News & Politics - Hamas Leader killed - Page 3

**The Happy Psycho** · 03-26-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:

Hell, if they knew where the guy was in order to kill him, why didn't they just arrest him? Not like he could have run away.

I imagine all hell would've broken loose. Iraeli soldiers would've approached them, and Yassin's Hamas bodyguards would've defended him. There would've been even more risk to innocent people in the crossfire.

mh67511 · 03-26-2004, 06:36 PM

You know it would be nice if some news channel would do a story and explain the entire situation. It's very confusing and I don't quite understand what exaclty is going on.

Is Palestine a country? Is this simply just a struggle for land or what? I don't even understand the situation or why is it so important to them. Does it have to do with religion?

mononoke_hime · 03-26-2004, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Happy Psycho:


I imagine all hell would've broken loose. Iraeli soldiers would've approached them, and Yassin's Hamas bodyguards would've defended him. There would've been even more risk to innocent people in the crossfire.

a rocket just sounds a bit extreme to kill one physically disabled guy with it. They could have used something different. A sniper? I don't know much about this sort of ops it seems lol but I'm sure there must have been a much cleaner? and yet still efficient way to have the job done.

Quote:

Originally posted by ros2nz:

I've no problem with a Hamas leader or an Israeli soldier killed. I've got a lot of problem with the increasing casualties (usually innocent passer-bys) on both sides.

If by that you meant that the increasing civilian casualites bother you more then military ones then I agree with you. I don't believe you can equate a soldier to a terrorist but you can differentiate them both from civilians. A soldier is not a civilian. If soldiers are hurt or worse during duty that was it, they were doing their job and unfortunately got hurt or died while doing it, it's sad and I wished it happened less often but still..

[ 03-26-2004: Message edited mononoke_hime ]

ros2nz · 03-26-2004, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Nor do I agree that throwing stones at people is an innocent past-time. It is, in fact, attempted murder (except when it actually kills someone).

Attempted murder? Throwing stones against tanks?? Ok, so what about the bull-dozing of whole shanties with 'civilians' inside? That can be considered whatchucallit, 'horrifying'? Or is it because it's the Israeli 'Army' doing it and not the Palestinian 'terrorists' that makes it A - OK?

And I do equate the Israeli Army to terrorists and I've got plenty of reasons to think that way. Bloody sue me. Btw, I find your one-sided, ignorant comments about Palestinian civilians, horrifying too.

Quote:

If by that you meant that the increasing civilian casualites bother you more then military ones then I agree with you.

That's what I meant.

StellaSlight · 03-27-2004, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ros2nz:

Btw, I find your one-sided, ignorant comments about Palestinian civilians, horrifying too.

That was exactly what I thought and what I was gonna reply.
It's really convenient for lots of people to label ALL the Palestinians 'terrorists' to make all the deaths acceptable. Granted, I sure don't condone the suicidal bombings perpetrated in Israel's soil by Allah-servants-who-serve-a-cause-in-order-to-go-to-Heaven-where-twenty-six-virgins-are-waiting-for-each-of-them. But I also won't dismiss with a wave of the hand all the Palestinians casualties.

sum1 · 03-27-2004, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ros2nz:
Attempted murder? Throwing stones against tanks?? Ok, so what about the bull-dozing of whole shanties with 'civilians' inside? That can be considered whatchucallit, 'horrifying'? Or is it because it's the Israeli 'Army' doing it and not the Palestinian 'terrorists' that makes it A - OK?

It's not just throwing stones against tanks. There's plenty of throwing stones against soldiers who aren't in tanks. And they don't bulldoze shanties with civilians inside. They get the people out first before they bulldoze.

ros2nz · 03-27-2004, 05:11 AM

Quote:

It's not just throwing stones against tanks. There's plenty of throwing stones against soldiers who aren't in tanks. And they don't bulldoze shanties with civilians inside. They get the people out first before they bulldoze.

You mean to tell me that it hasn't happened before, people getting bulldozed when they didn't move out or refused to? I suppose it was their fault for not giving up their homes.

