FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

The State Department said Monday that at least nine American citizens have been killed in the weekend Hamas attacks on Israel, raising the toll from four.


It says an undetermined number of American citizens remain missing and unaccounted for. On Sunday, an official said that number was fluid and had ranged from between six to 12. It is not clear whether the missing had been taken hostage, were killed or are in hiding.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows. He was the antithesis of someone driven by a strong ideal.

What is it with people on here and popularity polls. Polls don't dictate strategy. They don't win elections. They are highly skewable and are limited is scope. So what that a poll said that. That is not how you govern by popular poll

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

I have seen a report that 300,000 are mobilized for the Gaza operation.

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Seems like there is truth to what he said. I do not think there would even be as much outrage had they just killed a bunch of random men. Women and children as victims and casualties really outrages people.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

I have seen a report that 300,000 are mobilized for the Gaza operation.

---

Can't see them soft playing. Just not their way.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

Genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is something that the most radical factions in Israel have wanted for a while...no doubt they will use this Hamas attack to try and get the government to carry out their desires.

I guess we will soon find out.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

As predicted.

Eqyptian police officer murdered two Israeli tourists yesterday in Alexandria.

Anyone in our woke State Department who thinks billions of dollars in US aid annually given to Egypt has alterred Muslim hatred of Israel is an idiot.

There will be assaults on American Jews as well in the coming weeks.

Isael has no choice at this point but to fight an all out war on the Muslin aggressors or their people will be on constant attack throughout the world.

---

I don't understand how anyone is stupid enough to think that we can have peace with Muslims.

---

There are a few guys who get terminally confused by Muslim *****.

However it is primarily the case of millions of younger men and women who choose to be intellectually lazy . Passively deluding themselves that ' all people are fundamentally the same'.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

---

When I was in Saudi for Desert Storm, they had tents set up to discuss Islam. They were not like the violent ones we are seeing. They discussed and answered questions, but no pressure to convert or anything. Sadly, they had more answers than many of the Christians when asked questions.

---

Again, all you really need to know is the life of the founder of each religion.

Jesus was a peaceful man who performed miracles, fed the hungry, healed the sick, blessed his enemies... etc

Mohammed was a brutal murder who taught how to properly beat women, how to murder Jews, subjugate non-believers, marry/rape young girls, etc.

Anyone equating Christianity with Islam is either ignorant, foolish, or a liar.

---

You are correct. They were not pushy or rude, but make no mistake Islam seemed to be a brutal religion. No room for forgiveness and no room for non-believers/infidels.

True story, I had a vehicle since I had several detachments to work with. I would get to go to the Saudi Airbase at Dhahrarn. When there i would grab a workout in their weight room and a shower. I had to use the infidel showers, literally marked infidels. Talked to a lot of Saudi pilots, educated in England and US, be y they said they will die in the cock pit or desk. Because if they left they would take it out on their family. No room for individual thought, religious opinion or diverging from your role. And these were the open minded ones compared to the ****es to the north. I was not impressed with a life under Islam.

---

That sounds horrible. Spanish Inquisition or St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre level bad

---

I have shared an office with an Algerian Moslem, very devout. When I evacuated for wild fires he took us in his house. Iranian engineers that left in 1978, were great. So, it is harsh, but it depends on the person. Islam appeals to engineers. It is very logical and the Koran answers questions better than the Bible. It is what you make of it, just like Catholicism, Protestants or even football fans
You can make it brutal or you can be reasonable.. I don't want to give an all negative view.

---

Which questions have the Quran answered for you?

---

For me? I am not Moslem, nor look to it for answers. I shared an office with an Algerian engineer for 5 years. I went through Ramadan, not eating at my desk so as to respect his fast. Him praying twicw a day. We had many conversations, he could not understand believing on faith alone. I thought it was too methodical and like Mormonism based on one person's interpretation.

As for questions the Koran answers, how to eat, when to eat, when to pray, how to pray, how to treat your wife, etc... I pretty much is a how to manual. What did and does impress me, they are devout, willing to do what their religion asks, and they are charitable. My saying the Koran answer questions is a dircect quote from Moslem engineers I have known.

