FARK.com: (2402159) Hamas declares war on America. This should end well

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jerusalem Post)		Hamas declares war on America. This should end well (jpost.com)		470
		More: Dumbass

• • •

24327 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2006 at 10:20 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/2402159

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

470 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

Mr_Happy		2006-11-08 02:16:19 PM

Bring it on!

oh wait. that didn't work so well the first time.

saddlesablazin		2006-11-08 02:16:44 PM

Galloping Galoshes:

So Israel should simply declare peace? What about those Palestinians (and others) who declare that their goal is the destruction of Israel and the removal of the Jews? Should Israel unilaterally make peace with them? Or are you assuming that, after Israel makes its gesture, these groups would lay down their arms as well?

No. But they will start losing support of the population. No support equals no "martyrs". And since the leaders never do anything themselves, Hamas, or at least the military wing, will fade away into history.

Queque		2006-11-08 02:17:12 PM

Who's idea was it to put all those Jews in the Middle East?

Wasn't there some land in Alaska nobody was using?

Conflict in the Middle East sucking in other countries.

Whodthunkit.

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 02:26:34 PM

Queque Alaska

Can't put the Jews there, there's gold and oil there.

If I read the Bible correctly, the first guy to think of it was some guy called G-d. But he's the same one who thought of sharks, jellyfish, and mosquitoes, so consider the source.

wmoonfox		2006-11-08 02:30:47 PM

Galloping Galoshes G-d

Never heard of him. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure how that's pronounced. Must be Yiddish...

Tatsuma		2006-11-08 02:31:20 PM

czarangelus: For terrorism to stop, the checkpoints have to be removed.

Funny, there were no checkpoints for year, and that didn't stop terrorism

In fact, Israel wasn't even there from 48 to 67, and more than 500 terrorist attacks were launched from there.

Sorry, yuo lose.

czarangelus		2006-11-08 02:33:05 PM

Tatsuma: Sorry, yuo lose.

I don't lose, because no matter what else happens what I say is true. The terrorism simply won't stop until conditions improve in Palestine. This is a simple fact, like the tide rising and falling or the night following the day. You can't bomb them into surrender. Your choices are genocide or peace.

schatzie		2006-11-08 02:36:47 PM

clearly, what we need is a real war, no farking around, but gloves off, kick in their teeth until they realize they are beat kind of war. As long as you spend all your time crying about the potential of civilian death, you encourage the enemy (Hamas, Taliban, Hizboullah...) who knows they can always hurt you because any reprisal will be within the realm of acceptable loss. If, instead, we developed a medieval attitude towards war to deal with the midieval mindset we were facing, we might be very effective. Because if they realized that the only response to terrorist activities was overwhelming force that would kill them, their families, their neighbors, etc, etc, and that we had no qualms about doing it, then maybe they would think twice about commiting terrorist acts. A summer spent killing 400-600,000 Palestinians would have a calming effect on their desire to make war, and no, it would not wind up the rest of the Islamic world who would quickly figure out they could be next.

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 02:38:27 PM

"because no matter what else happens what I say is true."

this isn't the first time you've told me you have some sort of ultimate truth. You have no idea how amaizingly arrogant statements of that sort sound.

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 02:40:26 PM

czarangelus terrorism simply won't stop until conditions improve in Palestine.

Perhaps, but your proposed solution is not acceptable to reasonable people.

schatzie what we need is a real war

Actually, it would only create more problems.

czarangelus		2006-11-08 02:40:39 PM

schatzie: A summer spent killing 400-600,000 Palestinians would have a calming effect on their desire to make war, and no, it would not wind up the rest of the Islamic world who would quickly figure out they could be next.

3mpub.com

twice in the same thread...

Honour by Fire		2006-11-08 02:46:10 PM

When group A declares war on group B, Group B should try to kill as many as Group A as possible. It may be considered oversimplistic, but we'd be mistaking ourselves if we thought ourselves to be on a higher social plane of existence than the Romans, or that the mistakes for our civilisation weren't any higher. This should be simple.

wmoonfox		2006-11-08 02:46:12 PM

schatzie A summer spent killing 400-600,000 Palestinians would have a calming effect on their desire to make war, and no, it would not wind up the rest of the Islamic world who would quickly figure out they could be next.

