Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership | k5 store

[P]
Moving 8000 People 10 Kilometres (Politics)

By stuaart
Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 07:38:51 AM EST

News

The Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip is here after weeks upon weeks of preparation, both political and physical. The face of the practical task seems trivial: move 8000 people approximately 10km, withdrawing them from settlements (these are marked in red on this map). History, however, weighs heavily on the shoulders of the soldiers involved in forcibly evicting Jewish settlers in the Strip, the settlers themselves, the politicians responsible for developing the plan, the Palestinians still living there, and the Israeli public. But how did it come to this, and why is it happening?


The history of Israel and Palestine is long, complex and contested. It has been an intellectual battleground as well as a physical one for decades upon decades. Key moments in its history have been repeated endlessly, such as wars, peace deals and assassinations. Ultimately it is inexorable, intransigent and a constant, terminal tragedy of quite profound proportions. In a twisted inversion of the ideal, it is war and strife which has provided the stability, and a sense of constancy for the whole region. The conflict has been described to me by a friend as the "biggest family broigus in history," since, according to both the Jewish and Muslim tradition, Abraham's first son, Ishmael was the ancestor of the Arabs, whereas his second son, Isaac, was the ancestor of the Jews. To some extent certainly, Arab-Israeli conflict bears a striking resemblence to sibling rivalry and envy.

One of the most central and important events to this winding historical road occurred in 1948. 1948 was not the genesis, but perhaps more accurately the top of the historical tree, with leaves extending from the very first graspings of Zionism by Theodor Herzl in 1896 up to the present disengagement plan, 2005. This apex is thus: after independence was declared by Israel in 1948, the "Palestinian problem" was created. Palestinians and the wider pan-Arab movement generally claim that the mass exodus of Palestinians on now-Israeli land was induced either by absolute fear of the Israeli army's rapid traversal and annexation of Palestinian territory, or by both both fear and actual harm done. The opposing -- generally Israeli -- argument asserts that Palestinians either left of their own free will, or were encouraged or forced out by the closing Arab armies.

Thus, a genesis of two kinds occurred in 1948, a genesis that marked all future conflicts between Israel and the surrounding countries. The genesis of Israel and the genesis of the Palestinian problem have both been illegitimised or arrogantly asserted by proponents from both sides.

The move for disengagement itself was not shocking, neither is its style, however the quarters from which the orchestration has occurred did surprise. Before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's political career, Sharon was well-known as the commanding force behind the Qibya massacre of 1953. The spark for this event at Qibya had been the a murder by Jordanian militants (or infiltrators) of an Israeli mother and her children who lived near the Israel-Jordan border. Subsequently, a "reprisal raid" on a small Jordanian village resulted in the deaths of 50-odd civilians, and the village itself was literally flattened. Although internationally condemned, Sharon went on to become Defense Minister in the Israeli cabinet, and during the 1982 Lebanon war came under further scrutiny for his part in the Shabra and Shatilla massacre. Israel's own Kahan Commission after the war found Sharon personally responsible for this event in which hundreds of refugees died (exact numbers are sketchy).

With this in mind we are firstly left asking exactly why Sharon is not locked in an Israeli jail. Secondly, however, and more importantly to this article, we must ask what is at the bottom of this seemingly dove-like disengagement move. I feel that there are several aspects that are worth consideration: unilateralism and face-saving; strategic necessity; and a change of heart.

The style of the disengagement is characteristically Israeli, and certainly within the language of Sharon's oeuvre. It is unilateral,and such unilateralism implies only limited cohesion between Palestinian and Israeli security forces in the practical task of the operation. Some claim cynically that the removal of settlers changes little in terms of the status quo in the Gaza Strip; the strip will effectively become a prison for its inhabitants, now to be surrounded by the iron wall of Israeli defense on one side and Egypt on the other. The economic disaster occurring in the Strip will not be alleviated by this disengagement, it is said, because Israel will still exert large-scale control over borders, air and sea space. Pessimistically, the historically unilaterist policies of Israel suggest that this is a possibility, yet on the other hand, there may be some hope in the form of talks over reopening Gaza's airport and the new opening of a free route between the Strip and the West Bank. In addition to this, the view that Israel's policies are only ever conducted in its own interest is clearly unrealistic, and it is true that Israel's international standing was of concern to many previous governments of the state.

