Re: IDF-Apache firing missiles on 67yr old civilian in wheelchair- at Sabra mosque in Gaza...

[William Wright]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
> Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues in
> military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Israëli occupation
> force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of missiles on a 67
> year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man, leaving a mosque in a
> wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ?? What about the pilot's
> responsibility ??
>
> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet
IMHO
> completely unlawful - brutalities ??

You do recall last year when US PGMs were used in repeated attempted
decapitation attacks on the Iraqi leadership? Your sympathy for terror
masterminds however feeble is touching. I would suggest that forming
organizations with the avowed purpose to destroy another state should be
expected to invite such attacks from said intended victims. He could of
course disavowed his creations murderous intent but he didn't. Ergo he got
what he deserved.

(I was going to add "may he rot in Hell", but then I remembered he lived in
Hamas created Hell-on-Earth already. Death was a release.)

Civilian? So was Chancellor Hitler, Chairman Mao, Secretary Stalin. Where do
you get the notion that only the pawns should be targets?

>
> Oele.
> In pace, Iustitia omnibus.
>
> ---
> Juan Cole *Informed Comment*
> http://www.juancole.com/
>
>
>

[Jeroen Wenting]

> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet
IMHO
> completely unlawful - brutalities ??
>
It was an execution of a fugitive criminal convicted to death for crimes
against the state, Jewish race, and humanity.

> Oele.
> In pace, Iustitia omnibus.
>
Your kind of "justice" would have Osama bin Laden as president and Kim Il
Sung as his chief of police...

[K. A. Cannon]

"Oelewapper" > posted
> in us.military.army on Mon,
22 Mar 2004 21:12:00 +0100:

>Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues in
>military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Israëli occupation
>force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of missiles on a 67
>year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man, leaving a mosque in a
>wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ?? What about the pilot's
>responsibility ??

The crippled, half blind, unarmed old man leaving a Mosque is the
leader and chief ideologist of an organization that sends suicide
bombers into Israel to kill innocent civilians. He has organized and
lead an organization responsible for killing innocent men, women and
children. He's a Terrorist. He knew what he was doing.

You seem to have forgotten the other side of the coin.
It's Ok for Hammas to send suicide bombers to kill Israeli's.
It's not OK for Israel to target the people who are the leaders,
organizers and logisticians behind those suicide bombers?
Quid Pro Quo?

At the very least the Isreali's are being very specific in who they
are targeting. Not like Hammas. Hammas has been very indiscriminate in
who and what they target.

I guess if you organize and equip suicide bombers that kill innocent
civilians you shouldn't expect massive retaliation?

>And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
>governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet IMHO
>completely unlawful - brutalities ??

Ummm....You completely ignore the fact that Hammas is killing innocent
civilians.

Evil state sponsored brutalities against evil organized terrorists is
OK in my book. You play the game you should understand the rules.
Quid Quo Pro.

Or do you condone terrorism and terrorists?

What ever happened to peaceful civil disobedience protests?
What the **** would Israel do if the Palestinians ever get a Martin
Luther King?





--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

mhm33x1

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process
he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss,
the abyss also looks into you"
- Nietzsche, From Beyond Good and Evil, (1886)


"The person who stands up and says, 'This is stupid,' either is asked to
`behave' or, worse, is greeted with a cheerful 'Yes, we know! Isn't it
terrific!'" - Frank Zappa

Tom/Mark in alt.test sez:
"People like you are pure scum, K.A. Cannon."

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
K. A. Cannon > wrote:

> What ever happened to peaceful civil disobedience protests?
> What the **** would Israel do if the Palestinians ever get a Martin
> Luther King?

They'd probably get to bury him after Hamas kills him.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[JumpinJack]

Oelewapper wrote:

> Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues
> in military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Israëli
> occupation force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of
> missiles on a 67 year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man,
> leaving a mosque in a wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ??
> What about the pilot's responsibility ??
>
> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored -
> yet IMHO completely unlawful - brutalities ??
>
> Oele.
> In pace, Iustitia omnibus.
>
> ---
> Juan Cole *Informed Comment*
> http://www.juancole.com/
>
>

Palestinian terrorists have been there, done that:

http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achille.html

--
JJ...

Ft. Bragg, NC

For some ideas on how to help our troops, check out
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82385,00.html

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Oelewapper > wrote:

> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet IMHO
> completely unlawful - brutalities ??

I believe there are (disregarded) American laws which prohibit supplying
military hardware to countries actively involved in war crimes.


--
.................................................. ............................

"Sharon was a killer obsessed with hatred of Palestinians. I had promised
Arafat that his people would not get any harm. Sharon, however, ignored this
commitment entirely. Sharon's word is worth nil."

-Ambassador Philip Habib, Reagan's Envoy to the Middle East.

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Ragnar]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
> Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues in
> military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Israëli occupation
> force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of missiles on a 67
> year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man, leaving a mosque in a
> wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ?? What about the pilot's
> responsibility ??
>
> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet
IMHO
> completely unlawful - brutalities ??

Yes, how dare the Israelis attack known terrorists!!!

[Matt Wiser]

Hear, Hear. You reap what you sow, and since Yassin had sent homicide bombers
off to kill civilians, with a body count in the hundreds with all the incidents
added up, it's only natural that the aggreived party would decide at some
point to take him out. I don't care if you're a foot soldier in a terrorist
group or a leadership figure: your life is forfeit if you join such an organization.
The violent deaths inflicted by terrorists come back to get them in the end,
if they aren't caught and tossed behind bars and the key thrown away first.
Hamas gives no quarter when they blow up a bus or a shopping mall, so why
should the Israelis give any in return? Yassin got what was coming to him,
period. No ifs, ands, or buts. My question is, when Bin Laden and Al-Zwahari
are disposed of, will the original poster be mourning them as well?




"William Wright" > wrote:
>
>"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
...
>> Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this
>particular kind of issues in
>> military aviation, but how can it be "legal"
>for the Israëli occupation
>> force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch
>a couple of missiles on a 67
>> year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed
>man, leaving a mosque in a
>> wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers
>?? What about the pilot's
>> responsibility ??
>>
>> And what about the countries that are supplying
>and financing those
>> governments that are responsible for these
>"evil" state-sponsored - yet
>IMHO
>> completely unlawful - brutalities ??
>
>You do recall last year when US PGMs were used
>in repeated attempted
>decapitation attacks on the Iraqi leadership?
>Your sympathy for terror
>masterminds however feeble is touching. I would
>suggest that forming
>organizations with the avowed purpose to destroy
>another state should be
>expected to invite such attacks from said intended
>victims. He could of
>course disavowed his creations murderous intent
>but he didn't. Ergo he got
>what he deserved.
>
>(I was going to add "may he rot in Hell", but
>then I remembered he lived in
>Hamas created Hell-on-Earth already. Death was
>a release.)
>
>Civilian? So was Chancellor Hitler, Chairman
>Mao, Secretary Stalin. Where do
>you get the notion that only the pawns should
>be targets?
>
>>
>> Oele.
>> In pace, Iustitia omnibus.
>>
>> ---
>> Juan Cole *Informed Comment*
>> http://www.juancole.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:

> Yes, how dare the Israelis attack known terrorists!!!

How does Israel figure that a blind and deaf man in a wheelchair is a threat
to a nuclear power?

Yassin was little more than a figurehead, and like the pope, probably couldn't
dress himself without help, much less plan a terrorist operation.



--
.................................................. ............................

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing
is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and
kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"
- John Stuart Mill

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Nicky]

"Oelewapper" > wrote :
> Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues in
> military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Israëli occupation
> force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of missiles on a 67
> year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man, leaving a mosque in a
> wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ?? What about the pilot's
> responsibility ??
>
> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet
IMHO
> completely unlawful - brutalities ??

I think that is not major problem in this case. The problem is that they
don't care if they kill any civilians around.
They killed lot of civilians in this kind of assassination, but in lot of
cases they didn't kill the man they actually wanted to kill...

[Nicky]

"Jeroen Wenting" > wrote :

> Your kind of "justice" would have Osama bin Laden as president and Kim Il
> Sung as his chief of police...

US has it's share in creating OBL and guys like him...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Nicky" > wrote:

> "Jeroen Wenting" > wrote :
>
> > Your kind of "justice" would have Osama bin Laden as president and Kim Il
> > Sung as his chief of police...
>
> US has it's share in creating OBL and guys like him...

Except that it didn't.

Osama bin Laden was "created" by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and
was trained and funded by Middle Eastern states. The US was backing a
*different* crowd of guerillas in Afghanistan. You know - the ones who
*aren't* running around blowing up innocents around the world.

It's funny how often people try to blame the bad guys on the US, when
most of them came directly from failed *Soviet* programs and support.

