Israelis have killed Saruman?

[Richard Hawkes]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1695470.stm
I thought he was under house arrest in his tower guarded by the Ents.
[ March 22, 2004: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

no, he persuaded them in a soft voice that he was now harmless.
Of course history has shown that he was far from harmless, in fact one of the most evil people alive until finally he was destroyed.

[Mark Fletcher]

I was thinking the same thing last night!
"Hey so they killed Saruman... is that necessarily a bad thing?"

[Joe King]

Israel has made a bit of a mistake with this one. Although it seems to me like the guy was a strong influence on the terrorists, killing him will only make the situation worse. If the Israelis had evidence that he was encouraging terrorism then arresting him would have been a far better thing to do - now they have made him a martyr. I totally understand that Israel feels threatened and wants to do something about the attack, but surely locking up the guy and giving him a trial (of sorts) would have been better than assassinating him.
IMHO, the situation in Israel is far more important as a focus of the war on terrorism than Iraq - until semi-peace can be negotiated between the two sides there the Islamic terrorist groups can use Israel as an excuse for recruiting people and can continue to vilify Israel's one ally, the US. Unfortunately this is one situation that is going to be almost impossible to solve - both sides seem to be totally unwilling to negotiate in a peaceful manor (although I think the larger proportion of the blame lies with the Palestinian authority for not stopping Hamas). For proper negotiation to occur, the Palestinian terrorists have got to stop blowing up buses full of people, and the Israelis have got to pull settlers and fences out of the West Bank. It doesn't seem like either of these are going to happen. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised about this - for most of recorded human history the middle east has been a virtual blood bath of competing cultures.
Maybe the answer is a UN task force sitting in the middle of the two sides (similar to in Cyprus). This is unlikely to happen as the Israelis would ask the US to veto the idea, and besides, which country would want to send troops into an area as volatile as that? Israel would make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Joe, have you ever looked at a map of Israel?
Establishing a UN patrolled safety zone in the country would mean the entire country becomes a UN patrolled safety zone, it's that small.
And that's precisely the reason the Israelis are so agressively defensive. For them there is no big wide ocean as a buffer to foreign invasion, there is no defense in depth where you can trade ground for time until you can strike back.
If an enemy invades he's in the heart of the country within minutes, if he's not stopped at the border (or better yet before even getting to the border) he has almost won already.
And don't think a settlement with Hamas and the PLO is possible. Both will stop at nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel and the eredication of all Jewish people living there (and even then they may not stop but expand their campaign to conquer the rest of the Middle East and exterminate Jews elsewhere).
The destruction of Israel is still the primary charter of the PLO, and the executed Hamas leader constantly reiterated that it was the primary goal for Hamas as well.
With people like that there can be no talking. Talk was tried and gave the PLO over a third of Israel to rule in exchange for promises of ending the terrorist campaign against Israel.
Instead of doing that they increased the violence, sensing victory.
Such is the terrorist mind, give them something and instead of being content they'll see it as a sign of weakness on your end and only start pushing ever harder for even more.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
no, he persuaded them in a soft voice that he was now harmless.
Of course history has shown that he was far from harmless, in fact one of the most evil people alive until finally he was destroyed.

By cutting that part out of the end of the movie they made the end very boring indeed.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Maybe the answer is a UN task force sitting in the middle of the two sides (similar to in Cyprus). This is unlikely to happen as the Israelis would ask the US to veto the idea, and besides, which country would want to send troops into an area as volatile as that? Israel would make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

UN observers will never be an acceptable situation. Israel does not trust the UN (with good reason) and the UN cannot enter the area without Israel's approval, which they will never get. We don't even have to wield our veto simply because the Israelies will never agree to accept the UN again. This article explains some of the reasons this is the case. The only nation that might credibly be able to send troops is the US, and I don't think that's about to happen any time soon. Any UN military mission here would, like just about every other "peacekeeping" mission the UN has undertaken, turn out to be a disaster.
Speaking of Yassin, here's an article from a Canadian newspaper explaining how this action was probably in Israel's best interests.

