ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Well, maybe we have different antennas, Ican. My Great Uncle and Aunt were gassed and burned in the ovens at Dachau. Their daughter, who escaped, commented over and over in her later life, but they were so polite at first. I never thought they would do that to us.
Yes, our antennas are different. No one in my family, to the best of my knowledge, was murdered by any terrorist nation like Nazis Germany. My only response to your point evolves from my own intuition. I think the viewpoints of Old Europe et al are based on something other than an anti-jew bigotry. I think they are based fundamentally on the seemingly widely prevailing, albeit stupid, notion these days, that victims who ruthlessly defend themselves against their victimizers, cause their victimizers to victimize them and others all the more.

My intuition has been wrong before and could easily be wrong now.

Old Europe is obviously viciously opposed to Israel. I don't know what country he(she?) comes from but I know that you are aware that the Germans are unalterably opposed to any kind of Anti-Semitism. The French? Well, the French are the French--The country which has never worked through its national disgrace from the Dreyfus case.

I would expect any rational person from Europe who knew exactly what happened to the Jews in Europe during World War II, to give them a good deal of leeway in their efforts to re-establish their homeland.

I find it INCREDIBLE that people like Old Europe would ally themselves with the Islamo-fascist fringe.

If Old Europe( who, is, I think, not a Muslim) does not understand that there is a culture war going on between those who are Muslims and those who are not, there is no hope for him and people who think like him!!!

I agree with you that such is incredible absent some kind of an explanation. Again, I think the correct explanation is Old Europe et al cannot tolerate any who ruthlessly defend themselves against their victimizers.

The question my intuition next has to answer is why such intolerance? I think such intolerance is due mainly to the notion that those who ruthlessly defend themselves will eventually make it necessary for those suffering such intolerance to ruthlessly defend themselves as well, and that scares the hell out of them or intolerably discomforts them (e.g., "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know").

OK, why should that scare the hell out of them? My intuition again, but this time based on some anecdotal evidence. I've frequently encountered in my lifetime people who are afraid to confront certain challenges, and who deeply resent those they think are either unafraid, or while afraid confront those challenges anyway. Also, I've encountered those who don't want to be bothered with challenges and are resentful of those who do.

Why is that? My intiuition has no answer.

... the alternative and better way is for the anti-victory forces to change their mind, get behind the President and military, and give them a green light and Good Housekeeping stamp of approval to do whatever is necessary to win this war. They will no longer be required to pull their punches or be second guessed and criticized for whatever property or collateral damage is done and they (and the terrorists) will be reminded daily that the American people are 100% behind them and cheering them on to victory. If our allies followed suit, it would expedite victory and peace that much sooner.

Had we done that in the first place, I honestly believe this thing would have essentially been over within the first year, many thousands of lives would have been spared, and the only troops we would have there now would be advisory as Iraq finishes training a new army and policy force and putting their Constitution into effect. If that was our normal M.O. from the beginning, I think we would have gone in with overwhelming force as we did in Desert Storm and we would have gotten the job done.

By 'we" I mean the entire coalition. I think most of us are way more timid and reticient than we used to be, and that as much as anything is empowering the world's terrorists to step up their efforts to conquer us all. I think the reason Israel did not achieve complete victory is that world opinion didn't want it to. And that is unfortunate as it prevents true peace from being attained.

[otherwise known as Setantary]
...
Ican't posts an article in which he enlarges and bold faces a passage about 400 rockets being launched in five days. That is not thousands of rockets ...

Ican't's quoted source wrote:

In the last five days Hezbollah has fired about 400 rockets into Israel, killing at least 16 civilians.
...

...

Set, all I see in your post is a lot of twisted logic and misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I said. In any event, I will stand by all my previous statements.

I see you as an apologist for all Arab actions, but a severe critic of Israel's attempt to live at peace.

There is such a thing as to the victor goes the spoils. Israel, which was attacked in 1967, won the war and took over the West Bank and Gaza. You seem to have problems with this; thus, I assume that we should return Puerto Rico to Spain, and the Southwest to Mexico. Certainly, France and Poland should return the land seized from Germany (e.g., Alsace Lorraine).

Israel pulled out of Gaza and Lebanon. But the Arabs in Gaza didn't seek to go to work farming the land and building their economy. Instead, they built tunnels into Israel and rocketed it. But to you, it is all Israel's fault.

Setanta wrote:

[otherwise known as Setantary]
...
Ican't posts an article in which he enlarges and bold faces a passage about 400 rockets being launched in five days. That is not thousands of rockets ...

Ican't's quoted source wrote:

In the last five days Hezbollah has fired about 400 rockets into Israel, killing at least 16 civilians.
...

...

400 in 5 days = an average of 80 per day.

