tribal

im relentlessly waiting for a time, when a member of Hamas, IJ or even arafat's own tanzim will stand up and say "Bombing women and children in cold blood is immoral. Shooting babies in the face is immoral. Raising your children with bomb belts and nazi stereotypes is immoral. Hijacking planes, buses and schools is immoral. " i have an eternity to wait, because if any reasonable and sane person in the Palestinian society were to say that, they would be killed.

it was an absurd and preposterous case to begin with. it was filled with vicious slander and monstrous double standards of any nation. if sharon can go on trial for indirectly being responsible for Sabra/Shatila massacres by a christian phalangist group, then why is arafat not on trial for being directly responsible for killings of Israeli olympic athletes, numerous hijackings and uncountable suicide bombers, for whose detonation belts he paid out of the PA bank accounts, all proven as a fact. if thats not hypocrisy, arrogance, and anti-semitism, i dont know what is. belgium should stick to making waffles and beer.

How could Egypt and Jordan have friendly relations with Israel if they do not recognize it as a country? think about what youve just said. youve answered your own question. If you really believe its the problem of the other countries not recognizing Israel's right to exist, and these nations are using the Palestinian cause as an excuse; then how easy would it be to expose them for what they are. Give the Palestinians a state, withdraw and if the attacks persist, then the world would know Israel was in the right. That would seem the sensible course of action, instead of this bullshit shot for shot fighting, and inciting hate in the minds of normal Palestinians. You would never believe that Israel is at fault, even partly, would you? Israel has been doing this and trying to implement a lasting peace for the past 5-10 years, first with Oslo and then with Abu Ala, yet the breakpoint has always came from the Palestinian side. IDF withdrew from the majority of PA cities under the cease fire, curbed settlement expansions and unfroze PA financial assets to alleviate the Palestinian financial disaster. Instead of waging war against islamo-fascist terror scum like Hamas, Abu Ala chose to 'talk' with them, and 'persuade' them to stop blowing up women and children. evidently his persuasion wasnt very effective, as 17 victims of Hamas terror can now prove. then came the Jerusalem bombing, inhuman in the worst aspects of all that is evil http://www.up-in-flames.com/pages/terror.html ive been to israel, PA areas and jordan and ive seen the situation. yes, its not a black and white matter, there are people on both sides that suffer, and people bleed the same color no matter what the race or religion, but you have to understand the elements that are driving this conflict, and the point im trying to tell you is that anti-semitism and islamic-fundamentalist racism did not begin after 1967 six day war. it began before Israel was even established PS: You're telling me there were NO instances of Jewish terrorism against the Arabs pre-1940's? perhaps there was violence by fringe elements, and if you name me some i would be interested to know. you are comparing grapes to watermelons when discussing Arab and Israel in terms of terrorism. Israel has never had any mainstream and majority-supported group that advocates purposeful killing of civilians, Palestinians do, and thats a fact. Last week a group of extremist settlers were arrested and sentenced to harsh prison terms for wanting to blow up arab school girls. Israel has law and justice. Since this bloody antifada began, not one, not one member of Hamas, IJ or Tanzim has been arrested nor tried by PA justice system. Terrorism flows freely in the territories.

At this point its hard to say who started the fighting, as there are many instances of Jewish terrorism against the Arabs in the early days. this is utter non sense. it is completely obvious to me that you dont know your history nor do you understand the situation on the ground. take a flight to israel and visit the land because you are talking utter non sense. do you want to know why peace in mid east isnt dependent on Israel? i will tell you why. Israel does not exist in the minds of most of the arab countries. if you go to any arab country, except for perhaps Morocco, you will not see Israel on a world map. Israel is not excepted as a nation because they are Jewish. this racist view did not begin post 1967, but post 1948. on any arab map, you will not see Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, you will only see Palestine, overlapping any boundaries that are currently part of the Jewish state. Peace will never happen until the arabs realize that Israel isnt some temporary stage of existence, but that Israel is a real country, with a real tradition, real people and real hopes and dreams. the vast, vast majority of israelis would kick all the settlers out of the territories tomorrow if only they would be assured of future security, end of cold blooded terrorism and end to the nazi-like encitement of palestinian children. but that hope does not exist because people like arafat are in power.

