Sheikh Yassin Assassination

[sArA]

A most worrying development.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3556559.stm



http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_se...?service_id=439 (http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/world_full_story.asp?service_id=439)

[Biggles]

I have followed this on the News and have come to the conclusion that it is fuel for the fire. Blind paraplegics, do not, for the main part, constitute difficult targets to hit. They could have done this at any time in the last 20 years or, for that matter, simply have not released him from jail when they had him.

Although it is hard for us to comprehend, Yassin was at the moderate end of Hammas. This appears designed to cause more ruptures in the political structures of the Palestinians. In short term it will almost certainly mean the deaths of ever increasing numbers of innocent Israelis and Palestinians. Sharron plays hard, always has done, always will do by the looks of it. It may well be a gamble that Sharron will never have to answer for, as his political days look numbered on many fronts.

[sArA]

Funny, but I thought that Assassination of a political or religious leader was considered an act of war. Although not officially recognised as a country (by the west), the Palestinians still feel that it was an attack on their soveriegnty, likewise, they do not recognise Israel so we have a conundrum.

The most concerning development, regardless of the 'official' position of either side is that this attack seems to have been designed to incite further conflict. I heard of senior Hammas officials stating that this was an attack on Islam (surprise) which could significantly change the stance that Yassin took and thus the focus of Hammas. Despite his support of terrorism and refusal to enter into peace talks, he at least maintained that the struggle was about land and kept the issues secular.

This attack has I fear just made the whole middle eastern issue a whole lot worse.

The world has been quick to condemn the act, but the US has had its hands tied by its continued obligations to Israel thus preventing it from condemning too strongly. Sharron aparently is 'fine' with the US response which will no doubt further seed anti US feeling.

Regardless of the good reasons to want this man dead, it was a provocative act.

Feelings in the region are just too high to let this one go. I think it was a gross act of miscalculation, agression and arrogance to think that there will not be serious world wide ramifications from this...

I just hope I am wrong.

[leftism]

One theory I've heard is that Sharon has done this to appease the hard line right wingers who are unhappy with Israel exiting Gaza and the removal of Jewish settlements.

Another theory is that this is a strategic strike designed to produce a wave of retaliatory suicide bombings so that Israel can re-enter Gaza after the withdrawal citing security as the main reason. It will be 'interesting' if this turns out to be the case.

It should be noted that most of Europe has condemned this and the UN has said it's a breach of International Law. The US has found the attack "worrying" but has not condemned it outright.

The Israeli interior minister, the minister for justice, the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Shinui party have all condemned the attack. Their arguments range from worries about the inevitable retaliation and doubts about whether the assassination will achieve anything with regards to weakening Hamas.

Apart from a massive increase in suicide bombings I can't see what Israel gets out of this, unless the second theory I mentioned is correct. After all.. 64 year old quadriplegics who are partially sighted don't make the best military planners. He may, as Sharon has argued been a "spiritual inspiration" to the suicide bombers, but I'm sure he'll be even more of an inspiration now he's dead/martyred.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism@23 March 2004 - 02:56
Apart from a massive increase in suicide bombings I can't see what Israel gets out of this, unless the second theory I mentioned is correct. After all.. 64 year old quadriplegics who are partially sighted don't make the best military planners. He may, as Sharon has argued been a "spiritual inspiration" to the suicide bombers, but I'm sure he'll be even more of an inspiration now he's dead/martyred.
Word.

I think Israel just shoved a huge lightening rod up its ass by "cannonizing" this man.

[mogadishu]

I think this is the worst possible thing israel could do to themselves. What do they expect to happen in retaliation? But maybe they do want more suicide bombings. After all, the only reason they are not being treated like Apartheid South Africa by the rest of the World is the suicide bombings. The more violence there is, the harder it is to distinguish who is really right in the conflict.

[cpt_azad]

Another theory is that this is a strategic strike designed to produce a wave of retaliatory suicide bombings so that Israel can re-enter Gaza after the withdrawal citing security as the main reason. It will be 'interesting' if this turns out to be the case.

exactly what i was thinking. remove sharon, and the middle east will be a much happier place, don't you agree :) ? oh, while at it, make palestine a sovergn nation with it's own land and government, and a better leader (yasser arafat has his faults too), but all this will happen if you simply take sharon out of the picture.

[leftism]

Originally posted by cpt_azad
exactly what i was thinking. remove sharon, and the middle east will be a much happier place, don't you agree  ? oh, while at it, make palestine a sovergn nation with it's own land and government, and a better leader (yasser arafat has his faults too), but all this will happen if you simply take sharon out of the picture.

I don't think removing Sharon would make all that happen. It would be nice if it were that simple, but it's not.

[j2k4]

Much is being made of the fact Yassin was a blind, wheelchair-bound elder of Hamas, and, owing to his infirmity, not himself much of a threat.

Usama bin Laden, in every instance I have seen him (video, etc.) has always used a walking stick, moves with care, and appears to be somewhat sickly.

FDR led the U.S. war effort in WWII from a wheelchair.

I don't buy the poor old cripple line.

Having said that, I don't believe Israel's move facilitates any sort of peace process, and in that vein, cannot be viewed as positive.

The assassination of Yassim would appear to indicate a resolve to throttle an arm of the Palestinian amalgam that Arafat deigns himself unable (ultimately) to control.

If Israel is counting on other elements to discern the difference between Hamas and Arafat, or the PLO proper, I think they've got a long row to hoe. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@23 March 2004 - 15:06
Much is being made of the fact Yassin was a blind, wheelchair-bound elder of Hamas, and, owing to his infirmity, not himself much of a threat.

Usama bin Laden, in every instance I have seen him (video, etc.) has always used a walking stick, moves with care, and appears to be somewhat sickly.

FDR led the U.S. war effort in WWII from a wheelchair.

I don't buy the poor old cripple line.

Having said that, I don't believe Israel's move facilitates any sort of peace process, and in that vein, cannot be viewed as positive.

The assassination of Yassim would appear to indicate a resolve to throttle an arm of the Palestinian amalgam that Arafat deigns himself unable (ultimately) to control.

If Israel is counting on other elements to discern the difference between Hamas and Arafat, or the PLO proper, I think they've got a long row to hoe. ;)
Regarding your comments about the disabled, I couldn't agree more.


If you lead a terrorist organization should I care about your mobility if you deemed an enemy.

Israel is constantly getting suicide bombers up the ass so when terrorist say they will step attacks well ....what they were on a lesser schedule before?

Peace starts both ways. I don't hear much about the suicide bombers stopping their attacks so I think it is fitting they go after the leaders of terrorism.

At least they don't go after children which is much more despicable.

[j2k4]

Very true.

There seems to an expectation of unilaterality (say that five times fast) that begins and ends with Israel.

I mean, really:

Is Hamas a legitimate organ of "Palestine" or not?

They cannot be disavowed on the one hand, then accepted as integral on the other.

