is wrong, we cannot continue to occupy Muslim land in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine."

About Iraq, I have agreement with you and other 2nd/3rd graders. On Afghanistan, NO.

Imagine thus: if you live in a "locality" (in this case the locality is the world/globe) where you see that from a neighbor's house some criminals are, on a daily basis, lynching, mugging, beating, stealing .... etc., up the other lawful neighbors, why would it be immoral (not to be confused with "illegal") to get into the neighbors home, and take those thugs out ? [The neighbor's men (who live in that home) have violated other law-abiding residents' 1st Amendment/Human rights already.]

A similar, but not exact argument holds for Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm sorry I don't agree with you fully.

AO- you seem to have the most rudimentary understanding of what sanctions are.

i am absolutely sure that you paid no attention to the events as they transpired, and are formulating a contrived hypotheses after the fact based on some quick googles to support whatever point it is youre trying to belabor.

you stated-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No, it merely shows that we kept sanctions on Iraq for a dozen years and Saddam kept cheating on the sanctions and stealing the supplies and funds that were meant for the hospitals and schools so that he could rebuild his military, and we kept trying to find ways to help the Iraqi people despite the worst efforts of their 'government."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the purpose of the sanctions was to PREVENT supplies and funds from getting into iraq-

here is an extremely simple synopsis of the sanctions-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," STARTED IN LATE 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power. After more than twelve years of sanctions had passed, the US and the UK made war on Iraq again in March, 2003, sweeping away Hussein's government. Soon after, Washington called for and obtained the lifting of sanctions, a step that gave the US occupation authority full control over Iraq's oil sales and oil industry."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you contend the kuwaiti invasion was a 'success', what constitutes success to you?
papa bush didnt even say that.

and george junior stated he was going to finish what papa started (not finished successfully).

so to recap- sanctions DO NOT MEAN resources going in- (to be mismanaged) but NO RESOURCES GOING IN AT ALL.

ANTHRAX? you mean like the white vial held up by colin powell at the UN as a reason to go to war?
ANTHRAX?

Please pardon this paste from another thread, but I think that it is very germane to this conversation:

GAYLE :

Hi Rick,

You say-

"Victoria would not say that it is a matter of interpretation of the Qur'an, but rather looking at the entire work as a whole."

If this were true we could say many violent people have misread and under-read the Quran. However, the more passionate mujahideen are hafiz. So this argument is obsolete.

September 10, 2007 10:00 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RICK:

Hi Gayle,

Isn't this fun?

From Wikipedia:

Hafiz (Quran), a term used by Muslims for people who have completely memorized the Qur'an

It's amazing what you learn on this site. You are very knowledgeable on this topic. Tell me more about yourself.

OK, Victoria, this is a fine predicament we are in. Gayle says that we cannot claim ignorance.

I think that Victoria will say (and I agree) that it is not about religion; it is about men, hateful, evil men, and men with a grudge.

And a good part of the grudge has to do with the way we treat Muslims, invading and occupying Muslim land in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan; slaughtering millions of innocents, mostly women and children, and driving millions of families into refugee camps.

Islam is under attack by the west, and has been since 1917, the Balfour Declaration: ‘His Majesty would favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.’ They are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.

September 11, 2007 5:28 AM

Deb Chatterjee,

Thanks for your vote. You seem to be a most intelligent person. Welcome to 3rd Grade. What's the score now Hondo?

However, you say:

'However, now that we are in Iraq, which Iraqis see an "invasion" with their "dear leader" (Saddam the despot) hanged, they are mad as hell at American "Crusaders", and want us killed. If we leave, the hyenas (Al-Qaeda) shall run after us. The problem is that we cannot turn back now and accept our defeat, and eventual destruction.'

This is wrong, we cannot continue to occupy Muslim land in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

As for Pakistan, we must tread very softly there as well. It is probably a near impossible task to rout Bin Laden, and more importantly Ayman Al-Zawahiri, out of their hole in Pakistan. Also, we don't want to topple another semi-stable government, one that is nuclear armed.

We have done about all the damage that can be done with our offense for now. We don't want to dig our hole any deeper. What's the first law of holes? Stop digging. It's time to come home and play defense for a while.

Rick and AO:

You are both right - but mostly Rick. Sorry, AO !

Yes, Rick, occupying Muslim lands is not the best thing to do. It's like living in a snake hole.

But AO is still right, and that means although you don't want to live inside a snake hole, you want to know if inside a hole the snake lives or not. If it does, you want to smoke'em out and have its head cutoff.

Invading Iraq on the false pretext of WMD and Saddam and his 9/11 connection was WRONG. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith drew the blueprint; Rummy liked it and Dick Cheney sold it. George W. and American public bought it. It was that simple.

However, now that we are in Iraq, which Iraqis see an "invasion" with their "dear leader" (Saddam the despot) hanged, they are mad as hell at American "Crusaders", and want us killed. If we leave, the hyenas (Al-Qaeda) shall run after us. The problem is that we cannot turn back now and accept our defeat, and eventual destruction.

We need to beat the hell out of these terrorists, and stop them there. There is some truth in the saying that we should fight them in Iraq rather than in Indiana.

Rick and AO: what should we do about Pakistan which is sheltering Osama bin Laden in its North West Frontier ?

OK, Al-Qaeda may have poison gas and biological weapons. But occupying Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq does nothing to counter that. On the contrary, it just serves as a great recruitment tool for them to attract newer, more fervent converts.

Also, it's a game of whack-a-mole. We can chase them from Afghanistan and they just show up somewhere else, like Pakistan.

There are no easy answers, but occupying Muslim land is not the right approach.

AM Vienna Va says:

"American Observer and Others: The Lancet estimates of 500,000+ WERE accepted by the US government. "

American Observer replies:

I know -- that is why I was able to use the figures with such devastating effect against Rick and Victoria. If you didn't read that part, go read it again. If you did not understand it, please ask someone to help you.

AM Vienna Va says:

"Despite many rumblings, the sanctions regime was modified because of that report. That was an implicit acceptance that we (the US) were responsible for those deaths."

American Observer replies:

No, it merely shows that we kept sanctions on Iraq for a dozen years and Saddam kept cheating on the sanctions and stealing the supplies and funds that were meant for the hospitals and schools so that he could rebuild his military, and we kept trying to find ways to help the Iraqi people despite the worst efforts of their 'government.' If you need me to explain that in slower and simpler terms, I will.

Rick says:

"I have to admit that I don’t know how long the allies occupied Germany, Italy and Japan after WWII; I’ll have to do some research. Maybe you (or someone else) can help me out with that."

American Observer replies:

Alright, I know that we ruled Japan directly for seven years, and we still have soldiers there. I don't know the exact amount of time before we allowed Germany and Italy to elect their own governments, but we still have soldiers in those countries as well. Yes, those soldiers were there as part of the Cold War, to prevent a Soviet invasion; but if you think that preventing a second rise of the Axis was not also part of their duties, well, you need to talk to a European or an Asian that you trust.

Rick says:

"I don’t think that the power of Afghanistan and Iraq compare very well with Germany, Italy and Japan. "

American Observer replies:

Really? Do you mean that Germany, Japan, and Italy attacked us too early in history to reach our shores with nuclear weapons or poison gas or anthrax? Since you know that the Al-Qaeda have already experimented with poison gas and biological weapons, you must be saying that the danger from an Al-Qaeda haven is actually greater -- right?

AMVIENNAVA,

Thanks for the moral support. You sound like an extremely intelligent person.

AO says:

Tell me, what would have happened if we had tried that in Germany, Japan, and Italy after the Second World War?

Rick says:

I have to admit that I don’t know how long the allies occupied Germany, Italy and Japan after WWII; I’ll have to do some research. Maybe you (or someone else) can help me out with that. However, I don’t think that the power of Afghanistan and Iraq compare very well with Germany, Italy and Japan. And it should have only been Afghanistan, had we not preemptively invaded Iraq for no good reason.

Comparison between Israel and India results in a shameful scenario. India has been a victim of 70,000 lives since 2001. However, a UN investigation reported India fails the test of preventing Islamic terrorism in the future. Now that Al-Qaeda is finding that its might with USA is not working, it shall train its bombs on India, and the result is heavy casualties. Indian politicians are good at genuflecting before terrorists, and their analysis in 20/20 hindsight (i.e. after the bloodbath has happened, and the terrorist is there no more) is very very good/scholarly.

Just read the Hindustan Times report:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=33f35579-1a90-426d-b924-4df83ede8122&&Headline=India+lacks+the+capability+to+win+terror+war%3a+UN

A country that prides its "non-violence" policy, builds nukes, has highest number of techies in Bangalore, can't defend itself.

USA should rewind its outsourcing operations from India and move it to China.

Shameful !

Mohammad Allam:

Communal riots and Islamic terrorism are not the same. Islamic terrorism has often followed communal riots and particularly in India.

The deplorable Gujarat massacare was provoked by Muslim lynchmob setting a compartment of the fated Sabarmati express on fire. The slaughter of devotees by the Jihadi members of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) at the Akshardham temple complex, is also a reason to be reckoneed with.

In Kashmir Muslims want to secede, having made their political point about the issue through their engagement in terrorism resulting in slaughter of 400,000 Kashmiri Hindus and non-Muslims in the valley since 1989. And BTW, Muslims want to secede simply because they want a Muslim majority state there. I wonder, if Muslims became a majority in USA sometime in the future wouldn't they want United States to become an Islamic Republic and be ruled by Sharia laws ?

The recent blasts in New Delhi, Mumbai, Varanasi, Hyderabad - all in India, and the associated killing of innocent persons by Muslim radicals (Jihadists) show the difference between terrorism and communal riots. Probably only the sick, twisted mind cannot discern the difference between the two.

Islamic terrorism is the most dangerous socio-political cancer that is spreading globally. This is not motivated by poverty or anything similar, because most of the Jihadists come from affluent backgrounds.

This (Islamic terrorism) needs to be ruthlessly put down, as argues Yossi Melman.

Rick, if we withdraw, the Taliban will simply take power again. However, you seem to advocate allowing the Taliban to take power again, with all of the crimes that would entail against their neighbors; then, if the Taliban sell too much opium or blow up too many American embassies, we invade again, and overthrow the Taliban again, and then we withdraw, and then we allow the Taliban to take power again. After two or three repetitions we should hope that treating an entire nation like a row of ten pins in a bowling alley will convince the ruling party to confine global jihad to their own borders.

Wow. What a recipe for endless massacre -- worse than anything that the Afghans are suffering right now. Tell me, what would have happened if we had tried that in Germany, Japan, and Italy after the Second World War? Do you think that the Nazis would eventually have decided to keep the Thouand-Year Reich within their own borders? How many years and how many lives would the second and third dosages of Allied rebuke have cost the Allies and the Axis both?

AO Says:

...We defeated the Nazis and overthrew their regime, and we defeated the Taliban, but you have said that we should not have ovethrown the Taliban regime, which is as stupid as saying we should have defeated Hitler's armies but left Hitler in power....

Rick Says:

From previous posts:

...As I said, we were correct to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban; though it is testimony to the incompetence of our Dear Leader that he allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora....

...Continuing to occupy the country to convert the heathens to democracy is futile and irresponsible, exceeded in hypocrisy only by our disastrous adventure in Iraq. By the way, have you heard that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? ...

So you see AO, I do not advocate leaving the Taliban in power. The mistake is continuing to occupy the country indefinitely. We should smash anyone who attacks us, as the Taliban did on 9/11. Then we should withdraw and monitor the situation covertly, much more competently than we were doing prior to 9/11.

If the behavior persists, then we smash them and withdraw repeatedly, until they lose their appetite for attacking us.

It is our occupation of Muslim land that is not tenable.

Rick: Your exchange with 'American Observer' proves that you cannot discuss anything on a rational basis with someone who refuses facts.

AS for the comments by 'Hondo', I believe you are right: He must be convinced that the Iraq venture is a glorious victory for the US.

American Observer and Others: The Lancet estimates of 500,000+ WERE accepted by the US government. Despite many rumblings, the sanctions regime was modified because of that report. That was an implicit acceptance that we (the US) were responsible for those deaths.

The following is an excerpt from MIN HAMETZAR (p. 92)
by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"L
Dean of Nitra Yeshiva

The excerpt is a literal translation of the letter the Jewish Rescue Committee in Czechoslovakia received from the Zionist "Jewish" Agency Executive Offices in Switzerland.

This was in reply to the call of the Jewish Rescue Committee for help, with documentary evidence furnished, concerning the fate of millions of Jewish people in Nazi occupied Europe.

"We are writing to remind you of the one factor of which you must never lose sight: that ultimately, the Allies will win the war. After their victory, territorial boundaries will be reshaped as they were after the First World War. Then, the way will be clear for our purpose at this time, with the war drawing to a close, we must do everything in our power to change Eretz Yisroel to Medinat Yisrael and many steps have already been taken in this regard. Therefore, we must turn a deaf ear to the pleas and cries emanating from Eastern Europe. Remember this: all the allies have suffered many losses, and if we also do not offer human sacrifices, how can we gain the right to sit at the conference table when the territorial boundaries are reshaped? Accordingly, it is foolhardy and brazen for us to negotiate in terms of money or supplies in exchange for Jewish lives. How dare we ask of the allied powers to barter money for lives while they are sustaining heavy casualties daily? So, insofar as the masses are concerned: RAK B'DAM TIHJE LANU HAAREZ, (Eretz Yisroel will be ours only by paying with blood), but as far as our immediate circle is concerned, ATEM TAJLU. The messenger bearing this letter will supply you with funds for this purpose".

After I accustomed myself to the peculiar writing, I trembled when I realized the import of RAK B'DAM TIHJE LANU HAAREZ. But many weeks passed, and I was still confounded by the meaning of ATEM TAJLU. Until one day, it struck me. ATEM TAJLU meant "You escape", for the word "tiyul" (walking trip) was used by them as a euphemistic code for "escape". They meant to say - you fifteen or twenty "party members", escape from Czechoslovakia and save your hides. The price of Eretz Yisroel is the blood of the men and women, hoary sages, and babes in arms - but not YOUR blood! Let us not spoil this plan by giving the Axis powers to save Jewish lives. But for you, comrades, I have enclosed carfare for your escape. What a nightmare! The Zionist agent "diplomat" comes to Czechoslovakia and says 'Now is a very critical time. But comparatively speaking it is not at all critical for you trapped Jews. For there is an emergency of far greater proportions; namely, BINYAN HA-ARETZ (the prize of Medinat Yisrael). Shed your blood cheerfully, for your blood is cheap. But for your blood, the Land (of Israel) will be ours!

Read R. Weissmandl's Ten Questions to the Zionists

BTW, those who argue that our Dear Leader's policy in Iraq is wrong, do not 'hate America'. We just have a keen grasp of the obvious.

It is those who blindly support this policy who are doing maximal harm to America and the world.

AO and Victoria,

I think that we are getting wrapped around the axel over the numbers here, which are only estimates after all. No one knows what the numbers are; you can pick whatever estimates serve your argument best.

Here is where Victoria and I part ways (but only on this one issue). I have not suggested that we should have stopped the sanctions or no fly zone (regardless of what the French or Germans were saying).

The solution to the 500,000(?) dead babies was not to drop the sanctions and no fly zone, or to invade Iraq; it was for the UN to work with the Iraqi government to get aid to those who were not getting it under the Oil for Food program. This could have been handled without an all out invasion and occupation.

Victoria said:

" the 500,000 BABIES were a direct result (according to world health org. of the U.S. sanctions.

because of the failed invasion by papa bush to save his kuwaiti oil friends."

American Observer replies:

'Failed invasion'? In what way was the liberation of Kuwait either an 'invasion' or a 'failure'? Victoria, more than thirty nations sent soldiers to Kuwait to drive out the Iraqis. Do you think they were wrong? Is your hatred for American so poisonous that you not only think we should have left Saddam in power in Iraq, you also think we should have left Saddam in power in Kuwait?

Victoria, your grammar is now as bad as your reasoning, and your writing is so bad that it is hard to separate the different pieces and critique them individually.

However, you should remember that you are mixing two separate sets of figures here. Whether the figures for dead babies BEFORE Operation Iraqi Freedom are correct down to the last number or just mostly correct, I accept the evidence, and the evidence that you quoted smashes Rick arguments to pieces. Your figures have shown that peaceful sanctions were not enough to contain Saddam, and the peaceful sanctions were doing more harm than good. This should remind us of the basic truth -- you cannot use peace to stop war. Only war can stop war. Sanctions and peaceful measures were the wrong way to stop Saddam -- going in and killing him was the right way.

As for the doctor's guestimate about the number of civilians who have been killed AFTER Operation Iraqi Freedom, Little Heart, those are the numbers that I don't believe. Mixing those figures together is just mixing apples and oranges.

Victoria said:

"it was the stated motivation of osama bin laden that his attack on the twin towers were because of the united states support of israel."

American Observer replies:

Ummm, no, Victoria -- as usual, you don't get it. The first item on Osama's list was American support for the Saudi Government, and the second was the United Nations sanctions on Iraq, and the third was American support for Israel. That is why Osama and the Qaeda have launched so many attacks inside Saudia Arabia, and why Osama and the Qaeda are now launching so many attacks inside Iraq. Because Osama was born in Saudia Arabia, Saudi Arabia will always remain his first target. Of course, you might observe that Saudi Arabia already lives a very strict Moslem lifestyle, but that does not bother Osama; like Hitler, Osama is mostly interested in power, and he can never be placated as long as there is someone left to conquer or destroy.

