Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 320

• 0%

  badnootka11 months, 4 weeks ago

  Most likely a drone. How come they could not hit it?

  Reply

  21 Replies

  • 0%

    ghengisghan11 months, 4 weeks ago

    because it was too high and their best rock throwers are already onthe injured list ;)

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      DanmLiberals11 months, 4 weeks ago

      that's a classic

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        spikecwc11 months, 3 weeks ago

        Could be the crappy Soviet equipment they have

        Reply
  • 0%

    AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

    Knothead15 ~ the last time the Syrians TOOK ON the IAF??

    Hello? Did you read this article? The Syrians did not

    initiate this violation - they didn't take anyone on.

    Per CNN this morning when this story was first aired:

    (Shown) Map of Israel and Syria

    (Bold-type Headline) ISRAEL AND SYRIA?

    (Voice over)"Is there conflict brewing between Israel & Syria?

    (Sub-heading) JEWS FIRED UPON BY SYRIA

    (Anchor Lead-in) "The Israeli Air Force flew over SYRIAN airspace last night and Syria fired upon the planes."

    There was an article posted yesterday,here on Netscape, about - at the least - deliberately misleading news interpretations by our media. Well, this is a prime

    example. "JEWS FIRED UPON BY SYRIA"? Tell the truth -

    wouldn't a more accurate sub-heading have been:

    ISRAELI AIR FORCE INVADES SYRIAN AIR SPACE?

    It is also not the only time it has happened.

    PLUS - The IAF won't comment!

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901650.html

    Reply

    9 Replies

    • 0%

      Ceejsing11 months, 4 weeks ago

      Just a reading suggestion. "The Great War for Civilisation" by Robert Fisk.

      Reply
    • 0%

      AbuAmirah11 months, 4 weeks ago

      The Syrians didn't arm Hezboallah, Iran did. Furthermore, the Syrians were INVITED by both the country of Lebanon and the U.N. to give that country stability after the disastorous CHRISTIAN initiated civil war

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        AnteUp11 months, 3 weeks ago

        Knothead15 ~

        I don't know who killed Hariri. I accepted the stories

        about Syrian involvement that surfaced when it happened.

        Since then I have read more than one article questioning

        Syria's guilt. Some experts on Lebanon (which I am not) have

        made the case that Beirut has more factions willing to

        commit violence against political rivals than I can keep

        track of - also, that Syria would have had very little to gain by the assassination and much to lose. One of the negative aspects would have been the increased attention to their presence - in that, they would have been too right!

        I have no idea where the truth lies - but it is not

        always as it seems at first.

        Don't you ever get tired of waiting decades to get the

        real scoop on what happened in our own times? I do.

        Reply
      • 0%

        djn3nunez311 months, 3 weeks ago

        Many believe it was the militant Palestinian refugees that started the war.

        BTW Syria entered the fray on the side of the Christians in 1976. But don't let that slow ya down

        Reply
      • 0%

        Edmar1411 months, 3 weeks ago

        WHAT? Syria came into Lebanon and stayed. It took the Lebanese until a couple of years ago to throw the Syrians out, or don't you remember the news?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          badnootka11 months, 3 weeks ago

          a 19 year occupation that ended only when opposition politicians were murdered for political reasons. THis is not aiding your neighbor. THis is controlling all aspects of the occupied country. ANd really Syria has not completley left LEbannon. Witness the continued assasinations of pro-western politicos.

          Reply
    • 0%

      OnlyTheTruth11 months, 4 weeks ago

      Didn't you get the memo AnteUp - Israel is exempted from international law.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

        Get real Knothead15 ~

        Tell me the last time our good friend Israel, and 5th largest nuclear power in the world, had an inspectiion of their nuclear facilities? They never signed the NPT.

        So, we signed it and urged others to - but NOT Israel

        (or Pakistan or India, for that matter).

        How nice it must be to just say "TRUST ME" -

        and the rest of the superpowers just back down.

        What ever happened to Trust But Verify?

        We wouldn't want to be offensive so, "for you? Just Trust will be more than enough."

        I don't like it!

