Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber



 Religions > Atheism > Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Kenny Leong"
Date: 04 Apr 2004 10:23:20 AM
Object: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber
(Chubby) wrote in message news:<d094f7bc.0403221121.33a6235d@posting.google.com>...

Pumpin' Pumpkin <PumpinPumpkin@noreply.privacy.net> wrote in message news:<19ts50dc6is1efupg6dravr83os4jsuutl@4ax.com>...

bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) wrote in article
<4fa573de.0403180126.63fa6a88@posting.google.com>:


Re: What if the College of Cardinals was wiped out by nuclear weapon ?


There are no Vatican troops occupying and terrorizing entire nation

There are no Vatican death squads killing people all over the world

There are no Vatican tanks and bulldozers plowing over houses and
people

There are no Vatican prisons and concentration camps where people are
tortured and held indefinitely witohut trial

There are no Vatican attack helicopters hunting women and children on
the streets

The first target of nuclear suicide bomber will be Israel - and there
is nothing Sharon's war machine can do about it.




http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1158

Five to Midnight

By Israel Shamir


To the north of prosperous Hertzliya, the capital of Israeli high-tech
industry with its plentiful sushi-bars, there is a pleasant beach
below a steep, almost Pacific bank. It is an unattended shore, without
lifeguards, and it is frequented by nature-loving foreigners and the
Palestinian families on their outing to the nearby sanctuary of Sidna
(Our Master) Ali. If you will walk even further north, beyond the
signs forbidding your advance for the very real danger of avalanche,
you will find yourself in a secluded cove, a rarity on the straight
line of the Palestinian shore. It is a beautiful place for a swim in
transparent waters of the Med. Big earth-coloured boulders guard the
cove; at a second careful look you will understand that they are not a
natural formation. They are bastions of the Crusader castle of Arsur,
whose ruins rise on the plateau well above the beach. The bastions
were overturned and dropped into the blue-green sea by Baibars, a
great Arab commander, the vanquisher of Mongols and Crusaders in 13th
century.


The Cove of Arsur

Some 150 years earlier, the Crusaders easily conquered the Holy Land,
and easily settled down. They built their castles and farmsteads,
married local Christian Orthodox and Armenian women, and could live
happily ever after. But they used to invite foreign adventurers and
serve as the beachhead for their landings, and proved their inability
to fit in as a good neighbour. They were given many chances, but they
blew them all and remained a potential ally to any foreign aggressor.

Then, the 'weak and feminine' Levant brought forth Baibars. It is not
enough to expel the Crusaders, he ruled, for it was tried by Saladin;
but the Franks came back. The only way to get rid of them is to
destroy the shore of Palestine so they will never be able to snatch it
again. Castle after castle, settlement after settlement, city after
city, Baibars ruined the seaside of the Holy Land: Caesarea, Askalon,
Jaffa, Arsur. He regretted it, but the alternative was an eternal
warfare in the region.


The Overturned Bastions of Arsur

It seems that history is about to repeat itself. Unless some
unexpected turn of events will occur, the sweet land of Palestine is
doomed to perdition. The German-built, US-equipped nuclear submarines
of the Jewish state poised to wreck havoc in Iran, Syria, Saudi
Arabia, make it abundantly clear ? there is no way Israel will become
a decent neighbour in Levant.

The Jews were given a good chance to strike root in the land of
Palestine and make peace with the native population. But they blew it.
The recent unprovoked Israeli air strike into the depth of Syria
reminded to those who had forgotten that the Jewish state is an
aggressive entity dangerous for the region. Thirty years of calm
between Syria and Israel were dismissed by Sharon's generals as of no
consequence. Nobody was fooled by their clumsy attempt to connect
Syria to the bloody act of personal vengeance meted by the young woman
from al-Halil whose brother and fiancé were murdered and father
refused medical help by the Israeli military. Insightful Malaysian
Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad interpreted that well: "Israel has
been urging America to invade Syria, but Americans seemed to be
reluctant, so in order to force the US hand, Israel carried out the
air strike" [i].

The problem of Israel is not the problem of Palestinian suffering
anymore; it is the problem for the entire region from India to
Ethiopia (Esther, 1) and beyond. Indeed, the fifth column of
Israel-supporters instigates wars all over the world, from Chechnya to
Philippines, from North Korea to Cuba. They push the world straight
into Armageddon. John Bolton calls for takeover of Iran, Murawiec
demands to beat Saudi Arabia. The rabidly Zionist New York Post lifts
its sights to France, "one of America's ugliest enemies" led by
Chirac, "a moral pygmy whose lack of scruples is, fortunately,
balanced by a lack of courage and power." "France should be made to
suffer, strategically and financially. The French stabbed us in the
back. In response, we should skin them alive?, continues the
newspaper, and judging by the Zionist record, it is not just a figure
of speech.

The Jewish state is an extremely dangerous bundle of goods. It is part
of Israeli military doctrine: act crazy, and people will be scared of
you. The bogus threat of nuclear Iraq was modelled on the real threat
of nuclear Israel. Its scientists practice chemical and biological
warfare, as well. They actually tried nerve gas on demonstrators in
Gaza, and water poisoning at the siege of Acre, as reported Abu Sitta
in Al-Ahram.

Israel is involved in a long line of kidnapping and assassinations
carried out on foreign soil. There is no immunity from the long arm of
Israel: they killed in Norway (the notorious Lillehammer affair), they
kidnapped in Rome (Vanunu affair), they bombed British library and
American consulate (Lavon affair), they sunk USS Liberty, they tried
to assassinate Joseph Mugabe, they probably assassinated the
anti-Zionist US Secretary of State James Forrestol, were involved in
the assassination of President Kennedy, as Michael Collins Piper in
<>The Final Judgment<> makes clear, for the American president
insisted on nuclear disarmament of Israel. Recent assassination of
Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister, who supported boycott of
Israel, still remains a mystery.

They are not particularly secretive: today we know who assassinated
Count Bernadotte in 1948, and who committed mass murder of German POW
in 1946, and who murdered the Egyptian POWs in 1956, for their
perpetrators boast about it. Tomorrow we shall know who did other
atrocities. But our knowledge won't help, for Israel is a safe haven
for criminals. Whenever caught red-handed, Israel brushed away the
world public opinion, for as Ben Gurion, our first Prime Minister
said, 'what the goyim say is of no importance, only what the Jews do
is of importance'.

This sad record refreshed by the air strike on Syria and the
preparation for nuclear strike on Iran proves there is no way to make
Israel a suitable member of the community of nations. It also answers
the question whether the peace efforts and attempts to roll Israel
back to its old borders are still relevant. They are not. In borders
of 67', 48' or 73', Israel remains a bridgehead of aggression, a
threat to world peace and a physical threat to world leaders. Like the
bloodthirsty sect of Assassins, who once plagued the region,
Israel-supporters undermine or murder better rulers, and support
weaklings who are prepared to act on their orders. Israel's withdrawal
from the West Bank will not change its nature. The leopard can't
change his spots, as Jeremiah the prophet had said (13:23).

Israel's behaviour is partly connected to the Jewish superiority
complex, and its consequence, the apartheid structure. The South
Africa before Mandela also was involved in destruction of its
neighbours, Mozambique and Namibia, and in many plots elsewhere in
Africa. This superiority complex should be treated by dismantling the
apartheid state. The events of last year proved it beyond reasonable
doubt. Dismantlement by peaceful means of democratisation is the only
viable alternative to Israel's otherwise inevitable ruination. While
bringing the brinkmanship policy to the level of 'calculated madness',
Israeli leaders failed to predict they will bring to life a whole
generation that does not care whether they are dead or alive.

Until recently, fear of Israeli retaliation kept its adversaries at
bay. In 1991, the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had powerful WMD, but
he did not use it against Israel, for he did not feel desperate. He
believed the threat of Israel to destroy Iraq if he uses WMD. He
thought that he could survive the defeat. He did not understand that
Israeli idea of war is drawn on the Jewish religious tradition that
knows no mercy. If Saddam would know that bodies of his tortured sons
would lie in a Baghdad morgue, that he would be turned into a homeless
refugee, that his country will be ruined by ten years of sanctions and
afterwards become prey to Zionist invader, he might be well tempted to
do the Samson solution, and take the Jewish state with him into nether
regions in 1991.

Saddam Hussein is gone, but by now, every leader in the world knows
what he should expect if Israel asks its American Golem for his head.
Paradoxically, the very cruelty of Israel turned its threat into an
empty sound, for if they will do their worst anyway, it makes no sense
to surrender to their demands.