There's a reason the signature weapons of terrorists are the AK-47 and
the RPG.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Matthew G. Saroff]

wrote:

>In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:
>
>> Yes, how dare the Israelis attack known terrorists!!!
>
>How does Israel figure that a blind and deaf man in a wheelchair is a threat
>to a nuclear power?
>
>Yassin was little more than a figurehead, and like the pope, probably couldn't
>dress himself without help, much less plan a terrorist operation.

Actually, the best reports, from folks like the BBC, is
that he was the guy in charge, albeit in a CEO, not COO capacity.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[John Keeney]

> wrote in message
news:st28c.4249$Ct5.564@edtnps89...
> In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:
>
> > Yes, how dare the Israelis attack known terrorists!!!
>
> How does Israel figure that a blind and deaf man in a wheelchair is a
threat
> to a nuclear power?

You know, to me this sounds like the most bizarre line of
argument. Physical prowess aren't exactly important for a "leader".
It's not like FDR was going to drag you into an ally and beat you
to death either, but he sure was a danger to NAZI Germany.

[Sunny]

"Nicky" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> I think that is not major problem in this case. The problem is that they
> don't care if they kill any civilians around.
> They killed lot of civilians in this kind of assassination, but in lot of
> cases they didn't kill the man they actually wanted to kill...

As opposed to killing a lot of civilians in cafes, discos, trains, buses etc
?

[Ragnar]

> wrote in message
news:st28c.4249$Ct5.564@edtnps89...
> In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:
>
> > Yes, how dare the Israelis attack known terrorists!!!
>
> How does Israel figure that a blind and deaf man in a wheelchair is a
threat
> to a nuclear power?

Well, for starters the guy was a planner and mastermind. Those guys NEVER
do the suicide dance - they convince other people to do it.

>
> Yassin was little more than a figurehead, and like the pope, probably
couldn't
> dress himself without help, much less plan a terrorist operation.

A "figurehead" is still a viable target. Tell me that offing the Pope
wouldn't have consequences.

[Nicky]

"Chad Irby" > wrote :
> Except that it didn't.

Oh, Yes they did. You can not neglect the history,

> Osama bin Laden was "created" by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and
> was trained and funded by Middle Eastern states. The US was backing a
> *different* crowd of guerillas in Afghanistan. You know - the ones who
> *aren't* running around blowing up innocents around the world.

US trained end equipted directly or indirectly the same people which were
later known as Talibans. During history US put to power (directly or
indirectly) lot of dictators, and trained lot of people who later bacem
terrorists.
That is the fat and ther is no argue about it.

> It's funny how often people try to blame the bad guys on the US, when
> most of them came directly from failed *Soviet* programs and support.

Soviets as also American and their cold war conflict producet lot od
dictators and terrorists.

> There's a reason the signature weapons of terrorists are the AK-47 and
> the RPG.

AK-47 is cheap, reliable and on the market for 50 years. It is also
produced in lot of countries so it is very easy to get.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Nicky" > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote :
> > Except that it didn't.
>

>
> US trained end equipted directly or indirectly the same people which were
> later known as Talibans.

No they trained and equipped the group that later became
The Northern Alliance and who were opposing the Taliban

In particular they supported Ahmed Shah Masood aka The Lion
of Panjshir who was assassinated by Al Qaeda suicide bombers
2 days before the Sept 11 terrorist attacks.

He was killed because they knew the US would turn to him
to lead the Afghan forces in any attempt to overthrow
the Taliban regime.

The Taliban emerged from the Pakistani ISI operations
and didnt appear on the scene until well after the Soviets
had withdrawn and the US lost interest in that country. The
one thing that the US and the rest of theWest can be blamed
for is not recognising earlier the threat to us posed by
the Taliban and their allies in Al Qaeda.

Keith

[Michael Ejercito]

"Nicky" > wrote in message >...
> "Oelewapper" > wrote :
> > Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues in
> > military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Israëli occupation
> > force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of missiles on a 67
> > year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man, leaving a mosque in a
> > wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ?? What about the pilot's
> > responsibility ??
> >
> > And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> > governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet
> IMHO
> > completely unlawful - brutalities ??
>
> I think that is not major problem in this case. The problem is that they
> don't care if they kill any civilians around.
> They killed lot of civilians in this kind of assassination, but in lot of
> cases they didn't kill the man they actually wanted to kill...
So then it was a mistake for Hamas to wage a terrorist war on the
Jews instead of getting their own sovereign state?
Yassin is in Hell now, with eternity left on his sentence; deal
with it!


Michael

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Nicky" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote :
> > Except that it didn't.
>
> Oh, Yes they did. You can not neglect the history,

Well, I can *read* it. *You* can neglect it.

> > Osama bin Laden was "created" by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and
> > was trained and funded by Middle Eastern states. The US was backing a
> > *different* crowd of guerillas in Afghanistan. You know - the ones who
> > *aren't* running around blowing up innocents around the world.
>
> US trained end equipted directly or indirectly the same people which were
> later known as Talibans.

Actually, the folks we backed were the guys the Taliban edged out to get
power after the USSR left. That's why the US didn't have any decent
connections in Afghanistan for 20 years.

> During history US put to power (directly or indirectly) lot of
> dictators, and trained lot of people who later bacem terrorists. That
> is the fat and ther is no argue about it.

Funny how you can't seem to list "a lot" of them. We helped put some
dictators in, but I really can't think of any cases where we trained
folks who became world-class terrorists. The major players - PLO, Red
Brigades, et cetera - were all Soviet proteges.

Yeah, we backed some bad folks. But the thing to remember is that the
USSR was backing *worse* ones during the same time period. We also had
a tendency to train people how to fight wars, while the USSR defaulted
to training them how to commit acts of terror.

> > It's funny how often people try to blame the bad guys on the US, when
> > most of them came directly from failed *Soviet* programs and support.
>
> Soviets as also American and their cold war conflict producet lot od
> dictators and terrorists.

Look at the list, and get back to us. All of the worst folks around
right now are old Soviet clients.

> > There's a reason the signature weapons of terrorists are the AK-47 and
> > the RPG.
>
> AK-47 is cheap, reliable and on the market for 50 years. It is also
> produced in lot of countries so it is very easy to get.

Especially when the USSR gives them to you and shows you how to use them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:

> Those guys NEVER
> do the suicide dance - they convince other people to do it.

Little convincing is necessary when you've had your arms broken by Israeli
soldiers at age 14, seen your brother kidnapped, held, and tortured, watched
your sister shot by a sniper, and then had your house bulldozed.

I'm a fairly peacefuly person, but if a party did that to me and mine,
I'd pull out all of the stops to hurt he and his - I don't think many of us
would be much different.



--
.................................................. ............................

One hundred percent of the shots you don't take don't go in

-Wayne Gretzky

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Nicky > wrote:
> "Oelewapper" > wrote :
>> Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues in
>> military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Isra?li occupation
>> force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of missiles on a 67
>> year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man, leaving a mosque in a
>> wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ?? What about the pilot's
>> responsibility ??
>>
>> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
>> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet
> IMHO
>> completely unlawful - brutalities ??

> I think that is not major problem in this case. The problem is that they
> don't care if they kill any civilians around.

Personally, I believe it is deliberate. 2 Years ago, on the eve of a
peace with Hamas, Israel dropped a 500Lb bomb on an apartment building in
order to kill one man - One of the men they had been negotiating with.

Talk about using a grenade as a fly swatter.


--
.................................................. ............................

"After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the
state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine "

-Israeli founding father Ben Gurion

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:43:18 +0900, "Ragnar" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:st28c.4249$Ct5.564@edtnps89...
>> In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, how dare the Israelis attack known terrorists!!!
>>
>> How does Israel figure that a blind and deaf man in a wheelchair is a
>threat
>> to a nuclear power?
>
>Well, for starters the guy was a planner and mastermind. Those guys NEVER
>do the suicide dance - they convince other people to do it.
>
>>
>> Yassin was little more than a figurehead, and like the pope, probably
>couldn't
>> dress himself without help, much less plan a terrorist operation.
>
>A "figurehead" is still a viable target. Tell me that offing the Pope
>wouldn't have consequences.
>
This is a fight between two religions. As always, no one will "win",
thousands of innocents are being killed, and neither side has
"clean hands". "Viable" targets are any member of the "other"
religion, barbarity reigns on both sides, and the US should not
be involved.

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article <_ql8c.3159$%w2.1454@clgrps13>,
wrote:

> In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:
>
> > Those guys NEVER
> > do the suicide dance - they convince other people to do it.
>
> Little convincing is necessary when you've had your arms broken by
> Israeli soldiers at age 14, seen your brother kidnapped, held, and
> tortured, watched your sister shot by a sniper, and then had your
> house bulldozed.