AO- if the figures i posted are your bizarre rationale for going to war, why did you downplay those same figures before?

you dismissed the JOHNS HOPKINS STUDY by claiming they were 'going door to door and asking people-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AO-"The Johns Hopkins numbers were guesswork based on false reasoning. The people from Johns Hopkins walked door-to-door through a few neighborhoods, asked "Do you know of anyone killed in the war?"
`````````````````````````````
YOU WERE WRONG the lancet study has not been questioned by our government, but was presented and received by the house.

you stated the figures at the most, 70,000.

you were wrong.

the 500,000 BABIES were a direct result (according to world health org. of the U.S. sanctions.

because of the failed invasion by papa bush to save his kuwaiti oil friends.

the peacemakers in america have been shocked and disgusted by the sanctions, as have the people of the world.

it was the stated motivation of osama bin laden that his attack on the twin towers were because of the united states support of israel.

stopping that support would have been a start to creating peace in that area- not going to war with sadaam who nobody really cared one bit about before-

kim jong il was parading his nukes through the streets and rattling his sabre at the US- with no reaction.
if we were concerned about dictators
we would have conducted unilateral talks with him years ago.

it is the grossest hypocrisy to hide the deaths of children and innocents in the smoke of this war-

i guess US policy is to make so many mistakes, that it becomes impossible to keep track of them-

you dont care about iraqis AO- you dont know any iraqis and never did, so they can die in the hundreds of thousands and you'd find a way to make it justified.

but its not and you have no rationale, or moral basis for your opinions.

youre simply a microcosm of the US- on these boards your bellicose blustering doesnt change facts, and when facts are revealed that expose your lack of knowledge and hypocrisy-
you try to use them to support you, when you were arguing AGAINST the same figures before.

you really think peole are so stupid they forget what your were contending 5 posts ago-

now youre just making things up
why dont YOU start posting links and resources to validate your opinions?

because you cannot.

The reason that Saddam became uncacceptable to the USA and Israel is that he sent money to families of Palestinian kamikazes.Every other crime was tolerated until then.

While everyone refuses to talk with Hamas because it won't recognize Israel, that Israel which still refuses to define it's territory no one asks Israel to recognize that its creation was a mistake. Let's take all properties and deeds of those who live in Israel and the occupied territories of Palestine and hold a lottery where each resident has one chance at one deed....if God's chosen are really God's chosen they shouldn't worry.

to dev chatterjee.
on the basis of your defintion of terrorism can u accept that riots in india also fall in act of terrorism.why not you call it terrorism ? other hand why you not call all the attack on muslim world as an act of terrorism.is it not hypocarcy that you termed the act on the basis of religion.?

to dev chatterjee
on the basis of you can you call the following as a terrorist acts.
1 mumbai riots
2 gujrat riots
3 demolition of Babri mosque.
4 attack on Iraq
5 Attack on Afghanistan
6 attack on sudan
7 attack on palestine
8 attack on lebnan.
thats only for u.be honest and bold and condemened all these.

Gee whiz, Rick what part of AO's post was nonsensical and hysterical,or even a tirade ? Inquiring minds want to know !

I am sorry, Rick -- I know I used a few proper nouns and compound sentences, but I swear I wasn't trying to talk over your head. If you tell us which parts you understood and which parts were too hard for you, perhaps some kind person on the board can try to break the hard parts down and explain them slowly. Right now I have to go to bed, but people are just waking up on the other side of the world, so there should be someone.

Phew! What a nonsensical hysterical tirade. I must really have drawn blood that time.

Final score : American Observer--35; Rick--0; Victoria-- 0. Rick will now fall back to 3rd grade. Assignment :Education in the 21st century.

Rick says:

Can we have a drum roll please....

American Observer replies:

No, but something with an old car horn would be appropriate; that, or maybe a kazoo.

Rick says:

Q: a) Tell me, do your doctors have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam killed before Operation Iraqi Freedom?
A: No, I would look to another source for that information, someone who has studied that issue. I’ll look into it and get back to you.

American Observer replies:

You are very glib with numbers, Rick, unless those numbers undercut your position; in which case, you are always content to stall indefinitely.

Rick says:

Does slaughtering 1.5 million people, mostly women and children, solve that problem?

American Observer replies:

Wow -- and were did you get the one point five million, Rick? Nobody, on the left or on the right or on the moon, has quoted such a number for Iraq. It is, to be precise, twice as stupid as the bogus 700,000 from the guessing doctors.

Rick says:

Q: b) Do your doctors have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam would have killed if we had lifted the sanctions and the no-fly zone?
A: Who advocated lifting the sanctions and no-fly zone?

American Observer replies:

Rick, what planet do you come from? On which planet were you living in the nineteen-nineties? If you were living on Earth and reading the papers at least once a year, you would remember that the FRENCH wanted to lift the sanctions and the no-fly zone, and the RUSSIANS wanted to lift the sanctions and the no-fly zone, and the CHINESE wanted to lift the sanctions and the no-fly zone, and they complained about it almost daily. In fact, they sometimes used the figures that your friend Victoria quoted above, arguing that the peaceful methods were doing more harm than good. After all, they said, we are letting Iraq sell more than enough oil to buy food and medicine, but Saddam is stealing so much of it that the Iraqi children are dying anyway. Therefore, the French and the Russians and the Chinese said, we might as well let the beast go back to his old devices and sell all the oil he can so he can buy weapons from France and Russia and China.

Rick says:

Q: c) Do your doctors have any guesses for how many Kurds and others will die if America 'allows the Iraqis to settle their own differences by themselves?'
A: Why is that our business? ....what’s done is done. The best we can do now is to get out of the way and let Iraq become what it’s going to become.

American Observer replies:

Rick, if I were a prosecutor building a case against you for sheer mindless hatred, I would quote that line in the first paragraph. You have made it clear that you don't really care about the sick and starving of Iraq or any other country; you are merely interested in using them as weapons against America; and when you have to choose between helping the sick and 'putting the Yankees in their place,' you will always choose attacking America over helping the sick.

Rick says:

Q: d) Would you say it was right to defeat the Wehrmacht, but wrong to overthrow Hitler and then to convert the Germans to democracy?
A: No, but who advocated that? Don’t compare this disastrous war of choice to World War II.

American Observer replies:

Rick, how far down do I have to dumb this discussion before you understand? The Nazis attacked our allies the way the Taliban attacked us. We defeated the Nazis and overthrew their regime, and we defeated the Taliban, but you have said that we should not have ovethrown the Taliban regime, which is as stupid as saying we should have defeated Hitler's armies but left Hitler in power. Rick, if you leave people like the Nazis or the Taliban in power, you can be sure they will get back to creating their thousand-year Reich or creating their global caliphate -- it is fundamental to their ideology; and if we don't stay in Afghanistan and stay until the last Taliban is dead, then the Taliban will regain power, and we will be back to September 10, 2001.

Rick says:

Q: e) Should we have allowed the Nazis to continue to rule Germany the way you wished we left the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan and the Ba'ath in charge in Iraq?
A: See answer to question d for Iraq part. As I said, we were correct to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban...

American Observer replies:

Since you avoided answering question d completely, there is nothing there for me to see. If you have any spine, you should go back and try again.

Rick says:

Q: f) What would have been the consequences for their people, and how would those regimes have treated their neighbors once they got their confidence back?
A: The eventually stable Iraqi and Afghanistan regimes, whatever immerges, will get along with their neighbors just like all other neighbors get along (or don’t get along) throughout the world.

American Observer replies:

Rick, what planet do you come from? Why is it you don't seem to remember or understand any event in world history before the last five or six years? If you knew anything about the history of the twentieth century, you would remember that we already tried doing exactly what you recommend, in exactly the place you recommend. If you knew anything about the history of the twentieth century, you would remember that America sent the stinger missiles and trainers which helped the Afghans liberate themselves from the Soviet Empire. Once the job was done, we left Afghanistan to the mercy of whatever government that was going to 'immerge' (sic). That society was the Taliban, and the Taliban got together with their ideological brothers in the Al-Qaeda and decided that the Taliban's leader, Mullah Umar, was the 'Caliph' of the world, and their brand of radical Islam was the correct law for all of mankind. They then blew up two of our embassies in Africa and blew up one of our ships in Yemen and finally blew up three thousand people in New York, and we finally realized that even if we wanted to do the 'noble' thing and let the Afghans 'choose their own society,' that gave us zero guarantee that the Afghans would do the same for us.

We have had to learn that lesson over and over again. After the First World War we allowed the Germans to choose their own society, and tens of millions of people died for that mistake. After the Second World War we made sure to help the Germans and the Japanese and the Italians choose their new societies, and the result has been peace and freedom for Germany and Japan and Italy and for ourselves as well. After our previous war in Afghanistan, we allowed the Afghans 'to choose their own society,' and that society was the Taliban, and thousands of Americans died for that mistake. If we follow your advice, Rick, the Taliban will conquer Afghanistan again, and hundreds of thousands of Afghans will die, and probably thousands of Americans as well.

Rick, I am astonished at how much basic logic and even basic history I have to teach you. I am also surprised at how heavily you rely on vapid quotations from the Bible in places of logic. Are you a teenager, Rick? I mean that literally. If your really are nineteen, as I suspect, then all of my questions about your mind and character are answered.

AO & others:

While Victoria is clueless, I think going after Saddam (the ruthless despot) did not serve any purpose. There are still much more ruthless despots elsewhere. China is an example.

Instead USA should have negotiated secretly with Saddam, used his network to stop growth of radical Islamic ideologies. That did not happened and with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and their bosses such as Secretary Rumsfeld and VP Dick Cheney formulated a sophomoric plan connecting WMD and Saddam, and initially alleging that he planned the entire 9/11, the disgraceful war had begun, with lots of American lives lost.

Now General David Patreaus is boldly trying to do his best bout without any significant progress. What could he have done ? His bosses have left him and his forces in dire straits. In the meantime Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda Central has emerged as a very strong and potent force, with the audacity of asking Americans to convert to Islam and promising lower taxes 2.5% of Zakat. Of course he did not say what the fate of non-Muslims will be or how much tax (jiziya) they have to pay.

Anyway, the incidence of terrorism shall rise markedly. Air travel will become very very scary, and with the US economy tanking, with the stock market situation pretty bad, the incidence of increased terrorism can send USA into a tailspin.

These will be exacerbated inside USA and in Europe by homegrown terrorist cells. In the meantime, the US public shall be extremely angry if the US government empowers Homeland security and NSA to do warrantless eavesdropping. Taking advantage of the situation, Islamic terrorists shall unleash a reign of terror.

Already public opinion is divided - mostly against US policy of invading Iraq; now the WP has a damning article that Al-Qaeda has shown remarkable resilience to regroup, and revitalized. The inability of USA to lose out on the terrorist front in getting Al-Qaeda leadership has the long term potential of eroding USA's credibility as a superpower. Since Americans loverf power, I do forsee that more Americans shall convert to Islam. Those like who are unwilling, shall be left to the fate of Nick Berg, Eugene Anderson, Ken Bigley or other hapless victims decapitated by the followers of Osama bin Laden.

Unfortunately, no change of leadership can solve this problem. Maybe amidist the growing despair one shall hope for a messiah to come. Second coming of Christ perhaps.

'Thou Hypocrite, first cast the plank from thine own eye.'

Rick:

"Where else could one receive a lecture on Hate from a renowned expert?'

American Observer replies:

You are welcome, Rick. I have studied people like you for years, so I know exactly how you think; and I am glad to have the chance to explain your character and motives to you.

Can we have a drum roll please....

Q: a) Tell me, do your doctors have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam killed before Operation Iraqi Freedom?
A: No, I would look to another source for that information, someone who has studied that issue. I’ll look into it and get back to you. But surely we didn’t preemptively invade and occupy a sovereign country because of that. Are we the world’s policemen? Does slaughtering 1.5 million people, mostly women and children, solve that problem? Does driving million of families into refugee status in adjacent countries solve that problem?
‘Thou Hypocrite, first remove the plank from thine own eye.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: b) Do your doctors have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam would have killed if we had lifted the sanctions and the no-fly zone?
A: Who advocated lifting the sanctions and no-fly zone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: c) Do your doctors have any guesses for how many Kurds and others will die if America 'allows the Iraqis to settle their own differences by themselves?'
A: Why is that our business? Yes, we broke it, so we own it, thanks to our incompetent Dear Leader; but what’s done is done. The best we can do now is to get out of the way and let Iraq become what it’s going to become.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: d) Would you say it was right to defeat the Wehrmacht, but wrong to overthrow Hitler and then to convert the Germans to democracy?
A: No, but who advocated that? Don’t compare this disastrous war of choice to World War II.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: e) Should we have allowed the Nazis to continue to rule Germany the way you wished we left the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan and the Ba'ath in charge in Iraq?
A: See answer to question d for Iraq part. As I said, we were correct to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban; though it is testimony to the incompetence of our Dear Leader that he allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: f) What would have been the consequences for their people, and how would those regimes have treated their neighbors once they got their confidence back?
A: The eventually stable Iraqi and Afghanistan regimes, whatever immerges, will get along with their neighbors just like all other neighbors get along (or don’t get along) throughout the world. Let’s just hope that we don’t have some Religious Hypocrite in the White House who decides that it is his/her God given duty to straighten them out.

Thanks for the information AO. It's amazing, and quite gratifying, what can learn on this site. Where else could one receive a lecture on Hate from a renowned expert?

Rick...

I asked you a list of questions before, and you have merely avoided the questions, so let me ask them again...

a) Tell me, do your doctors have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam killed before Operation Iraqi Freedom?

b) Do your doctors have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam would have killed if we had lifted the sanctions and the no-fly zone?

c) Do your doctors have any guesses for how many Kurds and others will die if America 'allows the Iraqis to settle their own differences by themselves?'

d) Would you say it was right to defeat the Wehrmacht, but wrong to overthrow Hitler and then to convert the Germans to democracy?

e) Should we have allowed the Nazis to continue to rule Germany the way you wished we left the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan and the Ba'ath in charge in Iraq?

f) What would have been the consequences for their people, and how would those regimes have treated their neighbors once they got their confidence back?

I can only encourage you to try to answer these questions. I know, thinking can seem painful if you are not in the habit of doing it, but it is like any other form of exercise: it will only make you stronger.

Hondo,

It looks like you and AO are winning this debate in the same sense that we are winning the Iraq war; i.e. nonsense.

American Observer--12; Rick--0; Victoria--0. Two minute warning !

Rick, Rick, Rick...

You are slavishly obeying the Three Rules Of Hate.

Do you know what they are?

1) If you hate someone, attack his actions.

2) If you cannot attack his actions, attack his motives. After all, arguing about motives is much more complicated, and usually involves your basic views about human nature, as well as the use of psychics and fortune tellers.

3) If you cannot attack his actions or his motives, then attack the people you hate for not doing the same thing in some other impossible situation.

Like most people who hate, you started out by attacking America's actions, in Afghanistan and Iraq and just about anywhere else that came up; and when I spelled things out clearly enough for you to understand, you did not even try to answer; instead, you decided to dodge my questions and change the subject.

So...

....we can go through the numbers of the 'Joint Production Agreement,' and measure even the grandest possible total against the staggering cost of the war so far, and the amount the war will cost in the five-year plan we are seeing on the front pages today; however, it would take me a lot of work to dig out the numbers, because your theory is so despised among both conservative and liberal economists that few have bothered to put the numbers together.

In the meantime, why don't you go answer the long list of questions that I put on the board for you?

Now AO, that's not the rationale that I remember being given for the war. It was more like (from Wikipedia):

'The principal stated justifications for this policy of "regime change" were that Iraq's alleged production of weapons of mass destruction and purported ties to terrorist organizations, amounted to a threat to the U.S. and the world community. This went so far as Vice President Cheney stating, in April 2002 on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "He's [Saddam Hussein] had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons".[36]'

If it were only the concern for a half-million infant deaths, I'm sure Bush/Cheney never would have invaded. The result of the invasion is 1.5 million deaths thus far and counting, plus millions driven from their homes and into refugee status in adjacent countries.

Besides, we all know that the real rationale was the world's 2nd largest oil field.

Victoria,

I am laughing so hard that it hurts! You are quoting the figures that supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom have always used to smash Rick's arguments! There were always people who said that we should give the sanctions time to work, and those people said that peaceful ways of controlling Saddam were better than war. However, your figures were always used to show that 'giving peace a chance' was stupid and murderous.

VICTORIA, we had three choices in Iraq. The first choice was to continue to use peaceful means to control Saddam. The second was to allow Saddam to go back to governing his own country like a normal ruler, even though his continual violence and threats against his own people and even his own relatives, such as Kemal Huissein, showed that he was still as crazy and evil and aggressive as ever, and letting Saddam back to 'normality' was just setting the stage for more wars and massacres. The third choice was to overthrow Saddam. Since you have shown that peaceful measures meant nothing but genocide for the Iraqi people, and since anybody with half a grain of sense could see that we could not let the beast out of his cage, the only alternative was option number three -- overthrowing Saddam by military force.

Tell me, Victoria -- I always took you for a spoiled rich girl with a mad-on on for her daddy, but perhaps I have underestimated your cunning. Are you really a paid employee of the Bush Administration? If not, you should go to Bush and ask him for a salary, because you have made Bush's case with more passion and detail than anyone but Bush has tried to do for years.

A OBSERVER
unicef figures on babies and children under 5 from 1999- 8 YEARS AGO

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

500,000- children under 5 and BABIES-

this is directly due to sanction against iraq

no one anywhere has suggested that these figures are in any way incorrect or inflated.

world health organization has figures of 1 to 1.5 million iraqi deaths from american intervention

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

the lancet study, which used epidemiologists form the JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG MEDICAL CENTER (hence the confusion- was initiated by the Massechuseets Institute of Technology-

the estimates in 2004 (its 2007 now folks)
are 650,000.

i will try to squeeze in one more link, but they ususally only allow 2-

from the washington post-

I HAD TO REMOVE THE WP LINK- TOO MANY NOT ALLOWED

UNICEF-
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
LANCET MEDICAL GROUP
MASSECHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
WASHINTON POST

are these enough valid resources for you american observer?

to answer your questions about kurds before the sanctons, war etc-

well, yes, of course there are pre-sanction was figures-
the methodology is clearly stated

now, as to your contention (and inappropriate and not applicable to the conversation)
and use of ad hominem negative observations about ricks love or despising of number and hence hatred of reason-
illogical.

i, and the worldwide respected organizations cited above disagree completely with your figure-
of which you provided no links, or names to support- (which is called conjecture IMHO)