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Edmar1411 months, 3 weeks ago

          AnteUP, when is the last time Israel used nuclear weapons against anybody? Even in 1973, when their backs were up against the wall, they didn't use them. I think the term "Trust Me" works very well with Israel and they have proven it time and again. I don't think the arabs would have been so restrained if they had nuclear weapons since they have publicly called for Israel's destruction since 1948. So what that they haven't signed the NNPT. The fact is that Israel has shown unbelievable restraint in not using it's nuclear arsenal. BTW, how do you know that Israel is the 5th largest nuclear power in the world. I just love it when people think that they are privileged to classified information. Stop trying to be so informative with information that you can only guess. However, I'm sure that you can scramble onto Google and find some article written by someone that says that Israel is the 5th largest nuclear power in the world. I have an article that says that pigs fly.

          Reply
  • 0%

    HistoricallyCorrect11 months, 4 weeks ago

    If you're talking about during the Yom-Kippur War, then you're wrong. The Syrian's 2K12 Kub AA tanks actually fared very well against the Israeli Air Force. Not saying they'd do as well today, but I do like to bring some fact into a discussion.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      AbuAmirah11 months, 3 weeks ago

      Don't get too excited with the zionist win. Israel won because of the spy work of an Arab looking Jew named Eli Cohen. The dude was so damn good that he was 3 spots away from being President of Syria. Well, they caught him and hung his ass in the street. Right after they got their asses kicked

      Reply
  • 0%

    jaern11 months, 3 weeks ago

    I'm thinking if any enemy warplanes flew over the USA, we would declare it as an act of war. Syria has every right to protect themselves from agressors.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      AbuAmirah11 months, 3 weeks ago

      Bet your ass

      Reply
    • 0%

      Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

      > Syria has every right to protect themselves from agressors.

      Sure it does. Did not the Syrians fire at these planes?

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        jaern11 months, 3 weeks ago

        Yes they did and with good cause.

        I know that it can be difficult to follow threads at time. I was responding to:

        Rating: 3 ( 6/-3) | 2007-09-06 10:05:01 knothead15 Send Message

        The Syrians didn't fare too well the last time they took on the IAF. I wouldn't recommend doing it again.

        Reply
  • 0%

    Pasi11 months, 4 weeks ago

    How come they could not hit it?

    You know anti-aercraft. Miss, miss, miss, own, miss...

    Reply
  • 0%

    noable11 months, 3 weeks ago

    Thanks

    Reply
• 0%

  slate11 months, 4 weeks ago

  LOL I needed a laugh,,,

  Reply
• 0%

  PollM11 months, 4 weeks ago

  Do you consider Israeli air strikes against Syria justified, or do you consider this an act of War -----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=447

  Reply

  104 Replies

  • 0%

    joeblowe11 months, 4 weeks ago

    You might notice from the article that technically, they ARE at war. So even if it WAS an attack, which they claim it wasn't - (and let's face it, if nothing was hit or damaged in any way it very likely was NOT an attack) I guess the Syrians should have been expecting it? I'm not sure; is there an expiration date on a "war" if no actual fighting occurs for a period of time?

    Reply

    34 Replies

    • 0%

      AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

      Joeblowe ~

      In 1974 Syria and Israel signed a "disengagement of forces agreement". I'll post a time line below from Haaretz:

      http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901679.html

      My personal fear is that these mis-adventures by the IAF are meant to taunt? - to incite? When the US goes after Iran, I feel that Israel will attack Syria.

      I honestly hate to think, with the world distracted, what

      they have planned for the West Bank and Gaza..........

      Reply

      33 Replies

      • 0%

        AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

        Knothead15 ~

        So, you're calling for MORE war? Don't you usually need

        a reason? An event that specifically causes a military

        response? You think we'll be able to be totally disengaged

        from ANOTHER conflict in the region? Not hardly.

        You're so casual about another war - because they deserve

        it- right? Well, personally I think our forces have been

        asked to do quite enough already.

        Is a war with Syria avoidable? Could be.

        Do you want to avoid it? It seems not.

