Blogcritics: Comments on Thank you, Israel

Comment by Shark

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:16:08 EST

Lomu: ...Cliques insulting one person or one person insulting another person continuously. Followed by an insult from Lohu? I might not be funny, but at least I understand the meaning of IRONY.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:13:01 EST

You lead a sad life Shark. There is an underlying insecurity in someone who tries too hard to be witty. You are hiding something terrible. I have an idea of what your trauma is. True, but I just LOVE the attention you give me! Now I'm wondering: Can you also prescribe drugs? Or is the couch trip the best you can do?

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:25:22 EST

I wish you could all step outside and see how you all come across. Well, let's step outside you punk ass bitch, it will give me an apportunity to remote target your position. What? too lazy to drag your ass out to the parking lot? I thought so.

Comment by Lomu

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:26:50 EST

You lead a sad life Shark. There is an underlying insecurity in someone who tries too hard to be witty. You are hiding something terrible. I have an idea of what your trauma is. I will not say it because I do not want to get into the syndrome on this site. Cliques insulting one person or one person insulting another person continuously. I wish you could all step outside and see how you all come across.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:40:51 EST

Lomu, I'll answer that after you reach your two drink minimum.

Comment by Lomu

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:34:34 EST

Thank you to Rich Lyon, Al Barger, Sandra Smallson and Shark who practiced his failed stand up comic routine. Do you ever have a point?

Comment by Shark

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:46:33 EST

Once again, I have the uncomfortable task of admitting (in public, no less) that I've: 1) altered my perceptions 2) altered my opinions 3) changed sides in a debate 4) been intellectually smacked down by someone of greater intelligence 5) made to feel like an ass 6) LEARNED SOMETHING I know this admission is a rare event in cyberspace, but I like to think I'm smart enough to know when I'm wrong -- or when it's time to remain silent and listen to someone else. I've been reading this didactic for the last few days and would like to thank those who participated, with SPECIAL THANKS TO RICH LYON. (Note to Sandra: while I admire your fiestyness, you do realize that reading your writing in this one thread is equivalent to reading Gibbons' entire History of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire? It's an admirable trait -- if you're getting paid by the word. I can't overstate by belief in the inherent beauty of Brevity.)

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:53:19 EST

So, let me get this straight (in between an email to my MP to close the border to amost all 'murricans, unless they are willing to be strip-searched and are carry nothing but large amounts of cash, got to keep the global sociopaths in their own asylum). It isn't his track record which you object to, but that Col. Kurtz's methods have become unsound? I'm sure Archbishop Romero will say a prayer for you Al.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:27:31 EST

"It takes a bigot no paragraphs to find out a black man is 90% similar to a stupid person. That is invariably a measure of the bigot." Indeed! That's why the bigot is a bigot and I am Sandra Smallson. Atleast if he/she took 4 paras, but ZERO?..Shame! Can't respond to some of your responses:) We would just continue going round in circles. We do disagree and I too have enjoyed the discovery of that fact. Thank you? It's been a pleasure.

