Israel Bombs Syrian Camp

In article ,
"Tom Cooper" wrote:

Perhaps it is really so that their "blowing things" functions. I'd say that
it is definitely so that if functions - for _limited periods of time_: the
problem is only that too many people - on both sides - were stating the same
like Robert or you already several millions of times, ever since 1929. So, I
guess, this "blowing things" doesn't function, and it could be so that
involved parties - as well as people like Robert - should meanwhile learn
from this fact, and try something else.

The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a "roadmap"
that the bad guys have bragged about not following.

Note, for example, the lack of direct attacks on targets on American
soil in the last year or so. Following the "violence begets" theory,
there should be *dozens* of bombs and such happening here, instead of
the, well, none.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a "roadmap"
that the bad guys have bragged about not following.

Aha, I see.

But, isn't it then actually very surprising to see they never get those you
call "the real bad guys"?

Could it be there is a mistake somewhere in that "roadmap"?

Note, for example, the lack of direct attacks on targets on American
soil in the last year or so. Following the "violence begets" theory,
there should be *dozens* of bombs and such happening here, instead of
the, well, none.

Chad, let me be honest to you:
I could now respond that in the eyes of the terrorists the situation is just
fine, because they now have the "infidels" right in front of their guns -
and on their own terrain, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, and elsewhere.

But, you know, what you explain here to me actually makes me laugh and
having only pure sarcasm in my mind when I want to answer.

I have a strong feeling you think you need to explain me "few things", as -
based on Robert's wet dreams - you think I don't know enough or don't
understand the situation there in the Middle East, or that I even kind of
support the terrorism against anybody - including Israel.

Now, I do not say I know "everything", far from this: I'd say I know barely
enough for general orientation. But, it is obvious that you don't have a
slightest clue about what I know nor what is my actual standpoint. So, if
you don't mind a kind suggestion from me: please, don't orientate on
Robert's arrogant attacks, and try to find out what I really think. There
are meanwhile more than enough of my posts on this NG, and also on the RAMN,
I guess it should not be a problem to find out.

At least do yourself a favour and don't make yourself look dumb by
orientating on Robert's arogant bashing.

Thanks in advance.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

In article ,
"Tom Cooper" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a "roadmap"
that the bad guys have bragged about not following.

Aha, I see.

But, isn't it then actually very surprising to see they never get those you
call "the real bad guys"?

They've been killing quite a few of the head guys in Hamas, which pretty
much negates your sentence above. The funny thing about large terror
organizations is that the guys in charge don't like dying all that much,
while being very supportive of their footsoldiers dying for the cause.

Aggressively going after the training camps and organizers of groups
like Hamas *works*, as opposed to trying to negotiate with a bunch of
people who have sworn to kill all of the Jews.

Could it be there is a mistake somewhere in that "roadmap"?

Yes, the mistake is in thinking that Hamas and other terrorist groups
would ever follow it. They have bragged repeatedly that they will not.

Now, I do not say I know "everything", far from this: I'd say I know barely
enough for general orientation. But, it is obvious that you don't have a
slightest clue about what I know nor what is my actual standpoint.

I can only judge by what you say here, and you're saying things that
indicate that you think the Israelis are wrong in attacking terrorists
in countries that support and train them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Tom Cooper" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

The problem is that when you kill a few terrorists, then follow the
advice of people who tell you to *not* kill terrorists, you just give
them a chance to train up a bit and plan their next run. The trick is
to keep going after the real bad guys, and not try to follow a
"roadmap"
that the bad guys have bragged about not following.

Aha, I see.

But, isn't it then actually very surprising to see they never get those
you
call "the real bad guys"?

They've been killing quite a few of the head guys in Hamas, which pretty
much negates your sentence above. The funny thing about large terror
organizations is that the guys in charge don't like dying all that much,
while being very supportive of their footsoldiers dying for the cause.

The funny thing here is that they're killing Hamas leaders since three
years. Somehow, Hamas is not running out of leaders so they have to continue
killing them.

Given how the situation developed so far I guess they could continue killing
Hamas or other leaders for the next 50 years and the method will not
function...

Aggressively going after the training camps and organizers of groups
like Hamas *works*, as opposed to trying to negotiate with a bunch of
people who have sworn to kill all of the Jews.

See above.

Could it be there is a mistake somewhere in that "roadmap"?

Yes, the mistake is in thinking that Hamas and other terrorist groups
would ever follow it. They have bragged repeatedly that they will not.

So, the only conclusion here is that they will both continue blasting each
other until the hell freezes.

OK. Then let them do that. Just, why are you interpreting my conclusions and
explanations about what "the other" side in this case thinks about the
matter as a kind of a "support" for this side?

Now, I do not say I know "everything", far from this: I'd say I know
barely
enough for general orientation. But, it is obvious that you don't have a
slightest clue about what I know nor what is my actual standpoint.

I can only judge by what you say here, and you're saying things that
indicate that you think the Israelis are wrong in attacking terrorists
in countries that support and train them.

No Chad,
that is your assumption, not something I said.

If you take a look above, I clearly stated that such attacks do not cause
fear - as explained by Robert - but only more hatred. That they don't have
anything like "effects" Robert was talking about on Iran on anybody else
either, and that consequently their effects are not what such like Robert
(and obviously you) expect would be.

So, I was not talking about anybody there being "right" or "wrong". Anything
of this kind is your own interpretation of the same quality like that of
Robert with which this whole thread was started.

