The cause and possible solutions to Islamic Terrorism

[NightTrain]

Abso,

Since I think that we both agree that there are some very dangerous muslims causing a great deal of pain & suffering around the world, both in their respective countries and abroad, what is your solution to fix it?

I have my own theories as to what the cause is and how to fix it, but I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say and what your ideas are to fix it.

Let's try to keep the "palestinians" vs Israel out of it, since I think we've already beaten that horse to death, dug him up and beat him again.

[abso]

Abso,

Since I think that we both agree that there are some very dangerous muslims causing a great deal of pain & suffering around the world, both in their respective countries and abroad, what is your solution to fix it?

I have my own theories as to what the cause is and how to fix it, but I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say and what your ideas are to fix it.

Let's try to keep the "palestinians" vs Israel out of it, since I think we've already beaten that horse to death, dug him up and beat him again.

First before saying it in my own words, let me copy something from about.com:



The Causes of Terrorism

There Are Two Causes of Terrorism

All terrorist acts are motivated by two things:





Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.
The Article has few good examples read them if you may.........

Then the more important question:

What Conditions Are Favorable for Terrorism?
Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism "causes" terrorism, it isn't true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious zealotry does not 'cause' terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. So there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world.


Please Read the full article here:
http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/causes_terror.htm


Another article about causes of terrorism says:



Terrorism is the threat or use of violence against civilians to draw attention to an issue. Those searching for the causes of terrorism -why this tactic would be selected, and in what circumstances- approach the phenomenon in different ways. Some see it as an independent phenomenon, while others view it as one tactic in a larger strategy. Some seek to understand what makes an individual choose terrorism, while others look at it at the level of a group.

1. Political
Library of CongressTerrorism was originally theorized in the context of insurgency and guerrilla warfare, a form of organized political violence by a non-state army or group. Individuals, abortion clinic bombers, or groups, like the Vietcong in the 1960s, can be understood as choosing terrorism because they don't like the current organization of society and they want to change it.

2. Strategic
3. Psychological (Individual)
4. Group Psychology / Sociological
5. Socio-Economic

6. Religious
Rick Becker-Leckrone/Getty ImagesCareer terrorism experts began to argue in the 1990s that a new form of terrorism fueled by religious fervor was on the rise. They pointed to organizations such as Al Qaeda, Aum Shinrikyo (a Japanese cult) and Christian identity groups. Religious ideas, such as martyrdom, and Armageddon, were seen as particularly dangerous. However, as thoughtful studies and commentators have repeatedly pointed out, such groups use selectively interpret and exploit religious concepts and texts to support terrorism. Religions themselves do not "cause" terrorism.

Please read the article:
http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/tp/Causes_of_Terrorism.htm


Please read both articles, they wont take much of your time, then we can continue our discussion, if you have any articles you read about the subject, please provide me with the links, we need to read the same articles to have a common ground for our discussion.

we will discuss possible solutions after we finish with the causes, and thanks for starting this thread.

[NightTrain]

Very well, I've read them.

I wasn't looking to post works done by others, I was looking to see in your own words what the causes and solutions are.

[abso]

Very well, I've read them.

I wasn't looking to post works done by others, I was looking to see in your own words what the causes and solutions are.

i know, and i am sorry that i had to post the articles, just needed you to read them, because they summarize everything i can say.

its the social injustice and political opinions that makes a terrorist becomes like that, in case of islamic terrorism, almost all the muslim terrorist in the world do so because of the actions of the israelian government and the american support and interference in the middle east.

none should accept the presence of american troops in his country, even i as a moderate person wont accept it, surely i wont react violently towards the civilians, but i will hate that presence and i will fight it if i had the chance to do so.

so someone like Usama Bin Laden, although i hate and denounce his actions, and i will never agree with attacking civilians, but i have to admit, that i will never condemn any operation his organization does against american troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, but i will only agree with the operation in case that no civilian at all is killed or even injured, so if they can fight the american army without harming any civilian then i will support their actions, but to fight cowardly and kill civilians in the process, is not something that i respect.

Usama Bin Laden, firstly he was an ally of USA, he helped Afghan fighters to fight the USSR invasion, a goal that USA shared with Bin Laden, then after this war ended Bin Laden was considered a hero in Saudia, everyone respected him so much, then USA built an army base in Saudia, Bin Laden spoke out against that presence, but the Saudia officials didnt accept his criticism, they banished him from the country, but he didnt accept it, he began to fight USA in his own way, and everyone who support USA or israel.

personally, i dont respect nor do i like the presence of american troops in any arabian or muslim country, i take that as an insult, and any president that allows american army to reside in his country is a traitor to his country in my opinion.


i understand their motives very well, i feel the same injustice that they feel, but i dont share the tendency to use violence, i hate violence and would never use it to express my opinion about any matter.

In short, the reasons are:
1- The US army bases in Islamic countries.
2- The US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
3- The Israelian occupation of palestinian, syrian and lebanese lands.
4- The Israelian possession of Nuclear Weapons.
5- The US violation of international law.
6- The Israelian violation of international law.


My opinions about the solution for this radical behaviour and how to extinguish the hatred in their hearts:

American Side:
1- The Withdrawal of All American troops from all the islamic countries.
2- The Closure of Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
3- USA must be nuetral and objective towards the Israelian-Palestinian conflict.
4- Ending the blind support for Israel.

PS: USA can build a permenant base for its army inside israel to protect israel from any future attack, but to build bases in islamic country to use it for the protection of israel is completely unacceptable, if USA wants to protect israel then it should put its army within israel, not within other countries.


Israelian Side:
1- The Withdrawal of All Israelian troops from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine.
2- Force Israel to abide by UN resolutions and withdraw to the 1967 borders.
3- Dismantle all the settlements in occupied lands.
4- Give the refugees their right to return to their stolen land.
5- Ending the Blockade on Gaza
6- Sign the NPT and dismantle all the existing nuclear weapons


UN Side:
1- UN peace troops on the borders between Israel and Palestine.


Expected Results:
1- All arabian and islamic countries will sign peace treaties with israel including palestine.
2- Hamas will stop all its operations against israel.
3- Israelian and Palestinian existence based on the two states solution.
4- All Islamic terrorist in the world will stop all their attacks against any american or israelian targets.

PS: in case that Hamas doesnt agree with the peace, Egypt and NATO forces are the only forces that should be allowed to fight against Hamas, furthur israelian interference against Hamas will only cause more problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, i wasnt discussing the Israelian-Palestinian problem, i was just stating the problem and its solution as a whole, and that conflict is part of the problem so it had to be included in the reasons and solutions.

[NightTrain]

That's a start, Abso.

However, I'm noticing a complete lack of any responsibility on the part of the muslims. Everything you've outlined as the cause and solutions is because of American or Israeli actions.

[abso]

That's a start, Abso.

However, I'm noticing a complete lack of any responsibility on the part of the muslims. Everything you've outlined as the cause and solutions is because of American or Israeli actions.

i was just stating what US and Israel could do to stop the hatred in the heart of many muslims towards their policy, because their current policy makes everyone feels injustice, such injustice is what causes terrorism in the first place.

but from the muslim side, what can we do more than we are already doing, we fight and pursue terrorist, in egypt we try to keep the extreme Imams as restricted as possible, its hard to prevent them to talk while preserving the free speech right, so we try to make a balance between both things, to give them their right for free speech, and to arrest them if they abuse that right.

the more free speech we give this people, the more they cause troubles and call for radical beahviour which endenger lifes, and the funny thing here, is that when we arrest them, US objects :laugh:.

we are trying to prevent them from spreading their radical ideas, and US is helping them, en EU too, during elections, we try to prevent them from taking so many places in the parliment, to prevent them from shaping the country's policy, but EU and US always object, its seems that US and EU will be relieved if those radical muslims take the power and control the country, if they take the power and form the government, they will convert egypt to islamic caliphate.


so in short:

Islamic Side:
1- Keep the extreme muslims under control.
2- Condemn all the violent actions based on Islamic religion.
3- Never to support any radical group.
4- Keep pursing all muslim terrorists and arresting them.
5- Encouraging peaceful Islamic ideas and spreading them.
6- Revise all the school teachings to make sure that they dont include any support for radical behaviour.
7- Banning any radical Imam from talking in puplic.
8- Increase the Media use in spreading true peaceful Islam among youths.


I didnt mention that in my first reply, because almost all this points are already being done but they are not enough, because their is nothing right being done from the american or the israelian side, nothing at all.

if US thinks that the war on terrorism will actually do something, then i am sorry to say that, but thats the dumbest idea i have ever heared in my life.

look now and before 9/11, do you see any reduced rate of terrorism, do you see any benifit from the war on terrorism ???, actually terrorism has spread more than ever, US has given the terrorist exactly what they wanted, MORE RECRUITS !!!!!!!!!!

when 1 million civilian iraqi is dead, how many youth will want to take revenge from US for invading their country and killing their relatives?, how many iraqi recruits will be in favour of Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda is wrong, but the hatred in the hearts of the youth who lost their parents in the war will prevent them from seeing the common sense and the right judgement.

US has given terrorist their paradise, countless numbers of recruits are now willing to join the war against US, the country which killed their mothers and fathers and siblings.

but from the islamic side, believe me, we try our best, but how can we convince youth not to tend to violence while all they see from the american side is more violence.

facing violence with violence will only breed more violence, waging two illegal wars just to fight terrorist groups, will only make more recruits avaiolable for terrorists, US only seeked war for revenge, not peace, so all our efforts to stop youth from seeking violence against US are hopeless, only US and israel can stop the hatred which they put in the hearts of the terrorists.

[NightTrain]

I didnt mention that in my first reply, because almost all this points are already being done.

This isn't something I have heard or even read about. Completely new to me, but I did suspect there had to be something like this because there are muslim countries that don't produce as many radical fundamentalists as others.

Let's use Iran as an example. Do you think if Iran adopted a modern form of government such as the USA or England or Germany or Japan or France, where everyone has the same rights and above all, Separation of Church and State as one of it's central building blocks that it would tremendously reduce the feeling of hopelessness of the poor and disadvantaged?

Removing those clerics from positions of governmental authority would greatly reduce their overall influence on the general public.

I believe the vast majority of terrorism stems from primitive forms of government - a very few people controlling the wealth and resources of a nation, and in order to maintain that control they love to point to other countries as the reasons the masses' lives are so harsh.

Is there any movements by the public to change things politically in your country or any other middle east country?

[abso]

personally sometimes when i see others in favour of attacking US and israel, and i try to convince them that violence is not the solution, what answer do i get ???, they just tell me to look at what US is doing in iraq and Afghanistan, the devastation it caused to the iraqi nation, the devastation caused by american weapons to the palestinians, the illegal occupation of palestinian and lebanese and syrian lands and the american support for it.

all that reasons are things that i am already aware of, i understand them, but i also dont want any violence from the islamic side, so my solution is that US and Israel to stop their actions against muslims so that they can allow us (Moderate Muslims) to convince radical muslims to stop their behaviour, we just need US help to stop the injustice that it supports, then the rest will be our responsibility.

[abso]

This isn't something I have heard or even read about. Completely new to me, but I did suspect there had to be something like this because there are muslim countries that don't produce as many radical fundamentalists as others.


Yes, its just because all the media presents is that all the muslims supports terrorism or at least do nothing to prevent it, while we really try our best to prevent it, but its not good enough since we are not getting any help from the US side.



Let's use Iran as an example. Do you think if Iran adopted a modern form of government such as the USA or England or Germany or Japan or France, where everyone has the same rights and above all, Separation of Church and State as one of it's central building blocks that it would tremendously reduce the feeling of hopelessness of the poor and disadvantaged?

if you ask me if its better if Iran adopt the policy of separation between religion and politics, i would definitly say yes, in other cases, like UAE as an example, or Egypt, religion is also highly regarded, but its not used in any extreme way like what is being done in Iran, so if iran wants to be a religious state, it should stop this extreme methods, or if it cant stop its religious leaders from being extreme, then it should stop using religion in politics, if it cant control the religious extremism then it should use the separation policy.




Removing those clerics from positions of governmental authority would greatly reduce their overall influence on the general public.

If they are extreme then they should be removed, this will lead to a great reduce in the radical behaviour and support, its even better if they can be replaced by another moderate clerics, because when you replace a cleric by a politician, people might not listen to him, but replacing him with a moderate peaceful loving cleric, will help even more in reducing the radical behaviour in general, because in religious countries like Iran, people always listen more to clerics than politicans.




I believe the vast majority of terrorism stems from primitive forms of government - a very few people controlling the wealth and resources of a nation, and in order to maintain that control they love to point to other countries as the reasons the masses' lives are so harsh.

i agree with you, the principle of few people controlling everything, like in Saudia, is a reason to make people hate the system, when they hate the system they will tend to violence, and when they tend to violence they may point it to other targets than their country, which is targets like US.

but also, feeling injustice in our own countries isnt the main reason for global terrorism, but feeling injustice due to american actions towards muslims and their blind support to israel which illegally occupy lands, thats the main reason for fighting US, but i agree that the reason you mentioned creates more recruits available for the extreme teachings of radical people.




Is there any movements by the public to change things politically in your country or any other middle east country?

sure, in egypt there are many movements which wants political changes, in every arab country there are movement, a movement which wants more right for women, or a movement which wants more rights for animals or more rights for people in general, or less rights for the police, or less rights for the president, there are always movements which wants something, there are always something more to want from your government, humans will never be content with what they already have ;)

[NightTrain]

Yes, its just because all the media presents is that all the muslims supports terrorism or at least do nothing to prevent it, while we really try our best to prevent it, but its not good enough since we are not getting any help from the US side.

What do you want our help with?


if you ask me if its better if Iran adopt the policy of separation between religion and politics, i would definitly say yes, in other cases, like UAE as an example, or Egypt, religion is also highly regarded, but its not used in any extreme way like what is being done in Iran, so if iran wants to be a religious state, it should stop this extreme methods, or if it cant stop its religious leaders from being extreme, then it should stop using religion in politics, if it cant control the religious extremism then it should use the separation policy.

Don't you think your governments would better represent people if you removed Islam from government entirely? Wouldn't there be a greatly reduced potential to misuse that power?


If they are extreme then they should be removed, this will lead to a great reduce in the radical behaviour and support, its even better if they can be replaced by another moderate clerics, because when you replace a cleric by a politician, people might not listen to him, but replacing him with a moderate peaceful loving cleric, will help even more in reducing the radical behaviour in general, because in religious countries like Iran, people always listen more to clerics than politicans.

This is why I think it would be best to remove clerics entirely from political office. The tendency to abuse their influence is too great.


sure, in egypt there are many movements which wants political changes, in every arab country there are movement, a movement which wants more right for women, or a movement which wants more rights for animals or more rights for people in general, or less rights for the police, or less rights for the president, there are always movements which wants something, there are always something more to want from your government, humans will never be content with what they already have ;)

I wasn't clear, here. I meant, is there serious talk about changing the way things are done? Are there politicians that give speeches about changing things in a meaningful way with a following of people that demand change? Or does a politician come along with ideas like these and immediately disappears or is outright murdered?

We don't hear anything about movements (political ideas) toward modernizing any of the middle eastern governments - and I can't believe that there wouldn't be anyone that doesn't want better governments for themselves and their kids.

Where are all the people demanding modernization?

[logroller]

That's a start, Abso.

However, I'm noticing a complete lack of any responsibility on the part of the muslims. Everything you've outlined as the cause and solutions is because of American or Israeli actions.

Middle East perspective: abso outlined some clear demands, from the indigenous perspective, for middle east peace; so of course they're going to be biased, they're demands. I would be pissed if some foreign nation came and took my land and resources; Nobody, aside from self-blame and guilt, would feel otherwise. (Just look how angry Americans are about Mexicans being employed illegally, it's the same thing, only to a lesser degree.) It wasn't their fault they lived, and want to again live, in one of the few areas rich in natural resources (water and fertile land, not just oil); as this, in reality, is the true cause of the dispute, not religion. All the religious strife is just a condition which makes it easier to act in pursuit of one's own self-interest. I can't speak with absolute certainty, as I'm not there, nor have I been, but understand that water and fertile land are necessary for life; both are relatively scarce in most of the Middle East. The areas of dispute are both of religious significance and rich in these necessary resources; I deduce this is not by mere coincidence.

My perspective: America is dependant on oil, not foreign oil, but oil. That's why we're so interested in the middle east, period. To find a solution, one must solve their own problems, asking someone what they believe will solve the problems of someone else is fruitless; even worse, forcing your solutions upon them. Until we, as individuals, repent for our own selfish actions, we can't, with any integrity, ask someone else to behave accordingly.

[abso]

What do you want our help with?

1- Withdrawal from all the islamic lands
2- Force israel to abide by 1967 borders
3- Protect palestinians from the israel as much as you are protecting israel from the palestinians.

to spread the sense of justice, when you need justice for your own people, you have to spread the justice around you so that you can feel it yourself, so giving justice to palestinians and muslims, will inflict on the americans too, being the most powerful means to be the most responsible, but what i see USA doing, has nothing to do with responsibility at all, if US feels responsible for the israelian security, then its responsible for palestinian security too, if its giving weapons to israel to defend itself, then what about the palestinian, who is defending them?, being the most powerful, doesnt make that you responsible for the most weak ?, when a criminal is hiding in a building, and you are trying to arrest him, you must take in your account, that you are responsible for all the lives of the innocents in that buildings, you cant just bomb it then say that the criminal is the one responsible for it because he was hiding among them.




