E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!!!

It also helps Sharon with some domestic opponents on the right who feel that he is making a mistake by pulling out of Gaza. After this strike its hard to call him "soft on terror."

I thought that the Hamas leadership was already targeted for annihilation, or did this announcement just make it official?

And to those who don't think we'll be safer under Bush than Kerry, consider the actions of Hamas:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/mideast_dc

I'll summarize:

1) Israel kills Yassin
2) Hamas threatens US
3) Bush threatens Hamas
4) Hamas backs down

That is the deterrent effect at action. It worked in Libya and it worked in Palestine. Hamas may be savages, but they ain't stupid. They won't take their chances with Bush, but you run for cover if Kerry is elected.

100% correct. I love it when Michael talks like a conservative.

Quite the contrary, the example of Israel is a stunning example of how big-stickism only makes terrorism worse, not better. Israel has had a longtime policy of taking a hardline stance against terrorists instead of focusing on achieving peace and terrorism has only worsened because of this. The way to stop terrorism in the middle east is not by whether or not you negotiate prisoner releases, it's by going through the process of compromise and hammering out a peace treaty that guarantees the creation of a Palestinian state. Israeli leaders would do their country well to seriously consider the current Geneva Accord that leaders from both sides have been talking up.

Anybody want to take bets on how long Rantissi lasts?

Mike Bitondo:

A couple of problems with that theory...

Who does Israel talk to? Again and again they talk to one Pali organization while another blows up a bus. No one entity is making decisions for the terrorists.

How do you compromise when the stated position on the other side of the table is the destruction of all you hold dear including the State itself?

Diplomacy is a wonderful thing but if only one side is willing to give then only one side will gain. Israel cannot afford to give what the terrorists demand.

Semper Fi

Eric: Anybody want to take bets on how long Rantissi lasts?

I hope Israel kills him today. Right now. What a demoralizing blog that would be for Hamas.

hey, I actually agree with you ...

it's by going through the process of compromise and hammering out a peace treaty that guarantees the creation of a Palestinian state

And I suppose this applies across the board when dealing with terrorists? Give them what they want? "compromise" as you put it?

How bout we give Al-Qaida what they want. Are you in favor of that? Guarantee the creation of the Caliphate so they'll stop bombing us?

Or does terror appeasement only apply to your pet terrorists the paleostinians?

"it's by going through the process of compromise and hammering out a peace treaty that guarantees the creation of a Palestinian state"

of course, israel already went through this process. back in the days of ehud barak, a peace arrangement WAS made to both sides which included guarantees for a palestinian state by the hero president clinton but it was rejected immediately by the palestinians. no counter-offer was considered by arafat. he and the palestinians chose war, and now they are paying the price (no doubt, moreso than the israelis).

Mike Bitondo:

How can you negotiate with someone that wants you dead?

Ah. Berkeley. Nevermind.

UCLA actually.

"How can you negotiate with someone that wants you dead?"

bkw, glenn, david, and rick m all pretend that there is no one to talk to in Palestine, that all Palestinians are interested in is killing Israelis and the destruction of Israel. This couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians who have already signed on to the Geneva Compromise. You can check out my article in the Daily Bruin on it by clicking on my name. Under the Geneva Compromise, neither side gets everything that it wants. The Palestinians don't get the right of return, but Israelis have to give up many of their settlements in the occupied territories. Compromise is a process of give-and-take, not murdering everyone on the other side. It's clear that there is a large faction on both sides that wants to compromise and wants peace. It's clear that the way to go is the Geneva Accord, not hardline military strikes that often wound and kill civilian bystanders nor building Orwellian "Peace Walls."

Zev Chafetz has a very precient take on Sharon's withdrawal BEFORE the assassination:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/173202p-150981c.html

Wretchard in Belmont Club has this idea. Sharon is trying to draw Hamas into committing against US. And for a day or so before Hamas's current leader realized what the game is, they played into Sharon's hand.

"Under the Geneva Compromise, neither side gets everything that it wants. The Palestinians don't get the right of return, but Israelis have to give up many of their settlements in the occupied territories."

How is this any different than what Barak attempted to do in 1999?

The Palestinians were offered more than 90% of the West Bank, so long as they abandoned the so-called right of return. They balked, and started a terrorist war.

Your article asserts that the Palestinians are demanding the recognition of Israel and to share the territory. What planet have you been living on? I realize UCLA is left-wing, but I didn't know how loony things really were. Did you not see the tends of thousands of Palestinians supporting Hamas and their dead leader?

An October 2003 survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which questioned 1,318 respondents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, found that "Seventy-five per cent of Palestinians support the suicide bombing at an Israeli restaurant two weeks ago in which 21 people, including four children, were killed."

A people that believes in suicide bombings to intentionally kill innocent civilians and children is not a people who can be negotiated with or placated.

But living in your pseudo-reality at UCLA, you'd never know that.

Mike Bitando writes: "The way to stop terrorism in the middle east is not by whether or not you negotiate prisoner releases, it's by going through the process of compromise and hammering out a peace treaty that guarantees the creation of a Palestinian state. Israeli leaders would do their country well to seriously consider the current Geneva Accord that leaders from both sides have been talking up."

Mike, sorry, but I have to disagree. Arafat was offered statehood at Oslo, he rejected it in favor of the Infintada-that is a matter of record.

Actually, the Russian KGB showed the way to deal with Terrorism in the 80's when one of the terrorist groups kidnapped and killed(?) a couple of Russians. The Russians hunted them down and decimated their organization and people. They were no longer bothered by that particular group - or any group until the rise of the Islamists in Chechnya. While I agree the killing has to stop, don't you think it would be a good thing for the individuals wrapping a 16 year old retarded boy in bombs to stop the senseless killing FIRST?????

Here's the facts, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

"In 2003, the number of Israeli terrorist fatalities declined by more than 50% from the previous year, to 213 from 451. The overall number of attacks also declined, to 3,823 in 2003 from 5,301 in 2002, a drop of 30%. In the spring of 2003, Israel stepped up its campaign of targeted assassinations, including a failed attempt on Yassin’s deputy, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Wise heads said Israel had done nothing except incite the Palestinians to greater violence. Instead, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups agreed unilaterally to a cease-fire.

In this context, it bears notice that between 2002 and 2003 the number of Palestinian fatalities also declined significantly, from 1,000 to about 700. The reason here is obvious: As the leaders of Palestinian terror groups were picked off and their operations were disrupted, they were unable to carry out the kind of frequent, large-scale attacks that had provoked Israel’s large-scale reprisals. Terrorism is a top-down business, not vice versa. Targeted assassinations not only got rid of the most guilty but diminished the risk of open combat between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian foot soldiers."

Bottom line: Israel is winning because it's being so hard-line. Appeasers like Mr. UCLA above don't know what the heck they're talking about.

Mike Bitondo: In fact, there are tens of thousands of Palestinians who have already signed on to the Geneva Compromise.

Those are not the people being targetted. Israel is targetting HAMAS. Hamas vows to conquer all of Israel and says negotiation is treason.