[Phil Chuang]

Heh, I find it [morbidly] funny whenever people say, "Oh Israel just did xxxx, now it's going to be much worse for them."
Pretty much all of the Arab world is calling for their total destruction. Apart from open war (like 40 years ago), how can it get any worse? Is Hamas going to pledge to not only eradicate them, but go back in time and kill Moses? What can Hamas, Al Aqsa, etc do that is worse than their already established goal of total genocide?
I also find it offensive that the US has not given the Israelis full backing (at least in print) of their actions. I'll bet the gov't has provided assurances on the sly of our tacit support, but choose to keep it off the presses to save face.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Phil Chuang:
Heh, I find it [morbidly] funny whenever people say, "Oh Israel just did xxxx, now it's going to be much worse for them."
Pretty much all of the Arab world is calling for their total destruction. Apart from open war (like 40 years ago), how can it get any worse? Is Hamas going to pledge to not only eradicate them, but go back in time and kill Moses? What can Hamas, Al Aqsa, etc do that is worse than their already established goal of total genocide?
I also find it offensive that the US has not given the Israelis full backing (at least in print) of their actions. I'll bet the gov't has provided assurances on the sly of our tacit support, but choose to keep it off the presses to save face.

Well their ability to inflict destruction is more or less dependent on the number of recruits willing to commit suicide bombings. It will probably be the case that after this there will be more recruits, but who knows what the long term effect will be.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Seems to me the current PM ( Sharone IIRC ) has stepped up the pressure/violence against the Palestinians. He's only been at it a short time, a couple years. If his tactic works, will other states follow his lead in their efforts to combat insurgents?
Would the Brits fire missles at targets in Northern Ireland?
Would Spain try these tactics against ETA?

[Richard Hawkes]

Why use missiles? Surely they could've tried to use wheel clamps first, or maybe just shoot his tyres out? By restricting his movements the Ents could've kept a closer watch on his activities.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Why use missiles? Surely they could've tried to use wheel clamps first

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

Well their ability to inflict destruction is more or less dependent on the number of recruits willing to commit suicide bombings. It will probably be the case that after this there will be more recruits, but who knows what the long term effect will be.

Less people means less potential recruits...
Kids in PLO schools are tutored in their corrupted version of history and justice, they're indoctrinated from age 4 or so to believe that Israel is a great evil and that becoming a suicide bomber and killing Jews will make them famous.
The cash rewards offered to families as payment for providing "martyrs" help as well of course in an economy where there is no production at all except weapons and violence.
The typical suicide bomber today is NOT motivated to his deeds by anger about current events, but rather by being completely brainwashed to believe in the religious significance of his deeds from an early age.
It's pretty much like the HitlerJugend who were indoctrinated to extreme deference to the Fuehrer and Nazi ideals, and to believe that to give their lifes for those would bring great honour to their families.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Less people means less potential recruits...
Kids in PLO schools are tutored in their corrupted version of history and justice, they're indoctrinated from age 4 or so to believe that Israel is a great evil and that becoming a suicide bomber and killing Jews will make them famous.
The cash rewards offered to families as payment for providing "martyrs" help as well of course in an economy where there is no production at all except weapons and violence.
The typical suicide bomber today is NOT motivated to his deeds by anger about current events, but rather by being completely brainwashed to believe in the religious significance of his deeds from an early age.
It's pretty much like the HitlerJugend who were indoctrinated to extreme deference to the Fuehrer and Nazi ideals, and to believe that to give their lifes for those would bring great honour to their families.

Of course you are incorrect. Most people don't become suicide bombers just because they are told to. It usually requires some spark to trigger it all and cause the people to look for something else, like the teachings of the terrorists.

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

Well their ability to inflict destruction is more or less dependent on the number of recruits willing to commit suicide bombings. It will probably be the case that after this there will be more recruits, but who knows what the long term effect will be.

Tim, there seemed to be plenty of recruits for suicide bombings soon after the breakdown of the Camp David talks (remember Barak? Clinton?). I'm afraid that Sharon is correct in at least one respect: That wall he's building is a far better security measure (for limiting suicide bombings) than agreement with the Palestinian authorities could be. Agreement with Yasser Arafat is hard enough, but it has to be agreement with Hamas and every other group doing this shit. And the agreement of any splinter group which might fission off afterward. Not to mention the fact that Yasser changes his mind a lot (see Oslo).
I'm not sure whether the killing of the Hamas leader was wise, but he doesn't seem to have been a darling either.

[Tim Baker]

Never said he was
As far as I'm concerned he was a terrorist and killing him is fine by me, but it seems clear to me that in the short term it will definately lead to more problems, most of the Israeli government admits as much.
A wall is also fine by me, but I do think they should build it rigidly along the proper border and withdraw the illegal settlements.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
but rather by being completely brainwashed to believe in the religious significance of his deeds from an early age.

You are talking about Israel or Palestine ??

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
You are talking about Israel or Palestine ??

