I don't normally do this, but I'm pissed...

<img src="http://newzucanuze.com/Revenge.jpg">

Arafat can suck a whale cock!

wtf are you on about?

Well. That's a picture.

~mike

<b>jag</b>, all I'm saying is the Jews are finally striking back after 3000 years of getting fucked over, and I applaud the fact.

The UN can kiss my ass, too. They, like yourself apparently, don't seem to understand that living in constant fear of having yourself and your family senselessly blown to bits without warning, for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is <i>not a good thing</i>.

Arafat talks peace, but his true colors come out his ass. He's lucky he's still alive.

Suppose the Native Americans rose up and decided to take back 'their' land through violence and terrorism. What do you think our government's response would be? And the Palestinians are practically as far removed from ownership of the land as the Native Americans are.

One might even make the case that the Jews were there first, until the Diaspora. Remember what the Crusades were all about? They weren't trying to liberate the Holy Land from the <i>Jews</i>.

I waver on this stuff constantly. I have no idea who's exactly right and who's exactly wrong.

I can only think what might come of unifying religious dissent, racial dissent, and a few really screwed-up governments. The free world seems to manage to keep those things separate...

But watching CNN's NewsNight last night, I noticed something subtle. There was a virtual debate over satellite with an Israeli spokesperson debating a Palestinian spokesperson, with Connie Chung navigating between them. I felt that the Israeli guy had a few good points. Then he went off about how the Palestinian struggle is without poets, authors, thinkers and such, unlike noble revolutions of the past.

While both sides typically stayed to their points that their side is the right kind of violence in reaction to other types of violence, this statement was thinly-veiled racism, I think. He's really saying <i>What kind of a crappy culture are you guys?</i>

I heard Sharon's statement about a week ago and noticed something similar in it. He took a lot of time in his statement to note Israel's contributions to the world. He went on about how Israel has developed this and that... it seemed quite out of context. On one hand it could be considered a defensive statement about Israel's right to survive. On the other hand it called into question why the other nations have not made similar progress.

And that, it seems, is the real root of the problem. The Arabic countries want to believe in their own superiority -- a racial superiority. But when you stop and look around, you see an entire culture that has not kept pace with the west; consistently less productive, even though they sit on the huge riches in the oil of the world. The Israelis also want to believe in their own superiority, but if they're only judged on their military exploits...

OK, economists could easily explain why those countries are less advanced. They aren't free. Freedom encourages economic activity and produces riches. The obvious example came out here a few months ago: they keep their women subservient. 50% of their population cannot learn, work, or generally be as productive.

One other thing on yesterday's NewsNight really blew me away. They showed the news coverage of the events of the last two days as shown on Israeli TV and on Egyptian TV. In Egypt, the top story was the attack on Arafat, and it was spun this way: <i>The US Government has given Israel the green light to move in on Arafat.</i> This statement was made at least three times.

Yes, there is no Indymedia in Egypt.

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
<b>jag</b>, all I'm saying is the Jews are finally striking back after 3000 years of getting fucked over, and I applaud the fact.

Mmmmm, okay. How about... all black americans rise up after getting fucked over for hundreds of years of racism and slavery? Ah, yeah, great! Would you applaud that too?

It's hardly accurate to say "the Jews are finally striking back". Israel has been striking for its entire 54 years. Period.

I am generally an Israeli sympathizer. But the attack on Arafat's compound makes little sense. Look at it this way: Israel is demanding that Arafat "rein in militants". Then they go blow up his police stations. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Let's kill all his police, so he can arrest militants.

Let's not forget that Israel struck first in the 1967 war and claimed the Sinai, Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights (From Egypt, Jordan and Syria, respectively). That is, of course, a little mentioned fact. It's always spun that Israel was under attack - ummmm, no. Israel thought it was going to be attacked and they hit first. They also happened to win because of US backing. They continue to win because of US backing. Israel is practically the 51st state. It might as well be.

