Israel fears it is Zarqawi's next target (Israel less safe due to Iraq)

[ECH1969]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the jihadist terrorist leader in Iraq, is preparing bases and logistics to extend his campaign against Jordan and Israel, a top Israeli policy adviser has warned: a clear sign that senior Israelis now judge that the U.S. war in Iraq has not made Israel any safer.

"It would be a cardinal error for Israel to conclude that after the U.S. war in Iraq, the region to Israel's east is moving in the direction of greater stability and, therefore, Israel can take the risk of conceding its strategic assets in the West Bank," claims Ambassador Dore Gold in a new policy paper just published by Israel's Institute for Contemporary Affairs.

"Were Israel to withdraw from the strategic barrier it controls in the Jordan Valley, then Israeli vulnerability could very well attract more global jihadi elements to Jordan, who would seek to use the kingdom as a platform to reach the West Bank and then Israel," Gold continues.

"Zarqawi now wants to destabilize Jordan, but clearly seeks to target Israel as well," Gold adds. "Dismissing the value of Israel's security fence, Zarqawi's organization has declared: 'the separation wall...will feel the might of the mujahidin,' hinting that Israel could face the same waves of insurgent volunteers that have entered Iraq'." Gold, a former Israeli Ambassador to the United nations and close adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, claims that al-Qaida and its jihadist allies are moving ever closer to Israel.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051215-025132-2527r
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, top Israeli officials admitting the war made them less safe. Of course they aren't morons, they know Zarqawi will be sending suicide bombers into Tel Aviv in the near future.

[0007]

1. Now all those Zarqawi rumors and propaganda is making sense now.

[FloridaPat]

2. So Zarqawi is destablizing everything in the Middle East to get to

Israel? I haven't seen too many sci fi movies lately. Are they all writing propaganda for the US and Israel? Zarqawi's in Iraq because of the invasion. Why would he want to de-stablize Jordan? Why are these hot shot terrorists going everywhere but Israel if that's their big problem?

[ECH1969]

3. He tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy in 1992

He has been trying to do it for years. A huge percent of Jordan's economy is from tourism so he attacked hotels to get foreigners to stay away from Jordan which would cripple the Jordanian economically.

[stickdog]

13. Yeah, and he got bitten by a radioactive starfish and now he

grow back limbs and raises himself from the dead and turns invisible and makes his letters appear in the hands of his enemies just by wiggling his nose!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. So what?

[sarcasmo]

8. MR Danger is going to tell Israel they better strike Iran first.

IMHO, this is all leading up to the Israel/Iran War.

[VegasWolf]

4. Well, if so, Israel is on its own. The US is so beaten down after the

Iraq quagmire that we couldn't whip our way out of a wet paper bag at this point.

:bounce:

[oblivious]

5. Saves money piggybacking on US propaganda.

Polls must show that this bogeyman hype is working so might as well use it instead of spending a lot of money developing their own. I notice Jordan is using it too. AP deserves most of the credit though.

[ECH1969]

6. You think Mossad hit Jordan?

[oblivious]

7. I have no idea who hit Jordan.

But the woman who confessed to be involved was reported to be the sister of zarqawi's right-hand man.

[Parche]

9. zarqawi's right hand man

I thought Zarqawi got his right hand shot off?

[oblivious]

10. Whoops! That was a bit insensitive of me then.

Most valued lieutenant? Key aid? No. 1 coffee boy?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. IMHO, I'm not sure I buy that crap about the alleged female bomber....

...sh just seemed to be too relaxed while she was explaining her alleged role and why it allegedly failed. She also failed to show any emotion when talking about her alleged husband, one of the people that did explode themselves.

I still remember the Kuwaiti "babies taken from incubators" story that turned out to be a complete bald-faced lie. This story seems very similar to me.

[Wordie]

41. My god...I had forgotten that story. Wasn't it one of Judy's? eom

[hadrons]

11. and Zarqawi is well armed and well trained thanks to the invasion ....

techniques in blowing up those hummers and tanks will be put to use there

[stickdog]

14. Damn right! He's both well armed and well legged!

He has at least six of each!

[HuffleClaw]

12. suuuuuuuuure

what a complete crock. they've sure made zarqawi into a KING KONG of 'bad guys'. its beyond silly.

[No Exit]

15. Earth to Israel: "Zarqawi" is a composite bogeyman designed to

scare the dumb goyim of America.

