. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Source

I find it disgusting that the media refers to these murderers as "militants." They are "terrorists" or "murderers."

As the media focuses (as it should) on this horrific act of brutality, it seems appropriate to ask -- where is the mainstream press coverage of the ongoing genocide of the black Africans of the Sudan, at the hands of what PBS calls "Arab militias"? Where is the outrage about the 50,000 murdered, countless others raped or injured, and the one million displaced Sudanese who are at risk? Will the U.N. stand by again, as they did before when hundreds of thousands were murdered in Rwanda, and let these innocents be slaughtered too?

Is their suffering to be ignored, simply because they are Africans? Are they not humans, do they not bleed?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil

What can we do as individuals? Write your congresspeople. Write the White House.

president@whitehouse.gov

One of the most shocking things to me about these terrorist murderers is the incredible brutality shown by the female terrorists.

It takes a lot to get women to kill and maim babies in cold blood,so I reckon that the female terrorists, especially, must have been so brutalized in Chechnya
that killing any Russian(man,woman or child) is seen as exacting some sort of revenge on their occupiers.
I did see a documentary once about the plight of Chechen women--there are no men to marry-most of the young men have been killed and maimed by the war.
Even the young women expected never to able to find a man,never get married and never have any children.For all war widows there was absolutely no hope.

I am not condoning or trying to mitigate any of these atrocities committed at the school but when you have female terrorists prepared to commit the most vile atrocities against babies and children there has to be something more behind it.
JMHO.

Gladiator, Until fairly recently Bush was pressuring Russia to get the Hell out of Chechnya, with all the attendant "freedom fighter" rhetoric. Had the administration maintained this viewpoint, mainstream American media would be giving the school incident scant coverage. As a matter of fact, geopolitical force and sanctions against Russian aggression in Chechnya might have prevented this atrocity. After all, Arabs are not genetically predisposed to committing atrocity. If they were all sociopathic their societies couldn't function. Don't you agree, or do you think that Arabs are inherently "bad"?

But hey, don't get me wrong, it's beyond disgusting. I agree with you 100%. There is nothing more horrific than the killing of innocents. It can never be excused or dismissed. Until this morning I couldn't bring myself to watch coverage of it on television. It's an outrage that brought me to tears--and I've become pretty hardened by harsh images, as most of us have. The Arabs involved are completely vile. If they think that after their death they're going to enter the tunnel of light and reap the great jihaad reward, they're sadly mistaken. They're going to have to run a gauntlet of enraged, murdered schoolchildren first. May they be stuck there for eternity.

I would like to say first that I am a life-long liberal, particularly on human rights issues.

I have great respect for both of you, but you are certainly wrong to think that haters object to the deaths of women and children. It has been a long-time policy of Palestinian suicide bombers to target buses and restaurants where women and children are present. Their rationale is that these kinds of killings have the greatest effect on the targeted population. These actions have been followed by celebration in their "constituency," just as Palestinians danced in the street when the World Trade Center was bombed -- which killed women and children too. (If you think that is not true, you can easily find a few photos in a Google search -- which were taken before Arafat ordered the celebration to stop.)

It was women suicide bombers who brought down the two airplances in Russia. It was a woman suicide bomber who walked into a pizza place at lunchtime in Israel that catered to mothers with young children and killed dozens. It was a woman who walked up to an Israeli checkpoint and surrendered herself, laden with bombs, saying that she did not want to die but that her family was pressuring her to do this -- so that they would get the money that was promised to families of suicide bombers. It was an innocent teenage boy who was caught carrying a remote-control bomb, which he thought was just a package he was delivering to a business in Israel -- but which was to be blown up by the adult holding the remote..

Until life is valued by all people, brutality and genocide will continue. Until liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, and people of all countries and ethnic groups, object to this so that it causes outrage in the population of the perpetrators -- this will continue to go on.

