Us Vetoes Condemnation Of Israel

[h1]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/03/25/un.yassin.ap/vert.yassin.closeup.ap.jpg

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday condemning Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.

The veto came after Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, rejected a U.S. demand that the measure also condemn violence by Hamas and other militant groups by name.

The resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote. He called the measure "unbalanced, one-sided."

"Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region ... but events must be considered in their context," Negroponte said.

Critics said the veto condoned Israel's policy of assassinating militant leaders.

The vote was 11 countries in favor, three countries abstaining, and only the United States against.

Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, was killed in a missile strike Monday morning in Gaza. Israel has warned that all other leaders of the group could be targeted.

Hamas has claimed responsibility for dozens of bombings and shootings of Israelis during 31/2 years of violence. Israel says it is targeting the group's leaders to stop such attacks, but critics say killing suspects without arresting or trying them violates international law.

On Wednesday, the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva voted 31-2 to condemn Israel for Yassin's death, but the body has no power to punish countries. A resolution by the Security Council would have carried more international weight.

The 11 Security Council members who voted for the measure were: China, Russia, France, The Philippines, Angola, Chile, Pakistan, Spain, Algeria, Benin and Brazil.

Britain, Germany and Romania abstained.

The vetoed resolution condemned Yassin's death and called for a "complete cessation of extrajudicial executions." It also condemned "all terrorist attacks against any civilians as well as all acts of violence and destruction."

However, it did not mention any militant groups by name -- a traditional U.S. demand.

Only five members of the Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- can veto the body's resolutions. Thursday's veto is the United States' 79th and the latest in a long string of vetoes regarding Israel.

The Soviet Union and Russia have cast the most Security Council vetoes over the years, 121. Britain has cast 32, France 18 and China, 5.

Source: AP / CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/25/un.yassin.ap/index.html)

[hobbes]

And what does this mean?

Would the UN do anything, anyway.

No, they are a bunch of brunch loving impotent pricks.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by haxor41789@26 March 2004 - 00:58
The veto came after Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, rejected a U.S. demand that the measure also condemn violence by Hamas and other militant groups by name.

The resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote. He called the measure "unbalanced, one-sided."
Hmmm why not condemn the terrorists by name?

Very simple I would think. Very one-sided indeed. <_<

It would seem then Israel should not be condemned but in essence,

"all assassinations should be condemned". What bullshit&#33;&#33;&#33;

All along Hamas has been running bombs up Israel&#39;s ass, killing indiscriminately, and when Israel strikes back going after a "particular" outspoken terrorist leader, everyone is up in arms crying foul.

It seems Israel should just rollover and take a butt-fuck graciously. <_<

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes
Would the UN do anything, anyway.

No, they are a bunch of brunch loving impotent pricks.


Hobbes, do you have any idea how much work the UN is doing around the world right now?

The US and Britain said there were WMD in Iraq and they had to go to war. There are no WMD so the UN&#39;s decision not to go in was correct wasn&#39;t it?

If your hostility is based purely on the UN not going into Iraq I think its misguided. I also think your ignoring all the work they do which isn&#39;t as glamorous or as newsworthy as open war.

As for the US vetoing the resolution just because it did not mention Hamas by name... I think thats a pretty lame excuse.

Why wasn&#39;t condemning "all terrorist attacks against any civilians as well as all acts of violence and destruction." good enough? That condemns Hamas doesn&#39;t it?

Put into this context the comment from the US Ambassador that the resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas" is either a lie, or shows that he doesn&#39;t think Hamas carries out "terrorist attacks against any civilians".

[hobbes]

Lefty,

What I meant was, even if we had, what would have been the actual result? Would it change anything or just be another piece of paper?

I really was not trying to argue about whether we should or should not have voted to condemn the act, but rather what meaning does this vote have. Would Israel have had to go to bed without supper?

[Biggles]

I would tend to agree that the UN is impotent. It is time the anachronism of the veto is dispensed with. Give the UN teeth.

