3leggedfrog

I just read an article from a magazine that FEMA puts out saying that any aggressive response from a terrorist attack begets more violence towards the country that had just been attacked. In other words if the country retaliates and tried to protect it self or seeks justice against the terrorist then all actions that it takes will cause the terrorist and countries that are in favor of terrorists to become more violent. If the victim country or countries try to either attack and kill the terrorist or capture and imprison the terrorist more terrorist pop up and become more violent. The article went back to the early 70’s and encompasses several different countries that had been attacked from terrorists. The most striking point that I came across is that the article had no solution to the terrorist attacks.

So what else is there, sanctions? There are too many countries that are will to break the sanctions. What out-let does the victim countries have? Any ideas?

__________________
"enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo

"Iam myself every day."

dksuddeth

total anhilation works for me.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ASU2003

Special ops/undercover agents and a lot of 'accidents'. Possibly an outbreak of an airborne or waterborne disease.

I agree that overt military action tends to create more terrorists in the long run. Let's say that if the Russians would have killed somebody in my family when I was growing up during the cold war, I would want to retaliate and get revenge. But, since they didn't and everything is great, it seems like a interesting place to take a vacation someday.

ratbastid

Well, there you have it.

It's blatantly obvious that anything SHORT of total annihilation will only breed more terrorists. Only problem is... try it. You'll have to kill the children of every "terrorist" you find, or you'll be dealing with them in 10 years. Oh, and their wives too. And then the sympathetic people in the neighboring countries. Wouldn't want them stepping up to avenge their fallen neighbors, right? By then Baghdad (or whatever hypothetical geography you locate the question in) is a ghost town, and you've offed so many innocent people that the Khmer Rouge looks like the cast at Disneyland. How long could you keep that secret from the people at home who elected you on your "keep the homeland safe" platform? How long could you convince them that every single one of those people really did want to kill you, and that all that blood on your hands really did prevent attacks at home?

Basically, unless you're basically willing to commit genocide and then brutally suppress any backlash on the home front, violence is not a productive long-term response to terrorism. In short, "total annihilation" may be a nice flip answer, but it's not a real-world solution.

Willravel

Well when we invaded Iraq, global terrorism shot up, so there seems to be evidence to support the relationship.

I think that the first and best option in any case of one group facing another is to make concessions and find common ground. Instead of galvanizing one another as enemies and working from there, it would be logical to deconstruct what would make the two groups enemies and find a mutually acceptable outcome based on the needs of each group. It's what adults do, but how rare are adults in positions of power.

No more victim countries would be a better option instead of trying to help countries that have already been victimized. The Kurds wee a victim of the Iraqis. The Iraqis were victims of the UN and US. I wonder who we will be a victim of.

As far as the US acting as an international vigilante, yes, we're going to be put on shit lists because of it. Combine that with the fact that we actually get involved because it serves our interest instead of the common good, and we're going to see planes flying into buildings and train stations being bombed for a long, long time. The real trick is to try and fix the UN, and to stop pretending like we're trying to help anyone but ourselves. Every time the US invades, bombes, or economically rapes a country, we see a generation of anti-Americans born.

dksuddeth

does bin laden and his minions wish to commit genocide against us? I think so.

Would the palestinians like to commit genocide against us? probably most of them.

Would most of militant and radical islam like to destroy you and your offspring? yes, i'm sure they would.

For some people, common ground might be reachable but there are others who only care about one thing and no amount of diplomacy or appeasance will deter them....only embolden them. That is your real world answer.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

jorgelito

Hmm...I think this needs to elaborated a little. What exactly do you mean by total annihilation? I agree we need to "get rid" of terrorists but it seems to be a bit broad and too much of a sweeping generalization.

What would be the methodology of extermination be? Cost? Political fall out?

Do you mean like a genocide? That solution would have many problems I would imagine. Also, which terrorists? All of them? Or just some? How about the IRA, Uigurs, Oklahomans, KKK, Taleban, Al, Qaieda, Basque Separatists? The list of terrorists is long and more controversially, subjective.

Rekna

So DK you want us to become the next Nazi's? You want us to commit genocide and kill every raghead in the world?

