Well it looks like we took our eye off this ball. [Archive]

Banquo's Ghost

06-14-2007, 13:14

I'm not sure it was our ball to ignore.

Whilst I have my reservations about the real reasons that Israel pulled out of Gaza, the simple truth is that the Palestinians have proven themselves incapable of running an independent enclave, just as they have proven themselves insufficient to step up to the responsibilities attendant on running the interim Palestinian Authority.

I know there are huge mitigating factors with the occupation, poverty and economic impacts, but nonetheless, each time they have the opportunity to prove to the powers that can affect their future that they can be a responsible partner in a two-state solution, they fail miserably.

Ordinary Palestinians have a miserable life, yet it is not going to be improved by letting the madmen fight like feral dogs. Until they give their blood to stop the lunatics running the asylum, the lunatics will cause their blood to be eternally spilt for nothing.

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 13:20

It's all Israel's fault. I have no idea how but I'm certain it must be. Perhaps you wiser gents can explain to me how. [/sarcasm]

sapi

06-14-2007, 13:20

Odin

06-14-2007, 13:24

They've had their chance, imo - now it's up to us to clean up their mess...again.

Who Sapi?

sapi

06-14-2007, 13:26

Odin

06-14-2007, 13:37

Anyone and everyone ~:)

Got to love those blanket statements ~;)

Seriously though, an Arab-led peacekeeping force would be perfect, but that's never going to happen. The best we can hope for is probably strong western pressure, condemnation and all that meaningless nonsense.

If things weren't so bad in Israel I'd almost wonder if a re-occupation wouldn't be better off for everyone - what they've got now definitely isn't working; the danger is the damage may already have been done...

It seems to me the economic sanctions have killed the palestinians, perhaps to the point of no return, I dont know. As a U.S. citizen i want no more to do with the middle east other then purchasing oil. that said I think its high time the U.S. pressued israel to ease thier economic grip by releases the tax collections, and opening up the palestinians ability to trade.

econ21

06-14-2007, 13:38

I am not sure anyone took their eye off the ball - the US have apparently been arming Fatah (I noticed the Fatah kidnappers in the West Bank included some with shiney new looking M16s). And Israel/EU etc have been putting restrictions and sanctions on the Hamas government. But the elections showed that Hamas had more popular support and more importantly the current fighting shows they have more determined fighters. The New York Times quotes one bewildered Palestinian Authority soldier saying it was 70,000 PA soldiers vs 10,000 Hamas fighters and Hamas won. The PA soldiers just disappeared, suffering from lack of morale and poor organisation/leadership.

At one level, as someone who wants peace in the Middle East, I am appalled by the ongoing conflict and the idea of the more ideological (Islamist) and anti-Israel Hamas becoming entrenched in power.

But at another level, that seems to be the logic of some of these conflicts. People opt for the hard-liners, perhaps in part because they believe they will prove the tougher negotiators. Perhaps because the hard-liners can always outflank the moderates and win over the hot-headed young men who will do the fighting. I am thinking here in part about Northern Ireland, where the more hardline nationalist (Sinn Fein) and unionist (Democratic Unionists) have gradually elbowed out the moderates from power.

If the Palestinians want Hamas, then perhaps the world must deal with Hamas. Trying to shore up Fatah does not seem to have worked. And Fatah itself does not seem to be a particularly edifying organisation (corrupt and incompetent; and including elements that are no less keen on terrorism than Hamas). At least with Hamas, you may be dealing with an entity that is more unified and in control.

But it is an awful mess, I agree.

Tribesman

06-14-2007, 13:39

Well it looks like we took our eye off this ball.
How is it taking the eye off the ball ?
This is entirely the intended result .:thumbsdown:

Husar

06-14-2007, 14:14

I am not sure anyone took their eye off the ball - the US have apparently been arming Fatah (I noticed the Fatah kidnappers in the West Bank included some with shiney new looking M16s).
To me they look like shiny new M4 SOPMODs or at least regular M4s

On the radio they said this morning that there is talk about peacekeepers being sent there by the UN or so.
Makes me wonder how they will interprete all those peacekeepers around Israel. While we may have only good intentions, those extremists might go all "oh noez, another group of infidel invaders in our country!!!1111":sweatdrop:

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 14:22

an Arab-led peacekeeping force

Good one!!! That would be like going to a Taliban barber to get your beard trimed with a very large knife.:laugh4:

econ21

06-14-2007, 21:20

Channel 4 News interviewed a former EU negotiator to the region today and he was surprisingly "pro-Hamas". He made the point that Hamas won the election and should by rights have taken over responsibility for security (via the Minister of the Interior). He said the Fatah President, encouraged by US pressure, tried unconstitutionally to deny that responsibility and to claw back other powers from the Hamas government.

This is entirely the intended result.

Intended by who? It seems US policy at least has spectacularly backfired.

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 21:22

I heard Abbas has declared a state of emerggency and dissolved the Hamas led government. He's also asked for a multi-national peacekeeping force. Does he really think ANYBODY out there is dumb enough to put their tongue in that electrical outlet? :stars:

Tribesman

06-14-2007, 21:27

Intended by who? It seems US policy at least has spectacularly backfired.
backfired ??????lets see.......Abbas has declared a state of emerggency and dissolved the Hamas led government.
wow I didn't even have to write it .:idea2:

Don Corleone

06-14-2007, 21:29

Oh come on, Tribesman. You know as much about this situation as anyone. Surely you know what's going on in Gaza right now is more about finding Arafat's successor, and personal emnities, than any shadow conspiracy. You can blame the US for every last skinned knee around the globe if you like, but I think the more outlandish your statements are, the less support you're going to find for them.

econ21

06-14-2007, 21:35

But, Tribesman, like the ex-EU negotiator said, what Hamas sought to do with the fighting is to create new facts on the ground. They have done that today. There is no Fatah presence left in Gaza. The President can declare a state of emergency and dissolve what he likes, but he is now confined to the West Bank.

Like Don said, outsiders will not want to go into to Gaza restore Fatah. Israel may feel compelled to go in at some future date, but after the bloody nose they got in Lebanon, I don't see them being eager to do so just yet. And I doubt re-installing Fatah will be high on their agenda. (It surely would be the final kiss of death for Fatah if it was.)