I'm talking about the PLO controlled territories.
There is no country called Palestine and I hope there never will be as that would mean the terrorists have succeeded in destroying Israel.

[Phil Chuang]

Stephen Den Beste points out in a blog article that the assassination of Yassin, coupled with the completion of the wall, could be the catalyst for internal palestinian change. With a big figurehead gone, and the inability to strike at Israel, palestine will erupt in a brutal civil war. Which works in a lot of ways - they'll be too busy attacking each other rather than Israel, the rest of the world will see what bloodthirsty raving lunatics they are, and hopefully they'll sort some things out and be able to provide a united front to deal with. Also, if the UN asks outsiders for help, who would they ask? The US? We'd kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. The UN would never ask Israel (OH THE IRONY) but they would do the same thing. They could try asking the Arab world, but the Arab world has never been interested in helping out Palestine, except with words and cash bounties for every Israeli/American killed. I'm hoping that this is the start of the facade coming down, so that everybody can see the situation for what it really is, rather than believe the outright lies told by biased parties.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Phil Chuang:
Stephen Den Beste points out in a blog article that the assassination of Yassin, coupled with the completion of the wall, could be the catalyst for internal palestinian change. With a big figurehead gone, and the inability to strike at Israel, palestine will erupt in a brutal civil war. Which works in a lot of ways - they'll be too busy attacking each other rather than Israel, the rest of the world will see what bloodthirsty raving lunatics they are, and hopefully they'll sort some things out and be able to provide a united front to deal with. Also, if the UN asks outsiders for help, who would they ask? The US? We'd kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. The UN would never ask Israel (OH THE IRONY) but they would do the same thing. They could try asking the Arab world, but the Arab world has never been interested in helping out Palestine, except with words and cash bounties for every Israeli/American killed. I'm hoping that this is the start of the facade coming down, so that everybody can see the situation for what it really is, rather than believe the outright lies told by biased parties.

Now that is a deeply objectionable and probably racist post.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Now that is a deeply objectionable and probably racist post.

"Palestinean" is not a race so therefore it is not racist, although I agree that a blanket statement painting all Palestineans as raving lunatics seems objectionable.

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

Now that is a deeply objectionable and probably racist post.

How so? Did you actually follow the link and read the blog entry, or was that a chip shot comment?
Den Beste is a serious blogger and I visit his site when I have time. I hope he's wrong about the Palestinian civil war, but some of his comments ring true to me. Especially the insight that Palestine doesn't really have a government but more like several rival gangs.
Ask yourself this question: Can Yasser Arafat make peace with Israel and be able to enforce the decision effectively. If no, why not?
The Irish Patriot Michael Collins faced a similar situation in 1923 when modern Ireland was formed and he was faced with either observing the peace treaty and causing a civil war with the true believer republicans or breaking the treaty with the UK and losing Ireland's independence again. Despite knowing the decision would probably cause his death and besmirch his reputation Collins made the decision to live up to the treaty - the correct decision I believe. Yasser Arafat has chosen the opposite course of action.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:

How so? Did you actually follow the link and read the blog entry, or was that a chip shot comment?
Den Beste is a serious blogger and I visit his site when I have time. I hope he's wrong about the Palestinian civil war, but some of his comments ring true to me. Especially the insight that Palestine doesn't really have a government but more like several rival gangs.
Ask yourself this question: Can Yasser Arafat make peace with Israel and be able to enforce the decision effectively. If no, why not?
The Irish Patriot Michael Collins faced a similar situation in 1923 when modern Ireland was formed and he was faced with either observing the peace treaty and causing a civil war with the true believer republicans or breaking the treaty with the UK and losing Ireland's independence again. Despite knowing the decision would probably cause his death and besmirch his reputation Collins made the decision to live up to the treaty - the correct decision I believe. Yasser Arafat has chosen the opposite course of action.

I was referring to your post, not the link, I haven't read the link because I find no interest in it. I presume you are paraphrasing what he said, I don't know if it is accurate or not. But regardless my comment about that post stands.

[Don Stadler]

I was referring to your post, not the link, I haven't read the link because I find no interest in it. I presume you are paraphrasing what he said, I don't know if it is accurate or not. But regardless my comment about that post stands.

Actually you weren't referring to my post because I didn't make the post, Phil Chuang did. As I indicated previously I don't even agree with Den Beste on some of his ideas. But he is a serious analyst and no racist.
I suggest that you do your research before accusing people of racism in future.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: Don Stadler ]

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:

Actually you weren't referring to my post because I didn't make the post, Phil Chuang did. As I indicated previously I don't even agree with Den Beste on some of his ideas. But he is a serious analyst and no racist.
I suggest that you do your research before accusing people of racism in future.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: Don Stadler ]

Fine it was someone else, whatever, the post is still racist.