        Unless you are sitting in Iraq or Afghanistan right now, then you're being damned irresponsible about the support our troops really need - FOR AMERICA TO RE-ENGAGE IN DIPLOMACY!

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          saintetienne11 months, 4 weeks ago

          AnteUp,

          Diplomacy? With Syria?!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          Go back to Disneyland. I hear Cinderella is going to wave her magic wand at her Fantasyland castle and turn all good little girls and boys into princes and princesses.

          What WORLD do YOU live in? You'll recall that Non-see Pelosi donned a headscarf a few months ago and tried this, with frankly EMBARRASSING results. The only thing she accomplished was to get in the way.

          Diplomacy with Syria! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

          That's a good one! That's just RICH! You oughta write for Hollywood!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

            saintetienne ~

            Very entertaining.

            Reply
      • 0%

        phleghem0111 months, 4 weeks ago

        So, what is the purpose of Syria's support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups? To taunt? incite? How about Syria's involvement in Iraq for that matter? It seems to me that if you keep poking the hornet's nest, you should expect the hornets to start buzzing around. For that matter, don't be surprised if you get stung a few times.

        Reply

        22 Replies

        • 0%

          AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

          phleghem01 ~

          Well, to take your point? I think that is exactly what

          happened on September 11th.

          Did we need to respond militarily after the Taliban thumbed it's nose at giving up al-Qaeda? Yup.

          But, back up just a teensy in our history in the Middle East

          though if you are at all interested in knowing how many

          times we "poked the hornet's nest" before we were stung.

          The guys that encouraged the poking? They weren't worried

          if we'd be strong enough retalliate - they knew we could.

          They also knew that eventually we would have to.

          They may have felt real bad about the Towers - but they

          knew American civilians would pay the price for their

          policies sooner or later.

          Reply

          20 Replies

          • 0%

            phleghem0111 months, 4 weeks ago

            When you say 'we' and 'our', to whom are you referring? I frequently hear rants of how the attacks of September 11th were justified because of our policies in the Middle East. You seem to be an advocate of that justification. Please expound on how we deserved those particular stings.

            I would argue that your analogy is backward. The U.S. has been poked frequently by Islamic extremists. Consider the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy bombing in Beirut, and even the 1993 Islamic terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center. The fact of the matter is that it took something as catastrophic as the 9/11 attack for America to finally recognize the danger posed by Islamic extremists. Hopefully we will remain alert and vigilant until such threats are removed.

            Reply

            18 Replies

            • 0%

              djn3nunez311 months, 4 weeks ago

              Why is it that when anyone tries to discuss the possiblity that our interventionism in the ME since the end of WWII may be the core reason these people are willing to go to such extremes to attack us, instead of the tried and true "they hate us for our freedoms", it becomes a rant on how the attacks were justified.

              We've meddled in their affairs alot longer than we've been poked by them. But history means so little to the partisan politician ,(left or right) unless it can somehow support their position.

              Reply

              8 Replies

              • 0%

                phleghem0111 months, 3 weeks ago

                You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Islamic violence and jihad was somehow born out of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. You fail to accept the fact that Islam has waged jihad against unbelievers since its inception.

                Reply

                7 Replies

                • 0%

                  djn3nunez311 months, 3 weeks ago

                  The Islamic jihadist do not frighten this unbeliever. I don't think there is a chance in hell that they will ever take over the world or poise a significant threat to do so. They did not attack us becasue they want us to convert to Islam. They want revenge, plain and simple.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  djn3nunez311 months, 3 weeks ago

                  The Islamic jihadist do not frighten this unbeliever. I don't think there is a chance in hell that they will ever take over the world or poise a significant threat to do so. They did not attack us becasue they want us to convert to Islam. They want revenge, plain and simple.

                  I do not believe they attacked us because we are unbelievers.

                  Reply

                  3 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

                    > I do not believe they attacked us because we are unbelievers.

                    So according to you Islamist terrorists and their apologists are liars... Very well. Nevertheless, they've murdered scores of French, German, Argentinian, Australian, Tanzanian and Kenyan civilians declaring that these people did something "against Islam and Allah". What exactly did France, Germany, Argentina and Australia do to the Muslims that they want to "revenge, plain and simple", in your opinion?

