Cut-Off US Financial Aid to both HAMAS and Israel?

[webfusion]

Offshoot from a few other thread discussions:
"Is Israel working toward the day when it can stand on its own without being the beneficiary of huge American foreign aid?" (davefoc)

and

"What should the rest of the world do? I hope they decide to withdraw all aid to the PA until Hamas repudiates its goals of destroying Israel." (mycroft)


It has already been made clear that US $$$ to Israel amounts to just 1/10th of 1% of the entire American annual budget.

But that number is not all CASH given to Israel.
The Israelis have many different obligations regarding how they may use that aid, and that also includes 'buy-back' arrangements with the USA (where the aid money is spent on various military hardware in the United States).

Also, the Palestinians have a very convoluted budget and it is difficult to account for where their aid $$$ goes...
For a while, only one man, Muhammed Rashid (aka Khaled Salaam) knew the extent of the financial dealings of the Palestinian Authority. Right now, he is keeping his head down and awaiting the fallout from these HAMAS elections.
Probably the best way HAMAS can get back into the good graces of the international community is to form a government of technocrats, and allow Muhammed Rashid and his guys take over again, running things on a day-to-day basis.
Rashid has personal control of the cement industry, the airline & airport (Gaza), the fuel depots, the trucking and construction trades, the cigarette imports, the PalTrade Agricutural market, etc etc...

Anyway, here's a thread to see what kind of future the Israelis and the Palestinians would have if they stand on their own, shoulder-to-shoulder, depending on each other, and not on outside aid.

[Mephisto]

I've been an advocate of cutting any type of aid (minus humanitarian aid, of course) to Israel until they actually sit down to discuss their little problem. We keep them supplied with the latest weapons technology, the latest aviation technology and the latest surveillance technology while the Palestinians rely on fanatics with explosives or boys with rocks to fight the Israelis.

Without going into "who does what" or "why this guy is worse the the other guy" this region is laughingly called The Holy Land when it's actually the Earth's anal orifice. BOTH sides of this conflict are responsible for thousands of innocent people dying, and both sides are responsible for inciting the populace to do more violence.

Someone in another thread about gun-control stated that, "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail," and that couldn't be more accurate with Israel. The Israelis have come full circle and without realizing it, they have become their own worst nightmare. Of course, no one will admit that until they're actively tattooing the star and crescent on the wrists of Palestinians. The once commendable and passionate motto, "NEVER AGAIN" has become the excuse whereby Israel can justify treating others as they were once treated.

[Elind]

I've been an advocate of cutting any type of aid (minus humanitarian aid, of course) to Israel until they actually sit down to discuss their little problem.

If you had said "...and the PA" I would be inclined to agree, except for the fact that you don't define "discuss" with who? The EU?

[Darat]

What is wrong with "us" taking "sides"?

Israel has indicated many times that they would accept a state of Palestine, albeit with many strings, ifs, ors, and maybes. Palestinians this week declared for war against Israel.

Therefore I don't see anything wrong with us supporting Israel and not supporting the Palestinians.

Obviously if Israel went on the offensive then I think it may be necessary to review that but as long as Israel remains defensive support to them seems OK to me. Equally obviously if the Palestinians retracted their war against Israel I would all be for supporting the Palestinians in building a modern nation state.

[zenith-nadir]

Cutting off aid to Israel will not magically change the fundamentalist Islamic ideology of groups such as Islamic Jihad or Hamas. Just like taking out Afghanistan did not change the fundamentalist Islamic ideology of Al Queda. Nor will cutting off aid to Israel change the views of the leaders of Iran or Syria.

Israel abandoned Gaza and that didn't even cause a momentary blip on the fundamentalist Islamic ideology radar see: President Ahmadinejad. Hell, all those folks would applaud and celebrate cutting off aid to Israel!

Yet the fundamentalist Islamic ideology would remain and there would still be people lining up to martyr themselves on the street of Tel Aviv or Haifa. Just an FYI.

[Mycroft]

I've been an advocate of cutting any type of aid (minus humanitarian aid, of course) to Israel until they actually sit down to discuss their little problem....

Except Israel's always been willing to sit down and talk about its "little problem." I really don't see that as a contributing factor in this conflict.

[Elind]

What is wrong with "us" taking "sides"?



I'm not sure if you are commenting on my post.

I'm certainly more on Israel's side given that there seems to be an obvious unwillingness on the part of the PA (now Hamas) to negotiate anything, but that doesn't mean serious pressure on both could not be beneficial. I may support Israel, but that doesn't mean I might not want them to give up more than they want to.

[Complexity]

Cut off all foreign aid, permanently.

[Manny]

Anyway, here's a thread to see what kind of future the Israelis and the Palestinians would have if they stand on their own, shoulder-to-shoulder, depending on each other, and not on outside aid.Well, the thing is the neighbors are inclined to invade one of those parties and sweep all its citizenry into the sea, but not the other party. The $2.5 B (which is indeed mostly recycled back to the US as purchases of military hardware) is a bargain compared to what it would cost to build and equip a new carrier battle group (including staffed troop landers) so that there would always be one within a half-day's sail of Israel.

[Vagabond]

I've been an advocate of cutting any type of aid (minus humanitarian aid, of course) to Israel until they actually sit down to discuss their little problem. We keep them supplied with the latest weapons technology, the latest aviation technology and the latest surveillance technology while the Palestinians rely on fanatics with explosives or boys with rocks to fight the Israelis.

Without going into "who does what" or "why this guy is worse the the other guy" this region is laughingly called The Holy Land when it's actually the Earth's anal orifice. BOTH sides of this conflict are responsible for thousands of innocent people dying, and both sides are responsible for inciting the populace to do more violence.

Someone in another thread about gun-control stated that, "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail," and that couldn't be more accurate with Israel. The Israelis have come full circle and without realizing it, they have become their own worst nightmare. Of course, no one will admit that until they're actively tattooing the star and crescent on the wrists of Palestinians. The once commendable and passionate motto, "NEVER AGAIN" has become the excuse whereby Israel can justify treating others as they were once treated.

Very well said.

[Vagabond]

Well, the thing is the neighbors are inclined to invade one of those parties and sweep all its citizenry into the sea, but not the other party. The $2.5 B (which is indeed mostly recycled back to the US as purchases of military hardware) is a bargain compared to what it would cost to build and equip a new carrier battle group (including staffed troop landers) so that there would always be one within a half-day's sail of Israel.

Everybody keeps arguing that them using most of the 3 billion for military stuff only is somehow better. How is it better? I don't think making sure they have the biggest stick on the block is making things better in the region. It just incites Israel to wave it around and use gunboat diplomacy because they can get away with it. If the sides were more even we might actually get talks.

Israel is talking about giving the Palestinians a state in which they won't be allowed to have arms. First of all that is a HUGE string and that isn't autonomy. What happens when they buy them anyway and then Israel invades them or flies their planes in and bombs them? They do that now all the time, they are just rolling into territory that they now claim for themselves.

We already have a carrier battle group in the Med at all times. We also have one in the Persian gulf and with the war in Iraq now have 2 there. Israel isn't in any danger of getting invaded. Their problems are ones a carrier battle group can't help with.

Israel is a military power in their tiny speck of the world, but with us backing them they are unassailable. This is the goal of the terrorists. To force the Israelis to harsher and harsher reactions until we get to a point where we can't morally back them anymore. The Israelis continuously do exactly what they want by absurdly harsh retaliations all the time. They aren't far from crossing that line already. I think they already have crossed it.

[TragicMonkey]

I'm surprised we give any aid to Israel at all. Not because of their conflict with the Palestinians or anyone else, but because we seem to keep catching their spies stealing American secrets. Why on earth do we put up with that?

[Giz]

BOTH sides of this conflict are responsible for thousands of innocent people dying, and both sides are responsible for inciting the populace to do more violence.


You could say that about both sides in ANY conflict (don't make me use a WW2 Allies-Nazi analogy!). That's just moral equivalence (ambivalence?) at work.

Fact is, if the Palestinians stopped shooting then the deaths on both sides would stop. If the Israelis stopped shooting, well, goodbye Israel.

My 2 cents, the West is under no moral obligation to fund a state that officially calls for the destruction of another state/genocide (in fact I dare say a case could be made for there being a moral duty NOT to).

If the Palestinian people choose war, so be it, but they can fund it themselves. And they can fund it paying for their own guns and butter - and I don't want my taxes subsidising their butter, that just leaves them their own cash to spend on guns.

[Vagabond]

I'm surprised we give any aid to Israel at all. Not because of their conflict with the Palestinians or anyone else, but because we seem to keep catching their spies stealing American secrets. Why on earth do we put up with that?

If we demand they stop spying on us we would have to stop spying on them.

[Giz]

I don't think making sure they have the biggest stick on the block is making things better in the region. It just incites Israel to wave it around and use gunboat diplomacy because they can get away with it. If the sides were more even we might actually get talks.

Because:

1) If Israel is greatly superior to the Arab states:
Arab states don't dare start another war.

2) If Israel is moderatly superior to Arab states:
Perhaps the Arabs may; build up forces in a mid eastern arms race; try another war; if the Arabs win against the odds, commit genocide.

3) Israel and the Arab World are 50%/50% to win another mid east war:
The Arab street puts massive pressure on its leaders to strike,
The Arab world, if it loses, has a down side of... what?
Israel, if it loses, has a downside of... genocide.

Now 3) sounds fair as a sound bite doesn't it, but both sides aren't risking the same stake... I'll take the risk of Israel swaggerring now and then, thanks.

[Elind]

Cut off all foreign aid, permanently.

What? Including bribes? How boring.

[Vagabond]

Because:

1) If Israel is greatly superior to the Arab states:
Arab states don't dare start another war.

2) If Israel is moderatly superior to Arab states:
Perhaps the Arabs may; build up forces in a mid eastern arms race; try another war; if the Arabs win against the odds, commit genocide.