this does not mean WHO despises numbers or reason- numbers are their stock in trade-

it means that one can disagree about the source of your numbers, as i do, and love numbers and their use to support reason.

so what about the 500,000 HALF A MILLION babies and children under 5?

The U.S. Governments' response to these numbers was not to discount or refute them (they couldnt) but simply to say that unneccesary loss of life was "regrettable".

if our own government does not refute the validity of these numbers- does that mean you have more knowledge than the american government?

peace

American Observer--10; Rick--0.

TO AMERICAN OBSERVER:

Well said. You are a worthy opponent; however, never fear, I'm sure I can bring you to see the error of your ways.

It will require bringing you to realize that we are not the world's policeman. Nor are we morally superior to anyone else. We are just greedy and desperate to grab those mideast oil fields.

That is the root cause of our manufactured hysteria that they'rebcomming to get us.

Rick says:

"There is also hearsay that a $20 M ransom was paid."

American Observer replies:

No, it is not hearsay -- it is the direct testimony of the Taliban, who also bragged that they will use the twenty million dollars to fund more suicide bombers.

Can't you see how wrong it was for the South Koreans to fund the Taliban and their suicide bombers? Can't you see how wrong it is to negotiate with hostage-takers?

Rick says:

"The fact that you quibble over whether the number of slaughtered civilians (mostly women and children) is 70,000 or 700,000 further proves that you just don't get it."

American Observer replies:

Numbers are a logical tool, Rick, and the fact that you despise numbers should remind us that you despise reason. America did not start the war in Iraq, Rick, because Saddam was already killing Iraqis twenty years before we got there, and America has never had the power to end the war in Iraq, because Saddam would have just massacred his own people the day we took the no-fly zone and the sanctions away. Tell me, do your doctors also have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam killed before Operation Iraqi Freedom? Do your doctors have guesses for how many Kurds and Shi'ites that Saddam would have killed if we had lifted the sanctions and the no-fly zone? Do your doctors have any guesses for how many Kurds and others will die if America 'allows the Iraqis to settle their own differences by themselves?' In all cases, the numbers will be much higher than seventy thousand, and the fact that you can't see that again shows your disdain for any form of logic or moral reasoning.

Rick says:

"The initial attack on Afghanistan and subsequent routing of Osama Bin Laden was correct...

Continuing to occupy the country to convert the heathens to democracy is futile and irresponsible..."

American Observer replies:

Oh, really? Would you also say it was right to defeat the Wehrmacht, but wrong to overthrow Hitler and then to convert the Germans to democracy? Should we have allowed the Nazis to continue to rule Germany the way you wished we left the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan and the Ba'ath in charge in Iraq? What would have been the consequences for their people, and how would those regimes have treated their neighbors once they got their confidence back?

Rick, what planet do you come from? The Taliban have not changed their plans or goals in any way, shape, or form since September 10, 2001. (Plans and goals which you have REFUSED to define.) What do you think would happen if we allowed the Taliban to come back to power?

Michael O'Brien well done sir'
your opinion is one of the best on this site.
some pigmies just try to beat the bush with shallow aruments fanned by their prejudice, they
are not the truth seekers rather hypocrates while they taunt mr.brien they have no case.

Michael O'Brien well done sir'
your opinion is one of the best on this site.
some pigmies just try to beat the bush with shallow aruments fanned by their prejudice, they
are not the truth seekers rather hypocrates while they taunt mr.brien they have no case.

AMERICAN OBSERVER says:

'Now, Rick, this board was created to talk about the deal between the Taliban and the South Koreans.'

Rick says:

1. Now AO... I don't think that you get it yet. The title of Mr. Melman's essay is 'Cut Out the Hypocrisy on Terrorism', and he addresses a number of cases including Palestine and Iraq, not just the Taliban and South Koreans.

2. How can you address the issue of hypocrisy if you are too hypocritical yourself to see the obvious, that it is the world's only super power and its number one lackey, who topple sovereign governments and security forces, resulting in anarchy among the general population, and neighborhood militia on militia ethnic cleansing.

3. The fact that you quibble over whether the number of slaughtered civilians (mostly women and children) is 70,000 or 700,000 further proves that you just don't get it. Personally, I put more faith in the JHU estimates than those of the US or Iraqi government.

4. Nevertheless, I will give my opinion on your Taliban/South Korean negotiation issue.

From yesterday's WP article: 'Under the deal, South Korea said it would pull its civilian nationals from Afghanistan by the end of August and withdraw its 200 troops working as doctors and engineers by the end of the year. The troop pull-out had already been planned and nationals barred from going to Afghanistan.'

There is also hearsay that a $20 M ransom was paid.

Now...here's....my opinion...(drum roll please). The South Koreans were correct to negotiate to free there hostages and save 17 lives (2 were already killed), and get the hell out of Dodge. They had no business being there in the first place.

The initial attack on Afghanistan and subsequent routing of Osama Bin Laden was correct, although allowing him to get away at Tora Bora is typical of the utter incompetence of our Dear Leader and his minions.

Continuing to occupy the country to convert the heathens to democracy is futile and irresponsible, exceeded in hypocrisy only by our disastrous adventure in Iraq.

By the way, have you heard that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

...'Thou Hypocrite, first remove the beam from thine own eye'...

(BTW, please don't take the above personally:)

Peace.

Rick says:

"I think that 700,000 number comes from John Hopkins University."

American Observer replies:

The Johns Hopkins numbers were guesswork based on false reasoning. The people from Johns Hopkins walked door-to-door through a few neighborhoods, asked "Do you know of anyone killed in the war?" and then collected the reports. After that they divided the population of Iraq by the number of people who responded to the survey, and multiplied the death tolls by the number they got. That is why their number has been refuted and rejected by all serious political thinkers. The number of seventy thousand, on the other hand, was compiled by people who actually went through the morgues and mortuaries and police records and counted the bodies.

Rick says:

"Remember the Pottery Barn rule: if you break it, you own it."

American Observer replies:

Rick, we have spent four years giving our blood and our money to the Arabs on that logic, and I for one am worn-out. Iraq is being broken by the Iraqis themselves, and it is time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for that fact.

Now, Rick, this board was created to talk about the deal between the Taliban and the South Koreans.

So....

Instead of blathering about 'hypocrisy' and talking about everything else under the sun, why not talk about what the Taliban want, and why you think negotiating with the Taliban was a good idea?

Michael OBrien wrote:

"Terrorists often represent legitimate concerns that should be discussed and addressed (such as the Israeli military occupation of Palestine, for example)."

Really ? Explain what legitimate cause the Taliban represented ? Explain what legitimate cause the Tupac Amaru rebels and Shining Path guerillas represented ? Explain what cause legitimate LTTE represents ? The Palentianian terrorists (Hamas/Islamic Jihad) want elimination of the state of Israel from the map, and all the Jews dead. Is that a legitimate demans that deserves brainstorming over coffee and donuts ? Did't Ehud Barak (the dove) conceded to 95% of the territories that the Palentinian supremo (Yasser Arafat) want atthe behest of Bill Clinton ? So, what is the legitimacy here ?

One may be fooled into thinking that these groups gain legitimacy because of the oppression. Well, granted that is true; however the groups themselves, when they ascend to power, bring in oppression and suffering of a worst kind. The case in point are the Taliban. They did eliminate the government/bureaucratic corruption but they did bring in a brutal form of system that oppressed the women and other minorities. Similar case for Iran. The Ayatollah's Revolutionary party came in amidst the rampant corruption of the Reza Shah Pahlevi's regime. But, what has happened since then ? They have oppressed Iranians more than what Shah did.

So, your assertion is very much questionable.

AMERICAN OBSERVER:

'...Thou Hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye...'

We are the terrorist. We decided to arbitrarily give away Palestine to the Jews. Why didn't we give them Texas, at least it was ours to give?

We decided to invade and occupy Iraq for no good reason. I think that 700,000 number comes from John Hopkins University. And even if the killers were Sunni/Shiite militias, we were the enablers who toppled the government. Remember the Pottery Barn rule: if you break it, you own it.

Mr. O'Brien,

I know that this is off topic (forgive me AO), but are you a public figure that we might recognize? I enjoyed your post so much that I Googled your name and found several websites for that name. This is the one that I suspect could be yours: http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1.

Here is a quote from that site: '...It is a fact that in the 20th century alone 170 million people were murdered by their own governments (this figure does not include human lives terminated through abortion and euthanasia). It is a fact that the majority of the murderous states were impelled by idealistic visions for solving the problem of man. Regardless of whether a killer is brutal and repulsive or whether he is altruistic and attractive (as he speaks in reasonable tones about the lives that must be subtracted from the human community), he is a killer. Presumption and arrogance over mankind always bring forth, in time, the fruit of death....'

Michael O'Brien says:

"Terrorists often represent legitimate concerns that should be discussed and addressed ..."

American Observer replies:

Oh, really, Michael? So tell me, what are the 'legitimate concerns' which drove the Taliban to capture twenty-five Koreans and shoot two of them in the head? And how were those concerns addressed by paying the Taliban twenty million dollars so that they can, according to their own admission, 'fund more suicide bombers?'

Michael O'Brian says:

"The US invasion of Iraq by some counts has resulted in the deaths of 700,000 or so innocent Iraqis..."

American Observer replies:

And who made that count, Michael -- was it Naom Chomsky or was it Joan Baez? Legitimate experts say that seventy thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, and they were not killed by Americans -- they were killed by the kind of terrorists whose 'legitimate concerns' you want 'to discuss and address...'

Seriously, Michael, Rick and all you people who want to negotiate with terrorists -- what do you have to say about the way the Taliban captured the Korean hostages, and what do you have to say about the way the Koreans agreed to fund the Taliban in exchange for their release? Instead of blathering about 'hypocrisy' and talking about everything else under the sun, why not talk about what the Taliban want, and why you think negotiating with the Taliban was a good idea?

Well said Mr. Obrien, that's the best post yet on this site.

It's not talking with terrorists that increases terrorism and violence, as Melman claims, but the refusal to talk with them. Terrorists often represent legitimate concerns that should be discussed and addressed (such as the Israeli military occupation of Palestine, for example). Anyone who believes in democracy as a form of government should believe in opening opportunities for currently disempowered portions of a population to present and address their concerns in a peaceful way, that is, through discussion rather than violence.

Melman talks about and addresses the question of governments manifesting double standards and hypocrisy. One of these hypocritical double standards consists of disavowing violence as a means of addressing problems (on the part of "terrorists") while at the same time endorsing violence as a means of addressing problems (on the part of the government in question). A sad result is that while the violence of terrorists is loudly decried, the governments in question kill many more innocent citizens than do the terrorists. The Israeli occupation of Palestine is one case in point, and US occupation of Iraq is another. The US invasion of Iraq by some counts has resulted in the deaths of 700,000 or so innocent Iraqis, after 3000 innocent Americans were killed by al Qaeda terrorists in their attack on the US. And, of course, Iraq had nothing to do with that attack.

The refusal to talk constructively with terrorists only results in a close-mindedness on the part of formal governments. They become closed not only to other points of view, but to critical dimensions of reality itself, often the larger reality that they "forgot" or failed to take into consideration. To deny reality is destructive. It's even a form of illness and madness. Governments should not try to terrorize others out of their own perceptions of reality, but should seek to moderate discussions of what that reality is. Government officials should not assume they themselves already have an adequate grasp of the larger reality in which a people find themselves, when much of the actual evidence that can be adduced points to a different conclusion. Let both sides first agree to try to establish a mutual understanding of the larger realities of the total sitution.

I agree with Dr.Tillman and add that
Before you know the truth, you must shed your biased mental positioning of the issues.
One group is concentrating on terrorist act as carried by small groups without the support of any government while oversighting the cruel actions of governments whether of Isriel or USA.
The ground situation speaks itself that there can be no peace without justice whether it is Palestine or Kashmir. It is state terrorism versus individuals rights to have liberty and freedom.
You can carry on long endless discussions but tell me do you have a solution of the problems of kashmiri people and palestinian people except killing or depriving them of their valuable rights.

I agree with Dr.Tillman and add that
Before you know the truth you must shed your biased mental positioning of the issues.
One group is concentrating on terrorist act as carried by small groups without the support of any government while oversighting the cruel actions of governments whether of Isriel or USA.
The ground situation speaks itself there can be no peace without justice whether it is Palestine or Kashmir. It is state terrorism versus individuals rights to have liberty and freedom.
You can carry on long endless discussions but tell me do you have a solution of the problems except killing the people or depriving them of their valuable rights.

Jami says:

"You can carry on long endless discussions but tell me do you have a solution of the problems except killing the people or depriving them of their valuable rights."

American Observer replies:

Of course there is a solution, and I have already put it on the board. The Israelis should pull all of their settlers out of the West Bank, but they should keep an army in place to keep terrorists from coming to power; and if the terrorists attack Israel anyway, the Israelis should punish and humiliate the Palestinian the way the Israelis punished and humiliated Nassar in 1967, and the way the Israelis punished and humiliated the Lebanese in the recent war. That way the Palestinians will no longer feel the provocation of having Israeli settlers, but the Palestinians will have their 'dignity' shoved down their throats every time the Palestinians start shooting; and in ten or twenty or thirty years, the Palestinians will stop blathering about the 'Zionists' and they will decide to live in peace with their neighbors.

I agree with Dr.Tillman and add that
Before you know the truth you must shed your biased mental positioning of the issues.
One group is concentrating on terrorist act as carried by small groups without the support of any government while oversighting the cruel actions of governments whether of Isriel or USA.
The ground situation speaks itself there can be no peace without justice whether it is Palestine or Kashmir. It is state terrorism versus individuals rights to have liberty and freedom.
You can carry on long endless discussions but tell me do you have a solution of the problems except killing the people or depriving them of their valuable rights.

Sobre nuestra republica

Mi nombre es Henry Giraldo, soy de San Carlos Antioquia; uno de los pueblos más violentos de Colombia. Yo nací y crecí en la crudeza de la guerra colombiana. A la edad de seis vi el primer asesinado; su cabeza con huecos de bala emanaba sangre, sangre que vi la Madre Tierra recibir generosamente. Progresivamente, como todos saben, fueron aumentando las masacres. La mayoría de los que asistieron conmigo a la primaria, fueron asesinados. Para mi la realidad colombiana es básica: vivimos en la barbarie.
En las comunidades existen conspiraciones, por parte de los grupos criminales. La gente es asesinada y solo quedan los rumores. En Colombia ya no podemos hablar de la muerte de una manera objetiva, nos rodea, pero no podemos entenderla ni enfrentarla. El desconcierto y el negativismo son derivados normales de nuestra guerra interna.
Desde mi punto de vista, la guerra perpetua, en si misma, no es el problema. Dicha guerra es uno de los síntomas de nuestra Democracia Fallida. Colombia carece de Independencia y Participación Ciudadana en los asuntos gubernamentales. Porque carecemos de la facultad para analizar y juzgar las acciones del gobierno por nuestra propia cuenta; somos fácilmente manipulados por grupos armados y asta por nuestro gobierno.
A los colombianos, especialmente a los campesinos como yo, no se nos educa sobre lo que significa ser parte de un Estado. Esperamos que nuestro gobierno funcione bien sin nuestro apoyo, y cuando fracasa lo condenamos. Hemos establecido la doble moral en nuestra relación con el gobierno; ya que no nos consideramos responsables por su fracaso. La doble moral existe, tanto en la corrupción política, como en el anhelo de un proceso de paz con grupos criminales.
Es mi posición: Que solo un gobierno confundido y sin moral política (la cual solo se deriva del apoyo ciudadano) busca un proceso de paz con un grupo criminal. Lo primero que hacemos con pedir la “negociación de paz” con un grupo criminal, es decidir que su guerra contra el pueblo colombiano tiene legitimidad. La única manera de racionalizar esta decisión es el reconocer dicho grupo como banda político-armada y no simplemente criminal. Recordemos también que, parte de la “negociación de paz” es la reinserción a la vida civil, lo cual incluye perdón de los actos criminales. Con este ultimo paso, los ciudadanos (y no solo el gobierno) le otorgamos legitimidad moral a los actos criminales.
La Paz, la Justicia y un Gobierno Saludable, son ideales que se nutren mutuamente; estos no se logran con el echo de perdonar miles de actos criminales, por el contrario, dicha negociación y perdón debilita la legitimidad de nuestro gobierno. ¿En que tipo de país se da el lujo la guerrilla de asesinar a 11 parlamentarios, y al mismo tiempo de escuchar los clamores de civiles pidiendo un proceso de paz? La paz no es algo que se negocia, la paz tiene que ser construida por los ciudadanos y el gobierno tiene que ser fuerte para velar y mantener dicha paz.
Deseo que en el desespero por “negociar la paz,” no olvidemos nuestra facultad de razonamiento. Nuestro compromiso como colombianos esta memorializado en nuestra Constitución Política. La estricta vigilancia de los actos gubernamentales, la exigencia de reformas políticas y el castigo a la corrupción política, son responsabilidades ciudadanas; y no pertenecen a grupos criminales.
Finalmente, quiero ofrecer una solución, sobre la cual los colombianos podemos comenzar a trabajar inmediatamente:
Los colombianos tenemos la responsabilidad (asumiendo que queremos existir como país-y libres) de asumir de una manera realista los Poderes y Debilidades del gobierno. En mi opinión, la guerrilla, los paramilitares y la corrupción política, no son el problema, solo son síntomas. El problema está en la manera en que asumimos nuestra colombianidad. ¿Qué significa ser colombiano? ¿Qué beneficios conlleva el ser colombiano? ¿Qué responsabilidades implica el ser colombiano? ¿Cuáles son los elementos que conllevan a la destrucción de una república? Éstas preguntas necesitan ser adecuadamente debatidas en Colombia; y necesitan ser reflejadas en nuestro sistema educativo desde la primaria.
Muchas Gracias por su atención,
Henry Giraldo

I agree with Dr.Tillman and add that
Before you know the truth you must shed your biased mental positioning of the issues.
One group is concentrating on terrorist act as carried by small groups without the support of any government while oversighting the cruel actions of governments whether of Isriel or USA.
The ground situation speaks itself there can be no peace without justice whether it is Palestine or Kashmir. It is state terrorism versus individuals rights to have liberty and freedom.
You can carry on long endless discussions but tell me do you have a solution of the problems except killing the people or depriving them of their valuable rights.

I greatly like American Observer's posts . Well written, factual, and calm and rational.

Dr Tillman said:

"I pretend that Israel was looking for that conflict, if only because they absolutely wanted the wailing wall - which I understand - but they shot first and were the agressors and it took them 6 days to beat all its neigbours - and it takes 4 years and more for the US to beat Irak! Suspect, isn't it? See my point?"

American Observer replies:

No, I don't see your point, because you don't have one. In 1967 the Arabs began the war by blockading the Gulf Aquaba. Blockading somebody else's port is an act of war, and the Israelis were morally and legally right to smash the Arabs and humiliate them, as the Israelis did. The Israelis won quickly because they were smashing Egyptian and Syrian armies in the field, just as we smashed the Iraqi army during Operation Iraqi Freedom; but just as we have spent four years trying to pacify Iraq and still failing, the Israelis have spent forty years trying to pacify the West Bank, and they have still failed.

The answer is clear. The Israelis were right to smash and humiliate the Arabs, but they made a mistake by trying to occupy Arab territory. The Israelis should have dealt with Nassar's attack in 1967 the same way they recently dealt with Lebanon; the Israelis should build a high wall to keep the terrorists out, and when some pig from the desert like Nassar or Hamas crosses the wall, they should smash his entire nation and break Arab pride. If the Israelis would only do that, they would end their problems with the Arabs in a few years.

Don't you agree?

Dr. Tillman:

Outstanding post!

'So, the moral of all this is

a) Israel is very obviously the TERRORIST and not the Palestinians who act in perfectly legal self-defense, and

