Hamas vs. Fatah

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Jun 14 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]461608[/snapback]</div>

I usually do, and have to to survive here, except for the recent addition of a number of individuals who tend to be more pro America pro Democratic pro Human liberties. He put several post on the BB under different posts that all had a similar theme --- which actually SURPISED me - i really thought we got along - honestly - it was like getting bit*h slapped by someone you did not expect it from.

and you are right - EFUSCOMD - I apologize for my recent comments - it was not like me, nor is it like me to say things like that - i am sorry. i honestly feel bad and i did let myself down. honestly - sorry. perhaps we can talk about things we mutually like and agree on - like red wine. I wish you well, be safe my friend.

David

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 14 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]461618[/snapback]</div>

i am truly sorry for your inability to reason. perhaps you should substitute passion for prejudice? Does my single mindedness preclude me from being correct? Or is it best for you that i retain some ambivilence towards this position to increase my credibility in this matter? Churchill was "prejudiced" against the Nazi's - in fact his passion towards that postion of his predated those of his fellow citizens and politicians by years - and i could go on and on...

So i am assuming you would support the US president if he were to prevent iran from going nuclear?

Please explain your comments in your second paragraph - i am at a loss in understanding your point(s). You have peaked my interest now....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 14 2007, 01:11 PM) [snapback]461681[/snapback]</div>

What evil does israel do? How does israels removal or eliminaiton destabilize the region? What are the long term consequences of a nuclear armed iran vs removing their ability to produce nuclear weapons? Why is war a terrible outcome?

War is not an easy answer - it is usually the last option and the most difficult.

Define imminent nuclear risk? Is it when they are one year away or two years away and by whose judgement are you willing to rest that determination upon? Is there not already enough evidence to allow us to act - given all the new evidence the UN has, irans total disregard for UN oversight, and irans public desire to wipe israel off the map? How do you reconcile a member of the UN threatening the existance of another member of the UN with extermination? Does that allow for measures of self-defense - especially given irans nuclear arms program? do you think iran is using its nuclear program to produce electricity or nuclear weapons?

And as a defender of islamic based conflict, please name for me one current world conflict out of the several dozen ongoing ones that does NOT involve Islam or Muslims?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jun 15 2007, 02:35 AM) [snapback]462149[/snapback]</div>

Fascinating turn of events.

1. Interesting how the UN did not act here given the slaughter and murder of fatah members at the hands of Hamas - little doubt in my mind that if it were IDF pulling the trigger on Fatah members while they were prostrate on the ground and pumped 40 bullets into their head the UN would be all over that - a dozen resolutions - public outcries - etc - etc -- such a double standard.

2. It turns out the Jews living in the Gaza Strip were not the problem. It was after all the Palestinians themselves that ARE the problem. The Jews were removed and the Gaza was "Jew-Free" and yet the violence continued -- escalated in fact.

3. Sharon was brilliant - The Palestinians lost BIG TIME - by allowing the Palestinians a chance at self-government and a trial run towards a Two State solution - the Palestinians fell on their own sword or AK-47. There is absolutely NO chance for a two state solution now, or for the near future. The "Road Map" is officially burned and destroyed. Sharon knew this was going to happen and put the pieces into play. It is too bad he is not around to engineer the next phase.

4. The West Bank - i believe we will see significant internecine fighting here now too. Iran and Syria need Hamas to control this terrortory too - this would lead to a significant tactical advantage for them in their next move against Israel. This move will HAVE TO HAPPEN within the next year for several reasons:

a. Israel remains weak in terms of reserve forces training and equipment as demonstrated last summer in Lebanon. It will take another two to three years to correct these deficiencies.
b. Iran has to divert attention away from its nuclear program - what better than a two or three month semi-hot to hot war with israel?
c. Syria has to divert attention away from it role playing in Lebanon - its backing of politcal assasinations there, its resupply of Hezbollah.
d. Olmert is still in office - he is by nature a weak and indecisive leader. Odds are the next PM will be tougher and enjoy public support above the 3% olmert currently has. Olmert has no experience in war and his military advisors remain less than stellar.
e. the shift geopolitcally in europe is towards Israel - it is still early and waiting for French and German leadership to cement their influence in those countries would be a tactical error for Islamoterrorists.

5. There will be little or no outside interference in this true civil war - The Gaza Strip is now under Islamic Rule via Hamas. The West Bank has significant Hamas and anti-Fatah forces there - I do not see how the UN or any other peace keeping force can move in there without getting fired upon - Hamas and their allies will not allow that to happen. How many forces will you need, where will they be from, how will they be supplied, where will they live and operate - all of these issues are in play here. My guess is that even if the "world" can decide upon sending a peace keeping force there - they might as well as sew a bulleye target on either their helmet or the back of their shirts - they are going to take casualties - and we know the West's dislike of taking any casualties at all.

6. The next conflict with Israel will begin with the same tactical bend as the last one last summer. Hezbollah has amassed 20,000+ rockets and there are thousands more in Gaza and the West Bank. Picture metal rain - hundreds of rockets raining down on israel each day. Add to that the newer longer range missiles they have from Iran - directed at chemical factories, refineries, etc, etc. Israel will lose on several fronts here:

a. tourism will die - a huge hit to their economy
b. they will have to mobilize significant forces - another huge hit on their economy
c. military spending will have to skyrocket
d. their politcal process will be strained - if olmert is still in office

7. This will provide Israel with a most difficult decision... and this depends upon from how many directions the rockets and missiles are coming from. What will they do and how far will they go?

here its gets a little murky....

8. I believe the same countries that supported Israel during the war last summer will in fact remain behind Israel - egypt, jordan, and saudia arabia - if this is so, Israel has more carte blanche to roll if their govt wants to - i expect that Islamoterrorists will underestimate Israel's response, which will be....

9. Massive. Depending on the situation...

a. in Lebanon - I see an all out effort to crush Hezbollah and shore up the Lebanese govt - with Israeli forces remaining there until either the lebanese govt can take care of itself or a "friendly" neutral party[not UN] takes their place
b. in Gaza - a total destruction of the terror infrastructure, and establishment of a new Palestinian govt body.
c. in the West Bank - depending on the state of the Hamas v non-hamas conflict -- something similar to Gaza.
d. destruction or prevention of any attempt at resurrecting these forces if possible.

10. I would not be surprised to see...

a. an attempt during this time to neutralize Iranian nuclear facilities or a push for change in irans ruling party
b. a destabalization of the syrian government
c. a spread to syria of this conflict - especially if significant terror assets move there including Hezbollah leadership.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 15 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]462228[/snapback]</div>

I am glad you approve.

Yes, Hamas will attack the UN troops. The same way they build their fortifications and positions near them in Lebanon and they use civilians and hospitals too.

They have NO legitimacy to seek. They have never renounced their desire to destroy Israel. They recieve $400 Million from Iran /year. They are a well known and self described terror organization. Legitimacy is impossible. They are viewed this way by the EU which stopped funding them along with the rest of the civilized world. I doubt the UN will recognize them either.

This civil war will lead to huge problems for all involved:

1. The Palestinians in Gaza - are now under strict Islamic rule/law. What was a very bad existance is now if possible worse for them.
2. Israel is now surrounded on two fronts by the same enemy - Hezbollah and Hamas are Iranian backed terror groups.
3. Without the buffer of Fatah (a terror organization with a little more common sense) Hamas will feel unimpeded to act against Israel and use civilians as shields. The Israelis will have little choice but to retaliate even with Hamas fighting like a girl.
4. It ends ALL pretexts of a peaceful two state solution with Israel and is a MAJOR defeat for Bush and America who spent big time and money and political capital on Fatah and Abbas. This cannot be downplayed.
5. Iran has huge influence now - and growing.


Look at the play Iran is also making in Lebanon - taking out the anti-Syrian politician and his son the other day. They are looking to increase their influence around Israel for the reasons I mentioned before.