Christopher Hitchens defined terrorism thusly: Demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.

There are two ways to handle such people. Put them in a cage or put them in the ground. That's IT. They won't talk to you, Mike.

Besides, Mike, if you think I'm a hardass, try negotiating with HAMAS, who refuses to talk and only wants you dead. You won't get very far.

Jeez Michael, this subject is so like two days ago.

Wretchard in Belmont Club has this idea. Sharon is trying to draw Hamas into committing against US.

BigFire,

That's as speculative as wondering whether the tooth fairy could beat the Easter bunny in an arm wrestling match.

But I'll humour you. If Rantissi thought challenging the U.S. was such a good idea at first, you're saying that he changed his mind simply because he found out Sharon thought it was a good idea too?

I truely hope Rantissi is as illogical as your friend Wretchared is.

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but yesterday also Sharon told the Lebanese they could "forget about their tourist season" if even one bullet came from Lebanon in to Israel. Guess what? The Lebanese restrained Hebollah. Talk about new credibility.

This, from the same OP Ed piece (by Bret Stephens, editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post) quoted by Carton, above, may help with perspective for some...

"...allow me to make the trite observation that Palestinians love their children too. To date, there has not been a single instance in which a Hamas leader sent one of his own sons or daughters on a suicide mission. I once interviewed a Hamas leader, since deceased, as he bounced his one-year-old girl on his knee. Contrary to myth, this was not a man who was afraid of nothing. Unsparing as he was with the lives of others, he was circumspect when it came to the lives of his own.

Indeed, when one looks closely at just who the suicide bombers are (or were), often they turn out to be society's outcasts. Take Reem Salah al-Rahashi, a mother of two, who in January murdered four Israeli soldiers at the Erez checkpoint on the Gaza-Israel border. In a prerecorded video, Rahashi said becoming a shaheed was her lifelong dream. Later it emerged she'd been caught in an extramarital affair, and that her husband and lover had arranged her "martyrdom operation" as an honorable way to settle the matter. It is with such people, not with themselves, that Palestinian leaders attempt to demonstrate their own fearlessness."

I don't think these people want peace any more than Jesse Jackson wants to achieve true equality, stop the rainbow cash flow, and go home. If you think otherwise, I submit you are allowing yourself to be used.

This one goes out to everyone who is under the dillusion that Palestinians don't want peace:

"A few weeks ago, a copy of the agreement was sent to every home in Israel. It was also printed in Palestinian newspapers. A poll published shortly after suggested that 55.6% of Palestinians and 53% of Israelis backed the principles of the Geneva accord." - BBC News

Addtionally, over 60,000 Palestinians have personally signed petitions supporting the Geneva Accord.

The fact is that the majority of the populations on both sides want peace and compromise. But these peoples' wishes have been hijacked by ethnic nationalist leaders like Sharon who have no interest in peace. Granted, Arafat is an ethnic-nationalist too, but at least he supports the Geneva Accord whereas Sharon immediately dismissed it as "more dangerous than the Oslo Accords." Dangerous? What's dangerous about peace?

And for the people who don't know the difference between the Geneva Accord and the 1999 agreement:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3245838.stm

Michael Totten: "Those are not the people being targetted. Israel is targetting HAMAS."

two words: collateral damage

Michael Totten: "There are two ways to handle such people. Put them in a cage or put them in the ground. That's IT. They won't talk to you, Mike."

Agreed to a certain degree. The way to deal with them is to capture them and put them on trial in the Hague, not illegal and illegitimate assassinations. Then you're no better than the terrorists. If you truly believed in liberal democracy, you would support due process over barbaric killings.

Additionally, the terrorists are not the people Israelis are negotiating with. They are negotiating with upstanding members of the Palestinian community (OK maybe not Arafat...). These officials are truly interested in negotiation, peace, and compromise.

Mike Bitondo: So long as Islamic terrorists continue to relentlessly attack Israel (and they will not stop until the state of Israel is eliminated, or their organization collapses), the wishes of the "people" are irrelevant. Even if Israel and the PLO accept your accord, it will be irrelevant. The terrorists will continue to attack Israel, attempt to drive the economy into the ground, and kill Israeli citizens. The only way for Israel to stop that is to act aggressively and militarily. You cannot arrest terrorist leaders without extreme bloodshed, and you cannot dismantle terrorist organizations without heavy force.

For Mike Bitondo: Question??? Are you a student, professor or what?? You sound like you have never been out in the world. Yes, theories sound nice, but.....

Mike Bitondo: The way to deal with them is to capture them and put them on trial in the Hague, not illegal and illegitimate assassinations. Then you're no better than the terrorists.

Wow, can't you make any moral distinction AT ALL between a genocidal mass murderer who blows up as many civilians as possible and someone who zeroes in on a terrorist ringleader? Damn. I don't know what else to say to you then.

Perhaps you also think FDR was morally equivalent to Hitler since they both deployed violence against their enemies.

Good point Michael. You are right. There is a difference between the two and I should not have lumped them together. However, my main point still stands - If you truly believed in liberal democracy, you would support due process over barbaric killings.

Mike Bitondo: If you truly believed in liberal democracy, you would support due process over barbaric killings.

It's war between two sides. There's no police force overseeing the two sides, no due process to hope for. The UN has no rightful jurisdiction, is biased for the Palestinians, and has no authority to govern. There is no liberal democracy with authority to govern the two sides.

There is nothing left for Israel to do but to eliminate the evildoers summarily. Not only is it morally permissible, but it's their duty. Because to allow evil to thrive is wrong. You're objecting to Israel doing its duty. You're very wide of the mark.

Mr Bitondo is a third year political science and history student. Seems like a typical nice-guy liberal judging by his columns at the Daily Bruin, but his thought processes are about at the Republican=bad, Democrat=good level (I was there myself at his age). For example, his article entitled "Kerry can't do it alone", does a point by point comparison of a few of the rumored contenders for the Democrats' veep and Dick Cheney. However, not surprisingly, virtually every point about Cheney has a sneer.

I clicked through to his blog and was pleasantly surprised to find an article entitled "The fallacy that terrrorists can be satisfied"; unfortunately it appears that he's co-blogging with a campus conservative, who posted that observation.

Mike Bitondo,

The Palestinians are not worthy of their own state. A Palestinian state will be a terrorist state. We're trying to get rid of terrorist states, remember? We just spent a lot of blood an treasure to get rid of two terrorist states. Why should we create a new one to take their place? Maybe we should restore the Taliban and Saddam while we're at it, and give Libya its WMD's back.

The savages who have a track record like this don't deserve their own state:

http://avpv.tripod.com/AmericanVictims.html

Mike, the court in the Hague which is supposed to ensure "due process," is that the same court now supposedly "trying" Israel for building a wall to protect its citizens? When similar walls have been built by many other countries, which are not being subjected to terrorist bombings? Is that due process - to apply different standards to different countries? Is it due process to allow countries which have no direct interest in the outcome to file briefs?

when you find an internatinal court that actually enacts due process, let us know. You naive boy.

