What The Hell!! No ME Thread!

[RGBVideo]

bump

It hasn't been broken yet?

[Edan]

Originally posted by VJ
bump

It hasn't been broken yet?

No such luck.

Palestinian militants fired a barrage of mortar shells at a Jewish settlement in the southern Gaza Strip early today, the military said, in the first serious breach of the ceasefire declared at a Red Sea summit.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4114028

Of course, the terrorist groups never agreed to it in the first place.

[lord of the mark]

But Abbas has just fired several PA security force commanders in Gaza, apparently for failing to prevent the attacks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Yassin was an operational leader, giving comands to go ahead with terrorist attacks.

NO, anymore than the President is an operational leader because in the end policy comes form him. There is a diference.

Originally posted by Lord of the Mark
well im happy youve admitted that. So now we realize that you CAN wear down a terrorist group militarily, by focused attacks on operational leaders, bombmakers, etc. Its NOT just whack a mole, with more new terrorists for each one you kill.

Of couse its possible to degrade the ability of a militant group, and great cost, time, and without ever actually ending them- Hamas never ran out of voluteers, just of the people with the expertise to make those volunteers effective, The problem is, in the end, such a startegy is not feasable for ever, unless you forsaw the current situation not changing for the next 20 years.

im not sure. Somebody has to inspire the would be new recruits, and thats a real material need. And of course somebody has to decide there should be bombings. Im not certain its entirely a degradation in capability.

Any zealot can say- lets continue bombing. As for inspiration, Martyrs are more than enough- heck, Shia's still mourn the death of Hussein, and many would still die for him, and its been what? 1200 years?

Im less confident I know exactly whats going inside Hamas.

Given we both have equally incomplete knowledge, then question then is what is a more plausible answer.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Of couse its possible to degrade the ability of a militant group, and great cost, time, and without ever actually ending them- Hamas never ran out of voluteers, just of the people with the expertise to make those volunteers effective, The problem is, in the end, such a startegy is not feasable for ever, unless you forsaw the current situation not changing for the next 20 years.

It doesnt have to work forever. It just has to work long enough for a political process to gain momentum. Which is precisely what seems to have happened.

Any zealot can say- lets continue bombing.

Its not a matter of what any zealot can say, but what the actual leadership of Hamas IS saying. As far as I can tell theyve been calling for greater restraint and showing more political flexibility than they did when Yassin and Rantissi were alive and WERE the leadership. Perhaps this is totally unrelated to the killings of Yassin and Rantissi, and is 100% caused by the degradation of Hamas military capabilities, and by Arafats death and replacement by Abbas. But its just as reasonable to think theres a real possibility that the killings of Yassin and Rantissi played a real role.

Given we both have equally incomplete knowledge, then question then is what is a more plausible answer.

Thats a difficult question. But certainly neither is a "load of bull".

[Sirotnikov]

Yassin was both a political and an operational leader. And killing political leaders is much more devastating to such an organziation, in any case.

Killing and arresting top operational leaders was also well performed (though much less broadcast on CNN) and lead to the weakening of the movement.

while LOTM is "off the mark" (sorry for the pun) on some issues - he is definitly closer to the picture on the ground.

Let me just finish off by asking you to rely more israeli and some arabic newspapers, if you want to be informed.

[Ramo]

In the first serious test of the Israeli-Palestinian truce, the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, fired three of his security chiefs on Thursday after Palestinian factions staged a mortar and rocket attack on Jewish settlements in the southern Gaza Strip.

His aides said the sharp, swift response reflected Mr. Abbas's determination to enforce the cease-fire he announced along with Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, at Tuesday's summit meeting in Egypt.

In the aftermath of the shelling, Mr. Abbas presided over an emergency session of the central committee of his Fatah movement, which denounced the attacks by Hamas and other factions. The committee called the shelling "irresponsible acts that harm our security and the high national interests of our people."

Mr. Abbas then dismissed three prominent security chiefs in Gaza, and a number of lower-ranking officers also lost their jobs, Palestinian officials said.

[...]

On Thursday, Mr. Abbas dismissed Abdel Razek al-Majaida, the head of national security in Gaza and the West Bank, along with Omar Ashour, the national security commander in southern Gaza, and Saeb al-Ajez, Gaza's police chief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/international/middleeast/11mideast.html?

Good for Abbas, but he really is risking civil war with Hamas. Hopefully it won't come to that...

[Sprayber]

Looks like Abbas is willing to act to prevent attacks.

RAMALLAH, West Bank - A day after firing his top security commanders, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas headed to the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) on Friday to demand that militant leaders stop attacking Israelis, a strong sign of his determination to enforce a fragile truce with Israel.

The central committee of Abbas' Fatah (news - web sites) movement also announced a state of emergency in the Palestinian security forces aimed at preventing new attacks.

The moves to stamp out the violence came after a sustained rocket and mortar barrage on Jewish settlements Thursday that threatened to unravel the cease-fire with Israel just days after it was announced.

Israel praised Abbas' swift action but said it only had limited patience before taking matters into its own hands

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Yassin was both a political and an operational leader. And killing political leaders is much more devastating to such an organziation, in any case.

Killing and arresting top operational leaders was also well performed (though much less broadcast on CNN) and lead to the weakening of the movement.

while LOTM is "off the mark" (sorry for the pun) on some issues - he is definitly closer to the picture on the ground.