It's funny how you say "little convincing" when they have to send their
walking bombs through a fairly intense brainwashing session, then pay
the families of those bombers a large reward for having their sons and
daughters blow themselves up.

> I'm a fairly peacefuly person, but if a party did that to me and mine,
> I'd pull out all of the stops to hurt he and his - I don't think many of us
> would be much different.

So instead of attacking the soldiers who had supposedly done all of the
stuff you list above, you'd strap on a bomb and blow up a bus, causing
the Israelis to come into the Gaza Strip and bulldoze your house?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Nicky]

"Chad Irby" > wrote:

> Actually, the folks we backed were the guys the Taliban edged out to get
> power after the USSR left. That's why the US didn't have any decent
> connections in Afghanistan for 20 years.

That is beacuse US didn't have any interes for Afganistan when Rusians
left. US trained them, equipted and left them. And when Talibans turned
against their former allies US decided to kick them.
When they fight against Russians they are freedom fighters and when they
fight against US they are terrorists. Yeah right :-)

> Funny how you can't seem to list "a lot" of them. We helped put some
> dictators in, but I really can't think of any cases where we trained

Dictators which were (are) supported by US:
Pinochet (Chile)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/chile/story/0,13755,1038615,00.html

Sadam (Iraq)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm

Musharaf (Pakistan)

Gen. José Alberto Medrano (El Salvador)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project%20Censored/CensoredNews_1984.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project%20Censored/CensoredNews_1984.html

Somoza (Nicaragua)
http://home.sandiego.edu/~acase/nic.htm)

Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro (Guatemala)
http://www.isp.nwu.edu/~fprefect/politics/timeline.html

You can see there are more then few terrorist and dictatros which were US
puppets. US was (is) supporting state terrorism mainly through their
intellegence agencies.

> Yeah, we backed some bad folks. But the thing to remember is that the
> USSR was backing *worse* ones during the same time period. We also had
> a tendency to train people how to fight wars, while the USSR defaulted
> to training them how to commit acts of terror.
> Look at the list, and get back to us. All of the worst folks around
> right now are old Soviet clients.

LOL
You are funny !
You argue whose methods were more dirty; US mehods or SSSR methods.
The truth is tht US was/is at least as much dirty as SSSR (or vice versa).

> Especially when the USSR gives them to you and shows you how to use them.

Or Especially when US give you and helps you to produce chemical weapon and
shows You how do use it against Iranians ;-)

[Chad Irby]

In article <Qtl8c.3160$%w2.1051@clgrps13>,
wrote:

> Personally, I believe it is deliberate. 2 Years ago, on the eve of a
> peace with Hamas, Israel dropped a 500Lb bomb on an apartment building in
> order to kill one man - One of the men they had been negotiating with.
>
> Talk about using a grenade as a fly swatter.

....a tactic that works, saving both Israeli and Palestinian lives:

<http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004855>

"In the early months of the intifada, this macho pretense was sustained
by the Israeli government's tacit decision not to target terrorist
ringleaders, for fear such attacks would inspire massive retaliation.
Yassin and his closest associates considered themselves immune from
Israeli reprisals and operated in the open. What followed was the
bloodiest terrorist onslaught in Israeli history, climaxing in a
massacre at Netanya in March 2002. After that, Israel invaded the West
Bank and began to target terrorist leaders more aggressively.

The results, in terms of lives saved, were dramatic. In 2003, the number
of Israeli terrorist fatalities declined by more than 50% from the
previous year, to 213 from 451. The overall number of attacks also
declined, to 3,823 in 2003 from 5,301 in 2002, a drop of 30%. In the
spring of 2003, Israel stepped up its campaign of targeted
assassinations, including a failed attempt on Yassin's deputy, Abdel
Aziz Rantisi. Wise heads said Israel had done nothing except incite the
Palestinians to greater violence. Instead, Hamas and other Islamic
terrorist groups agreed unilaterally to a cease-fire.

In this context, it bears notice that between 2002 and 2003 the number
of Palestinian fatalities also declined significantly, from 1,000 to
about 700. The reason here is obvious: As the leaders of Palestinian
terror groups were picked off and their operations were disrupted, they
were unable to carry out the kind of frequent, large-scale attacks that
had provoked Israel's large-scale reprisals. Terrorism is a top-down
business, not vice versa. Targeted assassinations not only got rid of
the most guilty but diminished the risk of open combat between Israeli
soldiers and Palestinian foot soldiers."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Nicky" > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > Actually, the folks we backed were the guys the Taliban edged out to get
> > power after the USSR left. That's why the US didn't have any decent
> > connections in Afghanistan for 20 years.
>
> That is beacuse US didn't have any interes for Afganistan when Rusians
> left. US trained them, equipted and left them. And when Talibans turned
> against their former allies US decided to kick them.
> When they fight against Russians they are freedom fighters and when they
> fight against US they are terrorists. Yeah right :-)
>

The Taliban didnt EXIST when the Soviets were around. It emerged as a
movement in 1994, several years after the USSR had ceased to exist
let alone occupy Afghanistan.

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Nicky" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > Actually, the folks we backed were the guys the Taliban edged out to get
> > power after the USSR left. That's why the US didn't have any decent
> > connections in Afghanistan for 20 years.
>
> That is beacuse US didn't have any interes for Afganistan when Rusians
> left. US trained them, equipted and left them. And when Talibans turned
> against their former allies US decided to kick them.
> When they fight against Russians they are freedom fighters and when they
> fight against US they are terrorists. Yeah right :-)
>
> > Funny how you can't seem to list "a lot" of them. We helped put some
> > dictators in, but I really can't think of any cases where we trained
>
> Dictators which were (are) supported by US:
> Pinochet (Chile)
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/chile/story/0,13755,1038615,00.html

The situation in Chile wasn't so much supporting Pinochet as opposing
Allende, and our efforts there were pretty thin. And after three years,
his own military tossed Allende out on his ear, because his government
was *worse* than the dictator he beat.

Overall, one of the worst self-inflicted losses of Communism.

> Sadam (Iraq)
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm

A quote from that piece: "America did not put Saddam in power."

> Musharaf (Pakistan)

Another Soviet boy, who only started paying attention to the US after
the USSR went broke.

> Gen. José Alberto Medrano (El Salvador)
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project%20Censored/CensoredNews_1984.html

Supported, but only because of the Soviet and Cuban efforts. Not even
that much, on our side.

> Somoza (Nicaragua)
> http://home.sandiego.edu/~acase/nic.htm)

Yep, the Somoza family had been our guy for a long time, until tossed
out by (once again) a Cuban-backed group.

Are you seeing the pattern yet?

> Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro (Guatemala)
> http://www.isp.nwu.edu/~fprefect/politics/timeline.html
>
> You can see there are more then few terrorist and dictatros which were US
> puppets.

....versus about a hundred that were (and are) Soviet ones. Africa alone
beats that list by a factor of ten or so, and the aftereffects of those
moves are still killing people by the thousands.

You also need to understand that giving someone support versus Communism
does not make them a "puppet," which implies that we controlled them
completely. Mostly, our efforts around the world ended up as an
advisory deal, versus the Soviet model of "do as we say."


> US was (is) supporting state terrorism mainly through their
> intellegence agencies.

Pretty minor, overall.

> > Yeah, we backed some bad folks. But the thing to remember is that the
> > USSR was backing *worse* ones during the same time period. We also had
> > a tendency to train people how to fight wars, while the USSR defaulted
> > to training them how to commit acts of terror.
> > Look at the list, and get back to us. All of the worst folks around
> > right now are old Soviet clients.
>
> LOL
> You are funny !
> You argue whose methods were more dirty; US mehods or SSSR methods.

The USSR, by a huge amount.

> The truth is tht US was/is at least as much dirty as SSSR (or vice versa).

I'm sorry, but you're out of your mind. Or have you never read any
history over the last five decades or so? Stalin killed more of his
*own* people than were killed in all of the wars from 1900 to 2004.

> > Especially when the USSR gives them to you and shows you how to use them.
>
> Or Especially when US give you and helps you to produce chemical weapon and
> shows You how do use it against Iranians ;-)

Except that the people who sold that gear to them were the Soviets, the
French, and the Germans. And the French even sold them a nuclear
reactor to make bombs with.

The US never sold the Iraqis chemical *or* biological weapons, nor the
gear to use it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Dave Holford]

Does anyone seriously believe that if the state of Israel was destroyed
the Palestinians would not be in a savage civil war within a very short
time?

The only factor preventing that is the existence of a common enemy; and
even given that, the alliances are still very fragile.

Dave

[Charles Gray]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:06:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> K. A. Cannon > wrote:
>
>> What ever happened to peaceful civil disobedience protests?
>> What the **** would Israel do if the Palestinians ever get a Martin
>> Luther King?
>
>They'd probably get to bury him after Hamas kills him.