b) In consequence there is a very simple solution to the mid east conflict: Israel has first and unconditionally to abandon all the illegal settlements with the threat of economic sanctions and military intervention.'

We should stop all U.S. aid to Israel immediately, demand all UN resolutions be complied with, including immediate return to pre-1967 map.

The pre-1947 map would be better, and should be considered the next step, if all else fails to restore peace.

Dr. Tillman,

The accounts about Israel you have posted, don't show that Israel is a terrorist nation. Jewish people are not. The leaders of Israel have exacted revenge. But I have not heard/read Israeli forces holding unarmed Muslim men, women and children (whom Israelis know innocent) as hostage or killing them brutally. Collateral damage, if that happens, is not intentional.

In contrast, Muslims in Lal Masjid in Pakistan have held hostage women and men, very recently. Muslim radicals (Chechen rebels) have killed children in Russia. Muslim terorists have held innocent civilians hostage and had them decapitated. Do you recall Nick Berg, the engineer from Northrop Grumman who was decapitated by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi ? Or, Paul Johnson, Ken Bigley and Eugene Anderson ? Their decapitation was shown in video. Did you get a chance to see them ? (Nick Berg's killing was shown on CNN.)

I think your agenda smacks of counterculturist leftism. You seem to equate all "killers" as one big combo. Such misplaced criticism of Jewish population and Israel is quite shameful.

Sir, your article is terribly flawed. I respond to it at all because just about every american (and Israeli anyway) is reasoning your way - which is simply odd and a great catastrophy for the world

Your premise is that Palestinians are TERRORISTS, an undisputable fact - for you ... What if you are wrong? What if you have been brain washed into this pseudo-truth by the press, by your various presidents, especially Bush, in school, etc? What if Israel is actually the Terrorist - even the state terrorist? Did that possibility ever occur to you? No.

But let's see the facts:

Firstly, who killed Count Bernadotte, who blew up the Hotel King David? You know the answer. Who committed the massacre of Deir Yasin and all the others ... ? Menachem Begin it came out last year only, as head of Irgun or Stern (two terrorist organizations!)was a master terrorist who plotted an assasination attempt against the great german chanceler Konrad Adenauer which cost the life of a post master! (which led the Nobel commitee to discuss the withdrawal of Begins peace(!) Nobel prize!). Didn't the great Albert Einstein warn in a letter Pres. Roosevelt from Begins facism?
So, please be a little bit prudent with calling the Palestinians unilaterally and unreflectedly 'terrorists'.

Now, Israel has been created by the US led UN - without the concerned Palestinians ever having a say!! It would simply not be possible today.
Can you blame the Palestinians that they were totally frustrated. What would you have done in their place?. 'Please help yourself dear jews, sorry that we are here. Of course God promized you that strecht of land 4000 years ago', etc.

Seriousely, the settling of these two people side by side was not easy from the beginning - but whose fault? Clearly Israel was the 'guest' who behaved its self very agressively against a basically extremely peacefull population.

But that's tempi passati and I dont want to discuss history back to Adam and Eve.

The crucial moment came in 1967. I pretend that Israel was looking for that conflict, if only because they absolutely wanted the wailing wall - which I understand - but they shot first and were the agressors and it took them 6 days to beat all its neigbours - and it takes 4 years and more for the US to beat Irak! Suspect, isn't it? See my point?

At that moment the region was at peace - I travelled Israel from Rosh Hanikra to Eilat and from the Golan (with a military convoy!) to Ashkelon. At this moment both the Israelis and the Palestinians had a contiguous land of their own and the victor should have tried to embrace the Palestinian neighbours - help them together with the USA finacially to build their own state, etc.

But instead, what Israel started then, was the beginning of the biggest crime by a western democracy since WWII: the building of hundreds of civil(!) settlements in the occupied territories - a systematic stealing of the little of land that was left to the Palestinians. This UNILATERAL agression, in blattant violation of the Geneva Convention, of the Hague Convention, of the Human Rights Convention and, most importantly, of countless unanimous UN Resolutions (Saddam is greeting you!)
In your article you talk about hypocrysie.

Question: if that happened to the US, wouldn't everybody volunteer to defend his 'homeland' with the prospect even of getting a heroes(!) burial in Arlington?? Of course, but when Palestinians do it, they are terrorists!!?? If history ever lied then it is here.

Why the hell does the US allowe this huge crime and support it even with billions of $?

Remember all the so called 'terrorist' organizations like Hamas, Hizboullah, al Quaida with the exception of Arafats Fatah didn't exist
for more than a decade after 1967 - they are the result of the unilateral Israeli agressions over a period of 40 years and going on today, this very instant. I think rarely or never has history seen such a degree of cynism.

The ultimate scandal: For years the israeli government backed by cynical US ask the strangeld Palestinians to stop their 'terrorism' and desarm before Israel is agreeing to discuss peace! Incredible, the agressor asks the agressed first to stop defending himself. It's like beating a child which you ask to stop crying before you stop beating him!. The logic is hair rising - agree?

So, the morale of all this is

a) Israel is very obviousely the TERRORIST and not the Palestinians who act in perfectly legal selfdefence, and

b) in consequence there is a very simple solution to the mid east conflict: Israel has first and unconditionnaly to abandon all the illegal settlements with the threat of economic sanctions and military intervention.

Bush could save his rotten presidency if he ordered Israel to comply with UN Resolutions and the whole arab world would instantly embrace him and the US.

But it's a littel bit late. It would have prevented all legitimate palestinians attacks against Israel from the Munich Olympics in 72 to Achille Laura, etc etc. There would have been almost certainly no Ben Laden, no 9/11, no stupid attack of Irak ... no immanent catastrophical agression by the US of Iran.

You know, I have been a life long friend of the US and also a defender of a peacefull Israel, but not of these two racist, right wing, pseudo religious governments.

I applaude the author's stance on the hypocrisy of governments. When it is so obvious to so many, including the terrorists themselves, that what is said is rarely what is practiced, why continue with the charade?

Jacob:

You are putting words into my mouth. No, I DON'T approve of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I think the best thing that the Israelis could do for the Palestinians and for themselves is to haul all of their settlers out of the West Bank and make it clear that Israel does not expect the Palestinians to 'become Finns.'

However, we should not lose track of the big picture. The recent Moslem-On-Moslem violence in Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan should remind us that Islamic society is still violent to its root. The 'Zionists' and the 'Yankees' are not responsible for the wars between Moslems; instead, these wars are happening because Mohammed solved all of his political problems with violence and genocide, and his heirs today are trying to do the same thing. The Israelis should pull their settlers out of the West Bank as proof of their good intentions, but it will be decades and it might even be generations before the Palestinians are civilized enough to govern themselves without creating the kind of disaster that the Iraqis are making for themselves in Iraq. Therefore, my answer is that the Israelis should withdraw their settlers from the West Bank, but the Israelis should keep a military presence in the West Bank for a long time to come. And, no, the Israelis should not negotiate with terrorists, because that kind of 'negotiation' just encourages more terror. The best way to deal with hostage-takers is to hunt them down and kill them.

So, American Observer. You approve of what the Russian Communists did to its ethincs and what the Nazis did to destroy European countries, including the Jews in those countries, since you give these as parallels to what the Israelis did and are doing to the Palestinians? By your own admission, you see that the Israelis are not in very good company.

The whole world is disapproving of what the Israelis are doing to the native Palestinians(I know there are native sephardic Jews; I have no issues with them) -- secularists, Muslims, and Christians, and anti-Zionist Jews. Deb Chatterjee aside, I am sure there are many rational Hindus that disapprove of Israeli actions. I myself am a devout consevative Christian, not a mainstream liberal Christian. There are even anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews, God bless them. A recent BBC poll ranks Israel below Iran in favorability rating. Unfortunately, America was pretty close to both, no doubt for its unconditional support of Israel and for waging Iraq War at the behest of AIPAC.

Victoria says:

american observer- i had thought about the history of communism- but that was movement within a country- they were basically the same people- not a completely different people.
any examples?

American Observer replies:

You mean except for the Chechens and Ingush? You mean except for the Volga Germans and the Crimean Tatars?

Victoria, Communism was not 'basically a movement within one country.' Nothing could show a deeper ignorance of history. Communism was a movement within Russia the way Nazism was a movement within Germany; and the Communists organized the Russians to attack and destroy a dozen nations the way the Nazis organized the Germans to attack and destroy more than a dozen nations. If you know nothing about the history of the twentieth century, then go look up the book I recommended and find out what happened to the Crimean Tatars. If you think reading books is too much work, just put the term 'History of the Chechens' or 'Crimean Tatars' into a search engine and see what you get.

american observer- i had thought about the history of communism- but that was movement within a country- they were basically the same people- not a completely different people.
any examples?

well, AO- first you make an observation on my personality that is negative, and then deride rick for a positive observation?

it would have had more weight if you hadnt preceded your complaint with the thing you were complaining about.
i have also many times called for refraining from personal observations and sticking to the subject.
so i can assume there will be no more such observations from your quarter AO.

it is when they get bogged down in negative and childish name calling which distracts.

im all for affirmations and gentility.

thank you rick for your kind post-

i was a christian for the bulk of my life, ive been a muslim for 8ish years now-
my admiration and love for Jesus(ata) have been a strong force in my life and i am happy to be mistaken for a christian or likened to one.

i have the same complaint about anecdotal incidences that AO has about personalities.

i dont understand what youre saying about india pakistan-
creating the state was contingent on peole moving there to populate it- and was politically motivated- which is fine.

i recommend the autobiography of gandhi.

i asked the question in earnest because im trying to create compelling arguments for the pro-zionist position so that i might understand.

i have suspicion for the good and im trying to ferret it out.
peace

to deb

You seens to be spilling out with hate for muslims and looks have a phobia. Everything just do not creep out of good but out of evil too. It is the hate that you people have for even your own people like untouchables that gave way to your defeat by the muslims of central asia. It is your hate of the muslims which gave birth to the partition of india and a new muslim state of Pakistan and it is your hate which will give kashmir liberation so do not blame the terrorist alone. Mind you when you are on an international discussion forum then talk with reason and dont just show up your historical burns.

Refering to Victoria, Rick says:

"Actually she is a Christian. In fact, she is the most Christian (Christ like) person that I have ever known."

American Observer replies:

Oh? Can Victoria raise the dead, walk on water, or turn water into wine? Or, do you consider self-righteous simple-mindedness to be a 'Christian' quality?

Rick, I have been on many message boards in my time, and it has been my experience that getting into personalities drives away sound reasoning. A message board is worth reading as long as people are introducing new facts and ideas, and it becomes worthless when people start posting messages which no longer contain quotations and historical references; instead, message boards degenerate when people write lists of all the books they have read, or write puff-pieces about what angels their cronies are. If you have nothing to say about terrorists or negotiations, Rick, please stop posting.

Indeed , how we could call someperson a terroist in case of defending on his lands , and his right ? why all muslims are described as terrosits ? this feature is only attribted to islamic groups that defends its right. Then , how these terroists could be forgivn from such terrible name ? are they wholehreadly surrnder to the Western powers , give up their rights and their wealth and honor and diginity ? Cleay , i find myslelf unable to understand why Western power intervnes itself into the internal affairs of the muslim world ? for exmaple , Bush adminstaration had pledged us beofe its conquest of the iraqi lands that it will spread good values of freedom and civlization in iraqi lands , iraqi lands will be the Western model of human rights , and civlization in the middle east areas , a model that will be applied to all neighbouting states in the middle east area , but what is the case now after passing three years from the American conquest of the iraqi lands ? nothing but destruction and sectrain volince , very horrible life that has happened after the american invasion ? where is this freedom ? indeed , i do not know exactly who is the terrosits ? who is the victim and victimized ? please , let me know who is ?
moreover , Palestianin people are dislocated forcefully from their own lands by the israle and Western power , and when they defend their right to live on grandparent lands , they are accusef of being terroists ? indeed , if all arab and muslims are terrosits , so it is not accepeted to accept to negotatiate with them , so it is better to web them out from the world history ,
indeed , i address all decent western men , whose conscousness is still awakend , and who are guided in their lives by theri humanstic valuse and good princles ,to recheck their relatsioship with Other from a humanstic perspctive that our world leave peacfully

You guys have it all wrong. You just think that Victoria is a Muslim. Actually she is a Christian. In fact, she is the most Christian (Christ like) person that I have ever known.

Peace.

I do believe that Yossi Melman looks like Victoria's Daddy !

Victoria says:

"pakistan and india were a voluntary political solution-- "

American Observer replies:

No, they were not a 'voluntary solution.' The nations signed a treaty to create a Moslem state and a Hindu state, but nobody agreed to displace all of those people -- that was spontaneous violence which grew like a wildfire.

Victoria says:

"so in your own knowledge of history, do you know of any cases where the population was displaced and replaced by another whole different one?"

American Observer replies:

First of all, the entire population was not displaced. Instead, a large part of the Palestinians fled, but many of them stayed, and that is why about twenty percent of the citizens inside the state of Israel are Palestinians, with all of the civil and legal rights of other Israelis. If you want complete displacement, you need to look at the way the Arabs treated the Jews throughout the Middle East. For instance, the city of Baghdad was once one-third Jewish, and now there are no Jews, because Arab ethnic cleansing drove all of the Jews out.

If you want to learn about genocides far more complete than anything the Israelis ever did or tried, you need to learn the history of Communism. I suggest you go find a copy of Robert Conquest's wonderful book, 'The Nation Killers,' to learn about a dozen cases where "one population was driven completely out and replaced by a completely different populations." I am sure you can find an outline of the book on www.amazon.com, or some such place.

Of course this is a strident anti-Semetic blogsite on WP.

If Jews need to vacate Israel and surrender Jerusalem at the request of the Palestinian jihadists, then Muslims need to vacate Madinah too. Historical records in the Quran show that in Madinah there was a very big Jewish settlement before Muhamamd drove all Jewish people out of their ancestral homes or had them killed or converted to Islam.

So, why force Jews to leave Israel, and engage in terrorism to scare the Jewish population ? (The same thing happened in Kashmir, India. Its the game that Muslims play, till they can have all the world underneath the Islamic banner.)

Hypocrisy make the world go 'round, Melman.

Governments couldn't have self-respect without it. And remember, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays virtue. Government and vice go hand-in-hand. It the same everywhere, baby!

We all gotta bow to The Man. Hypocrisy is The Man bowing to us.

xavier:
Quoting "I think that Israel is the terrorist country and the Palestinian are just defending themselves from Israeli terrorists." End of quote.

This is what you might think. However, this is what I believe and likewise, I have always believed the Palestinians are just resistant
fighters fighting to recapture their homeland when they were forced out of their homes with machine guns behind their heads.
Of course and needless to mention, when US and Israel define the word terrorist, its definations
have to be consistent with what suits their needs and interests. Definitely, not how it is described in a regular dictionary.

well maybe you can help me then nate-
i had come back to post a question that specifically deals with history-

i am not so well versed in world history and have an honest question-
it is a question to try and understand-
it has occurred to me many times in these kinds of pro-anti-zionist discussions that if i were a jewish person who was pro-zionist-
i would whip out some corollary incident in history to show that israel is not a unique case.

i have thought and thought and i cannot think of any case where a whole population was displaced and made refugees, and a whole new set of immigrants came in and took over the infrastucture, homes and all and just picked up and started living there.

there are cases of wartorn areas, like rwanda-
there was ataturks goofy population switch experiment which just made everybody, greeks and turks alike unhappy.

no one EVER talks about the extermination and genocidal holocaust of the ethiopians by the italians. but that doesnt count.

pakistan and india were a voluntary political solution, so that doesnt fit either.

now possibly you think i am being disingenuous by asking, and i assure you i am not.

so in your own knowledge of history, do you know of any cases where the population was displaced and replaced by another whole different one?

im not hate filled nate,i was introduced to the concept of anti-zionism form religious jewish people.

actaully i worked for a lawyer and went to a mossad meeting with him and there was a big picture of a white dove on a blue field and i thought it was beautiful

then they showed me a map of israel and how it is surrounded by arab countries and how the arabs are trying to push the israelis into the sea, and i was outraged!

my grandmother was from germany (tho french blood) and i spent my childhood looking at big pictures of holocaust prisons and bones and --horrible horrible stuff- and i went to a special school with lots of jewish kids and i thought jewish was just another brand of irish 9with the 'ish' ending and all)

so i was socialized to be extremely sympathetic to israel and jewish people.

i love jewish people, ive rocked with klezmer bands, danced the hora at weddings and gatheirngs of friends, even at a pool party once-i sang hava nigila on stage and danced an irish jig when i was a kid it was on pbs- dabbled in kabala, been to many seders- once in durham NC at a protest against apartheid in s. africa at my first seder they even gave me the glass of elijahs wine.
(i know now it is unorthodox, but i was just honored at the time)

so i stormed on over to the synagogue and actually got mad and asked what people were doing about these arabs pushing the israelis into the sea.

(i have been known to go off on quixotic jaunts with not enough information- i try to curb that now by gathering info first)

you can imagine i was received with some bemusement.
so please dont stick that old tired accusation on me- ive wiped old jewish behinds along with christian ones in my capacity of caregiver for handicapped people- believe me- there's no difference.

so- historically, are there any precedents for such incidences?
in a modern sense, not some ancient story.

okay- enough - ive filled enough words here
peace nate

That's irony by the way, you hate-filled anti-intellectual dipsh*ts. Go pick up a history book, a**holes.

God bless the Washington Post and its visceral Jew-hating readership. You people make me sick. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the WP forum.

hello again-
i dont usually do this, as i dont have any experience at it but i'll try-

i included etc...marks not to edit- but for brevity and ease of reading

mr melman stated-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What really is needed is an international consensus, an international acceptance that no one talks to terrorists........ But apart from sounding utopian, this idea simply cannot be implemented as long as there are governments and states sponsoring and supporting terrorists."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IMHO NOT talking and addressing terrorists, whether they are 'freedom fighters' or terrorists-
has been the failed policy-
we also have very divergent ideas of what constitutes a utopia.
that is an odd word to use-
strong arm tactics may be effective- but they dont give voice to the injustices that push people to extreme-
but people like mr melman also exist in the world, and the wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the oil- it may be a grating and harsh squeak- but it gets some people what they want.

i guess he was referring to palestine as state sponsored terrorists-

the hamas won the election, sir, because of their effective social services to people-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"(Governments)... If they are convinced that talking to terrorists would only increase terror, they should not negotiate with them, regardless of what might result. If they believe that negotiating with terrorists is inevitable because the public can't bear the consequences of doing otherwise, so be it –"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this seems like a turnaround, almost an apology or justification for the israeli governments behavior, which in one line is criticized, but then gets lifted out of its hypocrisy by this thought which the rest of the post seems to be set against.