---

I don't know much about Islam other than familiar with their holidays. Seems to me that there seem to be a subset of Muslims that are indeed terrorists and hate Israel and Christians. Here is a question, Islam is the largest religion in the world. Muslims are 14.2 percent of the population in India, but you don't hear terrorism or extremists coming from there. Furthermore, just my limited knowledge on the subject , but one of my best friends in the world (dated her) is Muslim (Muslim light as she would say) She and her family are some of the finest people I know. My friend is a C suite executive at a fortune 200 company and gives more $ away than probably any of us on the board . My overarching point is that all Muslims are not evil as many have said. just my one off experience

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Yes, Palestine will be reduced to rubble as it should. The cockroaches will have no place to hide and will all be given a one way ticket to see Allah.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Seems like there is truth to what he said. I do not think there would even be as much outrage had they just killed a bunch of random men. Women and children as victims and casualties really outrages people.

---

Indeed.

The US never intervenes without strategic importance though. We watched the Rwandan genocide unfold: roughly 800k Rwandans were killed in 100 days. Absolutely no US intervention.

It had no strategic importance. There was nothing to be gained from it...their lives were literally worthless to us.

That's the world we live in.

These Hamas invaders whipped a seven-year-old and told him to call for his mother as they whipped the boy.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Yes, Palestine will be reduced to rubble as it should. The cockroaches will have no place to hide and will all be given a one way ticket to see Allah.

---

Are you posting this from your radical settler compound in Havat Gilad with a fan boy poster of Meir Kahane hanging on the wall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane

If your not in fact a radical Jewish setter fanatic then your post is even more insane.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

The biggest difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is that the Israelis are willing to commit to the hard things involved in building a nation... infrastructure, building an economy, creating a system of laws that just enough people don't like but observe out of deference to their neighbor, and such.

The Palestinians literally elected a Terrorist Organization/Party as their leadership, and they are unwilling to do any of the difficult things to build a country. Their only mission is to destroy their neighbor.

---

Come on Trey….it's pretty hard to build a real State when you are denied effective control over your own country.

Military bases, exclusive access zones, illegal Israeli settlements, security barriers and security parameters, Israeli only access roads, etc.

Large parts of their own country they have no right to enter or have to get pre-clearance to travel to and from.

"Israel's military rule disrupts every aspect of daily life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It continues to affect whether, when and how Palestinians can travel to work or school, go abroad, visit their relatives, earn a living, attend a protest, access their farmland, or even access electricity or a clean water supply. It means daily humiliation, fear and oppression. People's entire lives are effectively held hostage"

How can civil society or effective state institutions develop in that situation?







And there is no reason to think all Palestinians want to "wipe out Israel"


[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders]

[According to a 2021 PCPSR poll, support for a two-state solution among Palestinians and Israeli Jews, as of 2021,...at 43 percent and 42 percent, respectively]

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

Genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is something that the most radical factions in Israel have wanted for a while...no doubt they will use this Hamas attack to try and get the government to carry out their desires.

I guess we will soon find out.

---

You are the only one using the word genocide.

---

Just remember, there were no settlements in '48 or '67.

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

As predicted.

Eqyptian police officer murdered two Israeli tourists yesterday in Alexandria.

Anyone in our woke State Department who thinks billions of dollars in US aid annually given to Egypt has alterred Muslim hatred of Israel is an idiot.

There will be assaults on American Jews as well in the coming weeks.

Isael has no choice at this point but to fight an all out war on the Muslin aggressors or their people will be on constant attack throughout the world.

---

I don't understand how anyone is stupid enough to think that we can have peace with Muslims.

---

There are a few guys who get terminally confused by Muslim *****.

However it is primarily the case of millions of younger men and women who choose to be intellectually lazy . Passively deluding themselves that ' all people are fundamentally the same'.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

---

When I was in Saudi for Desert Storm, they had tents set up to discuss Islam. They were not like the violent ones we are seeing. They discussed and answered questions, but no pressure to convert or anything. Sadly, they had more answers than many of the Christians when asked questions.

---

Again, all you really need to know is the life of the founder of each religion.

Jesus was a peaceful man who performed miracles, fed the hungry, healed the sick, blessed his enemies... etc

Mohammed was a brutal murder who taught how to properly beat women, how to murder Jews, subjugate non-believers, marry/rape young girls, etc.

Anyone equating Christianity with Islam is either ignorant, foolish, or a liar.

