America's War On Terrorism [Archive]

View Full Version : America's War On Terrorism

jdbjdb

11-04-2003, 03:40 PM

America's next battle in the war on terrorism should be fought against the PLO and its founder, the godfather of world terrorism, Yasser Arafat. Israel cannot win its war against terrorism alone. Israel has no silver bullet to dispatch the PLO network being fed by the Islamic world, but America does: It alone can shut off the economic support that pours in weekly by the millions.

Arafat and his PLO organization have been working all summer in an attempt to discredit President Bush's peace plan as irrelevant. Why? President Bush labeled Arafat as "irrelevant." It appears that Arafat is succeeding.

The PLO is still considered the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people ... an amazing feat to have a terrorist organization demanding a state. Arafat has played the terrorism card, and has utilized Hamas and Islamic Jihad as his weapons of choice. Now, he is calling for the appointment of a new interior minister in charge of his security forces. This post was formerly held by Mahmoud Abbas. This would give Arafat a bigger voice in negotiations. All key decisions would have to be referred to him for approval.

All the terrorist organizations and terrorist-harboring nations have one thing in common: They all support PLO terrorism. Islamic dictatorships throughout the world stir up their masses by justifying terrorism in the name of the PLO cause, rather than dealing with their own shortcomings. They have brainwashed their populations into believing the West, in general, and Israel, specifically, is the root of all of their problems.

Israel is the only nation in modern times that has been pressured to give a terrorist organization part of its territory. But despite Israel's attempts to comply, it has suffered more terrorism per capita than any nation on Earth, while PLO-controlled territory has become a world distribution center for the exportation of the H-bomb (human bomb.)

PLO terrorism is not about land. If it were, then the PLO would have accepted the Barak-Clinton Camp David proposal. It's about eradicating Zionism and the Jewish state. Its strategy of using terrorism as a tool to achieve its goals has never changed. America has put pressure on Arafat to control terrorism, and for brief interludes terrorism decreased drastically. This proves one thing: If Arafat can curb terrorism he can also incite terrorism. And while he was recently turning down the flame of terrorism, he used the time to organize a shipment of some 50 tons of armaments on the Karine A.

In an article in the New York Times on Feb. 3, Arafat stated, "To stop terrorism, we must understand that terrorism is simply a symptom, not the disease." That logic contradicts the entire Bush Doctrine on America's war against terrorism ... that there is no justification for terror.

If Americans buy into Arafat's premise, it will mean a protracted ride on the back of the terror tiger. Any attempt to root out global terrorism without plowing the soil in which it grows will only spread the virus more quickly. As long as Arafat lionizes suicide bombers as martyrs, the Jihad genie will stay unbottled. Arafat, who has compared himself to George Washington, can denounce terrorism because he has redefined its meaning.

Arafat's "gift" is in destroying states – as he tried to do in Jordan and Lebanon in the '70s and '80s – not building one. If Arafat were truly loved by the Palestinian people, thousands of Palestinians would not have fled his regime to become American citizens. The truth is, Arafat is a dictator and a terrorist who has been instrumental in killing even more Palestinians than he has Jews.

Israel cannot mobilize a global coalition to see that a terrorist like Arafat who has killed innocent civilians throughout the world – including dozens of Americans – is extradited and brought to justice, but America can

Source: FreeRepublic.com

NcDeuce

11-04-2003, 03:41 PM

Where is this article from? Who wrote it?

Seoulstriker

11-04-2003, 03:42 PM

Where is this article from? Who wrote it?

i think it's some kind of editorial.

there you go:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34439

The PLO: America's next battle

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 5, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Mike Evans
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

NcDeuce

11-04-2003, 03:43 PM

Ah, gracias.

StarvingStudent47

11-04-2003, 06:51 PM

The United States won't be able to make Arafat obsolete unless Europe also does so. And even when Mahmoud Abbas was trying to consolidate power, most European countries still treated Arafat as the #1 Palestinian, not Mahmoud Abbas. So don't hold your breath.

One?

11-04-2003, 06:58 PM

Wether you like it or not Arafat will not leave. The US appointed abbas but hey what do you know he resigned. So that only means that Arafat has power.

I demand that Sharon be removed from power and sent to the ICC for war crimes.

Vance

11-04-2003, 06:59 PM

I demand that Sharon be removed from power and sent to the ICC for war crimes.
And Arafat is squeaky-clean. :roll:

jdbjdb

11-04-2003, 07:27 PM

usa320

11-04-2003, 07:28 PM

Indeed, Queria and Abbas both tried to change things, but ARafat kept standing in their way, with the help of the EUropeans of course.

Seoulstriker

11-04-2003, 07:43 PM

The most recent Palestinian PM Queri, involved in a power struggle with Arafat, and now they are not getting along. Arafat should be sent back to North Africa, he is doing nothing but causing problems. Arafat has made himself irrelevant, and he knows that. When Arafat dies he should be buried in Egypt where he belongs.