Willravel

You couldn't be more wrong and it pains me to even read this. Bin Laden doesn't want you or I dead at all. He wants us to rally support for peace at home so that the US pulls out of the Middle East and so that our corrupt leadership is brought to justice. If that happened, terrorism against the US would stop tomorrow.
I'm feeling sick. Palestinians?! Are you serious?! Most Palestinians want their homes back. They want the country that they started building after the Ottomans fell and before the Jews of Europe were illegally given their land by the AN and the UN. They want the US to stop giving weapons to Israel. They (again) want us to control our leadership better and to get our asses out of the Middle East.
Ever ask yourself why they are 'radical'? Do you think, instead of genocide, it might be better to help them away from being radical by not invading and bombing and generally screwing up their part of the world?

Ch'i

In other words, terrorism does beget more terrorism. I really hope that one day you understand that killing a man that bears hostility towards you solves nothing aside from the immediate threat he presents. This action of "total anhilation" is an action ignorant of the likely repercussions it creates. If you think your idea will defeat terrorism then, next time you are extinguishing a fire you will add fire, right? Next time there is a flood, you will simply add more water to stop it. These effects are synonymous to your proposed idea. Just as useless, just as folly.

You were very correct, however, if by "total anhilation" you meant the destruction of anyone entering such a crazed balancing act.

3leggedfrog

Didn’t the Jewish people try that with the Palestinians when they pulled out of Gaza in an attempt to appease Homas? All that accomplished was that there was more terrorist attacks and increase of aid to the terrorists from Iran. Bin Laden doesn’t just want our leadership he wants us. He is quote as saying, he wants the decadent west brought to their knees. Yes he hates both Prez Bush but he is a fundamentalist who wants the world to follow his world view. He is like Hitler in that fashion he has a view of what he thinks the world should be and is willing to do anything to bring that into being. (Not that I think Bin Laden has much power left anyway. He’s just a figure head now with a few like minded people running his terrorist origination.)

That’s my 2 cents. Aggression is out but so is appeasing the terrorist. So whats left?

__________________
"enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo

"Iam myself every day."

highthief

I think we need to pay more attention to how some nations have successfully or relatively successfully combatted terrorism.

The Irish question is one the Brits have done well with, eventually, and genocide was not required, despite the centuries old religious, political and social obstacles. Several other European, Asian and Latin American nations have done the same with similar threats.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

The_Jazz

Let's get something straight here: having the desire to commit genocide and having the means to do so are two very different things. On top of that, there are also degrees of genocide. True genocide would require the death of every man, woman and child in the targeted group, an idea whose epitomy was the Nazi's Final Solution. Let me remind everyone that one of the most highly organized and efficient regimes of the 20th century couldn't accomplish true genocide.

What bin Laden and the more militant Palastinians want is not all of our deaths - they want us to stop meddling with their paths to heaven. They want us to stop killing and bombing them, but they also want us to stop exporting what they see as pornography (and we see as "Flightplan" or "The Ballad of Ricky Bobby") and video games that corrupt their youth (in their eyes). Western civilization is an eroding force around the world, and there aren't many places you can go and not be able to order a Coke or someone wearing adidas shoes or clothing. Bin Laden has consistantly said that he wants the West to stop meddling in the Middle East and that he'll do whatever necessary to stop that. He's never said that he wants us all dead.

Let's also remember that the only thing that all Palestinians have in common is that they're all Palestinians. The use of the phrase "all Palestinians" beyond that fact is a misstatement since, just like us, they don't all agree on anything.

Given that "total anhilation" is a logistical impossibility, what are our other options? Is it possible that bargaining with "pre-terrorists" (for lack of a better term) before they commit an act of aggression is a better idea that striking back after the fact?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

How does one put out an oil well fire? you detonate high explosives to deprive the fire of oxygen and 'blow' it out. seems to me that defeating terrorists and terrorism would work the same way. Does this mean I want to commit a true genocide? no. I don't want that to happen, however, It is not beyond the realm of possibility to destroy the implacable and adamant extremists to a point where further terrorism would be looked at as self defeating.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Rekna

dk good thing the British didn't think like you when we were fighting for our freedom. Otherwise they would have just started killing non-fighting men, women, and children in every village. But somehow I bet if they would have done that they would have been even more soundly defeated as all the other villages would have fought against them. Which is what is happening to us in Iraq. Normal Iraqi citizens are fighting us because they don't want us there, because we have destroyed their lives.