---

You are correct. They were not pushy or rude, but make no mistake Islam seemed to be a brutal religion. No room for forgiveness and no room for non-believers/infidels.

True story, I had a vehicle since I had several detachments to work with. I would get to go to the Saudi Airbase at Dhahrarn. When there i would grab a workout in their weight room and a shower. I had to use the infidel showers, literally marked infidels. Talked to a lot of Saudi pilots, educated in England and US, be y they said they will die in the cock pit or desk. Because if they left they would take it out on their family. No room for individual thought, religious opinion or diverging from your role. And these were the open minded ones compared to the ****es to the north. I was not impressed with a life under Islam.

---

That sounds horrible. Spanish Inquisition or St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre level bad

---

I have shared an office with an Algerian Moslem, very devout. When I evacuated for wild fires he took us in his house. Iranian engineers that left in 1978, were great. So, it is harsh, but it depends on the person. Islam appeals to engineers. It is very logical and the Koran answers questions better than the Bible. It is what you make of it, just like Catholicism, Protestants or even football fans
You can make it brutal or you can be reasonable.. I don't want to give an all negative view.

---

Which questions have the Quran answered for you?

---

For me? I am not Moslem, nor look to it for answers. I shared an office with an Algerian engineer for 5 years. I went through Ramadan, not eating at my desk so as to respect his fast. Him praying twicw a day. We had many conversations, he could not understand believing on faith alone. I thought it was too methodical and like Mormonism based on one person's interpretation.

As for questions the Koran answers, how to eat, when to eat, when to pray, how to pray, how to treat your wife, etc... I pretty much is a how to manual. What did and does impress me, they are devout, willing to do what their religion asks, and they are charitable. My saying the Koran answer questions is a dircect quote from Moslem engineers I have known.

---

I don't know much about Islam other than familiar with their holidays. Seems to me that there seem to be a subset of Muslims that are indeed terrorists and hate Israel and Christians. Here is a question, Islam is the largest religion in the world. Muslims are 14.2 percent of the population in India, but you don't hear terrorism or extremists coming from there. Furthermore, just my limited knowledge on the subject , but one of my best friends in the world (dated her) is Muslim (Muslim light as she would say) She and her family are some of the finest people I know. My friend is a C suite executive at a fortune 200 company and gives more $ away than probably any of us on the board . My overarching point is that all Muslims are not evil as many have said. just my one off experience

---

I agree 100%. I have many friends and colleagues that are Moslem and they are great people. The question was about the Koran and my experience was it is a harsh religion in practice. That doesn't make the people bad or not good people. The engineers I know like it because it is very logical, at least that was their view.

sombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

Genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is something that the most radical factions in Israel have wanted for a while...no doubt they will use this Hamas attack to try and get the government to carry out their desires.

I guess we will soon find out.

---

You are the only one using the word genocide.

---

Just remember, there were no settlements in '48 or '67.

---

And settlement is the same as genocide?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Yes, Palestine will be reduced to rubble as it should. The cockroaches will have no place to hide and will all be given a one way ticket to see Allah.

---

Are you posting this from your radical settler compound in Havat Gilad with a fan boy poster of Meir Kahane hanging on the wall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane

If you're not in fact a radical Jewish setter fanatic then your post is even more insane.

---

Wikipedia. LOL!!!

---

Here is non wiki article about him....a truly horrible racist Jewish supremacist and scum bag.

Someone you would love.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/2021-03-26/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-election-who-was-meir-kahane-and-why-is-his-racist-legacy-relevant-again/0000017f-db3c-df62-a9ff-dfffe2fa0000

[Who Was Meir Kahane, and Why Is His Racist Legacy Relevant Again

Brooklyn-born Meir Kahane was banned from Israeli politics in 1988, but the spirit of his anti-Arab Kach party lives on in an extremist alliance that just won six Knesset seats]

FLBear5630 said:

---

sombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

Genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is something that the most radical factions in Israel have wanted for a while...no doubt they will use this Hamas attack to try and get the government to carry out their desires.

I guess we will soon find out.

---

You are the only one using the word genocide.

---

Just remember, there were no settlements in '48 or '67.

---

And settlement is the same as genocide?