Devastatin Dave

06-14-2007, 21:42

Why send in a peace keeping force. Let 'em do what they do best and whoever come out on top will be more easily identifiable for , um... intensive diplomatic negotiation?:inquisitive:

Shahed

06-14-2007, 22:16

I just wanted to say I appreciate the zero tolerance I've seen by the mods/admins in the past 2 threads. Congratulations. You guys totally ROCK !

As far as the topic itself I have'nt been following it, but I'm guessing Fatah can't handle getting beaten by Hamas in every single way. Now Abbas, is trying to further delegitimise Hamas by dissolving the government. He will fail, of course.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-14-2007, 22:17

Why send in a peace keeping force. Let 'em do what they do best and whoever come out on top will be more easily identifiable for , um... intensive diplomatic negotiation?

And what better way to fight the war on terror than have them fight eachother?
I dont see Israel breaking this up. Their probably selling tickets.:laugh4:

I love this from one of the closed threads

One of the few points of agreement between Fatah and Hamas is that Israel (and by extension the USA) are the root cause of all of the extant problems they face. Hamas and Fatah are merely applying "traditional" methods for selecting a leadership to deal with these problems.

Yes its our fault their fighting each other, I should have known. We are so brilliant.

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 02:00

You can blame the US for every last skinned knee around the globe if you like, but I think the more outlandish your statements are, the less support you're going to find for them.

What is outlandish about it Don ?
Who are the main players in trying to forment unrest by blocking funds(legitimate funds) to the elected government because they don't like the election results ?
Who has been arming the opposition ? an opposition BTW that still has two branches of it listed as proscribed terrorist organisations by the very people who are sending it weapons .
Why have they done it if not to forment a situation where the elected government ceases to be .
So Don show me what it is that you could possibly think is outlandish ?

But, Tribesman, like the ex-EU negotiator said, what Hamas sought to do with the fighting is to create new facts on the ground.
Yep and what have they got , Gaza , a completely unviable area by itself . While they gained political support in the West Bank due to the backlash against the corruption of the PLO they have very little real presence there , it remains the domain of the Fatah (Al-Asqa) and PFLP (and of course the IDF) . It will be interesting to see which way Islamic Jihad jumps in the civil war as they have a relatively strong presence in both territories .

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2007, 02:13

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 02:21

Oh, Tribesman - funny how you don't mention that the 'elected government' is a terrorist organization, much more so than the opposition.

Is a country that designates it as a banned terrorist group giving it weapons Rabbit ?
How is Hamas much more of a terrorist group than other terrorist groups ?:dizzy2:

Whacker

06-15-2007, 02:26

Why send in a peace keeping force. Let 'em do what they do best and whoever come out on top will be more easily identifiable for , um... intensive diplomatic negotiation?:inquisitive:
You know, this is one area that I pretty much agree completey w/our dearest daveyboy on. They've been at eachothers throats for years, based on millenia of religious and cultural hatred that we're trying to simply "talk" away through diplomacy. Color me pessimistic, but I don't see it working at all. Rope it off, let em go at it like the have been itching to. We'll deal with the winner. :shrug:

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 02:35

I recall a BBC article on how Palestinians in Jerusalem would rather live there, under Israeli dominion, and have the city remain under Israeli control, then to be in the Palestinian run parts (West bank, etc.).

Oh, Tribesman - funny how you don't mention that the 'elected government' is a terrorist organization, much more so than the opposition.

If it was the intended result of US policy that Gaza dissolve into civil war between the two big terrorist groups, then I applaud it for the practicality. However, I'm guessing they are not playing realpolitik in this arena.

Econ - why should the world have to deal with Hamas, whatever the Palestinians want?

Crazed Rabbit
Thus speaks someone who has not the first clue of how terrorism is dealt with. Here's a starter.

Unless you manage to eradicate the radicals, you will need to do a deal sooner or later. There's no point in holding out for the moderates, because the radicals, those who do the bombing, won't obey the orders of the moderates. Any deal that doesn't bind the people who do the actual bombing might as well not exist. Therefore the logic points towards seeking out a reputed hardliner who has the respect of the radicals, but who is willing to talk. There have been at least 3 examples of such in the past 2 years, that I have pointed out. Of course, ivory tower moralists like Rabbit here didn't see the opportunities for what they were. Now there's not likely to be a deal any time soon, as whichever side wins this struggle will have the impression that they are militarily strong, and have no need to come to terms with Israel.

Israel can still come out well from this, by standing aside and letting them fight it out, then go to the victor immediately afterwards with offers of talks and civil aid. The idea is to not let them get any delusions that they might be able to fight a winning war against Israel, but to charm and bribe them while they are still off-balance and exhausted. But if Israel does not take the initiative in promoting talks, there isn't likely to be any such from the Palestinians (most likely Hamas), and each passing month makes that less likely still. And without talks, the bombs will come again, and people like Rabbit will ask the question: "Why talk to terrorists?", while people like me throw up our hands at the idiocy of it all.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 02:42

Unless you manage to eradicate the radicals,

This is the point. Their doing it for us. Funny how they still blame us for them slaughtering eachother.

Whacker

06-15-2007, 02:43

And without talks, the bombs will come again, and people like Rabbit will ask the question: "Why talk to terrorists?", while people like me throw up our hands at the idiocy of it all.

Of course there's always the Bush Regime Method©; Bomb them into oblivion/invade and occupy regardless of whether or not you have 'proof' and if the international community is supportive.

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 02:56

This is the point. Their doing it for us. Funny how they still blame us for them slaughtering eachother.
You've got it wrong. They're not eradicating the radicals for you, they're eradicating the people whom you could have done a deal with, leaving the radicals in power and emboldened by the experience of winning a fight. Continue watching the news, and you'll see that what came before was far perferable to what's about to come now.

Letting your enemies fight it out only makes sense when there's a finite amount of resources to go round. Terrorism doesn't require much material resources, it requires a lot of will. A fight like this generates a lot of the willpower needed to pursue and ramp up a terrorism campsign, and there will still be plenty of material resources left over to make that possible. One would have thought Iraq would have taught you this lesson, but I guess not.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 02:59

etting your enemies fight it out only makes sense when there's a finite amount of resources to go round. Terrorism doesn't require much material resources, it requires a lot of will.

And people. Just how do you come to the conclusion its the moderates who are fighting while the radicals sit back and multiply?