Don't you think your governments would better represent people if you removed Islam from government entirely? Wouldn't there be a greatly reduced potential to misuse that power?

no, because a government with no religion can never rule over religious people, they will always tend to throw off such government, so in egypt, the government is as modern as it can be while keeping a sense of religion in its methods.

so religion is a powerful tool while implemented in politics, it all depends on how you use it, you can use it to support terrorism, or you can use it to stop terrorism, it all depends on who is in power, so encouraging moderate muslims to be in power is better than telling them to ignore religion.

when the government ignore religion, the people will ignore it.




This is why I think it would be best to remove clerics entirely from political office. The tendency to abuse their influence is too great.

yes, its too great, but when you ignore religion, you will lose a great influence in your people and surrender this influence to religious leader who can also lead people towards violence or peace, people will always follow their religion more than their government.
who do you hold more respect for, is it your priest or your mayor ?




I wasn't clear, here. I meant, is there serious talk about changing the way things are done? Are there politicians that give speeches about changing things in a meaningful way with a following of people that demand change? Or does a politician come along with ideas like these and immediately disappears or is outright murdered?

yes, in egypt there are always that kind of politicians, a recent politician is mohamed Elbaradei, the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nowdays he gives alot of speechs everywhere in egypt, calling for a change in the internal politics of the country




We don't hear anything about movements (political ideas) toward modernizing any of the middle eastern governments - and I can't believe that there wouldn't be anyone that doesn't want better governments for themselves and their kids.

Where are all the people demanding modernization?

as i previously said, you only hear about bad things in rab world, things that is intended to make you hate it to disrespect it, but you will rarely hear about any good thing in islamic or arab countries.

[NightTrain]

1- Withdrawal from all the islamic lands
2- Force israel to abide by 1967 borders
3- Protect palestinians from the israel as much as you are protecting israel from the palestinians.

to spread the sense of justice, when you need justice for your own people, you have to spread the justice around you so that you can feel it yourself, so giving justice to palestinians and muslims, will inflict on the americans too, being the most powerful means to be the most responsible, but what i see USA doing, has nothing to do with responsibility at all, if US feels responsible for the israelian security, then its responsible for palestinian security too, if its giving weapons to israel to defend itself, then what about the palestinian, who is defending them?, being the most powerful, doesnt make that you responsible for the most weak ?, when a criminal is hiding in a building, and you are trying to arrest him, you must take in your account, that you are responsible for all the lives of the innocents in that buildings, you cant just bomb it then say that the criminal is the one responsible for it because he was hiding among them.

1) We'd love to. Our job isn't done yet, when we feel that we're safe and Afghanistan & Iraq can take care of business responsibly then we'll pull out.

2) Israel's borders are what they are. Three Arab countries formed an alliance and attacked Israel, and they lost. Israel kept the land.

That's the way things go when you lose a war sometimes. Israel decided they wanted to keep the land, and it was their right to do so. It is no one's business except Israel's.

3) Israel doesn't attack the "palestinians". They counter-attack. Once those idiots realize that they get hammered each and every time they attack Israel and stop, peace will prevail.

It is Israel's right to defend themselves. They do not attack "palestinians" unprovoked.


no, because a government with no religion can never rule over religious people, they will always tend to throw off such government, so in egypt, the government is as modern as it can be while keeping a sense of religion in its methods.

so religion is a powerful tool while implemented in politics, it all depends on how you use it, you can use it to support terrorism, or you can use it to stop terrorism, it all depends on who is in power, so encouraging moderate muslims to be in power is better than telling them to ignore religion.

when the government ignore religion, the people will ignore it.

Look at England. Look at America. The vast majority of the people are religious, and yet the government and religion are kept separate.

There are even a great deal of muslims here - they seem to get along fine for the most part.


yes, its too great, but when you ignore religion, you will lose a great influence in your people and surrender this influence to religious leader who can also lead people towards violence or peace, people will always follow their religion more than their government.
who do you hold more respect for, is it your priest or your mayor ?

So far, that way of thinking hasn't been very productive for all of you over there.

It's something to seriously think about and discuss among your friends.


yes, in egypt there are always that kind of politicians, a recent politician is mohamed Elbaradei, the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nowdays he gives alot of speechs everywhere in egypt, calling for a change in the internal politics of the country

I remember his name. I'll have to review old newspaper stories to refresh my memory.

Is he making progress? What do his political opponents say?


as i previously said, you only hear about bad things in rab world, things that is intended to make you hate it to disrespect it, but you will rarely hear about any good thing in islamic or arab countries.

That is why we are fortunate to have you to converse with us so that we may get a better understanding of the political climate over there and perhaps come away with a better understanding of each other.

[Noir]

The solution, in a word, enlightenment.

[abso]

1) We'd love to. Our job isn't done yet, when we feel that we're safe and Afghanistan & Iraq can take care of business responsibly then we'll pull out.

Thats exactly the problem, because americans think that it was their right to invade iraq and afghanistan.

American reasons for Invading:
1- Afghanistan: Bin Laden
2- Iraq: WMD

Afghanistan:
- Offered to hand over Bin Laden to a third party for fair trial, and asked for any evidence that Bin Laden did it, while US provided no evidence at all that Bin Laden was responsible and refused the offer to hand over Bin Laden to a third country for fair trial, so all USA wanted is revenge, not justice.

Iraq:
- No evidence was presented that shows iraq had WMD, and of course no WMD were found at all in iraq.
- Iraq has never been a threat to the national security of US.

your safety doesnt lie in those wars, those wars have created more and more terrorists, and you are in danger more than before, if you think that the numbers of terrorists are in decrease, then you are dreaming, how can they decrease while the occupation are still in its place and everyone is willing to fight to make US leave his country, you are only giving more recruits to stupid organizations like Al-Qaeda




2) Israel's borders are what they are. Three Arab countries formed an alliance and attacked Israel, and they lost. Israel kept the land.
That's the way things go when you lose a war sometimes. Israel decided they wanted to keep the land, and it was their right to do so. It is no one's business except Israel's.

Attacked israel ???, when did that actually happen, have they started the war !!!

israel wanted to keep the land !!!, even if the arabs attacked first, israel doesnt have the right to keep the land, what world are you living in, are we in a jungle where the strong can enforce his wishes on the weak !!!, there are laws which were made to be respected, and your country participated in making them, so at least it should be the first to respect them and enforce them.

In WWII, Germany started the war, and it lost, did anyone get a piece of its land ?, is it legal to take a land from the attacker ?



3) Israel doesn't attack the "palestinians". They counter-attack. Once those idiots realize that they get hammered each and every time they attack Israel and stop, peace will prevail.
It is Israel's right to defend themselves. They do not attack "palestinians" unprovoked.

you can keep saying that and i can keep saying my view, you say israel counter-attack, i say palestinians counter-attack, every side now is attacking the other because the other is attacking, so who is really attacking and who is counter-attacking, who is occupying lands, and who just wants his land back, but more importantly, who killed more than the other, because thats the only view i have for wars, how many innocent civilians did each side kill.




Look at England. Look at America. The vast majority of the people are religious, and yet the government and religion are kept separate.

There are even a great deal of muslims here - they seem to get along fine for the most part.

So far, that way of thinking hasn't been very productive for all of you over there.

It's something to seriously think about and discuss among your friends.


each region has its own traditions, in egypt, although we are a modern country not an islamic regime, and we dont rule with religion as much as iran does, but we do consider Islam to be our official state religion, but we dont have any religious people in our political positins, we do believe that religion should be separated from politics, and its the main objective of our government, to separate religion from the policy of the country.

but about productivity, i think the true islamic policies were productive in their time, when we had true islamic leaders, not just political leader, or extreme stupid islamic leaders, if we had someone like "Umar Ibn Al Khattab" to be our leader now, things wouldnt be like that at all.




I remember his name. I'll have to review old newspaper stories to refresh my memory.
Is he making progress? What do his political opponents say?


yes, he is gathering so much support from the egyptian people, about his political opponents, they say nothing about him yet, as he has none, he hasnt run for the paliment elections, he intends to run for the presedential elections in 2011, there are several possible candidates, like Mohamed Elbaradi, Amr Moussa, Omar Suleiman, Ahmed Zewail.




That is why we are fortunate to have you to converse with us so that we may get a better understanding of the political climate over there and perhaps come away with a better understanding of each other.

thanks, i also really hope that we can attain a better understanding of each other.

[abso]

The solution, in a word, enlightenment.

i really hope that it can be as simple as you say :rolleyes:

[logroller]

I find it sadistically ironic and hypocritical, from a conservative perspective, that we justify using force to procure our views and mechanisms of control upon another group. Isn't that what conservatives oppose domestically?

[NightTrain]

Thats exactly the problem, because americans think that it was their right to invade iraq and afghanistan.

American reasons for Invading:
1- Afghanistan: Bin Laden
2- Iraq: WMD

Afghanistan:
- Offered to hand over Bin Laden to a third party for fair trial, and asked for any evidence that Bin Laden did it, while US provided no evidence at all that Bin Laden was responsible and refused the offer to hand over Bin Laden to a third country for fair trial, so all USA wanted is revenge, not justice.

I don't remember the Taliban ever agreeing to hand over Bin Laden. Got links to support that?


Iraq:
- No evidence was presented that shows iraq had WMD, and of course no WMD were found at all in iraq.
- Iraq has never been a threat to the national security of US.

Saddam Hussein did in fact have WMDs, he had used them in the past against his own populace.

Saddam also supported terrorists financially. As I recall, he would send the families of dead terrorists between $11,000 and $25,000.

That, my friend, is state - sponsored terrorism, and it was freely acknowledged in the international media.

Beyond that, Saddam attempted to have a former U.S. President killed. That also is unacceptable.

With the implementation of a new democratic government in Iraq, it is hoped that Iraq will be a shining example of democracy which will promote moderation and hopefully one day, pacifism.


Attacked israel ???, when did that actually happen, have they started the war !!!

Very well, let's explore what happened. Then you can tell me who started that:

The Six-Day War was fought between June 5 and June 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The outcome was a swift and decisive Israeli victory.


The UN Secretary-General U Thant attempted to negotiate with the Egyptian government, but on May 18 the Egyptian Foreign Minister informed nations with troops in UNEF that the UNEF mission in Egypt and the Gaza Strip had been terminated and that they must leave immediately. Egyptian forces then prevented UNEF troops from entering their posts. The Governments of India and Yugoslavia decided to withdraw their troops from UNEF, regardless of the decision of U Thant. While this was taking place, U Thant suggested that UNEF be redeployed to the Israeli side of the border, but Israel refused, arguing that UNEF contingents from countries hostile to Israel would be more likely to impede an Israeli response to Egyptian aggression than to stop that aggression in the first place.[70] The Permanent Representative of Egypt then informed U Thant that the Egyptian government had decided to terminate UNEF's presence in the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, and requested steps that would withdraw the force as soon as possible. The UNEF commander was given the order to begin withdrawal on May 19.[71][72] Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops there.[73]


On May 22, Egypt responded by announcing, in addition to the UN withdrawal,[78] that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to "all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials", with effect from May 23.[80]


At the time, members of the international community pledged that Israel would never again be denied use of the Straits of Tiran. The French representative to the UN, for example, announced that an attempt to interfere with free shipping in the Straits would be against international law, and American President Dwight Eisenhower went so far as publicly to recognize that reimposing a blockade in the Straits of Tiran would be seen as an aggressive act which would oblige Israel to protect its maritime rights in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.[91] United Nations Secretary-General U Thant also went to Cairo to help negotiate an agreement to avoid conflict, but after the closing of the Straits of Tiran, Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, contended that this was enough to start the war. Eban said, "From May the 24th onward, the question who started the war or who fired the first shot became momentously irrelevant. There is no difference in civil law between murdering a man by slow strangulation or killing him by a shot in the head... From the moment at which the blockade was posed, active hostilities had commenced, and Israel owed Egypt nothing of her Charter rights." [92]


During May and June the Israeli government had worked hard to keep Jordan out of any war; it was concerned about being attacked on multiple fronts, and did not want to have to deal with the Jordanian West Bank. However, Jordan's King Hussein got caught up in the wave of pan-Arab nationalism preceding the war;[g] and so, on May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. The move surprised both Egyptians and foreign observers, because President Nasser had generally been at odds with Hussein, calling him an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier.[97] Nasser said that any differences between him and Hussein were erased "in one moment" and declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."[97]


At the end of May 1967, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian general, Abdul Munim Riad.[98] On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."[99] Israel called upon Jordan numerous times to refrain from hostilities.


In May 1967, Hafez al-Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."[68]


On June 3, days before the war, Egypt flew to Amman two battalions of commandos tasked with infiltrating Israel's borders and engaging in attacks and bombings so as to draw IDF into a Jordanian front and ease the pressure on the Egyptians. Soviet-made artillery and Egyptian military supplies and crews were also flown to Jordan.[101]


At the same time several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, began mobilizing their armed forces.

The Egyptian attack plan was code-named Operation Dawn, and was planned by General Abdel Hakim Amer. It called for the strategic bombing of Israeli airfields, ports, cities, and the Negev Nuclear Research Center. Arab armies would then invade Israel, and cut it in half with an armored thrust through the Negev.


In his speech to Arab trade unionists on May 26, Nasser announced: "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."[102][103]


President Abdul Rahman Arif of Iraq said that "the existence of Israel is an error which must be recitified. This is an opportunity to wipe out the ignonimy which has been with us since 1948.[105] The Iraqi Prime Minister predicted that "there will be practically no Jewish survivors".


Caught up in Arab enthusiasm for military action and encouraged by the lack of response to the closure of the Straits, Egyptian Field Marshal Amer planned for initiating an attack on Israel in late May. He told one of his generals that "This time we will be the ones to start the war." This was counter to Nasser's strategy of pushing Israel to start the war. Historian Michael Oren states that Egyptian sources are divided over why Nasser did not veto Amer's plan. Oren suggests that "Nasser was apprised of [the plan] but lacked the political strength to override Amer's order. Also, the preparation of an Egyptian invasion of Israel had certain advantages for Nasser." [112]


On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), as well as four independent infantry and four independent armored brigades. No less than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.[124] At the same time some Egyptian troops (15,000 - 20,000) were still fighting in Yemen.[125][126][127] Nasser's ambivalence about his goals and objectives was reflected in his orders to the military. The general staff changed the operational plan four times in May 1967, each change requiring the redeployment of troops, with the inevitable toll on both men and vehicles. Towards the end of May, Nasser finally forbade the general staff from proceeding with the Qahir ("Victory") plan, which called for a light infantry screen in the forward fortifications with the bulk of the forces held back to conduct a massive counterattack against the main Israeli advance when identified, and ordered a forward defense of the Sinai.[128] In the meantime, he continued to take actions intended to increase the level of mobilization of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, in order to bring pressure on Israel.
Syria's army had a total strength of 75,000 and amassed them along the Syrian border.[129] Jordan's army had 55,000 troops,[130] including 300 tanks along the Jordanian border, 250 of which were US M48 Patton, sizable amounts of M113 APCs, a new battalion of mechanized infantry, and a paratrooper battalion trained in the new US-built school. They also had 12 battalions of artillery and six batteries of 81 mm and 120 mm mortars.[101]
Documents captured by the Israelis from various Jordanian command posts record orders from the end of May for the Hashemite Brigade to capture Ramot Burj Bir Mai'in in a night raid, codenamed "Operation Khaled". The aim was to establish a bridgehead together with positions in Latrun for an armored capture of Lod and Ramle. The "go" codeword was Sa'ek and end was Nasser. The Jordanians also planned for the capture of Motza and Sha'alvim in the strategic Jerusalem Corridor. Motza was tasked to Infantry Brigade 27 camped near Ma'ale Adummim: "The reserve brigade will commence a nighttime infiltration onto Motza, will destroy it to the foundation, and won't leave a remnant or refugee from among its 800 residents".[101]
100 Iraqi tanks and an infantry division were readied near the Jordanian border. Two squadrons of fighter-aircraft, Hawker Hunters and MiG 21 respectively, were rebased adjacent to the Jordanian border.[101]
On June 2, Jordan called up all reserve officers, and the West Bank commander met with community leaders in Ramallah to request assistance and cooperation for his troops during the war, assuring them that "in 3 days we'll be in Tel-Aviv".[101]
The Arab air forces themselves were aided by volunteer pilots from the Pakistan Air Force acting in independent capacity, as well as some aircraft from Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to make up for the massive losses suffered on the first day of the war.[131]

There is a lot more. Clearly you Arabs started that war. We can continue talking about the Six Day War if you'd like, but I really don't see the point.

Israel didn't have a choice.


israel wanted to keep the land !!!, even if the arabs attacked first, israel doesnt have the right to keep the land, what world are you living in, are we in a jungle where the strong can enforce his wishes on the weak !!!, there are laws which were made to be respected, and your country participated in making them, so at least it should be the first to respect them and enforce them.

In WWII, Germany started the war, and it lost, did anyone get a piece of its land ?, is it legal to take a land from the attacker ?

Most wars that have been fought throughout history have had the end result of the losing party giving territory to the victor.

The idea that the victorious nation(s) do not gain more territory after conflict seems to be a relatively recent notion. I imagine that it's more trouble than it's worth.

We didn't want Italy, Japan or Germany after WWII. However, the new governments we installed at the time have certainly been peaceful since we beat them, and that was certainly a true success story.

And, actually, the Soviet Union ended up with owning East Germany for over 40 years as a puppet state.

[Gaffer]

In June of 67 I was in Chu Li Vietnam. We were put on standby alert on June 5th. No patrols, no operations, everything was at a stand still. C-130's were standing by on the air strip and for three days we just sat there and waited. We were the reaction force to be sent into Israel should things go bad for them. The combat battalions could be there in 18 hours. The entire brigade would be there in 3 days. If things had begun to go bad for the Israelis the arabs would have been introduced to the patch in my avatar.

