Obama hates Israel...

[rgordon83]

Here is an interesting video on why Israel will not go back to 1967 boarders from a military perspective:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0]YouTube - ‪outstanding Explanation: Why Israel mustn't withdraw to its pre '67 borders line - Please Share‬‏[/ame]

 

[Moxie]

What nation is going to allow the shelling of their own citizens for the sake of lessening support of their enemies? Would the US?

No the US wouldn't. They also wouldn't allow themselves to be occupied or blockaded.

Imagine if Mexicans were killing a 100 Americans a year with rockets. Now imagine a partial US takeover of Mexico and a ban on Mexico importing soccer balls and crayons, among other things. Couldn't this actually lead to increases in the number of American deaths by the Mexicans?

In this particular poll only 19% of Israelis were in support of military ground operations.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4]YouTube - ‪CNN Confirms Israel Broke Ceasefire First‬‏[/ame]

 

[nickster]

And which link are you talking about? The source on the site is not a link as far as I can see. Quoted in “The Israel-Arab Reader” ed. Laquer and Rubin. It's a book.

This link that you quoted The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict and the source of it is a clickable link from a group claiming to be "Jews for Justice in the middle east" whose site doesn't even exist.

The true source of information is unbiased news organisations and the history books.

No the US wouldn't. They also wouldn't allow themselves to be occupied or blockaded.

Imagine if Mexicans were killing a 100 Americans a year with rockets. Now imagine a partial US takeover of Mexico and a ban on Mexico importing soccer balls and crayons, among other things. Couldn't this actually lead to increases in the number of American deaths by the Mexicans?

And you think for one second that the US would not wipe it off the map? If not then you are very very naive.

In this particular poll only 19% of Israelis were in support of military ground operations.

No one is saying whether the military ground operations are good or not, but what you fail to quote there is that over 50% agree with air operations (with 9% abstaining from voting), so you can deduce from those numbers that they don't want their soldiers to get injured or killed, but not that they don't want military incursions, so what is your point?

I am not going to argue against your obviously biased positions as I am not in a completely contrary position anyway. I just like to form opinions based on information that is factual and not skewed by rhetoric, racism and conspiracy.

Exactly.... The Jewish state has a military that is at least as good as ours if not better in some areas. Plus they are a tenacious bunch of folks.

What gets me is why the US has such a love and nanny complex for Isreal.

Guess why....money of course, and for the reasons I stated previously.

Here is a article I just found about that exact thing Why America Needs Israel More Than Israel Needs America

 

[Moxie]

And you think for one second that the US would not wipe it off the map? If not then you are very very naive.

They didn't wipe Afghanistan or Iraq off the map and the people there now suppose to have more freedom, not less, right?

No one is saying whether the military ground operations are good or not, but what you fail to quote there is that over 50% agree with air operations (with 9% abstaining from voting), so you can deduce from those numbers that they don't want their soldiers to get injured or killed, but not that they don't want military incursions, so what is your point?

The point is that a US occupation and blockade of Mexico, which changes the life of all Mexicans, would be a completely different scenario than things like air strikes against the people launching the rockets.

I am not going to argue against your obviously biased positions as I am not in a completely contrary position anyway. I just like to form opinions based on information that is factual and not skewed by rhetoric, racism and conspiracy.

I'm pointing out factual concepts that many Israelis also point out. I give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt that he thinks Hamas is much worse than the Israeli government, and I also would to anyone on this board that has pointed out the same things I have.

The CIA has gone public about blowback. There are plenty of statistics showing that attacks tend to go down when occupiers withdraw. Pointing out these things doesn't make one racist or biased.


"79% of the Israelis believe that the best solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the two-state solution, i.e. the establishment of an independent state for the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the state of Israel for the Israelis." - Survey Research Unit


Does this mean that 79% of Israelis are biased against themselves?

 

[nickster]

They didn't wipe Afghanistan or Iraq off the map and the people there now suppose to have more freedom, not less, right?



The point is that a US occupation and blockade of Mexico, which changes the life of all Mexicans, would be a completely different scenario than things like air strikes against the people launching the rockets.