And you know it.

[Colorado Blue]

16. Really? His family is real enough. They disowned him for

the attacks in Amman.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. I think that "disowned" business is pure bunk, a smokescreen....

...designed to shield Zarqawi's family from too much close scrutiny. IMHO, I think it also serves to mask the relationship of Zarqawi to inluential people and families in the Middle East.

We're also supposed to believe that OBL's family "disowned" him, too, but one of his family members stated a couple of years ago that OBL was still part of the family. The implications of that are enormous, IMHO. The Bin Laden family is not only close to the Saudi Royal Family, but they are also VERY close to the Busch Crime Family.

[Colorado Blue]

51. Well, that's possible I suppose. But it's also possible that

Zarqawi's family was utterly horrified by the bombing in Amman. A lot of people were.

[tanyev]

17. Oopsie.

Weren't oil and security for Israel the REAL reasons for invading Iraq? Pretty sad when you even screw up your hidden agendas.

[JohnyCanuck]

21. Maybe the Israelis shouldn't have been so eager

to help the OSP stovepipe their lies (used to sell the invasion of Iraq) into the White House.

The spies who pushed for war.
The Guardian

<snip>

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

[tanyev]

22. Be careful what you wish for...

[Chautauqua]

23. Not even close.

Israel opposed the war, said that Iraq hadn't been a threat in a decade and was currently worried about Iran and Syria.

They haven't got a clue why the US attacked Iraq any more than anyone else with even a basic understanding of the region has.

Of course, you actually have to do your own research to know that since the Bushistas don't publicize that anybody disagreed with them and the "anti-war" movement was hijacked early on by ANSWER who don't publicize anything good about Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Great points!

:thumbsup:

[The Stranger]

33. And every single one of them completely false!

[Chautauqua]

34. Good reply

and a Nyah, Nyah right back at you.

[oblivious]

43. Why would you say things like that here. We're not stupid.

September 30, 2002
Excerpt from the Jerusalem Post’s Interview with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

Q: How do you respond to the statement by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his testimony before the US Congress last week that if Israel is attacked during an American led attack on Iraq that it shouldn't respond?

Sharon: First of all, we support the US's moves. We have not interfered at all. We have not tried to speed up an action or to postpone one. We appreciate the importance of this operation. We will of course provide all assistance that we are called upon to provide, just as we did during the war in Afghanistan.


Israel urges US to strike

By Jonathan Steele
Jerusalem
August 19 2002

Israel is signalling that it wants President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq - even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.

With foreign policy experts in Washington becoming increasingly critical of the wisdom of a military strike, and European governments showing no willingness to support an attack, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wants to make it clear that he is the US President's most reliable ally.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Raanan Gissin, a senior Sharon adviser, said yesterday.

"It will only give Saddam Hussein more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

Israeli intelligence officials had new evidence that Iraq was speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, he said.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/18/1029114049234.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,776152,00.html

Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan
Filed: 28/04/2002)

Mr Sharon would have to wait for a suitable opportunity - such as an American offensive against Iraq, which some Israelis think is going to take place in early summer.

Mr Sharon himself told Colin Powell, the secretary of state, that America should not allow the situation in Israel to delay the operation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/28/wpal28.xml

The War only the Whitehouse Wants
by Eric Margolis
August 28, 2002

Last week, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sounding like he was giving orders to a subordinate, demanded Bush speed up plans to attack Iraq. Right on cue, American supporters of Sharon's far-right Likud party, led by the Bush administration's Rasputin, Richard Perle, intensified their clamour to send American GIs to fight Iraq.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2268

Sharon: Iran Next on War List
Friday, Nov. 8, 2002
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says the U.S. war on terror shouldn't end with Iraq.

Iran is just as dangerous and a top priority for a regime change, Sharon said this week. He argued that although Iraq is an "insane" regime, Iran is a "center of world terror."

In an exclusive interview with the New York Post, Sharon said that as soon as Iraq is dealt with, he "will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/7/154220.shtml

Sharon promises to help Bush if he attacks Saddam
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem and Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 08/02/2002)

Binyamin Ben Eliezer, the Israeli defence minister, said in Washington that Mr Sharon would advise Mr Bush that Iran could pose as much of a threat to peace in the Middle East as Iraq. "I know that today the name of the game is Iraq, which is very relevant, but I would say they are twins, Iran and Iraq.