I object strongly to ANY rationalization of this brutality and murder. These most recent crimes against humanity were not perpetrated only by Chechens, either -- at least 10 foreigners, now believed to be Arabs but who knows yet? were captured or their bodies found. Please do not in any way try to rationalize the cruel slaughter of innocents, by saying that the perpetrators have suffered. It is still NO EXCUSE to kill innocent people.

My question stands -- where is the outrage over the genocide of black Africans? Do we care only about white people? If anyone knows of any political action groups that are lobbying for U.N. action on this, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

EDIT: oops, Threadbare, posted before I saw your post. I have great respect for you too.
No, of course rational people don't believe that Arabs are innately evil. Some Arabs have been brought up in a situation where they are surrounded by images of "heroes" who blow themselves up and murder others -- and where their parents dress babies in little suicide bomber outfits. Don't you think that would make people crazy -- and make very young people susceptible to the "glamor" of "heroism"? What kind of future will these people have, brought up to believe that the core of their existence should be hatred? I grieve for these children, abused in this way by their families and some evil people At a time when education should give these people a chance at good lives, evil people are using them for their own purposes. Life must be valued.

Unfortunately, Cartesian thinking.... perhaps more Aristotelian thinking, deriving from his misunderstanding of Plato's philosophy as dualism rather than monism... causes us to draw distinctions between women, men, adults, children, arabs, jews, capitalists, communists. The only ism that doesn't carry with it the seed of hatred and destruction is humanism. Even if it's for the purpose of readjusting the pendulum to restore balance, the preference of one category of person over another is always wrong.

I don't think there's any chance that humans will collectively "get this" and heal themselves in time to avert our collective destruction. It seems to be in our nature to love some and hate others, and to judge in advance based on perceived distinctions- to pre-judge. I think that women, men and children are all equally capable of equal cruelty.

Drano, Yeah, I agree that people can be brainwashed. The worst environment to be brought up in is one where the brainwashing is reinforced by attendant events and where a people's hatred of another people is a huge part of their identity. You can't change the identity problem without first dealing with the attendant events that reinforce it. It's ridiculous to label people haters without looking carefully at how they got to that point, as Machinehead points out. We haven't been privy to the real horrific events that form the visual montage they have personally lived through. We've only seen the images of a hate from one side. A hate that will contintue to be passed back and forth for eternity if it isn't properly dealt with. This would require real leadership, which is completely absent on the world stage, on all sides.

The WEstern world and Russia continue to negate "Arab's" concerns, and dismiss them as if they have a congenital hate problem. As Arabs are a semitic people, this appears to me to be a bit antiSemitic.

I hate what the individuals did and they have to take karmic responsibility for it, but I'm sensitive to the preconditions for these events. Russia needs to get out of Chechnya. If the people want self rule. Let them have it. Whatever happened to "let Poland be Poland" Solidarity and all that? WTF?

I had the pleasure of very briefly meeting Jehan Sadat. A great lady, who tried to carry on her husband's work for peace, after he was murdered for trying to make the middle east and the world a better place.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jehan El-Sadat

Drano - you are truly blessed.

Part of a link that was posted on P 1 B4The Bell by Orvac

Previously, Mr. Putin responded to attacks by tightening the screws in Chechnya. He stepped up military pressure on rebels still holed up in the region's southern mountains and turned a blind eye to zachistki, the mop-up operations in which young Chechen men are dragged out of their homes for questioning, some never to be seen again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

Chicken and egg situation as far as I can see it.Creation of terrorists especially female one takes serious prolonged brutality.As the persons responsible for this brutality are generally unavailable for killing(polits always ensure the best protection for themselves) the terrorists' choices come down to low security, max impact events involving as many hostages as possible-- schools and theaters.Add a little political/religious spin to the brutalization(maybe that's why the Arabs were there!) and you've got cold-blooded terrorist killers.All the enemy are cockroaches to be exterminated irrespective of age/innocence.

