Should Poland continue to support Bush's war on terror?

Then do yourself a favor and research the speeches given by Hamas members. Just as bad if not worse than the ones given by the Israelis.. Both are responsible and neither have my sympathy.

Unless you have been there and experienced things first hand you don't know jack. People can't accept that because they want to be smart and in control.

I can tell you that the information you get from "sources"....even organizations that specialize in this sort of thing...is often flawed when you get there. You use that info as a starting point but often have to chuck it out entirely and start from scratch.

Give me a farm boy with common sense and good situational awareness over a multi degreed debater any day if the plan is to actually DO something rather than sit and argue about it.

it's funny for a number of reasons. Irony being the main one! yeah I spent a lot of time on the family farm! wrestled in university too! and I chew skoal and or cope! You prefer someone who won't contest you but will do as he's told. It's common enough with your type, they try their hand at a debate and then should they see their line of reasoning doesn't win the day, well, then they opt out with some blue collar cop out.

Rather that than change their way of thinking. Good heavens no, they've invested far too much time and effort identifying with their notions of right, wrong, and the virtue of the state to rethink it all now.

you complain about policies in America (it was you complaining about Harvard right?) yet you want to take it out on muslims abroad. Never mind that muslims in America may very well be Americans. That just doesn't make any sense. Your complaints ought to be with how your government runs the joint at home, not abroad!


and you've highlighted none of them or shed any light on the matter. Each time you come out with new rationale, i have merely requested you apply that argument evenly to all sides.

You expect me to believe that there is information you're somehow privy to but fail to offer it up. You may very well have it, but as of yet you haven't produced it so forgive me if i don't just take your word for it.

And that's the sad fact of the whole matter, you want to fight because somehow you think you know exactly what's going on (while recognizing none of the historical factors-wtf?) what you were having tea in some Iraqi houses just chattin with the locals? Did you and the mulah decide to have a late night talk in the mosque? Lemme guess you have studied the Koran, and you also went back in time and decided to grow up in a war torn country too, just to get their full perspective?

You sound like you probably have been in the area but I doubt with all my sincerity that it was in any position except one of an outsider or invader.




Look. I did not say who I think is Not a bad guy. I have only said that I DO NOT exclude American interests and those perpetrating them from being bad guys. I don't agree with terrorism but I apply a much broader label to it and I include American activities as possibly being perceived as terrorist by the population being subjugated at present. I do not side with the petty warlords and I do not side with jihadists of the literal sword.

I simply recognize that foreign (in this case western) powers should leave the area. I hold this opinion as they are clearly, and have been pilfering and pillaging the area and sowing the seeds of discontent abroad for the sake of gain since oil became a resource in the area. But if you're fing up bad guys then understand that some people may very well include yourself in that list. They can be just as entitled as you to that opinion, right?


Well at least now you're willing to credit the millions of people who have been affected and are opposed to American activities in the middle east! Now you've finally given them credit, hey do yourself a favour and listen to what they have to say (not what is reported to you) their opinion obviously means something according to your own arguement.

You haven't been paying attention have you....I do listen to them in person.

Unlike you I am involved in this thing and not just spouting off online about it. From their mouths to my ears they know things could be better but they know without us it was and would be much worse.

I am sure however you could do much better than we have...after all you seem to have all the answers.

Now Foreignor how can you argue with someone that has been there and talked to these people. He knows better than you what these people want. Nothing better than hearing the information straight from the horses mouth.

never said i did. just happen to have very good counters to your arguments. please read my edit.

You must of meant to say that you happened to make very unrealistic counters and when presented with good arguements you just happened to back down.

Nah....I am a bit tired of this. Nothing can come of trying to enlighten someone who has already made up their mind.

Most of the people there know if we left things would be very ugly so despite the media bites and protests where flags are burned....the majority wants us to stay. I know you don't think that is true and I don't actually care...I DO care about what they want.

As long as it's not in their back yard they don't give a flying fcuk.



As did the Neo Con think tank in 1997.



And justify it to protect their way of life.



I agree 100%.

As usual so quick to shout down the actions happening now and your only alternative is to stand back, pull out, leave the terorists alone, yeah great idea, they are terrorists, they will terrorise whether or not we are in Iraq, Afghanistan or flipping outa Mongolia you just can't see that :)

Maybe you and johnny foreigner should go on the marches they arrange for clueless tree hugging, free love freaks

100% right, hairball lives in a dream world where we all hold hands, sing about rainbows, where leperchans play and the terrorists fight by throwing daisies at their enemies. Do yourself a favor and wake the fu*k up.

I said this so many times before, the US can solve world hunger and 5 mins later he would be writing about how the US government wants to control the world through controlling the food supply. No pleasing this guy, he's very narrow minded. If it's anti-US he'll believe it.

I agree Matty, the Hamas stuff is just as bad. I'd be a fool to take sides as one is as bad as the other. U only need to read online articles about the rights to the land to see how complicated a position it is. For every good argument for one side's claim, there's an equally good counter-argument for the other side. I guess u don't like Israel that much either Matty, would that be a fair point?

You got that right. I don't like neither of them. Neither has stepped up to the plate and said enough is enough and were better than this. Neither are blameless.

However I feel the ball is in Hamas court to stop the attacks.... Once that happens Israel will have no more excuses and no more pretext . Than the west can deal with the Israelis. Until that happens, the west cannot stand behind the Palastinians. Our hands are tied, we cannot condone terrorism... Hamas is doing its people a great disservice by continuing these attacks.....

I like neither of them or I don't like either of them u mean. I don't think u can view it in that way tho Matty. It's classic tit-for-tat. Both sides have constantly jeopardised the peace process AT CRITICAL MOMENTS. If u read the stats, Israel have conducted more brutal raids and have inflicted greater casualties. I may come across as anti-Semitic which I am definitely not. I just base my opinions on news accounts like BBC and CNN. I have no axes to grind and nothing to lose, unlike the neocons who can ill afford to speak out against the Zionists. Imposing sanctions on them just serves to strengthen their collective will. They SEEM to be like an egomaniacal, self-serving lot.

Also, there was a thread here that is still floating around ( I saw it earlier) about an Israeli PM dissing Poland. Aside from the distrust, the Jews were generally well-treated people here in Poland. There were very few restrictions to their rights to pursue commerce and to flourish. Another reason to doubt their sincerity

I agree, it's a classic tit-for-tat......... Greater casualties yes, but without the pretext those casualties could not be inflicted....

As far as Israelis dissin Poland, Ill deal with those fu*kers when Palastians are out of the way and the Israelis can't play the victim card. Right now Palastinians are much more important given that many terrorist organizations use this conflict as pretext for their attacks.

Is Israel a terroristic state Matty? Some may argue that they use a pretext in exactly the same way

I wouldn't go that far...... there approach is heavy handed but to compare that to terrorism goes a little far.... As far as the civilian deaths that have occured because of Israeli action, the IDF was not targeting civilians they were targeting the terrorists who hide among civilians. Civilians are a casualty.... As far as the terrorist organizations they specifically target Israeli civilians. To them the civilians are treated as the enemy and not a casualty.

Answer this do you think if Israel stopped all actions against the terrorists the terrorist attacks will cease? I think not

However do you think if the terrorists cease all actions against Israelis the actions of the IDF will cease? I think so

So who has the power to stop this I ask?

How do the tactics of Hezbollah, Hamas and other military factions differ from what the Israeli forces do? U r strongly implying that u think it is Jewish land Matty. The way I see it, perhaps more objectively, is that there are bad bast*rds on both sides (as said in Cal by Bernard McLaverty on the NI struggle) and that both use terrorism as a means to an end. Simply put, it is a fight for land that is an intractable problem. I'd agree with u Matty were it undoubtedly Israeli land but it isn't. Heavy handed, that's an understatement!!! Need I post more videos? The Israeli forces are notorious for targetting civilians too when the feeling suits them.

First besides the fact that terrorist organizations have the power to stop this and not the Israelis. I tend to drift towards the Israeli side.

The allied powers that created Israel had no right....they bear a lot of the responsibility of what is happening.. However no way would it be realistic today to give back all Israeli lands.... Israel is here to stay and we must all accept that.....

I highly doubt that the IDF targets civilians(might be a few crazy soldiers and isolated incidents but it is not IDF policy) as it is the policy of all terrorists.... Second IDF does not use there own people as human shields...... Thirdly, IDF wants peace and terrorists want the destruction of Israel...... Theres a few more but these are the major ones...

OK Matty, I c what ur saying but the terrorists have objectives to fulfil that WON'T be achieved by diplomacy, not any time soon anyway, that's a given. There are way too many hardliners (e.g Likud) that won't budge and grant the Palestinians any status whatsoever. Bush was slated for proposing sth reasonable, the Israelis rebuked him.

U have a fair first point about targetting civilians and minimising collateral damage, the terrorists are misguided here and unfair. Weapons can be precisely aimed to avoid such an eventuality. However, despite not being an expressly stated policy of the IDF, they have a nasty habit of hitting innocent Palestinians and maming them.

As 2 ur 2nd point, the Palestinians don't have the confidence to conduct frequent raids into Israeli terrority. They strike from a distance. That may seem cowardly but they are outgunned quite frankly. They use their own as human shields because the situation dictates that response. The Israelis adopt a more 'in your face' approach and fear determines the rest.

Thirdly, u r mistaken if u believe that the IDF wants peace. America is the one putting the options on the table but the current Israeli regime sees the creation of a Palestinian state as illogical and even radical. Why would they U-turn now? To concede this to the Palestinians would be an admission of defeat and lead to the conclusion that there was needless bloodshed. The situation has descended into a circus show and there has been a distinct regression from the Oslo Accords of 1993

Objectives that are unreasonable and unrealistic.... Israel wants to live in peace(that's reasonable), Hamas and Hezbolla wants to destroy Israel(not reasonable)......



I highly doubt that they have a inter-governmental policy to target civilians. I don't deny this happening but if the terrorists did not hide in between their own people this wouldn't happen... I would love to see Israel explain why it shot 10 palastians with no terrorists in site.... It would be political sucide for their country and they know this....



Yes agreed, this is seen on both sides, however Israel has to play the political game and the terrorists do not... If Palastians play there cards right and stop the attacks the hardliners will have no choice but to agree to the west's demand... they will have no pretext.....



Agreed it would not be a good military strategy to go head to head.... However using guerilla tactics is differant than choosing to target civilians. Also I understand why they use human shields. However if you choose to fight this way(which I wouldnt never put my people in such a situation; Id rather fight face to face and die than be responsible for my own people being killed). But if you so choose than you cannot accuse your enemy of targeting civilians... You are just as much to blame.....



I disagree here, It is the Palastinians that are giving the power to the Israelis to be able to deny these terms... IDF does want peace however there not willing to accept all the terms... Olmert already agreed in principle to a Palastinian state..... Now the terms must be worked out but its kind of hard when Hamas keeps giving a pretext to Israel to deny these terms....

If Hamas stopped all attacks and disarmed then Israel would have no choice but to make concessions.... It would be political sucide not too, they would lose all support in the west if they didn't after such a huge move by Hamas.... If Israel still refuses then Hamas is more then welcome to pick up there weapons again... It would be much easier to defeat Israel after they lose all there support..


Now once this issue is settled, we can critize Israel without adding fuel to the fire.....

Fair points Matty, I personally believe that more independent experts need to be drafted into the fray to present the respective cases. Governments are blinkered to the REAL conflict. There are those who could bring peace, or let's say some semblance of peace, to fruition. However, so long as governments antagonise then there will be no such thing.

I would also like to see the Israeli justification for shooting innocent civilians. The objectives are not unreasonable Matty. The objectives are for the freeing of territory and the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush supports these plans. They are hardly unreasonable.

OK, policy is one thing and actions are another. If they are doing it then they are acting with a blatant disregard for existing policies.

I disagree in part with ur last little bit. It's tit-for-tat as u said, reciprocity at its worst. So long as one attacks, the other will respond in kind. Attacks are attacks, many innocent die and that's wrong, period!! It's not pretext, it's natural retaliation.

Im with you 100% on that recommendation....



It's understandable what the Palestinian demands are but unreasonable the way they are going about it.....

Also once this situation is resolved I would also support criminal proceedings for both sides that overstepped their bounds.... Obviously Hamas crossed those boundries more but it's not to say that Israelis were innocent. Either forgiveness for all or punishment to all those responsible for the graviest crimes...



Yes it is reciprocity but I hold the one who attacks first just a little more responsible....

In this day and age, it is difficult to prove who attacked first. The sequence was set in motion and it's an on-going cycle. The press will put their spin on it but, again I state, it's tit-for-tat. The period of peace isn't long enough to dictate who attacked who first. If there was a 2 year end to hostilities and Hamas suddenly fired off a rocket then we'd know for sure who instigated it but that's not the case. U r being pretty objective tho Matty, I applaud that. I c ur position and generally agree but I think, just maybe, that I have read more press sources from around the world on it. That gives me a more rounded perspective.

somewhat agree, but IMO it's clear the person whose attacking is the person who has the power to stop this and doesnt... IDF can't stop Hamas attacks, but Hamas can stop IDF attacks...



Appreciate that(same goes for you), I always am, but when it comes to discussing US or Poland I don't present my views clearly enough to show that.. Emotion takes over.....



You might be right, but nothing more I read can or will change my positon.... I read enough and realize no side is innocent. I know what I need to.

You realise that no side is innocent, OK, I agree. I think there needs to be a harda** agreement in place where both sides agree to a ceasefire for, let's say, a year. If nobody blasts off at the other during that time, then Israel should see that Hamas has fulfilled its part of the bargain and make concessions. I c where u r coming from on that one. It is hard to have a measured response when Hamas do what they do. What I will say is that u, tacitly anyway, haven't fully acknowledged the extent of the hardliners in Israel and the impact they have had. Netanyahu and Sharon, even Shimon Peres, packed quite a punch. They initiated many attacks without terrorists striking first. They have said some pretty nasty things and have backed it up with action. I encourage u 2 read more about them and what they have said. To think that America is under the control of the Israeli govt is weird. That's what Sharon thinks. When u bring the financiers into it, that may change the position somewhat.

Many Israelis have chips on their shoulders and they will lash out at those who speak about the Holocaust. Those who deny the Holocaust do so at their peril. I don't think the Israelis play ball as much as u think tho, they are hardly prime exemplars of those who strive for peace

Great Idea, I thought about that many times.... with no excuses for either side....



Agreed there are hardliners in Israel, Agreed they striked first... However it's difficult to know if it wasn't a preemptive strike to prevent an attack(however to be fair you can also use that arguements for Hamas even though Im more inclined to agree with IDF methods than the methods of Hamas) ... The best thing would be the 1-year ceasefire you mentioned.



there's some truth to it, I wouldn't say control but influence.... There's tons of rich Jews and in high positions of government so that's natural... Nothing to worry to much about... No conspiracy theory, they just lobby hard for the Israeli cause with success...


They are fueled by anger as are palastinians but in the end they do want peace, not so sure about hamas...

Towards the end of the summit, Mr Bush is reported to have told Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, that he liked and trusted Mr Abbas and Mr Dahlan but Mr Sharon was "a problem, from an article

Ariel Sharon is not interested in peace, in fact his agenda is to derail the peace process and start another war with its Arab neighbours, that is the only way Israel can expand its current territory. By starting another war Israel would again gain sympathy from the West who has becoming frustrated with Israel's human rights and undignified arrogance to accept peace with the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat is in fact a puppet of Israel that is the reason he is being jerked around. It is time Palestinian elect a moral leader who is sincere in resolving the issue rather then pretending to be important. As far as peace in the Middle East for now it is dead and a very difficult time is ahead because no matter what Palestinian agree to Sharon will not accept.
Gul Khan, USA

The above is from 2001 and is well thought out, it conveys my sentiments on the matter.

http://p-fritz.net/idf_kills_american.html, this is worth looking at too

Makes sense probably true thats why Im not a big fan of Israel, but Sharon is long gone and he got what he deserved, living like a vegatable... Olmert wants peace.....


Am i missing something here isn't he in a coma....

As I said, the posting is from 2001. Dunno enough about Olmert but will do my homework.

youtube.com/watch?v=LYHq0NZTQ0M&feature=related, weird!!

youtube.com/watch?v=Y5m5zJfudyk, we are agreeing too much Matty, time to disagree again, hehehe, watch this vid!!!