response 150 of 176:

Dec 9 03:25 UTC 2003

Once again, Scott shows his inability to understand English.

>Russ, are you saying that we should "do our best to incapacitate" (what the
>heck does that mean, bombing?) people

It means putting them in circumstances where they cannot attack us.
Prisons are effective, as is killing them.  

Another part of this problem is that our economic system has given
a huge amount of money and influence to groups and sects (the House
of Saud, Wahhabism) which use it to promote hatred of us.  We can
and should take action to remove this money, which would deflate
their influence.

>based on their religion?

Gee, Scott, the people who bomb women's health clinics and murder
doctors are obviously motivated by religion.  Should we leave them
alone because of that, or pursue them and jail them?  What about
those whose religion says that white Europeans are the Chosen People 
and all other races should be expelled from the USA or stamped out?
(World Church of the Creator holds this, if I'm not mistaken.)
Should such groups be infiltrated and broken up, like the Southern
Poverty Law Center bankrupted the Ku Klux Klan?  Or does religion
give carte blanche to do anything in the name of <insert diety>?

I think these people should be fought with force when they try to
use force.  Anyone who acts on those religious tenets should be
pursued relentlessly, captured and tried if possible, killed if
they cannot otherwise be prevented from escaping.  They should
be incapacitated, if by no other means than keeping them running.
And their front groups and sympathizers should be held responsible
for the violent acts that they promote.

Do you think it is WRONG to treat murderous fundamentalist Muslims
the same way we treat murderous fundamentalist Christians?  Are you
a bigot who thinks that Americans/westerners/Israelis carry some
original sin and ought to be doormats for every wacko sect that
likes to see other people's blood flowing?  This is not a rhetorical
question, your repeated refusal to address questions like the above
does not permit many other conclusions.

Re #139:

>You and Leeron both basically agree on the same thing:  That the
>entire fault rests with Arabs.  

I talk about fundamentalist murderers, and you generalize this to
"the Arabs" as if the two are synonymous.  What a lack of brainpower
(or honesty) it must take to miss such an obvious distinction.

response 152 of 176:

Dec 9 05:25 UTC 2003

<chuckle>

response 154 of 176:

Dec 9 17:49 UTC 2003

15:01   Security forces foiled attempted suicide attack in Rosh Ha`ayin on
        Monday 

08:37   Gunmen fire at IDF troops near Gaza settlement and at Israeli cars on
        Netzarim road 

04:04   Arab-Americans picket outside Seeds of Peace award dinner in Michigan
        to honor Shimon Peres 

response 156 of 176:

Dec 10 14:41 UTC 2003

It bugs you to have your conscience and politics used against
you, doesn't it Scott?  It hurts to see that you are what you
despise.  Running away will remove the immediate pangs.

response 158 of 176:

Dec 10 18:25 UTC 2003

Re 157:  Russ, you may be good with technical issues, but when it comes to
people you're a drooling idiot.  I'll give you one hint:  Fanaticism *thrives*
under persecution.

response 160 of 176:

Dec 11 14:41 UTC 2003

Re 159:  Please don't put words in my mouth, Russ.  Doesn't help your
arguments any.

response 162 of 176:

Dec 11 16:09 UTC 2003

Except that this "fire" has been burning for 6 decades in general and 4
months in particular BEFORE the election of Sharon.

As discussed in #125, Sharon's main point is that the PA must stop
harboring and funding terrorists before peace negotiations resume.
That's the logical lesson of Oslo.  Arafat can't feed the fire and
pretend to be a fire-fighter at the same time. And if Arafat has no
mandate to make peace (as he claimed at Camp David 2000, suggesting
to President Clinton that compromise would get him killed), then
why "negotiate" with someone who can only demand concessions but
can't give any in return?

(Historical note: Churchill wrote something to the effect that Arab
leaders viewed negotiations as a forum in which to list demands rather
than make compromise -- which they equated with surrender.)

response 164 of 176:

Dec 11 16:54 UTC 2003

No, the intifada began prior to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount,
and Arafat had already ordered his Tanzim chiefs to perpetrate violence.

The International Sharm A Sheikh Fact Finding mission (headed by Sen.
Mitchell, himself of Arab descent) concluded that Sharon's visit did
not precipitate the violence.

In fact, Two days before Sharon's visit the official PA newspaper said:

        Had it not been for this blood, the world would never have
        been interested in us...our national duty is to continue the
        confrontation, the intifadah, continue to sacrifice our martyrs.

PA Justice Minister Abu Midden added:

        Violence is just around the corner and the Palestinians are
        willing to sacrifice even 5,000 casualties.

Furthermore, it has been reported that Israeli Minister of Internal Security
and Acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami were promised by Jibril Rajoub,
head of PA Preventive Security, that there would be no reaction to Likud MK
Arik Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as long as Sharon did not attempt to
enter the mosque itself. 

There have been many false report about the incident, but the fact is that
Sharon visited on a Thursday (not Friday, the Islamic holy day) and he did
NOT enter the mosque area.

Some believe that Rajoub intentionally lied to allow this pretext to happen.

In any event, it appears as if the propaganda ploy worked.

Of course, isn't it ridiculous to assert that 3+ years of violence was
started and continues because a particular Jew visited the Temple Mount?
Wouldn't a proper reaction have been a peaceful demonstration?

response 166 of 176:

Dec 14 07:24 UTC 2003

Problem is that peaceful demonstrations cannot achieve Arafat's agenda.
Which is why the PLO Covenant, despite his Oslo commitment, remains
unmodified and rejects non-violent solutions.  The same reason why the
Hamas and Jihad terrorists are against the peace process.

07:13   IDF troops shoot and kill armed Palestinian in West Bank village of
        Na`amah, near Ramallah 

08:08   Security Services dealing with 42 specific terror alerts;
        steps to ease restrictions on Palestinians will remain intact

08:10   Palestinians fire five mortars at Neveh Dekalim settlement in Gaza

response 168 of 176:

Dec 14 15:01 UTC 2003

They are now.

Preictably, No. 10 is going wild. Interestingly, the White House
response so far has been quite muted.

response 170 of 176:

Dec 14 19:19 UTC 2003

No, but expect to see "evidence" of Weapons of Mass Disappearance very
soon.

response 172 of 176:

Dec 16 11:16 UTC 2003

00:16   French PM Raffarin surprised at gov`t panel`s proposal to make Yom
        Kippur and Eid al-Fitr official state holidays

01:08   IDF arrests 4 drivers, impounds 4 trucks during efforts by settlers
        to move 6 caravans to illegal outpost of Migron

07:35   Arrow anti-missile missile test successful - intercepts and destroys
        target at high altitude

09:59   Security forces arrest four wanted terror suspects in Nablus;
        two Islamic Jihad men nabbed near Ramallah

10:22   Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter:

        It has been proven that the security fence prevents bloodshed

        Iran is the world`s leading sponsor of terrorism and is constantly
        trying to attack Israel

12:42   Iran`s supreme leader says George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon would
        suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein

response 174 of 176:

Dec 21 14:39 UTC 2003

Re 09:25 <twenex raises several eyeborws, two of which, incidently,
seem to be lk's>