I must condemn in the most resolute terms suicide bombings of civilians. There can be no excuse for the murder of civilians.

However, we must understand what causes these suicide bombings. I believe this article gives the motivation well.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=283752

The US is looking for war against Iraq and Iraq is looking for war against Israel and the United States.

The United States should stay out and pressure Israel to make peace with the Arabs.

Iraq to join Palestinians
in Israel attack?
Baghdad says troops training to face 'forces of evil and oppression'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 10, 2002
5:00 p.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily brings readers exclusive, up-to-the-minute global intelligence news and analysis from Geostrategy-Direct, a new online newsletter edited by veteran journalist Robert Morton and featuring the "Backgrounder" column compiled by Bill Gertz. Geostrategy-Direct is a subscription-based service produced by the publishers of WorldTribune.com, a free news service frequently linked by the editors of WorldNetDaily.

? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Iraq's military has launched plans to attack Israel in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority.

U.S. officials said Saddam appears to be coordinating with PA Chairman Yasser Arafat in efforts to stage anti-Israeli and anti-U.S. attacks in the Middle East. The Palestinians are said to have provided Iraq with intelligence information on Israeli targets.

Western intelligence sources said Iraq has 450,000 soldiers and 2,700 tanks organized in 30 divisions. The Republican Guard has nine divisions; elite units that protect Saddam amount to three divisions. The sources said Iraq is believed to be spending nearly $2 billion a year on the military.

Major suppliers are said to include Belarus, China, Russia and Serbia.

Saddam, who convened his leadership on April 7, also has increased his support for the Palestinian war against Israel. The officials said Baghdad has raised its stipend to the families of those Palestinians killed in fighting Israel to $30,000 from $10,000. The money is said to be directed toward Palestinian suicide-bombers.

Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed said Iraqi forces are training and equipping for a military campaign against the Jewish state. Ahmed said Iraqi forces will be in the forefront of an Arab war against Israel.

"The armed forces will be the cutting swords in the liberation of our territories in Palestine, including Jerusalem, usurped by the Zionists," Ahmed said in a telegram to President Saddam Hussein. "It is continuing its training and its mission is facing up to the forces of evil and oppression, represented by criminal America and its odious Zionist ally."

Ahmed, in a telegram quoted by the Iraqi News Agency, did not specify military plans or equipment being deployed for the operation. The Saddam regime has called for the mobilization of 6.5 million volunteers in the war against the Jewish state.

A similar telegram was sent by Saddam's younger son Kusay, who said Iraqis are prepared to defend their country. Kusay has been deemed as the favorite to succeed his father as ruler of Iraq.

Iraq also has called on Arab and Islamic countries to impose an embargo on the United States and other allies of Israel. Iran and Libya have expressed interest in the proposal.

In Washington, President George W. Bush said the United States would ensure the removal of Saddam from power, regardless of whether he approves the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. Bush did not specify whether this would mean a military campaign against Baghdad.

"The policy of my government is that he goes," Bush said. "The worst thing that could happen would be to allow a nation like Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, to develop weapons of mass destruction and then team up with terrorist organizations so they can blackmail the world. I'm not going to let that happen."

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

Subscribe to Geostrategy-Direct.

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

E-mail to a Friend Printer-friendly version

Former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave this speech to the US House of Representatives in September of last year. The language he uses in this speech amazes me, he is talking like an Elder Prophet.

How To Win The War Against Terrorism
by Binyamin Netanyahu

The following speech was given Sept. 20, 2001 to the U.S. House of Representatives' Government Reform Committee.

Distinguished representatives, I want to thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I feel a profound responsibility addressing you in this hour of peril in the capital of liberty.

What is at stake today is nothing less than the survival of our civilization. There may be some who would have thought a week ago that to talk in these apocalyptic terms about the battle against international terrorism was to engage in reckless exaggeration. No longer.

Each one of us today understands that we are all targets, that our cities are vulnerable, and that our values are hated with an unmatched fanaticism that seeks to destroy our societies and our way of life.