if he is indeed correct in his assertion- then we should shortly see another hostage taking situation from the taliban afghanis.

but it would have to be initiated without reason by them, specifically in order to increase terrorism- if it is reactionary to some impetus- then the intention to act just to increase then the above reasoning falls apart.

ok bye now

thank you Victoria for sharing your experience:)
adil, utah

Hi Victoria:

See, that's the only solution, God says so too.

not that im suggesting such a thing- and its a bit off topic- i watch washington journal almost every morning- its a call in show and people from all overthe US (well, the west gets short shrift because the time zone is 3 hours behind) and there are always guests, and they try to be balanced by having 1 democrat-1 republican- 1 independent - but people cheat and call on different ohone lines but thats not important right now)
they dont censor their calls at al- so you get the whole range- even international callers-
one morning on the topic of israel this cute little old lady called in and she was dead serious-

she was in montana or iowa i think- abd she was reading her bible and felt she had to call-
she had the solution to the palestinian/israeli conflict-
she invited all of the jewish people in israel to come and live in montana.
to quote her and ill never forget- her voice earnest with emotion-
"Come on over to montana! we have PLENTY of space! then you wont have any reason to fight anymore!"

it was the mot sincere and guileless thing id ever heard-
even the moderator smiled and they never ever ever show any emotion good or bad.
i wanted to reach through he tv and hug her silly.

she had prayed on it and that was her solution.
although it wasnt the most practical solution,m admittedly, her heart was certainly in the right place.

i wish more people thought and prayed like that little old lady.

hi rick
peace all

INDEX-ON-CENSORSHIP:

I hear you, but I don't think that the true Palestinian patriots (Hamas) will ever accept an Israeli state in the original Palestine (Pre-1947). Forget the appeasers and collaborators (Fatah). It has been tried before. Why will it be any different this time?

Rick -
Mass Evacuation of Palestinians and/or Israeli-Jews [most of whom are non-reliigous or non-observant] will only create more instablity. The only exception is in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where ALL settlements must be vacated soonest, according to UNSC resolutions. The sooner this is done, the better!

Now you see that’s what makes this so difficult. Everyone is correct, and yet everyone is in conflict in some way:

1. Victoria is right: The U.S. and Israeli policy of Might Makes Right will never do.

2. Salamon is right: Mr. Yossi Melman is careful not to even try to define the term: TERRORIST in any manner which would be acceptable to the arrogant Zionist Rulers of Israel and those oppressed by Israel, the Palestinians.

3. JBE is right: EMPTY THE WEST BANK AND EAST JERUSALEM OF JEWS AND FORM A PALESTINIAN STATE AS REQUIRED BY THE UN RESOLUTIONS MAKING ISRAEL A STATE, although his/her motives are questionable.

I could go on, but will just say that I think that the problem is the result of some horrible decisions that were made long ago, and now we have a most difficult task to dig ourselves out of the hole:

Mistake No. 1: The Balfour Declaration of 1917: “His Majesty would view with favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Said homeland not to interfere with the rights of the Palestinian people....

Mistake No. 2: President Truman agrees, against his better judgment, to vote in 1947 in favor of the UN resolution to partition Palestine. Great Britain abstains.

As for the posted question of whether we should negotiate with terrorists; it is nonsense, since we cannot even define the term. Most of the world sees the U.S. and Israel as the real terrorists, and I agree. The only possible solution is to go back to the pre-1947 map of Palestine, and evacuate the Jews to a new location; e.g. New Jersey, Colorado....

Mary
I do agree with the reasoning that use of different weapons and tactics according to ones own advantage should not be a matter of annoyance for the others. If you do not want to talk dont talk then there will be no peace. The follies of Iraq will spill all around with more deaths and destructions upon which the conscience of the super powers is so shamelessly asleep. one million civilians are already dead in Iraq. Who is the originator of this terror?
shoot where you want to shoot but then do not yell
when few of your own people expire.

Hey Gandhi and Deb Chatter

These muslims thinks they are a marshall race and we are dravidians of south india. They conquer us before and try to conquer us again by suicide bombings. We should not talk to them we have atomic bombs but buddy how we can face their new found weapon?. Some of them claim to be untouchables before how they became so bold now?

You are right that Goverments should be consistent in their attitude towards terrorists. By going against the rules that they themselves set down, Goverments teach terrorists that they are not serious about their convictions. However, I emphatically disagree that negotiation should even be an option. No terrorist request should be granted, negotiation should only be used as a delaying tactic.

To take your country as an example, what you did Entebbe was spectacular. Likewise your response to the Munich massacre was perfect. You sent a message to the terrorists that you would not be cowed and that you had the will and ability to protect your people no matter what. In contrast, the response of the South Korean government taught the Taliban that terrorist actions can be successfully used to achieve their goal of religious intolerance. Negotiating with terrrorists is never a goog idea.

Look folks, terror is a weapon used by your opponents. It's a type of warfare. Now, obviously, if you have *all* the heavy duty stuff like bombs and tanks and night-vision goggles and all those other expensive things, you will want to use them! Well, if the other side doesn't have any of those things they will use naturally try to use different weapons--in this case the anonymity of the guerilla and portable bombs.

To say: we won't negotiate with anybody that uses weapons other than those where we have an overwhelming advantage...is crazy!

So, if Mr Melman says, Israel won't negotiate with terrorist, it means that Israel won't negotiate with its opponents. That's fine, but don't demonize a weapon. Weapons are neutral, if bombing defenceless innocents (like in Lebanon?) is ever morally neutral.

In any case, Israel has killed a *lot* more of its opponents using "approved" weapons (ie weapons where Israel has an advantage) than the its enemies have killed of them.

While not showing much empathy for violence as being caused by an array of global conditions, Yossi Melman makes a good point by explaining that no state is perfect in dealing with terrorists. That said, his examples are not particularly useful in understanding anything about the abuse that Israel has heaped on Palestinians. Still, I do not find the author's descriptions of taking human life as callous, albeit very realist in how countries operate in their dealing with terrorists. In a short essay like his it is hard to achieve nuance but he could aim for some moral pleas about how many Israelis feel moral culpability for killing terrorists, as seen in the film Munich.
Lastly, in addition to perhaps misquoting and misattributing the movie quote, Yossi Melman incorrectly The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as a "B" movie. It wasn't one, as it had a budget over a million dollars and doesn't meet the other criteria either.

Once upon a time a man was born in Plonsk, Poland in 1886. He is one of the three founding figures of Zionism beside Chaim Weizmann and Theodor Herzl. He is also considered as the founder of the State of Israel. At an early stage, he developed a passion for socialism and Zionism, and in 1906 he immigrated to Palestine. He fought against British rule over Palestine (now Israel). His name is David Ben Gurion and perhaps most important is the fact that he was also once referred to as a TERRORIST by the British.

Here is an article I found on the internet:

“In the 1940s David Ben Gurion's policies often mirrored Arafat's today. Ben Gurion cooperated with the British against Jewish militants when British policy toward the Zionists was forthcoming. But he abandoned cooperation when the British turned against Zionist aims by limiting Jewish immigration. In addition, Ben Gurion did not move decisively to disarm his radical challengers until June 1948, after the British had left and the state of Israel had been established. Only then did his forces attack and destroy the Altalena, a ship carrying guns and fighters for the Irgun militia led by Menachem Begin.”

Who is a terrorist? Well, you decide!

We have to negotiate now and in future. You must listen to the grievances of the other too. After all what is happening is the result of disrespect for decades for the complaints that others have against you. I believe positive progress can only be made through negotiations and not by pride and prejudice.

People don't trust their individual governments to represent them in specific life and death scenarios. Why should they? Of course, these governments will make and break deals at their convenience while knocking, at their leisure, all existing international organizations.

Somebody dropped in and said:

"Though I don't want this to become a debate over the beneficence of the Contras, it is worth noting that the Catholic Institute for International Relations summarized contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report thusly: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."

American Observer replies:

Well, who are these folks at the Catholic Institute for International Relations? From their title you would think they were a branch of the Catholic church, but of course that is not true. I went to their website and I looked up their history. In their own words, quote:

"Throughout its history, the organisation has sought to influence church and state, most notably to support liberation struggles, grassroots developments and to strengthen a moral voice against human rights abuses. In the 1970s, following the Second Vatican Council and the statement of the Catholic church's commitment to the option for the poor, progressive elements in the Catholic church increasingly supported grassroots liberation movements. There was a clear division within the church between the progressive and the more conservative elements.

CIIR's then education department supported the progressive elements of the church in various liberation and human rights struggles in Central America, southern Africa and Asia. CIIR published booklets on liberation theology and promoted progressive church speakers. "

Unquote.

My friends, if you know anything about world history or international affairs, you will recognize the code words, and then you will understand the description above. The 'Catholic Institute for International Relations' is just another gang of hardcore leftists, and quoting their opinions on the Contras is as silly as quoting Leonid Brezhnev.

I refuse to take advice on terrorism from anyone who looks exactly like Leon the Professional.

your argument is conflicting and beyond reason.before pledge of the goverment around the world let define the terrorism,nature of terrorism and causes of terrorism.As these varies from place to place the degree of goverment involvemnet is also varies from place to place.so the international consensus is not possible.
other hand the prime duty of every goverment is the safety of the people.The democartic principle demands the responsibility towards the people.The laws in democarcy is made for the people and also broken for the people.what you are talikng that is possible in autocratic rule only.It is not possible in democarcy where will of the people talk not the tongue of the leader.
The other hand what you talking that is possible in world goverment only which is promoted by the United nation and all those tycoon who wanted to controll the fate of the nation and the people through this world goverment.The slogan of globalisation and the creation of wolrd body in economic affairs,miltary affairs and cultural affairs is march towards the dream of hidden people .
As far as the degree of violence in post negotiation era is concerned no one can predict it perfectly.was any body presumed that the post American invasion on Afghanistan and Iarq would be so violent?which was done to minimise the threat of terrorism.The present situation around the world witnessed the different stories.
In my opinion the question of negitiation and double standard is not the matter but,the matter should be how to minimise the loss of life of innocent people?

How about we quit funding racist terrorism and pull the plug on the welfare state of israel ? If they are so damn superior to the rest of us , they should do just fine, and we can use our tax dollars at home.

It depends on who is the terrorist. USA can keep an almost friendly relationship with convicted terrorist Posada Carriles if it helps to damage Cuba or Venezuela. Ethics and National Security are a flexible dough.

It depends on who is the terrorist. USA can keep an almost friendly relationship with convicted terrorist Posada Carriles if it helps to damage Cuba or Venezuela. Ethics and National Security are a flexible dough.

Jaherer22,

You are absolutely right, my friend.

If one is well-balanced, one does one's homework and answers with very well researched FACTS and ARGUMENTS. If one agrees with the author of the comment, it will be up to others who disagree to refute both the commentator and the poster, in polite terms. If one disagrees with the commentator, as I have done at 5:28 p.m on 4 September, one makes one's well-researched point, backs it up with reference sources, and call for a refutation of one's point in polite words. If the commnetator answers, one can reconsider one's argumentation and respond accordingly, maybe even acknowledging that there are nuances. And every reader can judge for himself.

As for CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions, the best approach is to propose one's contribution in an accesible forum where it has the best chance of having some effect, however infinitesimal on the desired outcome. Thus, for the type of issue most readers are referring to here (i.e. whther to negotiate with 'terrorists' or not, specifically from the point of view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict), the ideal ACCESSIBLE forum is Haa'retz. That is where I have posted comments to the effect that one good place to start is for Israel to respond positively to the proposal of releasing Marwan Barghouti and several hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (many of them old men and children) in Israeli jails against the release of Shalit and two others (the imbalance is justifiable because Israel makes sweeping incursions in Palestinian areas imprisoning scores and hundreds of purported 'collaborators' whenever a Qasaam rocket, say, is launched into Israel). My suggestion might not have made a difference, but it is heartwarming to see that, after long months and years of treating the proposal with contempt, Israeli decision makers are now positively considering it.

To George - You read like George W...

Collecting data of "Acts of Terror" does not do well to anybody, unless one is equipped to grasp, analize, deduct and establish the true reasons for those terrible deeds.

"Terror" is not a divine product. Even the first terrorist on record, Samson, had his reasons... no matter how wrong he was.

Some 3,000 years went by, and the New Goliath - Israel - is fighting the Palestinian David, in exactly the same location - Gaza. Sorry to say: It seems that Israel hasn't learnt a thing from our history. [I say that with personal sadness, since I am a Jew, whose mother tongue is Hebrew! I was even born there to a "Zionist Mayflower" family.]

The Torah tells us that Moses took us out of Pharonic slavery to the Land of Freedom. Can't we allow the same luxury to the Palestinians? Or must we wait for them to launch "The 10 Plagues [or Calamities] of Egypt" at Israel, before we agree to set them free? [See the book of Exodus, chapters 7 - 12].

The Plagues were a mix of Biological Terror, Zoological Terror,
Natural Disasters and Personal Revenge. Was MOSES "A TERRORIST" or A LIBERATOR?

The plagues as they appear in the Bible are:
Rivers and other water sources turned to blood ('Dam')
The invasion of reptiles (frogs) ('Tsfardeia')
Lice or gnats fill the Land ('Kinim')
Wild animals invade the kingdom ('Arov')
People and livestock die from Plague ('Dever')
Unhealable boils ('Shkhin')
Hail mixed with fire ('Barad')
Locust invasion ('Arbeh')
Darkness ('Choshech')
Death of the firstborn ('Makat Bechorot')

It is interesting how Mr. Melman made all this argument without saying a single word about what the world can and should also do to reduce the conditions that serve as inducement for some people to engage in acts of terrorism. How about the entire world leadership subscribing to the true principles of honesty and fair play? If we truly practice the principles of honesty and fair play we will realize that what is good for one group of people (especially in terms of the right to live in peace in one’s own society and under a democratically chosen leadership or government) is good for every other group of people. It will mean that the world will call evil exactly what it is no matter where on earth it occurs. It will also mean that powerful and influential nations will not impose their will and way on weaker nations and they will not support dictatorial, undemocratic and brutal regimes and groups that oppress and suppress their people and pillage their natural and other resources. Finally, if the world practices honesty and fair play it will learn that our various cultural, racial, religious, political, social and economic differences are natural consequences of the fact that all of us were not born onto one common family and do not live in one common geographical location. It will appreciate the fact that these differences in fact are what add to the beauty of this place we call earth and they should unite more than divide us.

It is interesting how Mr. Melman made all this argument without saying a single word about what the world can and should also do to reduce the conditions that serve as inducement for some people to engage in acts of terrorism. How about the entire world leadership subscribing to the true principles of honesty and fair play? If we truly practice the principles of honesty and fair play we will realize that what is good for one group of people (especially in terms of the right to live in peace in one’s own society and under a democratically chosen leadership or government) is good for every other group of people. It will mean that the world will call evil exactly what it is no matter where on earth it occurs. It will also mean that powerful and influential nations will not impose their will and way on weaker nations and they will not support dictatorial, undemocratic and brutal regimes and groups that oppress and suppress their people and pillage their natural and other resources. Finally, if the world practices honesty and fair play it will learn that our various cultural, racial, religious, political, social and economic differences are natural consequences of the fact that all of us were not born onto one common family and do not live in one common geographical location. It will appreciate the fact that these differences in fact are what add to the beauty of this place we call earth and they should unite more than divide us.

It is interesting how Mr. Melman made all this argument without saying a single word about what the world can and should also do to reduce the conditions that serve as inducement for some people to engage in acts of terrorism. How about the entire world leadership subscribing to the true principles of honesty and fair play? If we truly practice the principles of honesty and fair play we will realize that what is good for one group of people (especially in terms of the right to live in peace in one’s own society and under a democratically chosen leadership or government) is good for every other group of people. It will mean that the world will call evil exactly what it is no matter where on earth it occurs. It will also mean that powerful and influential nations will not impose their will and way on weaker nations and they will not support dictatorial, undemocratic and brutal regimes and groups that oppress and suppress their people and pillage their natural and other resources. Finally, if the world practices honesty and fair play it will learn that our various cultural, racial, religious, political, social and economic differences are natural consequences of the fact that all of us were not born onto one common family and do not live in one common geographical location. It will appreciate the fact that these differences in fact are what add to the beauty of this place we call earth and they should unite more than divide us.

To Pragmatist:

How do I know that every Palestinian is "a Terrorist" -- the Israeli answer is "because our government tells us so".

and How do I know that every Israeli is "a Terrorist" -- because most [Jewish] Israelis claim their "divine right" to deploy State Terror, and since their "Peoples' Army" engages in it.

Are there no standards for decency or accuracy on this message board? What kind of ill-informed demagogues does this place attract? Why does the Post allow itself to be associated with this filth?

I have neither the time nor the patience to respond to any individual post but it appears absolutely none of you have any grasp of history or current events. This board consists of nothing but post after post of anti-Semitic bile followed up by retorts of nothing but anti-Muslim bigotry...disgusting.

If any one wonders why the world and the Middle East in particular are in such dire times they need to look no further than this board. As indoctrinated racist heathens shout each other down with increasingly ridiculous rhetoric I cringe and wonder if there will ever be any sort of peace. Excuse me while I vomit...

Another plot uncovered today of Muslims trying to blow up innocents in Germany (in addition to one in Denmark).
I also read that the airliner plot in UK about 6 months ago where Muslims intended to blow up 10 airliners over US. These peace loving Muslims intended to bypass security by taking along their wives and small children.
We can never understand this sickening ideology.
All Muslims need to condemn it but they are only interested in Rushdie's knighting and they come here on this forum and say people who call Muslims murederers and terrorists need psychiatric help!!

The real war of the early 21st Century is here against Islamic extremism. The world, once united after 9/11 in this regard to expunge this barbarism, has weakened because of the Bush Administration's war of lies and choice in Iraq.

We should focus all our might like a laser beam on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should not talk. We should kill, and kill, and kill until they are no more. We should ignore the fears of the corrupt Pakistani tyrant regime, and destroy the terrorist haven ourselves in that country.

This should be coupled with a fair and balanced policy of respect and support of the moderate Muslim, which in some cases means a fundamental reevaluation of our unquestioned support for the current state of Israel.

The we should pose the rhetorical question to the world: who wants it next?

Zero tolerance. These extremists are a plague on the world.