If Arafat actually cared about the peace process, he'd have done (with a high degree of legitimacy) what Israel now appears to be doing. ;)

[Biggles]

J2 and Busyman

I think the issue regarding Yassin's incapacity does not really bear comparison with Bin Laden. We do not know where Bin Laden is or what he is up to. If some sources are to be believed he is in the process of planning some monumentally dastardly attack.

Yassin attended the same mosque 5 times a day in Gaza and has done so for years. He was not in hiding nor did he keep his movements hidden. Israel did not need to do this in this manner unless they specifically wanted to. The question is, why did they want to do this right now?

In my view it was a calculated political act. The US cannot insist on its road map if Hammas are in full vent. The Israelis are anything but stupid, they know this death will not save Israeli lives nor discourage other militants. The reverse is much more likely to be the case. Therefore the payoff has to be political.

I do, however, believe the Rice when she says the US was not privy to prior knowledge of this attack. The last thing George Bush needs to see is the road map going down in flames and anti-western feeling rising on the back of it - especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[putty]

People, Yassin was not simply a "spiritual leader". He was the founder of Hamas, a group that freely states that it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Nope, not dedicated to a Palestinian state, not dedicated to getting Israel out of Gaza/WB but they state that they will not stop until Israel is no more.

He wanted to die a fiery death and he did. Maybe there'll be a virgin left over for him.

And FWIW, he was in a wheelchair and had less than 20/20 vision when he founded Hamas.

[leftism]

Originally posted by putty
People, Yassin was not simply a "spiritual leader". He was the founder of Hamas, a group that freely states that it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Nope, not dedicated to a Palestinian state, not dedicated to getting Israel out of Gaza/WB but they state that they will not stop until Israel is no more.

He wanted to die a fiery death and he did. Maybe there'll be a virgin left over for him.

And FWIW, he was in a wheelchair and had less than 20/20 vision when he founded Hamas.


Do you really think killing him will weaken Hamas or reduce the number of suicide bombers though?

Why kill him now just as Israel is about to pull out from Gaza? Don't you think the timing is slightly suspicious? i.e That Sharon wants to create a huge wave of retaliation then use that as an excuse to go back into Gaza?

Btw, Hamas do want the destruction of Israel, but they also want an independent Islamic Palestinian state.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism+24 March 2004 - 03:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 24 March 2004 - 03:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-putty
People, Yassin was not simply a "spiritual leader". He was the founder of Hamas, a group that freely states that it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Nope, not dedicated to a Palestinian state, not dedicated to getting Israel out of Gaza/WB but they state that they will not stop until Israel is no more.

He wanted to die a fiery death and he did. Maybe there&#39;ll be a virgin left over for him.

And FWIW, he was in a wheelchair and had less than 20/20 vision when he founded Hamas.


Do you really think killing him will weaken Hamas or reduce the number of suicide bombers though?

Why kill him now just as Israel is about to pull out from Gaza? Don&#39;t you think the timing is slightly suspicious? i.e That Sharon wants to create a huge wave of retaliation then use that as an excuse to go back into Gaza?

Btw, Hamas do want the destruction of Israel, but they also want an independent Islamic Palestinian state.[/b][/quote]
Lefty,

He did state that their dedication lies in killing all the Jews in Israeli. I am sure that once they kill them all, they get to treasure their new independent state, as a nice side bonus.

As for the rest, you are right, to what end was done, certainly not for peace. I think Biggles explained this better than I can. Why now, for what purpose?

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He did state that their dedication lies in killing all the Jews in Israeli. I am sure that once they kill them all, they get to treasure their new independent state, as a nice side bonus.[/b]

He did say that but he also ruled out any dedication to a Palestinian state.


Originally posted by putty@
Nope, not dedicated to a Palestinian state

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Why now, for what purpose?[/quote]

I&#39;ll make a prediction here. Once Israel has pulled out of Gaza I think we can expect a swift return, thats if they pull out of Gaza at all.

[hobbes]

He stated that their main focus was to kill Jews, anything else is secondary.

That is the key.

They would not be happy with an independent state with Jews still in Israeli, and that is the key. They are dedicated more to killing Jews than getting a piece of land to call home.

[cpt_azad]

oh p.s., don&#39;t listen to western media, it&#39;s almost always manufactured consent. consent you ask? yes, there is nothing as a people or citizens we can do to stop the fighting going on in israel, mainly because it&#39;s israel and america (no offense to any americans, i used to live in america too and i like it as much as i do canada so please no harsh comments). but it&#39;s true, almost all western news/media is biased and it&#39;s views are in favour of or support of israel&#39;s intentions/doings (even canadian <_< ). so simply put, the media is feeding you what they want you to hear (you&#39;ve all heard that a million times now, won&#39;t hurt if you hear it again). what does this have to do with the assassination? everything. it&#39;s an act of war (correct me if i&#39;m wrong, and i probably am) that israel has commited, and therefore there should be intervention from the free world to stop this from escalating. where are the U.N. troops? where are the american troops? what happened to the peace plan in the middle east? i have a feeling that the media is just telling us that it&#39;s not an act of war (even though it is) and it was a just doing (and i agree it was, a contradiction i know, but honestly there could have been another way to do this without assassination involved). as for the intervention part, i like to say, leave to the american gov&#39;t, they&#39;ll know what to do, i &#39;ll take that with a grain of salt anyday.

[hobbes]

Would you STFU, the original article is from the BBC, the second from Islamonline.

The beauty is that Islamic news sources are so balanced.

Seriously, we are getting the opinions from all sides.

I am American, and I think this was an act inconsistent with a country looking for peace.

Act 275, Scene 2435 in "stupid people, practicising stupid religions" , killing each other in the name of their loving Gods.

Could this get anymore deranged?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by cpt_azad@23 March 2004 - 23:05
oh p.s., don&#39;t listen to western media, it&#39;s almost always manufactured consent. consent you ask? yes, there is nothing as a people or citizens we can do to stop the fighting going on in israel, mainly because it&#39;s israel and america (no offense to any americans, i used to live in america too and i like it as much as i do canada so please no harsh comments). but it&#39;s true, almost all western news/media is biased and it&#39;s views are in favour of or support of israel&#39;s intentions/doings (even canadian <_< ). so simply put, the media is feeding you what they want you to hear (you&#39;ve all heard that a million times now, won&#39;t hurt if you hear it again). what does this have to do with the assassination? everything. it&#39;s an act of war (correct me if i&#39;m wrong, and i probably am) that israel has commited, and therefore there should be intervention from the free world to stop this from escalating. where are the U.N. troops? where are the american troops? what happened to the peace plan in the middle east? i have a feeling that the media is just telling us that it&#39;s not an act of war (even though it is) and it was a just doing (and i agree it was, a contradiction i know, but honestly there could have been another way to do this without assassination involved). as for the intervention part, i like to say, leave to the american gov&#39;t, they&#39;ll know what to do, i &#39;ll take that with a grain of salt anyday.
On thing everyone is forgetting.........

Hamas, Al Qaeda, terrorists in general...KILL CIVILIANS

..almost indiscriminately

They kill children, women, old people, disabled..they don&#39;t care.

