Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
religious maniacs 0%
bloodthirsty savages 11%
israel:palestinians::united states of america:native americans 55%
foolishly causing their own downfall 11%
better to keep em over there than here 22%

Votes: 9

 Israel's planned genocide

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Aug 06, 2001
Well I've been trying to understand Israel's strategy for some time now and it's started to make some sense lately.

More diaries by alprazolam
Low expectations
right now
Middle School
Ethical Conundrum
Ethical Conundrum II
Everybody's a c**ksucker
End the Pretense
My online buddies
I chipped a tooth
week before move
Mock drafts
Why would Israel destroy Palestinian police stations?

I had to wonder that everytime I heard about another one destroyed by missles. It took me a while to figure it out. After all, if Palestinian leadership is destroyed, control then passes to Hamas, who is much more anti-Israel than Arafat.

Now recently I noticed that Israel is stepping up their demands that Arafat arrest and jail Hamas leaders. The yahoods claim it's because they don't want them to suicide bomb. Nonsense, these guys don't suicide bomb, and they probably don't care that much (strategically) if people do. What Israel wants is Arafat to collect the leaders of Hamas (the leaders of political dissent in Israel) and keep them in one place. In one police station. What does Israel do to Palestinian police stations? That's right. Israel can't count on being able to assassinate the leaders itself, even with it's vaunted intelligence corps, so they're counting on Arafat to do the work for them.

Once the most vociferous opposition has been silenced, the Israelis will immediately assassinate those members of Fatah who support and could possibly succeed Arafat. At this point he will know that he is the only thing holding the Palestinian people together and will either be forced to agree to Israeli demands or be assassinated. Once assassinated, the resulting power vacuum will ensure that Israel can efficiently and quietly massacre the remaining Palestinians, including those refugees that have fled to neighboring Arab states.

And it won't just be Palestinians massacred and rounded up into camps. Any Israeli opposition to the zionist violence will most likely be met with force. How ironic it would be: Jews filling concentration camps with jews. And it's not at all unlikely.


Assasination works. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by dmg on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 04:58:56 PM PST
As a tool for causing maximum disruption, for little cost in human life, assasination of key figures is a highly effective tool of the statesman.

Now we can get all high and mighty about the moral issues, but lets face facts here, in a fight, the winner is not always the person who is morally correct, often the winner is the one with the superior firepower and intelligence.

The Israelis feel rightfully threatened by the Islamic movements which surround them. They also understand that when you are fighting against zealots with an agenda that extends to the afterlife, and has a supra-national outlook, and has threatened to run the Jews into the sea, then all tactics must be considered.

It is a pity that the religious zealots of this world cannot practice their religions a bit more peacefully.

The situation in Israel is a bit like that in Northern Ireland. You have two groups of people blinded by hatred for the 'other' and unable to see how alike they seem to the rest of the world.

It would be funny, if it weren't so serious.

The world needs to get a better appreciation of game theory.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Dude! (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 08:12:57 PM PST
Why would Israel destroy Palestinian police stations?

A state is nothing but a monopolist in violence. Once its organ of force goes, whether by being blown into oblivion or by losing the fear and respect of the ruled, it goes. Once it goes, anarchy (or occupation) sets in. Once anarchy sets in, the international community imposes unfavorable rule. It will be unfavorable because the Palestinians will be without effective representation at the bargaining table. Once that happens, Palestinians will find themselves with a less than optimal "solution". However, subsequent resistance can be spun as a violation of this or that other thing -- simple terrorism, in other words.

Meanwhile, Israel can always claim that it's trying to send a message to the Palestinian police that it should do its job and control its own.

