What do you think?

[ 03-22-2004, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

I voted that it will increase the cycle. Violence will always beget more violence - it is an endless circle.

Unless something meaningful happens it will never end. I think that stopping the building of settlements and starting to remove some of the more remote ones would be a good start. A good faith gesture would put the onus on the Palestinian side. I did just hear Sharon was trying to do just that and recieved resistance from Israelis and doubt from Palestinians so I don't think it would ever happen.

I hate to say it, but it seems that both sides appear to be heading to a solution that is unacceptable: total genocide of one side and a crippling of the other. I believe if that would happen, the Palestinians are on the losing side. They just cannot compete with Israel, weaponwise. Could this spark a 3rd World War? :(

Mark

The attack, in which 8 other civilians died and fifteen more were injured, was about as helpful as a suicide bomber - and just as illegal and outrageous.

This killing wasn't carried out to prevent terrorism. Murdering a popular, partially sighted, hard of hearing and quadriplegic old man just as he came out of a mosque, is BOUND to increase acts of terrorism rather than prevent it.

This murder was done in the name of boosting Sharon's flagging political support in the wake of his plans for the withdrawl from the Gaza strip.

[ 03-22-2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Isreal is kinda like Britanny Spears- "Opps I did it again"

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...391075-ap.html

While I have no problem with this terrorist piece of trash being dead I do have a problem with the way Isreal killed him. I think it was a horrible move for Isreal to publicly kill him thus causing thousands of more terrorist and making him a martyr. Hasn't anyone heard of paying one of his associates off to put rat poision in his soup or something. Talk about airing out your dirty laundry for every one to see. I think like Skunk suggested it was a political move only and the president wanted everyone to know. Is this type of action any different than terrorism? I would say no and that this was also an act of terrorism. It certainly does nothing to build on a peace process. As Egyption president said, "What peace process?". When will it all end? This move just sends everyone in the region to hell in a hand basket.

Another thing while this guy in a wheelchair probaly had some dangerous ideas I think he is more dangerous now that he is dead.</font>

[ 03-22-2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I belive it will increase the violence, yes. This act wasn't exactly the wisest of decision on Israels part, despite Yassin's outrageous ideas.

Regardless of that, Yassin wouldn't be a suitable leader for the Palestinians and would have to go if there would ever be a chance for peace.

[ 03-22-2004, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

From the article:
From a yellow-bellied terrorist? [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Terrorism is by definition the most cowardly underhanded form of fighting on the planet.

Anyway, I'm fine with this guy meeting some divine retribution. However, I think the timing was chosen to fuel the fires. Israel always gets scared and takes some egregious action once peace talks start. I truly think Israel does not want peace -- at least Sharon doesn't.

So, yes, it will beget more violence. Palestinians can continue to be martyrs and jews can continue to be attacked based on their religion. Everybody is set in their roles in one of the wierdest symbiotic relationships the world has ever seen. *sigh*

From what i understand, this man ordered numerous of attacks on Israeli civilians, so good riddance. Besides, he's Hamas, he deserves no better faith.

And there I thought you were talking about Leon Klinghoffer (pushed dead off a cruise ship (Achille Lauro?)in the Med. Aside from that I (yes heart attack time) agree with Skywalker for the most part. Except for the Third World War thing. More like More War in the Third World.

While I've always seen Yassin as a no good terrorist leader, but his death will most definately cause more violence. Though sadly, I don't think the violence between the Israelis and Palestinians will end.

[ 03-22-2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

<font color=orange>Neither do I Gab. It doesn't matter who kills who either. There will be no peace between the two for a very long time.</font>

[ 03-22-2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

I would have thought Muslims all over would be rejoicing. He's a martyr now right? He's in heaven. Widows of suicide bombers are often paraded around saying how they're happy their husband is a martyr. Why not this guy?

What I'd like to know is how come he didn't lead by example? Why did he order suicide bombings, but not perform them himself?

That all said... this will perpetuate the cycle of violence. Don't see a solution. Except for them all to adhere to Jesus "put down your sword" and the quote "vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord". But I doubt that will happen. :(

Live by the bomb, die by the bomb. If he wasn't expecting to go like this, he wouldn't have been waging war. Arafat should not expect eternal immunity either. In fact, why not let the leaders slug things out?

Did anyone else think he looked a little like Saruman the White?

