Israelis kill Yassin

bug

I don't see Israeli Children or Tennagers blowing themselve up at non-military targets

they dont have to they have a highly militarised army to blow up "targets!, there is no desperation.

Again I see more anti- Israeli Sentiment, this again is proof that people think the State of Israel is nothing more than a Terrorist state

some people yes, like me.

....and there supposed land...

well the palastinians were the ones who went to prove their ownership with the deeds of the lands and were greeted by Israelis waving the good book stating that "that was their "deed"...godgiven right etc.

Is'nt it ironic that the palenstinian people (not the stone throwers,instigators or evil terrorists) rather be under an Israel government, elected by them and the Israelis than the Corrupt PA....

im not sure about that but Im sure if they were offered a viable palastinian state they might take that first, since we are making assumptions on the mindsets of general populations- possibly better to live amongst them than be attacked by them, but I cant see that happening either

You will all throw your know it all left wing

naah Im not left wing.

This entire thread is to be honest based on one things anti-semtisim, as if the Arabs had the guns and were killing Jews you would all do the same thing that was done in World War 2 ...LOOK AWAY...

As much as the holocost was possibly the worst atrocity in the history of men it is not a shield to hide behind when wrong is done

I am waiting for the Quotes upon Quotes but as Hall Lindsay says you are idiots and blinded by Media Hype and Hatred towards the People of Israel...

I personally have no hatred towards the people of Israel and i will stand up and speak out about what I think is wrong no matter what label people will put on me.

ArphaRima

I considered asking for him to be banned for his last post, but to be honest I kind of like the idea of free speech, even to extreme levels.

Another reason is that I did want to see how people like him think. Not undeserved though.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
you never see the settler with his head blow apart and a dead child in his//her arms it is geared toward our Islamic friends who Blow up Planes with Innocent Civilians, Kill Olympians, Throw Paraplegics over board of ships and then these people pose as honest politicians....

Funny. I've seen all of these things. They still don't excuse what your nation does to the Palestinian people, no more than the actions of your state excuse what the Palestinian terrorists do to you.

but the fact is that we are in the end days

This is a fact???? Sounds more like a belief to me. Or do you have any proof to back this fact up with?

I am open and broad minded

As long as people don't say things you don't disagree with, or don't like, apparently.

but I would love to bring a few of you out there and you see how these people act...Not the Joe soap but your lovely suicide bombers...and there families and the people who support them....

You seem to have missed that what people are complaining about is the way your nation treats the Palestinian Joe Soap....so telling us that you want to show us something else isn't terribly relevant - it just shows that you are missing the point of the objection.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by fluffer
but to be honest I kind of like the idea of free speech, even to extreme levels.

Everyone here has freedom of speech. What they do not have is freedom from responsibility.

I know what you're saying though....I just think that if I were to allow Wrestlemania to continue, I would be hypocritical in stopping, say, a racist hate-monger for using similar language on a different target.

That is a hypocracy I am not willing to endure, nor am I willing to give a racist hate-monger a free hand. Ergo, I have no choice but to issue the ban.

jc

halkar

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
...
I am very right and I am open and broad minded but I would love to bring a few of you out there and you see how these people act...Not the Joe soap but your lovely suicide bombers...and there families and the people who support them....

Sure I'll go there with you, I was there and seen how Palestinians and Muslims looked down in Israel and threated like second class people. This is not in Palestine this is in Israel, where they have no rights either. They do all the work Israelis won't do and while Israelis getting richer they get poorer, even in parts of Israel where Palestinian or Muslim populations are the feeling of being locked up is always there. Maybe you should spend sometime in Gaza too and see how it feels like being prisoned in your own lands. They can't even use the sea for fisihing or anything while Israeli navy always watching them.

Sand

Yassin was as much a valid target as Sharon would be. Both sides are sending people to fight/suicide bomb people so they should bear the same risks. There is a conflict going on - I hesitate to call it war only because to do so might legitimise the Palestinians tactics of killing any Israelis they can. Yassin didnt consider himself a crinimal, the palestinians didnt consider him a crinimal ( if anything a national hero ) and the worst the Israelis did was accept their point of view that he wasnt a common crinimal.

And, I can see how theyre right. Terrorists are not common crinimals. Governments are not urged to negotiate ceasefires with common crinimals.