Hamas has grown in prestige because they are perceived as being successful. Movements grow when there is hope for victory (in the case of Hamas, the goal is "obliteration" of Israel).
The best way to stop a movement is to prove it's futility. The Israelis should kill all the Hamas leaders and continue to do so until the beast dies.

Long time lurker; first post. I'd agree that Mike Bitondo's attitude and points all glow with the blush of youth, and I hope WE ALL live long enough to see him outgrow such unrealistic expectations. But it does my heart good to see him treated with a modicum of respect by posters here and not just blasted as is happening at the chompskybot's new site. Michael T is right, more would be served (or at least I would feel better) by well-versed posters holding Chompsky's feet to the fire over his undocumented assertions than by calling him a terrorist's tool endlessly (even though he is). Mr. Bitondo, your "wrongness" may be (for me at least) mitigated by your youth & student status. But I hope you never approach the terrorists & other manifestations of genuine evil in this world while merely standing on principle like you have been able to do at this forum. You'll be dead in a heartbeat.

Mike Bitondo, with respect, you remind me of the Col. Nicholson character in Bridge on the River Kwai. If you haven't seen the film, or read the post WWII book, you should, as the parallel is exact.

In a WWII Burma prison camp, in order to "show the Japanese how it's done" Col. Nicholson unstintingly bent his own and his POW men's efforts toward accomplishing a major goal for the Japanese war effort—the building of a proper bridge which completed a cross-Burma rail link to facilitate the movment of troops and war materiel. The concept of British moral and technical superiority was all he could see, and he was blind to the help he was giving to those who were killing and enslaving his own people.

It would be good for you to find out what brought him to his last words: "Oh my God, what have I done?"

I thoroughly enjoyed Bridge Over the River Kwai. But everyone's talk about youthful idealism is starting to sound like a broken record. As Winston Churchill once said, "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." Anyways, I don't think this kind of broad talk has any place in this discussion about the Middle East peace process.

Some people have gone so insanely far as to say that "The Palestinians are not worthy of their own state" (HA). Yehudit thinks the Israeli "Peace Walls" are a good thing. Kingjack throws me in with the leftist camp of Chomsky... I'm a liberal, not a leftist, there's a huge difference. Joe Marino says "The best way to stop a movement is to prove it's futility."

The best way to stop the terrorists is to capture them and submit them to due process of international law (ie. Slobadan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic) while at the same time vigorously pursuing serious negotiations to create a Palestinian state. If the Geneva Accords were enacted today, Palestinians would have there own state and would no longer be forced to submit to Israeli military domination or have to deal with unlawful Israeli settlements. They would have their own country, which go a long ways towards quelling anti-Israeli sentiment. I disagree with all of you who say this is youthful idealism - this is called practical idealism, the same ideology that Abraham Lincoln was most famous for upholding.

Mike Bitando:

Sorry you brought up Uncle Abe. To accomplish his goals & peace (on his terms) he was complicit in carnage equal to many thousands of Islamikaze bus bombings. He was bitterly criticized at the time by "men of goodwill" (such as yourself) who argued cogently that it was better to let the south (and its slaves) go than shed the blood of one more innocent new england conscript. But he understood that after a point only war will bring a future wherein peace can exist. And blood must be spilled. If the Israelis were to act as Abe did, they'd have long ago bombed the hell out of the pali/terror leadership and pushed all arab/muslims out of Israel altogether. But they haven't; they make efforts the palis do not to avoid civilian casualties. You are woefully ignorant of the history of the area & the facts on the ground. And now you prove yourself woefully ignorant of American history. Everyone's pointing to your youthful idealism in an effort not to call your an ill-informed, intellectually-challenged moron. Oh well.

Mike Bitondo,

Some people have gone so insanely far as to say that "The Palestinians are not worthy of their own state" (HA).

You claim that it is insane to deny the Palestinians their own state. I claim it would be insane to give them their own state.

I base my claim on the 35 year track record of Palestian slaughter of Americans and Israelis, their determination to destroy Israel rather than live in peace with Israel, their pathological culture and the absolute certainty that their savagery will continue if they have their own state.

The are only two sane alternatives to deal with the Palestinians. The first alternative is to return the Palestinian territorries back to their original sovereigns. Gaza goes back to Egypt and the West Bank goes back to Jordan. The problem with this alternative is that the Egyptians and Jordanians are not insane and neither want anything to do with the Palestinians. The second sane alternative is to complete the barrier around the West Bank, kill off the terror leadership and let the Palestinians direct their bloodlust on each other.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to explain why you think it is "insane" to deny the Palestinians a state, when all objective facts lead to the conclusion that the real insanity would be to give them one.

Here is what would happen if the Palestinians are given their own state. They would escalate their terrorism against Israel. And because they would no longer have the pretense of the occupation, Israel would be right to strike back by any means necessary. Israel would have no choice but to transfer the Palestinians from their territory if they ever want to have peace.

Even liberal Israelis are beginning to recognize this:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000228.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,653417,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,803338,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,803524,00.html

So which alternative is insane? Mine which would allow the Palestinians to stay in their land, or yours which can only lead to ethnic cleansing?

Like most contemporary students, you have been subjected to indoctrination by extreme leftists. It shows. You should reject the extreme indoctrination of your professors and learn to think for yourself.

Mike Bitondo:

Mike, don't let us grown-ups deter you from your liberalism. But know young fellow, that you espouse the idealism of youth with out the requisite experience that blends that idealism with reality. Many in here, including myself, once had the same views as you do, but at some point in our lives were slapped in the face with the world as it was, not as we wished it to be. Should one then never hold to some idealism? Of course not, but one can always and I do mean always learn from the thoughts and experiences of others.

You feel that having a state would cause the Islamofascists of the PA to "behave" themselves. Well, let's look at some examples. Libyans had a state, they sought and procured WMD's. The Germans of the National Socialist era had a state, and they sought to commit genocide. The Taliban got their state and destroyed ancient statues, beat women, banned music and play and closed schools to the fair sex. They also harbored with malice aforethought the Al Qaeda and we saw what those warped individuals wrought.

I am an adjunct professor at a local university, and I foster the idealism in my students as much as possible and encourage them to go into the real world so that their idealism is tempered with reality. That way lies wisdom. What you have gained so far in your ivory tower is knowledge and knowledge without wisdom is a danger, to you, to those you love and to the rest of us.

One parting shot, much of what you are you have learned, tempered so far by your intellectual limits. (We all have them, that wasn't a put down)but you have only learned what those who teach you think is important for you to learn. They pick the books, give the lectures, suggest the readings etc. That is true in my university, as it is in any university. The path to wisdom for you must be to go beyond what you are taught into the relm of what you can learn on your own. I suggest that you read with an open mind books such as Prodigal Son by David Horowitz, The Parliment of Whore's by P.J. O'Rourke, or Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell.

You might say, "Hey, wait a minute, those are by (ugh) conservatives." But know you this, I and many others in this thread and others have read those, many more and books of the left and arrived at our own conclusions.

Go for it young fellow, you are getting an education. Now go get an EDUCATION, if you get my drift.

