suicide bombers part two

[Ray Zee]

so if the radicals refuse to give up the idea that israel has to die and they continue to bomb, what is israel supposed to do.

compromise and let the bombing continue and realize its the price to pay.

build a wall and exclude all those that could cause problems

invade the areas that let the terrorists operate from.

give up the idea that they are going to continue to get cheap palistinian labor in their country and bannish all of them as they cant have it both ways

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
so if the radicals refuse to give up the idea that israel has to die and they continue to bomb, what is israel supposed to do.

compromise and let the bombing continue and realize its the price to pay.

build a wall and exclude all those that could cause problems

invade the areas that let the terrorists operate from.

give up the idea that they are going to continue to get cheap palistinian labor in their country and bannish all of them as they cant have it both ways

[/ QUOTE ]

Not choice number 1 but 2, 3 and 4 will work.

[MMMMMM]

"so if the radicals refuse to give up the idea that israel has to die and they continue to bomb, what is israel supposed to do."


This is a point that many have long seemed to overlook.

Picture for a moment the hypothetical specter of radical Mexicans routinely executing suicide bombing attacks around San Diego or in Arizona or New Mexico (I leave out Texas from this example because the local Texans would just shoot them down;-)). Perhaps the radicals' rationale would be that we stole the Southwestern United States from Mexico in the first place and now we won't automatically grant any Mexican illegals full amnesty and citizenship. Now they want full U.S. citizenship for all Mexicans who desire it and they want New Mexico and Arizona to boot. Regardless of the plausibility of this scenario or any degree of merit to their grievances, does anyone think we would let the suicide bombings continue year after year? No, we would take whatever Draconian measures would be needed to stop it, regardless of any contrary opinions. If the Mexican government couldn't or wouldn't stop them then we sure as hell would.

Yet many people seem to more or less think Israel should just absorb these attacks--that it is OK for Israel to try to defend but not OK for Israel to take measures sufficient to really stop the attacks. Yet I'm sure if most of these people lived in areas suffering under similar routine attacks they would be hollering for the government to do something to stop the attacks at any cost.

[nicky g]

"Yet many people seem to more or less think Israel should just absorb these attacks--that it is OK for Israel to try to defend but not OK for Israel to take measures sufficient to really stop the attacks."

I doubt anyone believes that. Speaking for myself, I thik that if Israel negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians and implenented a fair settlement rather than expaniding illegal settlements), the bombings would stop. That's something Israel has a moral obligation to do anyway, and a hell of a lot better than making millions of poeple's lives a misery without managing to stop the bombings. The occupation has totally failed to stop the bombings, as have Israel's more and more absurd and repressive measures. A negotiated truce has managed to stop them altogether, but the Israeli government doesn't want to make it permanent. Go figure.

[Ray Zee]

yea, m, i was going to make the mexican anology soon. it is perfect to this situation. going further what if your neibhor was attacking you from over his fence. would you just take it because he believes the fence is on his property, whether it is or not. somewhere along the line if someone is lobbing bombs at you , you must do what it takes to deter it.
what should happen is the united nations should put lots of troops in the area and contain the bombers. thats what they are funded for. if they are not going to stop nations from invading others then they should be disbanded from having troops. israel needs to do the cleaning out, so long as the govt. in the area will not do it themselves for whatever reason.
only after the complete threat is stopped can peace have a chance.

[MMMMMM]

The current truce is an anomaly and it remains to be seen if it will last.

Yes, there should be negotiated settlement agreements, but don't forget that the Palestinians (and Arabs) have perpetually attacked Israel no matter where her borders were. So it is rather naive to presume that if there were just a decent negotiated settlement that the Palestinian fanatics would accept it and abide by it for any real length of time. It's a nice thought, but somehow I doubt that the true fanatics would really take it to heart in years to come. Cetainly it's worth working toward, but I believe Hamas et al must be disarmed for it to work in the long-term...and so must Hezbollah. That is why the road map specifies that the terrorist organizations be dismantled...they have too long a history of launching attacks even (and especially) when progress was being made towards peace.