I agree that killing Yassin doesn&#39;t solve anything when trying for peace but guess what, suicide bombing HAS NOT stopped....so what are the lot of you talking about?

What would you do?

Kill indiscriminately or

Kill the leaders

Puhleeze <_<

I say to hell with the grunts, go after the leaders ;)

[leftism]

The argument for the "targeted assassinations" seems to be.. "2 wrongs make a right".

Well.. they don&#39;t.

Even the Nazis who orchestrated the Holocaust got a fair trial. Was Yassin any worse than those guys? Did he not deserve a trial?

Vigilantism doesn&#39;t work on any scale, be it local or international. Thats why we have laws.

There seems to be a consensus that because Israel is under attack from suicide bombers they can ignore International Law and do what they please. This just isn&#39;t right.

Building walls to keep suicide bombers out is a defence. Launching missiles at people is an attack. It doesn&#39;t lessen the number of suicide bombers and it doesn&#39;t help the peace plan.

If every country/individual decided to ignore the law everytime they were attacked the whole world would plunge into chaos.

To turn it round, if the Palestinians somehow managed to kill Sharon (he is a war criminal who&#39;s killed innocent people) would everyone who supports "targeted assassinations" stand back and say.. "fair enough"? Of course not.

[hobbes]

Cmon Lefty, I think this recent attack indicates that both sides are bent on aggression until the end.

Sad, but true.

No side is all wrong or all right.

All these religious nuts and their loving Gods, fucking nuts.

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes
Cmon Lefty, I think this recent attack indicates that both sides are bent on aggression until the end.


I agree but not many people do :)

After all, there&#39;s a lot of support for the illegal &#39;targeted assassinations&#39;.

[h1]

Killing this man solves nothing, it only makes the problem worse. This is much like the situation with Usama bin Laden is now.

And lastly, I would like to say that one man&#39;s terrorist is another man&#39;s freedom fighter. During the American Revolution, we were "terrorists." The list goes on.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@23 March 2004 - 15:11
J2 and Busyman

I think the issue regarding Yassin&#39;s incapacity does not really bear comparison with Bin Laden. We do not know where Bin Laden is or what he is up to. If some sources are to be believed he is in the process of planning some monumentally dastardly attack.

Yassin attended the same mosque 5 times a day in Gaza and has done so for years. He was not in hiding nor did he keep his movements hidden. Israel did not need to do this in this manner unless they specifically wanted to. The question is, why did they want to do this right now?

In my view it was a calculated political act.&nbsp; The US cannot insist on its road map if Hammas are in full vent.&nbsp; The Israelis are anything but stupid, they know this death will not save Israeli lives nor discourage other militants. The reverse is much more likely to be the case.&nbsp; Therefore the payoff has to be political.

I do, however, believe the Rice when she says the US was not privy to prior knowledge of this attack. The last thing George Bush needs to see is the road map going down in flames and anti-western feeling rising on the back of it - especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think Yassim was still part and parcel of Hamas, though I also think he relied on a popular perception that he was semi-retired (this doesn&#39;t happen in the real world) and that his status as an elder in the Palestinian movement somehow rendered him untouchable.

I still think his wheelchair is not indicative of his having somehow mellowed in his dotage.

As far as the why of it all, I believe the entire situation is beset by too many nascent variables to sort just now.

Sharon is vexed by personal scandal at the moment; fringe Israeli political elements are being blamed for applying pressure to hit Yassim; then there&#39;s the Gaza pull-out (why bother, now?), etc.

This seems to fit any number of conflicting scenarios.

As an aside, I don&#39;t think the fact of Sharon&#39;s having been labeled a "war criminal" is of sufficient significance to bear on the argument; it&#39;s not exactly an exclusive club.

Arafat is undeniably a terrorist, but he has a Nobel Peace prize.

No exclusivity or significance there, either, just a good-sized dollop of irony.

As haxor said, one man&#39;s terrorist, another man&#39;s freedom fighter.

(haxor-did we just finish reading the same column? I had just read that line myself&#33; :) )

[Busyman]

Originally posted by haxor41789@24 March 2004 - 01:42
Killing this man solves nothing, it only makes the problem worse. This is much like the situation with Usama bin Laden is now.

And lastly, I would like to say that one man&#39;s terrorist is another man&#39;s freedom fighter. During the American Revolution, we were "terrorists." The list goes on.
Firefighters fight fire
Crimefighters fight fire

These so called freedom fighters fight..........


Again the lot of you can harp on this assassination like it&#39;s the end all be all of crimes. There&#39;s isn&#39;t this uproar when a suicide bomber rushes a busy store full of women and children.......with the intent of killing women and children.

[putty]

The argument for the "targeted assassinations" seems to be.. "2 wrongs make a right".

Well.. they don&#39;t.

The founder and leader of Hamas is not someone you walk up to and arrest. You found one of the world&#39;s foremost terror organizations, you should expect retribution.


Even the Nazis who orchestrated the Holocaust got a fair trial. Was Yassin any worse than those guys? Did he not deserve a trial?

The Nazis only got a trial AFTER the war had ended. During the war, Nazi leaders were joyfully killed by bombings.


Vigilantism doesn&#39;t work on any scale, be it local or international. Thats why we have laws.

Yet you continue to defend suicide bombings.


There seems to be a consensus that because Israel is under attack from suicide bombers they can ignore International Law and do what they please. This just isn&#39;t right.

You know... there is a right to defence. This man was the leader of the biggest threat to Israel. Israel&#39;s OBL if you want. That&#39;s what he gets for targetting kids in cafes and discos.


Building walls to keep suicide bombers out is a defence.

Judging from what I read here it&#39;s an attack, nota defense. I hope you wrote a letter to the Hague saying that you feel the wall is a defense.


Sharon (he is a war criminal)

Says who?

The thing I don&#39;t get about all the "Sharon = war criminal" folks is how you ignore Arafat and his terrorist history. He LED the PLO all through it&#39;s airplane blowing up/cruiseship hijacking/Olympic athlete murdering days. Not to mention turning a blind eye to Hamas and Islamis Jihad, etc.

Whatever.

The view for the killing is that although it may cause an immediate increase in the number of bombings, the long term benefit for Hamas having lost it&#39;s founder and leader is worth the risk. Like I already pointed out, Hamas doesn&#39;t leave any wiggle room for negotiation. They exist solely to kill until Israel doesn&#39;t exist. They&#39;re not shy about saying this.

Should the US lay off of OBL with the fear that Al Qaeda will get angry and step up attacks?

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again the lot of you can harp on this assassination like it&#39;s the end all be all of crimes. There&#39;s isn&#39;t this uproar when a suicide bomber rushes a busy store full of women and children.......with the intent of killing women and children.[/b]

No one is saying its the "end all and be all of crimes". They&#39;re just pointing out that it doesnt achieve anything, it just makes the situation worse. As for your second point no-one supports suicide bombers so theres nothing to debate. Two wrongs don&#39;t make a right and revenge attacks don&#39;t help create peace.


Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The founder and leader of Hamas is not someone you walk up to and arrest.[/b]

Israel already arrested him a few years ago. I thought you would be aware of this?


Originally posted by putty

Originally posted by leftism

Vigilantism doesn&#39;t work on any scale, be it local or international. Thats why we have laws.

Yet you continue to defend suicide bombings.


lol, no I don&#39;t. Quote me and prove it.

I&#39;m just pointing out what most people see as obvious. "Targeted assassination" don&#39;t work. i.e they don&#39;t reduce the amount of suicide bombings. They are also illegal in the same way that suicide bombings are illegal.


Originally posted by putty

Originally posted by leftism

There seems to be a consensus that because Israel is under attack from suicide bombers they can ignore International Law and do what they please. This just isn&#39;t right.


You know... there is a right to defence. This man was the leader of the biggest threat to Israel. Israel&#39;s OBL if you want. That&#39;s what he gets for targetting kids in cafes and discos.

Is a missile attack really a defence? Does it actually reduce the number of Israeli&#39;s being killed by suicide bombers? Whats the point? What does it achieve?


Originally posted by putty

Originally posted by leftism

Building walls to keep suicide bombers out is a defence.


Judging from what I read here it&#39;s an attack, nota defense. I hope you wrote a letter to the Hague saying that you feel the wall is a defense.


Where have you read that "here"? Quote it.


Originally posted by putty

Originally posted by leftism

Sharon (he is a war criminal)


Says who?


The UN. Asides from that it&#39;s common knowledge. Do a search for Sabra and Shatila.

In September &#39;82 the PLO withdrew from Lebanon and the US guaranteed the safety of Palestinian civilians. After the PLO and the multinational forces left the Israeli army circled the areas and allowed right wing Lebanese militia allies into the camps where they killed 1,500 civilians.

That&#39;s just one incident, there are more going back to the 1950&#39;s involving Sharon.

So considering that Sharon is a war criminal.. if the Palestinians killed him are you seriously saying you would find that acceptable as part of an ongoing "war"? Of course not.


Originally posted by putty
The thing I don&#39;t get about all the "Sharon = war criminal" folks is how you ignore Arafat and his terrorist history. He LED the PLO all through it&#39;s airplane blowing up/cruiseship hijacking/Olympic athlete murdering days. Not to mention turning a blind eye to Hamas and Islamis Jihad, etc.

Who the hell is ignoring Islamic terrorism? No-one here justifies it.

Your argument is based entirely on the logical fallacy that two wrongs make a right.

My argument is wholly consistent. I don&#39;t agree with any kind of terrorism. It doesn&#39;t make a difference to me whether its state sponsored Israeli terrorism or Islamic terrorism. Your argument seems to be that the former is acceptable as an answer to the latter.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty@
The view for the killing is that although it may cause an immediate increase in the number of bombings, the long term benefit for Hamas having lost it&#39;s founder and leader is worth the risk. Like I already pointed out, Hamas doesn&#39;t leave any wiggle room for negotiation. They exist solely to kill until Israel doesn&#39;t exist. They&#39;re not shy about saying this.[/quote]

Hamas may have lost a leader but now they&#39;ve got a martyr. I don&#39;t think they&#39;ll have any problem with recruitment for the next few years. Do you?

<!--QuoteBegin-putty
Should the US lay off of OBL with the fear that Al Qaeda will get angry and step up attack[/quote]

Do you think that if OBL is killed the Al-Queda problem will be solved?

I also think the analogy is specious. Israel knew where Yassin was at all times and even had him in jail at one point. You can hardly compare him to OBL.

It seems to me that Sharon wants Hamas to retaliate so he can use that as an excuse to either return to Gaza after the withdrawal or not withdraw from Gaza at all.

Apart from that Israel has achieved nothing by killing Yassin.

[putty]

Israel already arrested him a few years ago. I thought you would be aware of this?

Yes and Israel was forced to release him as part of negotiations. Yup, he sure learnt his lesson and refrained from terrorist activities, as required by the release agreement. Fool me once shame on you...


Yet you continue to defend suicide bombings.



lol, no I don&#39;t. Quote me and prove it.


A very quick search turns this up:

Your quote: Now.. the reason you are not seeing "exhibits displaying the beauty of Chechen suicide bombers? Iraqi suicide bombers? 9/11 suicide bombers?" etc is because they are TERRORISTS not civilized governments.

So, Palestinian suicide bombers are somehow "civilized govt", while other suicide bombers are "terrorists".

But otherwise, people like 1234 are more straightforward in saying that suicide bombers are protected by international law but that&#39;s ok.


I&#39;m just pointing out what most people see as obvious. "Targeted assassination" don&#39;t work. i.e they don&#39;t reduce the amount of suicide bombings.

If you look at the stats, successful suicide bombers are harder to come by than a couple years ago. More are getting caught before letting it rip. Something Israel is doing is working. Is it the killing of the people who plan the suicide bombings? Seems logical to me.

There&#39;s no question that it will make many Hamas followers mad as hell but getting rid of the brains of Hamas you cannot deny that this will have a negative effect on them. It&#39;s the exact same thing as even a business operation. Get rid of the leadership and middlemen will have to step up but the organization will be weakened as a whole.


Is a missile attack really a defence? Does it actually reduce the number of Israeli&#39;s being killed by suicide bombers? Whats the point? What does it achieve?

This is what I&#39;m explaining. Yes, there usually is an immediate "retaliatory" strike (although a suicide bombing in fact takes months to plan) but the general situation is that there are fewer successful strikes now than there used to be. More are getting caught due to poor planning. I can only imagine that getting rid of the leaders is having a negative effect.


Judging from what I read here it&#39;s [the West Bank separation wall] an attack, nota defense. I hope you wrote a letter to the Hague saying that you feel the wall is a defense.



Where have you read that "here"? Quote it.

Oh come on. Read the news, read the boards. The wall being built is not being portrayed as a wall of defense.

But if you really want quotes...

Certainly most Americans can see the "protective wall"(Which, of course, we don&#39;t know about) being built is a covert way of driving Palestineans from their land.
...
Defence wall? Apartheid wall that is attempting to grab even more land for Isreal
....
It&#39;s a ruse, the land they really want is in the West Bank, the so called "Security Wall" will annexe that.

I&#39;ll assume 3 quotes fulfills your request.


Sharon being a war criminal... Says who?



The UN.

Got a link to that?

As for Sabra & Shatilla, he was found to be indirectly responsible. It was ruled that he should have known better. Now, what happened to those that were directly responsible? Nada. The Palestinians aren&#39;t trying to get a case going against them, of course.

Would you not say that Arafat is indirectly responsible for similarly allowing Hamas and Islamic Jihad to operate under his nose? Now how about Fatah, which is his own terrorrist group? And how about the DIRECT involvement with the terrorist attacks of the 1970&#39;s, aside from current day Fatah? What about the boat full of arms from Iran that Arafat was found to have personally requested?


if the Palestinians killed him [Sharon] are you seriously saying you would find that acceptable as part of an ongoing "war"? Of course not.