I'm pointing out factual concepts that many Israelis also point out. I give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt that he thinks Hamas is much worse than the Israeli government, and I also would to anyone on this board that has pointed out the same things I have.

The CIA has gone public about blowback. There are plenty of statistics showing that attacks tend to go down when occupiers withdraw. Pointing out these things doesn't make one racist or biased.


"79% of the Israelis believe that the best solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the two-state solution, i.e. the establishment of an independent state for the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the state of Israel for the Israelis." - Survey Research Unit


Does this mean that 79% of Israelis are biased against themselves?

Firstly the US attacked and caused the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqi civilians ILLEGALLY all because of a few thousand US civilian deaths (it was clearly not about any WMDs it was about 9/11) as well as countless more Afghani civilians. So your comparison is idiotic and highly naive to say the least. Ask the families of the dead in Iraq if they are happy about their new found "freedom" as well as the countless people still getting killed daily after the war was supposedly "won" but in reality a highly unstable region.

If someone bombs the US homeland they are going to get wiped out, ask Saddam Hussein and ask Bin Laden. And if a country harbors them they are going to get fucked up too. The Israeli incursions and bombings are about getting the terrorists (the actual ones) that attacked them. If they are being protected by people those people are going to get fucked up too. Is it right? Don't know, but it is surely right for the US to do the same.

The fact that 79% of Israelis want a two state solution is great, but it is not what is being debated. Ask the same 79% if they were willing to give back land to the pre-1967 borders you will see a very different response. A two state solution would be a brilliant outcome, but at the moment there is no way Hamas will allow this.

 

[Moxie]

Firstly the US attacked and caused the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqi civilians ILLEGALLY all because of a few thousand US civilian deaths (it was clearly not about any WMDs it was about 9/11) as well as countless more Afghani civilians. So your comparison is idiotic and highly naive to say the least. Ask the families of the dead in Iraq if they are happy about their new found "freedom" as well as the countless people still getting killed daily after the war was supposedly "won" but in reality a highly unstable region.

There were meetings about invading Iraq before 9/11. By "ILLEGALLY", do you mean in the eyes of the United Nations? They've said the same for actions by Israel.

Yes, civilians have been killed by the US military. One of my points, which I thought was obvious, was that the US is now helping Iraq and Afghanistan to build things like schools, hospitals and bridges. You don't do this when you are trying to "wipe them off the map" and is rather different than the way Israel treats areas that they occupy.

The fact that 79% of Israelis want a two state solution is great, but it is not what is being debated. Ask the same 79% if they were willing to give back land to the pre-1967 borders you will see a very different response. A two state solution would be a brilliant outcome, but at the moment there is no way Hamas will allow this.

Jokerr had mentioned the occupation and then you said something about it being the only way for them to respond. Where the lines are drawn on a map and whether or not Palestine will be occupied within those lines are different topics.


Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is far from a hippie and was a commander in the Army. Even he has said :

"to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians"

Sharon: 'Occupation' terrible for Israel, Palestinians - CNN



As for the borders, only 27% of Israelis said they would reject a withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

Poll Shows Most Israelis Want Peace but Doubt It's Possible

As Congress And Netanyahu Line Up Against 1967 Borders, Most Israelis And Palestinians Support Them

 

[nickster]

I think your ideas about US foreign policy are naive to say the least and there is no point in debating with someone who has such an insular view of the subject other than to say that you need to get out a bit and talk to people from other walks of life and also accept that your press are not feeding you the whole truth.

As for the borders, only 27% of Israelis said they would reject a withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

Poll Shows Most Israelis Want Peace but Doubt It's Possible

The numbers in that article also say that 40% are in favor of withdrawal to 1967 borders (with modifications) so you can see that the 27% number doesn't imply that 73% are in favor of it.

I 100% agree that the majority of people in the region want peace and a two state solution, but you also have to remember that a big part of that includes "Zionists" the "evil new breed of Jews" who only want to kill and steal peoples land.

Also if you take an example of several major US wars (and UK wars) it matters very little what the public consensus is anyway when it comes to military decisions.