Viagra for the UN should be our call on the streets. :)

[Rat Faced]

If you dont condemn anyone breaking International Law, then you are by the very nature, condoning it...either actively (like the US) or passively (like the UK)

You cannot then complain if the same crime is perpetuated on yourselves.

The Crime is "Assassination"



It doesnt matter WHO did it to whom....it was a crime, and should be condemned.


Why should they name Hamas? Should they name ETA? IRA? ....where does it end? How many terrorist groups are in the world? Or are some of them not "Terrorist" but "Freedom Fighter"?

A Blanket condemnation of terrorism in this way was, in my opinion, BETTER than naming any specific groups.

[vidcc]

I have to say that i agree...ALL terrorist acts should be condemed even if that condemnation is toothless in reality.
There is often a double standard when it comes to classification (terroist/freedom fighter), it all depends on which side of the fence you sit. Blow up the houses of parliament...terrorist. Blow up the saddam iraqi parliament...freedom fighter .
These are just examples and not wishes.
Many western governments have funded "freedom fighters" but to the government that they are trying to overthrow they are terrorist.

One other point....the UN is supposed to be a peace keeping force and not an invasion army so it does tend to go thhrough a much lengthier diplomatic process before it take military action.

[mrcall1969]

I think that in general the UN does a good job. Sometimes its hands get tied and other times it gets undermined by the actions of some of the member states. But, if you look at the job KFOR, for instance, is doing right now in Kosovo, then no one can say that the UN is weak.

Also, a lot of the humanitarian work it does in parts of Africa, I think, tends to get overlooked.

On the original post, I believe that to abstain or veto is indeed an approval to the action carried out, no matter what that may be.

[Chewie]

I&#39;m afraid both the US and UK representatives reactions were to be expected; it doesn&#39;t matter what atrocities Israel commits - and there&#39;s been plenty, thank you very much - it&#39;s always seen as OK by power inside the US & UK.
Tit-for-tat attacks get you nowhere fast except war/terrorism; one begats the other.

I think both UK and US governments are acutely aware of atrocities in their own respective pasts.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by Chewie UK@27 March 2004 - 01:39
I think both UK and US governments are acutely aware of atrocities in their own respective pasts.
Acutely aware, and choose to conveniently forget.

[Rat Faced]

The UK for example, introduced the world to the magic of indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations via aircraft.

I believe we introduced it against some people called "the Kurds" in a place called "Iraq" in the 1920&#39;s.

We tried to use chemical bombs; but alas, our technology at the time was not upto that..... :ph34r:

[mrcall1969]

Or in 1916 when the British used a mounted machine gun on a crowd at a hurling match in retribution for the killing of a British soldier, or again in 1972, at the massacre during civil rights march.

[chalice]

Originally posted by mrcall1969@27 March 2004 - 01:24
Or in 1916 when the British used a mounted machine gun on a crowd at a hurling match in retribution for the killing of a British soldier, or again in 1972, at the massacre during civil rights march.
Both of which have never been acknowledged as war crimes.

The Saville Inquiry came 30 years too late.

[Rat Faced]

Boxer Rebellion, African Colonies.... man there is just too many to count.....




And thats the British (UK) as a whole............ (still want to inc the hurling? or add it below?)


Dont even get us started on those purely English B&#39;stards.....(Ireland, Scotland, Wales etc before (and after) the Union)

[mrcall1969]

Highland clearances, potato famine, 19th century India........the list goes on.

[chalice]

Cromwell. He sure kicked the shit out of us.

[mrcall1969]

So, with the UK&#39;s past history, what gives us the right to decide what is right or wrong in the world?


BTW, if anyone accuses this of going off topic, it was RF that started it :P

[vidcc]

Much as i agree history can throw up instance from all nations past terrors i do feel that it doesn&#39;t really append to the people that live in those nations TODAY.
We wouldn&#39;t execute someone because their father comitted a murder so why blame current decendents for the acts of their forefathers?.
there is plenty of current violations going on to talk about.