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    jaern11 months, 3 weeks ago

                    I do not believe they attacked us because we are unbelievers.

                    They attack us because we have always been right there since the beginning, mucking around with their governments and placing/replacing pawns to suit our need for their oil.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    phleghem0111 months, 3 weeks ago

                    Perhaps you should become a little more familiar with what is being taught by Muslim leaders and scholors. In 1928, Al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, (which today is the most powerful organization in Egypt after the government itself) said, "The verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting." The Qu'ran itself backs him up.

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  AnteUp11 months, 3 weeks ago

                  phleghem01 ~

                  Not true. History would say otherwise. Sephardic Jews

                  were able to exist peacefully with Muslims in the

                  Holy Land and abroad many times. As always in the Middle East it is never simple - it is FAR more complicated than

                  you indicate.

                  To borrow a line from the Jewish Virtual Library:

                  The era of Muslim rule in Spain (8th-11th century) was considered the "Golden Age" for Spanish Jewry.

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

                  Then you have King Richard the Lionheart beheading 2700 bound Muslim prisoners in one day at Acre 1191 - think old Richard was waging a little jihad against unbelievers?

                  Everyone has a little (maybe a lot) of blood on their hands.

                  We only demonize when we really want total capitulation and

                  NOT a peaceful multi-cultural world. I don't insist my

                  neighbors be LIKE me - just get along in spite of our differences.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    skoad11 months, 3 weeks ago

                    The Jews lived as dhimmis during this time. Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law (Sharia) mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere.

                    Reply
            • 0%

              AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

              phleghem01 ~

              Have you ever looked up how a freely elected Mossadegh (sp?)

              was "escorted" out of office in Iran by our CIA and the

              Brits MI6? Because he nationalized Iran's oil industry.

              Sound like al-Maliki's shaky position now in Iraq?

              THEN, they ushered in the Shah. We even helped

              the Shah train his secret police - SAVAK.

              When do we take some responsibility for our past actions?

              When SAVAK was grilling (on electric BBQ's)children in front

              of their parents - Do you think that just maybe some Iranian's were mentally cursing the United States?

              We have helped to create extremists. We need to undo some

              of the mistakes of the past. I was hoping for diplomacy

              but our leaders seem much more comfortable with the big

              stick! Cripes! Even our own soldiers have acknowledged

              that 90% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not insurgents.

              Do you think they feel very friendly to our form of

              justice? We CAN do better.

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • 0%

                djn3nunez311 months, 3 weeks ago

                ROTF

                How can a country steal it's own resources. Or you think their oil belongs to BP/Shell?

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

                  > How can a country steal it's own resources. Or you think their oil belongs to BP/Shell?

                  Did not BP/Shell BUY the right to develop these resources? If they DID how come they do not have the right to get what they've paid for?

                  Reply
              • 0%

                Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

                > Have you ever looked up how a freely elected Mossadegh (sp?) was "escorted" out of office in Iran by our CIA and the Brits MI6? Because he nationalized Iran's oil industry.

                Actually, I did not. Can you show a link to this documentary please?

                > When SAVAK was grilling (on electric BBQ's)children in front of their parents - Do you think that just maybe some Iranian's were mentally cursing the United States?

                As far as I know SAVAK was made up EXCLUSIVELY of Persians (Iranians). This makes me think that those Iranians were mentally cursing SAVAK, not the United States.

                Reply

                4 Replies

                • 0%

                  AnteUp11 months, 3 weeks ago

                  Thinker22 ~

                  Probably more than you want to know - and more bad news than

                  one person should ever read at one sitting - but I thought I

                  should give you a variety of sites:

                  RE: Mossadegh & SAVAK

                  http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/04...

                  http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp

                  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...

                  http://www.chss.montclair.edu/English/furr/lang...

                  http://www.counterpunch.org/torture1.html

                  And yes, SAVAK was made up of Iranians BUT the CIA trained

                  them! And it wasn't nice!! Plus, we are not talking any

                  "ticking bomb" necessity - this was against political

                  foes, etc.

