Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal eglamkowski's Journal: terrorists in Israel 20

Journal by eglamkowski

Despite the many claims by Bush's opponents that Iraq had no ties to terrorism, it is a very plain fact for anybody who follows the news that Saddam frequently made pay offs to the families of palestinian homicide bombers.

I wonder, since Saddam's capture and the resulting end of that pay off money, whether the number of homicide bombings in Israel has been decreased.

Need to go find some data...

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

terrorists in Israel More

terrorists in Israel

Comments Filter:
  • since the US stood up and did something about it, more people are pissed off that we did something. France, Iran, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and many other nations will have citizens willing to take up the slack and support the killing of Jewish citizens for their "cause"

    jason
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Abu Abbas [wikipedia.org] and Abu Nidal [wikipedia.org] and Salman Pak [wikipedia.org]?
    Don't they count as ties to terrorism?

    What about the Sarin [commonvoice.com]?

    Oh, that's right. None of that counts.

    BTW, how many U.N. resolutions will it take to stop what's going on in Sudan? I know that 18 isn't enough.
    What about with Iran? Whaddya figure? 25? 50?

  • Hm. (Score:1)

    by elmegil ( 12001 )
    They're blowing up Israel's citizens. Sounds like Israel ought to do something about it then. Why aren't they? Maybe we could learn something from their reasons?
    • They're not doing anything? What about this [gush-shalom.org]? As far as I know, the wall was started to try to keep terrorists out. Of course, they're having one heck of a time even doing this, because of all the protests and UN complaints. When they single out terrorst leaders and kill them with missles, they get accused of murder of innocents, whether they were innocent or not. There seem to be some people out there that would prefer if they would do absolutly nothing. Of course, that would mean they would get wiped
      • The point is, they're not invading Iraq, despite the fact that they're significantly more affected by this particular problem. Ok, so Saddam had links to palestinian terrorists, who WEREN'T ATTACKING THE US. Woo Hoo.
        • You're right. They were more directly affected by Iraq. But there's a very good reason why they couldn't invade Iraq. Once they turn their attention to one hostile Arab country, there are half a dozen more that would use their distraction as an excuse to try to take the country down. Israel can only afford to remain mostly on the defensive and use long range missles as their only offensive moves. When you're landlocked by hostle nations, you can't turn your attention from any of them for long.

          I don'
          • there are half a dozen more that would use their distraction as an excuse to try to take the country down.

            You mean like the Yom Kippur war? Israel seems able to hold its own. And you say that as if we don't have the same problem with our actions adding to Al Quaeda's recruitment efforts.

            Not one serious, credible person has EVER claimed that Saddam was "innocent", so just take your strawman back and burn him in your own yard.

            • You mean like the Yom Kippur war?

              The Yom Kippur war was a defensive action, and necessary. While that proves they can defend themselves against an attack directed at them from Egypt, that still doesn't show that they're able to take the offensive against a country that isn't directly adjacent to them.

              You focused only on the second sentence of that paragraph and claimed strawman. I don't know if you even read anything after that. You didn't give me any reasons why my reasoning that Saddam would hav
              • Saddam was NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. That's all that matters. He may have been an indirect but significant threat to Israel, but guess what? That wasn't the justification for invasion, was it?
                • I don't agree with your points here either. I believe there was something that was evidence that he could be a threat or that he was considering helping someone else to be. But you've made it obvious that anything I say will get shouted down. Everything seems to be looked at with 20/20 hindsight instead of from a perspective that would have existed in 2002 after us being directly attacked and trying to figure out how to prevent another one. Therefore, as I said before, I am done with this discussion. S
                  • But you've made it obvious that anything I say will get shouted down.

                    I shout because your side doesn't pay any attention when I state it calmly. Nice way to try and twist it around though. Really.

                    Everything seems to be looked at with 20/20 hindsight

                    You mean like finding new and novel excuses to justify the war? I couldn't agree more.

  • You mean other than Ben Gurion and company?

Slashdot Top Deals

Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.

Close