So, one thug group or another - what difference does it make? Why should I care?

Posted by: ReligionofPeas at November 9, 2007 8:59 PM

Hamas is at least honest about it's goal. Fatah was completely dishonest.

Posted by: Jerry M at November 9, 2007 9:11 PM

another "gee, what a shock" comment on their part, as if we wouldn't be seein' that one coming.
Jerry's also got a good point...
fatah simply wanted the bogus "right of return" so they could breed out the enemy by procreation & insurrection from within & kill the rest later...
hamas just wants to kill their enemies outright.
(sounds like the difference between russian communism & maoist communism...lol)

Posted by: jcom972 at November 9, 2007 9:24 PM

"He called on Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah party to "learn the lesson of what happened in Gaza" -- where nearly five months ago Hamas routed the moderate leader's loyalists and security officers in the coastal enclave".

Ha ha ha-Abbas is a moderate! Really funny. AFP has a delightful sense of humor. I learned a lesson a while back about the palestinians-there is no such thing as a moderate. One side is homicidal while the other side is murderous. Both sides deserve a sound beating by Israel.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 9, 2007 9:43 PM

It is far more difficult to discuss the "good" in Islam as opposed to the "bad".

It is not because the "good" does not exist, it undoubtably does, but compared to the "bad", the "good" is all but irrelevant.

For the West, the value of discussing the "good" inherent in Islam is akin to discussing the benefits and the "good" of contracting cancer for example's sake.

Valueless.

In Islam, the "bad" far outweighs the "good" and that goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Islam is a false religion and warrants Jim Jones, Gyana, kool-aid, full-blown death cult status.

End of story, and history be damned.

Hamas, Fatah, Hizbollah, Sufi, Wahabbi, Sunni, Shia..they are all the same, with the common denominator being Islam.

An absolute "no-go" for all cultures outside the circle of that insipid slave mentality...or at the very least, should be.

Posted by: awake at November 9, 2007 10:03 PM

If Israel leaves the West Bank to the enemy, Israel will be about ten miles wide at the narrowest point. Israel should never give it up.

I think enemy is as good a word as any.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 9, 2007 10:05 PM

"Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss."

Unfortunately, the West WILL be fooled again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3mi-bKtDGA

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 9, 2007 10:07 PM

"The autumn leaves will fall but so will the yellow flags," added Zahar, alluding to the colour of the Fatah party.

Strange comment. Do they have autumn leaves in Gaza? Do they have deciduous trees? Do they even have autumn? What about some pumpkin pie and some nice hot apple cider?

Posted by: jihadwatcher at November 9, 2007 10:20 PM

But I miss you most of all, my darling, when autumn leaves start to fall.

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at November 9, 2007 10:31 PM

Hmmmm, now what does that comment remind me of...?
OH, yeah!...

"Blesse mon coeur d'une langueur monotone"
"...wounds my heart with a monotonous languor"
(uttered by radio, June 5, 1944 to the french resistance, hours before opening hours of D-Day)

(also the islamofascists favorite methodology of transmitting messages "under the radar")

Interesting...MOST interesting
*WEG*

Posted by: jcom972 at November 9, 2007 10:49 PM

hamas or fatah,and all other followers of islam have made clear their goals as far as Israel is concerned. The problem with this picture is,Israel is allowing its self to be slowly dismanteled from within. With leaders like
Olmert and other softies whom seek peace at any cost, even when their own countrys servival is at risk. And if Israel falls, America will soon follow.

Posted by: AMartinez at November 9, 2007 11:11 PM

"If Israel leaves the West Bank to the enemy, Israel will be about ten miles wide at the narrowest point."
-- from a posting above

It is eight miles wide, not ten, at its narrowest waste, from Qalqilya to the Mediterranean. That's about as far as many Americans in small towns drive just to get to the center of town, to pick up the mail, or a bottle of milk, or a newspaper.

Posted by: Hugh at November 9, 2007 11:11 PM

The violins of Autumn ... Paul Verlaine, right, jcom?

Posted by: John C at November 10, 2007 12:18 AM

I cannot help but feel that George W. failed miserably in working to rid the US, much less the world, of terrorism (read, Islamism manifest). Sure, there have been no major attacks in the US post-9/11, and I give credit to W. and all the governmental agencies that made changes to prevent another attack. I have no doubt at all that had we remained in pre-9/11 mode, there would have been more attacks.