Once your brutalisation has passed a certain point then your hatred of your enemy knows no bounds.Because we have all had such privedged lives we are completely unable to even start imagining what goes on in the minds of these terrorists.

That it is possible to condition humans from one country or race to regard humans of another country or race as nothing more than annoying pieces of crap on your shoe,is evidenced by the treatment of Iraqi's in Abu Graihb.Add serial brutalization to that disdain and you have remorseless killers.

What do you think that you would do to "enemy" captives if your family and children had been raped,tortured brutally killed by the same race/country over whose civilians you now had power(as in: you are armed and they are not)?

I suppose that all I'm trying to say is that war leads to terror and the more brutal the war/occupation,the more brutal and de-humanizing the terror will become.

We,by pure fortune of our birth in a Western country,cannot imagine how it is to not to have the security of food,warmth and shelter as givens.To have no hope of a life that humans in the West consider normal--a means of providing sustenance for yourself(partner and children),the warmth of a partner and a secure place to live/sleep.If you live somewhere and realise that these "givens" for others are never likely to apply to you--this is the brutalization by desperation leading to terrorism IMO.

No, I disagree. At some point people must stop trying to make psychological analyses that excuse horrible behavior, and call evil -- evil.

No one can in any way rationalize the behavior of terrorists who can do the things these terrorists did. How can any human being, no matter what was done to them, look at the faces of young children, and deny them food and water, and plan to kill them en masse? Nothing excuses this in any way. As nauseating as it is, I can see how some of these people might be able to rationalize brutalizing adults, particularly adult males. But children? As long as people "understand the reasons" for this behavior, these psychopaths will continue to act this way.

If it were your child in that school, how would you feel about those terrorists? On the flip side, if someone did terrible things to you or your family, would you be able to torture and murder a small child of those people?

I didn't think you would.

This school attack may have been in the
nature of Harlan Ullman's 'Shock and Awe' with
the purpose to scare the enemy to death.

Just the fear of more attacks, and the massive
confusion it creates, may be enough to bring their enemy
to negotiate.

'If all this leaves you in shock and awe, you have had your vision raised several levels too. You see what Ullman, Powell, and all the Bushies see: the U.S. frightening the whole world so badly that no one will dare fire a single bullet at us. Let them be as angry as they like, just so they know who is the meanest, toughest son of a bitch on the global block.

That is now becoming the essence of U.S. foreign policy. And they seriously believe it will put an end to war. I suppose the Romans believed it too. '
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/shock.htm

Add Putin and Chechnyan rebels to that now.

Let's get real, folks. Drano says it all. There can be absolutely no excuse, rationale, allowances or whatever for what happened at that school. There is absolutely no excuse for terrorizing, torturing and then murdering innocent and defenseless children under any circumstances. Period. And anything more than zero tolerance for this obscene behavior has no justification whatsoever. This atrocity is something that is so absolutely evil and vile that it defies comparison with anything else except with what the Nazis perpetrated in their death camps. If the world - which has already turned a blind eye towards the ongoing horror in the Sudan - can explain away or justify even to the slightest degree what happened at that school, then the very fabric of our civilization is in grave danger of ultimately being destroyed.

Look, I don't like Charles Manson or what he did or any serial killer for that matter, but I want to understand what kind of a life produces a monster like that. And from that point, I wouild want to raise my own kids so they don't become like him. Does this mean I support Manson and ignore what he's done? Hell no. It means a solutions oriented person is always asking, why, why , why about everything, so they can act or react appropriately.

The Sudanese situation is terrible and is not ignored. I have been reading about that part of the world for over a decade and understand that many of the problems have to do with water shortages and the subsequent starvation, not just curious epidemics of homicidal mania. Now who's going to do better at posing solutions, Drano? Someone who understands this or someone who gets completely overwhelmed by the ugly details, throws up their hands, and focuses on the attendant evil that accompanies survival panic?