Disengagement may also be seen from a face-saving perspective. All major players in Gaza -- Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas -- want to come out from the evacuation in strength. For Israel this means maintaining the unilateralist front and denying that terrorist attacks are in any way related to its withdrawal. For the Palestinian Authority, the disengagement means ensuring Israel withdraws as peacefully with minimal provocation from militant groups, so that it can claim a political battle has been won over Israel's occupation strategy. Finally, for Hamas, it means appearing primarily to Palestinians as the violent driving force behind pushing Israel out of a territory it would like to have monopoly over. It is this face-saving operation and the fine balance between all parties involved that causes the most concern. Collapse, meaning militant provocation and no doubt Israeli reprisal attacks without collaboration with Palestinian security forces (again, unilateralism), could result in the Gaza Strip becoming the scene for a violent power struggle between Hamas and the PA.

Cynics also discuss the strategic goals behind the disengagement, and suggest that further control over the West Bank is the payoff from withdrawing valuable IDF troops stationed in Gaza that were protecting settlers and manning checkpoints. There are three distinct styles on offer: expansionism; preserving the status quo; and moderation. Both the size of the West Bank and the political and relgious importance of Jerusalem mean that Israel can simultaneously improve its international standing whilst serruptitiously enhancing its position in the West Bank, and in particular its management of Jerusalem. This can provide the groundwork for further expansion into West Bank territories, increasing the network of control, or at the very least it would make more possible maintaining the status quo (which was a common policy of previous Israeli governments). In either case, the ownership of Jerusalem will be one of the key features of any future struggle, as implied by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas's devisive promise of any established Palestinian state having "Jerusalem as its capital." More optimistically, there is the possibility that the Gaza Strip disengagement is intended to be a template or test case for potential later withdrawal from the West Bank. It is possible that the disengagement will be used to further peace agreements over the West Bank and a future Palestinian state, or perhaps to provide resources to push the PA into certain concessions concerning the status of the refugee problem.

Finally, we are faced with the aspect of the disengagement that questions Sharon's seemingly changing heart. We have seen how this "changing heart" of one of the champions of the settler movement can be ascribed to deeper political reasons, such as maintaining face or supporting certain strategic goals. Is it possible, however, that Sharon's political ideology -- marked by military strength, unilateralism and maintaining the status quo -- has undergone a transformation? Has the thug moderated his views on tough Israeli occupation? This is probably the most impossible question to answer, and is contingent upon the practical unfolding of the disengagement, the future prospects of the Gaza Strip with Hamas and the PA jostling for power, and the subsequent real action taken on-the-ground in the West Bank.

Sponsors
Voxel dot net
o Managed Servers
o Managed Clusters
o Virtual Hosting


www.johncompanies.com
www.johncompanies.com

Looking for a hosted server? We provide Dedicated, Managed and Virtual servers with unparalleled tech support and world-class network connections.

Starting as low as $15/month
o Linux and FreeBSD
o No set-up fees and no hidden costs
o Tier-one provider bandwidth connections

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Note: You must accept a cookie to log in.

Related Links
o Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip
o this map
o according to both the Jewish and Muslim tradition
o 1948
o "Palestinian problem"
o Kahan Commission
o Sharon's oeuvre
o power struggle between Hamas and the PA
o "Jerusalem as its capital."
o More on News
o Also by stuaart


View: Display: Sort:
Moving 8000 People 10 Kilometres | 253 comments (229 topical, 24 editorial, 5 hidden)
There was no sensitivity training (2.00 / 2) (#243)
by guidoreichstadter on Fri Aug 19th, 2005 at 08:33:50 PM EST
(guido [undrscr] reichstadter at hotmail dot com)

when the bulldozers went into Rafa.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
Emotions or strategies (3.00 / 4) (#171)
by Saggi on Wed Aug 17th, 2005 at 08:41:58 AM EST
http://www.rednebula.com

It's a very good article that put some light on the historical events and especial Sharon's part in the on going conflict. But two important aspects are mingled into this conflict: Emotions and Strategies.

