Mike Wong's Middle East Essay

[Mr Bean]

So it begins, How long will this one last

Look for round two
Or not?

[EmperorSolo51]

I will reply to Mike's post tommorrow around 3 P.M. EST.

[Azeron]

Hey mike where are you getting your references, or should I assume that you are getting all your materials from such "noteworthy scholars" like Noam Chomsky, or perhaps Robert Fisk? *lol*

no if you are getting your references where I suspect you are getting them, this shouldn't last very long at all.

Perhaps you should refrain from using people such as Noam. Using such people with a reputation with being very loose with the facts as references discredits your arguments greatly.

[EmperorSolo51]

Most of my facts are backed up by Noted Historian Martin Gilbert

NTW the Term Homicide-bomber is a term that was originated in the United states after the media like the Washington Post, MSNBC, and Fox News felt that the term Suicide-Bomber was an inapropriate term and started use that term instead.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps you should refrain from using people such as Noam. Using such people with a reputation with being very loose with the facts as references discredits your arguments greatly.

Then find something wrong with them, and back up your assertions. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. As for the conditions imposed by Israel in its various bogus "offers" (the meat of the discussion), no one seriously disputes them, as they were all made public. But by all means, continue to look for an instant method of eradicating the entire argument in one fell swoop.

[Bryan]

Did Noam with with apes and try to condition them? Or are these two different Noam's?

[Azeron]

I am just noting a near complete lack of refernces for what you parade as historical fact. Sourcless quotes from Rabin, aquotations from highly discredited scholars and rabid anti-westerners. This does not boad well.

I actaully have written a rather scathing rebutal to your article, but I haven't had the time to fully annotate it. needless to say finding non partisan web references is hard thing to do.

and please david is am extremely common name in the US, my brother and uncle are both named david. 2 of my friends are named david. I don;t see your point. I don;t think arafat was offended. BTW, King David killed greeks (who had killed the hedites) not arabs (well they did kill asyrians later), despite thier assertion otherwise.

[Next of Kin]

By Azeron:

I am just noting a near complete lack of refernces for what you parade

You should be the last person to attack someone on their sources. Most of your posts are based on generalizations in that sad little pea brain of yours.

[Mr Bean]

Kin Kin, Pea is so trite, think a little harder and see if you can throw Quantum in there

[Next of Kin]

By Azeron:

I can;t sympathize with the arab aggressors.

Why, they were simply trying to take back what was theirs (in their eyes). Try to imagine your homeland being taken away from you. Would you sit passively or would you fight back? I can sympathize with the Arabs; they've had the rug pulled from underneath them and have been marginalized.

[Next of Kin]

Kin Kin, Pea is so trite, think a little harder and see if you can throw Quantum in there

My bad Bean!

[Azeron]

In my case, its not that I am not willing to back up my work becasue of the contents of my refereneces. Quite frankly it would take a great deal of time referencing some assertitions, and then givng people on the board lessons in foriegn ancient langauges, texts, problems with modern translations, etc. Way too time consuming. In this case, I have taken considerable amounts of time to reference my sources from noted scholars and other sources, becasue I think its worth it, and its not too hard for others understand.

But looking at who hw is quoting, and the what they are saying is leading me to suspect that he is afraid to reveal his sources, as we will learn his disposition towards politics (jews in particular) has betrayed his search for context of the current conflict.

No, there is only 1 way someone could put out an article that misinformed. looking for information that conforms to your political views.

[Darth Wong]

I am just noting a near complete lack of refernces for what you parade as historical fact. Sourcless quotes from Rabin, aquotations from highly discredited scholars and rabid anti-westerners. This does not boad well.

Then find specific factual errors and show that they are significant enough to affect the point. If you can't, then for the second time, shut the fuck up.

I actaully have written a rather scathing rebutal to your article, but I haven't had the time to fully annotate it. needless to say finding non partisan web references is hard thing to do.

Uh huh. Once again, I am supposed to quiver in fear of the rebuttal which you hide in your back pocket. Once again, I will make the point that if you have factual points to bring up, then by all means, bring them up. Otherwise, for the third time, shut the fuck up, because you aren't contributing dick. At least EmperorSolo is trying. What the fuck are you doing, apart from empty credibility attacks?

