Article

2004-10-22 Israel-Palestine

Israel Warns of Civil War Risk Over Gaza

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2004-10-22 9:21:52 PM|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Its about means, achieving results and consequences. Withdrawal from Gaza potentially achieves certain results - primarily appeasing 'world opinion' especially the Euros. Were it to achieve this without significant negative consequences then I agree (with Fred) that its worth it. However, it appears it will have major negative consequences - more rockets, more terrorism, etc. If there is no real short term net benefit, then a good argument can be put forward for staying put and waiting to see what happens in the longer term. History by definition is full of unanticipated events.

Posted by phil_b 2004-10-22 4:33:36 AM|| 2004-10-22 4:33:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 fred - well there are at least three considerations behind opposition to withdrawl

1. For some folks, settlement in the territiories isnt so much a pragmatic political act, as it is a religious act of redeeming the land. withdrawing from a settlement is a betrayal of a deeply religious impulse - its not so much the Far ultraorthodox who feel this was, as some of the "modern" orthodox in the settler movement, for whom the state of Israel, even with its secular components, is of messianic importance in redeeming the land.
1B. While some who hold view 1 dont value Gaza per se, they see this as setting a precedent for leaving large parts of the West Bank, where the strategic rationales for withdrawl are identical, but the religious/nstional/historical meaning of the places is greater.
2. The strategic rationale given for opposing withdrawl is that it rewards terrorism, and thus encourages it, a la the withdrawl from South Lebanon. That is why Sharon is going at such lengths to hit Hamas hard in conjunction with the withdrawl, to make clear this is NOT like South Lebanon, this is NOT a withdrawl under fire, but a positive strategic move. Hamas (and others) have an incentive, given that hes withdrawing anyway, to make it look like it IS a withdrawl underfire. Thats why the current miniwar of dead Hamas leaders versus Qassam rockets, terr attacks etc is SO important - it determines what the withdrawl looks like, and thus its strategic meaning.
3. To some degree its a matter of trust, internal politics, etc. For several decades Sharon and the Likud party have been the party of no withdrawl, of keeping the territories, ready to talk to the Pals at most about autonomy, etc. Now Sharon seems to be shifting them into a party that, like Labor, accepts territorial compromise, albeit with a tougher negotiating and war fighting strategy than Labor of today. That works fine for me, but for folks attached to the old vision of Israel, and of Likud, its a profound betrayal.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 10:55:42 AM|| 2004-10-22 10:55:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Excellent itemization of positions, LH, thank you! Not certain I get it, especially where it is mainly emotional and generated from historical events, both large and small, which always seem to come into play even if rendered irrelevant by subsequent events. But, with this in mind, now I can look for the break points / ideological dividing lines. Appreciated!

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 11:03:23 AM|| 2004-10-22 11:03:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 What's funny is a read a lefty who listed off Israeli crimes and the withdrawal from Gaza was one of them now, right after the "wall".

Posted by RJ Schwarz 2004-10-22 11:54:13 AM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-10-22 11:54:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 1. remember dot com, that for some it doesnt seem emotional. They can "prove", that its a violation of Jewish law to withdraw from one square inch of the land of Israel. That some might find alternate interpretations doesnt change the fact that their derivation is part of a legalistic process, and not seen as an emotional one, even if it has an emotional basis.

It gets largely to a vision of what Israel and Zionism are. To the founding Zionists, both socialist (labor Zionist) and anti-socialist(Revisionist) Zionism was secular, modernizing enterprise of practical benefit to the Jewish people. To traditional Ultraorthodox jews it was modernist blasphemy for humans to affect history like this, besides which Zionism was contaminated by its agnostics, "immorality", etc. Orthodox Zionists reconciled their zionism and their orthodoxy, by proclaiming that G-d works in mysterious ways, using agnostics to redeem the land messianically. Which meant they could accept the secular state BECAUSE it was advancing messianic goals. After 1967 the messianic goals became tied up very closely with land in the territories (which IS much more historically redolent - read the bible, and see how unimportant most of the land in pre-67 Israel is compared to the hill country of the West Bank). For the state, and especially for Likud the party of revisionist Zionism, the branch of secular Zionism that was friendliest to the messianic settlers, to withdraw, leads to a crisis in their entire view of Israel, and of Judaism, and of G-d. Imagine how some evangelists who see the US as the chosen nation would react if Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld said, "ya know, theres nothing special about the US in history, we're a country like any other"

This is why things are getting scary. While only a few loonies are advocating violence, relatively mainstream Orthodox rabbis are telling Orthodox soldiers to violate orders to help uproot settlements. This would seem to suggest they are putting Torah law (as they see it) above the orders of a democratic govt, and suggests that the "social contract" between secular and (most) Orthodox Israelis is breaking down.