[chalice]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 March 2004 - 02:12
Much as i agree history can throw up instance from all nations past terrors i do feel that it doesn&#39;t really append to the people that live in those nations TODAY.
We wouldn&#39;t execute someone because their father comitted a murder so why blame current decendents for the acts of their forefathers?.
there is plenty of current violations going on to talk about.
Should we then forget about unresolved atrocities?

There is plenty of room for being agrieved over injustice. The matter of Bloody Sunday is as relevant (to it&#39;s victims and survivors, at least) today as it ever was.

One injustice doesn&#39;t bump another one out.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by chalice+27 March 2004 - 03:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice &#064; 27 March 2004 - 03:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@27 March 2004 - 02:12
Much as i agree history can throw up instance from all nations past terrors i do feel that it doesn&#39;t really append to the people that live in those nations TODAY.
We wouldn&#39;t execute someone because their father comitted a murder so why blame current decendents for the acts of their forefathers?.
there is plenty of current violations going on to talk about.
Should we then forget about unresolved atrocities?

There is plenty of room for being agrieved over injustice. The matter of Bloody Sunday is as relevant (to it&#39;s victims and survivors, at least) today as it ever was.

One injustice doesn&#39;t bump another one out. [/b][/quote]
Indeed, even the first one.

Maybe in 100 years from now, when the Iraqs of this world might be superpowers, the people will be having the same debate.

[vidcc]

chalice at no point did i say we should forget, but people are dragging up things from history that weren&#39;t comitted by todays population so they are not really a basis of guilt, which is why i said we wouldn&#39;t execute someone because their father comitted a murder...if you read it also says THERE IS PLENTY OF CURRENT VIOLATIONS GOING ON. so bloody sunday WOULD be an acceptable choice as the people involved are still around even though the government of today had little to do with what went on back in the 70s.
i have never pretended that any nation is without sin (even todays people) but to use something that happened in the 19th century is totally irrelivent.
I agree that one injustice doesn&#39;t bump another out but where would you draw the line as to accountablility?....should the Italians appologise for the Roman empire? What about the Vikins rapeing and pilliging? should the present spanish be held accountable for the inquisition?
Society changes with time.............

[chalice]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 March 2004 - 02:48
chalice at no point did i say we should forget, but people are dragging up things from history that weren&#39;t comitted by todays population so they are not really a basis of guilt, which is why i said we wouldn&#39;t execute someone because their father comitted a murder...if you read it also says THERE IS PLENTY OF CURRENT VIOLATIONS GOING ON. so bloody sunday WOULD be an acceptable choice as the people involved are still around even though the government of today had little to do with what went on back in the 70s.
i have never pretended that any nation is without sin (even todays people) but to use something that happened in the 19th century is totally irrelivent.
I agree that one injustice doesn&#39;t bump another out but where would you draw the line as to accountablility?....should the Italians appologise for the Roman empire? What about the Vikins rapeing and pilliging? should the present spanish be held accountable for the inquisition?
Society changes with time.............
Vidcc,

Society changes with time indeed. Or rather, society changes with having an aggressive ethic inflicted upon it.

I acccept totally the irrelevance of Cromwell and even 1916 but N Ireland is an unresolved conflict, by anyone&#39;s standards. And one which reflects the political struggles in the Middle East. This country&#39;s so screwed, we even take sides in the Isreal/Palistine furore.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by chalice+27 March 2004 - 03:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 27 March 2004 - 03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@27 March 2004 - 02:48
chalice at no point did i say we should forget,&nbsp; but people are dragging up things from history that weren&#39;t comitted by todays population so they are not really a basis of guilt, which is why i said we wouldn&#39;t execute someone because their father comitted a murder...if you read it also says THERE IS PLENTY OF CURRENT VIOLATIONS GOING ON. so bloody sunday WOULD be an acceptable choice as the people involved are still around even though the government of today had little to do with what went on back in the 70s.
i have never pretended that any nation is without sin (even todays people) but to use something that happened in the 19th century is totally irrelivent.
I agree that one injustice doesn&#39;t bump another out but where would you draw the line as to accountablility?....should the Italians appologise for the Roman empire? What about the Vikins rapeing and pilliging? should the present spanish be held accountable for the inquisition?
Society changes with time.............
Vidcc,