I think we need to deal with terrorists with sterness. But before that, we need to define who is a terrorist. People who resist institutionalized oppression cannot be lumped with people who cause death amongst civilians to cause horror. When people are oppressed and they use any tectics to inflict harm to ARMED oppressor, it is NOT terrorism.

Then there is reverse terrorism, when oppressive state machine kills and horrifies civilian population in the name of killing terrorists.

These are two examples of terrorists, the state and non-governmental ones. Do we negotiate with them? If the government is equipped with sophisticated weapons and strong enough to perpetuate indefinite death, then it won't negotiate. But if it is weak, then it will. On the other hand non-governmental terrorists will negotiate anytime depending what is at stake. In the latter case, we negotiate as our loved ones are in harms way.

Remember, there is no principle involved here. We negotiate when our interests are served by doing so. We won't negotiate when we see that we can inflict death on terrorists.

Sir,
There is nothing 'Immortal' about your philosophy of 'killing rather than talking'. Sadly it is the opposite. And shamefully after thousands of years, we are no closer than we were in the beginning, to learning the only lesson we need learn. Peace on earth, through Love.
I have written a philosophy which I hope you might read, here...
http://sevenrulesforaperfectworld.org/

The actually line is "If you're going to shoot, shoot; don't talk!"

To Tarik (and other fellow Mussulmans)
I thought about it.
So, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? We also have;
1,000,000 plus killed in the East Pakistan genocide of ‘71
1,000,000 plus killed in the Armenian genocide of ‘17
Those killed by the Muslims were simply labeled “traitors”

Many historians (those respected by Muslims) believe that violence is the only exporting commodity of the West while simultaneously believing that love and peace is the only export of the Muslim people.

The best example of a prophet’s love of peace, who was also a believer of violent attacks, would be the Battle of al-Badr when Mohammad lead his rag-tag army of 313 bandits against the 1000 strong cavalry of the Meccans who had come to rescue a caravan ambushed by the prophet and his holy band of bandits (the merchants had allegedly “stolen” the prophet’s enormous goods and properties) .

Mohammad went on to lead about 9 battles and took part in many smaller skirmishes. In each encounter he appropriated 20% (one khum) share of booty by decree which also included women who he enslaved. He must have been an utterly divine highwayman or else he would have perished (no irony here).

And so, like me good brother, Deb Chatterjee, says, if your god can give you license and freedom to invade, butcher and enslave us then our gods would dearly like the opportunity to return the favor. If you can agree with that then we can live in peace (no irony here, either). And, no, no need to think about this, thank you.

Hemant Gandhi

Oh great, now we are to have our policy on terrorism defined by lines of dialogue from Italian B-movies? Is this man serious? There is no way to completely define how governments react to terrorist incidents, given how the exact circumstances can vary. Why should governments commit themselves to anything that limits their flexibility to respond? Just to satisfy Mr. Melman's desire for a spurious moral consistency?

The Good,The Bad and The Ugly.A western film

The Good,Clint Eastwood.
The Bad,Lee Van Cliff.
The Ugly,Eli Wallach.

Eli Wallach,the ugly,was having bath in the wooden bating basin.His rival came and begun to talk too much,EliWallach triggered his revolver under bubbles and killed him,and said *if you come to kill,kill-dont talk*

The Good,the bad and the ugly was a perfect western film,especially the last scene.
The Duel between Three Men in the cemetery and *extraordinary music*
It seems to me,this scene is one of the three unforgetable scenes in all times films.The others
*horse race in Ben Hur* and *Sink of Titanic*

Hey, Yossi Melman,

Read my posting at 5:28 p.m. on Sept 4?

Any reaction?

[Israel's] "Cabinet seen ready to okay 'Punishing' Gazans for Qassams". The headline of Today's Haaretz [English Edition].

Now, our debate can now continue with fresh evidence to show that Israel is rapidly becoming A FASCIST STATE OF TERROR.

The Hebrew edition goes a bit further: It accuses "Most of the Security Cabinet", incl. Olmert and Barak of "Supporting the USE of Punishment Measures against the Civilians of Gaza"... "The call to cut off water, electricity, gas and fuel to the Strip is seen as an alternative - or, if unsuccessful, a prelude - to a broad IDF incursion into northern Gaza"... in ex-"Labor" minister Haim Ramon proposal words: "to cut the supply of 'oxygen' to Gaza [civilians]...while they are trying to murder our children"? - But wasn't Israel engaged in murdering Palestinian children in Gaza before the Palestinians tried to "respond in kind"? And were these attack not approved by IDF Generals, and re-endorsed after the killing by the IDF spokesman's office?

Now Yossi Melman: ISN'T THAT STATE TERROR?

Or is Moshe Bodek's [comment #24] on Haaretz Website correct when he says: "It is OK for Israel to learn from the Germans"? and another man [in response #40] who calls on the IDF to ERASE GAZA, mile after mile by 10 D-9 CATERRPILLAR'S [supplied by the U.S. to the IDF] "in response for any Qassam fire". [This is actually a practise to which the IDF resorts occasionally, since General Yom-Tov Samia erased all Palestinian homes in Rafah's Tel Sultan neighborhood, near the Egyptian border]. "Revenge" is the key word, as demand to "raise the cost" in blood and destruction to the Palestinians and increase the ratio of killed Palestinian per Israeli, which currently is over 30:1.

Jewish-Israeli public opinion has been incited to accept any measure of COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT that is suggested by its Generals. Rejecting Peace, Israel has chose Fascism.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/901142.html -Hebrew
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901170.html -English

[Israel's] "Cabinet seen ready to okay 'Punishing' Gazans for Qassams". The headline of Today's Haaretz [English Edition].

Now, our debate can now continue with fresh evidence to show that Israel is rapidly becoming A FASCIST STATE OF TERROR.

The Hebrew edition goes a bit further: It accuses "Most of the Security Cabinet", incl. Olmert and Barak of "Supporting the USE of Punishment Measures against the Civilians of Gaza"... "The call to cut off water, electricity, gas and fuel to the Strip is seen as an alternative - or, if unsuccessful, a prelude - to a broad IDF incursion into northern Gaza"... in ex-"Labor" minister Haim Ramon proposal words: "to cut the supply of 'oxygen' to Gaza [civilians]...while they are trying to murder our children"? - But wasn't Israel engaged in murdering Palestinian children in Gaza before the Palestinians tried to "respond in kind"? And were these attack not approved by IDF Generals, and re-endorsed after the killing by the IDF spokesman's office?

Now Yossi Melman: ISN'T THAT STATE TERROR?

Or is Moshe Bodek's [comment #24] on Haaretz Website correct when he says: "It is OK for Israel to learn from the Germans"? and another man [in response #40] who calls on the IDF to ERASE GAZA, mile after mile by 10 D-9 CATERRPILLAR'S [supplied by the U.S. to the IDF] "in response for any Qassam fire". [This is actually a practise to which the IDF resorts occasionally, since General Yom-Tov Samia erased all Palestinian homes in Rafah's Tel Sultan neighborhood, near the Egyptian border]. "Revenge" is the key word, as demand to "raise the cost" in blood and destruction to the Palestinians and increase the ratio of killed Palestinian per Israeli, which currently is over 30:1.

Jewish-Israeli public opinion has been incited to accept any measure of COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT that is suggested by its Generals. Rejecting Peace, Israel has chose Fascism.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/901142.html -Hebrew
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901170.html -English

[Israel's] "Cabinet seen ready to okay 'Punishing' Gazans for Qassams". The headline of Today's Haaretz [English Edition].

Now, our debate can now continue with fresh evidence to show that Israel is rapidly becoming A FASCIST STATE OF TERROR.

The Hebrew edition goes a bit further: It accuses "Most of the Security Cabinet", incl. Olmert and Barak of "Supporting the USE of Punishment Measures against the Civilians of Gaza"... "The call to cut off water, electricity, gas and fuel to the Strip is seen as an alternative - or, if unsuccessful, a prelude - to a broad IDF incursion into northern Gaza"... in ex-"Labor" minister Haim Ramon proposal words: "to cut the supply of 'oxygen' to Gaza [civilians]...while they are trying to murder our children"? - But wasn't Israel engaged in murdering Palestinian children in Gaza before the Palestinians tried to "respond in kind"? And were these attack not approved by IDF Generals, and re-endorsed after the killing by the IDF spokesman's office?

Now Yossi Melman: ISN'T THAT STATE TERROR?

Or is Moshe Bodek's [comment #24] on Haaretz Website correct when he says: "It is OK for Israel to learn from the Germans"? and another man [in response #40] who calls on the IDF to ERASE GAZA, mile after mile by 10 D-9 CATERRPILLAR'S [supplied by the U.S. to the IDF] "in response for any Qassam fire". [This is actually a practise to which the IDF resorts occasionally, since General Yom-Tov Samia erased all Palestinian homes in Rafah's Tel Sultan neighborhood, near the Egyptian border]. "Revenge" is the key word, as demand to "raise the cost" in blood and destruction to the Palestinians and increase the ratio of killed Palestinian per Israeli, which currently is over 30:1.

Jewish-Israeli public opinion has been incited to accept any measure of COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT that is suggested by its Generals. Rejecting Peace, Israel has chose Fascism.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/901142.html -Hebrew
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901170.html -English

Kill the terrorists. Islamists are determined to kill or subjugate all people, including muslims, that do not accept the perverted islamist agenda. Israel is leading the fight against these murderers and the arabs living in and near Israel voted for Hamas and Fatah islamist terrorists so those voters need to pay the price for supporting murder. Jordan is where those arabs near Israel belong. Move them out

Every hostage that we save today reinforces the terrorists actions and causes the deaths of even more hostages in the future.

I have it on good sources that when the dust settles it will be Israel who is left standing victorious.

Index_on_Censorship:

where in my post did I support/advocate anything or any idea to the effect:

"Deb Chatterjee obviously supports State Terror against People." ?

FYI, I wrote in my last post the following:

"So if it is within the right of Islam to bear open hatred against Jews and pagans (Hindus), and wage terrorist warfare against them, what's wrong in principle on the part of Jews and pagans (Hindus) to create terror for the radical Islamists ? (One man's terror is other's survival, right ?)"

How does this imply State Terror against People ?

Or are you just intentionally misleading (i.e. lying), thinking that you shall get away unchallenged ?

CRF suggests that Palestine is Jordan. Others would have had the Palestinians settle elsewhere. But Palestine is Palestine, and Israel should not attempt to Ethnically Cleanse it of its natives. General Caster is dead, and Sharon is on his dying bed.

Deb Chatterjee obviously supports State Terror against People. Oppression creates Terror. The lower casts in India are still suppressed, as are many tribes in Burma. When oppression is rife some people take to fight it. This was the case in Ache -Indonesia, until President Ahtisaari of Finland succeeded to mediate the crisis. Oppression and counter-measures [which was until then defined as Terrorist Actions' by President Suharto] ceased. So did the acts of resistance.

The same happened in Europe as Nazi Terror ended. Until that time The French Resistance, the Maqui had fought SS soldiers, and French collaborators causing them thousands of casualties. Jewish Partisans joined with Gentiles to fight Nazism in Warsaw and Vilnius. Did we call them "Terrorists"? Generalissimo Franco called his Democratic Opposition "Terrorists"... He invited the Nazis to help. In 1937, at Geurnica 24 Nazi bombers killed the town.

Yes, the Maquis were outlawed by the illegal Vichy government. So was the Norwegian resistance to the Nazis and to "their own" Quisling.

Israel outlawed the Palestinian resistance long before the Intifada. Meetings of Israeli peaceniks with PLO leaders were punished by long prison terms. Abbie Nathan, who operated RADIO PEACE from a ship anchored off Tel Aviv's coast, was one such prisoner.

What I suggest is that Israel "created Palestinian Terror" by refusing to heed to the calls for peace, and severely punishing its foremost spokesman.

[David Ben Gurion, Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, where regarded by the British Mandate regime as terrorists. They later became Prime Ministers in Israel. Yasser Arafat was treated by Israel as "a Terrorist". He was killed by Israel after he refused to accommodate their demands. Marwan Barghouti was sentenced for life for "Terrorism". He repeatedly pronounces his aspirations for peace with Israel].

Israel prefers to "Fight Terror" instead of making peace with its Palestinian neighbors.

Is it too much to ask 'Deb & Co' to distinguish between a tag, a sticker or brand name, which is imposed on us by the "Make Believers"-- spin makers of a Super Power's EVIL AXIS, and the reality? I begs\ to differ with Yossi and Deb! Their "proposed rules of conduct" suit their game, which is not ours.

Tarik:

I am sorry to know that your low-caste hindu ancestors converted to Islam because of the excommunication by the upper caste Hindus ? Now, err, how early was that ?

On another front, yes one man's terrorism is other's freedom. But, in this game of bloodlust each party has equal right to win. Who's to decide who has the moral right ? So, when you cite the 2,000 Muslims butchered in Gujarat, you folks bearing the emblem of your ancestral hatred for Hindu caste traditions, conveniently forget the burning of the Sabarmati express by Muslim thugs, and the ensuing slaughter by Muslim militants at the Akshardham temple complex. This is in addition to the continuum of Islamic terrorism in India. And, ones suffering from selective amnesia just overlook the slaughter of 400,000 Kashmiri Hindus and the valley has been ethnically cleansed since 1989, thanks to the hatred that the Islamic scriptures has already in store for you. No one ever bothers to raise the slaughter of the Kashmiri Hindus, because they belong to the majority kafir (Hindu) stock. Hence they (Kashmiri Hindus) are ripe for canon fodder.

For every flimsy reason the "Mussalman" has raised arms to defend Islam and honor the jihad code. This is when Muslim politicians in India are engaged in all sorts of criminal activities and still waive the minority card to escape the clutches of the law of the land. As a recent example, Mohammad Shahbuddin, an MP from Bihar, has committed heinous crimes and fortunately he is now convicted. The case of Muhammad Taslimuddin, a convicted rapist and murderer and a member of Parliament (MP), is more shamefully complicated. These are terrorists who use their religion and minority (Mussalman) status to sway public opinion in their favor. What a bunch of cowards !

The basic point is that Israel (and hence Yossi Melman) is right. The objective of any country is to be fair. Israel is just looking after its own interests better than other countries. The Muslim ummah, having been still unable to dislodge Israel from the map, is angry as hell because they generally want all Jews and pagans (interpreted as Hindus in modern day context) killed, period.

So if it is within the right of Islam to bear open hatred against Jews and pagans (Hindus), and wage terrorist warfare against them, what's wrong in principle on the part of Jews and pagans (Hindus) to create terror for the radical Islamists ? (One man's terror is other's survival, right ?)

As long as there are those who oppress others, there will be rebellion.

Words to negotiate through, lofty rationalizations, wars, killing, imprisonment and torture will not suppress rebellion.

Only compassion and understanding will neutralize rebellion.

While kidnapping or killing civillians are acts of a terrorist, if a government does this with an aircraft bomb or an artillery shell, is it still terrorism?

And also, while terrorists deserve punishment, some of those put in jail and labeled terrorists may actually be political prisoners.

There is hypocrisy all around.

While kidnapping or killing civillians are acts of a terrorist, some of those put in jail and labeled terrorists may actually be political prisoners.

There is hypocrisy all around.

Aye, that's the rub.

Many Government Critics inside Israel have pointed-out that "Israel engages in STATE TERRORISM and that ITS ACTIONS
ENCOURAGE TERROR".

Terror is generally regarded as �A Weapon Of The Poor�. In the Israeli Case TERROR is a RESPONSE of Palestinians to a continued Military Occupation and Denial of Freedom in order to Effectuate ETHNIC CLEANSING. Israeli Terror is a Rich STATE TERROR, that is supported by High-Tech Weaponry, Made in the U.S.A, and by Israel's own Industry.
Its purpose is to quash any resistance to Israel�s LAND GRAB.

An Example of turning a Low-Tech Struggle into High-Tech is how Israel responded [in the 1980s] to Palestinian hurling stone at the "IDF". Instead of using defensive measures [helmets, plastic-shields etc.] Israel developed stone-hurling trucks to engage demonstrators. Then the IAF equipped U.S. made Bell 212 Copters and turned those into FLYING STONE THROWERS. [A detailed report is available for IAF Bulletin #3 of 2003]. Israel is always proud of its High-Tech WAR ON DEMONSTRATORS.

IAF General Miki Bar told The Bulletin: "I was attached to General Ehud BARAK's [currently Israel's MOD]. Our job was to develop EFFECIENT WEAPONS. {Then] Our policy was to Deter, but not to kill. We were required to provide quick results. We reached the decision that we must hurl things from the Helicopters at the demonstrators, which would maim them. The SAGRIR Stone Thrower was used to disperse demonstrations. We also sprayed CS gas and difficult-to-remove fluorescent colors on demonstrators to be able to identify them later.

http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Journal/Journal.In.aspx?lang=HE&folderID=437&subfolderID=439&docfolderID=441&lobbyID=5

Since the 1980s Israel has continuously UP-GRADED the LETHAL NATURE of their responses to Palestinian Demonstrations. Only yesterday the IDF seriously wounded a Palestinian young demonstrator in Nablus. The typical Israeli response can be summed-up by the killing of 5 Palestinians Kids [aged 8-12] in Beit Hanoun-Gaza by a U.S. made Missile last week. The Palestinian revenge, shooting a Primitive Qassam Rocket Barrage at Sderot occurred yesterday. Israel has promised to avenge its actions against the ENTIRE population of Gaza. Minister Barak now considers CUTTING WATER and ELECTRICITY SUPPLY to Gaza, as Haaretz reported yesterday.

Such Actions of COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, BREED MORE TERROR, and certainly do not reduce terror, point Israeli critics.

Israel can thus be rightly called a TERROR PRODUCING STATE, which it uses as a measure to respond to outside pressure to start Fruitful Peace Negotiations.

The excuse "we can't talk to terrorists" can thus be thrown
back at its source -- the Israeli HASBARA Appartus and AIPAC.

The Israeli-Arab Conflict continues because Israel rejects the Offers of Peace by the Arab League. As the U.S. continues to support the misconduct of its Client State, Israel, in every possible way, it can justly be accused of complicity in the act. It is currently a Super Power which hinders peace.

Many Government Critics inside Israel have pointed-out that "Israel engages in STATE TERRORISM and that ITS ACTIONS
ENCOURAGE TERROR".

Terror is generally regarded as �A Weapon Of The Poor�. In the Israeli Case TERROR is a RESPONSE of Palestinians to a continued Military Occupation and Denial of Freedom in order to Effectuate ETHNIC CLEANSING. Israeli Terror is a Rich STATE TERROR, that is supported by High-Tech Weaponry, Made in the U.S.A, and by Israel's own Industry.
Its purpose is to quash any resistance to Israel�s LAND GRAB.

An Example of turning a Low-Tech Struggle into High-Tech is how Israel responded [in the 1980s] to Palestinian hurling stone at the "IDF". Instead of using defensive measures [helmets, plastic-shields etc.] Israel developed stone-hurling trucks to engage demonstrators. Then the IAF equipped U.S. made Bell 212 Copters and turned those into FLYING STONE THROWERS. [A detailed report is available for IAF Bulletin #3 of 2003]. Israel is always proud of its High-Tech WAR ON DEMONSTRATORS.

IAF General Miki Bar told The Bulletin: "I was attached to General Ehud BARAK's [currently Israel's MOD]. Our job was to develop EFFECIENT WEAPONS. {Then] Our policy was to Deter, but not to kill. We were required to provide quick results. We reached the decision that we must hurl things from the Helicopters at the demonstrators, which would maim them. The SAGRIR Stone Thrower was used to disperse demonstrations. We also sprayed CS gas and difficult-to-remove fluorescent colors on demonstrators to be able to identify them later.

http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Journal/Journal.In.aspx?lang=HE&folderID=437&subfolderID=439&docfolderID=441&lobbyID=5

Since the 1980s Israel has continuously UP-GRADED the LETHAL NATURE of their responses to Palestinian Demonstrations. Only yesterday the IDF seriously wounded a Palestinian young demonstrator in Nablus. The typical Israeli response can be summed-up by the killing of 5 Palestinians Kids [aged 8-12] in Beit Hanoun-Gaza by a U.S. made Missile last week. The Palestinian revenge, shooting a Primitive Qassam Rocket Barrage at Sderot occurred yesterday. Israel has promised to avenge its actions against the ENTIRE population of Gaza. Minister Barak now considers CUTTING WATER and ELECTRICITY SUPPLY to Gaza, as Haaretz reported yesterday.

Such Actions of COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT, BREED MORE TERROR, and certainly do not reduce terror, point Israeli critics.

Israel can thus be rightly called a TERROR PRODUCING STATE, which it uses as a measure to respond to outside pressure to start Fruitful Peace Negotiations.

The excuse "we can't talk to terrorists" can thus be thrown
back at its source -- the Israeli HASBARA Appartus and AIPAC.

The Israeli-Arab Conflict continues because Israel rejects the Offers of Peace by the Arab League. As the U.S. continues to support the misconduct of its Client State, Israel, in every possible way, it can justly be accused of complicity in the act. It is currently a Super Power which hinders peace.

Freedom fighters blow up pizza shops, buses, people at prayer, and movie patrons ? Your right Sam et al terrorists are difficult to distinquish from freedom fighters.

I think psychiatrists are in order all around. I have never read a more hate-filled bunch of shouting. Get lives, all of you.

The phoniest posters are those who quibble about the "definition" of who is a terrorist. They know damn well who is a terrorist. Let them eat oil.

Jawahar:

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
3000 Muslim were butchered in a few days of rioting in the Indian state of Gujrat.