Now yes-- but if one had appeared around hte first Intifada, and not
been killed by friend Arafat...well things would have been completely
different.
The isreali Palestinian conflict seems to have one main theme--
whenever one side is seriouly ready to make a deal, the other decides
it doesnt' want to. It's been more obvious on the Palestinian side,
but the Isreali's have also missed many chances to bolster the
moderates (back when such a thing existed).

I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have sent
the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure.

[Yeff]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have sent
> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure

Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
<http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>

In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them fight
and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Dana Miller]

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> K. A. Cannon > wrote:
>
>> What ever happened to peaceful civil disobedience protests?
>> What the **** would Israel do if the Palestinians ever get a Martin
>> Luther King?
>
>They'd probably get to bury him after Hamas kills him.

After observing this situation for a while I agree that the most
effective way for the Palestinians to get Isreal to give them more of
what they demand is to go peacenik. At the begining of Clancy's book
"Sum of all Fears" he has the Palestinians doing this. If Isreal failed
to get on the brakes fast enough and tone down their side of the
dispute, world opinion would quickly swing against them. TV footage of
Palestinians being hurt or killed by Isreali bulldozers or tanks would
be far more helpful to their cause then marterdom.

The Hamas leaders probably know this but the strugle gives them an
important role in their power structure and continuing the strugle for
as long as they can milk it. Fighting Isreal gives them power, beating
Isreal will take away their power. The rhetoric they use to stir up the
crowds is just a convenient tool to manipulate the situation.

By now, the leaders of Isreal must realize that this is the true
situation. Their population is being used as bomber fodder for the
internal power struggle between Hamas and the other factions in the
occupied areas. This strugle also keeps much of the rest of the middle
east concentrating on places other than their own countries. The
"Opression" of the Palestinians by the Isrealies distracts them from
their own bananna republic existance.

Knowing that Hamas, or its replacement must keep fighting to maintain
their own internal roles, Isreal can use the continued fighting as an
excuse to continually expel more Palestinians from the west bank and
Gaza until isreal expels them all and settles all the disputed areas
with Isrealies. Hamas' fighting only helps to speed the process.

I wonder if the rest of the Palestinians will ever figure this out?

--
Dana Miller

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> The isreali Palestinian conflict seems to have one main theme--
> whenever one side is seriouly ready to make a deal, the other decides
> it doesnt' want to. It's been more obvious on the Palestinian side,
> but the Isreali's have also missed many chances to bolster the
> moderates (back when such a thing existed).

Mostly because every time the peace process gets started, one side or
the other sends in suicide bombers.

Oh, wait, that's just the *one* side.

If the Palestinians ever wanted to make a deal, they'd shut down Hamas
and related groups. They don't.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Dana Miller > wrote:

> Knowing that Hamas, or its replacement must keep fighting to maintain
> their own internal roles, Isreal can use the continued fighting as an
> excuse to continually expel more Palestinians from the west bank and
> Gaza until isreal expels them all and settles all the disputed areas
> with Isrealies. Hamas' fighting only helps to speed the process.

Considering that "speeding the process" of expulsion has, over the last
thirty-seven year, resulted in about four times as many Palestinians, I
don't think that's the issue.

The number of Palestinians that have been expelled is a drop in the
bucket compared to the number that have moved in.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Charles Gray]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:08:51 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>> The isreali Palestinian conflict seems to have one main theme--
>> whenever one side is seriouly ready to make a deal, the other decides
>> it doesnt' want to. It's been more obvious on the Palestinian side,
>> but the Isreali's have also missed many chances to bolster the
>> moderates (back when such a thing existed).
>
>Mostly because every time the peace process gets started, one side or
>the other sends in suicide bombers.
>
>Oh, wait, that's just the *one* side.
>
>If the Palestinians ever wanted to make a deal, they'd shut down Hamas
>and related groups. They don't.


Or one side decides to play "Kick out the injun" with a new
settlement, or expansion of one or two, or the settlers go off on a
spree of beating up Palestinians.
Curiously, the U.S. media seldom reports those incidents...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> Or one side decides to play "Kick out the injun" with a new
> settlement, or expansion of one or two, or the settlers go off on a
> spree of beating up Palestinians.
> Curiously, the U.S. media seldom reports those incidents...

Really? I see it covered all over the place whenever that sort of thing
happens.

Oddly enough, there was damned little coverage of this recent round of
dismantling settlements and dragging the settlers back.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Erik Von Erich]

Could someone please tell me what missiles were used to kill Sheikh
Ahmed Yassin?

I'm thinking that the Israelis fired Hydra-70 rockets at him and his
handlers. I can't believe that they would have used Hellfires.

Thanks.

[Ragnar]

> wrote in message
news:_ql8c.3159$%w2.1454@clgrps13...
> In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:
>
> > Those guys NEVER
> > do the suicide dance - they convince other people to do it.
>
> Little convincing is necessary when you've had your arms broken by Israeli
> soldiers at age 14, seen your brother kidnapped, held, and tortured,
watched
> your sister shot by a sniper, and then had your house bulldozed.

So all of the suicide bombers had that happen to them? No. Each bomber has
their own motivations and circumstances.

>
> I'm a fairly peacefuly person, but if a party did that to me and mine,
> I'd pull out all of the stops to hurt he and his - I don't think many of
us
> would be much different.

And your scenario only works for a limited number of bombers. The others
are convinced by people like wheelchair man to do the suicide dance.

[Charles Gray]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:14:05 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>> Or one side decides to play "Kick out the injun" with a new
>> settlement, or expansion of one or two, or the settlers go off on a
>> spree of beating up Palestinians.
>> Curiously, the U.S. media seldom reports those incidents...
>
>Really? I see it covered all over the place whenever that sort of thing
>happens.
>
>Oddly enough, there was damned little coverage of this recent round of
>dismantling settlements and dragging the settlers back.

I actually wasn't aware that there had been a new round-- were they
large settlments or the unapproved settlements that had popped up a
few years back.
Next to the suicide bombings, the Settlemetns are some of the
biggest problems around-- I wonder if Likud expected this when they
started the big push in the 1980's, or if it was more a "reward people
who will support us things".
One question I haven't been able to find any answers, is that
presuming the Isreali government dismantles ALL settlements next week,
can they afford to compensate the settlers? You can talk all day
about them being illegal, but the people would still have to have
housing and such provided them, at government expense, and I don't
know if the Isreali economy could currently handle that expense.

[Nicky]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote :

> The Taliban didnt EXIST when the Soviets were around. It emerged as a
> movement in 1994, several years after the USSR had ceased to exist
> let alone occupy Afghanistan.

They only had a different name.
Mudjahedins, and then they were called freedom fighters :-)

[Nicky]

"Chad Irby" > wrote

> A quote from that piece: "America did not put Saddam in power."

Please read the whole article !

"But during the cold war, America competed with the Soviets for Saddam's
attention and welcomed his war with the religious fanatics of Iran. Having
cozied up to Saddam, Washington found it hard to break away-even after going
to war with him in 1991." etc., etc., etc.,

> Another Soviet boy, who only started paying attention to the US after
> the USSR went broke.

First US caled Musharaf a dictaor which he is. After he give America support
in war in Afganistan he became "democrat" over night.
A democrat, Yeah right...

> Are you seeing the pattern yet?

Yes, I see. US has its fingers in creating/supporting (along with soviets)
majority of world's terrorists and dictators.

And these are just few of them.

> You also need to understand that giving someone support versus Communism
> does not make them a "puppet," which implies that we controlled them
> completely. Mostly, our efforts around the world ended up as an
> advisory deal, versus the Soviet model of "do as we say."

Please, CIA and State Department was creating politics in those countries
and these guy were their actors.

CIA had their fingers in most of the Latin America countries.

> I'm sorry, but you're out of your mind. Or have you never read any
> history over the last five decades or so? Stalin killed more of his
> *own* people than were killed in all of the wars from 1900 to 2004.

He was mostly killing their own people, US was killing others or have their
plyers to kill in their name.
US bombings of Cambodia killed near 500,000 civilians, US bombings of Laos
killed 350,000 civilans
Do You know just, how many civilans did US kill in Vietnam ?

> Except that the people who sold that gear to them were the Soviets, the
> French, and the Germans. And the French even sold them a nuclear
> reactor to make bombs with.
>
> The US never sold the Iraqis chemical *or* biological weapons, nor the
> gear to use it.

You are ignorant!
Along with those country US has it's part in creating Iraq's WMD program.

