Hamas Spiritual Leader Killed in Israeli Strike

[Trent 0]

Quote

its not to retaliate.
to retaliate would be to blow up a school bus or drop a bomb in the middle of the market.
this was chasing the man leading a terrorist organization who has murdered hundreds.
and the immediate result is their leaders hiding and looking over their shoulders.

and the DO attack at random, ALL the time.
lucky for us, the majority are captured before exploding (only last week, 2 explosive packs were captured at a road block, one hidden in a school boy's bag), two succeeded and killed 10 civilians in one of our ports (not too far from chemical storage facility.)

Nuff said. I hear the same thing from friends of mine there.

Oh, hello again!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I'm glad he's dead, but I also wish he had died in his sleep. "Hey, Allah wanted him back . . . " I fear for the Israelis who will suffer the next round of suicide bombers, now that they have a new martyr to worship.

I clearly see that point. However, I think the Israelis were able to simplify it: If he's dead, there will be violence. If he's alive, there will be violence. If we kill him, there will be violence. If he chocked on a piece of pork, there would be violence.

All things considered, and as I've been able to think about it a little more, there were going to be bombings, and attacks regardless. One thing that has been fairly consistent, is Hamas' underestimation of Sharon, who's been fighting these terrorists for most of his adult life.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't approve of the action

The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, which states:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Given that their goal is complete genocide of the Israeli people, the leader of this movement is a legitimate target of war, IMO.

And no one who advocates suicide bomb mass murder against innocent people, deserves to be called a "spiritual leader".

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

I don't approve of the action

And no one who advocates suicide bomb mass murder against innocent people, deserves to be called a "spiritual leader".

Can you provide any links to quotations, or speeches he made?

I don't doubt the information about this guy, I just want to read his words for myself.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Shark 0]

Mon 22 March, 2004 20:35


DUBAI (Reuters) - An Islamist Web site has published a statement purporting to come from an al Qaeda-linked group vowing revenge on the United States and its allies over Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

"We tell Palestinians that Sheikh Yassin's blood was not spilt in vain and call on all legions of Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades to avenge him by attacking the tyrant of the age, America, and its allies," said the statement by Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades carried by the Al Ansar forum Web site on Monday.

It was also published by another Islamist Web site called Islammemo, which said the letter was received by email and sent to several Arab media outlets.

The group, which aligns itself to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, had claimed this month's train bombings in Spain. There was no means of verifying the statement.

"We tell fighters in Palestine, especially Hamas and Jihad, that your real enemy is the tyrant of the age, America, because Sheikh Yassin was killed by American money, weapons and political and media support," the statement said.

"Let us unite to strike this Jewish-crusader snake, this despotic enemy...the Jews can be found in every inch of the world and they are the ones who support the Jews of the Zionist entity in Palestine through money and in the media," it said.

Washington has denied suggestions by Hamas that it gave Israel the green light for Yassin's assassination or that it had advance warning.

The purported Qaeda statement urged Palestinians not to follow Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who it said was trying to "sell Palestine" in exchange for peace.

The group is named after Mohammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide from Egypt who was killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in late 2001.

[billvon 3,120]

>its not to retaliate.

I don't understand, then. You said that no amount of retaliation or non-retaliation will stop them. What will? I mean, Israel does have some sort of plan that includes frequent helicopter gunship and missile attacks, right? Surely Israel thinks that assassinating this "leader" is worth taking the risk of killing innocent bystanders, and will result in a better outcome (for the people of Israel) than letting him live.

[falxori 0]

Quote

What will? I mean, Israel does have some sort of plan that includes frequent helicopter gunship and missile attacks, right?

stop them? no.
the only things that will "stop them" is a diplomatic agreement that will give them a state which has a palestinian authority and a (singl) police force.
what it will do is to make those who plan terror attacks look after themselves and hide instead of planning the next attack.

Quote

Surely Israel thinks that assassinating this "leader" is worth taking the risk of killing innocent bystanders

we hold "this leader" responsible for terror attacks much more than the poor young man or woman who exploded in a bus. these "leaders" send them, train them, brainwash them with religious crap with has nothing to do with real Islam etc.

as for bystanders, enough was said about the fact that they make sure they're sorrounded by civilians most of the time .
he was followed for more than 24 hours before he was hit, because they were waiting for the best time where there will be less civilians with him, and as far as i know most of those who got hurt were Hamas people.
i don't justify hurting bystanders, there is no excuse for that, but it happens.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Guest]

Quote

***i don't justify hurting bystanders, there is no excuse for that, but it happens.

C'est la guerre...

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

i don't justify hurting bystanders, there is no excuse for that, but it happens.

Yes it is sad, however it does show you need to be mindful about the company you keep.