                  Reply

                  3 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

                    I'm afraid you did not understand what I've asked for. Here is the conversation again:

                    >> Have you ever looked up how a freely elected Mossadegh (sp?) was "escorted" out of office in Iran by our CIA and the Brits MI6? Because he nationalized Iran's oil industry.

                    > Actually, I did not. Can you show a link to this documentary please?

                    I've asked for a DOCUMENTARY showing how a 'freely elected Mossadegh (sp?) was "escorted" out of office in Iran by our CIA and the Brits MI6' you've suggested for us to look up. NOt for a collection of biased opinionated hearsay articles.

                    Reply

                    2 Replies

                    • 0%

                      AnteUp11 months, 3 weeks ago

                      Thinker22 ~

                      What's with this "documentary" thing? Books and articles

                      are suspect but documentaries are absolutely truthful??

                      You think so much about documentaries? Go watch, "Wall",

                      by Simone Britton or, "The Iron Wall", by Mohammed Alatar

                      and keep your eyes peeled for, "Taxi To The Dark Side",

                      coming out 2008 by Gibley. I think these would open your

                      eyes to situations that really haven't been covered by

                      the print and cable media.

                      But,what's with the rejection of news articles? It's what

                      generated all this chatter. Don't you believe the report?

                      Reply

                      1 Reply

                      • 0%

                        Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

                        > What's with this "documentary" thing? Books and articles are suspect but documentaries are absolutely truthful??

                        Documentaries, by definition, depict WHAT happened and they do it using a fairly objective means - cameras.

                        Books and articles, on the other hand, are at best OPINIONS of their authors about WHAT happened and are, therefore, rarely fully objective.

                        To give you an example the most popular book in history, the New Testament, is the only known source of information about Jesus Christ and many people belive that it is no absolutely truthful. On the other hand, a documentary about his life and activities, if avaliable would be way more convincing.

                        Reply
            • 0%

              badnootka11 months, 3 weeks ago

              Ante up is a mouthpiece for the islamic revolution. He yearns for the day that he welcome his comrades to the US and know they are in control. He has no patriotism if he is american and feels that all atrocities committed in the name of allah are justified because of the perception of huniliation of the muslim world over the centuries. Hs is a living fdossil from the 11th century.

              Reply
          • 0%

            cowboygrandpa11 months, 3 weeks ago

            AnteUp: This is America. We support Israel. We don't support terrorists or the nations that hide or train them. If you don't like it go somewhere that does. As far as poking the hornets nest. I would burn the sucker down. I don't play with things that irritate me. I either remove them or destroy them. Read the Bible and you will se what is going to happen soon. Israel has every right to exist and be at peace as does the rest of the world. That is not going to happen as long as you have lunatics that believe they have a call from their god to destroy the Jews. Don't under estimate the true power of The United States of America and her people, when we have to fight we will. We do know how trust me.

            Reply
        • 0%

          AbuAmirah11 months, 4 weeks ago

          And what militant groups do "we" support? What corrupt governments do we support? As for Syria's involvement in Iraq, it reminds me of our involvement in Afghanistan. They're doing no more, or less, than what we've historically done. Or is okay when we do it?

          Reply
      • 0%

        joeblowe11 months, 4 weeks ago

        Got it, thanks.

        I can't help wondering: Who would WANT the Golan Heights? Apparently Syria doesn't want it very badly.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          Ceejsing11 months, 4 weeks ago

          Perhaps the people who lived there and were forced out after the Isreali invasion? Or maybe their descendents?

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            ghengisghan11 months, 4 weeks ago

            Or maybe Syria so they can place rockets there and bomb Israel like they did before.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Ceejsing11 months, 3 weeks ago

              Wow. Three negative comments for a relatively minor expression of sympathy for human beings. Are you all so lacking in compassion? Or just blinded by your viewpoint?

              Reply
        • 0%

          djn3nunez311 months, 4 weeks ago

          Aren't there some farms or something up there? Also it overlooks Israel and provided a strategic position for artillary, I think.