Society changes with time indeed. Or rather, society changes with having an aggressive ethic inflicted upon it.

I acccept totally the irrelevance of Cromwell and even 1916 but N Ireland is an unresolved conflict, by anyone&#39;s standards. And one which reflects the political struggles in the Middle East. This country&#39;s so screwed, we even take sides in the Isreal/Palistine furore. [/b][/quote]
That is the point, I&#39;d rather sort out the problems in my own house before meddling in distant neighbours problems.

[Rat Faced]

However we mustnt forget:

Ancient Bush family proverb; Give a man a fish and he eats for a day... drown him in the lake and he&#39;ll never be hungry again.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 March 2004 - 21:40
However we mustnt forget:

Ancient Bush family proverb; Give a man a fish and he eats for a day... drown him in the lake and he&#39;ll never be hungry again.
True, but how does that translate into German again?? :lol:

[cpt_azad]

Originally posted by Chewie UK@26 March 2004 - 16:39
I&#39;m afraid both the US and UK representatives reactions were to be expected; it doesn&#39;t matter what atrocities Israel commits - and there&#39;s been plenty, thank you very much - it&#39;s always seen as OK by power inside the US & UK.
Tit-for-tat attacks get you nowhere fast except war/terrorism; one begats the other.

I think both UK and US governments are acutely aware of atrocities in their own respective pasts.
agreed. let&#39;s see here, how many billions of dollars does the U.S. give Israel annually? (no seriously, how much, i don&#39;t know the exact figure, last i heard it was aroun 20). their (israeli) military, and in some cases, economy, heavily relies on the U.S. (not americans damit, the gov&#39;t, i&#39;m sick and tired of ppl flaming me when i post something about the U.S. when i infact refer to the gov&#39;t, the ppl/citizens of america i&#39;m fine with, hell i have dual citizenship :) ).

[Rat Faced]

We all know that the Republicans rely on voter apathy, as they only make up 30% or so of the electorate.

However, as long as Americans do not use their vote, then they will be labelled the way the Neo-Conservatives portray them.


It takes a village, to elect a village idiot....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@28 March 2004 - 07:36
We all know that the Republicans rely on voter apathy, as they only make up 30% or so of the electorate.

However, as long as Americans do not use their vote, then they will be labelled the way the Neo-Conservatives portray them.


It takes a village, to elect a village idiot....
Rat-

I really hate to ask, but could you back this "30%" figure up?

Ever heard of the Silent Majority?

Also:

Be advised the term Neo-Conservative is extremely difficult to apply accurately; one would have to invest oneself in the Conservative philosophy (such as it exists) in order to be using the label properly, and this cannot be done merely by taking the word of a source such as the New York Times.

I think, for your purposes (since you don&#39;t like any conservatives), that the unadorned term should suffice.

As re: the "Village Idiot" comment, when was the U.K. last ministered by someone who didn&#39;t also fit that particular bill?

If I were to pronounce on your country as you do on mine, I&#39;d have to go all the way back to Uncle Winnie, and look how you treated him&#33;

[Rat Faced]

For avoidance of doubt; as we have been through this differing interpretations before...

To me Republicans are extreme Right Wing, and Neo-Conservatives.

To me Democrats are merely Right Wing, and Conservatives.

I havent seen any Left Wing politics coming out of the USA, except for the odd Tee Shirt with Lennon on, to piss off the kids parents.