What happened when Israel gave back the Gaza strip to try to advance the peace process? (by the way 60% of Israelis agreed with the withdrawal and in 2005 it Israel withdrew). Then guess what happened....they started a bombing campaign from Gaza almost immediately and Hamas came into power, so ceding land definitely wont reduce Hamas's popularity in the region, in fact quite the opposite.

There will be no peace with Hamas in control and intent on killing Israelis. If they stop bombing, renounce violence and recognize Israel then a two state solution may be able to be worked out. But until then I don't think it is possible. Remember that they were voted in by the people.

I agree that Israel needs to give back land, but not at the expense of their civilian lives. I also agree that increased settlements need to stop altogether, but that is whole other story.

 

[Moxie]

I think your ideas about US foreign policy are naive to say the least and there is no point in debating with someone who has such an insular view of the subject other than to say that you need to get out a bit and talk to people from other walks of life and also accept that your press are not feeding you the whole truth.

Hahaha. I opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is not relevant to the points I was trying to make.

I know a Major in the Army and a few others who have worked alongside people in those countries. I may also have written books on the subject for all you know. None of that on it's own automatically makes anything I've typed correct. But also, if I'm a 14 year old with a low IQ that doesn't prove I'm incorrect on anything.

What happened when Israel gave back the Gaza strip to try to advance the peace process? (by the way 60% of Israelis agreed with the withdrawal and in 2005 it Israel withdrew). Then guess what happened....they started a bombing campaign from Gaza almost immediately and Hamas came into power, so ceding land definitely wont reduce Hamas's popularity in the region, in fact quite the opposite.

By "bombing campaign" you mean an average of 1 rocket every 4 days that luckily didn't kill any Israelis. This was in the months after the withdrawal leading up to the elections where Hamas won.

Israel responded to Hamas getting in control by imposing economic sanctions and a blockade.

There will be no peace with Hamas in control and intent on killing Israelis. If they stop bombing, renounce violence and recognize Israel then a two state solution may be able to be worked out. But until then I don't think it is possible. Remember that they were voted in by the people.

Hamas was able to go at least a few months without killing anyone during the last ceasefire before Israel did again.

I agree that Israel needs to give back land, but not at the expense of their civilian lives. I also agree that increased settlements need to stop altogether, but that is whole other story.

I haven't given a personal opinion on land being given back. My main point had to do with how things like occupations and blockades can make the people they are being done to more likely to try to kill your own people.


Israel's Gaza Blockade Baffles Both Sides - CBS News

WikiLeaks: Israel aimed to keep Gaza economy on brink of collapse

Cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv says Israeli officials wanted Gaza's economy 'functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.'


The excuse for this would be that Israel needs to do this to protect themselves, yet I don't see how it wouldn't instead make Palestinians more likely to want to launch attacks.

 

[sixthcutuan]

I agree with the guy above. From my (not very knowledgeable admittedly) view, the Israeli's seem to be the main aggressors. In fact I think if you take away the support of the west from Israel, it comes down to dodgy dealing and arms dealing. Practically verging on Libya. My view? (Not that anyone cares) Impose more political pressure on Israel. If an area wants to be free, why can't it? If Scotland wanted to become independent and a referendum was passed, it would become independent with no wars or violence. A government should be there as representatives of the people, not controlling the people.

EDIT: One of my dad's friends, a journalist, was kidnapped by the Israeli's in Italy (Police arn't great at finding kidnapped people there) and was taken back to Israel, kept under house arrest for a few years until the information he had found out about became irrelevant and was dumped back in Italy. Of course he can't prove it was the Israeli's because he doesn't have video or picture evidence but he saw with his own eyes it was. Sounds unlikely I know, for some reason the US newspapers didn't want to print that he said it was the Israeli's, can't think why.

 

[nickster]

Your point was that withdrawal would reduce the support for Hamas and I showed you that it actually had the opposite effect.

The fact that Hamas fired 1 rocket or 100s of rockets (which is what actually happened) after the withdrawal doesn't matter, it only shows that their willingness for them to move towards peace is nil. The fact that lives (on both sides) were lost and continued to be lost as a result of the withdrawal shows that it clearly was not a step toward peace and what the result would be if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders i.e. more bloodshed and no closer to peace.