I demand that Sharon be removed from power and sent to the ICC for war crimes
Sharon can't and wont be tried for war crimes ;)

people can want all they want, but trying people who didn't commit warcrimes to be tried as warcriminals? :cantbeli:

jdbjdb

11-04-2003, 07:48 PM

Arabs are still angry over the fact that lebanese christians killed many palestinians in Lebanon, Israel didn't do it. Muslims in Syria and Lebanon killed several hudnred Lebanese christians and they wanted revege

jdbjdb

11-04-2003, 07:52 PM

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 425
March 19, 1978

Text:

The Security Council,

Taking note of the letters of the Permanent Representative of Lebanon (S/12600 and S/12606) and the Permanent Representative of
Israel (S/12607),

Having heard the statements of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel,

Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, and its consequences to the maintenance of international
peace,

Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,

1.Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally
recognized boundaries;

2.Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces
from all Lebanese territory;

3.Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations
interim force for southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and
security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the force to be
composed of personnel drawn from States Members of the United Nations.

And Syria and Lebanon still to this day have not complied. :cantbeli:

One?

11-04-2003, 08:02 PM

Mortimer

11-04-2003, 08:32 PM

hes still learnig to read, give the kid a break.

Mortimer

11-04-2003, 08:33 PM

mocking_loudly_died

11-04-2003, 08:39 PM

Sharon is hardly a clean man.

I'm sure a billion people are going to defend his actions when he was minister of defence, but I hold my firm belief he needs a slapping.

Zach R.

11-04-2003, 09:21 PM

You're still avoiding the main problem, Arafat. He's a terrorist, and terrorists will not be negotiated with. He's going down, wether you like it or not. Arafat openly admits he's a terrorist, which does not mean you can openly defend him, which would mean you're defending a terrorist (duh).
Arafat is evil, and an extremely high threat to peace.

One?

11-04-2003, 10:10 PM

Sharon was the Commanding Officer of Unit 101 (or 100 but I think 100 is S13 anyways) they laucnhed reprisal attacks on arabs, under Moshe Deyans command. These attacks were carried out against civlians. With his troops he blew up a whole village with the civilians inside. He claimed that he didnt know civilians were in the houses.

You're still avoiding the main problem, Arafat. He's a terrorist, and terrorists will not be negotiated with. He's going down, wether you like it or not. Arafat openly admits he's a terrorist, which does not mean you can openly defend him, which would mean you're defending a terrorist (duh).
Arafat is evil, and an extremely high threat to peace.

When exactly did he say he is a terrorist? Or making up stories?

Edit:

And my favorite quote:

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today...”

— Yitzhak Shamir
Israeli Prime Minister, Zionist terrorist
in an August 1943 article titled “Terror”, written for Hazit
the journal of Lehi, the terrorist organization he belonged to

jdbjdb

11-04-2003, 11:06 PM

For the ones who think Sharon should stand trial for what the Lebanese did to the Palestinians, shouldn't the muslims in Syria and Lebanon also stand trial for their crimes against humanity?

jdbjdb

11-04-2003, 11:28 PM

On 9 January 1976, three days after Epiphany, the priest of Damour Father Mansour Labaky, was carrying out a Maronite custom of blessing the houses with holy water. As he stood in front of a house on the side of the town next to the Muslim village of Harat Na’ami, a bullet whistled past his ear and hit the house. Then he heard the rattle of machine-guns. He went inside the house, and soon learned that the town was surrounded. Later he found out by whom and how many — the forces of Sa’iqa, consisting of 16,000 Palestinians and Syrians, and units of the Mourabitoun and some fifteen other militias, reinforced by mercenaries from Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a contingent of Libyans.

Father Labaky telephoned the Muslim sheikh of the district and asked him, as a fellow religious leader, what he could do to help the people of the town. ‘I can do nothing,’ he was told ‘They want to harm you. It is the Palestinians. I cannot stop them.'

While the shooting and some shelling went on all day, Father Labaky telephoned a long list of people, politicians of both the Left and the Right, asking for help. They all said with apologies and commiserations that they could do nothing. Then he telephoned Kamal Jumblatt, in whose parliamentary constituency Damour lay. ‘Father,’ Jumblatt said, ‘I can do nothing for you, because it depends on Yasser Arafat.’ He gave Arafat’s phone number to the priest.

An aide answered, and when he would not call Arafat himself, Father Labaky told him, ‘The Palestinians are shelling and shooting at my town. I can assure you as a religious leader, we do not want the war, we do not believe in violence.’ He added that nearly half the people of Damour had voted for Kamal Jumblatt, ‘who is backing you,’ he reminded the PLO man. The reply was, ‘Father, don’t worry. We don’t want to harm you. If we are destroying you it is for strategical reasons.’
Father Labaky did not feel that there was any less cause for worry because the destruction was for strategical reasons, and he persisted in asking for Arafat to call off his fighters. In the end the aide said that they, PLO headquarters, would ‘tell them to stop shooting’.