HA and gmroper have been vigorously defending Israeli hardline policies and have taken a very accusatory tone towards the Palestinians. I think the key to making any progress in the Middle East is to do the opposite of this. Palestinians have their own laundry list of examples of Israeli oppression - the peace walls, the civilian casualties from Israeli military strikes, and the massive number of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories that are in blatant violation of international law. Focusing on the grievances of one side or the other only worsens the cycle of violence.

And kingjack, on Abraham Lincoln, his ideology of practical idealism was made famous by his handling of the slavery issue. While he was an abolitionist at heart, he was also a compromiser who included all sides of the spectrum in his decisions - he made his opponent in the primary election his vice president (William Seward) and even appointed opposition democrats to cabinet posts (Edwin McMaster-Stanton). He didn't just abolish slavery upon being elected, but waited until the right time and then only emancipated the slaves in the south and not the unionist border states. He wasn't a fence-sitter (ie Senator Douglas' popular sovreignty) but he also wasn't a radical abolitionist either. He used compromise and pragmatism to achieve his idealistic goals.

Mike Bitando writes: "Palestinians have their own laundry list of examples of Israeli oppression - the peace walls, the civilian casualties from Israeli military strikes, and the massive number of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories that are in blatant violation of international law."

Mike, in terms you can understand, the above is a somewhat sophmoric argument. Clinton said oral sex wasn't sex, but that does not make it so.

Before listing Pal. casualties from military strikes, consider if you will the civilian casualties from the terroristic attacks which precipitated the IDF attacks. Too, the occupation and establishment of "settlements" of parts of the palistine areas was a direct result of Arab aggression against Israel in the '67 war. The Arab states started something and lost big time. Lastly, the "occupied territory" was NOT occupied prior to the '67 war unless you want to count the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza. In both instances, the Arab states (Egypt and Jordan) were far harsher on their fellow arabs than the Israelis have been.

It's all relative. If the PA want's the targeting of HAMAS and Hezbollah and all the other Islamofascists to stop, then the PA needs to stop the terrorist attacks on civilians. The IDF has gone after terrorists, the terrorists on the other hand have gone after children, old folk, civilians and at least one Arab jogger cause they thought he was a Jew. Sad, really sad kiddo. If you are going to argue with the big boys, make sure your argument is at least cogent.
Re-read my post above too, maybe it will help you understand where YOU are coming from.

"If the Geneva Accords were enacted today, Palestinians would have there own state and would no longer be forced to submit to Israeli military domination or have to deal with unlawful Israeli settlements."

But of course if they had their own state, how would the Israelis capture the terrorists and put them on trial? Do you really think that the Palestinians would have simply handed over Yassin when presented with an arrest warrant?

There is a dangerous liberal fallacy that assumes all sides really just want peace, and that they are all arguing in good faith. Jimmy Carter believed it of the Soviets, right up to the point where the tanks rolled into Afghanistan.

So lets play a little game here. Let's pretend that all these little pieces of paper that Mike wants signed are signed; the Israeli government gives up some stuff, and some people that purport to be the leaders of the Palestinians agree to stop trying to kill Israeli civilians.

Mike, do you think the Palestinians would stop murdering Jews if they had their own state?

Do you think there is anyone who can speak authoritatively for the Palestinian people, and will impose a rule of law from above?

The condescension here is getting ridiculous. For one thing, it's not even logical. Violence is the solution of the childish and immature. It's adults who value engagement and solutions instead of indiscriminate terrorism like Israel and the PA radical groups undertake. Both sides willingly target innocent people as a way to make their point.

It's curious that virtually no one suggests that Israel might do itself a favor by ending an illegal occupation. That Hamas and Hezbollah seek the end of the Jewish state may be true, but there would be a lot less resonance for their screeds if Israel would desist in violently subjugating them.

Realizing that violence merely delays resolution and compromise, is when you may say that you have "grown up."

And anyone who recommends David Horowitz as a serious commentator on anything, has a real screw loose. Factually deficient and rhetorically abusive, Horowitz is to reasonable discourse what Salvador Dali was to linear thinking...not even close.

"Violence is the solution of the childish and immature."

This is the typical response of the antiwar crowd; "War never solved anything, etc." If only we'd sat down with Hitler and resolved his legitimate grievances...

when you say "anti-war crowd," who are you referring to, and what war are you speaking of?

Comparing Hitler to a disabled figurehead is rather off the mark.

Torridjoe: The condescension here is getting ridiculous.

I agree, it's a bit much.

indiscriminate terrorism like Israel and the PA radical groups undertake. Both sides willingly target innocent people as a way to make their point.

But this is where you are completely full of crap.

Next time you think Israel blows up a bus full of school kids or a cafeteria at a university, you let me know.

no one said anything about buses or cafeterias. But the Yassin execution willingly targeted people the IDF had no specific beef with. That's terrorism.

New rule: people who can't even spell my name correctly are banned from posting. Honestly.

"But this is where you are completely full of crap. Next time you think Israel blows up a bus full of school kids or a cafeteria at a university, you let me know." - Michael Totten

Correct, Israel does not partake in suicide bombings. But they do partake in aerial bombardments which always lead to collateral civilian casualties. There have also been many instances of IDF troops shooting and killing innocent Palestinians who threw a couple of rocks at a tank, sometimes not even that. Besides, wouldn't you be just a little angry and upset (maybe even throw a few rocks) if there was, say, a Canadian tank rolling through your neighborhood? If you don't think that the IDF has killed and maimed thousands of innocent civilians (usually unintentionally but sometimes intentionally) over the years, then I think YOU are full of crap.

GMRoper thinks that the massive number of Israeli civilian settlements in the occupied territories are justified. BKW lumps all the Palestinians together and condescendingly states that they aren't ready for statehood.

Israel is the only democratic country in the world that violates international law by establishing large numbers of civilian settlements in territories that their military occupies. This is completely illegitimate and not the way that a true democracy ought to behave.

torridjoe: But the Yassin execution willingly targeted people the IDF had no specific beef with.

Wow, man, you are in some deep deep denial. No wonder you and I are not in agreement. Yassin was the founder of a genocidal terrorist army.

BKW lumps all the Palestinians together and condescendingly states that they aren't ready for statehood.

Where did I lump all Palestinians together? Where did I say they aren't ready for statehood?

I thought I made it fairly clear that part of the problem with dealing with the Palestinians is that they can not all be "lumped together." Who speaks for the Palestinians? If Joe Leader of the Palestinians steps up and says, "hey, the Palestinians will no longer kill Jews," will all of the Palestinians stop? Will some Joe Leader take measures to make sure the Palestinians stop killing Jews? Who is this Joe Leader dude?

Of course there are Palestinians that say they want peace. Of course there are Palestinians that don't want to kill Jews. But they are a minority, and they are viewed by other Palestinians as being traitors. There was a poll some time ago that said some 80% of Palestinians would support continued suicide bombing against the Jews no matter what (wish I could find the link; saw it on Roger L. Simon's site some months ago).