The only question is was it strategically correct to kill Yassin? At this point no one knows. The Israelis feel targeting the terrorist leadership will do more to prevent further attacks than simply killing/capturing the women, children and patsies they send to bomb civillians. Im not sure if thats correct. This is not John Gotti - Gotti operated out of self interest, Yassin was a fanatic. He utterly believed in what he was doing. One must assume they rest of the terrorist leadership are like this too. Hence they will not be especially detterred by his loss. perhaps even inspired. But who knows. Suicide attacks have been hindered by Israeli military action before, such as when they went as far as putting tanks in Arafats driveway.

Certainly the terrorists will try to blow up some school bus or a takeaway or something to get revenge for Yassins death. Its a cycle for revenge and it is simply not enough to say one side has a greater military advantage - thus they have the "duty" to be more forgiving of attacks - not when the other side is engaged in a form of violence which is designed to circumvent a perceived military advantage.

Yassins death was retaliation for the suicide attack on march 14th, which killed 11. That was apparently in retaliation for the death of 5 terrorists killed in Jennin. The Palestinians will then kill any old Israeli, the Israelis will then kill a terrorist, maybe some bystanders, so the palestinians will then kill any old Israeli. Neither side shows any interest in stepping outside of the circle and probably wont for decades to come. In the mean time it will go on and on and on and on and on. Just like threads trying to say its the palestinians fault, no its the israelis, no its the palestinians....

Seaneh

Originally posted by Sand
Yassin was as much a valid target as Sharon would be. Both sides are sending people to fight/suicide bomb people so they should bear the same risks. There is a conflict going on - I hesitate to call it war only because to do so might legitimise the Palestinians tactics of killing any Israelis they can. Yassin didnt consider himself a crinimal, the palestinians didnt consider him a crinimal ( if anything a national hero ) and the worst the Israelis did was accept their point of view that he wasnt a common crinimal.

And, I can see how theyre right. Terrorists are not common crinimals. Governments are not urged to negotiate ceasefires with common crinimals.

The only question is was it strategically correct to kill Yassin? At this point no one knows. The Israelis feel targeting the terrorist leadership will do more to prevent further attacks than simply killing/capturing the women, children and patsies they send to bomb civillians. Im not sure if thats correct. This is not John Gotti - Gotti operated out of self interest, Yassin was a fanatic. He utterly believed in what he was doing. One must assume they rest of the terrorist leadership are like this too. Hence they will not be especially detterred by his loss. perhaps even inspired. But who knows. Suicide attacks have been hindered by Israeli military action before, such as when they went as far as putting tanks in Arafats driveway.

Certainly the terrorists will try to blow up some school bus or a takeaway or something to get revenge for Yassins death. Its a cycle for revenge and it is simply not enough to say one side has a greater military advantage - thus they have the "duty" to be more forgiving of attacks - not when the other side is engaged in a form of violence which is designed to circumvent a perceived military advantage.

Yassins death was retaliation for the suicide attack on march 14th, which killed 11. That was apparently in retaliation for the death of 5 terrorists killed in Jennin. The Palestinians will then kill any old Israeli, the Israelis will then kill a terrorist, maybe some bystanders, so the palestinians will then kill any old Israeli. Neither side shows any interest in stepping outside of the circle and probably wont for decades to come. In the mean time it will go on and on and on and on and on. Just like threads trying to say its the palestinians fault, no its the israelis, no its the palestinians....

This is bay far the most inteligent post I have read in this thread.
You alone seem to have a rounded view, or any sort of knowledge of the situation, the others to me seem blindsided by the media, and also seem fairly biased, for what reason is beyond me.
Yassin was not just a cleric, he wasn't a "holy" man, he was an evil, murderious tyrent, he send hundreds of young men and women t thier deaths telling lies of all jewish peoples "evilness".
The fact that The EU condemed this attack sickens me.
It might not have been the smartest killing, but it was by far just as morally acceptable and any killing of any "leader" in the last 500 years.


Yes Isreal has killed innocent people in attacks militants in the west bank, but nato killed about twice as many people in Kosovo than the serbian army, yet we call that action "right" and we call Isreal "wrong", this to me is a little odd.
The differance between Isreali soilders acidently killing someong in the middle of a fire fight, and Hamas sending out 14 suicide bombers to kill upwards of 150 people in cold murder is massive.