Sharon = democratically elected leader
Yassin = founder and current leader of world-recognized terrorist organization.

You&#39;re stretching the comparison here.


I don&#39;t agree with any kind of terrorism. It doesn&#39;t make a difference to me whether its state sponsored Israeli terrorism or Islamic terrorism.

Why is it terrorism to kill someone who leads a campaign to kill your citizens and states that he will not give up until you are no more?

Is the US conducting terrorism in Afganistan? In Iraq? A nation has the right to defend its citizens. Arresting Yassin once didn&#39;t help since he just went against the release agreement so here&#39;s the alternative.


Hamas may have lost a leader but now they&#39;ve got a martyr. I don&#39;t think they&#39;ll have any problem with recruitment for the next few years. Do you?

Perhaps not recruitment but they might have a problem in planning. Especially after Rantisi is taken care of.


Do you think that if OBL is killed the Al-Queda problem will be solved?
I also think the analogy is specious. Israel knew where Yassin was at all times and even had him in jail at one point. You can hardly compare him to OBL.

No, the Al Qaeda problem won&#39;t be solved but getting rid of OBL is a part of the solution. Just as getting rid of Yassin is. Yes, Israel had him jailed but again, they were pressured to release him under the condition that he no longer takes part in terrorist activities. He went against that agreement and paid the price. Now, why can&#39;t I compare him to OBL?


It seems to me that Sharon wants Hamas to retaliate so he can use that as an excuse to either return to Gaza after the withdrawal or not withdraw from Gaza at all.

Of course that&#39;s what you believe. In your eyes, Israel can do nothing right. Everything they do is because they want more land. Never mind the fact that a country was offered to Arafat that he accepted. Only 18 months after it was offered.

[leftism]

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes and Israel was forced to release him as part of negotiations. Yup, he sure learnt his lesson and refrained from terrorist activities, as required by the release agreement. Fool me once shame on you...[/b]

The point I was making was that Israel can arrest these people. You said they cannot. Israel &#39;forced&#39; to release him? Israel &#39;chose&#39; to release him. Presumably because they judged him not to be a significant risk.

Also who says he didn&#39;t refrain from "terrorist activities"? Wheres the proof? This is why we have courts and laws. If Israel arrested him, gave him a trial and then executed him that would be one thing. Saying "he did this" and then blowing him up is quite another.

Imagine if the Spanish had done that.. they would have killed suspected Basque leaders because they initially blamed the wrong people.


Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A very quick search turns this up:

Your quote: Now.. the reason you are not seeing "exhibits displaying the beauty of Chechen suicide bombers? Iraqi suicide bombers? 9/11 suicide bombers?" etc is because they are TERRORISTS not civilized governments.

So, Palestinian suicide bombers are somehow "civilized govt", while other suicide bombers are "terrorists". [/b]

Wow... could you misrepresent my words any more? Do you really believe I was stating that Palestinian suicide bombers are a "civilised Gvt"? I was explaining why the Palestinian&#39;s get more attention than the Chechens or the Iraqis. It&#39;s because Israel is meant to be a civilized government. People do not expect the same standards of behaviour from Russia and Iraq, thus their oppression draws less publicity and debate.

Btw, the exhibit "displaying the beauty of suicide bombers" was made by an Israeli who had served in the IDF.


Originally posted by putty

Originally posted by leftism

I&#39;m just pointing out what most people see as obvious. "Targeted assassination" don&#39;t work. i.e they don&#39;t reduce the amount of suicide bombings.

If you look at the stats, successful suicide bombers are harder to come by than a couple years ago. More are getting caught before letting it rip. Something Israel is doing is working. Is it the killing of the people who plan the suicide bombings? Seems logical to me.

There&#39;s no question that it will make many Hamas followers mad as hell but getting rid of the brains of Hamas you cannot deny that this will have a negative effect on them. It&#39;s the exact same thing as even a business operation. Get rid of the leadership and middlemen will have to step up but the organization will be weakened as a whole.


Your statistics don&#39;t concur with the ones I&#39;ve seen.

You can kill as many leaders as you like but there are always 10 more ready to replace them and if they&#39;re not as effective as the last bunch, they will learn quickly enough. you might get a lull in the attacks as the new leadership is inexperienced but its not a long term solution. More to the point it is not the way to achieve a real long term solution i.e peace.

To use your analogy a successful business may suffer in the short term if it loses it&#39;s leadership but it will not collapse for that reason alone if it was previously succesful.

As an aside the statistics I did find, (from Israeli sources) show that the Palestinians are losing many more non-combatants to enemy action than the Israeli&#39;s. Should the leadership of the IDF be "targeted for assassination" because they kill civilians as well?


Originally posted by putty
Certainly most Americans can see the "protective wall"(Which, of course, we don&#39;t know about) being built is a covert way of driving Palestineans from their land.
...
Defence wall? Apartheid wall that is attempting to grab even more land for Isreal
....
It&#39;s a ruse, the land they really want is in the West Bank, the so called "Security Wall" will annexe that.

If you read carefully you&#39;ll see that those comments are critical of the route the wall is taking (i.e annexing land) not the concept of a wall per se.


Originally posted by putty

As for Sabra & Shatilla, he was found to be indirectly responsible. It was ruled that he should have known better.

Your seriously saying that Sharon thought the Lebanese militia were going to walk in there and do nothing? Come on. You don&#39;t believe that any more than I do. Sharon had served in the army for decades at this point in time. He was hardly a naive kid.

Sharon is a war criminal who&#39;s responsible for the deaths of 1,500 civilians. He may not have pulled the trigger but he knew it was going to happen, he let it happen, he clearly wanted it to happen.

I don&#39;t think I&#39;m stretching the comparison at all. So if the Palestinians successfully targeted this war criminal for assassination would you find that acceptable? Of course not.


Originally posted by putty
Would you not say that Arafat is indirectly responsible for similarly allowing Hamas and Islamic Jihad to operate under his nose? Now how about Fatah, which is his own terrorrist group? And how about the DIRECT involvement with the terrorist attacks of the 1970&#39;s, aside from current day Fatah? What about the boat full of arms from Iran that Arafat was found to have personally requested?

Your absolutely right. But how many people are supporting Arafat and defending his actions? No-one. Again it&#39;s a case of two wrongs make a right.

On the other hand Israel continually demands Arafat do something about Hamas whilst continually destroying his means to do so. It&#39;s hardly a consistent position.


Why is it terrorism to kill someone who leads a campaign to kill your citizens and states that he will not give up until you are no more?

Is the US conducting terrorism in Afganistan? In Iraq? A nation has the right to defend its citizens. Arresting Yassin once didn&#39;t help since he just went against the release agreement so here&#39;s the alternative.

Because it&#39;s against International Law and because innocent civilians get killed in the process. Also Iraq and Afghanistan were warzones. The West Bank is under Israeli occupation. It&#39;s not the same thing at all.