Yeah, Yorick, just like OBL, this guy has never participated in a single successful suicide bombing. I mean, these terrorists are pretty lax on their job qualification requirements!

Yes, I too thought he looked like Sarumon. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Got smacked down like him, too.

My big regret is killing such an old terrorist. Give him a one-way ticket to a bunch of virgins? Naaaa -- they shoulda just let him die on his own. Martyrdom's too good for him.

Which brings me back to thinking the real reason Israel pulled this stunt was to stiffle peace talks. The last thing Israel appears to want (from what I've seen the last 4-5 years) is peace. It's a ready-made recipe:
1. Enter peace negotiations with Palestine to placate world leaders.
2. Make progress in talks.
3. Create a problem that ruins all the progress.
4. Enjoy several months of mayhem.
5. Repeat.

Now that you mention it...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...ikh_203afp.jpg

http://www.tlotr.com/film_pictures/c..._fplanetcz.jpg

You mean he looked like actor Christopher Lee playing Saruman the White. ;)


Mark

Who's Christopher Lee? No, I meant the real Saruman, as pictured above. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Wow! So there are three people who look similar? Christopher Lee, Father Hamas, and Saruman? What a coincidence!

A middle eastern perspective on the effects of the 'assassination':

Launching a martyr

Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Palestinian radical Islamic group Hamas, will resonate well beyond the Arab world. Many Muslims around the world will view his killing as an assault on Islam by Israel and its international backer, the United States. This is bound to undermine the U.S.-led war on terror.

Yassin was not only the founder of Hamas and its spiritual leader since 1987, but he was also viewed widely among Palestinians and Muslims as symbolizing Islam in defense of the Palestinians' right to resist Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian land. Although a quadriplegic from childhood, he was a trained Islamic scholar, with an evolving commitment to deploy Islam as an ideology of resistance.

Despite Israel's current assertion that he was an uncompromising, militant Islamic murderer, Yassin and radical Hamas activists originally received backing from Israeli circles as a counter to the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat - a move recently described by the Israeli-born historian Ahron Bregman as "Israel's folly." Only later did Israel turn against Hamas and imprison Yassin, as it came to fear the growing popularity of Hamas among the Palestinians and concluded that it was better for Israel to deal with a weakened but secular PLO than to allow Hamas to Islamize the Palestinian nationalist movement.

Until September 2003, at no point did Israel deem Yassin, dangerous enough to kill him. Although Yassin had endorsed suicide bombings as a means for Palestinians to combat their militarily powerful occupiers, he was also regarded as a voice of relative moderation within Hamas.

Yassin persistently downplayed the call in Hamas's charter for the creation of an Islamic Palestine incorporating and extinguishing Israel, guiding his movement toward acceptance of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem along the pre-1967 borders.

While rightist Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu in effect rejected the Oslo peace process from the beginning and worked hard for its destruction, Yassin, despite his serious objection to Oslo, tolerated the process and supported the PLO's efforts to make it work for more than two years.

Hamas carried out no substantial operations against Israel until after the assassination by a Jewish extremist of the Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin - a central partner in the peace process - and the build-up of Palestinian frustration over the slow progress of the peace process thereafter. In fact, Yassin's and Hamas's position weakened during the initial phase of the Oslo process, only to be strengthened after the Rabin assassination, leading them in the last year to become possibly the dominant force in Gaza.

For all these reasons, and notwithstanding his support of suicide bombing against Israeli civilian targets, Yassin was widely respected among the Palestinians and looked upon by many in the Arab and Muslim world as an Islamist defender of Palestinians and the Islamic faith. This was a distinction which could not be claimed by figures such as Arafat or Saddam Hussein. There now will be many elements within the Muslim world who will view his assassination as another concrete example of an assault on Islam and Muslims.

The fact that Israel has American weapons to assassinate Yassin, and the spectacle of Washington once again coming out to shield Israel against widespread international condemnation, can only further fuel not only Palestinian and Arab but also Muslim anger against the United States. This, together with the miserable conditions of existence endured by Iraqis under the U.S.-led occupation, will most likely drive more Muslims to identify with the positions of radical extremists such as Osama bin Laden.

If Al Qaeda needed one further event to shore up its position among Muslims and widen its recruitment and operations, the assassination of Yassin may have provided it. Israel and its international backers may find that this assassination returns to haunt them.