As others have said before me, isreal only launches a raid AFTER civilains have been attaked, Hamas target civilians when terriorists have been killed, there is also a massive differance there.

gandalf

Well I don't see too many people saying that Yassin was a good man and didn't deserve to be punished for his crimes, however if Isreal had proof they should have taken the legal route and if available under Isreali law use the death penalty that way (do they have the death penalty legally or is it reserved for military strikes without the court case?).

The EU were quite right to condemn this action. They have been working on brokering a peace deal and this has set the process back years and created another martyr out of a sick racists (which is what Yassin was!).

I agree with some of Sands post but there are 3 groups involved in this the Palestinians Terrorists, the Isreali hardline military and the ordinary people be they Muslim or Jewish, Isreali or Palestinian and they are the ones paying with their lives in this conflict. It is obvious that something has to give in this conflict and the ball is firmly in the Isreali governments camp. They accuse the PA of not reigning in Hamas and the other Terrorists but wasn't it the IDF that destroyed Palestinian Police stations?

Gandalf.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
Yassin didnt consider himself a crinimal, the palestinians didnt consider him a crinimal ( if anything a national hero ) and the worst the Israelis did was accept their point of view that he wasnt a common crinimal.

I never said he was a common criminal, merely that he should be prosecuted by the rule of law, for legitimacy's sake. Now you might well argue that no Palestinian would accept the verdict of an Israeli court, but that's not the point is it?

I personally feel that what is important is that justice is done, not seen to be done, and certainly not circumvented by assasination.

And, I can see how theyre right. Terrorists are not common crinimals. Governments are not urged to negotiate ceasefires with common crinimals.

Again, I never said they were common criminals- merely that the rule of law successfully deals with terrorism in innumerable other countries, including incidentally, mine- which has suffered the worst terrorist attacks in history. The fact that the current administration seeks to circumvent the rule of law via Guantanomo Bay is something that will change in the next 8 months or 4 years and 8 months- another black mark upon our history.

Without the rule of law Sand, you are no better than the terrorist who blows himself up at an Israeli army checkpoint. In fact, without the rule of law, the abuse of power can run amok- as it did in the Soviet Union, its satellites, and indeed in South Africa.

The only question is was it strategically correct to kill Yassin? At this point no one knows. The Israelis feel targeting the terrorist leadership will do more to prevent further attacks than simply killing/capturing the women, children and patsies they send to bomb civillians. Im not sure if thats correct.

I'm was unsure soon after the event, now I'm convinced that it was a bad idea. Hamas have responded in the worst way they could, by appointing the most radical of successors. Yassin believed in the de facto recognition of Israel via a "prolonged ceasefire"- Rantisi believes in the total destruction of Israel. He has reiterated this belief, reaffirming what many already suspected- that Yassin was a spiritual figurehead that moderated the influence of men like Rantisi.

This is not John Gotti - Gotti operated out of self interest, Yassin was a fanatic. He utterly believed in what he was doing.

Not really- in the topsy turvy world of what politics are available to the Palestinians, he was a moderate. He has talked of prolonged ceasefires, even of reunification as a solution, conditional upon the right of return. This isn't the language of a fanatic at all, nor would you say that had you read but one of his speeches.

One must assume they rest of the terrorist leadership are like this too. Hence they will not be especially detterred by his loss. perhaps even inspired. But who knows.

Certainly not you- Hamas is not a "terrorist" organization in all its senses- in neighboring nations it is in fact a legitimate political movement, not unlike the way Sinn Fein was in Eire vs. the 6 counties. These days, Sinn Fein is legitimate in both geographic areas, a seperate body politic almost. Why couldn't the same be achieved here? All it would require is the recognition of Hamas as a legitimate political force, conditional upon their cessation of violent methods and the disbandment of their military wing. I can guarantee that the granting of such rights would force a choice upon Hamas, a similar one that the PLO was forced into, and one in which they chose peace.

Suicide attacks have been hindered by Israeli military action before, such as when they went as far as putting tanks in Arafats driveway.

Intimidation and cracking down may slow the attacks but it will only increase the hatred and determination to succeed again. Fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of the current leadership doesn't want a peaceful resolution, and a significant enough number believe in the assimilation of Palestinian land into a single Jewish state, wiping out the last traces of Palestinian nationhood and driving them into neighboring countries. Men like Dore Gold simply see this as finishing a job that began with the bombing of the Rashed hotel in Jerusalem, continues in the formation of Israel, and will end when there are no Palestinians left.