Isn't Zionism taught in schools in Israel? And does Zionism not state that all that land rightfully belongs to Jews? Thus, in essence, that implies that a Palestinian state cannot exist. you are yet another victim of european/arab media slant. unfortunately you, like many other people do not have the slightest clue as to what Zionism actually stands for. Ill give you a brief definition and heres a good site that explains just what is Zionism. www.wzo.org.il Zionism isnt taught in Israeli schools, its not something that can be taught, because Zionism is an idea and a way of thinking, rather than a structured ideology like communism. Israel today is very much un-Zionist and very American-like, unfortunately. The early Zionist pioneers in Judea and later Israel believed in working the land through a both modern and religious conviction, and a centuries-old belief in the return from the Exile. Zionism is not a form of racism as some arab states have propagaded, but is a belief in self-sufficiency, sacrfice and personal spiritual growth. the link has more and better explanations. PS - just to remind you, arab terrorism did not start after the jewish settlements, it started in mid 1890's, with the massacre of 29 jewish citizens of Trans Jordan. since then, there has been thousands of documented attacks on jews in the area, even before the inception of Israel. the belief that there was complete harmony between the arabs and jews prior to Israel is a myth.

sudan..kosovo..kabul..belgrade.....clinton sure did a lot of "wishing please elaborate on that. the case with sudan was nothing more than a pathetic cruise missile strike on a Khartoum medical factory, which produced aspirin. Kosovo was an entirely air-borne offensive, involving no ground troops. Kabul? not sure what you mean there, except perhaps for some discreet special forces assignments. Belgrade? same as Kosovo, we bombed civilian infrastructure. Clinton was no Douglas McArthur.

this article is nothing more than a lump of arid shite, wrapped in the intellectual gown of 'neo-conservatism' and morally self-righteous ambiguouty. the level of ignorance and stereotypical display presented by the author disgusts me.

fuck that, who remembers Carbon? remember that one? sheeit... the Hacienda must be rebuilt

but more and more Arab countries are seeing the right of Israel to exist when has that happened? the only country that has any real form of peace with Israel is Jordan. if you plan to travel in the mid east but have an Israeli stamp in your passport, you are banned from travelling because you have visited the 'Zionist entity'. the amount of racism in the Arab world is astounding.

#1, the new israeli law did not materialize out of thin air. there is a solid and fundamental reason for this law, the fact that palestinians who married israelis participated in a number of suicide attacks within israel proper. furthermore, due to the difficult financial situation facing israel, the status quo on this kind of marriage was no longer acceptable, without legitimate taxation on both parties. #2 i'm not quite sure what to believe about these sites. they are weird, but interesting... i find it disgusting that you would post this racist rubbish. my grandmother's entire family was wiped out by nazis. you may as well start posting 'interesting' articles on the Elders of Zion, or how jews eat christian babies. how sad and pathetic.

Dude, I try to read your posts but they are so waaay off base its not funny. I'm sorry, but your views are anything but unbiased. Are you telling me that the IDF has done absolutely NO wrong to the Palestinians...that there have NOT been any incidents of brutality, or excessive force, or racism amongst its soldiers. If your answer to this is "NO, They haven't", then please don't bother answering my post. Regarding your site" Department of World Zionism"...yeah a very unbiased site, right! i dont know how old you are, but assuming you are over 18, you should know that nothing in this life is black and white. neither is the case with this conflict. remind me where i state 'israel=good, palestinians=bad'. i have assumed (however wrongly) that people here would understand that this conflict is very complicated and never one-sided, and both viewpoints exist. this board is very juvenile in terms of name calling, false accusations and other such rueful talk. please refrain from these commiseries. the case with jenin battle is simply not the case that was posted. a D-9 bulldozer did not go on a rampage with a drunk operator. this story is a blatant fabrication, which unfortunately has been taken as a token of truth. ive been to the area and talked to the soldiers who have participated in Defensive Shield. the Jenin case was simply not what was presented to you. before you believe a story, research the facts and the sources. otherwise you are digesting gossip and rumours.