From a purely strategic point of view this article makes sense. It provides some aspects on the conflict. Why Sharon tries to solve it like he do. I think the main conclusion: Movement from Gaza allows avoids the focus on the West Bank, and therefore allow Israel to maintain control of West Bank and Jerusalem - reflect a strategic way of thinking.

But the conflict is also of an emotional character. A lot of the right winged Jews believe they have a birth right to this territory. When you involve religion and emotions, the logic and strategies becomes secondary (and sometimes non-relevant). This conflict from the Israeli side is to a large extend driven by this kind of emotion.

So logic and strategic point of views as described in the article may be valid at some point, they might become irrelevant in some types of conflicts like this. Many analysis of conflicts fall into this trap. I had a friend who once said - after seeing a documentary about a mother and her children in Gaza - if I lived there I would just move. The friend also said; I can't understand why they support Hamas, they are terrorists. Now that's the point! If you were a mother with kids in Gaza, then you would be faced with the fact that you couldn't move. Israel and Egypt on both sides and neither would let you in. So faced with the terrible conditions, you would after some years start to support terrorist groups like Hamas.

From a strategic point of view you'll need to face the conditions these people live under, to understand the emotions that drive them. This goes for both sides. The poor condition of many of the Palestine people, and the fear of terror and religious beliefs of the Israelis. Then you might understand the fuel of the conflict.

-:) Oh no, not again.
www.rednebula.com
Ariel Sharon (2.00 / 4) (#123)
by nidarus on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 04:58:06 PM EST

You say that the Kahan Commission found Sharon to be personally responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. This is misleading: the term "personal responsibilty" has a certain legal meaning that's different from its common use. It doesn't mean that Sharon planned, ordered, or even knew about the massacre (as it might sound to the ignorant reader).

And the parts where you wonder (completely off-topic, btw) why Sharon isn't in Jail, or where you call him a "thug"... Well, I get it that you don't think Sharon is a great guy, I even agree to some degree, but I really think these parts do only harm to your article. They don't have any informational or entertainment value, and make your article look much more biased.

A couple of other theories (3.00 / 6) (#120)
by nidarus on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 04:35:15 PM EST

1. Sharon is 78 years old. He may not want to be remembered only as a brutal warmonger that started Israel's most pointless (and bloodiest) war. He doesn't want to be remembered as another Rehav'am Zeevi, he wants to be another Rabin.

2. The disengagement is going to be a painful process for the Israeli society. Many people are talking about the possibility of a civil war. The sheer complexity of the plan, and the trauma it's going to inflict upon the Israeli society will show how completely impossible it is for the Israelis to make a similiar move in the West Bank. This "amputating the arm so the patient can live" approach is what Sharon constantly alludes to.

3. Sharon just wants to divert public attention away from his sons' (Gilad and Omri) illegal dealings. (This theory is very popular in the Israeli extreme right-wing circles).

Actually, I would bet that a most of the settlers (2.33 / 3) (#119)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 04:30:54 PM EST
(guido [undrscr] reichstadter at hotmail dot com)

being removed from the Gaza Strip are going to end up as settlers in the West Bank in the very near future.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
Settlements (3.00 / 6) (#117)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 04:19:21 PM EST
(guido [undrscr] reichstadter at hotmail dot com)

If the withdrawal from 21 settlements in the Gaza strip and 4 in the West Bank is to be a precursor for Palestinian autonomy, why would the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, say something like this?
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process...effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda."

Weisglass had said in an interview with Haaretz magazine last year: "When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem...disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde (a compound that maintains a given condition) that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

At the same time that a handful of settlements with a combined population of around 9,000 people are being removed, the vast bulk of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, with a population of over 400,000, and a network of interlocking settler-only roads that ghettoizes the Palestinian population remain untouched. Recent Israeli government investigation reveal that organizations within the Israeli government itself have been diverting millions of dollars in public resources to illegal West Bank settlements, in contravention of Israeli law, while at the same time the Israeli government is constructing a concrete wall far inside the West Bank that will carve out nearly 50% of the West Bank in a de facto annexation. When Ariel Sharon, the current Prime Minister, goes on record as saying just five years ago, "Let everyone get a move on and take some hilltops! Whatever we take, will be ours, and whatever we don't take, will not be ours!" it is hard to take seriously the Israeli goverment and people's committment to a viable Palestinian state.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
Complicated, bunk! (1.70 / 17) (#90)
by crunchycookies on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 10:56:15 AM EST

Any article that starts with a declaration that the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is long and complicated always ends with the idea that Israel, while not perfect, must be supported. But the struggle is not complicated; a bunch of Americans and Europeans invaded a foreign land and oppressed the indigenous population in an effort to expel them.