Comment by Rich Lyon

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:33:50 EST

Sandra: thank you for another thought provoking response. I assumed that your view was the non-violent way of solving this problem which is my father's view. You believe there is only one non-violent way of solving this problem? I can think of about 15. I'm intrigued as to whether print that contains references to domination of the WTO, economic protectionism, cultural hegemony, oil based geopolitics, and the industrial-military society amongst others can properly be considered "tiny". But on the bright side, your dad is beginning to sound like a great guy. Again, I dont see why your being a pilot is relevant in this case. And, again, it's not. My direct experience of terrorism as evidence that this is more than a theoretical discussion for me, for which being a pilot happened to be the conduit, is. Shall we move on? If I was one of those sensitive chics I might think you are patronising me the way men often do to women Well, thank goodness, then, that you are not. Having the totality of my thoughts rendered down to the behaviour of an oversimplified stereotype twice in one thread would probably have unmanned me. Do I think it's justice that the man who orchestrated several murders has been blown apart along with his wheel chair? Absofreakinglutely! Two people who were with him at the time were also killed. Was that justice? Children in a housing complex that was blown up last year by the Israelis were killed. Was that justice? Some people who were killed in a car a few months ago were ... get this ... the wrong people. Right car, but wrong people in it. Was that justice? That because the more they are attacked, the more of them we get, they should not be attacked at all? What were you? A war pilot? Conventional warfare achieves its objectives by one side inflicting sufficient damage on the other such that the other either runs out of resource or resolve. In conventional warfare, the more you attack, the greater your chance of prevailing. In this unconventional war, our side can run out of both resource and resolve (there are only so many World Trade centers and national power grid nodes, and so much public stomach for a fight). The other side can run out of neither resource (doesn't need much) nor resolve (they go to heaven). The more you attack, the lower your chance of prevailing. This is the essence of the "asymmetric war". I'm happy for others to judge our relative naivity. The balance the Israeli's must strike is whether they are willing to live in constant fear and do nothing, or whether they can defend themselves and try and kill as many of these terrorists as they can You certainly enjoy your simplifications. Other choices Israeli's have include (amongst others): handing back the land they annexed to the folks that used to be in the majority; stop building illegal fences; stop incurring world condemnation of their lawless behaviour; and complying with the rulings of the United Nations. May I point out that you may have been brainwashed yourself if you think all these terrorists want to die. Since it took only 7 to destroy the World trade centers, in what way do you think it matters whether some, most or all of the terrorists want to die? The issue of public support never crossed my mind. Quite. What war has ever had public support. Eh? (You do live in a Democracy, don't you?) it did take me only 4 paragraphs to find that your opinion is 90% similar to that of my father. It takes a bigot no paragraphs to find out a black man is 90% similar to a stupid person. That is invariably a measure of the bigot. We disagree, but I enjoyed the discovery of the fact. Thank you.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:58:43 EST

I am not in the business of blaming the more powerful person, business or country. Like I said, the issue of who owns the Land is not sold on me. It's all history we have to go on. Whichever way we think, neither of us was alive then so I can't be accused of believing what the "powerful" ones have written in history. Am I supposed to assume that because you believe otherwise, your view is more authentic? Were you there? No. I do not want you to tell any of the women anything. These women are the innocent victims of this war. The men, women and children trying to go about their lives are the innocent victims of this war. 60% of Israeli's supported the killing. 80% of Israeli's knew they would suffer further attacks. The woman who may lose her children because yassin was killed, may have lost them anyway because the Palestininas were not going to stop attacking israel. yassin or no yassin. The greatest source of disbelief for me is how naive you are. What are you suggesting? That because the more they are attacked, the more of them we get, they should not be attacked at all? Goodness gracious! What were you? A war pilot? I should hope if thats what you were, with such strongly held beliefs you must have tendered your resignation by now. There are always consequences for almost everything we do in life. The balance the Israeli's must strike is whether they are willing to live in constant fear and do nothing, or whether they can defend themselves and try and kill as many of these terrorists as they can, still living in constant fear but atleast letting the terrorists know, that they are not going to sit by and be killed. I don't know that you or I who wake up in relative peace each day are in any position to tell them how to strike that balance. May I point out that you may have been brainwashed yourself if you think all these terrorists want to die. LOL. You notice that they send the illiterates. The ones who are fairly educated are always the leaders. If Osama wanted to die he would have flown the plane himself. He would not be running from cave to cave. If Yassin wanted to die he would never have allowed himself to be imprisoned by the Israeli's all those years ago. He would have taken his own life than be at the mercy of the Zionists. it's a shame some of you in this world can easily be decieved. They caught Sadaam and he was a wimp. Who woulda thunk it? They force these people to kill themselves. They pick the fools amongst them. They DONT want to die Mr Lyon. Nobody wants to die. So, please dont be misled. Talk of failure to grasp aspects of ones post. I never boasted of public support. I boasted of the arsenal of weapons the Israeli's have in comparison to the Palestinians. Or the Americans in comparison to the Palestinians. The issue of public support never crossed my mind. What war has ever had public support. If we were waiting for public support Hitler, Mussolini, etc would have ruled far longer than they did. Well, Rich, if you are not suggesting a diplomatic resolution to the problem. What on earth are you suggesting? In two posts you are yet to say. You simply go on this self righteous march. What is it you are suggesting? Oh? Your problem is the assasination? You would have preferred for him to be sentenced to death in a Court of Law? Again, I am shocked at the extent of your naivety. Just picture yassin being caught and jailed while he awaits trial. Or Osama? Just imagine the Islamic fundamentalists at that point? It would be a circus. Just imagine the trial. These sorts of people would use the trial as adverts. Look, its a no win situation. Kill them, they will be made out as martyrs. Jail them and carry out a circus of a trial they will be made out as living prophets. We will just have to agree to disagree on this and at the end of it all I come to find that it did take me only 4 paragraphs to find that your opinion is 90% similar to that of my father.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:58:02 EST