[MMMMMM]

Unfortunately the U.N. is pretty ineffective when it comes to utilizing peacekeeping troops (and sometimes worse--look what happened in Rwanda after the U.N. peacekeepers went in).

Another problem is that the U.N. bureaucracy is heavily influenced by countries which truly don't deserve to have much of a say (dictatorships and totalitarian regimes). A further problem is that much of the U.N. is prejudiced against Israel: certainly all the Arab members of the U.N. are, as is much of the rest of the world.

If the U.N. were a good organization comprised of democracies I would agree with your suggestion of peacekeeping troops, but as the U.N. truly stands, I think peacekeeping troops would be largely inefffective and too much controlled by a bureaucracy which is heavily biased against Israel.

Who really thinks that totalitarian regimes which don't allow their own citizens to vote should be allowed a vote in world government of any kind? (apparently a lot of people do, but I can't agree with them). If the U.N. were just a place to talk and try to have a meeting of minds I would say sure they should all be a part of it, but since the U.N. gets to make and enforce some Resolutions it carries some degree of weight of law and/or military force behind it. I don't think totalitarian regimes and dictatorships should have a say in making Resolutions the world is expected to follow. Such regimes are the antithesis of human rights and civil liberties, and allowing them to vote is a travesty. Once upon a time, when the world was balanced by two opposing superpowers, the structure of the U.N. made some kind of sense at least. Now I think it is a bureaucratic anachronism and sadly a somewhat harmful one at that.

[brad]

you got it wrong ray. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

if hamas didnt exist, israel (.gov) would have to create it /images/graemlins/smile.gif (oh wait they did ...)

the outside threat unifies the government in a way nothing else can, thus criminals like sharon can maintain power.

[Ray Zee]

hey brad, israel is no peach. they deserve the treatment they get. its just that they happen to be more right than the other side, from my point of view. but i do think they have taken more territory than they deserve also. when you win a war from someone who is out to destroy you, maybe what you take from them should be kept. when you lose you are taken over, so when you win shouldnt you get the spoils. this is only for those countries that were attacked and in a position to be exterminated if they lose. not just a war over ideals.
the free world should have taken japan and germany after ww11. and probably italy but they were smart and switched sides in the middle to stay with the probable winner.
but by luck those countries became part of the system.

[brad]

well ray im really saying both 'sides' are on the same side! (at least at the top level), in that they favor maintaining the status quo.

its really only analyzing in this sense that some things make sense. (like sharon going to moslem wailing wall or whatever 6 months or year ago setting off riots when it looked like maybe a chance for compromise)

so when u look at the fence being built, it has a metapurpose far greater than any tactical terror prevention.

also while they may not cooperate with each other, they may be happy with each other. take arafat. hes been around a long time. israel hasnt taken him out. the only logical conclusion is that israel doesnt want him out. they like him and his style (like in poker if someone doesnt play bad but is totally ABC predictable then you enjoy playing with him).


so in closing, the losers are the regular people, jews and palestinians both, and the 'winners' are the power hungry madmen on both sides. personally i think its a testament to the decency of the common people on both sides that the leadership has to constantly stir up trouble. (and remember that 3-5% of any population (maybe its 3-5% of males) are psychotic or can be conditioned to be so and these are made into the sadistic 'enforcers' who carry stuff out. and even so of that large base (1.5 % of population) the psycho leaders still have trouble recruiting enough pyschos.

[MMMMMM]

I think you are probably taking the "top leaders want the status quo" theory a bit too far. Yes, there are likely benefits to the status quo but there are drawbacks too. And supposing that top Israeli leaders want to keep getting bombed almost every day appears rather farfetched to me. I could see it maybe if they wanted a bit of unrest or if there were just the rare attacks, but I can't believe any Israeli leader would want suicide bombing attacks almost every day like it was over the last couple years. When attacks are that frequent it's just too dangerous and too many of their families, relatives and friends would be at risk. Israel would still have every reason or excuse if the attacks were just sporadic. I can't believe they would want stuff like the intifada going on even if some of them do want an excuse to maintain the settlements.

[brad]

'I can't believe they would want stuff like the intifada going on even if some of them do want an excuse to maintain the settlements. '

would u consider yourself to be evil and corrupt?