It would reaffirm Iran's beliefs that the West is intent on overturning the Islamic rule in that region, justifying, in its mindset, the nuclear weapons program that it is accused of funding. Unless the West resorted to unconventional warfare (nuclear, chemical, biological), the spread of crude nuclear weapons throughout the region would be quick and unstoppable. Soon, any maniacal warlord with a few bucks would be able to snag a nuke, greatly raising the stakes of "terrorism" the world over.

If you're not willing to simply turn the entire region into glass preemptively, then your plan stinks. The last thing anyone trying to come off as "good guys" want to do is be responsible for escalation of the conflict.

Honour by Fire		2006-11-08 02:47:13 PM

*stakes, not mistakes

Queque		2006-11-08 02:49:20 PM

Galloping Galoshes
If I read the Bible correctly, the first guy to think of it was some guy called G-d.

Your imaginary friends should not be setting foreign policy...

Can't put the Jews there, there's gold and oil there.

You read it here first folks. No such thing as oil in the Middle East.

saddlesablazin		2006-11-08 02:49:51 PM

Dear Israel,

Here is your 3 step plan for ending Palestinian terrorism:

1. Kill as many confirmed militants as you can and for god sakes use weapons with better accuracy. Hire Eric Bana or whoever just please no more civilians.

2. Greatly improve conditions for all other Palestinians.

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 02:50:08 PM

Whether or not military action is the way to acheive it, Islamic rule in the region should end. It's draconian, midevil and brutaly inhuman by our western standards.

Not saying war is a good option, but these hardline islamic clerics are insane.

farking insane.

Honour by Fire		2006-11-08 02:50:22 PM

czarangelus OMG TEH HITLER!

czarangelus		2006-11-08 02:51:34 PM

Honour by Fire: czarangelus OMG TEH HITLER!

If it quacks like a duck...

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 02:52:38 PM

Honour by Fire This should be simple.

But it's not, because you have a small country that can't sustain a high-intensity conflict for long without outside help; that outside help is not going to sign on to a full-scale war against the Palestinians, Group A has a lot of retreat points, and Group A is a small subset of the total population that would be affected. Oh, and Group B has a concience and a highly-developed and active democratic political system that would prevent such an action.

Honour by Fire		2006-11-08 02:53:30 PM

czarangelus: If it quacks like a duck...

If it reasons like a fool..

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 02:54:05 PM

Churchill is teh hitler. He killed lots of german civilians.

Poor german civilians.

Gooseycheeks		2006-11-08 02:54:54 PM

czarangelus

Shouldn't you be studying? Ohhhhhh. That's right... philosophy major.... yeeesh....

/slowly and carefully backs to the door
//I was never here

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 02:56:26 PM

Queque imaginary friends

They aren't setting policy, you asked who thought of putting the Jews there. There was a thriving Jewish nation there over two-thousand years ago. I was attempting something called "humor." Sorry it didn't work for you.

No such thing as oil in the Middle East.
Not in Israel. In any quantity, anyway.

wmoonfox		2006-11-08 02:56:31 PM

Booze ...by our western standards.

I agree that Islamic rule in the region should end, for the reasons you've stated, and others. Namely, I don't believe religious rule of any country is morally justifiable, but I digress...

The problem with that stance is the very end of your first paragraph, quoted above. If you go down that path, you are saying quite literally that Western standards are morally superior to others; while I may agree with that on points, I would avoid saying it because of the slippery slope it creates. Who are we morally superior to, and what rights does this superiority give us? If we "fix" things over there under that guise, we may see another crusade within our lifetime.

saddlesablazin		2006-11-08 02:58:51 PM

beoswulf:

Why do you rednecks blame Hamas? It's not the terrorists' fault that the koran calls for jihad against all infidels.

Heya Beowulf how's it goin? Would you be so kind as to point me to where in the Quran it says that?

