09/04/01: Suicide Bombing

[Freakapotimus]

Tuesday September 4 7:42 AM ET

Jerusalem Suicide Bombing Threatens Peace Moves
By Jeffrey Heller

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A Palestinian suicide bomber disguised as a bearded ultra-Orthodox Jew blew himself up in Jerusalem Tuesday, wounding 15 people and threatening to derail a new European cease-fire initiative.

A policeman who confronted the bomber just before he detonated an explosives-filled bag on his back said he died with a smile on his face.

``Policemen saw that he was an Arab who dressed up as a Jew and stopped him,'' Jerusalem police chief Mickey Levy told reporters. ``They prevented a much greater tragedy by stopping him before he could reach a busier area.''

Levy said the bomber wore the skullcap and black garb of a devout Jew and a fake beard. He blew himself up on the edge of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of Mea Shearim.

Calling the attack a ``terrible criminal act,'' Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, toured the scene of the bombing. He was heckled by Israelis, one of whom shouted in English: ``Garbage, take your luggage and leave Israel now.''

Solana has been trying to arrange truce talks between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, possibly as early as Friday on the sidelines of a business conference near the Italian city of Milan.

From Jerusalem, Solana traveled to Gaza, where he held talks with Arafat. Solana toured the wreckage of a Gaza police headquarters flattened by Israeli warplanes on August 26 after gunmen killed three Israeli soldiers in a raid on an army base.

BOMBER STRIKES DURING MORNING RUSH HOUR

The Jerusalem explosion occurred during the morning rush hour at around 7:45 a.m. on central Niviim Street, a block from a pizza restaurant where a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 15 people on August 9.

``He was blown apart completely,'' Levy said. There were no other fatalities, but 15 people were wounded. One of the two police officers who challenged the bomber sustained life-threatening injuries, doctors at Bikur Holim hospital said.

``On foot patrol on Niviim Street, we spotted a nervous-looking man dressed as a devout Jew, and a woman also drew our attention to him,'' said the other officer, Guy Mughrabi.

``We began chasing him...and at a distance of four meters (yards), we ordered him to halt. He stopped and at the same time moved his right hand to his bag, pushed a button and blew up. He didn't speak -- he just smiled,'' Mughrabi told Israel Radio.

``The (officer) in front of me saved my life...he took the brunt of the blast.''

A France Inter radio reporter working in Jerusalem was dropping his daughter off at school on Niviim Street when the suicide bomber struck.

``My car was seriously damaged, covered with chunks of human flesh from the suicide bomber. His head was thrust into the yard of the Lycee Francais,'' the journalist, Pierre Weill, said by telephone to France Inter radio in Paris.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, nearly a year into a cycle of Israeli-Palestinian violence in which more than 700 have died.

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY BLAMED

Militant Islamic groups have mounted a wave of suicide bombings since a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation began last September after peace talks became deadlocked.

Commenting on the latest blast, a Palestinian cabinet minister, Ziad Abu Zayyad, said that in principle the Palestinian Authority opposed attacks that targeted civilians.

``But unfortunately it's becoming continued action and counter-action because of the current situation and because of the continued policy of Israeli occupation and assassination, killing, demolishing houses and doing all these atrocities against the Palestinian people,'' he told Reuters.

Israeli officials have often held Arafat responsible for the suicide bombings, accusing him of failing to curb the militants.

``The responsibility clearly lies with the Palestinian Authority,'' Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said about Tuesday's blast.

He was with Sharon on a visit to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said after meeting the Israeli leader that Russia wanted to make a ``substantial contribution'' toward ending the bloodshed.

Asked how the bombing would affect prospects for a Peres-Arafat meeting, Gissin said: ``What is there to talk about right now? There is only one thing to talk about and that is the complete cessation of violence, terrorist violence and incitement.''

Fallout from Middle East conflict spilled over to South Africa Monday when Israel carried out a threat to pull its delegation from a United Nations racism conference after the failure of efforts to remove Arab-driven statements blasting Israeli policies against Palestinians as racist.

The attack Tuesday followed bloodshed Monday, when four bombs exploded in Jerusalem, wounding five people. Israel retaliated for the blasts with a missile strike against a Palestinian intelligence office. Two Palestinians were killed in a gunbattle in the West Bank city of Hebron.

At least 554 Palestinians and 157 Israelis have been killed since violence erupted last September.

[Done1done1done]

At 9/4/01 11:02 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:
At least 554 Palestinians and 157 Israelis have been killed since violence erupted last September.