[Azeron]

I just did a quick reference with the history channel to refute the acharge that 1967 war intiatied by the UAR (well refereenced as Egypt in the article)


http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/f ... ID%3D93781

Nov., 1956, and from Gaza by Mar., 1957, as UN forces were sent to the Sinai and Gaza to keep peace between Egypt and Israel. Through this war, Israel succeeded in keeping open its shipping lanes via Elat and the Gulf of Aqaba to the Red Sea. In 1962, Israel became the scene of the celebrated trial of Adolf Eichmann. In 1963, Ben-Gurion resigned as prime minister and was succeeded in that office by Levi Eshkol. Eshkol had to cope with increased guerrilla incursions into Israel from Syria and the shelling of Israeli villages by the Syrian army from the Golan Heights. Renewed Hostilities In May, 1967, Nasser mobilized the Egyptian army in Sinai. The UN then acceded to his demand to withdraw from the Israeli-Egyptian border, where it had been stationed since 1956. Egypt next blockaded the Israeli port of Elat (on the Gulf of Aqaba) by closing the Strait of Tiran. On June 5, 1967, Israel struck against Egypt and Syria; Jordan subsequently attacked Israel. In six days, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the Sinai peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank and Arab sector of E Jerusalem (both under Jordanian rule), thereby giving the conflict the name of the Six-Day War. Israel unified the Arab and Israeli sectors of Jerusalem, and Arab guerrillas stepped up their incursions, operating largely from Jordan

How you may want to contend that the history channel is a zionist propaganda machine, but your credibility is pretty thinly streched.

As you can see, the straits of tiran were clearly blocked, and such as, is an act of war. But please not that Nassar demanded that the UN remove its peace kaeepers seperating the 2 sides. Now why in the world would he do that.....maybe becasue he intended to attack? An arab dictator attack a nation full of jews? No that can't be true!!!

As for the "peace settlement", the meat as you refer it to, is based on the legitmacey of the claims of greivences of the people making it. when you distort history to make aggressors sound like victims, that makes the aggressors claims stronger, and the opeace would be built on a lie.

If the Jews did annex land taken in a war of self defence, than the land belongs to the isreali government. Hell Do I feel bad about keeping Okinowa after we took for compensation for damages inflicted furing WW2? Hell no.

I can;t seem to verify that quote. How can I verify the accuracey of your work, if you fail to document it?

[Darth Wong]

Now you may want to contend that the history channel is a zionist propaganda machine, but your credibility is pretty thinly streched.

Again with the incessant tirades against my "credibility", eh? Why would I want to attack the history channel, since they don't say anything that contradicts me?

As you can see, the straits of tiran were clearly blocked, and such as, is an act of war.

I have never denied the validity of the legalists' interpretation of the law. What I have denied is that legality defines morality, or that a port blockade is legitimate grounds for massive ground invasion, as opposed to an attack on the blockade itself, which they were more than capable of carrying out. Are you too fucking stupid to read, or are you just so eager to launch rebuttals that you don't bother to read what someone says before attacking it?

But please not that Nassar demanded that the UN remove its peace kaeepers seperating the 2 sides. Now why in the world would he do that.....maybe becasue he intended to attack? An arab dictator attack a nation full of jews? No that can't be true!!!

It's no more likely than a nation full of Jews attacking a nation full of Arabs. So what? Israel has long held a policy of baiting its enemies and then taking vastly excessive "retaliatory" action when they responded; how have you disproven any of this?

As for the "peace settlement", the meat as you refer it to, is based on the legitmacey of the claims of greivences of the people making it. when you distort history to make aggressors sound like victims, that makes the aggressors claims stronger, and the opeace would be built on a lie.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

If the Jews did annex land taken in a war of self defence, than the land belongs to the isreali government.

Replace "self defense" with "measured use of provocation followed by massively disproportionate retaliation", and you'll be more accurate.

Hell Do I feel bad about keeping Okinowa after we took for compensation for damages inflicted furing WW2? Hell no.

Your feelings do not constitute evidence of anything.