The religious trend that I belong to, Conservative (Masorti) Judaism, says that Israeli soldiers should obey government orders.
The movement in both Israel and the US has called for saying special prayers for the safety of Ariel Sharon. I REALLY like this last move, as it sticks it in the eye of both the settlers and their Orthodox sympathizers, AND the lefties (who vomit at the name Sharon) at one and the same time. Nicely nuanced, no?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 1:17:52 PM|| 2004-10-22 1:17:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 It'll take me a week to simply digest the players involved, lol! Wow - killer insights, LH. And I do appreciate the irony in your closer, heh. Sharon has seemingly (obviously?) evolved, as any intelligent leader should - facing changing conditions, while the leaders of the various power bases have not - as it would likely endanger their positions. Fascinating developmental line of reasoning - and definitely overwhelming!

I can tell I need a solid backup - got a book you'd recommend that will hit all the mountain-tops without descending into the mire of a single outlook or dogma? Something fairly balanced and real-world accurate?

Thanks, RB University Rocks, Professor!

Were it not for the moronic intifada...

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 1:31:10 PM|| 2004-10-22 1:31:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 an excellent book on the different orthodox groups in Israel, why the ones who are moderate toward secular Israelis are fanatics on the territories,while the ones who are fanatics on religion are more flexible WRT Arabs, is "Conflicting Visions" by David Hartman. An excellent work, if slightly dated.

For an overall intro to Israel, history, politics, etc, "History of Israel" by Howard Sachar.

For a history of Zionism, Walter Laquer(sp?) is the standard source, I think.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 2:29:45 PM|| 2004-10-22 2:29:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Thanx, LH - I'll check 'em all!

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 2:40:05 PM|| 2004-10-22 2:40:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 In the beginning Theodore Herzl said, let there be Zionism. And the Jews were all living in diaspora, and were either poor and ignorant in the east, or assimilating rapidly in the West. And Herzl said let there be a Zionist movement. And there was a Zionist movement, and it was good.

And then arose the Eastern Europeans, David Gordon, and Achad ha Am, and Ben Gurion, and many others, who were represented the poor, and wanted to transform the peddlars into farmers and workers, and wanted to redeem the world, and were influenced by Marx. And thus emerged Labor Zionism, and it was left, thus there was contention in the ranks of the Zionists. And those bourgeois and Western Zionists who were not Labor Zionists were called General Zionists.

And lo, arose a mighty man in the East called Jabotinsky and he sayeth - the people is alright, and need no transformation, just a nation, and he denounced the Marxists, and quasiMarxists, and went beyond the wimpy liberal General Zionists, and there was now a right wing Zionism. And it was "muscular" and "in your face" and many other things that rantburger would like.

And there were religious folk, who seeing there flocks defect to the Zionists, said we too are Zionists - and these were the Mizrahi Zionists.

And lo, the Labor Zionists were the most numerous, but the Lord in his wisdom divided them up, he set moderates against radicals, and divided them up into small squabling factions, only to have them rejoin in groupings so that they remained dominant. And the people said "thus is it ever with leftists"

And the state was independent, and it was good. And lo David Ben Gurion was the PM, and led the moderate Labour Zionists, and they were called Mapai, that is Labor. And lo, he wished neither to align with Herut, that is the Revisionists, whom he hated with passion, not with the Mapam, that is the Socialists, that is the radical wing of the Labor Zionists, for that they would make a stink about his mixed economy economics, and that they would object to open alliance with the West in the Cold War. And lo, he needeth coalition support, and Mafdal, that is the National Religious Party, that is the Mizrahi Zionists, said, only make the state observe the Sabbath, and not serve pork in state institutions, and provide gold for religion, and we careth not who you make alliance with in the cold war, nor how you organize the economy. And so coalition was made. As was also made with the Liberals, that is the General Zionists.