Further, these articles never touch on the legitimacy of Israel and therefore take it as a given. Israel is no more legitimate than any other racist country. We did not hear cries of legitimacy when Apartheid South Africa fell. In fact we cheered. Let us recognize the true enemy here; Zionism. If Israel gives up its racist ideology it can have true peace in the same way South Africa gave up Apartheid and gained peace.



compromise.... (3.00 / 3) (#85)
by the sixth replicant on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 10:38:11 AM EST

....is one the hardest things a human being can do and it looks like that's what the Gaza strip Israeli's are doing.

Whether or not there is a real compromise happening for Israel as a whole - we can do nothing but give support to those that have moved.

In my fantasy world the day after everyone has moved, the Palestinians will ask for everyone to come back and live on their land peacefully and hugs all around. Plus a real mean house block BBQ!

Ciao

The need for a definitive final solution (1.15 / 20) (#74)
by Pig Hogger on Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 09:12:07 AM EST

The world needs a definitive final solution.

The jews always had an attitude problem, which has caused them numerous problems in the past. They were expelled from Palestine by the romans, because of the constant trouble they wrought about (for this, however, they deserve commendation; after all, they were there first).

However, as they were spread-out all over the place, their terminal buttheadness prevented them from mingling harmoniously with the population of the areas they were banished to, earning them some well-deserved ill-will.

Meanwhile, Palestine jewish-vacuum was being filled by other people, who got to live there for two millenium.

As the diaspora was forced to wander about, they had to learn to live in a way where they could concentrate their wealth in an easily movable way (hence their obsession with diamonds or gold) or in an unremovable way (by valuing education). The former was helped a lot by the exceedingly stupid attitudes the scatholic church had about wealth, relegating the jews into the roles no sane scatholic would do, like bankers and financiers. So, over time, jews were able to muster and control considerable financial ressources and power.

The combination of intellectual prowess and financial power proved to be extremely hazardous to the people wielding it. During the late 18th century and the early 20th century, novel ideologies that sought to, amongst other things, do away with private property were peddled about, and in many places implemented by jewish intellectuals. This, allied to the (real or supposed) jewish financial power turned-off a lot of people against the jews.

In other places, such as the United States, jews were banished from many older-established sectors of the economy and thus were concentrated in the newer sectors that never had any "tradition", such as the cinematographic "industry". Over time, this would be used by the jews to further their own interests as movies became more and more an able form of propaganda, and mass control.

Many places who had a strong antisemite tradition were happy to jump on the bandwagon, and before long, the strongest antisemite movement ever saw the light of day, whose culmination was the industrial extermination of a significant portion of european jews.

The reaction to this unprecedented tragedy was the establishment of a totally artificial and unviable country for the jews alone, in a way that guaranteed a permanent regional enmity against the jews. This was done thanks to the newly-found influence the jews had over the United States of America, who, through some diplomatic arm-twisting regarding probable investment in rubber-plantations in Africa, were able to coerce a sufficient number of insignificant african countries into voting for the creation of what is called "israel".

Once there, the jews continued upon their customary assheadness racism by simply stealing the natural ressources and kicking-out the previous inhabitants. This promptly earned the rightful wreath of it's neighbours, many of those who had to contend with a tremenduous number of refugees, and since then, it was only the artificial infusion of wealth from the manipulated states of america that did not ensure that the jews were thrown back into the sea, and insuring a permanent state of instability in a region that suddenly became very important because of some nearby areas are very rich in petroleum.

As long as the jews will be jews, the jews will be picked upon. Hence the need for a truly final solutions for the jewish problem.

Cancel israel. Give it back to the palestinians. The less assheaded jews will undoubtely allowed to remain there. For the rest... Well, they will have to emigrate (again). Receiving countries will understand that they will have to do their share of the effort.

Of course, jews will have to do their part of the work, mainly by ditching their assheaded attitude, if needed by dumping their old religion.

This could be enhanced by allowing religious discrimination, to drive home the point that it is solely their religion that is the source of their problems, and by ridding themselves of their religion, they will be able to integrate other societies for mutual benefit.

Other peoples have done the same thing, such as the Québec french canadians who realized, 40 years ago, that their lowly economic status was caused by their stupid attachment to the scatholic church. Once this was realized, scatholicism has been relegated in it's rightful place, the trasheap of history. And since then, Québec has developped into one of the most technologically advanced societies (canadian high-tech industries are concentrated in Québec).

It's time for judaism to suffer the same fate, that jews dump their stupid assinine religion that inflates their heads and distillates the hatred of others for them.

Truly, religion has to be eradicated; we have enough trouble getting along with the various races, languages and cultures, we don't need yet another artificial barrier to mutual understanding.
--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot

What I want to know (2.05 / 17) (#60)
by blackpaw on Mon Aug 15th, 2005 at 10:14:26 PM EST

Is why they haven't brought in the bulldozers yet ? you can bet your ass that if the had been dirty little arabs those houses would have been flattened by now with the odd person inside them, half the men would be in indefinate detention being tortured and few dozen lost to accidental shootings.

Religion is bad news (2.09 / 11) (#50)
by Nyarlathotep on Mon Aug 15th, 2005 at 05:22:48 PM EST
http://havoc.gtf.org/weasel

Religion is bad for society, news at 11.

Anyway, I must side with Israel, in general.  Sure, they may have taken some dumb ass religiously motivated actions, but they have infinitely more potential for abandoning that relious motivation then than the other side.  He who abandons religion first will win.
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!

-1 not news -- just opinion. "thug"? (1.66 / 15) (#35)
by fyngyrz on Mon Aug 15th, 2005 at 12:59:28 PM EST
(sabumnim*dojang*com) http://www.blackbeltsystems.com/

Personally, I can see why the Israelis would feel that stomping a village into the ground in reprisal for the murder of a mother and child was appropriate; you, like most liberal bleeding hearts, fail to appreciate the simple fact that the Palestinians, like anyone, could have avoided reprisals if they had simply used something revolutionary such as a political process, instead of bloody warfare, to make their points.

Of course, there is no certainty that such a path will result in success, but neither is there a certainty that violent action will, either. On the other hand, there is a near-certainty that once you resort to initiating violence, the target of your actions will respond in kind, and escalate -- this is not only human nature, it is logical and appropriate.

There is an answer and that is simply don't start something, or at the very least, don't start something you can't finish. Don't hijack, don't assault, don't throw stones, don't invade, don't even threaten. Use your mind and your mouth and your pencil and keep your fucking hands to yourself.

All this is aside from the nationalistic bullshit that encourages twerps into the idea that they must have "their own country / homeland / nation."

The idea that it's "ok" to initiate violence by attacking a person or a group is literally insane, just as violent response to such an attack by the victim is entirely sane. If you cleave to the idea that initiating violent assault is a negotiating tactic, you need to just shut the fuck up when consequences rattle downhill and wash over you.

I can understand why the Israelis did this; I can also understand why they violated national sovereignty and descended upon Entebbe, why they bombed the nuclear reactor being constructed in a neighboring Muslim state, and why they bulldoze entire neighborhoods from time to time.

I would also note that in spite of all the bullshit they've been subjected to by the moron Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, you can still be Arab and Muslim and Palestinian and walk around free in Israel; you might keep that in mind next time you throw a tantrum about those nasty Israelis. They're still showing considerable restraint, IMHO.