I can;t seem to verify that quote. How can I verify the accuracey of your work, if you fail to document it?

And you claim to be a competent computer user? Do a Google search on the phrase "I do not think Nasser wanted war". I can't believe I need to explain to you how to do an Internet search.

[Azeron]

Egyptian President Abdul Nasser: "The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence" (May 17, 1967).

Syrian Minister of Defense Hafez Al Assad: "The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation" ( May 20, 1967).

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

Yah sounds real peaceful to me. them and thier 250k man army they ammassed around isreal. So if they wanted to be peacful, or only mewasurably provocative, why did they order the UN force to leave? If all they were doing was defending themselves againsts those nasty jews, I would think that would want them to stay, wouldn't you?

Look you point a gun at someone, you cock the hammer, guess what, that other person can leagally shoot you. There is nothing immoral about this. What Nassar may or mayu not have been thinking is irrelevent, we will never know what was going through his head. But we know what he said, we know what he did. Looking at this objectively, with this kind of talk coming from you neighborsm compounded with an act of war, cuttign off thier oil and supplies, its perfectly understandable that isreal defended itself with the force it decided to. From isreal's perspective, they are always just one war from oblivion and the 2nd holocost. there is no where to retreat, there is no second chance. I personally think they were overly restrained. If this were America we would have deported all these enemy civilians as well, and kept the sianim and told egypt that if it even looked in our general directiojn it would find its cities glassed by nuclear hellfire.

But the jews are restrained like that

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html

[Sea Skimmer]

I have never denied the validity of the legalists' interpretation of the law. What I have denied is that legality defines morality, or that a port blockade is legitimate grounds for massive ground invasion, as opposed to an attack on the blockade itself, which they were more than capable of carrying out. Are you too fucking stupid to read, or are you just so eager to launch rebuttals that you don't bother to read what someone says before attacking it?

A attack on the blockade itself required a massive ground invasion...


The Egyptians did more then simple blockade the straights. They also moved another five divisions of troops into the Sinai, tripling the forces normally deployed there. This effectively made any sort of limited attack impossible.

Aircraft, are not to likely to work for an attack, the EAF can throw more planes into defending them then the IAF has total and the Egyptians could bring in more weapons within twelve hours anyway. And the small fighter bombers that Isreal had are ill suited to such targtes anyway. Naval attack? All Isreal had was PT boats and three landing craft. No wya they could bring enough firepower to deal with the guns and the armored Brigade guarding them

The only way to open the straights was to send in an armored force on the ground in at least brigade strength. The only problem is that a ground force attacking along the coast would be easily cut off by the forward deployed Egyptian 6th Infantry division. So you need another brigade or two to hold the Sixth and keep the supply lines open. But the Sixths can call on two Armored Divisions to support it and they can being arriving on the battlefield in eight hours, crushing both brigades before anyone gets near the blockading force.

Basically, the blockading batteries were too remote and the Egyptians to strong by any limited attack to accomplish more then getting its self destroyed, fatally weakening the IDF and sparking a war anyway.

A limited attack wont work. Perhaps if Egypt had not moved its forces forward one could have, but when those divisions crossed the Suez, all out war was the only choice.

[Stuart Mackey]

Hey mike where are you getting your references, or should I assume that you are getting all your materials from such "noteworthy scholars" like Noam Chomsky, or perhaps Robert Fisk? *lol*

no if you are getting your references where I suspect you are getting them, this shouldn't last very long at all.

Perhaps you should refrain from using people such as Noam. Using such people with a reputation with being very loose with the facts as references discredits your arguments greatly.

Hey Idiot, perhaps you should learn the differnce between right and wrong.

[Darth Wong]

I will reply to Mike's post tommorrow around 3 P.M. EST.

This is not meant to be a formal debate, so I don't think you need to worry about being strict (besides, it's already 4:30pm EST the next day, so you obviously didn't make the time). Now that my home network is back up and running, I'll be spending more time on my website and less time here anyway.

[EmperorSolo51]

Before you label me as a
Cute. By eliminating the terrorist methods Israel used in order to grab its territory in the first place, you attempt to remove some of the most important evidence of both its hypocrisy and its crimes.[/qoute]

No, I only stated that I wanted a Polotical and Historical discussion becuase I do not want have a debate about the rights and Wrongs of Judaism. That's why I stuck only with relevant Political and Historical facts.

The same could have been said of blacks in America in 1950. Was America not a racist state at the time, with Jim Crow laws designed to ensure permanent segregation and marginalization of the black population?

You obviously use a ridiculously strict definition of "racist state" in which anything short of Nazism is not considered racist. Anything to uphold your pre-ordained conclusion, I suppose.

THe Jim Crow laws in the United states, was where the southern STATE governments had laws (All of which were struck down by the Supreme court of the United states) that were in place to keep Blacks in the United States from voting via poll tax and to segregate them from the rest of the populace through fear and lynchings. Is there any proof that Arabs and Druse born Israelis are being segragated and are kept from voting? Hell if I remember correctly, The arab and druse Israelis were one of the essential swing votes that got Sharon elected...

And the fact that it violates their human rights is no big deal to you, eh? BTW, wherefore the term "homicide bomber?" What kind of bombing is not homicide? When Israel fires rockets at civilian police buildings, bulldozes Palestinian homes, and shells schools, is that not homicide bombing?

NexLook, IF one ethnic/religious group is constantly attacking and mudering your civilians. It is uyour job as the state to look out for your people by protecting them. The Term Homicide Bomber comes from the Media in the US because the Term "Suicide-Bomber" was found to be a not accurate description. Israel fires rockets in Police Building becuase they have been found to be used by TeRrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al-AQsa martyrs Brigade. THose "homes" were being used as weapons manufactories as stated by CNN, Geraldo Revera, CNN, MSNBC, And other news Media. SChools have also been used as a place for Terroists to teach others thier trade.

Not to mention billions of dollars every year in American aid, and Palestinian labourers who are paid starvation wages and treated like dirt, because they live in the so-called "occupied territories".


No, according to the famed historian Martin Gillbert and his book, Israel: A History, Pages 250, 257-279 , 300, (WHich I have sitting currently on my desk right in front of me so don't call it an appeal to authority). Talk about how Arab and European, and North american Jews came to and began to irrigate and cultivate the Negev region by bringing European and American irrigation techniniques to make the land prosperous. The palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are so poor becuase the palestinian Intifadah has brought the Palestinian economy down to it's very knees and only now are palestinians begining to protest the Intifadah. Also the palestinians in the West bank are faring a little bit better than the Palestininas living Refugee camps in neighboring arab populations and have absolutly no rights at all. Also the US sends 2 Billion Dollars of worth in Military and monetary aid to Egypt making it the second largest reciever of US aid. Your Point is...?

Interesting argument. So Palestinian poverty is due entirely to the fact that international aid money is supposedly being squandered? That does not explain why they need international aid money in the first place, does it? Do you even try to think logically? What economic effect would it have on your average American city to periodically demolish the infrastructure, not to mention bulldozing thousands of homes without compensating the owners for their losses, segmenting the city into pieces so that the flow of goods and services is hopelessly disrupted, and severely restricting the use of such necessities as water and electricity while continuing to collect taxes?

THe Palestinians need international aid money becuase they live in in such poor conditions, Thier economy is wrecked, and many are jobless. The United States has reportadly given Arafat 3 Billion dollars in Aid during the Clinton years that suppose to go the Palestinian people. Instead this money has found it's way into the hands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad by arafat himself. He also does the samething with Money from the Europeans and other Arab Nations. Where do you get the "Thousands of Homes" figures. The only homes destroyed are those belonging to Homicide bombers' families, Used as weapons factories, or bases for terrorist. Give me proof that Israel is collecting taxes from the Palestinians. Where do you get your figures from?

Then why are Jews in the West Bank allowed to vote in Israeli elections, even though they are not living in Israel either? Don't you get it? It's apartheid, cleverly hidden under the legal sophistry of calling them "occupied territories" instead of "part of Israel where race determines rights".

They pay taxes, they live under Israeli control and Israeli laws, and their water and electricity are rationed by Israel. They are subjects of Israel, but they have no input. This is simply wrong. No taxation without representation, remember?

Israeli Jews are allowed to vote in Israeli elections becuase they are Israeli citizens and hold an Israeli passport. Just like I am allowed to vote If If I am residing and working overseas If I am an American and Hold an American Passport. Give proof palestinians pay taxes. Israel gives rations electricty and Waters to the Palestininas becuase they are the only ones who can provide it. The Plaestinians in thier current state can not provide either water or electricity without outside help and I don't the Jordanians or Egyptians or Syrians doing it anytime soon.

Which has no real power. Israel collects the taxes and then decides how much of that money to dole back to the PA. Israel controls the flow of water and electricity. The PA is nothing but a sacrificial lamb, to absorb criticism from both sides while being neutered at the source so it can't do anything.

See my points above. The palestinian Authority could do much more if it wasn't so corruot and Arafat stopped giving money to terrorists. That's why the palestinians are calling for a change. THe PA is not a sacraficial lamb, If it were, It would not be giving money to Islamic Terror groups. If the PA were a sacrifcial Lamb, It would not have international rcognition as the official voice of the palestinian people and would not have consulates or a UN Seat.

Riiiight. And the fact that Israel collects taxes, rations water, etc. does not enter into your little world? The Palestinians are under occupation. If they were independent, they would be managing their own affairs (which also means they wouldn't be giving massively preferential treatment to invasive Jewish settlements in their midst).

see points above on taxes and water issue and Arafat and the PA

Now I see why you insisted that you won't discuss anything before 1948. This way, you get to tell the story of the formation of Israel while leaving out the parts which are inconvenient to your position. It's always a bad sign when someone has to selectively cite evidence in order to support his position.

You anna talk about pre-1948. Let's talk about Irgun and the Sten group, Hagganah and Theodore Herzl and the Zionist movement in the 1890's. While we're at it, Let's talk about the 1936 Arab revolt in palestine against the British, or How a Arab Nazi war criminal and close freind of Hitler, Haj- Amin al-Huesseni, the grand mufti of Jerusalem called upon the arabs in 46-47 to openly murder Jews in Palestine and how he mentored arafat and co-founded the PLO or how the British detained Halocaust survivors in the Island of Cyprus after World War II and prevented them from immigrating to Palestine!

Wrong. I mentioned that, but unlike you, I also described the backstory (you know, all that nasty stuff the Israelis did before this point), so you can see why they attacked. I can see that you are obviously a fan of the "make the opponent look dishonest even if you have to resort to strawman distortions" technique.

Funny, I don't remember you mentioning Haj-amin al Huesenni, or the British dentention camps or the how arab league nations threatning to start thier own Halocuast in 1946?

"We need living space- Adolf Hitler".

The Arabs werre going to slaughter the Jews and were not about sign truces unless the Jews were wiped out. Hell, they even Rejected the Bernadotte Plan .http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/bernplan.html

Ah, so when Israel takes territory (to create a racial apartheid state, no less), it's perfectly justifiable, but when neighbouring Arab countries do it (in the face of an aggressive expansionist state with massive foreign military support), they're just being violent? Methinks you've got one side mixed up with the other.

Israel took territory in a war that had arab armies out to destroy the Jews of palestine. The only reason the Israelis got as far as threy did was becuase the Arab Armies in superior numbers failed to take little farm communities armed in some cases with only rifles and 1 PIAT. The Arabs had poor tactics. Had they shown better tactics the Israelis would not have had ability to take the land they did in 1948. (THe Only foriegn support of Israel in 1948 was Czechoslovakia who sold the Israelis old Me-109s and Spitfire fighters and Sherman Tanks until the Soviet union yanked the leash in 1949). The Israelis after the war made arabs and druse who stayed in Israel, full automatic citizenship and and allowed the Dtuse to serve in the army as they had done during the fighting. THe arabs living in Gaza and West Bank were not given citizenship by either Jordan and Egypt.

Yadda yadda yadda legalistic bullshit. Something is either right or wrong; if you cannot justify it with anything other than the letter of the law, then you have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

In order for a nation to go to war you need Casus Belli, a Provocation. Israel had the rights to declre war becuase it was provocated:

BTW:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Menahem Begin (from "The Fateful Triangle", Noam Chomsky)

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."- Yitzhak Rabin (Israel's Chief of Staff during the Six Day War), February 28, 1968

To Counter: " The Battle will bea General one, and our basic objective is to will be to destroy Israel. I probobly would not have said such things five or even three years ago. Today I say such things becuase i am confident" May 28th 1967 (From Martin Gilbert's Israel: A History)
and:
"If any power that dares to make declarations on freedom of navigation on the straits of Tiran, We shall Deny that power oil and free navigation of the Suez Canal" (Gamal Abdel Nasser June 2nd, 1967 From Martin Gilbert's: Israel: History:

And Military matters:
"Israel's military posistion was, on paper precarious. On the Egyptian Front, at least 100,00 Troops and 900 Tanks were deployed to the Sinai, On the Golan Hieghts, Syria had more than 75,000 men and 400 Tanks ready for action. The Jordanians had 32,000 men under arms, and almost 300 Tanks. This made a total force of 207,000 Sodiers and at least 1600 Tanks. A Further 150 tanks were moving into Jordan from Iraq, which was dtermined to join what was being called in the Arab World "The final battle". Should it become neccessary Egypt was able to send from the west of the Sinai a further 140,000 Troops and 300 tanks into that battle. Against this Arab Force, Israel had, with full mobilization of the civilian reserves. 264,000 Soldiers, and 800 tanks. An estimated, 700 Arab combat aircraft were also ready for action. Israel had only 300." (Martin Gibert, Israel: a History

I suppose the irony of invoking the Geneva Convention in defense of Israel (which has spent the last 50 years pissing on it by violating every rule for the treatment of occupied territories and ignoring countless UN demands to cease and desist) doesn't occur to you.

Israel has abided by every UN resolution fora cease-fire, from the First truce in the summer of 1948 to thecease-fire in Lebanon. The Palestinian Authority led by Yassir Arafat has broken all cease fireaand other agreements since Oslo in 1993.

"We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot ... And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us."- Moshe Dayan, the Defense Minister who gave the order to conquer the Golan Heights, quoted from the NY Times, May 11, 1997.

First the NY times is a Extremley liberal Paper and has known to be antiIsraeli and may very well have misquoted Dayan. I am skepitical. Can you provide me a link?

Ahh, the Allon plan. You forgot to mention that it mandated the forcible removal of much of Gaza's Arab population, as well as massive Jewish settlement in the Eastern half of the Judean and Samaritan mountains. It also maintained the need for "Greater Jerusalem" and would have kept up to 40% of the West Bank in Israeli hands. It was not a deal or a compromise; it was Israel's way of unilaterally deciding where the borders should be, based on its own interests. The idea was to realign Israeli territory to give them a better tactical position with respect to the mythical Arab military hordes (which have never really amounted to anything, even to this day) while squeezing Arabs out of the territory they wanted to keep and shoving them all into a piece of the West Bank that they would then hand over to Jordan.

First Off, I never said the Allon Plan was workable. 2nd. The Allon Plan was drawn up becuase the Heshemite Kingdom of Jordan was more than 60% made of of Palestinians. The more than half the population of Jordan considers themselves Palestinians.The palestinians had always wanted to unite Israel (Palestrine) and Jordan into a greater palestine. It was only logical to give give Parts of the West bank and gaza to Jordan becuase of this fact. However, Because the Palestinians terrorist organizations in Jordan tried to overthrow King Abdullah, the Jordanians rejected it.

You honestly believe the Israeli sheep were caught unawares and unsuspecting by the Mighty Arab Hordes? That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day.[/qoute} Yes, The Israelis were caught unaware, They thought that there was not going to be a war. Becuase Sadat, made the same threats over past 4-5 years and did not act on it:
October 4 1973:
A Exchange by retired General Ze-evi to Moshe Dayan by Author/biographer Robert Slater
Dayan: "What's the matter?"
Ze-evi: "I suspect we are moving towards war. And I will not be part of it."
Dayan: "What are you talking about? There is not going to be a war. Not this summer and not this fall. You're not talking to the point"
(Martin Gilbert: Israel: A History)

So you are telling me it is not right for an American President to name the the Presidential Resort after his own son?
You have to be sick and twisted to cheer that more than 2,000 people have died in one instant.

So? You glorify the IDF, and you're actually stupid enough to buy their bullshit about how every one of the hundreds of Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF is just an "accident".

The fact that you have to distort the facts in order to make your point is proof that you have no point to make.

Have you ever heard the famous quote by Us Civil war GenWilliam T. Sherman, Who said" War is all Hell"? In war, things happen, innocents get killed accidently. There have never been any war where there have been no civilian deaths. Not One. It is a part of life. It will never change. Accidents happen. What is not an accident is going into Bat Mitzvah or a disco tech and intentionally kill hundreds of innocent civilians. That can never be acceptable.

[Jim Raynor]

Emperor Solo, what do you mean the term "suicide bomber" was found to be inaccurate? God, I hate that term. It is just a part of the recent round of pro-Israeli US propaganda. I have no idea why they just now decided to come up with a crappy replacement for a good term that had been in use for a long time. It is "homicide bomber" that's inaccurate. Suicide bombers are a specific type of bomber that sacrifices himself/herself in the explosion. A homicide bomber can be anything from the Unabomber to WW2 B-17 pilots. It's just an attempt to make the Palestinians look worse and the Israelis more sympathetic (not that I condone the killing of innocents).

[EmperorSolo51]

Emperor Solo, what do you mean the term "suicide bomber" was found to be inaccurate? God, I hate that term. It is just a part of the recent round of pro-Israeli US propaganda. I have no idea why they just now decided to come up with a crappy replacement for a good term that had been in use for a long time. It is "homicide bomber" that's inaccurate. Suicide bombers are a specific type of bomber that sacrifices himself/herself in the explosion. A homicide bomber can be anything from the Unabomber to WW2 B-17 pilots. It's just an attempt to make the Palestinians look worse and the Israelis more sympathetic (not that I condone the killing of innocents).

Would you rather we call them, Suicide Murders?

[Jim Raynor]

Emperor Solo, what do you mean the term "suicide bomber" was found to be inaccurate? God, I hate that term. It is just a part of the recent round of pro-Israeli US propaganda. I have no idea why they just now decided to come up with a crappy replacement for a good term that had been in use for a long time. It is "homicide bomber" that's inaccurate. Suicide bombers are a specific type of bomber that sacrifices himself/herself in the explosion. A homicide bomber can be anything from the Unabomber to WW2 B-17 pilots. It's just an attempt to make the Palestinians look worse and the Israelis more sympathetic (not that I condone the killing of innocents).

Would you rather we call them, Suicide Murders?

No. That's also just another piece of propaganda cooked up recently. What if one of these bombers only accomplishes in injuring people? Is he still a suicide murderer? Suicide bomber is the most accurate term out of these three.

[Mr Bean]

Yes how about we stick to the classics


Susided Bomber-Guy/Gay who straps larges blocks of C4(Or small or medium sized) to body, Carrys method of setting them off and does this

Bomber-A person or device that can or does deliver expliosives to a target

Bombadier-A fun occupation

[EmperorSolo51]

Emperor Solo, what do you mean the term "suicide bomber" was found to be inaccurate? God, I hate that term. It is just a part of the recent round of pro-Israeli US propaganda. I have no idea why they just now decided to come up with a crappy replacement for a good term that had been in use for a long time. It is "homicide bomber" that's inaccurate. Suicide bombers are a specific type of bomber that sacrifices himself/herself in the explosion. A homicide bomber can be anything from the Unabomber to WW2 B-17 pilots. It's just an attempt to make the Palestinians look worse and the Israelis more sympathetic (not that I condone the killing of innocents).

Would you rather we call them, Suicide Murders?

No. That's also just another piece of propaganda cooked up recently. What if one of these bombers only accomplishes in injuring people? Is he still a suicide murderer? Suicide bomber is the most accurate term out of these three.

If a Homicide Bomber doies not kill people I'd say that they have attempted to commit a homicide bombing, but have failed.