By then it was eleven o’clock in the evening. As the minutes passed and the shooting still went on, Father Labaky called Jumblatt again on the telephone and told him what Arafat’s aide had said. Jumblatt’s advice was that the priest should keep trying to make contact with Arafat, and call other friends of his, ‘because’, he said, ‘I do not trust him’.

At about half-past eleven the telephone, water and electricity were all cut off. The first invasion of the town came in the hour after midnight, from the side where the priest had been shot at earlier in the day. The Sa’iqa men stormed into the houses. They massacred some fifty people in the one night. Father Labaky heard screaming and went out into the street. Women came running to him in their nightdresses, ‘tearing their hair, and shouting “They are slaughtering us!” The survivors, deserting that end of the town, moved into the area round the next church. The invaders then occupied the part of the town they had taken. Father Labaky describes the scene:

'In the morning I managed to get to the one house despite the shelling to bring out some of the corpses. And I remember something which still frightens me. An entire family had been killed, the Can’an family, four children all dead, and the mother, the father, and the grandfather. The mother was still hugging one of the children. And she was pregnant. The eyes of the children were gone and their limbs were cut off. No legs and no arms. It was awful. We took them away in a banana truck. And who carried the corpses with me? The only survivor, the brother ofthe man. His name is Samir Can’an. He carried with me the remains of his brother, his father, his sister-in-law and the poor children. We buried them in the cemetery, under the shells of the PLO. And while I was burying them, more corpses were found in the street.'
The town tried to defend itself. Two hundred and twenty-five young men, most of them about sixteen years old, armed with hunting guns and none with military training, held out for twelve days. The citizens huddled in basements, with sandbags piled in front of their doors and ground-floor windows. Father Labaky moved from shelter to shelter to visit the families and take them bread and milk. He went often ‘to encourage the young men defending the town’. The relentless pounding the town received resulted in massive damage. In the siege that had been established on 9 January the Palestinians cut off food and water supplies and refused to allow the Red Cross to take out the wounded. Infants and children died of dehydration. Only three more townspeople were killed as a result of PLO fire between the first night and the last day, 23 January. But on that day, when the final onslaught came, hundreds of the Christians were killed. Father Labaky goes on:
'The attack took place from the mountain behind. It was an apocalypse. They were coming, thousands and thousands, shouting ‘Allahu Akbar! God is great! Let us attack them for the Arabs, let us offer a holocaust to Mohammad ‘And they were slaughtering everyone in their path, men, women and children.'
Whole families were killed in their homes. Many women were gang-raped, and few of them left alive afterwards. One woman saved her adolescent daughter from rape by smearing her face with washing blue to make her look repulsive. As the atrocities were perpetrated, the invaders themselves took photographs and later offered the pictures for sale to European newspapers. Survivors testify to what happened. A young girl of sixteen, Soumavya Ghanimeh, witnessed the shooting of her father and brother by two of the invaders, and watched her own home and the other houses in her street being looted and burned. She explained:
'As they were bringing me through the street the houses were burning all about me. They had about ten trucks standing in front of the houses and were piling things into them. I remember how frightened I was of the fire. I was screaming. And for months afterwards I couldn’t bear anyone to strike a match near me. I couldn’t bear the smell of it'.
She and her mother Mariam, and a younger Sister and infant brother, had been saved from being shot in their house when she ran behind one Palestinian for protection from the pointing gun of the other, and cried out ‘Don’t let him kill us!’; and the man accepted the role of protector which the girl had suddenly assigned to him. ‘If you kill them you will have to kill me too,’ he told his comrade. So the four of them were spared, herded along the streets between the burning houses to be put into a truck, and trans-ported to Sabra camp in Beirut. There they were kept in a crowded prison hut. ‘We had to sleep on the ground, and it was bitterly cold.’
When eventually Father Labaky found the charred bodies of the father and brother in the Ghanimeh house ‘you could no longer tell whether they were men or women’.
In a frenzy to destroy their enemies utterly, as if even the absolute limits ofnature could not stop them, the invaders broke open tombs and flung the bones of the dead into the streets.Those who escaped from the first attack tried to flee by any means they could, with cars, carts, cycles and motorbikes. Some went on foot to the seashore to try to get away in boats. But the sea was rough and the wait for rescue was long, while they knew their enemies might fall upon them at any moment.

Some 500 gathered in the Church of St Elias. Father Labaky went there at six in the morning when the tumult of the attack awakened him. He preached a sermon on the meaning of the slaughter of innocents. And he told them candidly that he did not know what to tell them to do. ‘If I say flee to the sea, you may be killed. If I say stay here, you may be killed.’