          Reply
        • 0%

          adinas11 months, 4 weeks ago

          The Golan was part of the British mandate which was created to establish a Jewsish state. The British gave it to the french who later established Syria. So it should really have been part of Israel from the start

          Reply
      • 0%

        Edmar1411 months, 3 weeks ago

        Stop trying to second guess anything. Nice to be an armchair quarterback. If the rockets continue to fly from Gaza, Israel will have to do something and you aren't going to like it. No other country in the world would put up with daily rocket attacks onto their soil and into their cities. It would be considered an act of war by any other nation. If Israel does anything in Gaza, it won't be pretty, and they will have every right under international law to do it. Since the PA considers itself a legitimate government, the rockets are an act of war.

        Reply
  • 0%

    StarLord11 months, 4 weeks ago

    Iraq, Iran, Syria....who's next? The whole damn world?

    Reply

    27 Replies

    • 0%

      pcknowledge11 months, 4 weeks ago

      "Iraq, Iran, Syria....who's next? The whole damn world?"

      Every country that's in a Middle East region that either has sufficient oil or is located next to a neighbor that has oil. And when they attack us back, our leaders will scream "muslim terrorists!"

      Reply

      23 Replies

      • 0%

        AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

        Do we? Do the Israeli's? Does Egypt?

        It's hard to find a nation that doesn't.

        Although in some cases they are only called terrorists

        by the oppostition - they call themselves freedom fighters.

        Fighting your enemy or oppressor does not make a terrorist.

        When civilians are deliberately maimed and killed it is an

        act of terrorism. There has been plenty of that - BUT, there

        are also those that have thrown rocks, etc. at tanks and

        armies - that may be a war, but it is NOT terrorism.

        Reply

        9 Replies

        • 0%

          Ceejsing11 months, 4 weeks ago

          You forgot to mention what happens to the, often very young, rock throwers... they are usually shot at.

          What is worse? A suicide bomber blowing himself up in a crowded Isreali Sbarro pizzeria? Or the Isreali military shooting missles at civilians, like Qana in 1996 or again in 2006? Or deliberate massacres like at Deir Yassin?

          Neither, they are equally horrible. The difference, Knothead, is the way in which they are being portrayed by the media. Words like terrorist, murder, and massacre are used to dscribe acts perpetrated by Arabs. Words like unfortunate and regrettable are used to describe Western "incidents".

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 0%

            phleghem0111 months, 3 weeks ago

            It's not just Palestinian society; it's Afghani society, and Iraqi society, and Pakistani/Kashmiri society. In fact, anywhere jihad has been declared.

            Reply
          • 0%

            Ceejsing11 months, 3 weeks ago

            No, Knothead. There are rockthrowers because there is no more hope. These people live lives that are no longer their own. Their kids have no futures to look forward to, they know at an early age they will likely die early, whether they choose to or not.

            These kids are not riding bicycles. They are not playing with train sets. They are not going to grow up and become a dull office worker, pilot, scientist, or business owner. What else is there for them to do besides fight for the future denied them?

            You point to the fact that they are willing to blow themseleves up as the defining quality of a terrorist. Suicide is the ultimate resort of those with no hope. How appealing ceasing to exist must look to them.

            How does the fact that they kill themselves after killing others, make them more deserving of the label terrorist than those who kill yet live to kill again?

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

              > Suicide is the ultimate resort of those with no hope. How appealing ceasing to exist must look to them.

              You falsely assume that these people are willing to DIE and you build a false theory of "no hope". If it was the case these people would commit a mass suicide... just like the worriers of Masada did when there was no hope left for them.

              The people you're talking about do not simply commit suicide. They try to MURDER AS MANY OTHER PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE and this act of mass murder is more important to them than their own lives. It's not absence of hope as you try to tell us, it's overwhelming hatred towards their victims and a hope (yes, they DO HAVE a hope!) that by killing as many Jews as possible they'll bring the "world without Zionism" closer.

              Reply
          • 0%

            Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

            > The difference, Knothead, is the way in which they are being portrayed by the media. Words like terrorist, murder, and massacre are used to dscribe acts perpetrated by Arabs. Words like unfortunate and regrettable are used to describe Western "incidents".