But, CNN reported day after day after day that Hezbollah shot well over a hundred rockets into Israel. However, for a moment let's stick with an average of 80 per day.

The Hezbollah rocket firings took place over more than 20 days.

20 x 80 = 1,600 (but not thousands).

20 x 100 = 2,000 (now that's thousands; i.e., two thousand)

Now, don't shoot at Israel and they won't shoot at you.

I guess that Israel is not allowed to defend itself. In all the wars named, Israel was attacked first. Even in the 1956 conflict, there were a series of Egyptian actions against Israel preceding the latter's attack on the Suez Canal. (emphasis added)

Conventions permit the use of cluster bombs provided they are not used indiscriminately on civilians. They were used on Hez forces that, unfortunately, hide behind civilians in civilian areas. It is unfair to expect Israel to forgo the use of certain weapons due to the Hez actions.

Israel dropped leaflets before attacking heavily populated areas containing Hez forces. Thus, some apartment buildings housing Hez may have been destroyed after the civilians were warned away. Were the riders on the buses blown up by Hez given warnings? Ha!

All Lebanon has to do is sit down in peace with Israel, as did Jordan and Egypt, to work out differences. Guess why this is not happening.

Set, all I see in your post is a lot of twisted logic and misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I said. In any event, I will stand by all my previous statements.

I see you as an apologist for all Arab actions, but a severe critic of Israel's attempt to live at peace.

There is such a thing as to the victor goes the spoils. Israel, which was attacked in 1967, won the war and took over the West Bank and Gaza. You seem to have problems with this; thus, I assume that we should return Puerto Rico to Spain, and the Southwest to Mexico. Certainly, France and Poland should return the land seized from Germany (e.g., Alsace Lorraine).

Israel pulled out of Gaza and Lebanon. But the Arabs in Gaza didn't seek to go to work farming the land and building their economy. Instead, they built tunnels into Israel and rocketed it. But to you, it is all Israel's fault.

ican711nm wrote:

...
400 in 5 days = an average of 80 per day.

But, CNN reported day after day after day that Hezbollah shot well over a hundred rockets into Israel. However, for a moment let's stick with an average of 80 per day.

The Hezbollah rocket firings took place over more than 20 days.

20 x 80 = 1,600 (but not thousands).

20 x 100 = 2,000 (now that's thousands; i.e., two thousand)

Now, don't shoot at Israel and they won't shoot at you.

So one can assume that the Israelis undertook no massive military response for twenty days? I suggest the Lebanese would differ with you.

No one can rationally assume or infer that based on anything I posted.

Of course, you have ignored the point i made in quoting you.
...
Of course, I ignored it. It had nothing to do with my post wherein I was estimating how many rockets Hesbollah fired at Israel.

Don't shoot at all your neighbors, lie, cheat and steal from them, and you won't breed terrotists who are willing to blow themselves up in your market places.

No! Read carefully!

Don't shoot at your neighbors and they won't shoot at you.

Don't threaten to exterminate your neighbors and they won't threaten to exterminate you.

Don't put you rockets amidst non-cobatants and non-cobatants won't become casualties when you shoot your rockets at your neighbors.

It's really a quite simple set of tradeoffs.

...Don't shoot at all your neighbors, lie, cheat and steal from them, and you won't breed terrotists who are willing to blow themselves up in your market places.

You see, nobody does that kind of **** for any sort of a cause: people do that kind of **** because they're f***ed-up people.....

Fire at Waco complex probably was set inside deliberately, expert testifies (Post-Dispatch 7/12/00) An expert testified Wednesday that the high heat and speed of the fire at the Branch Davidian complex suggested that the fire had been set intentionally by people inside the buildings. The expert was James G. Quintiere, a professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland. He said three or four fires started within two minutes, just after noon April 19, 1993.

I am not sure what the Waco tragedy has to do with the thread at hand, but, clearly there were mistakes possiblie wrong doings and even cover ups made from the government end of that whole horrible event. However, the fire itself was caused from the Davidians. .

Does anybody seriously believe the Clinton administration couldn't find any number of 'expert' witnesses to testify that they didn't cause the tragedy at the Branch Davidian? Are you seriously suggesting there is no possibility that using tanks to ram holes in the building had something to do with that?

The fact is, those experts with no dog in the fight say there is no way to know for sure how the fire started. The testimony of those who were in the building has been rock solid that none of them set it.

The issue itself has no bearing whatsoever on the current situation in the Middle East other than to illustrate how govenrment can be more than willing to offer facts that can be quite different from what actually happened. And Gunga is quite right that there is often no rational explanation for why groups like the Branch Davidians exist or why a government will choose the methods that it uses.

Besides giving me a great laught.....