The Jews of Israel repeated the folly of Napoleon in Jaffa. In 1799,
the young Corsican general crossed the Sinai desert and marched north
into Palestine. Rafah and Ramleh surrendered to his troops, for the
Palestinian soldiers saw no reason to fight the passing European
force. Napoleon proceeded to the port of Jaffa, where six thousand
strong garrison of the city also preferred to surrender. They thought
they will be disarmed and sent home, to their villages, but Napoleon
was reluctant to leave so many enemy soldiers behind his lines and
ordered to kill them all. It took the French three days to kill such
mass of people. They were brought in groups from the Armenian St
Nicolas' Convent to the shore and bayoneted.

After this massacre, all Palestine took to weapons. Napoleon's troops
were ambushed at every orange grove, and when he came to the walls of
Acre, there was no talk of surrender. People understood that it just
makes no sense. They could as well die fighting. After a few months of
fruitless efforts, Napoleon turned back, leaving his wounded soldiers
to be slaughtered by advancing enemy. In the gentrified centre of
Jaffa, there is a squat papier?mache figure of le petit caporal in his
triangular hat reminding the tourists and the locals of backfiring
nature of cruelty, but probably the Israeli leaders did not pay it
sufficient attention when their policies brought the country on the
brink of destruction.

The heavy feeling of looming disaster is one of the unmentioned
reasons behind the 'One State Solution' we proposed and advocated.
True, 'one state' would be good for the Palestinians; it would be good
for Israelis. But a new partition, Two States' solution could also
alleviate the Palestinian suffering, as Prof Neumann and many moderate
peace activists rightly noted. It could be even preferred by the
Israeli and Palestinian elites, though an independent state in the
West Bank and Gaza won't solve the problem of refugees. However, in no
way the partition would alleviate the threat to the world peace poised
by the rogue Jewish state, and it won't prevent the imminent disaster
in the Holy Land.

Even a smaller Jewish state will be the seat of Mossad and its
assassination unit, Kidon. Even a smaller Jewish state will possess
nuclear weapons. Even a smaller Jewish state will be poisoned by its
deeply rooted and extremely xenophobic ideology, and will remain a
source of ideological contamination. Even a smaller Jewish state will
be heavily involved in politics of subversion from Moscow to
Washington, DC. And then, it is just a question of time, when a pushed
too far leader of a state ? be it North Korea, Iran, Egypt, or Russia
- will remember the bodies of Saddam' sons and decide to follow the
path of Baibars and of Mongol sultans who removed the Assassins from
their eagle nests. For without Israel, the US forces would hang around
their bases in Georgia and Texas instead of seeking the Jew-haters in
the five continents. Demise of Israel is inevitable; the only question
whether it will be forcibly removed and the land destroyed, or it will
be peacefully absorbed in the region.

Equality in the Holy Land ? it is not only a moral demand; it is the
only way to save the country of approaching destruction. Not us, not
the do-gooders or peace-lovers, but the inevitable course of events
leads us to the choice: equality or death.

Israeli cruelty, vengefulness and inability to respect others called
hundreds of Palestinians to the horrible martyrdom. If, or rather when
a potential martyr will be equipped with a miniaturised nuclear device
instead of home-made dynamite, the sad story of the Jewish state will
be over.

The Jewish belt of Israel is quite small, and just two well-placed
half-megaton nuclear devices can wipe it off the face of Earth. It is
possible that in its last throes, it will make true its threat
vocalised by Prof van Crefeld of Hebrew University and 'go down by
taking the world along', for Israeli nuclear weapons are trained,
according to van Crefeld, at European capitals, as well as on the
neighbours. But no amount of security measures will be able to stop a
nuclear suicide bomber, and she may disregard the fate of people who
failed to protect her and her family.

And then, some years later, the ruins of Tel Aviv will blend smoothly
with the ruins of Arsur.



(i) www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Palestine&slug=Malaysian%25

See also: Israeli Subs have Nukes Aimed at Iranian Sites
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1169

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


Last updated 19/10/2003

Suicide bombers are nothing but sad little pests.
Kenny L.
.

User: "RoboProphet"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 23 Apr 2004 06:14:43 PM
(Kenny Leong) wrote in article
<29154d7c.0404040723.5b14da8b@posting.google.com>:

chubby_chub@emailaccount.com (Chubby) wrote in message news:<d094f7bc.0403221121.33a6235d@posting.google.com>...

Pumpin' Pumpkin <PumpinPumpkin@noreply.privacy.net> wrote in message news:<19ts50dc6is1efupg6dravr83os4jsuutl@4ax.com>...

bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) wrote in article
<4fa573de.0403180126.63fa6a88@posting.google.com>:


Re: What if the College of Cardinals was wiped out by nuclear weapon ?


There are no Vatican troops occupying and terrorizing entire nation

There are no Vatican death squads killing people all over the world

There are no Vatican tanks and bulldozers plowing over houses and
people

There are no Vatican prisons and concentration camps where people are
tortured and held indefinitely witohut trial

There are no Vatican attack helicopters hunting women and children on
the streets

The first target of nuclear suicide bomber will be Israel - and there
is nothing Sharon's war machine can do about it.




http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1158

Five to Midnight

By Israel Shamir


To the north of prosperous Hertzliya, the capital of Israeli high-tech
industry with its plentiful sushi-bars, there is a pleasant beach
below a steep, almost Pacific bank. It is an unattended shore, without
lifeguards, and it is frequented by nature-loving foreigners and the
Palestinian families on their outing to the nearby sanctuary of Sidna
(Our Master) Ali. If you will walk even further north, beyond the
signs forbidding your advance for the very real danger of avalanche,
you will find yourself in a secluded cove, a rarity on the straight
line of the Palestinian shore. It is a beautiful place for a swim in
transparent waters of the Med. Big earth-coloured boulders guard the
cove; at a second careful look you will understand that they are not a
natural formation. They are bastions of the Crusader castle of Arsur,
whose ruins rise on the plateau well above the beach. The bastions
were overturned and dropped into the blue-green sea by Baibars, a
great Arab commander, the vanquisher of Mongols and Crusaders in 13th
century.


The Cove of Arsur

Some 150 years earlier, the Crusaders easily conquered the Holy Land,
and easily settled down. They built their castles and farmsteads,
married local Christian Orthodox and Armenian women, and could live
happily ever after. But they used to invite foreign adventurers and
serve as the beachhead for their landings, and proved their inability
to fit in as a good neighbour. They were given many chances, but they
blew them all and remained a potential ally to any foreign aggressor.

Then, the 'weak and feminine' Levant brought forth Baibars. It is not
enough to expel the Crusaders, he ruled, for it was tried by Saladin;
but the Franks came back. The only way to get rid of them is to
destroy the shore of Palestine so they will never be able to snatch it
again. Castle after castle, settlement after settlement, city after
city, Baibars ruined the seaside of the Holy Land: Caesarea, Askalon,
Jaffa, Arsur. He regretted it, but the alternative was an eternal
warfare in the region.


The Overturned Bastions of Arsur

It seems that history is about to repeat itself. Unless some
unexpected turn of events will occur, the sweet land of Palestine is
doomed to perdition. The German-built, US-equipped nuclear submarines
of the Jewish state poised to wreck havoc in Iran, Syria, Saudi
Arabia, make it abundantly clear ? there is no way Israel will become
a decent neighbour in Levant.

The Jews were given a good chance to strike root in the land of
Palestine and make peace with the native population. But they blew it.
The recent unprovoked Israeli air strike into the depth of Syria
reminded to those who had forgotten that the Jewish state is an
aggressive entity dangerous for the region. Thirty years of calm
between Syria and Israel were dismissed by Sharon's generals as of no
consequence. Nobody was fooled by their clumsy attempt to connect
Syria to the bloody act of personal vengeance meted by the young woman
from al-Halil whose brother and fiancé were murdered and father
refused medical help by the Israeli military. Insightful Malaysian
Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad interpreted that well: "Israel has
been urging America to invade Syria, but Americans seemed to be
reluctant, so in order to force the US hand, Israel carried out the
air strike" [i].

The problem of Israel is not the problem of Palestinian suffering
anymore; it is the problem for the entire region from India to
Ethiopia (Esther, 1) and beyond. Indeed, the fifth column of
Israel-supporters instigates wars all over the world, from Chechnya to
Philippines, from North Korea to Cuba. They push the world straight
into Armageddon. John Bolton calls for takeover of Iran, Murawiec
demands to beat Saudi Arabia. The rabidly Zionist New York Post lifts
its sights to France, "one of America's ugliest enemies" led by
Chirac, "a moral pygmy whose lack of scruples is, fortunately,
balanced by a lack of courage and power." "France should be made to
suffer, strategically and financially. The French stabbed us in the
back. In response, we should skin them alive?, continues the
newspaper, and judging by the Zionist record, it is not just a figure
of speech.