            False. The difference is in their intentions. To make it simpler for you to comprehend try to answer the following questions:

            1. If the Islamic militants were separated from peaceful civilians WHO would be attacked by the Israeli soldiers?

            2. If the Israeli soldiers were separated from peaceful civilians WHO would be attacked by Islamic militants?

            3. If tomorrow Israel would remove ALL settlements, ALL military bases, ALL checkposts and would withdraw to the 1949 cease fire lines -- WOULD THERE BE PEACE?

            4. If tomorrow the Arabs would stop attacking Israel and Israelis and would ask for peace negotiations -- WOULD THERE BE PEACE?

            Try to answer (honestly) these questions. You will be amazed.

            Reply
          • 0%

            Edmar1411 months, 3 weeks ago

            Deir Yassin was never a massacre. That was confirmed by the UN in 1950 after that story broke in the arab press. The census showed that the population had not changed and even the people of Dier Yassin confirmed that a massacre never happened. The IRC also investigated the "massacre" and found it to have been contrived. I'm sure you can find some arab publicist on google who has written an article or two on the Dier Yassin massacre, but I can find as many articles, written by a million nobodies that pigs can fly. Nice try, but that one has been propogandized to death for 57 years. However, the massacre of the Jewish population of Hebron in 1929 by the arabs is recorded in British records.

            Reply
          • 0%

            badnootka11 months, 3 weeks ago

            The young rock throwers who get shot at should be mad as hell at t6heir parents for the indoctrination they recieved throughout their childhood. They were raised to continue the struggle. THey were taught at an early age to hate. They have known nothing but hate and we should not expect more from them until their parents decide that decades of terrorism and death have placed them in their current position and they have no one to blame but themselves.

            Reply
          • 0%

            Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

            > You forgot to mention what happens to the, often very young, rock throwers... they are usually shot at.

            In this case, you should demand all grown-up Palestinians to be tried and jailed for allowing and encouraging these, often very young, rock throwers to commit suicide.

            Reply
        • 0%

          cowboygrandpa11 months, 3 weeks ago

          AnteUp:It is also not very intelligent. Do you recall the holocaust from WWII. The Jews were rounded up and slaughtered. I don't blame them for not putting up with any crap. They put up with far more than we would. The Nazis were terrorists as well. Can't you see the whole thing is starting all over again? You can call what we do terrorism if that is your view. My view is we don't hit the as***les hard enough. You hit them hard and don't let them get back up until they understand who is in charge. They want to run their own country good. Don't terrorize other countries or you get what is coming to you.

          Reply
      • 0%

        HistoricallyCorrect11 months, 4 weeks ago

        The US has given money and equipment to terrorist organizations in Iran. Doesn't that mean the US supports terrorism? Or is it only supporting terrorists if the group is opposed to us?

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          HistoricallyCorrect11 months, 4 weeks ago

          No, what's flawed logic is advocating military action against another nation for doing exactly the same thing as your nation!

          How can you not see that? We should STOP terrorism, but we should also STOP FUNDING IT IN IRAN. If you can't see my point here, theres no reason for anybody to bother talking to you, as you would be lacking the mental capacity necessary for thinking.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            phleghem0111 months, 3 weeks ago

            I believe we have stopped funding terrorism in Iran. We need to stop funding it in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

            Reply
      • 0%

        AbuAmirah11 months, 4 weeks ago

        Damn right and it stinks to high heaven

        Reply
      • 0%

        saintetienne11 months, 4 weeks ago

        Please don't forget that without the oil money from the United States and the West, all of these countries would still be doing what they were doing 75 years ago: Herding goats, riding camels, harvesting dates, beating their women into submission and fighting amongst each other.

        Thanks to Western money, Western technology, Western democracy and Western education, most of them have managed to pull themselves up a bit from the Middle Ages.

        A simple "thank you" would do.

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 0%

          AbuAmirah11 months, 4 weeks ago

          And without their oil what would we be doing? They don't owe us quat

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • 0%

            saintetienne11 months, 3 weeks ago

            We'd be drilling our OWN oil.... you know, the reserves up in Alaska that the Libs said NO to, because some reindeer were going to be displaced.