[Trent 0]

Remember when "carpet bombing" came into reality? Remember the bombings of entire cities in Germany, England, and France? I'm just wondering when people decided that no one was supposed to get killed in a war. I'd say Israel and Hamas are about as "at war" as groups can get. If the "civilians" hanging out with the Hamas people were smart, they'd find some new friends who weren't likely to get bombed.

You know that there isn't any way of stopping these terrorist wack-jobs short of killing everyone in any Jewish or Christian community. They will not be negotiated into peace. Instead of blaming Israel or the US for casualties in attacks on terrorists... blame the fucking terrorists who didn't have the balls or brains to take up a cause without violence.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,120]

>what it will do is to make those who plan terror attacks look after
>themselves and hide instead of planning the next attack.

OK, so it sounds like you believe retaliation will at least slow them down. I hope that's true; the next few weeks will tell.

>we hold "this leader" responsible for terror attacks much more than
> the poor young man or woman who exploded in a bus.
> these "leaders" send them, train them, brainwash them with
> religious crap with has nothing to do with real Islam etc.

No question there. But killing someone who coordinates terror attacks because it's they are responsible, must be held accountable etc is retaliation. Doesn't make it wrong, just makes it retaliation.

[falxori 0]

Quote

No question there. But killing someone who coordinates terror attacks because it's they are responsible, must be held accountable etc is retaliation. Doesn't make it wrong, just makes it retaliation.

well naturally if he wasn't planning terror attacks he would still be alive...
but you seem to like the word "retaliation", so ok, its a form of retaliation

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[billvon 3,120]

> I'm just wondering when people decided that no one was supposed
> to get killed in a war.

Innocent people _do_ get killed in wars. That's why they are so bad, and that's why I really cringe when people talk about what a good and glorious war of liberation this or that war was. In the long term you can claim that a war did good things. In the short term the result can be this. We killed between 8000 and 10,000 civilians in Iraq, and injured and maimed many more.

Was their liberation worth it? Time will tell. There has to be a _very_ good reason to kill 8000 people, and there has to be no other way to achieve the goal. When we start seeing war as a good political tool to achieve a desired result in foreign policy, and not as the horror it is, we set ourselves up for inadvertantly becoming that which we are trying to stop.

>You know that there isn't any way of stopping these terrorist wack-
>jobs short of killing everyone in any Jewish or Christian community.

If that's true, why go out of your way to kill them? Revenge aside, if you can end up with 100 or 200 dead at the end of the day, which would you pick?

>Instead of blaming Israel or the US for casualties in attacks on
>terrorists... blame the fucking terrorists who didn't have the balls or
>brains to take up a cause without violence.

That's a load of crap. That's like blaming a serial killer's parents for how their son turned out. The person who pulled the trigger is the killer. Maybe they had a good reason; maybe the person in question was a cop killing an armed thief instead of a serial killer. But to claim that "it wasn't his fault that the thief is dead!" is nonsense.

I know it's not popular to take responsibility for your actions, but sometimes you have to. 19 terrorists killed 2900 americans on 9/11. It wasn't Islam or their parents or a world gone mad, it was 19 terrorists that flew the aircraft into the buildings. American troops killed 8000 Iraqis during the Iraq war. We didn't mean to do it, and tried to minimize civilian deaths, but we dropped the bombs and pulled the triggers. Because that's what war is - killing people and destroying their property until you win.

[falxori 0]

no doubt, war is bad. mostly for the simple people who have to fight and die.

Quote

19 terrorists killed 2900 americans on 9/11. It wasn't Islam or their parents or a world gone mad, it was 19 terrorists that flew the aircraft into the buildings.

what about those who sent them? those who motivated them and those who took the strtegic decision to crash those planes?
you don't put the "simple soldier" on trial for war crimes, you trial the leaders who send them.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[billvon 3,120]

>what about those who sent them? those who motivated them and
> those who took the strtegic decision to crash those planes?

Those who ordered them to crash the planes and helped them do so? Definitely. Those who "motivated" them? Only very indirectly. If an Israeli air strike "motivates" some suicide bombers to take out a bus, the Israelis are not directly responsible.

[Marz 0]

OK, This comment might get me in alot of crap but I have to say it because I have been watching this whole Israel/Palestine thing for awhile. This is purely train-of-thought and maybe not based in fact, so don't kill me for it. I just want to get it out.

I am in not way supporting Hamas, the PLO or any other palestiinian organiztion nor am I anti-Israel or anti-semitic, but Sharon is a right-wing war-mongering fuckhead. He had the upper hand for awhile in the peace negociations and he pissed it away by pulling shit like this and building a fucking wall aroung his territory.