And it was good. And the Herut, and the Mapam, they steamed in opposition, but who careth?

And over time mistakes were made. The usual mistakes of arrogant pols, and some unique to Israel. and over time the Herut gained adherents, and Mapai lost them. And the liberals, lo, divided, into a left faction called the independent liberals, who stayed with Mapai, and the General Liberals, who joined with Herut in "Gahal". and lo, Mapai was in trouble. And so Mapai joined with Mapam, and it was called the Labor Alignment. And so it was.

And lo, as it said arabs cannot fight, and so the lands were occupied. And it was good. Except that the young among Mafdal, they became more right wing, and chafed at the alliance with Labor. and lo, some Labor politicians spoke of giving the territories back as part of a deal. And so even some of Labor background, like one Ariel Sharon, broke off to a small party that was socialist but refused to give up territory. And lo, his small party merged with Gahal,and thus was born the Likud.

And then Labor screwethed it up, and nearly lost the war in 1973. And so labor was vomitithed out by the electorate - and so was a new coalition, of likud with Mafdal. and lo, it has never been the same since.

The above is of course a VERY simplified version of Israeli politics up to about 1981.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 2:58:34 PM|| 2004-10-22 2:58:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Simplified, but good enough to make this a classic. Thanks very much LH!

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-22 3:05:02 PM|| 2004-10-22 3:05:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 What happened then - after 1981 Liberahawk?

Posted by Hank 2004-10-22 3:45:50 PM|| 2004-10-22 3:45:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 LH-High style!

Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-22 3:50:09 PM|| 2004-10-22 3:50:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I've been trying to organize this into tables to post and see if I have it right -- for about 30 minutes! I surrender. I need a book so I can "ask" (look up) the bits that didn't make sense to me, lol!

It sounds like there have been 3 basic phases...
1) Mizrahi (religious), Mapai (labor), Herut (revisionist), Mapam (socialist)
2) Mafdal (religious), Gahal (lib right), Mapam (lib left)
3) Modern Likud (right), Liberals (left), Religious (duh!)

And 88 million nuances left out, lol! Regardless of my denseness, excellent style and info, LH! *Applause*

Thanx!

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 4:25:09 PM|| 2004-10-22 4:25:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Just out of curiosity, LH, is there any sense among Israelis that you know that, if the Pallies ever DO get around to being real negotiating partners and dropping all terrorist activity, a kind of donation of land by those settlers might turn out to be a blessing? It sounds outrageous, I know, but I am curious if that thought ever occurred...

Posted by Jules 187 2004-10-22 4:39:43 PM|| 2004-10-22 4:39:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 oh, dear, poor PD. its not nearly that simple. First let me apologize, its hard to keep things clear when one is being literary.

Mizrahi was a "movement" like Revisionist zionism - that meant it existed in the diaspora, in clubs, youth groups, etc, as well as in mandate palestine. Labor zionism of that period (pre-state 1920 to 1948) includes at close to a dozen different groupings, which varied on several issues, though primarily on how "red" they were - from the notion that they were essentially Zionists, who happened to want to limit capitalism, to the notion that the whole point of the enterprise was to establish an ideal society. Post 1948 its Herut, Liberals, Mapai and Mapam, plus Mafdal. Oh, and also some communists and ultraorthodox groups. Gahal is formed in 1965 IIRC. Post 1967 its roughly Gahal, Labour aligment, Independent Liberals, and Mafdal. But of course the Labour alignment is only an alignment, not a party. That means they Mapam and Mapai share a list in Israels prop rep system, but retain seperate organizations. Ditto for Liberals and Herut within Gahal, IIRC. Oh, and around 1962, Ben Gurion, who was no longer PM, found Labor too "left" and broke away to form his own small centrist party (which included Shimon Peres, no less) and then went BACK to Labor later. Indeed small centrist parties are always forming, then usually collapsing. Aside from the Ben Gurion group, and the Independent Liberals, there was Ratz (Arch secularist-feminist), dash (Good government, centrist) Shinuih (secularist good govt remnant of Chadash, which now has a distinct pro free market view - which by all rights should have been the Liberals turf, but the more right wings liberals (largely small business types ended up in the Likud patronage machine, shinui is more yuppie).