The Jewish state is an extremely dangerous bundle of goods. It is part
of Israeli military doctrine: act crazy, and people will be scared of
you. The bogus threat of nuclear Iraq was modelled on the real threat
of nuclear Israel. Its scientists practice chemical and biological
warfare, as well. They actually tried nerve gas on demonstrators in
Gaza, and water poisoning at the siege of Acre, as reported Abu Sitta
in Al-Ahram.

Israel is involved in a long line of kidnapping and assassinations
carried out on foreign soil. There is no immunity from the long arm of
Israel: they killed in Norway (the notorious Lillehammer affair), they
kidnapped in Rome (Vanunu affair), they bombed British library and
American consulate (Lavon affair), they sunk USS Liberty, they tried
to assassinate Joseph Mugabe, they probably assassinated the
anti-Zionist US Secretary of State James Forrestol, were involved in
the assassination of President Kennedy, as Michael Collins Piper in
<>The Final Judgment<> makes clear, for the American president
insisted on nuclear disarmament of Israel. Recent assassination of
Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister, who supported boycott of
Israel, still remains a mystery.

They are not particularly secretive: today we know who assassinated
Count Bernadotte in 1948, and who committed mass murder of German POW
in 1946, and who murdered the Egyptian POWs in 1956, for their
perpetrators boast about it. Tomorrow we shall know who did other
atrocities. But our knowledge won't help, for Israel is a safe haven
for criminals. Whenever caught red-handed, Israel brushed away the
world public opinion, for as Ben Gurion, our first Prime Minister
said, 'what the goyim say is of no importance, only what the Jews do
is of importance'.

This sad record refreshed by the air strike on Syria and the
preparation for nuclear strike on Iran proves there is no way to make
Israel a suitable member of the community of nations. It also answers
the question whether the peace efforts and attempts to roll Israel
back to its old borders are still relevant. They are not. In borders
of 67', 48' or 73', Israel remains a bridgehead of aggression, a
threat to world peace and a physical threat to world leaders. Like the
bloodthirsty sect of Assassins, who once plagued the region,
Israel-supporters undermine or murder better rulers, and support
weaklings who are prepared to act on their orders. Israel's withdrawal
from the West Bank will not change its nature. The leopard can't
change his spots, as Jeremiah the prophet had said (13:23).

Israel's behaviour is partly connected to the Jewish superiority
complex, and its consequence, the apartheid structure. The South
Africa before Mandela also was involved in destruction of its
neighbours, Mozambique and Namibia, and in many plots elsewhere in
Africa. This superiority complex should be treated by dismantling the
apartheid state. The events of last year proved it beyond reasonable
doubt. Dismantlement by peaceful means of democratisation is the only
viable alternative to Israel's otherwise inevitable ruination. While
bringing the brinkmanship policy to the level of 'calculated madness',
Israeli leaders failed to predict they will bring to life a whole
generation that does not care whether they are dead or alive.

Until recently, fear of Israeli retaliation kept its adversaries at
bay. In 1991, the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had powerful WMD, but
he did not use it against Israel, for he did not feel desperate. He
believed the threat of Israel to destroy Iraq if he uses WMD. He
thought that he could survive the defeat. He did not understand that
Israeli idea of war is drawn on the Jewish religious tradition that
knows no mercy. If Saddam would know that bodies of his tortured sons
would lie in a Baghdad morgue, that he would be turned into a homeless
refugee, that his country will be ruined by ten years of sanctions and
afterwards become prey to Zionist invader, he might be well tempted to
do the Samson solution, and take the Jewish state with him into nether
regions in 1991.

Saddam Hussein is gone, but by now, every leader in the world knows
what he should expect if Israel asks its American Golem for his head.
Paradoxically, the very cruelty of Israel turned its threat into an
empty sound, for if they will do their worst anyway, it makes no sense
to surrender to their demands.

The Jews of Israel repeated the folly of Napoleon in Jaffa. In 1799,
the young Corsican general crossed the Sinai desert and marched north
into Palestine. Rafah and Ramleh surrendered to his troops, for the
Palestinian soldiers saw no reason to fight the passing European
force. Napoleon proceeded to the port of Jaffa, where six thousand
strong garrison of the city also preferred to surrender. They thought
they will be disarmed and sent home, to their villages, but Napoleon
was reluctant to leave so many enemy soldiers behind his lines and
ordered to kill them all. It took the French three days to kill such
mass of people. They were brought in groups from the Armenian St
Nicolas' Convent to the shore and bayoneted.

After this massacre, all Palestine took to weapons. Napoleon's troops
were ambushed at every orange grove, and when he came to the walls of
Acre, there was no talk of surrender. People understood that it just
makes no sense. They could as well die fighting. After a few months of
fruitless efforts, Napoleon turned back, leaving his wounded soldiers
to be slaughtered by advancing enemy. In the gentrified centre of
Jaffa, there is a squat papier?mache figure of le petit caporal in his
triangular hat reminding the tourists and the locals of backfiring
nature of cruelty, but probably the Israeli leaders did not pay it
sufficient attention when their policies brought the country on the
brink of destruction.

The heavy feeling of looming disaster is one of the unmentioned
reasons behind the 'One State Solution' we proposed and advocated.
True, 'one state' would be good for the Palestinians; it would be good
for Israelis. But a new partition, Two States' solution could also
alleviate the Palestinian suffering, as Prof Neumann and many moderate
peace activists rightly noted. It could be even preferred by the
Israeli and Palestinian elites, though an independent state in the
West Bank and Gaza won't solve the problem of refugees. However, in no
way the partition would alleviate the threat to the world peace poised
by the rogue Jewish state, and it won't prevent the imminent disaster
in the Holy Land.

Even a smaller Jewish state will be the seat of Mossad and its
assassination unit, Kidon. Even a smaller Jewish state will possess
nuclear weapons. Even a smaller Jewish state will be poisoned by its
deeply rooted and extremely xenophobic ideology, and will remain a
source of ideological contamination. Even a smaller Jewish state will
be heavily involved in politics of subversion from Moscow to
Washington, DC. And then, it is just a question of time, when a pushed
too far leader of a state ? be it North Korea, Iran, Egypt, or Russia
- will remember the bodies of Saddam' sons and decide to follow the
path of Baibars and of Mongol sultans who removed the Assassins from
their eagle nests. For without Israel, the US forces would hang around
their bases in Georgia and Texas instead of seeking the Jew-haters in
the five continents. Demise of Israel is inevitable; the only question
whether it will be forcibly removed and the land destroyed, or it will
be peacefully absorbed in the region.

Equality in the Holy Land ? it is not only a moral demand; it is the
only way to save the country of approaching destruction. Not us, not
the do-gooders or peace-lovers, but the inevitable course of events
leads us to the choice: equality or death.

Israeli cruelty, vengefulness and inability to respect others called
hundreds of Palestinians to the horrible martyrdom. If, or rather when
a potential martyr will be equipped with a miniaturised nuclear device
instead of home-made dynamite, the sad story of the Jewish state will
be over.

The Jewish belt of Israel is quite small, and just two well-placed
half-megaton nuclear devices can wipe it off the face of Earth. It is
possible that in its last throes, it will make true its threat
vocalised by Prof van Crefeld of Hebrew University and 'go down by
taking the world along', for Israeli nuclear weapons are trained,
according to van Crefeld, at European capitals, as well as on the
neighbours. But no amount of security measures will be able to stop a
nuclear suicide bomber, and she may disregard the fate of people who
failed to protect her and her family.

And then, some years later, the ruins of Tel Aviv will blend smoothly
with the ruins of Arsur.



(i) www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Palestine&slug=Malaysian%25

See also: Israeli Subs have Nukes Aimed at Iranian Sites
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1169

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


Last updated 19/10/2003



Suicide bombers are nothing but sad little pests.

Kenny L.

Perhaps, but the article is right - there is no defense
against suicide bombers. Even the israeli walls and fences
hadn't stopped them...
.
User: "Kenny Leong"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 23 Apr 2004 09:32:46 PM
RoboProphet <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<4m8j80lk5i9j6mma75fun9a4cp09frl9lb@4ax.com>...