I have often said that Blaire is an arsehole, just like Bush.

An Idiot has opinions of his own however, so we elected a poodle.

I&#39;ll leave it to you to decide which is the greater stupidity, i have no opinion on the subject :P

[j2k4]

Fair enough.

You do totally misunderstand the term neo-con, but as you have no interest anyway, I&#39;ll not bore you with the explanation, which even I find stultifying. ;)

[Biggles]

J2

I have often wondered (well at least a couple of times) what the tern "Silent Majority" means.

As far as I can see all politicians of every hue claim their silent acquiesence as support of their particular point of view.

As far as I can tell, all this silent majority really want is to not to be poorer tomorrow than they are today (this applies to all forms of wealth including social and cultural)...






....Oh, and for all politicians to take a running leap.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps the "alienated majority" would be a better moniker.

Edit: Tidying up by adding a couple of missing words.

[lynx]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 March 2004 - 19:16
As far as I can see all politicians of every hue claim their silent acquiesence as support their particular point of view.

As far as I can tell, all this silent majority really want is to not to be poorer tomorrow than they are today (this applies to all forms of wealth including social and cultural)...






....Oh, and for all politicians to a running leap.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps the "alienated majority" would be a better moniker.
It puzzles me how anyone can claim to have the support of the so-called silent majority, or indeed know what it is that they want.

If this were the case, they could hardly be called the silent majority, since for either of the above to be true they would have had to express their opionion and consequently no longer be silent.

"Alienated majority" they may be, but the only way to know is again if they express their opinion, be it verbal or in some ballot or other, and as soon as they do that they no longer fall into the category.

I suspect a more accurate description might be "the unheard majority", I doubt whether they are silent, just powerless enough to be ignored by most politicians.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 March 2004 - 19:24
If I were to pronounce on your country as you do on mine, I&#39;d have to go all the way back to Uncle Winnie, and look how you treated him&#33;
I think the biggest difference is if anyone takesa shot at the UK we don&#39;t take it personally. I&#39;m pretty sure that the majority of folk here know our countrys shortcomings, we tend to laugh about it rather than take it as if they insulted our grandmother.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+29 March 2004 - 16:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 29 March 2004 - 16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 March 2004 - 19:24
If I were to pronounce on your country as you do on mine, I&#39;d have to go all the way back to Uncle Winnie, and look how you treated him&#33;
I think the biggest difference is if anyone takesa shot at the UK we don&#39;t take it personally. I&#39;m pretty sure that the majority of folk here know our countrys shortcomings, we tend to laugh about it rather than take it as if they insulted our grandmother. [/b][/quote]
:huh: What the hell does that have to do with the price of sliced bread? :huh:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+29 March 2004 - 14:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 &#064; 29 March 2004 - 14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 March 2004 - 19:24
If I were to pronounce on your country as you do on mine, I&#39;d have to go all the way back to Uncle Winnie, and look how you treated him&#33;
I think the biggest difference is if anyone takesa shot at the UK we don&#39;t take it personally. I&#39;m pretty sure that the majority of folk here know our countrys shortcomings, we tend to laugh about it rather than take it as if they insulted our grandmother.[/b][/quote]
I&#39;m a bit puzzled at this.

This is a discussion/debate venue; at least, that&#39;s what it&#39;s supposed to be, I think.

I can&#39;t recall an instance, on the one hand, when I&#39;ve ever dismissed the U.K. and it&#39;s politics, culture or social mores as a load of bollocks, but if I had, I&#39;d expect a righteously offended response.

About as close as I&#39;ve come was on those occasions where I&#39;ve inferred a bias on the part of the Beeb or something, and that is usually sufficient to get the collective spine of it&#39;s fans bent just about double.

On the other hand, though, I get some hellacious responses whenever I try to defend the U.S.

On the recent threads having to do with the Madrid bombings, merely tippy-toeing around the edges of the issue was sufficient to set off a good number of our U.K. board members.