(have u researched bohemian grove where leaders meet to worship molek, demon of torah?)

u saw article i posted where fdr deliberately left civilians in phillipines rathr than evacuate them? (once declassified, lawsuits followed)

etc.

[MMMMMM]

I fail to see your point--please elaborate.

Also, what little I read of Bohemian Grove on Alex Jones did not in the least convince me that our leaders are engaged in devil worship. Why can't it just be a getaway and diversion in a secluded outdoor setting? A conspiracy to devil worship? Lol, I would think they've got more important things to worry about, both personal and in business/politics.

[brad]

whole internet and u read one page of aj, huh? btw, u can dl a lot of his films for free, including bohemian grove.

but anyway, M, my point is that of course u cant understand what totally evil and power mad people do, because youre a decent person i would wager. i mean, you see on the news a child molester and think to yourself, how can he do that (but he does it, even tho u cant.)

[MMMMMM]

It just boggles my mind that Alex Jones would think there really is massive devil worship controlling the country's or the world's politics...or that our leaders are literally bowing the knee to Baal--or Molek, whatever that is. For one thing, I don't think our leaders are that submissive. Also, it's really hard to picture Dubya asking the Devil for a favor.

Even if our leaders were power mad, they aren't dumb enough to believe that praying to a Great Owl is going to bring them further Fame and Fortune. I think Alex Jones has blown this themed retreat vacation, or whatever it is, way out of proportion.

Even if some of our leaders are greedy or malevolent, they're not that superstitious. It's a harmless retreat IMO.

[Mark Heide]

Ray,

I think that the suicide bombers are here to stay, and I don't think the Mexico analogy is appropriate for this scenario.

Since, the Jews took over this land with the help of the West, primarily the USA back in the late '40s, many generations in the middle east have come to hate Israel and its supporters the USA.

The current "roadmap to peace" will not work in the middle east. Unlike the Mexico analogy, Israel is viewed as a foreign occupier in the middle east. Even though we have what appears to be good relations with middle eastern governments, the populations of these governments do not support Israel or the USA. Why do you think the Saudi's and Palastinian people cheered the bombing of the twin towers in NYC?

So, I believe that the suicide bombers will continue their assult indefinately until they get rid of Israel and its supporters, primarily the USA.

Furthermore, I believe that the building of walls by Israel, and selectively targeting terrorist groups in Palistine, will only motivate more terrorist events. If they can't get to Israel they will get to us, since it is much easier to get across USA boarders, just ask the Mexicans how easy it is.

Mark

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi M:

Didn't this already happen? and didn't President Wilson send the army into Mexico to hunt down Pancho Villa?

We reacted quite strongly when attacked by the Mexicans, and I'm sure would do it again.

Best wishes,
mason

[brad]

you realize the bohemian grove association or whatever (whoever organizes these 'retreats') admits to a 'mock human sacrifice'.

you form an opinion based on no evidence.

a lot of the highup news guys (who go in and out of administrations) admit to going to the grove but immediately qualify their response by saying, i dont participate in any of the (gay, naked, whatever) stuff that goes on.

why dont you look up san fransisco newspaper articles about bohemian grove, and *then* form an opinion?

p.s. next your gonna deny bush belongs to yale's skull and bones? (ie, order of death)

[MMMMMM]

So what's so evil about a "mock human sacrifice"? Ever watched a movie?

[MMMMMM]

Hi Mason,

You know history better than I do; thus I am often consigned to mere hypothesizing while you can bring up Pancho Villa. If I ever make enough money at poker I may go back to school someday.

M

[MMMMMM]

Hi Mark,

I agree that there are problems with the analogy if we are talking about things such as grievances, justifications or popular opinions. However if we are using the analogy only to compare what we or the Israelis might do in response to such attacks, I think the analogy is OK.

So: I believe you are saying the fanatics in the Middle East will not rest until they have their way 100% regarding Israel. Unfortunately I pretty much agree. The word compromise is unknown to true fanatics. However they are never going to be able to destroy Israel unless they get a nuclear bomb.

If suicide bombing attacks should start in the United States, what steps do you think we would likely take?