The Sudan is desperately poor and lawless. Arab militias are not killing black Africans because of lack of water. They are killing them in what the U.N. describes as GENOCIDE. This is not my term -- this is the United Nations' term. They are killing them BECAUSE they are black Africans, and they are not Muslims. That is a textbook definition of genocide. People who were able to scratch out a subsistence living, just barely, have been displaced from their land, and many of those who have survived the murderous assaults, will probably die of disease or starvation in refugee camps -- if they are not slaughtered by the still-active "militias."

The United Nations says this is genocide. Many here have decried the lack of U.N. involvement in the Iraq mess. Why are we not demanding that the U.N. save these poor people from this horrible fate? Are their lives of less value than Iraqis?

You are giving only two choices: " Now who's going to do better at posing solutions, Drano? Someone who understands this or someone who gets completely overwhelmed by the ugly details, throws up their hands, and focuses on the attendant evil that accompanies survival panic?"

I certainly do NOT advocate throwing up hands and having "survival panic." I certainly never posted any such thing. I certainly never said I am completely overwhelmed by this. And I suggest that you are mistaken, according to the United Nations, in your belief that water shortages and poverty have triggered heinous genocide against an unarmed and helpless people.

I DO suggest that the United Nations for once prove to the world that genocide will NEVER AGAIN be tolerated, and that the world can band together to save a large number of poor black people who seemingly have no advocates.

To say that this genocide is caused by water shortages is terrible. It is blaming the victim.
The United Nations says it is genocide. They have so rarely acted in these situations -- on this occasion, when they say that these are genocidal attacks, can anyone try to excuse this assault on an entire people?

I am horrified.

It has been a bitter pill for me, as a life-long liberal who believes in the right of all people to survive and thrive, in a peaceful world, with human rights -- that my fellow liberals are seemingly willing to excuse genocide and hatred, and instead look for "reasons for the behavior" because of political issues.

Please imagine yourself in the position of these people, and determine whether it is more important to achieve understanding of the motivations of the murderers, or to stop them from murdering, RIGHT NOW. Reacting appropriately to Charles Manson, from Sharon Tate's standpoint, would have been to stop him from murdering, first. Remember the principal of triage in medical care -- save lives first. Then water shortages, poverty, and lawlessness can be addressed. But this is an emergency situation, right now, and people are dying as we sit here in comfort talking about it.

I grieve for these poor people, murdered as an uncaring world sits on its hands.

Drano, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that incredible pressure is brought to bear on populations when resources are scarce. This doesn't excuse the Arabs, the junjuaweed, for what they've done. They should be punished severely. They've killed innocent people and whatsmore they've done it in a "sporting way" that suggests extreme sadism. Immediate intervention is warranted in any genocidal situation. Please don't confuse trying to understand the mindset and environment of the junjaweed as an endorsement of their activities.

about Anwar el Sadat:

as far as im know he is till today the most hated man in the arab world. The father of a friend of mine was born in basrah, iraq in 1928, he is an educated man, studied history and economics in germany and even made its Doctor, he is DR. of history, Dr. phil. i think is it correctly. So this educated man simply hates Sadat, he hates him, can you imagine that? And he is are very intelligent man, he never shared Saddmas views and acts and so on. For example he had an offer in the 70s to work fot eh Iraqui Nationla Museum in Bagdad, but he refused cause he didnt want to work for the "system". Again, such a man HATES Sadat. Till today. Every arba could have told you that Sadat wont survive Camp David. With the signature under the treaty he signed for his death. And i think he knew that very well. That makes him a grat man and a man which should be honored. He knew he would die for it.

One must know things like that, things like, that an educated man hates Sadat till today, although he is dead since 24 years, to understand, hoe the arab world really thinks.

I alo have a friend who is half palestinian. He shared Arafats views and even more. He radicalised when he was 20 or 21 or so. Then he went 6 month to Ramallah. After he came back he was desillusionized. He said: "You cant live there, corruption form the footnails till the hair, violence, idiotic people around you". He spoke not about the normal people who live in Ramallah, with them there were no problems, they were nice and kind. He spoke about those "freedom fighters".