I am certain that I speak on behalf of my entire nation when I say: Today, we are all Americans. In grief, as in defiance. In grief, because my people have faced the agonizing horrors of terror for many decades, and we feel an instant kinship with both the victims of this tragedy and the great nation that mourns its fallen brothers and sisters. In defiance, because just as my country continues to fight terrorism in our battle for survival, I know that America will not cower before this challenge.

I have absolute confidence that if we, the citizens of the free world, led by President Bush, marshall the enormous reserves of power at our disposal, harness the steely resolve of a free people, and mobilize our collective will - we shall eradicate this evil from the face of the earth.

But to achieve this goal, we must first however answer several questions: Who is responsible for this terrorist onslaught? Why, what is the motive behind these attacks? And most importantly, what must be done to defeat these evil forces?

The first and most crucial thing to understand is this: There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states.

International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it. Terrorists are not suspended in mid-air. They train, arm and indoctrinate their killers from within safe havens on territory provided by terrorist states. Often these regimes provide the terrorists with intelligence, money, and operational assistance, dispatching them to serve as deadly proxies to wage a hidden war against more powerful enemies.

These regimes mount a worldwide propaganda campaign to legitimize terror, besmirching its victims and exculpating its practitioners -- as we witnessed in the farcical spectacle in the UN conference on racism in Durban last month. Iran, Libya, and Syria call the US and Israel racist countries that abuse human rights? Even Orwell could not have imagined such a world.

Take away all this state support, and the entire scaffolding of international terrorism will collapse into the dust.

The international terrorist network is thus based on regimes - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan. These regimes are the ones that harbor the terrorist groups: Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Hizbullah and others in Syrian-controlled Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the recently mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the Palestinian territories, and sundry other terror organizations based in such capitals as Damascus, Baghdad, and Khartoum.

These terrorist states and terror organizations together form a terror network, whose constituent parts support each other operationally as well as politically. For example, the Palestinian groups cooperate closely with Hizbullah, which in turn links them to Syria, Iran, and bin Laden. These offshoots of terror have affiliates in other states that have not yet uprooted their presence, such as Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.

The growth of this terror network is the result of several developments in the last two decades: Chief among them is the Khomeini revolution and the establishment of a clerical Islamic state in Iran. This created a sovereign spiritual base for fomenting a strident Islamic militancy worldwide, a militancy that was often backed by terror.

Equally important was the victory in the Afghan war of the international mujahadin brotherhood. This international band of zealots, whose ranks include Osama bin Laden, saw their victory over the Soviet Union as providential proof of the innate supremacy of faithful Muslims over the weak infidel powers. They believed that even the superior weapons of a superpower could not withstand their superior will.

To this should also be added Saddam Hussein's escape from destruction at the end of the Gulf War, his dismissal of UN monitors, and his growing confidence that he can soon develop unconventional weapons to match those of the West.

Finally, the creation of Yasser Arafat's terror enclave gave a safe haven to militant Islamic terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Like their mujahadin cousins, they drew inspiration from Israel's hasty withdrawal from Lebanon, glorified as a great Muslim victory by the Syrian-backed Hizbullah. Under Arafat's rule, these Palestinian Islamic terrorist groups made repeated use of the technique of suicide bombing, going so far as to run summer camps in Gaza that teach Palestinian children how to become suicide martyrs.

Here is what Arafat's government controlled newspaper, Al Hayat al Jadida, said on September 11, the very day of the suicide bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: "The suicide bombers of today are the noble successors of the Lebanese suicide bombers, who taught the US Marines a tough lesson. These suicide bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history. They are the most honorable people among us."

A simple rule prevails here: The success of terrorists in one part of the terror network emboldens terrorists throughout the network.

This then is the who. Now for the why.

Though its separate parts may have local objectives and take part in local conflicts, the main motivation driving the terror network is an anti-Western hostility that seeks to achieve nothing less than a reversal of history. It seeks to roll back the West and install an extremist form of Islam as the dominant power in the world. And it seeks to do this not by means of its own advancement and progress, but by destroying the enemy. This hatred is the product of a seething resentment that has simmered for centuries in certain parts of the Arab and Islamic world.