---

One wonders why their Arab brothers use them as political footballs. All Jordan, Egypt, or Syria have to do is grant them citizenship and allow them to resettle as refugees within their national boundaries. Everybody gets something from keeping the Palestinians in limbo except the average Palestinian.

Lebanon was previously a Christian homeland in the middle East. Now the Christians have no homeland in the Middle East. Anyone want guess what happened?

FLBear5630 said:

---

sombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

Genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is something that the most radical factions in Israel have wanted for a while...no doubt they will use this Hamas attack to try and get the government to carry out their desires.

I guess we will soon find out.

---

You are the only one using the word genocide.

---

Just remember, there were no settlements in '48 or '67.

---

And settlement is the same as genocide?

---

No, settlements are not the same as genocide.

But they make it very hard to get to any sort of lasting peace...and they create the conditions on the ground that demand a forceful (oppressive) military occupation of the local population.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

sombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.

Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.

I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.

---

The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.

---

Mad? No

Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes

They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.

Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.

"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."

But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.

Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.

[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years: Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation.

"It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]

---

All that may be true. The Israeli's don't see it that way. The alternative way to look at it. Is if you attack me, you will pay. We will take your land.

If you think Hamas is going to come out on top of this, you don't know the Israeli's. They got blindsided, their turn is coming. They won't keep them under Occupation, they will expel them and set up a border that will make Trump blush. In addition, Israel has bigger friends. Let's see how it plays out.

---

Well at least sizable chunk of Israelis see it that way.

Including Ariel Sharon (a long time Israeli General and Prime Minister)....I mean he was no friend to the Palestinians and certainly no dove....yet he thought it a bad idea for 8 million person Israel to try and militarily occupy 3.5 million person West Bank (Palestine) forever.

[In a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement. A 2013 Gallup poll found 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 48% of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, together with 55% of Israelis supporting "an independent Palestinian state together with the state of Israel"]

---

Sharon had a view for sure, but his predominant trait was pragmatism. In his time, he supported abandoning Gaza. Would he today? Who knows.

---

I think if Sharon though that Israel could hold Gaza forever...he would have kept it. But he realized that 8,000 Israeli settlers could never hold 2 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

And that it was bleeding the Israeli tax base to try and do it...hurting its international reputation...and tying down the Israeli military.

And of course if Sharon was never some kind of friend to the Palestinian people.

[His long and chequered career as a soldier and politician largely revolved around one issue: the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a soldier he was involved at the sharp end of this bitter conflict. As a politician he became known as "the Bulldozer" on account of his contempt for his critics and his ruthless drive to get things done. Sharon was a deeply flawed character, renowned for his brutality, mendacity, and corruption...Sharon was an ardent Jewish nationalist, a dyed-in-the-wool hardliner, and a ferocious rightwing hawk. He also displayed a consistent preference for force over diplomacy in dealing with the Arabs. Reversing Clausewitz's famous dictum, he treated diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/ariel-sharon-no-man-of-peace-israel


*I think he felt the same about the West Bank occupation but had no ability to force the issue in the Israeli Knesset....trying to remove 500,000 settlers in the West Bank was politically just too hard.

---

I think Netanyahu will go all out. I think you are going to see an either become Israeli or leave once they are done with Hammas. The Israeli mindset is not to give back after being attacked.

---

Genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is something that the most radical factions in Israel have wanted for a while...no doubt they will use this Hamas attack to try and get the government to carry out their desires.

I guess we will soon find out.

---

You are the only one using the word genocide.

---

Just remember, there were no settlements in '48 or '67.

---

And settlement is the same as genocide?

---

One wonders why their Arab brothers use them as political footballs. All Jordan, Egypt, or Syria have to do is grant them citizenship and allow them to resettle as refugees within their national boundaries. Everybody gets something from keeping the Palestinians in limbo except the average Palestinian.

Lebanon was previously a Christian homeland in the middle East. Now the Christians have no homeland in the Middle East. Anyone want guess what happened?

---

Very true

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Yes, Palestine will be reduced to rubble as it should. The cockroaches will have no place to hide and will all be given a one way ticket to see Allah.

---

Are you posting this from your radical settler compound in Havat Gilad with a fan boy poster of Meir Kahane hanging on the wall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane

If you're not in fact a radical Jewish setter fanatic then your post is even more insane.

---

Wikipedia. LOL!!!