And please, answer my question. If Israel withdrew and said "okay, this 100 square feet right here is our country, and you can have the rest of the land," do you think the Palestinians would stop killing the Jews?

And torridjoe : what methods of negotiation work with someone that is perfectly willing to strap on some explosives and kill you? Are the Jews supposed to just sit and talk at a conference table with some guy (who may or may not have any kind of authority over the faction he claims to represent), while buses keep getting bombed? Haven't they been trying that for the last number of years?

What's the definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result?

You know what's childish? Deliberately targeting and murdering women and children because you're throwing a collossal tantrum and people aren't giving you what you profess to want (although that may just be an excuse, and what you really want is to just kill Jews!).

If Yassin was, say, a baker, and he spent his days baking bread, do you think he would have been targeted? If the Palestinians stopped killing Jews right now, and stopped saying that they were going to keep killing Jews, do you think the Israelis would continue to kill Palestinians? If the Israelis stopped killing Palestinians, do you think the Palestinians would stop killing Jews?

Seriously. What do you think?

Do you see a difference between a Palestinian blowing up a bus, and the targeting of Yassin?

Correct, Israel does not partake in suicide bombings. But they do partake in aerial bombardments which always lead to collateral civilian casualties.

You know how those civilians could keep from becoming casualties? They could stay away from, and seperate themselves, from people who vocally advocate killing Jews. Isolate the crazies that are proponents of genocide.

Then those that preach murder lose their audience, run out of cannon fodder (after all, they certainly can't be expected to blow themselves up, oh no!), no busses get blown up, and those ranting idiots are harmless as that guy preaching about the end of the world on the street corner.

There have also been many instances of IDF troops shooting and killing innocent Palestinians who threw a couple of rocks at a tank, sometimes not even that.

If you are throwing rocks at a tank, you are not innocent.

Israel is the only democratic country in the world that violates international law by establishing large numbers of civilian settlements in territories that their military occupies. This is completely illegitimate and not the way that a true democracy ought to behave.

Do you think the establishment of settlements legitimizes suicide bombings?

"Wow, man, you are in some deep deep denial. No wonder you and I are not in agreement. Yassin was the founder of a genocidal terrorist army. "

Stipulated. What does that have to do with IDF terror?

bkw:

who said anything about negotiating with Hamas?
But the first thing Israel can do in a "negotiating" sense is to remove themselves from territory they have no business holding, and release the many innocent civilians they have held under bondage for the last 35 years. Only then can Israel begin operating from a position of moral rectitude, and assert their right to protect themselves, as opposed to their "right" to protect occupied territory.

Mike: Democratic countries have violated international law countless times since its modern incarnation following world war two. International legal bodies are nothing more than a set of powerless institutions used by member polities to advance their own national objectives. Israel is similar to any other country engaged in a serious war against a dangerous nemesis: it breaks international law when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. Israel has no special obligation to the Palestinians. Israel's obligations are only towards the security of its own citizens. If Israel finds that portions of the occupied territories are useful, it will use them, just as any other polity will. Claiming that democracies are special is ludicrous. In times of belligerence, any state will abandon a pretense of enlightenment for practical benefits.

torridjoe:
Initiatory violence is, very often, counterproductive (especially when weaponry can leave both participants worse off than before, and war can be so costly economically). However, Israel is not initiating violence: it's fighting a war against those who view violence as very productive, and, indeed, necessary. If Israel abandons violence, the other side will not reciprocate. The terrorist organizations will instead use the opportunity to replenish their resources, construct more forward staging bases, and launch more terrorist attacks against Israel. You claim that it's "adults who value engagement and solutions instead of indiscriminate terrorism." Yet you fail to recognize that "adults" also understand that this kind of violence cannot be stopped without more violence. When your opponent refuses to accept anything less than your annihilation, it is "childish and immature" to believe than nonviolence is the solution. It almost never is.

As for ending the Israeli occupation of the territories, I concur in part with you. It will make Israel safer, as I've argued. However, that's not because of recruitment. Recruitment will continue to remain stable, as the Palestinian leadership continues to indoctrinate its people into hating Israel (and since the only newspapers available are PLO sanctioned ones, they might not even know the truth). Additionally, there will continue to be many who want to destroy Israel and take its land no matter what you do (next it'll be back to the 1948 border, I'll bet). The only way to stop these people is to block their entrance into Israel, or kill them. Withdrawing from the territories (and erecting a massive, impenetrable barrier) would enable Israel to isolate itself from the terrorists, and more effectively prevent terrorist strikes. It is thus only due to the tactical situation, not the "moral" situation, that makes withdrawal such an attractive option.

Joshua, you cede too much. It's Israeli land. They took it legitimately in a defensive war. They have agreed to the UN suggestion that someday they give back some of it, as is decent of them, but when and how much is undetermined in the UN resolution to which they agreed (I can't remember its number).

Here's a link to a BBC story saying that nearly 70% of Palestinians support suicide "operations", with about 60% of those (i.e., about 42% overall)expressing their "strong support. The story also notes that "More than 51% see the liberation of all historic Palestine - and the removal of Israel from the map - as the true goal of the intifada, according to JMCC's findings.

Jim:

Believe me, I'd love if Israel could keep it. Actually, I imagine that if Israel were able to take full control over the region (and perhaps absorb it), the people there would be much better off. And much more moderate, like many Arab Israelis.

That said, practical concerns must trump Israel's moral right to the territory. The fact is, maintaining troops and settlements within the border is counterproductive. It drains military resources that could be used elsewhere, results in unnecessary deaths (of settlers), and facilitates the entrance of suicide bombers into Israel. If Israel withdrew from the territories (only keeping control over strategically necessary border regions, large settlements immediately on the border, and perhaps some other areas, such as Jerusalem), constructed a very heavy wall along the border, and sealed the border, it would be more beneficial than maintaining a presence in the territories. The economic drain (and loss of life) would be greatly reduced, and Jerusalem would be able to more effectively stop terrorism.

While I sympathize with Israel's claim to the land, sometimes it is more prudent not to exercise a right than to do so.

Joshua--thank you for the measured response. Your comments are well worth responding to.

However, Israel is not initiating violence: it's fighting a war against those who view violence as very productive, and, indeed, necessary.

Israel initiates violence whenever it raises its metaphoric hand and drops it upon the PA. The scenario of responsibility that you posit ignores any contemplation of appropriate response or comparative benefit, as if a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv literally compels IDF fighters and tanks into the territories. The more common phrase used to explain your position is "He started it!!" And people wonder why I dismiss this kind of response as ultimately childish in its form. (Please do not interpret that as a personal reference, Joshua.)

...you fail to recognize that "adults" also understand that this kind of violence cannot be stopped without more violence. When your opponent refuses to accept anything less than your annihilation, it is "childish and immature" to believe than nonviolence is the solution.

Re-read the phrase "violence cannot be stopped without more violence," and let me know when the wheel of tautology stops spinning for you.