Honour by Fire		2006-11-08 02:59:23 PM

Galloping Galoshes

But it's not, because you have a small country that can't sustain a high-intensity conflict for long without outside help; that outside help is not going to sign on to a full-scale war against the Palestinians, Group A has a lot of retreat points, and Group A is a small subset of the total population that would be affected. Oh, and Group B has a concience and a highly-developed and active democratic political system that would prevent such an action.

Well, now that they've declared war on the US, Group B would be the USA and Israel. And I was saying it should be simple. A declaration of war should be taken seriously by a country's population. That is an inherent weakness in Democracy, I guess. Sometimes it lacks the will to fight back, and a civilisation needs to do so vehemenately in order to get to, or stay at, the top.

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 02:59:53 PM

Sorry, but they are moraly superior. I've talked with some Muslim friends of mine about "Justice" in thouse nation.

One friend of mine spoke to me about how a raped woman in Pakistan has to find 4 men to prove her innocance.

In saudia arabia rape victims can get lashed for being in a car without a male relative.

Woman cant drive in that country.

They cut the hands off of theives.

I'm serious, i dont give a fark about being politicaly correct. When a woman has to find 4 men to prove her innocance, we have the right to call that wrong.

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 03:01:58 PM

Honour by Fire inherent weakness in Democracy

No, it's because no one will take this seriously. At least until and unless attacks start.

wmoonfox		2006-11-08 03:02:56 PM

Honour A declaration of war should be taken seriously by a country's population.

A declaration of war by one country against another should and would be taken seriously. A declaration of war by a poorly-armed political group of a virtually non-existent country, on the other side of the planet, with absolutely no way of carrying out its threats, shouldn't and won't be taken seriously by any civilized nation.

For instance, I declared war on the Vatican over a decade ago, but nobody seemed to care.

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 03:04:33 PM

wmoonfox

you are right though, we can't just use that to change things over there, and i doubt military action is going to acheive it, but I have no love for sharia law. Islamic fundamentalists point to israel/USA to absolve themselves of responsibility and shift blaim.

I hate it when people buy it

Honour by Fire		2006-11-08 03:04:41 PM

PM Galloping Galoshes:

No, it's because no one will take this seriously. At least until and unless attacks start.

I thought I said that. Anyway, I agree.

schatzie		2006-11-08 03:05:21 PM

I never said anything about being the good guy. I simply implied a way to be the winner.

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 03:05:23 PM

BoozePenguin

Don't confuse the Arab-Israeli conflict with the Western/Islamic conflict. The first has some elements of the second, but primarily is one of competing populations. Think Irish/English. There is also some third world anti-colonialism mixed in there.

Honour by Fire		2006-11-08 03:06:03 PM

wmoonfox I think there's a teeny bit of difference.

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 03:07:54 PM

wmoonfox I declared war on the Vatican over a decade ago, but nobody seemed to care.

How'd you do? Was it the Vatican's poor performance against you that made them switch Popes?

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 03:09:06 PM

I would argue that the Israeli/Arab conflic tis a front of a larger western/Islamic conflict.

It's a proxy conflict, IMHO, and i honestly beleave it has little to do with competing populations. For the average palestinian perhaps, but groups like hamas aren't look to clear up any misunderstandings and live in peace. They're intent on destroying the wests proxy in the middle east.

if the roles where reversed in this conflict the jews wouldn't be in palestine/israel. There would be no Palestinian Jews.

wmoonfox		2006-11-08 03:15:10 PM

Galloping How'd you do? Was it the Vatican's poor performance against you that made them switch Popes?

Unfortunately, the state of war between myself and the Vatican has resulted in little more than a trade embargo: I buy nothing Catholic in origin. I and my war cabinet, however, have high hopes that this economic pressure will force its current leadership into negotiations.

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 03:15:48 PM

BoozePenguin It's a proxy conflict

Well, it IS multifaceted. As you point out, there are religious threads. Arab-wide, Israel was regarded as one of the last vestiges of colonialism, with the colonial powers, who already farked up the area with their neat borders and backing of this or that group for power, creating a nation where nothing like it had been before, and installing what they saw as a foreign element in power. Domestically, it has elements of competing nationalism, which began back in the 1920's. It has some cold war elements, and there are now large business elements involved, particularly with the large oil producers. So one reason a resolution is so difficult is that its got all these elements that have to be taken into account.