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2007, 03:00

Is a country that designates it as a banned terrorist group giving it weapons Rabbit ?
How is Hamas much more of a terrorist group than other terrorist groups ?:dizzy2:

Hmm, doesn't relate to your poor defense against outlandishness, does it? Nope.
:logic:

Thus speaks someone who has not the first clue of how terrorism is dealt with. Here's a starter.

Lol, I suppose you've been a negotiator for years, hmm?

Unless you manage to eradicate the radicals, you will need to do a deal sooner or later. blah blah blah

Oh, you mean like Arafat? I bet he was really negotiating in good faith. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Israel can still come out well from this, by standing aside and letting them fight it out, then go to the victor immediately afterwards with offers of talks and civil aid.
The idea is to not let them get any delusions that they might be able to fight a winning war against Israel, but to charm and bribe them while they are still off-balance and exhausted.

They've had, and continue to have that delusion, partly due to the interference of the west.

And without talks, the bombs will come again, and people like Rabbit will ask the question: "Why talk to terrorists?",

I never said that. I asked why the world - ie the west that heavily funds (or funded) the Palestinian gov't should have to deal with Hamas, a terrorist group.

Crazed Rabbit

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 03:13

And people. Just how do you come to the conclusion its the moderates who are fighting while the radicals sit back and multiply?
Who won the fight in Gaza? What did they do once they'd won the fight? What do you think they're going to do in the future once they've had a chance to have a breather?

I never said that. I asked why the world - ie the west that heavily funds (or funded) the Palestinian gov't should have to deal with Hamas, a terrorist group.

There's the ivory tower mentality showing up again, combined with playing with words. Firstly, what is the practical difference between what you've written above and "Why talk to terrorists?". Secondly, the answer is: because that's how you stop the bombs. Are you so eager to keep your hands clean that you'll be willing to see this drag on forever? Do you really think that, if Europe steps away from this, other countries like Iran won't make up the difference? The terrorisrs will never lack for funds, thanks to states who have a vested interest in keeping this going, and thanks to mindsets like yours, they'll never lack for will either.

Yun Dog

06-15-2007, 03:14

I dont see thats it beyond the realms of the possible for Fatah to have been influenced or even supported by the Israelis/US. I mean they all dont like Hamas so theres that in common. Fatah have already shown they will deal with 'the infidels'. Wouldnt it be in Israels/US interest to have Hamas destroyed by Fatah, so a few guns, some bullets, a rocket or two and maybe some promises of rewards of a hundred virgins should they win. :yes:

Maybe it is just an internal power struggle, or maybe its an internal power struggle with an external catalyst - not impossible

Incongruous

06-15-2007, 03:20

Ouch (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9332932&fsrc=RSS)

I'd be surprised if even an Israeli invasion could unite Hamas and Fatah :wall:

They've had their chance, imo - now it's up to us to clean up their mess...again.
Yes, they have had their chance, it's in no way linked to the goings on instigated by International cock-ups led by a a bunch of human cockups...
If this is the response of European and other Western leaders, Im leaving.
The US should be celerbrating, it has hsown that through, sneaky underhand tactics it can cripple it's enemies countries and kill off them and their people by instigating civil war.
Ceaser and indeed Clive would be proud.
Jesus probably wouldn;t be, nor any other decent human being in the world but those two would.:2thumbsup:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 03:28

The US should be celerbrating, it has hsown that through, sneaky underhand tactics it can cripple it's enemies countries and kill off them and their people by instigating civil war.

I told you we were clever and that we would be blamed even for their inhumanity toward eachother. These were always a peace loving people , who never had any blood feuds or were in any way violent until the evil US sent all the Jews over to Israel to start trouble in the hope that the evil christians would get their way by having the temple of David re erected so that it would facilitate the second coming of Christ .:laugh4:

Incongruous

06-15-2007, 03:33

I told you we were clever and that we would be blamed even for their inhumanity toward eachother. These were always a peace loving people , who never had any blood feuds or were in any way violent until the evil US sent all the Jews over to Israel to start trouble in the hope that the evil christians would get their way by having the temple of David re erected so that it would facilitate the second coming of Christ .:laugh4:

Well, no one has ever called them peace loving Gawain.
I think some people however just want to keep the field fair in this discussion, by not turning a blind eye or re-painting what the west has done.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 03:58

by not turning a blind eye or re-painting what the west has done.

Well I still find it strange that when most people refer to "the west' they mean Israel and the US when in reality its Europe who is to blame for setting the whole thing in motion.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-15-2007, 04:06

Okay, Pan-man. Your solution is repulsive to me on a moral level, but that doesn't preclude it being the best idea I have heard yet.

Reasons I dislike it:

1. Part of the implied method involves more-or-less quietly taking casualties. Note: I am aware that you are not advocating patsy-ism, but the tacit ROE for your approach, clearly identified perps, no collateral damage whatsoever, no hammering at infrastructure etc. targets does mean that a good portion of the time you just have to let them kill your people while not responding (though of course not "giving in" to their actions either). This is not psychologically comfortable.

2. The solution will generate regions that are, in praxis, warlord fiefs. Ireland avoided this because of a rich democratic tradition, and (though I can't prove this) because some of the most dangerous terror elements in Ireland had their support gutted with the death of the CCCP -- and simply faded. We may be able to bring a Islamist radical out of terror mode, but I suspect only by allowing that leader to set up as a despot. As my country is still taking flak for such moves made during the Cold War, it is not an inherently comfortable stance.

3. Fragile democracies will NOT get a good chance to develop. The physical environment may be calmer -- conducive -- but the "success of radicalism" will spawn other internecine efforts. To be fair, this may be inevitable for a host of reasons and not just the terrorism stuff.

Reasons I like it:

1. Nothing polyanna-ish here. You're talking about the kind of "turf" agreement and channeled/limited violence that characterizes the relationships among mafia crime families or large urban gangs. However, such groups have developed largely stable interaction models in many instances, and much of the violence is restricted to "members only." Not nice, but admittedly an improvement over the status quo.

2. Addresses the "radicalizing" components by using radicals as the basis for change. They're lousy instruments for this, but since they're capable of de-railing almost any "reasonable" approach, there are few practicable alternatives. Terrorism "works" wherever you can get a few Kalishnikovs and a few really pissed off teenagers with few prospects for success. The M.E. has no dearth of these.