Willravel

Violence did die down for a bit, but the human rights violations never really stopped. They got worse. Israel destroyed over a thousand (1,497) Palestinian buildings and have destroyed infrastructure. Bulldozers ran over homes, destroyed roads, knocked over electrical lines, and have dug up sewage lines. Israel has erected walls and fences, dug trenches and put up surveillance cameras, effectively making the Palestinian communities into prisons. That's where the attacks came from. "Sure we'll let you live here...opps, bulldozed your house! Oops! You didn't reach the checkpoint between 6:00 and 6:15, you can't go to the hospital! Oops, your power is off because we ran over a power line with a bulldozer!"
Osama bin Laden has a specific goal of 'liberating' what he considers to be Islamic lands. This means everything from the removal (destruction) of Israel and the removal of all Western influence from the Middle East. To that end, he is willing to attack military targets, but has only allegedly on one occasion attacked an American civilian target (the Twin Towers). He wants us to get our house in order. He has actually commended us for our living in peace with the many Muslims in the US, despite that this is a primarily Christian nation. "Know thy enemy" teaches us that people like Bush and Bin Laden require careful study. It's in that interest that I quote Osama Bin Laden, terrorist, murderer, radical:

Mojo_PeiPei

There is a monumental difference between a group of people who wish to have self determination and equal legal/sovereign protections, then a group of cowardly murderers who act outside of any legal context and outside of any national identity. There is no comparison.

Its tough for America not to meddle, either directly or indirectly. Just has a starting point you cannot escape the reality of globalization. It is inevitable, that the spread of western culture, a culture that is vastly SUPERIOR to that of Islamic/Arabic culture, will take place. Now before I get labeled a racist or xenophobe, lets just look at the facts; hrmm universal sufferage, separation of church and state, free speech, freedom of religion; equality (not perfect but exponentially better then that of 90+% of any Islamic nation) amongst the sexes, our women are allowed to make their own choices, like for example if they want to learn to read, or marry, or bear children or not; there is no systematic repression of the people in the west whether by ethnicity/color/or creed. Now sure things aren't perfect, if you wanted to nitpick you could make some points to that, but as a whole our legal system/basis of society is exponentially superior.

Now I'm not even going to dignify any comments about finding common ground with these sociopaths, or appeasement, so I'll address Will's point about the secret being in de-radicalizing the "terrorist populations". Well isn't that is what is happening with globalization? The spread of western culture/ideals, democracy, self determination? Why would I want to live under a bunch of repressive despotic mullahs if I had a choice. The problem isn't us, the problem is them, those who are resisting, who are holding on to some tired quasi-religious/ethnic Arab-Islamic identity; lets maintain the Caliphate for the glory of Allah, lets continue to live as we did in the dark ages, and if you don't agree will kill you.

In addressing the OP, about response to terrorism begetting more violence, all I can really say is so what? The government has a duty and responsibility to the people to uphold its laws, to provide for their common defense. It is disingenious and delusional to think you can somehow barter with extra-national actors in any practical sense. It might not be a fight you can win, but its a fight that you have to fight, otherwise what is there, appeasement? Then any prick with a grievance will exploit and walk all over you.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

Mojo, cultural Darwinism doesn't include guns. What's going on in the Middle East is not cultural Darwinism at all, it's invasion, occupation, and strategic political and socio-economic power plays in order to gain total control of a group of people and a piece of oil rich land. It has nothing to do with the fact that one culture is stronger than the other.

Mojo_PeiPei

That may be, but it doesn't explain things dating as far back as the 70's, when all of this jazz started. Oh and it has nothing to do with the strength of a given culture, again it is that our way is superior.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

You mean this?
We have no moral or ethical high ground, so you want the bad guys to win?

Mojo_PeiPei

That is the nature of politics, its amazing that point escapes you, that is as much apart of our culture as theirs, all its comes down to is the ability to influence and exert the power, again the fundamental nature of politics.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

Call it what you want, but taking advantage of others through intimidation, extortion, injury and murder is wrong. That is the nature of being an antagonist in a bad Steven Segal movie. We're better than Steven Segal. I think we can all agree on that point.

Mojo_PeiPei

I don't know, say what you want about the quality of his movies, they are entertaining. Everybody/government attempts to extort/intimidate/injure/or kill to their advantage, if they don't its because they can't; in spite of the sad reality it is, I would rather be in our position where we can at least be able to do it to our advantage, or at least believe we are doing it as such.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

dksuddeth

what happens to a western cultured group of people in a middle eastern country? they end up being harrassed, terrorized, and maybe even butchered. Didn't they just want to live in peace? Were they allowed to live in peace? The 'culture' of the radicals is to not allow that to happen. To force out all influences except the ones they want to allow. What would happen in this country if some group tried that? For all the talk of 'multi culturalism' that the liberals espouse, you sure don't promote it much in any other part of the world. Why not?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Rekna

Independence cannot be forced onto a nation. The nation must rise up and grab its independence. I'm all for secretly helping oppressed nations overthrow their governments and applying political pressure onto these nations that oppress their people. Unfortunately when we move in with force we become the enemy. Haven't we learned anything from Vietnam and the Korean war?

The_Jazz

MPP - it seems to me that your criteria for "superiority" seem loaded in the West's favor. Not to get too far off topic here, but what's to stop Islamists from claiming "superiority" for more dedication to God's word, keeping things and people in their proper, God-dictated places and lack of any separation between church and state. I don't think that you can unillaterally declare we're superior because of some of the basic differences in the cultures. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong just that I disagree with the path you used to get to your conclusions.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

loquitur

a market economy is one of the most calming factors ever yet invented. Get a market economy going in the middle east and terrorism will die out soon.

powerclown

In a Satirical Poem, Saudi Author Laments Conditions in the Arab World

In a satirical poem titled "When," posted on Arabic reformist websites including www.aafaq.org , reformist Saudi author and journalist Wajeha Al-Huwaider lamented what she regards as the conditions in the Arab world. In the introduction to this poem, she wrote: "'When' is an ode to the troubles of the Arab citizen. Both men and women participated in its [writing], and it is still open to additions. This ode will be hung on the walls of the palaces of the Arab rulers, [1] so feel free to add you contributions."

The following are excerpts from the poem:

--

"When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner - you know that you are in an Arab country…

"When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.

"When religion has control over science - you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.

"When clerics are referred to as 'scholars' - don't be astonished, you are in an Arab country.

"When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and whom nobody is permitted to criticize - do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.

"When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery - do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.

"When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but [see them] seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions [in the government] - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When monarchies turn into theocracies, and republics into hybrids of monarchy and republic - do not be taken aback, you are in an Arab country.

"When you find that the members of parliament are nominated [by the ruler], or else that half of them are nominated and the other half have bought their seats through bribery… - you are in an Arab country…

"When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When you see that the authorities chop off a man's hand for stealing a loaf of bread or a penny, but praise and glorify those who steal billions - do not be too surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When you are forced to worship the Creator in school and your teachers grade you for it - you can be sure that you are in an Arab country…

"When young women students are publicly flogged merely for exposing their eyes - you are in an Arab country…

"When a boy learns about menstruation and childbirth but not about his own [body] and [the changes] it undergoes in puberty - roll out your prayer mat and beseech Allah to help you deal with your crisis, for you are in an Arab country…

"When land is more important than human beings - you are in an Arab country…

"When covering the woman's head is more important than financial and administrative corruption, embezzlement, and betrayal of the homeland - do not be astonished, you are in an Arab country…

"When minorities are persecuted and oppressed, and if they demand their rights, are accused of being a fifth column or a Trojan horse - be upset, you are in an Arab country…

"When women are [seen as] house ornaments which can be replaced at any time - bemoan your fate, you are in an Arab country.

"When birth control and family planning are perceived as a Western plot - place your trust in Allah, you are in an Arab country…

"When at any time, there can be a knock on your door and you will be dragged off and buried in a dark prison - you are in an Arab country…

"When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people - you can be certain that you are in an Arab country."

--

Not to be confused with Jeff Foxworthy's "You Know You're A Redneck When...".

Willravel

Dubai is gorgeous this time of year, and I'd recommend it to anyone. Jerusalem is quite nice, too. Lenabon, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania...all quite harmless (unless they're being invaded by Israel). There are unsafe areas for Americans or even westerners all around the world. There are areas of Japan that aren't friendly to Americans, for example. There are areas of Germany, France, Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador as well. Ever wonder why people hate us?
They are stepping into a situation that's already going on. We have to do what we can to stop it, but walking onto a battlefield to build a home is stupid.

This is how it's done:
1) Stop the fighting
2) try to help cultures live in peace

Do it in the reverse order, and then you risk innocent deaths.

desal75

I'm confused, why would Israel invade Bulgaria, Romania, or even Turkey?

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

Willravel

Why would they invade Lebanon?

jorgelito

Whoa, there's a lot of generalizing there. Many people don't hate US, they hate our government and distinguish the difference. France is a good example.

Dubai is not exactly a bastion of humanitarianism or equality. Turkey is 50-50 on their perception of Americans. The gov't likes the US support for the EU but the people don't really like Americans (or Westerners). I was there last summer - 2005 during the two terrorist attacks. But some Turks were always telling me how much they disliked George Bush but were friendly enough to me (or at least my money). Egypt is also bipolar when it comes to America. I had many interesting discussions with Egyptians this summer when I was there. It seems more of them hate their own government (Mubarak) than they do Americans. But then again, there was this huge demonstration in Cairo when I was there and people were burning US and Israeli flags. Also this veil of tension between Egyptians and foreigners. It is unwise to monolithically think of places such as Turkey and Lebanon as "quite harmless". Lebanon is definitely not a friendly place towards Americans, especially when they are launching rockets and attacks into Israel forcing retaliation. Jerusalem is a crap shoot. When I was there, there was a stabbing of an American tourist in the Old City, a block from where I was staying. Jerusalem, as beautiful as it is, is a city that is rife with tension.

There is no magic solution. There needs to be effort and work involved by all parties to make it work. A lot of the problem with temporary peace or cease-fires is that is just takes one a-hole to do something stupid and it sets off the whole region again. This kind of tit-for-tat, left to its own devices will be never ending. In other words, another, pragmatic compromise must be reached in order for there to be progress. There can be no zero-sum otherwise the situation will be a failure. EX: cessation of hostilities backed by real socio-economic reform etc etc (I know easier said than done).

To be clear, on the issue of terrorism, there are many different types. In the case of Bin Laden, he is classified as a catastrophic terrorist, that is, his primary goal or function is for your destruction. They are also known as non-negotiable terrorists because, for obvious reasons, you can't negotiate with them. Simply leaving the Middle East will not cause OBL to cease his acts of terrorism. He wants to eradicate our way of life, period. In his mind, there is no such thing as an innocent party. You are either a devout adherent Muslim (believer and follower of Allah), or you aren't and therefor need to meet your demise. In this case, nothing short of "annihilation" of this type of terrorist will end their violence. Hamas also falls into this category.

The other type of terrorist is political terrorist. That is a group that uses terrorism as an instrument for political gain, usually autonomy or independence etc. The PLO(previous) and IRA fall into this category. They are specific entities with the stated objective of political independence and have functioning political organs along with their militarized ones. Terrorism just happens to be one of their methods in an attempt to achieve their goals. In this case, negotiations or compromise is possible and even desirable. Here, socio-economic plans or incentives can be useful in achieving the overarching objective of peace or coexistence.

Other possibilities to end the tit-for-tat style of revenge and avenge violence could be South Africa's Remorse and Forgiveness campaign. While not exact analogues, it could provide a base model to create a new framework to end the violence.

desal75

When they did in '82 it was because the PLO was attacking them from positions across the border. To my knowledge the incursions in recent years stemmed from rocket attacks from across the border in Lebanon also.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

jorgelito

Israel "invaded" Lebanon in response to Lebanon's attack on Israel. This really should be another thread though if any one would like to discuss it.

Willravel

Well I meant recently, but that's a good example of what I mean. Why was there a PLO? There was a PLO to try and get Israelis out of Palestine. What did Lebanon do? They accepted thousands of Palestinian refugees (which included some PLO terrorists). For that the whole of Lebanon is invaded and occupied.

jorgelito

The "whole" of Lebanon was not occupied, just the southern part. The PLO was created in an effort to get the international community to care about the Palestinians. Actually a brilliant move on Yasser Arafat's part. Prior to that, no one was really convinced of the notion of "Palestinians". Thanks to his efforts, he was able to "rally" his people and organize.

Again, the Palestinians were offered numerous land deals over the years but turned them down. Then they resorted to violence to get what they want. Moreover, other Middle East entities interfered with the Israeli-Palestinian process as well culminating in 3 different wars, each one started by one of the Arab states.

Rekna

If OBL is/was the big terrorist threat why did we divert our attention to Iraq and let him slip through our fingers in Afghanistan?

