falxori

about 20 of us will be going back on the 22nd morning. if its about the same time (and airport) i'm sure we could make room for you O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

why? i'm still confused by the whole registration issue... not to mention no one told us about it in the russian embessy "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

whats the deal with registering the visa? here is what i've heard, but i'm not sure how true it is... - you have to register when getting there - it can cost about $30 - it can't be done in kolomna (DZ or town) - many told me not to bother and simply risk a $15 fine. i dont mind the fine, but i would mind a trip to the police station ... any advice? thanks O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

i meant a policy of targeting civilians. there are a lot of cases where operations are aborted because too many civilians are at risk, no matter how important the target is. but yes, sometimes the risk of civilian casulties is an acceptable risk, but its not the aim of the operation. its war. civilians get hurt. they shouldn't and they are not the target, but they do. since the peace process began in 1991, there were 6 israeli prime ministers . shamir, rabin, peres, netanyahu, barak, and sharon. on the other side there was always arafat. sharon has changed his position from the right to center, to a point where he pushes for pulling out from the gaza strip, and if you know his history and past position, you'll know that its a huge change. actually it is believed that only sharon who comes from the right side of the political map can actually go all the way with a peace deal, like begin did with egypt. and btw, the security fence was not sharon's idea. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

as i said, i didn't doubts your pure intentions. but i think its important to understand who stands behind this article. never mind, lets drop it "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

i'm sure if i run in google "israel map" i'll get plenty of sites which show the ancient "whole" of israel that includes today's jordan and part of iraq and syria. and those sites will have lots of accurate facts on how the jews were driven out of here by the babylonians persians and later on romans. trust me, if we go by the "who was here first" rule, the result is obvious. i got to know you a little bit and i know you try to see things from all angles. just see whos source it is you quote. even the most basic facts can be described in ways that will give it a different meaning... O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

you know, Darius, editing the article and removing the great comparisons to nazism and concentration camps won't make in more reliable. i know you meant well but the severity of the terms used by the author are important to see how absurd her claims are. again, i know you meant well and wanted to show respect to the forum, but you didn't write this article, and the author meant for these analogies to be read. just a thought O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

showing what suits your goals, are we? take a look at "Population Movements, 1948-51" the jews came from places like europe, asia and africa, right? well yeah, but a LOT came from iran, iraq, yemmen, moroco, tunis, etc because they were forced to leave. not to mention that they had to go empty handed. how about my family who lived in Hebron for centuries and was driven out in 1939 by riots? should i sue and get my family house back? the simple fact (like it or not) that there was no palestine. and there is no palestine. there will bea palestinian state because its the only feasible solution. but it wont be on all of this land, unless they accept it, more blood will flow. why look at the last 150 years? want to check how many palestinians there were here 2000 years ago ? oh, wait, there were none... i especially liked the definition "zionist colonies"... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

Israel is NOT killing civilians just because palestinians do. it happens, but its not a policy nor a goal. check a few swiss bank accounts. you know, i'm not a big Sharon supporter and i didnt vote for him (a democracy, you know...) but comparing him to arafat is not exactly fair... should i remind you why israel is back in places it gave to the PA in the Oslo accords? or who was it to refuse anything but everything in camp david in 2000 ? we were dragged into this and trust me, we want out. o "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

you get 10 points for not only saying "its wrong" but also suggesting alternaives agreed. but how do you establish that when they dress the same, act the same and walk in the same places? the only way you can do that without harrassing the innocent one is to wait until its too late. its pretty much like airport security, we are all checked even if its clear 99.99% of us are not terrorists. agreed. and usually a lot of efforts are made so no one else would get hurt, including canceling operations when civilians are thought to be near the target. does it always work? no. saying the colateral damage is not acceptable is great as a concept, but when the terror leaders make sure they are surrounded by civilians most of the time, and when you know thwy are about to order another terror attack, its not always that clear. again, i agree, in the long run thats the only solution. but history shows that whenever concessions are made, they are used for terror acts. new explosive labs pop up when forces pull out, terrorists move freely when checkpoints are removed, weapons are smuggled from egypt in tunnels, etc. during the late 90's there was almost no israeli present in palestinian towns and the PA was in control. but they chose not to fight terrorists and took a significant part of the money donated for their personal use (and i'm talking about billions) your "opinions" are correct. the problem is getting to a point were they can be implemented. we've tried it a few times and failed because they never gave up terror as an alternative. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

i doubt it. its one of those things that are much easier to do than cancel... O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

even if the owner willingly gave his house to be used by terrorists? wouldnt you prefer a son in jail than blown up to pieces with innocent people? but it does. not always, but it does. anyway, i will happily adopt another way. yes there is but its hardly "independent " and unbiased. anyway, if you look at the determination of war, it clearly state that a fighting force must be distincitve from civilians, not operate from within civilian area and that marked medical services must not take an active combat role. all of which are not implemented by the palestinians (not to mention that they target civilians as a policy). yes, its clearly against the laws of war to harm civilian buildings, but you can't look at only one side of the international law. if they chose to conduct war in a way that voids all international treaties, they cant claim that israel breaks those treaties. i'm not saying innocent palestinians don't get hurt because they do. the question is, do they get hurt on purpose and as a policy (like the article above says) or is it a sideeffect of the nature of this type of fighting. i can honestly say that if there was a way to hurt only terrorists without ever hurting others, we would do it. are we doing all we can? probably not, but its not as easy as it sounds. O O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

here's a new idea, stop terror acts. not even once have they tried it... even when the peace process was looking good, they were secretly getting weapons they shouldn't have and did nothing against the terror groups (not to mention joining them later on) "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

there are two types of structures that could be demolished. 1) used for terrorist acts such as explosive labs, tunnels, or shooting posts. all of which pose a direct danger (both to israelis and to neighbouring palestinians.) if its your house and you allow terrorists to use it, don't blame israel. want an example? ok. last week, a group of terrorists were getting ready to shoot missiles (maybe it was morter shells, i dont remember) from the back yard of some house. the people who live there tried to stop them (i assume you know why). anyway, the group of terrorists simply shot the 16 yrs old kid who told them to go away. so yes, if ther civilians refuse to cooperate with the terrorists because they fear for their home, it works. and in this case you can see the terrorists dont exactly care whos life they destroy. the second kind is the house of the terrorist himself. there were cases where the family stopped it, even by reporting about it, but usually they don't. let me as you this, if you were ready to murder 20 people knowing you'll die too, would your determination change if you knew your family might suffer also for your actions ? there is not much you can do to a person willing to do such a horrible act. and yes, i know its problematic and maybe wrong in some cases but when the family supports it and see it as an honorable act, they are guilty in my book. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

i don't think so. if the family supported and even helped its assistance to murder (which is often the case). usually they say he brought honor to the family and that they'll be proud if more of their children do the same. i don't really like that idea, but when someone plans a terror attack from which he/she will not be coming back, there is not much you can do to stop it. the fear that their own family might suffer from it may not be the best way, but the options are pretty limited. isn't it: one government is terror and one is doing all it can to stop it? O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

anyone flown with transaero with rigs? their website says the carryon limit is only 5kg (usually its 8kg). and my wings is clse to 13kg usually i dont have a problem but i don't know how strict they are. i thought of calling them in advance and ask (we're a group of 27 so it might be a problem) but i'm not sure if asking is better than just showing up and hoping for the best... any ideas? thanks O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

i hear that a lot here, but i'm not sure what it means. sure there are extremists in israel too, thats a democracy. the difference is that they don't do what they want, and if they do, they are put in jail. it doesnt matter that there extremists, what matters is who is controling things, and who is allowed to do what. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

no, it happens. do you need me to throw a brick on your head to show you that it can kill you? and to your question, most of the time what you see is tear gas or rubber bullets. not to mention that the media really likes the "look at the poor kid with a rock against that big scary tank", what can i say, it sells. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

again, i'll repeat. i understand that poor conditions create more terrorists, its not a mystery. but how would you stop the man carrying the explosives when he stands in line with 10 other non terrorists? how will you shoot the guy pointing a rifle at you (and i'm sorry to burst a bubble, but its not rocks anymore) if he hides inside a building? how would you avoid stopping ambulances when they are used to transport explosive? but this is not the issue here, the issue is the statements about nazi camps, extermination, mass murder, etc. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

it doesn't take a genious to know that the palestinians are not having a great time and that it motivates terrorists. there is a huge difference between posting facts that will describe a situation and describing things as nazi camps, butchering, mass murderers and just shooting people for fun. this is an opinion which is written as a report. the factual base of this is weak and you know very well that there are no masacares, no butchering and no extermination. even the basic concept of people defending themselves against occupation is wrong. there was terror before israel existed, and there was a LOT of terror when there was no israeli force anywhere near palestinian towns (1996-2000). the "Wave of terror" was started in 2000 after arafat refused to accept anything less than everything, and as far as i remember, you kwow that fact also. again i say, palestinians do suffer, and it does motivate terror, i have no problem with this idea. but describing it as "poor farmers armed with rocks defending themselves against a nazi extermination brigades" is outragous. and yes, i consider implying that israel is exterminating/butchering/etc palestinians a hate post. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

you know, at first i thought of replying like i usually do when we have a difference of opinions, but this time all i can think is, what's the point? this narrow minded propoganda (and if you'll insist, we can go over it word by word...) , is nothing but a hate post of the lowest kind. i don't think i'll go to this low level of name calling, but if anyone is actually convinced by this (creative) crap, let me know. thats right, and it goes also for verbal violence O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

a few thoughts

this feature of Vodka amazes me every time

that may be valid as a concept but israel doesn't have the means nor the desire to take care of all the world's illness. and even if the Iranian facility would have a big neon sign saying "nuke bomb factory" most of the world would chose to do nothing, and if someone does do something about it (and i honestly hope israel won't have to, because we really dont need this mess right now), i can already imagine the headlines (which will be similar to those of 1981, i guess)... and to those who said, "why israel yes, and iran no?" i can answe in 2 ways. 1) why france yes and israel no/? or 2) israel is believed to have had nukes since the mid 60's. at least twice after that (especially in 73) it was close to destruction, and still none were used, if that is not a sign of a resposible country, i don't know what is. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

there is a basic error in this logic. you (much like the UN) assume that the traditional state of war (i.e between countries) applies. what was the main problem with 9/11 ? there was no clear country behind it. so who do you attack back? i don't think Iran will attack Israel directly with WMD , much like SH didnt in 91. there is already a direct supply line between iran and syria and terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas. who will you strike back at if a chemical/nuke bomb explodes in the middle of tel-aviv, or new-york ? the nuclear standoff doesnt apply anymore. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."