Tribes:

You are incorrect that we are seeing the "desired" result of U.S. sanctions and support for Fatah over Hamas. The USA was hoping to engender a situation wherein the Palestinian "on the street" would reject and repudiate Hamas, seeing economic prosperity and stability as being blocked by Hamas control. I think this goal was silly -- the fairly legitimate election of Hamas to a majority should have made this obvious (It did to me) -- but the current result is NOT the desired one.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-15-2007, 04:09

Query: (Asked in another parallel thread that was axed because some posters were a bit outre in their phrasing).

Was this effort to take control of Gaza Hamas' own idea or being done at the behest of their supporters in Tehran? There are ties to Iran, but the degree to which Iran is a controlling influence is unknown to me.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-15-2007, 04:12

Well I still find it strange that when most people refer to "the west' they mean Israel and the US when in reality its Europe who is to blame for setting the whole thing in motion.

A sin for which most of Europe has been expiated in the eyes of the Islamists by their decreased support for or outright repudiation of Israel and their adoption of the Palestinian cause as the more "morally correct" choice. This is also, btw, the stance of many (most) of the careerists in our State Department.

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 04:26

Seamus, how on earth did you arrive at your conclusion from what I suggested? Looking at the reasons why you dislike what I've written, I don't see how I implied points 1 or 2, or for that matter, 3. Looking further at why you like what I've written, I'm not sure I implied point 1 either. Of the 5 points you've raised, I don't see how I've implied 4 of them, although I admit you've understood my reasoning in your 2nd positive point. Apart from 80% of your reply being misunderstandings, you've got my argument spot-on.

Now I'd just like to hear from you how you came to those conclusions from what I wrote, because I certainly couldn't.

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2007, 04:47

There's the ivory tower mentality showing up again, combined with playing with words. Firstly, what is the practical difference between what you've written above and "Why talk to terrorists?".

The Israelis are the ones who should be doing any talking, as they are the ones who have to deal with the results.
The west should only call every month or so and ask, "Are you still insisting on not recognizing Israel?" and when they say yes, we say fine - no more money. Simple - though even that we can't keep up, it seems.

Secondly, the answer is: because that's how you stop the bombs.

No, talk is cheap and does squat. These terrorists use talk to delay and prepare - Israel has talked and talked and still has been bombed for years.

Are you so eager to keep your hands clean that you'll be willing to see this drag on forever? Do you really think that, if Europe steps away from this,

What in the nine levels of Hades has Europe done? Or any western country for that matter? Or sure, occasionally after months of 'talks' terrorists agree to something they almost immediately ignore, but the real result is naive people being exploited by the terrorists. Years of talks have resulted in a more radical palestinian government, and more fighting.

other countries like Iran won't make up the difference?

They already have (Hezbollah) and Europe has done nothing about it. Indeed, they scream at Israel when she defends herself.

The terrorisrs will never lack for funds, thanks to states who have a vested interest in keeping this going, and thanks to mindsets like yours, they'll never lack for will either.

It is your mindset - the desire for eternal 'talks', the unending thought that if we just talk and talk and talk eventually a solution will magically appear because these terrorists who kill themselves to kill children want peace - that gives terrorists hope and comfort, that convinces them their enemies are weak and stupid.

My mindset is simple - find the terrorists and kill them, and don't fret about it. These terrorists are not negotiating in good faith, they are taking advantage of attitudes like yours. They understand only force, so let them receive it.

Crazed Rabbit

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 05:15

It is your mindset - the desire for eternal 'talks', the unending thought that if we just talk and talk and talk eventually a solution will magically appear because these terrorists who kill themselves to kill children want peace - that gives terrorists hope and comfort, that convinces them their enemies are weak and stupid.

My mindset is simple - find the terrorists and kill them, and don't fret about it. These terrorists are not negotiating in good faith, they are taking advantage of attitudes like yours. They understand only force, so let them receive it.

Crazed Rabbit
Rabbit, are there historical precedents for your approach having been proven to work? Don't worry about degree, just cite some examples of terrorists' causes having been beaten using force of arms. It doesn't matter where in the world your examples come from, just cite some. If you can, perhaps I'll resist this overwhelming urge to ask you whether killing terrorists gains experience points, and whether or not you're planning on levelling up this way.

Whacker

06-15-2007, 05:18

Rabbit, are there historical precedents for your approach having been proven to work? Don't worry about degree, just cite some examples of terrorists' causes having been beaten using force of arms. It doesn't matter where in the world your examples come from, just cite some. If you can, perhaps I'll resist this overwhelming urge to ask you whether killing terrorists gains experience points, and whether or not you're planning on levelling up this way.

Level grinding on terrorists can be useful, but dangerous. It's good experience, they agro and respawn quickly, but one needs to be carefu lest the situation blow up in one's face.

:balloon2:

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2007, 05:25

Rabbit, are there historical precedents for your approach having been proven to work? Don't worry about degree, just cite some examples of terrorists' causes having been beaten using force of arms. It doesn't matter where in the world your examples come from, just cite some. If you can, perhaps I'll resist this overwhelming urge to ask you whether killing terrorists gains experience points, and whether or not you're planning on levelling up this way.

US in the Phillipines, turn of the last century.

Thanks for playing.

Crazed Rabbit

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 05:29

US in the Phillipines, turn of the last century.

Thanks for playing.

Crazed Rabbit
So you're suggesting Israel should do the same? IIRC Britain stamped out an insurgency in South Africa pretty efficiently too, but I wouldn't recommend the tactics be repeated. So, let me ask you, are you recommending Israel does to Palestine what the US did to the Philippines?

Whacker

06-15-2007, 05:31

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 05:33

You could even claim the elimination of the KKK :laugh4: Funny how some seem to think they still have power here.

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 05:55

I'd like to see a number of folk's take on that as well. Rephrasing the question, "At what point, if any, does it become acceptable to use 'all or nothing' military force to eliminate a terrorist agency or cell?" like in the examples provided. My two cents is... I dunno... Don't have a well formed opinion on it.
I think Panzer's found a soulmate in Rabbit.

Kralizec

06-15-2007, 07:04

US in the Phillipines, turn of the last century.

Thanks for playing.

Crazed Rabbit

How was what the Philipinos did terrorism?

Incongruous

06-15-2007, 07:07

Well I still find it strange that when most people refer to "the west' they mean Israel and the US when in reality its Europe who is to blame for setting the whole thing in motion.
rubbish, I mean Europe as well.

