Sheikh Yassin Assassination

[leftism]

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

Well.. they don'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'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't right.

Building walls to keep suicide bombers out is a defence. Launching missiles at people is an attack. It doesn't lessen the number of suicide bombers and it doesn'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'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's a lot of support for the illegal 'targeted assassinations'.

[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's terrorist is another man'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'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.

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'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's the Gaza pull-out (why bother, now?), etc.

This seems to fit any number of conflicting scenarios.

As an aside, I don't think the fact of Sharon's having been labeled a "war criminal" is of sufficient significance to bear on the argument; it'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's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter.

(haxor-did we just finish reading the same column? I had just read that line myself! )

[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's terrorist is another man'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's the end all be all of crimes. There's isn'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't.

The founder and leader of Hamas is not someone you walk up to and arrest. You found one of the world'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'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't right.

You know... there is a right to defence. This man was the leader of the biggest threat to Israel. Israel's OBL if you want. That'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'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'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'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's founder and leader is worth the risk. Like I already pointed out, Hamas doesn't leave any wiggle room for negotiation. They exist solely to kill until Israel doesn't exist. They'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...