[abso]

since i really have no time to reply to all the info you are providing me, i will have to get back to the main subject which i and you were discussing, as you already said before, lets keep israel conflicts out of the discussion, because we can really debate about that issue for days without anyone convinced and we will just keep throwing info and sources at each other.

you asked me about what can we do to stop the terrorism, i answered, and the thing is that the lands that israel is occupying is part of the problem

call it spoils of war or anything you would like, but if those lands doesnt get back to its owners, i dont see any end to the terrorism, thats my opinion.

[NightTrain]

since i really have no time to reply to all the info you are providing me, i will have to get back to the main subject which i and you were discussing, as you already said before, lets keep israel conflicts out of the discussion, because we can really debate about that issue for days without anyone convinced and we will just keep throwing info and sources at each other.

you asked me about what can we do to stop the terrorism, i answered, and the thing is that the lands that israel is occupying is part of the problem

call it spoils of war or anything you would like, but if those lands doesnt get back to its owners, i dont see any end to the terrorism, thats my opinion.

Unfortunately Israel, the palestinians and the 1967 borders seem to be a central part of your argument as to the root of the problem, so let's just hash this out.

Once you review the information, you'll see that everything I've told you is the truth and is freely available on the internet.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss the Six Day War and we can move past this.

It is a very complex bit of history with international intrigue and many players, I've always found it quite fascinating.

[SassyLady]

since i really have no time to reply to all the info you are providing me, i will have to get back to the main subject which i and you were discussing, as you already said before, lets keep israel conflicts out of the discussion, because we can really debate about that issue for days without anyone convinced and we will just keep throwing info and sources at each other.

you asked me about what can we do to stop the terrorism, i answered, and the thing is that the lands that israel is occupying is part of the problem

call it spoils of war or anything you would like, but if those lands doesnt get back to its owners, i dont see any end to the terrorism, thats my opinion.

abso, are you advocating that Israel just give back lands acquired after the Six Days War ... or abandon all of Israel? I don't think you are old enough to remember that the Arabs have always been attacking Israel .... Palestinian terrorists have been attacking them since the 1950's ... long before the Six Days War.

Why do you think Israel and the USA are responsible and not Palestine, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Syria?

[abso]

abso, are you advocating that Israel just give back lands acquired after the Six Days War ... or abandon all of Israel? I don't think you are old enough to remember that the Arabs have always been attacking Israel .... Palestinian terrorists have been attacking them since the 1950's ... long before the Six Days War.

Why do you think Israel and the USA are responsible and not Palestine, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Syria?

i am not talking about the history, i am talking about the current events, i was asked what will be the solution for the terrorism, and i answered.

and i am not saying that israel should abandon all their lands, just return the land that is not theirs, and live in their own land, the land that is recognized officially by your country and my country and every country in the world, which is the 1967 borders.

the youth living today, has nothing to do with the past, the terrorists just attacks israel because its occupying their lands, killing their families.

what do you expect from the people to do when israel kills 1400 innocent civilian in less than a month.

how many recruits do you think the terrorists gained by that.

how many youth joined Hamas because israel killed their parents in that war, how many civilian should israel kill so that you can actually acknowledge that its the palestinians that are getting killed not the israelians.

can you tell me in the past 20 years, how many israelian civilian have died, and how many palestinians died ?

[SassyLady]

i am not talking about the history, i am talking about the current events, i was asked what will be the solution for the terrorism, and i answered.

and i am not saying that israel should abandon all their lands, just return the land that is not theirs, and live in their own land, the land that is recognized officially by your country and my country and every country in the world, which is the 1967 borders.

the youth living today, has nothing to do with the past, the terrorists just attacks israel because its occupying their lands, killing their families.

what do you expect from the people to do when israel kills 1400 innocent civilian in less than a month.

how many recruits do you think the terrorists gained by that.

how many youth joined Hamas because israel killed their parents in that war, how many civilian should israel kill so that you can actually acknowledge that its the palestinians that are getting killed not the israelians.

can you tell me in the past 20 years, how many israelian civilian have died, and how many palestinians died ?

Do you really think Israel just wakes up one day and says, "hey, let's go kill some Arabs" and launches an attack? Without provocation?

As for the innocents ... are you telling me that Hamas does not hide behind civilians?

[abso]

Do you really think Israel just wakes up one day and says, "hey, let's go kill some Arabs" and launches an attack? Without provocation?

As for the innocents ... are you telling me that Hamas does not hide behind civilians?

Hamas fighters are palestinians who have families there, they are not the occupation force, how can you think that they will hid behind their own families.

so you think that israel wont attacked unprovoked, like they are saints

but Hamas fighters will hide behind their mothers and fathers and brothers !!!,

can you put more reason in your opinions please ? :rolleyes:

[SassyLady]

Hamas fighters are palestinians who have families there, they are not the occupation force, how can you think that they will hid behind their own families.

so you think that israel wont attacked unprovoked, like they are saints

but Hamas fighters will hide behind their mothers and fathers and brothers !!!,

can you put more reason in your opinions please ? :rolleyes:

If Hamas really wanted to fight then they should have organized themselves and taken the fight away from the civilians and their homes. You don't attack another country and then go home and have dinner with your families. You stay and fight until the battle is over. And, yes, I do believe terrorists who are not part of an army use civilians as cover hoping they won't be attacked.

[SassyLady]

Here's more about Hamas:


Today's adversaries are often terrorists. Terrorist organizations are not signatories to international conventions and treaties. Terrorists do not abide by the principles that nations have established among themselves for the conduct of armed conflict. In fact, the opposite is true. Terrorist groups are well schooled in these principles and expertly exploit them to advantage over their opponents.

Terrorists' violations of the principles of armed conflict are blatant and deliberate. They are often designed to manipulate those fighting the terrorists or responding to a terrorist attack to place themselves in a position to violate the principles or respond ineff ectively. When this terrorist strategy works, the opposing force must choose between canceling an operation, conducting an ineff ective operation, or risking war crimes charges. This strategy was successfully employed by Hamas, the terrorist organization controlling the Gaza Strip, against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during Operation Cast Lead in 2009.


.................

Hamas launched rockets from areas near schools, used hospitals as bases of operation, stored weapons in mosques, and booby trapped entire neighborhoods. Thus, Hamas was able to keep the IDF from attacking legitimate military targets by taking advantage of the IDF's aversion to causing Palestinian casualties. When the IDF did attack, civilian casualties and the damage caused to homes, public institutions, and the Gaza Strip's infrastructure made excellent propaganda. The media reported almost all casualties as civilian, including combatants engaged in firing missiles. Casualty counts became a propaganda tool artfully wielded by Hamas supporters

..............

http://www.homeland1.com/homeland-security-columnists/the-counter-terrorist/articles/826399-the-tactics-of-hamas/

[abso]

Unfortunately Israel, the palestinians and the 1967 borders seem to be a central part of your argument as to the root of the problem, so let's just hash this out.

Once you review the information, you'll see that everything I've told you is the truth and is freely available on the internet.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss the Six Day War and we can move past this.

It is a very complex bit of history with international intrigue and many players, I've always found it quite fascinating.

believe me, i have discussed it alot, and read books about it, there is no need for more discussion about it.

what you started this thread for, is for us to find out what are the solutions and the actions that should be done to make the muslim terrorists stop their hatred towards, the west, am i right ?


so i just said that for them to feel justice and stop attacking, then we must give them their land back


you can say that those land shouldnt be given back as much as you want, but the facts will always be:

- Israel stole the land (reason doesnt matter now)
- Palestinians wants their land back
- Palestinians will always fight for their land
- Israel doesnt want to return the land
- Israel continue its occupation illegally
- Israel kills palestinians who attack it.
- Terrorists hate israel for what happening
- Terrorists attacks israel because its occupation
- US supports israel in everything it does.
- Terrorists hate USA for supporting israel
- Terrorists attacks USA
- Americans lose their life
- Americans hate muslims
- USA attack arab countries
- More muslims dies
- Terrorists hates US even more
- Terrorists will attack US even more

and then REPEAT....

so the cycle will only be broken when:
- Israel returns the land.
- Palestinians have no more reason to fight.
- Israel wont be attacked.
- Israel wont have to kill anyone.
- Terrorists will have no reason to attack israel.
- US wont be hated for supporting israel
- Terrorists wont hate US
- Terrorists wont attack US



PS: NO religion is involved, war has always been about land and money, even the crusade werent about religion, maybe the religious leaders at that time liked to believe so, but the kings didnt care about religion, they just wanted more fame and land, thats the way war have always been, and its the way it will always be.

[abso]

If Hamas really wanted to fight then they should have organized themselves and taken the fight away from the civilians and their homes. You don't attack another country and then go home and have dinner with your families. You stay and fight until the battle is over. And, yes, I do believe terrorists who are not part of an army use civilians as cover hoping they won't be attacked.

maybe they cant form an army due to the fact that they dont have any weapons to form the army with, they will just be annihilated with one air strike if they grouped in one place.

and by the way i have always thought the same, Hamas should form an army and do large scale operations against israelian military insted of israelian civilians.

instead of one suicide bomber detonating himself in a check point for the israelian army, 100 men could attack and take the whole check point as prisoners, i never liked the suicide bombings, they are stupid, pointless, inhuman, against my principles and religion.

[SassyLady]

maybe they cant form an army due to the fact that they dont have any weapons to form the army with, they will just be annihilated with one air strike if they grouped in one place.

and by the way i have always thought the same, Hamas should form an army and do large scale operations against israelian military insted of israelian civilians.

instead of one suicide bomber detonating himself in a check point for the israelian army, 100 men could attack and take the whole check point as prisoners, i never liked the suicide bombings, they are stupid, pointless, inhuman, against my principles and religion.

Yep, pretty stupid and pointless and at the expense of thousands of lives.

[abso]

Yep, pretty stupid and pointless and at the expense of thousands of lives.

I couldn't agree more......

[SassyLady]

you can say that those land shouldnt be given back as much as you want, but the facts will always be:

- Israel stole the land (reason doesnt matter now)
no they didn't
- Palestinians wants their land back
so do millions of people who lost their lands in a war
- Palestinians will always fight for their land
then they will continue to die
- Israel doesnt want to return the land
they've had the land since 1967 ... so they consider it theirs now
- Israel continue its occupation illegally
if so, who will enforce the law
- Israel kills palestinians who attack it.
and so they should
- Terrorists hate israel for what happening
and yet they can decide to stop hating
- Terrorists attacks israel because its occupation
and because they don't want to admit they were wrong to try and attack Israel in the beginning
- US supports israel in everything it does.
strategic ally
- Terrorists hate USA for supporting israel
terrorist hate USA for more than just supporting Israel
- Terrorists attacks USA
terrorists are attacking everyone all over the world
- Americans lose their life
Yes, this is true
- Americans hate muslims
Probably as much as muslims hate Americans
- USA attack arab countries
Only after we were attacked multiple times all over the world
- More muslims dies
Probably
- Terrorists hates US even more
And US hates muslims and terrorist supporters even more
- Terrorists will attack US even more
And US will kill them all eventually

and then REPEAT....

so the cycle will only be broken when:
- Israel returns the land.
or the Palestinians move to a new land, just as the Jews had to
- Palestinians have no more reason to fight.
they'll find something else to fight about, that is their nature
- Israel wont be attacked.
sure .......... Arabs have been attacking them long before now
- Israel wont have to kill anyone.
that would also happen if the Palestinians leave them alone
- Terrorists will have no reason to attack israel.
They will always find a reason, therefore, it gains nothing to give the land back
- US wont be hated for supporting israel
No, they will be hated for something else
- Terrorists wont hate US
Of course they will, it's their job to hate
- Terrorists wont attack US
I don't believe this for one second




PS: NO religion is involved, war has always been about land and money, even the crusade werent about religion, maybe the religious leaders at that time liked to believe so, but the kings didnt care about religion, they just wanted more fame and land, thats the way war have always been, and its the way it will always be.

I don't believe for one minute that if Israel decided to give back the land they acquired, in the Six Days War, terrorism will stop. That's just the current excuse. The middle east has been waging war on someone for centuries and I don't think it will stop in our lifetime.

Can you tell me why Iran hates Israel so much ... did Israel take land from them also?

[abso]

I don't believe for one minute that if Israel decided to give back the land they acquired, in the Six Days War, terrorism will stop. That's just the current excuse. The middle east has been waging war on someone for centuries and I don't think it will stop in our lifetime.

Can you tell me why Iran hates Israel so much ... did Israel take land from them also?

With all due respect, Believe what you want, but its a fact that returning the land will lead to peace, if you dont believe that and you like the current situation, then enjoy it, lets keep counting the dead bodies together, until some stupid terrorist get his hands on a nuclear weapon, and detonate it in Israel or USA or Egypt or UK or any other place, we will just wait since none is really interested in solving the problem.

Thank you very much for your response, you really showed me how americans think of justice, that its a tool only to be used when they want justice for themselfs, not for anyone else.

you also showed me that USA, one of the founders of the international law wont abide by it, and wont enforce it unless its a muslim who is breaking it, but if israel breaks it, then US will just stand silent.

about Iran, i dont care why they hate israel, but probably for the same reason muslims around the world hate it, because israel is occupying palestinian lands, anyway, i dont like Iran, never did and never will, Egypt and Iran have never been friends.

[SassyLady]

Thank you very much for your response, you really showed me how americans think of justice, that its a tool only to be used when they want justice for themselfs, not for anyone else.

you also showed me that USA, one of the founders of the international law wont abide by it, and wont enforce it unless its a muslim who is breaking it, but if israel breaks it, then US will just stand silent.

about Iran, i dont care why they hate israel, but probably for the same reason muslims around the world hate it, because israel is occupying palestinian lands, anyway, i dont like Iran, never did and never will, Egypt and Iran have never been friends.

But you didn't answer the main premise of my statement ... do you honestly think terrorism will stop if Israel gives back Palestinian lands?

[abso]

But you didn't answer the main premise of my statement ... do you honestly think terrorism will stop if Israel gives back Palestinian lands?

Yes, i believe that Israel should do its part, and leave the rest for UN and USA and Egypt.

Israel should return the land, then the UN forces on the borders will take care of any further attacks.

that way, israel will show the world that it really wants peace, and that it did everything it can to achieve it, but palestinians didnt go along with the peace.

i am sure that you already know that USA will always protect israel, so i am also sure that if Hamas attacked israel after it gives the land back, USA will be more than able to protect those borders by placing NATO forces there.

dont just speculate and guess that arabs will always attack, do your part, and then if they attack, you can defend yourself well, but you cant just say that you are counter-attacking while you are occupying lands !!!

[SassyLady]

Yes, i believe that Israel should do its part, and leave the rest for UN and USA and Egypt.

Israel should return the land, then the UN forces on the borders will take care of any further attacks.

that way, israel will show the world that it really wants peace, and that it did everything it can to achieve it, but palestinians didnt go along with the peace.

i am sure that you already know that USA will always protect israel, so i am also sure that if Hamas attacked israel after it gives the land back, USA will be more than able to protect those borders by placing NATO forces there.

dont just speculate and guess that arabs will always attack, do your part, and then if they attack, you can defend yourself well, but you cant just say that you are counter-attacking while you are occupying lands !!!

So, you really don't think terrorism will stop just because Israel gives the land back. You think they should give it back, not defend themselves if attacked again, and let the US step in and kill the Palestinians that attack Israel?

How the hell will this help stop the hatred of the US?

[SassyLady]

Oh, and are you telling me that the terrorist attack in Sweden is because of the US backing Israel?


STOCKHOLM — Two days after a bomber killed himself and slightly wounded two people in a commercial district here crowded with Christmas shoppers, investigators offered glimpses of a suspect who, in the pattern of other Islamist terrorists, moved unobtrusively between Europe and the Middle East as he prepared to martyr himself, only to botch the operation in a manner that suggested a clumsy do-it-yourself attack.

A car was removed from outside the residence of a suspected suicide bomber in England on Monday.
The bomber was identified Monday as Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly, a 28-year-old Swede of Iraqi origin, who reportedly had been living with his wife and children in a house in Luton, just north of London, until as recently as three weeks ago. The town is notorious now as the early morning starting point for the four bombers who attacked the London transit system on July 7, 2005, killing 56 people, including themselves.

Police investigators searched the Luton house as well as an apartment in Stockholm’s northwestern suburbs, and carried away potential evidence, including a family car that was mounted on a flatbed and taken away from the Luton home.

The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported in its Monday editions that Mr. Abdaly had also recently visited Jordan. A sound recording delivered by e-mail to a Swedish news agency minutes before the explosions included an apology to his family for having lied to them about previous trips to the Middle East, which he said had not been for business but for jihad, or holy war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/world/europe/15sweden.html


So, why did this guy, from Iraq, who lived in London, and visited Jordan to learn about Jihad, try to blow people up in Sweden??????

Where does Israel have anything to do with this? This is why I don't think Israel is the root cause of terrorism....I think it's this whole Islam Jihad thing and Israel is a convenient excuse.

[abso]

So, you really don't think terrorism will stop just because Israel gives the land back. You think they should give it back, not defend themselves if attacked again, and let the US step in and kill the Palestinians that attack Israel?

How the hell will this help stop the hatred of the US?

i didnt say not to defend themselfs if attacked again, i said that UN troops on the borders will stop any attack, so there will be no attacks against israel at all, so it wont have to defend it self or attack palestinians again.

and USA will not be hated, because they wont be occupying anyone, and wont be helping anyone who is occupying palestine, they will be just defending the rightful borders of israel, along with UN forces, and maybe egyptian forces too.

so Israel can request the presence of Egyptian or any arabian forces on that borders to make it the responsibility of the arabs to stop the palestinians from attacking, by doing that, Israel will get out of the conflict for good, and if anyone attacks again, all the arbas will be to blame, and there will be no excuse at all for the palestinians because they got their land back.