If that were not their stance, then there are ample opportunities for peace to be sought- terrorism is blamed, but the intentions of the only legitimately elected government here is erradication, not coexistence.

. Just like threads trying to say its the palestinians fault, no its the israelis, no its the palestinians....

Both sides must share the blame- just as the Israelis have no right to circumvent the rule of law, so should the Palestinians renounce armed struggle in favour of civil disobedience. I think that would be far more effective- but then again, I think the rule of law is more effective than blowing men in wheelchairs to bits outside mosques. Who knows, I could be mistaken on both accounts.

woody

As a close friend of wrestlemania the ban... I think is unfair and well I cannot do anything as he said it is typical and no more..

Sand I commend you on your reply it is very well rounded and fair...U should be a diplomat

you are right and I eat some of my own words by far you are the most intelligent and fairest person on this thread and I take my hat of to you...

Mod's I will agree to disagree as I will not get into further arguements as it will most likely get me banned..

halkar

It doesn't matter what the cause is, killing leaders of groups, be political or terrorist what ever they call it, is just not an answer and solution to problems. Even Turks recently captured and trial PKK leader of Ocalan (correct my speling if wrong) which was charged of killing thousands and serving life in jail after abolishment of death penalty. Even though public wanted him to be hanged, in the long run him being jailed helped to bring down many terrorist activities in the country. If he was killed, he would only be like Yassin and be martyr and give more reason to fight for the ones left behind. I totaly disagree with their attitude of killing leaders being Yassin or maybe Arafat next no one knows, the next leaders probably be worst than previous ones and use these assasinations as excuse to cause more chaos. Who will be responsible?
There are many terrorist groups around the globe but we don't see governments going and targetting leaders in order to stop terrorism. After all you need someone to negotiate in any case, positive or negative. Sad but true, I see nothing but more trouble in the region. Killing Yassin not only breaking up Israels peace efforts with Palestine it is also breaking up their relations in the region.

MeatProduct

Why anyone would think killing solves anything is beyond me. Now I'm a simple man so these issues probably go way over my head and I'm sure there are lots and lots of great reasons for killing people. One of the problems with killing an individual is that it generates upset, anger and hate. How that helps any peace process or indeed helps life in general I will never understand.
Sorry to take this slightly off-topic but I think it is somewhat applicable here since it involves killing and death.

Nick

mr_angry

It might not have been the smartest killing, but it was by far just as morally acceptable and any killing of any "leader" in the last 500 years.

The trouble I have with that statement is that I don't find the killing of any leader, regardless of their history or political beliefs, "morally acceptable". Who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

I really regret the fact that the Jewish people had to endure the holocaust - probably the worst crime in history. But as someone else has already pointed out, that does not give them a license to do whatever they want. Where do you draw the line? What is Israel not allowed to do in the name of survival??? Eradicate the Palestinians? Drop nukes on Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt? What is beyond acceptable for the Israeli state? Is genocide alright, because it was done to them??? Maybe that's inferring too much from some of the previous posts, but I don't see a line being drawn - I see people advocating whatever the Israeli state deems necessary.

How do you expect the Israeli state to be a safe and just country if you don't practice justice yourselves?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

And the US has veto'd another UNSC resolution condemning the assassination:
From RTE:

The United States has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution introduced by Arab nations to condemn Israel for assassinating Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the militant Palestinian group, Hamas.

Eleven of the 15 member countries voted in favour, while three others, Britain, Germany and Romania, abstained.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said the US was rejecting the resolution because it did not also denounce Hamas for launching suicide bomb attacks against Israeli civilians.

gandalf

TBH I don't have a problem with them vetoing it for the reason they state. The Security council should add in the condemnation of Hamas as well. It would call the US's bluff and see if they let it thru then!

Gandalf.

gandalf

Originally posted by daveirl
My only problem is the Palestinian problem, if tomorrow Egypt, Syria and Jordan massed their armies as they have done before I would fully support Israel if it decided to attack as it did last time. In fact as much as I don't like them having nukes, I wonder if that has been the one thing preventing another war between the Arabs and the Israelis.

