Israel attacks Islamic Jihad base in Syria

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-10-05-israel-attack_x.htm

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli warplanes attacked an Islamic Jihad training base deep in Syria in retaliation for a suicide bombing at a Haifa restaurant that killed 19 people, the army said Sunday. Israeli media said it was the first Israeli attack on Syrian soil in more than two decades.
The strike, which occurred late Saturday or early Sunday, targeted the Ein Sahev camp about 10 miles northwest of Damascus, according to Israeli officials. The base was used by several terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the army said in a statement
<snip>
Western diplomats say Syria is loathe to be seen as betraying the Palestinian cause, and it also does not want to give up one of the few bargaining chips it still has in negotiations with Israel.

Despite Syrian denials, the diplomats say Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders in Syria give directions to the groups' members in the West Bank and Gaza.

=================================================================

you conspiracy guys are something else.

Are you disputing the fact that Syrai has terror camps or is that not an issue for you?

And as the PNAC desires for the new world order is known to all who care to find it out, I fail to see what makes someone who acknowledges their plans a 'conspiracy guy'...

Violet...

if the attack is a good thing. Syria and Israel have been at war for fifty years. If Syria is training terrorists on its soil then it seems reasonable.

What do PNACs desires have to do with what Israel has done? Israel is rather famous for having its own foreign policy.


Do you think Syria training terrorists is a good thing?

Has Syria said anything about the attack yet? They've been very quiet so far about it. I didn't know that Israel and Syria were at war with each other. How many other countries is Israel currently at war with that I'm not aware of?

Depending on which version I hear, the IDF claims they attacked an active Islamic Jihad base run by the Syrian govt, and Islamic Jihad claim it was a deserted PLFPP(?) base and they don't run training camps in Syria. The IDF are liars and murderers and same goes for Islamic Jihad, so who knows? Even if it was an active training base, I'm uncomfortable with any country taking it upon themselves to launch attacks inside another country...

Just a gut feeling here, but Sharon would be a huge believer in the PNAC agenda, wouldn't he? And while its agenda runs parallel with his, I don't see why he wouldn't have any problems doing anything he could to help them along on their quest...

Violet...

Israel is still technically at war with most of the Arab world with the exceptions of those it has made peace with -- Egypt and Jordan. Though the change in leadership in Iraq might take them off the list as well.

I gather you meant no to Yang's question. If that is the case why in the world do you think Israelis wasted so much money and time on a useless mission? Bad intellegence? Or did they think by punishing Syria, Iran ($$$$$$ giver) would be warned away? Just curious?

to make people think that they are actually doing something.

Syria is Judea.

Syria is Syria, Israel and the West Bank are Judea.

If Israel wanted to conquer Syria it would have done so in 1973.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0014)

“Nominally independent, Judah was actually in bondage to Rome, and the land was formally annexed in 6 B.C. as part of the province of Syria Palestina.”

I didn't say no to Yang's question, nor did I say yes, because Yang's question involved saying as fact that Syria is training terrorists. I'm not sure what to believe, which is why I said I didn't know who to believe in my answer....

Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"If Syria is training terrorists"

You don't even know if Syria is training terrorists, and you admit it.

what is your point?

I would think you would find it refreshing that someone on this board admits what they do not know.

BTW, I don't know how many people you talk to but I was answering the question as a hypothetical. "IF this happened THEN this is acceptable"

An example "IF someone posts something stupid I will tell them so" doesn't mean I don't know if the post is stupid.

if you hadn't had made this comment beforehand:

"Are you disputing the fact that Syrai has terror camps or is that not an issue for you?"

You said that it was a "fact" that Syria has terror camps. Now, you're admitting that you don't know for certain.

is that you try very hard to reas things in my posts that aren't there.

I explained my wording, I have a pretty good idea I know what I meant by it more than you do.

Is it a problem for you that Syria has terror camps?

If it was PROVEN that Syria had training camps.