3) Israel and the Arab World are 50%/50% to win another mid east war:
The Arab street puts massive pressure on its leaders to strike,
The Arab world, if it loses, has a down side of... what?
Israel, if it loses, has a downside of... genocide.

Now 3) sounds fair as a sound bite doesn't it, but both sides aren't risking the same stake... I'll take the risk of Israel swaggerring now and then, thanks.

You will take that stake because you aren't judging things properly. Israel is going to get exterminated eventually if things continue as they are. They will get nuked or dirty bombed before much longer. They can't prevent this by waving around a stick. This just makes them a bigger and more likely target and we are making ourselves a target by backing them and having huge military forces in the region to back them and to promote our wars there.

I am currently not concerned with the US getting nuked because it will get used on Israel first. After that I will be. We need to learn to live with each other. The days of being able to force weaker nations to do as you want is over. They can get a stick just as big as yours now and you are just forcing them to use it. We don't even have the conventional military power to prevent both Iran and N. Korea from getting nukes and certainly not both at once. I think Iran knows this and is very close to getting some bombs. Months at most they will have one or more.

Also you make the stupid assumption that most do that having the 3 million Jews get killed is somehow worse than killing 3 million Muslims to prevent it. Zero sum game there.

[Mycroft]

I'm surprised we give any aid to Israel at all. Not because of their conflict with the Palestinians or anyone else, but because we seem to keep catching their spies stealing American secrets. Why on earth do we put up with that?

Jonathan Pollard was more than two decades ago. Where do you get "always" from?

[Giz]

Also you make the stupid assumption that most do that having the 3 million Jews get killed is somehow worse than killing 3 million Muslims to prevent it. Zero sum game there.

If a cop sees a murderor stabbing someone, should he shoot the perpetrator? Or think, "nope, zero sum game here, carry on"?

[Vagabond]

If a cop sees a murderor stabbing someone, should he shoot the perpetrator? Or think, "nope, zero sum game here, carry on"?

That is pure BS. At the very least they are both murderers and the cop is happy to let them off each other and let him off the hook. The Israelis have killed far more Muslims than vice versa. I would put the knife in their hand.

[Giz]

That is pure BS. At the very least they are both murderers and the cop is happy to let them off each other and let him off the hook. The Israelis have killed far more Muslims than vice versa. I would put the knife in their hand.

Numbers are not a reliable guide to culpability. I would imagine (kills thread via Godwins) that the USA killed more Germans in WW2 than vice versa, but that did not make the US the murderous aggressor.

[Vagabond]

Numbers are not a reliable guide to culpability. I would imagine (kills thread via Godwins) that the USA killed more Germans in WW2 than vice versa, but that did not make the US the murderous aggressor.

You are just talking crap. We were fighting a war. Your goal in a war is to kill as many of the enemy necessary in order to win. The Israelis supposedly aren't at war with anybody nor is it supposedly their goal to actually kill anybody. Despite the fact they do a whole lot of it.

[Giz]

You are just talking crap. We were fighting a war. Your goal in a war is to kill as many of the enemy necessary in order to win. The Israelis supposed aren't at war with anybody nor is it supposely their goal to actually kill anybody. Despite the fact they do a whole lot of it.

Honestly, what do you think the IDF should do when Hamas et al launch rocket attacks, suicide bombings etc? Three strikes and lets talk about it?

[Vagabond]

Honestly, what do you think the IDF should do when Hamas et al launch rocket attacks, suicide bombings etc? Three strikes and lets talk about it?

No, they have gotten themselves into a postition that is untenable. Nothing they do short of relocation is going to make any difference. They are just flailing around like a fish on the dock, because they can't do anything else. Not, because it is helping them any. They can leave or they can pull another Masada. There is no third choice.

They can make a temporary peace with the Palestinians and they and we can keep putting our fingers in the nuclear dike but that is only going to buy time. The end result will be the same.

[Manny]

Everybody keeps arguing that them using most of the 3 billion for military stuff only is somehow better. How is it better?Away from the direct Israel/so-called "Palestine" issue, it is better for the United States because it generates jobs, lowers the cost of military hardware to the government by allowing R&D to be amortized across more units and fosters innovation in the defense industry. I agree that as regards the conflict "better" depends on one's political point of view.


We already have a carrier battle group in the Med at all times. We also have one in the Persian gulf and with the war in Iraq now have 2 there.But not always. Sometimes those battle groups are called away. That's why we'd need one more if Israel didn't have a large, constantly-refurbished fleet of American combat aircraft.

My point is that withdrawing aid from both sides would not leave them to stand on their own, shoulder to shoulder. It would leave Isreal standing by the shoulder of the so-called "Palestinians" AND Syria and Iran and who knows who else.

[TragicMonkey]

Jonathan Pollard was more than two decades ago. Where do you get "always" from?

Here's another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/pentagon_spy_probe_5

[Manny]

There's not even the barest indication in that article that Israel had anything to do with Franklin's treason.

[Vagabond]

Away from the direct Israel/so-called "Palestine" issue, it is better for the United States because it generates jobs, lowers the cost of military hardware to the government by allowing R&D to be amortized across more units and fosters innovation in the defense industry. I agree that as regards the conflict "better" depends on one's political point of view.


But not always. Sometimes those battle groups are called away. That's why we'd need one more if Israel didn't have a large, constantly-refurbished fleet of American combat aircraft.

My point is that withdrawing aid from both sides would not leave them to stand on their own, shoulder to shoulder. It would leave Isreal standing by the shoulder of the so-called "Palestinians" AND Syria and Iran and who knows who else.

It doesn't generate nearly as much as if we didn't give it to them at all. We have no control over the Israeli air force. You really have a circumstance like in the first gulf war where we had to convince the Israelis NOT to counterattack and use their own forces because it would just make things worse and not help any. Their military is useless for anything beyond defending their own borders and striking fear in the unarmed. Which could be done equally as well with second hand equipment.

Also there is nothing that would call the Med carrier battle group away short of an all out invasion of the US proper. Even that probably wouldn't do it.

[TragicMonkey]

There's not even the barest indication in that article that Israel had anything to do with Franklin's treason.

A former Pentagon analyst who gave classified information to an Israeli diplomat

Did you miss it? Once more:

A former Pentagon analyst who gave classified information to an Israeli diplomat

"To an Israeli diplomat".

Hmmm. I wonder what country the Israeli diplomat works for?

Russia? China? Iran?

[Manny]

Ah, you're right -- it was a poorly written article and it is reasonable to beleive based on it that that's what happened. So sorry about that.

That's not what happened. The AIPAC guys were the "spys" here, soliciting the information from Franklin. They then gave it, unsolicited, to the Israeli guy. For whatever it's worth, they also gave it to the press and anyone else who would listen.

[webfusion]

Manny is correct in the details of the Franklin case --- Rosen and Weissman initiated the contacts. The FBI probe was aimed at the AIPAC, and not at the Israelis. For the record, the Israelis did not embark upon a spying mission against the USA. Sure, they got information, but weren't the ones who went looking for it. (They didn't recruit or send spies to the USA for the purpose of infiltrating and obtaining military secrets).
=======================================

I was looking at the news about HAMASTAN today, and read the statements of Khaled Meshal (speaking in Damascus where he is hiding, thinking he is safe from Israeli assassination).
""We are willing to form an army like every country ... an army to defend our people against aggression," the HAMAS leader indicated.

SO, instead of disarming, instead of caring for the needs of the poor Palestinian people in Gaza and Ramallah and Jenin and Hebron, instead of improving the education and health care of the Palestinian people that HAMAS has been elected to serve, the very first policy speech by the leader of HAMAS (in Damascus) is about "Forming an Army"

Disgusting.

[Mycroft]

Here's another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/pentagon_spy_probe_5


That's not an example of Israel spying on the USA, that's an example of a US citizen trying to pass classified along classified information to inappropriate people.

AIPAC, by the way, is an American organization. While it is pro-Israel, it is not Israeli.

[Mephisto]

If you had said "...and the PA" I would be inclined to agree, except for the fact that you don't define "discuss" with who? The EU?

I didn't know we gave military aid to Palestine. Do we?

[Mephisto]

I'm surprised we give any aid to Israel at all. Not because of their conflict with the Palestinians or anyone else, but because we seem to keep catching their spies stealing American secrets. Why on earth do we put up with that?

Because they are our allies. Any further info on what happened in these instances? They seem to have dropped in interest, of course WHY would most Americans care when a new season of American idle is starting?

[Elind]

I didn't know we gave military aid to Palestine. Do we?

I didn't know you defined "aid" as boxes of ammunition. What do you think money is good for?

[Mycroft]

Because they are our allies. Any further info on what happened in these instances? They seem to have dropped in interest, of course WHY would most Americans care when a new season of American idle is starting?

Gratuitous USA bashing noted.

In both of these instances the perpetuators got long prison terms.

[webfusion]

The USA has provided tens of millions of $$$ in direct military aid to the PA, including for the purchase of helicopters, armored vehicles, troop transports, patrol boats, scout vehicles (Humvees), tents and training facilities, as well as assault rifles (M-16s) and tons of ammunition.

All of this is now going to fall under the aegis of HAMAS.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\

vagabond:
"The Israelis supposedly aren't at war with anybody nor is it supposedly their goal to actually kill anybody."

Officially, Israel is at war with Syria still.
By definition, it is also in a shooting war with the Palestinians.
Israel operates under a unique set of legal terms, from the early days of the State, called the "Emergency Powers" and the government considers itself able to act under those rules, since this is indeed still wartime.

[Vagabond]

vagabond:
"The Israelis supposedly aren't at war with anybody nor is it supposedly their goal to actually kill anybody."

Officially, Israel is at war with Syria still.
By definition, it is also in a shooting war with the Palestinians.
Israel operates under a unique set of legal terms, from the early days of the State, called the "Emergency Powers" and the government considers itself able to act under those rules, since this is indeed still wartime.

So they are at war rather like we are. They allow themselves to act like they are at war so they can kill indescriminately and be able to sleep at night and they at the same time don't allow for the fact the other side in this "war" has the equal right to fire back.