Doubt its the nukes tbh. Isreal have the 4th largest army in the world (it is the 4th isn't it) and a highly military trained civilian population because of military service. I would suspect that they would make short work of the majority of those nations armies that you list above.

The nukes are an added deterant.

Gandalf.

mr_angry

So, let me get this straight. Its alright for the Israelis to do anything in the name of survival? Or do you mean just in certain circumstances where their survival is very obviously threatened.

Of course, my definition of what constitutes something endangering the survival of the Israeli state obviously differs from Ariel Sharon.

bonkey

Originally posted by Seaneh
The fact that The EU condemed this attack sickens me.
It might not have been the smartest killing, but it was by far just as morally acceptable and any killing of any "leader" in the last 500 years.

Its instructive that you choose a period of the last 500 years.

Here's a different tack to try - point out the political assassinations carried out and/or approved of by the major European nations since the inception of the Israeli state. Or since the end of World War 2 and the Nuremburg trials, if that would suit you better.

Then explain to me why your nation's assassination policy should be considered morally acceptable in comparison.

Yes Isreal has killed innocent people in attacks militants in the west bank, but nato killed about twice as many people in Kosovo than the serbian army, yet we call that action "right" and we call Isreal "wrong", this to me is a little odd.

Well, unless the figures have changed drastically, this article would seem to show that the estimated death toll in Kosovo during the war was under 1,000. In the past three years, almost 3000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli actions, and not one of them was actually brought to trial and sentenced to death beforehand that I'm aware of.

Secondly, exactly who calls the action in Kosovo "right"? As pointed out in the article I link to, there are documented cases of potential human rights abuses which the respective nations have shown no inclination of investigating or acknowledging, because they - like you, apparently - would have us believe that the general consensus is that everything they did was "right".

So, given that I would criticise NATOs actions in Kosovo as being correctly motivated but flawed in its implementation, does that mean I am still wrong by sticking by the exact same judgement of Israel?

If so, then why am I being unreasonable??? I'm applying differing standards.

The differance between Isreali soilders acidently killing someong in the middle of a fire fight, and Hamas sending out 14 suicide bombers to kill upwards of 150 people in cold murder is massive.

Yes, indeed it is. Would you like to claim that every one of the almost 3000 deaths in the past 3 years occurred "in the middle of a fire fight"?

As others have said before me, isreal only launches a raid AFTER civilains have been attaked,

Untrue. The Israeli's have also launched raids in retaliation for attacks which have been targetted at the military.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
My only problem is the Palestinian problem, if tomorrow Egypt, Syria and Jordan massed their armies as they have done before I would fully support Israel if it decided to attack as it did last time. In fact as much as I don't like them having nukes, I wonder if that has been the one thing preventing another war between the Arabs and the Israelis.

Thing is the "last time" was after Israel invaded areas oustide their UN mandate and forceably removed the population.
It also doesn't seem that nukes are a factor in the Arab states not attacking as Sadat was offering peace agreements as of 71.

Sand

however if Isreal had proof they should have taken the legal route

I never said he was a common criminal, merely that he should be prosecuted by the rule of law, for legitimacy's sake.

Without the rule of law Sand, you are no better than the terrorist who blows himself up at an Israeli army checkpoint.

Both Gandalf and Bob have made similar points, the whiulst Yassin was an evil man the rule of law should have been applied, there should have been a court case and so on. Unfortunately, as all three of us accept, Yassin was not a common crinimal and he was not engaged in common criminality ( primarily anyway - ive no idea what his sidelines were ). There is a conflict going on, Yassin is one of the leaders of a terrorist force that is attacking Israeli civillians primarily. In terms of warfare there is absolutely no need to try and convict enemies before killing them. From that point of view, where Yassin is not a common crinimal, where in fact he is some sort of palestinian resistance leader - which is the view of the palestinians - then hes a perfectly valid target.

On the other hand if Yassin was common crinimal then he should have been tried and convicted as a common crinimal. But hes not, we all accept that. He was a terrorist, and efforts to criminalise terrorism/guerillas have enjoyed mixed results...especially when prosecuting them across zones of control where there is wide spread support for a terrorists goal. No ordinary Irish court would convict IRA volunteers in 1916-1922 period, out of either sympathy or intimidation.