Most Muslims in the world, including the vast majority of the growing Muslim communities in the West, are not guided by this interpretation of history, nor are they moved by its call for a holy war against the West. But some are. And though their numbers are small compared to the peaceable majority, they nevertheless constitute a growing hinterland for this militancy.

Militant Islamists resented the West for pushing back the triumphant march of Islam into the heart of Europe many centuries ago. Its adherents, believing in the innate supremacy of Islam, then suffered a series of shocks when in the last two centuries that same hated, supposedly inferior West penetrated Islamic realms in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf.

For them the mission was clear: The West had to be first pushed out of these areas. Pro-western Middle Eastern regimes were toppled in rapid succession, including in Iran. And Israel, the Middle East's only democracy and its purest manifestation of Western progress and freedom, must be wiped off the face of the earth.

Thus, the soldiers of militant Islam do not hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the West - because they see it is an island of Western democratic values in a Muslim-Arab sea of despotism. That is why they call Israel the Little Satan, to distinguish it clearly from the country that has always been and will always be the Great Satan - the United States of America.

Nothing better illustrates this than Osama bin Laden's call for jihad against the United States in 1998. He gave as his primary reason not Israel, not the Palestinians, not the "peace process," but rather the very presence of the United States "occupying the land of Islam in the holiest of places" - and where is that? - "the Arabian peninsula" says Bin Laden, where America is "plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, and humiliating its people." Israel, by the way, comes a distant third, after "the continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" [Al Quds al Arabi, February 23, 1998]. For the bin Ladens of the world, Israel is merely a sideshow.

America is the target.

But reestablishing a resurgent Islam requires not just rolling back the West; it requires destroying its main engine, the United States. And if the US cannot be destroyed just now, it can be first humiliated - as in the Teheran hostage crisis two decades ago - and then ferociously attacked again and again, until it is brought to its knees. But the ultimate goal remains the same: Destroy America and win eternity.

Some of you may find it hard to believe that Islamic militants truly cling to the mad fantasy of destroying America. Make no mistake about it. They do.

And unless they are stopped now, their attacks will continue, and become even more lethal in the future.

To understand the true dangers of Islamic militancy, we can compare it to another ideology which sought world domination - communism. Both movements pursued irrational goals, but the communists at least pursued theirs in a rational way.

Anytime they had to choose between ideology and their own survival, as in Cuba or Berlin, they backed off and chose survival. Not so for the Islamic militants. They pursue an irrational ideology irrationally - with no apparent regard for human life, neither their own lives nor the lives of their enemies. The communists seldom, if ever, produced suicide bombers, while Islamic militancy produces hordes of them, glorifying them and promising them that their dastardly deeds will earn them a glorious afterlife. This highly pathological aspect of Islamic militancy is what makes it so deadly for mankind.

When in 1996 I wrote a book about fighting terrorism, I warned about the militant Islamic groups operating in the West with the support of foreign powers - serving as a new breed of "domestic-international" terrorists, basing themselves in America to wage jihad against America: "Such groups," I wrote then, "nullify in large measure the need to have air power or intercontinental missiles as delivery systems for an Islamic nuclear payload. They will be the delivery system. In the worst of such scenarios, the consequences could be not a car bomb but a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center." Well, they did not use a nuclear bomb. They used two 150-ton fully fueled jetliners to wipe out the Twin Towers. But does anyone doubt that given the chance, they will throw atom bombs at America and its allies? And perhaps long before that, chemical and biological weapons?

This is the greatest danger facing our common future. Some states of the terror network already possess chemical and biological capabilities, and some are feverishly developing nuclear weapons. Can one rule out the possibility that they will be tempted to use such weapons, openly or through terror proxies, or that their weapons might fall into the hands of the terrorist groups they harbor?

We have received a wake up call from hell. Now the question is simple: Do we rally to defeat this evil, while there is still time, or do we press a collective snooze button and go back to business as usual?

The time for action is now.