And dont forget: Arafat has blood on his hands. Blood. I dont understand why the Mossad didnbt kill him. If the Mossad wants it gets everyone, on any place, any time. But why didnt they kill Arafat? Arafat is not a man of peace, althought it is VERY popular to beleive that.

"You are a fool if you are an idealist at 50 -- and if you're not an idealist at 30."

Here is what I believe:

I believe that all people should have the right to live in a free society; that all people, male or female, gay or straight, of whatever religion or lack of religion, should be treated equally, and not persecuted for their beliefs. I believe that there should be universal access to health care (and that health care including abortion is a matter for the patient and his/her physician to decide), that no person should suffer from starvation or hunger or lack of shelter; that all should have the right to an education, that the weaker should be protected.

That is my definition of a liberal. It may not be elegant, but that is pretty much the position which I have heard definied as the "liberal" side throughout my life.

And here is what I lament:

If I were a citizen of Saudi Arabia and said the above political statement, I would be whipped or beheaded. If you think that is not true, go back and find the link someone posted about how Saudi Arabia leads the world in beheadings, and how the locals refer to the place of public executions as "Chop-chop Square." There is no such thing as free speech in Saudi Arabia.

I have been greatly troubled by the fact that my fellow liberals condemn the positions of the Christian right wing, and yet the far more radical positions of the Muslim extreme right wing are not condemned. In countries dominated by the Muslim right, what are the lives of women and gays like? If you consider yourself a liberal, how can you not condemn represseive societies where women are treated so badly, where homosexuals can be executed for being homosexuals, where people are denied so many basic human rights, where what we consider minor infractions are punished by whippings or death. (Please note that I say this in sympathy with Muslims -- for the suffering they are enduring from their terrible leadership.)

No one knows what happened to the 15 women who defied Saudi law, and drove automobiles into Riyadh. (It is forbidden for women to even sit in the front seat of a car, much less drive it.) They have never been heard from again after they were arrested. It is believed that they were executed for that heinous crime.

The Egyptian newspaper editor whose link Gladiator posted is a hero. I hope that he will not have the same fate as the Egyptian columnist a couple of years ago, who wrote a similar article calling on the Arab world to look at its own internal policies toward their people, and to stop blaming other countries for their problems. The last I heard he was in hiding -- I hope he is still alive.

When the Afghan women were being brutalized by the Taliban, unable to leave their houses without a male relative, dying from minor infections because they were forbidden to see male doctors, and female doctors were not allowed to practice -- a few American women's groups lobbied for them. They were soundly ignored by the Left and the Right. Then, when the Taliban regime was destroyed, the Right claims credit for protecting human rights and the Left refuses to admit that life is better for 50% of the population there. No one seems to care about the lot of women in repressive regimes.

"There are none who are so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not hear."

"Politics makes strange bedfellows."

Many here have written about the increasing disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S., and the very high percentage of national wealth owned by the very few. Yet no one decries the far worse disparity present in the Arab world. Where is our outrage over the great poverty so many live in, while their leaders live in great luxury?

If you believe in principles of human rights, whether you are of the left or the right, then you must, like the Egyptian editor, accept reality. The reality is that Muslim extremists ARE terrorizing their own population and other people. The fact is that, without blaming the average Muslim person, Muslim extremists really are responsible for most of the terrorism in the world today. The heinous acts of genocide in the Sudan are the acts of Muslim extremists. The silence from Muslim clerics is deafening.

Those who express sympathy toward these brutal regimes and terrorists are NOT helping the countless number of average Muslims who just want to live a normal life. Any rationalizations of "reasons" for the terrorist acts we are seeing, only continues the cycle of their effectiveness. There is NO valid reason for deliberately targeting innocent non-combatants in order to achieve terror in the populace to achieve political goals -- which is the definition of terrorism.