oh and then there is the far right. And the arab parties. including the arab communists, who have had an on and off relationship with the Jewish communists. Who have had a complex relationship with the far left of Mapam.

reasons its so complex.
1. Proportional representation
Its SO easy to start a new party, and get seats in the knesset, which can be bargained for goodies.
2. cross cutting loyalties -Mapam was historically both left of Mapai on economics and softer on the arabs. and more staunchly secularist.In recent years there are israelis who are soft on the arabs, but want nothing to do with socialism, and rump socialists who are no more pro-Arab than Mapai voters. Not to mention some leftists (and centrists) for who secularism is VERY important, and some who will bargain it away for security policy or economics. With parallel differences on the right. Oh, and the importance of personal ties in a small country, where the leaders all know each other, and were personal friends with the founders of their movements, or their country. Imagine if Dubyas father was a not just prez, but a pal of Alexander Hamilton, while Kerry had known Thomas Jefferson in his youth.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 4:56:04 PM|| 2004-10-22 4:56:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Those Israelis I know who want a territorial compromise dont think much of the settlers, and dont expect them to "donate" anything (BTW, im not sure the settlers actually OWN the land - real estate law in Israel is a fairly complex thing, IIUC)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 4:58:04 PM|| 2004-10-22 4:58:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Lol - I'll go back to "I surrender" and buy a book or three, heh. Thanx - it's 10x the party thingy. I'm sure the EUnuchs would love this shit. Sounds like just plain old shit to have 40 flavors of chocolate, to me!

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 5:06:41 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:06:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 for dot com - current players.

The govt - Likud (right wing, secular but traditional, includes elements more commited to free market, and some not so much) Shinui - (centrist on national security, pro-free market, staunchly secularist) Mafdal (modern orthodox, right wing on security, flexible on economics)

"right opposition" Agudah - European ultraorthodox jews, very religious, fairly hawkish on security, flexible on economics, wont join a govt that has Shinui in it. Shas - Afro-Asian ultraorthodox Jews, flexible on security, commited to welfare for their poor constituents, very religious - wont site in govt with Shinui.
Two small secularist right wing parties that left govt when sharon moved towards withdrawl.

Left opposion - Labour - "liberal", centrist to moderate dovish on national security, moderately left on economics (though now includes small leftist faction) flexible on religion. Meretz (actually theyve changed their name, and brought in some more left renegades from Labor) Strongly dovish, secularist, moderately left on economics. Several arab parties.

Now both Mafdal and Likud are divided on the withdrawl. Mafdal is slipping out of the govt, though there are still a few cautious types who want to stay in, to influence from the inside. If labor joins, theyre gone. About half of Likud is very unhappy, but they also know that without Sharon at the helm, they lose seats. They follow Bibi (hardline, profree market) and are trying to have it both ways. Likud though not religious, is "traditional" and would be very uncomfortable in a coalition with secularists without at least one religious partyu on board.

Labor is pro-withdrawl. Some are itching to get back into the govt, others are more reluctant.
Meretz wouldnt vote against the withdrawl, but distrusts the strategy (they WANT to talk to the Pals) and WONT join the govt. Labor-Likud-Shinui govt would have enough votes, but Likud wouldnt like being in it. Shas could be brought on board for sufficient bribes, but Shinui would have problems with that.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 5:10:28 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:10:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Whoa - a current Rosetta stone of Israeli politics!

This thread goes in my perm bookmarks, now. That last comment is what I was looking for so I could make sense of the headlines - and the various reactions. The Gaza pullout, being the topic at hand: how each faction was reacting was incomprehensible. Using the thread in toto, it should make sense. I've gotta read this slowly and carefully, then re-read the story.

MASSIVE THANX, LH! You've earned a pass for the rest of the year from me. You can even tell people I'm crude and rude if you want, lol, not that you've hesitated in the past!

A RantBurg University CLASSIC, Fred.

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 5:19:11 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:19:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 re personalities.