I just look at this statistic, and I wonder why is it that all we ever hear about in the American media is Palestinian suicide bombers, and rarely "Israeli reaction to Palestinian aggression"

[anhnonymous]

At 9/9/01 09:11 PM, Wheatonman wrote:

At 9/4/01 11:02 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:
At least 554 Palestinians and 157 Israelis have been killed since violence erupted last September.

I just look at this statistic, and I wonder why is it that all we ever hear about in the American media is Palestinian suicide bombers, and rarely "Israeli reaction to Palestinian aggression"

Because its not as interesting as suicide bombers man. But I wonder what type of religious figure (i.e. priest, reverend,or what ever you call a muslim preacher) would give their blessing to someone who would kill himself while trying to kill innocent people. Such spineless acts goes hand-in-hand with terrorists such as bin laden and hussein. These suicide bombers have big hearts but little brains. The better to brainwash with...says the wolf. Propaganda works best if you add religion to the mix.

[Pecos]

At 9/9/01 09:11 PM, Wheatonman wrote:

At 9/4/01 11:02 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:
At least 554 Palestinians and 157 Israelis have been killed since violence erupted last September.

I just look at this statistic, and I wonder why is it that all we ever hear about in the American media is Palestinian suicide bombers, and rarely "Israeli reaction to Palestinian aggression"

Where have you been living? Every time I hear about a bombing it's always followed by a retaliation! In fact, half the time they say that "Israelies fired rockets at blah blah.." and then "oh yea, it was in return to a suicide bomber taking out 20 people in a pizza shop".. so I think it goes both ways, pretty evenly.

As far as suicide bombing goes.. you gotta be a dickless piece of shit to go and do something stupid like that.. cause usually it's the civilians who get hurt.

And then Palestinians blame Israelies for starving their families because they're blocked from entering Israel, where they work... well, I wonder why - perhaps they don't want to let in any more suicide bombers.

[Done1done1done]

At 9/10/01 08:44 AM, UnclePecos wrote:

At 9/9/01 09:11 PM, Wheatonman wrote:

At 9/4/01 11:02 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:
At least 554 Palestinians and 157 Israelis have been killed since violence erupted last September.

I just look at this statistic, and I wonder why is it that all we ever hear about in the American media is Palestinian suicide bombers, and rarely "Israeli reaction to Palestinian aggression"

Where have you been living? Every time I hear about a bombing it's always followed by a retaliation!

Yes, but the American media doesn't reflect on the Israeli reaction, or the fact that Palestinians were killed, as much as the Palestinain suicide bomber. I'm not saying that going and blowing up some people, even if it's for something you believe in and would die for, is a good thing. In fact, I think it's disgusting. I just think that blood for blood is not the way that anyone is going to end this conflict. There's lots of anger, and I think alot of it has to do with the leaders. Arafat isn't that great, and Sharon is worse (we'd be in a very different place right now if Rabin hadn't been assassinated in '95)

[Pecos]

At 9/10/01 10:57 AM, Wheatonman wrote: Yes, but the American media doesn't reflect on the Israeli reaction, or the fact that Palestinians were killed, as much as the Palestinain suicide bomber.

This is where I disagree - I think American media covers the two sides pretty evenly. I always hear on the news about both sides.

:I'm not saying that going and blowing up some people, even if it's for something you believe in and would die for, is a good thing. In fact, I think it's disgusting. I just think that blood for blood is not the way that anyone is going to end this conflict. There's lots of anger, and I think alot of it has to do with the leaders. Arafat isn't that great, and Sharon is worse (we'd be in a very different place right now if Rabin hadn't been assassinated in '95)

You're probably right. But I don't think this makes Sharon worse than Rabin, just because Rabin was willing to put up with more shit from Araft. But the worst part of that assassination was that another jew committed it. I think it was very shocking to many people, because a jew harming jew is kinda like the last Planet of the Apes movie - "Ape Shall Never Kill Ape."

[Done1done1done]

At 9/10/01 11:23 AM, UnclePecos wrote:

At 9/10/01 10:57 AM, Wheatonman wrote: Yes, but the American media doesn't reflect on the Israeli reaction, or the fact that Palestinians were killed, as much as the Palestinain suicide bomber.

This is where I disagree - I think American media covers the two sides pretty evenly. I always hear on the news about both sides.