I assumed that your view was the non-violent way of solving this problem which is my father's view. I was not aware that yours was different. Ofcourse, there might be differences in the tiny print of both your views but it still boils down to the fact that, tit for tat is not the way forward. If you have a different road map to those that advocate the same end as you do, it's not clear from your post. Please, remain gently amused, I would hate for you to become hysterically amused. Again, I dont see why your being a pilot is relevant in this case. You've been shot at by the enemy? And? I'm glad you survived but thats about it. It may give you a better perspective on ground but it clearly does not mean that your opinion on how the problem should be resolved is better than mine or anyone of us who haven't thankfully been shot at by terrorists. Wake up and smell the nescafe is a phrase, Mr Lyon. It should not be taken as literally as u have taken it. It does not necessarily mean you are sleepy. I am simply saying that thinking this problem can be resolved in the way you are advocating is unrealistic. That's my opinion. It's not about grasping anything in your post. Whatever I did not grasp I clearly felt was not worth grasping. Your ability to fly planes and obviously very well since u escaped the gun shots has no relevance in this matter. Rich Lyon : "Really? That is very sad. Would you characterise that as an emotional response, or one that you feel you have fully thought through? Why not read up on the meaning of the word "retaliate" and reflect on the difference between that and the meaning of "justice"? Do you feel a society that "returns evil for evil" is something you want your children to be part of?" Sandra: Oh bring out the violins! Ofcourse I don't want my children to live in a world that returns evil for evil. I don't want to live in such a world but I do and I don't want to die:) Not yet. An emotional response? If I was one of those sensitive chics I might think you are patronising me the way men often do to women when they try to say anything. At times like that, I like to think it says more about the man than the woman, so it never bothers me. I don't need to check up the word retaliate. I am aware of what it means. Plus, you need to stop listening to those violins. Justice, you say? Incase you dont know, justice in matters such as these is never clear cut. It has no set boundaries. Do I think it's justice that the man who orchestrated several murders has been blown apart along with his wheel chair? Absofreakinglutely! Would it have been better to arrest him and take him through the "right" channels? I don't know. It certainly would have pleased a lot from your school of thought. It may well have been justice too. I think it's justice he was killed. The Israeli's are defending themselves. Self Defence is part of the Law. If you want to throw in Justice you need to specify. Legal Justice or Moral Justice? The Israeli's have grounds on both forms.

Comment by bern

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:39:42 EST

Preserve your live as you can, defend yourself where you can, use deadly force to defend yourself when necessary. I didn't say that you should sit on your hands and let people kill you. I stated that these kinds of assinations only serve to invoke more violence from the other side which you can then retaliate some more. The question isn't who started it, the question is who will stop it. "Morality and ethics are based on a basic goal of enabling and furthering life." Is that a fact, an assumption or an opinion? Whose lives are saved by the death of Yassin?

Comment by JR

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:22:36 EST

Careful Al, don't get too much spittle on your keyboard.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:13:57 EST