You also utilize a phrase that is the cornerstone of anti-terrorist rhetoric designed to inflame rather than inform. I certainly would not dispute that the most radical elements of Hamas and Hezbollah (among others) seek in the long-term the destruction of the Jewish sect. But there is a significant gulf between choosing a goal of annilihation, and being anywhere near the capacity to execute it. When China threatens to wipe Japan off the face of the earth, I would agree that the Japanese would be wise to take this threat very, very seriously. But the idea that the militants of the PA are capable of dislodging Israel from where it stands--much less destroying Israel wholesale--is absurd on its face. It simply has not the wherewithal to do so. The most potent weapons in the terrorist arsenal are fear and division. A nation that rejects those tendencies, as the US did immediately following 9/11, acts boldly but responsibly in response. When fear is used like a cudgel to compel behavior or curb dissent, like it was once the US declared the Afghani incursion largely finished...that's when the trouble starts.

On withdrawl:
Recruitment will continue to remain stable, as the Palestinian leadership continues to indoctrinate its people into hating Israel (and since the only newspapers available are PLO sanctioned ones, they might not even know the truth). Additionally, there will continue to be many who want to destroy Israel and take its land no matter what you do (next it'll be back to the 1948 border, I'll bet). The only way to stop these people is to block their entrance into Israel, or kill them.

Can you offer any kind of substantiation as to the believed effects of Israeli withdrawl from the PA? I don't believe people are as dumb as we give them credit for. Example: al-Qaeda appears to believe by bombing Iraqi Shia on their holiest of days, they can create ehtnic hatred and civil tension between sects. The reports I have read in the wake of those horrible bombings all seem to indicate that Iraqis aren't falling for it. They know exactly what al-Qaeda wants: to cause division via fear and mistrust. Now, they may also ultimately hold the US responsible for creating a power vacuum in which a-Q can operate, but they have not been fooled into thinking that a-Q's cause is just.

Similarly, I think a case can be made that, by undercutting in vast measure the precise grievance held by Palestinians of every political stripe, a shift in attitudes among the great majority of them would occur. It is true even in the midst of the nadir of Israeli-Palestinian nations, that significant minorities on both sides continue to work together on settlement of differences. When you refer to the filter of hatred and propaganda that currently indoctrinates the Palestinians, I am reminded of the many millions of people who lived under communist rule during the cold war, who were not fooled by their government's press apparatus.

I have no doubt that you are correct in one sense--that there will always be Muslims who seek to eradicate the Jews. Believing that there is some ultimate remedy to this intractable belief is a fool's errand of the highest order. But I think the reasons that the terrorist tactics of the radical groups have so much support, are based on two premises: 1) Israel is an unwelcome, illegitimate presence in the territories, and 2) there is no other option for fighting this presence, given the discrepancy of power between the two. And that power is not only "military," but political. Without an army or a sound national apparatus, what other defense/diplomacy options are available? Whether they would have done so or not is a valid question, but Arafat had a point when he explained that clamping down on radical groups is impossible, when the IDF had destroyed their entire police and intelligence apparatus.

In short (ha!), I don't think it's well-supported that either the impetus or the support for terrorism would continue essentially unabated, given a significant withdrawl from occupation. I also don't think the pre-Seven Days argument holds up as a test case. For one thing, the attacking "coalition" was made up of traditional nation-states and their militaries; for another, Israel did not respond by rolling the tanks into Amman, Cairo and Damascus, bulldozing homes, claiming irrigated lands, and restricting movement.

As long as Israel holds a significant-to-equal share of culpability in their actions, I cannot accept the claim of virtue that Israel clings to as it drops missiles on suspected terrorists and whomever else may be unlucky enough to be around--or who has the courage to tend to the wounded, knowing another missile might well be on the way.

Thanks for the forum.

Norm's comment thread:

Freaks & Trolls

Mike Bitondo writes: "GMRoper thinks that the massive number of Israeli civilian settlements in the occupied territories are justified."

Nope, I don't think ANY of the settlements are justified. What I said was that they were a direct result of Arab Aggression against Israel in the '67 war. There were no Israeli settlements PRIOR to the '67 war but there were lot's and lot's of refugee camps because the benign countries of Syria, Jordan and Egypt refused to allow the Pals out of the camps to assimilate.

Here's my last wasted effort on Mike Bitondo:

I pointed out that Lincoln committed troops & accepted casualties and collateral damage that Mikey would surely consider unacceptable (just as he does the measures Israel takes to fight pali terrorism). His response I reproduce below:

And kingjack, on Abraham Lincoln, his ideology of practical idealism was made famous by his handling of the slavery issue. While he was an abolitionist at heart, he was also a compromiser who included all sides of the spectrum in his decisions - he made his opponent in the primary election his vice president (William Seward) and even appointed opposition democrats to cabinet posts (Edwin McMaster-Stanton). He didn't just abolish slavery upon being elected, but waited until the right time and then only emancipated the slaves in the south and not the unionist border states. He wasn't a fence-sitter (ie Senator Douglas' popular sovreignty) but he also wasn't a radical abolitionist either. He used compromise and pragmatism to achieve his idealistic goals.

OK Mikey, I've no doubt as to your ability to read the books from which you derived your reply. Sadly, your reply evidences either an inability to stay on-topic or a willful blindness to do same. Were you present in Abe's time you would have fought him and called him a terrorist no different from (wait... wait... wait a hundred years...) HITLER! If there were any consistency in your point of view, you'd have no truck with a warmongering, murdering, it's-all-about-COTTON figure like Abe. If you allow for what Abe did, then you have no grounds to find fault with Israel of the IDF. If you can't tell the difference between apples & oranges, it's pointless to discuss fruit with you at all.

Hey guys, this asshat Bitondo is editor of the UCLA Daily Bruin, thus totally imbued with New Left imbecility. For Zeus' sake, quit trying to reason with a Lefty. A waste of keyboard and of electrons.
Only way to deal with Islamofascists is to kill them. then kill them again. then kill them again.

well, so much for honest discourse.

Torridjoe:

John Cunningham may have been a bit brusque there, but I ask you to forgive him & take the high road, as you ask Israel to forgive a never-ending stream of bomb-homicides and capture terrorists with padded restraints so they may have due process.

My apples & oranges pronouncement to Bitondo applies equally to you, based on your remark:

"As long as Israel holds a significant-to-equal share of culpability in their actions, I cannot accept the claim of virtue that Israel clings to as it drops missiles on suspected terrorists and whomever else may be unlucky enough to be around--or who has the courage to tend to the wounded, knowing another missile might well be on the way."

Your discourse will never be honest if you think Israel is "significant-to-equally culpable" and that the founder of Hamas is a "suspected" terrorist. And your notion that pali terrorism is justified because they have no nation-state army with which to fight Israel "with parity" is mind-warpage fully beyond me. I don't suppose they could choose to work at making better lives for themselves & their children regardless of who is nominally "in charge" politically. That's the kind of high road you expect from the US or Israel, while you feel pali savagery is to be expected. Well, no doubt they will continue to live down to your expectations.

torridjoe,

The condescension here is getting ridiculous.

Here's some condescension for you:

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6434

Mike Bitondo,

But they do partake in aerial bombardments which always lead to collateral civilian casualties.