"The U.S. companies listed, some of which have facilities in Silicon Valley,
include Spectra Physics, Honeywell, Dupont, Eastman Kodak, Bechtel,
Tektronix, Unisys, Rockwell and Hewlett-Packard. They allegedly provided
materials for Iraq's rocket program, planned nuclear weapons program and
conventional weapons program, which includes military logistics as well as
supplies and materials for building weapons plants.
The complete list included 24 companies with home bases in the United
States, along with 50 subsidiaries of foreign companies that conducted their
arms business with Iraq from within U.S. borders.
In addition to these companies, another group designated in the report as
Iraq's arms suppliers includes the U.S. Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade
and Agriculture, as well as Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia
National laboratories."

"According to newly declassified documents mentioned in the Washington Post
Weekly Edition (Jan. 6-12, 2003), Iraq was already using chemical weapons on
an "almost daily basis" when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in
1983, consolidating the U.S.-Iraq military alliance.
Subsequently, the Pentagon supplied logistical and military support; U.S.
banks provided billions of dollars in credits; and the CIA, using a Chilean
conduit, increased Saddam's supply of cluster bombs. U.S. companies also
supplied steel tubes and chemical substances, the types of material for
which the Security Council is now searching.
As late as 1989 and 1990, according to a report from U.S. Representative
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), U.S. companies, under permits from the first Bush
administration, sent mustard gas materials, live cultures for
bacteriological research, to Iraq. U.S. companies helped Iraq build a
chemical weapons factory, and then shipped Hussein a West Nile virus,
hydrogen cyanide precursors and parts for a new nuclear plant."

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.03/iraq-0308.html

[Nicky]

"Sunny" > wrote:

> As opposed to killing a lot of civilians in cafes, discos, trains, buses
etc
> ?

I do nor support the killing of civilans of any side !

But after decades of Israel occupation do you think Palestinians had any
other choice ?
This situation looks like British occupation of Ireland and Irish fight for
freadom. Methods, if not same were quite similar.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Nicky" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote :
>
> > The Taliban didnt EXIST when the Soviets were around. It emerged as a
> > movement in 1994, several years after the USSR had ceased to exist
> > let alone occupy Afghanistan.
>
> They only had a different name.
> Mudjahedins, and then they were called freedom fighters :-)


Some Mujahedinn joined the Taliban others joined the Northern Alliance.
The Taliban as such didnt exist when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Nicky" > wrote in message
...
> "Sunny" > wrote:
>
> > As opposed to killing a lot of civilians in cafes, discos, trains, buses
> etc
> > ?
>
> I do nor support the killing of civilans of any side !
>
> But after decades of Israel occupation do you think Palestinians had any
> other choice ?
> This situation looks like British occupation of Ireland and Irish fight
for
> freadom. Methods, if not same were quite similar.
>
>

You think so huh.

Care to tell us how many suicide bombings took place in Ireland ?

How about how many air attacks on Sinn Fein leaders took place
in Ireland ?

Keith

[Jim Yanik]

Yeff > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
>
>> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have sent
>> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
>> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure
>
> Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
><http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>
>
> In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them fight
> and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.
>
> -Jeff B.
> yeff at erols dot com
>

here's another explanation;
http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200403250855.asp

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Chad Irby > wrote in
. com:

> In article >,
> Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>> The isreali Palestinian conflict seems to have one main theme--
>> whenever one side is seriouly ready to make a deal, the other decides
>> it doesnt' want to. It's been more obvious on the Palestinian side,
>> but the Isreali's have also missed many chances to bolster the
>> moderates (back when such a thing existed).
>
> Mostly because every time the peace process gets started, one side or
> the other sends in suicide bombers.
>
> Oh, wait, that's just the *one* side.
>
> If the Palestinians ever wanted to make a deal, they'd shut down Hamas
> and related groups. They don't.
>

They would also have to admit Israel's right to exist.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:29:15 GMT, Glenfiddich > wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:40:31 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:43:18 +0900, "Ragnar" > wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote in message
>>>news:st28c.4249$Ct5.564@edtnps89...
>>>> In us.military.army Ragnar > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Yes, how dare the Israelis attack known terrorists!!!
>>>>
>>>> How does Israel figure that a blind and deaf man in a wheelchair is a
>>>threat
>>>> to a nuclear power?
>>>
>>>Well, for starters the guy was a planner and mastermind. Those guys NEVER
>>>do the suicide dance - they convince other people to do it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yassin was little more than a figurehead, and like the pope, probably
>>>couldn't
>>>> dress himself without help, much less plan a terrorist operation.
>>>
>>>A "figurehead" is still a viable target. Tell me that offing the Pope
>>>wouldn't have consequences.
>>>
>>This is a fight between two religions. As always, no one will "win",
>>thousands of innocents are being killed, and neither side has
>>"clean hands". "Viable" targets are any member of the "other"
>>religion, barbarity reigns on both sides,
>>and the US should not be involved.
>
>On (and before) 9/11 al Qaeda decided that the US most definitely IS
>involved.
>
>Hamas objects to Jews walking on the Muslim land of Israel.
>Al Qaeda objects to American Christians walking on the Muslim lands
>of Saudi and Iraq, etc.
>
>Hamas, Hizbullah, Ansar al Islam, Jihad Islamiya and al Qaeda et al
>ALL claim the Muslim religion as the basis for their actions.
>
>You reject those facts at your own risk.

If you read my post, it was directed toward the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict. You are correct on one point, ANY theocratic government
or group is irrational. That was my point.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:18:29 -0500, Yeff > wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
>
>> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have sent
>> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
>> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure
>
>Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
><http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>
>
>In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them fight
>and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

The same genocide that the Moslems want to impose.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:08:51 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>> The isreali Palestinian conflict seems to have one main theme--
>> whenever one side is seriouly ready to make a deal, the other decides
>> it doesnt' want to. It's been more obvious on the Palestinian side,
>> but the Isreali's have also missed many chances to bolster the
>> moderates (back when such a thing existed).
>
>Mostly because every time the peace process gets started, one side or
>the other sends in suicide bombers.
>
>Oh, wait, that's just the *one* side.

True, the Israelis use tanks and aircraft instead. Same result either way.
>
Al Minyard

[Ron]

>Some Mujahedinn joined the Taliban others joined the Northern Alliance.
>The Taliban as such didnt exist when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan
>
>Keith

There was also the native Afghan muj, and the Arab muj, it was not just one
cohesive group.

The Arabs were much more radical and for them it was a relgious battle, for the
Afghans it was getting their country back.

It is a vast oversimplification when people group the Mujahadeed into just one
group, and just treat the later Taliban, as just the Muj that was renamed.
The Afghan muj did not run the country very well, and this helped the Paki
inspired and assisted Taliban to come in, under the guide of returning law and
order to the country. The old Afghan admin retreated to the northern part, and
because the Northern Alliance.

Taliban was not a homegrown creation, although it did play on the fears and
lack of education of many Afghans.
Pakistans ISI was becoming more and more involved with the radical and foreign
elements of the anti soviet resistance, so towards the latter part of the war,
our (US) assistance was going straight to afghan muj, as opposed to going thru
Pakistani intelligence like had been the case.

One of the less talked about aspects of the 2001 Afghan war, was the numbers of
Pakistani troops that were in Afghanistan when hostilities commenced.
Apparently there were quite a few PAF C-130 flights to get their troops out.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Nicky]

"Chad Irby" > wrote :

> It's funny how you say "little convincing" when they have to send their
> walking bombs through a fairly intense brainwashing session, then pay
> the families of those bombers a large reward for having their sons and
> daughters blow themselves up.

Desperate people are doing desperate things against those who put them in
such misery. Those people had lost everything and their lives doesn't mean
nothing if their family will live little better after that.
After living in such misery a 1000$ is real Jack Pot.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:08:51 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Mostly because every time the peace process gets started, one side or
> >the other sends in suicide bombers.
> >
> >Oh, wait, that's just the *one* side.
>
> True, the Israelis use tanks and aircraft instead.

....as a response to an attack by the Palestinians, in pretty much every
case.

> Same result either way.

Yep. The Palestinians are at fault.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Nicky" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote :
>
> > It's funny how you say "little convincing" when they have to send their
> > walking bombs through a fairly intense brainwashing session, then pay
> > the families of those bombers a large reward for having their sons and
> > daughters blow themselves up.
>
> Desperate people are doing desperate things against those who put them in
> such misery.

....like talking "slow" neighbor children (not their own!) into wearing
bomb vests, paying them the equivalent of $22, and sending them off to
blow up Israelis at checkpoints with a potential reward of 72 virgins.

Desperate people don't do that. Evil people do that.

> Those people had lost everything and their lives doesn't mean
> nothing if their family will live little better after that.

Actually, a lot of the bombers are more or less middle class, and not
particularly poor.

<http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.joyce.ht
ml>

> After living in such misery a 1000$ is real Jack Pot.