Suicide bombers are nothing but sad little pests.

Kenny L.


Perhaps, but the article is right - there is no defense
against suicide bombers. Even the israeli walls and fences
hadn't stopped them...

The article isn't really right though bro. That's because there is a
defense against those stupid little pests. It would be to comb and
weed them out at all costs, whether it takes something drastic and a
heck of a lot of money to do it. This would mean having very tight
security and checking everybody out at random. Of course a lot of
folks would lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of
things requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises made.
Kenny L.
.
User: "** Bu$hs Porch Monkey **"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 25 Apr 2004 05:14:12 PM
Kenny Leong wrote:

RoboProphet <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<4m8j80lk5i9j6mma75fun9a4cp09frl9lb@4ax.com>...


Suicide bombers are nothing but sad little pests.

Kenny L.


Perhaps, but the article is right - there is no defense
against suicide bombers. Even the israeli walls and fences
hadn't stopped them...


The article isn't really right though bro. That's because there is a
defense against those stupid little pests. It would be to comb and
weed them out at all costs, whether it takes something drastic and a
heck of a lot of money to do it. This would mean having very tight
security and checking everybody out at random. Of course a lot of
folks would lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of
things requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises made.

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and Gypsies ...
how successful was that?


Kenny L.

--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really
don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
.
User: "James A. Donald"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 25 Apr 2004 06:35:50 PM
--
Kenny Leong wrote:

The article isn't really right though bro. That's because
there is a defense against those stupid little pests. It
would be to comb and weed them out at all costs, whether it
takes something drastic and a heck of a lot of money to do
it. This would mean having very tight security and checking
everybody out at random. Of course a lot of folks would
lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of things
requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises
made.

"** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **"

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?

The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered most
of Europe judenrein. If 9/11 produced the Patriot act, nuclear
terrorism will produce something like the SS, striking at their
enemies world wide, and nuking any nations that attempt to
obstruct the operations of this new SS.
Perhaps in a world with no arabs, and only approved sects of
Islam, then we would be safe, or at any rate safer, from
nuclear terrorism. Perhaps, however, not entirely safe from
the new SS, but then .... compromises must be made.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
q//+k4YtDFcJ75tLtFaaqkdBEH5X8OlGu3IMAwuq
4V8vJGT0Wj5TH16+1Ijrf+z3qpRAkEvcfzTczGaeU
.
User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 26 Apr 2004 03:40:14 AM
James A. Donald wrote:

--
Kenny Leong wrote:

The article isn't really right though bro. That's because
there is a defense against those stupid little pests. It
would be to comb and weed them out at all costs, whether it
takes something drastic and a heck of a lot of money to do
it. This would mean having very tight security and checking
everybody out at random. Of course a lot of folks would
lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of things
requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises
made.

"** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **"

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?

The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered most
of Europe judenrein.

???
According to Patton there were over a million Jews in DP camps in his
part of Germany alone.
Russia's population has been relatively stable since WWII and over a
million Jews were induced to move to Israel and they only worked to
get the best educated. And Russia is in Europe.
As a wag has observed,
There were 2.4 million Jews controlled by Nazis during WWII. After
the war 3.8 million of them applied for compensation from Germany.
Unfortunately the other 6 million perished.
--
The US claims it wants to see reform in the Middle East.
But the US cannot even reform its own campaign financing.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3147
.
User: "James A. Donald"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 26 Apr 2004 10:18:04 AM
--

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?

James A. Donald

The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered
most of Europe judenrein.

Matt Giwer

According to Patton there were over a million Jews in DP
camps in his part of Germany alone.

And the number ouside the camps?
We were discussing the feasibility of the modern west
committing genocide against the arabs. I would not expect the
west to gas them all, or even starve them. Rather the males
and females would be placed in separate, gaza style, refugee
camps. The separation of men and women from Fallujah
prefigures one half of this process, the conversion of Gaza
into a gigantic prison prefigures the other half.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
pwU2SPkqR5Sq2TMf/v5W89ieZwnyr6wAg75i9FLh
4btzTWv+j7ewArgMqz0J5TMEidmoQEupatPM0iKdR
.
User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 27 Apr 2004 12:44:35 AM
James A. Donald wrote:

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?

James A. Donald

The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered
most of Europe judenrein.

Matt Giwer

According to Patton there were over a million Jews in DP
camps in his part of Germany alone.

And the number ouside the camps?

So far as I am aware he did not comment on either not in camps or in
camps outside of his jurisdiction or in liberated countries outside of
his jurisdiction where the context of camps or not in camps would not
apply. Judenrein Europe means no Jews in Europe. I simply gave an
example of a million of them. As you suggest, there were obviously
many, many more than that million.

We were discussing the feasibility of the modern west
committing genocide against the arabs. I would not expect the
west to gas them all, or even starve them. Rather the males
and females would be placed in separate, gaza style, refugee
camps.

What I can guarantee you, were that attempted the women would all be
pregnant inside of a year. Nothing propinques like propinquity. There
is no such thing as an arab race. There is only the culture. Women
carry the culture and would pass it to the children of the camp
guards, workers and anyone else who couldn't pass up a good deal of
sex for food or whatever. And the children will be raised to kill
their fathers because of the "rape."

The separation of men and women from Fallujah
prefigures one half of this process, the conversion of Gaza
into a gigantic prison prefigures the other half.

Camps by sex will inevitably require killing the men. The only thing
that keeps most of the men out of the fighting is having wives and
children to support and protect. Men only in camps would be like a
men's prison. The cost of controlling it would be out of sight.
And if the point is simply arabs it is only propaganda (hasbara)
which has other than Saudis as Arabs. Palestinians are not Arabs.
There ancestors converted from Judaism. Egyptians clearly are not nor
is anyone west of them nor is anyone north or east of Saudi an Arab.
--
The four dead in Fallujah were lawfully killed as
they were not protected by conventions of war.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3123
.


User: "Kenny Leong"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 26 Apr 2004 09:05:22 AM
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.REMOVE.com> wrote in message news:<OV3jc.491832$B81.8458126@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

James A. Donald wrote:

--
Kenny Leong wrote:


The article isn't really right though bro. That's because
there is a defense against those stupid little pests. It
would be to comb and weed them out at all costs, whether it
takes something drastic and a heck of a lot of money to do
it. This would mean having very tight security and checking
everybody out at random. Of course a lot of folks would
lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of things
requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises
made.


"** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **"

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?


The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered most
of Europe judenrein.


???

According to Patton there were over a million Jews in DP camps in his
part of Germany alone.

Russia's population has been relatively stable since WWII and over a
million Jews were induced to move to Israel and they only worked to
get the best educated. And Russia is in Europe.

As a wag has observed,

There were 2.4 million Jews controlled by Nazis during WWII. After
the war 3.8 million of them applied for compensation from Germany.
Unfortunately the other 6 million perished.

Those nazis sure were bastards....like lining folks up along a ditch
and machine gunning them. ***** cowards.
Kenny L.
.
User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 27 Apr 2004 12:24:22 AM
Kenny Leong wrote:

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.REMOVE.com> wrote in message news:<OV3jc.491832$B81.8458126@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

James A. Donald wrote:

--
Kenny Leong wrote:

The article isn't really right though bro. That's because
there is a defense against those stupid little pests. It
would be to comb and weed them out at all costs, whether it
takes something drastic and a heck of a lot of money to do
it. This would mean having very tight security and checking
everybody out at random. Of course a lot of folks would
lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of things
requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises
made.

"** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **"

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?

The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered most
of Europe judenrein.


???

According to Patton there were over a million Jews in DP camps in his
part of Germany alone.

Russia's population has been relatively stable since WWII and over a
million Jews were induced to move to Israel and they only worked to
get the best educated. And Russia is in Europe.
As a wag has observed,
There were 2.4 million Jews controlled by Nazis during WWII. After
the war 3.8 million of them applied for compensation from Germany.
Unfortunately the other 6 million perished.

Those nazis sure were bastards....like lining folks up along a ditch
and machine gunning them. ***** cowards.