"The Americans are helping us and we are ready to help the Americans with anything they may need - intelligence, weapons systems."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/08/wmid08.xml

Israelis 'misread' Iraqi threat
..."Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the US and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability," said the author of the report, retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom.

"It badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3294865.stm

[Behind the Aegis]

44. The point?

It does show that Israel didn't 'oppose' the war, but they also show that they didn't "push" for anything. The PM said he would back the US, no matter their decision. They also show that Israel was more concerned about Iran (although says nothing about Syria), but Iraq was the one being dealt with first. In fact, another article states that the only reason Israel was now concerned about Iraq was because an American attack might lead to a repeat of 1991. source I find it interesting in your first article you emphasis the first part of Sharon's statement, but not: "We have not interfered at all. We have not tried to speed up an action or to postpone one. We appreciate the importance of this operation. We will of course provide all assistance that we are called upon to provide, just as we did during the war in Afghanistan."

The article titled "Israel urges US to strike" would seem to say that Israel was urging the US, but it is also dated almost two weeks before the Israeli PM said in his own words, "First of all, we support the US's moves. We have not interfered at all. We have not tried to speed up an action or to postpone one. We appreciate the importance of this operation. We will of course provide all assistance that we are called upon to provide, just as we did during the war in Afghanistan."

The article titled "Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan has nothing to do with the topic or statements made by Chautauqua (and, the article wasn't even close to accurate in its 'predicitions.'. The other articles don't do anything but say much of the same thing that the first two articles did. However, the Zmag "article" was just laughable anti-Israeli propoganda...like "Fox News" for the 'left.'

So, Chautauqua did make some great points with "...Iraq hadn't been a threat in a decade and was currently worried about Iran and Syria," and "...you actually have to do your own research to know that since the Bushistas don't publicize that anybody disagreed with them..., and finally, "...the "anti-war" movement was hijacked early on by ANSWER who don't publicize anything good about Israel." The last one is not completely true, but anti-Israeli propaganda is rampant in the sources you used, which are undeniable anti-war (I don't know if ANSWER has any influence).

[oblivious]

45. The point is clear: Chautauqua said Israel opposed the war, This is untrue

Sharon's own words in my first link were: "we support the US's moves"

Trying to turn that into opposition to the war is pure propaganda. You take us for idiots. We're not.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. And?

I clearly said: "It does show that Israel didn't 'oppose' the war, but they also show that they didn't "push" for anything." It was also not the only point s/he made. Or, was your only 'beef' with that one statement?

Propaganda works both ways.

On edit: You seem to be saying that Israel was pushing for the war, not opposing it. If that is the case, then your claim would be propaganda, as well.

[oblivious]

47. The evidence could not be any clearer. But carry on with your agenda.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. And, you with yours.

[Wordie]

24. Observe: this is just another way to justify the occupation.

Were Israel to withdraw from the strategic barrier it controls in the Jordan Valley, then Israeli vulnerability could very well attract more global jihadi elements to Jordan, who would seek to use the kingdom as a platform to reach the West Bank and then Israel," Gold continues.

In other words, Israel is saying it cannot abide by the United Nations requirement requiring a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, for security reasons. The occupation will continue.

It's just more of the same.

[Chautauqua]

27. And the kneejerk response arrives

The UN specifically stated in both 1967 and 1973 that the Israelis did not have to withdraw to exactly the 1949 cease-fire borders (that were in place prior to 1967) and that they could be modified for - wait for it - security reasons.

So, you're saying that if they do EXACTLY what they the UN asked them to then "THE OCCUPATION CONTINUES"? I have to wonder just how much self-identity you've got riding on "the occupation" rather than on reaching peace.

[manic expression]

29. Not exactly

The occupation of the West Bank counts as a "modification"? Destroying houses and setting up settlements (ethnic cleansing) is "modified borders"? Get a grip.

Even the Gaza Strip is under the thumb of Israel today. Try giving Palestine some respect and justice, maybe that will help toward reaching peace, instead of the injustice and oppression that is there and some insipid connection to Zarqawi.

[Chautauqua]

30. Well

Actually, the poster was commenting on Israel being required to return to the exact 1967 borders by the UN which is clearly wrong to anyone who knows the history of the debate (It was actually voted on as an ammendment to 242 submitted by the USSR and lost). If you want to debate the rest, I believe there's a separate forum for that discussion.