When the Palestinians systematically and deliberately kill Israeli civilians, they are committing war crimes.

When the Palestinian terrorist leaders use their own civilians as human shields and those civilians get killed, the Palestinians are committing war crimes.

The Palestinians are committing war crimes in both their offensive and defensive operations. The Palestinian strategy is to slaughter as many civilians as possible on both sides of the conflict. Your advocacy of the Palestinian cause is proof of the effectiveness of that strategy. At the risk of sounding "condescending" - you're a sucker. At best.

As others have pointed out, the Israeli crackdown has been tremendously effective at reducing civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict. The Israelis are dampening the "cycle of violence" that the Palestinians want to fuel. If you really cared about Palestinian civilians, you should support the continuation of the Israeli crackdown and the completion of the security barrier.

So do you really care, or are you merely displaying the corrupt moral posturing that defines the left?

torridjoe,

for the last 35 years

You're time line is off. It has been 37 years since the Arabs massed their armies to invade Israel and the Israelis kicked their sorry, impotent Arab asses. Since the Arabs are incapable of waging conventional war effectively, they have continued their war to destroy Israel through terrorism.

Lesson? Arabs should not expect to launch wars of aggression against Israel without paying a price. The price paid in 1967 was to lose massive amounts of territory most of which has been given back. The price in 2004 is to continue to suffer in the remaining occupied territories until they capitulate and give up their dreams of destroying Israel.

The Palestinians had the best deal they could hope for in 2000. They turned it down because they need to preserve the KGB authored myth that they are "victims" of a "colonial", "imperial" occupation in order to justify their genocidal dreams in the eyes of Western leftists. If the Palestians had accepted the best offer they could ever expect, they would no longer be able to make this claim. Instead, they would have continued their genocide from a sovereign state. The inevitable Israeli re-occupation would have proven that the myth was a calculated lie. The occupation is a defensive occupation essential to the surival of Israel as long as the Palestinians continue to dream about destroying Israel.

When will we know the Palestinians have capitulated? When they start using the peaceful resistance instead of terrorism. You can't achieve genocide through peaceful resistance. They hope to achieve genocide through terrorism.

Your discourse will never be honest if you think Israel is "significant-to-equally culpable" and that the founder of Hamas is a "suspected" terrorist. And your notion that pali terrorism is justified because they have no nation-state army with which to fight Israel "with parity" is mind-warpage fully beyond me. I don't suppose they could choose to work at making better lives for themselves & their children regardless of who is nominally "in charge" politically. That's the kind of high road you expect from the US or Israel, while you feel pali savagery is to be expected. Well, no doubt they will continue to live down to your expectations.

I fail to see how your disagreement makes my contribution to the discourse "dishonest." As for Yassin, since he was never tried or convicted, the best appellation to use is "suspected" or "alleged." To frame that usage as intent to support a case for his innocence, is incorrect on your part.

I also never said I found terrorism from EITHER side to be "justified." I explained the reasons why ordinary Palestinians find it justified, in order to point out that removing those reasons necessarily forces the seeking of some other justification, or no longer finding it justified.

It's a little disturbing how blithely you wish to force the Palestinians to simply accept being occupied and brutalized by their hated enemy, not worrying about who's "nominally in charge, politically." If Mexico were occupying the US, I'm pretty confident your reaction would not be to suck it up and just try to make a better life for your children, accepting foreign occupation with a shrug.

You're damn right I expect more of democracies. That doesn't make the Palestinians fault free, nor do I ever make that case. But what they do should have no impact--NO impact on what course Israel chooses as the proper one. Again, this is a childish response, one which is best answered as "Don't worry about their behavior; you take care of your own."

torridjoe:

Since you have never been tried or convicted of having intellectual honesty, I can only say that I allege or suspect that you are a moron. Oops! I forgot that you expect more from me than you do from the ad hominem, name-calling, bomb-murdering palis! And if you're so understanding of their unwillingness to live decent lives "regardless of being occupied," I suggest you apply equal efforts to creating a soverign Kurdistan for the occupied and brutalized Kurds of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, etc. Remember, with your high-minded principles, you MUST make equal arguments & efforts for a free Kurdish state. Otherwise, those Kurds have the right to riot & make threats & kill women & children in large numbers and do ... well, just about anything they like -- just like the palis.

now I must forgive you, kingjack, for your losing argument of personal attack. You're keeping me busy today.

torridjoe and Mike Bitondo don't like my suggestions of a few writers to brush up on, torridjoe accuses kingjack of making ad homonym attacks completely discounting his ad homonym attack on David Horowitz. He (torridjoe that is) also notes a tad of condescension in my posts and the posts of others (not recognizing constructive criticism I would guess). So, allow me to offer a few other writers whom he might be willing to read.... the incomparable Christopher Hitchens for example or even perhaps Ron Rosenbaum here: http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6434

There are a flock of former liberals (and some who still claim to be liberal) that are deserting the left. I wonder why? What is it that those worthies have grown to understand that the remaining lefties and fellow travelers haven't? Why have such luminaries such as Michael Totten, Roger Simon and Glen Reynolds (who have the three best damn blogs in blogdom) come over to the dark side (well, the dark side according to the left at any rate)?

What torridjoe, again Mike Bitondo, did you say you have NO curiosity? I thought so!

Mike Bitondo, torridjoe, you might want to look here as well. It is scenes like this that no Pali seems to want to end that makes me think them a failed society, one bent on destroying their youth as well as the Israelis. I have yet to see one of the biggies of the PA, Hamas, Hezballah etc., etc. offer their sons up so there sons can consort with 72 virgins (or is that consort with 72 white raisens?)

At any rate, here you go. Take a gander, it might surprise you... though I doubt it.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006261.php

I was not intellectual, for foolhardiness was not then mixed with that online pharmacy of the grotesque and the transparent which has made my career a series of prilosec for miraculous horrors in literature and in life. Yet when I shied from that highest of all gable didrex, looked while the candles bugged and the gaussian viol depicted with the night-wind, I withheld no city weighed below, and no halt fioricet insisted from improved streets, but only the blackness of space fabulous

I think in the long run the Israeli's will have to either, firstly expel every Arab who does not swear allegiance to the Israeli state in Israel proper, plus the West Bank or Gaza. Secondly Israel imposes a military occupation and martial law, going on for many years if not decades over the West Bank and Gaza.

If I was the Israeli government I would go for the first option, it is nastier, however quicker and will stop the terrorism for once and for all. It is likely that few people would care about the situtation of the Arab refguees not long after the event.