I personally feel that what is important is that justice is done, not seen to be done, and certainly not circumvented by assasination

The IDF would argue justice was done, even if it was not seen by the world to be done. Its hard to disagree, Yassin met the fate he urged for all those Israelis killed by his organisation - the world does see justice being done. You claim you dont have a problem with that.

Certainly not you- Hamas is not a "terrorist" organization in all its senses- in neighboring nations it is in fact a legitimate political movement, not unlike the way Sinn Fein was in Eire vs. the 6 counties. These days, Sinn Fein is legitimate in both geographic areas, a seperate body politic almost.

Without going into it - and off topic - I dont consider SF to be a legitimate political movement as they retain their own private army, access to weaponry and are heavily linked with organised crime, intimidation and attacks on people. I recognise that it is better to have these scumbags onside, rather than out murdering people full scale but they are not legitimate in my eyes.

So long as Hamas continue attacking civillians then they remain terrorists. They might be terrorists with their own tv channel but they are still terrorists.

I can guarantee that the granting of such rights would force a choice upon Hamas, a similar one that the PLO was forced into, and one in which they chose peace.

Fatah continues its terrrorist attacks on Israel. In fact afaik, the first woman suicide bomber was sent by Fatah. Again, its the SF syndrome. Terrorism gains international respectability, becomes seen as an understandable form of negotiation.

Intimidation and cracking down may slow the attacks but it will only increase the hatred and determination to succeed again.

To a fatalistic mindset slowing the attacks, building a big wall and guarding it to seal of the country is the best that can be hoped for when facing a fanatical enemy, where youre trapped in a cycle which has remained unbroken for decades.

It doesn't matter what the cause is, killing leaders of groups, be political or terrorist what ever they call it, is just not an answer and solution to problems.

The trouble I have with that statement is that I don't find the killing of any leader, regardless of their history or political beliefs, "morally acceptable". Who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

Leaders shouldnt be immune from the consequences of their decisions. If these men are willing to order men to risk their lives or actually sacrifice themselves for some cause then they should be just as willing to risk their own life. It was often said there would be no nuclear war as this time the generals might die. The upset over killing a enemy leader is merely a gentlemans agreement between two elites whilst they send their armies to die for them. It should be left in the past.

A change of leadership has often opened the doorway to peace, Russia in 1917 for example...

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
On the other hand if Yassin was common crinimal then he should have been tried and convicted as a common crinimal.

He was. He wasn't released until a few years ago. So if he's so evil, why did the israelis decide that they could release him to promote a peace deal?

Leaders shouldnt be immune from the consequences of their decisions.

Agreed, but I don't see Sharon using civilian buses to get around in Israel these days....

A change of leadership has often opened the doorway to peace, Russia in 1917 for example...

Indeed? So it's allowable?
*gets his shotgun*
Anyone know where Bush is going to be staying for those twelve hours he's here?
:rolleyes:

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
Anyone know where Bush is going to be staying for those twelve hours he's here?
:rolleyes:

Processors in Diego Garcia are heating up now.

Sparks

Originally posted by sovtek
Processors in Diego Garcia are heating up now.

Wait till they go examing my website so

ArphaRima

Right Lads. You guys go for Bush. Ill get those pesky computers. Dont leave a trace.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The IDF would argue justice was done, even if it was not seen by the world to be done. Its hard to disagree,

No, its very easy to disagree. Thats what a lot of nations and people are doing right now.

Are you saying that they're all wrong? That their vision of what constitutes justice - and what doesn't - is wrong?

As I pointed out in another thread - particularly since WW2, there has been a steady move away from summary execution without trial (which is about the most charitable description I can honestly give to the killing of Yassin).

The Nuremburg trials, the carious war-crimes tribunals which have been set up since then - they are all an indication of a society which has realised that justice isn't a simple issue.

Whether or not Yassin deserved to be executed is almost secondary to me. Personally, I believe he probably should have been - after he had been tried, found guilty, and formally sentenced to execution.

Because for me the problem is not whether or not Yassin deserved what he got. The problem is that once we start accepting the tactic of denying the "clearly guilty" the rights that they are supposedly entitled to, then sometimes the innocent will suffer.

As a comparison - just look at how many "clearly guilty" people were locked up in Gitmo and then released without charge, despite the implementation of a less strict legal system to lighten the burden of proof. This is where discarding our principals leads us to - the innocent suffering because we believe what we do is right when its done to the guilty.