"As for the bombers themselves, Krueger says terrorist literature
indicates they are more likely to come from the ranks of middle-class
college students."

You need to reassess your opinions on this one.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[LawsonE]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Nicky" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote :
> >
> > > It's funny how you say "little convincing" when they have to send
their
> > > walking bombs through a fairly intense brainwashing session, then pay
> > > the families of those bombers a large reward for having their sons and
> > > daughters blow themselves up.
> >
> > Desperate people are doing desperate things against those who put them
in
> > such misery.
>
> ...like talking "slow" neighbor children (not their own!) into wearing
> bomb vests, paying them the equivalent of $22, and sending them off to
> blow up Israelis at checkpoints with a potential reward of 72 virgins.
>
> Desperate people don't do that. Evil people do that.
>
> > Those people had lost everything and their lives doesn't mean
> > nothing if their family will live little better after that.
>
> Actually, a lot of the bombers are more or less middle class, and not
> particularly poor.
>
> <http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.joyce.ht
> ml>
>
> > After living in such misery a 1000$ is real Jack Pot.
>
> "As for the bombers themselves, Krueger says terrorist literature
> indicates they are more likely to come from the ranks of middle-class
> college students."
>
> You need to reassess your opinions on this one.
>

The profile of suicidal bombers has been changing lately. HOWEVER, I'm not
sure if the bombers in Palestine fit the profile that you mention above. I
think that was the profile for the 9/11 crew and other international
terrorists, not the people that strap bombs to their chest and walk into a
crowded area in Israel.

[Jim Yanik]

"Nicky" > wrote in
:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote :
>
>> It's funny how you say "little convincing" when they have to send
>> their walking bombs through a fairly intense brainwashing session,
>> then pay the families of those bombers a large reward for having
>> their sons and daughters blow themselves up.
>
> Desperate people are doing desperate things against those who put them
> in such misery. Those people had lost everything

They fled the new state of Israel because the Arabs told them to,that the
Israelis would be "driven into the sea".Yet,Israel accepted the Arab
population,and actually has them represented in their government,something
you will NOT find in any Arab country. The Palestinians even tried to take
over Jordan(and Lebanon?) This whole problem was created and maintained by
the Arabs.No Arab country has or will accept Palestinians as citizens.







--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Chad Irby]

In article t>,
"LawsonE" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...

> > Actually, a lot of the bombers are more or less middle class, and not
> > particularly poor.
> >
> > <http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.joyce.ht
> > ml>
> >
> > > After living in such misery a 1000$ is real Jack Pot.
> >
> > "As for the bombers themselves, Krueger says terrorist literature
> > indicates they are more likely to come from the ranks of middle-class
> > college students."
> >
> > You need to reassess your opinions on this one.
>
> The profile of suicidal bombers has been changing lately. HOWEVER, I'm not
> sure if the bombers in Palestine fit the profile that you mention above. I
> think that was the profile for the 9/11 crew and other international
> terrorists, not the people that strap bombs to their chest and walk into a
> crowded area in Israel.

Nope. It's a fairly widespread trend. The story quoted even mentions
it.

"At Princeton University, economist Alan Krueger has studied not only
bombers but the views of the Palestinian public on terror attacks aimed
at Israelis. Again, surveys found no link between poverty and
illiteracy and support for terror."

From an earlier paper:

<http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/povterror.htm>

"New research by Claude Berrebi, a graduate student at Princeton, has
found that 13 percent of Palestinian suicide bombers are from
impoverished families, while about a third of the Palestinian
population is in poverty. A remarkable 57 percent of suicide bombers
have some education beyond high school, compared with just 15 percent
of the population of comparable age."

The root cause of terrorism is not poverty, it's repression and
extremism.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[LawsonE]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article t>,
> "LawsonE" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . com...
>
> > > Actually, a lot of the bombers are more or less middle class, and not
> > > particularly poor.
> > >
> > >
<http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.joyce.ht
> > > ml>
> > >
> > > > After living in such misery a 1000$ is real Jack Pot.
> > >
> > > "As for the bombers themselves, Krueger says terrorist literature
> > > indicates they are more likely to come from the ranks of middle-class
> > > college students."
> > >
> > > You need to reassess your opinions on this one.
> >
> > The profile of suicidal bombers has been changing lately. HOWEVER, I'm
not
> > sure if the bombers in Palestine fit the profile that you mention above.
I
> > think that was the profile for the 9/11 crew and other international
> > terrorists, not the people that strap bombs to their chest and walk into
a
> > crowded area in Israel.
>
> Nope. It's a fairly widespread trend. The story quoted even mentions
> it.
>
> "At Princeton University, economist Alan Krueger has studied not only
> bombers but the views of the Palestinian public on terror attacks aimed
> at Israelis. Again, surveys found no link between poverty and
> illiteracy and support for terror."
>
> From an earlier paper:
>
> <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/povterror.htm>
>
> "New research by Claude Berrebi, a graduate student at Princeton, has
> found that 13 percent of Palestinian suicide bombers are from
> impoverished families, while about a third of the Palestinian
> population is in poverty. A remarkable 57 percent of suicide bombers
> have some education beyond high school, compared with just 15 percent
> of the population of comparable age."
>
> The root cause of terrorism is not poverty, it's repression and
> extremism.
>

Not sure that that can be supported by what you said. The terrorists
themselves may be better educated than the norm (how many are college and
post-college graduates, BTW?), but the justifications they use for their
actions may be totally different than what you're concluding from their
backgrounds.

Repression and extremism may play an important role, but unless you can
convince someone its somehow *right* to commit a terrorist act, they wont do
it. WHY do people become convinced its ok to convince terrorist acts? My
guess is that guilt and anger ABOUT poverty may play an important part. Rich
kids, or well-to-do middle class kids are also the most likely to embrace
Communism, in my experience. Thats not because they're rich, but because
they feel *guilty* about being rich, or so I surmise.

[Chad Irby]

In article t>,
"LawsonE" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > From an earlier paper:
> >
> > <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/povterror.htm>
> >
> > The root cause of terrorism is not poverty, it's repression and
> > extremism.
>
> Not sure that that can be supported by what you said. The terrorists
> themselves may be better educated than the norm (how many are college and
> post-college graduates, BTW?), but the justifications they use for their
> actions may be totally different than what you're concluding from their
> backgrounds.

From the same cite:

"A remarkable 57 percent of suicide bombers have some education beyond
high school, compared with just 15 percent of the population of
comparable age."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[LawsonE]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article t>,
> "LawsonE" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > From an earlier paper:
> > >
> > > <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/povterror.htm>
> > >
> > > The root cause of terrorism is not poverty, it's repression and
> > > extremism.
> >
> > Not sure that that can be supported by what you said. The terrorists
> > themselves may be better educated than the norm (how many are college
and
> > post-college graduates, BTW?), but the justifications they use for their
> > actions may be totally different than what you're concluding from their
> > backgrounds.
>
> From the same cite:
>
> "A remarkable 57 percent of suicide bombers have some education beyond
> high school, compared with just 15 percent of the population of
> comparable age."
>

Like I said, most communists I've met are from affluent homes. Guilt-ridden
and all that. Likely some of the same factors at work here.

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Dave Holford > wrote:
> Does anyone seriously believe that if the state of Israel was destroyed
> the Palestinians would not be in a savage civil war within a very short
> time?

This does not justify the occupation.


--
.................................................. ............................

"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by
procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any
employment in our own country expropriation and the removal of the poor
must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly"

- Theodore Herzl, Ideological father of Israel,
(The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I, 1895)

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
news:H3%8c.9456$wg1.5332@edtnps84...
> In us.military.army Dave Holford >
wrote:
> > Does anyone seriously believe that if the state of Israel was destroyed
> > the Palestinians would not be in a savage civil war within a very short
> > time?
>
> This does not justify the occupation.

Of Spain?

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Erik Von Erich > wrote:

> I'm thinking that the Israelis fired Hydra-70 rockets at him and his
> handlers.

It's widely mentioned that it was hellfires used. They save the Hydras for
use against kids.


> I can't believe that they would have used Hellfires.

That's pretty standard for Israeli operations, particularly in Gaza.
It works something like this:

1) Find a target.

2) Lob the biggest posible bomb at him, ensuring maximum collateral damage.

3) Accuse him of "Hiding behind civilians".


Truly, I think it's just a thinly veiled subterfuge to kill as many
Palestinians as possible, thus pre-emtively ruling out any possibility of
peace, and saving Israel the chore of bargaining away it's hard-won
territory.


--
.................................................. ............................

"It's not a matter of maintaining the status quo. We have to create a
dynamic state, oriented towards expansion."