If you want to live in a better world, and you want our Muslim brethren to have a chance at better lives, that ALL must condemn terrorism. No excuses, no "political" justifications. It must be condemned by all. As long as "yes but" continues to be part of the rhetoric, innocents will continue to be tortured and murdered.

Our voices individually may be totally unimportant. But what we say and think has an effect on those around us, and when the world in outrage says that terrorism must stop, that human rights must be restored, and that peace must prevail -- then, and only then, will we have a better world.

I do not expect that in my lifetime.

Well...the Chechen Separatist movement said that it wasn't their people who did the hostage taking in Russia-nor the plane attacks.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/s...4thirdforce.htm

But I couldn't help but notice that Putin wants to increase military spending and place stricter controls on the people of Russia because of these "situations". Now where have we heard these stories before?

Might as well post this link too. The details surrounding the Russian hostage taking event were very suspect.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/s...keepsthelid.htm

I would like to repeat here what I posted in b4 the bell.

damn it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

please moderators delete that that conspiracy crap links!

Howl, I can't agree with all that you have posted.

Some wars truly are genocidal. In these cases, the primary purpose is the deaths of perceived enemies, and the financial incentive is just a bonus. The Sudan is a prime example.

FxFox, I'm getting a little tired of deletions and a lack of respect shown for other's opinions. If you don't like the subject of a link, please explain why. If it is simply because it frustrates you that you have been unable to change someone's mind or make them see the light, maybe you should just live with that. As Drano has pointed out, cracking down on free speech is a Saudi Arabian tactic.

Howl,

like Drano i also think that statement is only partly correct.

Pol Pots regime was one big genocid. Hitlers killing of the jews was a genocid, turkish killing of armenians was a genocid and there are others.

As a good example for your thesis the French colonial war in Algeria comes to my mind. The french thought Algeria belongs to them, some algerians thought that algeria belongs to them. Then there was war. In the end algerians won the war. Since then algeria belongs to the algerians and not the french anymore. That one was a plain and somple war about ressources.

Fxfox -

You have a very good and objective historical perspective. Thanks for sharing it with us.

FxFox, Simply advancing a theory that Arabs may not have authored the attacks in the schoolyard is not a pro Arab statement. I think many of us have been at pains to point this out. If you are locked into a binary us versus them system of thinking that allows no shades of grey or any questions, you are not helping to defeat fascism. It's people's propensity for knee jerk responses to tragic events that is the real danger.

Hitler's success lay in his ability to induce the entire nation of Germany to pitch an extended hissy fit against an identifiable minority by simplifying reality to the point that it lost all substance.

I agree with Howl 100%.War never "happens".It is mostly planned and financed by the people who consider that they have the most to gain(or the most to gain by financing the victors as they see it).Grandpa Bush et al was still financing Adolf H even when the US was officially at war with Nazi Germany!

Hundreds of years ago wars were fought by Kings and the "nobility" for the purpose of theft.Wars usually bankrupted the countries involved and taxes on the population increased to such proportions that the ordinary working stiffs revolted( and when they didn't,they just died of starvation).

War is inhuman but very human and always de-humanizing.It turns "normal" people into "satans" not beasts because animals never exhibit the peculiaries of humans in that we are capable of exterminating millions of our own sort for no "good" reason.The reason is usually at the instigation of some plutocrat who has first taught(propagandized) his countyfolk to hate the "enemy".

I consider myself extremely fortunate to have become an atheist.
As the so-called Christians a la Bush have in fact become the anti-Christ,so have the Muslim fundamentalists become the antithesis of Mohammed and his teachings.

All hate all the time--only serves the purposes of the plutocrats who,like states,have no friends but merely interests.These are the sociopaths who,through their control of goverment and media,infect the common populace with their malice to others--because it serves their purpose and for no other reason!