[manic expression]

31. But....

the occupation remark was more than reasonable and correct.

Furthermore, Israel should go back to 1967 borders and quit terrorising Palestinians, regardless of what leverage the UN gave them. It's only right.

Another thing, why is it safer for Israel to steal land and cause ire against them? Why was the wall intentionally put on land that was not Israel's, when it could have served the same function in a legitimate place?

If you want to discuss this in the Israel/Palestine forum, fine, but it is full of people who will mess up a reasonable discussion.

[Chautauqua]

35. Well

I'm glad you've now told us what is right even if it isn't what the UN said or what 50 years of negotiation hasn't resolved.

Wow. It's all solved now. Go pick up your Nobel.

[manic expression]

42. Who do you think you are?

Would you like to inform the evicted families that their lives don't matter when compared to what Israel wants? Get a grip. It is ONLY RIGHT for Palestinians to have their land and livelihoods. To suggest otherwise is to support pure land theft and wrongdoing. If you think crime and oppression is A-OK because of "security reasons", you are insane.

It's not solved, and you are part of the problem, so go pick up your conscience.

[Chautauqua]

50. Interesting

All you have to reply is to act as though for some reason you are the arbiter of guilt? Sorry. I don't need a new mommy.

[Wordie]

32. You missed the point of my post entirely.

My concern was clearly that security concerns are being used to justify the continued occupation. (Much as security concerns are being used to justify a roll-back of our own civil rights in this country, imho.) And my response was clearly in regard to the comments stated in the OP.

Will Israel ultimately say the entire West Bank is required for "security" purposes? ...and of course, ALL of Jerusalem, too? It sure seems Israel is heading in that direction! This is just one more step in a long-established pattern.

But to address your other points anyway:
I'm well aware of the semantics dispute over 242. The fact still remains that Israel makes a circular argument: Israel's continued building of settlements on occupied lands leads to a continued violent response by the desperate Palestinians, leading Israel to cite security concerns and say the continued occupation and building of settlements is necessary. It amounts to an incremental annexation of territory. The settlements and continued occupation are illegal.

And you mistate the case regarding 1973 anyway. As anyone can see, the 1973 document simply refers back to the earlier resolution 242. (I have posted text of some of the relevant Security Council resolutions below, for those who may be unfamiliar with the issue.) You further neglect to mention the 1980 UN Security Council resolution declaring that the law passed by the Israeli Knesset declaring Jerusalem to be the Israeli capital was illegal (Israel continues to ignore this.) And you fail to mention the resolution passed in 1979, 246, regarding the issue of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. You make it sound as if there is some confusion about the legality of the occupation. There is not. Here is a portion of the Resolution 246 text:

...Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories...

And here is the full text of 242:

UNITED NATIONS



Security Council

S/RES/242 (1967)
22 November 1967
Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

...and Resolution 338, passed in 1973:

UNITED NATIONS

Security Council

S/RES/338 (1973)
22 October 1973
Resolution 338 (1973)
of 22 October 1973

The Security Council

1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;

2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
Adopted at the 1747th meeting
by 14 votes to none.

____________________

[Chautauqua]

36. Well

I'm glad you're now omnicient enough to tell us what the Israeli government is going to think.

And thank you for posting the 242 and 338 resolutions. As I said, they call for a return of territories in exchange for peace and an equitable resolution of the refugee problems. If you actually looked up the debate documents and interim votes you'd also see the rejected ammendment to what became 242 that called for changing "return of territories" to "return of all territories" that was proposed by the USSR delegation but that was voted down by the Security Council since Israel had a right to adjust the arbitrary borders of the 1949 cease fire agreement in order to make them defensible.

Go. Look it up. And then take it to I/P rather than hijacking this thread.

[Wordie]

40. Gold made a clear statment. Or don't you know where the Jordan Valley is?

Here's what it said in the OP:
"Were Israel to withdraw from the strategic barrier it controls in the Jordan Valley, then Israeli vulnerability could very well attract more global jihadi elements to Jordan, who would seek to use the kingdom as a platform to reach the West Bank and then Israel," Gold continues.

How could Gold be more clear??? Let me put it in different words for you. To rephrase Gold: "Israel cannot withdraw from the Palestinian territories that Israel controls in the Jordan Valley because of security concerns raised by the threat of terrorists going through those territories to reach Israel. It would make Israel too vulnerable to return the territories."

