Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
extradite.

Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
in the American understanding!

The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
Parliament.
The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.
Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
land as possible but as few of the people.

Dan wrote:
Jordan wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political power of the
Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

"Dan" wrote in
oups.com:

[snip]

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

Depends on what they are doing. If they are throwing stones and
firebombs shooting may in fact be justified. Strictly speaking
they should be warned about what is going to happen ( this is
what "reading the Riot Act" refered to ) and if they persist
start taking them out. Members of the crowd who are merely
present should not be targetted deliberately but ti must be
recognised that if they choose to shield those engaged in
the proscribed activities they are putting themselves at risk.

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

I'd have settled for having the SAS whack Teddy KKKennedy.

If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
extradite.

Were it up to me they'd be on their way to London by Fedex
Overnight.

Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
in the American understanding!

Didja notice where they tend to hide, Taxachussetts and other
Dhimmicreep fiefdoms.

The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
Parliament.

Which isn't going to happen. Even the Palestinians aren't that
stoopid. Well,,,,, on the other hand its entirely possible they
are just that braindead and feckless.

The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.

Now why would they want to do that? It gains them aboslutely
nothing and puts the Asshats in a position to do even more damage.
No the Asshats can scream and throw feces all they like. It won't
change jack.

Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
land as possible but as few of the people.

Well given that Israel is the only thing that even approaches
a democratic society in the Middle East most Westerners are
prepared to cut them some slack. This, for some reason upsets
the Fugginazis.
Gawd, Fugginazis are dumb.

IBM

Dan wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

First of all, there is a major difference between a riot under
condition of peace and a warlike uprising. For your analogy to hold,
you would have to argue that the Palestinian claims to separate
nationhood and to the intifada being a war against Israel are invalid.
And if this is true, then the Palestinian leadership should be arrested
and prosecuted for numerous crimes against the civil peace.

Secondly, even in peacetime, if martial law is declared, individuals
who attack troops sent to restore order may indeed be lawfully shot.
It is fairly normal under those circumstances to shoot or at least be
ready to shoot rioters and looters. The reason that the shooting
usually does not materialize on any large scale is because said rioters
and looters are generally cowed by the presence of armed troops.

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

The Republic of Ireland (Eire) does not support or shelter the IRA, so
your argument there is invalid. As to the IRA fundraising in America,
I've always believed that Britain should put strong diplomatic pressure
on America to get at least some pretty heavy surveillance of the
fundraisers (so that when they send the money back home the British
authorities can show up, confiscate it, and maybe for good measure put
it into the regimental funds of troops patrolling Northern Ireland).
For instance, why didn't Britain make her cooperation in Desert Storm
or the more recent Iraq War contingent on America cooperating with an
IRA roundup? If you don't ask, you have nobody to blame but yourselves
when you don't receive.

If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.

Because Israel is under stronger provocation, for the reasons
mentioned.

And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
extradite.

Because of the political influence of the Irish on the East Coast. And
you're correct that we shouldn't be.

Would you be happier if we turned over the IRA or if Israel stopped
retaliating against the Terrorist States? Which one?

Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
in the American understanding!

Not in _my_ understanding. I _hate_ the bloody IRA. I'd like to see
each and every one of the *******s fed into one of Saddam's shredders,
feet first. And I really _despised_ Bill Clinton for brokering that
deal with Sinn Fein.

The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions

All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
Parliament.

The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.

How about right of conquest applies and the Israelis drive the
Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank?

Because that's the solution that the Palestinians are slowly but surely
provoking the Israelis towards.

Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
land as possible but as few of the people.

Israel is trying to be humane, which is why Israel hasn't killed or
driven out the Palestinians yet. Most countries, faced with the
Israeli situation, would have done so sometime in the 1970's or 1980's.

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:
....
Israel is trying to be humane, which is why Israel hasn't killed or
driven out the Palestinians yet. Most countries, faced with the
Israeli situation, would have done so sometime in the 1970's or 1980's.

Humane is not defined as not committing war crimes at the capitol offense level.

All Israelis are war criminals and all have earned hanging.

--
A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of
evils.
Pro-Israel is anti-American.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3642
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

Dan wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland,

If you ever dared do that, you'd be regretting it for a thousand years.


put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
extradite.

Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
in the American understanding!

The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
Parliament.
The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.
Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
land as possible but as few of the people.

Matt Giwer wrote:
Dan wrote:

Jordan wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a
sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his
way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.


Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.


Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.

Trouduc

JP

Matt Giwer wrote:
Dan wrote:

Jordan wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a
sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his
way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.


Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.


Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

Was that an Irish person or an American claiming to be Irish? There is a
vast difference, as those of us who live and work with the Irish know.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

In article ,
Jean Pierre wrote:


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.

Do try to get it through your wooly head that "some Americans (with the
demonstrated mentational abilities of a sea sponge)" != America.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jean Pierre wrote:


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.


America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.


Do try to get it through your wooly head that "some Americans (with the
demonstrated mentational abilities of a sea sponge)" != America.

Perhaps he meant 'influential Americans' who run America! What do you mean?

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."