Should Spain bomb the Basque region? Should the UK have bombed Northern Ireland? Every country has a right to protect it&#39;s citizens but that doesn&#39;t mean a free for all where the rule book goes out of the window.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty@
<!--QuoteBegin-leftism

It seems to me that Sharon wants Hamas to retaliate so he can use that as an excuse to either return to Gaza after the withdrawal or not withdraw from Gaza at all.
[/quote]

Of course that&#39;s what you believe. In your eyes, Israel can do nothing right. Everything they do is because they want more land. Never mind the fact that a country was offered to Arafat that he accepted. Only 18 months after it was offered.[/quote]

Israel gets nothing out of this other than more dead Israelis. It&#39;s not going to help the cause of peace is it? A political ploy is the only rational explanation.

Again you mention Arafat. Two wrongs make a right. Again...

[putty]

I&#39;m not going to get into this like that last thread because I don&#39;t think it&#39;s productive. I do absolutely see the point of view that this will stir things up for Hamas but there is no way that you can sit there and say that Israel has no right to do this.

Like I already pointed out, Hamas is not in this for negotiations. They exist in order to destroy Israel. They are not the PLO. They are not the Basques. They are not even Fatah.

You need proof that he was involved in terrorism?

Sayed Seyam, a Hamas spokesman, said Dr Rantissi was being given responsibility for Gaza but not the West Bank, unlike Sheikh Yassin who had control of Gaza, the West Bank and Hamas operations abroad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1176478,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1176478,00.html)

Proof isn&#39;t lacking.

You saw in Jenin what happens when Israel decides to go into a hotbed and arrest terrorists. It turns into a bloodbath with 50 terrorists and 25 soldiers dead.

Your "two wrongs don&#39;t make a right" argument is a tad simplistic. In that case, there is never any time for war. Nice idea and maybe in an ideal world but not reality. In addition, the analogy to IRA doesn&#39;t really apply. For one, IRA bombings stopped after the Good Friday agreement. For another, the IRA never had the influence and reach or numbers of Palestinian terrorists. The IRA was an underground secret organization that hid in safe-houses. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are hardly underground. They have no qualms about operating in full view. The IRA was also united in its goal to get the British out of NI. The Palestinians have prominent terrorist groups aimed at getting rid of Israel completely. The IRA also had a history of at least warning the police before bombings in order to minimize civilian deaths.

And besides the point, the British have killed many civilians themselves. Both in NI and in Iraq.



Your statistics don&#39;t concur with the ones I&#39;ve seen.

I don&#39;t know... Btselem shows an obvious decrease in successful suicide bombings the past few months.

http://btselem.org/English/Statistics/Al_A...ties_Tables.asp (http://btselem.org/English/Statistics/Al_Aqsa_Fatalities_Tables.asp)

Which stats do you have that disagree with this?


You can kill as many leaders as you like but there are always 10 more ready to replace them and if they&#39;re not as effective as the last bunch, they will learn quickly enough. you might get a lull in the attacks as the new leadership is inexperienced but its not a long term solution. More to the point it is not the way to achieve a real long term solution i.e peace.

There is no peace with Hamas. They want to replace Israel with an Islamic state and publically state that they will not stop until they get it. What is there to negotiate? Peace has been and will be negotiated with the PLO.

[leftism]

Those figures are wrong and probably need to be updated.

They have 0 Israeli civilians killed in February 2004 but if you check out the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs it has listings of all the recent suicide bombings.

February 2004 (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/2/Suicide+bombing+of+Egged+bus+no.+14A+in+Jerusalem+-+22-Feb-2004.htm)

So February 2004 should be 8 civilian deaths.

They also have 2 deaths for January 2004, that should be 11.
January 2004 (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/1/Suicide+bombing+of+Egged+bus+no+19+in+Jerusalem+-.htm)

So if you update B&#39;tselems figures with the ones from the Israeli Gvt you can see that there has not been a decrease in the number of civilian deaths at all. It goes up and down in ebbs and flows but it is definitely not lessening.

The problem with Hamas is that they are not just a terrorist organisation. They provide much needed social services as well. So when you kill their leader it&#39;s bound to enrage all Palestinians and makes peace less likely.

If it helped with the suicide bombing issue then maybe you would have a point, but it clearly does not.

I noticed that (according to B&#39;tselem) the total number of Israeli civilians killed between September 2000 - 10th March 2004 was 198, the total number of Palestinians killed was 2,397. Even if 90% of those Palestinian were not civilians, Israel is still killing more civilians than the Palestinians are.

The point remains that targeted assassinations do not help defend Israel and do not help bring about peace.

[putty]

Lefty, you&#39;re looking at the wrong table on the Btselem site. The last one on the page shows deaths within the Green Line (where suicide bombs take place). The table you looked at are deaths within the territories.

So...
If it helped with the suicide bombing issue then maybe you would have a point,

I take it that I have a point.

Besides this, you wouldn&#39;t question Btselem stats would you? They are questioned by many Israelis snce they count every Palestinian killed without military fatigues as civilians. Are you agreeing with them that Btselem either overestimates Palestinian civilian deaths or underestimates Israeli civilian deaths?

And another case in point... I just saw a news report showing that just today a 16 year old Palestinian suicide bomber was stopped at the border of entry into Israel. He was already wearing his suicide vest but decided that he didn&#39;t want to go through with it and requested a pair of scissors which was sent to him via a robot (while soldiers stood way back for protection). He too the scissors, cut the vest off and surrendered to Israel. It was almost amusing.

The Hamas talent pool is shrinking.

[leftism]

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>lefty, you&#39;re looking at the wrong table on the Btselem site. The last one on the page shows deaths within the Green Line (where suicide bombs take place). The table you looked at are deaths within the territories.[/b]

So suicide bombings that don&#39;t happen within the green line don&#39;t count???? :blink:

Look at January. Still 0 Israeli deaths. What about those 11 Israelis killed in the Jerusalem suicide bombing?

<!--QuoteBegin-putty

I take it that I have a point.
[/quote]

So no.. you don&#39;t have a point, not by a long shot. Your ignoring certain suicide bombings so the figures don&#39;t look too high then your turning to me and saying "See I told you so&#33;"

Thats blatant dishonesty. ;)

Interesting "case in point" on B&#39;Tselem too.


One Palestinian civilian was killed by gunfire when IDF soldiers forced him to serve as their human shield.

Who are the terrorists again?

[putty]

-1 point for attempted diversion.

Only deaths (it&#39;s actually deaths that are counted, not suicide bombs) within the Green Line are counted because that&#39;s where suicide attacks take place. Btselem separates killings outside the green line from these.

Run a google on green line if you&#39;re confused about why this is.

The numbers killed outside the green line is negligible the past few months (4 total since Sept 03), not affecting the stats. So again, I take it that I do have a point.

[leftism]

I&#39;ve got you on this one putty.

BT&#39;selem has 0 deaths in January.

Heres a suicide bombing in Jerusalem in January. 11 deaths.

January 2004 (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/1/Suicide+bombing+of+Egged+bus+no+19+in+Jerusalem+-.htm)

So either...