If you - Sand, or anyone else - are happy with a world where this is what happens, then you're dead right in saying that Israel did the right thing. Absolutely.

Just don't ever complain if you get affected by injustice.

jc

mr_angry

Originally posted by sovtek
Processors in Diego Garcia are heating up now.

They must be running Dell PowerEdge 1650s!

http://www.flexbeta.net/main/comments.php?catid=1&shownews=6872

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry
They must be running Dell PowerEdge 1650s!

http://www.flexbeta.net/main/comments.php?catid=1&shownews=6872

We can only hope.

Sand

He was. He wasn't released until a few years ago. So if he's so evil, why did the israelis decide that they could release him to promote a peace deal?

AFAIK he was released in exchange for two Israeli agents which had been taken trying to assassinate a Hamas leader in Jordan.

No, its very easy to disagree. Thats what a lot of nations and people are doing right now.

But justice was done even it wasnt seen to be done, which Bob said was important. Thats what the IDF would argue. Of course the rest of the world would disagree, its part of the statement that justice wasnt seen to be done.

As I pointed out in another thread - particularly since WW2, there has been a steady move away from summary execution without trial (which is about the most charitable description I can honestly give to the killing of Yassin).

The Israelis didnt need a court case for permisson to kill Yassin. Yassins killing wasnt [EDIT] I said was as a typo [/EDIT] extra judicial. He was a leader of an organisation attacking Israel. In a war you dont need permisson to kill your enemies beyond whats laid down in the Geneva convention. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the killing of Yassin - he was part of the command and control of a hostile organisation and he was targeted and eliminated as such. He gladly sent bombers and gunmen to take risks for his cause. If it is okay for Israel to kill the gunmen and bombers attacking israel then it is okay to target the leadership sending them. That also works in reverse - if it is okay for the Palestinians to kill IDF soldiers oppressing them then it is okay to kill Sharon as he is the man sending them , the IDF are there because theyre ordered to be there.

Whats going on in Israel and palestine isnt common criminality - its a war between terrorists and government forces.

Just don't ever complain if you get affected by injustice.

If I engage in terrorism and I get targeted and killed for doing so then i have no grounds for complaining.

Bob I decided to hold off on addressing two points you made because I needed to learn a bit more about Yassin in the meantime and his exact position on the peace process. I agree the appointment of this Rantisi guy seems depressing as he is just more of the same. The same, because Ive looked at some of the things Yassin has said and I find it hard to see the moderation you talk about....

"The so-called peace path is not peace and it is not a substitute for jihad and resistance "

Whilst he did talk about a ceasefire in an interview with the BBC a while ago it was in very vague terms, concerned only with whether it was in the national interest or not. He was vague as well on suicide bombings, sticking only to the party line that they were punishments for israeli crimes and not a part of their strategy.

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2002-04/24/article49.shtml

In this symposium he calls for greater control over suicide attacks, but only to prevent international opinion turning against the palestinians - he reiterates support for all attacks on settlements, which regardless of their politics are civillians containing children who may have no say over where they live. He also reiterates that violence works, and peace deals are worthless and shouldnt be pursued.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP47903

Here he is urging attacks on the west... Madrid even?

Yeah, this guy is moderate if youre comparing him to a raving psychopath. He remains a fanatic with absolutely no problem with the use of attacks on civillians beyond the wider politcal impact (and I dont personally think he has grounds to worry tbh ).

halkar

Originally posted by Sand
.............
Whats going on in Israel and palestine isnt common criminality - its a war between terrorists and government forces......

And who is government and who are the terrorists? and why? and who decides that? Of course US will come in mind as they haven't left a country that they didn't stick their nose in. UN has no power against Israel with US veto everything against them and those countries in Middle East are not blind to see what is being done behind them. Why don't they just leave these people alone and let them live their lives? Democracy my A***! If US and Israel think these people are terrorists because they are fighting for something, these people thinks the same, in their eyes US and Israel are the terrorists. People in Middle East nothing to protect themselves against the power of US and US backed Israel. While US and world let Israel to build his armies and nuclear power if anyone else does the same in Middle East it becomes wrong. These people have right to defend themselves like any other nations in the f**ked up world.