Let me just finish off by asking you to rely more israeli and some arabic newspapers, if you want to be informed.

Not to be obtuse Siro, but I have not found your annalyses of many issues particulalry accurate much of the time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Not to be obtuse Siro, but I have not found your annalyses of many issues particulalry accurate much of the time.

It at least he doesnt twist things like some people, who for example, say that only rich countries can develop nukes so we should worry about precedent, than say that North Korea was rich by the standards needed to develope nukes, then when the contradiction is pointed out ignore it and change the subject to the NPT. Or who call the possibility of a democratic revolt in iran "counterrevolution" and when called on it, proceed to either make or jokes, or call their adversary names, and who neither admit error nor defend their choice of words, but again change the subject.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Not to be obtuse Siro, but I have not found your annalyses of many issues particulalry accurate much of the time.

Frankly, you haven't got the tools or background to judge my analyses.

I can say similarly that most of your analyses are usually wrong, while logically "complete".

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


It at least he doesnt twist things like some people, who for example, say that only rich countries can develop nukes so we should worry about precedent, than say that North Korea was rich by the standards needed to develope nukes, then when the contradiction is pointed out ignore it and change the subject to the NPT. Or who call the possibility of a democratic revolt in iran "counterrevolution" and when called on it, proceed to either make or jokes, or call their adversary names, and who neither admit error nor defend their choice of words, but again change the subject.

Sorry, but what is your notion of "rich"? Until 1991 NK was certainly richer than most states- how many states have working nuclear reactors and the ability to make them? Heck, until the mid 70's NK had a larger PCI than SK.

That you decide to look at NK from 1991 onwards as your only point of comparison is your choice, not mine. Again, how many states can go around making ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons? It certainly takes significant technological advancement and resources to do it. If not, these things would be far more common.

As for Iran- sorry to get your panties in a twist about the use of counterrevolution [of course, given that the actually immidate government after the revolution was not theocratic but a group of parties that eventually were pushed out as the Islamist consolidated power through 1979, 80, and 81, room to call it counterrevolutionary exists) , but if that is the sole basis for your arguement (and you remarks that went with it), again, your problem, not mine. As for the NPT- more people than just you are participating in the thread- who says all participation in threads has to be 2 person discussions woven together?!? I can't answer points being made by others, or introduce new ones? Kindly point me to the rules that say that.

Finally, this is more than enough of using up one threads space to throw a tantrum about the occurances in another. I was simply pointing out that Siro's annalysis has a certain bias (just as I do have a certain bias) that leads me to challange his annalysis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Finally, this is more than enough of using up one threads space to throw a tantrum about the occurances in another. I was simply pointing out that Siro's annalysis has a certain bias (just as I do have a certain bias) that leads me to challange his annalysis.

"Not to be obtuse Siro, but I have not found your annalyses of many issues particulalry accurate much of the time"

everyone has a bias. Pointing out one individual as biased implies they are more so than others, and less worth listening to. You could have asked Siro for a cite for his opinion, to back it up. Instead you accused him of bias. Thats simply an ad hominem.

And BTW, that the Mullahs reversed the democratic gains of the '79 makes the Mullahs counterrevolutionaries. Not the dissidents who oppose them. Sorry that the prospect of a democratic revolution in Iran, which just MIGHT have the side effect of improving the strategic position of the "evil hegemon" and its "racist lapdog" has YOUR panties in a twist.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Finally, this is more than enough of using up one threads space to throw a tantrum about the occurances in another. I was simply pointing out that Siro's annalysis has a certain bias (just as I do have a certain bias) that leads me to challange his annalysis.

And i was merely pointing out some of the flaws in your use of logic. At least i actually cited some, and didnt merely make an unbacked up accusation as you did with Siro. This was the first time he posted in this thread, so if you dont like references to other threads, you can avoid making them yourself.

And believe me, I was restrained, i avoided mentioning the most hateful and illogical stuff youve posted.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
everyone has a bias. Pointing out one individual as biased implies they are more so than others, and less worth listening to. You could have asked Siro for a cite for his opinion, to back it up. Instead you accused him of bias. Thats simply an ad hominem.

I made a judgement on the opinions he has posetd in countless previous ME threads. Since when is saying "I think you have been wrong in the past" an ad hominem?

And BTW, that the Mullahs reversed the democratic gains of the '79 makes the Mullahs counterrevolutionaries.

So I should have said CounterCounterrevolution then?

Sorry that the prospect of a democratic revolution in Iran, which just MIGHT have the side effect of improving the strategic position of the "evil hegemon" and its "racist lapdog" has YOUR panties in a twist.

Oh, I love to see how peoples mind's work. Because I am not a cheerleader of revolution in Iran, because I dislike thisa admin. and the Sharon government and the Israeli occupation, I must be teh evil libcommie freedom hater!! OMG!!!

Please. Having grown up a little bit in a slightly repressive (thankfully not too repressive, otherwise my mother would not solely have lost her job for political reasons, but perhaps more) little dictatorship before coming to the US I think I have some idea about the freedoms the US has. BUt I also am not running around thinking that happy thoughts mean a damn to real world political aims. A revolt in Iran is irrelevant to whether we want Iran with nukes (and I think any new regime would have more than enough reasons to continue aiming for nukes) and the question other there is what needs to be done policy wise.

Too bad if such cold-hearted considerations displease you. BUt again, that is your problem, not mine.