Natalie, you are committing pure evil wickedness with this totally untrue suggestion of moral equivalence in #55: "I pray the terrorists of the Sharon government and the terrorists of Hamas and the terrorists of the Sharon-supporting Bush administration..." Shame on you. On the other hand, you say "advocates of a violent resolution have no reasonable, humane, or moral solution to this problem." True enough. I just wish you'd get that idea through to the Palestinians and Islamofascist dirtbags in general who not just advocate but insist on violence. They leave peace loving people like Ariel Sharon no choice but violence. You scream blue bloody murder that you live under great intolerable oppression because the US government does not specifically recognize homosexual marriage, yet you seem to expect the Israelis to just sit back and accept being massacred without doing anything to stop it. I haven't seen any statistics or such, but some percentage of these murdered Israelis must be gay. I would think that being blown to hell would constitute a far more offensive oppression than simply not issuing you a marriage license. Seems like you'd be more offended at that, more set on seeing that stopped. And when Palestinians are KILLING you with bullets and bombs, at that point holding hands and singing Kum-Bi-Yah and complaining about Dubya does NOT constitute doing anything. On the other hand, being for "peace" and denouncing Bush as a "terrorist" might give you a nice warm glow of (faux) moral superiority. And Bern, this is a BIG load of nonsense: "A solution, in my mind, first entails unilaterally ending violence." Yeah, that'll work. Fine- feel free to just stand there and let jackasses KILL you and your family. Out of the gene pool with you. Morality and ethics are based on a basic goal of enabling and furthering life. Any supposed morality that says you don't have the right to do whatever you have to do to preserve your life and your family's lives is nothing but crap.

Comment by Rich Lyon

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:02:31 EST

Sandra Smallson: it was not meant as a personal insult. I said people with your point of view. My father has your point of view I'm not in the least insulted. I am, rather, gently amused at the certainty with which you believe you've been able to determine my "point of view" from 4 paragraphs sufficiently well enough to declare them to be like your father's. However certain you may feel you understand it, I think it is wildly improbably that you actually do. your being a pilot is irrelevant to me. The point that should be relevant to you and evidently isn't is that I have been the direct target of hostile intent. Those who have are not generally described as being "sleepy", so your instruction to me to "wake up" could be evidence that there are other aspects of my argument you have not quite grasped yet, either. I don't see how not retaliating and instead persisting on a diplomatic course shows our civilisation. Really? That is very sad. Would you characterise that as an emotional response, or one that you feel you have fully thought through? Why not read up on the meaning of the word "retaliate" and reflect on the difference between that and the meaning of "justice"? Do you feel a society that "returns evil for evil" is something you want your children to be part of? is it the fact that it is U.S dollars being used that causes you grievance? ... The issue of who rightly owns the land has not been sold on me To paraphrase bern above, history gets written by those with the most money. I believe that the enormous income enjoyed by one side, and the difficulty of the other impoverished side to have its case heard, are fundamentally related. Go and tell the woman whose three children were killed by a suicide bomber just because they were at university, that you think the bombing of the man who orchestrated the killing of all her children is a wasted effort. And what will you have me say to the women who's children will now be killed because of the lawless killing of that man? The IRA ... that is an exception to the rule The rule to which there is no exception is that for every terrorist you kill, at least one takes his place. If there are any contrasts, it is that the Irish had something to lose and feared death whereas these terrorists do not and welcome it. This continued inability to think through the consequences of this which you demonstrate is the single greatest source of disbelief for me. I think you comparing the war against terror to the Vietnam war is a wrong comparison. I wasn't comparing the wars, I was compparing our public's capacity to withstand large body counts. One of the tools you boast of is the strength of public support for an activity that results in a high number of dead americans for a long time. There wasn't any then, even amongst a population a large number of whom had witnessed the 2nd World War. I know of no reason why the soft baby boomer gneration should be stronger. "Let them threaten till Kingdom come" is actually "let them threaten until the implications of a couple of really murderous, undefendable attacks on US infrastructue sinks in on the public". Yet you suggest that the civilised world sends its leaders to have a round table discussion Errm, no, I didn't - perhaps you are mistaking my post for something your father said at the dinner table... advocates of a non-violent resolution have no realistic solution to this problem Actually, I have some realy good ideas for solutions which I'd be delighted to share with you. You surely weren't thinking "don't kill people without due legal process" was the only one, did you?

Comment by bern

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:55:17 EST

If killing terrorists isn't the answer, then what is? What is the best approach? It is much easier to identify the wrong approach as usual. I think that dealing with terror outside of the judicial systems that are in place we are giving up a lot of the values that make the liberal democracy the 'least bad' system of government. It is when we decide to spread murder and mayhem and then call it justice that we are really giving in to terrorism. When we then follow up and explain how a substantial part of the world population deserves the downtrodden situation they find themselves in that I believe we are positively lost. A solution, in my mind, first entails unilaterally ending violence. Don't retaliate, vengeance is a dish served cold anyway. Organized violence can be used for self defence. But defense can never be a preemptive measure, the notion used is that of a 'clear and present danger'. Killing the leader isn't even much of a defense anyway. Leaders will only be replaced by other leaders. An old man in a wheelchair will only be followed by a younger man probably not (yet) in a wheelchair. The killing of Yassin can only be effective in subdueing terror when combined with large scale oppression or the willingness to destroy the larger part of the palestinian people. A river of blood indeed. One would have to look for a dialogue. Don't tell me that you can't talk to terrorists because they are irrational. Or that talking to terrorists equates to giving in to them. In their own worldview terrorists are highly rational and even calculative. Their act gives their families economic support and gives them a right hand seat to God himself. That's rational in my book. Just a different rationality. Start by finding little practical things to agree about. Identify grass root movements towards democracy in the middle east, help those and more importantly don't interfere with them. Take note of developments in Iran, where the a powerfull force towards democracy can be seen. Maybe not a copy of the western liberal model. I would settle for an eastern liberal democracy over theocratical rulers (read mullahs) every time though. It would be a slow process, maybe a seemingly infinite one. But at the very least we would stop falling for the fallacy that our morality need not apply to those that do not wish us well. Let's all join hands and wish them well, whether or not they want to bomb us. Peace to you all (picture me removing the flowers from my hair and getting back into the three piece suit the modern hippy idealist prefers)

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:53:25 EST

Natalie, your post is filled with wonderful sentiments. All of which I am sure a majority of the world would love to embrace. However, it is unrealistic. I dont dispute that the violent solution may appear unreasonable and all those things you say it is BUT I have never offered it up as a "SOLUTION". I have stated it as something that needs to be done. I do not know what the solution is. That is the difference b/w people with my point of view and the pacifists. The pacifists claim to know the solution. Yet, they never offer up any realistic options. I don't know if decapitating Hamas, hezbollah etc will leesen their attacks. I don't know if they are completely wiped out, others will not grow. I don't know. But we damn well better try. Cos all the talking has not worked for decades, will not work, because we are dealing with inhumane people. Just yesterday a 14 yr old was arrested at the checkpoint by Israeli soldiers. He had explosives strapped around him. He had been sent by the militants. He was asked, did he want to die, he said no but the militants sent him and paid him the equivalent of 13 pounds. Is he supposed to use the money in hell? It shows you that these people are illiterates and that is why they are so easily brainwashed. 11 days ago, a 12 yr old was caught in the same situation. These are the people that you suggest taking a diplomatic course..people who are willing to send kids to their deaths, to prove their point, they say..about LAND? I think, if I am one of the people frightening you everyday on this site, then you are easily frightened. If anything this site leaves me worried as I have discovered levels of all the wrong things in far too many people in one place but thats a different story and irrelevant in the braodspan of things. What you should be frightened about, is the prospect that, one day, 9/11 will not be a rare event on U.S soil..you may find yourself living in the everyday danger of terrorist attacks that the Israeli's live in. You simply will not be able to go about your activities and live your life. Maybe then, you will understand why the Israeli's pay no attention to people who live outside the fire telling them to engage in "talks".

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:06:21 EST

Smallson wrote: "At the end of the day, advocates of a non-violent resolution have no realistic solution to this problem." At the end of the day, advocates of a violent resolution have no reasonable, humane, or moral solution to this problem. In fact, they only assure death and destruction. IMO, violence is never the answer -- it is only a continuation of the hideousness that is life as we know it, a hideousness that so many of you prize for some unfathomable reason. This rhetoric comes with no intention of debating anyone; I merely need to speak my, um, peace in the midst of the stomach-turning commentary here by people who frighten me more and more each time I visit here... As always, I pray for peace for the people of Israel and Palestine. And I pray the terrorists of the Sharon government and the terrorists of Hamas and the terrorists of the Sharon-supporting Bush administration -- and those who support any of these terrorists -- will find the good that lurks in the apparently very dark recesses of their souls and stop the madness. War and violence are not -- ever -- the answer. How I worry and fear for those of you who insist that it is and has been. In Germany? In Japan? Maybe your team of terrorists won, but in the long run, the world has gone to hell. Just look around. What a horrible world this is. What a wonderful world I imagine it could be, but only if we... You get the idea. Enough from the broken-hearted pacifist. Carry on.