Of course, in light of all these circumstances, I suppose I would be remiss if I actually questioned the self-effacing characteristics of our neighbors across the pond, eh?

You lot are the least confrontational bunch I&#39;ve ever run up against.

Of course, that&#39;s probably just me. ;)

Biggles & Lynx-

I would define the Silent Majority as those who vote without fail, but have jobs and other responsibilities that preclude marching, picketing or otherwise engaging in demonstration or rhetorical exercise.

These are the types who are responsible for the occasional walloping the Republicans give the Dems in presidential elections (see Reagan/1984) that the domestic and foreign press fail to predict beforehand, or understand afterward.

[Busyman]

I don&#39;t think Marc is going to respond.
He has said goodbye in the I Rest My Case thread.

Good points either way though.

[Rat Faced]

I can&#39;t recall an instance, on the one hand, when I&#39;ve ever dismissed the U.K. and it&#39;s politics, culture or social mores as a load of bollocks, but if I had, I&#39;d expect a righteously offended response.



I do quite often.

Usually, a lot of the Brits agree with me.

We will fight for something worth fighting for (eg Aunty Beeb).... Blaire and Co arent worth the effort of typing in agreement with the crap thrown their way though ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 March 2004 - 05:15

I can&#39;t recall an instance, on the one hand, when I&#39;ve ever dismissed the U.K. and it&#39;s politics, culture or social mores as a load of bollocks, but if I had, I&#39;d expect a righteously offended response.



I do quite often.

Usually, a lot of the Brits agree with me.

We will fight for something worth fighting for (eg Aunty Beeb).... Blaire and Co arent worth the effort of typing in agreement with the crap thrown their way though ;)
Aye, and I think you do it with a reasonably well-developed sense of propriety, Rat.

I wonder, though, at the implication that we in the U.S. are so hyper-sensitive.

We are surely the most oft-criticized; it only stands to reason that we defend ourselves in such cases.

The shoe is not often on the other foot. ;)

[trillscout]

B4 any of you guys speak on this issue read Hemogony or survival by Howard Zinn

1.to be basic, Israel is the US&#39;s bitch. US gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid and other stuff. So don&#39;t think this "assaination" wasn&#39;t okayed by the US.

2. Don&#39;t people learn. Violence doesn&#39;t end violence. We learned that in grade school.

3. What country in their right mind shoots missles to kill ONE person in a WHEELCHAIR. What happened to the good ol&#39;sniper? Obviously they have money to spend- oh that&#39;s right. It&#39;s not even their money.

4. Israel&#39;s army occoupies the land. They have Paletenians in camps. Scattered across the land. Similar way germany had other countries. It doesn&#39;t matter people with absolute power always act the same.

btw Israel has an army. Palestine doesn&#39;t have one so when they fight they choose to call them "terrorists"

back to gaming...

[Busyman]

Originally posted by trillscout@2 April 2004 - 00:11
B4 any of you guys speak on this issue read Hemogony or survival by Howard Zinn

1.to be basic, Israel is the US&#39;s bitch. US gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid and other stuff. So don&#39;t think this "assaination" wasn&#39;t okayed by the US.

2. Don&#39;t people learn. Violence doesn&#39;t end violence. We learned that in grade school.

3. What country in their right mind shoots missles to kill ONE person in a WHEELCHAIR. What happened to the good ol&#39;sniper? Obviously they have money to spend- oh that&#39;s right. It&#39;s not even their money.

4. Israel&#39;s army occoupies the land. They have Paletenians in camps. Scattered across the land. Similar way germany had other countries. It doesn&#39;t matter people with absolute power always act the same.

btw Israel has an army. Palestine doesn&#39;t have one so when they fight they choose to call them "terrorists"

back to gaming...
......and their "army" fights by sending bombs into shopping malls with the aim of killing....well.....ANYONE, the least being a military leader or someone actually making any sort of military decisions that harm Palestinians themselves.