 

[Moxie]

Your point was that withdrawal would reduce the support for Hamas and I showed you that it actually had the opposite effect.

Elections hadn't been held for years. Hamas would have likely won by more if the withdrawal had not happened.

Why Did Hamas Win Palestinian Poll? - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2011


An occupation under international law doesn't actually require troops on the ground. After the withdrawal Gaza was still considered occupied because of the control of their ports, airspace, electricity, etc.

The fact that Hamas fired 1 rocket or 100s of rockets (which is what actually happened) after the withdrawal doesn't matter, it only shows that their willingness for them to move towards peace is nil.

How did rocket attacks go to near nil during the ceasefire?

Also, Hamas is just one of the groups that launches rockets. Some of the other groups are even more radical.

Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that lives (on both sides) were lost and continued to be lost as a result of the withdrawal shows that it clearly was not a step toward peace and what the result would be if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders i.e. more bloodshed and no closer to peace.

What attack would not withdrawing have prevented from happening and how? How was the ceasefire able to happen after the withdrawal?

 

[nickster]

We are having a circular discussion. It doesn't matter how many rockets or who launched them, the fact of the matter is that they were launched at all shows the intent to move towards peace and also what would more likely happen if they cede more significant land. The reason few Israelis were killed was not for lack of trying, but for the fact that they couldn't reach populous areas. That would be entirely different if they moved back to 1967 borders, which is one of the main reasons they don't want to.

I just don't understand how you can't understand that if you want peace you don't throw rockets into another country and certainly don't vote for a group that has a firm commitment to not have peace with Israel and continue bombing until Israel ceases to exist. Don't believe me then read their charter Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is not some small breakaway group, this is now a political party in power.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think a withdrawal with Hamas still in control wont lead to much more bloodshed, especially on the Palestinian side. Don't forget that Hamas launch rockets from populace areas and even schools so that the retaliation will end up with killed women and children so that they can get support from people like you. It's a PR move that seems to have worked beautifully for them.

I just don't see the logic in your thought process or argument. You have one side that have stated on many occasion that they want peace and a two state solution (whether it's true or not is debatable, but they still say it), and the other side who never want peace and certainly not a two state solution and they have said this and it is written clearly in their own charter. I am not in support of either side, but I can 100% see why Israel would be mad to move back to the 1967 border and that it would not bring about peace when the other side doesn't want peace at all, until their enemy is annihilated.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

We should just give Jews Newfoundland, Canada. Us Canadians are pretty nice folk, so if they ask politely enough, we'll probably give it to them for free. Then instead of living right, smack dab in the center of the Middle East, they could hang out in Newfoundland, do some fishing, drinks some beers, and enjoy life. Perfect!

 

[con.mic]

I just don't see the logic in your thought process or argument. You have one side that have stated on many occasion that they want peace and a two state solution (whether it's true or not is debatable, but they still say it), and the other side who never want peace and certainly not a two state solution and they have said this and it is written clearly in their own charter. I am not in support of either side, but I can 100% see why Israel would be mad to move back to the 1967 border and that it would not bring about peace when the other side doesn't want peace at all, until their enemy is annihilated.

No offence, but you have no idea what you are talking about here. Israel saying it wants peace is a ploy to avoid actually doing anything about it. The current Israelli government is run by right-wingers and it only wants one thing, greater Israel. Even though they say they want peace, the conditions they put forth for it are so extreme that Palestinians have to reject them. If you really want to understand what is really happening between Israel, Paletsine, Obama and the Israelli lobby i suggest the following: These are all the articles related to Israel from Havard Preofessor on Inter Relations Steve Walt. He is an expert on the subject Israel/Palestine | Stephen M. Walt

 

[nickster]

No offence, but you have no idea what you are talking about here. Israel saying it wants peace is a ploy to avoid actually doing anything about it. The current Israelli government is run by right-wingers and it only wants one thing, greater Israel. Even though they say they want peace, the conditions they put forth for it are so extreme that Palestinians have to reject them. If you really want to understand what is really happening between Israel, Paletsine, Obama and the Israelli lobby i suggest the following: These are all the articles related to Israel from Havard Preofessor on Inter Relations Steve Walt. He is an expert on the subject Israel/Palestine | Stephen M. Walt

Quoting an academic who clearly takes one sides position over the other is totally pointless as I could probably site hundreds of academics on either side of the argument as well. Read here The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia regarding his book. Nice to see one of the supporters of the book is none other than Osama Bin Laden.

If you read what I wrote regarding Israel's desire for peace "whether it's true or not is debatable, but they still say it". My point being one side is at least saying they are willing to work towards peace the other has in it's own charter that they will never except peace or a two state solution and only want the destruction of Israel.

If the Israeli people want a two state solution (as most polls and also most people have indicated here) then their desires will be reflected in the government they elect. If the "Palestinians" want the same then they will do the same. It may take some time, but in the current status quo there is no chance for peace as one side definitely doesn't want it (as they have said it), which makes what Israel wants or doesn't want a moot point.

I concede many points made that are clearly not pro-Israel so my position is neither pro nor anti (but I am definitely anti-Hamas and anyone who uses women and children as shields for PR purposes), all I would like to see is peace as this issue effects us all, but I also clearly see that the anti-Israel crowd don't concede anything and Israel is always 100% to blame for everything that happens, so much so that their intelligent points get lost in the rhetoric. No point in debating with people who refuse to see anything but their own position no matter what facts are put before them.

It is just a case of having to agree to disagree because quite clearly the facts on both sides are obscured by who is telling the story.

 

[con.mic]

Quoting an academic who clearly takes one sides position over the other is totally pointless as I could probably site hundreds of academics on either side of the argument as well. Read here The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia regarding his book. Nice to see one of the supporters of the book is none other than Osama Bin Laden.

Yes I have read it and about such a contentious issue there is indeed a lot of argument. You should try reading what he has to say and decide for yourself what you think is true. Wow, you read that Osama Bin Laden mentioned it once in some rant against Jews, so what?

Please don't try to smear something if you won't bother to read it. There is a reason Steve Walt is a writer at foreign policy magazine and a prominent international relations scholar. He knows that he is talking about.

If you read what I wrote regarding Israel's desire for peace "whether it's true or not is debatable, but they still say it". My point being one side is at least saying they are willing to work towards peace the other has in it's own charter that they will never except peace or a two state solution and only want the destruction of Israel.

Israel says it wants peace but at the same time works as hard as possible to avoid it at all costs. What do we normally call someone who says one thing to your face and does another?

Hamas are bastards playing on peoples fears, however they have shown they are willing to negotiate. Fatah once said it would destroy Israel and Israel said it would never negotiate with them, however times change and organisations progress. Fatah does not say that anymore. Charters change..

If the Israeli people want a two state solution (as most polls and also most people have indicated here) then their desires will be reflected in the government they elect. If the "Palestinians" want the same then they will do the same. It may take some time, but in the current status quo there is no chance for peace as one side definitely doesn't want it (as they have said it), which makes what Israel wants or doesn't want a moot point.

I'm sure the Israeli people want what everyone wants, peace. However, people are easily frightened and they can be lead in the wrong direction. Governments have always used fears to cloud the real issue. The Israeli election was about security and the political parties currently in power successful played on those fears.

The Palestinians are trapped in a monumentally worse situation, no prospects and a corrupt ruling party, whether it be Hamas or Fatah. They can't do anything.

I concede many points made that are clearly not pro-Israel so my position is neither pro nor anti (but I am definitely anti-Hamas and anyone who uses women and children as shields for PR purposes), all I would like to see is peace as this issue effects us all, but I also clearly see that the anti-Israel crowd don't concede anything and Israel is always 100% to blame for everything that happens, so much so that their intelligent points get lost in the rhetoric. No point in debating with people who refuse to see anything but their own position no matter what facts are put before them.

Actually until about a year or so ago I was quite pro-Israel. I thought, yes they have a right to defend themselves. Hell I even read Ariel Sharon's Bio and I found it quite convincing.

However, once I started learning more about the whole situation there I found it much more fucked up than I ever imagined. The fact is that Israel is getting more and more right-wing, now it is controlled by a coalition of right-wing parties. If you don't believe me, check the profiles and beliefs of the parties who currently make up the Israel government. They don't want peace, just Greater Israel.

It is just a case of having to agree to disagree because quite clearly the facts on both sides are obscured by who is telling the story.

You are right there. Honestly, i don't blame you. It is a fucked up situation..

 

[r_duke71]

As Israel's continued existence as a "Jewish State" relies upon maintenance of a Jewish demographic majority, Israeli demographers, politicians and bureaucrats have treated Jewish population growth promotion as a central question in their research and policymaking. Non-Jewish population growth and immigration is regarded as a threat to the Jewish demographic majority and to Israel's security, as detailed in the Koenig Memorandum.

There's a simple and democratic solution:

Combine Israel, Gaza and the West Bank into one and then hold free and fair elections.

Muslims: 5.3 million
Jews: 5.6 million

Let them fuck it out.

 

[Moxie]

It doesn't matter how many rockets or who launched them,

Then you're still not understanding my point. The removal of things like occupations and blockades will not totally eliminate violence, but it would lower it.

Cutting off people's electricity makes them angry. Angry people are more likely to take violent action or support the violent action of others. If we turn everyone's power off in Texas for a month and then we turn it back on, this isn't going to eliminate all anger and violence in Texas, but it will lower anger levels.

The reason few Israelis were killed was not for lack of trying, but for the fact that they couldn't reach populous areas.

They have plenty of human targets and buildings within range.

I just don't understand how you can't understand that if you want peace you don't throw rockets into another country and certainly don't vote for a group that has a firm commitment to not have peace with Israel and continue bombing until Israel ceases to exist. Don't believe me then read their charter Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that link :

"As for the current status of the charter, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal indicated to Robert Pastor, senior adviser to the Carter Center, that it is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."[73] British diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006".[74]

Also :
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto | World news | The Guardian

I think you are kidding yourself if you think a withdrawal with Hamas still in control wont lead to much more bloodshed, especially on the Palestinian side.

How was the ceasefire able to happen, despite a blockade going on and with Hamas in power?

I just don't see the logic in your thought process or argument. You have one side that have stated on many occasion that they want peace and a two state solution (whether it's true or not is debatable, but they still say it), and the other side who never want peace and certainly not a two state solution and they have said this and it is written clearly in their own charter.

He noted that Hamas had entered into cease-fires with Israel in the past and that it was ready to do so in the future. There is one in effect right now. But his broad principle, he said, was this: “If occupation ends, resistance ends. If Israel stops firing, we stop firing.”

Hamas Leader Calls for Two-State Solution, but Refuses to Renounce Violence



As for my logic or though process. Maybe this will help you understand :

Ending Suicide Terrorism - by Ron Paul

I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism...

Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists...

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al-Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed...

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

 

[babylonian]

Going back to 1967 borders would pretty much be the end of Israel, but following the sources posted in this thread, it seems time is ticking away for Israel anyway, if some rather big changes are made.

Everyone is quoting everyone here, but one simple fact stays. Words are just words. Israel doesn't believe what Hamas said, and Hamas doesn't believe what Israel government says for one good reason. All the words were broken down in the past million times over, and the real intent is visible as a bright day light, and this is true for both sides. So, no matter if Hamas takes something out from the manifest, or Israel declares something, it's just a game of masking and temporary political benefits.

Btw, why Ron Paul is not a president yet?? The dude is Einstein for all these other fuckers that ruled the country in the past 20 years!

 

[r_duke71]

Btw, why Ron Paul is not a president yet?? The dude is Einstein for all these other fuckers that ruled the country in the past 20 years!

The Federal Reserve and Fortune 500 would never let that happen.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFDCIfUA9ZE]YouTube - ‪Even Ralph Nader knows Obama is a Phony.‬‏[/ame]