little wonder they are hostile. look at how israel was created in the first place. zionisim is a hostile movement. the problem with people is that they assume zionism promotes judaism and provides a reason for jews to return to their homeland. -sassa another dim light of brilliance. wtf do you know about zionism to talk this complete and irrelevant non sense? people, i beg of you, if you do not know the subject, please do not state your opinions as facts. for those of you who want to know what Zionism means, and what it is about, heres a good source. http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/expand_subject.asp?id=28

here is part of it: For 3 days, I just destroyed and destroyed. The whole area. Any house that they fired from came down. And to knock it down, i tore down some more. They were warned by loud speaker to get out of the house before i come, but i gave no one a chance. i didn't wait. i didn't give one blow, and wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible. I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible...Others restrained themselves, or so they say. Who are they kidding?...I didn't give a damn about the Palenstinians, but i didn't just ruin without reason. It was all under orders. -posted by djxeno i dont post here much but this idiocy that youve presented as proof of IDF's brutality is astonishing. i guess if you believe this worthless and fabricated drivel, you can believe that santa clause gets drunk and flies reindeer on chistmas eve. let me deconstruct your little story. first of all, the IDF bulldozers operating in Jenin during the fight against hamas gunmen, are the Caterpillar D9 type, a machinery that simply cannot be operated by someone who is intoxicated, due to the amount of control and steering devices. secondly, the area that was demolished in Jenin is equal to one small city block, in a large-city area, not half of Jenin as arab media claims third, the area that was demolished, was done only due to actions of palestinian gunmen and terrorists, who shamelessly hid themselves among the innocent civilian palestinian population. the area that was demolished contained alleyways filled with explosives and death traps planted by hamas gunmen, the area was as dangerous to the IDF as it was to palestinians fourth, this disgusting myth of the so-called Jenin massacre, defiles and lessens the word 'massacre' itself, because there simply was no massacre. consider the UN-backed statistics of the battle; 29 IDF soldiers killed (all in the alley that was later bulldozed) and 51 palestinian gunmen killed. GUNMEN not civilians. let me tell you what is a massacre however. a bomber walking into a restaurant and murdering 43 elderly people having a passover dinner. a gunman walking into a preschool and spraying away at kids. a suicide bomber walking into a disco, and killing 21 teenagers who were there simply to dance. that, that is a massacre. get your shit straight and know the facts.

the problem with most news sources, especially the virulently anti-semitic european and arab press, is that they report casualties by both sides, in the same manner they will for example say: Hamas bomber killed himself along with 15 israelis, while detonating a bomb on a bus. this is an example of 9/11-style terrorism, a specific intent on killing civilians then they will report this: 10 palestinians were killed today when IDF went into Hebron to capture terrorist leader it sounds like IDF went up to 10 random people and shot them, but nothing is further from the truth. the media almost never mentions that unlike the innocent Israeli civilians, those 10 palestinians were most likely gunmen, who engaged IDF and were shot. the perception that you get is that both IDF and palestinian terror groups operate in the same manner. the Israeli army is one of the most humane, disciplined and advanced armies in the world.

just wondering if anyone went on that Bring It On trip. how was it? my friends are broke and lame and no one wants to hit the white island this year, so im thinking of booking with them, do a group kinda thing. any thoughts?

our boys getting the job done. hussein will soon be a nothing but a footnote in history

i would question these reports. ive never heard of al gore interviewing North, or North spending 60k for a sec system for that matter M.Atta was either egyptian or saudi, pretty sure he wasnt palestinian. never heard of him being in israeli custody before he commited 9/11

ahh yes, more bush=hitler cartoons. priceless, so on target too

yawn. this horse has been dead for 2 years, and its still being beaten. someone call the ASPCA

