Suicide Bomber Kills 8 in Tel Aviv

[Debate This]

[/url]AP - A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant in a bustling commercial area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing eight other people and wounding at least 49, police said. Israeli Prime Minister-designate Ehud Olmert said Israel would respond "as necessary."

 

 

Link To Original Article

[snafu]

Yes!

 

I hope Israel kicks the shit out of them this time!

Restraint restraint restraint. When will people wake up?

And yet another reason to fuck up Iran too. When are we going to quit letting the liberals run the show? They hit us we slap the shit out of them. They cut us we shoot them. They shoot use we blow them off the fucking map!

[builder]

You are so petulant snaf~U..

 

The program reads;

 

We smack them. We smack them. We wonder why they smack us. We smack them.

[Gallytuck]

I hope Israel kicks the shit out of them this time!

 

That's a large part of the problem. If you abandoned Israel you'd see a lot less aggression towards America from the Middle East. In fact, I'd bet a toonie that they'd send baskets. And probably not cheap ones. They like to flash their wealth. So like, really fresh fruits. And maybe hash from Afghanistan because I don't think they really have anything else anyone would want. And maybe a camel. I digress.

 

While the story is between Palestinians and Jews I still had to point out snafu's way of thinking and how it relates to big part of why the Muslims have it out for America and the world. If America was to cut ties to Israel the Muslims would back off big-time. I say let them have a shot at Israel. They're prepared.

 

The conversion of the world's population to Islam can wait. If they could have a go at Israel(with a chance of that backfiring) they'd be quite content to leave the rest of the world alone for a while. I have a feeling they'd be in for a long one.

[Lethalfind]

That's a large part of the problem. If you abandoned Israel you'd see a lot less aggression towards America from the Middle East. In fact, I'd bet a toonie that they'd send baskets. And probably not cheap ones. They like to flash their wealth. So like, really fresh fruits. And maybe hash from Afghanistan because I don't think they really have anything else anyone would want. And maybe a camel. I digress.

 

While the story is between Palestinians and Jews I still had to point out snafu's way of thinking and how it relates to big part of why the Muslims have it out for America and the world. If America was to cut ties to Israel the Muslims would back off big-time. I say let them have a shot at Israel. They're prepared.

 

The conversion of the world's population to Islam can wait. If they could have a go at Israel(with a chance of that backfiring) they'd be quite content to leave the rest of the world alone for a while. I have a feeling they'd be in for a long one.

 

Gally, I'd like a Harrods basket please, one of those nice posh big ones with everything from sweets to savories in it...

[snafu]

That's a large part of the problem. If you abandoned Israel you'd see a lot less aggression towards America from the Middle East. In fact, I'd bet a toonie that they'd send baskets. And probably not cheap ones. They like to flash their wealth. So like, really fresh fruits. And maybe hash from Afghanistan because I don't think they really have anything else anyone would want. And maybe a camel. I digress.

 

While the story is between Palestinians and Jews I still had to point out snafu's way of thinking and how it relates to big part of why the Muslims have it out for America and the world. If America was to cut ties to Israel the Muslims would back off big-time. I say let them have a shot at Israel. They're prepared.

 

The conversion of the world's population to Islam can wait. If they could have a go at Israel(with a chance of that backfiring) they'd be quite content to leave the rest of the world alone for a while. I have a feeling they'd be in for a long one.

 

 

Well I have to agree that’s part of the reason the rest of the middle east hates us but then again it’s been us that keeps telling Israel to back down. I don't turn my back on friends and I don't expect my county to do it either.

There’s nothing we can do about being allies with Israel now. But the problem is with the Palestinians committing atrocities such as this without any repercussions. The only thing these fuck heads understand is death. Lets give it to them.

Isreal is very strong and is more than capibale of taking these assholes out.

[Hamza123]

Well I have to agree that

[snafu]

 

When you say "these fuckheads" are you talking about all Palestinians? The majority of them are laid back and nice people.

 

Yeah these fuckheads are real laid back.

 

The Israelis have done a lot of atrocities too. They do have the upper hand and have different values that we have. I don’t like the bulldozing of the Palestinian homes much either. But then again it’s not America.

When I say fuckheads I mean fuckheads that outright kill innocent people by blowing them up. You should understand that. Kinda like the three fuckheads that blew up the mosque last week.

Why on earth would you want to condone this action? Are you trying to rebut everything that I say?