An old man suggested that they raise a white flag. ‘Perhaps if we surrender they may spare us.' Father Labaky gave him his surplice. He put it on the processional cross and stood it in front of the church. Ten minutes later there was a knock on the door, three quick raps, then three lots of three. They were petrified. Father Labaky said that he would go and see who was there. If it was the enemy, they might spare them. ‘But if they kill us, at least we shall die all together and we’ll have a nice parish in Heaven, 500 persons, and no check points!’ They laughed, and the priest went to the door.

It was not the enemy but two men of Damour who had fled the town and had seen the white flag from the seashore. They had come back to warn them that it would not help to raise a flag. ‘We raised a flag in front of Our Lady, and they shot at us.’

Again they discussed what could be done. The priest told them that one thing they must do, although it was ‘impossible’, was to pray for the forgiveness of those who were coming to kill them. As they prayed, two of the young defenders of the town who had also seen the flag walked in and said, ‘Run to the seashore now, and we will cover you.

The two youths stood in front of the church and shot in the direction from which the fedayeen were firing. It took ten minutes for all the people in the church to leave the town. All 500 got away except one old man who said he could not walk and would prefer to die in front of his own house. He was not killed. Father Labaky found him weeks later in a PLO prison, and heard what had happened after they left.

A few minutes after they had gone, ‘the PLO came and bombed the church without entering it. They kicked open the door and threw in the grenades.’ They would all have been killed had they stayed.

The priest led his flock along the shore to the palace of Camille Chamoun. But when they got there they found it had already been sacked and partly burnt. They found shelter, however, in the palace of a Muslim, who ‘did not agree with the Palestinians’, and then got into small boats Which took them out to a bigger boat, in which they sailed to Jounieh. ‘One poor woman had to give birth to her baby in the little open boat on the rough winter sea.’

In all, 582 people were killed in the storming of Damour. Father Labaky went back with the Red Cross to bury them. Many of the bodies had been dismembered, so they had to count the heads to number the dead. Three of the men they found had had their genitals cut off and stuffed into their mouths.

The horror did not end there, the old Christian cemetery was also destroyed, coffins were dug up, the dead robbed, vaults opened, and bodies and skeletons thrown across the grave yard. Damour was then transformed into a stronghold of Fatah and the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). The ruined town became one of the main PLO centres for the promotion of international terrorism. The Church of St Elias was used as a repair garage for PLO vehicles and also as a range for shooting-practice with targets painted on the eastern wall of the nave

Zach R.

11-04-2003, 11:31 PM

Duh you idiot! He used to be the chairman of the PLO (A terrorist organization). Ever heard of the Black September terrorist group? A terrorist leader captured in the 1980s wrote later in his biography that Black September is actually a sub-division of the PLO. And everyone knows that the PLO is already a terror oranization.

Durandal

11-05-2003, 12:16 AM

War on Terror.

This includes those "innocent" Palestinian "freedom fighters".

I always love how the the World, mainly American liberal college students and scoialist Europeans, comes down on Israel for the fairly selective targeting of combatants, while over the last several years, the Palestinians have done almost nothing but target the civilian population.

Thankfuly, with America in Iraq, one pipeline of monetary support has dried up.

I say. lets decide this by a cage match. Sharon and, for lack of any substantial Palestinian leader, Arafat enter, one comes out. If the Israelis lose, give them a big chunk of Montana and the Northwest Territories. If the Palestinians lose, send them to Jordan...........

I mean less ratinal thingshave been tried, right?

One?

11-05-2003, 12:22 AM

PLO this PLO that as if palestine is the PLO. But Israel was born on the terrorist zionist doctrine. So dont trial one side trial both sides.

IDFM203

11-05-2003, 12:38 AM

no "one" modern israel was born after 7 arab countires attacked in an effort to murder every jewish man woman and child...and they have been trying ever since :(

shalom :D

One?

11-05-2003, 12:58 AM

IDFM203

11-05-2003, 02:35 AM

So the Jews that migrated to palestine and started small settlements had no intention of making their own state?

Wait a minute ... didn't the arab countries invade Israel after it declared its independence? ;)

Salam :Dkeif chalak my friend :D

No there were Jews that immigrated to join the Jews that were already there for year’s before 1948.

Most of the land before any large amounts Jew’s came was mostly uninhabited and a wasteland

As even Mark Twain said when visited that land in 1867, he described it as: “...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country”

It only become more populated with Arab’s after the Jews did wonders with that land.

But those Jew’s that were in Israel at first had no intentions of becoming a state, they only got that after the constant attacks and killings that was done by the Arabs that were living there.

But besides, they were more then willing to share that land but the Arabs were not, for they attempted to do that by trying to kill off every Jewish man women and child.

Israel declared independence after the British masters of that land left. The Arab’s could have also declared independence and lived with the Jews in peace but instead they tried to forcibly declare independence of all Jews on that whole land as they are still trying till today.

Shalom chabib :D

jdbjdb

11-05-2003, 03:45 AM

martinexsquaddie

11-05-2003, 06:23 AM

Neither Israel or the Palenstinians are either fully wrong or fully right.
arafat if he goes is not going to be replaced by someone who is going to be in favour of peace with israel on israeli Terms.
Problem is the PA do not have the ability to control the militants

Mr Gently Benevolent

11-05-2003, 06:25 AM

jdbjdb you are one bad chickenhawk, you are starting to rant like the terrorist Irv Rubin and we know what happened to him.

Durandal

11-05-2003, 08:03 AM

But Israel was born on the terrorist zionist doctrine..

One, I would like for you to explain the "terrorist zionist doctrine" and then explain how Israel was born by it.

Mr Gently Benevolent

11-05-2003, 08:08 AM

Durandal whats with your handle I mean its like a French weapon developed by MATRA? Just wondering.

Durandal

11-05-2003, 08:20 AM

Durandal whats with your handle I mean its like a French weapon developed by MATRA? Just wondering.

Yeah, it is also a mythical Sword weilded by Roland, friend and officer of Charlamane. I figure a more modern device would be recognizeable than the older, more historic one.

While Mantra produces the weapon, the rocket motor was designed and built by the United States Airforce Jet Propulsion Labs.

20th Fighter Wing flight commander Captain George Kelman said "there is nothing better at destroying a runway than a Durandal."

Argyll

11-05-2003, 08:23 AM

Durandal

11-05-2003, 08:33 AM

We must ne under no illusions that this is not a short term soloution,eliminating them all is impossible,you can kill the terrorist but you cannot kill their ideollogy!

Yeah, We can alter their ideology.

Make them aware that adopting it means death and then giuve them the option to live in a nice happy, democratic state, where everyone has something to live for.

Middleclass and Walmart, the greatest pacifiers.

Eitherway, I could care less, even if their is a high cost associated with it. The United States has had a wartime economy for nearly the last 60 years and the terroists are as bad as Nazis. They are violent, uneducated, racists, mysogonist, assholes that following a broken religion and keep their rest of therest of the "non-violent, just want to live my life in peace" cultures in the region in the dark ages.

The United States does need to foot the bill, the world does. But, as always we will keep the world safe so YOU can live happily and without fear.

Argyll

11-05-2003, 08:53 AM

Durandal

11-05-2003, 09:51 AM

Stop the pain...

budanski

11-05-2003, 09:55 AM

"Kill em all, let God sort em out" ;)

Argyll

11-05-2003, 10:21 AM

Unless God is in the US SOF,then I doubt it!!

One?

11-05-2003, 02:06 PM

But Israel was born on the terrorist zionist doctrine..

One, I would like for you to explain the "terrorist zionist doctrine" and then explain how Israel was born by it.

I could send you my 17 page research essay on terrorism in the zionist doctirne.

As for IDF's comments the Jews were migrating to Israel for one purpose to implenet the zionist doctrine of making their own country. They even tried with the Ottoman's. So don't tell me that the jews had no intention in the 20's to make Israel their home.

Salam/Shalom/Peace :D

Armour recon

11-05-2003, 02:11 PM

All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.

Thomas Edward Lawrence

IDFM203

11-05-2003, 02:43 PM

One, I would like for you to explain the "terrorist zionist doctrine" and then explain how Israel was born by it.

I could send you my 17 page research essay on terrorism in the zionist doctirne. and hitlers Mein Kampf was much longer then 17 pages. There have been planty works of fiction that are much longer then a mere 17 pages.

I am surprised that yours is that short.....

As for IDF's comments the Jews were migrating to Israel for one purpose to implenet the zionist doctrine of making their own country. They even tried with the Ottoman's. So don't tell me that the jews had no intention in the 20's to make Israel their home. yes there were Jews who came to Israel for those proposes to live in peace but again there were also Jews there already.

Secondly as I said before, Jews that came to join the Jews that were already there tried to live in peaceful co existence with the arabs that were there under the various rulers of that land
When the British left the arabs then tried to kill every Jewish man woman and child and have been trying ever since.

Salam/Shalom/Peace :D yes shalom indeed!!! :D

Durandal

11-05-2003, 07:41 PM

Ah but there you have it Durandal all you've done is generalised,not all extremists are muslims,and not all terrorists are either.Unless you're clearlt indicating that by extremist then you mean Suicide attacks,my views of extremist are those that will stop at nothing!
There are lots of different religions involved in terror.

You will never kill an ideology in a thousand years,past history has shown us that!