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 03:19:12 PM

wmoonfox high hopes

Good luck in your quest. You may consider opening a second front. The Vatican is heavily reliant on foreign aid.

/don't drink the holy water.

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 03:20:07 PM

Galloping Galoshes

This is a very good point, there are many competing intrests. I beleave the religious twist to the conflict is the most dangerous, even more so then nationalism. Religious fundamentalists of any kind are dangerous, because they beleave that they are killing in the name of a higher cause, it makes it very easy to justify horrendous things. A great example of this is Hezbollah in Lebanon. The "Party of God" has the right to be armed and make decisions for the rest of Lebanon with a tiny handful of seats in the parliment, and this self-righteous attitude is centerd around there specific interpritation of Islam.

\hooray for reasonable people!

Galloping Galoshes		2006-11-08 03:25:03 PM

BoozePenguin
I agree that religious extremism is very dangerous, and difficult to defeat. It will be a long-term struggle, and allies on the islamic side are crucial to victory.

BoozePenguin		2006-11-08 03:30:14 PM

100% correct. I'm personaly of the opinion that the invasion of iraq was the stupidest move America could have made. They shoulda sent 300,000+ troups to afghanistan and focused on improving conditions there with the help of a multi-national force. Flying off the handle and invading an oil rich country unjustifiably is exactly what the extreemists want. It serves to justify their message and radicalise people who might otherways have been friends.

I hope something can happen to repair american credibility abroad.... bush co sure did a number on that one.

Chimpanzee War Party		2006-11-08 03:44:12 PM

Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian government, said the group had no intention of attacking American targets.

and

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

"Our battle is against the occupation on the Palestinian land. We have no interest to transfer the battle," he said, though he said America was indirectly responsible for Wednesday's bloodshed because of its support for Israel.

"We urge the Arab nation and the governments of the Arab countries to protest the world's silence and the American bias," he said.

● This headline is about as misleading
● Muslim Groups have complained about this for decades
● Non-Story

Gunter glieben glauchen globen		2006-11-08 04:18:28 PM

My solution:

State-sponsored counter-terrorism.

Think it over.

W can go on Iranian TV and say "Whoa-ho-ho!! I have no control over what that wacky Alleluia Martyrdom Brigade does!!! Heh heh heh!! Maybe if you'd just vacate your countries everything will be cool!! Wow-a! We condemn everything they do! Snarf snarf!!"

Jon Snow		2006-11-08 04:21:28 PM

You mean foreign entaglements can have consequences? Where's Rick Romero?

Spain is condmening the Israeli attack that sparked this.

Jon Snow		2006-11-08 04:25:39 PM

Galloping Galoshes

I can't chat about this very long today, but I appreciated your insights in the last conversation that we had.

What are your thoughts on a binational solution? Birth rate gap acknowledged.

twfeline		2006-11-08 04:25:47 PM

How to stop the terrorists?
Make it less desirable for them to piss off the US.

1. Hire one person in each of the larger families. Stop at around 1/50 of the population. Have them police the area or pass out lottery tickets.

2. Set up a couple of hundred McDonalds restaurants, have them add to the menu a couple of whatever the most popular local fast food staples, and pass out lots of 4-for-the-price-of-one coupons at McDonalds.

3. Run a lottery that's cheap to enter and pays out 1/100 of what it costs us to maintain a military readiness in the region...say, about 10 Billion Dollars.

Persepolis		2006-11-08 04:45:38 PM

Gunter glieben glauchen globen: W can go on Iranian TV and say "Whoa-ho-ho!! I have no control over what that wacky Alleluia Martyrdom Brigade does!!! Heh heh heh!! Maybe if you'd just vacate your countries everything will be cool!! Wow-a! We condemn everything they do! Snarf snarf!!"

You know hamas in neither an Iranian entity, nor funded by Iran.

I think you're thinking of lebanese staffed hezbollah.

Shwirv		2006-11-08 04:50:54 PM

Hamas couldn't have picked a better time with all the pick-ups by the Dems in Congress they have nothing to worry about. It's hard to defend yourself when you feel for all your military actions.

Displayed 50 of 470 comments