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 07:44

US in the Phillipines, turn of the last century.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: errrr....US in the Phillipines still...... try again:thumbsdown:

You are incorrect that we are seeing the "desired" result of U.S. sanctions and support for Fatah over Hamas. The USA was hoping to engender a situation wherein the Palestinian "on the street" would reject and repudiate Hamas, seeing economic prosperity and stability as being blocked by Hamas control.
WHAT ?????????

I think this goal was silly
Ah thats better , yep when a people are punished for democracy by a country that screams about democracy they are bound to blame their government and not those who chose to punish them .
Its amazing how such actions can damage the moderates and feed the radicals isn't it .

Alexanderofmacedon

06-15-2007, 07:48

Yeah we're having crazy faction wars now. Fatah al-Islam vs. Hamas etc. Anyone see the mobs charging gunmen who were fighting in the streets? It was some insane and brave thing to do.

Yun Dog

06-15-2007, 08:41

yeah I saw one unarmed civi slap down this gunnman and chase him off - ballsy - damn ballsy

just shows the people there are fed up with dying so others can play power games

Samurai Waki

06-15-2007, 09:10

Very, very sad what happens in this part of the world. I don't really understand the situation at all, its not that I haven't studied the facts, I have, over and over and over... but none of it adds up. I've always looked at Fatah, more or less the same as Hamas, and Israel more or less the same as both of those groups. What bothers me the most is not that these guys are all beating the hell out of each other for what...a little insignificant chunk of Desert? They can fight over it until the Cows come home for all I care, its the Innocents that always gets to me. Justice is a word that has all but been expelled from their vocabulary I think.

Ironside

06-15-2007, 09:19

Ah thats better , yep when a people are punished for democracy by a country that screams about democracy they are bound to blame their government and not those who chose to punish them .
Its amazing how such actions can damage the moderates and feed the radicals isn't it .

Starting to consider if accepting them as one of the "big boys", but making it very clear to them that to still be considered as head of a state they'll have to behave like one, that means cutting in to thier "privilegies", when they don't behave to the norm (that should be stict, but not including some special rules), would work as a tactic.

People might not always want more if the cost is too high, but they don't like getting less and making sure that a failure is obviously on thier part, makes a failure something that doesn't reflect well on them, no matter what they say.

econ21

06-15-2007, 11:46

Econ - why should the world have to deal with Hamas, whatever the Palestinians want?

Because Hamas controls Gaza. The world will have to deal with it, just as it deals with China, Iran, Sudan, North Korea etc. Although Gaza is tiny in comparison to those states, it has too corrosive an influence on the region to be ignored.

I am not in favour of resuming aid to a government that organises attacks on its neighbour. But as I said before, I suspect is often the hardliners who can actually deliver peace. That does seem an awful long way off, now though.

I have a prediction - in 20 years time, Hamas will seem the new moderates; just as Fatah have metamorphised over the last 20. Whether they then ousted by some more murderous AQ type group, I don't know.

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 12:22

Because Hamas controls Gaza. The world will have to deal with it, just as it deals with China, Iran, Sudan, North Korea etc. Although Gaza is tiny in comparison to those states, it has too corrosive an influence on the region to be ignored.

I am not in favour of resuming aid to a government that organises attacks on its neighbour. But as I said before, I suspect is often the hardliners who can actually deliver peace. That does seem an awful long way off, now though.

Moralists have no interest in delivering peace on the ground, they're only interested in asking abstract questions like "Why should we have to sully our hands dealing with terrorists?" and formulating policy based on the morally correct answers. And 20 years later, they still ask the same questions with the same answers, and the slaughter carries on while they are snugly insulated by their moral superiority.

Thank goodness successive British governments have had fewer moral hangups and more concern for the actual wellbeing of its citizens.

I have a prediction - in 20 years time, Hamas will seem the new moderates; just as Fatah have metamorphised over the last 20. Whether they then ousted by some more murderous AQ type group, I don't know.
My short to medium-term prediction is that the Hamas leadership will have to become more hardline as a result of this victory in Gaza, or risk being ousted by others who are willing to assume the mantle of war leader against the Jews. I can guarantee the newcomers, if they take over, will make the current leadership look like pussycats. If they do indeed take over, it'll take another 10 years or so for things to quieten down to the level it was last year (at the time of the prisoners' initiative).

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 13:14

"At what point, if any, does it become acceptable to use 'all or nothing' military force to eliminate a terrorist agency or cell?"

This is like asking when is it acceptable to go to war. And I say if you are not willing to use 'all or nothing' military force to eliminate the enemy you have no buissiness fighting him.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-15-2007, 13:22

My short to medium-term prediction is that the Hamas leadership will have to become more hardline as a result of this victory in Gaza, or risk being ousted by others who are willing to assume the mantle of war leader against the Jews. I can guarantee the newcomers, if they take over, will make the current leadership look like pussycats. If they do indeed take over, it'll take another 10 years or so for things to quieten down to the level it was last year (at the time of the prisoners' initiative).

This, regrettably, seems to be a reasonable projection.

RE: My earlier post

Looking back at your presecription for what you thought might work, I realize that my response to you was more of a generalized response. As such, I was building in a number of other concerns developed from previous threads and my own musings. Casting it purely as a response to your post was incorrect -- my apologies for not having been clearer.

Please remember that, despite my misgivings, I have seen no better answer then the one you proffer.

My concerns not only addressed your point, but were touching on the attitudes and responses needed by the USA to make such a strategy work in the current context. In addition, I was trying to establish -- in my own head -- the kind of "peace" that would result along with my responses thereto.

I am, emotionally, completely in agreement with Rabbit. However, I do not suspect that any more-or-less "civilized" nation can prosecute an effective war against terrorism without applying a level of violence that few would condone (and probably should not be condoned).

Rabbit's example of the Phillipines as a success is a good one -- suggest you check out Root's "Small Wars" book. There were, indeed, a number of "terrorism" incidents in that largely guerilla-style conflict. The guerillas were effectively suppressed in about 4 years (though the Phillipines has never been incident free) though the methods used were incredibly brutal by modern standards (collective responsibility, resource destruction, etc.).

Tribes' is incorrect in his criticism here. He is implying that the guerillas were never really suppressed, continue to this day, and are in resurgence. While this may be denotatively correct in that the USA never did wipe out every single guerilla, the rebellion was quashed save for rare incidents which did not garner much support or enthusiasm from the Phillipinos themselves.

The modern "resurgence" of terrorism/guerilla opposition in the Phillipines is a product of a number of factors, including: The training of numerous Phillipinos in guerilla tactics by Fertig during the 2nd World War as a partisan force on Mindinao that opposed Japan; The repressive and corrupt tactics/policies of the Marcos government that nearly wrecked democracy in the Phillipines; and the advent of radical Islamic terror groups in the late 1960's and early 1970s (terrorism goes global with pictures at 7!). Labeling the current terror activities in the Phillipines as an "inevitable resurgence" would be disengenuous.

The Phillipines model, however, took as a basic premise the fact that the committment of forces and material would be decades long (if not permanent) and that the entirety of the political structure and much of the infrastructure involved would have to be re-built more or less from scratch. The USA has, to date, not made that level of committment (or at least not actually funded that level) in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Seamus Fermanagh

06-15-2007, 13:25

This is like asking when is it acceptable to go to war. And I say if you are not willing to use 'all or nothing' military force to eliminate the enemy you have no buissiness fighting him.

It's a valid question G-man.

The only historical examples of a more-or-less complete defeat of guerilla/terrorist forces trend towards a level of brutality in tactics that would not sit well with world opinion.

So where do you draw the line?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 13:37

The only historical examples of a more-or-less complete defeat of guerilla/terrorist forces trend towards a level of brutality in tactics that would not sit well with world opinion.

Well all war is terror. So defeating Germany is an example. Terrorist come in all shapes and sizes.

Don Corleone

06-15-2007, 13:47

What is outlandish about it Don ?
Who are the main players in trying to forment unrest by blocking funds(legitimate funds) to the elected government because they don't like the election results ?
Who has been arming the opposition ? an opposition BTW that still has two branches of it listed as proscribed terrorist organisations by the very people who are sending it weapons .
Why have they done it if not to forment a situation where the elected government ceases to be .
So Don show me what it is that you could possibly think is outlandish ?

Israel has been trying to control the flow of arms into Gaza for 40 years now. They've never been very successful at stopping it.

I heard a report on NPR this morning, in which a senior fellow from the Brookings Institute laid out what's going on (you know the Brookings Institute, they're on your side, Israel=bad). Anyway, he actually laid things out in pretty bare bones format.

Fatah is getting armed by Egypt and Jordan. They have been for some time, like decades. In the past year, since Hamas won a majority of seats in the election, they've started receiving political support for this from the US (we've pressed on Israel not to intercept shipments, stuff like that).

Hamas has been receiving its weapons from Hezbollah mostly, and to a lesser extent from Iran directly.

Israel hasn't been involved. If anything, we've been pushing them to stay out of it and allow Egypt to arm Fatah.

Now, Fatah has numbers (more people) but Hamas has better training and is better armed. Fatah mostly has rifles and handguns, Hamas actually has mortars and RPGs.

According to this guy, what's been going on for the past 6 months has been the settling of personal grudges, onsey-twosey type stuff. Hamas would assasinate a deputy minister of labor, Fatah would retaliate by killing the undersecretary of communication. This halted about 3 months ago when Abbas was able to build a coalition government including a majority of Hamas but some Fatah members as well. Apparently, in the past week, tempers flared. Hamas killed an official they had a score with. Fatah attempted to retaliate and got ambushed. Hamas was ready for them and started an all out offensive.

You ask some probing questions, what is the difference between the two factions? Well, how has Hamas behaved since they took control of Gaza? They've had revenge killings. They've thrown people off the top of buildings. They seized the 10 most senior Fatah members left in Gaza and refuse to release them.

Through all of this, Israel has refused to step in and support Fatah, yet you continue to claim that they're the puppetmaster behind all this, causing this unrest because it suits their purposes? Usually, if you're trying to start a coup, you actually do something to help back your faction. You don't let them get overrun and murdered in the streets in a week or less.

I'd say outlandish is exactly the right word.

Don't let your hatred towards Israel blind you towards what's really going on. This was a turf war that Hamas restarted and Fatah lost. Instead of being gracious winners, Hamas is killing every Fatah member they can get their hands on. Sorry dude, your 'same as everyone else' terrorists are showing their true colors.

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 14:05

Seamus, what do you know of the prisoners' initiative of 2006? Do you know of another similar example, and what it resulted in?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 14:38

This whole thing reminds me of the night of the long knives. Its just a very long night.

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 16:38

In the past year, since Hamas won a majority of seats in the election, they've started receiving political support for this from the US (we've pressed on Israel not to intercept shipments, stuff like that).

So you don't know about the $60 million direct from the Bush Admin then .:yes:

BTW you talk of Egyptian arms going to Fatah , what exactly is the US deal with Egypt on arms ? are egyptian arms delivered from America ? are those egyptian arms funded entirely by the US taxpayer ?

Don't let your hatred towards Israel blind you towards what's really going on. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Sorry dude, your 'same as everyone else' terrorists are showing their true colors.
Errrrr...they are terrorists Don , same as terrorists like ...thats their colour , or did you think the colour of some terrorists is rose tinted with pretty flowers and sparkling rainbows .

Rabbit's example of the Phillipines as a success is a good one -- suggest you check out Root's "Small Wars" book. There were, indeed, a number of "terrorism" incidents in that largely guerilla-style conflict. The guerillas were effectively suppressed in about 4 years (though the Phillipines has never been incident free) though the methods used were incredibly brutal by modern standards (collective responsibility, resource destruction, etc.).

No it isn't Seamus , it was declared as suppressed but it wasn't , they carried on fighting them until the Japanese invasion . Just like the victory over the Taliban isn't a victory and mission accomplished in Iraq certainly isn't accomplished .
What was effectively suppressed was the relatively large scale engagements , what followed was terrorism , remember Panns question was about terrorism .
So.....
Tribes' is incorrect in his criticism here....think again .

Don Corleone

06-15-2007, 17:00

Errrrr...they are terrorists Don , same as terrorists like ...thats their colour , or did you think the colour of some terrorists is rose tinted with pretty flowers and sparkling rainbows .

Quite the opposite my friend. It's more a matter of the leper with the most fingers in my mind. Or would you argue that there's no difference between a group like Shining Path (who focus on political targets) and *shiver* the Khmer Rouge :skull: ? Same-same in your book?

Don Corleone

06-15-2007, 17:02

So you don't know about the $60 million direct from the Bush Admin then .:yes:

BTW you talk of Egyptian arms going to Fatah , what exactly is the US deal with Egypt on arms ? are egyptian arms delivered from America ? are those egyptian arms funded entirely by the US taxpayer ?

No, I'm not aware that we bankrolled arms shipments to the tune of $60 million, but I'm not surprised. The relationship between Egypt and Fatah goes back much further than the election of a majority Hamas government. Are you implying that we've always been the ones backing Egypt backing Fatah, that we've simultaneously armed Israel and a 5th column for them to fight? :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2007, 17:12

So you're suggesting Israel should do the same? IIRC Britain stamped out an insurgency in South Africa pretty efficiently too, but I wouldn't recommend the tactics be repeated. So, let me ask you, are you recommending Israel does to Palestine what the US did to the Philippines?

I was merely providing you an example of brute force stopping terrorism.

As for what Israel should do - I would probably go the US in the Philippines route, depending on how this situation develops. But I doubt Hamas is suddenly going to go all peaceful on us.

I think Panzer's found a soulmate in Rabbit.

Because of course, I agree with him all the time, don't I? :rolleyes:

Moralists have no interest in delivering peace on the ground, they're only interested in asking abstract questions like "Why should we have to sully our hands dealing with terrorists?" and formulating policy based on the morally correct answers.

I don't think you understand why I'm opposed to talking with terrorists. It's not because of some moral superiority (while the US is always blamed for the opposite when it does deal with dictators) but because talking has gained nothing, because the terrorists are not negotiating in good faith.

In Iraq, for example, I support talking to any and all insurgent groups in hopes of getting some to stop fighting, as I think it has more of a chance there.

Anyone see the mobs charging gunmen who were fighting in the streets? It was some insane and brave thing to do.

Any video links?

Because Hamas controls Gaza. The world will have to deal with it, just as it deals with China, Iran, Sudan, North Korea etc. Although Gaza is tiny in comparison to those states, it has too corrosive an influence on the region to be ignored.

I am not in favour of resuming aid to a government that organises attacks on its neighbour. But as I said before, I suspect is often the hardliners who can actually deliver peace. That does seem an awful long way off, now though.

Seems reasonable.

No it isn't Seamus , it was declared as suppressed but it wasn't , they carried on fighting them until the Japanese invasion .

So what do you call this alternate universe where you live?

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 17:22

So what do you call this alternate universe where you live?

Do you not know any history Rabbit ? your short term memory must be pretty bad as well since the Phillipines events has been dealt with here on about a dozen occasions , normally whan some muppet says "but what about the success in the Phillipines , thats a good example"
Obviously not , and your record on current events is dismal too , you are consistantly wrong in all your appraisals of events in the Mid-east and the so called war on terror .
It is you who live in an alternative universe , the universe of crazy neo-con propoganda and pipe dreams .

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2007, 17:29

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 17:31

I was merely providing you an example of brute force stopping terrorism.

As for what Israel should do - I would probably go the US in the Philippines route, depending on how this situation develops. But I doubt Hamas is suddenly going to go all peaceful on us.

In which case I don't think there can be any common ground for discussion between us. I absolutely oppose the kind of activity the US used to crush the insurgency in the Philippines, and that Britain used to crush the insurgency in South Africa. Unless my country itself was threatened, which terrorist attacks by definition do not, I would rather endure a few bombs now and again than have my country visit the sins of the bombers on their families, friends, and neighbours, devastating their fields and destroying their livelihoods, transporting large sections of the population to concentration camps where men, women and children alike can rot to death in their tens of thousands under the neglect of the capos. If that's fine with you, that's fine with you. But such a country is not for me.

Crazed Rabbit

06-15-2007, 17:42

Well, your county isn't threatened so, but Israel is.

Crazed Rabbit

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 17:48

Well, your county isn't threatened so, but Israel is.

Crazed Rabbit
Terrorism does not threaten a country. It's precisely because one side isn't militarily capable of threatening the other that they resort to terrorism.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 17:52

This is what war is supposed to be about. Its either us or them. Its about who will survive. Going to war for any other reason is stupid. You cant fight a war with one hand tied behind your back. Heres one of my favorite examples

Notice the careful negotiations

Knife Fight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y87EaadjqM)

:laugh4:

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 17:59

This is what war is supposed to be about. Its either us or them. Its about who will survive. Going to war for any other reason is stupid. You cant fight a war with one hand tied behind your back. Heres one of my favorite examples

Knife Fight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y87EaadjqM)

:laugh4:
Perhaps Banquo can tell us more about the wonderfully effective tactics of the British Army in Northern Ireland, where we levelled Catholic areas of towns that were known to harbour IRA, and transported intransigent populations to offshore concentration camps where 200,000 of them died of cholera, dysentery and typhoid. Or perhaps he can't, because we didn't. Yet we won anyway, at least insofar as we achieved all our objectives, and the enemy has given up violence.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 18:01

Again the IRA never called for the destruction of Britain nor of the British peoples.

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 18:05

Again the IRA never called for the destruction of Britain nor of the British peoples.
Did you notice anything of import in that region over the last couple of years? Hamas were this close to effectively giving up the fight, if only they were given the slightest bit of encouragement they could show their supporters. Instead, arguments like that you've given above ensured nothing came of it, and it'll be another 10 years before anything nearly as promising comes up again.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-15-2007, 18:09

Hamas were this close to effectively giving up the fight,

Thats your opinion not mine.

Instead, arguments like that you've given above ensured nothing came of it, and it'll be another 10 years before anything nearly as promising comes up again.

Before I believe a word on this topic out of their mouths they will have to change their charter before I even sit down to talk with them. Anything as promising as having a terrorist group as your legally elected government. That scores you international points.

Don Corleone

06-15-2007, 18:09

Did you notice anything of import in that region over the last couple of years? Hamas were this close to effectively giving up the fight, if only they were given the slightest bit of encouragement they could show their supporters. Instead, arguments like that you've given above ensured nothing came of it, and it'll be another 10 years before anything nearly as promising comes up again.