[Kathianne]

i didnt say not to defend themselfs if attacked again, i said that UN troops on the borders will stop any attack, so there will be no attacks against israel at all, so it wont have to defend it self or attack palestinians again.

and USA will not be hated, because they wont be occupying anyone, and wont be helping anyone who is occupying palestine, they will be just defending the rightful borders of israel, along with UN forces, and maybe egyptian forces too.

so Israel can request the presence of Egyptian or any arabian forces on that borders to make it the responsibility of the arabs to stop the palestinians from attacking, by doing that, Israel will get out of the conflict for good, and if anyone attacks again, all the arbas will be to blame, and there will be no excuse at all for the palestinians because they got their land back.

Once again with the UN forces. The Israelis were convinced in '67 of the attack, when Nasser ordered the UNEF out of the border with Israel. The UN again was in Lebanon in 2008, watching Hizbollah firing the rockets into Israel. The UN will not work.

[Noir]

i really hope that it can be as simple as you say :rolleyes:

That is the solution, but it is far from simple, given how many say Americans willingly deny science for their private prejudices. Enlightenment is nowhere near as easy as you might think.

[abso]

Oh, and are you telling me that the terrorist attack in Sweden is because of the US backing Israel?



So, why did this guy, from Iraq, who lived in London, and visited Jordan to learn about Jihad, try to blow people up in Sweden??????

Where does Israel have anything to do with this? This is why I don't think Israel is the root cause of terrorism....I think it's this whole Islam Jihad thing and Israel is a convenient excuse.

i cant afford an explaination to all the individual terroristic activities, but the solutions i said, will greatly reduce the gap between the Muslims in the world and the westren policies, then we can see what will happen when we solve the current problems.

you cant expect the problem to go away in a blink of an eye, lets solve issues on at a time, i dont know why a stupid person blwos himself up in sweden or what he actually hope to achieve by that, but that doesnt mean that the issues i discussed is meaningless, they are important, and they are the most important issues between US and the muslims

[jimnyc]

Methinks someone is a jew hating, terrorist sympathizer.

Stop the terrorists from striking EVERY SINGLE DAY and then maybe other people will take ya'll a little more seriously.

16,510 Terror attacks since 9/11

Abso, would you like to go over a spreadsheet I can give you and you can add up just how many people muslims have killed in those 16k+ terror attacks? How come 100% of muslims are not against this type of actions? Even you, while not stating it outright, make excuses for these types of people and state you understand them.

Sorry, but I'll NEVER understand people who kill innocent people to get a point across or get their way.

[SassyLady]

i cant afford an explaination to all the individual terroristic activities, but the solutions i said, will greatly reduce the gap between the Muslims in the world and the westren policies, then we can see what will happen when we solve the current problems.

you cant expect the problem to go away in a blink of an eye, lets solve issues on at a time, i dont know why a stupid person blwos himself up in sweden or what he actually hope to achieve by that, but that doesnt mean that the issues i discussed is meaningless, they are important, and they are the most important issues between US and the muslims

Actually, abso, you've stated pretty clearly that terrorism will stop if Israel gives back Palestinian lands and that the hatred of the US will stop ..... yada, yada, yada......

And, then in the next breath you say that the US and NATO will have to defend the borders from the Arabs ..... why would we want to put US troops and NATO troops on the borders ... why not just let Israel defend her own borders ... you stated that you didn't think the attacks would stop

So, your entire premise is flawed because you know that the hatred of Israel runs so deep that even if they give the land back the attacks will not stop.

Give it up, abso. It's not going to happen and the terrorists who are going around the world killing "innocents", who have nothing to do with the conflict, are causing the rest of the world to hate Muslims way more than they hate the US or Israel.

So, if Muslims truly want peace .... let them be the first to back off and leave things alone. That would show that they can, indeed, be peaceful.

[abso]

Once again with the UN forces. The Israelis were convinced in '67 of the attack, when Nasser ordered the UNEF out of the border with Israel. The UN again was in Lebanon in 2008, watching Hizbollah firing the rockets into Israel. The UN will not work.

i also said NATO forces, including american troops, wont that work too ?

the fact that Israel convinced of attack in 67 doesnt matter, what you are conviced with and what will happen can be very different, USA already stopped any possible attack by asking Nasser to promise not to attack first, and he did promise, and his promise means that Syria wont attack too.

all the actions taken by Nasser were normal due to the available information coming from USSR which says that Israel was going to attack Syria, closing the straits and ordering UNEF out was the only response he can do, he had to send them out because in case that Israel attacks Syria, he had to intervene fastly, and UNEF cant be here if the war broke out, so he sent them out.


so you can say that Egypt was going to attack as much as you want, but the fact is that US president at that time, had a promise from Nasser that arabs are not going to fire the first shot, and that he will send his vice president to USA to negotiate a diplomatic solution, but Israel attacked few days before Nasser sends his vice president.

and i can assure you, that Nasser had the exact time of the attack, it was sent to him from Egyptian spy who has been living in israel as a jew for more than 20 years, but Nasser choosed to dismiss that info because he believed that his promise to USA meant that USA will also make Israel promise the same and it will stop Israel from firing the first shot too, he wanted diplomatic solution for the problem.




In his speech to Arab trade unionists on May 26, Nasser announced: "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."

Nasser publicly denied that Egypt would strike first and spoke of a negotiated peace if Israel allowed all Palestinian refugees the right of return, and of a possible compromise over the Strait of Tiran.

Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography that he found "Nasser's assurance that he did not plan an armed attack" convincing, adding that "Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war". Writing from Egypt on June 4, 1967, New York Times journalist James Reston observed: "Cairo does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war. But it has already accepted the possibility, even the likelihood, of war, as if it had lost control of the situation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#The_drift_to_war






Israel was accused of harassing Arab farmers in the Demilitarized Zone and opening fire on Syrian military positions, while Israeli armored tractors were cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, backed by Israel forces placed there. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators. Syria claimed that in every instance where there was a Syrian firing, it was in return of provocative Israel fire directed against peaceful Arab farmers or Syrian posts.

Nine years later, Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister at the time of the war, stated in an interview not published until 1997 that Israeli policy at the Demilitarized Zone between 1949 and 1967 consisted of "snatching bits of territory and holding on to it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us." About events on the Israeli-Syrian border he said:

After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Czera did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado. We thought that we could change the lines of the ceasefire accords by military actions that were less than war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Israel_and_Syria





According to the Israeli government, 50 Jordanians were killed, but the true number was never disclosed by the Jordanians, in order to keep up morale and confidence in King Hussein's regime. The whole battle was short: the Israeli forces crossed the border at 6:00 A.M. and returned by 10:00 A.M.

Hussein felt betrayed by the operation. He had been having secret meetings with Israeli foreign ministers Abba Eban and Golda Meir for three years. According to him he was doing everything he could to stop guerrilla attacks from the West Bank and Jordan. "I told them I could not absorb a serious retaliatory raid, and they accepted the logic of this and promised there would never be one".

Two days later, in a memo to U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, his Special Assistant Walt Rostow wrote: "retaliation is not the point in this case. This 3000-man raid with tanks and planes was out of all proportion to the provocation and was aimed at the wrong target," and went on to describe the damage done to US and Israeli interests:

They've wrecked a good system of tacit cooperation between Hussein and the Israelis... They've undercut Hussein. We've spent $500 million to shore him up as a stabilizing factor on Israel's longest border and vis-à-vis Syria and Iraq. Israel's attack increases the pressure on him to counterattack not only from the more radical Arab governments and from the Palestinians in Jordan but also from the Army, which is his main source of support and may now press for a chance to recoup its Sunday losses... They've set back progress toward a long term accommodation with the Arabs... They may have persuaded the Syrians that Israel didn't dare attack Soviet-protected Syria but could attack US-backed Jordan with impunity.




At 10:00 p.m. on May 16, the commander of United Nations Emergency Force, General Indar Jit Rikhye, was handed a letter from General Mohammed Fawzy, Chief of Staff of the United Arab Republic, reading: "To your information, I gave my instructions to all U.A.R. armed forces to be ready for action against Israel, the moment it might carry out any aggressive action against any Arab country. Due to these instructions our troops are already concentrated in Sinai on our eastern border. For the sake of complete security of all U.N. troops which install OPs along our borders, I request that you issue your orders to withdraw all these troops immediately." Rikhye said he would report to the Secretary-General for instructions

[abso]

Please read this then tell me again that Israel thought that Egypt was going to attack:



Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin also stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli," but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war, When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."

Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."

[abso]

Actually, abso, you've stated pretty clearly that terrorism will stop if Israel gives back Palestinian lands and that the hatred of the US will stop ..... yada, yada, yada......

And, then in the next breath you say that the US and NATO will have to defend the borders from the Arabs ..... why would we want to put US troops and NATO troops on the borders ... why not just let Israel defend her own borders ... you stated that you didn't think the attacks would stop

So, your entire premise is flawed because you know that the hatred of Israel runs so deep that even if they give the land back the attacks will not stop.

Give it up, abso. It's not going to happen and the terrorists who are going around the world killing "innocents", who have nothing to do with the conflict, are causing the rest of the world to hate Muslims way more than they hate the US or Israel.

So, if Muslims truly want peace .... let them be the first to back off and leave things alone. That would show that they can, indeed, be peaceful.

when did i state that i dont think that the attacks wont stop ??? :confused:

i just said that If Hamas attacks again, then NATO will stop it.

yes, i know that terrorist are causing people to hate muslims, that why i am here in this forum, to let some people know, that there are moderate muslims who hate terrorists too as much as americans do and even more.

but so say that palestinians should leave things alone, that cant happen, they wont let their land go, its their land, and their right, israel cant just attack anyone it want, and annex their land, stop dreaming, and have some justice in your opinions.

[abso]

Methinks someone is a jew hating, terrorist sympathizer.

Stop the terrorists from striking EVERY SINGLE DAY and then maybe other people will take ya'll a little more seriously.

16,510 Terror attacks since 9/11

Abso, would you like to go over a spreadsheet I can give you and you can add up just how many people muslims have killed in those 16k+ terror attacks? How come 100% of muslims are not against this type of actions? Even you, while not stating it outright, make excuses for these types of people and state you understand them.

Sorry, but I'll NEVER understand people who kill innocent people to get a point across or get their way.

who says 100% of the muslims are against that type of actions, do you forget that the country that have the largest number of terrorist operations this days is Iraq, a muslim country, suffers from terrorism more than any other country will ever do, so how can you say that muslims agree with that !!!, muslims who died in terrorist operations are far more than all the americans who died in those operations, so how can you say we dont hate it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am not making excuses, i am stating reasons, as you can see, the topic name is "Causes", so do you think that terrorists have no reasons and no causes at all, just some madmen who woke up in someday and decided to blow themselfs up, can you ever imagine how hard is it to decide to blow yourself up ???????????

[abso]

Please read this then tell me again that Israel thought that Egypt was going to attack:



Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin also stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli," but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.

PS: Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war.

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war, When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."

Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."

i have posted everything i can post about 1967 war to prove that Israel could have avoided that war, and it choose to start it, and that Egypt was never going to attack, even Israel knew that, and admitted it, but no matter what i say, and no matter what i post about what Israelian leaders said, everyone here is just convinced that Israel didnt start the war.

[Gaffer]

So hypothetically we put NATO troops on the borders of Israel. And Israel pulls back to the 67 borders. Now hamas and hexbollah begin shooting rockets once again into Israel. Now, for NATO to respond they have to go after those rockets. Of course the rockets are stashed in neighborhoods and schools, as is normal hamas practice. So you again have civilian and innocent casualties. So now NATO is the bad guy and the demands begin for the withdrawl of NATO forces. And the world would cry about the loses of troops in this conflict to protect the Jews. If you doubt this would be the case then you are a fool. It's exactly how it would go down.

The pals and the arabs want nothing less than Israels complete destruction and the deaths of every man, woman and child in Israel. Because the LAND must be returned to mulsim rule.

[jimnyc]

who says 100% of the muslims are against that type of actions, do you forget that the country that have the largest number of terrorist operations this days is Iraq, a muslim country, suffers from terrorism more than any other country will ever do, so how can you say that muslims agree with that !!!, muslims who died in terrorist operations are far more than all the americans who died in those operations, so how can you say we dont hate it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am not making excuses, i am stating reasons, as you can see, the topic name is "Causes", so do you think that terrorists have no reasons and no causes at all, just some madmen who woke up in someday and decided to blow themselfs up, can you ever imagine how hard is it to decide to blow yourself up ???????????

Muslims obviously are not doing anything to put a stop to terrorism by themselves. Now the US is in 2 countries fighting off of terrorism, and you are telling us we should leave instead of joining by our side to ride these countries of what's been infecting them for so long. If Muslims truly wanted to be "free" and fight terrorism as well, they would join us and not FIGHT us.

[Kathianne]

Please read this then tell me again that Israel thought that Egypt was going to attack:



Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin also stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli," but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war, When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."

Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."

Quotes without context or citations make me leery. You might want to check out this book, best I've ever read on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-War-Making-Modern/dp/0195151747

Michael Oren's "Six Days of War."

[abso]

Quotes without context or citations make me leery. You might want to check out this book, best I've ever read on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-War-Making-Modern/dp/0195151747

Michael Oren's "Six Days of War."



On May 25, 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban landed in Washington “with instructions to discuss American plans to re-open the Strait of Tiran”. As soon as he arrived, he was given new instructions in a cable from the Israeli government. The cable said that Israel had learned of an imminent Egyptian attack, which overshadowed the blockade. No longer was he to emphasize the strait issue; he was instructed to ‘inform the highest authorities of this new threat and to request an official statement from the United States that an attack on Israel would be viewed as an attack on the United States.”According to most sources, including those involved, the new instructions were sent at the instigation of Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, who was eager to force an American decision – either Johnson would have to commit to specific American action then, or Israel would be free to act on its own.

Historian Michael Oren explains Eban's reaction to the new instructions: "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat - and flaunting their weakness - in order to extract a pledge that the President, Congress-bound, could never make." He described the cable as an '... act of momentous irresponsibility... eccentric...' which 'lacked wisdom, veracity and tactical understanding,' and later came to the conclusion that the genesis of the cable was Rabin's indecisive state of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War




In a lecture given in 2002, Oren said, "Johnson sat around with his advisors and said, ‘What if their intelligence sources are better than ours?’ Johnson decided to fire off a Hotline message to his counterpart in the Kremlin, Alexei Kosygin, in which he said, ‘We've heard from the Israelis, but we can't corroborate it, that your proxies in the Middle East, the Egyptians, plan to launch an attack against Israel in the next 48 hours. If you don't want to start a global crisis, prevent them from doing that.’ At 2:30 a.m. on May 27, Soviet Ambassador to Egypt Dimitri Pojidaev knocked on Nasser's door and read him a personal letter from Kosygin in which he said, ‘We don't want Egypt to be blamed for starting a war in the Middle East. If you launch that attack, we cannot support you.’ Amer consulted his sources in the Kremlin, and they corroborated the substance of Kosygin's message. Despondent, Amer told the commander of Egypt's air force, Major General Mahmud Sidqi, that the operation was cancelled." According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War





On May 30, Nasser responded to Johnson's request of 11 days earlier and agreed to send his Vice President, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on June 7 to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought".

Historian Michael Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did".





The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael B. Oren has acknowledged that "By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed..." Israel's assessment was that "Nasser would have to be deranged to take on an Israel backed by France and the U.S. Sixth Fleet. War, according to the Israelis, could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally—a most unlikely confluence."

(Oren 2002, pp. 59–60).




U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban that the U.S. intelligence assessment was that "the Egyptian deployments were defensive in character and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack".

Memorandum of Conversation, Washington, May 26, 1967, 10:30 a.m (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d69)




“The myth of Israel as victim is also reflected in the conventional wisdom about the 1967 war, which claims that Egypt and Syria are principally responsible for starting it... It is clear from the release of new documents about the war, however, that the Arabs did not intend to initiate a war against Israel in the late spring of 1967, much less try to destroy the Jewish state.”

(John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt; The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin Books, pp. 84–85).





“Avi Shlaim, a distinguished Israeli ‘new historian’ writes, ‘There is general agreement among commentators that [Egyptian President] Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel’.

(John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt; The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin Books, p. 85).




“Serious diplomatic efforts were also under way to solve the crisis peacefully. Yet Israel chose to attack anyway, because its leaders ultimately preferred war to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. In particular, Israel’s military commanders wanted to inflict significant military defeats on their two main adversaries – Egypt and Syria – in order to strengthen Israeli deterrence over the long term... In short, Israel was not preempting an impending attack when it struck the first blow on June 5, 1967. Instead, it was launching a preventive war – a war aimed at affecting the balance of power over time.”

(John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt; The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin Books, p. 85).




“Various Israeli officials said later... that 'Israel had not in fact anticipated an imminent attack by Egypt when it struck June 5'”.

The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, p. 164; John B Quigley (http://books.google.com/books?id=VaUvqHNd6m0C&pg=PA164&dq=Israel+1967+Strait+of+War+existence+in+danger&sig=6GkdFAkh39zp1qRkmfpC__nxobg#v=onepage&q&f=false)




Israel's former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, also said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Quoted in Chomsky, Noam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky) (1999) The Fateful Triangle, South End Press, p. 100. ISBN 0896086011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0896086011). Quote from Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972; for a more extensive quote, see Cooley, Green March, Black September, p. 162.





"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967,

in Le Monde on 28 February 1968.




"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'"

The New York Times, May 11, 1997.





Lenczowski 1990, p. 105-115, Citing Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life, and Nadav Safran, From War to War: The Arab-Israeli Confrontation, 1948-1967, p. 375

Israel clearly did not want the US government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for June 8, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on the Liberty occurred on June 8, whereas on June 9 at 3 AM, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7 AM, that is, four hours later, Israel’s minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, “gave the order to go into action against Syria.”