And please, let's not argue about stones versus the latest in defense warfare. I don't think it takes a genius to say which kills more.

AlexEvans · 03-27-2004, 12:51 PM

The collective punishment of the families of suicide bombers is certainly something that can legitimately be criticized, although I think Israel's desperation should be recognized. But the vast exaggerations are not helpful.

The Israeli army takes huge risks and enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties on both sides, while Hamas, Al Aqsa, etc. deliberately maximize civilian casualties on both sides, and turn children into combatants. You can choose to see them as morally equivalent, but that says more about your own views of what is right and wrong than about the two sides of the conflict. If you believe that targetting civilians is different than risking your own life to save civilians, you have to differentiate the Israelis from the Palestinian terrorists.

[img]smilies/abduct.gif[/img] [img]smilies/read.gif[/img]

Indri · 03-27-2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abducted Bookworm:
The collective punishment of the families of suicide bombers is certainly something that can legitimately be criticized, although I think Israel's desperation should be recognized. But the vast exaggerations are not helpful.

The Israeli army takes huge risks and enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties on both sides, while Hamas, Al Aqsa, etc. deliberately maximize civilian casualties on both sides, and turn children into combatants. You can choose to see them as morally equivalent, but that says more about your own views of what is right and wrong than about the two sides of the conflict. If you believe that targetting civilians is different than risking your own life to save civilians, you have to differentiate the Israelis from the Palestinian terrorists.

[img]smilies/abduct.gif[/img] [img]smilies/read.gif[/img]

How about if the target miss and kill many children palestine so you think there ist not Israel fault.

I thought Israel Army always target civilain eventhough they denied to kill terrorist but still they kill children and woman palestines.

And not surprise if America always doubt about what Israel do to palestines cuz they have reason to kill "Terrorism"

AlexEvans · 03-28-2004, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Indri:


How about if the target miss and kill many children palestine so you think there ist not Israel fault.

I thought Israel Army always target civilain eventhough they denied to kill terrorist but still they kill children and woman palestines.

And not surprise if America always doubt about what Israel do to palestines cuz they have reason to kill "Terrorism"

There are civilian casualties, because the terrorists surround themselves with human shields. Even though the Israeli defence forces take great risks, often sending in ground forces and limiting their use of air power, etc, they can't save everyone.

But failing to be perfect in an impossible situation is very different from targetting civilians - or from hiding behind them.

So no, no reasonable person can say that the civilian casualties are Israel's fault. In specific incidents they may be able to suggest room for improvement of Israeli tactics, possibly even in the current case we're discussing (I don't think so, but I'm not a tactical expert). Morally, the fault lies with the terrorists both for Israeli and for Palestinian civilian casualties.

The conflation of reasonable error and of moral blame is a major logical fallacy, and one that is all too common.

[img]smilies/abduct.gif[/img] [img]smilies/read.gif[/img]

StellaSlight · 03-29-2004, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Posted by AB :

There are civilian casualties, because the terrorists surround themselves with human shields. Even though the Israeli defence forces take great risks, often sending in ground forces and limiting their use of air power, etc, they can't save everyone.

But failing to be perfect in an impossible situation is very different from targetting civilians - or from hiding behind them.

So no, no reasonable person can say that the civilian casualties are Israel's fault. In specific incidents they may be able to suggest room for improvement of Israeli tactics, possibly even in the current case we're discussing (I don't think so, but I'm not a tactical expert). Morally, the fault lies with the terrorists both for Israeli and for Palestinian civilian casualties.

The conflation of reasonable error and of moral blame is a major logical fallacy, and one that is all too common.

Sure, blaming Israel for ALL the casualties in both part would be a mistake. But you guys are blaming Palestine for everything too, and I think it's another mistake one should not make, although it's easier to believe that all the population is made of terrorists.