Comment by Dom

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:40:21 EST

Why shouldn't they overwhelm or exhaust the enemy? Their can be no question as to the persistence otherwise of the terrorist bombers in Israel. The Palestinians will be instantly better off. Presently they only want to overwhelm or exhaust Israel, and everyone would be worse off, or dead.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:17:34 EST

Rich, it was not meant as a personal insult. I said people with your point of view. My father has your point of view so he too would be at this hypothetical dinner table in my opinion. Therefore, I don't need to know who you are and your being a pilot is irrelevant to me. It was not meant as a personal insult so please, do not take it as such. I beg to differ on the point of them stregthening our civilisation by their actions. I don't see how not retaliating and instead persisting on a diplomatic course shows our civilisation. It makes sense to try diplomacy. If it has not worked for more than 30 years, it makes even more sense to try another option. It may not work as well but to insist that one continues knocking ones head against a wall is unrealistic. What makes you think barbarians understand diplomacy? If they did, they would not be barbarians now, would they?! Your next point..is it the fact that it is U.S dollars being used that causes you grievance? Because if it's bombing paraplegics with "remote" weapons, I respectfully submit that, that is no point at all. Go and tell the woman whose three children were killed by a suicide bomber just because they were at university, that you think the bombing of the man who orchestrated the killing of all her children is a wasted effort. It sounds nice taking the high road, but once again, completely unrealistic. The palestinians destroy their own fair share of infrastructure and quite frankly we can go back 400 years if you like. The issue of who rightly owns the land has not been sold on me, so again, we disagree on that point. The IRA is always the grp people who advocate diplomacy jump too when trying to show that theirs is a better way to proceed. What you all fail to note is that, that is an exception to the rule. Moreover, you may be in a better position to comment on this than I am but I think the Islamic fundamentalists are clearly a higher breed of terrorists than the IRA ever were. Ofcourse, a terrorist is a terrorist but I can't imagine that you truly think even if a deal was worked out with hamas(which is highly unlikely because nothing appeases Islamic fundamentalist)..I can't believe you think they would cesae their killings. Hezbollah will come up with something else. As will the other sects. These are not people with set objectives they are fighting for. They move from one problem to another. The cold harsh truth that Peace advocates have to realise is that, their aim is destruction of western culture or Zionist nations as they see it. Your next point..I think you comparing the war against terror to the Vietnam war is a wrong comparison. I don't dare think that you suggest that the Palestinians can somehow defeat the Israelis in a miltary war? Nor that you think Alquaeda can defeat the Americans and Israelis in a military war? If they bomb either the Brits or Americans, they will do it in their usual cowardly way which is to bomb and run or bomb and kill themselves. Now, how does that prove your point or show that my bravery is misguided? Finally, you've hit the nail on the haed. These terrorists are irrational. They want to die. Yet you suggest that the civilised world sends its leaders to have a round table discussion/negotiation with these same people that you have admitted are irrational and are willing to die? Where is the sense in that? What sense are you making? Are we supposed to run away from them and let them do what they want because we want to live and they want to die? It's a fair point to say that if we continue killing them, more of their kind will be bred and it will run in circles. That's just the way of the world, Rich. At the end of the day, advocates of a non-violent resolution have no realistic solution to this problem. They project fantasies. Give palestinians a state. Hezbollah will want all westerners out of Saudi. Get all westerners out of Saudi, Islamic Jihad will want france to be classified as a Muslim nation. These people are irrational barbarians who have distorted the Islamic faith to define it as a faith that insists they be consistently at war with what they see as non believers. If you think that you have peaceful solutions to all their problems and they will stop their actions if all that is done, I have to tell you, you are living in a dreamland.