The problem with your "knowing" that something is "true" is that there is no evidence to back it up.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=411

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/Newsdesk.nsf/0/675E1458A9D6576142256DAD002E47FA?OpenDocument

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/960725.html

http://www.clao.com/we5.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3080478,00.html
Sudan has a history of giving refuge to Islamic extremists. Saudi-born Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan for several years until 1996, when he left for Afghanistan. Egypt and the United States accused Sudan of sheltering terrorists in the 1990s, but in recent years Khartoum has attempted to distance itself from militants and improve ties.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0305_s1.htm

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt091802.htm

http://www.meta-religion.com/Hate_Groups/Islamic_extremism/syrian_support_for_terrorism.htm

http://www.turkey.org/news/e070996.htm

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_redirect/0,10987,1101861103-143648,00.html

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/sierra/syria1970b.htm


There have to be at least a couple of sorces there that you trust. There are US, Turkish, Lebanese and British charges of Syrian terror in the links I provided you.

I'm running short on time now. Keep in mind though that past problems don't equal present day problems. Just had to say that. I'll get back to this later.

I'll read the rest later.

Some of them don't come up with much.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/960725.html

“I should also reiterate that we have no evidence of direct Syrian involvement in terrorist acts since 1986, in contrast to some other states designated as sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Iraq, and Libya.”

While they claim to have evidence for Iran, Iraq, and Libya supposedly supporting terrorism, they admit to not having evidence against Syria.

http://www.clao.com/we5.html

Most of the stuff here is talking about what Syria does to Lebanon. If Lebanon wanted to go after Syria, then I would say “Go for it”. However, Israel is not Syria.

From the link:
“April 20, 1983: The media in Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the United States revealed that the Islamic Jihad organization, that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut, is nothing but a front for the Syrian intelligence services.”

I’m uncertain if that’s true, but it is interesting. Even so, this happened twenty years ago. This article only goes up to 1990. It’s been thirteen years.

IF the ME Bulletin is reliable (which it may not be), then you might have a point. I still don't think that bombing them is the best idea though. The truth is that there are reasons that Israel has been getting attacked. It's called their oppressive treatment of the Palestinians. If that stops, then most to all terrorism will stop (not that I'm excusing terrorism).

the Arabs in the area have been killing the Jews in the area long before there was any "oppressive treatment".

Terror is not linked to the occupoation. It predates the occupation.

What's weird is you know this.

By the way, do you think the woman who alleges Kobe raped her deserves it? Did she treat him badly in some way?

Saudi Arabia paid for a monstrous terror attack on the US and we have propped that sorry state up for years. Terror is not rational and does not happen for rational reasons.


What did blacks do to the Klan to deserve all those lynchigs?

"the Arabs in the area have been killing the Jews in the area long before there was any "oppressive treatment"."

And I condemn that just as much as anything that Israel has done. However, the Arabs are not the only ones who have oppressed Jews in the last 2,000 years. Would it be okay if Jews went to modern Europe, ran the Europeans out, ran over their houses, put them under curfews, and also murder people who broke the curfews? I notice that the European countries that get accused of funding terrorism aren't being targeted by Israel like Syria and Lebanon has been. Is it because none of Europe is part of Judea?

"Terror is not linked to the occupoation. It predates the occupation.

What's weird is you know this."

There were individual acts of oppression against the Jews for centuries on all parts of the globes (excluding the Americas). However, it was not very organized, and nobody was desperate enough to actually kill themselves to kill the Jews. The Jews were not doing anything back then to provoke an attack. They were not depriving Arabs of their homes, work opportunities, or clean water. Now, some Jews in the area (who call themselves the Israeli government and the IDF) are doing things to provoke attacks. As a result, Arabs are so desperate that they're actually willing to kill themselves to kill the Israelis to "liberate" themselves. Are many of them anti-semitic? Yes. Is this the same type of violence that was going on before the occupation? Heck no. This is more intense. This is actually provoked (not justified, but provoked) violence. I want to further point out that most Arab Israelis are not terrorists. If this is all about hating the Jews, then how do you explain that? My explanation is that people who are given rights as citizens are far less likely to terrorize.

"By the way, do you think the woman who alleges Kobe raped her deserves it? Did she treat him badly in some way?"