Israel's politics might be one of counter-terrorism but the way I see it is that it's only a huge vicious circle that can't be broken by force, nor violence : you bomb my citizens, I shoot your civilians, and here we go again. Both parts have become fanatics to their cause, each blaming the other for the 'first move' ("It's their fault, they bombed us" / "It's their fault, they shot us"). It's getting tired, because 50 years later, one might forget who started it first. Eh, it's like the chicken and the egg, who came first?

Sure, I think they're mad in Palestine with their Intifada-thing and their sending children and woman bomb themselves in the first place. But history has shown 50 years of desperation on their part, and Israel's positions for the past years have not favorised an improvement in the situation. Am I trying to justify the bombings? No, I find them horrible and totally wrong. But I also think that Sharon's current politics have done anything but fueling the hatred between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which causes the vicious circle to go round again. Which brings me to the question of the Barrier that is being built, a very questionable point in Sharon's politics.

Sharon said that it was aimed at protecting Israel against the suicide-bombers. The wall might have been justified if it had stuck to the so-called green line dividing Israeli and Palestinian territory. But the fact that it extends far into Palestinian land suggests that its real purpose is the annexation of additional land for Israel. The Human Rights Commission report is just the latest to be critical of the security barrier. Last month the International Committee of the Red Cross said building it within occupied territory was in clear violation of international humanitarian law. From BBC :

Quote:

In a highly critical 13-page report presented to the UN Human Rights Commission, John Dugard (the UN's special rapporteur for the occupied territories) says the barrier has caused widespread destruction of Palestinian property and that the seizure of land to build it took place without due process of law.
Now that the wall is largely built, he says families have been divided and many are denied access to health and education.
The only beneficiaries of the barrier, the report says, are Israeli settlers, who are likely to gain land which has been seized from Palestinians.

Tell me, how can't the Palestinians not be infuriated by that? Sharon promised to dismantle Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, only to rob them more of their territory with the Barrier.

Quote:

Posted by AB :

although I think Israel's desperation should be recognized. But the vast exaggerations are not helpful.

I think they're both desperate. But while Israel have support, weapons and a decent living condition with jobs and food, Palestine is impoverished, famished and slowly dying, only finding their salvation in fanatic religious beliefs that tell the people about a better life in Heaven for those who would destroy their enemies. They sure are not rationalizing things. So the 'vast exaggerations' you're talking about might be from our western point of view, but for Palestinians, a lost bullet that kills one of them, or a rocket that targeted one person but kills eight, is only another furthered conviction that Israel is the evil to kill. Or bomb, in that case.

That's the problem in the Israel/Palestine conflict. There's always someone to blame in both parts, and neither are willing to admit they're wrong. But Palestine is way more instable, becoming more and more fanatic every day. The killing of Yassin, although I can understand why Israel was so willing to perform this operation, did not improve things, and it's safe to say that it has even worsened the situation. Hamas found itself another leader and it has fueled more hatred in the Palestinian side to a level I did not think possible. Oh boy, peace won't come easily.

It's a delicate subject here, and it's so easy to be called 'anti-Israel'. Just for your information, I support neither of them. I'm for peace in that region of the world, and to that extent, I can't support Palestine's fanatic religious beliefs and I can't support Sharon's politics.

AlexEvans · 03-29-2004, 03:33 PM

First, don't bother citing the RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT/RED NOTHING ELSE. Beyond being an anti-semitic organization, it's also the group who messed up Canada's blood supply. They're both incompetent and biased.

You can't deny that Israel has repeatedly sought peace (most notably under Rabin and Barak), while Arafat refused to even make a counter-proposal. That matters very much.

Palestine has received truly enormous sums of aid. But it is wasted or embezzled.

Israelis have hired Palestinian workers. But they lose those jobs when security has to be tightened due to terrorism.

Yes, Israel is going to take some land, but the wall will also exclude settlements - and Sharon is committed to withdrawing from land. It should be noted that Israel has been repeatedly attacked, and won numerous wars of self-defense. Historically, all that territory would be forfeited by the Arabs after the first war they launched and lost. Israel, facing extermination, seeks defensible borders. That's certainly understandable. Some settlements have to be abandoned, yes - but that's already government policy.