2000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi after the assasination of Indira Ghandi.
The rioters were not labeled terrorists because it was politically motivated killings??

Why 6 million Red Indians were butchered by the white man who still regards Kit Carson as a folk hero. Talk about terrorists!
Who killed millions of Indigenous natives in South America. The Spanish Conquistadors : read the harrowing account in Howard Zenn's history book.
Millions of Blacks lived in slavery and later in segregation until the 1960 in USA.

Even Malcolm X would today be labeled a terrorist.

Many respected historians believe that violence is the only exporting commodity of the West.

To be a terrorist you don't have to be a suicide bomber you can be a F16 Pilot.

The basic pattern is : the militarily strong wage war on the weak. The rest is just humbug.
The exception to this rule is when a smaller more motivated force conquers a bigger force.
History is replete with such examples.

The best example of this would be the battle of Badr when Mohammad lead his rag-tag army of 313 against the 1000 strong cavalry of the Meccans.
Mohammad lead in about 9 battles and took part in many smaller skermishes. He must have been a good fighter or else he would have perised.

My ancestors were low caste Hindus who converted to Islam to escape the violence of the Hindu higher class. Or more simply they switched to the winning side.
Any nation that mistreats its own is doomed to fail. This is common sense.
It applies to Muslim nations as well.
The American conquest of Iraq is just one example.

India was ripe for conquest by foreign powers because it had declared half of its own population as "the untouchables".
Granted that no Hindu invited the Muslims to conquer;it would still be difficult to explain : how with only 6000 troops under command of a 17 year old Mohammad Bin Qasim, sailed from Basra and conquered Sind and Punjab and for ever changed the region all said and done it took him only 2 years to achieve this momentous feat.
Paul L Bremer had 2 years in Iraq (notwithstanding the great advantage in arms and technology).

Today in India, Muslims are the new "untouchables" and hence India is once again vulnerable.

It is not a sensible thing to insult someone's religion especially when Billions believe in it.
Billions who belong to hundreds of nationalities and hundreds of linguistic groups.
Islam is truly a Universal religion.
It is still the worlds fastest growing religion.

Think about it.

Hey, Jawahar,

Want me to call a psychiatrist for you?

It is not Israel that is spreading violence and intolerance. It is the Muslims. Saudi Arabia, Prophet's birth place is the most intolerant nation on earth and sent us 19 "peace" messengers of Islam on 9/11.
Muslims here on this forum are using really vile language-very typical of their culture (one of death and destruction).
Islam started in 7th century and expanded all over the world through military adventures not through peace. I can tell you that for sure for India. None of the Hindus there invited Muslims to come to India to rule over the country. Islam is a violent and expansitinist cult- the biggest threat to huamnity.

P. M. N. Krishnan,

Your post is typically reflective of a whiner. That's because you have famously written:

"We shoud also take certain realities into this before turning to extremes of punishment.What is required is a common code of dealing with world terrorism for which all countries should be involved in that process."

That means, after the terrorism incidents have happened the government should pontificate and come up with theories and the formulate plans of action followed by developing modus operandi of acquiring right intelligence followed by media outbursts followed by deciding whether to allot an air-conditioned jailhouse with musical bandwagon for the suspects, if apprehended, and then provide the best legal defense team for the suspected terrorist, who can use the money power and sympathy to get away in most situations. Wow !

In countries, like India, such is not uncommon and this happens largely because of the mindset of the Indian population. Look, 400,000 Panun Kashmiri Hindus have been butchered by Islamic militants such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), Hizb-i-Islami, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Harkat-ul-Ansar etc. What has been the policy of the Indian Government on such terrorist groups ? On one hand there are these peace overtures with Pakistan, and on the other there this sophomoric attempt to accurately pin-point exactly who is the perpetrator. This takes so much time, that it has been ineffective and shows the cowardice of the Indian Government. What has happened to the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits other than being the bearers of the shameful treatment meted out by their democratically elected Government ? Yes, its world's largest democracy, 60 years young. The recent suspect, Bilal, involved in the Hyderabad bombing case has fled Dhaka and is now in West Asia. Nothing shall happen.

And, if Indian Govt. tries to squeeze the financial flows, the Indian population shall rise against the measures. Indians, as a typical example, don't want the terrorism but don't want the Government to take hard action. They wait for miracles or divine interventions. Its the mentality of the common populace. Israel (and the majority Jewish population) have a different mentality and hence what Yossi Melman writes is applicable there, and is effective too. Can you recall that in December 2001 Indian Parliament was attacked by the AK-47 weilding Muslim militants funded by Pakistan. And, India was surely pussyfooting to get even with Pakistan. Can you imagine the scenario if from a neighboring country such as Canada/Mexico, terrorists came inside USA and attacked the White House, what would USA do ? Just watch and pontificate ?

Its the collective mentality of the people that can thwart terrorist attacks. Not pussyfooting and pontificating.

Dear Sir,Your observation or point made on cutting out hypocrisy should be well taken when it comes to dealing with terrorists. We shoud also take certain realities into this before turning to extremes of punishment.What is required is a common code of dealing with world terrorism for which all countries should be involved in that process.Then the question of meeting their wealth or funds without which they can't operate. So create a financial resources to meet that might and innovatively deploy it to weaken the designs and operations of terrorists.Genuine demands of people's hardships should be addressed in time, so as not to create sypathisers or who can be bought. There is hope in dialogue on issues that can be allowed at media levels and at ordinary people level and valid inputs be taken.Lastly announce the punishment and give it squarely by a common body selcted for the purpose.

Dear Sir,Your observation or point made on cutting out hypocrisy should be well taken when it comes to dealing with terrorists. We shoud also take certain realities into this before turning to extremes of punishment.What is required is a common code of dealing with world terrorism for which all countries should be involved in that process.Then the question of meeting their wealth or funds without which they can't operate. So create a financial resources to meet that might and innovatively deploy it to weaken the designs and operations of terrorists.Genuine demands of people's hardships should be addressed in time, so as not to create sypathisers or who can be bought. There is hope in dialogue on issues that can be allowed at media levels and at ordinary people level and valid inputs be taken.Lastly announce the punishment and give it squarely by a common body selcted for the purpose.

SUMMARY

After reading the article and the comments, I couldn't help to see how the storm of "common sense" is destroying the "Zionist" chronic illusion of robbing Palestinians their land and dignity, and get away with it. Get away with it no more. It is over. Call the common sense anti-semitic, terrorist, racist, etc. It won't work. Revise history, use the mainstream media, blackmail politicians, etc, that won't work either. The signs of the end of zionist dreams are here on these comments made by street folks.

I'm of the opinion that there is no need to rush things - let the debate take its course. It is fine even if it takes centuries..the end of zionism will come some day. People of Israel need to make a choice right now to end the illegal/ugly occupation for their security.

Call me anti-semitic ... but I should tell you wheather you realised or not...the glue of this label is fading and not sticking as you once wished.

Deb Chatterjee....you filthy hindu, it's time for you to drink some of your holy cow pee and shut the hell up.

Chatter,

You still around, with your hatred?

Any comment about my post at 5:28 p.m.?

I am waiting for Melman's, but if you have one, I would like to read it.

All these kind-hearted admirers of the Palestinians are truly touching. When will the Turks return Constantinople? Or Cyprus? The Palestinians should go to Jordan where they belong.

.....continued from my previous post.....

I forgot listing ...

6. Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Israel

7. Al-Qaeeda (global) and Taliban (Afghanistan)

To all the Israel-haters and Muslim-lovers:

Yossi Melman is right on the money. I agree that one's man's terror is other's freedom. But, that said, there will always be this dichotomy regarding who is a terrorist and who's side are you on. Should government be pontificating on the moral debate of right or wrong issues, or be active in resolving the terrorist situations that occur randomly ?

In any case a terrorist is defined as a group or individual who abduct/kill innocent civilians to make a political point. These groups also use civilians as cannon fodder to paralyze a democratically elected government of a state. A salient characteristic of these terrorist groups is their unquestioned allegiance to some fanatical dogma. Some examples, but not limited to, are as below:

1. Naxalites, ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam) and various Muslim terrorist groups in India.

2. Tupac Amaru rebels and Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) Terrorists in Peru.

3. LTTE (Liberation of Tamil Tigers Elam) in Sri Lanka

4. Jemmah Islamiyah rebels in Indonesia/Malaysia who have been implicated in Bali nightclub bombings.

5. Basque and IRA guerilla party in Spain and Ireland.

Of the above ensemble of limited examples, the Muslim radical groups are most dangerous because they are not geographically localized, and operate on a loose structure of ideological affiliates - such as Al-Qaeda sympathizers. It is very difficult to keep a check on such a amorphous group of radicals.

Eliminating the radical Muslim terrorist groups (Al-Qaeda, Taliban etc.) and their local operatives poses the most serious challenge to the maintainence of global security in the post-Cold War era.

Yossi Melman's prescription thus works effectively, and should be followed without any hypocrisy or pussyfooting.

I have never seen so many racist comments posted before on this site. If you want to say that Israel took the Palestinian's lands well I urge you to read the bible where G-d promised the land to the Jews. Furthermore, the Jews didn't take any land. The Arabs were the ones who invaded Israel and attacked Jewish villages killing women and children and continue to do so indiscriminately. It's not Israel's fault that stupid arabs tried attacking them in 1948 and 1967. When you risk war, you risk losing territory. If you're not prepared to do that, then you shouldn't be going to war. When was the last time you ever saw an Israeli suicide bomber walking and blowing him or herself in a crowded arab market??? Furthermore, can someone tell me why the arabs are so greedy that they can't let Israel have land the size of New Jersey when they have lands that encompass the size of the entire USA if not more. Why is it that when Israel gives the Palestinians self rule in the Gaza and West Bank, the Palestinians still can't amount to anything and only end up killing each other?
I'm sick and tired of Arabs blaming all of their problems on Israel. Seriously, grow up and use your oil fortunes to actually make something of yourselves instead of terrorists!!!

To CRF:

As a historian, I just want to correct some of your erroneous comments about 1948.

Certainly some Palestinians fled because the Arab states told them to do so, but there is evidence that in some cases they were also kicked out by the Zionist forces (I am using the word Zionist intentionally since these events predated the official establishment of Israel in May 1948).

I can refer you to the excellent works of the revisionist historians in Israel, such as Avi Shlaim or Benny Morris, who refer to Plan D, and other attempts to push the Palestinian population out.

This may sound like a cliche, but I felt it was important to mention those episodes, and to show that what happened in 1948 was neither simple, nor black and white, despite the comforting narratives on both sides of the conflict. If we don't understand what happened in the past, how can we approach the present without bias?

well, let's package that swagger and deal-or-no-deal with some filthy terrorists!

bring it on.

Look, I can't tell you how disappointed I've become over the years with "professional" security and law-enforcement types. this type of hubris is sadly far too typical of what is otherwise a complex, heart-wrenching issue for the families of kidnap victims.

but apparently 23-35% of the American public is always ready to be fooled by this type of talk. and that makes me sad.

Talk, then kill. Coreleone

But Simple Observer, I never agreed that they were occupied territories. Those are your words, not mine.

It's "if you wanna shoot, shoot, don't talk." But then why would the reality of a movie quote bother you, when the reality of global relations plays no part in your absured analysis?

The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not handled adequately.The legitimate state of Palestine was removed from the world map to be replaced by the illegitimate state of Israel with new immigrants from all over the world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out into refugee camps to be replaced by jews from Europe,Russia,Ethiopi,Poland etc.
Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq,Lebanon,Palestinian occupied territories,Syria,Iran etc.
The unlimited support of US to Israel has been encouraging the latter to reject all UN resolutions on the Palestinian Issue including Resolution 194 which calls for the return of all Palestinian refugees home.It is time for the US admin to wake up to the real cause of all problems in the area and to resolve this chronic issue in a fair way to all concerned parties immediately.The only feasible solution is to set up one secular state for people from all religions to live in peace on all the land of historical Palestine.

The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not handled adequately.The legitimate state of Palestine was removed from the world map to be replaced by the illegitimate state of Israel with new immigrants from all over the world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out into refugee camps to be replaced by jews from Europe,Russia,Ethiopi,Poland etc.
Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq,Lebanon,Palestinian occupied territories,Syria,Iran etc.
The unlimited support of US to Israel has been encouraging the latter to reject all UN resolutions on the Palestinian Issue including Resolution 194 which calls for the return of all Palestinian refugees home.It is time for the US admin to wake up to the real cause of all problems in the area and to resolve this chronic issue in a fair way to all concerned parties immediately.The only feasible solution to this chronic problem is to set up one secular state for all Israelis and Palestinians regardless of their religion to live in peace on all the land of historical Palestine.

If someone broke into your home, then you have every right to shoot and kill him. That's what essentially what Israel is....a country of land squatters who broke into historic palestine and refuse to leave. As a result, attacks against Israelis can not be considered 'terrorism'. Funny Yossi should quote 'the man with no name' from the good, the bad and the ugly. If such a man existed, he would be the the palestinian's best friend.

Israel = 666

Wow, what a Nazi. This is a terrorist's attitude and will not solve problems -- only multiply them. Why did the Washington Post run this garbage?

The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not handled adequately.The legitimate state of Palestine was removed from the world map to be replaced by the illegitimate state of Israel with new immigrants from all over the world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out into refugee camps to be replaced by jews from Europe,Russia,Ethiopi,Poland etc.
Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq,Lebanon,Palestinian occupied territories,Syria,Iran etc.
The unlimited support of US to Israel has been encouraging the latter to reject all UN resolutions on the Palestinian Issue including Resolution 194 which calls for the return of all Palestinian refugees home.It is time for the US admin to wake up to the real cause of all problems in the area and to resolve this chronic issue in a fair way to all concerned parties immediately.The only feasible solution is to set up one secular state for people from all religions to live in peace on all the land of historical Palestine.

Israel has, is, and will forever remain a nation of terrorists.

Mr. Melman,

You write " There is no better example than the behavior of my own government. Israel has gained the reputation as the high priest in its war against terrorism. It is depicted worldwide as a country that refuses to bend to terrorist demands. In many circles, Israel is considered a role model in that regard. To a certain degree, Israel does deserve such credit. It is surrounded by hostile nations".

What hypocrisy on YOUR part!

Tell ME that you don't know that, in the same year (1989) that the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries was adopted by the UN, mercenaries from your country, Israel, in a monstrously shameful conspiracy with mercenaries from the UK, had run camps in Columbia teaching commando techniques to the forces of the Medellin drug cartel, training untrained killers into trained killers who used these techniques to commit crimes against humanity, namely systematic assassinations of judges, journalists and elected politicians. Cartel money was used to order lethal weapons to be ordered from Israel for transshipment in Antigua to the Medellin Cartel forces in Columbia. The State of Israel, your ‘model country’ to use your term, became the subject of international opprobrium as a shameless accessory to this crime against humanity when, in Jerusalem, the leader of the mercenaries, Colonel Yair Klein, was incredibly mildly fined for ‘exporting warlike equipment (sic) and military knowledge (re-sic) from Israel.

I would advise you not to try to deny this.

Because it is all well documented in Geoffrey Robertson’s erudite work on “Crimes Against Humanity”.

Yes, Mr. Melman, let us condemn ‘terrorism’ from what ever quarter it comes from, starting with making an appropriate distinction between legitimate resistance fighting and even hostage taking, and reserving our most outraged condemnation for the most monstrous kind of terrorism – the cold-blooded, state-countenanced crimes against humanity such as the one I have jst described above and is well-documented in Geoffrey Robertson’s book “Crimes Against Humanity”.

If killing terrorists is fine, then Yossi Melman should be the first one put to death. Look at the guy, he looks and talks like a filthy terrorist himself. Hey Yossi....the civilizied world has some called "H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T-S" and 'F-R-E-E-D-O-M"....two concepts totally alien to israeli beasts, who kill Pali children without mercy.

All chroinc problems in the Middle East being in Lebanon, Afganistan, Iraq or Palestine are generated by one malicious power house named Israel. The unlimited support of the US to Israel from 1948 till now ,and the illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine, has led to unmatched state of disappointment and despair in the Middle East, which in turn has led to the creation of terrorist groups who are ready to sacrifice their own bodies in a holy war agianst Israel and US interests, not only in the Middle East but all over the world.
What do we expect from a palestinian refugee who has been deprived of all his belongings and thrown out of his country to live in a refugee camp for more than 60 years now.
The war in Iraq is nothing but an Israeli war unfortunately fought with US blood and US taxpayer's money.It is time for the US admin to wake up to the real cause of all problems in the area and to change its foreign policy categorically.

CRF: You are right. If they are occupied territories, then they can't be part of Israel. But wait! How is it then that East Jerusalem is now part of Israel now? If the Occupied territories are not part of Israel, then how is it that there are so many Israeli settlements within those territories? When were the territories turned back over to Palestinian control? Is it contiguous? Can they move freely between towns, conduct commerce, and live without fear if Israeli military action or intervention?

What the Arab nations promised in 1948 does not have meaning towards what was captured in 1967. What of Israel’s promise to give up the territories? What of their stated desire NOT to be an occupying force? What of the UN Security Council Resolutions ignored while at the same time decrying those ignored by their neighbors.

It isn't quite so simple as to say that Israel has released control. It simply isn't true. Neither is the notion that none of those territories have been taken over as claimed.

This "debate" is amazing. When I read Mr. Melman's comment, I did not read it as a defense of Israel's dealings with its enemies who use "asymetric tactics." What Mr. Melman suggested is that government's do as they say and act in unison to avoid undercutting each other. I'm not sure about the merits of his arugment. Personally, I think a bit of deception and ambiguity is valuable in negotiation, especially with unconventional enemies. Yet, in my opinion, the fact that he including the thuggish Tuco quote (it wasn't a B movie, it is a classic) to emphasize the "no hypocrisy" point, and the unfortunate fact that Mr. Melman is an Israeli, immediately draws out every yahoo with a grudge against the state that he criticizes. Can't we save our Israel bashing for maybe a comment that actually defends them?

The problem with absolutist statements like "we will never negotiate with terrorists" is that they necessarily hamstring one's ability to positively affect a diplomatic outcome. Diplomacy is the art of the possible -- not the proving grounds of moral absolutes.

If at the beginning of every diplomatic disagreement, we were to preface our engagement of a relationship by stating that we would never negotiate with anyone who opposed our political will, we would have to be prepared for a lot of killing and dying. It is a testimony to the maturity of most nations that those absolutist positions have not been consistently followed.

Wow. Jews really are a blood thirsty people who lament only their own casualties, not that of others.

I completely understand what the writer is writing about. He is saying to either go all out and kill all whom you deem to be a terrorist or talk with all of them and see if you cant come to a solution. America likes to fight and talk to rebels/ terrorists at the same time. It sends a mixed message i guess.