Take Bibi - hes a secular guy, but friendly to the religious. Hes hardline, though he wasnt always seen that way. Hes pro-free market. But above all, hes deep Herut, with an abiding hatred for Labor and the Israeli left. He was brought up in the US, although his dad was a fervent Zionist. Ya know why? His dad who was a prof of Jewish history couldnt get a job at an israeli univ. according to bibi and his friends cause the dad was herut, and Ben Gurion made sure no one who was herut got any job he had any influence over. Its personal, and its deep.

Sharon, OTOH, was brought up on a kibbutz. he didnt break with labor till after 1967, essentially ONLY over security policy. He doesnt have the deep Herut roots, and he doesnt have the deep animosity to Labor (though he DOES have deep animosity to Arafat)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 5:21:28 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:21:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 What's the name of the guy who emigrated from Russia. Ultra-hard right, proponent of settlements, quoted fairly often in MSM. Speaks good English with slight Russian accent. Prolly in one of the hard religious groups. He seems to be a touchstone, pivot-type, who helps swing alliances in and out of power.

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 5:25:29 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:25:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Natan Sharansky.

wasnt always seen as quite so right wing. Led party of Russian immigrants (though ISTR they merged into Likud recently) Most Russian immigrants are secular, and his party tried to stay in the center on religious issues, though Sharanskys wife is orthodox. I dont know Sharanskys position on Gaza - I suspect hed support it, on the strategic basis that moves Fred. OTOH I could see him playing games between Bibi and Sharon.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 5:35:53 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:35:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Secular - oops, had him tagged backasswards! He sure is a favorite for quotes among MSM - especially CNN. I used to be a captive audience for CNN / MSNBC (because the Saudi Satellite system, Orbitz wouldn't carry Fox) and saw him many, many times. They always seemed to pose him or Peres and the voice of moderation when they were slamming Sharon.

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 5:39:56 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:39:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 "as the voice of moderation" - sorry.

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 5:40:45 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:40:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 as of April 24 of this year, he was opposed to disengagement. Oh, and his party (israel b'aliyah - Israel on the ascent, or Israel in immmigration - its a pun in Hebrew) DID merge into Likud. Oh, and while his party is secular, its true he leans religious FOR a Russian immigrant. Again its complex. Theres bitterness between the Russians and Shas, (many of whose poor constituents resent the successful Russians) and which used their control of the Interior Ministry to make problems for Russians. Mafdal OTOH (and i should call in NRP, as the anglo press in Israel does) is not at all mean to the Russians, so he works well with NRP.

But its silly (NOW) to consider him more moderate than Sharon.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 5:44:45 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:44:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 So he's recently been migrating (heh) toward the Sharon Gaza play? Personally, I thought the Gaza idea was an obviously brilliant tactical move the minute I digested its implications.

What has made a near-hash of everything, of course, is the geographical separation of Gaza and West Bank Arab areas. Phreakin' UN lunacy. The descendents of Sykes & Picot should be offered up to Israel as sacrifical lambs, lol!

Man, this is too much to absorb all at once. Gotta re-read this thread 8 or 10 times, lol!

Great work, LH. Truly helpful!

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 5:53:49 PM|| 2004-10-22 5:53:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 ya want your head to spin read this
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/492060.html

I like the fact that she notes that there are two leftist factions protesting FOR the withdrawl, one of which calls for talks with the Pals, one of which doesnt, and BOTH are headed by the same leftist pol - as the reporter says, "thats the way it is on the left" :) !!!!

Why not do it? Assuming YOU dont want any withdrawl from the West Bank (not my position, but the position of the settler movement and their supporters) you have to ask if you trust Sharon - is this a move to SOLIDIFY control on the West Bank, or to lead to further withdrawl? Which is more important, strategic overstretch and conserving military resources, or maintaining the consistency of your position. Folks on the far right, not surprisingly, are more concerned with consistency of legal and moral position than with counting costs. and then there is the gut image - Jews expelling Jews. Why should Gaza be Jew free they ask, with all the overtones of that. (Yah, well we know theyre not interested in living in Gaza as citizens of Palestine - OTOH its pretty clear that not wanting to do so is pretty sensible)

I mean I certainly dont agree with them - you can imagine, PD, how diametrically opposite their approach to politics and the world is to my own. But I kinda understand where theyre coming from.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 6:03:31 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:03:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 theres alot i dont know. I really dont know what Sharon intends to do in his heart of hearts - if the withdrawl is to strenghten Israels hand for negotiations, or to avoid them. It dont bother me, cause i dont see negotiations on the offing anyway.