Well there is more than BBC/CNN shows ya... (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 02:59:19 AM PST
Well there is a thing that, after palestinian, has fired about 10000 rounds of ammo from their side to housing in israel, to an israel village, they call CNN as soon as they see any israeli movement, and BANG you see israel tank shoot palestinian building, where that man was.
The thing is that CNN always gets there too late to see palestinians shoot israel, but mainly when israelis retaliate. Its obvious why it is so. CNN reacts about as fast as israel to palestinian shooting. And the reason there is less israeli deads is that they have better medical support, and they dug behind bullet proof armours. While there are many palestinians willing to "Get to heaven by dying in holy war."
I have a question IF you have a pistol, and there would be a youngster gang of negroes coming towards you in situation where you cannot for some reason leave, perhaps you are at dead end, or your son is there and he cannot out run them. They only have baseball bats which they would use to hit you, and they just hit your friend to a leg with one, next to you, WOULD you SHOOT that 16-18 year old ganster who is about hit you with a baseball bat to your head, even if it would be "WRONG to shoot a child." or "They don't have guns against you, you are wrong to shoot them.", Or if the gang was indian "They were here first anyway."
The stones the palestinians where trowing before are as effective as baseball bats, and with group of them, will effect as much as group of kids hitting you with a baseball bats. WOULD YOU SHOOT THEM BACK, IF THEY CAME TO you to YOUR neighbour hood, AWAY from their own neighborhood to hit you with the baseball bats.
OR would you shoot them back what ever you have even if its stronger weapon if they shot at you from their neighborhood, to yours. Even with military level weapons... Now consider that you don't have place where to move away from your current house except for streets, where they may come NEXT after getting your house.
And their history ISRAEL originally bough the land before the independence war. EVERY war that israel has EVER figh has been ARABS attacking israel, and Israel beating them, and taking some buffer zone between their residents and the border, so that they wouldn't loose so many lives when arabs attack next time. Besides, Israel handles the palestinian problem far more human, than other arab nations dealing with their inside revolts. Lets put this way they EXECUTE every man in the village that has been part of revolution, bomb and slaughter everyone on the site, not a single mercy. Now arabs are revolving inside israel borders, israel shoots couple of the revolving arabs, and gets your disgrace. What the heck is wrong with you guys, you perfectly accept slaughter of 10 000 civilians, with just oh they are killing their own, big deal, but if israel shoots couple of soldiers for revolution they get huge blame.
Is that because you have more prejudice against israel than arab. Or is it for the fact that CNN reporters mainly get too late to see what arabs do and and make these things great news.
Oh yeah, Islamics kill far more christians in a month than jews have killed arabs in a year.
Its just that those sites are not interested by CNN to report and besides the strong party there doesn't allow any reporters to get there and there would be high risk for reporters to get shot there so they won't cover those. So you claim the evilness of those sites that the strong party is good enough to let reporters do their job, than those who stop reporterst doing any job and murder thousands per day. Not in single site but in larger area. To you its hard to believe but their religion dictates this behaviour, they have their JIHAD, holy war against unbelievers.
Unfortunately Arafat has learned the power of media when he killed full bussload of school kids back in 70's, or was it early 80's but then he have realised how to use media as weapons, and kids as bullets. He talks those kids about jihad and how they should DIE for the cause and go to heaven trough that. And beside when arafat last time talked about ceasefire in media the number of arab attacks have increased about 30%.
He tells his own people to IGNORE what he says in media, and to continue assault as much as possible. Its war. And media is one of the weapons of it.
Now one thing here to make sure that every one knows, I'm not jew, nor arab.
I'm from western europe, I know some white normal people who had been in the Israel during it started and their story what they saw was not the thing CNN shows. [As they had to take out the lights so that snipers couldn't see in their houses, when they put their lights on and moved something in the windows they needed new glass there. Everyone turned their lights off so that snipers couldn't see them. Now Israel has communists who are apologist, and try to go with arafat and to give him what he want's for trying to get the peace, and when they got in power there,(Oh god, I'll hope communist never gets power here.) they gave arafat much of what he wanted, and armed his "police". The arabs in israel side of border don't even want to get under arafats control, because that's even more corrupted goverment than Russia ever was.

Oh yeah and PLO:s (the arafats organisations.) their goal still is to get rid of nation of israel and it's still written in their manifest.

Arafat's personal goal has long been the total annihilation of israel, and the oslo peace process was just a way to get MORE power, and reduce israeli land area in order to have better chance in total destruction of israel.

Yep (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 03:52:58 AM PST
Its war. And media is one of the weapons of it.

So true, so true. Religion is another weapon. The point is that religions are incompatible with each other. You cannot reconcile a Muslim with a Christian, or a Jew, because BY DEFINITION each believes the other to be wrong. Now the Muslims have the most uncompromising approach to this, they are monotheistic, but the same is true of almost all other religions. Its not that Muslims are bad people in general, but the set of rules they follow will inevitably lead to confrontation.

Islam is a relativly young religion (700 years old) compared to 2000 years for Christianity, and 5000 years for Judaism, Hinduism etc. It has some of the arrogance of a teenager. (I'm right, you're wrong etc) In time it may mellow out, but at the moment it is going through a 'difficult phase'. The rest of the world will allow it to go so far (like an indulgent parent), but you can be damn sure that if it ever starts to affect Europe or the USA in any significant way, there will be a new set of crusades instigated against the Islamic 'threat'.

It is a pity that religion has to be manipulated in this way, I guess it is an example of the law of unintended consequences. When men sit down and create these religions, they should think a bit more carefully about what they include, and what they leave out.

Wrong about Islam (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by nobbystyles on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 04:37:24 AM PST
The Muslim religion was founded by the prophet Muhammed in the early 600s AD. By my calculation it makes it around 1400 years old, so it is not that much younger than Christianity and is still over millenium old.

Also the muslim civilisation during its peak from 700AD - 1400 AD was very tolerant of the other religions of 'the book' ie: Christianity and Judiasm and did not engage in progroms etc. The rise of muslim intolerance can be charted back to western attempts to colonise that area and to the founding of Israel and it is primarilarly a defensive reaction.

Oops you are right about the age, but not the rest (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 06:48:08 AM PST
I meant to say 1300 years old.

But I disagree with your analysis of Islam's 'tolerance'. I don't want to get into a long discussion about it, since it will boil down to me not being a Muslim and not reading Arabic in the final analysis, but disbelievers are not viewed too favorably by the Qu'ran or Allah.

[8.22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.

[8.55] Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[17.8] It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you again return (to disobedience) We too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.

[3.157] And if you are slain in the way of Allah or you die, certainly forgiveness from Allah and mercy is better than what they amass.

[3.23] Have you not considered those (Jews) who are given a portion of the Book? They are invited to the Book of Allah that it might decide between them, then a part of them turn back and they withdraw.

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

So you can see from an Islamic perspective, the non-believer is certainly not 'an equal'. And the Jew is even singled out for special treatment, and marked out as being a potential problem. The Jew (from an Islamic perspective) is someone who has been offered a choice between the 'truth' and his own religion, and rejected the 'truth'.

So since the Qu'ran may not be altered in any way, there seems little room to find a compromise. In my opinion, what we have here is a recipie for continual religious war.

Taken literally (none / 0) (#8)
by nobbystyles on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 07:33:31 AM PST
The Bible isn't too hot on Jews either in the new Testament. Blood guilt and all that. Nor is the Cabbala (Jewish apochrypha) too hot on Christians asking Jewish people to spit on Christian graves etc.

Luckily most muslims are not fundamentalist and there exists a lot of common ground between the three great monophistic religions.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to