Military means may not solve the situation, but they will reduce the number and effectiveness of terror attacks. And until there is a real change of leadership among the Palestinians, there's no point trying negotiations again.

[img]smilies/abduct.gif[/img] [img]smilies/read.gif[/img]

StellaSlight · 03-29-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Posted by AB :

First, don't bother citing the RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT/RED NOTHING ELSE. Beyond being an anti-semitic organization, it's also the group who messed up Canada's blood supply. They're both incompetent and biased.

The Red Cross, although they might have had a problem with blood's supply in Canada, have done tremendous things in the poorest countries in the world, and since Palestine is among them, I don't see why they would be biased to make a point of showing the living conditions of the Palestinians for the past decade, and also to denounce a barrier that is obviously totally unfair. Gee, it's not like the Red Cross has been the only humanitarian organization to denounce the wall. The Human Right Commission has also done the same, as did the the UN's special rapporteur for the occupied territories. Amnesty International and Medecins Sans Fronti�res have also worded their worries about the violation of human rights about it (only to cite some of them). People who are against the new map imposed by the barrier aren't necessarily biased, but perhaps really concerned about the human rights. But since you are obviously biased to the cause of Israel, I guess it's useless to try to convince you of that.

Quote:

Posted by AB :

You can't deny that Israel has repeatedly sought peace (most notably under Rabin and Barak), while Arafat refused to even make a counter-proposal. That matters very much.

You're changing history. Arafat was as willing to seek peace as Rabin in the 90's, and both won the Nobel Peace Prize (along with Shimon Peres), remember?

And that was before Netanyahu went to power.

Quote:

Posted by AB :

Yes, Israel is going to take some land, but the wall will also exclude settlements - and Sharon is committed to withdrawing from land. It should be noted that Israel has been repeatedly attacked, and won numerous wars of self-defense. Historically, all that territory would be forfeited by the Arabs after the first war they launched and lost. Israel, facing extermination, seeks defensible borders. That's certainly understandable. Some settlements have to be abandoned, yes - but that's already government policy.

So Sharon decides to dismantle most settlements only to take more land, and it's acceptable? So everything is a sort of I-give-you-this-but-I-take-this-from-you deal?

The settlements have always been a problem. A major problem.

One might argue that the settlements violate many of the international laws (especially the Geneva Convention), while Israel claims that the majority of the land currently taken by the new settlements was either vacant, belonging to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians, arguing on these three bases that there is nothing illegal about the settlements. Whether you agree with the existence of those settlements or not, it has been clear that those are an obstacle to peace and a cause for tensions. On one hand Palestinians has argued that Israel has violated the Oslo accords by continuing to expand the settlements after the signing of the accords. On the other hand Israel has pointed out that in the Oslo accords, the Palestinians accepted at least the temporary presence of Israeli settlements, and has argued back that the PLO instead violated the Oslo accords by not dismantling the terrorist organisations and by inciting their population to hate. Palestinians and other Arab states regularly accuse Israel of attacking refugee camps and villages in an attempt to scare off Palestinians and claim the land as theirs. Israel justifies that it only fights against those terrorist organisations, and if there would be no terrorists, there wouldn't be any military operations. And Palestine wants to avenge the attacks by... etc. etc. yada-yada.
Vicious circle again, can't you see?

But beyond the political problem of the settlements, the cost invested in the settlements is too high. A report published by Ha'aretz on September 26, 2003, claimed that the non-military expenditure on the settlements was conservatively $560 million per year in excess of the usual expenditure on a similar number of ordinary Israeli citizens. The cost of the protection of the same settlements makes it even worse.

So when Sharon decided to dismantle most of the settlements, it wasn't a sacrifice. It was a sensible choice : strategically (because Israel could be regarded as THE ONE who took the first step in favour of peace), politically (because lots of nations, and even their allies the US, like in 1991 with the first Bush administration, were opposed to the settlemtents), economically (because the costs for the settlements were too high), and electorally (because the public opinion in Israel was more and more critical towards the question of the settlements cf: Q&A, Sharon's Gaza settlements plan).