Willravel

Afghanistan doesn't have as much oil, and it's government is more difficult to use as a boogeyman because it keeps changing.

powerclown

Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.
Costello: Are you the manager?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: You gonna be the coach too?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?
Abbott: Well I should.
Costello: Well then who's on first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow's name.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The first baseman.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy playing...
Abbott: Who is on first!
Costello: I'm asking YOU who's on first.
Abbott: That's the man's name.
Costello: That's who's name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's who?
Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Look, you gotta first baseman?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: Who's playing first?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?
Abbott: Every dollar of it.
Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name on first base.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy that gets...
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Who gets the money...
Abbott: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.
Costello: Whose wife?
Abbott: Yes.

Abbott: What's wrong with that?
Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name?
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: How does he sign...
Abbott: That's how he signs it.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Yes.

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base.
Abbott: No. What is on second base.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first.
Costello: One base at a time!
Abbott: Well, don't change the players around.
Costello: I'm not changing nobody!
Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.
Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy on first base?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: Ok.
Abbott: All right.

Costello: What's the guy's name on first base?
Abbott: No. What is on second.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on third, we're not talking about him.
Costello: Now how did I get on third base?
Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.
Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third?
Abbott: No. Who's playing first.
Costello: What's on first?
Abbott: What's on second.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on third.
Costello: There I go, back on third again!

Costello: Would you just stay on third base and don't go off it.
Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?
Costello: Now who's playing third base?
Abbott: Why do you insist on putting Who on third base?
Costello: What am I putting on third.
Abbott: No. What is on second.
Costello: You don't want who on second?
Abbott: Who is on first.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together:Third base!

Costello: Look, you gotta outfield?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: The left fielder's name?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.
Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.
Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field.
Abbott: Who's playing first.
Costello: I'm not... stay out of the infield! I want to know what's the guy's name in left field?
Abbott: No, What is on second.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first!
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

Costello: The left fielder's name?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: Because!
Abbott: Oh, he's centerfield.

Costello: Look, You gotta pitcher on this team?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: The pitcher's name?
Abbott: Tomorrow.
Costello: You don't want to tell me today?
Abbott: I'm telling you now.
Costello: Then go ahead.
Abbott: Tomorrow!
Costello: What time?
Abbott: What time what?
Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's pitching?
Abbott: Now listen. Who is not pitching.
Costello: I'll break your arm, you say who's on first! I want to know what's the pitcher's name?
Abbott: What's on second.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

Costello: Gotta a catcher?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: The catcher's name?
Abbott: Today.
Costello: Today, and tomorrow's pitching.
Abbott: Now you've got it.
Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the team.

Costello: You know I'm a catcher too.
Abbott: So they tell me.
Costello: I get behind the plate to do some fancy catching, Tomorrow's pitching on my team and a heavy hitter gets up. Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me, being a good catcher, I'm gonna throw the guy out at first base. So I pick up the ball and throw it to who?
Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.
Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

Abbott: That's all you have to do.
Costello: Is to throw the ball to first base.
Abbott: Yes!
Costello: Now who's got it?
Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.
Abbott: No you don't, you throw the ball to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's different.
Costello: That's what I said.
Abbott: You're not saying it...
Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: You throw it to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's what I said!
Abbott: You ask me.
Costello: I throw the ball to who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Now you ask me.
Abbott: You throw the ball to Who?
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! I throw the ball to who. Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third and I don't give a darn!
Abbott: What?
Costello: I said I don't give a darn!
Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop.

For the Reading Impaired

Willravel

Comon Powerclown, that's gotta be the worst threadjack/troll I've ever seen.
Palestine was given to Israel by the UN, who had no claim on the land. Israel moved in and terrorist organizations, the most prominant of which being the PLO, sprang up. As the Palestinian population was displaced by the hundreds of thousands, Lebanon, seeing the humanitarian nightmare, opened its borders to the Palestinians. Unfortunately, some very selfish and cowardly terrorists used Lebanon to strike at Israel. Instead of trying to work with the obviously overwhelmed Lebanese government in order to stop terrorism, they invaded. Had Israel made the right call originally, the Hezbollah wouldn't exist today.
We've interfered with Israel/Palestine, Israel/Lebanon, Iraq/Iran more than anyone else. We're more to blame for the current situation in Israel than Jordan or Egypt or Iran.

Also, none of this changes or excuses the fact that Israel is committing human rights violations every day against a militarily inferior Palestine.