Do you beat your wife? That's the type of question that I feel that you're asking me. No, of course a woman does not deserve to be raped. Not only is rape disgusting, but it's not in any way any type of self-defense.

"Saudi Arabia paid for a monstrous terror attack on the US and we have propped that sorry state up for years."

Have you ever wondered why? Could it be because we already have Saudi Arabia in our pocket and need a "war on terror" to get more contries under our control like Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Terror is not rational and does not happen for rational reasons."

I disagree with that. Is terrorism wrong? Yes. Is it justified? No. Should it be punished? Yes. Is it rational many times? YES. Violence of any kind (including terrorist violence) has played a role in liberation movements for a long time. Don't just look at Israel/Palestinians on this subject. Look at other subjects too.

"What did blacks do to the Klan to deserve all those lynchigs?"

Nothing. However, I want to bring up that some black people have not killed "just the Klan" for their liberty. If you study history, you will find that some black people actually did kill civilian whites because they blamed all of them for their lack of freedom (like in riots). Whites were not the only ones that could get it either. Harriet Tubman, of the underground railroad would threaten to kill anybody wanting to get off of her train because it put them all at risk of loosing their liberty. You can read about it here.

http://americancivilwar.com/women/harriet_tubman.html

"If anyone ever wanted to change his or her mind during the journey to freedom and return, Tubman pulled out a gun and said, "You'll be free or die a slave!" Tubman knew that if anyone turned back, it would put her and the other escaping slaves in danger of discovery, capture or even death."

Here's a link on the contraversal Malcolm X.

http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/malcolm.html

Here's a link on the contraversal Black Panthers.

http://nasw.org/users/Katwong/blackpanthers.htm

"In the '60s, the Panthers ran free breakfast programs to feed poor city children before the government did, offered testing for sickle cell anemia, a hereditary disease that predominantly affects blacks, and ran low-cost health clinics. But they also advocated the use of armed resistance to fuel a revolution against what they saw as white oppression and capitalism."

Anyway, you can look up liberation movements + violence on the internet if you like. You can get more information on this subject. The truth is that violence is a common tactic in liberation movements, and the liberation for black people has not been an exception. The reasoning behind violence in a liberation movement and when it should be used is not a black/white issue. It's much more complexed most of the time.

and those are pretty much my sentiments as well.

I was actually afraid that some of it might be taken the wrong way.

I demand evidence that particularly Syria is helping out terrorists.

That's why I think that the UN or somebody has to stop The United States and Israel. It's because they bombing and killing all the civilians that they want to for land and oil, while using unproven claims that terrorists are in a certain area to excuse doing it.

It seems like all the US and Israel have to do is scream out terrorism, and they don't even need to prove it! All they have to do is say it, and it somehow justifies the constant killing in countries of mostly non-white people.

It has to be stopped!

Apparently they need just a bit more instability in the region.

I would watch US troop movements on the Iran-Iraq border very carefully in the coming days and weeks.

And they could decide to divide the Israeli forces, leave some to occupy Syria and order others into Iran, or they could suprise us all and deploy the Israeli forces to KSA, especially if the Turkish troops are able to wipe out the Kurds quickly enough to be able to be spread out a little more in Iraq.

the Oompaloompas will attack from the CORE OF THE EARTH and disrupt everything!

more bombing, more chaos, more Israeli cooperation with Cheney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=150148

This doesn't seem to be an isolated incident - it could get far worse.

The murder of innocent people or your condemnation of self-defense?

This is bombing a sovereign country and inciting violence. All this on evidence that i have my doubts about.

This isn't self-defense; it accomplishes absolutely nothing towards Israel's defense. All it does is strain relations and cause more violence.

Israel has a right to self defense. Syria has been supporting terror for decades. It's about time it was reminded that is a bad thing.

This is clearly an act of Israeli aggression. Not only will it do nothing to stop terror, but it could start another wave of violence in the Middle East.

you say " Israel has been inflicting terror on
the Palestinians"??

now i know how ad-jameson felt.

I'm physically dizzy.

n/t

This is like if Canada were training terrorists against the US.

aggression based on doubtful evidence.

you have no idea about what the evidence was.