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              djn3nunez311 months, 3 weeks ago

              There are plently of place in the lower 48 that we could be drilling with alot less expense. Fla coast, Ca. coast....

              Reply
            • 0%

              anna_marie1011 months, 3 weeks ago

              saintet(idiot)

              Why aren't you drilling for oil? Why aren't you fighting

              alongside our troops? You believe in this war, every other war. Don't just talk. C'mon, join the military! Dig for oil!

              Reply
            • 0%

              AbuAmirah11 months, 3 weeks ago

              Okay, what would we do with it, considering we don't have the refining capability and Big Oil isn't in a hurry to increase supply. And it wasn't reindeer, it was caribou.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                saintetienne11 months, 3 weeks ago

                Oh go beat your woman, Abu. We're trying to have a serious discussion here.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  AbuAmirah11 months, 3 weeks ago

                  I don't beat women, I respect them too much. I find it funhy that a christian would say that

                  Reply
        • 0%

          phleghem0111 months, 3 weeks ago

          The problem is that the net result of providing them with more resources and technology is that now we have to deal with better armed terrorists who can use cell phones to remotely detonate bombs. It would be in the world's best interest if these prople remained with their goats and camels.

          (Beating their women and fighting each other hasn't changed all that much.)

          Reply
    • 0%

      AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

      And furthermore - fighting to reclaim the land that the international community gave you rights to seems a far

      loftier inspiration than making sure BIG OIL gets control

      of 80% of Iraq's own oil resources. Just a thought!

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        AnteUp11 months, 3 weeks ago

        Knothead15 ~

        "We're getting so little oil from Iraq right now........"

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

        It's part of the absurdity, Knothead, "WE" are NOT getting

        the oil from anywhere. Big Oil is! When the Iraqi's sign

        the "Oil Law" that we are pressuring them to do - and give

        up a major percentage of control for DECADES - the benefit

        will go to US? NO! It will belong, as always, TO BIG OIL.

        And then - just like now - they will determine how much and

        at what price to SELL it to us. Is that a just cause for

        our troops to die for?

        Maybe we should all volunteer to put on refinery uniforms

        and go out and work at the refineries for free - a public

        service! Why would we put our troops through this

        experience just to ensure a solid foundation for BIG OIL to

        set up business in Iraq? Iran?? Afghanistan???

        We all pay for our gas - why do we owe them this too??

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Thinker2211 months, 3 weeks ago

          > And then - just like now - they will determine how much and at what price to SELL it to us. Is that a just cause for our troops to die for?

          Then - just like now - these "they" who did and do determine how much and at what price to SELL it to us was an organization named OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Almost all OPEC member states are Arab with addition of Iran and Venezuela.

          Are you sure that American troops are being killed in Iraq for OPEC?

          Reply
  • 0%

    AnteUp11 months, 4 weeks ago

    Knothead15 ~

    Are you aware that we just released $86 million to Fatah,

    who claims the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade as part of their organization?

    Are you aware that the US has been arming and offering

    military support to Sunni's in Lebanon AND Iraq, that are

    supporters of al-Qaeda?

    This pointing of fingers at terrorists of other nations

    but denying our own involvement is embarrassing. We were

    heavily involved in supporting terrorism in Latin America.

    Reagan? The Dirty Wars? Our total support and assistance

    to the death squads? Our good friend, Roberto D'Aubisson -

    better known as, "BLOWTORCH BOB". How do you think he got

    that name? Our own Ambassador knew better, but our Dept.

    of State tried to portray the Mary Knoll nuns who were raped and murdered - as loose women. The priests and their housekeeper and her daughter - brutally murdered? Well,

    they were inciting civil unrest.

    Our Congress said NO MORE FUNDING - so,welcome Ollie North

    and Iran/Contra!

    Reply

    29 Replies

    • 0%

      saneman11 months, 4 weeks ago

      Don't forget the millions of dollars being spent in Iran to foster the overthrow of the government there. Isn't that also terrorism? The CIA is constantly involved in terroristic actions, but as long as it is the U.S. doing the terrorizing, it is Ok.

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • 0%