If you really believe that I haven't read this correctly, then please, enlighten us. You tell us what you think it really says.

You'll note that the threat that Gold claims here has nothing to do with the Palestinians themselves. Yet here is Israel now saying that Palestinian lands need to be occupied because of a global terror threat external to both the Palestinian territories and Israel proper, as well as the Palestinians themselves. And the question I have is how much further does Israel intend to take the security argument? I mean, Israel could claim to be justified in gobblng up half the middle east on the basis of it, the way we're going now. The UN never intended the security concerns of Israel, real or not, to justify an endless occupation, nor the seizing and appropriation of the Palestinian's territory.

And again, my response has everything to do with the OP; I'm responding to Gold's statement. It wasn't I who decided to quibble about the semantics of 246. Let's leave that tangent where it lies now. It's your decision whether to "hijack this thread." I won't.

In case anyone is not familiar with the area in question, here is a map. The Jordan Valley lies in the eastern part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (it flows into the Dead Sea). Israel has coveted the area for decades, and this "threat" is now a wonderful excuse to justify and solidify the continued occupation of the area.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/conflict/map.html

(I hope that pbs isn't "too liberal" a source for anyone.)

Minor edits for clarity.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. It's in I/P now, and yr incorrect...

That pretense that the wording "return of territories" means that Israel upholds its obligations by returning what it chooses to and keeping what it chooses to is one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The preamble of 242 emphasises the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That alone negates any claim that Israel can retain what territory it chooses to...

Seeing I can't find a copy of it online anymore, I'll post one of the relevant bits from John McHugo's paper Resolution 242: A legal reappraisal of the right-wing Israeli interpretation of the withdrawal phrase with reference ot the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and hopefully you can find a copy somewhere and read the entire thing...

In the first place, the wording of the Withdrawal Phrase refers to a category of territories, namely those territories 'occupied in the recent conflict'. It treats these territories asa a unity. If a withdrawal takes place from some, but not all, of these territories, can it be said that the principle contained in the Withdrawal Phrase has been complied with in full? A partial withdrawal would surely only be partial compliance with the principle. The absence of the word 'all' does not imply that 'some' was intended. Consider the following imaginary notice at the entrance to a park:

'Dogs may swim in ponds in the park.'

Does this notice apply to 'all' dogs, or only to 'some' dogs? If the reader of the notice unleashes his dog so that it can have a swim, can the park keeper legitimately point to the notice and tell him taht it does indeed apply to 'some' dogs, but not to the dog that the walker has just let off the lead? Let us assume that there are three ponds in the park. Does the notice refer to 'all ponds' which fall into the category of being 'in the park' or only to 'some' of the ponds, and if so which? The answer in each case must surely be 'all'.

Violet...

[Poll_Blind]

25. Boosh even lends his crafted boogeyman to Out Be$t Friend$. n/t

PB

[manic expression]

28. Why doesn't Israel stop spewing nonsense

and stop murdering Palestinians. Maybe then they wouldn't be so hated.

Zarqawi has nothing to do with this, and is being used as a boogeyman to justify the unjustifiable.

[Colorado Blue]

52. What nonsense? If you were on the receiving end of terror

attacks that have claimed thousands of lives, more than 10,000 maimed, you'd be worried, trust me.

People underestimate the danger of al Qaeda. A lot of people scoffed after 9/11 but now they're murdering thousands and thousands of Iraqis. Similar Islamist groups are gaining influence within the PA.

What's not to worry?

[Englander]

54. Dick?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

:puke:

[AngryAmish]

37. Bush is Hitler

[LibertyorDeath]

38. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is an asset of American Intelligence

Just as Bin Laden once was. Or still is. IMO

[Colorado Blue]

53. Oh, for pete's sake. eom.

[LibertyorDeath]

39. Al-Zarqawi caught, released

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi security forces caught the most wanted man in the country last year, but released him because they didn't know who he was, the Iraqi deputy minister of interior said Thursday.

Hussain Kamal confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- the al Qaeda in Iraq leader who has a $25 million bounty on his head -- was in custody at some point last year, but he wouldn't provide further details.

A U.S. official couldn't confirm the report, but said he wouldn't dismiss it.

"It is plausible," he said.

(Anythings possible when your just making shit up.)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/zarqawi.captured/index.html