“The claim that Israel was in danger of imminent destruction was propaganda aimed at the Israeli public no less than Israel’s Western sympathisers, part of what Seale has described as “one of the most extensive and remarkable exercises in psychological warfare ever attempted. Foreign intelligence agencies were in agreement that Israel would make short work of Arab armies...”

”June 5, 1967: A Retrospective View”; Centre of Policy “Analysis on Palestine; Jeremy Salt (http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/2929)





“The Israeli-compiled Middle East Record stated that ‘most observers agree’ that Nasser did not intend to launch an attack ‘and that his pledges to U Thant and to the Great Powers not to start shooting should, therefore, be accepted at their face value’.”
(“Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict”;Norman Finkelstein, p. 134)





“Mossad chief Meir Amit (stated) ‘Egypt was not ready for a war’ and Nasser did not want a war’”

(“Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict”; Norman Finkelstein, p. 134)





“President Johnson told Eban that even after instructing his ‘experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to be true’, it was still their ‘unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack’ – a conclusion according to Eban, also reached by Israeli intelligence”.

(“Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict”;Norman Finkelstein, p. 134)





30.“... all US intelligence... had characterized Nasser's troops in the Sinai as "defensive in nature".

Tolan, Sandy. (5 June 2007). Rethinking Israel’s ‘David and Goliath’ Past, Salon.com.





“... declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration—including Johnson's most pro-Israeli Cabinet members—did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke...”

Tolan, Sandy. (5 June 2007). Rethinking Israel’s ‘David and Goliath’ Past, Salon.com. (http://imeu.net/news/article005461.shtml)





‘In the Security Council on June 5 Egypt charged Israel with aggression, as did the USSR. But Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first. It told the council that “in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Egyptian artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha..." In fact, Egypt had not attacked by land or air and none of its aircraft had approached Israel.’

The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective; John B Quigley, p. 163





The US Office of Current Intelligence "...soon concluded that the Israelis - contrary to their claims - had fired first."
Robarge, 2007.




SO, is that enough citation ?, need me to post more ? :salute:

[abso]

So hypothetically we put NATO troops on the borders of Israel. And Israel pulls back to the 67 borders. Now hamas and hexbollah begin shooting rockets once again into Israel. Now, for NATO to respond they have to go after those rockets. Of course the rockets are stashed in neighborhoods and schools, as is normal hamas practice. So you again have civilian and innocent casualties. So now NATO is the bad guy and the demands begin for the withdrawl of NATO forces. And the world would cry about the loses of troops in this conflict to protect the Jews. If you doubt this would be the case then you are a fool. It's exactly how it would go down.

The pals and the arabs want nothing less than Israels complete destruction and the deaths of every man, woman and child in Israel. Because the LAND must be returned to mulsim rule.

i am an arab, so now you are telling me what i want and what i am thinking ???


let me tell you, that i already know my own intention and need, dont need to be told about whats in my mind, and i can assure you that many arabs think like me.

anyway, arabs just want justice, the justice that you dont understand and probably never will, the justice of allowing people to live with dignity, with no fear of taking their home away just so that another country can build more settlements, returning the stolen land is what we need and what we want, and believe me, we will get it, be it in my life time or in my grand children's time, i am sure that the land will be back, no arab will ever let go of his land, its their right to want it back, and none have the right to tell them to let go.

and none says that Hamas and Hizbollah will attack Israel after it returns the land, i believe that they will stop attacking, and rebuild the palestinian country.

and i also said that NATO forces will be joined with arab forces, from Egypt and many other arab countries, which will make all the arabs responsible for defending any attack from Hamas if it happened, so none will object to anything, the arab countries themselfs will enforce Hamas to stop attacking if they did.

[abso]

Muslims obviously are not doing anything to put a stop to terrorism by themselves. Now the US is in 2 countries fighting off of terrorism, and you are telling us we should leave instead of joining by our side to ride these countries of what's been infecting them for so long. If Muslims truly wanted to be "free" and fight terrorism as well, they would join us and not FIGHT us.

who says that we are not doing anything to stop it, you cant imagine the precautions taken by the egyptian police and military to stop it, we fight it everyday, in Saudia too, they fight terrorism on daily basis, algeria, morroco, both also have terrorists and they fight them, you just assume that we stay silent while actually we get attacked alot more than you.

[SassyLady]

who says that we are not doing anything to stop it, you cant imagine the precautions taken by the egyptian police and military to stop it, we fight it everyday, in Saudia too, they fight terrorism on daily basis, algeria, morroco, both also have terrorists and they fight them, you just assume that we stay silent while actually we get attacked alot more than you.

Why, abso? Why? Didn't you say terrorism is caused by the USA's support of Israel. Why would the terrorists attack your country?

[abso]

Why, abso? Why? Didn't you say terrorism is caused by the USA's support of Israel. Why would the terrorists attack your country?

because we are at peace with israel, and friends of USA, and because some stupid people have the wrong idea about islam, and think that they should start an islamic nation, and all the arab countries are standing in their way of achieving that, those kind of people, use the conflicts which makes many youth hate israel and USA, they use those conflicts to recruit ignorant youth into their cause, thats why we should solve the problems which make people more willing to join them.

and i never said that the support of israel and that israel actions are the ONLY reason of terrorism, but its the MAIN reason, and we should start by the main reasons, so returning the land will resolve the main issue, then we can look for the other issues and solve them.

there will be radical people with stupid ideas, but the thing is, that by solving the palestinian and iraqi and afghani problem, we will eliminate the main sources of terrorism, and reduce the numbers of possible recruits very greatly, so we will reduce the problem effectively, and alot of terrorists will stop their actions because they will have no reason to do so, but the ones who choose terrorism just out of their own hatred to the west not just because of any political reason, those are the few that we will face, and believe me, they are very few compared to the whole number of terrorists.

if you have a chance to weaken your enemy greatly and eliminate all forms of support that he can get, wont you take that chance ?

[SassyLady]

because we are at peace with israel, and friends of USA, and because some stupid people have the wrong idea about islam, and think that they should start an islamic nation, and all the arab countries are standing in their way of achieving that, those kind of people, use the conflicts which makes many youth hate israel and USA, they use those conflicts to recruit ignorant youth into their cause, thats why we should solve the problems which make people more willing to join them.

and i never said that the support of israel and that israel actions are the ONLY reason of terrorism, but its the MAIN reason, and we should start by the main reasons, so returning the land will resolve the main issue, then we can look for the other issues and solve them.

there will be radical people with stupid ideas, but the thing is, that by solving the palestinian and iraqi and afghani problem, we will eliminate the main sources of terrorism, and reduce the numbers of possible recruits very greatly, so we will reduce the problem effectively, and alot of terrorists will stop their actions because they will have no reason to do so, but the ones who choose terrorism just out of their own hatred to the west not just because of any political reason, those are the few that we will face, and believe me, they are very few compared to the whole number of terrorists.

if you have a chance to weaken your enemy greatly and eliminate all forms of support that he can get, wont you take that chance ?

Here's some interesting information I found:



Even Egypt, first to make peace with Israel and the presumed model for peacemaking, has built a vast U.S.-equipped army that conducts military exercises obviously designed for fighting Israel. Its huge "Badr '96" exercises, for example, Egypt's largest since the 1973 war, featured simulated crossings of the Suez Canal.
- Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998


After Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat's death, his successor Hosni Mubarak discovered that Egypt could ignore its peace treaty obligations to Israel with impunity. Sadat had signed over 50 agreements and amendments to the Camp David Accords, which spelled out in great detail normalization of relations with Israel. These included trade, tourism, science, cultural and other attributes of peaceful relations. The late Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, fully believed that his sacrifice of Sinai, with its air bases and oil, was worth the inauguration of peaceful relations with the most important country in the Arab world.
With every passing year, it became clearer to Mubarak that the Israelis were too timid to protest Egyptian violations. It also became clear that America would continue to supply aid in the billions of dollars to Egypt, despite Egypt's obvious violations of their most solemn commitments to both President Jimmy Carter and Begin.

From this experience Mubarak devised the "Mubarak gambit," which sets out the principle that an Arab country can promise Israel peace and full normalization as a negotiating tactic in order to force an Israeli withdrawal from territory. Then after the territory is recovered, the Arab country can ignore the normalization part of any agreement.

- Bernard J. Shapiro, in The Caucus Current, October 1994


"[Anwar Sadat was] a traitor [who had] what was coming to him. He is now dead and buried. Having lived like a Jew, he died like one."
- Colonel Qaddafi, dictator of neighboring Libya, friend of Nelson Mandela. [quoted in Jacques Givet's "The Anti-Zionist Complex"]




Really, how can Egypt violate such a significant agreement? Aren't the relations with Israel good now?

Two radical Leftists, Moshe Dayan and Ezer Weizman, coupled with the weak Carter, pounded Begin to give up all the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for absolutely nothing. Oh, Yes...The paper words, like Oslo, had all the correct words of peace:, cooperation, exchange of agricultural ideas, cessation of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Egyptian press. Guess what. The Camp David Accords were never kept - except by Israel. Today the Egyptian Press is rife with ugly statements against the Jewish State, lavish with anti-Semitic cartoons so familiar during Hitler's regime. Nothing changed. That some Israelis could be so pathetically stupid in the face of unreciprocated Peace gestures is a shanda (shame) for all the Jewish people.
- Emanuel A. Winston


Egyptian Anti-Normalization And Anti-Semitism:
An Impediment To Full Relations With Israel
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will be in Washington the week of March 27 for a state visit. Israeli-Arab negotiations will certainly be the centerpiece of his discussions with President Clinton and Administration officials.

Egyptian Centrality in Arab-Israeli Peace


Egypt, under the courageous leadership of President Anwar Sadat, changed the course of Middle East history by becoming the first Arab nation to make peace with the State of Israel. In his nearly two decades in power, President Mubarak has continued the policy of Sadat and has maintained peaceful relations with Israel. President Mubarak has also worked over the years to encourage other Arab leaders to enter negotiations with Israel and has been an important behind-the-scenes facilitator of Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and others.

A "Cold Peace"

At the same time, however, twenty-one years into this historic peace, relations between Israel and Egypt have never developed beyond proper cordiality. President Mubarak has done little to warm up the "cold peace," and to encourage people-to-people exchanges and interactions between Israelis and Egyptians. Symbolically, unlike his predecessor, President Mubarak has never gone on a state visit to Israel, always claiming that the timing is not appropriate. (He did attend the funeral of the late Prime Minister Rabin in Jerusalem.)

As in other Arab countries, while the leadership may be engaged in relations with Israel, Egypt?s grassroots and intelligentsia are opposed to any contact with Israel and Jews. Professionals in Egypt are discouraged from interacting with Israeli colleagues. Israelis are barred from participating in "international" book and film festivals in Egypt.

Continuing Anti-Semitism in the Egyptian Media

The cold peace between Israel and Egypt is most apparent in the Egyptian media where all too often Jews and Israelis are depicted in a derogatory and incendiary manner. Anti-Semitic stereotypes are prevalent in caricatures and articles, with Jews portrayed as stooped, hook-nosed and money-hungry, fighting for world domination. Israeli leaders are regularly depicted as Nazis, while other articles deny or diminish the Holocaust. The articles and caricatures can be found in opposition newspapers as well as in the government-backed press, including the largest dailies, Al-Ahram, Al-Goumhuriyya and the popular magazine October.

While President Mubarak has on occasion denounced these anti-Jewish depictions and conspiracy theories, claims of "International Zionist" conspiracies continue to dominate the media, as do depictions of Jews as Nazis, and Holocaust denial.

- Anti-Defamation League




Ok, so they are not friends, but is there war between them? The threat of war?

In September 1996, Egypt held its largest strategic maneuvers ever. The exercise was code named Badr-96 and involved over 35,000 soldiers, including a canal crossing and liberating of a "besieged city." The "enemy" in this exercise was Israel. It is routine for major militarily exercises to have code names and to involve fictitious enemies. However, it is most unusual for a country to conduct such an exercise in which the "enemy" is one that the country is presumably at peace with. Egypt, regardless of its intentions, sent a disturbing message to Israel by naming the exercise in honor of its last war with Israel, and by identifying Israel as the enemy. These events take on even more significant meaning when one looks at the transformation of the Egyptian military forces over the past decade.
Egypt, since 1985, has undertaken serious efforts to achieve conventional military parity with Israel and currently fields the 13th largest military in the world. Relying on $2.1 billion of annual aid from the US, $1.3 billion in military assistance, is currently modernizing and building-up its military forces to such an extent that it is approaching the quantitative and qualitative levels of the Israeli Defense Forces. In 1994, Egypt surpassed the United States to become the second largest arms importer, behind Saudi Arabia, in the world. Egypt, in a region thatleads the world in the import of weapons, is the only Middle East country to have increased its arms purchases yearly since 1990.

...Egypt is bordered by Libya, Sudan, and Israel. While Sudan's Islamic regime is ideologically troublesome, its 300 main battle tanks (250 of which are T-54/55's), and some 50 combat aircraft pose a negligible military threat to Egypt. On paper, Libya's military is far more formidable than Sudan's. However, its forces hardly pose a military threat to Egypt. Some 1,600 of Libya's 2,200 tanks are old Soviet T-54/5's. Moreover, a lack of manpower has forced Libya to place over half of these tanks, as well as many of its 400 aircraft, in storage, thereby making Libya little more than a massive arms depot. It is significant to note, that Libya's 80,000 man military is less than twenty percent the size of Egypt's. Finally, despite the triangle of tension between Egypt, Sudan, and Libya, they have generally demonstrated a willingness to support each other over perceived pan-Islamic issues. Consequently, there is little doubt that Israel is the target of Egypt's massive military buildup. Indeed, an examination of Egyptian perspectives towards Israel leaves little doubt that Egypt has not ruled out the prospect of a future conflict with Israel.

Former Egyptian President Sadat's support of expanded relations with Israel never came to fruition as Egypt's intellectual, political, and economic elite continued to shun Israel as a regional actor. The passage of time has not improved Egyptian perceptions toward, or its acceptance of, Israel.

- Shawn M. Pine, in The Maccabean, July 19

Just a few perspectives on the animosity that Egypt has for Israel.

[abso]

Here's some interesting information I found:

Just a few perspectives on the animosity that Egypt has for Israel.


so now after you couldnt aruge anymore that Egypt started the war, and after i proved that israel started it, you are searching for other things against egypt ? ;)

okay, i will play along with your game, i will answer in a few minutes.

[NightTrain]

so now after you couldnt aruge anymore that Egypt started the war, and after i proved that israel started it, you are searching for other things against egypt ? ;)

okay, i will play along with your game, i will answer in a few minutes.

Don't be ridiculous. The arabs started the wars, as I outlined a few posts back.

You don't say shit like "We'll be in Tel Aviv in three days" and "We will annihilate Israel completely" among many others and expect Israel to sit there and wait until you attack.

The only reason Cairo and Damascus weren't taken is because the USA intervened and told Israel to stop, and that was only because the Soviet Union would have gotten involved and we didn't feel like allowing you people to start WWIII.

You arabs were at fault, you got your asses kicked, it was 43 years ago, get over it.

[abso]

Here's some interesting information I found:
Just a few perspectives on the animosity that Egypt has for Israel.




Even Egypt, first to make peace with Israel and the presumed model for peacemaking, has built a vast U.S.-equipped army that conducts military exercises obviously designed for fighting Israel. Its huge "Badr '96" exercises, for example, Egypt's largest since the 1973 war, featured simulated crossings of the Suez Canal.
- Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998


Our military exercises is not anyone's business, assuming that Israel may be our enemy in the future is normal, they are the only country near us which may have conflict with us in the future, do you condemn us for training !!!!!!, we are just taking precautions, but we will never start any war with anyone.

training our soliders for crossing our canal is our wish, and we can train our army to cross any part of our country, will you accept that anyone talks about the US army training !!!




After Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat's death, his successor Hosni Mubarak discovered that Egypt could ignore its peace treaty obligations to Israel with impunity. Sadat had signed over 50 agreements and amendments to the Camp David Accords, which spelled out in great detail normalization of relations with Israel. These included trade, tourism, science, cultural and other attributes of peaceful relations. The late Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, fully believed that his sacrifice of Sinai, with its air bases and oil, was worth the inauguration of peaceful relations with the most important country in the Arab world.

With every passing year, it became clearer to Mubarak that the Israelis were too timid to protest Egyptian violations. It also became clear that America would continue to supply aid in the billions of dollars to Egypt, despite Egypt's obvious violations of their most solemn commitments to both President Jimmy Carter and Begin.

From this experience Mubarak devised the "Mubarak gambit," which sets out the principle that an Arab country can promise Israel peace and full normalization as a negotiating tactic in order to force an Israeli withdrawal from territory. Then after the territory is recovered, the Arab country can ignore the normalization part of any agreement.

- Bernard J. Shapiro, in The Caucus Current, October 1994


Egyptian dictator ???, so even the one who defied all the arabs to make peace with israel, is being called a dictator.

Mubarak never thought about ignoring the peace treaty, actually the some of the egyptians are the ones who want this treaty to be cancelled because its unjust, but Mubarak always refuses because he wants peace.
Menachem Begin, the leader of the terrorist organization "Irgun" is "Of Blessed Memory", and Sadat is a dictator ?

Sacrificed Sinai ???, you say it as if it was his right to take it in the first place, he gave back something that is not his, is that called sacrifice nowdays ?

Egypt's obvious violations, what exactly are those violations ???

when exactly did egypt violate any of its agreement at camp david ?, is that even called credible info in your opinion ?

just saying that egypt violated the agreement without mentioning any violation at all is not something i would call credible, unless you are just choosing to believe anything you read.