The US has had the finace for the Past 60 years ,it has not been fighting terrorism for that time,it's only been overtly doing so sinc 9/11,and todays technology is a lot more costly than 60 years before!

Argyll, you do not see Osama blowing himself up. There will ALWAYS be the radical fringe element that preaches hate (that is afterall, what it is, hate mongering)...Germany has it, France has it, the United States has it. Without poor, iliterate soldiers willing to die for a cause the either do not understand or would not follow if they were economicaly stable, these rare radical leaders would have no followers.

History HAS shown that laying an enemy low through use of superior strength can erase ideology. World War 2 is a perfect example. The German government not only is not a facist regime, but encourages the fear of such a regime. Does that mean there are no German facists, of course not. It does mean, however, that through utter destruction and complete reconstruction, Germany has developed a very stable middle class of intelligent people that would be MUCH less likely to follow such ideology. The same can be said for Japan and the United States.

We can look at areas, such as China, the Middle East, and the Gulf States (as but a few examples) where xenophobia, religious fervor, lack of middle class/solid economy, and sexism cause problems (I'll also argue that communism has a lot to do with it too in other areas...including China).

These regions have a wealth of problems because very few have money, travel or communicate with the outside world. They are indoctrinated at a young age, either politically or religiously. They have little to lose. There is no democracy. Women are usually a considred chattel or at best a 2nd class citizen. The list goes on and on.

None of these regions will develop. None of these regions will progress beyond their crude societies. They will continue to breed people that have no understanding for the world outside what their relgious or political leader tells them.

If democracy prevails in these areas, a middle class develops with at least some level of disposable income, the people get something they currently do not have: something to lose. Why is this important?

You give a man (since in this case most of the peeps are men) something to loose and something more tangible and real to believe in. They are not going to sell their sole to some Saudi for 20K so their family can eat. They will not be so illiterate and uneducated to think that some God is going to give them a dozen virigins in heaven. They will determine the course of the nation rather than watching it get torn apart by a King, Dictator, or Religious zeolot.

This is somethign these people do not have.

Give it to them, even if you have to destroy their nation and rebuild it, and you will eliminate the ideology, not by eliminating the actually ideology (since you can never destroy and "idea") but by destroying the very things that allow that fuel the ideology.

And trust me man, history proves this to be all too true.

Side Note: The reverse is true. Take away comfort and reason and you can get poeple to follow almost any wacked out ideology. It would happen in a heart beat...one generation...if things went to crap in the United States.

One?

11-05-2003, 08:04 PM

Well don't compare my essay to Mein Kampf. I did not make anythin up they were all based on quotes from Herzl and his followers.

I know jews lived there before but the ones that came, came for a reason. They did not come to live peacefuly they came to make a country of thier own. Thats what pissed the arabs off.

"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." Herzl (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

Statements like these didn't give the arabs any sense of peace.....

Salam :D

Durandal

11-05-2003, 08:41 PM

They did not come to live peacefuly they came to make a country of thier own. Thats what pissed the arabs off.

Let's be honest, the "Arabs" (I am assuming you are talking about nationalities in the Middle East and not Saudi "Arabians") hate the Palestinians almost as much as they hate the Israeliis.

I have read a fair amount of personal works from the period of immigration and a good chunk of the Jews that left Europe to go to Israel did so because Europe SUCKED. Pick a country in Europe that did not treat them like chattel?

Yeah, I know I would have left too.

We should have given them France instead.

But please, continue, prove to us this great Zionist conspiracy. I think you do need to post it.

StarvingStudent47

11-05-2003, 09:01 PM

Pop quiz?
1.How many extremist terrorists are there in the world?
2.How many has the War on terror eliminated?
3.Would it be a fair assesment to say that cost of the war divided by the end results(KIA terrorists) is pretty bloody high,over $1.5M dollars per head?
4.Can the US sustain the cost long term.

We must ne under no illusions that this is not a short term soloution,eliminating them all is impossible,you can kill the terrorist but you cannot kill their ideollogy!

How what sort of economic cost do you assess to the victims of 9/11/01? You can't. So you can't assess a price to preventing another 9/11. We must prevent another 9/11 whatever the cost. The question is not "CAN we afford this?"--the question is "what must we do IN ORDER TO afford this?"

You CAN destroy ideology through military action. How else do you define the fall of Nazism? We sure as hell didn't destroy it through pacifism and appealing to the international community for moral support.

StarvingStudent47

11-05-2003, 09:04 PM

We should have given them [the Jews] France instead.

Best. Solution. Ever. :D :lol: rofl

StarvingStudent47

11-05-2003, 09:13 PM

I know jews lived there before but the ones that came, came for a reason. They did not come to live peacefuly they came to make a country of thier own. Thats what pissed the arabs off.

They came to live peaceably in a country of their own. Those two elements are not mutually exclusive.