If you're gonna build a wall, dickhead MAKE SURE YOUR PEOPLE ARE WITHIN IT and not camping on someone else's land! My take on this whole thing is not that Israel or Palestine need to go, but I think Sharon needs to get the hell out of there. He's out for blood and trying to flex muscle that he only has because he's the US lackie in the middle east.

Man, it pisses me off. Every governement in the world condemns the attack as something that will ignite the powder keg (which I absolutely believe) but the US downplays it. It upsets me to no end. I could go on for hours about this.... I am just so offended by Sharon's moves in the last few years. This to me is the straw that broke the camel's back.

This probably makes no sense, which is why i didn't start a thread about it this morning. I'm incensed by that man's lack of understanding. Israel was founded as a refuge for an oppressed people, and now they're putting a wall around it and continously incensing they neighbours. Nopt that's it's new, but he was right on the verge of making peace happen out there. Goes to show that stability might not be in the best interest of all...

Flame away, I don't care. Someone might knock some sense into me.....


Marz

_________________________________________
Did I just kill another thread?

[Trent 0]

Quote

That's a load of crap. That's like blaming a serial killer's parents for how their son turned out. The person who pulled the trigger is the killer. Maybe they had a good reason; maybe the person in question was a cop killing an armed thief instead of a serial killer. But to claim that "it wasn't his fault that the thief is dead!" is nonsense.

I guess you're not getting what I mean. So if someone attacks you on the street, and you beat the piss out of him in your defense... it's YOUR fault? It seems to me that you're forgetting your own words. The people who commit the attacks are responsible. The HAMAS is responsible, so who in their right mind would shed a tear when they got killed? So in war, only the soldiers from side A who killed a soldier from side B should be dealt with? I guess we could try that, but the side with the most bodies to throw at it would win, right?

Quote

Revenge aside, if you can end up with 100 or 200 dead at the end of the day, which would you pick?

So by that rationale, revenge aside, if I let the terrorists kill 100 of my people each day and do nothing in return we'll avoid losing 200 people? Okay, so we lose 100 a day and just stay content to be REALLY careful about those darned misheivious terrorists. Over the year they kill 36,500 of my people. How long until they get them all? How about we kill them before they can finish us all off?

How would YOU stop the cycle?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,120]

>So if someone attacks you on the street, and you beat the piss out
> of him in your defense... it's YOUR fault?

It's your fault he's injured. They were your fists. You had every right to hurt him, but to claim that you didn't hurt him, that some sort of mystical force pummeled him that was not connected to you, is absurd. And if you accidentally kill him? You did that, too. Accept responsibility for your actions.

>The people who commit the attacks are responsible.

A man who commits a terrorist act is responsible for performing it. A cop who shoots the terrorist is responsible for shooting him.

>The HAMAS is responsible, so who in their right mind would shed a
>tear when they got killed?

Not me! As far as I'm concerned, they gave up their right to life when they took other's lives.

>So in war, only the soldiers from side A who killed a soldier from side
>B should be dealt with? I guess we could try that, but the side with
> the most bodies to throw at it would win, right?

That's exactly right. In war, the stronger side, not the just or good side, wins.

>So by that rationale, revenge aside, if I let the terrorists kill 100 of
>my people each day and do nothing in return we'll avoid losing 200
> people? Okay, so we lose 100 a day and just stay content to be
> REALLY careful about those darned misheivious terrorists. Over the
> year they kill 36,500 of my people. How long until they get them
> all?

Well, if it makes absolutely no difference if you kill them or not, they will finish you off in the same amount of time whether you kill them or not. You might as well save money on the bullets.

>How about we kill them before they can finish us all off?

You might just be able to do that. But if that's the case, your previous statement ("there there isn't any way of stopping these terrorist wack-jobs short of killing every christian or arab") doesn't hold. Genocide really isn't an option.

>How would YOU stop the cycle?

I don't know. I think that continuing the cycle is perhaps the worst way of stopping it. What is the solution? Smarter people than me have tried and failed.

[falxori 0]

not going to throw crap at you nor to flame you.

and maybe you're not completely wrong, but you rely on half truths and misconceptions.

i can easily prove you wrong on every issue you've raised but i doubt it will make you see things in another way.

and as for the "wall" which is actually a fence beside where its close to a main road or settlement when its also used against gun fire, i wish we didnt need it.
does your house have a front door ? why do you keep it locked ?
i do think it should follow the 67 border line and it mostly does.

anyway, as for "being right on the verge of making peace " , the camp david accord you're referring to ended before he was elected and if you check you'll see that they were offered a state on most of the territory and land exchange (which would give them more space in the cramped Gaza area) for the rest.
instead, Arafat chose to do what he's always done when he didnt get what he wanted...

anyway, what would you suggest?
get out of their "lands" ? great, we wanted to do it in coordination with the PA but they didnt want to take over.
so now your so called "right-wing war-mongering fuckhead" is going to leave the gaza strip (as a first stage) without an agreement.
sounds like the palestinian dream, right? i guess not because they reject it completely...