I beg to differ. The only thing Hamas cares for is 1) the destruction of Israel now and 2) the establishment of the Caliphate later. Read their charter.

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 18:12

I'm talking about the repression of rebels back around 1900, when harsh methods suppressed the majority of rebels in four or so years, and even the few remaining rebels were squashed over the following several years. And I think you know that.

Decades Rabbit ...decades not years , then came the Japanese who were brutal but couldn't get rid of the local terrorists . Then back came the Americans, and whaddoya know ...hey presto there were terrorists still there just like magic .

Now you could use the Boer example instead that Pann mentioned . Concentration camps , disease and starvation can be quite effective , but of course deploying such a vast military force to shut the country down is very expensive (not to mention lost trade), even more expensive when the peace deal you win means you have to pay the "enemy" for all the damage you did to them .:oops: wierd isn't it , doing a deal with the "enemy" that is not clearly to your real benefit , but it does stop them from becoming terrorists again .
Funny thing there though , the army and rebels that became terrorists ended up becoming the government , then they had to fight against their own new terrorists , and were very brutal with it , but that ended up with those other terrorists becoming the new government too .
Strange world isn't it .

Kralizec

06-15-2007, 18:13

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 18:13

I beg to differ. The only thing Hamas cares for is 1) the destruction of Israel now and 2) the establishment of the Caliphate later. Read their charter.
Did you not watch the news those past couple of years? Heck, even if the news channels in the US hadn't reported it, I've posted references to it (them) on numerous occasions.

Don Corleone

06-15-2007, 18:29

Did you not watch the news those past couple of years? Heck, even if the news channels in the US hadn't reported it, I've posted references to it (them) on numerous occasions.

Do you know how sad that sounds? Hamas is approaching the brink of recognizing that maybe a group of people have a right to exist and don't need to be exterminated like bugs? But oh shucks, they didn't get everything they needed to make such a statement, so it's not their fault....

I'm sorry Pannonian, you usually show yourself to be wise. But today, you're playing apologist, and not an objective one at that.

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 18:38

Do you know how sad that sounds? Hamas is approaching the brink of recognizing that maybe a group of people have a right to exist and don't need to be exterminated like bugs? But oh shucks, they didn't get everything they needed to make such a statement, so it's not their fault....

I'm sorry Pannonian, you usually show yourself to be wise. But today, you're playing apologist, and not an objective one at that.
Do you even know what I was referring to? If you reject that, what better options would you realistically suggest that would stop the bombs? That is what you want isn't it, that Palestinians should stop bombing Israelis? Or have I got it wrong, and you want something else entirely?

Don Corleone

06-15-2007, 18:55

Pannonian

06-15-2007, 19:27

I'm afraid I don't know exactly what you're talking about. I think it's in reference to Hamas dropping hints that for the right price, they might actually take "Death to Israel" out of their charter, though no formal acknowledgement of a right to exist.

Again, we have to bribe one side to stop calling for mass exterminations, and they're the good guys in your book?

P, I think you and I ought to agree to disagree. I'm the first to admit I can get a little hot under the collar with these Israel's right to exist debates. I'm not currently upset, and I didn't mean that as a threat, but there's generally little warning when these things spin out of control. You seem to be getting a little excited yourself. Besides, I'm off to take a midterm (taking a distance learning course).
I'll pre-empt Seamus' query with an explanation of the prisoners' initiative (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5121164.stm).

Highlighted points

"[Palestinians aim ] to establish an independent state with holy Jerusalem as its capital on all the territories occupied in 1967"
"[Signatories commit to] resistance through various means, and confining resistance in the territories occupied in 1967, in addition to political, negotiating and diplomatic action"

Armed resistance should be confined to those areas occupied in 1967, and cease elsewhere, while political action should be taken to pursue the other objectives. In other words, a de facto recognition of Israel's right to exist along 1967 lines.

How was this any more significant than other announcements of the sort? It was made by Fatah and Hamas prisoners, those hardliners I referred to in ealier posts. The trouble with negotiating with moderates is that militants will just ignore whatever deal they sign, and continue making trouble. These prisoners have sacrificed for the cause, their credibility was unquestioned except by the very margins. They could deliver the militants who are key to any effective settlement.

The wise course of action would have been to encourage this most precious of resources, radicals who talk, with visible progress on the ground. This would shore up their credibility even further, and could lead to further talks beneficial to both sides. The model for this is the British treatment of similar prisoners' initiatives from the IRA, and in particular the career of Pat McGeown, one of the 1981 hunger strikers, who later led the conversion of Sinn Fein/IRA from militancy to politics. Here's (http://www.etext.org/Politics/INAC/british.counterinsurgency) his analysis of British counterinsurgency strategy in Northern Ireland. Note especially the part "Normalisation". Note also his analysis of why it hadn't yet succeeded at that point, and what the British would need to do to make it succeed. I doubt you will find a better read on the subject.

Tribesman

06-15-2007, 22:23

I beg to differ. The only thing Hamas cares for is 1) the destruction of Israel now and 2) the establishment of the Caliphate later. Read their charter.

Wow so the big sort of poeticly written :daisy: charter only really has two bits .
Blimey they could have saved themselves a lot of paper eh Don:laugh4:

I'm afraid I don't know exactly what you're talking about. I think it's in reference to Hamas dropping hints that for the right price, they might actually take "Death to Israel" out of their charter, though no formal acknowledgement of a right to exist.
Well thats the bit of the religeous angle isn't it Don , you know end of days and all that , death and destruction to all apart from the chosen and the restitution of the temple .
Funny innit , all the religeons in the area have that , and they all think they are the chosen .

Husar

06-15-2007, 22:44

But I'm not talking about current Philippines events, am I?

I'm talking about the repression of rebels back around 1900, when harsh methods suppressed the majority of rebels in four or so years, and even the few remaining rebels were squashed over the following several years. And I think you know that.
:logic:

Crazed Rabbit
Aren't the Philippines islands?
I mean a strategy that works on an island does not necessarily work in the middle east unless you start hunting people in the whole middle east, which is what some countries there may not like. If you just hunt some guys in Palestine, they will retreat into neighboring countries and fire over the border, so you go into the neighboring country and start a war only to hunt them, but they retreat into the next neighboring country, all the way gaining new members of the countries you just invaded. Terrorists can't easily do that on islands and that's why I think it's easier to hunt them there.

Just the opinion of an armchair general though.