I'm not saying that going and blowing up some people, even if it's for something you believe in and would die for, is a good thing. In fact, I think it's disgusting. I just think that blood for blood is not the way that anyone is going to end this conflict. There's lots of anger, and I think alot of it has to do with the leaders. Arafat isn't that great, and Sharon is worse (we'd be in a very different place right now if Rabin hadn't been assassinated in '95)

You're probably right. But I don't think this makes Sharon worse than Rabin, just because Rabin was willing to put up with more shit from Araft. But the worst part of that assassination was that another jew committed it. I think it was very shocking to many people, because a jew harming jew is kinda like the last Planet of the Apes movie - "Ape Shall Never Kill Ape."

I'm not saying that Sharon is worse than Rabin as a political leader. In fact, Sharon is leading his people in reflection of their own feelings. I just have one moment for me that stands out for Sharon, when he went to the Temple Mount last September, which caused the hostilities between Jews and Palestinians to flare up again, hostilities that haven't calmed since. Months later, Bush backs out of the peace process, and the whole thing falls apart.

[Pecos]

At 9/10/01 12:09 PM, Wheatonman wrote: Months later, Bush backs out of the peace process, and the whole thing falls apart.

Right, and this is where I think Bush is also at fault. It's been the practice of republicans for a long time now to have more of a "hands-off" attitude than the democrats, when it comes to global issues. So this is where I think Clinton's presence might have benefitted the situation more.

But Bush is like an extreme republican - so far he has managed to get US kicked off the UN Civil Rights Commitee, the UN Environment Protection Committee (not exact name of it), tap into the emergency oil reserve in Alaska (which was meant for emergencies such as in times of war), ostrasize the US from the rest of the Americas during the American Trade Summit, and god knows what else he fucked up.

More specifically, it's not Bush himself doing it - but the people who stand behind him and pull on the strings.

[KaneOfNod]

At 9/10/01 12:19 PM, UnclePecos wrote:

At 9/10/01 12:09 PM, Wheatonman wrote: Months later, Bush backs out of the peace process, and the whole thing falls apart.

Right, and this is where I think Bush is also at fault. It's been the practice of republicans for a long time now to have more of a "hands-off" attitude than the democrats, when it comes to global issues. So this is where I think Clinton's presence might have benefitted the situation more.

But Bush is like an extreme republican - so far he has managed to get US kicked off the UN Civil Rights Commitee, the UN Environment Protection Committee (not exact name of it), tap into the emergency oil reserve in Alaska (which was meant for emergencies such as in times of war), ostrasize the US from the rest of the Americas during the American Trade Summit, and god knows what else he fucked up.

More specifically, it's not Bush himself doing it - but the people who stand behind him and pull on the strings.

Yeah, I think Clinton making the US a subordinate friend to all countries was a good thing, too. </sarcasm>

Seriously, I think we were off the civil rights thing before that, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the UN is all a charade held by the very countries that commit such atrocities (has anyone looked at some of the countries on the CRC? I think Libya and China are there, among others.) The recent racism conference is the same idea. By the US, and now the EU in certain places, leaving such conferences, we are sending a clear message to the UN that these games are escalating, and shall no longer be tolerated.

Clinton's international politics weren't pro-American, they were feel-good.

[Done1done1done]

At 9/10/01 06:15 PM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 9/10/01 12:19 PM, UnclePecos wrote:

At 9/10/01 12:09 PM, Wheatonman wrote: Months later, Bush backs out of the peace process, and the whole thing falls apart.

Right, and this is where I think Bush is also at fault. It's been the practice of republicans for a long time now to have more of a "hands-off" attitude than the democrats, when it comes to global issues. So this is where I think Clinton's presence might have benefitted the situation more.

But Bush is like an extreme republican - so far he has managed to get US kicked off the UN Civil Rights Commitee, the UN Environment Protection Committee (not exact name of it), tap into the emergency oil reserve in Alaska (which was meant for emergencies such as in times of war), ostrasize the US from the rest of the Americas during the American Trade Summit, and god knows what else he fucked up.

More specifically, it's not Bush himself doing it - but the people who stand behind him and pull on the strings.

Yeah, I think Clinton making the US a subordinate friend to all countries was a good thing, too. </sarcasm>

Seriously, I think we were off the civil rights thing before that, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the UN is all a charade held by the very countries that commit such atrocities (has anyone looked at some of the countries on the CRC? I think Libya and China are there, among others.) The recent racism conference is the same idea. By the US, and now the EU in certain places, leaving such conferences, we are sending a clear message to the UN that these games are escalating, and shall no longer be tolerated.

Clinton's international politics weren't pro-American, they were feel-good.

I believe you can add Sudan to that list, and they got the US kicked out of it to put the Sudanese (they of the modern slave trade) in there.