Graphics s/w

Who cares? (1.25 / 20) (#26)
by Fen on Mon Aug 15th, 2005 at 09:32:11 AM EST

What does this have to do with transhumanism. When we cross over, we'll send a few anti-matter nukes just to blow this whole area up for the amount of crap its given us instead of interesting news. Isreal/palestine/bullshit/blahblah is taking up time from SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY.
----Transcend humanity.
oh nooos, da j00s! (1.61 / 36) (#2)
by circletimessquare on Mon Aug 15th, 2005 at 01:00:12 AM EST
(at gmail dot com)

frankly, i'm sick of this problem

i don't care about jewish problems, i could care less if israel disappeared off the face of the earth

there are more sikhs in this world than jews, and therefore, to me, sikh problems are more important to me than jewish problems

it's a democratic thing, you know?

anyway, i had to say that to say this:

the real problem in this world right now is the rise of militant fundamentalism

jewish fundamentalism
muslim fundamentalism
christian fundamentalism

morons, who believe that muslims wouldn't be turning to fundamentalism if it weren't for israel, and of course, it's us support, miss out on the truth

fundamentalism is not caused by anything

fundamentalism is THE cause of all of our problems

fundamentalism of the jewish, christian and moslem varieties

fundamentalism is the original sin

it is a CAUSE, not an EFFECT

as if muslim bigots or christian bigots or jewish bigots need an excuse to consider as subhuman anyone who doesn't believe in their narrow creed?

really? do you really understand what fundamentalism is? you're not HUMAN to these assholes if you don't believe their claptrap, therefore, they have every right to KILL YOU like a fucking head of cattle: to them, same thing

but of course, the problem is that people actually believe if you manipulate certain conditions that fundamentalists complain about, you relieve the situation and everything goes peaceful

fucking bullshit

you've just rewarded fundamentalists for their evil actions by doing that, so they do it some more

do you reward kidnappers for kidnapping people and give them their ransom?

really? welcome to a whole new crop of kidnappers then! because you've just said crime pays!

so what do you do?

you fucking kill fundamentalists, and you create conditions which breed less of them: democracy

what fucking blows my mind is assholes in the west who say it is the "crusading" christians or jews who create problems for the suffering muslims and turn them into fundamentalists

fucking pure unadulterated bullshit

have you ever looked at what fundamentalist moslems believe?

it's the same fucking constrictive freedom destroying shit that christian and jewish fundamentalists believe!

so how come some of you assholes can't see that ALL fundamentalists are the problem, of ALL flavors? and therefore fight all of them WITH NO FUCKING EXCUSES

fundamentalism is a CAUSE, NEVER AN EFFECT

you say you can condemn them all?

so why the FUCK do some of you fucking morons give muslim fundamentalists a pass for what you regularly condemn christian or jewish "crusaders" for???!!!

all fucking three varieties of fundamentalist asshoels need to be destroyed

EQUALLY

PERIOD

CARRY THAT THOUGHT TO IT'S FULL CONCLUSION AND STOP TALKING ABOUT FASCIST FUNDAMENTALIST BUSH WHEN YOU SAY FUCKING NOTHING OF PRE-2003 IRAQ AND PRESENT DAY IRAN

bush is an ELECTED head of a DEMOCRATIC country

bush is fucking rich frat boy MORON, but he most certainly is NOT a FASCIST or a FUNDAMENTALIST you fucking stupid propagandized retards, capisce?

iran? it's an actual STATED fucking THEOCRACY building NUKES for crying out loud

doesn't that fucking bother you a LOT fucking more that retard bush who will be gone in 2008???????!!!!!!!!!!!

so stop fucking condemning the fight against moslem fundamentalists

see this shit?

same crap, different religion!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL fundamentalists must be fought

STOP GIVING SOME FLAVORS A PASS BECAUSE THEY ARE "POOR SUFFERING VICTIMS"

fucking BULLSHIT

fundamentalists of ANY flavor are the fucking VILLAINS

they aren't VICTIMS of ANYTHING if they are busy blowing up civilians

do you fucking understand?

some of you fucks most clearly do not

victims of retarded propaganda, every single one of you cretins who give moslem fundamentalism a pass and howl against western actions


He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence.
- William Blake


Moving 8000 People 10 Kilometres | 253 comments (229 topical, 24 editorial, 5 hidden)
View: Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest � 2000 - 2005 Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
If you can read this, you are sitting too close to your screen.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories! K5 Store by Jinx Hackwear Syndication Supported by NewsIsFree