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[falxori 0]

Quote

Smarter people than me have tried and failed.

smarter people than you ???
i didn't think there were any

its simplisticly complex.
the only way to stop terror is to remove the motivation.
but the things that will reduce this motivation are the same things that will allow them to attack freely now.
on the other hand, every move you make to lower their current abilities will motivate more in the future.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Trent 0]

Actually, I said this:

Quote

You know that there isn't any way of stopping these terrorist wack-jobs short of killing everyone in any Jewish or Christian community.

Referring to the overall goals of said wack-jobs. To say that Israel's goal (or the US's goal, for that matter) is to kill every "arab" or Muslim is ridiculous.

Quote

Well, if it makes absolutely no difference if you kill them or not, they will finish you off in the same amount of time whether you kill them or not. You might as well save money on the bullets.

Actually, if there's more Israeli's than terrorist suck-bunnies, if Israel kills 100 of them for every 100 of their dead Israel will be left standing with fewer people, but will continue to exist.

Quote

Genocide really isn't an option.

I never said it was. It isn't genocide if someone's only trying to wipe out the people directly hurting them. I doubt the majority of Israeli's want to see all Muslims killed. That's not rational, and if anyone knows better, it's them.

Even though Israel's actions can be extreme and sometimes confusing, I think they have gone out of their way to NOT go 100% tit-for-tat with the terrorists. As was mentioned earlier, that would mean purposeful attacks designed to kill as many innocent Palestinians as possible.

Did you ever see the movie "PCU"? The militant terroristic populace in the mid-east reminds me of what they called the "cause-heads". Each week they had something else to be upset about, a new cause to champion. Honestly, do you think that if suddenly the entire world went brain-dead and gave the militant factions everything they wanted, that this would stop? They'd be rendered insignificant and find something else to be jack-offs about. This isn't really about religion, this is about megalomania of a few people who are convincing enough to con other lemmings to follow them.

If the people of the world truly want this all stopped, then it can happen. But that involves people everywhere and on both "sides" to say ENOUGH. It has to not be "cool" to be a terrorist. In fact it has to be downright scary to be a terrorist. It can happen, but not everyone is willing to do something about it. After all, it's not everyone's problem yet, right?

Oh, hello again!

[Faber 0]

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meanwhile, European leaders are condemning the attack, urging instead a "peace" process that has been stalled for months and is of no interest to the Palestinians. Appeasement doesn't work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i wonder what would their reaction be if it was the mind behind the madrid attacks...

no endto hypocrisy...

i wonder what americans would do if their leader were MURDERED like that

I wonder how people think that killing will make peace

I wonder when USA stop beeing doubbel moral

I wonder who is next on USA´s terro list

I wonder how to stop this insanity that appers in the world

I wonder if USA will be one of the main reassons to WW3

I wonder when leaders start to look at the case from both sides

I wonder how many more has to die

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

he was elected and if you check you'll see that they were offered a state on most of the territory and land exchange (which would give them more space in the cramped Gaza area) for the rest.
instead, Arafat chose to do what he's always done when he didnt get what he wanted...

anyway, what would you suggest?
get out of their "lands" ? great, we wanted to do it in coordination with the PA but they didnt want to take over.
so now your so called "right-wing war-mongering fuckhead" is going to leave the gaza strip (as a first stage) without an agreement.
sounds like the palestinian dream, right? i guess not because they reject it completely...

you are on the money. Would I want a wall if canada was doing to the US what the PA and other were doing. Hell ya, and more.

[Marz 0]

As I said when I qualified my post, this was a vent. I have a master's degree in sociology with a minor in international relations and political science. I understand that I need to do more research on this.

The fact remains that I don't feel Sharon's approach to the conflict is going to pay off. I feel the same way about the Palestinian approach right now. But let's face it, this was about blood and it's only going to draw more blood.

I apologize if I offended you, but I felt a very strong reaction when I heard about this for some reason. Bottom line though, as a young generation, we MUST stop our forefathers' pissing contests. It is not our fight.

Marz.

_________________________________________
Did I just kill another thread?

[falxori 0]

Quote

Actually, if there's more Israeli's than terrorist suck-bunnies, if Israel kills 100 of them for every 100 of their dead Israel will be left standing with fewer people, but will continue to exist.

hmmm, no thanks...
if that would be my only option i'll move.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."