Yossi:
Please do not use Israel as your example.Every time they kill a " terrorist " they kill about 10 Palestinian kids with him. Israel isnt exactly on the high moral ground since Israel's founding fathers used to blow up British troops. Israel building walls on Palestinian land instead of their own Israeli land isnt moral ground. and ISRAEL HASNT BEATEN ITS "TERRORISTS" YET !!!! The most Israel has done for the world militarily is help drag America into their problems and rob Americans of a lot of tax money. Israel will never defeat the Palestinians. Palestinians have way too much heart. Dont forget Palestinians are arabs who are related to Jews. You cant call an arab an antisemite for a reason you know.
I am naturally biased against Israelis because you guys have some of my Grandmothers land you built a settlement on ( Beit El) in the village of El- bireh that you also built a wall around.
Peace can be obtained when Israelis and their puppets in Washington D.C. realize you cant beat Palestinians. All the Israeli weaponry in the world( bought and paid for by American taxpayers)) cant help you.
I suggest Israel does more talking then killing.

There is of course a common thread running through this discussion that the original author just did not deal with, namely: what is a "terrorist."

Perhaps it's like the famous Supreme Court jurist's definition of pornography: 'I know it when I see.'

I won't weigh in on the rest of our mess, the war on 'terror,' Middle East Peace, Iran, etc.

This is surely about power and not morality or reason.

Why the Jews don't move to black Africa and settle there, instead of occupying Palestinian territory ?

Before we even begin the discussion on whether or not it is ethical, efficacious, or consistent or contrary to our interest to negotiate with terrorists, shouldn't we begin with a workable definition of the word "terrorist"?

If all that is necessary to be a terrorist is to be a non-state political actor, Tenzin Gyatzo, Ang Sang Su Qi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Yeshuach bin Yusef, and Nelson Mandella have, at different times qualified.

If all that is necessary is to deliberately target civilians, most world powers and all nuclear states are guilty (do a browser search on the world "countervalue" for illumination).

If both are necessary, Menachem Begin, the contras, and Luis Posada Carriles qualify.

I suspect that the term itself has little meaning other than as a perjorative. Calling someone a "terrorist" might as well be the equivalent to calling them a "rectal oriface". It appears to have little more descriptive value.

In America, the Mexican has said, "We will not conquer America by force but by flooding America with Mexicans.
????????????????????????????????????

What Mexican said that? Don't worry cuz when they start to become Americans they will date the whites and blacks and orientals and soon we will all be eating thai-meatloaf with salsa. Don't worry about humanity mixing it up, we all eat better.

Why not extend Israel into the Meditttaranean and build housing for those Israeli's living in the West Bank and then share Jerusalem as an International City? Make Peace and there will be no terrorists after a period of time.

The poor Israelis. Seems they're running out of lies and defenses for their racist hysteria. I've read third-graders who have a much better grasp of common sense and morality than do most of the zionists posted here.

Even if Israel gives in to all the demands of the Palestinians (really Arab nations) the next obstacle will be "right of return" for all who call themselves "Palestinian." In America, the Mexican has said, "We will not conquer America by force but by flooding America with Mexicans." One hundred million Palestinians will not fit in the territory of what the Arabs call Palistine. A very factual history lesson was given Israel haters on this site. Check it out for yourselves and you'll see it is truth IF THAT MEANS ANYTHING TO YOU.

I am wondering about the dialog in a hostage situation here in the states. There certainly seems to be a lot of talking. I guess it is a personal thing with real lives at stake whereas governments and negotiating with terrorists is a different thing on a different level that requires that we not flinch in game theory...
So I am not flinching...
how long do I hold this pose?

.
Cannot we all just get along?
.

Though I don't want this to become a debate over the beneficence of the Contras, it is worth noting that the Catholic Institute for International Relations summarized contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report thusly: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."

I agree with the terrible consequences and precedent created when governments negotiate with those who are by no means constrained by any humane or moral obligations. I agree that the only way to prevent these groups from feeling that there is the possibility of gain through terrorist acts is to develop consensus on methods of negotiation.

My question though is, 'How do you identify who is a 'Terrorist?' I'm afraid that the word terrorist has come to be used almost as a propaganda tool by Western governments - labeling any group, who disagrees and is not part of an 'accepted' government.

In no way do I support many of the hideous and horrible actions of many of these groups labeled 'Terrorists,' but...who is annointed as deliniating what is and what is not valid or non-terrorist aggression?

Those who kill civilians are terrorists? How many civilians has the US killed in Iraq?

Those who are part of unorganized non governmental groups? How do you respond if your government is corrupt, inept, and bankrupt?

Is resistance not inflicting the most damaging result on those you consider your enemies?

Israel has no qualms about taking the lives of those it deems as responsible for the taking of Israeli lives - how is that only Western governments have the right and ability to determine who is a 'Terrorist?'

I agree with the panelists. To all those Israel haters and Muslim lovers- Israel has about 30% Muslims living in Israel. No Jews or any other minorities live in Palestine or any of the 55 Islamic nations.

Read today's paper-at least 6 incidents of Islamic terror and/or arrests.

Simple Observer, much of the “occupied territories” have been turned over to Palestinian control. In those places, they are too busy killing each other to worry about citizenship. The Palestinians within the other occupied territories have not become Israeli citizenship by simple logic. If you call it an occupied territory, it can not by definition be part of Israel. Therefore, people who live there, and were never Israeli citizens in the first place, can not be offered or accept citizenship because they do not now and have never lived in Israel. They do not now, and never have, wanted Israeli citizenship. They are still waiting for the Arab promises of 1948 to be fulfilled.

Baruch Stein says:

"I will agree that the word "terrorist" can mean different things to different people. To Nicaraguan farmers, for instance, the contra "freedom fighters" were as brutal and indiscriminate as any suicide bomber from Hamas or Hezbollah."

American Observer replies:

You are just repeating a politically-correct fantasy, Baruch. The farmers of Nicaragua hailed the Contras as freedom fighters, and that is why the farmers of Nicaragua gave the Contras the food and shelter they needed to smash the Sandinistas the way the people of Poland and Romania smashed their own Communists.

Mr. melman's admonition "if you come to kill, kill, don't talk" sounds straightforward, but governments often are better off not being so predictable. It is the unpredictability of an adversary's decisions that makes life more difficult for one's enemies. Showing pragmatism and flexibility is hardly a weakness when dealing with complex decision-making in a democracy and the twists and turns of dealing with asymetrical threats. Why take cards off the table?

I will agree that the word "terrorist" can mean different things to different people. To Nicaraguan farmers, for instance, the contra "freedom fighters" were as brutal and indiscriminate as any suicide bomber from Hamas or Hezbollah.

That said, it appears in the interest of all established states to own a monopoly on the use of political force. Non-state political actors are either insurgents, criminals, dissidents, or foreign agents -- all of which, at different times, have been labeled "terrorists". And if we are to be serious that states are not going to negotiate with anyone other than other states, we must remain consistent in that.

I, personally, believe that such a separation is both artificial and unsustainable. Such an attitude, if as rigidly enforced as Mr. Melman suggests should, would have resulted in a British annihilation of both the American colonies and the State of Israel.

Just as Bush has ruined America the Arab has ruined the world. Just today in Pakistan scores of Pakistani's were blown to bits by Arab lunitics. But its Israel's fault! You Israel haters on these forums are disgusting! You deserve what hell is coming to you.

Wow! I was going to add a simple comment that I agree in principle with the notion of not negotiating with terrorists, or any criminal element, because it encourages those elements to repeat the act for which they successfully negotiated. I didn't expect to see this level of animosity here. I'm forced to admit that I believe most of it to be well founded. I don't however believe that a recognized state can be considered a terrorist group. That is not to say I am defending many of the policies of Israel. I simply feel that governments do not meet the definition of terrorists in the same way as groups like Al Qaeda do.

CRF: You seem to have forgotten about the Palestinians in the occupied territories. How many of them have been offered citizenship?

For those of you who consider those who fight against Israel as freedom fighters, I can sympathize, but I can’t support the indiscriminant killing of civilian populations. That includes both the use of military munitions on civilian population centers as well as suicide bombers.

The author is clearly biased in his support of Israel and its policies, but there is equal bias in the responses. There is plenty of blame to go around. The problem is, as long as everyone thinks they are the only ones that could possibly be right, there can never be anyone to be accountable

I wholeheartedly agree with Yossi Melman's view about dealing with terrorists.

There should be no law (amnesty) for the outlaw (terrorists). Daniel Pearl was decapitated most brutally, yet the "civilized" world (of secular, democratic governments) started to make a rationale of why such crimes happen. Even to the extent of treating his perpetrators with some degree of "political respect". Such actions only elevate the status of dastardly terrorism to that of political expediency.

Terrorist groups (most of which are Islamic in the recent days) acquire legitimacy. They continue to kill unarmed civilians, women and children, and the rest of the whole world (and the impotent United Nations) continue with their most idiotic dictums of political propriety.

Anyway, I agree with Yossi Melman. Shalom !

To Patrick
You are right. The line was if you come to shoot - shoot. Yet, The movie was starring Clint Eastwood, as I wrote.
As for the substance. I believe I am misunderstood. I use the line as an example to show that governments have double standards. They say one thing and do the opposite. I didn't say that I don't support talking tpo terrorists, if it is really necessary and will save human lives.

Most of you guys are idiots. (I'm talking about the ones that accuse Israel of being a terrorist state.) Just idiots who are not worthy of debate.

Terrorist = someone who attempts and succeeds at killing innocents where killing those innocents is their explicit goal.

If Israel wanted to kill innocent arabs they would be able to kill plenty. The reason they don't is that they choose not to. Picture those same weapons and intelligence in the hands of the arabs...how many Jews would be left standing?

Hypocrisy, diplomacy, nu?

Like other readers, I found this essay annoying. Why do Israelis constantly need to assert their own righteousness and victimhood? Sure there are a few hostile neighbors (not that anyone in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv has gone out of their way to placate them), but are Syria, Iran and Lebanon world powers? Israel by contrast has one of the best militaries in the world, highly developed heavy industry and tech, tons of aid dollars, and active allies throughout the industrialized world--including the U.S., primary trading partners of the only real potential threat (i.e. Saudi Arabia).

Anyway, who cares if diplomats are hypocritical? It's what they do. But from a purely practical perspective, I'd say Melman's government would do a lot better to quit knocking off Palestinian leaders, expropriating Palestinian-occupied land and the watersheds thereto, and generally speaking, acting like the East India Company circa 1845 than worrying about the patently phoney public stance of "no negotiating with people we call terrorists." Israelis don't have a God-given right to occupy the sovereign territory they now control. What the "international community" hath given, Yossi, the "international community" can and will take away, and when the fortunes of Israel's current patrons diminish to a certain point, he and his sense of righteousness are going to be up a creek. When that happens, don't come looking to me for sympathy, even though I'll probably give it.

First of all, when Britain gave up its rule of Palestine, it created two countries. Israel for the Jews and Jordan for the Palestinians. Those Palestinians living in Jordan pre 1948 became Jordanians. They did not permit those Palestinians who fled Israel to become Jordanians. They still don’t. No Arab country has permitted Palestinians to become citizens of their county.

Second, when Israel declared independence, they begged the Palestinians not to leave. At the time, the Palestinians were the merchant class of Israel, they were needed. But the Arab countries of the time told them to flee and that the Palestinians would be able to go home after Israel was wiped off the map. This has not and will not happen. As I said before, the Palestinians who fled to other Arab countries are still refuges, as are their children and grandchildren. But I don’t read complaints about the Palestinians forced to live in ghettos, excuse me, refugee camps, in Arab countries, only in Israel.

Next, those Palestinians who did not run in 1948, who stayed in Israel, are Israeli citizens. They have all the rights of any Israeli citizen, including the right to vote and the right to be elected to Parliament. Are things perfect for them? No. But, remember, those Palestinians who ran in 1948 are living in ghettos/refugee camps all over the Arab world. They have no rights, they have no citizenship in these countries. Why? Why aren’t they granted citizenship or even permitted to apply for it?

And why aren’t you complaining about it?

no wonder Isreal is hated this bad around the world.. when you have people like this writer advocating to kill. ethnocentric piece of ****

Yossi Melman is a terrorist

I think that Israel is the terrorist country and the Palestinian are just defending themselves from Israeli terrorists.

Mr. Melman.
Eli Wallach, not Clint Eastwood, uttered the line from "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly."
Wallach was playing Tuco, a self-concerned opportunist who fufills the role of 'The Ugly."

Also, the line did not say "kill."
The line is, "If you come to shoot, shoot - don't talk."

One - you got the quote wrong.
Two - you're using a terrible example.

It reminds me of all our Republican nominees debating presently about the scourge of global terrorism and comparing it to an episode of '24.'

God help us all.

I disagree with the most basic point here, that governments must do what they say they will- what good will that do, exactly? Few governments will sit by and let their citizens die on a timetable, so do you suggest governments put out the word that they are always open to bargaining? Surely this will open up a country to many many more attacks of the sort. But... that's probably not the point, is it?

Instead I suppose you suggest that governments do not bargain. This will result in dead hostages, but perhaps less attacks in the future. I feel unsure that most governments will watch their citizens be executed for a "perhaps" hope of later returns.

Let's not ignore the reasoning here. Governments say they won't bargain because if they DON'T say that, terrorists will take hostages constantly. That said, they sometimes do bargain (as quietly as possible) because there is no other option other than watching citizens die. Ir may be a bad option, and it may be hypocrisy, but the other options (bargaining openly or doing nothing) tend to be very bad- one in the long term, the other in the short term.

Right cut out the hypocrisy and terrorism is ended..

As in:

1. FREE THE PALESTINIANS INSTEAD OF KEEPING THEM IN BONDAGE AND GHETTOS AS WE JEWS WERE FORCED TO LIVE UNDER OPPRESSION PRECEEDING THE HOLOCOST!

2. EMPTY THE WEST BANK AND EAST JERUSALEM OF JEWS AND FORM A PALESTINIAN STATE AS REQUIRED BY THE UN RESOLUTIONS MAKING ISRAEL A STATE

3. STOP CLAIMING TO BE GODLY JEWS WHEN WE ARE KILLING INNOCENT PALESTINIAN CHILDREN

4. STOP CLAIMING TO BE THE LEADER IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM WHEN ISRAEL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEGITIMIZING THE ARAB CLAIM THAT JEWS ARE STREALING ARAB LANDS

5. STOP FOMENTING TERRORISM'S CLAIMS OF LEGITEMACY THAT ARE 100% BASED UPON THE TWISTED NOTION THAT JIHAD FOR LAND IS HOLY

YES, ISRAEL SHOULD STOP THE HYPOCRISY SO WE CAN STOP THE TERRORIST KILLERS BY REMOVING THEIR SUPPORT ON THE ARAB STREET, DENY THEM THEIR FUNDING BASE, AND MAKE PLAIN TO THE COMMON ARAB THAT THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN LYING KILLERS BASTARDIZING ISLAM FOR THEIR OWN POWER AND POLITICAL GAINS AND PERSONAL WEALTH.

the posting got shortened Yossi melman"s subjective definition based on israeli concerns} it is necessary that all alledged disagreements between the GOOD GUYS and the other GOOD GUYS {one the TERRORIST and the other the GOVEWRNMENT} be resolved with via discussion which resolves the issues with the least loss of life< limb and the ability to have a reasonable standard of life

Of course, Mr. Yossi Melman is careful not to even try to define the term: TERRORIST in any manner which would be acceptable to the arrogant Zionist Rulers of Israel and those oppressed by Israel, the palestinians.

So any NGO which deems the Government of Israel to be a terrorist organization [and there are quite a few and numerous citizens of Spaceship earth] should prevent ANY other political organizations from dealing with the "terrorist" be it with monetary or armament supplysupport?

Or perhaps Mr. Yossi Melman presumes that only governments have the right to define who is a TERRORIST, whether the population of said political entity agrees with the government or not?

Or perhaps Mr. Yossi Melman presumes that only his govenrment [with which he agrees] and those other governments which support his country have a right to define who is a terrorist?

Or perhaps Mr. Yossi Melman opposes that the terrorist be classified by the Laws of War, wherein the Palestinians are "legal fighters" against occupation [as are the Afghans and Iraqis]?

Were we to define the "terrorist" as member of ANY ORGANIZATION, be it legal entity such as USA, or a collection of people oppressed by any government contrary to the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and or contrary to the LAWS OF WAR, then the real difficulty in defining this term would be unsurmountable, FOR EXAMPLE:

Terrorists:

1., USA, UK, and all memmber states of the coalition of the willing regarding the WAR OF CHOICE, the "supreme evil" - re Nurnberg Judgement by the Chief Justice of the USA Supreme Court,

2., Ethiopia, invasion of Somalia, and the USA bankrolling the same.

3., Israel, re UN resolutions, etc

FREEDOM FIGHTERS: one and all opposing occupation of iraq

as there is no possible way of objectively defining the term terrorist which would be acceptable to all

sir, you seem quite at ease with the dispensing of human lives.

i contend that yours is exactly the inflexible morally superior fundamentality that is giving rise to terrorism all over the world.

you can stick your head in the sand, and want it all to go away- but that is only increasing the voicelessness and disempowerment of the people who feel they have to go to such extremes to get people with this mentality to even notice, let alone take responsibilty for their own contributions to world terrorism.

in psychology, there is a phenomenon that artists who have been imprisoned for crimes and deemed as sociopath personalities- those without moral compasses or consciences-
always draw their portraits of people without eyes- just black holes.

i do not think it is a stretch to make a corollary query to your own frightening countenance.

maybe you think you are strong for your admonition to kill kill-
but to others- this is perceived as the macho posturing and lack of compassion for the 'other' that is exactly what is wrong america's foreign policy, and especially israels intractable and non-negotiable belief that might makes right.

sir, you are truly a spectre of terror.

sir, you seem quite at ease with the dispensing of human lives.

i contend that yours is exactly the inflexible morally superior fundamentality that is giving rise to terrorism all over the world.

you can stick your head in the sand, and want it all to go away- but that is only increasing the voicelessness and disempowerment of the people who feel they have to go to such extremes to get people with this mentality to even notice, let alone take responsibilty for their own contributions to world terrorism.

in psychology, there is a phenomenon that artists who have been imprisoned for crimes and deemed as sociopath personalities- those without moral compasses or consciences-
always draw their portraits of people without eyes- just black holes.

i do not think it is a stretch to make a corollary query to your own frightening countenance.

maybe you think you are strong for your admonition to kill kill-
but to others- this is perceived as the macho posturing and lack of compassion for the 'other' that is exactly what is wrong america's foreign policy, and especially israels intractable and non-negotiable belief that might makes right.

sir, you are truly a spectre of terror.

sir, you seem quite at ease with the dispensing of human lives.

i contend that yours is exactly the inflexible morally superior fundamentality that is giving rise to terrorism all over the world.

you can stick your head in the sand, and want it all to go away- but that is only increasing the voicelessness and disempowerment of the people who feel they have to go to such extremes to get people with this mentality to even notice, let alone take responsibilty for their own contributions to world terrorism.

in psychology, there is a phenomenon that artists who have been imprisoned for crimes and deemd as sociopath personalities- those without moral compasses or consciences-
always draw their portraits of people without eyes- just black holes.

i do not think it is a stretch to make a corollary query to your own frightening countenance.

maybe you think you are strong for your admonition to kill kill-
but to others- this is perceived as the macho posturing and lack of compassion for the 'other' that is exactly what is wrong america's foreign policy, and especially israels intractable and non-negotiable belief that might makes right.

sir, you are truly a frightening spectre.