listen to these people. they know a difference between hysteria and reason NYTIMES Intellectual Left's Doves Take on Role of Hawks By KATE ZERNIKE BOSTON, March 13 — Their friends are horrified. Even they are surprised at themselves. But as the nation stands on the brink of war, reluctant hawks are declining to join their usual soulmates in marching against war. Across the river in Cambridge, often considered a bastion of liberalism, supporters of military intervention in Iraq include the dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government — putting him at odds with many colleagues. At the University of California at Berkeley, Cambridge's West Coast twin, the dean of the graduate school of public policy also counts himself in the pro-war camp. In Washington, former Clinton administration officials who opposed the first Persian Gulf war are now making arguments for another one. And Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel peace laureate, emerged from a meeting with President Bush last month and declared that while he is "not a man of war," he supports it as a way to stop Saddam Hussein. It is not that the war is a litmus-test issue. Many of the Democratic presidential contenders voted for the Congressional resolution last year authorizing the president to use force against Iraq. But Democrats are more divided than Republicans over the war, polls show, which has led to a sometimes uncomfortable split in the ranks of the left in particular. Those who have decided to shun the antiwar movement do not claim their positions without reservation — particularly as the Bush administration remains at stark odds with its traditional European allies. Some among them say they would prefer more diplomacy, more support from other nations, more time. And their reasons for supporting military intervention vary: concerns about weapons of mass destruction that might be used against this country, or against Israel, a rethinking of America's role after Sept. 11 or a general belief that intervention is the humanitarian response that will improve the lives of the Iraqi people. But they unite in a belief that Mr. Hussein must be removed from power. If they will not call themselves hawks, they express impatience with what they see as a lack of nuance among the antiwar protesters. "It's something of a scandal in my eyes that hundreds of thousands of people are not marching in support of the oppressed Iraqis," said Paul Berman, a New York writer and cultural critic, whose forthcoming book, "Terror and Liberalism," advocates aggressive intervention to promote democratic ideals. No one should be surprised, said Mr. Berman — also the author of "A Tale of Two Utopias: The Political Journey of the Generation of 1968" (W.W. Norton and Company, 1997) — to see some of the same people who opposed the Vietnam War in their youth now supporting a war in Iraq. In both cases, he argues, the impulse was humanitarian. Michael Ignatieff, the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, agreed, and pointed to the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. "Liberals are always accused of equivocating and splitting differences, but this guy really is awful," Mr. Ignatieff said of Mr. Hussein, explaining why he has joined the ranks of the reluctant hawks. "But I'll tell you, it's extremely unpopular among my friends." Bosnia, too, reshaped their thinking. "Being antiwar and antiuse of force was a kind of defining signature of being a liberal, but that was 30 years ago," Mr. Ignatieff said. "In the 90's, being a liberal meant being in favor of military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. Human rights has come into this and complicated the picture considerably." Another pocket of somewhat hesitant backers of military might can be found among former Clinton administration officials who say they have become increasingly concerned about weapons of mass destruction. "The rogue states are doubly dangerous, because they not only have these weapons themselves and could use them on their neighbors, but they could at any time hand them off to others who could use them," said Michael Nacht, an assistant director at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Clinton administration and now dean of the Goldman School of Public Affairs at Berkeley. "I don't think it's hyped. I don't think it is purely for political reasons. I think it is real." Kenneth Pollack, another former Clinton administration official, laid out his case for war in his book "The Threatening Storm," published last fall by Random House. "The choice we have before us is we either go to war now or we will never go to war with Saddam until he chooses to use a nuclear weapon and he chooses the time and place," Mr. Pollack said in an interview this week. "The question for me is not war or no war. It's a question of war now, when the costs may be significant, or war later when they may be unimaginable." Mr. Pollack said his conversion began in the late 1990's, when he and other administration officials began to believe that containment was not working in Iraq. They decided that the only way to stop Iraq's development of weapons was to get rid of Mr. Hussein and that the only way to get rid of him was through war. Now, Mr. Pollack said, "Any number of my colleagues and former bosses are where I am." Joseph Nye, the dean of the Kennedy School, has written extensively about the importance of the "soft power" of a nation's cultural and diplomatic influence, as opposed to the hard power of military might. Opponents of war in Iraq have used that concept to argue their case. But Mr. Nye, who supported the first Persian Gulf war, says he has come to believe that alternatives to military action have failed. "Hard power can complement soft power," he said. "The people who say that any war at all is bad for our soft power are placing the trade-off in a different place than I am. When weapons of mass destruction are an issue, I think you can make an issue for war." Others who are not joining the ranks of protesters say they base their reluctant support for Mr. Bush at least in part on their concerns about Israel. "Israel was not in the gulf war, but all of a sudden he began dropping Scud missiles on it," said Mr. Wiesel, who is also a professor at Boston University. In an opinion piece in The Los Angeles Times this week, Mr. Wiesel wrote that he would ordinarily choose to march against war, but that in this case he cannot bring himself to do so. "If those who march were to say, `Down with Saddam, no to war,' that would be another thing," he explained in an interview this week. "But to forget who Saddam is, what he has done — he should have been stopped ages ago." Still, Mr. Wiesel would not go so far as to call himself a supporter of war. Among the reluctant hawks, ambivalence takes many forms. Those primarily concerned with human rights struggle to weigh which cost is higher: the lives inevitably lost in a war, or the lives of the Iraqis they say Mr. Hussein kills each year. Mr. Berman criticizes President Bush for failing to appeal to liberals in the Arab and Muslim world who could help establish a new government in Iraq as a model for democracy in the Middle East and for failing to emphasize the human rights concerns used to support military intervention in the Balkans. Mr. Nye argues that the United States could have gone to war before offering the current United Nations resolution, based on Mr. Hussein's failure to satisfy earlier resolutions. But now that the United Nations is wrangling over a new resolution, Mr. Nye, like others, argues for more time to build a broader coalition. And Mr. Pollack, whose book has become something of a guide for those supporting war, argues that those who use him to bolster the Bush administration's case have focused too much on its subtitle, "The Case for Invading Iraq," and not enough on the conditions it sets for intervention, a weakened Qaeda, a broad coalition, putting Mideast peace negotiations on track. Michael Walzer, at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the author of "Just and Unjust Wars," argues for a smaller-scale use of military force than the Bush administration plans, short of all-out war. His doubts are such that he says, "If I had to plunk, I'd plunk against war." Still, he says he is too uncertain to join the marchers against the war. "It's because Saddam is really a fascist regime," Mr. Walzer said. "I think there are a lot of people in my position who want to do something about that. And they wish the marchers were marching for that, as well."