Very good post btw <_<

[trillscout]

Palestine doesn&#39;t have an army. That means Hamas, PLO or whoever are equivalent to a militia in the US (david Koresh in Waco-I know bad example but you get it rite?)

Can u imagine the militia going against the US army?
Do u think they could reach a lieutanant?A sargent?A president? Come on, man.

The only way they can strike is indirectly. I don&#39;t agree with sending kids with bombs but what else can they do?

The point of bombings in shopping malls and other public places I think is to point out that it&#39;s their land too.

btw nice post <_<

[Busyman]

Originally posted by trillscout@2 April 2004 - 00:48
Palestine doesn&#39;t have an army. That means Hamas, PLO or whoever are equivalent to a militia in the US (david Koresh in Waco-I know bad example but you get it rite?)

Can u imagine the militia going against the US army?
Do u think they could reach a lieutanant?A sargent?A president? Come on, man.

The only way they can strike is indirectly. I don&#39;t agree with sending kids with bombs but what else can they do?

The point of bombings in shopping malls and other public places I think is to point out that it&#39;s their land too.

btw nice post <_<
That&#39;s terrorism....to point that out with bombs in shopping malls.

[trillscout]

maybe, but define terrorism.

it&#39;s an act. It has nothing to do with who commited the act.

Then think what category launching a missle, in the immediate area of a church, after mass, to kill one person while killing serveral others in the process is under.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by trillscout@2 April 2004 - 01:20
maybe, but define terrorism.

it&#39;s an act. It has nothing to do with who commited the act.

Then think what category launching a missle, in the immediate area of a church, after mass, to kill one person while killing serveral others in the process is under.
Are you trying to preach to me which is the lesser evil?

One act is going after a particular person and I am not surely condoning collateral damage. To assassinate - killing an important person by sneak attack.

The other is to go after pure innocents, including women and children, who could very well be indifferent to this "war". Using violence to sway or intimidate another to a political agenda - terrorism.

Israel is not tryng to sway Palestine to particular agenda by assassinating their leaders. They are trying to cripple the decision making. It is up for debate as to whether Yassin was that much of a decision maker.

[trillscout]

To assassinate - killing an important person by sneak attack.

:lol: launching missles is not sneaky it&#39;s recklss.


Israel is not tryng to sway Palestine to particular agenda by assassinating their leaders. They are trying to cripple the decision making. It is up for debate as to whether Yassin was that much of a decision maker.

I&#39;ll agree with your definition. but don&#39;t you think the assassination was to discourage palestinians from resistance? Resistance to state ownership of the whole strip of land called Israel?

violence was the negotiation tool, to sway or intimidate another(paletinians ) to a(Israel&#39;s ) political agenda - terrorism

Not tryin to preach but honestly read hemogony or survival howard Zinn great book.

Looking back at history you&#39;ll realize that current events are a repeat of the past.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by trillscout@2 April 2004 - 03:22

To assassinate - killing an important person by sneak attack.

:lol: launching missles is not sneaky it&#39;s recklss.


Israel is not tryng to sway Palestine to particular agenda by assassinating their leaders. They are trying to cripple the decision making. It is up for debate as to whether Yassin was that much of a decision maker.

I&#39;ll agree with your definition. but don&#39;t you think the assassination was to discourage palestinians from resistance? Resistance to state ownership of the whole strip of land called Israel?

violence was the negotiation tool, to sway or intimidate another(paletinians ) to a(Israel&#39;s ) political agenda - terrorism

Not tryin to preach but honestly read hemogony or survival howard Zinn great book.

Looking back at history you&#39;ll realize that current events are a repeat of the past.
Let me put it this way.

Terrorists kill indiscriminately, assassination is entirely different,

Israel is saying if you are going to kill our citizens indiscriminately, we will not do the same, we will attack your decision makers directly.