Keep in mind (when reading the following) that Syria has supposedly
made some sort of defense pact with Iran. So is attacking Damascus the
way the Zionists will expand the war for Israel to Syria and Iran next
(in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed
intelligence writer/author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321
of his 'A Pretext for War' book - see the URL about such included after
the following) as Bush and Cheney have already said that the US would
come to Israel's aid if Israel is attacked which will most likely
happen if Israel gets into it with Syria and Iran:

Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=34399


Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus
By Hakan Isayev, Cihan News Agency, Cairo
Published: Friday, June 30, 2006
zaman.com


Israel holds Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas' Syrian branch,
responsible for the abduction of two Israeli soldiers and wants Syria
to expel Palestinian leaders from the country.
Israel threatened to kill Hamas militants based in Damascus.
Al-Jazeera television said Public Security Minister Avi Dichter claimed
they knew the locations of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad leaders in Syria and
will not hesitate to kill them.
Justice Minister Chaim Ramon said, "The leader of Al Qaeda, Meshal is
a terrorist of the worst kind, and the international community must
exert pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to expel Meshal from
Syria."
Ramon claimed Meshaal gave the order for abduction and is now a target
for assassination.
Syrian security forces said they tightened the security measures to
protect the HAMAS leader.
Israeli army said yesterday they carried out a low-altitude flight over
the palace of Syrian President Bashar Assad in Latakia, in northwestern
Syria.

Syrian sources reported that they fired at two Israeli planes flying
over Syrian air space.
Related News:
Israel Arrests Palestine Parliamentarians
Israel Detains 90 Palestinian Politicians




Israeli warplanes buzz Syrian president:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/28/israel.soldier/index.html



Next step of 'A Clean Break' (attacking Syria and then Iran via
Lebanon) - read what Bamford wrote on pages 261-269 of his 'A Pretext
for War' book by scrolling down to such at the following URL:



'A Clean Break' (scroll down to pages 261-269 of from James Bamford's '
A Pretext for War' book at the following URL):



http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

Mearsheimer/Walt on NPR discussing pro-Israel lobby

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/06/21.php#11074


Dennis Ross (who is associated with AIPAC) was also interviewed in the
above NPR program with John Mearsheimer as Ross was also nailed for
being an AIPAC hack for Israel via the following URLs:

http://www.IRmep.org/jm.wmv

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html



Professor Spiegel (who was on the NPR program with Mearsheimer
referenced above) of UCLA had his class appear before the Syrian
Ambassador to the USA as conveyed via the following URL (the Syrian
Ambassador responded to the question/comment about the 'A Clean
Break'/war for Israel agenda):

Syrian Ambassador Calls for Comprehensive Peace Settlement in the
Middle East

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=25567

Additional at following URL:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=36041


Listen to Ali Abunimah via the following 'Democracy Now' segment:



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/28/1421222



US Support for Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic World Trade Center
attacks in 1993 and on 9/11 as well:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590



http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

dontcowerfromthetruth wrote:
> Keep in mind (when reading the following) that Syria has supposedly
> made some sort of defense pact with Iran. So is attacking Damascus the
> way the Zionists will expand the war for Israel to Syria and Iran next
> (in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed
> intelligence writer/author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321
> of his 'A Pretext for War' book - see the URL about such included after
> the following) as Bush and Cheney have already said that the US would
> come to Israel's aid if Israel is attacked which will most likely
> happen if Israel gets into it with Syria and Iran:
>
> Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
>
> http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=34399
>
>
> Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus
> By Hakan Isayev, Cihan News Agency, Cairo
> Published: Friday, June 30, 2006
> zaman.com
>
>
> Israel holds Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas' Syrian branch,
> responsible for the abduction of two Israeli soldiers and wants Syria
> to expel Palestinian leaders from the country.
> Israel threatened to kill Hamas militants based in Damascus.
> Al-Jazeera television said Public Security Minister Avi Dichter claimed
> they knew the locations of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad leaders in Syria and
> will not hesitate to kill them.
> Justice Minister Chaim Ramon said, "The leader of Al Qaeda, Meshal is
> a terrorist of the worst kind, and the international community must
> exert pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to expel Meshal from
> Syria."
> Ramon claimed Meshaal gave the order for abduction and is now a target
> for assassination.
> Syrian security forces said they tightened the security measures to
> protect the HAMAS leader.
> Israeli army said yesterday they carried out a low-altitude flight over
> the palace of Syrian President Bashar Assad in Latakia, in northwestern
> Syria.
>
> Syrian sources reported that they fired at two Israeli planes flying
> over Syrian air space.
> Related News:
> Israel Arrests Palestine Parliamentarians
> Israel Detains 90 Palestinian Politicians
>
>
>
>
> Israeli warplanes buzz Syrian president:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/28/israel.soldier/index.html
>
>
>
> Next step of 'A Clean Break' (attacking Syria and then Iran via
> Lebanon) - read what Bamford wrote on pages 261-269 of his 'A Pretext
> for War' book by scrolling down to such at the following URL:
>
>
>
> 'A Clean Break' (scroll down to pages 261-269 of from James Bamford's '
> A Pretext for War' book at the following URL):
>
>
>
> http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
>
> Mearsheimer/Walt on NPR discussing pro-Israel lobby
>
> http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/06/21.php#11074
>
>
> Dennis Ross (who is associated with AIPAC) was also interviewed in the
> above NPR program with John Mearsheimer as Ross was also nailed for
> being an AIPAC hack for Israel via the following URLs:
>
> http://www.IRmep.org/jm.wmv
>
> The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel
>
> http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html
>
>
>
> Professor Spiegel (who was on the NPR program with Mearsheimer
> referenced above) of UCLA had his class appear before the Syrian
> Ambassador to the USA as conveyed via the following URL (the Syrian
> Ambassador responded to the question/comment about the 'A Clean
> Break'/war for Israel agenda):
>
> Syrian Ambassador Calls for Comprehensive Peace Settlement in the
> Middle East
>
> http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=25567
>
> Additional at following URL:
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=36041
>
>
> Listen to Ali Abunimah via the following 'Democracy Now' segment:
>
>
>
> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/28/1421222
>
>
>
> US Support for Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic World Trade Center
> attacks in 1993 and on 9/11 as well:
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590
>
>
>
> http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
>
Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

Dean

Well I hope they don't start before my popcorn is ready.
It is however about freakin' time.
The Ass-Syrians have needed an attitude adjustment for
a long time.

IBM

> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>
> Dean

My thoughts exactly... why shatter the windows of Assad's palace when
you can shatter the ENTIRE palace with Assad in residence??? I think
THAT message would be much clearer to Damascus.

Rob

p.s. The IAF need not be involved any longer. The German-supplied
Dolphin SSK subs can take out that resident with ease, especially since
they are right next door in the Med and have the capability to fire
cruise missiles through the modified torpedo tubes. (I keep waiting for
this sytem to be used...)

Report: Israel Threatens To Assassinate Palestinian PM If Militants
Don't Release Captured Soldier...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/01/report-israel-threatens-_n_24178.html

dontcowerfromthetruth wrote:
> Keep in mind (when reading the following) that Syria has supposedly
> made some sort of defense pact with Iran.

Syria and Iran have made an explicit, open defense pact.

> So is attacking Damascus the
> way the Zionists will expand the war for Israel to Syria and Iran next
> (in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed
> intelligence writer/author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321
> of his 'A Pretext for War' book - see the URL about such included after
> the following) as Bush and Cheney have already said that the US would
> come to Israel's aid if Israel is attacked which will most likely
> happen if Israel gets into it with Syria and Iran:

Well damn, it would be _nice_ if this happened -- it would get the war
with Syria and Iran out into the open and put a powerful ally on our
side. Plus, Israel could smack around Syria, maybe bite off another
chunk of their territory, keeping the Syrians occupied while we took
out the Iranian regime. If, that is, we're ready for it.

I don't know though that the timing of this is entirely or at all under
Israeli control. Remember that this all started because Hamas, feeling
its oats as the new government of "Palestine," has decided to continue
to step up terrorist operations against Israel, apparently not fully
grasping that _as the government_ these are much more clearly
Palestinian acts of war against Israel.

I also don't see why all this would be to the Israeli advantage, unless
this is combined with a long-term plan to drive the Palestinians out of
Gaza and the West Bank. I _hope_ that it is, but I greatly fear that
the Israelis still imagine peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians
possible -- they've been pursuing that mirage for a very long time now.

Though I do think that it's likely that Israel will emerge from this
First Terrorist War that began in 2001 with a stronger position
vis-a-vis the Islamic world :)

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

PS - I know full well that you meant this to be alarming and ominous.
However, I'm rather pro-Israeli, and see it as a good development for
the world if Israeli power grows.

Dean A. Markley wrote:
>
> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
supremacy.

The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a taste of
what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)

- Jordan

Dean A. Markley wrote:

> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

How does that act of war improve matters?

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5

Jordan wrote:
> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>
>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>
>
> True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
> repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
> civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
> personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
> on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
> others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
> collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
> supremacy.
>
> The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
> chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a taste of
> what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)

Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel to end its
occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria? It has been well
known for year in Israel, right from Moshe Dayan, that it provoked Syria into
defending itself during the 1967 war solely for the purpose of stealing the
Syrian Heights.

--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Dean A. Markley wrote:
> >
> >>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> >>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
> >
> >
> > True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
> > repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
> > civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
> > personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
> > on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
> > others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
> > collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
> > supremacy.
> >
> > The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
> > chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a taste of
> > what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)
>
> Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel to end its
> occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria? It has been well
> known for year in Israel, right from Moshe Dayan, that it provoked Syria into
> defending itself during the 1967 war solely for the purpose of stealing the
> Syrian Heights.

You mean the heights which were being used as bases to shell Israeli
civilians?

Jordan wrote:
> dontcowerfromthetruth wrote:
>>Keep in mind (when reading the following) that Syria has supposedly
>>made some sort of defense pact with Iran.

> Syria and Iran have made an explicit, open defense pact.

As they have both been threatened by both Israel and the US as was Iraq and
they have seen the US slaughter in Iraq that is the least they should do.

>>So is attacking Damascus the
>>way the Zionists will expand the war for Israel to Syria and Iran next
>>(in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed
>>intelligence writer/author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321
>>of his 'A Pretext for War' book - see the URL about such included after
>>the following) as Bush and Cheney have already said that the US would
>>come to Israel's aid if Israel is attacked which will most likely
>>happen if Israel gets into it with Syria and Iran:

> Well damn, it would be _nice_ if this happened -- it would get the war
> with Syria and Iran out into the open and put a powerful ally on our
> side. Plus, Israel could smack around Syria, maybe bite off another
> chunk of their territory, keeping the Syrians occupied while we took
> out the Iranian regime. If, that is, we're ready for it.

http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml

2006 June 26

Palestinians guilty again
In the two weeks before Palestinians from Gaza destroyed an Israeli tank,
killing two, injuring one, kidnapping a fourth, had murdered 18 civilians in
Gaza including women, children and paramedics. But it is Palestinians who are
guilty for fighting back. It is always the same. Zionists can do no wrong.

But they kidnapped a member of the Israeli army!!! The day before Israeli troops
entered Gaza and kidnapped two Palestinians who have since disappeared. The
government press release said they were terrorists but they have not been
charged. They have not been heard of since. Ever wonder who sold Bush on the
idea of a prison in Guantanamo?

The real screw up in this was the failure of IDF policy to kill their own rather
than let them be taken prisoner. If Palestinians kill him it will be murder.
Looks to me like they will be doing the IDF's job for them.

Shocked?
Yes the IDF does have this policy and it is well known in Israel. The reason is
the voters get hysterical when it happens and demand the government make all the
concessions demanded. When it happens near elections the government has been
forced to do just that. The policy to kill their own is to avoid having to make
concessions to the occupied people.

And the world goes along with it
The IDF is enforcing a criminal occupation of Gaza. Why is the death of the
criminals more important than the deaths of the victims of occupation? Does
Israel control the news in the West? I have no answer to that question. I do
know the press behaves as though it is controlled by Israel.

Why does not the government of Palestine stop it?
The government does not have the arms needed because Israel does not want them
to have weapons. The government does not have money to pay men to make peace
because Israel does not want them to have money to pay salaries. The government
in the West Bank does not have access to Gaza because Israel does not want them
to have access to Gaza.

So first making it impossible for the Palestinian government to do anything
about it Israel then holds the government responsible for not stopping it. Where
is even a casual mention of the in the news? If Israel controlled the news it is
not clear how the coverage could better promote Israeli propaganda.

> I don't know though that the timing of this is entirely or at all under
> Israeli control. Remember that this all started because Hamas, feeling
> its oats as the new government of "Palestine," has decided to continue
> to step up terrorist operations against Israel, apparently not fully
> grasping that _as the government_ these are much more clearly
> Palestinian acts of war against Israel.

It all started because a bunch of murderous, thieving Europeans went to
Palestine with the explicite intention to expel the native population and steal
their property.

> I also don't see why all this would be to the Israeli advantage, unless
> this is combined with a long-term plan to drive the Palestinians out of
> Gaza and the West Bank. I _hope_ that it is, but I greatly fear that
> the Israelis still imagine peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians
> possible -- they've been pursuing that mirage for a very long time now.

Why are you hoping for an additional war crime such as was found a hanging
offense at Nuremberg? Why do you support such a crime against humanity? Are you
a Nazi?

> Though I do think that it's likely that Israel will emerge from this
> First Terrorist War that began in 2001 with a stronger position
> vis-a-vis the Islamic world :)

Resistance to occupation is the lawful right of every occupied people.

> PS - I know full well that you meant this to be alarming and ominous.
> However, I'm rather pro-Israeli, and see it as a good development for
> the world if Israeli power grows.

Every attack on Israel is completely lawful.

http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml

Killing Israelis accords with international law
by Matt Giwer, © 2004 [March]

Israel and its supporters, affectionately known as Izziehuggers , bemoan the
loss of lives proclaimed innocent when Israelis die. That is the usual "poor us"
self-pity. Like it or not, international law is on the side of the Palestinians.
International law specifically approves attacking members of a foreign military
and the destruction of military assets.

Attacking members of the foreign military with deadly force is approved by the
Geneva and Hague treaties. These agreements do not distinguish between on and
off duty. They do not distinguish between active duty and reserve.

Israel has universal military service. After all the loopholes and caveats are
considered 25-30% of Israelis are either active duty or reserve military. All of
them are legitimate targets. It would be improbably bad luck to bomb any
gathering of Israelis and not injure or kill at least one member of the Israeli
military. The simple presence of one member of the military, active or reserve,
justifies any and all attacks. Israel uses this principle when it kills a dozen
to get just one so there can be no objection to it.

In Israel the public transportation system is a military asset. It is used every
day to move troops around the country and back and forth from the occupied
territories. In time of war the entire system is commandeered to move troops to
the front. They are as much a military asset as a Humvee or a tank or a train in
Nazi Germany. Destroying them is not only legitimate but specifically approved.

In both cases those who might actually qualify as innocent such as children are
considered collateral damage. That makes them unfortunate and unintended
casualties in an otherwise lawful attack. The parents know the danger to which
they expose their children.

The ratio of collateral damage to the intended action is not a consideration in
that deaths and injuries are accepted when destroying military assets such as
buses. As there is no ratio between a bus and a life it is not a consideration.

Israel recognizes the acceptability of collateral loss of life and limb. It
dropped a one ton bomb into an apartment building at 2am to kill one man. In the
process seventeen others were killed and over a hundred injured. The Prime
Minister personally declared this to be a successful operation. Israeli
crocodile tears over their own dead while they do the same and worse is simply a
propaganda ploy -- one last cynical use for the dead.

Israel does have a way out of this. It can simply stop hiding its military among
civilians. It can prohibit its civilian population from using military assets
such as the bus system. If it were to take those steps it would have
justification to object when civilians are harmed.

Not only is this impractical it is in fact impossible. Ability to comply with
the rules does not change or even mitigate the rules. As long as Israel hides
its military among the civilian population all attacks are lawful.

Not only are they lawful but Israel excuses its killing of civilians with
exactly this argument. It states Palestinian freedom fighters aka terrorists are
hiding among the civilian population. Therefore civilians casualties do not
mitigate its attacks on its enemies.

Reference
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,
Articles 48-78

Paradise Now doesn't go this far and is still condemned. No question why
Zionists have worked so hard to shut down this website.

Page reads: 19038

--
If the war on terror stops the price of oil goes back to $30 per barrel and
all the investments in ethanol plants go into bankruptcy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3667
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
>> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>
>>> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>>
>>
>>
>> True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
>> repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
>> civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
>> personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
>> on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
>> others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
>> collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
>> supremacy.
>>
>> The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
>> chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a taste of
>> what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)
>
>
> Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel
> to end its occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria?
> It has been well known for year in Israel, right from Moshe Dayan, that
> it provoked Syria into defending itself during the 1967 war solely for
> the purpose of stealing the Syrian Heights.
>

Do you mean the Golan Heights, where the Syrian Army had been firing
artillery down on Israeli civilians for the eighteen years preceding the
1967 war?

ALV

birdboy2000 wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Jordan wrote:
>>>Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>>>True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
>>>repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
>>>civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
>>>personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
>>>on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
>>>others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
>>>collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
>>>supremacy.
>>>The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
>>>chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a taste of
>>>what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)

>> Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel to end its
>>occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria? It has been well
>>known for year in Israel, right from Moshe Dayan, that it provoked Syria into
>>defending itself during the 1967 war solely for the purpose of stealing the
>>Syrian Heights.

> You mean the heights which were being used as bases to shell Israeli
> civilians?

No, I mean what really was going on not Israeli propaganda.

--
The good thing about the Hamas win in Palestine is the US stopped pushing
for democratic elections in Syria. The only way to get sense into a neocon
is with a two by four.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3639
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

Andrew Venor wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>>> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>>> True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
>>> repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
>>> civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
>>> personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
>>> on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
>>> others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
>>> collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
>>> supremacy.
>>> The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
>>> chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a taste of
>>> what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)

>> Don't you think it would help its international position for
>> Israel to end its occupation of southern Syria before making demands
>> on Syria? It has been well known for year in Israel, right from Moshe
>> Dayan, that it provoked Syria into defending itself during the 1967
>> war solely for the purpose of stealing the Syrian Heights.

> Do you mean the Golan Heights, where the Syrian Army had been firing
> artillery down on Israeli civilians for the eighteen years preceding the
> 1967 war?

Actually I was refering to the shelling of Israelis who were living on stolen
Syrian land fronting the Sea of Galilee. Syria certainly has a right to shell
its own territory

I have similarly suggested Syria lease the Heights to Iran as a down range
missile test range.

If there was a dispute over the land in question then it could certainly have
been put to international arbitration.

In any event, despite the Israeli propaganda, Moshe Dayan give the real and
only reason for provoking Syria. To steal the land. That is what he said. It has
been confirmed by his daughter.

It was this revelation which shot down the Israeli propaganda. The propaganda
has been discredited. There is no point in trying to resurrect it today.

--
A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of
evils.
Pro-Israel is anti-American.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3642
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel to end its
> occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria?

No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
_annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
you offering us to purchase them?"

This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

> It has been well
> known for year in Israel, right from Moshe Dayan, that it provoked Syria into
> defending itself during the 1967 war solely for the purpose of stealing the
> Syrian Heights.

LOL!!! And the Israelis used their magic mind control rays to force
the Arab commanders into massing their air and armor for an attack?

- Jordan

Rob Arndt wrote:
> > Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> > near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
> >
> > Dean
>
> My thoughts exactly... why shatter the windows of Assad's palace when
> you can shatter the ENTIRE palace with Assad in residence??? I think
> THAT message would be much clearer to Damascus.

Yeah. In the *******'s last, pain-filled moments of life he might
think "Hey! I should have just stayed in the West and been an ordinary
guy, instead of following in my father's footsteps as an Evil Dictator.

I'm still happy that Zarqawi died slowly, in pain, and in the knowledge
that he had been captured. I hope that he went to Hell in full
awareness of the fact that the Americans had captured his secret
organizational documents and now had the ability to roll up his
network.

It's always a Happy Moment when people like that get what they deserve.
Too bad Arafat died of natural causes.

But at least the Palestinian rat*******s are getting some suffering now
to teach them that Terrorism Does Not Pay ...

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>
> > Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> > near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>
> How does that act of war improve matters?

By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
retaliation. I personally think that _whenever_ a Syrian-backed
organization hits Israel, the Israelis should pick out a block or two
of Damascus -- preferably one inhabited by the Syrian upper clases --
level it, and then do a follow-up raid a half-hour later to take out
the rescue parties and any survivors.

Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Jordan wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

>>My thoughts exactly... why shatter the windows of Assad's palace when
>>you can shatter the ENTIRE palace with Assad in residence??? I think
>>THAT message would be much clearer to Damascus.

> Yeah. In the *******'s last, pain-filled moments of life he might
> think "Hey! I should have just stayed in the West and been an ordinary
> guy, instead of following in my father's footsteps as an Evil Dictator.

How about his last agonies being breathing cyanide? Would that make you feel
better.

What did he ever do to you? The man has offered peace to Israel three times in
return for the Syrian Heights and every time Israel has refused. You hate him
because he has called Israel's bluff?

> I'm still happy that Zarqawi died slowly, in pain, and in the knowledge
> that he had been captured. I hope that he went to Hell in full
> awareness of the fact that the Americans had captured his secret
> organizational documents and now had the ability to roll up his
> network.

You would have made a great Nazi. You have all the right instincts.

Talk about irrational hatred. What did Zarqawi ever do to you?

> It's always a Happy Moment when people like that get what they deserve.
> Too bad Arafat died of natural causes.

> But at least the Palestinian rat*******s are getting some suffering now
> to teach them that Terrorism Does Not Pay ...

If you ever ask how Nazis came to feel about Jews as they did you need only
look at your feelings towards non-Jews to understand. Tell me you love
Christians to deflect the non-Jews identification of your hatred. It is simply
the one hatred you can express openly and feel justified as a zionazi in doing so.

--
Hodie postridie Kalendas Iulias MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Jordan wrote:
>> Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel to end its
>>occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria?

> No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
> _annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
> future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
> you offering us to purchase them?"

Formal annexation would be a hanging offense as a crime against humanity was it
was found to be at Nuremberg.

> This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
> Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

How would committing additional crimes against humanity have been a benefit?

>>It has been well
>>known for year in Israel, right from Moshe Dayan, that it provoked Syria into
>>defending itself during the 1967 war solely for the purpose of stealing the
>>Syrian Heights.

> LOL!!! And the Israelis used their magic mind control rays to force
> the Arab commanders into massing their air and armor for an attack?

You disagree with Moshe Dayan in his specfic statement as to the cause of the
fight against Syria during the 1967 war. I am certain you have more knowledge of
events than he did in your dreams. That is what he said and his daughter
confirmed it.

That is what really happened from the lips of the man who was in the best
position to know what really happened. Izziehugger propaganda has no standing in
this matter.

Dayan said letting the farmers encroach on the Heights was one of the two
greatest mistakes in his career because it lead to the occupation of Syria and
the impossibility of making peace. The other great mistake was letting Jews into
Hebron for a passover because they never left and required the domination of an
entire city for the sake of a few fanatics.

Been there, done that, I got the facts right from the best Israeli sources
available. You have only propaganda.

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

>> How does that act of war improve matters?

> By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
> against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
> retaliation.

Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it. Capturing a
prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law. Their
only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
accordance with his rank.

Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
support of American colonies or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
Stalin pretend innocense.

Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

> I personally think that _whenever_ a Syrian-backed
> organization hits Israel, the Israelis should pick out a block or two
> of Damascus -- preferably one inhabited by the Syrian upper clases --
> level it, and then do a follow-up raid a half-hour later to take out
> the rescue parties and any survivors.

And I think the US should have nuked Tel Aviv in response to the attack on the
USS Liberty but opinions vary particularly among Izziehuggers. That would be in
similar proportion to Israel's vengence attacks on occupied Gaza.

> Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

Do you really expect to get away with Zionist lies when posting to me? The
reason you folks try to shut me out of s.h.w-i is because I know the facts and
do not subscribe to your izziehugging imaginary history.

How does if feel to deal with a man who knows more about Israel than you do?

In light of what really happened OTL if you can make a case for Israel and its
actions please do so.

--
America did not learn from a one day strike by illegals. The only way to
teach America a real lesson is to go back to Mexico until America begs you to
return.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3644
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

On 1 Jul 2006 11:40:09 -0700
"Jordan" > wrote:

<snip wank and flame fest material>

This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
past related.


--
Lyn David Thomas

dontcowerfromthetruth wrote:
> Keep in mind (when reading the following) that Syria has supposedly
> made some sort of defense pact with Iran. So is attacking Damascus the
> way the Zionists will expand the war for Israel to Syria and Iran next
> (in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed
> intelligence writer/author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321
> of his 'A Pretext for War' book - see the URL about such included after
> the following) as Bush and Cheney have already said that the US would
> come to Israel's aid if Israel is attacked which will most likely
> happen if Israel gets into it with Syria and Iran:
>
> Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
>
> http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=34399
>
>
> Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus
> By Hakan Isayev, Cihan News Agency, Cairo
> Published: Friday, June 30, 2006
> zaman.com
>
>
> Israel holds Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas' Syrian branch,
> responsible for the abduction of two Israeli soldiers and wants Syria
> to expel Palestinian leaders from the country.
> Israel threatened to kill Hamas militants based in Damascus.
> Al-Jazeera television said Public Security Minister Avi Dichter claimed
> they knew the locations of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad leaders in Syria and
> will not hesitate to kill them.
> Justice Minister Chaim Ramon said, "The leader of Al Qaeda, Meshal is
> a terrorist of the worst kind, and the international community must
> exert pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to expel Meshal from
> Syria."
> Ramon claimed Meshaal gave the order for abduction and is now a target
> for assassination.
> Syrian security forces said they tightened the security measures to
> protect the HAMAS leader.
> Israeli army said yesterday they carried out a low-altitude flight over
> the palace of Syrian President Bashar Assad in Latakia, in northwestern
> Syria.
>
> Syrian sources reported that they fired at two Israeli planes flying
> over Syrian air space.
> Related News:
> Israel Arrests Palestine Parliamentarians
> Israel Detains 90 Palestinian Politicians
>
>
>
>
> Israeli warplanes buzz Syrian president:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/28/israel.soldier/index.html
>
>
>
> Next step of 'A Clean Break' (attacking Syria and then Iran via
> Lebanon) - read what Bamford wrote on pages 261-269 of his 'A Pretext
> for War' book by scrolling down to such at the following URL:
>
>
>
> 'A Clean Break' (scroll down to pages 261-269 of from James Bamford's '
> A Pretext for War' book at the following URL):
>
>
>
> http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
>
> Mearsheimer/Walt on NPR discussing pro-Israel lobby
>
> http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/06/21.php#11074
>
>
> Dennis Ross (who is associated with AIPAC) was also interviewed in the
> above NPR program with John Mearsheimer as Ross was also nailed for
> being an AIPAC hack for Israel via the following URLs:
>
> http://www.IRmep.org/jm.wmv
>
> The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel
>
> http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html
>
>
>
> Professor Spiegel (who was on the NPR program with Mearsheimer
> referenced above) of UCLA had his class appear before the Syrian
> Ambassador to the USA as conveyed via the following URL (the Syrian
> Ambassador responded to the question/comment about the 'A Clean
> Break'/war for Israel agenda):
>
> Syrian Ambassador Calls for Comprehensive Peace Settlement in the
> Middle East
>
> http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=25567
>
> Additional at following URL:
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=36041
>
>
> Listen to Ali Abunimah via the following 'Democracy Now' segment:
>
>
>
> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/28/1421222
>
>
>
> US Support for Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic World Trade Center
> attacks in 1993 and on 9/11 as well:
>
> http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590
>
>
>
> http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com


Normally I would avoid a thread like this- but this is too much.

Israel has a nuclear weapons. No nuclear armed state can be destroyed.
They have nukes. In a war with Syria- if the Syrians send ground troops
into Israel, and they aren't immediately destroyed, and if (and this is
a big if) they managed to threaten Israel exsistence, Israel can turn
Damascus into a parking lot. No matter what the street wants, Syria,
Iran, Egypt, or any coalition of Arab powers are ever going to fight
Israel. It would ammount to sucide.

Lyn David Thomas wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2006 11:40:09 -0700
> "Jordan" > wrote:
>
> <snip wank and flame fest material>
>
> This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
> past related.

Jordan is s.h.w-i. If the regulars do not ignore why should anyone else?

--
Extrajudicial killing is another term for cold blooded murder.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3666
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Big Red wrote:

> Normally I would avoid a thread like this- but this is too much.

> Israel has a nuclear weapons. No nuclear armed state can be destroyed.
> They have nukes. In a war with Syria- if the Syrians send ground troops
> into Israel, and they aren't immediately destroyed, and if (and this is
> a big if) they managed to threaten Israel exsistence, Israel can turn
> Damascus into a parking lot. No matter what the street wants, Syria,
> Iran, Egypt, or any coalition of Arab powers are ever going to fight
> Israel. It would ammount to sucide.

Which is wise but regulars insisted on making this thread happened is s.h.w-i.

Israelis are so professionally (but not really) paranoid that it proclaims a
child throwing a stone at a tank a threat to its existence and then murders the
child for it with a sniper a few days later. Not because he did it but because
the picture of throwing the stone was caught on camera. Palestinians are not
permitted to have role models.

--
The good thing about the Hamas win in Palestine is the US stopped pushing
for democratic elections in Syria. The only way to get sense into a neocon
is with a two by four.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3639
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> Israelis are so professionally (but not really) paranoid that it
> proclaims a child throwing a stone at a tank a threat to its existence
> and then murders the child for it with a sniper a few days later. Not
> because he did it but because the picture of throwing the stone was
> caught on camera. Palestinians are not permitted to have role models.

Yes they are. Corpses dead six months.

If the Isrealis don't kill a Palestinean then a thug from a rival gang
will. Actually more Palestineans are killed by other Palestineans than
by Israelis. As the late Abba Eban once said: Palestineans never miss an
opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:

> Andrew Venor wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>> Jordan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>>> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>>>>
>>>> True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
>>>> repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
>>>> civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
>>>> personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
>>>> on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
>>>> others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
>>>> collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
>>>> supremacy.
>>>> The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
>>>> chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a taste of
>>>> what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)
>
>
>>> Don't you think it would help its international position for
>>> Israel to end its occupation of southern Syria before making demands
>>> on Syria? It has been well known for year in Israel, right from Moshe
>>> Dayan, that it provoked Syria into defending itself during the 1967
>>> war solely for the purpose of stealing the Syrian Heights.
>
>
>> Do you mean the Golan Heights, where the Syrian Army had been firing
>> artillery down on Israeli civilians for the eighteen years preceding
>> the 1967 war?
>
>
> Actually I was refering to the shelling of Israelis who were living
> on stolen Syrian land fronting the Sea of Galilee. Syria certainly has a
> right to shell its own territory
>
> I have similarly suggested Syria lease the Heights to Iran as a down
> range missile test range.
>
> If there was a dispute over the land in question then it could
> certainly have been put to international arbitration.
>
> In any event, despite the Israeli propaganda, Moshe Dayan give the
> real and only reason for provoking Syria. To steal the land. That is
> what he said. It has been confirmed by his daughter.
>
> It was this revelation which shot down the Israeli propaganda. The
> propaganda has been discredited. There is no point in trying to
> resurrect it today.
>

Ignoring inconvenient facts like the eighteen years of Syrian artillery
raining down from the Golan Heights on Israeli civilians just because it
doesn't fit your anti-Semitic view of the world tells us all we need to
know about what kind of person you are.

To quote the late American Ambassador and Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not
entitled to their own facts."

I don't know how you got out of my kill file, but your going right back in.

ALV

"Jordan" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>
> No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
> _annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
> future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
> you offering us to purchase them?"
>
> This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
> Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

What would your do with the four million
people living there?
Mass expulsion? To where?
Keep them as a permanent underclass?
Give them the franchise?
Do you have final solution in mind?

wrote:
> "Jordan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> >
> > No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
> > _annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
> > future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
> > you offering us to purchase them?"
> >
> > This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
> > Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
>
> What would your do with the four million
> people living there?
> Mass expulsion? To where?

Shove them over the borders to the Arab states who so love them that
they are willing to use them as a permanent causis belli against
Israel. I'm sure that they would be well-treated by their Arab
brethren.

And if not, at least they wouldn't be Israel's concern any more. There
would be an international outcry, sanctions would be demanded, nothing
would happen, and in a few years they'd be as forgotten as the few
million Germans pushed out of the territories Poland annexed in 1945 --
in the middle of war and a terrible winter.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Jordan wrote:
> wrote:
> > "Jordan" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> > >
> > > No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
> > > _annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
> > > future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
> > > you offering us to purchase them?"
> > >
> > > This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
> > > Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
> >
> > What would your do with the four million
> > people living there?
> > Mass expulsion? To where?
>
> Shove them over the borders to the Arab states who so love them that
> they are willing to use them as a permanent causis belli against
> Israel. I'm sure that they would be well-treated by their Arab
> brethren.
>
> And if not, at least they wouldn't be Israel's concern any more. There
> would be an international outcry, sanctions would be demanded, nothing
> would happen, and in a few years they'd be as forgotten as the few
> million Germans pushed out of the territories Poland annexed in 1945 --
> in the middle of war and a terrible winter.

Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
Germany did try to expel Jews.

> This is also how Germany should have dealt with the issues of the Jews

> Shove them over the borders to the Western states who so love them that
> they are willing to use them as a permanent causis belli against
> Germany. I'm sure that they would be well-treated by their Western
> brethren.

> And if not, at least they wouldn't be Germany's concern any more. There
> would be an international outcry, sanctions would be demanded, nothing
> would happen

If you had any real influence you would be disturbing.

Jordan wrote:

> If the Israelis had done this after 1967-72, there would have been _no_
> "Palestinian issue," and by now there would be very little
> international concern about the descendants of said "Palestinians," who
> would have long since integrated into whatever countries they wound up
> living in.

In whatever country Palestineans dwell they are a pox and a nuisance.
Recall what happened in Lebanon. They were also a pain in the arse in
Kuwait where some of them worked. They were not particularly loved by
their Muslim "brothers".

Bob Kolker

wrote:
> Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
> Germany did try to expel Jews.

Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

- Jordan

Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>
> This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
> past related.

Nothing is off-topic for soc.history.what-if; since it accepted Coyu's
tirades it has by implication declared itself to be the dumping-ground
for whatever crap _anyone_ chooses to post here.

Enjoy the environment you helped create :)

- Jordan

Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>
> This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
> past related.

Hey, Lyn, shouldn't you be cowering in your basement in fear of the
feral dogs?

- Jordan

Andrew Venor wrote:
> Ignoring inconvenient facts like the eighteen years of Syrian artillery
> raining down from the Golan Heights on Israeli civilians just because it
> doesn't fit your anti-Semitic view of the world tells us all we need to
> know about what kind of person you are.

Oh, no, Matt doesn't _ignore_ it. He _celebrates_ it. He believes
that Israel is so inherently illegitimate as a nation that any and all
Arabs have the right to kill Israelis whenever they want to, for no
provocation other than Israel's own existence.

He's said so explicitly, more than once.

The thing that we should all be aware of is that this is _also_ the
official POV of pretty much every Arab country, even the so-called
"moderate" ones. It's what they teach in their schools, it's what they
grow up believing, and it's why Israel has to retain its defenses and
eschew liberal goodwill in its foreign policy if Israel is to survive.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Andrew Venor wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> Andrew Venor wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jordan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>>>> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True. The advantage of hitting Damascus, though, especially if it's
>>>>> repeated and especially if collateral damage kills some rich Damascene
>>>>> civilians, is that it brings home to Syria that there could be a _big_
>>>>> personal cost, felt by the Syrian ruling elite, for supporting attacks
>>>>> on Israel. Heck, I think that Israel should _target_ Assad, and then
>>>>> others in the Syrian leadership, in the hopes of making that country
>>>>> collapse into civil war as the hyena-like survivors struggle for
>>>>> supremacy.
>>>>> The Syrian elite has spent a good deal of the last few decades causing
>>>>> chaos in Lebanon and death everywhere abroad. Let them have a
>>>>> taste of
>>>>> what it's like, at home. Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Don't you think it would help its international position for
>>>> Israel to end its occupation of southern Syria before making demands
>>>> on Syria? It has been well known for year in Israel, right from
>>>> Moshe Dayan, that it provoked Syria into defending itself during the
>>>> 1967 war solely for the purpose of stealing the Syrian Heights.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Do you mean the Golan Heights, where the Syrian Army had been firing
>>> artillery down on Israeli civilians for the eighteen years preceding
>>> the 1967 war?

>> Actually I was refering to the shelling of Israelis who were
>> living on stolen Syrian land fronting the Sea of Galilee. Syria
>> certainly has a right to shell its own territory

>> I have similarly suggested Syria lease the Heights to Iran as a
>> down range missile test range.

>> If there was a dispute over the land in question then it could
>> certainly have been put to international arbitration.

>> In any event, despite the Israeli propaganda, Moshe Dayan give the
>> real and only reason for provoking Syria. To steal the land. That is
>> what he said. It has been confirmed by his daughter.

>> It was this revelation which shot down the Israeli propaganda. The
>> propaganda has been discredited. There is no point in trying to
>> resurrect it today.

> Ignoring

Ignoring Moshe Dayan is truly incredible.

> inconvenient facts like the eighteen years of Syrian artillery
> raining down from the Golan Heights on Israeli civilians

If Israel was permitting its citizens to live on occupied Syrian territory that
means they committed a hanging offense as per the Nuremberg Tribunal. It is
crime against humanity.

And the civilians living on occupied Syrian land was also criminals as are
those today who are living on the Syrian Heights, in the West Bank and in East
Jerusalem. It is occupied territory. Both Israel's Attorney General and the
Chief Justice of Israel's Supreme Court agree they are occuppied territories.
That makes the squatters and those who permit them to squat are war criminals.

It is also the right of any country to attack anyone encroaching on its
sovereign territory. Even without pointing out the squatters were criminals it
is obvious they were choosing to put their lives in danger and Syria had every
right to use deadly force to drive foreigners out of Syrian territory. Syria has
no fewer rights because Zionists wanted to steal their land.

> just because it
> doesn't fit your anti-Semitic view of the world tells us all we need to
> know about what kind of person you are.

The truth cannot be anti-semitic. Settling citizens on occupied territory is a
crime against humanity as per Nuremberg. It is also designated a war crime in
post war treaties and conventions Israel has signed.

You cannot justify a war crime no matter how hard you try.

> To quote the late American Ambassador and Senator Daniel Patrick
> Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not
> entitled to their own facts."

And the facts are Moshe Dayan gave the only reason for picking a fight with
Syria during the 1967 war. And that also shows Israel was never in danger during
the 67 war giving the lie to another piece of Israeli propaganda.

> I don't know how you got out of my kill file, but your going right back in.

That will save me a lot of time setting you straight on the designated war
crimes in this world and who is committing them.

--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Hey Matt, the laundry called while you were out. They want to know if
you want your brown shirts washed with or without starch.

ALV

Jordan wrote:
> Andrew Venor wrote:

>>Ignoring inconvenient facts like the eighteen years of Syrian artillery
>>raining down from the Golan Heights on Israeli civilians just because it
>>doesn't fit your anti-Semitic view of the world tells us all we need to
>>know about what kind of person you are.

> Oh, no, Matt doesn't _ignore_ it. He _celebrates_ it.

I recited the only reason Moshe Dayan gave for it. That Izziehuggers find the
truth inconvenient does not make the truth antisemitic. Dayan considered one of
the two greatest mistakes of his career.

> He believes
> that Israel is so inherently illegitimate as a nation that any and all
> Arabs have the right to kill Israelis whenever they want to, for no
> provocation other than Israel's own existence.

I have never said that. I have said Palestinians have ever right to reclaim
their private property and resist military occupation by any means available. I
have said other nations have every right to assist the Palestinians in their
fight for justice as the US has assisted so many other peoples in their fight
for justice and to end foreign occupation.

> He's said so explicitly, more than once.

Again you lie about what I have said. You always do. And when challenged you
can never produce any post of mine which supports what you claim I have said.

And the reason you never produce any post of mine is that I always give the
legal basis for what I have said.

To date NO ONE has even bothered to try to challenge the legal basis for what I
say.

Why do not you be the first?

> The thing that we should all be aware of is that this is _also_ the
> official POV of pretty much every Arab country, even the so-called
> "moderate" ones. It's what they teach in their schools, it's what they
> grow up believing, and it's why Israel has to retain its defenses and
> eschew liberal goodwill in its foreign policy if Israel is to survive.

Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive? Or must the world
demand it cease its criminal activities as a condition of survival? The
occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Heights are
criminal as are all the citizens of Israel who live there, have lived there or
who support the occupation in any way such as with tax money.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Jordan wrote:
>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>Jordan wrote:
>>>> Don't you think it would help its international position for Israel to end its
>>>>occupation of southern Syria before making demands on Syria?
>>>No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
>>>_annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
>>>future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
>>>you offering us to purchase them?"

>> Formal annexation would be a hanging offense as a crime against humanity was it
>>was found to be at Nuremberg.

> Nonsense. Formal annexation of territory captured in war is a _normal_
> disposal of such territory. And this has been true even after World
> War II: note the dispositions of Tibet and South Vietnam.

So you are saying Israel is no better than communist countries. South Vietnam
was scheduled for a reunification vote in 1956. The west refused to hold that
election as the people would have overwhelmingly voted for it. Keeping the two
separate was contrary to the will of the people. As for Tibet, that annexation
is still not recognized.

In fact membership in the UN requires a nation to foreswear gaining land by
war. When Jordan annexed the West Bank only one country in the world recognized
that action, Egypt. When Jordan annexed Jerusalem no country recognized it not
even Egypt.

Similarly no country in the world has recognized Israel's claim to have annexed
Jerusalem. Israel has not claimed to have annexed anything else so there is no
issue of recognition.

The issue here is settling civilian populations in occupied territory. That is
clearly a hanging offense and a crime against humanity as per Nuremberg, the UN
Charter and the Geneva conventions. If you hold that is not a crime then you
hold the Nazis did nothing wrong by moving Germans into ANNEXED Poland and
expelling Poles from it.

Again, when did you become a Nazi?

> Do you
> really believe that if the Arabs had won _any_ territory from Israel in
> any of the Arab-Israeli Wars, the captured territory wouldn't have been
> formally annexed by one of the victor Powers?

As above that was what Jordan tried and only one country recognized one of the
two announced annexations.

>>>This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
>>>Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

>>How would committing additional crimes against humanity have been a benefit?

> Formal annexation of captured territory is not a "crime against
> humanity," so your question is meaningless.

Have you never read the indictment or the judgements from the Nuremberg
tribunal? Why do you not read them some day and learn my basis for saying what I
say?

Are you saying the Nazi actions in Poland were lawful? That the expulsion of
Poles was lawful? That settling citizens of Germany in ANNEXED Poland was lawful?

When did you become a Nazi? When did you come to agree Nazi actions in Poland
were lawful?

> Assuming that you meant
> "How would annexing these territories have been a benfit?" the answer
> is that the Israelis could then have deported the Palestinians from
> this new Israeli territory. There would have been an international
> outcry, calls for action and sanctions, and in a few years the issue
> would have quietly died away.

As no country has recognized Israel's claimed annexation of Jerusalem what
makes you think any country would recognize its claim to have annexed anything
else?

And the deportation would be an additional crime against humanity as it was
when Germany expelled Poles from the part of Poland it claimed to have annexed.
Note also that annexation was recognized by members of the Axis and the Soviet
Union so it is far more than have recognized any annexation claims regarding
Palestine.

And that would result in millions more people with a lawful right to use deadly
force against those who drove them out as the Polish resistance was lawful.

> If the Israelis had done this after 1967-72, there would have been _no_
> "Palestinian issue," and by now there would be very little
> international concern about the descendants of said "Palestinians," who
> would have long since integrated into whatever countries they wound up
> living in. Furthermore, if the Israelis had made plain that, if
> attacked again, it would annex _more_ territory from the aggressor
> states after beating them and expel _those_ inhabitants, I suspect that
> the Arabs would have lost interest in actually attacking Israel.

You have gotten an overblown sense of your ability to predict an alternate
future from s.h.w-i. No country would have recognized the annexation nor the
legitimacy of the expulsion just as today NO country recognizes the legitimacy
of any of Israel's expulsions including those from 1947-48.

Why do you dream Palestinians would forget a real expulsion when Jews who were
never expelled from Judea developed an entire mythology to justify the atheist
Zionists returning nearly two millenia later?

You live in a fantasy world.

> By failing to formally annex such territories, the Israelis create a
> situation where they win nothing by winning any wars, but lose
> everything if they lose any wars -- which tempts Arab aggression. They
> are making the mistake of dealing with the Arabs as good-faith
> negotiators interested in peace, when the Arabs are only interested in
> destroying Israel and consider it totally acceptable to violate any
> promises made to the Israelis.

Claiming to annex is something any country can do. The actual annexation has to
be recognized by other countries to be considered legitimate.

Israel is not considered legitimate by so many nations because the expulsion is
not recognized as legitimate by any nation nor by the United Nations. Israel's
right to exist has to be considered in light of the right of a nation of
criminals to exist.

When did you forget the libertarian principle of the absolute right to private
property? When did you forget the absolute right of the owners of property to
use any means available including deadly force to obtain the return of their
property? When did you forget that sovereignty does not mean ownership? When you
became a Nazi or when you became a communist?

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Jordan wrote:

>> If the Israelis had done this after 1967-72, there would have been _no_
>> "Palestinian issue," and by now there would be very little
>> international concern about the descendants of said "Palestinians," who
>> would have long since integrated into whatever countries they wound up
>> living in.

> In whatever country Palestineans dwell they are a pox and a nuisance.
> Recall what happened in Lebanon. They were also a pain in the arse in
> Kuwait where some of them worked. They were not particularly loved by
> their Muslim "brothers".

Which is why they should be returned to their former homes in Palestine
including the part of it which is now called Israel.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Jordan wrote:
> wrote:

>>Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
>>Germany did try to expel Jews.

> Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
> murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

Their property had not been stolen at that time so they did not have the lawful
right to use deadly force to regain it.

You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.

If the world does not like it then the world should revert to the pre-WWII
rules where resistance to occupation was illegal.

--
During the Cold War anyone who supported Russia was justly considered
culpable in everything Russia did. Today anyone who supports Israel is
culpable in everything Israel does.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3664
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
....
>>And if not, at least they wouldn't be Germany's concern any more. There
>>would be an international outcry, sanctions would be demanded, nothing
>>would happen

> If you had any real influence you would be disturbing.

He is a typical Zionist, murderous and thieving to the core. By definition all
Zionists are murderers and thieves.

--
Hodie postridie Kalendas Iulias MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Jordan wrote:
> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>>This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
>>past related.

> Nothing is off-topic for soc.history.what-if; since it accepted Coyu's
> tirades it has by implication declared itself to be the dumping-ground
> for whatever crap _anyone_ chooses to post here.

> Enjoy the environment you helped create :)

I have never been off-topic in s.h.w-i. We have been over that many times and
no one has produced a single example of it. I did not post one word in this
thread until you posted.

That I deal with real history regarding WWII and you deal accept Allied
proganda as what happened regarding WWII is a long-standing disagreement and
will likely never be resolved.

--
The US media is indistinguishable from a state controlled media.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3641
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

"Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
. ..
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?
>
> If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
> genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
> Injuns.
>
> I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
> returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
> predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?
>
> Bob Kolker
>

Good point. Pretty much every country that exists today was created at
someone elses expense, often displacing groups that had previously displaced
other groups, and on and on...

Jarg

"Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
. ..
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>
>> Which is why they should be returned to their former homes in
>> Palestine including the part of it which is now called Israel.
>
> I agree. Within 48 hours of when the U.S. returns the Great Plains to the
> descendents of the aboriginals killed to steal the land in the first place
> and when the lost buffalo herds are replaced.
>
> Bob Kolker

Then we can allow the tribes the opportunity to sort out which one was where
first, although that would seem problematic given their lack of written
history.

Jarg

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
. ..
If you had any real influence you would be disturbing.
>
> He is a typical Zionist, murderous and thieving to the core. By definition
> all Zionists are murderers and thieves.


Not to overgeneralize or anything...

Jarg

Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>
> If Israel was permitting its citizens to live on occupied Syrian
> territory that means they committed a hanging offense as per the
> Nuremberg Tribunal. It is crime against humanity.

Captured territory that is no longer Syrian. The Syrians lost the fight,
so they lose the land. Spoils of war and all that.

In just about every other war the loosers lose and the winners win. And
Israel is not permitted?

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
>
> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?

If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
Injuns.

I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?

Bob Kolker

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?

> If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
> genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
> Injuns.

So Israel is no better than 19th c. America? Is that the best argument you can
come up with?

As you know although cannot deal with as an Izziehugger the rules changed
during WWII. After WWII the changes were put in writing. Israel signed the
treaty against genocide while committing genocide. Israel has not yet followed
its obligation under the genocide treaty by passing laws to make the provisions
of the genocide treaty criminal in Israel.

> I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
> returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
> predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?

Israel does not have even one treaty with Palestinians.

The US not only has treaties with the Indians for all the lands but the tribes
have gone to court demanding enforcement of them thus recognizing them as lawful.

When do you think Israel will get the first treaty with the Palestinians?

This is far from the first time I have posted such facts and at least twice to
you and as yet you have not had a rational response. Is your problem that the
facts do not register on braindead Zionists?

--
If the war on terror stops the price of oil goes back to $30 per barrel and
all the investments in ethanol plants go into bankruptcy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3667
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Jarg wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?
>>If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
>>genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
>>Injuns.

>>I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
>>returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
>>predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?

> Good point. Pretty much every country that exists today was created at
> someone elses expense, often displacing groups that had previously displaced
> other groups, and on and on...

In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a good response?
Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how does the comparison to
Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These days we cheer for the Indians at
Little Big Horn. Why do you think he invites cheering the Palestinians because
they are being treated like the Indians?

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

Andrew Venor wrote:
> Hey Matt, the laundry called while you were out. They want to know if
> you want your brown shirts washed with or without starch.

Tell them to do the same you have done to your brown kippa.

Note for the historically challenged: Brown shirts refers to Fascists in Italy
not Nazis in Germany. It is only the much worse Marxists who refer to the Nazis
as Fascists. This implies Mr. Venor is a Marxist who is ten times worse than the
worst Nazis are accused of.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
> Which is why they should be returned to their former homes in
> Palestine including the part of it which is now called Israel.

I agree. Within 48 hours of when the U.S. returns the Great Plains to
the descendents of the aboriginals killed to steal the land in the first
place and when the lost buffalo herds are replaced.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
> He is a typical Zionist, murderous and thieving to the core. By
> definition all Zionists are murderers and thieves.

Just like Americans who took the land from the Injuns, killed them,
spread disease and drunkeness among them and stole the land. We are all
son's of bitches. That is the way it is.

I think the Israelis should give it back a day after the U.S. does the
same to the descendents of the Injuns killed in dispossessing them from
their land. Do you care to hold your breath until that happens.

Yodah says: Hold not your breath, Young Matt, until done is justice,
else blue turn you will.

Bob Kolker

>

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> If Israel was permitting its citizens to live on occupied Syrian
>> territory that means they committed a hanging offense as per the
>> Nuremberg Tribunal. It is crime against humanity.

> Captured territory that is no longer Syrian. The Syrians lost the fight,
> so they lose the land. Spoils of war and all that.

Israel had not claimed to have annexed it therefore it remains Syria. You are
putting the cart before the horse.

Should Israel ever claim to annex it that annexation will have to be recognized
by the rest of the world. At the moment no country in the world recognizes
Israel's claim to have annexed Jerusalem. How much luck do you think it will
have with any other annexation claim?

> In just about every other war the loosers lose and the winners win. And
> Israel is not permitted?

Because as a condition of becoming a member of the UN it swore never to do such
a thing. And that is the most likely explanation for why it has NOT claimed to
have annexed southern Syria.

Why is it you izziehuggers do not know even the most elementary facts about the
region? Do you work at remaining ignorant? Or do you simply memorize the
propaganda and spout it hoping no one knows enough to expose the lies?

--
Hodie postridie Kalendas Iulias MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Which is why they should be returned to their former homes in
>> Palestine including the part of it which is now called Israel.

> I agree. Within 48 hours of when the U.S. returns the Great Plains to
> the descendents of the aboriginals killed to steal the land in the first
> place and when the lost buffalo herds are replaced.

All of those not covered by existing treaties of course.

--
America will murder as many Iraqis as required to liberate Iraq from Iraqis.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3651
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

Jarg wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Which is why they should be returned to their former homes in
>>>Palestine including the part of it which is now called Israel.
>>I agree. Within 48 hours of when the U.S. returns the Great Plains to the
>>descendents of the aboriginals killed to steal the land in the first place
>>and when the lost buffalo herds are replaced.

> Then we can allow the tribes the opportunity to sort out which one was where
> first, although that would seem problematic given their lack of written
> history.

They all signed treaties. Often they signed treaties for lands no tribe claimed
in the first place. So a few blankets for nothing was a good deal.

--
America will murder as many Iraqis as required to liberate Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3651
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> He is a typical Zionist, murderous and thieving to the core. By
>> definition all Zionists are murderers and thieves.

> Just like Americans who took the land from the Injuns, killed them,
> spread disease and drunkeness among them and stole the land. We are all
> son's of bitches. That is the way it is.

You continue this propaganda line after so many times learning why it is
illegitimate to its core.

> I think the Israelis should give it back a day after the U.S. does the
> same to the descendents of the Injuns killed in dispossessing them from
> their land. Do you care to hold your breath until that happens.

> Yodah says: Hold not your breath, Young Matt, until done is justice,
> else blue turn you will.

So me the Israeli treaties with the Palestinians ceding the land to the Israelis.

You know you have no legal leg to stand on yet to continue to repeat this ****
hoping it might fool some people.

Either that or you are too stupid to read it all the many times over the years
I have explained the differences to you.

At this point I am opting for the latter.

--
One of every eight Mexicans is in the US illegally.
Is there any question why Americans are ****ed?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3643
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >>Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
> >>Germany did try to expel Jews.
>
> > Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
> > murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?
>
> Their property had not been stolen at that time so they did not have the lawful
> right to use deadly force to regain it.

The originally Arab land that the Zionists originally built their
settlements on was stolen by the _Turks_, not the Jews (and certainly
not the "Israelis," as Israel did not exist at the time). The Zionists
purchased the land from the _Turks_.

If the Palestinians really cared about equity, they would be trying to
get compensation from _Turkey_ for the lands, instead of trying to
murder Jewish civilians.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>
> >>This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
> >>past related.
>
> > Hey, Lyn, shouldn't you be cowering in your basement in fear of the
> > feral dogs?
>
> That is a term for Zionists I have not heard before.
>
> Where did you hear it?

No, it's a reference to Lyn David Thomas' hilarious argument a long
time ago in a "Plagues" scenario that survivors of a global plague
couldn't get goods by looting abandoned cities because the feral dogs
would keep them out. When we pointed out to him that even small groups
of humans could easily fight off virtually any number of feral dogs by
shooting a few and scaring the rest with the gunfire, Lyn then tried to
argue that in most countries the survivors would be unable to get their
hands on guns to do this.

He forgot, of course, about the military and police arsenals. Lyn's
reasoning got really amusing when this was pointed out to him.

- Jordan

Jarg wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> . ..
> If you had any real influence you would be disturbing.

>>He is a typical Zionist, murderous and thieving to the core. By definition
>>all Zionists are murderers and thieves.

> Not to overgeneralize or anything...

In the early 1930s the Zionist movement adopted a policy of murdering or
expeling Palestinians from Palestine. Israel records have been used by Israeli
historians to confirm that is the policy they explicitely implemented in 1947-8.

It is not a generalization. It is a description of exactly what Zionism is by
its own definition.

--
If the <a href="http://www.ussliberty.org">attack on the Liberty</a> was a
mistake, it is possible to mistake OJ Simpson for Britney Spears in broad
daylight.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3649
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:48:42 -0500, Robert Kolker > wrote:

>Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?
>
>If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
>genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
>Injuns.
>
>I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
>returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
>predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?

Great Plains? We want our whole continent back white man, and take all
the descendants of the Spainards with you. :)

[snip]

> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

Or that palace the Assads have east (IIRC) of Damascus.
They could probably do that with ground launched rockets.

IBM

wrote in
oups.com:

> Report: Israel Threatens To Assassinate Palestinian PM If Militants
> Don't Release Captured Soldier...

Well as I stated before I hope I have time to get the
popcorn ready.
Will it be pay per view or broadcast?

IBM

Matt Giwer > wrote in
:

> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>
>> Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>> near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>
> How does that act of war improve matters?

Attitude adjustment.
Makes it clear to them they are responsible for their
surrogates.
And-uh it makes the Syrians look powerless.
Plus its fun seein' Asshat palaces goes kerblooie...

IBM

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:15:49 GMT, Matt Giwer >
wrote:

> You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
>and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.

The Third Geneva convention has several requirements for a resistence movement
to be "lawful" and thus gain the protection of the conventions. Wear a uniform
or symbol identifiable at a distance, openly carry their arms and conduct "their
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" to include not
targeting civilians, using civilians as cover or hiding among civilians.

Using men wearing civilian clothing to fire mortars into Israeli towns with
weapons manufactured and stored in refugee camps, using a plan developed by
commanders hiding in the middle of a crowded apartment block fails on all three
counts. That makes them terrorists, not a "resistance movement".

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a
>> good response? Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how
>> does the comparison to Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These days
>> we cheer for the Indians at Little Big Horn. Why do you think he
>> invites cheering the Palestinians because they are being treated like
>> the Indians?

> Good for the goose, good for the gander. I think it is unjust to ask the
> Israelis to be better than we are.

> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

First get treaties with the Palestinians ceded land to the murderous Zionists.
Then we can talk.

--
The good thing about the Hamas win in Palestine is the US stopped pushing
for democratic elections in Syria. The only way to get sense into a neocon
is with a two by four.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3639
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7

Andrew Venor > wrote in news:n7Odnc_YqKX4gzrZnZ2dnUVZ_o-
:

[snip]

> Do you mean the Golan Heights, where the Syrian Army had been firing
> artillery down on Israeli civilians for the eighteen years preceding the
> 1967 war?

Nah, couldn't be.
Must be some other Golan Heights.
Yeah, thats the ticket....

IBM

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:48:42 -0500, Robert Kolker > wrote:
>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?
>>If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
>>genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
>>Injuns.

>>I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
>>returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
>>predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?

> Great Plains? We want our whole continent back white man, and take all
> the descendants of the Spainards with you. :)

Neither Spain nor Portugal ever went through the formality of treaties. With
them you have a legal position.

--
America did not learn from a one day strike by illegals. The only way to
teach America a real lesson is to go back to Mexico until America begs you to
return.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3644
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Matt Giwer > wrote in
:

[snip]

>> Do you mean the Golan Heights, where the Syrian Army had been firing
>> artillery down on Israeli civilians for the eighteen years preceding
>> the 1967 war?
>
> Actually I was refering to the shelling of Israelis who were living
> on stolen
> Syrian land fronting the Sea of Galilee. Syria certainly has a right to
> shell its own territory

Israel begs to differ and they are able to enforce their
preferences directly.

> I have similarly suggested Syria lease the Heights to Iran as a
> down range
> missile test range.

And Israel could make Damascus the target area for an artillery
range. Its that close. Wouldn't be a whole lot the Syrians could do
about that.
Not to mention that having Iranian rockets overflying Iraq might have
other consequences..

> If there was a dispute over the land in question then it could
> certainly have
> been put to international arbitration.

The Israelis aren't likely to agree to that things being the way
they are.

> In any event, despite the Israeli propaganda, Moshe Dayan give the
> real and
> only reason for provoking Syria. To steal the land. That is what he
> said. It has been confirmed by his daughter.

Yeah right.

> It was this revelation which shot down the Israeli propaganda. The
> propaganda
> has been discredited. There is no point in trying to resurrect it today.

Jeeez, Fugginazi revisionist history, gotta love it.

IBM

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:33:37 GMT, Matt Giwer >
wrote:

> As I said, the boy in the picture was murdered by an Israeli sniper. That is
>what is called cold-blooded murder.

Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation.
Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the
only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and
execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with
guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be
running around throwing rocks at people with guns.

Matt Giwer > wrote in
:

> Jordan wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>
>>>My thoughts exactly... why shatter the windows of Assad's palace when
>>>you can shatter the ENTIRE palace with Assad in residence??? I think
>>>THAT message would be much clearer to Damascus.
>
>> Yeah. In the *******'s last, pain-filled moments of life he might
>> think "Hey! I should have just stayed in the West and been an ordinary
>> guy, instead of following in my father's footsteps as an Evil Dictator.
>
> How about his last agonies being breathing cyanide? Would that make
> you feel
> better.

Not really.
I'd want him to spend his last moments pinned to a wall with a bayonet
wielded by the largest Israeli of Ethiopian extraction they could find.

> What did he ever do to you? The man has offered peace to Israel
> three times in
> return for the Syrian Heights and every time Israel has refused. You
> hate him because he has called Israel's bluff?

Offered peace?
Yeah, right.
And just how could Syria be trusted.

>> I'm still happy that Zarqawi died slowly, in pain, and in the knowledge
>> that he had been captured. I hope that he went to Hell in full
>> awareness of the fact that the Americans had captured his secret
>> organizational documents and now had the ability to roll up his
>> network.
>
> You would have made a great Nazi. You have all the right instincts.

This from an outed Fugginazi.

> Talk about irrational hatred. What did Zarqawi ever do to you?

Zarqawi was an al-Qaeda leader. For that alone he deserved
a painful prolonged death.

>> It's always a Happy Moment when people like that get what they deserve.
>> Too bad Arafat died of natural causes.
>
>> But at least the Palestinian rat*******s are getting some suffering now
>> to teach them that Terrorism Does Not Pay ...
>
> If you ever ask how Nazis came to feel about Jews as they did you
> need only
> look at your feelings towards non-Jews to understand. Tell me you love
> Christians to deflect the non-Jews identification of your hatred. It is
> simply the one hatred you can express openly and feel justified as a
> zionazi in doing so.

I doubt very much he has problems with non-Jews.
What he and much of the world have a problem with is Islam.
Or at least what its proponents claim is Islam. Muslims living
here in the West regularly claim in public that al-Qaeda is
perverting Islam. Oddly enough the major centers of Islamic
jurisprudence in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria don't seem to
agree. Somebody isn't telling the truth.

IBM

Matt Giwer > wrote in
:

> Jordan wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>
>>> How does that act of war improve matters?
>
>> By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
>> against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
>> retaliation.
>
> Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF
> there were
> evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.
> Capturing a prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in
> international law. Their only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits
> along with proper treatment in accordance with his rank.

And when has that ever happened?
The ICRC won't get to see the latest abductee and you know it.
He will be murdered in contravention of the laws of war.
And-uh sneaking into Israel proper isn't allowed.
Were it an attack by regular forces of the Palestinian authority
that would be one thing but then it would be open war and that
is something the Paleosimians cannot afford.

In any case the Paleosimians have made their bed and will have to
lie in it. Well they lie anyway its just now they have to do it
from a horizontal position.

IBM

"Big Red" > wrote in
oups.com:

1. Trim your responses.

> Israel. It would ammount to sucide.

2. When has this ever stopped them?

IBM

Matt Giwer > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Israelis are so professionally (but not really) paranoid that it
> proclaims a

Well given their hostile neighbourhood its small wonder they
are....

> child throwing a stone at a tank a threat to its existence and then
> murders the child for it with a sniper a few days later. Not because he
> did it but because the picture of throwing the stone was caught on
> camera. Palestinians are not permitted to have role models.

Child with a stone?
Ever seen some of these "children with stones"?
A teenager with a a four foot sling launching heavy
projectiles can do serious damage. By me, taking such an
individual out with a rifle bullet is A-OK.

IBM

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Jordan wrote:
wrote:
>>>>Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
>>>>Germany did try to expel Jews.
>>>Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
>>>murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

>> Their property had not been stolen at that time so they did not have the lawful
>>right to use deadly force to regain it.

> The originally Arab land that the Zionists originally built their
> settlements on was stolen by the _Turks_,

The OTTOMANs did not steal the land. They only ruled it. That is the answer the
Sultan gave the Zionist appeal lead by Herzl to GIVE them Palestine, "I only
rule the land. I do not own it." It is the obvious answer. It was not his to give.

It shows just how far back the Zionists held the communist confabulation of
sovereignty with ownership. First they came for the communists and we never
thanked them.

BTW: Have you ever come across the reason why Israel's original efforts to get
Stalin as its international pretector fell through?

> not the Jews (and certainly
> not the "Israelis," as Israel did not exist at the time). The Zionists
> purchased the land from the _Turks_.

Something between two and three percent was actually purchased. Some put it as
low as 1%.

All the rest was stolen from its rightful owners who have every moral and human
right to reclaim it by any means available including deadly force.

> If the Palestinians really cared about equity, they would be trying to
> get compensation from _Turkey_ for the lands,

As you are ignorant of history, even Zionist history, law and sovereignty you
have no informed opinion on the subject.

> instead of trying to murder Jewish civilians.

As to civilians, as I have noted, any member of the IDF on or off duty, active
or reserve is a lawful target. It would be improbably bad luck not to injure one
of them in a crowd. That is why the conventions of war say in effect, if the
military is among civilians they put the civilians at risk and the attackers are
not liable for civilian casualties. Israel says EXACTLY the same thing when
dozens of civilians are murdered in the process of murdering an alledged
"terrorist."

As to Jewish civilians 20% of Israel is non-Jewish and as Israel is not a
segregated country one in five of those killed is on average not jewish. So
either stop whining about Jews or be prepared to defend segregation in Israel.

--
If the <a href="http://www.ussliberty.org">attack on the Liberty</a> was a
mistake, it is possible to mistake OJ Simpson for Britney Spears in broad
daylight.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3649
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

wrote in
ups.com:

> Jordan wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > "Jordan" > wrote in message
>> > ups.com...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > No. I think it would help its international position for Israel to
>> > > _annex_ the Golan Heights and then reply to all questions about their
>> > > future disposition with "They're Israeli national territory. What are
>> > > you offering us to purchase them?"
>> > >
>> > > This is also how Israel should have dealt with the issues of the West
>> > > Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
>> >
>> > What would your do with the four million
>> > people living there?
>> > Mass expulsion? To where?
>>
>> Shove them over the borders to the Arab states who so love them that
>> they are willing to use them as a permanent causis belli against
>> Israel. I'm sure that they would be well-treated by their Arab
>> brethren.
>>
>> And if not, at least they wouldn't be Israel's concern any more. There
>> would be an international outcry, sanctions would be demanded, nothing
>> would happen, and in a few years they'd be as forgotten as the few
>> million Germans pushed out of the territories Poland annexed in 1945 --
>> in the middle of war and a terrible winter.
>
> Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
> Germany did try to expel Jews.

Oh really?
They tried to isolate the Jews but leaving Germany was not an
option after what 1936 or so. Get caught trying that and it was
off to Dachau.

IBM

Robert Kolker > wrote in
:

> Jordan wrote:
>
>> If the Israelis had done this after 1967-72, there would have been _no_
>> "Palestinian issue," and by now there would be very little
>> international concern about the descendants of said "Palestinians," who
>> would have long since integrated into whatever countries they wound up
>> living in.
>
> In whatever country Palestineans dwell they are a pox and a nuisance.
> Recall what happened in Lebanon. They were also a pain in the arse in
> Kuwait where some of them worked. They were not particularly loved by
> their Muslim "brothers".

Particularly in Iraq these days...

IBM

Matt Giwer wrote:
> I have never been off-topic in s.h.w-i. We have been over that many times and
> no one has produced a single example of it. I did not post one word in this
> thread until you posted.
>
> That I deal with real history regarding WWII and you deal accept Allied
> proganda as what happened regarding WWII is a long-standing disagreement and
> will likely never be resolved.

Matt, I actually wasn't talking about you. I disagree with you
regarding the Holocaust and the role of Jews in European and Mideastern
history, but you've never attempted to do real harm to those you debate
with. That puts your moral standing at least one order of magnitude
above scumbags like Carlos Yu, who tried to get people he didn't like
fired from their jobs, and hacked into accounts; or Douglas Muir, who
made fraudulent bids on my items on eBay in order to damage my account
there. You grasp the basic concept that speech is not harm; they
don't.

If I met you IRL I'd treat you politely; I can't say the same thing for
them.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> As I said, the boy in the picture was murdered by an Israeli
>> sniper. That is what is called cold-blooded murder. So are the single
>> shots that enter classrooms to murder students.

> It happens all the time, especially in Unganda.

A new low even for you. The IDF is no better than Ugandan militias.

> I notice you have not one word to say about Hutus and Tutsis who are
> several orders of magnitude more brutal than the Zionists you love to
> hate.

And the Israeles are no better than Hutus.

I do not recall that subject ever coming up in this newsgroup.

But if you would like, the Hutus do not claim to have the most moral army in
the world. They do not even claim to have a moral army.

> If the Israelis were as bad as you say, there would not be a
> single Palestinean left alive in Gaza City tonite.

The night isn't over. But everyone that dies from lack of electricity, water,
food, medicine or any other cause related to this siege or the occupation in
general has been murdered by Israel. As such deaths are mostly among children
and the elderly it is going to be a very unpleasant accounting to Israel's
already blood-drenched scorecard.

That is why group punishment is a war crime punishable by hanging.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

Jarg wrote:

>
>
> Good point. Pretty much every country that exists today was created at
> someone elses expense, often displacing groups that had previously displaced
> other groups, and on and on...

The human race is a nasty species. We are the baddest smartest apes in
The Monkey House.

Bob Kolker

Jarg wrote:


> Then we can allow the tribes the opportunity to sort out which one was where
> first, although that would seem problematic given their lack of written
> history.

I want the coffin and burial shroud concession when that happens. By the
way, if we did give it back to the Indians, within thirty years it would
all be back in the same hands.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
> As I said, the boy in the picture was murdered by an Israeli sniper.
> That is what is called cold-blooded murder. So are the single shots that
> enter classrooms to murder students.

It happens all the time, especially in Unganda.

I notice you have not one word to say about Hutus and Tutsis who are
several orders of magnitude more brutal than the Zionists you love to
hate. If the Israelis were as bad as you say, there would not be a
single Palestinean left alive in Gaza City tonite.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a good
> response? Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how does the
> comparison to Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These days we cheer
> for the Indians at Little Big Horn. Why do you think he invites cheering
> the Palestinians because they are being treated like the Indians?

Good for the goose, good for the gander. I think it is unjust to ask the
Israelis to be better than we are.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> All of those not covered by existing treaties of course.

It matters not. It is simple a matter of justice. When we are just, then
we should insist that the Israelis be just too. But don't hold your
breath Matt, else blue turn you will.

Bob Kolker

Johnny Bravo wrote:

> Great Plains? We want our whole continent back white man, and take all
> the descendants of the Spainards with you. :)

As my departed Grandma used to say: Bald es will kommen. Soon. Soon.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:

> Robert Kolker wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>> In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a
>>> good response? Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how
>>> does the comparison to Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These days
>>> we cheer for the Indians at Little Big Horn. Why do you think he
>>> invites cheering the Palestinians because they are being treated like
>>> the Indians?
>
>
>> Good for the goose, good for the gander. I think it is unjust to ask
>> the Israelis to be better than we are.
>
>
>> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
>
>
> First get treaties with the Palestinians ceded land to the murderous
> Zionists. Then we can talk.

One does not treat with people trying to murder one.

Bob Kolker

>

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Robert Kolker wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a
>>>> good response? Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how
>>>> does the comparison to Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These
>>>> days we cheer for the Indians at Little Big Horn. Why do you think
>>>> he invites cheering the Palestinians because they are being treated
>>>> like the Indians?
>>> Good for the goose, good for the gander. I think it is unjust to ask
>>> the Israelis to be better than we are.
>>> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
>> First get treaties with the Palestinians ceded land to the
>> murderous Zionists. Then we can talk.

> One does not treat with people trying to murder one.

As you do not have treaties with them they have every right to murder the
people who stole their private property. Palestinians have exactly the same
right to expel Europeans as the Indians had to expel the Europeans. Neither may
succeed but they are blameless in the attempt.

Jews knew that would be the case when they chose to take over Palestine. Why
all the whining?

Why do Europeans who choose to go to live under constant threat in Israel keep
whining about their person choice to live that way? Poor us! Whenever a Jew
moves to Israel the average IQ of the Diaspora increases.

When people got in wagon trains to go west they EXPECTED to be attacked. They
did not whine and complain how innocent they were when they were attacked.

Little Israel is whine country.

--
Why do Americans consider Bush the worst president since 1945? Because the
poll only went back to 1945.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3660
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> All of those not covered by existing treaties of course.

> It matters not. It is simple a matter of justice. When we are just, then
> we should insist that the Israelis be just too. But don't hold your
> breath Matt, else blue turn you will.

You cannot salvage your Indian analogy nonsense by saying it does not matter.
Treaties are in fact the legal instruments that matter and they are recognized
by the tribes which signed them.

The tribes have NOT made any claims for the return of the Great Plains while
the Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
back non-stop since 1948.

Your bull**** analogy cannot be salvaged as there is no analogy.

--
If you want to understand Jews, look to the West Bank.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3665
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:15:49 GMT, Matt Giwer >
> wrote:
>> You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
>>and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.

> The Third Geneva convention has several requirements for a resistence movement
> to be "lawful" and thus gain the protection of the conventions. Wear a uniform

> OR

Note my emphasis.

> symbol identifiable at a distance, openly carry their arms and conduct "their
> operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.
The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or pattern. Hamas
is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow lettering I think. Next time you
see films take a look.

Explosive belts are a lawful weapon. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto pioneered
the grenade in the baby carriage trick even when their own baby was in it.

There is no requirement the weapon be a rifle. Nor is there a requirement to
openly carry it. That is an oversight as it intention was to address regular
military forces until that is corrected concealed weapons are lawful. Nor is
there a requirement to be in uniform at all times nor to carry their weapons at
all time else, as below, that group on military leave was not in compliance.

> to include not
> targeting civilians, using civilians as cover or hiding among civilians.

But all military on or off duty, active or reserve are lawful targets. And as
Israel says if only one in eighteen is even a suspect there is no blame in
murdering the seventeen innocents. If fact the Prime Minister called it a
successful operation.

The principle is of the military hiding among the civilian population put the
civilians at risk by their presense and the attackers are blameless.

Also they are permitted to attack any military asset. The bus lines in Israel
are a military asset. They are used to transport troops. That makes them lawful
targets at any time the same a trains in Germany were a lawful target during
WWII regardless of who was on them.

> Using men wearing civilian clothing to fire mortars into Israeli towns with
> weapons manufactured and stored in refugee camps, using a plan developed by
> commanders hiding in the middle of a crowded apartment block fails on all three
> counts. That makes them terrorists, not a "resistance movement".

Uniforms are not required. A symbol is an alternative. Plainly visible is also
required but not defined.

Weapons depots are not covered. Hiding in an apartment complex is exactly what
makes Palestinians attacks on crowds of Israelis lawful. That buses are military
assets is what makes attacks on them lawful regardless of who is one them but
again, give 25-30% of Israelis are active or reserve military it is improbably
bad luck not to at least injure one.

A year or so back there was a bombing of a nightclub and the Israelis whined
about the young people killed. It took a week for it to come out the targets
were from the same company in three day leave from West Bank duty. After all the
whining and the reprisals they were a perfectly lawful target. There is no time
out or king's cross in such matters.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> I have never been off-topic in s.h.w-i. We have been over that many times and
>>no one has produced a single example of it. I did not post one word in this
>>thread until you posted.
>>
>> That I deal with real history regarding WWII and you deal accept Allied
>>proganda as what happened regarding WWII is a long-standing disagreement and
>>will likely never be resolved.
>
>
> Matt, I actually wasn't talking about you. I disagree with you
> regarding the Holocaust and the role of Jews in European and Mideastern
> history, but you've never attempted to do real harm to those you debate
> with. That puts your moral standing at least one order of magnitude
> above scumbags like Carlos Yu, who tried to get people he didn't like
> fired from their jobs, and hacked into accounts; or Douglas Muir, who
> made fraudulent bids on my items on eBay in order to damage my account
> there. You grasp the basic concept that speech is not harm; they
> don't.
>
> If I met you IRL I'd treat you politely; I can't say the same thing for
> them.

If you are damaged Cohu Electronics is the asset you go after as damages.

--
America will murder as many Iraqis as required to liberate Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3651
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:33:37 GMT, Matt Giwer >
> wrote:
>> As I said, the boy in the picture was murdered by an Israeli sniper. That is
>>what is called cold-blooded murder.

> Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation.
> Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the
> only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and
> execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

Actually intelligence is a requirement for snipers.

> You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with
> guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be
> running around throwing rocks at people with guns.

You apparently cannot read.

If the tank gunner had killed them there might be some remote relation to
reality in what you said.

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

--
No country in the world has recognized Israel's right to exist. Why must the
Palestinians be the first?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3647
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer >
wrote:

> They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
>you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
>left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.

It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
law.

>The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or pattern. Hamas
>is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow lettering I think. Next time you
>see films take a look.

Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to smuggle their
bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do so for
propaganda purposes?

> Explosive belts are a lawful weapon. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto pioneered
>the grenade in the baby carriage trick even when their own baby was in it.

No, it is NOT a lawful weapon under the Third Geneva Convention.

> There is no requirement the weapon be a rifle. Nor is there a requirement to
>openly carry it.

You keep saying this as if it were true.

Third Gevena Convention, Article 3, Section 2:

"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict
and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is
occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such
organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms OPENLY;"

Note MY emphasis.

>That is an oversight as it intention was to address regular
>military forces until that is corrected concealed weapons are lawful.

There is no oversight, it's read like that since 1949.

Are you man enough to admit that you were wrong?

Big Red wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
....
>>Ah, but you're assuming that Arab Powers aren't prone to suicidal acts
>>of aggression. Witness the fate of Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a
>>counter-example.

> How many wars have the Arab powers fought with Israel after the Jewish
> state developed tacitical nuclear weapons? Even Saddam's invasion was
> tacitical. Kuwait is just a sheikdom that has some oil. He gambled that
> the Russians and the Chinese could stop the U.N., and America wouldn't
> rush into a war without allies. He fatally underestimated how powerful
> America was, especially what the U.S. could do with a smaller superior
> force, and command of the sky. However, Saddam's invasion didn't amount
> to sucide, as he retained power after the war.

In fact Bush senior OK'd his invasion of Kuwait. Did you miss that? He tried to
hold back world reaction for two months until he lost the PR battle and then
rushed to the front so he could lead.

You missed all that? In fact to this day the ambassador at the time is still
prohibited from speaking about her instructions in the discussion with Hussein
in the matter of the invasion.

In any event there is no question that Kuwait was in fact slant drilling into
Iraqi oil fields and is doing so to this day.

Frankly I think it was simply a major miscommunication. The intent was to OK
military action to stop the slant drilling and Hussein went to far. But until
she is allowed to speak it is not possible to know and one can reasonably assume
it was an OK for a full scale invasion for not permitting her to speak of it.

> No viable system has ever been deployed to stop an inbound
> nuclear missle with 100% accuracy and no stratedgy could made could
> hope to take out all of an exisisting nuclear power's missles, silos,
> and submarine based weapons. Finally- nuclear war, involving the
> destruction of an entire nation, is only a possibility in the minds of
> the most sociopathic members of the human species.

Without being too much of a pessimist there is none possible short of
successful laser weapons unless the antimissile carries a nuclear warhead. In
that case it was doable back in the 50s with Nike Zeus.

Most simply the problem is the faster the incoming missile the less effective
the defensive missile. The greater the missile range the greater its velocity.
Israel does have some US charity capability against short range Scuds. The
effectiveness was greatly overplayed during the Gulf war. The current upgrade of
Patriot has never had a real life test.

--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer >
> wrote:

>> They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
>>you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
>>left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.

> It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
> civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
> law.

Again, openly is not defined. The convention was not designed to deal with
guerrila warfare. As with many things times have become more complicated.
Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them. There is no
prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
and crates would be illegal.

BTW: There is NO definition of terrorist in any law other than the very weak,
use of force or threat of force to change public policy. That makes Bush a
terrorist in regard to Iran so one has to be more specific than that. And a
guerilla war certainly does not qualify as a terror war.

As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms. I do not see how clothing
that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing. In
fact that was my first thought when I saw the KLA bandanas, that they should
have picked black.

>>The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or pattern. Hamas
>>is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow lettering I think. Next time you
>>see films take a look.

> Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to smuggle their
> bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do so for
> propaganda purposes?

I have no idea. You will have to inquire of Israel to get copies of the
incident reports. All I know is what I see. If the uniform of the day is a red
poppy in the lapel I don't see how to complain.

In any event I do not see your point in going into this as all of the above and
more is only required TO HAVE A CLAIM to POW status and treatment. None of them
have ever been given such status or treatment so there is no point to making it
easy on the european invaders. I have yet to hear one Palestinian complaint
about not receiving POW treatment.

In fact Israel has mostly executed POWs even when from the regular armies of
Egypt and Jordan. There is a reason for this but it is still murder. Egypt found
a mass grave of over 9000 of their executed troops but the UN has never seen fit
to do anything about it. And if Egypt were to make an issue of it, the street
would revolt against the government that made peace with Israel.

>> Explosive belts are a lawful weapon. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto pioneered
>>the grenade in the baby carriage trick even when their own baby was in it.

> No, it is NOT a lawful weapon under the Third Geneva Convention.

Then the Zionists in Mandate Palestine were terrorists but that has never been
in question.

>> There is no requirement the weapon be a rifle. Nor is there a requirement to
>>openly carry it.

> You keep saying this as if it were true.

> Third Gevena Convention, Article 3, Section 2:

> "(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
> those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict
> and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is
> occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such
> organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
> (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
> (c) that of carrying arms OPENLY;"

> Note MY emphasis.

Define openly. An explosive vest requires it to be worn the way it is to be
effective. I do not see how openly can require a weapon to be carried in a
manner to make it ineffective.

>>That is an oversight as it intention was to address regular
>>military forces until that is corrected concealed weapons are lawful.

> There is no oversight, it's read like that since 1949.

> Are you man enough to admit that you were wrong?

As above EVEN IF I am wrong it is only required to be able to claim POW status
which none of them have ever gotten nor have ever claimed. Lawful in this case
means only to be subject to the Geneva conventions on POW status. It means
Israel can deal with them as it does without international sanction. Neither
side is complaining.

As to actually being wrong, there is no one claiming this was a requirement for
the Viet Cong is there? Black pajamas are mostly a Hollywood creation and worked
as camouflage. How about al Qaeda against the Russians? British commandos
against the Germans? French and Polish resistance against the Germans? Were they
all terrorists instead of lawful resistance movements? Was not dropping those
concealable single shot .45s into France promoting terrorism? Were they
supposed to be carried openly?

It is not a matter of what makes it lawful. It is matter of what gives them the
right to claim to be protected by the Geneva conventions.

--
If you want to understand Jews, look to the West Bank.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3665
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8

On 2 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700, "Jordan" >
wrote:

>
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Jordan wrote:
>> > Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>>
>> >>This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not
>> >>past related.
>>
>> > Hey, Lyn, shouldn't you be cowering in your basement in fear of the
>> > feral dogs?
>>
>> That is a term for Zionists I have not heard before.
>>
>> Where did you hear it?
>
>No, it's a reference to Lyn David Thomas' hilarious argument a long
>time ago in a "Plagues" scenario that survivors of a global plague
>couldn't get goods by looting abandoned cities because the feral dogs
>would keep them out. When we pointed out to him that even small groups
>of humans could easily fight off virtually any number of feral dogs by
>shooting a few and scaring the rest with the gunfire, Lyn then tried to
>argue that in most countries the survivors would be unable to get their
>hands on guns to do this.
>
>He forgot, of course, about the military and police arsenals. Lyn's
>reasoning got really amusing when this was pointed out to him.

"reasoning"?

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:00:56 GMT, Matt Giwer >
wrote:

>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer >
>> wrote:
>
>>> They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
>>>you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
>>>left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.
>
>> It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
>> civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
>> law.
>
> Again, openly is not defined.

It's a commonly used English word, the Third Geneva convention is not a
dictionary. It doesn't define organized resistance movement either, that
doesn't mean they are talking about a tug of war contest.

>The convention was not designed to deal with guerrila warfare.

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements"

If you are not in one of these groups, you are a terrorist by definition. You
CANNOT claim to be one of these groups if you do not meet the requirements.

>As with many things times have become more complicated.
>Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them.

You can't hide them in the pockets of your civilian clothes and claim to be
anything other than a terrorist. That is the letter of the law, which is beyond
your opinion on the matter.

>There is no prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
>and crates would be illegal.

They are if you have that crate in anything but a marked military transport.
See also: Openly.

> BTW: There is NO definition of terrorist in any law other than the very weak,
>use of force or threat of force to change public policy.

If you're killing people without meeting the Third Geneva Convention standard
you are at BEST a terrorist, at worst you're a psychopath with an uncontrollable
urge to kill. Either category can be shot upon discovery by enemy forces
according to the laws and customs of war.

> As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
>will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms.

I posted the exact requirement from the Geneva Convention, here it is again
since you seem too stupid to remember it.

"(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"

You can do what you can to reduce your ability to be seen in the first place
but once you are spotted you have to be CLEARLY identifiable as the enemy.

>that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing.

Because dressing like a civilian is NOT recognizable at a distance as a
distinctive sign.

> In any event I do not see your point in going into this as all of the above and
>more is only required TO HAVE A CLAIM to POW status and treatment.

It is required TO HAVE A CLAIM to ORGANIZED RESISTANCE MOVEMENT status.

See, I can use caps too. And unlike you, I've actually got a point.

> Define openly. An explosive vest requires it to be worn the way it is to be
>effective. I do not see how openly can require a weapon to be carried in a
>manner to make it ineffective.

So wearing the explosives outside the vest as required would make the blast
ineffective?

You're like clubbing a baby seal, sure it's satisfying, but it got boring
fast. Into the killfile you go.

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:22:57 GMT, Johnny Bravo
> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:15:49 GMT, Matt Giwer >
>wrote:
>
>> You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
>>and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.
>
> The Third Geneva convention has several requirements for a resistence movement
>to be "lawful" and thus gain the protection of the conventions. Wear a uniform
>or symbol identifiable at a distance, openly carry their arms and conduct "their

Actually, what it says is that "other militias and members of other
volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"
have to "hav[e] a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"
(Article 4, Paragraph 2)

Actually, as with Shrub and his sycophants, you have entirely missed
Paragraph 6 ...

"(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war."

Which has only two requirements.

>operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" to include not
>targeting civilians, using civilians as cover or hiding among civilians.

Hague IV (1907), Chapter 1: Means of Injuring the Enemie, Sieges,
Bombardments, Articles #28 make no such provision.

The relevant provisions are Articles #25-28 ...

Art. 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his
power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken
to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art,
science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and
places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not
being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such
buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be
notified to the enemy beforehand.

Art. 28: The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault,
is prohibited.

.... according to FM 27-10 "The Law of Land Warfare", the US Armed
Forces' take on Hague IV (1907) ...

Page #4 ...

Bombardment of Undefended Places Forbidden: "An undefended place,
within the meaning of Article #25, HR, is any inhabited place near or
in a zone where opposing armed forces are in contact which is open for
occupation by any adverse party without resistance ..."

Which obviously does not apply to the places the Palestinian forces
are bombarding.

However, in case it isn't blindingly obvious, the Manual continues ...

Permissible Objects of Attack or Bombardment: "Attacks against the
Civilian population AS SUCH prohibited [my capitals for emphasis]"
continuing with "Defended Places, which are outside the scope of the
proscription of Article 25, HR, are permissible objects of attacl
(including bombardment) ... " and it further specifies that defended
places include ... "(1) A fort or fortified place. (2) A place that is
occupied by a combatant military force or through which such a force
is passing ... (3) A city or town surrounded by detatched defense
positions, if under the circumstances the city or town can be
considered jointly with such defences as an indivisible whole."

Most of Israel qualifies as one of the above, and those parts that
don't ... well, there's more ...

Military Objectives: "Military objectives - i.e. combatants and those
objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an
effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial
destruction, capture, or neutraliuzation, in the circumstances ruling
at the time, offers a definite military advantage - are permissible
objects of attack (including bombardment). Military objectives include
for example, factories producing munitions and military supplies,
military camps, warehouses storing munitions and military supplies,
ports and railroads being used for the transportation of military
supplies, and other places that are for the accommodation of troops or
the support of military operations ... "

No mention of civilians who might be "collateral damage" ... so the
rest of Israel is, theoretically, covered.

Of course, the reverse is also true ... if (when!) the Israelis target
some Hamas Terrorist leader moving around in his Mercedes then, sadly,
any innocent Palestinian civilians who happen to be killed are
"collateral damage" as well.

It cuts both ways.

> Using men wearing civilian clothing to fire mortars into Israeli towns with

You are making a presumption here. How do you know the men were
wearing civilian clothing when *firing* the mortars? And even if they
*were*, if they were wearing a Hamas badge or armband, say, that would
trump the clothing.

As soon as they've *stopped* firing, or as *before* they start,
technically they are simply running a ruse du guerre, which is
*specifically* allowed for under the Hague Convention!

>weapons manufactured and stored in refugee camps, using a plan developed by
>commanders hiding in the middle of a crowded apartment block fails on all three
>counts. That makes them terrorists, not a "resistance movement".

Sadly you are wrong, as the actual conventions and treaties cited
above show.

They are all available online. The Hague Treaty and GC III at the
Avalon Project and ICRC websites. The US Army FM at the ATDL.

Phil


Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email:

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>Dean A. Markley wrote:
> >>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
> >>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>
> >> How does that act of war improve matters?
>
> > By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
> > against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
> > retaliation.
>
> Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
> evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.

Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of
civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of
War), it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed
"resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this
resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier. The war
may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the
relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria
will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about.

> Capturing a
> prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law.

Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war
with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee,
and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike
operations against Syria.

> Their
> only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
> accordance with his rank.

Have such Red Cross visits been allowed?

> Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
> support of American colonies

Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the
escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving
America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman,
Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many
other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's.

> or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
> Stalin pretend innocense.

Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying
Power).

What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim
doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often
doesn't.

Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians
and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The
radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their
place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO.

> Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
> specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that,
when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis,
it was in the context of a WAR?

> > Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.
>
> The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
> the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
> asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
> we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
> tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
> to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically
involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700, "Jordan" >
> wrote:
> >
> >No, it's a reference to Lyn David Thomas' hilarious argument a long
> >time ago in a "Plagues" scenario that survivors of a global plague
> >couldn't get goods by looting abandoned cities because the feral dogs
> >would keep them out. When we pointed out to him that even small groups
> >of humans could easily fight off virtually any number of feral dogs by
> >shooting a few and scaring the rest with the gunfire, Lyn then tried to
> >argue that in most countries the survivors would be unable to get their
> >hands on guns to do this.
> >
> >He forgot, of course, about the military and police arsenals. Lyn's
> >reasoning got really amusing when this was pointed out to him.
>
> "reasoning"?

Well, IIRC Lyn's first argument was that the weapons would no longer be
available because most of the police and soldiers would be dead. When
I pointed out to him that dropped weapons rarely commit suicide in
grief for the deaths of their owners, he then decided that unspecified
people would grab all the weapons and refuse to trade any of them for
anything anyone else could offer. They apparently also would refuse to
kill the feral dogs with them. Gave me images of a more martial
Scrooge McDuck building a "rifle bin" and going swimming in them ...

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Matt Giwer wrote:
> He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.
>
> He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
> role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 07:16:33 GMT, Johnny Bravo
> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer >
>wrote:
>
>> They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
>>you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
>>left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.
>
> It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
>civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
>law.

Sorry, no.

The rule (Geneva III [1949]) is in six parts.

The relevant ones are ...

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms
openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war.