Perhaps they learned that from the Allies who were much more
proficient at it.
Of course once you leave Hollywood and other storytellers machineguns
are a terrible waste of ammunition.
--
Anyone who says the believed the stories about Iraq's weapons
is either a liar or an idiot. There is no other choice.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3118
.
User: "Kenny Leong"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 01 May 2004 02:41:24 AM
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.REMOVE.com> wrote in message news:<a8mjc.496093$B81.8575260@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

Kenny Leong wrote:

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.REMOVE.com> wrote in message news:<OV3jc.491832$B81.8458126@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

James A. Donald wrote:

--
Kenny Leong wrote:


The article isn't really right though bro. That's because
there is a defense against those stupid little pests. It
would be to comb and weed them out at all costs, whether it
takes something drastic and a heck of a lot of money to do
it. This would mean having very tight security and checking
everybody out at random. Of course a lot of folks would
lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of things
requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises
made.


"** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **"


That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?


The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered most
of Europe judenrein.


???

According to Patton there were over a million Jews in DP camps in his
part of Germany alone.

Russia's population has been relatively stable since WWII and over a
million Jews were induced to move to Israel and they only worked to
get the best educated. And Russia is in Europe.


As a wag has observed,


There were 2.4 million Jews controlled by Nazis during WWII. After
the war 3.8 million of them applied for compensation from Germany.
Unfortunately the other 6 million perished.


Those nazis sure were bastards....like lining folks up along a ditch
and machine gunning them. ***** cowards.


Perhaps they learned that from the Allies who were much more
proficient at it.

What do you mean by 'perhaps'? You mean to say that the allies machine
gunned as many poor jewish folks as those nazi bastards? If you're
trying to defend the nazis, then I'm betting that you're a nazi
yourself.

Of course once you leave Hollywood and other storytellers machineguns
are a terrible waste of ammunition.

Well, that's getting away from the topic ... the nazis were cowardly
little bastards for lining up defenceless people along ditches and
machine gunning them.
Kenny L.
.
User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 02 May 2004 01:31:17 AM
Kenny Leong wrote:

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.REMOVE.com> wrote in message news:<a8mjc.496093$B81.8575260@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

Kenny Leong wrote:

Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.REMOVE.com> wrote in message news:<OV3jc.491832$B81.8458126@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

James A. Donald wrote:

--
Kenny Leong wrote:

The article isn't really right though bro. That's because
there is a defense against those stupid little pests. It
would be to comb and weed them out at all costs, whether it
takes something drastic and a heck of a lot of money to do
it. This would mean having very tight security and checking
everybody out at random. Of course a lot of folks would
lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of things
requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises
made.

"** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **"

That's what the Third Reich tried to do with the Jews and
Gypsies ... how successful was that?

The third Reich was quite successful in that it rendered most
of Europe judenrein.

???
According to Patton there were over a million Jews in DP camps in his
part of Germany alone.
Russia's population has been relatively stable since WWII and over a
million Jews were induced to move to Israel and they only worked to
get the best educated. And Russia is in Europe.
As a wag has observed,
There were 2.4 million Jews controlled by Nazis during WWII. After
the war 3.8 million of them applied for compensation from Germany.
Unfortunately the other 6 million perished.

Those nazis sure were bastards....like lining folks up along a ditch
and machine gunning them. ***** cowards.

Perhaps they learned that from the Allies who were much more
proficient at it.

What do you mean by 'perhaps'? You mean to say that the allies machine
gunned as many poor jewish folks as those nazi bastards? If you're
trying to defend the nazis, then I'm betting that you're a nazi
yourself.

I had assumed your position to be a bit more ecumenical than that.
The Allies as a group had murdered some 40 million Christians because
of their religion even before the war started. The Black Book of
Communism, U. of Hawaii Press, taken from records in the Moscow Archives.

Of course once you leave Hollywood and other storytellers machineguns
are a terrible waste of ammunition.

Well, that's getting away from the topic ... the nazis were cowardly
little bastards for lining up defenceless people along ditches and
machine gunning them.

The point being the machinegunning is from Hollywood and
storytellers. Problem is we have not found any such mass graves
attributed to the Nazis. We only have the stories. We do have examples
of mass executions by the Allies such as Katyn Woods. The efficient
means is two cheap small caliber bullets into the base of the skull.
That is not to say the Nazis would have found the most efficient means
as they are not attributed with anything like the experience of the
Allies. There is a single story of a mass execution by the Americans
of the guards at Dachau but that has not been confirmed. The story has
it machineguns were used.
In all cases one has to consider machineguns were issued no more than
one per squad in the Wehrmacht. And the development during the war was
to a higher firing rate making its usage for mass executions even less
efficient. Unlike John Wayne, real soldiers cannot sweep a machinegun
and get just one bullet in the heart of each Gerry.
--
The US claims it wants to see reform in the Middle East.
But the US cannot even reform its own campaign financing.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3147
.







User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 25 Apr 2004 12:27:00 AM
Kenny Leong wrote:

RoboProphet <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<4m8j80lk5i9j6mma75fun9a4cp09frl9lb@4ax.com>...

Suicide bombers are nothing but sad little pests.

Perhaps, but the article is right - there is no defense
against suicide bombers. Even the israeli walls and fences
hadn't stopped them...

The article isn't really right though bro. That's because there is a
defense against those stupid little pests. It would be to comb and
weed them out at all costs, whether it takes something drastic and a
heck of a lot of money to do it. This would mean having very tight
security and checking everybody out at random. Of course a lot of
folks would lose their freedom..but defense against this sort of
things requires certain things to be stepped up....compromises made.

I have never written a law or treaty nor set military policy ever in
my life. So do not blame me when killing Israelis is not only approved
by international treaty but approved for the same reasons Israel uses
when it does the same thing.
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml
Killing Israelis accords with international law
by Matt Giwer, © 2004 [March]
Israel and its supporters, affectionately known as Izziehuggers ,
bemoan the loss of lives proclaimed innocent when Israelis die. That
is the usual <a
href="http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/dont-pet-the-lions.phtml">
"poor us" </a>self-pity. Like it or not, international law is on the
side of the Palestinians. International law specifically approves
attacking members of a foreign military and the destruction of
military assets.
Attacking members of the foreign military with deadly force is
approved by the Geneva and Hague treaties. These agreements do not
distinguish between on and off duty. They do not distinguish between
active duty and reserve.
Israel has universal military service. After all the loopholes and
caveats are considered 25-30% of Israelis are either active duty or
reserve military. All of them are legitimate targets. It would be
improbably bad luck to bomb any gathering of Israelis and not injure
or kill at least one member of the Israeli military. The simple
presence of one member of the military, active or reserve, justifies
any and all attacks. Israel uses this principle when it kills a dozen
to get just one so there can be no objection to it.
In Israel the public transportation system is a military asset. It is
used every day to move troops around the country and back and forth
from the occupied territories. In time of war the entire system is
commandeered to move troops to the front. They are as much a military
asset as a Humvee or a tank or a train in Nazi Germany. Destroying
them is not only legitimate but specifically approved.
In both cases those who might actually qualify as innocent such as
children are considered collateral damage. That makes them unfortunate
and unintended casualties in an otherwise lawful attack. The parents
know the danger to which they expose their children.
The ratio of collateral damage to the intended action is not a
consideration in that deaths and injuries are accepted when destroying
military assets such as buses. As there is no ratio between a bus and
a life it is not a consideration.
Israel recognizes the acceptability of collateral loss of life and
limb. It dropped a one ton bomb into an apartment building at 2am to
kill one man. In the process seventeen others were killed and over a
hundred injured. The Prime Minister personally declared this to be a
successful operation. Israeli crocodile tears over their own dead
while they do the same and worse is simply a propaganda ploy -- one
last cynical use for the dead.
Israel does have a way out of this. It can simply stop hiding its
military among civilians. It can prohibit its civilian population from
using military assets such as the bus system. If iy were to take those
steps it would have justification to object when civilians are harmed.
Not only is this impractical it is in fact impossible. Ability to
comply with the rules does not change or even mitigate the rules. As
long as Israel hides its military among the civilian population all
attacks are lawful.
Not only are they lawful but Israel excuses its killing of civilians
with exactly this argument. It states Palestinian freedom fighters aka
terrorists are hiding among the civilian population. Therefore
civilians casualties do not mitigate its attacks on its enemies.
Reference
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, Articles 47-78
--
The lesson of the Iraq war is the American people
love to slaughter foreigners for the fun of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3125
.


User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 25 Apr 2004 12:22:16 AM
RoboProphet wrote:

kenny_tm_leong@yahoo.com (Kenny Leong) wrote in article
<29154d7c.0404040723.5b14da8b@posting.google.com>:


chubby_chub@emailaccount.com (Chubby) wrote in message news:<d094f7bc.0403221121.33a6235d@posting.google.com>...