When you consider the consistent efforts of Islamists to hatch plans to murder people, it's not that surprising in retrospect that 9/11 happened. It could have been averted, it seems now based on what we have learned about some of the participants being already flagged and noted. It was just that the agencies that had the 9/11 animals on the radar did not act upon their intelligence and did not share intelligence with other agencies. Also, I think that the West as a whole did "lack the imagination," as has been said, that such an audacious act would be attempted. Related to this, we didn't yet grasp that airplanes would be hijacked for use as bombs (or super-bullets, more accurately). Finally, it seems most of the 9/11 mass-murders appear to have been run-of-the-mill idiot jihadis except for Atta. So maybe a lesson is that Islamists can gather a bunch of morons and do great harm as long as one of them is rather more clever and sinister.

Despite the fact that the US government has prevented other major jihadi mass murders from being carried out, I wonder why the hell is it that CAIR and other jihad-enabling Wahhabi organizations in the West are as bold as ever. Why is it that Saudi Arabia, the major global jihadi terrorist supporter and ideological enabler, has not been confronted at all? Saudi Arabia has been let off the hook to such an extent that now they lecture the West on what we should do to prevent terrorism.

Iran has become bolder exponentially since 9/11. Hamas and all the rest in the "Islamist-occupied territories" are just as powerful and insane and, most pathetically, popular as ever. They have not been as active lately because of the successful counter-terrorism efforts of Israel, but they are still there, alive and well, waiting like a coiled snake to strike.

Maybe I do not give enough credit to W. in having helped to avert another 9/11 in the US, but with CAIR and company operating as aggressively as ever, jihadi lawsuits flying left and right with no end in sight, political correctness and multicultural accommodation perhaps even worse than pre-9/11, it is hard to conclude that things are moving in the right direction. And, of course, if you look beyond the US, it appears even worse.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 10, 2007 12:28 AM

Bush, Rice, and Olmert -for them, Santayana wrote in vain.

Six years after 9/11, you would think they would at least have listened to what the enemy has been saying, year in and year out, since 9/11. It is the same message they have been sending to the West for 1350 years.

We need a Winston Churchill. Just one such person could turn around this descent into hell .

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at November 10, 2007 12:38 AM

John C,
very perceptive...only the word "leaves" replaces "violins"...

They may as well have said:
"Niitaka Yama Nobure!"
("Climb Mount Niitaka")

Posted by: jcom972 at November 10, 2007 12:47 AM

Looks like someone else is paying attention...
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1313
Unless there's a preemption,
expect hostilities to commence within 6 weeks.

Gleiwitz Alert!
God, how I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 10, 2007 1:00 AM

Just more proof that Israel goofed by not expelling the Arab populations in the West Bank and Gaza after victory in the Six-Day War and then annexing the land to Israel. How could anyone argue that not doing so has proved better? What a mess, thanks again to Islam. Does anyone seriously think that were 95% of Arabs Christian this tragic situation would exist? Again, shame on the Muslim world, which accomplishes nothing, wants everything and breeds hate and self-pity ad nauseam.

Posted by: Wellington at November 10, 2007 1:06 AM

They've no legit claim to the west bank anyway (nor any other territory anywhere near Jerusalem-it's not even mentioned anywhere in their koran, as it would had ubu'l kassim (mohammed's real name) really "ascended into heaven" from there, nor has there been any record of him even visiting the place.
Not that it's news, given the myth anyway...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

Posted by: jcom972 at November 10, 2007 1:12 AM

Depressing news about a new generation of HAMAS missiles, jcom--I suppose the Green Light ("CLIMB MOUNT NIITAKA") will come down from Ayatollah Khameini himself!

Posted by: John C at November 10, 2007 1:30 AM

jcom,

I don't always catch on to your WWII allusions--Gleiwitz? Let me guess. The German town bordering Poland where the Nazis staged a provocation? You mean the opening round in a greater conflict, no?

Posted by: John C at November 10, 2007 1:42 AM

JohnC
We're definitely on the same page.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 10, 2007 2:12 AM

PA spokeswoman Condi Rice lionizes the Palestinians, and State always tries to pressure Israel to make territorial concessions. Meanwhile, Lebanon is a Hezbollah stronghold, Hamas has Gaza, Turkey is Islamist, Iran will have nukes, and Afghanistan, Pak and Iraq are in turmoil. Why not make things worse?
I think the US is falling into the same trap Israel has in the past 15 years, of becoming obsessed with the "peace process", or, in our case, the "democracy project", to the point of neglecting vital domestic issues.