-Israeli founding father Ben Gurion

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Grantland]

wrote:

>In us.military.army Erik Von Erich > wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking that the Israelis fired Hydra-70 rockets at him and his
>> handlers.
>
>It's widely mentioned that it was hellfires used. They save the Hydras for
>use against kids.
>
>
>> I can't believe that they would have used Hellfires.
>
>That's pretty standard for Israeli operations, particularly in Gaza.
>It works something like this:
>
>1) Find a target.
>
>2) Lob the biggest posible bomb at him, ensuring maximum collateral damage.
>
>3) Accuse him of "Hiding behind civilians".
>
>
>Truly, I think it's just a thinly veiled subterfuge to kill as many
>Palestinians as possible, thus pre-emtively ruling out any possibility of
>peace, and saving Israel the chore of bargaining away it's hard-won
>territory.

Very succinct, there, sport. Hightly succinct.

Grantland

[K. A. Cannon]

"Tarver Engineering" > posted
> in us.military.army on Fri, 26 Mar
2004 11:01:26 -0800:

>
> wrote in message
>news:H3%8c.9456$wg1.5332@edtnps84...
>> In us.military.army Dave Holford >
>wrote:
>> > Does anyone seriously believe that if the state of Israel was destroyed
>> > the Palestinians would not be in a savage civil war within a very short
>> > time?
>>
>> This does not justify the occupation.
>
>Of Spain?
>

Rains mainly on the plain.


--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

mhm33x1

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process
he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss,
the abyss also looks into you"
- Nietzsche, From Beyond Good and Evil, (1886)


"The person who stands up and says, 'This is stupid,' either is asked to
`behave' or, worse, is greeted with a cheerful 'Yes, we know! Isn't it
terrific!'" - Frank Zappa

Tom/Mark in alt.test sez:
"People like you are pure scum, K.A. Cannon."

[Tarver Engineering]

"K. A. Cannon" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > posted
> > in us.military.army on Fri, 26 Mar
> 2004 11:01:26 -0800:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> >news:H3%8c.9456$wg1.5332@edtnps84...
> >> In us.military.army Dave Holford >
> >wrote:
> >> > Does anyone seriously believe that if the state of Israel was
destroyed
> >> > the Palestinians would not be in a savage civil war within a very
short
> >> > time?
> >>
> >> This does not justify the occupation.
> >
> >Of Spain?
> >
>
> Rains mainly on the plain.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm

[Nicky]

"Chad Irby" > wrote :

> ...like talking "slow" neighbor children (not their own!) into wearing
> bomb vests, paying them the equivalent of $22, and sending them off to
> blow up Israelis at checkpoints with a potential reward of 72 virgins.

> Desperate people don't do that. Evil people do that.

If someone keeps you under occupation for five decades and don't plan to
leave you do not give a **** about "fair play". You do everything what you
think it's necessary to kick ocupators out.

They are just using Irish methods.
And civilians of both side suffer because of Palestinian and Israeli state
terror....

> Actually, a lot of the bombers are more or less middle class, and not
> particularly poor.

They lost their freedom, their country is occupied, most of them are living
in refuge camps in pore condition, Israelis are taking their land,
bulldozing their houses...
What more do they need to lose ?

> "As for the bombers themselves, Krueger says terrorist literature
> indicates they are more likely to come from the ranks of middle-class
> college students."

> You need to reassess your opinions on this one.

So you won't to say that for middle-class Palestinians their country is not
occupied and they are not living under Israeli repression?

You will have to read F. William Engdahl "A Century of War" to understant
something...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Nicky" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote :
>
> > ...like talking "slow" neighbor children (not their own!) into wearing
> > bomb vests, paying them the equivalent of $22, and sending them off to
> > blow up Israelis at checkpoints with a potential reward of 72 virgins.
>
> > Desperate people don't do that. Evil people do that.
>
> If someone keeps you under occupation for five decades and don't plan to
> leave you do not give a **** about "fair play". You do everything what you
> think it's necessary to kick ocupators out.
>
> They are just using Irish methods.

Really? How many times has the IRA strapped a bomb to Little Billy and
sent him into a British checkpoint?

> And civilians of both side suffer because of Palestinian and Israeli state
> terror....

But the Palestinians are the side that has, continually, screwed it up
by breaking cease-fires, and destroying the peace process.

> > Actually, a lot of the bombers are more or less middle class, and not
> > particularly poor.
>
> They lost their freedom, their country is occupied, most of them are living
> in refuge camps in pore condition, Israelis are taking their land,
> bulldozing their houses...
> What more do they need to lose ?

They stand to lose most of what they were asking for.

Blame the idiots who keep getting in the way of their cease-fires by
blowing up Israelis. The last cease-fire was leading to a workable
solution (the Palestinians were getting pretty much everything they
wanted until the bombs started going off).

> > "As for the bombers themselves, Krueger says terrorist literature
> > indicates they are more likely to come from the ranks of middle-class
> > college students."
>
> > You need to reassess your opinions on this one.
>
> So you won't to say that for middle-class Palestinians their country is not
> occupied and they are not living under Israeli repression?

I *will* say that they could have had the occupation ended several times
over hte last couple of decades if they agreed to not murder Israelis.

> You will have to read F. William Engdahl "A Century of War" to understant
> something...

You will have to read the Hamas main Web site before you'll understand
*anything*.

If the Palestinians want peace and their own country, the first thing
they need to do is isolate the assholes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Bert Hyman]

In "Nicky"
> wrote:

> They lost their freedom, their country is occupied, most of them are
> living in refuge camps in pore condition,

.... because 50 years ago they backed the wrong side in an insane attempt
to drive the Israelis into the sea. And, every time they've been given the
chance, they've backed that losing side again.

And, they've lost a little more each time.

You'd think by now they'd have figured out what they're doing wrong.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Leonard Caillouet]

"Nicky" > wrote in message
...
> So you won't to say that for middle-class Palestinians their country is
not
> occupied and they are not living under Israeli repression?

Parsing this abuse of the English language, I can get that you think the
Palestinians had a "country". You might want to check your history. You
might want to look at the plight of Arabs who live in Israel and who have
not sworn to kill al of the Jews. They have greater freedom to practice
their religion in the way they choose, greater security, political freedom,
and in virtually every manner a better life with more freedom than those in
any Arab state or that the Palestinians would have had if Israel had never
existed.

Leonard

[LawsonE]

"Leonard Caillouet" > wrote in message
news:nQL9c.3721$pM1.2387@lakeread06...
>
> "Nicky" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So you won't to say that for middle-class Palestinians their country is
> not
> > occupied and they are not living under Israeli repression?
>
> Parsing this abuse of the English language, I can get that you think the
> Palestinians had a "country". You might want to check your history. You
> might want to look at the plight of Arabs who live in Israel and who have
> not sworn to kill al of the Jews. They have greater freedom to practice
> their religion in the way they choose, greater security, political
freedom,
> and in virtually every manner a better life with more freedom than those
in
> any Arab state or that the Palestinians would have had if Israel had never
> existed.

Can they marry someone from the West Bank and not have problems with the
Israeli Government?

[Ron]

>> They lost their freedom, their country is occupied, most of them are
>> living in refuge camps in pore condition,
>
>... because 50 years ago they backed the wrong side in an insane attempt
>to drive the Israelis into the sea. And, every time they've been given the
>chance, they've backed that losing side again.
>
>And, they've lost a little more each time.
>
>You'd think by now they'd have figured out what they're doing wrong.
>

They do not seem to have much of a problem with Jordan occupying "Palestine"


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Mike Williamson]

LawsonE wrote:

>>>So you won't to say that for middle-class Palestinians their country is
>>
>>not
>>
>>>occupied and they are not living under Israeli repression?
>>
>>Parsing this abuse of the English language, I can get that you think the
>>Palestinians had a "country". You might want to check your history. You
>>might want to look at the plight of Arabs who live in Israel and who have
>>not sworn to kill al of the Jews. They have greater freedom to practice
>>their religion in the way they choose, greater security, political
>
> freedom,
>
>>and in virtually every manner a better life with more freedom than those
>
> in
>
>>any Arab state or that the Palestinians would have had if Israel had never
>>existed.
>
>
> Can they marry someone from the West Bank and not have problems with the
> Israeli Government?

Well, no more so than (for instance) an East Berliner who married a
West Berliner anytime between about 1945 and 1990, or for that matter
anyone who marries someone across what amounts to a fortified border
with a less than friendly neighboring country.

To be honest, I don't believe there are any restrictions on marriage.
As far as actually getting to live with the new spouse, that might well
be a problem, but again, no more so than someone marrying a non-resident
alien in many countries.