Want to play the quote game? I can play the quote game.

"The land was not being taken away from the Arabs. The Arabs sold land to Jews only if they chose to do so." --Winston Churchill

"The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." --Nuri Said, who was Prime Minister of Iraq in 1948.

"The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in." --unnamed Palestinian speaking with Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa.

"It was we who demanded the return of the refugees while it was we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon them. [We] exploited them in executing crimes of murder and throwing bombs. All this in the service of political purposes." --former Prime Minister of Syria, Khaled al Azm.

Source: Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "Graffiti on History's Walls." US News and World Report, November 3, 2003. Pgs 44-51.

IDFM203

11-05-2003, 09:25 PM

Well don't compare my essay to Mein Kampf. I did not make anythin up they were all based on quotes from Herzl and his followers. I never compared your thing to Mein kamph per say, I was just highlighting how works of fiction can be as long or longer then yours.

I know jews lived there before but the ones that came, came for a reason. They did not come to live peacefuly they came to make a country of thier own. Thats what pissed the arabs off. no they came to live peacefully and made every effort.

There were many efforts made but they were all rejected.
This is just one example by chaim Weizmann who led a group of Zionists that met with Syrian nationalist Riad al-Sulh in 1921. The Zionists agreed to support Arab nationalist aspirations and Sulh said he was willing to recognize the Jewish National Home. The talks resumed a year later and raised hopes for an agreement. In May 1923, however, Sulh’s efforts to convince the lands Arab leaders that Zionism was an accomplished fact were rejected.
Over the next 25 years, Zionist leaders inside and outside Palestine would try repeatedly to negotiate and make some peaceful resolution with the Arabs

"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." Herzl (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22) first of all, there is no proof that he said that. benny morris who is the author of that book is one of Israel’s most famous revisionist historians.

Secondly regardless of these alleged quotes, the facts on the ground were not the case. Most Jews did no such thing. That’s a fact!!

I mean if we are going to play the quote game, I can come here with thousands of my own to show the Arabs intentions there.

All these alleged quotes are besides the point for the facts on the ground are the facts!!!!

I rarely see one such as yourself really dispute facts other then bring up some alleged quotes of some supposed thoughts.

Statements like these didn't give the arabs any sense of peace..... allged statements by a few who the arabs didn’t hear anyways (it wasn’t like there was tv or internet where these alleged quotes were broadcast to all) isn’t any factor. No the facts on the ground and the constant incitement and harassment and the killings by the arbs against in a lot of cases defenceless Jews is what the real problem was.

Salam: D shalom :D

ooops just noticed after I posted this that starving student ansered also so I apoligizeto him if anything overlaps......

One?

11-05-2003, 10:03 PM

Since the main objective of the Zionist scheme was "a land without people", a deliberate and premeditated operation was mounted in 1948 to expel the Palestinians or force them to flee. The operation used acts of massacre, massive expulsion and more subtle methods of "persuasion". In 1948, the total Jewish holdings, leased and owned, were less than 6% of the total land area of Palestine. To enlarge this, one of the most shocking acts of plunder in modern history took place. A series of so-called laws were quickly promulgated to expropriate the millions of acres and thousands of farms and stores and hundreds of whole towns and villages that belonged to the expelled Arab refugees. These laws included the Emergency Defence Regulations, the Abandoned Areas Ordinance (1949), the Emergency articles for the Exploitation of Uncultivated Lands (1947-1949), the Absentee Property Law (1950) and the Land Acquisition Law (1955). This act of plunder was not confined to the property of the refugees who had been thrown out of the country but was extended to the Arabs who remained on their land. Under one regulation, any area could be closed by the authorities for security reasons and its Arab owners barred from it. It would then be declared "abandoned or "uncultivated". Under another law it would be handed over to others, usually Jews, to cultivate. Many Arab citizens who had never moved from the part of Palestine that became Israel happened to be away from their lands and homes for a certain period during the process of Israeli occupation, annexation, and population transfer. They were barred from their villages upon their return, thereby becoming absentees, and their property was seized. These Arabs earned the bizarre definition of "absent present"! 31

The Land Acquisition Law consolidates retroactively, Israel's stranglehold on Arab lands, for it "legalizes" and makes final the seizure of the land under the 1949 and 1950 laws, and empowers the transfer of the land thus seized to other owners.32

Dr. Shereshevsky of the Thud Party in Israel described these laws as:

"Robbery of land from people, inhabitants of the state".(Haaretz, 14 January, 1955 )