Attacking Arafat is symbolic and serves only one purpose - to destroy his government so he is not able to function. Sharon does not want peace. Neither does Netanyahu, who is even scarier than Sharon. Both are extremists, just like those in the far-right Arab camp (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, ...., etc). Israel does not go after the leader of Hamas. They hardly ever target decision makers in the big organizations. They go after the lower people. Why? Because it's not in their best interest. 30 casualties in a few days is an acceptable loss to Israel because they have so much to gain - the world's sympathy and a permanent "right" to the occupied lands, namely.

All that having been said, I believe that Israel shows incredible restraint. They don't round up Palestinian civilians and off them. But they end up killing them inadvertently anyway.

They, like yourself apparently, don't seem to understand that living in constant fear of having yourself and your family senselessly blown to bits without warning, for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is not a good thing.

And you, like many other Americans, don't seem to understand that Palestinians are living in that same fear. 1,230 Palestinians have been killed between September 29, 2000 and March 20, 2002. 18,507 have been injured in the same conflict. On the Israeli side, less than 300 have been killed.

Those numbers are telling of an irrefutable fact - Israel's strikes are more deadly than Palestinian extremists'. <b>Many</b> of those Palestinian deaths are innocent civilians.

We ain't taking no Roman or Nazi shit no more!

This is in no way relevant to what's going on right now. That's a mistake many people make - they sympathize with Israel because they have been persecuted in the past. Unfortunately, that past has no bearing on what is going on right now. Romans, Nazis, they don't matter. This is between Palestinians and Israelis. The Palestinians weren't cooking rabbis in Germany.

The fact of the matter is that there are extremists on both sides. It's Sharon vs Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Don't get to thinking that Israel is an innocent little country that keeps getting attacked - they have their fare share of atrocities in their closet too. The attacks on Arafat's headquarters are hardly warranted and make no sense at all. They are meant simply to provoke the Palestinians, so Sharon can says "see? Look! They're attacking us again! We need to strike back harder!" - that way, he can eliminate the Palestinians with no questions asked.

It's people like you that, by turning a blind eye to his atrocities, give him the power to perform genocide.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Mmmmm, okay. How about... all black americans rise up after getting fucked over for hundreds of years of racism and slavery? Ah, yeah, great! Would you applaud that too?

Huh? I do applaud Black Americans. I am applauding the Israelis. But the scenario you describe has happened. Ever heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Mohandas Gandhi? True, lasting change can (and eventually does) come peacefully, not by royally pissing off your oppressor. I know, short term, it may suck, but long term the benefits will outweigh the bad stuff. Not to mention giving you the moral high ground. And what the fuck is it with Islam where a sizeable number (not all) adherents to the faith think a sure path to Paradise is via the indiscrimanant slaughter of innocent non-combatants? This is not collateral damage. There is no place for that kind of shit in a civilized world.

It's hardly accurate to say "the Jews are finally striking back". Israel has been striking for its entire 54 years. Period.

All I can say is when you take the last 54 years out of 3000, yes that is relatively recent...

Israel is demanding that Arafat "rein in militants". Then they go blow up his police stations.

Remember the picture of the mutilated body of an Israeli soldier being tossed out the window of a Palestinian Police Station? I don't think the attacks are random.

Let's not forget that Israel struck first in the 1967 war and claimed the Sinai, Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights (From Egypt, Jordan and Syria, respectively). That is, of course, a little mentioned fact.

Little mentioned? Are you fucking shittin' me? The Russians basically did the same thing after WWII, try to put a buffer between yourself and your enemy. It's completely understandable, IMO.

Attacking Arafat is symbolic and serves only one purpose - to destroy his government so he is not able to function.

Here you manage to contradict yourself in a single sentence! I don't think there's any symbolic purpose at all, they're simply giving a hearty 'FUCK YOU' to Arafat.

I'm not saying the Israelis are saints, but they've put with far more shit than I would have. Does that make me a genocidal tyrant?

All I can say is when you take the last 54 years out of 3000, yes that is relatively recent...

SO being the kicking bag for the lsat couple fo thousand years gives you a licence to persecure others and indanger you own people in the process?....right...

Remember the picture of the mutilated body of an Israeli soldier being tossed out the window of a Palestinian Police Station? I don't think the attacks are random.

PIcutres, pictures, pictures, joy, one picture, try logic. I'm sure i could find more than one pciture of the shattered remains of the PLO they expect to operate effectively and round up terrorists having the crap bombed out of it. Chrsit if i was a cop in Palastne i'd shoot as Isrealis too, hell they are shooting cops, so they shoudl shoot back.

Little mentioned? Are you fucking shittin' me? The Russians basically did the same thing after WWII, try to put a buffer between yourself and your enemy. It's completely understandable, IMO.

It was indeed a pre-emptive strike, apart from the Golan Heights all tis done is cause more tension, as for buildng settlements, disgusting.

I'm not saying the Israelis are saints, but they've put with far more shit than I would have. Does that make me a genocidal tyrant?

Well, now you mention it. Yes.

And the ironcy of "no more nazi shit" after rounding up entiure populations of male palastinians and writing number on tiehr arms in tangible.

The US says that Arafat should do more to stop the bombings.

Hello? Arafat is holed up in a little bunker with nothing but an (obviously interceptable) mobile phone. Whether he's responsible or not, there's not a damn thing he can do.

Israel, OTOH, says they don't intend to kill Arafat but they do want to isolate him (fat lot of good it's doing). But they've cut off his water... are they afraid he'll swim out?

IMO, the people behind the latest wave of suicide bombings are probably sitting on their asses somewhere in Syria, lying back and enjoying the show. Israel is going after Arafat not because they think he's responsible (if he is, it's only by orders he gave out long ago), but because he's available.

A few thoughts:

--What is Arafat to do now? Cry "uncle?" Just what did bombing his compound do for Israeli peace and security?

--The Arabs have been in the Middle East for about as long as the Jews. Both have reasonably equal claims to the area. The Arabs have not had it easy themselves--the Ottomans, European administration, and Zionism.

--Israel plays word games with the concept of "right of return" for Palestinian refugees.

--Both are equally guilty of being stupid.

Therefore, I'm suggesting a battle royale, winner take all, PPV event.

Sharon vs. Arafat: The Final Battle

If Arafat wins, the Israelis leave the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, give the Palestinians their state, allow refugees the right to return or be compensated for their losses, and the Golan Heights goes back to Syria.

If Sharon wins, Israel gets to keep the occupied territories, the Palestinians can choose to stay or go to another Arab country, get no money, and the Arab world must normalize relations with Israel.

All proceeds from the sale of the PPV go to the winner.

Originally posted by sycamore
Therefore, I'm suggesting a battle royale, winner take all, PPV event.

Sharon vs. Arafat: The Final Battle

Hell yeah!

*sigh* Why cant all politics be that easy?

The only real problem is...just what type of battle do you use? Wrestling? Boxing? Arm wrestling? Are weapons allowed?

There have to be two immediate conditions though:

--Absolutely NO US interference. No assistance in weapons, money, or training.
--Hold the match in Sweden or Switzerland, for the sake of neutrality.

Well, seeing as Arafat is an old fart, and Ariel Sharon isnt much better, I say we either go with Sockem Boppers or drunken boxing. But it would be funny to see two old guys go at it trying to senslessly beat the piss out of each other with their canes. heh heh......

Originally posted by sycamore
The only real problem is...just what type of battle do you use? Wrestling? Boxing? Arm wrestling? Are weapons allowed?

Remember the episode from the original Star Trek... the one where Kirk and the lizard dude had to fight to the death? I'm in favor of a venue like that, with similar rules.

We can all watch the overhead satellite imagery as Arafat feverishly tries to fabricate a blunderbuss out of a hollow log and some rocks... while Sharon closes in on him with an obsidian knife... WHO will emerge victorious?

Except that we're backwards in technology, as the original show's crew seemed to have a full-edited cut of the fight to watch from the ship.

-A. Realizing what I am if I nit-pick Star Trek episodes.

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
I am applauding the Israelis. But the scenario you describe has happened. Ever heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Mohandas Gandhi?

Which is why I generally support Israel. I do not support the extremism on <b>either</b> side - Sharon's government <b>or</b> Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, etc. However, as has been pointed out in the past, one has to wonder what the Palestinians would negotiate with if they were totally peaceful. After all, their land has been stolen from them. They do have a right to dissent. "Well, if you don't give it back, we're gonna... uhm, be real peaceful and... uh... just be irritated with you." That'll show Israel. Yeah.

Where I have a problem with the Palestinian resistance movements is in their attacks on innocent civilians. I can't say that I would find too much wrong with them attacking Israel's military.

All I can say is when you take the last 54 years out of 3000, yes that is relatively recent...

The previous 2,946 years have nothing to do with the most recent 54. <b>Nothing</b>. This is now. Both sides are fighting. Both sides are to blame. Israel isn't striking back for their oppression pre-Exodus, they aren't striking back for the Romans, and they're not striking back against Nazis. How this is lost on you is beyond my comprehension. You do not punish the children for what the parents have done. Nazism, the Roman persecution of Jews, the slavery in Egypt... the Palestinians didn't do that.

Remember the picture of the mutilated body of an Israeli soldier being tossed out the window of a Palestinian Police Station? I don't think the attacks are random.

Of course I remember. Thursday, October 12, 2000. I didn't need to look that up. That's how vividly I remember. I also remember Palestinian extremists storming the building. I remember the citizen sticking his bloodied hands out of the window. I don't remember Palestinian police killing those two Israeli soldiers.

Regardless, you seem to be missing the point (yet again): How is Arafat supposed to "rein in militants" if he has no operating police? Or are you going to conveniently ignore that question and talk again about some irrelevant murder of an Israeli?

Little mentioned? Are you fucking shittin' me? The Russians basically did the same thing after WWII, try to put a buffer between yourself and your enemy. It's completely understandable, IMO.

I'm not sure if you misread what I wrote or you're just trying to look for another way to weaken my argument. Little mentioned is the fact that <b>Israel struck first</b>. I don't care about the buffer zone. That's understandable. That doesn't change the fact that Israel threw and landed the first punch. Israel has been the agitator in many of the conflicts.

Here you manage to contradict yourself in a single sentence! I don't think there's any symbolic purpose at all, they're simply giving a hearty 'FUCK YOU' to Arafat.

I find it rather ironic that you manage to contradict yourself after accusing me of doing the same.

Dismantling Arafat's government serves no functional purpose - it is symbolic. Arafat isn't sending out suicide bombers. No one's even accusing him of doing so. Why are they attacking him again? Why have they invaded his offices and destroyed his homes? <b>What</b> purpose did that serve?

Well now the Isreali army thinks it can shoot unarmed peaceful foreign protesters on camera and get away with it, fucking disgusting.

I like this too, from http://www.msnbc.com/news/732442.asp

In Ramallah’s central Manara Square, an army major who identified himself as “Uzi” waved his gun toward reporters trying to pass through. “This is a closed military area,” he said. “If you don’t leave you will be arrested.”

Some of the military officers aren’t so nice. So journalists have been forced to learn a surreal kind of military sign language, slowly approaching tanks in an unthreatening way.

Trained on reporters, the turrets are raised up and down to indicate whether passage is allowed. In a more direct approach, troops fire directly at approaching reporters. Our armored car took 15 rounds as we tried to make our way back to our lodgings Monday night.