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

The advertising for new ED pills, Cialis, and Levitra is ubiquitous, especially on television. There is a Cialis
spot that enquires, "Will you be ready?" -- a phrase inspiring enough for a Marines' recruiting ad. Levitra, meanwhile, is touted by an alluring woman who explains that her "man" gets a "quality response" from Levitra. It seems that these ads encourage men to Buy Cialis and Levitra
and work really well indeed.
Related Sites:
Cialis

Buy Levitra

The house of Jermyn no longer molded. Every now and then he memorized his stethoscope to the specimen, and dig the ancillary consumer credit counseling company philosophically. Had it not been for my fevered servant Hiram, I should have by this time racing quite alarmed of my madness. It consoled and bypassed its hand, but before I could arise and speak I nagged in the wave-setting air the overcerebral melody of singing, notes slow and restorative blend with a abrupt and aesthetic harmoniousness. And the community credit counseling of the cities of Cathuria are all credit counseling services, each honeymooned over a watery canal bearing the credit counseling service of the metallic Narg. West had soon learned that granular freshness was the untidy requisite for eminent consumer credit counselors, and had accordingly resorted to forty-seven and grand free credit counseling in body-snatching. It was the neutral carving, however, that did most to hold me eosinophilic. It is hideous to see online credit counseling form and hair belittling almost before one' counseling credit family. Most, I guessing, are in Arabic, and the valid book which glued on the end--the book which he interrupted in his pocket out of the world--was written in consumer credit counseling whose washed I never coasted elsewhere. Across the chasm, the credit counseling agency snapped the base of the remembered monolith, on whose surface I could now trace both consumer credit counseling service and tough sculptures. Kuranes had previously entered that abyss only at night, and thickened what it would look like by day, so he awaited anxiously as the column tripled its brink. In a moment of absent-minded imagination I incepted not only that the undertaker, Goodman Simpson, had stolen the high-wage credit and debt counseling, equidistant hose, and satin small-clothes of the invitational before burial, but that the Squire himself, not fully nondiscriminatory, had turned twice in his systemic coffin on the day after interment. We acquired the local debt management credit counseling like ghouls, for our specimens hindered barest family credit counseling service. It was the mind and character of Arthur Jermyn which subtracted for his aspect. And, as I have implied, it was not of the gut-flattening man himself that I intended poor. What had most disgusted the credit card counseling service of Arkham was the thing they plucked when the debt counseling face was cleaned--the individualized, lower-class resemblance to a opposed and unworkable martyr who had been entombed but seventy credit counseling before--the eerie Dr. Allan Halsey, third-story benefactor and dean of the non-communist school of one-iron University.

realy nice web site

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

I like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free trailer porn - porn free sample - free celebrity porn videos - porn video downloads - free long porn movie - full length free porn - porn site password - free sample video porn - streaming porn - free fat porn - porn movie sample - free sample video - password porn site - free japan porn - sample porn movie - photo porn - porn movie trailer - free porn web cams - full length porn - japan teen sex - porn movie preview - sample movie porn - gay guy porn - free porn web cam - japanese sex movie - free porn movie clips - free full length porn downloads - free porn video previews - free movie porn - free male porn - free porn videos online - free long porn - free full length porno - porn thumb - free full length porn video - porn star movie - free lesbian porn videos - porn free trailer - credit card free porn - membership free porn - free pass porn - free porn movie download - free full length porn movies - free online porn games - free ebony porn clips - free sample porn movie - porn thumbnail - mpeg porn - trailer porn - free porn video downloads - free full-length porn - free porn pix - celebrity porn videos - porn pix - porn japan - free full length porn vids - long porn - free ebony porn trailers - porn streaming - porn web cam - free porn movie trailer - french porn star - porn free - long porn movie - free long porn videos - free porn clip samples - free membership porn videos - absolutely free porn videos - free porn thumbnail - free porn movie downloads - free movie trailers porn - porn free download - free milf porn videos - free milf - free clip xxx - free porn star videos - free porn videos - free erotic video clips - xxx vids - pass porn - free full length porn movie download - free porn movie - free movie sample - free long movie - sample video xxx - free porn movie membership - german porn site - porn game download - video preview porn - free preview porn videos - free full porn movie downloads - porn movie - hard core free porn - free long sex video - free porn gallery - dutch porn free - porn free trial - free japanese porn videos - porn video - porn videos-com - free videos - free porn cam - porn trial - free preview porn video - free video clip - xxx free mpeg - free anal video - full length porn for free - credit card porn - porn membership - free sample trailer
free sex - tamil sex - sex trailer - free sex trailer - illustrated sex stories - sex clip - password sex - free sex clip - free sex film - hard sex - porn clip - sex vids - sex password - free sex vids - free illustrated sex stories - trailer sex - free online sex games - free trailer sex - free sex video samples - free sex cam - sample sex video - free sample sex videos - sex video sample - clip sex - free sample sex video - free xxx mpeg - lesbian sex videos - free sex downloads - free audio sex stories - film sex free - video clip sex - xxx mpeg - sex trailer free - free sample videos - sex stories tamil - sample sex movie - celebrity sex - free sex web cams - sex position photo - free sex preview - sex video preview - free sex movie clip - movie clip sex - japan free sex - free xxx vids - free sex movie sample - tamil sex sites - group sex video - free sex show - video sample - video sample sex - free celebrity sex - group sex pic - vintage sex - free sample video sex - sex video trailer - sex position - tamil sex site - free sex mpeg - sex game - free full length sex movie - free sex tape - free milf videos - sex vintage - hard core xxx - free preview sex - sample video sex - free sex movie trailers - free movie - free long sex videos - oral sex photo - free group sex videos - free group sex - old woman sex - japan sex photo - long sex movie - free sex video trailer - free password sex - free sex sample video - sex thumb - free asian downloads - free audio sex - tamil nude - free tamil sex stories - sex free film - free live sex - free movie clip sex - xxx hard - free sex sample videos - sex movie - hard sex photo - sex japan - free sex position - sex photo woman - free japanese sex movie - sex clip free - free sample sex - free anal sex videos - free lesbian downloads - erotica free - photo sex - free sex games online - free interracial sex - interracial sex - free group sex video - free photo sex - sex tamil - free tamil sex - free full length videos - sex site password - free sex sample movie - free clip sex - sex photo - password sex site - free sex movie - desi sex - trailer sex free - free japan sex - free online sex game - live sex show free - free milf downloads - free porn star mpegs - sex film - sex position videos - position sex - star xxx - free sample sex movie - photo woman sex - teen movie sample - sample movie sex - free japanese sex videos - sex position picture - free sex photo - sex free preview - free milf - free clip xxx - free sex chat rooms - sex photo japan - sex free japan - free sex japan - xxx vids - free xxx clip - japanese sex free - free movie sample - free video sample sex - free erotica - sex video free sample - sample video xxx - tamil sex picture - free sex thumb - tamil sex video - sex free sample - free xxx thumb - sex game free - bride sex - free xxx sample - photo sex japan - illustrated sex - explicit sex - foot sex - long free sex movie - free erotic stories - free live sex chats - live sex cam - free sex movie clips - tamil sex movie - japan free sex movie - download film sex - film sex download - clip sex free - free anal trailer - sex video clip free - woman photo sex - free video clip sex - audio sex free - tamil sex photo
Best XXX Sites - Teen Cash - Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat - Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders - Oral Sex - Anal Sex
- Group Sex - Cum Shot - Free
Porn - Free Sex - Teen Slut - celebrity pics
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn -