The Barbarian Khazars bomb Syria

As I said, a blazing chariot from heaven would be more likely.

The thing is this, if Israel want's to be bogged down in an infinite, perpetual war, it should do so on it's own. The United States should not allow itself to be dragged down as a result of it's support for such activity.

 

Exactly, your "bright idea" was for the US to change its "aggressive", "occupational" foreign policy. First you failed to substantiate it and come up with an example of US aggression or occupation prior to 9/11, second you blamed the US for muslim terrorism, third your post clearly implied that legal and legitimate (if not always popular) US foreign policy must change according to the wishes of extremists and terrorists of all stripes or otherwise [justified in your view] terrorism will continue.

Same with regards to Israel, you blamed muslim terrorism on Israel's aggression and occupation but failed to explain the daily terror attacks against Israeli civilians prior to 1967 and you failed to explain why every Israel's unilateral withdrawal always leads to escalation of Islamic terror.

 

First of all, the context was not restricted to US aggression. It was US AND Israeli aggression. That said, let me remind you what exactly was said

To which I replied

Then I listed some examples

1. Stop occupying Muslim lands

As for as this is concerned, Israel is occupying Palestinian land. They kicked hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and usurped their land. Under the pretext of occupation, they are currently ILLEGALLY usurping Palestinian land. Furthermore, although it was not an strictly an occupation, the US had US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

2. Stop kicking hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes.

3. Stop cutting of the power supply to over one million people

These are some of the things that make people want to be terrorists.

You forgot about the second item. Duh??? Like I said, you appear to be suffering from Alzheimer's.

 

The Pal conflict is more compliacted than you are willing/able to understand but seriously I dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if you will or wont, however, YOU are only one that keeps mentioning the US - not me, seems to me you have issues with your own state, since you live in a democracy I suggest you keep that for the elections, my powers are limited.

 

I don't dispute that it's complicated. A forum such as this is not intended to give an exhaustive treatment of the subject. We can however, discuss various items, to as much detail as necessary to get SOME insight as to why there is a problem, and what might be some possible solutions.

You have posted here in this forum. I am merely responding. That is part of the process of free speech.

 

And as I explained several times earlier in this thread, none of your excuses of anti-Western Islamic terror is valid, facts that Islamic terrorism exists and existed prior to any occupation or perceived aggression and that Islamic terror intensifies and escalates in response to withdrawals from occupied territories conclusively debunks your point of view.

 

been here 3 years, hoped to talk with a real Iranian or Palestinains that actually lives in WB or Gaza but all I found are haters with nothing to contribute, so im just having fun now.

 

You are way off center on this. Going down the line:
1. Saddam invaded Kuwait after they offered to pay him $9B. That's over 90% what he asked for from the Arab Coalition. We knew he was a baddie because of what he did to the Kurds, what he did to Kuwait, and what he was definitely going to do next to Saudi Arabia and Israel. While I have no love for Saudi Arabia and would dance a jig if they got nuked one afternoon, I understand that USA needs foreign oil to survive. Many Americans would have died if gasoline went to $10 a gallon. People would have lost jobs, been unable to buy food or medical care, etc. A lot of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, as I am sure you know. Saddam also hated Israel, as evidenced by him shooting missiles into Israel just because he was pissed at USA, the UN Coalition, and Saudi Arabia. You can't mess with our allies and walk away. That's now how my fellow Americans roll.
2. OBL killed thousands and thousands of Americans, including women and children. He had to die. Who cares if he was a diaperhead that was pissed that we give money to Israel. A Saudi diaperhead cowering in a damp cave does not get to tell a country of 350 million people who their allies are allowed to be. Screw him and his ilk. When they start bombing my state of New York from their diaperhead caves in Afghanistan and Afghanistan; it's time for them to die. Period. And I could care less if we have high tech weapons and they only have rocks and arrows. Kill them all and let god sort them out.
3. Realism: We will continue to support our allies, continue to take down bad guys we don't like that are a threat to American lives, American interests, or the interests of our allies like Israel, Canada and England. That's realism. We have our friends' backs. Your vision about group hugs and ignoring the 99% of the planet that we don't own - that's not realism buddy. That's fantasy. Not a single politician, not a single military leader, not a single political party in power - not one of them are going to change our policies with regard to this point #3. Not today, not tomorrow, not 100 years from now. We don't back away from baddies. We didn't with Hitler, Mussolini, or Hideki Tojo in WW 2. We didn't walk away from baddies like Kim Il-sung, Stalin, and Zedong in the Korean War. We didn't bow down to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. I'm telling you - it's not how we roll. We stand up to thugs and we mess their crap all up every which way from Sunday.
4. Just so you and I can say we are on topic (the above items may be a tad off the main topic here), I want to say that we have Israel's back and we definitely do not want Syria to have nukes, have chemical weapons, have biological weapons, or have the delivery systems to reach our aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea or the Red Sea. So while we have not destroyed them yet, they are on our radar and their day will come soon enough. And while I am sure you are upset that our people died in wars, I am too. And unlike many others on this board, I was actually in the first war against Iraq and my son is in Afghanistan as a US Marine infantryman. So I have more skin in the game than many. I knew I could die when I joined the Air Force in 1979, and knew I could every time I re-upped. And while now I am old and smelly and only fly one weekend a month doing inland search and rescue; I have no problem going over to some muslim country to protect our American interests again. I support my CinC 100% at all times.

 

I'm pretty sure the pally squatters in West Bank and Gaza live in tents and huts and the last thing they are thinking about is buying a Macbook Pro and a 4G hotspot so they can talk with us. I think they worry more about where to find some TNT to strap to their 6 year old daughters' chest, or where a clearing of 100 feet exists to launch their home-made shoulder rocket into Israel.

 

It's simpler than folks make it to be. My brethen in Israel have been attacked and ejected from Israel a few dozen times in the past 3,000 years. My people are finally home for good. We now have the weapons, the money, and the technology to stop any would-be invader from ever kicking us out of our land again.

While it is true that I choose to live in USA and my brother chooses to live in Israel, I support him and his fellow countrymen with all my heart. I would die protecting Israel, my brother, his wife, and my two nieces just as I am willing to die protecting America. I only wish I had Bill Gates' money so I could send $10 billion a year in weapons technology to Israel to protect her from the mentally ill muslims that own the other 97% of the Middle East.

 

No. Muslims were occupying land that Jews have owned since the time of King David. Now finally the land is back in the hands of the rightful owners. It's kind of like if we gave USA back to the Indians. It would make a lot of White people sad, but they were here first. Hebrews were there first. 1,300 years before mohammed made his phony religion so he could marry and rape six year old girls like Aisha. He apparently liked them really young.......

 

That's a fairly decent response, so let's deal with that.

Although your response astutely demonstrates that Western/Israeli aggression may not be the SOLE cause of modern Islamic terrorism, it is flawed in that ignores that such aggression is a major factor in the provocation of such terrorism. To see how this is so, let's assume that there was absolutely no Islamic terrorism prior to the Nakba. Let's further assume that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes in 1948 as part of the establishment of the new state of Israel. When we ask ourselves the question of whether such an event would, in spite of there being no prior Islamic terrorism, create the intense malice and anger that forms the fertile ground that is the genesis of terrorist activity, the answer is an resounding yes. Therefore, Western/Israeli aggression must be viewed as a major factor that contributes to the creation and increase in Islamic terrorism.

Having established this point, let us now consider some examples of Western/Israeli aggression that have occurred in the Middle East, prior to 9/11

1. The forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes in 1948
2. The United States overthrows the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, and installs the Shah of Iran. This sets the stage for the Iranian Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.
3. In 1954 Israel hijacks a civilian Syrian plane
4. In 1956 Israel shoots down an unarmed civilian plane killing 16 people, including 4 journalists.
5. in 1956 Israel kills Mustafa Hafez with a letter bomb
6. In 1973 Israel downs a Libyan civilian airliner killing 110 people
7. In 1984 two Iranian jets are shot down over the Persian Gulf
8. In 1985 Israel engages in Iron Fist in Lebanon
9. In 1985 the CIA arranges a car bombing in Beirut that killed 80 people, reportedly burning babies in their beds.
10. In 1991 the US stations troops in Saudi Arabia
11. In 1992 the US leads an occupation of Somalia. In the summer of 1993 an estimated 6000 - 10000 Somalis are killed, two thirds of them, women and children.

Of course this is not an exhaustive list, I have merely tried to give some examples.

- - - Updated - - -

It's good you are having fun. Please carry on.

 

I am sorry but your premise is totally flawed. I might be extremely p&ssed at Iran but it does not even occur to me to go blow up a Persian restaurant or murder Iranian women and children, I may be very unhappy with the government of Russia but I don't kill Russian civilians... I can tell that you are mad at Israel and the US but you am sure are not considering blowing up malls in New York or Tel Aviv.

I can continue forever but the point is quite obvious - there is no excuse or justification to terrorism, lots of people and lots of peoples all over the world are mad at other countries, governments, policies, everyone on the planet has grievances, legitimate or perceived....Muslims are not unique in this respect by any stretch of imagination but they are quite unique in their reaction to what they dislike - massacres, terror, mayhem, genocides (in no particular order)...

And at any rate, just because the Muslim street is enraged at the west does not mean the West has done something wrong, nor does it prove that the West should change their policies to placate the arab street. In fact that would be a recipe for more terror, you give in to the demands of terrorists once and you guarantee rivers of innocent blood in the future cause they will just move the goalposts and come up with new demands, they will not change their terror tactic if you prove to them that it works.

 

In order to sidestep the issue of causality, what you have done here is to distort my position into a justification and excuse for terrorism. It is not that. I am merely putting forward the notion that Western/Israeli aggression is a major contributing factor to the cause of modern Islamic terrorism. What you have put forward in your response does not refute that. All you have done is state that there is no excuse or justification for terrorism. To understand this, consider a simple example. I can say that the boy stole his father's wallet because he wanted to get money to go to the movie. That is quite different that saying that the boy should be excused for stealing his father's wallet because we wanted to go to the movie. Or that the boy was justified in stealing his father's wallet because he wanted to go to the movie. Your response is therefore flawed.

This is just flat out wrong. To see this, one only need to look to Ireland and and IRA. Furthermore, regarding massacres, Israel has engaged in all kinds of massacres. For example

1. The Deir Yassin massacre in 1948
2. The El-Bureig massacre in 1953
3. The Qibya massacre in 1953
4. The IDF was complicit in the Sabra and Shatila massacres of 1982

As far as genocide David Ben Gurion could write a book.

The notion that terrorism is strictly a Muslim phenomenon is rubbish.

 

As I said everyone has grievances, legitimate or perceived. The Israelis can come up with a list of grievances 100 times bigger than yours, so can others, including Americans. 9/11 alone was huge thing. Yet Muslims are the only ones on the planet who resort to deliberate premeditated mass murder of innocent men, women and children. For the life of me I don't understand why you give them a pass. In all honesty its a bigotry of low expectations on your part, a form of racism, you keep them to a lower standard that the rest of humanity, to you they are savages and thus their reaction to events that displease them is justified in your mind.

PS your reference to Sabra and Shatila is quite indicative of your mentality. Arabs slaughtered Arabs and you don't even bother to mention that, you blame it on Jews. I guess the Arabs are savages in your eyes to keep them to normal human standard, aren't they?

 

Your assertion that Muslims are the only persons that resort to deliberate acts to harm the innocent is wrong. I have given the example of the IRA to demonstrate how this is wrong. Not only that, but Israel itself has done the same. It may not be pleasant for you to hear that, but that's the truth.

What is happening here is that we identify ourselves as so many different things. For me, I'm thinking that I am a black male that was brought up in the southern part of the United States. That carries so many conceptions. Some of them have been imposed on me due to my experiences with the environment. Some of them are characteristics that are inherent. We have this need to feel good about what we think ourselves to be. We don't want to suffer. We want to be happy. When that need to feel good about ourselves is threatened, we have the natural tendency to react in a negative manner against that which we feel threatens us in this way. At that time, even a person who may mean well, can be perceived unnecessarily as a threat. I will be honest with you. I am at a point in my life where it has become apparent to me that there are somethings about black people in general, and about myself specifically, that I have to confront, that are not nice. It is not pleasant to admit that the group of people that one belongs to, and one's self specifically have grievous faults. But I suppose for me, it has become apparent that self deception is doing me no good. My experience is that it is best to just admit the truth. Yes it might be painful, but in the long run, it enables one to deal with and eradicate the fault. Thus one positions himself to move to a higher level of behavior. As long as one is stuck on the platform of self deception, there is no possibility of moving forward.