Pumpin' Pumpkin <PumpinPumpkin@noreply.privacy.net> wrote in message news:<19ts50dc6is1efupg6dravr83os4jsuutl@4ax.com>...

bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) wrote in article
<4fa573de.0403180126.63fa6a88@posting.google.com>:


Re: What if the College of Cardinals was wiped out by nuclear weapon ?


There are no Vatican troops occupying and terrorizing entire nation

There are no Vatican death squads killing people all over the world

There are no Vatican tanks and bulldozers plowing over houses and
people

There are no Vatican prisons and concentration camps where people are
tortured and held indefinitely witohut trial

There are no Vatican attack helicopters hunting women and children on
the streets

The first target of nuclear suicide bomber will be Israel - and there
is nothing Sharon's war machine can do about it.




http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1158

Five to Midnight

By Israel Shamir


To the north of prosperous Hertzliya, the capital of Israeli high-tech
industry with its plentiful sushi-bars, there is a pleasant beach
below a steep, almost Pacific bank. It is an unattended shore, without
lifeguards, and it is frequented by nature-loving foreigners and the
Palestinian families on their outing to the nearby sanctuary of Sidna
(Our Master) Ali. If you will walk even further north, beyond the
signs forbidding your advance for the very real danger of avalanche,
you will find yourself in a secluded cove, a rarity on the straight
line of the Palestinian shore. It is a beautiful place for a swim in
transparent waters of the Med. Big earth-coloured boulders guard the
cove; at a second careful look you will understand that they are not a
natural formation. They are bastions of the Crusader castle of Arsur,
whose ruins rise on the plateau well above the beach. The bastions
were overturned and dropped into the blue-green sea by Baibars, a
great Arab commander, the vanquisher of Mongols and Crusaders in 13th
century.


The Cove of Arsur

Some 150 years earlier, the Crusaders easily conquered the Holy Land,
and easily settled down. They built their castles and farmsteads,
married local Christian Orthodox and Armenian women, and could live
happily ever after. But they used to invite foreign adventurers and
serve as the beachhead for their landings, and proved their inability
to fit in as a good neighbour. They were given many chances, but they
blew them all and remained a potential ally to any foreign aggressor.

Then, the 'weak and feminine' Levant brought forth Baibars. It is not
enough to expel the Crusaders, he ruled, for it was tried by Saladin;
but the Franks came back. The only way to get rid of them is to
destroy the shore of Palestine so they will never be able to snatch it
again. Castle after castle, settlement after settlement, city after
city, Baibars ruined the seaside of the Holy Land: Caesarea, Askalon,
Jaffa, Arsur. He regretted it, but the alternative was an eternal
warfare in the region.


The Overturned Bastions of Arsur

It seems that history is about to repeat itself. Unless some
unexpected turn of events will occur, the sweet land of Palestine is
doomed to perdition. The German-built, US-equipped nuclear submarines
of the Jewish state poised to wreck havoc in Iran, Syria, Saudi
Arabia, make it abundantly clear ? there is no way Israel will become
a decent neighbour in Levant.

The Jews were given a good chance to strike root in the land of
Palestine and make peace with the native population. But they blew it.
The recent unprovoked Israeli air strike into the depth of Syria
reminded to those who had forgotten that the Jewish state is an
aggressive entity dangerous for the region. Thirty years of calm
between Syria and Israel were dismissed by Sharon's generals as of no
consequence. Nobody was fooled by their clumsy attempt to connect
Syria to the bloody act of personal vengeance meted by the young woman
from al-Halil whose brother and fiancé were murdered and father
refused medical help by the Israeli military. Insightful Malaysian
Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad interpreted that well: "Israel has
been urging America to invade Syria, but Americans seemed to be
reluctant, so in order to force the US hand, Israel carried out the
air strike" [i].

The problem of Israel is not the problem of Palestinian suffering
anymore; it is the problem for the entire region from India to
Ethiopia (Esther, 1) and beyond. Indeed, the fifth column of
Israel-supporters instigates wars all over the world, from Chechnya to
Philippines, from North Korea to Cuba. They push the world straight
into Armageddon. John Bolton calls for takeover of Iran, Murawiec
demands to beat Saudi Arabia. The rabidly Zionist New York Post lifts
its sights to France, "one of America's ugliest enemies" led by
Chirac, "a moral pygmy whose lack of scruples is, fortunately,
balanced by a lack of courage and power." "France should be made to
suffer, strategically and financially. The French stabbed us in the
back. In response, we should skin them alive?, continues the
newspaper, and judging by the Zionist record, it is not just a figure
of speech.

The Jewish state is an extremely dangerous bundle of goods. It is part
of Israeli military doctrine: act crazy, and people will be scared of
you. The bogus threat of nuclear Iraq was modelled on the real threat
of nuclear Israel. Its scientists practice chemical and biological
warfare, as well. They actually tried nerve gas on demonstrators in
Gaza, and water poisoning at the siege of Acre, as reported Abu Sitta
in Al-Ahram.

Israel is involved in a long line of kidnapping and assassinations
carried out on foreign soil. There is no immunity from the long arm of
Israel: they killed in Norway (the notorious Lillehammer affair), they
kidnapped in Rome (Vanunu affair), they bombed British library and
American consulate (Lavon affair), they sunk USS Liberty, they tried
to assassinate Joseph Mugabe, they probably assassinated the
anti-Zionist US Secretary of State James Forrestol, were involved in
the assassination of President Kennedy, as Michael Collins Piper in
<>The Final Judgment<> makes clear, for the American president
insisted on nuclear disarmament of Israel. Recent assassination of
Anna Lindh, the Swedish Foreign Minister, who supported boycott of
Israel, still remains a mystery.

They are not particularly secretive: today we know who assassinated
Count Bernadotte in 1948, and who committed mass murder of German POW
in 1946, and who murdered the Egyptian POWs in 1956, for their
perpetrators boast about it. Tomorrow we shall know who did other
atrocities. But our knowledge won't help, for Israel is a safe haven
for criminals. Whenever caught red-handed, Israel brushed away the
world public opinion, for as Ben Gurion, our first Prime Minister
said, 'what the goyim say is of no importance, only what the Jews do
is of importance'.

This sad record refreshed by the air strike on Syria and the
preparation for nuclear strike on Iran proves there is no way to make
Israel a suitable member of the community of nations. It also answers
the question whether the peace efforts and attempts to roll Israel
back to its old borders are still relevant. They are not. In borders
of 67', 48' or 73', Israel remains a bridgehead of aggression, a
threat to world peace and a physical threat to world leaders. Like the
bloodthirsty sect of Assassins, who once plagued the region,
Israel-supporters undermine or murder better rulers, and support
weaklings who are prepared to act on their orders. Israel's withdrawal
from the West Bank will not change its nature. The leopard can't
change his spots, as Jeremiah the prophet had said (13:23).

Israel's behaviour is partly connected to the Jewish superiority
complex, and its consequence, the apartheid structure. The South
Africa before Mandela also was involved in destruction of its
neighbours, Mozambique and Namibia, and in many plots elsewhere in
Africa. This superiority complex should be treated by dismantling the
apartheid state. The events of last year proved it beyond reasonable
doubt. Dismantlement by peaceful means of democratisation is the only
viable alternative to Israel's otherwise inevitable ruination. While
bringing the brinkmanship policy to the level of 'calculated madness',
Israeli leaders failed to predict they will bring to life a whole
generation that does not care whether they are dead or alive.

Until recently, fear of Israeli retaliation kept its adversaries at
bay. In 1991, the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had powerful WMD, but
he did not use it against Israel, for he did not feel desperate. He
believed the threat of Israel to destroy Iraq if he uses WMD. He
thought that he could survive the defeat. He did not understand that
Israeli idea of war is drawn on the Jewish religious tradition that
knows no mercy. If Saddam would know that bodies of his tortured sons
would lie in a Baghdad morgue, that he would be turned into a homeless
refugee, that his country will be ruined by ten years of sanctions and
afterwards become prey to Zionist invader, he might be well tempted to
do the Samson solution, and take the Jewish state with him into nether
regions in 1991.

Saddam Hussein is gone, but by now, every leader in the world knows
what he should expect if Israel asks its American Golem for his head.
Paradoxically, the very cruelty of Israel turned its threat into an
empty sound, for if they will do their worst anyway, it makes no sense
to surrender to their demands.