Also, you seem to havce a rather fatalistic view of terrorism in general. From what I have read, however, it seems that counter-terrorism measures actually do decrease terrorism rather than increase it. Admittedly this is based on lots of scattered readings but it is the general impression I have gathered. The harder you hit them, the less they attack, not the more they attack. When Israel really clamps down her hardest the attacks almost cease. As soon as she lets up somewhat, the terrorists have more breathing room and they attack more (the current truce is an anomaly whch I think will not last). But I am not so much interested in debating this point as in exploring what you think we would likely do if suicide bombings should start catching on in the USA. I haven't considered it much but it is probably worth some conjecture.

M

[Zeno]

Good old Francisco (Pancho) Villa burned the town of Columbus, New Mexico and killed a number of people, not a lot, less than a score I think (there is a state park in Columbus named after Pancho Villa). This happened around 1916. He was pissed at the US for supporting or recognizing some other revolutionaries (probably Carranza who was president of Mexico at the time, whatever that really meant) or not giving him enough support or other such supposed harm. It was a very chaotic time in the Mexican revolution, a lot of political intrigue and changing of leadership and such. The US sent General Pershing into Northern Mexico and they rambled and mucked around in the desert, got shot at, shot back, killed a few random Mexicans, stayed awhile, then rumbled back home in 1917. Pershing could not find Pancho Villa or do much punishment or damage. It was a rather comic affair really.

Poncho Villa ended up getting assassinated by some other faction of the revolution in the early twenties I think. He was a great guy - every American should have a picture of Pancho Villa, Geronimo, and Thomas Jefferson hanging on the walls of their homes. These three guys knew how to have a good time. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Zeno

[brad]

'So what's so evil about a "mock human sacrifice"? Ever watched a movie'

so world leaders go to a place and dress up in robes and stuff and conduct a 'mock human sacrifice' in front of a demonic owl shaped altar and u dont think theres anything wrong or strange about that? no wonder u dont look at more stuff on the interenet about b.g. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

p.s. i mean u know hitler was deep into the occult. thats proven. he even overrode his generals based on astrological crap. u know US presidents have had astrologers, etc. now im not comparing them to hitler, but you get my point. to say powerful people are not into the occult is simply completely uninformed.

[IrishHand]

Dude - you're wierd.

[brad]

no youre the one whos wierd. (ok maybe i am wierd but)

youre the one who thinks (economy collapsing) that could never happen here (again), oh but my 401k is down 50% but thats ok itll go up im sure.

youre the one who thinks (war against terror to last 100 years, administration says, 63 countries, all based on lies, eg, wmd) thats just a passing fad, there wont be 'real' war.

well u think youre untouchable but just wait and u will see.

go ahead and deny implantable microchips (like for dogs) for humans, its only been on all the news and they 'chipped' a family live on good morning america tv show.

hope u enjoy it.

[MMMMMM]

I do think the description of that activity at Bohemian Grove sounds odd but that doesn't mean they're all Satanists or something.

[brad]

well i never claimed they were satanists per say but they that is a stone owl statue of molek (molak?) i think but not sure if they claim it is.

main point in a nutshell? would you let your neighbors babysit your kids if they went away every year and did that kind of stuff? but these are guys running all major government and business.

[Mark Heide]

Hi M,

I'd like to make an analogy to computer viruses. It always appears that there is a new one. I agree that security makes it harder for them to succeed, but they are not going away, so I view counter-terrorism tactics somewhat successful, just like anti-virus software for computers.

I believe that the USA is an easy target due to its long north and south boarders and government immigration policy. The policy I'm referring to is not keeping track of people on expired visas and what not, but there have been improvements since 9/11.

What makes it difficult for the USA to protect itself is that it is the "melting pot" of the world. Israel does not face this problem, except for a minority of the fanactics that disguise themselves. But, the USA has a difficult problem due to race and civil rights issues which hinder itself from becoming more successful.

Furthermore, if by chance a Palistinian state is created, it may reduce the violence, but it will not eliminate it due to the viewpoints of the fanactical groups. I'll make another anology with the "Heavens Gate" cult in California has commonalities with groups like Hamas. If you can convince people to take their lives by drinking poison, you can convince someone to be a suicide bomber.