So, the question of the settlements and the one of the barrier are totally independant, and totally different. Sharon shouldn't be 'rewarded' with a part of the Palestinian land because he decided to withdraw from another side of the territory.

Quote:

Posted by AB :

Military means may not solve the situation, but they will reduce the number and effectiveness of terror attacks. And until there is a real change of leadership among the Palestinians, there's no point trying negotiations again.

You're describing the politics that has been adopted for the past 3/4 years, and unfortunately I don't see any improvement to the situation. And if one is to wait to a change of leadership among the Palestinians, one must be really really patient because the current situation in the world and in their country won't incite them to change it into a more pro-western/Israel/democracy leadership.

AlexEvans · 03-29-2004, 11:19 PM

Stella, your 'correction' is simply untrue.

Arafat cooperated with the peace process for a while. Like Le Duc Tho, another monster, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was made offers by Rabin and then Barak. He rejected them. He refused to make any counter-offer. Yes, that was all before Netanyahu. It was - entirely, one hundred percent, beyond all doubt whatsoever - Arafat's fault.

It is possible Netanyahu would not have done a good job of negotiating peace, or that Sharon would not do a good job of it. That is mere supposition. Neither has ever had the opportunity.

The Red Cross/Red Crescent refuses to allow a Jewish equivalent. Beyond its gross incompetence, it is anti-semitic. It is not a useful source of information.

[img]smilies/abduct.gif[/img] [img]smilies/read.gif[/img]

StellaSlight · 03-30-2004, 04:39 AM

I didn't know about the Red Cross not wanting a Jewish equivalent. Especially when one considers them Swiss in the first place, which means quite impartial.
But like I said, they're not the only one who opposed to the wall, so it's hard to argue that all humanitarian organization are biased.

Quote:

Like Le Duc Tho, another monster, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ooooh, this is getting interesting. Please, tell me, what has done Le Duc Tho, so horrible, that you call him a 'monster'? Beside the fact that he's a communist and that he's the one who negociated the peace between North Vietnam and the US with Kissinger in 1973? I sure don't like Le Duc Tho, but calling him a 'monster' would be going to far. Really, I know the subject quite well so I'd love to hear your input in the matter.
BTW, the Nobel Price has been named after the man who invented the dynamite, so here is another 'monster'.

Quote:

Arafat cooperated with the peace process for a while.

It's very easy to dismiss those years of improvement in relationships, in cease-of-fires, of steps forward to get the peace by saying "he cooperated for awhile". That was years, actually, and that was after 40 years of bloody war against the same man he's sharing the picture -Rabin. That's a big action, and that's something that we can't say for both part since Rabin has died.

Quote:

It was - entirely, one hundred percent, beyond all doubt whatsoever - Arafat's fault.

That's too easy, and that's what I blame most of Israel-supporters : dismissing all eventual fault from the Israeli side and blaming everything on Palestine and Arafat.
Arafat has been a SOB since Netanyahu came to power, and I'm not the one who shall contradict that fact. But the Israeli goverment has also played a dangerous card, by "toughing up" its policy way before the new wave of tensions and the bombings began. First with speeches (especially Netanyahu and his party way before his election), and then with actions in the Gaza Strip. The whip and the carrot. Israel should not wonder after that, that Palestine has gone crazy, with all the population paranoid and uncertain about the peace process.
I told you that settlements in GS were a sensitive subject and that they were one of the major cause of the new wave of tensions. And both parties are to be blamed, not only Arafat.

Quote:

It is possible Netanyahu would not have done a good job of negotiating peace, or that Sharon would not do a good job of it. That is mere supposition. Neither has ever had the opportunity.

Well, I'm sure the day Sharon came up with that Barrier line, he knew he'd kiss peace goodbye. So, saying that he didn't have the opportunity would be somehow untrue. I'd say that he did nothing to get an opportunity to negociate peace.