Amin Saikal is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.
<font size="1">International Herald Tribune</font>

[ 03-25-2004, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Here's what gets me:

Israel kills a terrorist, albeit a "nicer" one,
and the terrorist organization that terrorist headed up gathers, elects a new leader, specifically states it will continue to terrorize Israel, even specifying how other nations can avoid being targets,and reaffirms its commitment to the destruction of a nation.

And, only Israel is sanctioned by the UN. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] It appears to me that Palestine's reaction was as egregious as the assasination of Yassin.

I'm not pleading Israel's case - not at all. I am pointing out that Israel faces a prejudice at the UN. Is the UN anti-semetic? Or maybe just anti-Israel? And perhaps pro-Palestine?

I know that Yassin 'deserved' it, and that he was a man who inspired terrorist suicide bombings on innocent civilians, but at some point, somebody will have to be the person to say, 'We're not going to reward violence with violence.'

It's a bit of a dichotomy, justice and peace.

Just about all leaders are like that, though.

Is Israel sanctioned by the UN? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Besides, I don't think you can put sanctions on the Palestinians considering they have no state of their own to be sanctioned. Possibly on the Palestinian authorities, but that wont do much about Hamas.

Just about all leaders are like that, though. </font>[/QUOTE]Especially quadraplegic (paralysed below the neck) people like Yassin?
What was he supposed to do, blow hard and hope that the momentum would carry him to his target? He may look like Gandalf, but I don't think he was that magical...

<font color = lightgreen>I am not going to bother trying to do a search for all the times I have said that neither side wants peace (must be at least 10 by now). It is so obvious that both sides want nothing more than to eradicate the other side.

This isn't about land, politics, or religion--it is personal, and they want blood. I say we all step back and let them fight it out to the bitter end by themselves.</font>

The question of "did he deserve it?" is irrelevant since he did. He was a leader and inspirer of a terroristic group that wants us dead, regardless of our location. Inside 1967 borders or not, they will still kill us at any possibility available.
The question of "how was it useful" is relevant however.

I think that killing him was a correct thing to do. In the short time it will boost the violance, but in the long run we will have weakened hamas. Yassin was a charismatic leader. Such people do not grow on trees. For example-the capture of Ochalan reduced the activity of his cronies to almost 0.

The squabble for power is even now under way in this organization.

You must understand, that the leaders take a very big care of themselves, and do all the dirty work with the hands of other brain washed dolts. If we kill one, then another, and another, it will bring to power clashes among the group, as well to an understanding-if i will be the leader, i will end like yassin.

Then we will have some peace talks and negotiations.

Btw, did you hear the news that a 10 year old boy was given a bomb to carry in his school bag?
(he was the first one among the suicider children. happened a week ago).

Just about all leaders are like that, though. </font>[/QUOTE]Especially quadraplegic (paralysed below the neck) people like Yassin?
What was he supposed to do, blow hard and hope that the momentum would carry him to his target? He may look like Gandalf, but I don't think he was that magical... </font>[/QUOTE]Where there is a will there's a way. Men armed with boxcutters destroyed towers in the heart of the American empire no army could have got to. Your words limit quadraplegics in any case skunk. Quads can make art, sing, carry out gainful employment. This guy masterminded Hamas. I'm sure if he wanted to, he could have been a suicide bomber. They've used donkeys, children, why not wheelchairs?

Unless he didn't believe what he was preaching perhaps? Why hasn't Arafat become a Martyr? A true leader should be prepared to lead by example, not ask others to do what they will not.

I think you just answered your own question there, Yorick. If Yassin was such a great asset to Hamas, then it would be kind of a waste for him to blow himself up. It's not that he was completely unable to do it, it's just that his role in Hamas was not that of a suicide-bomber. He was part of the leadership and not the 'grunts'.
A leader can't lead if he's dead. Yes, you can argue that a good leader should be willing to die for his cause, but unless he sacrifices himself at the 'right' moment, his death will just be one of many others. I suppose it would be more 'honourable' for a leader like Yassin to die defending his life and those of whom he cares for, than to die in a 'simple' suicide attack.

But he tells those whom he cares for to go into Israeli territory and blow themselves up in a bus, or a restaurant. Makes you wonder what he tells those whom he doesn't care for.