[webfusion]

Sorry vagabond, I gotta call you on this one:
"They (Israelis) allow themselves to act like they are at war so they can kill indiscriminately"

Israel is under attack: Israelis are facing suicide terror, they are facing missiles, they are facing jihadist neighbors who make no bones about their intentions to eliminate the jews.
And yet you think the Israelis are allowing themselves to use their Armed Forces to kill indiscriminately?

Where's your evidence for that, vagabond?
You've been spouting stuff throughout my thread that is not very much more than hot air, and I've let it slide, but for this statement, I'll ask you to put up or shut up.

[Vagabond]

Sorry vagabond, I gotta call you on this one:
"They (Israelis) allow themselves to act like they are at war so they can kill indiscriminately"

Israel is under attack: Israelis are facing suicide terror, they are facing missiles, they are facing jihadist neighbors who make no bones about their intentions to eliminate the jews.
And yet you think the Israelis are allowing themselves to use their Armed Forces to kill indiscriminately?

Where's your evidence for that, vagabond?
You've been spouting stuff throughout my thread that is not very much more than hot air, and I've let it slide, but for this statement, I'll ask you to put up or shut up.

Why the hell should I put up or shut up on your demand? You can't even make a point or an arguement nor did you even bother to take a side. Go troll someplace else.

[webfusion]

Jerk.

[Vagabond]

Jerk.

Ouch, that really hurt.

[Mycroft]

So they are at war rather like we are. They allow themselves to act like they are at war so they can kill indescriminately and be able to sleep at night and they at the same time don't allow for the fact the other side in this "war" has the equal right to fire back.

Well, except that the Israelis don't kill indescriminately and the Palestinians do, yeah. :oldroll:

[webfusion]

The Israelis allow themselves to act like they are at war so they can kill indiscriminately and be able to sleep at night.

Insane.

[LeFevre]

Show evidence for one's claims. It's the skeptical, critically thinking, non-Medieval way.

[webfusion]

Don't hold your breath, LeFevre, since vagabond is in "bash Israel" mode...

He just posted that the Israelis are 'squatters' and have no legitimate rights to their land, on this other thread. (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1410066&postcount=29)

What he says must be taken in the spirit it is offered -- not as a critical thinker, but an apologist for terrorists. I saw right through him, from the start.

[Vagabond]

Show evidence for one's claims. It's the skeptical, critically thinking, non-Medieval way.

Show evidence of what? Indescriminate killing? That is a subjective term for which no proof is possible. Also I am not obligated to provide anything to somebody like you who, isn't even part of the discussion but just chimes in to take cheap shots disguised as a logical comment. Or people who aren't making any points of their own.

You have to make one before you can question anybody elses. That is the skeptical, critically thinking, non medieval way. Web is just running his mouth, that doesn't count for anything.

[webfusion]

Whatever...

[Vagabond]

Don't hold your breath, LeFevre, since vagabond is in "bash Israel" mode...

He just posted that the Israelis are 'squatters' and have no legitimate rights to their land, on this other thread. (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1410066&postcount=29)

What he says must be taken in the spirit it is offered -- not as a critical thinker, but an apologist for terrorists. I saw right through him, from the start.

I am not bashing anybody. I have no bias in the matter. It is you with your blind pro-Israeli bias that sees the truth as bashing. I don't like seeing anybody get hurt or killed. I am a bit tired of people who are shooting at people whine when those people have the audacity to actually defend themselves and shoot back.

[LeFevre]

My comment needs repeating I guess. Anyone here at the JREF disagree with providing evidence for a claim? No matter who posted what to who, who hasn't answered who, who has chimed in with a one liner vs. one who's been in a discussion one is always IMO obligated to support their claims/statements/whatever.

You also don't have to make a claim and gain some type of claim point before you can spend it to question others about their statements/claims. People don't have to have a motive of making a point to question others or to question others to support what they said or at the very least give some reasoning so one can see how they came to the conclusion they did. Seems weird to me to go about discussions with these rules of engagement on who can ask what depending on how long they've been in a discussion or how many claims they've made.

This is all I typed

Show evidence for one's claims. It's the skeptical, critically thinking, non-Medieval way.
Looks like a reasonable and rational way of discussing subjects with fellow humans to me. Par for the course here, it's the E in the JREF.

[Vagabond]

You also don't have to make a claim and gain some type of claim point before you can spend it to question others about their statements/claims. People don't have to have a motive of making a point to question others or to question others to support what they said or at the very least give some reasoning so one can see how they came to the conclusion they did. Seems weird to me to go about discussions with these rules of engagement on who can ask what depending on how long they've been in a discussion or how many claims they've made.

This is all I typed
Looks like a reasonable and rational way of discussing subjects with fellow humans to me. Par for the course here, it's the E in the JREF.

Wrong, If you are not capable of making ANY point about the topic whatsoever this is proof you don't know anything about it. Thus, it's pointless for me to try and support a claim or prove anything to you. It's also easy to play the sniper where you attack others from a distance without committing your own self to the fight. I have no obligation to debate you in such a manner. You can win a fight by default because the other person might be correct but just doesn't feel like defending their arguement to you at that moment. When support is probably impossible because you don't know anything about it anyway. The fact I don't feel like or am even unable to defend something I say, DOESN"T mean I am wrong. That is a logical fallacy.

The E in the JREF stands for educational. The way to educate yourself is to listen to people who know more about a topic than you do and ask reasonable questions. Not to attack them when you don't know enough about the topic to know whether they are right or wrong or even give a fair evaluation of what they said. Despite what you say you are not interested in the slightest in educating yourself in this subject. Your intent is to hang around and snipe. You can pretend you have some sort of logical basis for this all you want. But you don't.

[peptoabysmal]

Because they are our allies. Any further info on what happened in these instances? They seem to have dropped in interest, of course WHY would most Americans care when a new season of American idle is starting?

Did you misspell idol on purpose? It's funnier your way. :D

[a_unique_person]

What is wrong with "us" taking "sides"?

Israel has indicated many times that they would accept a state of Palestine, albeit with many strings, ifs, ors, and maybes. Palestinians this week declared for war against Israel.

Therefore I don't see anything wrong with us supporting Israel and not supporting the Palestinians.

Obviously if Israel went on the offensive then I think it may be necessary to review that but as long as Israel remains defensive support to them seems OK to me. Equally obviously if the Palestinians retracted their war against Israel I would all be for supporting the Palestinians in building a modern nation state.

I don't know what part of a military occupation is defensive? To me, it is agression.

[Mycroft]

I don't know what part of a military occupation is defensive? To me, it is agression.

Is the US being agressive in occupying Afghanistan?

[Vagabond]

Is the US being agressive in occupying Afghanistan?

Absolutely. As I said countless times to my ex-girlfriend and she never quite got it either. You can't do something to somebody you know is going to enrage them and then blame them for what they do when they are enraged. You are the cause of their actions, not them.

If it wasn't for our backing Israel we wouldn't be the target of attacks that we would have to defend ourselves from. That and our oil guzzling are the cause of the problems.

[David Swidler]

Absolutely. As I said countless times to my ex-girlfriend and she never quite got it either. You can't do something to somebody you know is going to enrage them and then blame them for what they do when they are enraged. You are the cause of their actions, not them.

This is wrong on so many levels.

The US invaded and occupied Afghanistan in response to massive terrorist attacks, in order to eliminate the political support that the terrorists enjoyed. A counterattack is not aggression.

Moreover, terrorist attacks on US interests have nothing to do with the US presence in Afghanistan or Irag. They took place before those two fig leafs for Islamic terror existed.

If it wasn't for our backing Israel we wouldn't be the target of attacks that we would have to defend ourselves from.

Also wrong. In the 1950s and 60s Israel's chief supporter, militarily, was France. But that didn't result in terrorism against the French. The terrorist attacks in Europe are also unrelated to Europe's stance on Israel.

That and our oil guzzling are the cause of the problems.

I was tempted to agree, but then realized how complex the issue really is. That claim calls to mind gasoline-guzzling SUVs, but can anyone produce hard numbers indicating that such a trend has markedly affected US petroleum consumption? Can you point to irresponsible or unnecessary use of heating oil, for example, that supports the premise across the board?

That said, I agree that US dependence on foreign sources of energy puts them in quite a pickle.

[Vagabond]

That post is so one sided and so completely bereft of any intellect or logic I can't even say anything. Pure stupid is a tough arguement to take on.

[Skeptic]

So they are at war rather like we are. They allow themselves to act like they are at war so they can kill indescriminately and be able to sleep at night and they at the same time don't allow for the fact the other side in this "war" has the equal right to fire back.

But, Vagabond, you made it perfectly clear than in your view, the eternal Arab goal is to kill all the jews in israel. If that is indeed the case, israel does have the moral right to do just about anything to defend itself, including killing Palestinians, for the same reason it is morally allowed to kill someone who tries to kill you, or--a more relevant example--why it was morally allowed to smash Nazi Germany.

You're pissed off that those you declared are going to be killed and thrown into the sea no matter what they do are actually not considering the rights of those who would kill them all enough.

Go figure.

[Skeptic]

That post is so one sided and so completely bereft of any intellect or logic I can't even say anything. Pure stupid is a tough arguement to take on.

Vagabond, once more, had been thoroughly defeated in an argument, so he threathens to leave in a huff.

[Darat]

Is the US being agressive in occupying Afghanistan?

Yes, although your facts are wrong it is not the USA that is occupying Afghanistan but a large number of other nations.

[Darat]

I don't know what part of a military occupation is defensive? To me, it is aggression.

Sooner or later borders have to be established. I am interested in the situation as it is today.

My view is that Israel needs to state categorically what is Israel *now* and then maintain those borders against any aggression.

Is that "fair" no of course it isn't;t is it morally "justifiable" no of course not but it's called reality.

Palestinians have declared war on the state of Israel I think it is wrong if Israel decides to act in an aggressive manner about that (because there isn't yet a real state of Palestine and it's military capability is minuscule compared to Israel and especially since Israel doesn't or shouldn't want that land.)

[Skeptic]

I don't know what part of a military occupation is defensive?

The part where the occupation stops, or at least attempts to stop, the enemy from establishing his own genocidally-intended terror state on your border.

You're welcome.

[LeFevre]

Wrong, If you are not capable of making ANY point about the topic whatsoever this is proof you don't know anything about it. Thus, it's pointless for me to try and support a claim or prove anything to you.
Or proof that one just jumped into a discussion and knows a good deal of the topic, or proof that one does know a bit about the topic of discussion and just jumped into a discussion. It wouldn't be pointless to others in the discussion, lurkers, or to intellectual honesty and support your claim from the get go.



It's also easy to play the sniper where you attack others from a distance without committing your own self to the fight. I have no obligation to debate you in such a manner.
My one comment about backing up one's claims is a snipe attack on you? I have no beef with you Vagabond, but from my one comment you seem to have one with me and supporting your claims or at least being asked to support your claims. I agree that you have no obligation to debate me or anyone, but backing up your statements and claims is your obligation.


You can win a fight by default because the other person might be correct but just doesn't feel like defending their arguement to you at that moment. When support is probably impossible because you don't know anything about it anyway.
Then why bother with debate or discussion at all Vagabond? Instead of backing up what you think and say, posting that someone's view is so one sided and so completely bereft of any intellect or logic without backing it up sounds one sided and completely bereft of any intellect or logic to me.

The fact I don't feel like or am even unable to defend something I say, DOESN"T mean I am wrong. That is a logical fallacy.
What fallacy? I'm open to being educated at the JREF. But not defending what you say means you won't educate me or the other master discussers or lurkers. It also means no one could follow your line of reasoning to learn or critic your reasoning and maybe you'd learn something.

The E in the JREF stands for educational. The way to educate yourself is to listen to people who know more about a topic than you do and ask reasonable questions.
If one is stupid and doesn't know reasonable question, comming back with some of your comments doesn't educate. Learning reasoning skills, critically thinking, I thought was part of the JREF. Not explaining yourself so others can learn from your reasoning and instead getting aggressive isn't educating IMO.


Not to attack them when you don't know enough about the topic to know whether they are right or wrong or even give a fair evaluation of what they said.
And Vagabond in St. Louis USA is an expert on Middle East issues? How am I supposed to know this? Can you speak and read Arabic? Or are you like many here, voicing our thoughts and debating with others with no real authority on a subject? Do you teach Middle Eastern politics? What makes you an authority on this topic where you can act so IMO arrogant? Because I am stupid or less knowledagable on a subject is supporting your statements to me beneth you?

Despite what you say you are not interested in the slightest in educating yourself in this subject.
You should contact Randi and go for the million dollar prize. At least that is what some folks tell those who claim to read minds. You don't know me, I don't know you. You don't know how long or to what level I've learned in whatever subject, same from my end. I asked you to back up what you claimed, the degree of my knowledge isn't part of supporting your claims. The amount of time I've spent in discussion with you isn't part of you supporting your claims.


Your intent is to hang around and snipe. You can pretend you have some sort of logical basis for this all you want. But you don't.
Again, contact Randi since you seem to be able to read my mind. From my two sentences and a follow up post about supporting your claims, you've made all these conclusions about me and my motives.

I typed that one should support one's claims. Do you agree with this? Is supporting one's claims logical?

Being polite and civil is part of your membership agreement.

[webfusion]

An interesting side-development, regarding financial aspects of the HAMAS takeover ---

Israel is refusing to transfer tax-collections to the PA.
This is money that belongs to the Palestinians, rightfully.
However, the Israelis are in a quandry, since they don't wish to offer any direct monetery assistance to HAMAS.

This is why, as I said in my OP, the HAMAS needs to put technocrats in charge and at least act like a proper governmental organization, rather than a bunch of terrorist thugs.

So, I return to the OP ---
Where is Muhammed Rashid? Can anyone point to his whereabouts?
He is the single most important man in the Palestinian economy, and yet, he manages to remain invisible. Very good trick, in this day and age of ubiquitous media coverage! No photos of the guy, and no news coverage, yet Rashid is really the key to the entire HAMASTAN ability to function!

[Mephisto]

Did you misspell idol on purpose? It's funnier your way. :D

Yeah, I did - I've even done a painting based on the misspelling (it's a slack-jawed, overweight, religious, anti-intellectual sitting on a couch watching TV). It does make more sense spelled that way, doesn't it? :)

(edited to add) Although I somewhat agreed with some of Vagabond's assertions, I have no problem whatsoever with your interjection, nor with your lack of previous posts :)

I'm glad you liked my "misspelling."

[Elind]

So they are at war rather like we are. They allow themselves to act like they are at war so they can kill indescriminately and be able to sleep at night and they at the same time don't allow for the fact the other side in this "war" has the equal right to fire back.

:coal:

[Darat]

Posts from Skeptic, Webfusion, mycroft, The Fool, Orwell deleted - repetition of the post content will result in further sanctions.

[gnome]

I'm surprised we give any aid to Israel at all. Not because of their conflict with the Palestinians or anyone else, but because we seem to keep catching their spies stealing American secrets. Why on earth do we put up with that?

I just wanted to expand on what someone already responded... we spy on our allies, surely. And they try to spy on us. Sure, we'll try to stop each other, but there's no need for indignance about it. Really, it was the same even with the USSR.

[webfusion]

Quick intejection --- I found this old article about Rashid (aka Khaled Salam)

http://www.hanitzotz.com/challenge/43/article.html

Monopolies: Monopoly companies control 27 basic commodities entering the PA-controlled areas, including steel, cement, gasoline and meat. These firms do not manufacture goods or provide employment, but merely import from Israel. Members of a clique close to Arafat/Rashid have set up joint ventures with Israeli businessmen. Together they reap the benefits of monopolistic overpricing and excessive profits.
Mohammed Rashid heads the Territories' largest monopoly, which controls all gasoline.

No gas, nothing moves.
WHERE IS RASHID TODAY?

What about it, skeppers? Anyone have details? This is the single biggest unanswered question on these JREF forums...

[David Swidler]

WHERE IS RASHID TODAY?

This is the single biggest unanswered question on these JREF forums...

I beg to differ. I think that honor goes to "Evidence?"

[webfusion]

Fair enough, David. You are right. Not enough evidence to back up spurious claims.
(see: KRAMER)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I was reading an article saying that HAMAS is now putting professionals and technocrats into position. It's hard to know the details, since Western journalists are a bit in the dark over the intricate nuances of who is who.

That is why, I feel, there is not any report of the activities or whereabouts of Muhammed Rashid (also known as Khaled Salam). The journalists just aren't interested in people who operate in the background --- the media fixates on "spokesmen" and take the press handouts verbatim back to their editors, and consider it a job well-done.

[Ziggurat]

No, they have gotten themselves into a postition that is untenable. Nothing they do short of relocation is going to make any difference. They are just flailing around like a fish on the dock, because they can't do anything else. Not, because it is helping them any. They can leave or they can pull another Masada. There is no third choice.

Wrong. If Israel basically unilaterally withdraws from Gaza and from most of the west banks, and severs contact with the Palestinians there, where exactly does the threat to their existence come from? Not from Palestine, that's for damned sure. The palestinians have no military force, they have no real economy, their entire existence so far has been predicated on suckling from the teet of Israel while at the same time clawing at it. They depend on Israel for employment, and even for government revenues. Israel can essentially crush them merely by halting contact - that's how lopsided the power balance is, and yet you see the PALESTINIANS as somehow having the upper hand? It just boggles the mind.

The Palestinians have nothing with which they can threaten Israel, except to the extent that Israel lets them. Suicide bombers? They're already less of a problem, thanks to the security barrier, and they'd be even less if the borders became sealed. Kassam rockets? They're a joke, and if Israel starts treating the Palestinians as a sovereign nation, then they can respond to that as an act of war, with actual EFFECTIVE force. When every rocket is responded to with an artillery barrage, how long do you really think they can keep it up? And what are the chances of the Palestinians actually getting a powerful army? About zero: the Palestinians are an absolute mess, and none of their neighbors would ever take the risk of giving them heavy weaponry with which to fight an actual war.

The ONLY existential threat, which you mentioned, is nuclear weapons. But the Palestinians can't do that, except by proxy. Who could? Only Iran - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and even Syria don't have any interest in sparking such a conflagration, even if they had the means. Would Iran do that? Well, maybe the mullahs would (but even there the calculus isn't really in their favor), but the population as a whole would not, because Israel WILL respond to a nuclear attack with its own nuclear weapons, and average Iranians have no interest in being bombed back into the stone age. So the ONLY existential threat to Israel is the madness of the mullahs. But nothing about that is actually inevitable.

As to the question of cutting off funding for the Palestinians, I say it's about bloody time:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/01/root-of-all-2.html
As wretchard writes, "a near-total dependence on foreign aid for Palestinian sustenance has decoupled the behavior of the Palestinian Authority from the welfare of their constituents." The incentive structures have become reversed, and it's only natural that pathologies would result. We cannot get them to behave the way we want while we keep providing incentives to do the opposite.

[Vagabond]

I never intended to imply that the Palestinians would be the downfall of the Israelis. I said in a post here or in another thread that Israel could exterminate the Palestinians and it wouldn't solve their problem. It's still them against over a billion Muslims. The Palestinians do serve as a lightning rod to draw down all the hatred of the Muslim world down on them.

Your points are well taken, but what if Iran is able to nuke Israel without it being able to be traced back to them? Does Israel just nuke Iran because they figure that is where it came from? Also depending on the nature of the attack there might not be anything left of Israel to counter with. Their nukes could be taken out in the attack, or the authority might not exist to do anything if the entire government is killed. Does Israel risk being finished off completely by nuking Iran or whoever and perhaps catching more bombs in retaliation? If Iran really didn't do it, or can convince Pakistan they didn't, Neither would probably hold back if nuked. Pakistan probably would not sit idlely by anyway because they would probably catch the fallout from Iran. They may tell Israel that any attack on a Muslim nation will be taken as an attack on them rather like the US did with all Nato nations during the cold war. Pakistan is an assassination or election away from being just as fundmentalist as Iran anyway. This is of course all speculation but certainly within the realm of possibility.

[Ziggurat]

Your points are well taken, but what if Iran is able to nuke Israel without it being able to be traced back to them? Does Israel just nuke Iran because they figure that is where it came from?

Yes, it does precisely that, because determining to take that course of action beforehand is the best hope they have of providing a deterent against Iran doing exactly that in secret.

Also depending on the nature of the attack there might not be anything left of Israel to counter with. Their nukes could be taken out in the attack, or the authority might not exist to do anything if the entire government is killed.

Not quite. Israel is well aware of precisely this issue, and that's why they've got a ballistic missile submarine fleet. They can keep a few subs under water in the mediteranean, ready to strike a revenge blow if Israel is wiped out. So none of Israel's neighbors has any way at present of removing the nuclear deterent (which, frankly, is a good thing).

Does Israel risk being finished off completely by nuking Iran or whoever and perhaps catching more bombs in retaliation? If Iran really didn't do it, or can convince Pakistan they didn't, Neither would probably hold back if nuked. Pakistan probably would not sit idlely by anyway because they would probably catch the fallout from Iran.

I disagree. First, I don't think Pakistan has much of a ballistic missile program - striking from that distance would probably require bombers, and that's not a good option under your scenario. And yes, they might catch some fallout, but getting involved in the fight (which, recalling the fact that Israel has subs, could mean a nuke landing on Islamabad) wouldn't be an attractive option, and sure as hell wouldn't lesson the damage to Pakistan. And frankly, I'm not sure Pakistan ACTUALLY cares about using up any of its precious nuclear stockpile to slap Israel around when they've got a nuclear-armed neighbor whom they've actually fought wars with before and still have tense relations with.

Pakistan is an assassination or election away from being just as fundmentalist as Iran anyway.

Yes, but it would be a Sunni fundamentalism, and the mullahs of Iran are all heretical Shia. Why wouldn't they just let the heretics kill off the infidels and vice versa, and stay out of it? Especially since such a fundamentalist government woud almost certainly have much tenser relations with their Hindu infidel neighbors.

[Elind]

All very interesting, but where does the fact that if one talks of nuclear attack to "wipe out" Israel fit in with the obvious fact that it would also wipe out "Palestine"?

[Vagabond]

All very interesting, but where does the fact that if one talks of nuclear attack to "wipe out" Israel fit in with the obvious fact that it would also wipe out "Palestine"?

Good point, but they could plan it to minimize that. They wouldn't be using a huge 20 megaton bomb or something. It would be 10-20 Kilotons probably. When they suicide bomb they go to Israeli areas but I am sure with how much they are mixed together in most places that Palestinians are often killed too. They haven't shown they are squeemish about killing anybody including their own people to accomplish their goals.

[David Swidler]

The fact that such a strike would take out a few million Muslims isn't much of a deterrent to the radical folk. I can't remember exactly who, where or when, but sometime in the last few years I encountered a Muslim religious leader's statement that in a world with a billion Muslims, a few million dead in a nuclear attack would be a small price to pay for eliminating Israel.

Nice people.

[Ziggurat]

The fact that such a strike would take out a few million Muslims isn't much of a deterrent to the radical folk. I can't remember exactly who, where or when, but sometime in the last few years I encountered a Muslim religious leader's statement that in a world with a billion Muslims, a few million dead in a nuclear attack would be a small price to pay for eliminating Israel.

Nice people.

Although I'm sure that sentiment isn't rare, the idea that they' actually do it is partly just bluff, though. Radical Islamist regimes, just like every other totalitarian system, are fragile. It might not matter to them if a few million random muslims die (which should surprise no one since muslim terrorists kill more muslims than people of other religion), but any nuclear retaliation by Israel is also going to disrupt any such regime's ability to maintain command and control over their own populations. It takes less to destroy the organizational structures of a closed society than an open one, and there Israel has a big advantage over all of its neighbors.

[epepke]

Is that "fair" no of course it isn't;t is it morally "justifiable" no of course not but it's called reality.

Reality? On the Politics forum?

Please excuse me while I forcefully expel beverages through my nose.

[webfusion]

vagabond -- "It would be 10-20 Kilotons probably." (nuclear bombs onto Israel)

OK, that's about all I can take of vagabond for now.
Ignore, best bet.

[Elind]

Good point, but they could plan it to minimize that. They wouldn't be using a huge 20 megaton bomb or something. It would be 10-20 Kilotons probably. When they suicide bomb they go to Israeli areas but I am sure with how much they are mixed together in most places that Palestinians are often killed too. They haven't shown they are squeemish about killing anybody including their own people to accomplish their goals.
Do you know the width of Israel and which way the winds usually blow? These turkeys may be able to build one, but place it where it should be.....forget it.

Israel should save the last one for somewhere in Mecca, just to be fair.

[Vagabond]

vagabond -- "It would be 10-20 Kilotons probably." (nuclear bombs onto Israel)

OK, that's about all I can take of vagabond for now.
Ignore, best bet.

Things are looking better all the time. If only he was really serious.

[Vagabond]

Do you know the width of Israel and which way the winds usually blow? These turkeys may be able to build one, but place it where it should be.....forget it.

Israel should save the last one for somewhere in Mecca, just to be fair.

If they place it by truck, they can be pretty precise in where it is going to be. Not saying some friendlies wouldn't be killed but, I don't think it will stop them.

[Ziggurat]

If they place it by truck, they can be pretty precise in where it is going to be. Not saying some friendlies wouldn't be killed but, I don't think it will stop them.

But it's not that simple either. Whoever is DRIVING the truck can place it precisely. But who's driving the truck? An Iranian military agent? Nope. They're not suicidal. An Iranian mullah? Nope, they aren't either. They'd need one of their terrorist proxies. But just how much can you trust a TERRORIST proxy, even one who you're paying to attack your enemies, with something as valuable, dangerous, and possibly incriminating as a nuclear bomb? How do you guarantee it isn't diverted from the use you want it for once it's out of your hands? It's not an easy problem. One likely way to try to deal with it is have the bomb remote-detonated so that your idiot patsy driver can't explode the thing prematurely because he got nervous, or that the group you just handed this weapon to doesn't try to blackmail YOU with it. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for them, these kinds of extra control systems increase risk of getting caught, since more people need to be involved, but I doubt they'd take that big a risk without some safeguard that the weapon can't be turned against them once it's handed over.

[Vagabond]

But it's not that simple either. Whoever is DRIVING the truck can place it precisely. But who's driving the truck? An Iranian military agent? Nope. They're not suicidal. An Iranian mullah? Nope, they aren't either. They'd need one of their terrorist proxies. But just how much can you trust a TERRORIST proxy, even one who you're paying to attack your enemies, with something as valuable, dangerous, and possibly incriminating as a nuclear bomb? How do you guarantee it isn't diverted from the use you want it for once it's out of your hands? It's not an easy problem. One likely way to try to deal with it is have the bomb remote-detonated so that your idiot patsy driver can't explode the thing prematurely because he got nervous, or that the group you just handed this weapon to doesn't try to blackmail YOU with it. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for them, these kinds of extra control systems increase risk of getting caught, since more people need to be involved, but I doubt they'd take that big a risk without some safeguard that the weapon can't be turned against them once it's handed over.

Good thoughts as always but you are over thinking it. They tell the driver he is going to deliver the biggest conventional bomb and strike the biggest blow for Allah ever to the infidels. He goes like a happy clam to his 72 virgin eternal dirt nap. He doesn't have to know. You would want as always in secrecy to inform as few people as possible. So as not to get caught and for the extra reasons you mention. Also for that reason you wouldn't be able to warn anybody you didn't want to blow up either.

[Elind]

Good thoughts as always but you are over thinking it.

And you are oversimplifying it.

What do you think the odds of a nuclear weapon being smuggled undetected into Israel are? Do you think they have those 007 suitcase things, or is half a ton more like it?

What do you think the repercussions would be if it was detected? What are the odds of failure for a one shot attempt?

I think we'll have to wait 'till they have a missile capability for much chance of that, or in conjunction with a conventional conflict simultaneously.

[Vagabond]

And you are oversimplifying it.

What do you think the odds of a nuclear weapon being smuggled undetected into Israel are? Do you think they have those 007 suitcase things, or is half a ton more like it?

What do you think the repercussions would be if it was detected? What are the odds of failure for a one shot attempt?

I think we'll have to wait 'till they have a missile capability for much chance of that, or in conjunction with a conventional conflict simultaneously.

I see you are naive enough to believe the crap the US administration spews out so people like you can sleep at night.

There is virtually no chance that they would stop the nuke from entering the country. Yeah I realize it's going to be big probably a ton and 15-20 feet long. How big you think a few tons of pot are? But, with all the shipping containers and trucks coming into countries of which only a tiny amount are even searched. It would be an easy matter.

That isn't even counting they might use a tunnel, or a submarine or just drop it offshore and have scuba guys come and get it. This isn't as hard you might think in the water, it's not going to weigh that much. You could put enough flotation on it so it just sits about 50 feet under water until they come and get it. A private beach and a tow truck and you got it out of the water and on the truck.

When I was in Maine a few years back it wasn't uncommon to see bales of pot laying on the beach that had washed ashore. Nobody messed with them because they knew who they belonged to. They would just dump them in the water from motor boats and let the tide take them in. The cops obviously knew about this but didn't seem to make any effort to stop it either. Not that they could have if they had tried.

This is granting they don't just find somebody who is able to be bribed and just drive it across in a truck. It is impossible to stop this sort of thing. If they could there wouldn't be any drugs around. There are illegal drugs in Israel too and a thriving black market for guns and explosives and everything else you might want to buy. They smuggle RPG's into closed towns with 12 foot high walls with barbed wire.

Also if you are well armed and trained even having a couple cops or security catch you red handed is not going to stop you. You kill them and keep going. Often it is much easier to just bull through security than it is to try and slip past it. Particularly if you are willing to give yourself up for your goals. If I wanted to blow up a plane I wouldn't bother trying to smuggle a bomb onboard. I would shoot all the people at the x-ray machine and keep going. Or perhaps even better just climb a fence and kill or avoid any security and board the plane from the tarmak. I would get onboard and get the plane to take off or blow it up long before they could muster enough force to do anything about it. The only thing we have going for us in that respect is people who are suicidal and or might do something like this aren't normally too bright either. However, the ones who planned 9-11 were. You don't need that many to pull it off.

[Elind]

I see you are naive enough to believe the crap the US administration spews out so people like you can sleep at night.



I see you are still prone to off the cuff rudeness, as well as forgetfulness about the discussion.

We were talking about Israel, Einstein!

Take a hike for a while will you:shocked:

[Vagabond]

I see you are still prone to off the cuff rudeness, as well as forgetfulness about the discussion.

We were talking about Israel, Einstein!

Take a hike for a while will you:shocked:

If you take the truth as rudeness it is you that needs some changing and not I. It does no good to curse the mirror if your face is askew. What country we were talking about is irrelevant as you have nearly a certainty regardless. I have no intention of doing anything just because some flower wilts. There is nothing wrong with what I said. You just don't happen to like it so you shut your brain off. Thus, why you are so naive in the first place. Don't ask a question you don't want the answer to.

[Ziggurat]

There is virtually no chance that they would stop the nuke from entering the country. Yeah I realize it's going to be big probably a ton and 15-20 feet long. How big you think a few tons of pot are? But, with all the shipping containers and trucks coming into countries of which only a tiny amount are even searched. It would be an easy matter.

You've still got it all wrong. First off, it should be apparent that they do catch drug smugglers. Not all of them, maybe not even the majority of them, but a lot of them. A 10% chance of getting caught with a nuke is FAR too great a risk, but it's quite acceptable for drug smugglers. If they find the bomb itself, there's no way to deny responsibility, and you've basically invited your own destruction - your enemies WILL attack you, and NOBODY is going to defend you at that point.

Furthermore, the drug suppliers ultimately don't care what happens to the drugs: as long as they get paid, it simply doesn't matter where the drugs go next, so the only trust they need to establish with the smugglers is on payment. That too simply isn't good enough with a nuclear weapon. If you're a state supplying a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, you're going to want to watch them the whole way. You NEED a spy network to keep an eye on things. And that exposes you to risk, because if ANY part of that network gets compromised, you again face devastating repercussions. As a practical matter, the problem goes FAR beyond slipping the bomb itself into the country (but again, even there you need a much higher chance of success than is acceptable for drug smuggling).

This is granting they don't just find somebody who is able to be bribed and just drive it across in a truck.

Not a chance. You can't tell just some guy what it is you're smuggling, and if you pay him lots of money, how can you be sure he won't just suspect it IS drugs, and decide to make off with the truck himself? If that happens, it's game over. Again, risks that are acceptable for drug smugglers simply are FAR too risky for something of like this.

Also if you are well armed and trained even having a couple cops or security catch you red handed is not going to stop you. You kill them and keep going. Often it is much easier to just bull through security than it is to try and slip past it. Particularly if you are willing to give yourself up for your goals.

Again, that presumes that the Iranians would be willing to let the decision for detonation lie with the people doing the actual delivery, because if you try an approach like that, you can't arrange for reliable remote detonation when you need it. And the people doing the delivery would NOT be Iranian military personel or even regime loyalists, but terrorists. Ultimately there is no honor among thieves, and nobody, not even the terrorist masters in Tehran, trusts them that much.

[Elind]

If you take the truth as rudeness it is you that needs some changing and not I. It does no good to curse the mirror if your face is askew. What country we were talking about is irrelevant as you have nearly a certainty regardless. I have no intention of doing anything just because some flower wilts. There is nothing wrong with what I said. You just don't happen to like it so you shut your brain off. Thus, why you are so naive in the first place. Don't ask a question you don't want the answer to.


Help : MARK!!

Where are you? I need you to cut bait over here. This guy is still trying to fish and I don't want to dirty myself, please.


:tr:

[Vagabond]

You've still got it all wrong. First off, it should be apparent that they do catch drug smugglers. Not all of them, maybe not even the majority of them, but a lot of them. A 10% chance of getting caught with a nuke is FAR too great a risk, but it's quite acceptable for drug smugglers. If they find the bomb itself, there's no way to deny responsibility, and you've basically invited your own destruction - your enemies WILL attack you, and NOBODY is going to defend you at that point.

Again excellent thoughts. You are of course correct that some drug shipments get caught. I think ten percent is way too high but good enough for argument. They catch some of them because they send drugs in many ways that aren't all that secure because they need pure quantity and they don't care about each individual shipment, or the people on each individual drug run but they ONLY care about how much of the drugs actually make it to the other end. They figure the runs that get caught are the price of doing business and forget about it.

However, if they had one particular run that HAD to make it through. They do have the means necessary to move that one shipment in a manner in which it wouldn't have any chance of being detected at all. That tunnel in Mexico is just the most sophisticated one they have found, because the real sophisticated ones they don't find. That one was almost big enough for a forklift to go through, a bobcat probably could fit. You could jury rig something with train wheels or something that could be pushed that wouldn't even need as much space as already existed in that tunnel. That is all you would need to get it across. I guarantee you such tunnels of sufficient size EXIST. I guarantee you there are drugs brought in by submarine, which they never catch. They use the scuba men which they also NEVER catch. You don't hear about the ones they don't ever catch. Drug runners also rarely kill anybody in an attempt to get their drugs through, because the attention would be worse than the loss of the drugs would be. A nuke you would not work under that restriction.

As far as not being able to trust people they found 19 people to pull 9-11 they could trust implicitly. They kept their cover for a couple years and they all went through with their missions nearly perfectly and gave up their lives in the process. You wouldn't even need ten men to pull that off. 6 or 8. Your honor among thieves doesn't apply because they aren't thieves. Terrorist organizations don't have any more men with honor than anyplace else but they don't have less either. You only need a handfull and the trust issue becomes nil. They already pulled it off once. 9-11 got as big a reaction short of using nukes as any other attack could possibly get. I am not so sure we would use nukes, despite what we say, nor would Israel, but I don't think the threat is a deterrent. We could have easily nuked them for 9-11 too, for all they knew. They certainly expected a harsh response. They didn't really hide the fact they did it either. You are hitting on the weakest link in the chain. I just don't think it weak enough to matter and maybe you do.

[Vagabond]

Help : MARK!!

Where are you? I need you to cut bait over here. This guy is still trying to fish and I don't want to dirty myself, please.


:tr:

You have obviously been very adept at not dirtying yourself with facts up until this point in your life and I am sure you will continue to do so. It does beg the question as to why you bother to waste your time hanging out here. To give yourself the illusion you are actually educating yourself perhaps?

[Elind]

You have obviously been very adept at not dirtying yourself with facts up until this point in your life and I am sure you will continue to do so. It does beg the question as to why you bother to waste your time hanging out here. To give yourself the illusion you are actually educating yourself perhaps?

I really don't know what your problem is, but there is one. Let me try once more in reasonably civil tone, if you know what that is.

We were having a perfectly rational conversation about the effects and likelyhood of Iran, or terrorists in general, driving a nuclear bomb to a specific location in Israel.

I said that I didn't think there was much chance of that succeeding, given their obvious skills at detecting people with hidden bombs, and that it seemed an unlikely method of delivery given the risks.

You responded with aggressive blather about the risks to the US.

I said we were talking about Israel.

You said, you didn't care and so on, sounding kind of plastered at that.

Do you remember any of that and what relevance does it have to the above comment you made?

[Vagabond]

I said that I didn't think there was much chance of that succeeding, given their obvious skills at detecting people with hidden bombs, and that it seemed an unlikely method of delivery given the risks.

You responded with aggressive blather about the risks to the US.

I said we were talking about Israel.

You said, you didn't care and so on, sounding kind of plastered at that.

Do you remember any of that and what relevance does it have to the above comment you made?

They detect people with bombs who try and walk through an x-ray machine with them. They don't detect any who don't. Also an atomic "bomb" isn't a bomb. It doesn't have any of the things they detect for that a regular explosive bomb has. Which is normally traces of nitroglycerin. Among other things. Also they won't be taking it through an x-ray machine of any kind.

I was pointing out how easy it is to smuggle things. It's doesn't matter where that smuggling takes place. It's just as easy to smuggle things into Israel as it is the United States and depending on what you wanted it would be much easier. Blond Lebanese Hash for example would be much easier to get, because Lebanon is much closer. It's also much closer to Iran. You wouldn't have to cross the ocean. This is a concept you aren't capable of understanding. Thus you didn't understand the relevance either.

[Freakshow]

They detect people with bombs who try and walk through an x-ray machine with them. They don't detect any who don't. Also an atomic "bomb" isn't a bomb. It doesn't have any of the things they detect for that a regular explosive bomb has. There's no "regular" explosives in an atomic bomb? You sure about that?

[Vagabond]

There's no "regular" explosives in an atomic bomb? You sure about that?

I normally would just ignore you but in this case you asked a reasonable question so you will get a reasonable answer. An atomic bomb needs explosive in order to compact the core, however TNT based explosive isn't strong enough. You need C4 or something even stronger. Which is hard to come by normally, but not for a country.

Also if you were going to move an atomic bomb, the core would be the part easiest to detect because it is radioactive. However, since it isn't any bigger than a softball it would be easy to smuggle. But, you certainly wouldn't put it into the bomb itself and make that part easier to find. Also it could possibly blow up prematurely. You would probably also not want to move the body of the bomb with any explosive of any kind in it either. But, add that later when you put the core in. You perhaps could even get it from local sources and not even have to smuggle it. I am sure the Palestinians have some C4 laying around. It's being used in the bombs in Iraq. Seems I remember the Palestinians taking out a couple of Merkava tanks with road bombs as well.

The Enola Gay crew put the core in while in flight. They trained for a couple weeks I think. So it isn't that hard, nor does it take that long, nor is it that dangerous otherwise they wouldn't have tried to do it on a flying B-17.

[Mycroft]

I normally would just ignore you but in this case you asked a reasonable question so you will get a reasonable answer. An atomic bomb needs explosive in order to compact the core, however TNT based explosive isn't strong enough. You need C4 or something even stronger. Which is hard to come by normally, but not for a country.

Also if you were going to move an atomic bomb, the core would be the part easiest to detect because it is radioactive. However, since it isn't any bigger than a softball it would be easy to smuggle. But, you certainly wouldn't put it into the bomb itself and make that part easier to find. Also it could possibly blow up prematurely. You would probably also not want to move the body of the bomb with any explosive of any kind in it either. But, add that later when you put the core in. You perhaps could even get it from local sources and not even have to smuggle it. I am sure the Palestinians have some C4 laying around. It's being used in the bombs in Iraq. Seems I remember the Palestinians taking out a couple of Merkava tanks with road bombs as well.


You know, what you're describing is far from simple. It would be a very difficult smuggling operation.

[Vagabond]

You know, what you're describing is far from simple. It would be a very difficult smuggling operation.

I guess "simple" is subjective. I suppose anything you try to do with sophisticated people with high tech equipment actively trying to stop you would be considered "difficult". However, if it's nearly a certainty they would succeed, how difficult is it really?

It's one of those things that is impossible without the necessary resources and expertise and relatively easy if you have those things. Huge sums of money usually makes things much easier. Iran could basically pay anything to accomplish it. Billions, tens of billions. Although it wouldn't take even a million probably. They spend far more than that now promoting "normal" terrorist activities. If the administration is to be believed about such things. They pulled off 9-11 with 50 grand.

[Mycroft]

I guess "simple" is subjective. I suppose anything you try to do with sophisticated people with high tech equipment actively trying to stop you would be considered "difficult". However, if it's nearly a certainty they would succeed, how difficult is it really?

It's one of those things that is impossible without the necessary resources and expertise and relatively easy if you have those things. Huge sums of money usually makes things much easier. Iran could basically pay anything to accomplish it. Billions, tens of billions. Although it wouldn't take even a million probably. They spend far more than that now promoting "normal" terrorist activities. If the administration is to be believed about such things. They pulled off 9-11 with 50 grand.

How old are you?

[Vagabond]

How old are you?

Why do you ask? It isn't a secret you can find out as you can with anybody who bothered to enter their birthday by looking at their profile.

[Ziggurat]

However, if they had one particular run that HAD to make it through. They do have the means necessary to move that one shipment in a manner in which it wouldn't have any chance of being detected at all. That tunnel in Mexico is just the most sophisticated one they have found, because the real sophisticated ones they don't find. That one was almost big enough for a forklift to go through, a bobcat probably could fit. You could jury rig something with train wheels or something that could be pushed that wouldn't even need as much space as already existed in that tunnel. That is all you would need to get it across. I guarantee you such tunnels of sufficient size EXIST.

Not into Israel they don't. Those tunnels are all between Egypt and Gaza, not into Israel itself, which has much smaller and much more closely watched borders than the US. And though it might not be hard to hit the US with one bomb, that's only enough to piss us off so that we attack our enemies, it's not enough to militarily cripple us. More bombs would require a VAST spy network to coordinate (because you'd HAVE to do them all near-simultaneous), and nobody in the middle east can pull that off.

As far as not being able to trust people they found 19 people to pull 9-11 they could trust implicitly. They kept their cover for a couple years and they all went through with their missions nearly perfectly and gave up their lives in the process.

Not comparable. Al Quaeda trusted them, there's no indication that any state sponsors cared about them in particular. And it didn't matter either, because even if they were caught, they were non-state actors: blame could only be pinned indirectly on a state (Afghanistan), and you still saw what happend to the Taliban because of it. Had they been caught beforehand, though, the response probably wouldn't have been any worse than our response to the USS Cole (in other words, nothing of any significance). With a nuclear bomb, though, the tie to a state actor is unavoidable, and getting caught beforehand won't lessen the severity of the response.

Your honor among thieves doesn't apply because they aren't thieves.

Not all of them, but enough of them. In fact, one of the more important turncoats we've got from Al Quaeda bailed out specifically because he had been stealing money from them. And they're very highly connected to organized crime.

[Elind]

There's no "regular" explosives in an atomic bomb? You sure about that?
There's something called radiation for one, there's size for another, there's risk of loss that has no comparison to one suicidal carrier with a bomb belt, and then there is that yahoo's belief that it's easier to smuggle large weapons into Israel than the US. Then of course there's his basic lack of logic in general.

I thought he was just being impish in his little "fishing" game with Mark, now I think he has psychological problems. Nuff said.:(

[Vagabond]

and then there is that yahoo's belief that it's easier to smuggle large weapons into Israel than the US.

How many parades have you seen in the US where people who aren't even supposed to have popguns are marching with AK-47's and RPG's?

You are obviously a self imposed idiot, so your opinion about anything is meaningless. I am not going to waste anymore time with you.

[Vagabond]

Not into Israel they don't. Those tunnels are all between Egypt and Gaza, not into Israel itself, which has much smaller and much more closely watched borders than the US.

There were tunnels into East Berlin and it's borders are much smaller and much more closely watched than Israel's is. Anyplace there is restricted movement there will be tunnels. They aren't that hard to make and very hard to stop. A tunnel wouldn't even be my choice for movement. Coming in by sea would be easier and nobody can really seal a sea border. Takes too much time and resources to patrol it properly and patrolling it won't stop it anyway.

[Elind]

How many parades have you seen in the US were people who aren't even supposed to have popguns are marching with AK-47's and RPG's?

You are obviously a self imposed idiot, so your opinion about anything is meaningless. I am not going to waste anymore time with you.

Thank you, I appreciate your consideration.

:duck:

[Vagabond]

With a nuclear bomb, though, the tie to a state actor is unavoidable, and getting caught beforehand won't lessen the severity of the response

Well, I have already said I think the chances of getting caught are slim to none. But, I also think this isn't true. Do you really think if the US paraded out a supposed Iran or N. Korean nuke while they are protesting to the top of their lungs we are lying and then lay a nuke on them without getting nuked first? That would go over like a ten ton wet balloon.

I seriously doubt we or Israel would just automatically nuke the person they THINK nuked them. I know that is what we say but in order for it to be any kind of deterrent that is what you are going to say. But, retaliating in such a case isn't going to accomplish anything but seeking revenge. It would make things worse. Once we use a nuke for ANY reason we no longer hold the moral high ground for not using them to promote your nations interests.

We have already introduced the precedent of attacking countries who haven't attacked you yet. I am not sure we want to break down that barrier too. It's like somebody using a chainsaw to chop up your sister and then you wanting to do the same back to their sister. It's blind rage, not justice. Just think how many people we would kill that were totally innocent and had nothing to do with the attack other than having the misfortune of living in the country in question. How many children? People who are crusading for change in their countries? Maybe the next president who would make peace?

Now suppose there is a tiny chance regardless of how small that you might be nuking the wrong country? I hope we aren't a country that would even consider it.

Henry Kissinger was asked once how we would know when we went too far in our foreign policy. He said when the countries of the world start making military alliances to protect themselves from US. We are already VERY close to this happening. We become the rogue nuclear power we fear if we do that and ALL will fear us.

[Ziggurat]

Well, I have already said I think the chances of getting caught are slim to none. But, I also think this isn't true. Do you really think if the US paraded out a supposed Iran or N. Korean nuke while they are protesting to the top of their lungs we are lying and then lay a nuke on them without getting nuked first? That would go over like a ten ton wet balloon.

If we caught a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the country, the US public would demand action against any suspects. What the rest of the world thinks wouldn't really matter to us. But I doubt there would be much real opposition, at least from foreign governments, and the split would largely be between those countries which back us up (and that's where you find out who your true allies are) and those that just got out of the way.

I seriously doubt we or Israel would just automatically nuke the person they THINK nuked them. I know that is what we say but in order for it to be any kind of deterrent that is what you are going to say. But, retaliating in such a case isn't going to accomplish anything but seeking revenge. It would make things worse. Once we use a nuke for ANY reason we no longer hold the moral high ground for not using them to promote your nations interests.

Deterents only work if they're credible. If a country thinks it can avoid retaliation by doing an attack sureptitiously, then it's likely to do so. We cannot afford that risk, so we have to establish a deterent beforehand. And the ONLY effective deterent in such a situation is the threat of retaliation against ALL suspects in a case such as a terrorist nuclear bomb. Both Iran and North Korea are essentially already our enemies: if a bomb goes off, it's too late to try to keep conflict costs low by not going to war.

But in the case of the US being hit with a nuclear weapon, we wouldn't necessarily need to resort to nuclear weapons. Both Iran and North Korea can be toppled by conventional military force. The US public is not ready to support the cost of doing either right now, but that equation WILL change if we got hit with a nuclear weapon. So we don't really need to "lose" the moral high ground. But if a nuclear weapon has already been used against us, that particular question isn't going to be relevant any more.

That holds even more for Israel, because their very survival would be at stake in such a conflict. When the question becomes survival versus moral standing in the eyes of the world, the answer becomes quite obvious.

We have already introduced the precedent of attacking countries who haven't attacked you yet. I am not sure we want to break down that barrier too. It's like somebody using a chainsaw to chop up your sister and then you wanting to do the same back to their sister. It's blind rage, not justice.

The world doesn't work that way, and even your example doesn't. Nuclear weapons aren't used in conflicts not because they're taboo, but because the countries which have them either don't need to use them against weaker adversaries, or they don't want to risk expanding the scope of a conflict beyond what they know they can handle (mutually assured distruction and all that). And the US didn't actually create any precedent with Iraq in terms of attacking a country which hadn't attacked you. That prohibition protects democracies against each other, and it protects dictators FROM democracies much of the time, but it has NEVER been what protects democracies or even dictators from dictators. Only force, and the threat of force, have ever accomplished that. And the same holds true regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Any notion that peace is maintained through taboos is a dangerous illusion, because it lets you ignore the conditions which actually make peace last.

As for the whole hacking up with chainsaws idea, you've still got the parallel wrong. If somebody hacks up my sister with a chain saw, the question isn't what to do to his sister, it's what to do about HIM. And in that case, hacking him up with a chainsaw might not be "justice", but it sure as hell helps keep him from hacking up more people. Because a person who will start doing something like that won't stop on his own, just as you cannot hope to stop the aggressions of a dictatorship by anything other than force or, if you're lucky, maybe a credible threat of force (though if they've hit you with a nuclear weapon and you don't actually hit back, the threat is no longer credible). It is not refraining from retaliation which breaks the "cycle of violence" (a rather worn out and abused meme), it's victory which does that. And if we ever get hit by a nuclear weapon, we should not tolerate anything less than victory over our enemies.

Now suppose there is a tiny chance regardless of how small that you might be nuking the wrong country? I hope we aren't a country that would even consider it.

The nuclear/non-nuclear retaliation question isn't the important one, the important one is whether or not we strike (for example, a low-yield nuclear bomb targeting a remote military base could have far less collateral damage than a heavy conventional bombing of government targets in a major urban center). And the best strategy is indeed to strike at our enemies, EVEN IF we're not sure they did it. And that's both because that's the only way to create an effective deterent beforehand, and because we're actually QUITE positive that both Iran and North Korea are, in fact, our enemies.

Henry Kissinger was asked once how we would know when we went too far in our foreign policy. He said when the countries of the world start making military alliances to protect themselves from US. We are already VERY close to this happening. We become the rogue nuclear power we fear if we do that and ALL will fear us.

I don't think having our enemies do that qualifies (especially since such alliances already existed when Kissenger would have made any such quotes). And no, we're not even CLOSE to having countries like, say, Spain form an alliance to protect themselves against the US. It's actually quite easy for a country to make itself essentially immune to military action from the US. And despite the wailing and nashing of teeth that's so prevalent in some circles, most people do actually know that. Nobody in Thailand, for example, is worried that the Marines are going to come storming in. Hell, even Chavez, despite his rantings to the contrary, must be aware that we have absolutely zero interest in invading Venezuela, despite his overt hostility to out interests. So no, we're not actually close to that happening in any sense that Kissinger could have meaningfully meant it.

[Vagabond]

We will just have to agree to disagree. We are just differing in our opinions on suppositions so there really isn't anywhere to go from here.

I would say that you have to consider morality at all times. If you give up rights in order to defend rights after the war is over you will turn around and find out the country you were defending isn't a place worth defending anymore.

Israel has become jailers in their attempt to keep from being jailed. If you lose the moral high ground you have already lost regardless of what you do after that. A nukes purpose is to prevent a nuke from being used on you. Once one is used, yours have already failed in their purpose. It serves no purpose to use them after that. Except for as I stated revenge. Which accomplishes nothing.

[Ziggurat]

I would say that you have to consider morality at all times. If you give up rights in order to defend rights after the war is over you will turn around and find out the country you were defending isn't a place worth defending anymore.

Morality has never been absent from my considerations of any of these issues. It is precisely because I think western values are so important that I believe they're worth fighting for, and fighting viciously if necessary.

Israel has become jailers in their attempt to keep from being jailed. If you lose the moral high ground you have already lost regardless of what you do after that.

I'd actually put the problem the other way around. The Israelis got involved in a war with their neighbors, which they were winning. But the whole conflict got frozen by external pressures (such as the UN), which prevented it from playing out and victory becoming obvious to both the winners and losers. The arabs accepted this outcome because they were losing, and it offered them the opportunity to pretend they hadn't really lost. The Israelis accepted it precisely because they wanted to claim the moral high ground, but that position never really mattered in that conflict. And so, because the conflict was frozen, it was never resolved.

A nukes purpose is to prevent a nuke from being used on you. Once one is used, yours have already failed in their purpose. It serves no purpose to use them after that. Except for as I stated revenge. Which accomplishes nothing.

But you're wrong there. Revenge CAN accomplish something: it can keep you from getting hit again by that enemy, and it sends a message to other potential enemies that they risk death by attacking you. That's not nothing at all. If you are attacked and you do NOT exact revenge against your enemies, then you invite more attacks, and that can in the long run cause even more deaths than a quick and strong immediate response. If nuclear weapons have been used against you, you have indeed failed in preventing their use. But it is a mistake to think that such a failure cannot be compounded by an insufficient response, because it can indeed.

[Vagabond]

But you're wrong there. Revenge CAN accomplish something: it can keep you from getting hit again by that enemy, and it sends a message to other potential enemies that they risk death by attacking you. That's not nothing at all. If you are attacked and you do NOT exact revenge against your enemies, then you invite more attacks, and that can in the long run cause even more deaths than a quick and strong immediate response. If nuclear weapons have been used against you, you have indeed failed in preventing their use. But it is a mistake to think that such a failure cannot be compounded by an insufficient response, because it can indeed.


This is the path Israel has been taking. It hasn't made them safer, protected them from any further attacks, nor will it keep them from being the victim of a nuke. If you pursue revenge you often just force the other side into further acts upon you, putting you both into an endless cycle of revenge for which no other options appear likely anymore.

I have had some experience dealing with semi-rational people. They would do things to me expecting a bad reaction because that is what they would do. If I do something to them, it allows them to justify what they have already done and then do something else. If you do nothing, they are usually confused and stop what they were already doing to you.

[gnome]

I believe the best approach may be somewhere in between... a strong defense (including counter-attacks) is necessary... but at least against some enemies it is productive to preserve their dignity in defeat, and offer face-saving ways out of the conflict. Personally, I think the "beat them down so hard they're afraid to strike you again" method is counter productive--any fear effect is overcome by those that become so enraged they fight harder and then teach their kids to hate you too.

[Vagabond]

I believe the best approach may be somewhere in between... a strong defense (including counter-attacks) is necessary... but at least against some enemies it is productive to preserve their dignity in defeat, and offer face-saving ways out of the conflict. Personally, I think the "beat them down so hard they're afraid to strike you again" method is counter productive--any fear effect is overcome by those that become so enraged they fight harder and then teach their kids to hate you too.

The kind of people who would be terrorists aren't going to be deterred by fear regardless of what your reactions are and those who aren't terrorists were already too scared to do anything before you did anything at all to them.

[Ziggurat]

This is the path Israel has been taking. It hasn't made them safer, protected them from any further attacks, nor will it keep them from being the victim of a nuke. If you pursue revenge you often just force the other side into further acts upon you, putting you both into an endless cycle of revenge for which no other options appear likely anymore.

The problem isn't that they have sought revenge, it's that they have NOT sought victory. Wars don't end in peace until one side wins.

I have had some experience dealing with semi-rational people. They would do things to me expecting a bad reaction because that is what they would do. If I do something to them, it allows them to justify what they have already done and then do something else. If you do nothing, they are usually confused and stop what they were already doing to you.

That too is a bad model for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The palestinian terrorists aren't just trying to get a reaction from the Israelis, they're trying to kill them all. Their goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Not reacting won't baffle them, and it sure as hell won't slow them down.

[Vagabond]

The problem isn't that they have sought revenge, it's that they have NOT sought victory. Wars don't end in peace until one side wins.
That too is a bad model for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The palestinian terrorists aren't just trying to get a reaction from the Israelis, they're trying to kill them all. Their goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Not reacting won't baffle them, and it sure as hell won't slow them down.

It's not a war you can gain victory in by force of arms.

Long term you are right, but short term they are seeking violent and harsh reactions from the Israelis so as to sever ties between them and us. Because without using a nuke they can't eliminate Israel as long as we back them. Which is why I am sure they will use a nuke just as soon as they get one.

[Ziggurat]

Long term you are right, but short term they are seeking violent and harsh reactions from the Israelis so as to sever ties between them and us. Because without using a nuke they can't eliminate Israel as long as we back them. Which is why I am sure they will use a nuke just as soon as they get one.

Groups like Hamas almost certainly would. But since they can't make a nuclear weapon themselves, the question is, who would give one to them? The only real candidate, as we've already discussed of course, is the Iranians. You and I have different ideas about how hard it would be for the Iranians to do that secretly and reliably. But even assuming they could do so without risk of getting caught, there's no way around the threat of Israeli nuclear retaliation (and that is what the Isrealis should, and probably would, do in response). Are the Iranians willing to risk that? I'd just as soon never have to find out, but even the religious nutter mullahs tend to be a lot more circumspect when their own lives are on the line then when they're risking the lives of their followers. There's a reason imams don't become suicide bombers.

[Vagabond]

Groups like Hamas almost certainly would. But since they can't make a nuclear weapon themselves, the question is, who would give one to them? The only real candidate, as we've already discussed of course, is the Iranians. You and I have different ideas about how hard it would be for the Iranians to do that secretly and reliably. But even assuming they could do so without risk of getting caught, there's no way around the threat of Israeli nuclear retaliation (and that is what the Isrealis should, and probably would, do in response). Are the Iranians willing to risk that? I'd just as soon never have to find out, but even the religious nutter mullahs tend to be a lot more circumspect when their own lives are on the line then when they're risking the lives of their followers. There's a reason imams don't become suicide bombers.

This is one instance where I certainly hope you are right and I am wrong. But, I am not optimistic relying on religious fanatics to do the right thing. Or even the self serving thing. They have already said they are willing to give up themselves and millions of other muslims to destroy Israel. I have no reason to doubt them.

It has been a pleasure discussing it with you.