# Israeli Palestinian conflict



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

How many innocent Israelis have been murdered by Yassir Arafat's "Palestinian" suicide bombers in the last few years?

Who is it, Palestinians or Israelis, who swear that they will not cease their violent, murderous ways until the last Israeli Jew has been pushed out of the Middle East? Oh yeah, that would be the Palestinians.

Where do ill Palestinians go for the best medical care available? Oh yeah .. I believe that's Israel.

And here comes Brian Cowen, the Irish Foreign Minister (Ireland is currently holding the EU presidency) who tells the world that it is Israel, not the Palestinians, who are showing what he calls a "reckless disregard for human life." When the so-called Palestinians stop their campaign of violence and murder against Israel, and when the Palestinians decide that they are willing to co-exist in the Middle East with the Israeli Nation, Israel will be ready to cease all military operations against the Palestinian terrorists. The bad guys here are the ones drawing the sympathy of the EU. Who's side are they on anyway?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob, do a google search on the Zionism movement and the history of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Once you read the history for yourself, you'll see that Israel is not as innocent as they proclaim. Simply put, Arabs were involuntarily displaced from their homes and prevented from owning other property. Israel started this whole mess, not the Arabs. I despise the terrorist tactics used by the Palestinians, but I fully understand their gripe with Israel.

The more a person reads about the middle east, the more they will realize that two of the nastiest players in the region are America's strongest allies, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia. Then we wonder why so many countries hate us so.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You are correct Big Daddy.Isreal in not as innocent as they proclaim.Afterall that area is just as much the Palastinian's as it is the Isrealis.

I always use this to make people think about what is going on over there.

What if the US government decided to make North and South Dakota a Native American homeland.All of them could come and live here from anywhere.They would take over everything.We would loose all our rights here.

Wouldn't we be PO'd about it?And declare...no way no how.But we would have no say about it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You're both correct about the history of it, but where do we go from now? The Jews were put there by us and Europe after WW11 and like most things we have great 20-20 hindsight. The Terrorist tactics of Arafat have eliminated any world sympathy for their position and he has repeatedly spurned settlement of the issue. Oh and don't forget the Jews were driven out of there so Its debatable as to who really was on base first. I sure as hell don't know :lol:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Where do we go from here? I don't know. Lucky for us, Shrub is a genius who is committed to peace. I'm not worried.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Its a pretty big stretch ( :lol: even for you) to lay this one on him. I don;t see how he can do any worse than his predecessors have, on either side of the aisle. It seems to be one of those unsolvable issues in this world.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I'm not putting blame on Shrub for the Israel/Palestine conflict. It was a joke. Furthermore, I'll state the same thing about the Israel/Palestine conflict as I did about the Saddam regime: It's not our problem.

I separate the War on Terrorism from the War on Terror. Want to fight terrorism against the US? Sign me up. Want to find Osama and the rest that we know had something to do with 9/11? Sign me up. Want to punish those that bombed the USS Cole? Sign me up.

Want to start ousting dictators for which we have no proof had anything to do with 9/11? Look elsewhere for volunteer.

Unless the Israelis or Palestinians start attacking the US, I don't think that we should risk lives to get involved. In the meantime, let's develop a plan to make the best of a bumpled war in Iraq and get our troops home.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

No matter what the evideince is you won't and don't want to accept it, We've gone over this before read the old posts again the war in Iraq is a legitimate part of the strategy on the war on terror.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob, let's be honest. The American public was sold a false bill of goods. After 9/11, Shrub was quick to tell the public that he was going to go after those that attacked us. This was an easy sell. Even I agreed with invading Afghanistan since I viewed it as a War on Terror_ism_. Who can fault a country from trying to defend itself from terrorists?

Now we have Iraq. Initially, the Shrub administration tried to convince the public that Iraq was invaded because Saddam had WMDs. Say what you want about Saddam gassing his citizens as evidence that he had them at one time or that inspectors found pesticides, the fact of the matter is that we cannot find any now. More importantly, we cannot prove that he had any intention or ability to use biological or chemical agent against us. To preemptively answer your rebuttal, "Yes, I have read the facts".

OK, since Shrub could not sell the war on WMDs, he make suggestions that Saddam had links to Bin Laden or at least supported Al Qaeda. Again, no evidence of this.

Since these arguments fell through, Shrub resorted to the only card he had left: he was fighting a War on Terror, not just a War on Terrorism. Under this justification, he had to invade Iraq to save their citizens from a nasty leader. The point is that Shrub expanded his mission to justify his actions.

Last, during his press release a few weeks ago, Shrub was asked by reporters whether he still thought the war in Iraq was justified. His response was interesting. He discussed how the military had stacks of documents to sort through, but he was confident that they would eventually find evidence that Saddam had WMDs and/or links to Al Qaeda. What an interesting way to fight a war! Tell the UN inspectors that they are too slow and looking in the wrong places, refuse to tell the UN inspectors where to look by playing the "classified" card, invade, and find evidence later.

Shrub got us into this mess and we can't go back. That I do accept. However, Saddam is gone and his boys are dead. What are we waiting for? Declare victory and get the heck out.

Let's re-focus our efforts to fight the War on Terror_ism_.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

One thing that always amazes me is this...This area of the middle east, hell, the whole middle east has been waring and fighting for thousands of years _before_ Christ was there. If you read the bible, God even sanction war putting one against the other and backing one over the other. This is one of the cases where 'they have always and always will' be fighting.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree with you SFC Rude. I doubt that we will see peace in the region in the near future or put an end to the long-standing conflicts. Therefore, unless a group attacks us, I think that we should mind our own business.

Recently, a friend of mine summed it all up when he said the solution to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other Middle East relations is to get ourselves in a position where we don't need them anymore. If we didn't need foreign oil, we could walk away and never look back.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> ...is to get ourselves in a position where we don't need them anymore. If we didn't need foreign oil, we could walk away and never look back.


AMEN! And I'll buy the first rounds on that one!

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I believe WMDs were there and were smuggled out of the country probably to Syria I'll bet you a steak dinner that it comes out in the near future. We'll see, so lets save the ink and quit arguing about it unless something new comes out, I'm kind of tired of going over it. You say no, I say yes, time will tell.

IF Saddams gone and his boys are dead, and Al queda is not there as you have claimed than just who is shooting at us? Who is capturing American civilians and sawing off their heads? More importantly if Saddams boy and Al queda aren't doing it and there aren't any terrorists just who is killing Iraqis that are trying to get the new government going??? Your contentions defy logic. Its one or Probably all of the above( except Saddam of course).

As far as getting out of there and declaring victory I'm confident thats exactly what we will do and sooner than later if we just show unity and demand it of our politicians until the troops are back. The we can get back to politics as usaul.

You're correct our energy policies are a mess, we should of got the message in the 70's unfortunately no admistration since then and the wimps in congress failed to address this they would rather divide us and gather their pork( I really despise congress), but the reality is there is no quick fix, so right now we neeeeed those bastards oil. I agree with Ralph Nader ( bet you never thought you would hear that from me  ) about this issue we need to go to a solar energy base, I say forget going to Mars and apply NASA's many talents to developing an extensive solar energy system. It would be my goal to have our only need for oil be lubrication not combustion.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob,

You can't blame all terrorists and terrorism on Al Qaeda. Are there Al Qaeda in Iraq? Probably. Are there non-Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq? Probably. Are there Al Qaeda in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and every other country in the region? Probably. Are there Al Qaeda in the U.S., France, England, and other non-Muslim countries? Probably. In all of these situations, would Al Qaeda hesitate to capture and torture an American if chaotic conditions presented an opportunity to do so? Probably. In all of these situations, would any terrorist or militant group fight the establishment of a new government that was based on democracy and peace? Probably.

There are terrorists or militants in Iraq that have taken advantage of chaos to create more chaos. You can't possibly think that this is rationale for the war can you? Remember, sources suggest that there is a total of 5,000 insurgents in Iraq, many (if not most) of which were members of the Saddam regime. If these numbers are right, how many of these could possibly be Al Qaeda?

Also, lest we forget, Osama Bin Laden has called Saddam an infidel.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy two posts ago you claimed all Saddams men are dead, now you claim there is 5000 insurgents that are Saddams men, which is it? Its this kind of inconsistancy in your argument that make this a pointless merry go round. Your argument is politically based not factually based you just hate Bush so no matter what you will find fault. My point simple put is that terrorists now matter what group the are affliliated with need to be hunted down and killed. And any goverment that shelters them, finances them, or aids them in any way should be killed to, so the obiviuos answer to your question is yes the war is justified. As far as Osama, what he thinks about anyone is of no concern to me, he is a terroist and we will hunt him down and kill him and the world will not miss him.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob,

I think that this is the statement you mean:



> Shrub got us into this mess and we can't go back. That I do accept. However, Saddam is gone and his boys are dead. What are we waiting for? Declare victory and get the heck out.


Saddam's "boys" were his boys, Odai and Qusai. Ever hear of them? Do you deny that his boys are dead? I never said that every member of his regime were dead. Quite to the contrary, many are alive and well and plinking off members of the coalition forces.

Before you accuse folks of inconsistencies, read their posts carefully and slowly. Just for good measure, read them again. Then, just stop, take a big breath, look at that big GW poster on the ceiling above your bed, and formulate an intelligent response.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BIg Daddy, I apologize your are correct, I misunderstood your point  , you have to realize your conversing with a southerner and down here his "boys" would of meant his men. Sorry about that, I guess I've lived down here long enough I'm more ******* than I realize :lol: You have to be edumacated on souther speak


----------