I also dont know if what we get is A. A takeover by Dahlan. B. A takeover by Hamas, or an Arafat - Hamas coalition or C. Total chaos. All of which have different strategic implications.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-10-22 6:06:31 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:06:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 As I said, I need to digest a LOT before I'll even have a clue regards the internal machinations of Israeli politics, BUT (lol!) that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion, which is:

1) There will never be a negotiated settlement that holds, Period.

2) If Iran is defanged, and Israel builds the wall, and I don't really care what line it follows, Green or otherwise, as long as it is finished - Israel will gain about a decade of relative peace and the Paleos will descend into cycles of chaos. Who cares who rules, I sure don't and believe it won't matter - as long as they do it to themselves, not Israelis.

3) When the WMD's finally escape the bounds and are loosed within Arab states, what will follow will be genocide, in fits and spurts. It is likely that the bad guys will get the first shot in, cuz someday someone willing to use it will get it without anyone being the wiser in advance.

a) So the bad guys will hit Israel with some WMD
b) Israel will respond - massively - and eliminate the source - forever.

Repeat every few years or so, until there is either no more Israel or no more sources from which to attack Israel.

Meanwhile, the same process will probably apply to the US vs Islam. Increasing odds of success until it happens, a flurry of figuring out who and where - then massive retaliation. Repeat until no one is stupid enough to do it again.

Both are semi-genocide situations, in effect. I see the US and Israel as the primary bastions against Islamic insanity. Israel is, geographically, so small that it can't take many area-denial hits and still exist as a viable entity - so its retaliatory strikes must actually be greater and more intense than those of the US.

Just my dismal view of the future.

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 6:21:05 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:21:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by syaifullah TROLL 2004-10-22 6:27:48 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:27:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 You need spelling assistance, it's Shitfullah, fuckwit.

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 6:29:39 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:29:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 I reluctantly agree with you, .com. I see our ops in Iraq and the attempt at change there a last best effort in turning around the oil-rich but good sense poor ME. The arabs project everything on Israel as their boogieman. If somewhat peaceful change does not happen in the oil-rich states of the ME, than it will be massively self destructive. Nobody thinks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the effects that ONE bomb each did. That should have been lesson enough. I am afraid that humankind will have to learn again, and my guess that it will be relearned in Iran or Pakistan.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-10-22 6:31:18 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:31:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by syaifullah TROLL 2004-10-22 6:32:32 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:32:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 You wish, bitch. Now FOAD like a good litle pud-puller.

Posted by .com 2004-10-22 6:35:40 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:35:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by syaifullah TROLL 2004-10-22 6:41:26 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:41:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Give syaifullah a break.... he/she/it is trying to gain some credibility and score points with Ham-ass (for infilitration purposes of course).

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-10-22 6:50:07 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:50:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 The thread was going so smoothly until Syphilis (STD from Ham-ass infiltration) messed things up.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-10-22 7:03:15 PM|| 2004-10-22 7:03:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Syaifullah 2004-10-22 6:32:32 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:32:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by syaifullah 2004-10-22 6:41:26 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:41:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Syaifullah 2004-10-22 6:27:48 PM|| 2004-10-22 6:27:48 PM|| Front Page Top

18:17 Syaifullah
18:31 Syaifullah
18:27 Syaifullah
18:41 syaifullah
18:32 Syaifullah
22:34 Ptah
19:13 Bulldog
19:04 Alaska Paul
18:46 Frank G
18:27 Ptah
13:33 Glising Croter5991
12:48 Snoluck Thrusing6666
12:36 Glising Croter5991
02:07 mojo
01:51 Kalle (kafir forever)
00:37 trailing wife
00:23 trailing wife
00:16 Aris Katsaris
00:05 .com
00:01 trailing wife
23:57 incarnate of lee atwater
23:54 trailing wife
23:50 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:50 trailing wife