Are you really so ignorant and shortsighted too?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

"Tom Cooper" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:
"Tom Cooper" wrote:

They've been killing quite a few of the head guys in Hamas, which pretty
much negates your sentence above. The funny thing about large terror
organizations is that the guys in charge don't like dying all that much,
while being very supportive of their footsoldiers dying for the cause.

The funny thing here is that they're killing Hamas leaders since three
years. Somehow, Hamas is not running out of leaders so they have to continue
killing them.

Actually, they laid off of the leaders while chasing that roadmap. It's
only in the last year or so that they've hit them again at all, and only
in the last few weeks that the Israelis got aggressive about it.
Overall, there are many less dead Israelis than in the years they were
chasing the "talk instead of fight" periods.

Given how the situation developed so far I guess they could continue killing
Hamas or other leaders for the next 50 years and the method will not
function...

Bad guess. WIth that theory, we should have seen a massive increase in
attacks by Al-Qaeda over the last year or so (not against US targets,
and less against everyone else). and we would not have seen the lulls
that happened after the deaths of previous terrorists.

Aggressively going after the training camps and organizers of groups
like Hamas *works*, as opposed to trying to negotiate with a bunch of
people who have sworn to kill all of the Jews.

See above.

I saw it. It's still wrong.

So, the only conclusion here is that they will both continue blasting
each other until the hell freezes.

Or until the Israelis take out enough of the Hamas leaders to slow down
their attacks, and scare the surrounding Arab governments a bit showing
that they can pretty much take out anyone they want. Note the recent
release of the map of Hamas targets in Syria (which Israel could hit at
pretty much any time).

OK. Then let them do that. Just, why are you interpreting my
conclusions and explanations about what "the other" side in this case
thinks about the matter as a kind of a "support" for this side?

Because it reflects that point of view of the people who are supporting
the Hamas side in this. "Stop the Israelis from attacking and watch the
bombers catch up."

I can only judge by what you say here, and you're saying things that
indicate that you think the Israelis are wrong in attacking terrorists
in countries that support and train them.

No Chad, that is your assumption, not something I said.

See your paragraph "Given how the situation..." above.

If you take a look above, I clearly stated that such attacks do not cause
fear - as explained by Robert - but only more hatred.

Except that they *do* inspire fear... among the actual targets of the
attacks. Kill or frighten the leaders and money men, and the attacks
slow or stop. This is how it has worked in the past, and there's no
reason to think it will change.

Someone bombs a bus, as part of a series of attacks. Israel kills some
Hamas leaders or blows up a bomb lab. Attacks stop for a month or more
while Hamas figures out who they can get to run things. Someone talks
the Israelis into talking instead of killing terrorist leaders.
Terrorist bombs a cafe.

What is needed is to keep up killing bad guys while talking to the
leadership, and make sure the leadership knows that they're next on the
list. The really interesting bit is going to be how the Palestinians
will start killing each other for the post-Arafat power grab...

So, I was not talking about anybody there being "right" or "wrong".
Anything of this kind is your own interpretation of the same quality
like that of Robert with which this whole thread was started.

By arguing that a strategy will not work, you are arguing that it is
wrong. That is what the word "wrong" *means*. By claiming that a
strategy that *does* work is wrong, you're taking the side of the bad
guys.

Are you really so ignorant and shortsighted too?

Nope, I'm actually comparing real past results with possible future
trends, instead of just hoping that things will magically change.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

According to this splendid logic of yours (and I guess Robert will break in
tears agreeing with you the whole day and night if needed), Chad, there
should be no terrorist attacks against Israel already since the Beiruth
strike, in 1969, or even earlier strikes against Jordan. At the time the
Israel was also "showing it" to all the Arabs and all the terrorists that
they "can't escape". (The "long arm of") Israel has also "shown it" to the
terrorists in 1976, and then in 1982, and without respite ever since.

Hm, "strangely", somehow the tempo of terrorist attacks on Israel in the
last 30 years is actually increasing: while the attacks were sporadic -
measured on what is going on in the last three years - through the 1970s and
1980s, and even the first Intifada lasted "only" two years, you now have a
permanent engagement with Hizbollah and Hamas practically ever since 1982,
and the newest Intifada is already three years long.

Man, you guys must feel "confirmed by the history" beyond any doubts now...
no wonder Robert instructs me to "read history books"....

Oh, interesting were also your "1st Class" explanation about my "critique",
and then that comparission between the al-Qaida and the Palestinian
terrorists.

I must say I'm almost lacking words of response to these "powerful"
arguments: I find it amazing that it is a confirmation that I'm a
terrorist-supporter if I conclude something else but you, because this is
"critique", and critique is a crime and means support for terrorists?

I guess, as next I'll be declared for a Nazi...

That's is not funny any mo it is silly.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

In article ,
"Tom Cooper" wrote:

According to this splendid logic of yours (and I guess Robert will break in
tears agreeing with you the whole day and night if needed), Chad, there
should be no terrorist attacks against Israel already since the Beiruth
strike, in 1969, or even earlier strikes against Jordan. At the time the
Israel was also "showing it" to all the Arabs and all the terrorists that
they "can't escape". (The "long arm of") Israel has also "shown it" to the
terrorists in 1976, and then in 1982, and without respite ever since.

....and taken huge breaks in between, when people like yourself convinced
tham that negotiation with people who prefer genocide is a Good Idea.


Hm, "strangely", somehow the tempo of terrorist attacks on Israel in the
last 30 years is actually increasing:

"Strangely," in the times when they stopped following up aggressively
and started negotiating with people who want to murder all of them.

What part of this do you not understand?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.