Comment by Rich Lyon

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:36:18 EST

Sandra Smallson: "it's people with your point of view that will be at the dinner table..." Sandra, as a former military pilot, I have been shot at by terrorists. My contribution to bringing terrorists to justice has been rather more than discussion. With respect, you have no more idea of what sort of person I am than you have of what sort of people terrorists are. The very civilisation you uphold systematically being destroyed by barbarians If, in the course of their actions, they cause us to remember and live by our principles, they strengthen our civilisation. It is those who betray our principles - as Israel consistently does - who are weakening our civilisation. It's a dirty job but Israel is prepared to do it To be accurate, the dirty job that Israel is prepared to do is invest $1bn of US money in the construction of a security wall to destroy farms and businesses in a land in which, 100 years ago, they constituted less than 1% of the population. And bombing paraplegics with remote standoff weapons from assault helicopters (killing two bystanders in the process). and trying to appease their perpetual anger One terrorist group I have been shot at by is the IRA, at the time an organisation implacably dedicated to the destruction of the presence of my country. That organisation now participates in a legitimate, democratic political process and there have been no killings for years. I can think of no greater illustration of the emptiness of the argument you propose. when the shit hits the fan we'll see who truly has the tools to eliminate anybody. You will recall that Vietnam ended, not because America defeated its enemy, but because the American people ran out of stomach for the body bag count. Your words are admirably brave but quite lacking in any historical precedent. It gives me no pleasure to point out that the emptiness of your bluster will be revealed when Britain and America are bombed during our respective election run-ups by the new generation of Al Qa'ida terrorists. Hamas and terrorists alike will learn to pick their battles. Quote: "You want to live. We want to die" (Al Qua'ida). You repeat and repeat and repeat the fatal mistake of drawing a conclusion based on an assumption of rational behaviour, when the behaviour is in fact irrational. You will not teach them this way.

Comment by Billy

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:27:41 EST

Never Surrender to the terrorist scum

Comment by TS

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:40:50 EST

Jeff said: "Not many people allow themselves to get bombed into submission. It will take a lot more bullets and bombs than Israel has to stop the hate that fuels this terrorism. And then what? You've bombed them into submission. What have you become?" Well, what you havent become is a Muslim by force, or a dhimmi..you know what a dhimmi is right? (look it up if you dont) It's a second class citizen who bows down to Muslim masters. (Take a look around the 'Muslim world', the few non-muslims left there are dhimmis! you better not get outta line or to uppity as a jew or christian in muslim-majority lands, had you?) Jews won't be dhimmis anymore, they were for a LONG time in the muslim empire(caliphate). Then they got the hell outta there for better shores in 'enlightened Europe'..well we all know what happened to them there. Ovens! So hell yeah they deserve a state in their ancient homeland, where jews ALWAYS lived. They decided to not put their fate into anyone's hands but their own, with damn good reason, don't ya think? And for you others who want to compare the palestinians to native Americans, you got is backwards, if anyone is comparable to native Americans, its the Jews not the Arabs! And you know what, if Israel didnt exist any longer, do you think Muslim fundies (and not so fundies come to think of it) would all of a sudden love them some Jews? HA! They would still want to murder them, one by one. It's not about Israel, the state, it's about Jews getting uppity and demaning their rights and control of their own destiny, not be at the 'mercy' of Muslim masters...that is what it is about. (And dont give me that BS about the jews can live somewhere else, they DID! and they got gas chambers and ovens!) You gonna protect the Jews from the Islamist Jew-hating murderers you say? They say NO THANKS, we will protect ourselves! And the Palestinians don't want no state, give me a ef'ing break...why didnt they take one when it was offered at the same time Israel was created?? Instead they declared war on Israel...fast forward, why didnt they take a state during the Olso accord?? offering them 95% of what they wanted?? Instead they declared a war on Israel.(the intifada now) Hmm..put two and two together. Don't be a dupe for Islamic propaganda. It's all a lie..or rather an 'image' they want to portray...but its a false image. The reality is a viscious hate that is so deep they will kill their own children to kill a jew. This is not about a land dispute, wake the ef up!

Comment by Corinna Hasofferett

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:06:11 EST

My modest response is here: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/072848.php