The Jews of Israel repeated the folly of Napoleon in Jaffa. In 1799,
the young Corsican general crossed the Sinai desert and marched north
into Palestine. Rafah and Ramleh surrendered to his troops, for the
Palestinian soldiers saw no reason to fight the passing European
force. Napoleon proceeded to the port of Jaffa, where six thousand
strong garrison of the city also preferred to surrender. They thought
they will be disarmed and sent home, to their villages, but Napoleon
was reluctant to leave so many enemy soldiers behind his lines and
ordered to kill them all. It took the French three days to kill such
mass of people. They were brought in groups from the Armenian St
Nicolas' Convent to the shore and bayoneted.

After this massacre, all Palestine took to weapons. Napoleon's troops
were ambushed at every orange grove, and when he came to the walls of
Acre, there was no talk of surrender. People understood that it just
makes no sense. They could as well die fighting. After a few months of
fruitless efforts, Napoleon turned back, leaving his wounded soldiers
to be slaughtered by advancing enemy. In the gentrified centre of
Jaffa, there is a squat papier?mache figure of le petit caporal in his
triangular hat reminding the tourists and the locals of backfiring
nature of cruelty, but probably the Israeli leaders did not pay it
sufficient attention when their policies brought the country on the
brink of destruction.

The heavy feeling of looming disaster is one of the unmentioned
reasons behind the 'One State Solution' we proposed and advocated.
True, 'one state' would be good for the Palestinians; it would be good
for Israelis. But a new partition, Two States' solution could also
alleviate the Palestinian suffering, as Prof Neumann and many moderate
peace activists rightly noted. It could be even preferred by the
Israeli and Palestinian elites, though an independent state in the
West Bank and Gaza won't solve the problem of refugees. However, in no
way the partition would alleviate the threat to the world peace poised
by the rogue Jewish state, and it won't prevent the imminent disaster
in the Holy Land.

Even a smaller Jewish state will be the seat of Mossad and its
assassination unit, Kidon. Even a smaller Jewish state will possess
nuclear weapons. Even a smaller Jewish state will be poisoned by its
deeply rooted and extremely xenophobic ideology, and will remain a
source of ideological contamination. Even a smaller Jewish state will
be heavily involved in politics of subversion from Moscow to
Washington, DC. And then, it is just a question of time, when a pushed
too far leader of a state ? be it North Korea, Iran, Egypt, or Russia
- will remember the bodies of Saddam' sons and decide to follow the
path of Baibars and of Mongol sultans who removed the Assassins from
their eagle nests. For without Israel, the US forces would hang around
their bases in Georgia and Texas instead of seeking the Jew-haters in
the five continents. Demise of Israel is inevitable; the only question
whether it will be forcibly removed and the land destroyed, or it will
be peacefully absorbed in the region.

Equality in the Holy Land ? it is not only a moral demand; it is the
only way to save the country of approaching destruction. Not us, not
the do-gooders or peace-lovers, but the inevitable course of events
leads us to the choice: equality or death.

Israeli cruelty, vengefulness and inability to respect others called
hundreds of Palestinians to the horrible martyrdom. If, or rather when
a potential martyr will be equipped with a miniaturised nuclear device
instead of home-made dynamite, the sad story of the Jewish state will
be over.

The Jewish belt of Israel is quite small, and just two well-placed
half-megaton nuclear devices can wipe it off the face of Earth. It is
possible that in its last throes, it will make true its threat
vocalised by Prof van Crefeld of Hebrew University and 'go down by
taking the world along', for Israeli nuclear weapons are trained,
according to van Crefeld, at European capitals, as well as on the
neighbours. But no amount of security measures will be able to stop a
nuclear suicide bomber, and she may disregard the fate of people who
failed to protect her and her family.

And then, some years later, the ruins of Tel Aviv will blend smoothly
with the ruins of Arsur.



(i) www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Palestine&slug=Malaysian%25

See also: Israeli Subs have Nukes Aimed at Iranian Sites
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1169

-------------
Last updated 19/10/2003

Suicide bombers are nothing but sad little pests.

Perhaps, but the article is right - there is no defense
against suicide bombers. Even the israeli walls and fences
hadn't stopped them...

The purpose of the wall is not to stop them but to confiscate land.
Read the facts on the ground even from the Israeli perspective.
--
The four dead in Fallujah were lawfully killed as
they were not protected by conventions of war.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3123
.
User: "TonyaK9"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 25 Apr 2004 12:40:57 AM
Pro-arab troll in Tampa Bay,
Matt Giwer hated USA.
But USA didn't care at all
What troubled this pathetic troll.
There is no defence against buclear suicide bomber, but, boy, there's a
great offencive response to it: like wiping out Mekka, Damascus, Tehran and
Gaza city with just four nuclear devices, then asking if anybody else is
interested in killing civilized people.
Today Israel has nukes on her submarines...
TK9
.
User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 26 Apr 2004 03:56:48 AM
TonyaK9 wrote:

Pro-arab troll in Tampa Bay,

Pro-Israeli, pro-Arab, so? They are all foreigners to me and to
everyone else in Tampa Bay. The ragheads and the beanieheads deserve
each other.

Matt Giwer hated USA.
But USA didn't care at all
What troubled this pathetic troll.

I don't see what dislike of all foreigners, Arab or Israeli has to do
with the USA. What do you see as the connection?

There is no defence against buclear suicide bomber, but, boy, there's a
great offencive response to it: like wiping out Mekka, Damascus, Tehran and
Gaza city with just four nuclear devices, then asking if anybody else is
interested in killing civilized people.

And one trade embargo by Europe and the lights go out in Tel Aviv in
a week. And any threats against Europe have British, French and (lets
say it) German nukes to nullify that threat. And while four nukes
would get the four cities you name, two nukes gets all of Israel that
is needed to end the entire country while the others would only have
urban renewal issues for no longer than it took Hiroshima and Nagasaki
to rebuild.

Today Israel has nukes on her submarines...

Even Israel has dispelled that paranoid delusion.
--
The lesson of the Iraq war is the American people
love to slaughter foreigners for the fun of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3125
.
User: "Sheldon Liberman"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 26 Apr 2004 08:31:35 AM
Matt Giwer wrote:

TonyaK9 wrote:

Pro-arab troll in Tampa Bay,



Pro-Israeli, pro-Arab, so? They are all foreigners to me and to
everyone else in Tampa Bay. The ragheads and the beanieheads deserve
each other.

While I'll allow the Arabs to fend for themselves, what I will say about
the "beanieheads" is that, unlike you, they have something substantive
underneath the beanie.


Matt Giwer hated USA.
But USA didn't care at all
What troubled this pathetic troll.



I don't see what dislike of all foreigners, Arab or Israeli has to
do with the USA. What do you see as the connection?

The USA was built on immigration. So disliking them flies in the face of
one of the nations highest ideals.


There is no defence against buclear suicide bomber, but, boy, there's a
great offencive response to it: like wiping out Mekka, Damascus,
Tehran and
Gaza city with just four nuclear devices, then asking if anybody else is
interested in killing civilized people.



And one trade embargo by Europe and the lights go out in Tel Aviv in
a week. And any threats against Europe have British, French and (lets
say it) German nukes to nullify that threat. And while four nukes would
get the four cities you name, two nukes gets all of Israel that is
needed to end the entire country while the others would only have urban
renewal issues for no longer than it took Hiroshima and Nagasaki to
rebuild.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atomic, not nuclear. Rebuilding might take a
little longer.


Today Israel has nukes on her submarines...



Even Israel has dispelled that paranoid delusion.

And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime...


.
User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 27 Apr 2004 12:53:38 AM
Sheldon Liberman wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

TonyaK9 wrote:

Pro-arab troll in Tampa Bay,

Pro-Israeli, pro-Arab, so? They are all foreigners to me and to
everyone else in Tampa Bay. The ragheads and the beanieheads deserve
each other.

While I'll allow the Arabs to fend for themselves, what I will say about
the "beanieheads" is that, unlike you, they have something substantive
underneath the beanie.

Is that the "smart Jew" stereotype I detect? I am talking Israelis.
People who chose to live in the most dangerous place in the world for
them to live don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain, which
is to their good fortune as Israel has so little rain else they would
die from drowning like turkeys.

Matt Giwer hated USA.
But USA didn't care at all
What troubled this pathetic troll.

I don't see what dislike of all foreigners, Arab or Israeli has to
do with the USA. What do you see as the connection?

The USA was built on immigration. So disliking them flies in the face of
one of the nations highest ideals.

Israelis are Israelis not immigrants. Arabs are Saudis not
immigrants. Your bigotry may vary. If they want to come here, leave
their fueds where they came from and foreswear all foreign allegience
then they are welcome. If they violate that rule, drop them off
outside the 12 mile limit show them which direction to swim.