Moshe Karen, a Jewish writer, described the laws as:
"Wholesale robbery with a legal coating." (Haaretz, 14 January, 1955 )
In this way the Israeli authorities confiscated the entire movable and immovable property of the 750,000 evicted refugees, and more than one million dunums of land, belonging to Arabs who had remained in Israel after 1948, was seized.
The expropriated land was passed to the Keren Kaymeth, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) the laws of which prevent leasing the land to Arabs or use of Arab labour. Despite these clearly racist regulations, some Jews in the sly days of colonisation used Arab labourers or kept or employed the peasants, whose land was taken over, to cultivate it. The Zionists reacted violently to this, and to consummate the inhumanity, on 1st August 1967, the Israel government passed a law to enforce this racial discrimination: The Agricultural Settlement Law. This additionally prohibited the subleasing of land to Arabs, while the JNF Constitution forbids direct leasing. Uri Avnery told the Knesset:

"If we are going to expel Arab cultivators from the land that was formerly theirs, and was handed over to the Jews, we would be acting in accordant with the verse which says:

"Hast thou killed and also inherited".
These were only a few of the methods and laws that were used or legislated to expropriate the land of the Arabs, who remained in Israel and to discriminate against them. None can be more racist than the "Koenig Report, a very subtle and devious program to expropriate the land and expel the people of the Galilea, which Koenig and his masters thought should be Judaised.

You might argue that this happened after 1948, after the war. But before the war there were paramilitary zionist groups carrying out operations against the arabs. The deir yasin massacare scared the hell out of the palestinians. And they would rather flee then die defenceless. Also Shamir was wanted for war crimes before becoming a prime minister. The zionists were the first one's to blow up hotels. The King David Hotel had civilians and british officials, isn't that terrorism?

And finaly I am not denying that some Jews want to live peacefully but no true zionist wants arabs in Israel. And I am not playing the so called quote game, I used that quote to prove that zionists wanted to move the arabs out of the land.

To answer the question about arabs hating palestinians well yes the bastards in Saudi arabia and kuwait do hate the palestinians and they hate everyone else but themselves actualy.

Salam :D

IDFM203

11-05-2003, 10:37 PM

Since the main objective of the Zionist scheme was "a land without people" And blah blah blah :roll: ….. that is the most retarded and most revisionist review of historical facts that I have seen. :roll:

I mean I read that first line and I knew already what kind of hatchet job the rest was

All you did was bring a few Jewish historians who are an extreme minority amongst most Jewish ones who disagree with them and presented it as fact. Yes your playing the quotes game and it is absurd for all it does is point to the one or two idiotic Jews that said some stupid things. It totally ignores what most Jews were saying and doing and not to mention what the Arabs themselves were saying.

You might argue that this happened after 1948, after the war. no I am going to argue that a lot is false and a lot is taken out of context. We already went over this but if you insist I am more then happy to bring down the numerous quotes from the Arabs and their leaders and others that they fled and I am more then willing to show you conclusivey how the Arabs rejected to live peacefully with the Jews and instead tried to kill every single Jewish man women and child while the Jews never attempted any such thing and even after the war the Jews accepted any Arab that wanted to stay and made them Israeli citizens. Those are the facts, not these mere few quotes by these few revisionist historians.

But before the war there were paramilitary zionist groups carrying out operations against the arabs. and like we went over before, these groups were only created after Jews were being constantly killed by the marauding Arabs, and all that was done under British protection and in some cases outright encouragement.

The deir yasin massacare scared the hell out of the palestinians. the dier yasin incident happened after numerous Jewish lives were lost in numerous massacres that were committed against the Jews. It is not even close in terms of numbers, the amount of Jewish lives lost due to the numerous massacres committed by the arabs against the jews to the much lower amount of Arabs due to the Jewish defence.

Also Shamir was wanted for war crimes before becoming a prime minister. haha shamir was wanted by war crimes from the British government that was for the most part in kahoots with the Arabs. Yeah real legitimate charges there. :roll:

The zionists were the first one's to blow up hotels.
The King David Hotel had civilians and british officials, isn't that terrorism? hotels?? :roll: Hotel is more like it. Secondly as I went over before, that Zionist group warned civilians to get out and only tried to target the military authority there.

But again, that was done by an extreme faction that was not supported by most of the Zionist’s whereas the killing and constant pogrom like massacres committed by the Arabs against the Jews were supported by most Arabs.

And finaly I am not denying that some Jews want to live peacefully but no true zionist wants arabs in Israel. so that’s why the Zionist after the war accepted thousands and thousands of Arabs and gave them Israeli citizenship…yeah your logic makes sense :roll:

And I am not playing the so called quote game, I used that quote to prove that zionists wanted to move the arabs out of the land. how does that prove anything?!? There are much more quotes by the Zionists that say other wise.

Secondly quotes or no quotes, the facts on the ground show otherwise as well.

Shalom :D

StarvingStudent47

11-06-2003, 12:48 AM

Uh guys... the thread title says "AMERICA's war on terrorism." I know I helped contribute to this thread hijacking, but still, maybe it's time to let this drift back on topic? ;)