France, which speaks with the strongest, most logical voice of those opposing war this is a joke. france said it would veto military action, no matter what happens. that is logical? so if tomorrow the inspectors found a nuclear warhead on a scud aimed at israel, france would say no to replacing husseins regime. fuck the lame filthy backbone-less frogs that they are.

SF Tunnel, interesting articles. heres something i think you all would be interested in, an article from Haaretz, a respected left-of-center Israeli newspaper, not some opinion-based rightist newsmag --------------- Iraqi aid to terrorists' families continues By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent Even the continuing U.S. pressure on Iraq is not stopping Saddam Hussein from sending financial aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in the territories. It appears now that the massive Iraqi support has started to arouse the concern of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, who fears that outside assistance reduces his influence on what happens in the territories. After a long hiatus, Arafat has renewed sending checks to the families of dead and injured terrorists (though he has not transferred monies to the families of suicide bombers). Israeli security sources told Haaretz that at the end of January, representatives of the Arab Liberation Front, the Palestinian organization supported by Iraq, distributed financial aid to the families of 52 people killed in the refugee camps in central Gaza. The Iraqis, the sources said, adhered to a tariff set by Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the current intifada, with a suicide attack proving more "profitable" to the family of the perpetrator than a "martyr" operation in which the terrorist is killed by Israel Defense Forces fire, but does not blow himself up with an explosive belt. The suicide bomber's family receives $25,000, while the family of a martyr receives "only" $10,000. Because of the difficulty in sending suicide bombers into Israel, the number of families receiving the "bonus" for these missions is relatively small. As on previous occasions, the ceremony in January at which the funds were distributed was attended by official representatives of the Palestinian Authority. They expressed no reservations about the praise heaped on suicide bombers by the emissaries from Iraq. Defense sources report that Arafat recently did express qualms about the Iraqi support, as well as the aid coming from other countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Islamic charity organizations. "Arafat is not overly-enthusiastic about the brazen outside involvement in Palestinian affairs", a defense source claimed. "It weakens his status. Now he has to try to regain some of the public support through renewing the process of transferring money." Last month, Arafat started to redistribute aid to the families of injured Palestinians. Following the IDF operation in Zeitoun in Gaza about a month ago, the PA leader transferred payments to the tune of $300,000 to families whose homes and property had been destroyed, as well as to families that had suffered injuries or fatalities. The money was distributed at official ceremonies organized by the PA and sent to families by governors on behalf of the authority in Khan Yunis, Gaza and the refugee camps in the center of the Strip. The money was also paid to families of killed Hamas activists. There has been a decline recently in the influence and scope of the contributions to the Holy Land Fund from the prominent Islamic charity organizations that transfer donations to the territories. It appears that the decline is connected to steps taken by the U.S. administration, which recently outlawed the fund. ---------------- for the bolded paragraph alone, i would support killing or ousting hussein. we made a promise to our victims post 9/11 that we would hunt down terrorists, and their providers and anyone who harbors them. if we want the world to be business as usual, keep terrorism as a norm, then we should follow France and the rest of the already defeated countries like Germany and Belgium. if we want a new world without animals like hussein paying 'bonuses' for shattered innocent lives, we must confront our enemies. this talk of monetary distribution for terrorism disgusts me, and the EU and our very own State Dept, keeps stuffing money to murder #1, Arafat's pockets so he can distribute payments to the families of murderers. draw your own conclusions to any form of 'moral equivalence'