Secondly, Syria and Israel are at war amd Syria DOES train terrorists. There is no question of that. So does Iran and Saudi Arabia. Those are as close to facts as can be found.

Thirdly, Iraq posed no threat to the US or its interests. To say that Syria poses no threat to Israel is rediculous on its face. They are neighbors who are at war. Syria has a client state that stages attacks on Israel often.

Whether it is wise to raid a base in Syrian territory is another matter but the attack is nothing like the US attack on Iraq.

only further proves my point. The only evidence that this was a terrorist camp was that the IDf said so.

Secondly, Syria and Israel are at war amd Syria DOES train terrorists. There is no question of that. So does Iran and Saudi Arabia. Those are as close to facts as can be found.

Those "facts" are manufactured lies, unsupported by any real evidence. The truth is that every one of those regimes gives moeny to terrorists, and supplies equipment to them, but trains them? No, I really don't think so.

You just don't like Israel or the IDF. That isn't proof, it's bias.

Excellent argument, Mr. Road! :toast:

:eyes:

Decades of proof make me vote with Israel on this one.

n/t

nt

they fought against the Israeli occupation in Lebanon. That's legitimate amred resistance, not terrorism.

Huh?

between you and others about anti-aircraft mortars that land in Israel. It seems reasonable to me.

and the criteria I noted in that other thread would apply still to this restated question..

and what, specifically?

driven from their homes in the west bank...

The insanity of PNAC and the ultra-Zionists in Israel, and their sycophants in America, playing the Armageddon card.

The last thing the world needs is a Syria-Israel conflict. It would immediate bring other Arab nations into the conflagration and no one, and I mean no one, will be able to stop this war.

May I remind you that Syria has a very tough army that was able to stop the IDF when they were trying to reach Damascus during the Yom Kippur war. May I also remind you that Syria does have WMDs and the missiles to deliver them.

And then there is Russia.

Bush better start acting like his Democratic predecessor before the superpowers are dragged into this conflict and we start seeing Russian missiles heading our way.

We don't need a second Yom Kippur war!

May I remind you that Syria has a very tough army that was able to stop the IDF when they were trying to reach Damascus during the Yom Kippur war.

The Israelis turned back themselves, not becuase of resistance, but because they wanted to avoid overextending themselves.

The rest is rather pessimistic speculation. I admit that it's possible, but I think it is rather unlikely.

But this action is wrong and likely to trigger further violence and conflict, there we agree.

Indy is a one-hit wonder.

I cannot think of one time Indy has ever followed
up on a post.

I've had a discussion with her before.

Plus IG answers questions!

Violet...

please answer Yang's question.

Violet answered all of them already, it appears.

Maybe rini's looking at a different thread or something? Who knows...


Violet...

do you or do you not agree that Syria sponsers Islamic Jihad training camps? BTW, what kind of bike (motorcycle) do you ride?

n/t

From Violet's post above:

"The IDF are liars and murderers and same goes for Islamic Jihad, so who knows?"

She said that Islamic Jihad were murderers. That showed her disapproval of their actions.

"Do you think Syria training terrorists is a good thing?"

It was the second paragraph of my post....


Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not aware that I make vile comments, don. I know I've asked you quite a few questions that you never bother answering and then you almost immediately appear haranguing others about supposedly not answering yrs...

Nah, not into putting anyone on iggy. Plus I find you highly entertaining even if you still haven't reached the dizzying heights of our Jim Sagle :)

Violet...

lets deal with this like adults.....

we have a long history of nasty comments to one
another.

so put me on your ignore list....and i'll do the
same to keep it even.

This history is something I'm not aware of. I don't make nasty comments to you (unless you think disagreeing with yr stance is making nasty comments), and the last nasty comment you made to me up till now was concerning my nationality, and I've forgiven you for that...

So if you want to deal with things like an adult, my suggestion is to try to discuss the issues like an adult, accept that not everyone agrees with yr views, and accept what I said about not putting anyone on iggy....

Violet...

I tried.
eom

Okay, if you don't want to act like an adult and discuss the issues in a civilised way instead of wasting yr time trying to smear me, that's yr problem to deal with, not mine....

Violet...

I tried.

The thing is you haven't tried to do anything apart from falsely accusing me of being vile, etc...


Violet...

3 times ive wanted to drop this and you just want to
take shots.

violet....drop it before this gets out of hand.

thank you.

Taking shots? Yr the one who called me vile, not the other way round, don. Somehow I think I'm safe in saying this won't get out of hand :)


Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Aside from you, of course?

One of the reasons I know a lot about the subject is that I have been challenged by intelligent people on this board and forced to do research.

I actually seek information to form opinions as oppossed to the opposite.

but Violet didn't know that Israel is at war with Syria and that shows a lack of knowledge that is egregious.

isn't really true; it's officially true, but politically it's more of a state of no agreements. No active combat has taken place between Israelis and Syrians for a few years now, and that speaks for itself somewhat.

That's why I believe that when Muddle says that Israel's technically still at war with Syria, he's much more accurate than Yang claiming that Israel and Syria are at war. This technical state of war still exists only because there hasn't been a peace agreement between them...


Violet...

you have been very lockstep on this issue on DU anyways.

:hi:

peace

All your post shows is that you don't read my posts.

haven't changed a bit :hi:

peace

kettle meet pot

;->

peace

Surely I'm more vile than Darranar (who is actually quite nice; maybe tries too hard to seem fair, but far from "vile")..

At any rate, it is amusing to me to see the guy who routinely spits out some assortment of abusive and demonizing terms then turn around and talk about somebody else being "vile"..

i learn alot from you.

And I found it amusing for the same reason as you did. Another reason why putting people on ignore detracts from the fun of reading these forums. I would have missed out on that little gem if I'd been an ignore-freak ;)

Vile-let...

and that goes for all forums. Just because somebody wants to make you an "ignore freak" doesn't mean that you (generic you) always want to play along (although ignoring can be done 99% of the time). Being an "ignore freak" ends up being nothing more than a pain in the ass after a while. Just thought I would say that.

That's a truly vile comment! On to ignore, you little... :D

Actually, I agree with you - even about myself.

and I used to be more like you. However, I'm just getting too mad about the situation lately.

they also had the entire Egyptian 3rd Army encircled....


Fifty miles from Cairo....


Fifty miles from Damascus.....

Syria refused to rid itself of these thugs and
its state sponsored terrorism.

Interesting. I didn't think you were aware of the concept of state sponsored terrorism....

Anyway, enough thinking! Let's jump on that neo-con bandwagon and type in UPPERCASE on our way to victory! Yee haw!!

Violet...

Are you comfortable with Iran haveing Nukes?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you comfortable with Iran having nukes?

r u comfortable with Israel having nukes?

I am not.

:hi:

peace

Are you comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons.

I don't quite understand why you are uncomfortable with that question. Perhaps it is soomething you haven't given much thought.

No, I'm not comfortable with Iran having nucclear weapons. I'm not comfortable with anyone anywhere having nuclear weaponry of any sort. But I don't see a method to avoid it short of wasteful and very risky intervention.

the risk of almost anything is smaller than Iran having nukes.

if someone could destroy Iran's nuclear capability in a single conventional airstrike, or even a series of them, I would not object. However, the fact is that it is impossible.

that is how Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability which was being built by the US at the time.

Any benefit the reactor might have had for Iraq was long reaped before the airstrike was carried out.

the greater the reward to countermand the risk with a nuclear deterance.

peace

Iran as a nuclear deterrent to Israel. Cute.

If you aren't going to be serious in this debate then at least be funny.

not funny.

peace

just odd

Why do you sign out with "peace" it is like O'Reilly saying no spin zone. Your posts are combative not peaceful.

I've made my opinions clear about what I think of ANY country having nukes in several threads that were about nukes. Go read and learn :)


Violet...

for more choas, death, destruction, violence, unrest, and stupidity?

What do you think about it? Do you think it could escalate into something much bigger or it'll end up being an isolated incident that'll be forgotten this time next week?

Violet...

I think that this could be a first in a series of operations, in which case it could get very ugly. Israel's statements about this seem to idnicate that, but they could be unimportant rhetoric trying to equate this with the US's "war on terrorism."

maybe I'm underestimating them (indeed, something rarely done--Israel is usually assumed to have superpowers by both supporters and detractors), but I don't think they have the ability to actually provoke a direct war unless they want at least 2 Arab countries and Iran on their plate in direct and open conflict (now is not that status, regardless of what is claimed), in addition to what would probably be an even more active situation in the OPT.. :shrug:

What one will say in a moment of bluster and what one actually has the ability to back up are often two entirely different things. I'm sure the Israeli politicians and media bosses would like to play the invading game again, maybe even talk about it, but with their economy weakened from just the al-Aqsa intifada and bad/rightwing (redundant, I know..) policies in general, I can't see them having the actual ability to sustain a larger war (which, if started, would not be any limited engagement, perhaps pushing closer the inevitable ripple effect that the invasion of Iraq unfortunately didn't).

but I was thinking more in the terms of an air war over the skies of Syria. That seems to be a more likely event to me than a ground invasion, and Syrian resistance would be slight and easily dealt with.

Aren't they pretty light-on in all areas? If anything else were to happen, I suspect it'd just be more bombing of what Israel claims are terrorist bases...

Violet...

but if there's one thing that Israel is really good at, it's an air war. Israel's pilots and airplanes and among the best in the world. Their airforce is truly top-notch, the only country in the reigon that could defeat it is the US.

Syria's airforce did very badly last war. I doubt that it's been improved much; it is probably safe to assume that israel will win any air battle easily.

I mean, if they were, Israel wouldn't have attacked. Maybe I'm under-reacting but all that I think will happen out of this is Syria will take the incident to the Security Council, and from there the US will veto it. I think there's little to zero chance Syria will respond militarily...


Violet...

but if this is the first of a series of airstrikes, Syria will at the very least attempt to shoot down a few Israeli planes.

The last time Israel and Syria had a major air combat, Syria's air force was decimated.

That was the Lebanon war.

And Syria lost numerous planes in a two-day battle. I think it was 1981 in the Bekaa Valley. The Syrias lost over 80 planes. Israel lost none.

it was something of a sneak attack. The Maronite Gemayal staged a trap against an area where there was a few Syrian SAM batteries, egged Israel on to attack it by air; the Syrians scrambled their jets in a rush just to try and save the SAM base, but weren't successful because it wasn't something they were actually ready for. A reckless mistake on their part, and a mistake they've probably learned a lot from.

Why not also mention Israel beating the Egyptian air force in '67? that's a real intense dogfight to be proud of too..

Selective preemption is a palatable idea to some people, as long as the aggressor flies the right flag.

The Syrians deliberately didn't scramble their planes because they thought the SAMs would wipe out the Israeli aircraft. When they didn't, the Syrians scrambled their aircraft.

You have to admit, no matter what the circumstances were, 82-0 is quite a defeat for the Syrians.

Though with that there is also the harm of arrogance and resting on a purely lucky break in place of expecting a more conventional situation, to say nothing of the "moral" question of aggression. :shrug:

Should never be taken for granted. However, that victory was more than a lucky break.

Ultimately, as they say in the stock world, prior performance is not indicative of future success. But track records are important.

It's hard to have aggression against a nation with whom you are still at war. And yes, that works both ways.

no one has launched a nuke or 2 yet... though i know where you would stand on the issue... as long as one of the 'good guys' did it that is ;->

peace

I'd alert on it.

No you clearly DON'T know where I stand.

I would love a peaceful settlement here. However, the endless stream of Palestinian terror groups prevent that. So do their paymasters in Syria and Saudi Arabia.

the settlements, Bush, the settlements, Ariel Sharon, the settlements, Israeli terrorists, and, finally, the settlements.

If the go away, the terror that aims to destroy Israel will remain.

The settlements are a smokescreen until such time as they are gone. Then the terror gangs will ask for something else.

peace

That's junk.

