(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
(Rob van Riel) wrote in message . com...
that). With its current "guilty of terrorism by the broadest possible
association" policy, and resultant deliberate targetting of civilians,
it has also become a terrorist organisation.
Palestinians into their own rich kingdoms. BTW, the "innnocent
civilians" you mention are 9 chances out of 10 shooting at Israelis
from their homes, hosting Hamas or other terrorists, or chanting
"death to Israel".

If anyone picks up a weapon and points it at any soldier, Israeli or
otherwise, that person has no ground for complaints if he or she gets
wasted. I don't think chanting anything is supposed to be a capital
offence. Hosting terrorists needs more proof than the Israeli
govenment's say so.
Levelling a block of flats because there might have been a terrorist
living there is targetting civilians, no matter how you look at it.


Again, how can you reach that conclusion when Israel has bent over
backwards trying to make the distinction between peaceful Palestinians
and those that support terror?

You mean they don't consider every Palestinian who lives in the
occupied territories a terrorist until proven otherwise? Well, they
sure could have fooled me.


Everytime Israel relaxes restrictions
and makes an effort to move forward in negotiations... BAM!!!...
another suicide bombing (which is of course orchestrated from Yasser
Arafat himself and his terror connections).

I must admit that this is one of the problems when fighting
terrorists, its hard to restrict their activities without imposing a
brutal police state on the general population. Israel goes a lot
further in this than most civilised countries would find acceptable,
and still they are ineffective, probably because their actions make
new bombers faster than they eliminate them.


And how can Israel
negotiate when nations like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are
pouring in funds to the terrorists or tunneling in weapons to them?

How can one negotiate with any nation one is at war with? And yet,
other than very rare total victories, this is how wars are ended.


The Israelis have a genuine right to self-preservation and if that
means an Apaches fires into a crowd to take out a Hamas leader- too
bad.

Would that Apache also fire is this Hamas leader were hiding amongst
those praying at the wailing wall? I don't think so. To Israel,
Palestinian death and suffering are irrelevant, maybe even part of the
agenda.


The US only wanted the bomb to kick the **** out of the Japanese, and
to intimidate the Russians. In the eyes of many in the region, Israel
has been a constant and violently active military threat since it was
created. I don't approve of the use of nuclear weapons, but it does
seem like the only way to be rid of Israel, and thus to the Arabs, a
last resort. The alternative is to live under the threat of Israeli
agression for all eternity.


Now you've really gone overboard. It was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor,
raped China and used bio-weapons on them, killed Allied soldiers on death
marches, and did human medical experiments on helpless civilians with Unit
731.
Their determined kamikaze attacks and fanatical devotion to the
Emperor made it imperative that we use the atomic bombs to end the war
with the least casualties for both the US and Japanese. A homeland
invasion would have taken years and the casualties on both sides
probably in the millions.

True, the Japanese did some seriously horrible stuff, and were totally
determined to fight to the death. Defeating them without the use of
nuclear weapons would have been very costly. This merely proves my
point. To the Arabs, Isreal is as heinious an enemy as the Japanese
were in your opinion, and no conventional method for their removal
seems feasable. So, nuke 'em.


As far as Israel goes that nation has
between 200-400 nuclear weapons estimated (low-to-high) and has never
used them despite Saddams 1991 provocation with the Scuds and the all
too real threat that one of those warheads might have been chemical.
If you remember 1990 then you will recall Saddam threatening to burn
Israel utterly, so when the Scuds went flying Israel had to use
restraint not knowing what was in the warheads. Israel could have
destroyed Baghdad or for that matter Damascus, Tehran, or Riyadh.
Israel has no such intention, just a safeguard in the event of a war
that enters Israeli territory with no hope of winning. An Arab bomb on
the other hand has only one target and purpose- Israel, to kill the
Jews.

So, an Israeli bomb is there to get the Arabs out, at any cost,
whereas an Arab bomb would be there to get the Israelis out, at any
cost. Much the same thing.


Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yasser
Arafat have funded and carried out terrorist attacks against Israel
and the West for decades.

Israel started out with terrorism against Palestinians and Western
nations. No difference.

extreme cases Israel has carried out pre-emptive attacks that only did
good (like the Osirak reactor and killing Gerald Bull).

There has never been a terrorist without some sort of justification.


Thank God President Bush is for Israel.

If said entity exists I have more relevant bones to pick with it. Bush
is pretty far down the list.

Your atheistic anti-semitism is showing.

Agnostic, actually, but with sufficiently strong atheistic tendencies
to accept that. Can't find the anti-semitism though. Or is Bush a jew,
and are you insulted by the fact that I don't consider him all that
relevant?


Hey, the Palestinians had their chance for a state in 1948 and they
rejected the proposal, choosing instead to try to push the Jews into
the sea in war. They failed. And then they tried 4 more times to do it
militarily and failed 4 more times.

I never contested the military might of the IDF.


Now, its the "plight of the poor
Palestinians" nonsense. And let me tell you that Yasser Arafat won't
be content with the '67 borders- he wants Israel ultimately destroyed
and all the land. Same old goal, different strategy.

You're obviously better at reading minds than I am. I don't believe
the Palestinian hardliners would be truly content with the '67
borders, but I think they would, grudgingly, accept them if this was
the price to pay for reaching their other goals. Of course, the
Israelis wouldn't be content with those borders either, they want
every scrap of land they now occupy.

Rob