doublethink takes a much more subtle approach - it is here that you find it possible to believe two entirely contradictory facts at once see i would disagree with you there, because your example isnt a genuine meaning of Orwell's doublethink. your example isnt doublethink, its a ground reality based on military assessment alongside the assymetrical aspect of WMD warfare. the situation may look like doublethink, but its not fundamentally. iraqs army is indeed weak and will be easy to rout, but the attention to saddam's WMD threat level is so high, is based on his previous uses of forbidden weapons and his relentless drive over the past 10 years to obtain nuclear fissile material. the doublethink that you mention would be something along the lines of: US calling Pakistan a terror state, while at the same time promoting Pakistan's help in US's war against terror. doublethink exists only because of the nature of the game. not that i dont think bush is slow, he is offcourse, but the dumb jokes are getting stale, and unimaginative by now

Like Iraq, Israel violates many UN mandates, the main one stating that a conquering nation shall not alter the landscape of its conquered lands. Deprive a people of its pride, humanity, indentity, hopes and dreams; add to that a policy that isolates your people, friends, and families into three separated population islands with demeaning checkpoints ------------- this argument can be used by any side. the fact is that palestinians were offered numerous concessions and compromises throughout the last 15 years. many of you have no idea what you are talking about, because you havent been there, or lived there. bassboy, i understand that you feel sympathetic to the palst. cause, but you have to understand that its not as black and white as the State Dept shows you. state dept. has historically been the most anti israeli institution in the US govt. go visit Haifa, a beautiful city in Israel. in Haifa, jews, christians, israeli arabs and many others exist in harmony, and it has a vibrant economy. israeli arabs can vote and have representatives in the Knesset, and many israeli arabs are extremely wealthy due to Israel's capitalistic and socio-economic policies. the ONLY reason israel is in Gaza right now, is to hunt down HAMAS. did the state dept. tell you about this lil jolly group? before the latest incursion, hamas fired missiles daily, into south israel and into civilian population centers. bassboy, i want you to imagine, that everyday, your family, your mom, pop,etc, are riding in a bus to work, or stopping for some coffee in a cafe, or having a lunch at a restaurant. and every day you have to think these thoughts ,that maybe, just maybe some of your family members or even you, wont make it home in one piece. 2 days ago, 15 college kids were torn apart by arafat's 'freedom fighters'. dont tell me how israel should act and whether its actions are moral or immoral. you dont live there, you have no idea what its like. the next time your friends get blown up by some fanatic bomb belt cocksucker, see how you feel about the palestinians. israel has been battling with terrorism since its birth. you should all visit and see for yourself what a beautiful country it is, countrary to the vile propaganda coming from france and arab nations.

just so you kids know, 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron. i wouldnt put too much faith in this report. and on that note, anyone want to start a wager on when exactly the war will start? i got $5 on March. the ides of march has a nice ring to it. i hope bush launches it soon already, the deployment is costing us quiet a penny, each day our forces are there.