Not to be mean but you do need to think before you say something. You just might start believing the shit you say.

But keep doing your home work you just might get it right some time.

[Hamza123]

Why on earth would you want to condone this action? Are you trying to rebut everything that I say?

Not to be mean but you do need to think before you say something. You just might start believing the shit you say.

But keep doing your home work you just might get it right some time.

 

I would never condone any act of violence, except in self defense, and even than, that for me is a shaky subject as their is a FINE LINE between freedom fighting, terrorism, and self defense. The fact is, I just got it that you were reffering to all Palestinians as fuckheads... So I went wrong THERE. However I do agree with you, anyone to ever raise a muscle over the weak/innocent, anyone who would ever needlessly slaughter a single soul, anyone who would kill in the name of those un-affiliated... is pure evil... scum... and yes, fuckheads.

[snafu]

I would never condone any act of violence, except in self defense, and even than, that for me is a shaky subject as their is a FINE LINE between freedom fighting, terrorism, and self defense. The fact is, I just got it that you were reffering to all Palestinians as fuckheads... So I went wrong THERE. However I do agree with you, anyone to ever raise a muscle over the weak/innocent, anyone who would ever needlessly slaughter a single soul, anyone who would kill in the name of those un-affiliated... is pure evil... scum... and yes, fuckheads.

 

And I will agree that it is a fine line between freedom fighting and terrorism. We think differently than they do.

So if someone commits an act like this they think its okay to take it out on their family. That’s ludicrous. We can not let any body on Gods green earth to comment these atrocities though. Rules of engagement? Kind of an oxymoron but innocence must be protected. Engage the enemy.

I am more for the Israelis. The Palestinians have been given chance after chance for peace. They have been given The Gaza and other land. We can debate who owned it first but the point is mute now. They want it all and want the Jews swept into the sea. They don't want to live in harmony with anyone thats of Islamic faith. They don’t have the backing and so they resort to tactics such as this. I think Israel then needs to set the record straight and kick some ass.

[Gallytuck]

I am more for the Israelis. The Palestinians have been given chance after chance for peace. They have been given The Gaza and other land. We can debate who owned it first but the point is mute now. They want it all and want the Jews swept into the sea. They don't want to live in harmony with anyone thats of Islamic faith. They don

[hugo]

Excerpts from

 

A Republic, Not an Empire

by Patrick J. Buchanan

AntiWar.Com Conference - San Mateo, California

March 25, 2000

 

 

What is best for America and the world, they tell us, is that the United States should remain a superpower sheriff, the Wyatt Earp of the West, possessed of the sole right to deputize posses, or go it alone if necessary, to discipline evil-doers, wherever our "values" are threatened. I submit that this foreign policy poses a great and growing danger to the peace and security of the United States.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Look at the balance sheet of Bill Clinton's unconstitutional war. NATO, a defensive alliance, launched an offensive war against a nation that threatened no member of that alliance, dissipating the moral authority with which NATO had emerged from the Cold War. Serbia is smashed. Montenegro and Macedonia are destabilized. Kosovo was purged first of Albanians, then of Serbs. And lies in ruins. U.S. relations with China and Russia have been damaged. For what? So we and NATO could police in perpetuity a Balkan province that has not the remotest connection to U.S. vital interests. Such are the fruits of neo-imperialism.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

For ten years, the U.S. has played the dominant role in maintaining rigid sanctions on Iraq. By one UN estimate, these sanctions have resulted in the premature deaths of 500,000 children. Will the parents of those children ever forgive us? Even our European Allies recoil. By keeping these sanctions fastened on Iraq, we flout every tenet of Christianity's Just War doctrine, and build up deposits of hatred across the Arab world that will take decades to draw down. One day our children shall pay the price of our callous indifference to what is happening to the children of Iraq.

 

I speak as a proud Cold Warrior who supported every great anti-Communist initiative from JFK to Reagan. And I support a U.S. defense that is second to none and a foreign policy whereby America responds resolutely to any attack on American citizens, honor, or vital interests.

 

But what purpose is served by our shortening the lives of Iraqi people who have done us no harm? If Desert Storm could not remove Saddam Hussein, how are the women, children and elderly of Iraq, the victims of our sanctions, supposed to overthrow him?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

During one debate, John McCain singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea as "rogue states" and advocated the armed overthrow of all three by U.S.-trained and equipped armies. Pressed on what he would do if his armies were being annihilated, the Senator did not respond. But he did not reject the notion that Iran, a nation of 70 million, should also be designated a rogue state to be targeted for overthrow.