There is no defence against buclear suicide bomber, but, boy, there's a
great offencive response to it: like wiping out Mekka, Damascus,
Tehran and
Gaza city with just four nuclear devices, then asking if anybody else is
interested in killing civilized people.

And one trade embargo by Europe and the lights go out in Tel Aviv
in a week. And any threats against Europe have British, French and
(lets say it) German nukes to nullify that threat. And while four
nukes would get the four cities you name, two nukes gets all of Israel
that is needed to end the entire country while the others would only
have urban renewal issues for no longer than it took Hiroshima and
Nagasaki to rebuild.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atomic, not nuclear. Rebuilding might take a
little longer.

If that is an indication of the ignorant ***** I am dealing with I
should not have wasted a response.

Today Israel has nukes on her submarines...

Even Israel has dispelled that paranoid delusion.

And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime...

And atomic and nuclear bombs are different ... you ignorant, stupid
*****.
--
Why does England need Blair when they could save the
money and take orders directly from Bush?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3133
.
User: "Sheldon Liberman"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 27 Apr 2004 05:55:58 PM
Matt Giwer wrote:

Sheldon Liberman wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

TonyaK9 wrote:

Pro-arab troll in Tampa Bay,



Pro-Israeli, pro-Arab, so? They are all foreigners to me and to
everyone else in Tampa Bay. The ragheads and the beanieheads deserve
each other.



While I'll allow the Arabs to fend for themselves, what I will say
about the "beanieheads" is that, unlike you, they have something
substantive underneath the beanie.



Is that the "smart Jew" stereotype I detect? I am talking Israelis.
People who chose to live in the most dangerous place in the world for
them to live don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain, which
is to their good fortune as Israel has so little rain else they would
die from drowning like turkeys.

And yet somehow, thoughout all the danger, and with the need to divert a
large portion of its resources to its defences, it has nevertheless
risen in just 56 years to become one of the most accomplished nations
the world has ever known. Among the most educated, among the most
literate, among the most technologically advanced, among the most
innovative, and among the most productive. All without compromising i
defence. Gee, who'd want to live there?
You think the outside is safer? Hardly. At least together as a people
they have some control of their own lives.
Moreover, the Jews, even secular ones, have an attachment to the land
that you could never know; it requires the ability to feel.


Matt Giwer hated USA.
But USA didn't care at all
What troubled this pathetic troll.



I don't see what dislike of all foreigners, Arab or Israeli has
to do with the USA. What do you see as the connection?



The USA was built on immigration. So disliking them flies in the face
of one of the nations highest ideals.



Israelis are Israelis not immigrants. Arabs are Saudis not
immigrants. Your bigotry may vary. If they want to come here, leave
their fueds where they came from and foreswear all foreign allegience
then they are welcome. If they violate that rule, drop them off outside
the 12 mile limit show them which direction to swim.

In other words, come to America, foresake your culture? Did the first
settler take up the issue with the Native Americans they irst encountered?


There is no defence against buclear suicide bomber, but, boy, there's a
great offencive response to it: like wiping out Mekka, Damascus,
Tehran and
Gaza city with just four nuclear devices, then asking if anybody
else is
interested in killing civilized people.



And one trade embargo by Europe and the lights go out in Tel Aviv
in a week. And any threats against Europe have British, French and
(lets say it) German nukes to nullify that threat. And while four
nukes would get the four cities you name, two nukes gets all of
Israel that is needed to end the entire country while the others
would only have urban renewal issues for no longer than it took
Hiroshima and Nagasaki to rebuild.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atomic, not nuclear. Rebuilding might take
a little longer.



If that is an indication of the ignorant ***** I am dealing with I
should not have wasted a response.

So why did you, pinhead?


Today Israel has nukes on her submarines...



Even Israel has dispelled that paranoid delusion.



And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime...



And atomic and nuclear bombs are different ... you ignorant, stupid
*****.

In fact they are. I'd explain some of the differences to you, but I
don't think you're ready yet to understand a can opener.


.
User: "Jim Warren"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 27 Apr 2004 06:21:32 PM
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:55:58 -0400, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:



Matt Giwer wrote:

Sheldon Liberman wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

TonyaK9 wrote:

Pro-arab troll in Tampa Bay,



Pro-Israeli, pro-Arab, so? They are all foreigners to me and to
everyone else in Tampa Bay. The ragheads and the beanieheads deserve
each other.



While I'll allow the Arabs to fend for themselves, what I will say
about the "beanieheads" is that, unlike you, they have something
substantive underneath the beanie.



Is that the "smart Jew" stereotype I detect? I am talking Israelis.
People who chose to live in the most dangerous place in the world for
them to live don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain, which
is to their good fortune as Israel has so little rain else they would
die from drowning like turkeys.


And yet somehow, thoughout all the danger, and with the need to divert a
large portion of its resources to its defences, it has nevertheless
risen in just 56 years to become one of the most accomplished nations
the world has ever known. Among the most educated, among the most
literate, among the most technologically advanced, among the most
innovative, and among the most productive. All without compromising i
defence. Gee, who'd want to live there?

You think the outside is safer? Hardly. At least together as a people
they have some control of their own lives.

Moreover, the Jews, even secular ones, have an attachment to the land
that you could never know; it requires the ability to feel.


Matt Giwer hated USA.
But USA didn't care at all
What troubled this pathetic troll.



I don't see what dislike of all foreigners, Arab or Israeli has
to do with the USA. What do you see as the connection?



The USA was built on immigration. So disliking them flies in the face
of one of the nations highest ideals.



Israelis are Israelis not immigrants. Arabs are Saudis not
immigrants. Your bigotry may vary. If they want to come here, leave
their fueds where they came from and foreswear all foreign allegience
then they are welcome. If they violate that rule, drop them off outside
the 12 mile limit show them which direction to swim.


In other words, come to America, foresake your culture? Did the first
settler take up the issue with the Native Americans they irst encountered?


There is no defence against buclear suicide bomber, but, boy, there's a
great offencive response to it: like wiping out Mekka, Damascus,
Tehran and
Gaza city with just four nuclear devices, then asking if anybody
else is
interested in killing civilized people.



And one trade embargo by Europe and the lights go out in Tel Aviv
in a week. And any threats against Europe have British, French and
(lets say it) German nukes to nullify that threat. And while four
nukes would get the four cities you name, two nukes gets all of
Israel that is needed to end the entire country while the others
would only have urban renewal issues for no longer than it took
Hiroshima and Nagasaki to rebuild.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atomic, not nuclear. Rebuilding might take
a little longer.



If that is an indication of the ignorant ***** I am dealing with I
should not have wasted a response.


So why did you, pinhead?


Today Israel has nukes on her submarines...



Even Israel has dispelled that paranoid delusion.



And it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime...



And atomic and nuclear bombs are different ... you ignorant, stupid
*****.


In fact they are. I'd explain some of the differences to you, but I
don't think you're ready yet to understand a can opener.


Let's make a movie about heroic muslim freedom fighters who use
nuclear devices to blow up Washington D.C., New York, and San
Fransico, distributed for free in the interment camps in the
middleast, in case they didn't get enough Ideas from these posts.
.

User: "Matt Giwer"

Title: Re: There is no defense against nuclear suicide bomber 27 Apr 2004 10:14:47 PM
Sheldon Liberman wrote:



Matt Giwer wrote:

Sheldon Liberman wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

TonyaK9 wrote:

Pro-arab troll in Tampa Bay,




Pro-Israeli, pro-Arab, so? They are all foreigners to me and to
everyone else in Tampa Bay. The ragheads and the beanieheads deserve
each other.




While I'll allow the Arabs to fend for themselves, what I will say
about the "beanieheads" is that, unlike you, they have something
substantive underneath the beanie.




Is that the "smart Jew" stereotype I detect? I am talking
Israelis. People who chose to live in the most dangerous place in the
world for them to live don't have enough sense to come in out of the
rain, which is to their good fortune as Israel has so little rain else
they would die from drowning like turkeys.



And yet somehow, thoughout all the danger, and with the need to divert a
large portion of its resources to its defences, it has nevertheless
risen in just 56 years to become one of the most accomplished nations
the world has ever known. Among the most educated, among the most
literate, among the most technologically advanced, among the most
innovative, and among the most productive. All without compromising i
defence. Gee, who'd want to live there?

You think the outside is safer? Hardly. At least together as a people
they have some control of their own lives.

Moreover, the Jews, even secular ones, have an attachment t