The settlements stregthen the environmental factors that lead to terrorism.

When do you think terror attacks against Jews in the Middle East began?

When do you think the Occupation began?

When do you think settlemnents began?

When do you think aggrassive settlement building began?

Do you know when the PLO was founded?

Answer those questions truthfully and then honestly attempt to convince me that settlement activity is the cause of terrorism.

If, after honestly answering those question, you still think it is all about the settlments then answer this, What did the people of Oklahoma City do to provoke Timothy McVeigh.

The settlements can be wrong and still not be an excuse to kill civilians in a another nation.

1. As the very first settlments in the land began, in the 1890s, Arab attacks began.

2. The occupation began in 1967, after Israel took the West Bank and Gaza.

3. The settlements (in the OT) began in the early 1970s, partially because of the realization that if Israel withdrew a Palestinian state would be created and Jordan would not retake the land.

4. Not sure what you mean.

5. In 1964.

The cause of suicide bombings has been the settlements and the occupation. Terrorism against Israel itself is due to a number of other factors along with that.

Israel's atrocities do not excuse Palestinian atrocities. If I implied that, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. That they result in Palestinian terrorism, though, cannot be denied.

What Timothy McVeigh did was a result of a sort of fundamentalist, grass-roots conservatism (not neo-conservatism.) I will discuss with you the reasons for that if you wish, but I think taht for now we should stay on topic.

Why is it that during the periods of hope for peace, suicide bombings and terrorism decrease?

are playing a dangerous game. I keep stuffing myself with tiramisu.

what is tiramisu? And if it helps, where can I get some?

It will cure quite a bit of what ails you. Try this:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,,FOOD_9936_22180,00.html

thanks Cassandra.

I've been looking for a good recipe.

That's the US's job! How dare anybody try to share it with us?

seem to be practising state terrorism. Must be the "in" thing.

What is the specific status of Israel's army? By that, I mean percentage tied up in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT), percentage required for general/basic defense (the real kind of defense within their actual borders, not the "defense" of invading other people), and what they actually have that could be used in any invasion should events arrange themselves that way.

I don't think they're in any position to escalate this to the level the doom'n'gloomers in the LBN thread suggest (or to what their own government propagandists would like), but I'm willing to be corrected. It was wisely suggested here not too long ago that such is perhaps one reason for the wall:--freeing up the army units based in the OPT, perhaps for use elsewhere.

but I think that a lot of Israel's arsenal isn't tied up anywhere.

The ground forces are mainly in the WB and Gaza, but the reserves can still be called to active duty if need be. Israel's air forces aren't tied up anywhere at all, except for the occasional strike on Lebanon or extra-judicial assasination. I think that alot of Israel's weapons are best in an ordinary, conventional war against a non-guerilla based army, and those weapons aren't being used extensively in the West Bank and Gaza.

The most Israel can do for now, IMO, is bombard from the air and from the ground (from artillery.)

Israel has to worry. The US will help.

Whatever troops are left in Israel proper will be deployed to protect nuclear and conventional material facilities.

This would be a good time for civilians in Israel who have the resources to do so to consider their options in terms of what will be safer for their families.

as Mike Tyson and Woody Allen....

Seriously. You can't get the accurate figures.

Speculation is that at least NIS 2billion is spent specifically in the OT. About a quarter of the reservists are rotated or used in the OT at any one time as well.

I don't think occupying the OT is a great military drain on Israel. Maybe in terms of training, man power etc, but Israel is so massively powerful anyway it doesn't make much difference.

I don't think Israel would have much trouble "rolling back" Syria if it wanted to.

Elsewhere, I personally don't think it could take on Iran without help, and Lebanon would be tough nut to crack (i.e. occupy for a period of time. Attacking it would be easy).

then you see their form. When they are excited
but you are calm, then you neutralize their strength.

the best thing the arabs can do now is calmy watch the U.S. and ISRAEL slowly bleed to death in their sands as they welcome them in.

peace

The time is past for tolerating these homicide bombers.


Kill them now before they can harm the innocent.

There should be no safe haven for terrorists.