Mike

[Jim Yanik]

"Nicky" > wrote in
:



>
> They lost their freedom, their country is occupied,

Since when is it "their" country? ISTR that the Jews lived there many
years,perhaps centuries before the Arabs moved in. The AL-Aqsa mosque is
built on Jewish Temple remains.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(Ron) wrote in
:

>>> They lost their freedom, their country is occupied, most of them are
>>> living in refuge camps in pore condition,
>>
>>... because 50 years ago they backed the wrong side in an insane
>>attempt to drive the Israelis into the sea. And, every time they've
>>been given the chance, they've backed that losing side again.
>>
>>And, they've lost a little more each time.
>>
>>You'd think by now they'd have figured out what they're doing wrong.
>>
>
> They do not seem to have much of a problem with Jordan occupying
> "Palestine"
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>
>

Yes,their "brother Arabs" treat them worse than the Israelis do,in other
Arab countries.Israel is the only ME country to have Palestinians IN their
government;representatives in the Knesset.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Ron]

>> They do not seem to have much of a problem with Jordan occupying
>> "Palestine"
>>
>>
>> Ron
>> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>
>>
>
>Yes,their "brother Arabs" treat them worse than the Israelis do,in other
>Arab countries.Israel is the only ME country to have Palestinians IN their
>government;representatives in the Knesset.
>

The other Arab countries really do nothing for the palestinians except
encourage them to go after Israel, and the effect is that the Palestianians end
up being proxy soldiers of the arab counties against Israel. The original UN
mandate included a nice portion of Jordan, but when is the last time that has
been brought by palestinians.

Saudis look down on Palestianians as uneducated rock throwers, and really do
nothing to actually help them. They are quite content to see strife there, and
the palestinians living in squalor and dying, as long as Israeli is under
attack.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[William Wright]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:18:29 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
> >
> >> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have sent
> >> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
> >> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure
> >
> >Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
> ><http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>
> >
> >In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them fight
> >and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.
> >
> >-Jeff B.
> >yeff at erols dot com
>
> The same genocide that the Moslems want to impose.

If you can't see the difference, I would suggest that you are ... well
stupid.

>
> Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:48:05 GMT, "William Wright" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:18:29 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have sent
>> >> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
>> >> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure
>> >
>> >Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
>> ><http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>
>> >
>> >In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them fight
>> >and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.
>> >
>> >-Jeff B.
>> >yeff at erols dot com
>>
>> The same genocide that the Moslems want to impose.
>
>If you can't see the difference, I would suggest that you are ... well
>stupid.
>
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
So killing innocent Arabs is fine?? You say "kill off the leaders",
of course a lot of "collateral damage" will occur, but hey, they
are just Arabs, so who cares how many are killed??

Al Minyard

[William Wright]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:48:05 GMT, "William Wright" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:18:29 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have
sent
> >> >> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
> >> >> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure
> >> >
> >> >Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
> >>
><http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>
> >> >
> >> >In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them
fight
> >> >and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.
> >> >
> >> >-Jeff B.
> >> >yeff at erols dot com
> >>
> >> The same genocide that the Moslems want to impose.
> >
> >If you can't see the difference, I would suggest that you are ... well
> >stupid.
> >
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> So killing innocent Arabs is fine?? You say "kill off the leaders",
> of course a lot of "collateral damage" will occur, but hey, they
> are just Arabs, so who cares how many are killed??

Smart people stay away from targets. Stupid people get Darwin awards in this
case delivered by PGM. Why do troops in areas with snipers not salute their
officers?

The Palestinians could make peace, they don't want to. The blood of every
Palestinian killed, every Israeli killed, is on the hands of the
Palestinians. It is impossible for Israel to make peace with a foe that
refuses drop "destroy Israel" as a war demand. Only the Palestinians can
make peace. Until then, Israel should kill as many of these assholes as it
takes until they want peace. If the Palestinians laid down their arms today,
Israel would have no justification for not making peace. The Palestinians
would have the moral high ground. But they know they would have to admit
they lost the war and accept Israel with no right of return. Maybe if the
rest of the world would stop propping up those murderous Palestinians, this
would end.

I refused to care more about Palestinians than they care about themselves. I
stopped caring about them back in the 70s when the first 747 to be destroyed
was blown up by Palestinian hijackers (1970) then the Munich atrocity (1972)
then another brand new 747 (1973) and on and on. After seeing the news
footage of them dancing in the streets on 9-11, to hell with them. Kill them
and take their land until they want peace.


>
> Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "William Wright" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:48:05 GMT, "William Wright" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:18:29 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have
>sent
>> >> >> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
>> >> >> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure
>> >> >
>> >> >Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
>> >>
>><http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>
>> >> >
>> >> >In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them
>fight
>> >> >and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.
>> >> >
>> >> >-Jeff B.
>> >> >yeff at erols dot com
>> >>
>> >> The same genocide that the Moslems want to impose.
>> >
>> >If you can't see the difference, I would suggest that you are ... well
>> >stupid.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >
>> So killing innocent Arabs is fine?? You say "kill off the leaders",
>> of course a lot of "collateral damage" will occur, but hey, they
>> are just Arabs, so who cares how many are killed??
>
>Smart people stay away from targets. Stupid people get Darwin awards in this
>case delivered by PGM. Why do troops in areas with snipers not salute their
>officers?
>
>The Palestinians could make peace, they don't want to. The blood of every
>Palestinian killed, every Israeli killed, is on the hands of the
>Palestinians. It is impossible for Israel to make peace with a foe that
>refuses drop "destroy Israel" as a war demand. Only the Palestinians can
>make peace. Until then, Israel should kill as many of these assholes as it
>takes until they want peace. If the Palestinians laid down their arms today,
>Israel would have no justification for not making peace. The Palestinians
>would have the moral high ground. But they know they would have to admit
>they lost the war and accept Israel with no right of return. Maybe if the
>rest of the world would stop propping up those murderous Palestinians, this
>would end.
>
>I refused to care more about Palestinians than they care about themselves. I
>stopped caring about them back in the 70s when the first 747 to be destroyed
>was blown up by Palestinian hijackers (1970) then the Munich atrocity (1972)
>then another brand new 747 (1973) and on and on. After seeing the news
>footage of them dancing in the streets on 9-11, to hell with them. Kill them
>and take their land until they want peace.
>
You really have no morals or decency. You are disgusting.

Al Minyard
>

[William Wright]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:36:15 GMT, "William Wright" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:48:05 GMT, "William Wright" >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:18:29 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:03:36 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I'm more interested in the big middle finger this seems to have
> >sent
> >> >> >> the US way-- Sharon really seems intent on proving that he is not
> >> >> >> beholden in any way shape or form to U.S. preassure
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Here's another view on what this killing is all about:
> >> >>
>
>><http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/AngeringthePalestinians.shtml>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In summary, wall off the insurgents, kill off the leaders, let them
> >fight
> >> >> >and murder themselves as each group tries to establish authority.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >-Jeff B.
> >> >> >yeff at erols dot com
> >> >>
> >> >> The same genocide that the Moslems want to impose.
> >> >
> >> >If you can't see the difference, I would suggest that you are ... well
> >> >stupid.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Al Minyard
> >> >
> >> So killing innocent Arabs is fine?? You say "kill off the leaders",
> >> of course a lot of "collateral damage" will occur, but hey, they
> >> are just Arabs, so who cares how many are killed??
> >
> >Smart people stay away from targets. Stupid people get Darwin awards in
this
> >case delivered by PGM. Why do troops in areas with snipers not salute
their
> >officers?
> >
> >The Palestinians could make peace, they don't want to. The blood of every
> >Palestinian killed, every Israeli killed, is on the hands of the
> >Palestinians. It is impossible for Israel to make peace with a foe that
> >refuses drop "destroy Israel" as a war demand. Only the Palestinians can
> >make peace. Until then, Israel should kill as many of these assholes as
it
> >takes until they want peace. If the Palestinians laid down their arms
today,
> >Israel would have no justification for not making peace. The Palestinians
> >would have the moral high ground. But they know they would have to admit
> >they lost the war and accept Israel with no right of return. Maybe if the
> >rest of the world would stop propping up those murderous Palestinians,
this
> >would end.
> >
> >I refused to care more about Palestinians than they care about
themselves. I
> >stopped caring about them back in the 70s when the first 747 to be
destroyed
> >was blown up by Palestinian hijackers (1970) then the Munich atrocity
(1972)
> >then another brand new 747 (1973) and on and on. After seeing the news
> >footage of them dancing in the streets on 9-11, to hell with them. Kill
them
> >and take their land until they want peace.
> >
> You really have no morals or decency. You are disgusting.

And you are an idiot. I was not dancing in the streets over the deaths of
others but I shed no tears for those who do. If you can't see the difference
you are an idiot plain and simple. You want perpetual war. I want peace and
I have enough brains to see who is stopping it. Who has no decency? What a
fool!

>
> Al Minyard
> >
>