The truth of the situation is that, violence that is deliberately directed towards innocent people is not something that is unique to Muslims. That said, some of them do have a tendency to behave in this way, and that is wrong. However, Israel has done the same, and to try to pretend that it has not, is deception.

Furthermore you continue here, to put forward the untrue notion that I am justifying Islamic terrorism, although I have repeatedly said that it is not justified. I'm not saying it just to say some words, and the concept is not in my mind. The problem is that, because you have conceptualized me in a somewhat hostile way, you have to believe that I think that Islamic terrorism is justified. It is a defense mechanism. You don't want to confront the brutal truth, that Israel, by it's hostile acts towards the Palestinians, is contributing to the increase in the desire of people to engage in terrorism. Because this notions makes you feel uncomfortable, to relieve yourself of that discomfort, you need to believe that I think that such terrorism is justified. That way, you mind can view me as an unreasonable person, thus relieving you of the discomfort of having to confront a brutal truth.

I don't hate Israel Borat. Neither do I hate Jews. However I do not like some of the things that the leaders of the Israeli government done. And I do not like the support that some Jews appear to give to this type of activity.

You tried to put forward the notion that massacres are something that only Muslims resort to because of their grievances. It's just not true. That incident proves it. A group of so called Christians, in collaboration with Ariel Sharon and the IDF, engaged in the massacre of innocent people at Sabra and Shatila. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth.

PS I feel that I'm a savage, who needs to improve. I'm trying. I'm not perfect.

 

Your attempts to "explain" terrorism by pointing finger at Israel, the US or the West is exactly the reason I say you are trying to justify it. No action of the West, agree or disagree with it explains or justifies blowing up women and children in malls, pizza parlors, marathons or 110 floor office buildings. Absolutely nothing justifies terror.

The point is they (muslim extremists) are predisposed to terror, it's their 'default' way of problem solving. In this sense you are of course correct, the more things (including western policies or newspaper cartoons) they perceive as 'problems', the more often they resort to terror. This has never been in dispute but that does not mean that the policies are incorrect or that the extremists' and fundamentalists' wishes should in any way shape or form be accomodated to avoid/minimize their terror activity. If that would not be giving in to terror, what would?

If you want to discuss Western (including Israeli) policies - discuss them on merits, you argument that these policies are wrong because they enrage mass murderers is not a particularly good one I am afraid, you are basically advocating giving in to terror.

 

And I will say again that your insistence on conflating causality with justification is just plain wrong. Neither have I said that accommodating the wishes of a terrorist is NECESSARILY the solution. It may be in some cases, that is something that has to be taken on a case by case basis. If the person has a legitimate gripe, that can be corrected, that should be done. You don't refuse to do it, simply because by doing so you are accommodating the terrorist. That's stupid. Neither to you do something wrong, that the terrorist wants you to do, simply to accommodate him so he will stop. That is also stupid.

That aside, you want to discuss policy, let's look at that. I think the policy of assassinating people, without any kind of due process, ESPECIALLY when innocent people are killed in the process is wrong. When innocent people are killed, it increases the chances that terrorism will spread. Not only that, but because of the lack of any type of due process, it becomes a dangerous tool, that could be used by a malicious person, for unjust and malicious means. Furthermore, when you impose the punishment of death on someone, it is so final, that if a mistake is made, there is no possibility to correct that mistake. In Afghanistan, people have been targeted falsely, simply because an enemy has falsely accused them, so that the enemy can get rid of him. These are the types of things that you run into.

 

LOL here you go again. So you don't think Osama bin Laden should have been assassinated, right? BTW how would you deal with OBL if you were in charge? How would you go about arresting him and giving him due process if Pakistani authorities didn't cooperate and in fact helped him disappear?

Once again this is not a consideration. No policy of a western country should be based on whether it will please or displease extremists, terrorists and mass murderers.

 

OBL should have been brought to trial. If I knew he was in Pakistan, I would tell the government there, where he was, and ask them to hand him over for trial, or put him on trial. That's the way you do it.