[ 03-27-2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

By 'those whom he cares for' I meant friends and family in particular and not every Hamas member willing to sacrifice his life. But perhaps he told his friends to blow themselves up too, we don't know.

I think we're revealing a certain hypocricy in the terrorist structure. One should not preach jihad and martyrdom if they are not willing to practice it. Duh.

Perhaps, but hypocricy is the least of their crimes.

Good point, as we all remember when Bush was in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, kicking terrorist arse... (... ... I know Bush is a bad example of a non-terrorist leader, but they're all the same)
If every single Palestinian and Israeli are willing to sacrifice their life for that cause, I'd agree with you. They're not, though.

<font color="#C4C1CA">
The Kurdish Workers Party and militant Kurdish had begun scaling back their activities long before the capture of Abdallah Ochalan because of the changing situation.
1. A semi-autonomous state was created in Kurdistan
2. Turkish military pulled out a lot of troops from Kurdish areas
3. Turkey reversed its ban on the kurdish language
4. Turkey removed many discrimanatory laws
So in actual fact, the reduction in activity has far more to do with addressing grievances than capturing 'the big guy', who by then, had already settled in virtual exile.

Hamas has tens of thousands of members and supporters and their primary grievances have not been addressed. They will never have trouble finding new leaders. The *only* ways to defeat Hamas is to remove its support and to do that the Israeli government needs to have a complete policy overhaul in the way that Turkey did.
</font>

<font color="#C4C1CA">
With the money and equipment available in rich countries, a lot is possible.
Without it (as in the case of all of the occupied territories), not much is - not that you need me to tell you that.

Sometimes I think you take the contrary position purely for the sake of enjoying an argument: rather than for any rational reason.
</font>

If that happens, they'll whip out the nukes and then our planet will fly off into the sun!

<font color=orange>HAMAS sends children in as sucide bombers now. Nough said.</font>

The youngest member of the British taskforce sent to the Falklands was aged 16 - and Britain continues to employ child soldiers. Nough said?

In some countries they even execute children... nough said?

And you can marry a 13 year old girl in New Hampshire. Nough said?
Or do I call everyone in New Hampshire 'paedophiles' (or Alabama, South Carolina etc.) without reference to the culture and history? I believe that, in certain circumstances (and with a court order) it's possible to marry a child under 16 (and therefore have lawful sex with a minor) in Knoxville too...

Suicide bombing is just plain WRONG - it's not a rational act - its an act of desparation act that causes intense suffering in its wake. It's enough to argue against it on that basis alone - bring ages into it and you will have to engage in a bit of self-examination.

What you find in that process might be just as unpalatable. Best not to go there.

[ 03-29-2004, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

<font color=orange>I know of nowhere in the US that one can marry a 13 year old. Nor can someone join the US military anymore without a high school diploma, which means one must attend 4 years of high school. A 17 year old can join, but he or she must complete High School First. The military stopped taking Drop-outs along time ago. I'm not even sure you can get in with a GED. So yes, I damn well will go there! It's only desparation on the part of HAMAS because they can't get enough men to do their dirty work!
They are the lowest of the low! The Falklands was what 20 years ago. What is the rule for the British Army now?</font>

Still 16 years old - Britain remains the only country in Europe to employ child soldiers.

A good site listing child-marriage rules in the US:
http://family-law.freeadvice.com

Pay attention to this page, http://family-law.freeadvice.com/nh_...l_consent.htm.

Now you know where you can marry a 13 year old girl in the US...

I fail to see what the relevence of these straw man arguments are. Regardless of what the West does or doesn't do, it doesn't change the evil that using children as bombs is. We are (were) talking Islam. There is no justification for the practice if the West did exactly the same thing.

However, the west does not.

Is joining the Army at age 16 a guarantee of certain death? Definately no. In many cases, it gets kids off the streets, gives them a career, a home and money. A future. The Armed forces gives people training for use in life. You can be in the army and be an engineer, a musician, whatever. I have a friend who is in the Australian army, and plays bass guitar all day. He will never fire a weapon in anger. He is an army entertainer.

Similarly, marriage at 13 (exceptionally rare) is again, hardly the same thing as strapping a bomb to you. Ever heard of divorce Skunk? At 23 after ten years of marriage, the child bride has another whole life in front of her. Something the suice bomber does not.

Straw man arguments and irrelevencies. Doesn't change the evil of using kids to blow themselves and innocent civilians up does it?