---

Here is non wiki article about him....a truly horrible racist Jewish supremacist and scum bag.

Someone you would love.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/2021-03-26/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-election-who-was-meir-kahane-and-why-is-his-racist-legacy-relevant-again/0000017f-db3c-df62-a9ff-dfffe2fa0000

[Who Was Meir Kahane, and Why Is His Racist Legacy Relevant Again

Brooklyn-born Meir Kahane was banned from Israeli politics in 1988, but the spirit of his anti-Arab Kach party lives on in an extremist alliance that just won six Knesset]

---

Hamas lit this fuse. Over 800 dead in an unprovoked attack. Hope Israel releases their full fury on Hamas and they cease to exist.

Israel does not need our help. We just need to stay the Hell out of their way.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Yes, Palestine will be reduced to rubble as it should. The cockroaches will have no place to hide and will all be given a one way ticket to see Allah.

---

Are you posting this from your radical settler compound in Havat Gilad with a fan boy poster of Meir Kahane hanging on the wall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane

If you're not in fact a radical Jewish setter fanatic then your post is even more insane.

---

Wikipedia. LOL!!!

---

Here is non wiki article about him....a truly horrible racist Jewish supremacist and scum bag.

Someone you would love.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/2021-03-26/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-election-who-was-meir-kahane-and-why-is-his-racist-legacy-relevant-again/0000017f-db3c-df62-a9ff-dfffe2fa0000

[Who Was Meir Kahane, and Why Is His Racist Legacy Relevant Again

Brooklyn-born Meir Kahane was banned from Israeli politics in 1988, but the spirit of his anti-Arab Kach party lives on in an extremist alliance that just won six Knesset]

---

Hamas lit this fuse. Over 800 dead in an unprovoked attack. Hope Israel releases their full fury on Hamas and they cease to exist.

Israel does not need our help. We just need to stay the Hell out of their way.

---

1. They have both been provoking, teaching race-tribal hate to their children, and killing each other for decades. They both "provoke" each other all the time.

An endless Israeli military occupation is a provocation. Palestinian terror attacks are a provocation.

I hope you are not to far gone down the rabbit hole of extremism to understand that.

2. You are right that Israel does not need our help. They are a nuclear armed 1st world nation-state with vast military and economic capabilities

Somehow the NFL released a stronger statement than the State Department https://t.co/qfG22MuWgm

— John Hasson (@SonofHas) October 9, 2023

Hamas threatening to execute hostages which would only escalate Israel's decimation on Gaza.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Everyone knows that in war, men are allowed to kill men. No one in US would care if Hamas had attacked or ambushed the IDF. Sucks but that’s how it goes. War is war. Hamas invaded a rave and raped and tortured and then displayed tourist women as trophies. Palestine is fucked.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 8, 2023

---

Yes, Palestine will be reduced to rubble as it should. The cockroaches will have no place to hide and will all be given a one way ticket to see Allah.

---

Are you posting this from your radical settler compound in Havat Gilad with a fan boy poster of Meir Kahane hanging on the wall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane

If you're not in fact a radical Jewish setter fanatic then your post is even more insane.

---

Wikipedia. LOL!!!

---

Here is non wiki article about him....a truly horrible racist Jewish supremacist and scum bag.

Someone you would love.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/2021-03-26/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-election-who-was-meir-kahane-and-why-is-his-racist-legacy-relevant-again/0000017f-db3c-df62-a9ff-dfffe2fa0000

[Who Was Meir Kahane, and Why Is His Racist Legacy Relevant Again

Brooklyn-born Meir Kahane was banned from Israeli politics in 1988, but the spirit of his anti-Arab Kach party lives on in an extremist alliance that just won six Knesset]

---

Hamas lit this fuse. Over 800 dead in an unprovoked attack. Hope Israel releases their full fury on Hamas and they cease to exist.

Israel does not need our help. We just need to stay the Hell out of their way.

---

1. They have both been provoking, teaching race-tribal hate to their children, and killing each other for decades. They both "provoke" each other all the time.

An endless Israeli military occupation is a provocation. Palestinian terror attacks are a provocation.

I hope you are not to far gone down the rabbit hole of extremism to understand that.

2. You are right that Israel does not need our help. They are a nuclear armed 1st world nation-state with vast military and economic capabilities

---

Most people call that a country.

The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/