The other problem is the Jewish culture does not have commonalities with the cultures of the current middle east. The biggest problem is the two religions. I still believe that it would have been much better to create a Jewish country out of part of Germany after WWII.

My fatalistic viewpoint of terrorism I believe is reality. If we make it difficult for the suicide bombers where it would be impossible for them to commit acts of terrorism in Israel or the USA, they will attack our weaker allies. Like the ones that have occurred in Africa. So, I believe that by having good security in Israel or the USA, you will just shift the problem to some other part of the world.

Mark

[Ray Zee]

most attacks are close to home for them. so by protecting your own soil you diminish the risk. but the only way is to hunt them down and erase the threat. sure it would help to change our policies, as they are a cause of dissent , but no matter what you do, people of fanatical religions are going to follow their credo. so you have to live with them or destroy them. its just who is supposed to take on the job. the person being attacked or the country where they reside. i think both.

and you are right about germany. the jews should have gotten the pick of what they wanted in the country after the war. and the rest divided between the bordering ones. but it turned out okay as german people changed. but i still believe that countries would be less likely to do these deeds if they knew it was curtains for them when it was all over if they lose.

[Mark Heide]

Ray,

I agree with what you say. The problem the USA faces is not just in the middle east but all over due to its foreign policies that protect the wealthy. So, terror attacks are less likely in the USA, but there will probably be some in years to come due to the diversity of our population.

What I said about Germany could only have been done at the end of WWII. After WWII Europe stopped fighting for land around its boarders. I believe the same will happen in the middle east and Africa, but it may take several hundred years. Look how often the European countries were at war with each other in the past. I think the middle east is still going through these phases that we have already in our past.

Mark

[Cyrus]

Because the Arabs have lost the war.

Correct that. Not the war. But the war in 1948, in 1956, in 1967 and in 1982. (Let's call the 1973 game rained-out, for want of better term for the umpires' intervention.)

That's 4 wars in 5 decades. That's enough wars! Even if all the moral justification in the world is on your side, when you have lost 4 wars, then the best thing for peace is to accept the facts that have been accomplished. Also known as faits accomplis. And, yes, how those wars were conducted and whether they were "totally one-sided" is completely irrelevant in that context. (If Hitler and had conquered the Soviet Union in 1941, the West would seriously consider cutting a deal with the monster. It's realpolitik, is what it is.)

So, the persistence of the Palestinians in their beligerent ways is, in the words of Krutchev, worse than immoral, it is wrong.

Palestinians should compromise and then allow genetics (and population mathematics) to take their course. Both are on their side.

--Cyrus

PS : Unfortunately, the current Israeli leadership will not allow even for a compromise by the Palestinians. The bar is being raised every time the Palestinians jump to reach it. Example : The IDF has completely destroyed during the last two yars every police capability the earlier Palestinian Authority had. Even whatever personal data on known terrorists was kept was destroyed or taken away. Demanding from the Palestinian Authority to control the terrorists after all controlling power has been taken away from it, is demanding the impossible.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, you make some good points here.

In your P.S. you state that the bar keeps getting raised on the Palestinians. Well perhaps so--but they keep sending more and more suicide bombers! It goes back to Ray's original question, and "just what the heck is Israel supposed to do?"

The additional problem is that even if Israel were to make great concessions, re-arm the Palestinian Police Force (heh), and so on, the Palestinian fanatics would just keep sending suicide bombers. So whether the PA is capable of controlling the militants is a red herring. They never did it in the past and they'll never do it in the future--if they are ever capable of it (which also is doubtful).

So that leaves a Fence and perhaps expulsion, or massive unprecedented incursions into Palestinian territory with the goal of forcible elimination of the entire terrorist infrastructure--the capture or killing of all terrorist leaders and near total disarmament of the entire Palestinian population. In that scenario we're talking martial law and soldiers at nearly every intersection--a complete occupation until the goals are accomplished.

Given the way things are, which of those scenarios would you prefer to see? Or can you envision any other solution?

I can't envision any other solution. And Palestinian/Arab intransigence beyond the point of idiocy is the one component which makes it a truly insoluble dilemma.

There is something horribly wrong with the Palestinian, Arab and Islamic traditions. They NEVER compromise and they see religiously-inspired violence as the ANSWER rather than the PROBLEM. And 99% of what they believe is patently untrue. So maybe the only solution is to DISARM THEM ALL--and ASAP, before they get any more nuclear weapons--until they become more truly educated (and by that I don't mean majoring in Theology).

There isn't anything wrong with their race, IMO. But their culture is barbaric, uncompromising, anachronistic, deluded, and is becoming with the proliferation of WMDs extremely dangerous to all of humanity. The more so especially with imams all over the Middle East fanning the flames of anti-Western jihad. These crackpots with 30 nukes would be more dangerous than the USSR was with 30,000 nukes.

[Cyrus]

"You state that the bar keeps getting raised on the Palestinians. Well perhaps so--but they keep sending more and more suicide bombers!"

I was not talking about the current period, when the suicide bombing started two years ago. That bar is being raised for the whole period starting from the end of the 1948 war until now.

(Done any summer reading (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393321126/qid=1061078248/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0088231-9927877), at all ?)

[brad]

problem in a nutshell is that israel is run by hard liners whose stated goal is expulsion of palestinians.

but they have to placate the west a bit.

so they can negotiate in good faith.

but

one terrorist attack and the whole deals off.

well they dont have mossad for nothing.

[Chris Alger]

They overlook it because it's an idiotic point undermined by posing it's corollary: "so if the Israeli radicals refuse to give up the idea that Palestine has to remain dead and they continue to occupy and colonize, what are the Palestinians supposed to do?"

Palestinian rejectionism of Israel's right to exist is neither the historic nor logical cause of the suicide bombings. The occupation, which you conveniently left out of your analaogy, more obviously is the cause. If the US invaded Mexico, imposed a military dictatorship, taxed it's people, expropriated it's land, and then sent colonists to "settle" it, and a handful of Mexicans, despite condemnations from their palty remaining government, engaged in terrorism against US citizens, would it be rational, moral or logical to say that the US has to maintain its brutal occupation of Mexico in order to prevent terrorism?

"Yet many people seem to more or less think Israel should just absorb these attacks--that it is OK for Israel to try to defend but not OK for Israel to take measures sufficient to really stop the attacks."

Name just one of these "many" people who have ever advocated any such position. Neither I nor anyone else on this board ever has.

[Chris Alger]

"what should happen is the united nations should put lots of troops in the area and contain the bombers"

The UN is more than willing to do so and the Palestinian Authority has been asking for UN monitors for years, but Israel refuses to consider it and the US refuses to force Israel to consider it, which says a lot about the symbiotic relationship between the Israeli government, its US paymaster and their alleged adversaries. When Rabin -- himself personally responsible for more more Arab civilians killed than all the Palestinian suicide bombers in history -- accused Netanyahu of tacit "colaberation" with Hamas, do you really think he was out of his mind?

[ratso]

Take all who want peace and put them on ships in the Med Sea. Arm the ones who stay there and let them all kill each other. Then sink the ships.
(borrowed from Weiner)

[MMMMMM]

But Chris it's not a corollary. The settlements are NOT the sole reason for the attacks. Palestinian fanaticism pledged to take all of Israel is a major factor as well.

If you consider the existence of Israel proper (instead of the settlements) to be the "colonization" you speak of, and hold the existence of Israel itself to be thus responsible for the endless stream of suicide bombing attacks, well, all I can say is why don't you go join the intifada.

[Cyrus]

Chris Alger explains in plain prose but you apparently read something entirely different. You misunderstand what he writes and then you respond to what you think he wrote. I would strongly suggest you re-read the post you responded to.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

I don't think it's clear just what Chris considers the "occupation"--when he says "Palestine" does he mean Greater Palestine, or what, exactly?

I think if you'll reread my post you'll see I was giving Chris the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, and asking for some clarification.

I've long suspected that Chris is more sympathetic to suicide bombing and terrorism than he generally lets on, but I could be wrong. If however he considers Israel's existence itself an "occupation" of "Palestine" and thereby the moral and practical corollary of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks--well then, I would see no reason why he shouldn't go and join the intifada.