=====

(1) and (3) are NOT subject to the rules in (2). That is why there are
separate numbered points. Read the commentaries on the treaty on the
ICRC website (International Committee for the Red Cross) in its IHL
(International Humanitarian Law) section ... the commentaries are
those of the actual treaty negotiations and what the negotiating
powers said they meant and why they worded them the way they did.

One of the specific things that they say is that those forces in (1)
and (3) are NOT subject to the rules of (2), and, of course, those who
could be lumped in (6) are subject to only two rules.

Also note that the use of a Ruse du Guerre is allowed ... which would
mean, for example, that you can conceal your uniform (which could be,
as noted, a Red Armband over ordinary civilian clothes) and weapon
*until the moment of combat" and then reveal both. That is
specifically allowable. US Special Forces do it all the time! Or are
you arguing that *they* are terrorists?

>>The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or pattern. Hamas
>>is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow lettering I think. Next time you
>>see films take a look.
>
> Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to smuggle their
>bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do so for
>propaganda purposes?

See the actual rules, rather than your interesting, but incorrect,
claims as to what the rules are.

>> Explosive belts are a lawful weapon. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto pioneered
>>the grenade in the baby carriage trick even when their own baby was in it.
>
> No, it is NOT a lawful weapon under the Third Geneva Convention.

Sadly, you are wrong ... completely, totally, and absolutely. 100%
wrong.

GC III (1949) does NOT define what might, or might not, be a lawful
weapon or not.

GC III (1949) deals ONLY and ENTIRELY with what is a POW and how POWs
are to be treated.

Hague IV (1907) is the core of the Law of Land Warfare, modified by a
few extra, additional, treaties ...

* Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and
Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on
Their Destruction (1972)

.... Article 23 of Hague IV (1907) is the one you want ...

"Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is
especially forbidden -

* To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

* To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
nation or army;

* To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

* To declare that no quarter will be given;

* To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering;

* To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of
the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the
distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

* To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or
seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

* To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the
hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against
their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service
before the commencement of the war."

Examples of what "treachery" and "perfidy" include are not helpful ...
however the rules regarding Merchant Raiders as applicable in WW1 and
WW2 are indicative ... the converted merchantmen were allowed,
legally, to fly a false flag and conceal their weapons until they were
close enough to perform a devastating surprise attack TILL THE MOMENT
BEFORE THEY ATTACKED ... as long as they then raised their national
flag or naval ensign they were legal.

The Bombardment rules applying to the WW2 Strategic Bombardment of
Germany and Japan, making them legal, are based on the principles
defined and detailed in Hague IX (1907): Bombardment by Naval Forces
in Time of War, so the Naval rules on Raiders would, likewise, be
applicable to and indicative of what enemy soldiers could do.

Then, of course, there is the rule on Spies.

Hague IV (1907), as defined in US Armed Forces Manual 27-10 states ...

"c. Immunity on Rejoining Own Army: A spy who, after rejoining the
army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is
treated as a POW, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts
of espionage (HR Article 31)"

Which is also indicative. If you could take the guy while still
wearing civilian clothing, then, possibly, he could be spy ... but
once he takes it off ... well, the argument would be that he has
"rejoined the army ..."

Ain't law wonderful? <grin>

>> There is no requirement the weapon be a rifle. Nor is there a requirement to
>>openly carry it.
>
> You keep saying this as if it were true.
>
>Third Gevena Convention, Article 3, Section 2:
>
>"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
>those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict
>and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is
>occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such
>organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
>(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
>(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
>(c) that of carrying arms OPENLY;"
>
> Note MY emphasis.

Note that this only applies to "Members of *OTHER* militias and
*OTHER* volunteer corps" ... it does NOT apply to ...

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

They can hide the fact that they are carrying a weapon.

And note that it nowehere mentions "RIFLE" as the original poster
pointed out.

>>That is an oversight as it intention was to address regular
>>military forces until that is corrected concealed weapons are lawful.
>
> There is no oversight, it's read like that since 1949.
>
> Are you man enough to admit that you were wrong?

Are you man enough to admit that GC III (1949) doesn't have anything
to do with ruling what weapons are lawful, and only Hague IV (1907)
and the 1972/75 codicil on chemical and bioweapons do?

I seriously doubt it.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email:

On 3 Jul 2006 02:51:02 -0700, "Jordan" >
wrote:

>
wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700, "Jordan" >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >No, it's a reference to Lyn David Thomas' hilarious argument a long
>> >time ago in a "Plagues" scenario that survivors of a global plague
>> >couldn't get goods by looting abandoned cities because the feral dogs
>> >would keep them out. When we pointed out to him that even small groups
>> >of humans could easily fight off virtually any number of feral dogs by
>> >shooting a few and scaring the rest with the gunfire, Lyn then tried to
>> >argue that in most countries the survivors would be unable to get their
>> >hands on guns to do this.
>> >
>> >He forgot, of course, about the military and police arsenals. Lyn's
>> >reasoning got really amusing when this was pointed out to him.
>>
>> "reasoning"?
>
>Well, IIRC Lyn's first argument was that the weapons would no longer be
>available because most of the police and soldiers would be dead. When
>I pointed out to him that dropped weapons rarely commit suicide in
>grief for the deaths of their owners, he then decided that unspecified
>people would grab all the weapons and refuse to trade any of them for
>anything anyone else could offer. They apparently also would refuse to
>kill the feral dogs with them. Gave me images of a more martial
>Scrooge McDuck building a "rifle bin" and going swimming in them ...

It was *sarcasm*, Jordan!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:06:59 GMT, Johnny Bravo
> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:00:56 GMT, Matt Giwer >
>wrote:
>
>>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
>>>>you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
>>>>left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.
>>
>>> It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
>>> civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
>>> law.
>>
>> Again, openly is not defined.
>
> It's a commonly used English word, the Third Geneva convention is not a
>dictionary. It doesn't define organized resistance movement either, that
>doesn't mean they are talking about a tug of war contest.

Sadly, again, you are quite wrong ... GC III DID define the term in
the discussions and negotiations that led up to the signing.

Those are available online at the ICRC website ...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument

"[p.61] ' (c) that of carrying arms openly: ' although the difference
may seem slight, there must be no confusion between carrying arms
"openly" and carrying them "visibly" or "ostensibly". Surprise is a
factor in any war operation, whether or not involving regular troops.
This provision is intended to guarantee the loyalty of the fighting,
it is not an attempt to prescribe that a hand-grenade or a revolver
must be carried at belt or shoulder rather than in a pocket or under a
coat.

The enemy must be able to recognize partisans as combatants in the
same way as members of regular armed forces, whatever their weapons.
Thus, a civilian could not enter a military post on a false pretext
and then open fire, having taken unfair advantage of his adversaries."

Note that this rule ONLY applies to combatants in Group #2, not those
under category #1 or #3, regular armed forces even those not
recognised by one of the parties. Note that NONE of the requirements
of the rules applicable to Group #2 apply to those members of the
regular armed forces. NONE of them.

Again, the commentaries make it clear that this is what the
signatories agreed to and what they meant.

>>The convention was not designed to deal with guerrila warfare.
>
>"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
> those of organized resistance movements"
>
>If you are not in one of these groups, you are a terrorist by definition. You
>CANNOT claim to be one of these groups if you do not meet the requirements.

Wrong again.

There are six categories ... (straight from GC III [1949]) ...

1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party
to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even
if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews,
war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of
services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided
that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they
accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity
card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of
the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to
the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under
any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units,
provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of
war.

=====

Note especially group #4 and #6.

>>As with many things times have become more complicated.
>>Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them.
>
> You can't hide them in the pockets of your civilian clothes and claim to be
>anything other than a terrorist. That is the letter of the law, which is beyond
>your opinion on the matter.

Actually, you could *if* you were wearing some sign that indicated
that you were not a civilian. "Uniform" doesn't have to be recognised
by the enemy ... a red armband such as the KLA wore would be
applicable.

"This provision is intended to guarantee the loyalty of the fighting,
it is not an attempt to prescribe that a hand-grenade or a revolver
must be carried at belt or shoulder rather than in a pocket or under a
coat."

From the commentaries above.

Note that, yes, if ALL they were wearing were civilian clothes, you
would be right ... but if they were wearing, say, a Taliban badge,
that would probably qualify as a "uniform"

And, of course, if they are in Group #6 they do NOT have to wear a
uniform at all ... in fact, they *could* carry a grenade in their
pocket under certain circumstances!

>>There is no prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
>>and crates would be illegal.
>
> They are if you have that crate in anything but a marked military transport.
>See also: Openly.

Which, as we have seen, does NOT mean what you claim it does.

>> As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
>>will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms.
>
> I posted the exact requirement from the Geneva Convention, here it is again
>since you seem too stupid to remember it.
>
>"(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"
>
> You can do what you can to reduce your ability to be seen in the first place
>but once you are spotted you have to be CLEARLY identifiable as the enemy.

Wrong again.

From the commentaries noted above ...

"The International Committee of the Red Cross was anxious that the
matter should be regulated as satisfactorily as possible and had gone
so far as to propose to the Conference of Government Experts that the
nature of the sign should be specified in a conventional text, as well
as its size and the manner in which it should be worn (for instance, a
green arm-band with national emblem, 10 cm. wide, worn on the left
arm). The matter might be settled by a special agreement under Article
6 . THIS SUGGESTION WAS NOT ADOPTED, HOWEVER.

Consequently, the term "recognizable at a distance" is open to
interpretation.

In our view , "the distinctive sign should be
recognizable by a person at a distance not too great to permit a
uniform to be recognized".

Such a sign need not necessarily be an arm-band. It may be a cap
(although this may frequently be taken off and does not seem fully
adequate), a coat, a shirt, an emblem or a coloured sign worn on the
chest. If the partisans are on board a vehicle or an engine of war,
tank, aeroplane or boat, the distinctive sign must of course be shown
on the vehicle concerned. This is in line with the long-established
regulations of international law regarding the flag in the case of war
at sea.

Lastly, there is no requirement that the distinctive sign must be
notified, as several delegations to the 1949 Diplomatic Conference
would have wished. It is nevertheless open to the interested parties
to make such a notification through the International Committee, in
the same way as the Committee offered its services in its Memorandum
of August 17, 1944, referred to above (34). Such a notification may
also be made through the Protecting Power of the Party to the conflict
to which the resistance organization is affiliated. Titles and ranks
may also be communicated in this way, as provided in Article 43"

It would actually be nice if you had done some actual research beyond
the most superficial.
[i]
>>that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing.
>
> Because dressing like a civilian is NOT recognizable at a distance as a
>distinctive sign.

See above.

>> In any event I do not see your point in going into this as all of the above and
>>more is only required TO HAVE A CLAIM to POW status and treatment.
>
> It is required TO HAVE A CLAIM to ORGANIZED RESISTANCE MOVEMENT status.

Wrong again. Section 6: Levee en Masse.

> See, I can use caps too. And unlike you, I've actually got a point.

Which is wrong.

>> Define openly. An explosive vest requires it to be worn the way it is to be
>>effective. I do not see how openly can require a weapon to be carried in a
>>manner to make it ineffective.
>
> So wearing the explosives outside the vest as required would make the blast
>ineffective?
>
> You're like clubbing a baby seal, sure it's satisfying, but it got boring
>fast. Into the killfile you go.

If you killfile people who don't know anything ... are you going to
killfile yourself? Obviously your knowledge of the matter is minimal.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email:

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
> The night isn't over. But everyone that dies from lack of
> electricity, water, food, medicine or any other cause related to this
> siege or the occupation in general has been murdered by Israel. As such
> deaths are mostly among children and the elderly it is going to be a
> very unpleasant accounting to Israel's already blood-drenched scorecard.

The Israels have permitted the influx of minimal shipments of fuel,
water, food and medicine. If they meant to slaughter Gaza City, they
would have done it already. Why not apply Ockahm's Razor. Maybe all the
Israelis want it the return of Lt. Shalit. Could it be possible?

As to group punishment, everytime a Jihadi straps on an explosive belt
and blows himself to Paradise in a Pizza Parlor or at a bus stop, that
is group punishment. When the Palis do it, you judge it to be just. When
Isrealis do targeted assassination of their enemies you express how
Shocked! Shocked! you are at Israeli brutality. If the Israelis were
truly as brutal and evil as you claim there would be barely a hundred
Palestineans left alive, even as we speak. You are a bull**** artist.

Bob Kolker

Johnny Bravo wrote:

>
> You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with
> guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be
> running around throwing rocks at people with guns.

Or falling in with fanatics who convince your kid he will go to heaven
and get ****ed by 72 virgins if he blows himself and his victims to
kingdom come.

Palestinean mothers sacrifice their first born sons to the Demon God Jihad.

Bob Kolker

Big Red wrote:

>
> I would challenge you to devise a scenario for a nation that contains
> an aresenal of viable tacitical nuclear missles to be destroyed.
> Especially one that has can deploy these missles in subs or in secure
> silos. No viable system has ever been deployed to stop an inbound
> nuclear missle with 100% accuracy and no stratedgy could made could
> hope to take out all of an exisisting nuclear power's missles, silos,
> and submarine based weapons. Finally- nuclear war, involving the
> destruction of an entire nation, is only a possibility in the minds of
> the most sociopathic members of the human species.

You have made a reasonable argument based on unliklihood. But you have
not proved impossibility. All kinds of stupid **** can happen.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:

>
> Jews knew that would be the case when they chose to take over
> Palestine. Why all the whining?

I don't see whining. I see winning. It is the Palestineans and their
sympathizers who whine and blubber About The Injustice of It All.
Isreali IDF are not whining, they are dealing with their enemies.

Whining is useless and irrelevent. The matter is in the Hands of God. We
shall see what His Justice decrees. Be patient. Then end will be sooner
or later. Whoever wins, is clearly God's favorite or darling.

Bob Kolker

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>

> As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever
> outlawed it will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms. I do
> not see how clothing that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even
> if it is civilian clothing. In fact that was my first thought when I saw
> the KLA bandanas, that they should have picked black.
>

Camouflage is still a distinctive uniform. The purpose of a uniform
is to distinguish you from non-combatants, not to make you easily
visible. Hiding among trees, shrubs, and weeds is legal. Hiding
among civilians is not. Your declaration that you can't see a
difference (if true) is a statement about your mental process, not
about camouflage.


>>> The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or
>>> pattern. Hamas is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow lettering
>>> I think. Next time you see films take a look.
>
>
>> Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to
>> smuggle their
>> bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do
>> so for
>> propaganda purposes?
>
>
> I have no idea. You will have to inquire of Israel to get copies of
> the incident reports. All I know is what I see. If the uniform of the
> day is a red poppy in the lapel I don't see how to complain.

Again, uniform "of the day" intended to prevent the enemy from
distinguishing you from the civilian population is (and was always
intended to be) illegal under the treaties cited. Since self defence
is always allowed troops, mandating a uniform that can not be
distinguished from civilian attire requires troops to consider
all civilians to be either potential or actual combatants, and
act accordingly.

Mike W.

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
...
> Jarg wrote:
>> "Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?
>>>If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
>>>genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
>>>Injuns.
>
>>>I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
>>>returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
>>>predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?
>
>> Good point. Pretty much every country that exists today was created at
>> someone elses expense, often displacing groups that had previously
>> displaced other groups, and on and on...
>
> In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a good
> response? Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how does the
> comparison to Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These days we cheer for
> the Indians at Little Big Horn. Why do you think he invites cheering the
> Palestinians because they are being treated like the Indians?
>
> --


Maybe you cheer for the Indians, I just see the inevitable results of a
conflict between people's of vastly different resources and technology.

Israel's existence is a fact which will not change no matter how much the
Palestinians wish otherwise. The sooner they stop their deluded dreaming,
the sooner the situation can be resolved.

Jarg

Jordan wrote:
> wrote:
> > Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
> > Germany did try to expel Jews.
>
> Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
> murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

I see. You are a proponent of group punsihment. You would punish all
for the transgression of some. Another World War 2 parallel.

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
...

> Treaties are in fact the legal instruments that matter and they are
> recognized by the tribes which signed them.
>


Do you really want to use treaties as the only basis for sovereignty?
Because I would be willing to bet a significant portion of the planet it
inhabited by people who took the land from other people without the benefit
of any treaty.

Jarg

Jarg wrote:

> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Treaties are in fact the legal instruments that matter and they are
>>recognized by the tribes which signed them.
>>
>
>
>
> Do you really want to use treaties as the only basis for sovereignty?
> Because I would be willing to bet a significant portion of the planet it
> inhabited by people who took the land from other people without the benefit
> of any treaty.

Besides which, most of the "treaties" between the U.S. and the
aboriginal nations were imposed at gun point. It is unclear whether the
signitories from the nations even spoke for their people. At times, U.S.
officials would go "chief shopping" to find a compliant elder to sign
away the ancestral land. What it was, was land theft simpliciter.

Bob Kolker

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> >
> > Jews knew that would be the case when they chose to take over
> > Palestine. Why all the whining?
>
> I don't see whining. I see winning.

You don't see Zionist whining? That's all they do. Holocaust
Holocaust HOLOCAUST!!!!! They don't give a **** about anyone
else, the constantly whining bigots. Millions of non-Jews died in
the "Holocaust." Now all they do is whine about "terrorists" when
they themselves are the biggest terrorists on Earth. You are obviously
an Israel apologist, therefore hopeless as an intelligent and decent
human being.

> It is the Palestineans and their
> sympathizers who whine and blubber About The Injustice of It All.
> Isreali IDF are not whining, they are dealing with their enemies.

LOL, what a stupid **** you are. Zionists control your country ****.
I don't know if you're a Zionist yourself or one of the ocean of
brainwashed dumb ****s who watch WAY too much TV, either way,
you don't flatter yourself by opening your yap.

> Whining is useless and irrelevent. The matter is in the Hands of God. We
> shall see what His Justice decrees. Be patient. Then end will be sooner
> or later. Whoever wins, is clearly God's favorite or darling.

Okay, by this criteria, Zionists lose. They very much appear to have
been cursed by God for a very long time. Any more brilliance from
you?

-----
Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
Israel's favor.
Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.

---------
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
---Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001

--
Cliff

wrote:
> It was *sarcasm*, Jordan!

I knew that. I just found it amusing to recall Lyn's responses.

- Jordan

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:31:41 -0500, Robert Kolker > wrote:

>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
>>
>> You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with
>> guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be
>> running around throwing rocks at people with guns.
>
>Or falling in with fanatics who convince your kid he will go to heaven
>and get ****ed by 72 virgins if he blows himself and his victims to
>kingdom come.

I just don't see what's so attractive about 72 virgins in the first place,
that would be way too much work on my part. I'd rather have just 2 experienced
and enthusiastic bed partners.

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:33:30 -0500, Robert Kolker > wrote:

>> I would challenge you to devise a scenario for a nation that contains
>> an aresenal of viable tacitical nuclear missles to be destroyed.
>> Especially one that has can deploy these missles in subs or in secure
>> silos.

There is no such things as a "secure" silo. Modern military maxim: What can
be seen can be destroyed. This is just as true about nuclear war as any other
type of modern combat.

>> No viable system has ever been deployed to stop an inbound
>> nuclear missle with 100% accuracy and no stratedgy could made could
>> hope to take out all of an exisisting nuclear power's missles, silos,
>> and submarine based weapons.

Depends on how many they have. And "destroyed" doesn't mean that all the
opposing nukes are neutralized. A US first strike on say, North Korea, could
put 90% of the entire nation under 10 psi overpressure.

For all intents and purposes, North Korea would be destroyed, even if a few
thousand people managed to survive the attack they would hardly be a "nation"
anymore. The fact that they could potentially fire a few nukes back at us
hardly negates the fact that the nation of North Korea would only exist as a
memory.

In article >, jull43
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
> back non-stop since 1948.


Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
brothers attacked Isreal ?

In article >, jull43
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>
> You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
> and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.


The irony is the Palastinians would just as soon slit Mr Giwer's throat
given half a chance..

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Jews knew that would be the case when they chose to take over
>> Palestine. Why all the whining?

> I don't see whining.

You hear whining, you read whining. You don't see whining. You read about the
enemies on all sides when they chose to live with enemies on all sides. You read
whining about being attacked by suicide bombers when they deliberately chose to
attacked by suicide bombers.

> I see winning. It is the Palestineans and their
> sympathizers who whine and blubber About The Injustice of It All.

They are the innocent party. Zionists are now and forever the guilty party.
That is a fact.

> Isreali IDF are not whining, they are dealing with their enemies.

Enemies they deliberately chose to have.

> Whining is useless and irrelevent. The matter is in the Hands of God.

Now you claim to be a believer.

> We
> shall see what His Justice decrees. Be patient. Then end will be sooner
> or later. Whoever wins, is clearly God's favorite or darling.

It has gotten worse for Zionists every year from the beginning. God has a trend
in motion.

--
Bush is so stupid he insists we will have victory in Iraq but the idiot has
no idea what victory means else he would have said what it is.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3656
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

Jarg wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Jarg wrote:
>>>"Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>> Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive?
>>>>If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing
>>>>genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead
>>>>Injuns.
>>>>I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S.
>>>>returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our
>>>>predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen?
>>>Good point. Pretty much every country that exists today was created at
>>>someone elses expense, often displacing groups that had previously
>>>displaced other groups, and on and on...

>>In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a good
>>response? Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how does the
>>comparison to Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These days we cheer for
>>the Indians at Little Big Horn. Why do you think he invites cheering the
>>Palestinians because they are being treated like the Indians?

> Maybe you cheer for the Indians, I just see the inevitable results of a
> conflict between people's of vastly different resources and technology.

> Israel's existence is a fact which will not change no matter how much the
> Palestinians wish otherwise. The sooner they stop their deluded dreaming,
> the sooner the situation can be resolved.

You do not think in terms of reality. Without US charity Israel would be an
economic basket case and people would be leaving in droves. Without US
diplomatic support an economic embargo would have been slapped in Israel decades
ago. Shut off it oil and the lights go out in a week just as in Gaza so they get
no sympathy over living in the dark.

All it takes is for the US to stop acting against its own interests and stop
supporting Israel. When that happens the country is over. With US charity runing
10-30% of the Knesset budget each year (some times higher) and all the tax
breaks in its favor it manages and enconomy equal to the lowest in Europe --
exclusive of the Balkans at the moment.

Who is going to stay with a third world economy when most European countries
permit the grandchildren of emigrants to return no questions asked? The way to
avoid this is to put the military on a shoestring budget to make up the
difference. It can't have both. And without the military technology they steal
from the US they quickly fall behind the curve and no one wants to buy what they
make.

Without US diplomatic cover Israel will finally have to make peace with its
neighbors. For one that means they have to abandon the Syrian Heights for peace
with Syria. That means it has to buy 20% of its water from Syria if Syria
chooses to sell it. It has to make peace with the Palestinians and withdraw to
its 1948 borders. That means it has to buy another 30% of its water from them if
they choose to sell it. Don't get upset though. If they do not buy any water
they will have several times more per capita than the Palestinians have now.

This gives you the flavor of it. I can add other things but that is enough for
now.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

Jarg wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Treaties are in fact the legal instruments that matter and they are
>>recognized by the tribes which signed them.

> Do you really want to use treaties as the only basis for sovereignty?

We were not discussing sovereignty. We were discussing ownership. They are not
the same things. Only _federal lands_ are owned by the federal government.

> Because I would be willing to bet a significant portion of the planet it
> inhabited by people who took the land from other people without the benefit
> of any treaty.

Nor are we talking any history prior to 1945 where the first international
agreements were signed to prohibit acquisition by conquest and the signatories
of them, such as members of the UN, swore they would not do so.

--
Whenever you read of Bush talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq you can
be certain the next day will have a report of sending additional troops.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3658
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Jarg wrote:
>> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Treaties are in fact the legal instruments that matter and they are
>>> recognized by the tribes which signed them.
>> Do you really want to use treaties as the only basis for sovereignty?
>> Because I would be willing to bet a significant portion of the planet
>> it inhabited by people who took the land from other people without the
>> benefit of any treaty.

> Besides which, most of the "treaties" between the U.S. and the
> aboriginal nations were imposed at gun point. It is unclear whether the
> signitories from the nations even spoke for their people. At times, U.S.
> officials would go "chief shopping" to find a compliant elder to sign
> away the ancestral land. What it was, was land theft simpliciter.

And THAT IS WHY I keep saying the tribes currently recognize them as legitimate
whenever they go to court to have the provisions enforced.

I am way ahead of you.

You may find a problem with the means of signing but the tribes today recognize
them.

--
Chutzpah, def., murdering Palestinians and then regretting their deaths.
Ex. We will never forgive them for making us kill them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3663
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:00:56 GMT, Matt Giwer >
> wrote:
>>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer >
>>>wrote:
>>>> They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
>>>>you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
>>>>left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.
>>> It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
>>>civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
>>>law.
>> Again, openly is not defined.

> It's a commonly used English word, the Third Geneva convention is not a
> dictionary. It doesn't define organized resistance movement either, that
> doesn't mean they are talking about a tug of war contest.

It does not work that way. The word used has to translate into all the official
translations in the military sense of the word. Plain english never applies to
military terms. Much less does it apply to what it meant at the time it was
formulated based upon the notes and discussions leading up to the use of that
word for English and other words for other major translations. In fact that time
the primary language from with translations were made was most likely French.

>>The convention was not designed to deal with guerrila warfare.

> "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
> those of organized resistance movements"

> If you are not in one of these groups, you are a terrorist by definition. You
> CANNOT claim to be one of these groups if you do not meet the requirements.

Which leaves us with the French and Polish resistance and the Brit commandos as
terrorists. You do not want to go there else you retroactively legitimize the
Nazi response to terrorists.

>>As with many things times have become more complicated.
>>Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them.

> You can't hide them in the pockets of your civilian clothes and claim to be
> anything other than a terrorist. That is the letter of the law, which is beyond
> your opinion on the matter.

But you are either saying the Jewish women in the Warsaw ghetto were terrorists
for concealing them in baby carriages (with babies) or you are saying they can
be concealed.

>>There is no prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
>>and crates would be illegal.

> They are if you have that crate in anything but a marked military transport.
> See also: Openly.

The military rarely uses open trucks. It rains. As for marked military
transport I don't see mention of military transport.

>> BTW: There is NO definition of terrorist in any law other than the very weak,
>>use of force or threat of force to change public policy.

> If you're killing people without meeting the Third Geneva Convention standard
> you are at BEST a terrorist, at worst you're a psychopath with an uncontrollable
> urge to kill. Either category can be shot upon discovery by enemy forces
> according to the laws and customs of war.

Or you are a colonial revolutionary but of course that is before its time. I
use it simply as an example opposed to terrorist.

But no one is arguing they cannot be shot if not in compliance. I have not
claimed such a thing.

>> As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
>>will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms.

> I posted the exact requirement from the Geneva Convention, here it is again
> since you seem too stupid to remember it.

> "(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"

> You can do what you can to reduce your ability to be seen in the first place
> but once you are spotted you have to be CLEARLY identifiable as the enemy.

And then we got into what clearly means identifiable means.

>>that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing.

> Because dressing like a civilian is NOT recognizable at a distance as a
> distinctive sign.

Which lead us to consider outlawing camoflague uniforms because the purpose is
not to be clearly identifiable.

>> In any event I do not see your point in going into this as all of the above and
>>more is only required TO HAVE A CLAIM to POW status and treatment.

> It is required TO HAVE A CLAIM to ORGANIZED RESISTANCE MOVEMENT status.

> See, I can use caps too. And unlike you, I've actually got a point.

Your caps mean that the ORGANIZED group can claim POW status. If they are not
claiming that then what is the point?

All resistance to foreign occupation is a priori criminal?

>> Define openly. An explosive vest requires it to be worn the way it is to be
>>effective. I do not see how openly can require a weapon to be carried in a
>>manner to make it ineffective.

> So wearing the explosives outside the vest as required would make the blast
> ineffective?

That is a good question. It would appear the closer to the body the more
effective. So should they only be used in winter where overcoats would
definitely reduce effectiveness and therefore wearing them under the coat
completely lawful?

> You're like clubbing a baby seal,

That is a new term for Zionists.

> sure it's satisfying, but it got boring
> fast. Into the killfile you go.

Please learn to use you killfile before you threaten it.

But it remains a fact killing Zionists is lawful as they are European invaders
who murdered and expelled the native population and stole the land. It is called
private property. There is always a right to use deadly force to kill thieves
and murderers.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

mike Williamson wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Johnny Bravo wrote:

>> As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever
>> outlawed it will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms. I do
>> not see how clothing that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even
>> if it is civilian clothing. In fact that was my first thought when I
>> saw the KLA bandanas, that they should have picked black.

> Camouflage is still a distinctive uniform. The purpose of a uniform
> is to distinguish you from non-combatants, not to make you easily
> visible. Hiding among trees, shrubs, and weeds is legal. Hiding
> among civilians is not. Your declaration that you can't see a
> difference (if true) is a statement about your mental process, not
> about camouflage.

As the gentleman was making his in the context of openly recognizable I made
the obvious observation. In a previous post, from which he made the selective
quotes you read, I suggested a red poppy in the lapel as the open insignia. The
two generic points as you have made them are so the members can identify each
other and so they do not pretend to be civilians.

The general issue here is the Israel issue and a type of warfare not envisioned
by the convention. The point is to damn Palestinians and hold Israelis blameless.

If anything was envisioned it was that the occupying military would always be
in uniform unless in safe areas away from the front for R&R. The convention
makes no distinction between on or off duty so clearly attacks on R&R areas are
lawful. It did not imagine R&R areas as civilian areas of the occupying power a
days walk from the lines.

Another thing it failed to address was active or reserve military. If they can
be recalled to active duty they would appear to be lawful targets. And given
universal military service in Israel even with all the caveats and exceptions 3
in 10 in any crowd should be lawful targets.

The third point is while military assets are lawful targets it was not
envisioned that buses would be used by the military. But in Israel the buses are
military assets moving troops back and forth to the occupied territory and
therefore they are lawful targets. They are just as lawful as any train in
Germany regardless of civilians using them.

Those are my three points. The effort of izziehuggers are to damn Palestinians
for lawful, reasonable and moral attacks on the occupying forces.

I can go further and say taking the fight to the homeland of the occupying
force is also legitimate looking at the saturation bombings of civilians not
only during WWII but since the conventions without any serious issue of
attacking civilians being claimed. I can go as recently as the conquest of Iraq
where civilian assets were the first thing attacked on the grounds the military
could benefit from them.

As a sidebar I notice Israel's present response to the capture a corporal
certainly exonerates Germany for Krystalnacht which was over the murder of an
ambassador. Military people know they risk capture. Ambassadors do not assume
the job hazard of being murdered.

>>>> The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or
>>>> pattern. Hamas is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow
>>>> lettering I think. Next time you see films take a look.
>>> Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to
>>> smuggle their
>>> bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do
>>> so for propaganda purposes?

>> I have no idea. You will have to inquire of Israel to get copies
>> of the incident reports. All I know is what I see. If the uniform of
>> the day is a red poppy in the lapel I don't see how to complain.

> Again, uniform "of the day" intended to prevent the enemy from
> distinguishing you from the civilian population is (and was always
> intended to be) illegal under the treaties cited.

That is not the question he asked. He asked of the insignia was selectively
worn. I said I do not know and directed him to the only source of such
imformation I can imagine. Given the way they almost immediately announce the
militia affiliation of the bomber I would guess they find the insignia in the
wreckage but I do not know.

> Since self defence
> is always allowed troops, mandating a uniform that can not be
> distinguished from civilian attire requires troops to consider
> all civilians to be either potential or actual combatants, and
> act accordingly.

So in the Zionist/Palestinian case the issue boils down to a lawful delivery
method of a weapon to target the homeland of the invading country. If a dumb
missile is lawful is not a human lawful? In neither case is identification a
requirement as "missle coming" is not a required warning. If a smart bomb can be
dropped on Gaza City cannot a bomb be one walked into Tel Aviv?

Technology changes but one cannot automatically assume technological advances
trump equally effective means of responding in kind.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

mike Williamson wrote:

I also recommend to your attention the posts of aspqrz in this matter.

--
No matter what you think of Izziehuggers being behind the conquest of Iraq
it is the least incredible of all the possible reasons.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3657
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7

Jordan wrote:
> wrote:
>>Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
>>Germany did try to expel Jews.

> Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
> murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

The current attacks on Palestine because of the occupational hazard of a
soldier being captured totally exonerate Germany over Krystalnacht over the
murder of an Ambassador which do not assume the occupational hazard of being
murdered.

You cannot pick and choose the groups to be punished.

--
Bush is so stupid he insists we will have victory in Iraq but the idiot has
no idea what victory means else he would have said what it is.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3656
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>Jordan wrote:
>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>>>>Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
>>>>>near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
>>>> How does that act of war improve matters?
>>>By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
>>>against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
>>>retaliation.

>> Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
>>evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.

> Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of
> civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of
> War),

As Israel says if even one suspected terrorist it killed the civilians murders
do not count.

On or off duty, active or reserve or any military asset like buses are lawful
targets to be specific. Any Israeli city is a lawful target as no Israeli city
is neutral, unarmed and undefended. Read the posts of aspqrz if you want LEARN
the gory details.

> it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed
> "resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this
> resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier.

Occupation itself is the continuation of the act of war which lead to the
occupation so responding to the zionist animals is completely lawful and
reasonable. And The zionists wanted to be under constant attack when they
continued the occupation not to mention the criminal population transfers.

> The war
> may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the
> relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria
> will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about.

Israel is perfectly capable and likely to make the war active again but there
is no rational objection to Syria continuing the war ISRAEL started and never
ended.

>>Capturing a
>>prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law.

> Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war
> with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee,
> and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike
> operations against Syria.

It has already has done that. Violating airspace is an act of war. Apparently
trying to provoke Israel to respond so izziehuggers like you can start lying by
claiming Israel was attacked by Syria as you have done since 1967.

>>Their
>>only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
>>accordance with his rank.

> Have such Red Cross visits been allowed?

Every one that has been requested.

>> Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
>>support of American colonies

> Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the
> escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving
> America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman,
> Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many
> other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's.

Dear late bloomer,

Israel and Syria have been at war since Israel started the 1967 war with Syria.

>>or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
>>Stalin pretend innocense.

> Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying
> Power).

> What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim
> doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often
> doesn't.

And that is likely why Syria does not treat itself as the viction of Israeli
aggression which it has been since 1967.

> Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians
> and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The
> radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their
> place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO.

It is difficult to see where invaders from Europe have any moral position that
can be justified.

Losing patience sounds like such righteous indignation, sort of like the Mafia
losing patience with shopkeepers who refuse to pay protection.

You Zionists are MURDERERS. You Zionists went to Palestine with the openly
expressed intention to MURDER.

Yet you post as though you were other than the scum of the earth.

>> Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
>>specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

> Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that,
> when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis,
> it was in the context of a WAR?

Syria and Israel have been at war since Israel attacked Syria in 1967. What is
your point? Why do you keep telling me what I agree with? You Zionists can never
be trusted.

>>>Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

>> The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
>>the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
>>asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
>>we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
>>tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
>>to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

> I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically
> involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Not only is that the correct history but I got it from a background piece in
Ha'aretz when the issue of granting the Druze citizenship was a political issue.

--
The US media is indistinguishable from a state controlled media.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3641
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:

>> The night isn't over. But everyone that dies from lack of
>> electricity, water, food, medicine or any other cause related to this
>> siege or the occupation in general has been murdered by Israel. As
>> such deaths are mostly among children and the elderly it is going to
>> be a very unpleasant accounting to Israel's already blood-drenched
>> scorecard.

> The Israels have permitted the influx of minimal shipments of fuel,
> water, food and medicine.

Despite the lies you are telling what does that have to do with electricity?
And electricity means water and that is both drinking and sanitation. If cholera
breaks out it is mass murder by Israel.

> If they meant to slaughter Gaza City, they
> would have done it already. Why not apply Ockahm's Razor. Maybe all the
> Israelis want it the return of Lt. Shalit. Could it be possible?

No. He is more valuable as a prisoner than free. For example arresting members
of the government of Palestine was planned weeks ago (Haaretz) and this was used
as the excus for it.

> As to group punishment, everytime a Jihadi straps on an explosive belt
> and blows himself to Paradise in a Pizza Parlor or at a bus stop, that
> is group punishment. When the Palis do it, you judge it to be just. When
> Isrealis do targeted assassination of their enemies you express how
> Shocked! Shocked! you are at Israeli brutality. If the Israelis were
> truly as brutal and evil as you claim there would be barely a hundred
> Palestineans left alive, even as we speak. You are a bull**** artist.

This is group punishment of a magnitude that exonerates Krystalnacht of all blame.

--
How do you get rid of 12 million Mexicans? Start with 120,000 pickup trucks.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3661
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

>> He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
>>role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

> Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
> cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
> whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
> quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

So you mean a Jewish child who threw a rock at a Nazi had to expect to be
murdered.

So you mean Jews who did not fully support the Nazis should have expected to be
murdered at any time. Or should only those who spit when Nazis walked by have
expected to be murdered?

Ask I asked and you never answered, When did you become a Nazi?

--
Hodie quarto Nonas Iulias MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:31:41 -0500, Robert Kolker > wrote:
>
>
>>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with
>>>guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be
>>>running around throwing rocks at people with guns.
>>
>>Or falling in with fanatics who convince your kid he will go to heaven
>>and get ****ed by 72 virgins if he blows himself and his victims to
>>kingdom come.

> I just don't see what's so attractive about 72 virgins in the first place,
> that would be way too much work on my part. I'd rather have just 2 experienced
> and enthusiastic bed partners.

One has to ask how an eleven year old child would be interested in even one
virgin.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, jull43
> @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled

>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
>>back non-stop since 1948.

> Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
> brothers attacked Isreal ?

Why do idiots keep repeating Zionist propaganda?

First off, fleeing a war zone is normal human behavior and does not abrogate
property rights.

Second, around 1930 the Zionists openly adopted a policy of murdering and
expeling Palestinians. Israeli historians using Israeli records have established
the Zionists openly implemented that policy.

Grow up and get a life.

--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7

Robert Kolker wrote:

> The Israels have permitted the influx of minimal shipments of fuel,
> water, food and medicine.

Your major lie is by implication. Even if those were all true the stress of
them being minimal means the weakest are being murdered. As the weakest are
always the youngest and the oldest, Israel is murdering those who cannot
possibly be attacking Israel.

--
America will murder as many Iraqis as required to liberate Iraq from Iraqis.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3651
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, jull43
> @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>
>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
>>back non-stop since 1948.

> Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
> brothers attacked Isreal ?

AND

By genetics Palestians are brothers of the Jews from Judea who converted. They
are not genetically related to Syrians or Egyptians and neither they nor
Sepharidic Jews are related to the Ashkenazi converts from Eastern Europe.

--
When the Supreme Court found the Guantanamo military tribunals were in
violation of the Geneva Conventions it implicitely found him guilty of war
crimes.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3670
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 02:32:50 GMT, Tankfixer >
wrote:

>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>
>> You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
>> and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.
>
>
>The irony is the Palastinians would just as soon slit Mr Giwer's throat
>given half a chance..

But would it be a "war crime"?

Enquiring minds demand an answer!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email:

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
. ..

What I meant to say is the sooner the Palestinians and people like you stop
their deluded dreaming, the sooner the situation can be resolved. Really,
you just wasted your time describing a bunch of hypotheticals that will not
occur. But hey, if the Palestinians want to wallow for another 50+ years
waiting for this to happen, that is their problem.

Jarg

In article >, jull43
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article >, jull43
> > @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>
> >>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
> >>back non-stop since 1948.
>
> > Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
> > brothers attacked Isreal ?
>
> Why do idiots keep repeating Zionist propaganda?

Why are you an avowed Nazi ?


>
> First off, fleeing a war zone is normal human behavior and does not abrogate
> property rights.

Yet not all fled, and have become Isreali citizens.
How can that be ?


>
> Second, around 1930 the Zionists openly adopted a policy of murdering and
> expeling Palestinians. Israeli historians using Israeli records have established
> the Zionists openly implemented that policy.
>
> Grow up and get a life.

PKB, sonny

In article >, jull43
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article >, jull43
> > @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> >
> >>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
> >>back non-stop since 1948.
>
> > Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
> > brothers attacked Isreal ?
>
> AND
>
> By genetics Palestians are brothers of the Jews from Judea who converted. They
> are not genetically related to Syrians or Egyptians and neither they nor
> Sepharidic Jews are related to the Ashkenazi converts from Eastern Europe.


Well that explains why the Syrians nor Egyptians want to take in the
Palistinians...

Jarg wrote:

> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> What I meant to say is the sooner the Palestinians and people like you stop
> their deluded dreaming, the sooner the situation can be resolved. Really,
> you just wasted your time describing a bunch of hypotheticals that will not
> occur. But hey, if the Palestinians want to wallow for another 50+ years
> waiting for this to happen, that is their problem.

The late Abba Eban once said that the Palestneans never miss an
opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Bob Kolker

"Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The late Abba Eban once said that the Palestneans never miss an
> opportunity to miss an opportunity.
>
> Bob Kolker
>

I do pity the Palestinians. They could already have most of what they need,
if not what they want. I don't understand how people can be willing to put
up with so much suffering needlessly, and pointlessly.

Jarg

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
...
> They are the innocent party. Zionists are now and forever the guilty
> party. That is a fact.

I don't think any reasonable person would consider the people intentionally
murdering women and children to be innocent.

Jarg

Jarg wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>The late Abba Eban once said that the Palestneans never miss an
>>opportunity to miss an opportunity.
>>
>>Bob Kolker
>>
>
>
> I do pity the Palestinians. They could already have most of what they need,
> if not what they want. I don't understand how people can be willing to put
> up with so much suffering needlessly, and pointlessly.

The Jihad Meme at work.

Bob Kolker

Jarg wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> ...

>>They are the innocent party. Zionists are now and forever the guilty
>>party. That is a fact.

> I don't think any reasonable person would consider the people intentionally
> murdering women and children to be innocent.

Reasonable people accept colateral damage from lawful attacks to be innocent
all the time. Israel does it all the time. Israel has killed 7 times more
Palestinian children than Israeli children have been killed.

Are you trying to pretend Israel does not do this even when the PM declares
killing 16 innocents of whom 5 are childen an unqualifed success because it
kills just one suspect?

Do you have any knowledge of the facts or are you deliberately shilling for
little Israel?

--
It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel.
It is antisemitic to effectively criticize Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3645
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

Jarg wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> . ..

> What I meant to say is the sooner the Palestinians and people like you stop
> their deluded dreaming, the sooner the situation can be resolved. Really,
> you just wasted your time describing a bunch of hypotheticals that will not
> occur. But hey, if the Palestinians want to wallow for another 50+ years
> waiting for this to happen, that is their problem.

What I mean to say is people like you supporting the current rerun of
Kyrstalnacht are no better than those who supported the Nazis.

There is NO possible resolution to the problem because Israel does NOT want a
resolution to the problem.

Israel has never expressed any interest in even the minimum required for peace.
There is no appeasing Israel.

If your point is rejecting hypotheticals then first reject the idea Israel
wants peace. How in the world could millions of Europeans go to Israel and
choose perpetual war if they wanted peace? They perpertual war. It is in their
blood. It is their ideology. It is their culture.

Foreign Jews from Europe began murdering and terror bombing Palestinians in the
early 1930s. They murdered thousands as official policy to drive out 750,000
otheres in 1947-48 as revealed by Israel's own records. They launched a war of
conquest against Egypt in 1956. They attacked Egypt again in early 1967. They
attacked Syria during the 67 war.

Please tell me how it is possible to appease these bloodthirsty animals who
chose perpetual war?

--
How do you get rid of 12 million Mexicans? Start with 120,000 pickup trucks.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3661
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Jarg wrote:

>> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
>> . ..

>> What I meant to say is the sooner the Palestinians and people like you
>> stop their deluded dreaming, the sooner the situation can be
>> resolved. Really, you just wasted your time describing a bunch of
>> hypotheticals that will not occur. But hey, if the Palestinians want
>> to wallow for another 50+ years waiting for this to happen, that is
>> their problem.

> The late Abba Eban once said that the Palestneans never miss an
> opportunity to miss an opportunity.

And the late Menachim Begin said if he were a Palestinian he would be fighting
Israel. He also said in the same circumstance that he would never sign of deal
with Israel as Israelis could not be trusted to honor any agreement.

For example, Israel reneged on the Oslo Accords in less than a week.

--
During the Cold War anyone who supported Russia was justly considered
culpable in everything Russia did. Today anyone who supports Israel is
culpable in everything Israel does.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3664
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

Jarg wrote:
> "Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
> . ..

>>The late Abba Eban once said that the Palestneans never miss an
>>opportunity to miss an opportunity.

> I do pity the Palestinians. They could already have most of what they need,
> if not what they want. I don't understand how people can be willing to put
> up with so much suffering needlessly, and pointlessly.

If you do not understand that explain to me why so many millions of Jews chose
to live under daily threat to their lives and in a state of perpetual war.

What kind of person enjoys being in a constant state of war and threat of
violent death?

--
If the war on terror stops the price of oil goes back to $30 per barrel and
all the investments in ethanol plants go into bankruptcy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3667
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, jull43
> @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
>>>>back non-stop since 1948.
>>>Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
>>>brothers attacked Isreal ?

>> Why do idiots keep repeating Zionist propaganda?

> Why are you an avowed Nazi ?

The current siege of Gaza exonerates Krystalnacht as a legitimate response.

>> First off, fleeing a war zone is normal human behavior and does not abrogate
>>property rights.

> Yet not all fled, and have become Isreali citizens.
> How can that be ?

They are citizens in the same sense that Blacks in the old south were citizens.
Meanwhile politicians consider ways to force them to leave Israel.

>> Second, around 1930 the Zionists openly adopted a policy of murdering and
>>expeling Palestinians. Israeli historians using Israeli records have established
>>the Zionists openly implemented that policy.

>> Grow up and get a life.

> PKB, sonny

Zionism is be its own definition and policy and open admission a conspiracy of
mass murderers. Anyone who supports Zionism is also a mass murderer.

--
The US media is indistinguishable from a state controlled media.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3641
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, jull43
> @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
>>>>back non-stop since 1948.
>>
>>>Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
>>>brothers attacked Isreal ?

>> AND

>> By genetics Palestians are brothers of the Jews from Judea who converted. They
>>are not genetically related to Syrians or Egyptians and neither they nor
>>Sepharidic Jews are related to the Ashkenazi converts from Eastern Europe.

> Well that explains why the Syrians nor Egyptians want to take in the
> Palistinians...

You try to avoid the point. Ashkenazi Jews have not connection to bibleland
except as converts. OTOH, Palestinians have the ancestral rights the atheist
Zionists claim to have.

--
When I was a child my family was so poor we could not afford a computer.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3648
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

In article >, jull43
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article >, jull43
> > @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> >>Tankfixer wrote:
> >>>In article >, jull43
> mumbled
> >>>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
> >>>>back non-stop since 1948.
> >>>Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
> >>>brothers attacked Isreal ?
>
> >> Why do idiots keep repeating Zionist propaganda?
>
> > Why are you an avowed Nazi ?
>
> The current siege of Gaza exonerates Krystalnacht as a legitimate response.

So two wrongs make a right ?


>
> >> First off, fleeing a war zone is normal human behavior and does not abrogate
> >>property rights.
>
> > Yet not all fled, and have become Isreali citizens.
> > How can that be ?
>
> They are citizens in the same sense that Blacks in the old south were citizens.
> Meanwhile politicians consider ways to force them to leave Israel.

Must make your heart warm then.



>
> >> Second, around 1930 the Zionists openly adopted a policy of murdering and
> >>expeling Palestinians. Israeli historians using Israeli records have established
> >>the Zionists openly implemented that policy.
>
> >> Grow up and get a life.
>
> > PKB, sonny
>
> Zionism is be its own definition and policy and open admission a conspiracy of
> mass murderers. Anyone who supports Zionism is also a mass murderer.

Only in your feeble little mind perhaps

In article >, jull43
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article >, jull43
> > @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
> >>Tankfixer wrote:
> >>>In article >, jull43
> mumbled
> >>>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
> >>>>back non-stop since 1948.
> >>
> >>>Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
> >>>brothers attacked Isreal ?
>
> >> AND
>
> >> By genetics Palestians are brothers of the Jews from Judea who converted. They
> >>are not genetically related to Syrians or Egyptians and neither they nor
> >>Sepharidic Jews are related to the Ashkenazi converts from Eastern Europe.
>
> > Well that explains why the Syrians nor Egyptians want to take in the
> > Palistinians...
>
> You try to avoid the point. Ashkenazi Jews have not connection to bibleland
> except as converts. OTOH, Palestinians have the ancestral rights the atheist
> Zionists claim to have.

You can't form a sentance without spouting hate, can you ?

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
...
> Jarg wrote:
>> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>They are the innocent party. Zionists are now and forever the guilty
>>>party. That is a fact.
>
>> I don't think any reasonable person would consider the people
>> intentionally murdering women and children to be innocent.
>
> Reasonable people accept colateral damage from lawful attacks to be
> innocent all the time. Israel does it all the time. Israel has killed 7
> times more Palestinian children than Israeli children have been killed.


Perhaps if that were true, but the Palestinian bombers are targeting
civilians. It is not "colateral damage."


>
> Are you trying to pretend Israel does not do this even when the PM
> declares killing 16 innocents of whom 5 are childen an unqualifed success
> because it kills just one suspect?
>


You're trying to make this an either/or choice, which it is not. I didn't
say the Israelis don't have blood on there hands. That is true for any
nation that has engaged in war. But I will say that there is a difference
in that the Palestinians are targeting innocents, whereas the Israelis have
caused civilian casualties in the course of fighting militants.

Jarg

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jarg wrote:
>> "Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>
>>>The late Abba Eban once said that the Palestneans never miss an
>>>opportunity to miss an opportunity.
>
>> I do pity the Palestinians. They could already have most of what they
>> need, if not what they want. I don't understand how people can be
>> willing to put up with so much suffering needlessly, and pointlessly.
>
> If you do not understand that explain to me why so many millions of Jews
> chose to live under daily threat to their lives and in a state of
> perpetual war.
>
> What kind of person enjoys being in a constant state of war and threat of
> violent death?


I doubt they do, although due to there overwhelming advantages in military
strength the odds of an Israeli dying a violent death at the hands of a
Palestinian are quite low, and the average Israeli's quality of life is much
much better than that of the average Palestinian.

Jarg

Jarg wrote:

>
>
> I doubt they do, although due to there overwhelming advantages in military
> strength the odds of an Israeli dying a violent death at the hands of a
> Palestinian are quite low, and the average Israeli's quality of life is much
> much better than that of the average Palestinian.

Which is kind of sad. If the Palestineans allowed sanity to rule for a
year, they too could have a good material life. Do recall what life in
Lebanon was like before Black September. The Christians and Moslems did
not exactly love each other, but they did -business- as opposed to
killing. The result was called the Switzerland of the middle east.
Lebanon would be a prosperous country today, if Palestinean crazies had
not invaded and ruined their thing.

Bob Kolker

Jarg wrote:
> But I will say that there is a difference
> in that the Palestinians are targeting innocents, whereas the Israelis have
> caused civilian casualties in the course of fighting militants.

Usual spin/mantra from Israel apologists. Meanwhile, the genocide
against Palestinians continues. The Palestinians do what they
can to retaliate.

-----
Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
Israel's favor.
Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.

---------
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
---Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001

--
Cliff

Jarg wrote:

> Maybe you cheer for the Indians, I just see the inevitable results of a
> conflict between people's of vastly different resources and technology.
>
> Israel's existence is a fact which will not change no matter how much the
> Palestinians wish otherwise. The sooner they stop their deluded dreaming,
> the sooner the situation can be resolved.

Of course, never mind the illegal occupation, or that Arab land was
stolen in the first place to give Zionists their fake country....

The Zionists and hateful bigots like you are the ones who need to
get a clue. The Jewish population shrinks every year, while
the Muslim population is exploding. They ain't going anywhere.
Connect the dots.

-----
Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
Israel's favor.
Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.

---------
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
---Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001

--
Cliff

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jarg wrote:
>> But I will say that there is a difference
>> in that the Palestinians are targeting innocents, whereas the Israelis
>> have
>> caused civilian casualties in the course of fighting militants.
>
> Usual spin/mantra from Israel apologists. Meanwhile, the genocide
> against Palestinians continues. The Palestinians do what they
> can to retaliate.
>
> -----
> Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
> Israel's favor.
> Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.
>
> ---------
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
> ----------
> "Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
> the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
> ---Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
>
> --
> Cliff
>

Sounds like you are the one engaging in propaganda by trying to justify the
deliberate targeting of women and children by Palestinian terrorists. Also,
I suspect that if the Israelis were really engaging in genocide there
wouldn't be any Palestinians left given the enormous military advantage
Israel has.

Jarg

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> The Zionists and hateful bigots like you are the ones who need to
> get a clue. The Jewish population shrinks every year, while
> the Muslim population is exploding. They ain't going anywhere.
> Connect the dots.

LOL I'm the hateful bigot? Unlike you, I don't have an emotional stake in
this issue. And don't hold your breath waiting for end of Israel if you
value your life.

Jarg

Jarg wrote:
>
> Sounds like you are the one engaging in propaganda by trying to justify the
> deliberate targeting of women and children by Palestinian terrorists.

They have determined that an effective means of retaliation,
considering
their meager resources for fighting back against Israeli murderers and
terrorists who have killed and slaughtered their children wholesale
with
the ever-present support/protection of the mighty U.S.
The numbers speak for themselves.

> Also,
> I suspect that if the Israelis were really engaging in genocide there
> wouldn't be any Palestinians left given the enormous military advantage
> Israel has.

Another common response from defenders of all things Israel.
If Israel had its way, there wouldn't be a Muslim left alive on the
planet, and all its enemies (real or imagined) would've been blown
to atoms, with all their lands a smoking ruin. But, unfortunately for
them, there's the rest of the world to deal with, including the U.S.,
who just might **finally** have to reel these murderers in for good
if they attempted such a mass extermination. They know that as
well as you and I do.

-----
Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
Israel's favor.
Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.
---------
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
---Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001

--
Cliff

wrote:
> Jarg wrote:
>
>>But I will say that there is a difference
>>in that the Palestinians are targeting innocents, whereas the Israelis have
>>caused civilian casualties in the course of fighting militants.
>
>
> Usual spin/mantra from Israel apologists. Meanwhile, the genocide
> against Palestinians continues. The Palestinians do what they
> can to retaliate.


What genocide. The Palestineans breed like rabbits. Their population is
increasing.

Bob Kolker

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Most of the world condemns Israel sonny. Without their control of
> American politics, they would likely cease to exist.
>

Thanks for the input gramps. As I said, don't hold your breath.

Jarg

Jarg wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Jarg wrote:
>>>"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>They are the innocent party. Zionists are now and forever the guilty
>>>>party. That is a fact.
>>>I don't think any reasonable person would consider the people
>>>intentionally murdering women and children to be innocent.

>>Reasonable people accept colateral damage from lawful attacks to be
>>innocent all the time. Israel does it all the time. Israel has killed 7
>>times more Palestinian children than Israeli children have been killed.

> Perhaps if that were true, but the Palestinian bombers are targeting
> civilians. It is not "colateral damage."

Targeting civilians is an Israeli lie as you know. They are conducting lawful
attacks against the occupying country. It is as lawful as Poles attacking Germany.

Buses are a military asset in Israel as they are used to transport troops. They
are lawful targets at any time as a military asset.

Any member of the IDF, on or off duty, active or reserve, is a lawful target.
In a country with universal military service any group of Israelis is a lawful
target.

Not only that by the Geneva conventions it is completely legitimate to attack
any place in Israel at any time without regard to any consideration save perhaps
avoiding hospitals.

>>Are you trying to pretend Israel does not do this even when the PM
>>declares killing 16 innocents of whom 5 are childen an unqualifed success
>>because it kills just one suspect?

> You're trying to make this an either/or choice, which it is not. I didn't
> say the Israelis don't have blood on there hands. That is true for any
> nation that has engaged in war. But I will say that there is a difference
> in that the Palestinians are targeting innocents, whereas the Israelis have
> caused civilian casualties in the course of fighting militants.

And as you know Israel is lying when it claims innocents are being targeted I
do not see the point of your response.

--
One of every eight Mexicans is in the US illegally.
Is there any question why Americans are ****ed?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3643
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9

Jarg wrote:

> Sounds like you are the one engaging in propaganda by trying to justify the
> deliberate targeting of women and children by Palestinian terrorists.

Women are drafted too. Israel should not permit its military to hide among
children.

> Also,
> I suspect that if the Israelis were really engaging in genocide there
> wouldn't be any Palestinians left given the enormous military advantage
> Israel has.

Not only to you support Krystalnacht you now support mass extermination.

When did you become a Nazi?

--
Hodie tertio Nonas Iulias MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Robert Kolker wrote:
> wrote:
>> Jarg wrote:
>>> But I will say that there is a difference
>>> in that the Palestinians are targeting innocents, whereas the
>>> Israelis have
>>> caused civilian casualties in the course of fighting militants.

>> Usual spin/mantra from Israel apologists. Meanwhile, the genocide
>> against Palestinians continues. The Palestinians do what they
>> can to retaliate.

> What genocide. The Palestineans breed like rabbits. Their population is
> increasing.

While Israel considers a law to make Viagra use mandatory for men.

--
No country in the world has recognized Israel's right to exist. Why must the
Palestinians be the first?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3647
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7

Jarg wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>Jarg wrote:
>>>"Robert Kolker" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>The late Abba Eban once said that the Palestneans never miss an
>>>>opportunity to miss an opportunity.
>>>I do pity the Palestinians. They could already have most of what they
>>>need, if not what they want. I don't understand how people can be
>>>willing to put up with so much suffering needlessly, and pointlessly.

>>If you do not understand that explain to me why so many millions of Jews
>>chose to live under daily threat to their lives and in a state of
>>perpetual war.

>>What kind of person enjoys being in a constant state of war and threat of
>>violent death?

> I doubt they do,

Of course they do. Did someone force them to go there? They freely chose to
live that way.

> although due to there overwhelming advantages in military
> strength the odds of an Israeli dying a violent death at the hands of a
> Palestinian are quite low,

They whine so much about it you know they think it is important even though
they freely chose the risk.

> and the average Israeli's quality of life is much
> much better than that of the average Palestinian.

And the average jewish Israeli's is much better than the average non-jewish
Israeli. It is the old south syndrome.

And Israel standard of living compares favorably with the lowest countries in
Europe so they took a major decrease in quality of life in addition to choosing
the live in constant danger.

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Jarg wrote:

>> I doubt they do, although due to there overwhelming advantages in
>> military strength the odds of an Israeli dying a violent death at the
>> hands of a Palestinian are quite low, and the average Israeli's
>> quality of life is much much better than that of the average Palestinian.

> Which is kind of sad. If the Palestineans allowed sanity to rule for a
> year, they too could have a good material life.

Their lives would be much better if jews had not stolen all the best land from
them. But I know, you approve of Germany invasion of Poland. You approve of
Krystalnacht. When did you become a Nazi?

> Do recall what life in
> Lebanon was like before Black September. The Christians and Moslems did
> not exactly love each other, but they did -business- as opposed to
> killing. The result was called the Switzerland of the middle east.
> Lebanon would be a prosperous country today, if Palestinean crazies had
> not invaded and ruined their thing.

And that is why Israel financed the Druze to start a civil war in Lebanon, to
remove the competition.

--
Whenever you read of Bush talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq you can
be certain the next day will have a report of sending additional troops.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3658
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, jull43
> @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
>>>>>>back non-stop since 1948.
>>>>>Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
>>>>>brothers attacked Isreal ?
>>>> Why do idiots keep repeating Zionist propaganda?
>>>Why are you an avowed Nazi ?

>> The current siege of Gaza exonerates Krystalnacht as a legitimate response.

> So two wrongs make a right ?

Israel says Krystalnacht was the right thing to do.

>>>> First off, fleeing a war zone is normal human behavior and does not abrogate
>>>>property rights.
>>>Yet not all fled, and have become Isreali citizens.
>>>How can that be ?

>> They are citizens in the same sense that Blacks in the old south were citizens.
>>Meanwhile politicians consider ways to force them to leave Israel.

> Must make your heart warm then.

I am simply observing what Jews are like when they have political power.

>>>> Second, around 1930 the Zionists openly adopted a policy of murdering and
>>>>expeling Palestinians. Israeli historians using Israeli records have established
>>>>the Zionists openly implemented that policy.
>>>> Grow up and get a life.
>>>PKB, sonny

>> Zionism is be its own definition and policy and open admission a conspiracy of
>>mass murderers. Anyone who supports Zionism is also a mass murderer.

> Only in your feeble little mind perhaps

The Jews went to Palestine with the explicite plan to murder Palestinians they
could not expel. Israel records used by Israeli historians, Morris and Segev,
show that is the plan that was implemented. Jews began terror bombings of
Palestinians in the 1930s.

--
In considering troop to population ratios, the US had over a half mllion
troops in Vietnam with a population of 16 million and still lost.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3668
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, jull43
> @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>>>Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
>>>>>>back non-stop since 1948.
>>>>>Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
>>>>>brothers attacked Isreal ?

>>>> AND

>>>> By genetics Palestians are brothers of the Jews from Judea who converted. They
>>>>are not genetically related to Syrians or Egyptians and neither they nor
>>>>Sepharidic Jews are related to the Ashkenazi converts from Eastern Europe.
>>>Well that explains why the Syrians nor Egyptians want to take in the
>>>Palistinians...

>> You try to avoid the point. Ashkenazi Jews have not connection to bibleland
>>except as converts. OTOH, Palestinians have the ancestral rights the atheist
>>Zionists claim to have.

> You can't form a sentance without spouting hate, can you ?

The truth cannot be hate. The ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews were not from Judea.

--
America did not learn from a one day strike by illegals. The only way to
teach America a real lesson is to go back to Mexico until America begs you to
return.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3644
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

"Matt Giwer" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
> And Israel standard of living compares favorably with the lowest countries
> in Europe so they took a major decrease in quality of life in addition to
> choosing the live in constant danger.


I'm not sure what you mean by any of this. Israel's per capital GDP is
roughly equal to Spain's and twice that of Poland, for example. Many
Israelis are from Russia, which has well under half the per capita GDP of
Israel. Finally, about 20% (and rising) of the current population of Israel
was born there, so they aren't making any choice at all. Additionally, the
life expectancy in Israel compares quite favorably with other developed
nations, so apparently the danger isn't that bad. Anyway, the attraction of
Israel to Jews goes well beyond favorable economics and high life
expectancy, though that is often a bonus.

Jarg

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, jull43
> @tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled
>
>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tankfixer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, jull43
mumbled
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
>>>>>>>>and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The irony is the Palastinians would just as soon slit Mr Giwer's throat
>>>>>>>given half a chance..
>>>>
>>>>>> Your juvenile bloodlust means you should date more or for the first time.
>>>>
>>>>>Not my probelm you ignor the facts.
>>>>>Why don't you join your Palistinian brothers and strap on a belt..
>>>>
>>>> The letter bombs invented by the Zionists are more effective.
>>
>>>So you are a coward beside being a nazi ?
>>
>>>But I repeat myself
>>
>> I repeat you support war criminals.

> When did I state support for Nazi's ?

Zionists are by defintion criminals.

You supported them in

"Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
brothers attacked Isreal?"

It is well known to be zionist propaganda. It is well known they were driven
out by the murderous zionists. If you repeat the lies of criminals you support
criminals.

Then you had this bit of zionists racism.

"The irony is the Palastinians would just as soon slit Mr Giwer's throat
given half a chance."

Do you have excuse for posting known propaganda and racist remarks other than
supporting zionists?

--
No country in the world has recognized Israel's right to exist. Why must the
Palestinians be the first?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3647
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml

Big Red wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
> Oh no
>
> The upper heirarchy among the Arab states has but one purpose- to
> survive. Nuclear war's have never been very popular- because a nuclear
> exchange will amount to complete destruction. No ruling class has ever
> knowingly destroyed itself- which is basically what an exchange of
> nukes amounts to.

Your claim that "a nuclear exchange will amount to complete
destruction" is simply an assertion. You are making the big assumption
that each party to the "exchange" is able to score enough hits on the
other party to "destroy" it (and what exactly do you mean by
"destruction?" Reduction of status as a Power? Collapse of regime?
Severe depopulation? Near-complete genocide? Each of those levels
requires an increasing number of average hits per city to effect).

> > Ah, but you're assuming that Arab Powers aren't prone to suicidal acts
> > of aggression. Witness the fate of Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a
> > counter-example.
>
> How many wars have the Arab powers fought with Israel after the Jewish
> state developed tactical nuclear weapons?

Two major ones (1973 and 1982) and numerous minor ones, one of which is
going on right now. The Israelis got their first few nuclear weapons
by 1970. Egypt and Syria launched an unprovoked invasion of Israel in
1973. In 1982, Syrian-backed border attacks on Israel (which by then
had dozens of atomic weapons) led to Operation Peace For Galilee, the
Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Right now Israel has at least a hundred,
possibly hundreds of atomic weapons, and Syria is backing a series of
Palestinian raids on Israel which may quite possibly lead to another
Syrian-Israeli war.

NONE of the Arab states that attacked Israel, as far as I know, has
ever had _any_ operational nuclear weapons. What has protected them
from annihilation has essentially been Israel's humaneness -- a frail
shield considering that the Arabs wish to annihilate Israel.

This does not fill me with vast confidence regarding Arab strategic
common sense.

> Even Saddam's invasion was
> tacitical. Kuwait is just a sheikdom that has some oil. He gambled that
> the Russians and the Chinese could stop the U.N., and America wouldn't
> rush into a war without allies. He fatally underestimated how powerful
> America was, especially what the U.S. could do with a smaller superior
> force, and command of the sky. However, Saddam's invasion didn't amount
> to sucide, as he retained power after the war.

No, what amounted to suicide was his continued violation of the truce
terms _after_ the end of Desert Storms, including an attempt to
assassinate ex-President Bush. This led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
the overthrow of Saddam, and his likely execution on charges of crimes
against humanity.

> "> I disagree with your general proposition"
>
> I would challenge you to devise a scenario for a nation that contains
> an aresenal of viable tacitical nuclear missles to be destroyed.

Oh, that's easy. Some other nation which has enough nuclear missiles
to hit all of the target nation's major conurbations does so. End of
the target nation.

You said _nothing_ about "be destroyed without taking the attacker down
with it." You simply assumed a sane potential aggressor being deterred
by the threat of retaliation. This is not a safe assumption, as not
all potential aggressors are sane.

> Especially one that has can deploy these missles in subs or in secure
> silos. No viable system has ever been deployed to stop an inbound
> nuclear missle with 100% accuracy

No viable system will ever be developed to stop an inbound ANYTHING
with 100% accuracy. But who said that 100% accuracy was required?

> and no stratedgy could made could
> hope to take out all of an exisisting nuclear power's missles, silos,
> and submarine based weapons.

Who said that taking out "all" of an existing nuclear power's missiles,
silos and submarine based weapons was required?

You want a scenario involving one nuclear power attacking another
nuclear power and NOT being deterred or destroyed by the threat of
retaliation? Ok, here's one.

At some future date Iran has 10 nuclear missiles capable of hitting
Israel. The Israelis have 200 missiles capable of hitting Iran, and an
ABM deployment capable of engaging all 10 nuclear missiles if launched
simultaneously with an expected success rate of around 95% (I'm
simplifying tremendously here, but my assumption is a per shot expected
kill around 50% and multiple shots taken per incoming missile).

Iran goes to war with Israel, backing terrorist teams who use nerve gas
to kill 1000 Israelis, but has not yet launched an atomic strike.
Israel becomes convinced on the basis of intelligence reports that Iran
is going to launch an atomic strike the moment Israel retaliates
against this atrocity. Israel decides that it cannot permit the
continuance of these attacks and launches a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

The Israelis begin with a stealthy (*) attack against the Iranian
missile silos. This employs tactical nuclear weapons. The attack
succeds in destroying 50% of the missiles. Unfortunately the Iranians
have adopted a Launch On Warning policy against just such a
contingency, and 5 nuclear missiles scream towards Israel.

The chance of the Israeli defense system hitting each missile is 0.95.
Hence the chance of the Israeli defense system letting at least one
missle through is 0.95 to the 5th power, or around 0.77.

In 77% of the universes in which this war happens, Iran is disarmed
with no hits on Israel. In around 23% of the universes in which this
war happens, Iran gets at least one hit on Israel. But in around 80%
of those universes in which Iran hits Israel, Iran gets ONLY one hit on
Israel.

Assuming that the Iranians are using atomic bombs, one hit on Israel is
not going to destroy Israel. It is not even going to destroy a large
Israeli city; it will simply damage that city.

Hence we can say, with some degree of confidence, that this atomic war
ends with Iran's nuclear arsenal gone, Israel surviving, and Iran now
at the mercy of an Israeli victor. If the Iranians are actually stupid
and fanatical enough to declare that they will continue the war,
building more atomic weapons and resuming the attack, Israel then
probably launches a series of atomic strikes aimed at eliminating Iran
as a Power with the resources to build more atomic weapons; millions of
Iranians die, and the chances are that not one Israeli dies as a result
of any Iranian atomic attack.

If you think that this is unrealisticaly lopsided (in particular that I
am unreasonably assuming that the Iranians will not work through the
logic that I have just had and thus avoid the initial terrorist attacks
in the first place) consider that at least one influential faction in
the Iranian government has repeatedly, publically argued that it is the
religious duty of any Islamic state to immediately attack Israel with
atomic weapons as soon as it has _any_ atomic weapons with which to
attack that country. It's also reasonable to assume that an
atomic-armed Iran would at first have only a half-dozen to a dozen
nuclear missiles, and most estimates of the Israeli arsenal put it at
low hundreds.

My estimate of the chances of the defense system are based on the
performance of the Patriot II-III in battle, coupled with the
assumption that in a situation where atomic attack was expected a
battery, rather than individual missile, would engage each incoming
threat. I could have made the defense stronger or weaker, and I
deliberately simplified the math by stating that each _volley_ of
missiles had a roughly 95% chance of succeeding with a per-shot in each
volley success chance of 50%; the actual math of such engagements is
_much_ more complicated than what I did.

You might argue that I didn't give Iran "secure" siloes (what does that
mean anyway?) or ballistic missile submarines. Well, as far as I know
Iran doesn't have any siloes that are "secure" by any means other than
the usual hardening, and Iran also has no SSBN's. (In fact, only
America, Britain, China, France and Russia, to my knowledge, have any
SSBN's at all -- it's a large and expensive type of submarine which is
not very useful unless you have at least hundreds of total atomic
devices and at least three such submarines so that one can be
maintained on station at all times). I could, of course, have assumed
that Iran modified one of their existing submarines to carry a _few_
nuclear missiles of some type (not a true SSBN, but perhaps an SSG with
a couple of nuclear cruise missiles in its loadout, such as our _Los
Angeles_ class). But then, cruise missiles are a lot easier to shoot
down than are ballistic missiles.

> Finally - nuclear war, involving the
> destruction of an entire nation, is only a possibility in the minds of
> the most sociopathic members of the human species.

Unfortunately, such persons sometimes rise to power as the heads of
states. Witness Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il
Sung and Kim Jong Il, and I could extend the list considerably without
even leaving the 20th century.

Furthermore, you're assuming that nuclear war must necessarily involve
the destruction of an entire nation. In the one that we have actually
fought so far (World War II) no nation was in fact entirely destroyed.

- Jordan

(*) I'm talking about the use of electronic warfare and radar
avoidance tactics in general, not the specific use of B-2 or F-117
aircraft, none of which are possessed afaik by the Israelis. The
Israelis used such tactics in their strike on the Iraqi atomic reactor.

Jordan wrote:
>
> NONE of the Arab states that attacked Israel, as far as I know, has
> ever had _any_ operational nuclear weapons. What has protected them
> from annihilation has essentially been Israel's humaneness -- a frail
> shield considering that the Arabs wish to annihilate Israel.

Humaneness is the Jewish Death Wish. Remember Amalek and blot his name
out. Remember and do not forget.

When Moshe Rabaynu (Moses our teacher) saw an Egyptian task master beat
a Hebrew slave, Moses surpressed that primordial Jewish urge to be fair
minded and consider the social forces that led to the task master's
brutality. He surpressed that and killed the momser.

Given a choice between having a tender heart and a tough mind, chose a
tough mind.

Bob Kolker

Robert Kolker wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>> NONE of the Arab states that attacked Israel, as far as I know, has
>> ever had _any_ operational nuclear weapons. What has protected them
>> from annihilation has essentially been Israel's humaneness -- a frail
>> shield considering that the Arabs wish to annihilate Israel.

> Humaneness is the Jewish Death Wish. Remember Amalek and blot his name
> out. Remember and do not forget.

> When Moshe Rabaynu (Moses our teacher) saw an Egyptian task master beat
> a Hebrew slave, Moses surpressed that primordial Jewish urge to be fair
> minded and consider the social forces that led to the task master's
> brutality. He surpressed that and killed the momser.

> Given a choice between having a tender heart and a tough mind, chose a
> tough mind.

Given the choice between doing something rational and deciding actions based
upon religious mythology the fundie believers will always choose the mythology.

--
Extrajudicial killing is another term for cold blooded murder.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3666
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5

Jordan wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> > He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.
> >
> > He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
> > role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.
>
> Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
> cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
> whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
> quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
extradite.

Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
in the American understanding!

The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
Parliament.
The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.
Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
land as possible but as few of the people.

Dan wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>> He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.
>>>
>>> He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
>>>role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.
>>
>>Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
>>cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
>>whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
>>quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

> Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
> is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
> if they are Muslim?
>
> So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
> "do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
> Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
> with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
> fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political power of the
Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

"Dan" > wrote in
oups.com:

[snip]

> Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
> is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
> if they are Muslim?

Depends on what they are doing. If they are throwing stones and
firebombs shooting may in fact be justified. Strictly speaking
they should be warned about what is going to happen ( this is
what "reading the Riot Act" refered to ) and if they persist
start taking them out. Members of the crowd who are merely
present should not be targetted deliberately but ti must be
recognised that if they choose to shield those engaged in
the proscribed activities they are putting themselves at risk.

> So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
> "do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
> Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
> with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
> fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

I'd have settled for having the SAS whack Teddy KKKennedy.

> If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
> And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
> it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
> suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
> extradite.

Were it up to me they'd be on their way to London by Fedex
Overnight.

> Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
> in the American understanding!

Didja notice where they tend to hide, Taxachussetts and other
Dhimmicreep fiefdoms.

> The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
> All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
> case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
> changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
> Parliament.

Which isn't going to happen. Even the Palestinians aren't that
stoopid. Well,,,,, on the other hand its entirely possible they
are just that braindead and feckless.

> The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
> of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.

Now why would they want to do that? It gains them aboslutely
nothing and puts the Asshats in a position to do even more damage.
No the Asshats can scream and throw feces all they like. It won't
change jack.

> Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
> land as possible but as few of the people.

Well given that Israel is the only thing that even approaches
a democratic society in the Middle East most Westerners are
prepared to cut them some slack. This, for some reason upsets
the Fugginazis.
Gawd, Fugginazis are dumb.

IBM

Dan wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> > > He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.
> > >
> > > He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
> > > role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.
> >
> > Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
> > cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
> > whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
> > quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.
>
> Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
> is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
> if they are Muslim?

First of all, there is a major difference between a riot under
condition of peace and a warlike uprising. For your analogy to hold,
you would have to argue that the Palestinian claims to separate
nationhood and to the intifada being a war against Israel are invalid.
And if this is true, then the Palestinian leadership should be arrested
and prosecuted for numerous crimes against the civil peace.

Secondly, even in peacetime, if martial law is declared, individuals
who attack troops sent to restore order may indeed be lawfully shot.
It is fairly normal under those circumstances to shoot or at least be
ready to shoot rioters and looters. The reason that the shooting
usually does not materialize on any large scale is because said rioters
and looters are generally cowed by the presence of armed troops.

> So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
> "do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
> Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
> with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
> fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

The Republic of Ireland (Eire) does not support or shelter the IRA, so
your argument there is invalid. As to the IRA fundraising in America,
I've always believed that Britain should put strong diplomatic pressure
on America to get at least some pretty heavy surveillance of the
fundraisers (so that when they send the money back home the British
authorities can show up, confiscate it, and maybe for good measure put
it into the regimental funds of troops patrolling Northern Ireland).
For instance, why didn't Britain make her cooperation in Desert Storm
or the more recent Iraq War contingent on America cooperating with an
IRA roundup? If you don't ask, you have nobody to blame but yourselves
when you don't receive.

> If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.

Because Israel is under stronger provocation, for the reasons
mentioned.

> And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
> it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
> suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
> extradite.

Because of the political influence of the Irish on the East Coast. And
you're correct that we shouldn't be.

Would you be happier if we turned over the IRA or if Israel stopped
retaliating against the Terrorist States? Which one?

> Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
> in the American understanding!

Not in _my_ understanding. I _hate_ the bloody IRA. I'd like to see
each and every one of the *******s fed into one of Saddam's shredders,
feet first. And I really _despised_ Bill Clinton for brokering that
deal with Sinn Fein.

> The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
>
> All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
> case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
> changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
> Parliament.
>
> The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
> of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.

How about right of conquest applies and the Israelis drive the
Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank?

Because that's the solution that the Palestinians are slowly but surely
provoking the Israelis towards.

> Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
> land as possible but as few of the people.

Israel is trying to be humane, which is why Israel hasn't killed or
driven out the Palestinians yet. Most countries, faced with the
Israeli situation, would have done so sometime in the 1970's or 1980's.

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
....
> Israel is trying to be humane, which is why Israel hasn't killed or
> driven out the Palestinians yet. Most countries, faced with the
> Israeli situation, would have done so sometime in the 1970's or 1980's.

Humane is not defined as not committing war crimes at the capitol offense level.

All Israelis are war criminals and all have earned hanging.

--
A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of
evils.
Pro-Israel is anti-American.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3642
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7

Dan wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> > > He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.
> > >
> > > He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
> > > role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.
> >
> > Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
> > cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
> > whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
> > quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.
> >
> > Sincerely Yours,
> > Jordan
>
> Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
> is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
> if they are Muslim?
>
> So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
> "do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
> Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland,

If you ever dared do that, you'd be regretting it for a thousand years.


put Dublin under siege and destroy
> with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
> fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.
>
> If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
> And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
> it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
> suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
> extradite.
>
> Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
> in the American understanding!
>
> The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
> All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
> case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
> changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
> Parliament.
> The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
> of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.
> Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
> land as possible but as few of the people.

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>
>>>> He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a
>>>> sniper.
>>>>
>>>> He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his
>>>> way to becoming a
>>>> role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
>>> cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
>>> whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
>>> quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.
>
>
>> Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
>> is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
>> if they are Muslim?
>>
>> So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
>> "do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
>> Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
>> with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
>> fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.
>
>
> Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
> power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.
>
America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.

Trouduc

JP

Matt Giwer wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Jordan wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>
>>>> He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a
>>>> sniper.
>>>>
>>>> He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his
>>>> way to becoming a
>>>> role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
>>> cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
>>> whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
>>> quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.
>
>
>> Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
>> is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
>> if they are Muslim?
>>
>> So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
>> "do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
>> Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
>> with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
>> fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.
>
>
> Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
> power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.
>
Was that an Irish person or an American claiming to be Irish? There is a
vast difference, as those of us who live and work with the Irish know.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

In article >,
Jean Pierre > wrote:

> >
> > Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
> > power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.
> >
> America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
> fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.

Do try to get it through your wooly head that "some Americans (with the
demonstrated mentational abilities of a sea sponge)" != America.

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Jean Pierre > wrote:
>
>
>>> Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
>>>power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.
>>>
>>
>>America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
>>fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.
>
>
> Do try to get it through your wooly head that "some Americans (with the
> demonstrated mentational abilities of a sea sponge)" != America.

Perhaps he meant 'influential Americans' who run America! What do you mean?

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

Robert Kolker wrote:

> Humaneness is the Jewish Death Wish.

Quite possibly. The thing that I find remarkable about the way in
which the Arab-Israeli conflict is viewed internationally is the
extreme restraint that Israel has shown towards nations that want to
literally annihilate the Israeli people, and the way in which the
international community nevertheless puts all the blame on Israel. If
the Israelis had simply driven out the Arabs from conquered lands and
never let them come back back in 1967, this would not be the case --
there would have been an outcry at the time, which would long since
have been forgotten under the press of more recent news.

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:

>
> dontcowerfromthetruth wrote:
> > Keep in mind (when reading the following) that Syria has supposedly
> > made some sort of defense pact with Iran.
>
> Syria and Iran have made an explicit, open defense pact.
>
> > So is attacking Damascus the
> > way the Zionists will expand the war for Israel to Syria and Iran next
> > (in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda that esteemed
> > intelligence writer/author James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321
> > of his 'A Pretext for War' book - see the URL about such included after
> > the following) as Bush and Cheney have already said that the US would
> > come to Israel's aid if Israel is attacked which will most likely
> > happen if Israel gets into it with Syria and Iran:
>
> Well damn, it would be _nice_ if this happened -- it would get the war
> with Syria and Iran out into the open and put a powerful ally on our
> side. Plus, Israel could smack around Syria, maybe bite off another
> chunk of their territory, keeping the Syrians occupied while we took
> out the Iranian regime. If, that is, we're ready for it.
>
> I don't know though that the timing of this is entirely or at all under
> Israeli control. Remember that this all started because Hamas, feeling
> its oats as the new government of "Palestine," has decided to continue
> to step up terrorist operations against Israel, apparently not fully
> grasping that _as the government_ these are much more clearly
> Palestinian acts of war against Israel.

I don't think that the Palestinians have much of a concept of
self-government. In fact, I don't think that Arabs in general, or many
of the other tribal groups in "Chaos-Stan" have much ability to govern
themselves.

The history of the Middle East seems to be one LONG litany of endless
war between tribes and the rise and fall (usually by assassination or
coup) of strongmen, warlords, and other various potentates with absolute
power. "Government" in the Mideast (excepting Israel) seems to consist
of kissing the ass of the guy with the biggest gun/sword and doing what
he says, even when his words cause massive death and destruction.

This is not a new problem-Muhammad's main goal in spreading Islam was to
give the eternally warring tribes of Arabia a universal touchstone that
would supersede tribal and warlord loyalties. It worked for about a
hundred years, then the empire broke apart and tribes started killing
each other again. I'm not a huge fan of Israel, but they have done in a
hundred years what their Arab counterparts have NEVER done-produce a
unified, stable governing system.

The "countries" in the Mideast have been described as "tribes with
flags" by Thomas Friedman. This has become painfully apparent in Iraq,
where Bush simply assumed that once the oppressive dictator (Saddam) was
removed that people would join hands and sing kumbayah and produce a
stable democracy without much US help. Instead, they've reverted to the
old tribal defaults, and started killing each other with renewed vigor.
It's clear that the Iraq Shi'a regard Sadr as their strongman, and are
willing to slaughter Sunnis in Sadr's name.

If the US national govt was wiped out, Americans would likely establish
some sort of democratic replacement eventually. It might take a while,
but they would. If the Iraqi, or the Saudi, or the Afghan, or the
Syrian, etc national govts were destroyed, you'd have all out civil war
within a month, and in Iraq's case within 48 hours. That civil war would
last for YEARS, until the cities looked like Beirut in 1985, and it is
highly doubtful that any of those countries would ever exist again in
any meaningful form. The only way that they would is if some warlord
managed to conquer the entire territory, as the Taliban did in
Afghanistan, and set himself up as president.
>
> I also don't see why all this would be to the Israeli advantage, unless
> this is combined with a long-term plan to drive the Palestinians out of
> Gaza and the West Bank. I _hope_ that it is, but I greatly fear that
> the Israelis still imagine peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians
> possible -- they've been pursuing that mirage for a very long time now.

I don't think that's possible, at least not in today's geopolitical
climate. If the Israelis made a concerted effort to clean out Palestine,
the whole world (except the US) would jump all over them and make them
stop. I don't think that the Israelis can successfully set up a govt in
Palestine either, for the reasons that I mentioned. The best outcome
would be to persuade Egypt to take back the Gaza Strip and Jordan to
reclaim the West Bank. But I should note that when Sadat offered peace
in exchange for Sinai, he told Israel that it could keep Gaza. Jordan
has disavowed the West Bank. Both countries are more than happy to dump
the mess in Israel's lap and let the Israelis deal with it. I think that
if the Arab world really wanted to help Palestine, they'd take it back
and resettle the Palestinians in their own countries. But the
Palestinians are really just chess pawns in a game to destroy Israel, a
goal that is a mirage. Instead, the Arabs have created the ultimate
dysfunctional society-Pitcairn Island writ large and 100 times worse.
The Arabs created the Palestinian monster in the hopes that it would eat
Israel, but Israel is a bitter dish compared to the Arabs themselves.
Now the monster has joined hands with the Hizbullah monster and
threatens to eat EVERYBODY, Israelis, Arabs, Americans, everybody.
>
> Though I do think that it's likely that Israel will emerge from this
> First Terrorist War that began in 2001 with a stronger position
> vis-a-vis the Islamic world :)

I don't think that Israel can invade Lebanon and win. They tried before,
and failed. I think the same about Palestine.

>
> Sincerely Yours,
> Jordan
>
> PS - I know full well that you meant this to be alarming and ominous.
> However, I'm rather pro-Israeli, and see it as a good development for
> the world if Israeli power grows.
>

Power corrupts, but compared to Arab chaos, Israeli rule looks rather
attractive.

running dogg wrote:
>
>
> Power corrupts, but compared to Arab chaos, Israeli rule looks rather
> attractive.

The Isrealis really do not want to rule the middle east. Israel's only
chance of long term survival is reaching a non-belligerant modus vivendi
with its neighbors. As recent events have shown, this is not going to
happen. The Moslems are ****ing out of their minds. I think Israel is
going to be destroyed in the next ten years. But they will take a big
chunk out of their Moslem neighbors when they go down. Think of blind
Sampson in the Temple of Dagon.

The U.S. might give refuge to a small fraction of the Jews who survive
Israel's destruction. The Orthodox will, of course, say we told you so.
No Israel until the Moisheach ben David comes. The Europeans will shed
crockodile tears over the destruction of Israel and the Moslems of
Europe will rejoice and be encouraged. Countries like France and Germany
will soon be in the fight of their lives with there internal Moslem
population. Just wait.

Bob Kolker

Robert Kolker wrote:

> running dogg wrote:
> >
> >
> > Power corrupts, but compared to Arab chaos, Israeli rule looks rather
> > attractive.
>
> The Isrealis really do not want to rule the middle east. Israel's only
> chance of long term survival is reaching a non-belligerant modus vivendi
> with its neighbors. As recent events have shown, this is not going to
> happen. The Moslems are ****ing out of their minds. I think Israel is
> going to be destroyed in the next ten years. But they will take a big
> chunk out of their Moslem neighbors when they go down. Think of blind
> Sampson in the Temple of Dagon.

I don't think that Israelis will go quietly, even after the cities are
vaporized. Some of the survivors will head to the mountains and wage
guerrilla war against the "triumphant" Muslims. The settlers that live
will turn their already fortified kibbutzes into stockades with remnants
of Israel's arsenal and fight off the Muslims. I don't think that the
area will ever be completely "liberated" from a Jewish presence. You'd
need an organizational structure comparable to the Nazi death machine to
wipe out 5 million people, and you'd need compliant people like the
European Jews. The Muslims will have neither. Look how hard it has been
for the US to get the Taliban out of the Afghan mountains. Now imagine
US trained and equipped (even if no new weapons are sent, there will be
a considerable stockpile) Jews who know the area like the back of their
hand fighting against Muslim forces who are disorganized and corrupt at
best. The US can't quell the Iraqi insurgency even though we have the
best army on the planet.

>
> The U.S. might give refuge to a small fraction of the Jews who survive
> Israel's destruction. The Orthodox will, of course, say we told you so.
> No Israel until the Moisheach ben David comes. The Europeans will shed
> crockodile tears over the destruction of Israel and the Moslems of
> Europe will rejoice and be encouraged. Countries like France and Germany
> will soon be in the fight of their lives with there internal Moslem
> population. Just wait.

The US is Israel's biggest cheerleader. The pleas to give refuge to Jews
from Israel coming from the Jewish community in America will be too
great to ignore, and SOME Jews will be resettled here. But not every Jew
will want to leave, even if the area is permanently radioactive. You
underestimate the Jews' ties to that land. Some will fight forever, even
if their babies are being born with horrifying deformities, even if
they're dying of leukemia, even if their food and water is tainted.

running dogg wrote:
> Robert Kolker wrote:
>
> > running dogg wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Power corrupts, but compared to Arab chaos, Israeli rule looks rather
> > > attractive.
> >
> > The Isrealis really do not want to rule the middle east. Israel's only
> > chance of long term survival is reaching a non-belligerant modus vivendi
> > with its neighbors. As recent events have shown, this is not going to
> > happen. The Moslems are ****ing out of their minds. I think Israel is
> > going to be destroyed in the next ten years. But they will take a big
> > chunk out of their Moslem neighbors when they go down. Think of blind
> > Sampson in the Temple of Dagon.
>
> I don't think that Israelis will go quietly, even after the cities are
> vaporized. Some of the survivors will head to the mountains and wage
> guerrilla war against the "triumphant" Muslims. The settlers that live
> will turn their already fortified kibbutzes into stockades with remnants
> of Israel's arsenal and fight off the Muslims. I don't think that the
> area will ever be completely "liberated" from a Jewish presence. You'd
> need an organizational structure comparable to the Nazi death machine to
> wipe out 5 million people, and you'd need compliant people like the
> European Jews. The Muslims will have neither. Look how hard it has been
> for the US to get the Taliban out of the Afghan mountains. Now imagine
> US trained and equipped (even if no new weapons are sent, there will be
> a considerable stockpile) Jews who know the area like the back of their
> hand fighting against Muslim forces who are disorganized and corrupt at
> best. The US can't quell the Iraqi insurgency even though we have the
> best army on the planet.
>
> >
> > The U.S. might give refuge to a small fraction of the Jews who survive
> > Israel's destruction. The Orthodox will, of course, say we told you so.
> > No Israel until the Moisheach ben David comes. The Europeans will shed
> > crockodile tears over the destruction of Israel and the Moslems of
> > Europe will rejoice and be encouraged. Countries like France and Germany
> > will soon be in the fight of their lives with there internal Moslem
> > population. Just wait.
>
> The US is Israel's biggest cheerleader. The pleas to give refuge to Jews
> from Israel coming from the Jewish community in America will be too
> great to ignore, and SOME Jews will be resettled here. But not every Jew
> will want to leave, even if the area is permanently radioactive. You
> underestimate the Jews' ties to that land. Some will fight forever, even
> if their babies are being born with horrifying deformities, even if
> they're dying of leukemia, even if their food and water is tainted.

---Please stop cross-posting this OT thread to SHWI.

Thank you,

Noel

running dogg wrote:
> Robert Kolker wrote:
>>running dogg wrote:
>>>Power corrupts, but compared to Arab chaos, Israeli rule looks rather
>>>attractive.

>>The Isrealis really do not want to rule the middle east. Israel's only
>>chance of long term survival is reaching a non-belligerant modus vivendi
>>with its neighbors. As recent events have shown, this is not going to
>>happen. The Moslems are ****ing out of their minds. I think Israel is
>>going to be destroyed in the next ten years. But they will take a big
>>chunk out of their Moslem neighbors when they go down. Think of blind
>>Sampson in the Temple of Dagon.

> I don't think that Israelis will go quietly, even after the cities are
> vaporized. Some of the survivors will head to the mountains and wage
> guerrilla war against the "triumphant" Muslims. The settlers that live
> will turn their already fortified kibbutzes into stockades with remnants
> of Israel's arsenal and fight off the Muslims.

Shut off their electricity, water, food, medicine, you know, the old Gaza
treatment.

> I don't think that the
> area will ever be completely "liberated" from a Jewish presence. You'd
> need an organizational structure comparable to the Nazi death machine to
> wipe out 5 million people, and you'd need compliant people like the
> European Jews.

Send them back to Europe where they came from.

--
If the <a href="http://www.ussliberty.org">attack on the Liberty</a> was a
mistake, it is possible to mistake OJ Simpson for Britney Spears in broad
daylight.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3649
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5