Interesting link about hate crimes posted by Wonmug on B4:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_dn...382154387775356

"Rather than think the issue through, a number of liberals often privately sacrifice support for hate-crime laws, at times bending over backward trying to "understand" what motivates hate-crime perpetrators, to the point that "understanding" becomes a kind of excuse-making or, at worst, exoneration."

Machinehead and The brown one,

You two say it very well. I can't add more. Thanks.

A quick piece of news re. Russian school tragedy.

One of the terrorists told the terrorist leader(whoever he was) that he wanted to let the children go so that they would not be harmed.The leader promptly executed him and detonated the 2 women terrorists(walking bombs) in the gym full of children.

The women apparently had no control over the detonation, only their sociopathic leader did.

So,that blows a hole in my argument about the de-humanization of the female terrorists sufficient to enable them to murder babies/children in cold blood.

brownie,

well, usually a school gets attendat by kids. So if you are a terrorist, go to a school and take all folk who is in the building as a a hostage it is pretty clear that there will be lots of kids.

Those women had the bombs around their stomachs. If they wouldnt have had that they wouldnt have been walking bombs.

Let's face it: That all has the same signature like the palestinian terrorists at the olympic games in 1972. When they saw that they have lost and cant reach their goals they let granades explode. The hostages died when the granada exploded inside the helicopter. That was at a time when the terrorists were trapped and saw no way out. Like at the school in russia. They were trapped and THEN they let the granades expolde. That is such a lousy behaviour.

Or remember the various air plane hijackings in the 70s and 80s. There were always kids in the planes and also there we saw acts of unspeakable cruelity. I remember that TWA hijacking were an old man was killed like a rabbit, and why? Cause he was a jew.

I make it clear now: Im a totally FED UP. I want that we use Mossad tactics from now on. Make lists with names of terrorist. Hunt them, get them, kill them. KILL THEM. Like the Moassad did. The Mossad made a list with all thsoe who were involved in the 1972 olympics "kidnapping". A few years later almost none of them was alive anymore. One guy was shoot at the "open street" in Paris. Mossad came with car, one Mossad agent came out the car and simply shot that terrorist bastard. Boom. Thats why i like the Mossad. They say: If you dont have mercy with us, why should we have mercy with you?

Well put, Foxie.

here is a link how israel responded to Munich 1972 massacre:

Israels Response

snippet:

"As a result of the Munich incident, in conjunction with growing BSO terrorist activities, Golda Meir developed a new counterterrorism policy. General Aharon Yariv accepted the new position of the Prime Minister's Advisor on Counterterrorism. Golda Meir, General Yariv, and Mossad Chief General Zwi Zamir also persuaded the Israeli Cabinet to form a top secret counterterrorist committee. Meir tasked the committee with devising an appropriate response to the Munich massacre. Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan chaired the special panel, known simply as "Committee-X." 2 (According to Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, authors of Every Spy a Prince, the journalist, Yoel Marcus, was the first to expose the activities of "Committee X" in Har'aretz on June 10, 1986.) The panel concluded that the most effective means to make a clear statement that Israel would not tolerate terrorist activity was to authorize the assassination of any Black September terrorists involved in the Munich incident. This directive included any individual identified as either directly or indirectly involved in the planning or the execution of the assault on the Israeli athletes in Munich."

fxfox and Gladiator,

I fully respect your anger and logic.

Do you think the same anger and logic may also be felt by many Iraqis whose family members or relatives died or injured as "collateral damage" from American military operations?

Mossad tactics since 1972 ever end Palestinian resistance?

Perhaps, following your logic, we should just nuke all Palestinians and Arabs? Perhaps nuke all Muslims too?

Isn't the purpose of stockpiling nuclear bombs ourselves and preventing others from getting any to nuke "them" at some point without the fear of nuclear retaliation?

Medicos hit out at Iraq war

Weapons of Terrorism and Mass Destruction

Iraqi Victims

Recent scientific studies show that genetics factor in to the making of a sociopath. Even more recent studies show that brain damage is the most predominant factor in violent behaviour. Now this is kind of interesting. So this kind of thing can be passed from father to son, through environment, partly through genetics (though this is the weakest argument) but most importantly by blunt force applied to certain parts of the skull, when a father strikes his kid in the head.

Individuals like this are a threat to their own society, in times of peace. But in times of war, they're tolerated as they can do what their countrymen cannot.

I've worked with hundreds of children and have spotted only two genunine sociopaths. It's not common, but it's not rare enought either. Here is a take on the use of sociopaths by society in times of war or extreme social stress. Be it acts of terror or torture, it's worth reading. How the US is actually differentiating itself from Saddam and his torturers is beyond me at this point.

From Counterpunch:--Book review -Guantanamo, What the World Should Know

The book raises one other matter for consideration. Approximately 2,800 soldiers and CIA interrogators have already served as de facto torturers at Guantanamo, which houses only a few hundred prisoners. The total number of Americans who have served there is certainly larger, as soldiers and spooks are rotated in and out. Many others are being trained as torturers in military indoctrination courses. Already thousands of Americans at Guantanamo, and in other God-forsaken places around the world, have whole-heartedly embraced the role of torturer. Like those Abu Ghraib, they enjoy it.

What does this mean for America, as these torturers return home? Is it our patriotic duty to validate their service, and adopt their values? Or shall the privates, corporals and sergeants be held responsible for the war crimes they committed, while following the orders of policy makers like Bush?
Will there be a prison big enough to hold all the war criminals America is producing at places like Guantanamo?

http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine09042004.html

It was women bombers who brought down both of the Russian airliners. You can bet that there were women and children aboard.

A radical Muslim cleric issued a decision that women would be allowed the formerly male-only "privilege" of being a suicide bomber. Promptly, a woman walked into a pizza place where mothers and their youjng children were the primary lunchtime crowd, and blew them and herself up. Other women suicide bombers have had bombs strapped to their bellies, mimicking a pregnancy, knowing that they would not be searched. The woman who surrendered to Israeli police, saying that she did not want to die and was being pressured BY HER FAMILY to blow herself up, wore such a bomb.

Please imagine the horror of having your child go to a school where one of the lessons is how glorious it is to murder others by killing yourself. And how, if you speak out against terrorism, you put the lives of yourself and your family at risk. I have had a PM correspondence with a Stoolie who thought it was a humanitarian gesture, that terrorists financially support the families of suicide bombers. I say that it is a heinous crime against humanity to tell a poor person that the best way for them to support their families is to murder others and blow themselves up.

I will go further than you, Brown One, and say that how a society treats its women is the most important thing about it. The Taliban treated women brutally. Norway treats its women as equals. Saudi Arabia executes women for driving cars. Sweden has women on the Volvo production line. Which societies are better places for women -- and men and children -- to realize their potential, and live good lives? For many centuries, Islam was far more tolerant of minorities than was Western culture. In general, that is no longer the case. Why are the results of the teachings of radical fundamentalists (who have won power struggles in many countries) in any way supported by western liberals -- by "understanding" them? Liberals have always claimed to be a moral force -- how can we continue to claim the moral high ground if we do anything but condemn the actions of terrorists, and those who make it possible/encourage them? How can we as liberals be in any way supportive of repressive regimes who promote the opposite of the ideals of liberalism?

People who believe in the ideal of a world where people of all cultures live in peace, should be working toward a world where all people have human rights, and none need fear sudden death at the hands of those who hate them just because of what ethnic group or nationality they happen to have been born into. Any support for repressive regimes that sponsor terrorism (and brutalize their own people, because that is how power is kept), only prolongs the suffering for all.

Drano, Yes, they are the most brutally repressive societies in the world, the Middle Eastern countries. The next question would be....What is the best way to change that without stooping to their level? Seriously...not saying I have the slightest idea. Do you have any ideas other than showing these people the benefit of a free and open society by blasting them to smithereens?