 

Friends, this is hubris; this is triumphalism; this is the arrogance of power; this is America's Brezhnev doctrine. I single McCain out not because he in particular is misguided, but because such ideas are commonplace among the global gamesmen in Washington.

 

Governor Bush cried out in anguish when he was compared by Senator McCain to Bill Clinton, but he did not utter a skeptical word about McCain's plans for rogue regimes. Indeed, the Governor has exhibited neither absorbing interest nor extraordinary aptitude for foreign policy -- to put it generously. His call last year for the war on Serbia to be waged "more ferociously" was his one memorable foreign policy utterance. But in the cluster of foreign policy aides, the self-styled "Vulcans," now home-schooling the Governor, notions of "rogue state rollback" are music to the ear.

 

Among the more prominent of the Vulcans is Paul Wolfowitz. A Pentagon aide to Bush the Elder, Wolfowitz produced in 1992 a blueprint for war against Russia that would utilize six carrier battle groups and 24 NATO divisions to rescue Lithuania, should Moscow recolonize that tiny republic.

 

Richard Perle, another of the "On-to-Baghdad" brigade, is perhaps Washington's premier enthusiast of using U.S. power to topple rogue regimes. Another tutor to Governor Bush is his father's former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. A few months ago, General Scowcroft advocated putting a division of U.S. troops on the Golan Heights, to police peace between Syria and Israel, thereby insuring there would be dead Americans in any future Syrian-Israeli clash.

 

Not one of the "Vulcans" embraces the new thinking on foreign policy that has taken root in Congress and the country in the aftermath of the Cold War. This new thinking alarms both Clintonites who call it "isolationist," but even more the neo-conservatives who believe America should convert her hour of power into a "benevolent global hegemony."

 

Indeed, during Clinton's war on Serbia, one neoconservative strategist was so disheartened by the lack of war spirit among the Republican rank-and file, he mused about giving up and leaving the GOP altogether.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quo Vadis? Where are you going, America?

 

Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

 

Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?

 

And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?

 

America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. And let us quickly adopt a measure of humility about how much we know about what is best for other peoples and cultures. In the words of the great scholar Russell Kirk: "There exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government depends on the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture...and all these things vary from land to land and age to age."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this new era, many of us are rediscovering the old distrust of crusading that was at the center of the world view of the old American Right. We are conscious of our love for this country. We do not wish to isolate America from the world, only to isolate America from wars -- the religious, ethnic, and territorial wars of less fortunate lands. We know there is a powerful body of American thought -- from Washington to John Quincy Adams to William Jennings Bryan and Robert Taft -- as well as all the near forgotten figures written about by Justin Raimondo and others -- to help guide us. And their message is one I intend to stamp upon our banners in the campaign of 2000: A Republic, Not an Empire! America First!

 

 

We shoulda voted for Pat.

[builder]

 

 

 

We shoulda voted for Pat.

 

More options is what you need. If I had a choice between shrub and say, Dick Van Dyke, Dick would get my vote. Even though he's now dead, he could vicariously put in a much better performance than the shrub's vicarious act.

 

I'm builder, and I'm disgusted in the American sham elections, I'm discouraged by the apathy concurrent within the middle and lower classes, and I'm disgruntled that I didn't get out to the reef today and catch several quality reef fish.

 

But you get that.

[hugo]

More options is what you need. If I had a choice between shrub and say, Dick Van Dyke, Dick would get my vote. Even though he's now dead, he could vicariously put in a much better performance than the shrub's vicarious act.

 

I'm builder, and I'm disgusted in the American sham elections, I'm discouraged by the apathy concurrent within the middle and lower classes, and I'm disgruntled that I didn't get out to the reef today and catch several quality reef fish.

 

But you get that.

 

We should not blame it on the politicians. We get what the majority deserve and 98% of people are fucking dumbasses. We had two legitimate choices in 2000, Harry Browne and Pat Buchanan.

[builder]

We should not blame it on the politicians. We get what the majority deserve and 98% of people are fucking dumbasses. We had two legitimate choices in 2000, Harry Browne and Pat Buchanan.

 

Browne would have got my vote for sure.