Today the terrorists have the will to destroy us, but they do not have the power. There is no doubt that we have the power to crush them. Now we must also show that we have the will. Once any part of the terror network acquires nuclear weapons, this equation will fundamentally change and with it the course of human affairs. This is the historical imperative that now confronts all of us all.

And now the third point: What do we about it? First, as President Bush said, we must make no distinction between the terrorists and the states that support them. It is not enough to root out the terrorists who committed this horrific act of war. We must dismantle the entire terrorist network.

If any part of it remains intact, it will rebuild itself, and the specter of terrorism will reemerge and strike again. Bin Laden, for example, has shuttled over the last decade from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to the Sudan and back again. So we must not leave any base intact.

To achieve this goal we must first have moral clarity. We must fight terror wherever and whenever it appears. We must make all states play by the same rules. We must declare terrorism a crime against humanity, and we must consider the terrorists enemies of mankind, to be given no quarter and no consideration for their purported grievances. If we begin to distinguish between acts of terror, justifying some and repudiating others based on sympathy with this or that cause, we will lose the moral clarity that is so essential for victory.

This clarity is what enabled America and Britain to root out piracy in the 19th century. This is how the Allies rooted out Nazism in the 20th century.

They did not look for the "root cause" of piracy or the "root cause" of Nazism - because they knew that some acts are evil in and of themselves, and do not deserve any consideration or "understanding." They did not ask if Hitler was right about the alleged wrong done to Germany at Versailles. That they left to the historians. The leaders of the Western Alliance said something else: Nothing justifies Nazism. Nothing! We must be equally clear cut today: Nothing justifies terrorism. Nothing! Terrorism is defined not by the identity of its perpetrators nor by the cause they espouse. Rather, it is defined by the nature of the act.

Terrorism is the deliberate attack on innocent civilians. In this it must be distinguished from legitimate acts of war that target combatants and may unintentionally harm civilians.

When the British bombed the Copenhagen Gestapo headquarters in 1944, and one of their bombs unintentionally struck a children's hospital, that was a tragedy, but it was not terrorism. When a few weeks ago Israel fired a missile that killed two Hamas arch-terrorists, and two Palestinian children who were playing nearby were tragically struck down, that is not terrorism.

Terrorists do not unintentionally harm civilians. They deliberately murder, maim, and menace civilians - as many as possible.

No cause, no grievance, no apology can ever justify terrorism. Terrorism against Americans, Israelis, Spaniards, Britons, Russians, or anyone else is all part of the same evil and must be treated as such. It is time to establish a fixed principle for the international community: Any cause that uses terrorism to advance its aims will not be rewarded. On the contrary, it will be punished and placed beyond the pale.

Armed with this moral clarity in defining terrorism, we must possess an equal moral clarity in fighting it. If we include Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority in the coalition to fight terror - even though they currently harbor, sponsor, and dispatch terrorists - then the alliance against terror will be defeated from within.

Perhaps we might achieve a short-term objective of destroying one terrorist fiefdom, but it will preclude the possibility of overall victory. Such a coalition will melt down because of its own internal contradictions. We might win a battle. We will certainly lose the war.

These regimes, like all terrorist states, must be given a forthright demand: Stop terrorism, permanently, or you will face the wrath of the free world - through harsh and sustained political, economic, and military sanctions.

Obviously, some of these regimes will scramble in fear and issue platitudes about their opposition to terror, just as Arafat, Iran, and Syria did, while they keep their terror apparatus intact. We should not be fooled. These regimes are already on the US lists of states supporting terrorism - and if they are not, they should be.

The price of admission for any state into the coalition against terror must be to first completely dismantle the terrorist infrastructures within their realm. Iran will have to dismantle a worldwide network of terrorism and incitement based in Teheran.

Syria will have to shut down Hizbullah and the dozen terrorist organizations that operate freely in Damascus and in Lebanon. Arafat will have to crush Hamas and Islamic Jihad, close down their suicide factories and training grounds, rein in his own Fatah and Tanzim terrorists, and cease the endless incitement to violence.

To win this war, we must fight on many fronts. The most obvious one is direct military action against the terrorists themselves. Israel's policy of preemptively striking at those who seek to murder its people is, I believe, better understood today and requires no further elaboration.

But there is no substitute for the key action that we must take: imposing the most punishing diplomatic, economic and military sanction on all terrorist states. To this must be added these measures: Freeze financial assets in the West of terrorist regimes and organizations; revise legislation, subject to periodic renewal, to enable better surveillance against organizations inciting violence; keep convicted terrorists behind bars. Do not negotiate with terrorists; train special forces to fight terror; and not least important, impose sanctions on suppliers of nuclear technology to terrorist states.

I have had some experience in pursuing all these courses of action in Israel's battle against terrorism, and I will be glad to elaborate on any one of them if you wish, including the sensitive questions surrounding intelligence.

But I have to be clear: Victory over terrorism is not, at its most fundamental level, a matter of law enforcement or intelligence. However important these functions may be, they can only reduce the dangers, not eliminate them. The immediate objective is to end all state support for and complicity with terror. If vigorously and continuously challenged, most of these regimes can be deterred from sponsoring terrorism.

But there is a real possibility that some will not be deterred - and those may be ones that possess weapons of mass destruction. Again, we cannot dismiss the possibility that a militant terrorist state will use its proxies to threaten or launch a nuclear attack with apparent impunity. Nor can we completely dismiss the possibility that a militant regime, like its terrorist proxies, will commit collective suicide for the sake of its fanatical ideology.

In this case, we might face not thousands of dead, but hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. This is why the US must do everything in its power to prevent regimes like Iran and Iraq from developing nuclear weapons, and disarm them of their weapons of mass destruction.

This is the great mission that now stands before the free world. That mission must not be watered down to allow certain states to participate in the coalition that is now being organized. Rather, the coalition must be built around this mission.

It may be that some will shy away from adopting such an uncompromising stance against terrorism. If some free states choose to remain on the sidelines, America must be prepared to march forward without them - for there is no substitute for moral and strategic clarity. I believe that if the United States stands on principle, all the democracies will eventually join the war on terrorism. The easy route may be tempting, but it will not win the day.

On September 11, I, like everyone else, was glued to a television set watching the savagery that struck America. Yet amid the smoking ruins of the Twin Towers one could make out the Statue of Liberty holding high the torch of freedom. It is freedom's flame that the terrorists sought to extinguish. But it is that same torch, so proudly held by the United States, that can lead the free world to crush the forces of terror and secure our tomorrow.

It is within our power. Let us now make sure that it is within our will.

The much married Mr. Netanyahu lectured the U.S. Senate yesterday on America's proper role as servant in a manner styled by the Washington Times as "moral clarity" [I thought that was what Dubya was giving us]. Did Herod Antipas get such a hearing in the Roman Senate? Is this a matter of Progress?

_________________
Voltaire wrote, a tragedy reqires testicles. But, I wonder if that's just nuts.

[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-11 07:11 ]

"Did Herod Antipas get such a hearing in the Roman Senate?"

Was Israel a democracy in the days of Herod Antipas? Do advise.

I just found this article at the following site:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins041002.asp

The author recommends that we embargo all Mideast oil on our own initiative. Another sign of an unfolding 4T?

[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-11 10:24 ]

[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-11 10:39 ]

On 2002-04-11 10:21, jds1958xg wrote:
I just found this article at the following site:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins141002.asp

The author recommends that we embargo all Mideast oil on our own initiative. Another sign of an unfolding 4T?

[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-11 10:24 ]

Uhhh, are you looking for this? http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins041002.asp

On 2002-04-11 10:26, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-04-11 10:21, jds1958xg wrote:
I just found this article at the following site:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins141002.asp

The author recommends that we embargo all Mideast oil on our own initiative. Another sign of an unfolding 4T?

[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-11 10:24 ]

Uhhh, are you looking for this? http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins041002.asp

BINGO!!! That's the one! Thanks!

First thought: dumb idea. If other countries don't join us in the boycott, we'd just be buying oil from the same places through third parties. If other countries do join us, we'd suffer severe oil shortages, because despite what Robbins seems to want to believe, the reason we now import 25% of our oil from that region is because there isn't a superabundance of oil any more, and we cannot meet our gluttonous needs without it.

Second thought: maybe not such a dumb idea. If we do this, and others follow along with us, and we suffer severe oil shortages as a result, maybe we'll take some serious steps to increase energy efficiency and switch to renewables. Better now, on our own initiative, than eight years from now perforce.

But do we have the moral fiber to carry through?

On 2002-04-11 10:50, Brian Rush wrote:
First thought: dumb idea. If other countries don't join us in the boycott, we'd just be buying oil from the same places through third parties. If other countries do join us, we'd suffer severe oil shortages, because despite what Robbins seems to want to believe, the reason we now import 25% of our oil from that region is because there isn't a superabundance of oil any more, and we cannot meet our gluttonous needs without it.

Second thought: maybe not such a dumb idea. If we do this, and others follow along with us, and we suffer severe oil shortages as a result, maybe we'll take some serious steps to increase energy efficiency and switch to renewables. Better now, on our own initiative, than eight years from now perforce.

But do we have the moral fiber to carry through?

Do we have the moral fiber to do so? I'm not sure about the Bush Administration particularly, but the civilians certainly have the moral fiber. Do I think that the American people are willing to spend billions of dollars on energy independence? Possibly. The entire left would jump at an opportunity at a heartbeat, and it seems like the grass-roots cultural right would do so too. Besides, the consequences of NOT doing so can be found here: http://www.dieoff.org/

Why not just a modest tariff (that increases gradually each year) rather than an embargo? And no, we should go it alone, otherwise it would boost the price so much to cause serious economic consequences for everybody.

A tariff would create a two-tier price for oil. The mideast providers would get less than the market price and the non-mideast providers would get more. In fact non-mideast oil producers might sell us *their* oil, buy cheaper mid-east oil and pocket the difference.

This would be a subsidy by American consumers to non-mideast countries. For this subsidy we gain an oil supply free of potential supply disruptions (this is assuming US buyers lay in long-term contracts--which I am sure they would negotiate). Poor countires would gain cheaper oil at the cost of potential disruptions (a good deal for them). We in the U.S. *need* the stability (and have to puschase it somehow). Right now we provide stability through our foreign policy and massive miltary at the cost of relatively few dollars plus some American lives. The tariff would do the same thing, but cost a lot more dollars, but far fewer American lives.

Once we are no longer dependent on Mideast oil we can completely withdraw from the region (pull out US troops, end sanctions against iraq--the works) and let them fight amongst themselves--like the Africans. We need not worry about terrorism anymore--they would be too busy fighting each other).

Before 911 the cost in American lives was deemed accetable in view of the savings in dollars. Is it still so? It may be, are we willing to collectively pay tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in increased energy costs per life saved?

A side effect of this policy is long-term rising gas prices in the U.S., but this would (as Brian mentioned) breed a fertile environment for new alternate-energy start-ups. This could ignite a new economic boom for the U.S. Thus in a way, a tariff *could* be considered as an investment.

The cost of the investment is high, and the pay-off (a massive economic boom) uncertain it depends on the market stimulating some break-through technologies (I think this will happen--but then I'm bullish on technology). In normal times it could never get off the ground. But with the added benefit of saving American lives in the post-911 world, it might be politically palatable. What do you think?

The big losers would be the current big energy companies, (these behemoths cannot compete with nimble startups) and so something like this could never happen with the current administration.

On 2002-04-11 07:30, Marc Lamb wrote:

"Did Herod Antipas get such a hearing in the Roman Senate?"

Was Israel a democracy in the days of Herod Antipas? Do advise.

It was a client state. HTH

On 2002-04-11 10:38, jds1958xg wrote:

On 2002-04-11 10:26, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-04-11 10:21, jds1958xg wrote:
I just found this article at the following site:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins141002.asp

The author recommends that we embargo all Mideast oil on our own initiative. Another sign of an unfolding 4T?

[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-11 10:24 ]

Uhhh, are you looking for this? http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins041002.asp

BINGO!!! That's the one! Thanks!

I can't resist putting my Nitpick/Grammarian hat on here. If we refuse to buy oil from someone, we're boycotting them. If they refuse to sell to us, that is an embargo.

I just thought the title of this article was a little juvenile, even though I mostly agree with its content.

Another problem here is that we only have about eight years before the whole thing becomes moot. That's when we reach the global oil production peak, and production inexorably declines thereafter forever. Unless we've made a whole lot of improvements in energy efficiency by then, the price of oil is going to shoot through the roof regardless of international politics.

We cannot become independent of Middle East oil without becoming independent of oil, period. That's what we need to shoot for.

Umm, yes, Kiff. Boycott is indeed the right word.

Perhaps it is a $ embargo that we are to use. HTH

"Did Herod Antipas get such a hearing in the Roman Senate?"

"Was Israel a democracy in the days of Herod Antipas?"

"It was a client state."

Well then, if Mr. Netanyahu is, as you claim, likened unto Herod Antipas, then what what is the name of the American "governor" in Israel that is likened unto the Roman, Pontius Pilate? Please advise.

On 2002-04-11 13:55, Marc Lamb wrote:

"Did Herod Antipas get such a hearing in the Roman Senate?"

"Was Israel a democracy in the days of Herod Antipas?"

"It was a client state."

Well then, if Mr. Netanyahu is, as you claim, likened unto Herod Antipas, then what what is the name of the American "governor" in Israel that is likened unto the Roman, Pontius Pilate? Please advise.

It is yet early, a "player to be named later" may suffice for now.

A "player to be named later"?

Your pessimistic view of the ability of Israel to maintain her sovereign Democracy notwithstanding, does not a representative of that sovereign nation of Israel have the right to appear for U.S. Senators?

Or does your personal pessimisim, of "later" events and diplomatic status, preclude this diplomatic liberty?

p.s. Or better stated, what the hell was your point in bringing up Herod Antipas appearing before the Roman Senate in the first damn place? :???: It appeared to me a pointless mumbo jumbo at best, and at worst, an attempt to equalize the Hitler argument with the Jesus argument. Booooo!

[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-11 14:31 ]

Dear Mr. Lamb,

When the Jews were a client state of the Romans, things ended in tears. You would think they might be a bit wary of becoming a client state a couple of thousand years later. Or, perhaps they hope Progress or enthusiasm has changed human nature after all those years. If the Roman Senate had had a decile of Jewish Senators things might have gone more smoothly, they might have been more reasoned upon Herod's views...but do not underestimate the actions of a Titus in these matters. HTH

On 2002-04-11 14:27, Marc Lamb wrote:
It appeared to me a pointless mumbo jumbo at best, and at worst, an attempt to equalize the Hitler argument with the Jesus argument. Booooo!

I did not bring Jesus into the matter as I was writing of relations between the client-state of Jews and the Senate of the stronger power. Perhaps, we might overlook the Christians in this matter as Mr. Jones has informed us by e-mail. HTH

"When the Jews were a client state of the Romans, things ended in tears."

1. Israel isn't fighting Rome for independence, as in 66 A.D., in 2002. Israel is presently fighting stoneage autocratic theocracies hell bent on her destruction. Like it or not, America has been in the habit of supporting Democracies in general, Israel in particular, against the forces of tyranny for many years now. And to abandon a "friend" (Iran, circa 1979 comes to mind) in the middle of a fight is as abhorrent and stupid (oil notwithstanding) as it gets.

2. Other than just doing the right thing, there is a Biblical promise I believe America should take heed of, wherein the descendants of Abraham (in the biblical Pauline and Revelation sense) are concerned.

p.s. As far as Jesus goes, the inference can hardly be lost as it was Herod that sought to lay the innocent Blood of the Master upon the hands of Pilate and Gentile Rome. What a puss. That he was also a Jew, is relavent only to those, like Stonewall Patton, who don't understand why Christ was crucified in the first place (and would seek to turn the affair into a political tool).