1. The suicide bombing took place just outside the green line.
2. BT&#39;selem have got their figures wrong.

Either way you don&#39;t have a point because you are not taking all the deaths caused by suicide bombings into account.

[putty]

Sorry to have to ruin your little celebration but...

All Btselem stats (and just for you... including ALL deaths no matter where they are):

Oct 01 to Feb 02: 77 civilian deaths

March 02 to July 02: 185

August 02 to Dec 02: 63

Jan 03 to May 03: 50

June 03 to Oct 03: 76

Nov 03 to March 04: 23 (or 34 including Btselem&#39;s forgotten 11).

The past 5 months has seen the lowest number of Israeli civilian deaths since at least October 2001, counting everyone. Inside the Green Line, outside the Green Line, whatever you want to count.

Now I don&#39;t know about you but it seems to me that Israel has been doing something right the past 5 months. Is it the separation wall? Is it the fact that Israel is giving Hamas and Fatah leadership something to worry about aside from whether to tell the bombers to stand at the front or back of the bus?

Or is it that the new leaders are being pressured to act too quickly, sending out 16 year olds to commit mass murder before they&#39;re fully "indoctrinated", as what happened today. The boy was practically in tears, begging for a pair of scissors instead of 72 virgins.

Whatever it is, it&#39;s working.

[cpt_azad]

To turn it round, if the Palestinians somehow managed to kill Sharon (he is a war criminal who&#39;s killed innocent people)

absolutely true.


Again the lot of you can harp on this assassination like it&#39;s the end all be all of crimes. There&#39;s isn&#39;t this uproar when a suicide bomber rushes a busy store full of women and children.......with the intent of killing women and children.

also true. freedom fighter or not, suicide bombings are just plain wrong, islam doesn&#39;t teach suicides or support it contrary to "popular" belief. unless anyone can get me a legible source that (straight from the muslims holy book the quran) says other wise. and also, killing this leader is an act of war as stated many times and just makes the situation worst, the world&#39;s gov&#39;t&#39;s would definately go to war with palestine (even there is no such thing as palestine now) if some palestinians killed sharon. but i don&#39;t understand everytime someone says something nice about the palestinians, some wise ass has to reply "uh, suicide bombers are wrong, don&#39;t support terrorism. duh, i mean uh, the arabs in israel are bad". seriously guys, calm down and start looking at the whole picture. when was the last time someone called Israel a nation run by terrorists? so here goes:

ISRAEL IS A NATION RUN BY NOTHING MORE THAN TERRORISTS (Gov&#39;t, not the ppl of israel, i have nothing against the jews as i&#39;m not a racist). as i said suicide bombings are wrong, but someone pls answer me this, how do you end a conflict when both opposing parties are terrorists?

[leftism]

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Nov 03 to March 04: 23 (or 34 including Btselem&#39;s forgotten 11).
[/b]

How many others have BT&#39;selem "forgotten"? Yet your happy to rely on these figures??

Why dont you use your Gvts own figures? Because you know it&#39;ll prove you wrong.

Think about what your doing for a moment. Your pretending that some Israeli&#39;s haven&#39;t been killed in suicide bombings so you can prove a point on a forum. :blink:

That&#39;s seriously twisted.

You can argue that illegal "targeted assassinations" that also kill innocent bystanders are going to decrease the number of suicide bombings all you want.

Common sense and history agrees with the original poster. It just adds fuel to the fire.

Your problem is that your thirsty for revenge. Thats why you hardly blink when an IDF soldier uses a Palestinian civilian as a human shield. Don&#39;t try and pretend that this desire for revenge is really a desire for peace and security.

PS

Your information regarding that kid today is incorrect. Just like your information regarding suicide bombers is incorrect.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty
I just saw a news report showing that just today a 16 year old Palestinian suicide bomber was stopped at the border of entry into Israel. He was already wearing his suicide vest but decided that he didn&#39;t want to go through with it and requested a pair of scissors which was sent to him via a robot[/quote]

1. He was 14.
2. He didn&#39;t decide he didn&#39;t want to go through with it. The soldiers became suspicious when he approached a check point.

[putty]

Lefty I&#39;ve seen you dodge facts before when you can&#39;t admit that you&#39;re wrong but this is too much.

You think that I&#39;m using Btselem stats because they prove me right? If I came here with Israeli Govt stats you&#39;d be screaming that those are biased. Btselem is world-renowned as a Left-wing Israeli organization that is a staunch defender of the Palestinians. If they somehow missed one bombing, well maybe they&#39;ve missed others. But I strongly doubt that they&#39;ve only missed ones from the past 5 months in order to prove me right that successful attacks have decreased. You give me too much credit.

But ok. I&#39;ll do your homework for you and use IDF stats. They don&#39;t break it down month by month but do year by year.

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/terrorism...nce%20September (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/terrorism-%20obstacle%20to%20peace/palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Palestinian%20violence%20and%20terrorism%20since%20September)

In 2002: 451 deaths

In 2003: 213 deaths

In 2004: 29 deaths through 3 months (rate of ~120 for the year)

So, you didn&#39;t like the Btselem stats and asked why I didn&#39;t use IDF stats. Now, what will your excuse be now? Should I go research the Mongolian stats before you believe what has been proven to you?

If you don&#39;t admit that you&#39;re wrong by now, well then... you never will.

The kid was 14 and not 16? Cool. It just proves that Hamas is getting more desperate. 14 year olds aren&#39;t exactly known for their nerves of steel. Or maybe he was only promised 52 virgins and he figured it was a raw deal. Or perhaps being a 14 year old, he doesn&#39;t appreciate the value of a virgin.

BTW, I&#39;m not Israeli. I realize that in your mind only Israelis could possibly see Israel&#39;s right to defend itself but you&#39;ve gotta open your eyes to the rest of the world. It just ain&#39;t that simple.

[cpt_azad]

BTW, I&#39;m not Israeli. I realize that in your mind only Israelis could possibly see Israel&#39;s right to defend itself but you&#39;ve gotta open your eyes to the rest of the world. It just ain&#39;t that simple.

finally somebody said the right thing&#33; now let&#39;s end all this crap (unless someone can build a machine to stop the fighting in the middle east, good luck with that), this war will go on until one side is wiped out, there&#39;s sadly nothing we can do (unless one of us on the forums, or someone smart enough, becomes president of america and stops the bloodshed, which ain&#39;t gonna happen soon) to stop it. so please, stop flaming each other&#33; :P

[leftism]

Putty.. your unbelievable. This is from the same source.

Suicide bombing statistics

March 2004 - 10 dead 16 wounded
February 2004 - 8 dead 60 wounded
January 2004 - 11 dead 50 wounded
December 2003 0
November 203 - 0
October 2003 - 21 dead 60 wounded
September 2003 16 dead 80 wounded
August 2003 23 dead 130 wounded
July 2003 - 0
June 2003 17 dead >100 wounded
May 2003 14 dead 93 wounded
April 2003 0
March 2003 - 17 dead 53 wounded
February 2003 - 0
January 2003 - 23 dead 120 wounded

Thats not what I call a decrease. ;)

You&#39;ve already got more dead people in February - March 2004 than the same period in 2003 and we&#39;ve still got a week of March left.