[Don Stadler]

The only thing remotely objectionable was the characterization of Palestinians as 'raving lunatics'. I believe that many or most Palestinians are in the grip of forces they cannot do anything about but must merely endure. Those forces including Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad in addition to the Israeli defense forces.
BTW, Den Beste doesn't call the Palestinians raving lunatics as Tim would understand if he bothered to read rather than simply react. Phil overreached in one sentence so his entire thesis could be simply disregarded.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Fine it was someone else, whatever, the post is still racist.

Fine nothing. You falsely accused the man of being a racist without even bothering to pay attention to who said what, and then don't even bother to apologize. Never mind the fact that what you objected to wasn't even a racist statement. You repeating it over and over again doesn't make it so.
One more time and slowly... "Palestinian" is not a race. The statement may be insulting or anything else you want to call it ("anti-Palestinian" would be my choice), but what it is not is racist. It is not any more racist than a statement such as "all Americans are raving lunatics". "Palestinians" are in fact predominantly of Arab stock, and the statement you object to is not anti-Arab.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
There is no country called Palestine

What was Israel called before it was occupied jews/Gachal and declared an Independent state by UN ??

[Yuriy Grechukhin]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

What was Israel called before it was occupied jews/Gachal and declared an Independent state by UN ??

For CIA Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html):

Following World War II, the British withdrew from their mandate of Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states, an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. Subsequently, the Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions between the two sides.

[Phil Chuang]

Ok ok ok, raving lunatics comment aside, can anyone disagree with the fact that a seemingly vast majority of Palestinians citizens (as least as represented by the media and by their leaders' own words) are hell-bent on Israeli genocide? You can call me racist all day long, and I've got the thick skin for it, but what if I was correct in my overall statement that Palestinians appear to be (image 1) (image 2)-(image 3)-(image 4)-(image 5) (image 6) (image 7)?
[Edited by moderator. Let's try to play nice please. --JM]
Oh, and would it be racist of me to call the Palestinians racist?
Now, I'm sure that there are some moderate Palestinians out there. But then again, you never see, read, or hear anything about them. You hear about "moderate muslims" at least, those who want to just live their lives and not kill the infidels, but I have never seen anything about a moderate Palestinian.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

I've met moderate Palestinians, albeit in an academic setting, so I believe your characterization is not only unfair but inaccurate. While I do hold the Palestinian populace at large responsible for allowing the continued terrorism, I don't think anyone can deny that they don't have good reason to be angry, just as the Israelis do. While they do have just greivances imho, as long as they continue to use the tactics they are using (targetting civillians, particularly women and children), I do not feel that their cause can be legitimized. This doesn't mean the Israelis are blameless since although their actual targets are generally legitimate, they do have a habit of causing too much collateral damage. I do see a strong distinction in the intended targets of each side however, so until that changes (along with their goals of the destruction of Israel at worst, and the right-of-return at best), I cannot bring myself to support their cause.
I think Israel's new plan of total disengagement is about the best thing that could be done right now, and I don't see how they can be blamed for going that route. It was also probably a pretty smart move to take out Yassin prior to their withdrawal from Gaza so that the Palestinians do not get the wrong signal, which would only increase terrorism just as it did when Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

[Phil Chuang]

Heh, I figured that post might be a bit too over the top. I guess the point I was making was that all the world sees is over-the-top palestinianism. Not all Palestinians have the same "degree of fervency" but lunatic (fringe?) seems to be what the world's media focuses on. What amazes me even more, is that very few people think there's anything wrong with that.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Fine nothing. You falsely accused the man of being a racist without even bothering to pay attention to who said what, and then don't even bother to apologize. Never mind the fact that what you objected to wasn't even a racist statement. You repeating it over and over again doesn't make it so.
One more time and slowly... "Palestinian" is not a race. The statement may be insulting or anything else you want to call it ("anti-Palestinian" would be my choice), but what it is not is racist. It is not any more racist than a statement such as "all Americans are raving lunatics". "Palestinians" are in fact predominantly of Arab stock, and the statement you object to is not anti-Arab.

So I didn't read the posters name, who cares, I don't. If you care, it's your problem not mine. You don't apologise when you make a mistake, or insult someone, in your sly underhanded way.

15 entries found for race.
race1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

Now stop trying to be pedantic.

[Mapraputa Is]

So I didn't read the posters name, who cares, I don't. If you care, it's your problem not mine. You don't apologise when you make a mistake, or insult someone, in your sly underhanded way.
If you are talking about Jason, he always apologized to me even when there were no reasons to. You just got a wrong impression.
Let's try not to insult each other, ah?

[Mapraputa Is]

You don't apologise when you make a mistake, or insult someone, in your sly underhanded way.
When did Jason ever atack anybody in "sly underhanded way"??? You have any links?

[Parth Sagdeo]

I'm talking about the PLO controlled territories.
There is no country called Palestine and I hope there never will be as that would mean the terrorists have succeeded in destroying Israel.

Excuse me, did you realize that post WWII Israel was SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than it is today. It has just been taking, taking, and taking some more land from Palestine, the original state of the region(pre-ww2). For example, I know someone who was born in Jeruselem, not Israel, but Jeruselem, Palestine(after world war 2). Thats right, the capital of Israel is a city stolen from the Palestinians by bloodshed. No wonder the Palestinians are angry. I would be too if Mexico captured Texas and named Austin their capital.

[Tonny Tssagovic]

Originally posted by Parth Sagdeo:

I would be too if Mexico captured Texas and named Austin their capital.

I fully agree..If you like someone, invite him to ur house, don't make other people refugees IN THEIR OWN country...
Now, a little bit of history, the jewish people lived in palestine with arabs (moslems and christians alike) , without any war/ problems before the UN declared the state of Isreal.
So while they have been persecuted here in europe, the jewish escaped to the arab countries where they have been well treadted.. While a jew did not have the right to eductation in France "la renaisance, Yves S L, Cristan dior, and how cool they clame to be", they have been prime ministers in some arab controlled teritorry..
Example, when spain was controlled, by arabs, the prime menister was jew.. and that was the time when "la mode", Science, CORDOVA, and everything really cool appeared in spain (everybody leaving in peace), while darkness ruled in old europe.. .. but when the arabs were kicked out from spain, jewish ppl went to morocco, because of bad treatment.. So now, the morrocan king advisor (higher then prime menister) is jew and there is no prob with that..
Just a small note, when Saladin won the war against the crusaders in the 12.th century, Jews were allowed to resettle in Jerusalem for the first time since the Christians had gained it through massacre (when they killed 10.s of thousands of moslems+jew+other) in 1099. Saladin appears to have followed up his conquest with an appeal to Jews to come and settle in his new territories.
So, although I am sure that I am gonna get a lot of bad replies, since ppl seam not to like the truth, I have to say this: THERE WAS NO PROBLEM BETWEEN ARABS AND JEWS before great UN announced the state of isreal.
PS: I am not anti-semetic or whatever, and my jew friends can tell you that.
- I know many jews living in UK, that can confirm what I am saying, and u can check for yourself that Morrocan King advisor is a jew.

[Tonny Tssagovic]

Here are some facts from The Department for Jewish Zionist Education, the jewish agency
Although, u have to understand that they r a little bit biased, since their job is to help jewish people settle in isreal and

"No matter where they come from, the Jewish Agency facilitates their absorption, making their immigration a real homecoming. "

Immigration to Israel
To get the full storry, u need to do a lot of research....and ask real jewish religious people, not some atheists in Isreal.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: Tonny Tssagovic ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Tonny Tssagovic:

So, although I am sure that I am gonna get a lot of bad replies, since ppl seam not to like the truth, I have to say this: THERE WAS NO PROBLEM BETWEEN ARABS AND JEWS before great UN announced the state of isreal.

There was problems as much as I know.
And it will remain till there will be religions and people who think that some religion are better than other for what so ever reason.
AW UN did not simply announced the state of Israel. But point is, was that legal or is it legal even today ??
The only different I can see between Israel and Palestine that one side has got uniform and other side does not have uniform.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Tonny Tssagovic:

So, although I am sure that I am gonna get a lot of bad replies, since ppl seam not to like the truth, I have to say this: THERE WAS NO PROBLEM BETWEEN ARABS AND JEWS before great UN announced the state of isreal.

There was indeed many problems in the area before the UN resolution. During the British Mandate in Palestine there was condiderable terrorist activity by both Jewish and Arab groups fighting each other and fighting against the British. Eventualy the trouble became so large that Britain pulled out and asked the UN do come up with a solution. The problems didn't start after the UN partitioned the land, the UN partitioned the land because of the problems.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]