[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-11 16:01 ]

Other than just doing the right thing, there is a Biblical promise I believe America should take heed of, wherein the descendants of Abraham (in the biblical Pauline and Revelation sense) are concerned.

{Shudder!}

All gods, backed up by our own common sense, protect us from steering our foreign policy by the dictates of mythology and prophecy. That way lies irreversible doom.

We might at least note that God has been, to say the least, dillatory in living up to those words.

As far as "doing the right thing" is concerned, what the "right thing" may be in this matter is by no means obvious. The situation isn't simple. It isn't "democracy against tyranny," or "oppressive Israelis against Palestinian victims," or anything else that can be boiled down to a bumper sticker. The situation is complicated, our karma in connection with it deep.

Just a few of the points to consider:

1. If the victorious allies had refrained from harsh punitive measures against Germany at the end of World War I, there would have been no Nazi Germany, no Holocaust, and no Israel today.

2. If America had only opened its doors to Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1940s, the toll of the Holocaust would have been far less, the pressure to establish Israel consequently far less, and very likely there would be no Israel today.

3. In hindsight, creating the state of Israel in the first place was a ghastly mistake. To be fair, only someone with full understanding of the Islamic mindset could have known this. The sliver of land that became modern Israel (not including the West Bank) was sparsely settled and not being used for much. But there were people with that understanding. They should have been listened to.

4. The Israelis are far from clean-handed in this situation. The Palestinians do not want peace, but when their homes are taken by Israeli settler and their rights denied, why should they? How can we support Israel, given what they are doing in the West Bank -- and NOT for defensive purposes, either. More for the kind of religious reasons Marc expressed.

5. On the other hand, the Palestinians are hardly saints, either. How can we support terrorists who, though right may currently be on their side, would not stop at rectifying the wrongs but only at driving the Israelis into the sea?

6. So long as Israel and Islam both exist, there can be no peace in the region. The only possible solutions are a) dismantle Israel, b) destroy Islam, or c) accept a permanent state of war. I submit that America cannot bring itself to do either a) or b). That being the case, we are left with c).

The question then becomes whether we want to be a part of that constant war.

On 2002-04-11 15:58, Marc Lamb wrote:

p.s. As far as Jesus goes, the inference can hardly be lost as it was Herod that sought to lay the innocent Blood of the Master upon the hands of Pilate and Gentile Rome. What a puss. That he was also a Jew, is relavent only to those, like Stonewall Patton, who don't understand why Christ was crucified in the first place (and would seek to turn the affair into a political tool).

Oh, I understand quite well why Jesus was crucified. Do you?

BTW, I see you are back to using "Christ" again. You slipped into that very New Agey "the Christ" routine very recently, as I recall. I am just trying to gauge whether I should start referring to "Jesus The Christ, Superstar," the play, and "Jesus, the Christ" as an expression of anger or frustration. You are sending mixed signals, Marc. Which do you prefer? "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus, the Christ?" Inquiring minds want to know.

On 2002-04-11 17:13, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-04-11 15:58, Marc Lamb wrote:

p.s. As far as Jesus goes, the inference can hardly be lost as it was Herod that sought to lay the innocent Blood of the Master upon the hands of Pilate and Gentile Rome. What a puss. That he was also a Jew, is relavent only to those, like Stonewall Patton, who don't understand why Christ was crucified in the first place (and would seek to turn the affair into a political tool).

Oh, I understand quite well why Jesus was crucified. Do you?

BTW, I see you are back to using "Christ" again. You slipped into that very New Agey "the Christ" routine very recently, as I recall. I am just trying to gauge whether I should start referring to "Jesus The Christ, Superstar," the play, and "Jesus, the Christ" as an expression of anger or frustration. You are sending mixed signals, Marc. Which do you prefer? "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus, the Christ?" Inquiring minds want to know.

or maybe "Joshua, the Christ"?