'

You are confused. It's not for the purpose of giving pleasure to terrorists. Another distortion.

 

RIght...exactly what I expected. Too bad it's not the way you do it, it's the surest way you lose him for another decade. He'd be moved to another hiding place before you could say ISI (pakistani secret service). OBL had a huge number of sympathisers and supporters in the Pakistan government, military, secret services, police, public, he'd know that his location has been compromised before the ISI boss hangs up the phone. I already welcomed you to the real world, before, didn't I?

Then argue policies on merits. That something enrages terrorists or pleases them is not an argument against or in favor of a policy.

 

Although you claim to live in the "real" world, you neglect to note that there is a difference in the world that people see in their minds, and that of reality. Therefore, when trying to deduce the truth, those who are wise rely on evidence supported with facts to substantiate their conclusions. There are several problems with your position:

1. You claim that OBL had sympathizers and supports in the government who would have alerted him to our presence. However, you have offered no substantial evidence to support this claim. What exactly is the name and position of the person in the government of Pakistan that we would have had to inform of our intent? Upon informing him, what exactly are the names and positions exactly of the people who he would have told about it? What is exactly the evidence, supported by facts, that EACH, or any one, of those individuals was sympathetic to OBL? What exactly is the evidence, supported by facts, that you have that EACH, or any one, of these individuals were able to contact him? What exactly is the evidence, supported by facts, that EACH, or any one would have contacted him? If you cannot substantiate your claim in this way, we have no way of knowing, IN TRUTH, that your claim is valid or merely a figment of your imagination.

2. Although you say the use of lethal force was absolutely necessary without due process, you have presented no evidence, supported by facts, that OBL, at the time of his assassination, was process of executing a plot, in which the threat was so imminent, that it could only be stopped by his assassination. What is the evidence, supported by facts, that establishes exactly what this plot was, where it was to be executed, how it was to be executed, and by whom? What is the evidence, supported by facts, that leads to the conclusion that this plot could be stopped by no other means? If you cannot supply this evidence, then how can we say that it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for him to be assassinated in order to avert the imminent loss of life.

3. You have not considered that certain problems flow from the implementation of so called "justice" in this way. To see this, suppose that I was President of the United States. Suppose that I believed that Ariel Sharon was a threat to the safety of the United States and should be immediately assassinated. Suppose that I had the FULL support of the people of the United States in this view. How would the nation of Israel feel if I sent a team of Navy Seals, into Israel, without any prior notification, assassinated Ariel Sharon, and threw his body in the ocean? Not only that, but in the case of Pakistan, India has had all types of problems with terrorism emanating from Pakistan. What if India decided to do what the US did? Do you not see how that could very easily start a large war that would have devastating consequences for the rest of the world?

I have argued on merits. The merit is that when you kill innocent people you increase the chances that more terrorism will result. The intent is not to please the terrorist, the intent is to stop the spread of terrorism, which is what the activity should be about in the first place.

 

I am a Jerusalemite (Israeli) would you kindly enumerate and prove your assertion? I would like to check and verify what you are mentioning here.

My friend, to state things that never happened in history is as insulting as your forceful spoon feeding the Naive and the Gullible...
a) Sharon did not involve the IDF in any of the massacre of Sabra-Shatilla.
b) The Christians of Lebanon were friends of the Israelis and their demands to check on the Palestinians was not an outrageous one so it was permitted... That they got their revenge by killing many Palestinians is something that historians should decide. Suffice to mention that Palestinian Arabs were killing Christians with impunity and went as far as digging Christian graves and discarding the bodies to the birds of prey.


To write scatological remarks to trivialize what the Palestinian Arabs did in Lebanon is something that you have to live with...

 

If you count 10 casulties as massacre than it will be safe to say your Muslim brothers wrote the book on that, since ever....

what "genocide" was Ben Gurion involved in ?? - love your Muslim propaganda crap

 

Their are Jewish and Muslim fanatics that if is was up to them an all out war would already start, no one can deny that. In Israel it is known their way is not the gov way, all gov's wantes 2 state solution - hamas and the fanatics want one state where one side will take over the other.

The diffrence is, we have a country, an army and a police force, we hunt down those fanatics and carry many arrests - your side expects us to accept your fanatics, not just that but we depend on them to negotiate.....