Posted by: jewdog at November 10, 2007 4:57 AM

The concern is understandable, but there is a method to the seeming madness (bear with me)...
I asked about this to a diplo-aide I went to high school with long ago-he knew I thought it was sheer lunacy on the west's part, as he knew I hadn't much respect for diplodinks.
Well, much to my surprise, here's how he explained it to me...in a way I never thought about until not long ago. It's not exact, but it's a fairly good paraphrasing...

In 1941, the US was trying amidst the embargo with Japan to resolve disputes diplomatically...from a position of trying to settle it in a peaceful way.
Japan left the impression it, too, wanted a peaceful solution to said problem, even threw in a "special envoy" to "help", right up to December 7th...or so it seemed.
Yet the US was suddenly bombed...which came as a terrible shock to the US, especially against the seemingly "peaceful" overtures from that same Japan.
(Japan's ultimatum delivery after the attack only made it worse)...
...the resolve, of which, was insurmountable, garnered world support (at least nobody dared to say otherwise unless they wanted to appear morons), and crushing the axis was more than justified...even when we agreed on "Europe first" even though Germany "didn't attack us!" (reminiscent of more recent ad nauseum pahblum from the usual list of loons), but they were part of that same axis...and axis of evil.

So, if amidst the so-called "peace process" the terrorists attack, the world can't say a damned thing against Israel, as the other guys started it.

Sometimes, being inherently hostile to even evil regimes, even when ya know you're right, won't garner support except by those staunchly supporting in the first place...and even at that, it may not garner support from the fence-riders, the non-committal snivellers and the ones who just want something to bitch about...but one thing for certain...the critics won't be able to say a damned thing about it, especially when the enemy gets its ass handed to them...again.

Diplomacy doesn't always work right, and it surely doesn't always work the way we want, or expect it to...but it has ways of working out in the end... because in that end, ya won't worry if anyone LIKES you (they either do, or don't, beforehand) ...only that they RESPECT you, which they have no choice in that end...one way, or another. It also forces concealed enemies to reveal their true selves and cannot play both ends against the middle at that point, or face the wrath of their clients/allies depending on them for support, making their own position exposed and discredited as an effective/respected voice. They get marginalized.

There is a method to the seeming madness.
Well, I do trust his take (though I'm no fan of diplomats either)...he worked for some pretty notable folks in various stages of government service...including Generals Horner & Schwarzkopf (at CENTCOM), John Lehmann (former SECDEF-US under Reagan), & another guy I never would've thought possible...John Bolton.

Like the old prose moral...
those who shit on you aren't always your enemy,
those who get you out of shit aren't always your friend...
ok, you get the idea.

Just something to think about.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 10, 2007 6:10 AM

Re: They routed Fatah in Gaza. Why would the West Bank be any different?

When they speak of "peace" what they really mean is the annihilation of Israel. They say "the Jews stole our land" but that is as much a lie as their delusion that Kuffirs "steal our oil". (The next time I go to the gas station I'll remember to tell the owner that I'm stealing his gas.)

Prior to 1948, the Zionists, by and large, bought marginal real estate (Tel-Aviv was sand dunes) from the large Arab landowners. The Arabs got top price for the real estate. Many Arab land sellers then riled-up the average Arab re Jews coming into the area. I guess the Arab landowners wanted to eat their cake and wanted to keep it too. But things didn't turn out as planned. They rarely do.

The real objection here is that Jews should have a non-Dhimmi state of their own in Dar-al-Islam. Hence the 1948 war, etc.

Though Zionism is essentially a defensive ideology (as opposed to offensive Islam), at some point Israel will become extremely aggressive in order to survive. The Arabs have consistently underestimated the Mideast Jews who relocated there, as well as the Holocaust survivors who fled to Israel. "Never again," means "never again".

Posted by: Frank at November 10, 2007 7:45 AM

And a very PROFOUND something it is! Possibly this will work to our (anti-jihadists, that is) advantage. Jcom972 I love your insight and apparent intellect.

Thank you for posting!

ABS

Posted by: Drewbenstein at November 10, 2007 7:51 AM

Israel should announce it will withdraw from the West bank. It would be interesting to see what Abbas's reaction would be, knowing full well that Hamas will be comming after him.

Posted by: rational at November 10, 2007 7:57 AM

Hello Israel.

One must defer to your view because you are in the crosshairs.

But haven't you yet figured out that the best jihadi is a dead one ?

That is the experience of America in Iraq. When the men and women of our military started killing and capturing about 50 jihadis per day, it was but a few months that Osama started to feel the pain, and is retreating, much to the chagrin of his 'followers'.

The first need is to understand islam. If one can understand nazi ism, it is not unrelated. Then get rid of your leftist fools like Olmert, Perez
and Barack. These aholes keep turning up like bad pennies.

Next control the media and the schools of the Syrian scum called 'palestineans' who can be invited to accept the rule of Israel or leave.

But then, we are not in the crosshairs. And we cannot kill jihadis here, at least not unless and until there is a war here in our home (which will be our legacy unless we take on the jihadis now).

God bless the West (and that includes Israel).

Posted by: dgene at November 10, 2007 8:16 AM

"In 1941, the US was trying amidst the embargo with Japan to resolve disputes diplomatically...from a position of trying to settle it in a peaceful way".Posted by: jcom972 at November 10, 2007 6:10 AM

Ideological fanaticism does make such peaceful diplomacy difficult-if not impossible. We must not underestimate that.

The US underestimated the Japanese supremacist "Hakko ichiu" ideology before WW2, as we underestimate Islamic supremacism in our time. The Japanese invasion of China, including the "rape of Nanjing", were partly justified by the "Hakko ichiu" ideology. US forces finally felt its sting in the Banzai attacks as we closed the ring on Japan. In the final analysis, the Japanese supremacist "Hakko ichiu" ideology and Germany's Nazi supremacist ideology literally had to be burned out.

I've lately been reading more history of the pacific theater of WW2. I was surprised by the force of this "Hakko ichiu" ideology and its role in Japan's jihad in the pacific. Ultimately, they meant to bring the world under Japanese domination (as did the Nazis).

Though this is a wiki article, it does a good job of summing up the concept...

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:wKmEw1UutLoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakko_ichiu+%22Hakko+ichiu%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Posted by: Frank at November 10, 2007 8:24 AM

If Robert were around in the 1930's he would have had a "Hakko ichiu Watch". He would have been told, "No problem. It's not a threat. It means "inner struggle". You are a Shintphobe".

In many ways, Islam is Arab Hakko ichiu. We must not underestimate these dogmas, rituals and the trances of these belief-systems. The people who launched the Hakko ichiu meant business.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2007-37,GGLJ:en&q=the+rape+of+nanjing&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

Posted by: Frank at November 10, 2007 9:17 AM

Beliefs do have consequences...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.freeinfosociety.com/chimage.php%3Fimage%3Dhistory/actualrape.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php%3Fpostnum%3D37&h=328&w=481&sz=65&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=DNULaFbndtQmjM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthe%2Brape%2Bof%2Bnanjing%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2007-37,GGLJ:en%26sa%3DN

Posted by: Frank at November 10, 2007 9:23 AM

And, will Israel withdraw? If so why? Why are the Jews--not only Israeli Jews--so determined to show the world that they are the "good guys?" They are the world's--excuse the language--schmucks!

WHY ISRAEL, (ONCE) MIGHTY AND DETERMINED, CANNOT GET ITSELF TO, NOT ONLY RESIST BUT, DESTROY THE ISLAMIC FORCES THAT PROMISE TO MAKE IT FREE OF THE HATED JEWS

NO "PALESTINIAN" STATE!

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 10, 2007 7:04 PM

jcom972
re your "Jerry's also got a good point...
fatah simply wanted the bogus "right of return" so they could breed out the enemy by procreation & insurrection from within & kill the rest later... "

So, what to do about it? Is there anything that can be done about "outbreeding?"

They come to conquer us Not with the sword, but with penis and womb. is there a way to stop them?

Perhaps

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 10, 2007 7:14 PM

Frank,

As concerns the "Hakko ichiu" that you brought up, the ideological engine that drove Japan. It was ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

See the parallel?

Sic semper . . .

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 11, 2007 1:27 AM

In case anyone still doesn't "get it"(not that there are dense people reading this--certainly not amongst he commenters here):

Frank said,

"The people who launched the Hakko ichiu meant business."

So did the people who launched the two thing-a-ma-jigs that boomed over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 11, 2007 1:46 AM

Let's keep in mind, there's "more than one way to skin game"...and sometimes using reverse psychology to throw an enemy off requires patience and perseverance, and keeping wits about them amidst the madness-seeming method.

I think we're all on the same page (main thing is many want to simply know just what the hell is up with this seemingly mad diplomacy, which was the crux of my inquiry to my old colleague-his answer made sense, despite the fact even I would like to charge in like a bull in a china shop myself.)

Franks take is no less cogent...just a different angle view of the same kind of subject-that's why I give him plenty of room on it. It's just two sides of the same coin.

The seemingly mad diplomacy isn't guaranteed to work, just like life in general...so it's also good to keep the position such as Frank's in mind as there is always the chance (in fact, the probability) it may be needed, so it must be kept on deck for use.

Keep in mind, much of the grumbling (understandable, so I'm not slamming anyone on it) is because we expect finite diplomacy (aka, either it works or we go to war)...problem is, it's a total crap shoot-a simple roll of the dice-it's either a winner or a loser. That can prove limited to the executor as much as to the recipient.

In the mean time, after what my colleague told me, I think I'll let it play out as...
1) if it works, it can throw the enemy off balance to either prevent a war &induce a possible implosion by the enemy from within, or wear them down before we attack in response...
2) a way to try last resort methods to avoid risking any more casualties than expected, even though casualties comes with the territory of military action-and thus save the trump card for last should it be needed-
either way, it's an "audible" play...the mindset is: why put more risk if you can put less, yet inflict maximum loss on the enemy if we don't even have to fire a shot.

It has happened before, so it's worth a try, even if those maniacs do have a death wish.
Even warriors know the most brilliant military strategists can inflict damage upon an enemy without firing a shot.
Even warriors detest war, and would prefer to be home with our spouses, kids, family, friends...out fishing, picnics, sailing, or what-have-you...
...and we also hope our diplomats know what the hell they're doing...because if they fail, we get called in...and that risk we live with jumps as expected, and we'll grumble at first like we always do between ourselves, them jump right into it...because it's our job, our duty, and a necessary evil, which is a small price to pay to make sure my family sleeps warm at night.

So, let's see it play out...but keep our guard up if needed. That way we have expended all options short of outright shooting.
Nothing at all wrong with that.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 11, 2007 5:02 AM

jcom972,

Let diplomacy do what it does best: foreplay. Sometimes that's all it takes. The next act is never reached. We never had to "dance" with the old Soviet Union. Although the new Russia is making gestures as if it wants to--with us. But let the diplomats work on that.

As for patience: Patience is a virtue, virtue is a grace, Grace is a little girl who doesn't wash her face.

Do we want to play the Pearl Harbor game again? Better to hit before being devastated. Not traipsing along the morally high road for sure. But is it "better to absorb than to strike the first blow?" Is that the preferred way to end this impasse?

The trick is to know if--and if, then when--to cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.

That's what we pay the people in power for.

Do they know more than we do? One would hope so. But does one think so? No.

If we believe in a Heaven, then we can and should say "Heaven help us."

If we do not (believe in a Heaven), then we can wait and see what happens. Not with or without patience, but as realists, realizing that in war and diplomacy nothing goes well nor as expected. We can go on, balancing "giving peace a chance" with our determination never to submit to Islam.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 11, 2007 5:40 AM

Well, I certainly don't fault you for your take.
(to be blunt, the only real form of diplomacy I know that works every time is a fully loaded gun battery...but that's another story, lol)...
It's THE major reason I made my inquiry...

... many remain bewildered and such, but we're not walking into another "Pearl Harbor".
PH, most all the ships remained in port-sitting ducks (save the carriers).
With that said, amidst the seeming madness method (that this diplomacy appears to be), I can only address that with a question:

Have you kept up on military dispositions lately?
(especially naval & marine forces on station, & USAF bombers in proximity to areas in question).
I'll leave that open-ended for ya, as I think your understandable take, if I'm reading you correctly, warrants you interjecting at this point...

Posted by: jcom972 at November 11, 2007 6:37 AM

We talk of Statehood with Fatah. Fatah gets it and Hamas takes it over. Thus, removing any remaining pretext of peaceful co-exhistance.

With Statehood, The "occupation" along with the violence justified by it, is lost. Attacks against Israel become actions of one State against another. Acts of War.

The loss of Victmhood for Palestinians is huge. Every justification for their hostility is lost to them by Statehood.

It is highly unlikely, like 99.99%, that Rocket attacks against Israel will end irreguardless of Statehood or who eventually runs it.

It is better for Israel to fight a recognised Nation State, openly hostile to it and under attack by it. Then to deal with the delemma of always combating Victums.

May Palistine get Statehood. May there be a long and Bloody struggle for it.

I would think that Israel would welcome the change in defination from Victum to a clearly defined Enemy. Israel need do nothing more than absorbe a few more rocket attacks to justify its defence against an openly hostile neighbor.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 11, 2007 8:17 AM

Why, Hamas will be a better peace partner in the West Bank than the powerless Abbas. http://samsonblinded.org/blog/our-muslim-friends.htm
Israel need to abandon that PLO-Fatah gang for good.

Posted by: danny at November 11, 2007 6:07 PM