"[Anwar Sadat was] a traitor [who had] what was coming to him. He is now dead and buried. Having lived like a Jew, he died like one."
- Colonel Qaddafi, dictator of neighboring Libya, friend of Nelson Mandela.



what does that have to do with egypt, and how that proves egypt animosity towards israel, you are posting an insult from the leader of Libya to Anwar Sadat because Sadat made peace with israel, does that actually prove that egypt had animosity for israel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

what you posted just shows us that Libya is stupid, which is something that we all already KNOW

you really need to work harder on your abilities to find something that actually proves your case, ;)


[QUOTE]
Really, how can Egypt violate such a significant agreement? Aren't the relations with Israel good now?

Two radical Leftists, Moshe Dayan and Ezer Weizman, coupled with the weak Carter, pounded Begin to give up all the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for absolutely nothing. Oh, Yes...The paper words, like Oslo, had all the correct words of peace:, cooperation, exchange of agricultural ideas, cessation of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Egyptian press. Guess what. The Camp David Accords were never kept - except by Israel. Today the Egyptian Press is rife with ugly statements against the Jewish State, lavish with anti-Semitic cartoons so familiar during Hitler's regime. Nothing changed. That some Israelis could be so pathetically stupid in the face of unreciprocated Peace gestures is a shanda (shame) for all the Jewish people.
- Emanuel A. Winston


Give up all Sinai, again another one talking like if Sinai belonged to Israel.

for absolutely nothing ?, you really need to read camp david again.

Egypt is already selling a large proportion of its natural gas to Israel, at rates much lower than international standards, and you say that we are not cooperating with israel and we are violating the agreements ?




Egyptian Anti-Normalization And Anti-Semitism:
An Impediment To Full Relations With Israel
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will be in Washington the week of March 27 for a state visit. Israeli-Arab negotiations will certainly be the centerpiece of his discussions with President Clinton and Administration officials.
Egyptian Centrality in Arab-Israeli Peace


actually i didnt understand what is meant by this part at all, care to explain anything !!!!, what does that have to do with the subject and what does it proves, just a headline for two lines which is not related at all to the headline ?





Egypt, under the courageous leadership of President Anwar Sadat, changed the course of Middle East history by becoming the first Arab nation to make peace with the State of Israel. In his nearly two decades in power, President Mubarak has continued the policy of Sadat and has maintained peaceful relations with Israel. President Mubarak has also worked over the years to encourage other Arab leaders to enter negotiations with Israel and has been an important behind-the-scenes facilitator of Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and others.

Thats true, its good to see that at least someone acknowledge that.

A "Cold Peace"

At the same time, however, twenty-one years into this historic peace, relations between Israel and Egypt have never developed beyond proper cordiality. President Mubarak has done little to warm up the "cold peace," and to encourage people-to-people exchanges and interactions between Israelis and Egyptians. Symbolically, unlike his predecessor, President Mubarak has never gone on a state visit to Israel, always claiming that the timing is not appropriate. (He did attend the funeral of the late Prime Minister Rabin in Jerusalem.)

As in other Arab countries, while the leadership may be engaged in relations with Israel, Egypt's grassroots and intelligentsia are opposed to any contact with Israel and Jews. Professionals in Egypt are discouraged from interacting with Israeli colleagues. Israelis are barred from participating in "international" book and film festivals in Egypt.
Continuing Anti-Semitism in the Egyptian Media.

The cold peace between Israel and Egypt is most apparent in the Egyptian media where all too often Jews and Israelis are depicted in a derogatory and incendiary manner. Anti-Semitic stereotypes are prevalent in caricatures and articles, with Jews portrayed as stooped, hook-nosed and money-hungry, fighting for world domination. Israeli leaders are regularly depicted as Nazis, while other articles deny or diminish the Holocaust. The articles and caricatures can be found in opposition newspapers as well as in the government-backed press, including the largest dailies, Al-Ahram, Al-Goumhuriyya and the popular magazine October.

While President Mubarak has on occasion denounced these anti-Jewish depictions and conspiracy theories, claims of "International Zionist" conspiracies continue to dominate the media, as do depictions of Jews as Nazis, and Holocaust denial.
- Anti-Defamation League


who said that relations with israel will ever be normal, relations cant be normal unless the people of the country accept it, government may accept israel, and the official policy of the country accept it, but me and people like me, will never accept to have natural relations with Israel until it stop its occupation of palestine, thats a normal reactions of arabs towards a country that occupy arabian lands, but we are not going to attack israel, that will never happen, we have peace, but no normal relations can be applied, because as much as the government want it, the people will always be against it until they see Israel doing the right thing for once.

but whats said about the media is not the exact truth, because our media is restriced when it comes to israel matters, the government doesnt allow the media to overreact like that.



Ok, so they are not friends, but is there war between them? The threat of war?
In September 1996, Egypt held its largest strategic maneuvers ever. The exercise was code named Badr-96 and involved over 35,000 soldiers, including a canal crossing and liberating of a "besieged city." The "enemy" in this exercise was Israel. It is routine for major militarily exercises to have code names and to involve fictitious enemies. However, it is most unusual for a country to conduct such an exercise in which the "enemy" is one that the country is presumably at peace with. Egypt, regardless of its intentions, sent a disturbing message to Israel by naming the exercise in honor of its last war with Israel, and by identifying Israel as the enemy. These events take on even more significant meaning when one looks at the transformation of the Egyptian military forces over the past decade.
Egypt, since 1985, has undertaken serious efforts to achieve conventional military parity with Israel and currently fields the 13th largest military in the world. Relying on $2.1 billion of annual aid from the US, $1.3 billion in military assistance, is currently modernizing and building-up its military forces to such an extent that it is approaching the quantitative and qualitative levels of the Israeli Defense Forces. In 1994, Egypt surpassed the United States to become the second largest arms importer, behind Saudi Arabia, in the world. Egypt, in a region thatleads the world in the import of weapons, is the only Middle East country to have increased its arms purchases yearly since 1990.
...Egypt is bordered by Libya, Sudan, and Israel. While Sudan's Islamic regime is ideologically troublesome, its 300 main battle tanks (250 of which are T-54/55's), and some 50 combat aircraft pose a negligible military threat to Egypt. On paper, Libya's military is far more formidable than Sudan's. However, its forces hardly pose a military threat to Egypt. Some 1,600 of Libya's 2,200 tanks are old Soviet T-54/5's. Moreover, a lack of manpower has forced Libya to place over half of these tanks, as well as many of its 400 aircraft, in storage, thereby making Libya little more than a massive arms depot. It is significant to note, that Libya's 80,000 man military is less than twenty percent the size of Egypt's. Finally, despite the triangle of tension between Egypt, Sudan, and Libya, they have generally demonstrated a willingness to support each other over perceived pan-Islamic issues. Consequently, there is little doubt that Israel is the target of Egypt's massive military buildup. Indeed, an examination of Egyptian perspectives towards Israel leaves little doubt that Egypt has not ruled out the prospect of a future conflict with Israel.
Former Egyptian President Sadat's support of expanded relations with Israel never came to fruition as Egypt's intellectual, political, and economic elite continued to shun Israel as a regional actor. The passage of time has not improved Egyptian perceptions toward, or its acceptance of, Israel.

- Shawn M. Pine, in The Maccabean, July 19

does any arabian country possess any threat to Egypt, it would be stupid to say so, so yes, we are not increasing our weapons and upgrading them because of any arabian state, we can probably crush them altogether in any war.

but the fact is, they are not threat not just because they are weaker than us, but also because we have no conflicts with them at all, and there is no need for them or for us to strike each other.

increasing our weapons to match israel is normal, USA is not at war with russia right now, but can you seriously tell me, that both countries are not trying to make better weapons, all USA and Russia think, is the power balance between them, they need to keep it constant so that none will start a war, thats the same with Israel and Egypt, also we have peace, but we need to be prepared for anything that might happen, you can never be sure of the future.

or do you want to see egypt dismissing its army and decreasing its weapons ?

every country needs to have equal military to the countries around it, be it friend or enemy, you must be equal to them to protect yourself from anything that might happen.

I cant believe that people are actually condemning egypt for making a stronger army !!!

[abso]

Don't be ridiculous. The arabs started the wars, as I outlined a few posts back.

You don't say shit like "We'll be in Tel Aviv in three days" and "We will annihilate Israel completely" among many others and expect Israel to sit there and wait until you attack.

The only reason Cairo and Damascus weren't taken is because the USA intervened and told Israel to stop, and that was only because the Soviet Union would have gotten involved and we didn't feel like allowing you people to start WWIII.

You arabs were at fault, you got your asses kicked, it was 43 years ago, get over it.

have you even read what i posted ?




Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin also stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli," but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war, When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."

Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."



“The myth of Israel as victim is also reflected in the conventional wisdom about the 1967 war, which claims that Egypt and Syria are principally responsible for starting it... It is clear from the release of new documents about the war, however, that the Arabs did not intend to initiate a war against Israel in the late spring of 1967, much less try to destroy the Jewish state.”

(John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt; The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin Books, pp. 84–85).



On May 30, Nasser responded to Johnson's request of 11 days earlier and agreed to send his Vice President, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on June 7 to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought".

Historian Michael Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did".





“Avi Shlaim, a distinguished Israeli ‘new historian’ writes, ‘There is general agreement among commentators that [Egyptian President] Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel’.

(John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt; The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin Books, p. 85).



“The claim that Israel was in danger of imminent destruction was propaganda aimed at the Israeli public no less than Israel’s Western sympathisers, part of what Seale has described as “one of the most extensive and remarkable exercises in psychological warfare ever attempted. Foreign intelligence agencies were in agreement that Israel would make short work of Arab armies...”

”June 5, 1967: A Retrospective View”; Centre of Policy “Analysis on Palestine; Jeremy Salt (http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/2929)



how many times do i need to repeat myself.


you are just posting your personal opinion, out of your love and believe in Israel, and maybe hatred for arabs.

but what i post is the words said by your GOVERNMENT, and the Israelian officials, CIA, Mossad, Historians, almost everyone agreed to that.

Israel just wanted people like you to believe that it didnt start war, read again, and please be reasonable while forming your opinions, if you dont agree with me, then respond to all my sources, and info that i provided you, i have provided everyone by enough info to convince anyone that Israel started it, and it was not defensive war, and no actual threat was present to israel security, its the word of their OWN officials and your too.

how can you dismiss what their officials said, and even your own officials at that time said ?

and also, how am i being ridiculous, am i the one who are ignoring all the facts just to stick with my personal love to israel ?

[Kathianne]

have you even read what i posted ? how many times do i need to repeat myself.


you are just posting your personal opinion, out of your love and believe in Israel, and maybe hatred for arabs.

but what i post is the words said by your GOVERNMENT, and the Israelian officials, CIA, Mossad, Historians, almost everyone agreed to that.

Israel just wanted people like you to believe that it didnt start war, read again, and please be reasonable while forming your opinions, if you dont agree with me, then respond to all my sources, and info that i provided you, i have provided everyone by enough info to convince anyone that Israel started it, and it was not defensive war, and no actual threat was present to israel security, its the word of their OWN officials and your too.

how can you dismiss what their officials said, and even your own officials at that time said ?

and also, how am i being ridiculous, am i the one who are ignoring all the facts just to stick with my personal love to israel ?

Again with the selective, no context quotes. :rolleyes: Abso, you say you want peace, all the while justifying, excusing violence. For some reason some of us doubt your stated purpose of showing 'moderation.'

[NightTrain]

have you even read what i posted ?

Of course I read it; you posted from the same source as I did.

But, true to your own nature believing that you arabs are picked on and the evil Israelis started the wars to grab land, you have dismissed and ignored the facts of how it all started.

You don't park your entire military on the border after entering into alliances with all the surrounding countries and make declarations to the effect that you will wipe Israel from the face of the earth and expect anything other than a swift military response.

Your foolish leaders have made some insanely horrific blunders and every time Israel has beaten you soundly. And yet you continue to support the fools and somehow say that you did not instigate the entire affair.

That's fine, Abso. I tried to have an honest discussion with you but I see now that it was foolish on my part to attempt it.

The billions we give your country is wasted and it needs to stop - we are not gaining anything but arab contempt as is demonstrated by you.

You carry on, I'll not waste more of my time with you.

[abso]

Again with the selective, no context quotes. :rolleyes: Abso, you say you want peace, all the while justifying, excusing violence. For some reason some of us doubt your stated purpose of showing 'moderation.'

call them selective as you want, but they are clear, and they clearly state that egypt had no intent to attack israel, but you just choose to ignore that fact

[abso]

Of course I read it; you posted from the same source as I did.

But, true to your own nature believing that you arabs are picked on and the evil Israelis started the wars to grab land, you have dismissed and ignored the facts of how it all started.

You don't park your entire military on the border after entering into alliances with all the surrounding countries and make declarations to the effect that you will wipe Israel from the face of the earth and expect anything other than a swift military response.

Your foolish leaders have made some insanely horrific blunders and every time Israel has beaten you soundly. And yet you continue to support the fools and somehow say that you did not instigate the entire affair.

That's fine, Abso. I tried to have an honest discussion with you but I see now that it was foolish on my part to attempt it.

The billions we give your country is wasted and it needs to stop - we are not gaining anything but arab contempt as is demonstrated by you.

You carry on, I'll not waste more of my time with you.

Entire military ???

sure that you read that:


Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

again you failed to respond to any of the info, just another personal opinion of yours.

and what facts did i actually dismiss, i posted all the facts, you read them, ignored them, and kept responding with your personal opinion that we arabs started the war.

[Kathianne]

Abso, I believe that you think you are moderate, change that, I do think you represent what are thought of as moderate Muslims. Many of us find that you are indeed radicalized but non-violent on a personal level.

[abso]

Abso, I believe that you think you are moderate, change that, I do think you represent what are thought of as moderate Muslims. Many of us find that you are indeed radicalized but non-violent on a personal level.

again ignoring facts about the discussion and stating another irrelevant personal opinion.

believe that i am a radical or moderate, that doesnt matter, if you want to debate with me, then tell me that i am wrong when i am wrong, and tell me that i am right when i am right, can you do that please without any redard to my nationality or religion or affiliation ?

sometimes i think that it would have been better if i lied and said that i am french or german or any other nationality, maybe people would be more willing to discuss about my facts than my personality.

[jimnyc]

who says that we are not doing anything to stop it, you cant imagine the precautions taken by the egyptian police and military to stop it, we fight it everyday, in Saudia too, they fight terrorism on daily basis, algeria, morroco, both also have terrorists and they fight them, you just assume that we stay silent while actually we get attacked alot more than you.

I didn't mean that YOU or specifically Egypt "weren't doing anything", just that obviously what you are doing is not working. Why would you want to make enemies with someone who wants to eradicate terrorists? Why do you want us so badly out of Iraq and Afghanistan when we are welcomed there by their current governments? Why don't Muslims just ask for the worlds help in eradicating terrorists? They can ask any country, NATO troops, their own citizens...

Why are muslims MORE interested in getting us off of "muslim land" than they are stopping terrorism?

[jimnyc]

again ignoring facts about the discussion and stating another irrelevant personal opinion.

believe that i am a radical or moderate, that doesnt matter, if you want to debate with me, then tell me that i am wrong when i am wrong, and tell me that i am right when i am right, can you do that please without any redard to my nationality or religion or affiliation ?

sometimes i think that it would have been better if i lied and said that i am french or german or any other nationality, maybe people would be more willing to discuss about my facts than my personality.

And as soon as you started posting like someone who sympathizes and "understands" terrorism, we would have figured you out. As soon as you started posting your non-stop Israel propaganda stories, we would have figured you out.

[abso]

And as soon as you started posting like someone who sympathizes and "understands" terrorism, we would have figured you out. As soon as you started posting your non-stop Israel propaganda stories, we would have figured you out.

you call any fact against israel israel propaganda, so you think israel is full of saint and never do anything wrong ?

your opinion was always that egypt start the 67 war, so how do you feel when israel leaders stated that Nasser didnt want war and didnt intend to start it, so you think israel officials also spreading israel propaganda ?

[jimnyc]

you call any fact against israel israel propaganda, so you think israel is full of saint and never do anything wrong ?

your opinion was always that egypt start the 67 war, so how do you feel when israel leaders stated that Nasser didnt want war and didnt intend to start it, so you think israel officials also spreading israel propaganda ?

What the fuck are you talking about? I've NEVER discussed the '67 war with you and never will. I'd be better off debating with a moldy mushroom than a muslim about Jewish people.

[jimnyc]

Funny how you completely ignore my post about why muslims don't want help from the rest of the world in eradicating terrorism. That's because you have no interest in doing so.

Why don't muslim leaders from ALL OVER the world hold a meeting and ask the rest of the worlds superpowers for help in eradicating terrorists from their lands? You seem to be more interested in getting rid of Israel or getting "your" land back than you are in terrorism. Probably because the only thing the scummy arabs can do at this point is terror acts towards Israel.

Your FIRST priority should be stopping the unnecessary violence - and islam has no desire to do so.

[abso]

Funny how you completely ignore my post about why muslims don't want help from the rest of the world in eradicating terrorism. That's because you have no interest in doing so.

Why don't muslim leaders from ALL OVER the world hold a meeting and ask the rest of the worlds superpowers for help in eradicating terrorists from their lands? You seem to be more interested in getting rid of Israel or getting "your" land back than you are in terrorism. Probably because the only thing the scummy arabs can do at this point is terror acts towards Israel.

Your FIRST priority should be stopping the unnecessary violence - and islam has no desire to do so.

you should at least excuse me when i get confused about who i duscuss which subject with, since all the subjects deviated much from what was intended to discuss in them, and i have to respond to 3 or 4 people together, and sometimes more than that, so i apologize if sometimes i get confused :rolleyes:

because we dont need help in fighting terrorism in our land, we already fight it in our own, the operations done in your land is your concern, everyone should fight terrorism in their own land.

USA doesnt need anyone to come to its land to fight terrorists, neither do we need anyone to come to our countries to fight terrorism.

and yes, i am interested in getting the land back, but not more than ending terrorism, because they both are the same, getting the land will reduce the terrorism greatly, but keeping the land will just create more terrorists and will make our job harder.

[jimnyc]

because we dont need help in fighting terrorism in our land, we already fight it in our own, the operations done in your land is your concern, everyone should fight terrorism in their own land.

USA doesnt need anyone to come to its land to fight terrorists, neither do we need anyone to come to our countries to fight terrorism.

and yes, i am interested in getting the land back, but not more than ending terrorism, because they both are the same, getting the land will reduce the terrorism greatly, but keeping the land will just create more terrorists and will make our job harder.

Sorry, but when YOUR terrorism leaks to OUR foreign installations, and then comes to OUR shores and kills 3,000 of us - now YOUR problem is OUR problem. And quite frankly, you guys should be shouting "Thank You" - as you're doing a fucking shit ass job at fighting terrorism yourselves.

[abso]

Sorry, but when YOUR terrorism leaks to OUR foreign installations, and then comes to OUR shores and kills 3,000 of us - now YOUR problem is OUR problem. And quite frankly, you guys should be shouting "Thank You" - as you're doing a fucking shit ass job at fighting terrorism yourselves.

actually its not leaking from us to your shores, terrorism targets america, not arabs, it just attacks arabs because they are friends of america, we are being attacked because we have diplomatic relations and peace with israel and US, not because of our own problems, but because of your own actions, and unjustice, we are paying for your mistakes, not the other way around.

[jimnyc]

actually its not leaking from us to your shores, terrorism targets america, not arabs, it just attacks arabs because they are friends of america, we are being attacked because we have diplomatic relations and peace with israel and US, not because of our own problems, but because of your own actions, and unjustice, we are paying for your mistakes, not the other way around.

BULLSHIT. Trying to convince anyone that the THOUSANDS of terror attacks yearly are because of the US is fucking ludicrous! It's because 90% of your brethren act no better than monkeys at a zoo.

If you're angry with someone, you tell them and handle it in a diplomatic manner. You don't fucking run like a 10yr old and scream ALLAH AKBAR and kill innocents because you disagree with something. These attacks are happening EVERYWHERE and in MANY countries where we have little to no relations with - pakistan, iran, syria, NK...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the cockroaches have been offing one another via the bomb LONG before the US ever entered the picture.

[abso]

BULLSHIT. Trying to convince anyone that the THOUSANDS of terror attacks yearly are because of the US is fucking ludicrous! It's because 90% of your brethren act no better than monkeys at a zoo.

If you're angry with someone, you tell them and handle it in a diplomatic manner. You don't fucking run like a 10yr old and scream ALLAH AKBAR and kill innocents because you disagree with something. These attacks are happening EVERYWHERE and in MANY countries where we have little to no relations with - pakistan, iran, syria, NK...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the cockroaches have been offing one another via the bomb LONG before the US ever entered the picture.


thats my way, and your way, but there are few people who dont agree with that way, those people is what we call terrorist.

and by the way, i would like to see you telling someone who lost both of his parents or 4 daughters or any member of his family, i would like to see you telling him to be diplomatic.

if its me, i would tell him that violence is not the answer, and that it wont achieve anything, it will just bring more destruction, and if he chooses violence i will try to stop him and even kill him if he endanger any life, but at least, deep down inside myself, i will not say that he is doing what he is doing just for stupidity, but because he had suffered.

and as i sad before, there are some terrorists who do that for less reasons, for trivial reasons, and for wrong beliefs, but at least we have to admit that some people had some reasons that needs to be understanded for what they do.

[jimnyc]

and by the way, i would like to see you telling someone who lost both of his parents or 4 daughters or any member of his family, i would like to see you telling him to be diplomatic.

It's done every day here in the US after murders. The relatives of the murderers aren't free to take revenge on them. It's called LAW and self restraint. If islamic people have no self control over their own actions, then you see the beginning and making of a terrorist. That's not OUR fault and it's NOT even the fault of the person who killed their family.


if its me, i would tell him that violence is not the answer, and that it wont achieve anything, it will just bring more destruction, and if he chooses violence i will try to stop him and even kill him if he endanger any life, but at least, deep down inside myself, i will not say that he is doing what he is doing just for stupidity, but because he had suffered.

and as i sad before, there are some terrorists who do that for less reasons, for trivial reasons, and for wrong beliefs, but at least we have to admit that some people had some reasons that needs to be understanded for what they do.

Why do we need to "understand" a murderer/terrorist? Their actions are irrational and that of animals. You don't understand these people, you band together with the rest of the world and eliminate them as the cockroaches they are. It's fucking obvious that islam cannot stop terrorism alone. Sorry if YOU don't understand why we will shove you aside and kill the terrorists ourselves then if too many turn blind eyes.

[logroller]

It's hypocritical to preach moderation when when one fails to demonstrate it themself. The condemnation of terrorism is generally accepted, by all walks of sentient people, but headstrong opposition is detrimental to reducing such acts. The belief that US values are superior to all others is abhorrent to myself, as I don't agree with all Americans; why would I think another society would feel otherwise? The issue at hand isn't muslims or arabs; villifying them is just another tried and true rhetoric for implementing alternative goals, completely distractive from the underlying proposition of the thread title: peace. Peace doesn't sell well, unless it's benefits outweigh the costs of those who implement it. The US doesn't want peace in the middle east, because warring factions allow for our profiteering and procurement of their resources; eg selling weapons and installation of our military to secure oil resources. American doesn't really care about terrorism abroad, only domestic. If you play into the rhetoric of western idealism, you tacitly support the true objective: resource appropriation. We should just say "We want what you have; we're powerful enough to take to it, so we shall--fucking deal with it!!!" Which is fine, I guess, but we must also accept the outrageous behaviors of those disenfranchised by our actions.

Abso, like myself, realizes the positive feedback loop terrorism has on the villification of the afflicted parties, to which he is opposed; but the problem isn't terrorism and muslim extremism, that's a condition that has resulted from superior strength of foreign powers. Thus to solve the problem, we should interfere less, not more. Blaming the afflicted parties is like attributing lack of blood to a gunshot victim's death.

[logroller]

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”-Hermann Goehring

[NightTrain]

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”-Hermann Goehring

News Flash, Logroller : We didn't need to have our leaders tell us that we were under attack.

It was made abundantly clear watching Americans leap to their deaths from the twin towers before they crashed to the ground.

Since the countries in the ME either were unable to control the zealots in their midst or were unwilling to, we made the choice to fight instead of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping for the best.

Should we have done nothing? Did we do the wrong thing when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? It doesn't matter if it was a state sponsored attack, the end result is the same.

Attacks on America and Americans will not be tolerated and the foolish notion that somehow we deserved what happened is appalling, or that we shouldn't have responded in a forceful manner.

[SassyLady]

so now after you couldnt aruge anymore that Egypt started the war, and after i proved that israel started it, you are searching for other things against egypt ? ;)

okay, i will play along with your game, i will answer in a few minutes.

My intent was to show you that there are just as many "sources" that say Israel was justified in the actions it took, and for Nassar to suddenly be cast in the light of a "peacemaker" is ridiculous.

Abso, a few of us were in high school when all this happened and it was front page news, we were required to study it as a Current Event .... and, truthfully, we were happy that Israel showed the Middle Eastern bullies that they were there to say and would not be intimidated. Egypt, Jordan and Syria have always been pissed that Israel was given the first parcel of land, which is why the Arabs are always "rattling sabers" and making "guerrilla attacks" against them.

If you poke someone with a sharp stick one time too many, you might get more than a broken stick, you might get a broken arm. Israel broke more than the stick.

[abso]

My intent was to show you that there are just as many "sources" that say Israel was justified in the actions it took, and for Nassar to suddenly be cast in the light of a "peacemaker" is ridiculous.

Abso, a few of us were in high school when all this happened and it was front page news, we were required to study it as a Current Event .... and, truthfully, we were happy that Israel showed the Middle Eastern bullies that they were there to say and would not be intimidated. Egypt, Jordan and Syria have always been pissed that Israel was given the first parcel of land, which is why the Arabs are always "rattling sabers" and making "guerrilla attacks" against them.

If you poke someone with a sharp stick one time too many, you might get more than a broken stick, you might get a broken arm. Israel broke more than the stick.

i cant believe that you just said that your info came from newspapers :rolleyes:

Nasser promised your president that he wont attack, promised USSR president that he wont attack, israel leaders said that they knew that Nasser was not going to attack, your CIA said that Nasser was not going to attack, and that troops in sinai was of defensive nature, your president said that he regreted what israel did.

even israeli leaders admitted it, so why wont you !!!

if after all that you still think that egypt started the war, and you still believe the newspaper, then..................

have a nice day and there is nothing more to say..... :bow2:

[abso]

News Flash, Logroller : We didn't need to have our leaders tell us that we were under attack.

It was made abundantly clear watching Americans leap to their deaths from the twin towers before they crashed to the ground.

Since the countries in the ME either were unable to control the zealots in their midst or were unwilling to, we made the choice to fight instead of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping for the best.

Should we have done nothing? Did we do the wrong thing when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? It doesn't matter if it was a state sponsored attack, the end result is the same.

Attacks on America and Americans will not be tolerated and the foolish notion that somehow we deserved what happened is appalling, or that we shouldn't have responded in a forceful manner.

did USA do wrong when japan bombed pearl harbor ?

of course not, you just nuked a nation and killed more than 150,000 innocent civilians with just two bombs, america did exactly right in the concept of State Terrorism, making it the most successful military attack in history, and the greatest act of terrorism in history of mankind.

[jimnyc]

Please read this then tell me again that Israel thought that Egypt was going to attack:



Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin also stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli," but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war, When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."

Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."

Abso, you keep referring to this post and proudly declaring yourself the winner - but I don't see any sources for what you write here. How do we know the context in which any of this stuff was supposedly stated. Can you give us the sources so that we can read for ourselves and learn more.

[jimnyc]

did USA do wrong when japan bombed pearl harbor ?

of course not, you just nuked a nation and killed more than 150,000 innocent civilians with just two bombs, america did exactly right in the concept of State Terrorism, making it the most successful military attack in history, and the greatest act of terrorism in history of mankind.

We should have saved 4,000+ more American lives and nuked any of you fucks that harbored or gave safe passage to terrorists. I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of guilt hitting the button on the majority of the Middle East if it saved American lives.

[abso]

Abso, you keep referring to this post and proudly declaring yourself the winner - but I don't see any sources for what you write here. How do we know the context in which any of this stuff was supposedly stated. Can you give us the sources so that we can read for ourselves and learn more.

i repeated them with citation when i was asked to do so and i also posted alot more info from many sources with citation from books showing the exact page number, anyway, i will do it again for you.


"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967
Le Monde on 28 February 1968.

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”


you will find everything else here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Removal_of_U.N._peacekeepers_from_Egypt



you might also want to read this if you wish:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

[abso]

We should have saved 4,000+ more American lives and nuked any of you fucks that harbored or gave safe passage to terrorists. I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of guilt hitting the button on the majority of the Middle East if it saved American lives.

sorry to say it, but its a fact that US committed the greatest act of terrorism in history, and killed more than 150,000 innocents, if you have no problem with that, then there is seriously something wrong with your morals.

you think that an american life is of higher value than any life in the ME ?

as an example, do you think that your life is of higher value than mine ?

[logroller]

did USA do wrong when japan bombed pearl harbor ?

of course not, you just nuked a nation and killed more than 150,000 innocent civilians with just two bombs, america did exactly right in the concept of State Terrorism, making it the most successful military attack in history, and the greatest act of terrorism in history of mankind.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in a strategic effort to weaken American defenses in the Pacific, pursuant to the appropriation of resources in the region. The USA bombed Japan, including harbored combatants, in an effort to reduce the loss of life which would have likely been much greater in a conventional invasion; in this justification by means, there is a similarity to 9/11 attacks; however, the terminus, peace, seems to have been ill-served by the latter's action. In so using this justification, the offended party invites equally, arguably greater, violent reactions; which we currently see manifesting globally. There's no one answer, but continued violence is clearly not one; whomever is first to reject such means, shall be the first to find peace and, thus, worldwide repute as the victor.

Thankfully, there are those in the world who oppose such violent actions, regardless of political motivation otherwise. Suprisingly, Iran has held rigid to pressures from both sides, abstaining from direct intervention; pursuing, instead, a more isolationist policy-- one that frustrates warmongers of both sides!!!

[jimnyc]

i repeated them with citation when i was asked to do so and i also posted alot more info from many sources with citation from books showing the exact page number, anyway, i will do it again for you.


"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967
Le Monde on 28 February 1968.

That's ONE sentence with no link. We have no idea what else was discussed.


Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”


No link here either


you will find everything else here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Removal_of_U.N._peacekeepers_from_Egypt



you might also want to read this if you wish:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

I'll look... But I was MOST interested in the post above which read:


Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Menachem Begin also stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli," but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war, When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."

Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."

When you originally posted this, which I just hit the quote button for on my last post, NONE of these statements came with citations, and I still don't see them now. If you are going to use these 5 quotes over and over as if it's what "won" the debate for you, can you give me links to those quotes individually.

[jimnyc]

sorry to say it, but its a fact that US committed the greatest act of terrorism in history, and killed more than 150,000 innocents, if you have no problem with that, then there is seriously something wrong with your morals.

you think that an american life is of higher value than any life in the ME ?

as an example, do you think that your life is of higher value than mine ?

When it comes to war - absoLUTELY! No offense, chief, but that's the objective of war. And if I were in charge, and I could end hostilities without a single casualty on my side - I'd drop HUGE bombs in a heart beat.

I don't think I'm better than you, not at all. But if in a war, I think our technology is better and we should utilize it instead of going into shit terrain and take a chance on losing lives.

[SassyLady]

i cant believe that you just said that your info came from newspapers :rolleyes:

Nasser promised your president that he wont attack, promised USSR president that he wont attack, israel leaders said that they knew that Nasser was not going to attack, your CIA said that Nasser was not going to attack, and that troops in sinai was of defensive nature, your president said that he regreted what israel did.

even israeli leaders admitted it, so why wont you !!!

if after all that you still think that egypt started the war, and you still believe the newspaper, then..................

have a nice day and there is nothing more to say..... :bow2:

Abso, if you called me and said you were going to shoot me the next time you saw me, and told the whole world that you wanted me dead, and then you showed up in my driveway with a gun, but told all the neighbors that you really were not going to shoot me right then and there, but that you had the right to stand at the end of my driveway with the gun pointed at me .... I might just decide that I didn't want that gun pointed at me anymore and I would probably shoot you first.

Does this make sense? Don't stand at the end of my driveway with a gun and try to pretend you have no intention of shooting me. I might not believe you.... especially if you had been threatening to do it for years. Would be very hard to believe that you had no intention of shooting me ... that you were just being a loud-mouthed bully and that I should not take you seriously.

[SassyLady]

i cant believe that you just said that your info came from newspapers :rolleyes:

Nasser promised your president that he wont attack, promised USSR president that he wont attack, israel leaders said that they knew that Nasser was not going to attack, your CIA said that Nasser was not going to attack, and that troops in sinai was of defensive nature, your president said that he regreted what israel did.

even israeli leaders admitted it, so why wont you !!!

if after all that you still think that egypt started the war, and you still believe the newspaper, then..................

have a nice day and there is nothing more to say..... :bow2:

Perhaps because I'm glad that Israel decided to stand up to the bullies in their region ....

Example: new kid moves to the neighborhood; kids around the block don't like the way he looks or talks, or worships....so they decide to harass him every day on the way home, even threatening violence if he didn't move away. So, new kid calls all his friends in the old neighborhood ... and they tell him ... don't fight, they don't really mean what they say ... they won't hurt you, and if they do, we'll come running. The new kid hears that the kids are going to stomp him if he keeps walking home the same way ... new kid decides he's not going to wait to get beat up so he takes preemptive action....and throw the first punch. Do I think that's fair ... yes.

Don't start something you can't finish.

[SassyLady]

sorry to say it, but its a fact that US committed the greatest act of terrorism in history, and killed more than 150,000 innocents, if you have no problem with that, then there is seriously something wrong with your morals.

you think that an american life is of higher value than any life in the ME ?

as an example, do you think that your life is of higher value than mine ?


See, the scary thing about the Middle East ... is that one tribe/sect doesn't care about killing anyone outside their own tribe/sect....even people of their own country.

[abso]

That's ONE sentence with no link. We have no idea what else was discussed.



No link here either



I'll look... But I was MOST interested in the post above which read:



When you originally posted this, which I just hit the quote button for on my last post, NONE of these statements came with citations, and I still don't see them now. If you are going to use these 5 quotes over and over as if it's what "won" the debate for you, can you give me links to those quotes individually.

okay, so you need things with sources to check on them, thats fine by me....




“... declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration—including Johnson's most pro-Israeli Cabinet members—did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke...”

“... all US intelligence... had characterized Nasser's troops in the Sinai as "defensive in nature".

Tolan, Sandy. (5 June 2007). Rethinking Israel’s ‘David and Goliath’ Past, Salon.com. (http://imeu.net/news/article005461.shtml)





“President Johnson told Eban that even after instructing his ‘experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to be true’, it was still their ‘unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack’ – a conclusion according to Eban, also reached by Israeli intelligence”. p. 134

“Mossad chief Meir Amit (stated) ‘Egypt was not ready for a war’ and Nasser did not want a war’” p. 134

“The Israeli-compiled Middle East Record stated that ‘most observers agree’ that Nasser did not intend to launch an attack ‘and that his pledges to U Thant and to the Great Powers not to start shooting should, therefore, be accepted at their face value’.” p. 134

(“Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict”; Norman Finkelstein, )





“... it is generally agreed [that] Nasser was sincere when he later said that he had no intention of launching an attack against Israel; on the contrary as he said in his 23 July speech, he believed that ‘any attack on Israel would expose us to great dangers.”
(Cockburn and Cockburn, “Dangerous Liaison”, 1991, p. 137)





“The claim that Israel was in danger of imminent destruction was propaganda aimed at the Israeli public no less than Israel’s Western sympathisers, part of what Seale has described as “one of the most extensive and remarkable exercises in psychological warfare ever attempted. Foreign intelligence agencies were in agreement that Israel would make short work of Arab armies...”

“Far from trying to avert conflict, the conclusion is inescapable that Israel’s military command did everything it could to bring it on.”

“... all the evidence (is that) Israel was trying to bring the Arab states to war by May 1967... when Nasser closed the Strait of Tiran, the Israelis knew he had walked into their trap – had taken the bait – and could ‘barely restrain themselves’. They wanted to attack at once. Their concern was not to defuse the crisis but to destroy Arab military capacity and bring down Nasser before the moment passed.”

”June 5, 1967: A Retrospective View”; Centre of Policy “Analysis on Palestine; Jeremy Salt (http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/2929)





“Various Israeli officials said later... that 'Israel had not in fact anticipated an imminent attack by Egypt when it struck June 5'”.

At first Israel claimed that the arab armies had attacked her first, if this Israeli claim is false, why did Israel tell a lie?"
Michael Akehurts

General Rabin, consistent with his reports to the cabinet in May 1967, said, "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel, He knew it and we knew it."

Rabin said Nasser massed troops to deter an attack by Israel on Syria to appear as "the savior of Syria and thus win great sympathy in the Arab world." Rabin said the forces Nasser sent into Sinai May 20-22 were not planning an offensive against Israel.

General Matitiahu Peled, a member of Israel's general staff during the 1967 war, said that "the thesis according to which danger of genocide weighed on us in june 1967, and that Israel stuggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war."

Peled confirmed that Rabin had told the cabined Egypt had not planned to attack. "Our General staff," he said, "never told the government that the Egyptian military threat represented any danger to Israel."


The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, p. 164; John B Quigley (http://books.google.com/books?id=VaUvqHNd6m0C&pg=PA164&dq=Israel+1967+Strait+of+War+existence+in+danger&sig=6GkdFAkh39zp1qRkmfpC__nxobg#v=onepage&q&f=false)



need anymore ? :salute:

[abso]

See, the scary thing about the Middle East ... is that one tribe/sect doesn't care about killing anyone outside their own tribe/sect....even people of their own country.

not true, you cant build an opinion about a nation or a sect or even a family altogether, a son may have very different opinions than his father, so how do you expect a whole sect or tribe to think alike.

i always care when anyone dies, and everyone i know care too, so how do you think that you know the ME without ever visiting it ?

[abso]

Perhaps because I'm glad that Israel decided to stand up to the bullies in their region ....

Example: new kid moves to the neighborhood; kids around the block don't like the way he looks or talks, or worships....so they decide to harass him every day on the way home, even threatening violence if he didn't move away. So, new kid calls all his friends in the old neighborhood ... and they tell him ... don't fight, they don't really mean what they say ... they won't hurt you, and if they do, we'll come running. The new kid hears that the kids are going to stomp him if he keeps walking home the same way ... new kid decides he's not going to wait to get beat up so he takes preemptive action....and throw the first punch. Do I think that's fair ... yes.

Don't start something you can't finish.

again you say that we started it ?

if you talk about the very start of it, we didnt tell the british to gather jews from all over the world and give them the land that they are occupying from us.

and if you talk about 67, we also didnt start it , and certainly we didnt ask anyone to start it, if you fail to acknowledge that fact because of your personal feelings, then there is no need for you to debate about anything, your feelings will always block you from seeing any reason in any thing i can say, so the subject wont be about what i am saying, doesnt matter if what i am saying is right or wrong, because you are already prejudging me and my informations with your feelings which stops your mind from thinking.

[abso]

Abso, if you called me and said you were going to shoot me the next time you saw me, and told the whole world that you wanted me dead, and then you showed up in my driveway with a gun, but told all the neighbors that you really were not going to shoot me right then and there, but that you had the right to stand at the end of my driveway with the gun pointed at me .... I might just decide that I didn't want that gun pointed at me anymore and I would probably shoot you first.

Does this make sense? Don't stand at the end of my driveway with a gun and try to pretend you have no intention of shooting me. I might not believe you.... especially if you had been threatening to do it for years. Would be very hard to believe that you had no intention of shooting me ... that you were just being a loud-mouthed bully and that I should not take you seriously.

yes you might not believe me, that is a profound statement and its right too.

but the fact is that i posted what Israel leaders said, so they didnt fear any attack from egypt, they believed that Egypt was not going to attack, and they still choosed to attack.


so in your own version:
i was standing in your drive way holding a gun that you already knew it was empty with no bullets in it, but you still choosed to kill me.

[SassyLady]

again you say that we started it ?

if you talk about the very start of it, we didnt tell the british to gather jews from all over the world and give them the land that they are occupying from us.

and if you talk about 67, we also didnt start it , and certainly we didnt ask anyone to start it, if you fail to acknowledge that fact because of your personal feelings, then there is no need for you to debate about anything, your feelings will always block you from seeing any reason in any thing i can say, so the subject wont be about what i am saying, doesnt matter if what i am saying is right or wrong, because you are already prejudging me and my informations with your feelings which stops your mind from thinking.

See, you just admitted that you are one of the guys in the neighborhood that doesn't like the new kid that moved into your neighborhood and that you have the right to force him to move out using any tactics you can. Israel was tired of being bullied and stood up for themselves. I'm OK with them throwing the first punch because they were tired of being threatened and bullied.

[logroller]

News Flash, Logroller : We didn't need to have our leaders tell us that we were under attack.

It was made abundantly clear watching Americans leap to their deaths from the twin towers before they crashed to the ground.

Since the countries in the ME either were unable to control the zealots in their midst or were unwilling to, we made the choice to fight instead of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping for the best.

Should we have done nothing? Did we do the wrong thing when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? It doesn't matter if it was a state sponsored attack, the end result is the same.

Attacks on America and Americans will not be tolerated and the foolish notion that somehow we deserved what happened is appalling, or that we shouldn't have responded in a forceful manner.

How markedly egotistical to assume that quote was intentioned towards your perspective! I resent the implication as such; I purposely titled it as informational, not supportive of one side's position.

Furthermore, the images of those leaping to their deaths is no less poignant, to me, than the thousands of evicted homeowners left in ruin as a result of overzealous government intervention in financial markets.

Read my posts, I'm not condoning these zealots, I'm stating there is a far more perverse faction of imperialism in our country which necessitates our attention more than those in the ME. We were warned years ago of the dangers of the 'military-industrial complex'; we failed to heed the caution and now we enjoy the outcome of our ignorance. I'm not asking anyone to absolve themself of blame, nor accept it; only that the solution rests upon actions which are different than the actions which have conditioned violent response. Visualize what you hope to see, not what you don't; only then can we resolve a peaceful solution!

[SassyLady]

yes you might not believe me, that is a profound statement and its right too.

but the fact is that i posted what Israel leaders said, so they didnt fear any attack from egypt, they believed that Egypt was not going to attack, and they still choosed to attack.


so in your own version:
i was standing in your drive way holding a gun that you already knew it was empty with no bullets in it, but you still choosed to kill me.

Because those bullets were still in your pocket and you could load the gun anytime .... perhaps, even after I had unloaded mine and put it away thinking you would finally be OK with me living in your neighborhood. After all, you had done this before, and agreed to leave me alone, but, we both know that you would never have gone home and you would continue to harass me and might not even let me out of my own driveway without some type of retaliation.

You should have just taken your empty gun and gone home before I got tired of worrying about whether your gun was loaded or not. Oh, and, I forgot, you called some of your buddies to come stand at the end of the driveway with their guns to help you bully me. That's what really pissed me off and made me decide to end the standoff.

[abso]

When it comes to war - absoLUTELY! No offense, chief, but that's the objective of war. And if I were in charge, and I could end hostilities without a single casualty on my side - I'd drop HUGE bombs in a heart beat.

I don't think I'm better than you, not at all. But if in a war, I think our technology is better and we should utilize it instead of going into shit terrain and take a chance on losing lives.

thanks for not thinking that you are any better than me, neither do i think that i am better than anyone else, but i just think that we think in very different ways.

if i were incharge, i would sacrifice thousands of my troops in a just war, instead of sacrificing 150,000 innocent civilians from my enemy nation.

that probably wont make me a great leader for my country, but it will make me a great leader in the human history, that i took the right decision, that i choosed to save lifes in general, not just my people's lifes.

as i already said, that being the most powerful means that you are the most responsible, if you feel that you have to protect your citizens, then you must feel that you have a moral obligation to protect innocents from your might, or you would be just a murderer with understandable reasons, someone who choosed to replace the life of every solider he will lose, with 5 innocent civilians who never choosed to fight, and never had anything to do with war.

that my friend, is one of the differences in our way of thinking, no disrespect at all to your way, but i prefer mine, this is the way that will help me sleep at night, knowing that at least the soliders who will die have choosed to fight and die for their country, they were ready for it, but the 150,000 civilians never choosed to die, and were never given the chance to survive.

[abso]

Because those bullets were still in your pocket and you could load the gun anytime .... perhaps, even after I had unloaded mine and put it away thinking you would finally be OK with me living in your neighborhood. After all, you had done this before, and agreed to leave me alone, but, we both know that you would never have gone home and you would continue to harass me and might not even let me out of my own driveway without some type of retaliation.

You should have just taken your empty gun and gone home before I got tired of worrying about whether your gun was loaded or not. Oh, and, I forgot, you called some of your buddies to come stand at the end of the driveway with their guns to help you bully me. That's what really pissed me off and made me decide to end the standoff.

yes, i could have loaded my gun, but you knew i wont do it, because my bullets werent enough to do any real damage to you.

i really love our little game, but lets stick with the clear facts, if you have one, post it to let me know, thanks in advance for any fact you can present to me. :salute:

[abso]

How markedly egotistical to assume that quote was intentioned towards your perspective! I resent the implication as such; I purposely titled it as informational, not supportive of one side's position.

Furthermore, the images of those leaping to their deaths is no less poignant, to me, than the thousands of evicted homeowners left in ruin as a result of overzealous government intervention in financial markets.

Read my posts, I'm not condoning these zealots, I'm stating there is a far more perverse faction of imperialism in our country which necessitates our attention more than those in the ME. We were warned years ago of the dangers of the 'military-industrial complex'; we failed to heed the caution and now we enjoy the outcome of our ignorance. I'm not asking anyone to absolve themself of blame, nor accept it; only that the solution rests upon actions which are different than the actions which have conditioned violent response. Visualize what you hope to see, not what you don't; only then can we resolve a peaceful solution!

liked that one :salute:

[SassyLady]

yes, i could have loaded my gun, but you knew i wont do it, because my bullets werent enough to do any real damage to you.

i really love our little game, but lets stick with the clear facts, if you have one, post it to let me know, thanks in advance for any fact you can present to me. :salute:

No...I'm done with facts. I already said I think it was OK for Israel to do what they did due to previous provocative behaviors Egypt, Jordan and Syria participated in.

[abso]

See, you just admitted that you are one of the guys in the neighborhood that doesn't like the new kid that moved into your neighborhood and that you have the right to force him to move out using any tactics you can. Israel was tired of being bullied and stood up for themselves. I'm OK with them throwing the first punch because they were tired of being threatened and bullied.

when did i actually say that, dont you see that you are saying things that i have never said ???

saying that i dont like the new kid, doesnt mean that i will do him any harm, people have always disliked a neighbour of them, but they never tried to force him out.

so now you have got tired of trying to prove a false accusation that Egypt started the war, and now you say that you are fine with them starting it ?

[abso]

No...I'm done with facts. I already said I think it was OK for Israel to do what they did due to previous provocative behaviors Egypt, Jordan and Syria participated in.

good, at least someone admitted that Israel started the war and that it wasnt defensive.

but about your feelings that you like the fact that Israel started it, that doesnt matter to me, like it or not, support Israel or not, its only your concern.

[jimnyc]

if i were incharge, i would sacrifice thousands of my troops in a just war, instead of sacrificing 150,000 innocent civilians from my enemy nation.

that probably wont make me a great leader for my country, but it will make me a great leader in the human history, that i took the right decision, that i choosed to save lifes in general, not just my people's lifes.

So let it be noted that you think George W. Bush was a great leader. He could have just as easily nuked the shit out of half the Middle East, but he chose to send in troops and..... Ooops, how many were killed? Probably about the same. Estimates have the total between Afghanistan and Iraq at about 100k+ and counting I might add.

If you did some reading you would know that dropping the 2 bombs in Japan probably saved lives in the long run.

[abso]

So let it be noted that you think George W. Bush was a great leader. He could have just as easily nuked the shit out of half the Middle East, but he chose to send in troops and..... Ooops, how many were killed? Probably about the same. Estimates have the total between Afghanistan and Iraq at about 100k+ and counting I might add.

If you did some reading you would know that dropping the 2 bombs in Japan probably saved lives in the long run.

actually its more than 1 million in iraq alone, about afghanistan its just 10 or 15k

but no, a just war is not just about the weapon you use, its about the motive and the reason you fight for, and was your war justified or not.

[abso]

That's ONE sentence with no link. We have no idea what else was discussed.



No link here either



I'll look... But I was MOST interested in the post above which read:



When you originally posted this, which I just hit the quote button for on my last post, NONE of these statements came with citations, and I still don't see them now. If you are going to use these 5 quotes over and over as if it's what "won" the debate for you, can you give me links to those quotes individually.

now that i have posted what you asked for, i am still waiting for your opinion about what i posted :salute:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30110-The-cause-and-possible-solutions-to-Islamic-Terrorism&p=455056#post455056

[jimnyc]

now that i have posted what you asked for, i am still waiting for your opinion about what i posted :salute:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30110-The-cause-and-possible-solutions-to-Islamic-Terrorism&p=455056#post455056

Quite frankly, I didn't give 2 shits about what you posted. This was my way for you to give sources for what you posted without having you bitch. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

actually its more than 1 million in iraq alone, about afghanistan its just 10 or 15k

but no, a just war is not just about the weapon you use, its about the motive and the reason you fight for, and was your war justified or not.

We should probably use smaller nukes then and try and pin point the worst of the worst. Probably would kill less than a million, and if we pull back our troops first, not one American life lost. Good plan!

[abso]

Quite frankly, I didn't give 2 shits about what you posted. This was my way for you to give sources for what you posted without having you bitch. :laugh:

no problem, now i have found even more sources, and posted more info ;)

[Gaffer]

sorry to say it, but its a fact that US committed the greatest act of terrorism in history, and killed more than 150,000 innocents, if you have no problem with that, then there is seriously something wrong with your morals.

you think that an american life is of higher value than any life in the ME ?

as an example, do you think that your life is of higher value than mine ?

I don't know where you get your history but your totally wrong. The US went to war with Japan because Japan attacked first. That war lasted four years. Dropping the atomic bomb was part of that war. It wasn't terrorism, it was to end the war because Japan refused to surrender. The people killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a drop in the bucket compared to the millions that were killed throughout the war. The fire bombing of Tokyo inflicted more deaths than either of the atomic bombs. 80 million people died in WW2. The bombs were just another tool in the final throes of the war.

[abso]

I don't know where you get your history but your totally wrong. The US went to war with Japan because Japan attacked first. That war lasted four years. Dropping the atomic bomb was part of that war. It wasn't terrorism, it was to end the war because Japan refused to surrender. The people killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a drop in the bucket compared to the millions that were killed throughout the war. The fire bombing of Tokyo inflicted more deaths than either of the atomic bombs. 80 million people died in WW2. The bombs were just another tool in the final throes of the war.

i know that Japan started it, have i ever stated otherwise, please point towards any statement i have made saying that US started it.

US never wanted to join WWII, it just wanted to sell weapons and make profits, which is fine of course and that was the best thing it can do for its people, not to involve itself in any meaningless war in which it had no interest, but when japan was stupid enough to attack USA, it caused a great inbalance of power in the war.

while the Japanese attack were because of a stupid japanese spy who sent wrong stupid info in which he said that US is preparing to attack japan, thats why Japan hit in pearl harbor first, they were very stupid to believe that spy, that move probably was the main reason that caused them to lose WWII.

anyway, aside from that, during a war, you cant just choose to kill thousands of civilians because their leader refused to surrender to you.

i acknowledge the fact that those bombs probably saved more lifes than they killed.

but i am also stating that its a choice that i would have never been able to make, maybe there were better solutions, to detonate the bomb in the desert to make everyone acknowledge its existence and surrender, but to detonate it over civilians just to make the message stronger, is something i dont agree with.

and yes, i agree, the number of people killed with those bombs were very trivial compared to the total loss of lifes during WWII

and again i say, that attack, although i consider it state terrorism, and that i dont agree with it, i admit that it have saved alot more lifes than it killed, but its a moral choice i would never make.

[BoogyMan]

The cause of Islamic terrorism is radical islamists running amok with the religion and radicalizing the young and impressionable. This coupled with the lack of a serious effort to denounce such actions by the preponderance of Islamicists makes for an explosive situation.