What next? Are you going to round it up into years, 5 month segments, 3 month segments? Whatever it takes to twist the figures round to your way of thinking eh?

You keep telling yourself that those illegal "targeted assassinations" are a defence and will bring peace and security to Israel.

The rest of us will choose to live in the real world.

[putty]

You&#39;re a joke.

I gave you Btselem stats. You didn&#39;t like it. You asked for IDF stats. I gave them to you.

They all prove my point. Israeli civilian deaths are decreasing in number.

But because Feb-March 04 has produced more deaths than Feb-March 03 then all others figures are wrong. Everything is based on Feb-March 03 vs. Feb-March 04. That&#39;s it. :rolleyes:

Contest the IDF figures that show the 2002 (451 deaths) vs 2003 (231) vs 2004 (pace of 120) deaths. Please do.

Nah, just point to a randomly chosen 2 months (you even "randomly" selected Feb 03 which had no successful bombing) and state that the overall decrease from 451 to 231 to a pace of 120 isn&#39;t happening. Un-fucking-real.

You didn&#39;t pass Statistics class, did you?

I&#39;m surprised even by you. I gave you all the numbers you requested. But you will only believe what you want to. Sigh.

[leftism]

Putty, If you look at all the figures I provided, not just February and March, you can see that it goes up, down, up, down.

Use your amazing statistical powers and plot it onto a graph. Look at the &#39;curve&#39; it produces.

You think peace and security can be achieved by illegal targeted assassinations that often end up killing innocent bystanders.... sure of course they can.

By the same rationale peace can be achieved by Palestinians targeting IDF forces and taking out a few civilians in the process.

Logic is obviously not your strong point. :rolleyes:

We should have this discussion again in a months time and see how effective the killing of Yassin was in decreasing the number of suicide attacks.

[putty]

You want a graph? Plot 2002, 2003 and 2004 on one axis. Plot 451, 231 and 120 on the other axis. Let us know what you see.

So sad.

Can someone else help this boy out?

[Biggles]

Whilst on the whole I think I would prefer not to wade in the statistical quagmire, I would point out that they can be something of a double edged sword.

I raised the question as to why Israel deemed it necessary to make this move now. The statistics above would suggest that the tide of Hammas suicide bombers has been slowed to a trickle. Suggesting that perhaps a reduction in volunteers (perhaps hopeful that the proposed Israeli pull out is the start of the "better day") coupled with better security has begun to take effect. So why, then, stamp on the hornets&#39; nest? Why undo the good work? Why make bombing a holy cause once more?

However, the deed is done and the political implications will become apparent all too soon. The first move has been made by Hammas by replacing Yassin with someone far more militant than he was. (Whilst trying to find a better man is hard - it would seem it is always easy to find a worse man)

If the net result is more war not less I think Sharron will find his short term gains with the radicals who prop up his government are offset by losses at the next the election.

There are many Palestinians who would like to be moderate and have a "two state" solution. They are not getting a lot of encouragement from the current Israeli administration. The argument that there must be no attacks before Sharron will talk is either insane or calculated politics. This allow a tiny minority of extremists to always dictate the terms. The extremists only become isolated when the Palestinian majority has something that is too good to throw away. It seems that an Israeli Prime Minister that is brave enough to try and go down that route is as likely to be killed by Israeli extremists as Palestinian ones.

In short, I am not optimistic that an end is in sight. I hope I will be proved wrong.

[leftism]

Originally posted by putty
You want a graph? Plot 2002, 2003 and 2004 on one axis. Plot 451, 231 and 120 on the other axis. Let us know what you see.

Your assuming theres going to be an average of 30 deaths per 3 months for 2004. Are you a fortune teller as well?

If we use your "average per 3 months" method then there would have been 120 deaths in 2003. Didn&#39;t turn out that way did it?

Like I said before, we&#39;ll revisit this issue in a months time once the effects of Yassin&#39;s death has played out.

I think your 30 deaths per 3 months prediction will be looking a bit silly by then. But as long as your thirst for revenge and more bloodshed is sated.. thats the main thing eh?

[putty]

Biggles, an argument could be made that since Israel is doing right and successful suicide attacks are decreasing, this is the worst time to let up. When you see that you are making progress, you have to press on until the job is finished.

Imagine any army unit saying "well the enemy is now weakened, let&#39;s go home". This is why it was so stupid of Bush to go into Iraq before having complete control of Al Qaeda. But that&#39;s for another thread.

You ask "why stamp on a hornet&#39;s nest?". Because if you want to get rid of the hornets, you don&#39;t walk away with them stinging you only a couple times/month instead of the usual 4 times/month. Once you blast the nest with raid you make sure they&#39;re dead before walking away.

It&#39;s not like Hamas has led up. They&#39;re just not as successful as they used to be. Perhaps it&#39;s because they&#39;re now relying on 14 year olds like yesterday.

Regarding the tiny minority of terrorists dictating the terms, I respectfully disagree. I think that you give Arafat too little credit. You do remember the Peres/Netanyahu election campaign of 1996 (?) when the right-wingers were silenced and embarassed by the Rabin murder. The country was ready to elect the ultimate dove (Peres) in a landslide but wave after wave of suicide attack killed dozens within just 2 months. Eventually Netanyahu (the hawk) was elected because he could "bring security". This was way before the PA police infrastructure was targetted by Israel beginning in 2001. The PA police was in full force but where the fuck were they? Where was Arafat? Do you think the Hamas and Islamic Jihad hid the fact that they were behind the bombings?

Arafat sat on his ass and watched the dove Peres lose credibility every time an attack struck. With Peres in office, Arafat would&#39;ve had anything he wanted.

There will be a 2 state solution. Barak offered it and was not assassinated. Arafat thought the Taba offer was a good one and even accepted it. Too bad it was 18 months after the offer was made.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,741842,00.html

It will happen again and hopefully sooner than you&#39;d think. Sorry, but you&#39;re gonna be proved wrong. ;)

Lefty: then ignore 2004 and look only at 2002 vs 2003. and then tell us that there is no reduction in successful attacks. they&#39;re your stats... you requested them.

[Biggles]

Putty

If I am proved wrong, it will be my pleasure to try to be the first (on here at least) to congratulate you on your perspicacity.

[Monty11]

RE: One mans terrorist another mans freedom fighter.
There is a huge difference between the planned targeting of women, children, and the elderly and collateral damage at a time of conflict. In response to Leftism, If the arab-muslems fighting for their "Liberation" would target soldiers and goverment that they percieve as terrorists, then one who claims to see fault and merit on both sides can try to draw some kind of moral comparison.

In response to your constant reminder that two wrongs don&#39;t make a right I would like to know who and by what authority will take the high ground and dictate right and wrong to the world. :gunsmile: