Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Death of Hamas Leader
Topic Started: Mar 22 2004, 09:55 AM (1,942 Views)
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Minuet,
My main point about history isn't even specifically terrorism. I'm regretting now that I put it that way. I'm really trying to say that the conflict over who owns the land that is now Israel has been going on for centuries. It's a very complicated situation and not as cut and dried as the case with the US vs. al Queda. Actually, even US vs. al Queda is more complicated than some like to admit, but that's another subject.

When Israel was granted to the Jews, it was supposed to have changed everything by finally making it theirs. So a lot of people tend to think in terms of that point forward. From that perspective, the Palestinians are just plain wrong. While I understand and even agree with that thinking, the Palestinians don't recognize the legitimacy of that grant. So from their perspective, the whole conflict goes back much further. And therein lies the problem.

Edit:
My point about the negotiations is that I just don't see the fighting getting anywhere ever. As long as that's the approach it will either not end at all or one side or the other will need to be practically wiped out. It takes both sides though to sit down and agree to negotiate which also may never happen. But as long as it doesn't, endless fighting is what is left unfortunately. I just don't see it ending until both sides sit down and negotiate. I don't see negotiating happening until at least one side starts the process. I do believe Israel has tried much harder at this than the Palestinians.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
Jagalom Shaarek
Mar 23 2004, 10:01 AM
The lands are a powder keg, they will never be shared until one side defeats the other. They are at war until one is defeated. This is going to end badly.
How bad will it have to get before great and sensible leaders are forced to find peace? I believe there is too much hate involved to see that through.

I agree with you totally. I think it's about the explode over there. It's going to be game on!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
ImpulseEngine
Mar 23 2004, 10:23 AM
Minuet,
My main point about history isn't even specifically terrorism. I'm regretting now that I put it that way. I'm really trying to say that the conflict over who owns the land that is now Israel has been going on for centuries. It's a very complicated situation and not as cut and dried as the case with the US vs. al Queda. Actually, even US vs. al Queda is more complicated than some like to admit, but that's another subject.

When Israel was granted to the Jews, it was supposed to have changed everything by finally making it theirs. So a lot of people tend to think in terms of that point forward. From that perspective, the Palestinians are just plain wrong. While I understand and even agree with that thinking, the Palestinians don't recognize the legitimacy of that grant. So from their perspective, the whole conflict goes back much further. And therein lies the problem.

Edit:
My point about the negotiations is that I just don't see the fighting getting anywhere ever. As long as that's the approach it will either not end at all or one side or the other will need to be practically wiped out. It takes both sides though to sit down and agree to negotiate which also may never happen. But as long as it doesn't, endless fighting is what is left unfortunately. I just don't see it ending until both sides sit down and negotiate. I don't see negotiating happening until at least one side starts the process. I do believe Israel has tried much harder at this than the Palestinians.

So, this got me thinking about what possible options there are for the future in Israel/Palestine.

  • Continued fighting indefinitely
  • One side surrenders
  • One side defeats the other
  • Both side negotiate a peace
  • A comet hits the area killing everyone
  • The UN takes over the area further screwing it up.
  • The US forces a solution
  • God appears and tells everyone how it should be, but most don't listen
  • They decide to throw the issue at the feet of the wise membership of Sistertrek

I think that the likeliest outcome is the first continued fighting. Now everyone automatically assumes that this is bad and anything should be done to prevent this.

Well, I am going to defend the endless fighting and violence. Sometimes there is a 'good-fight' to be fought. We will never eleminate crime, but we keep fighting the good-fight as capitulation means chaos. Likewise, Israelis and Arabs aren't likely going to get what they want through any of the other solutions, so in their mind this means keep fighting.

If it were as I see it and my decision:
There is no future in negotiation at this point.
Capitulation means more death and destruction
Niether the UN nor USA is going to jump on this geo-political land mine and force a solution.
God has a history of intervening in matters of Israel, but we just don't know when this will happen so there is no way to wait for a solution.
I question the wisedom of the membership of Sistertrek (author included).
Comet will just kill everyone and cannot be planned for.

So, keep fighting in hopes of one day finding a way to defeat the enemy is the best solution.

It has been said that violence is never the solution, but I disagree. There is a time for peace and a time for violence.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Impulseengine, thank you once again for your comments and clarifications. It is indeed a complicated situation and believe me, I yearn for peace as much as anyone here does.

To be entirely honest I don't know whether Israel has made a brilliant move or a disasterous one in eliminating Yassin. Time will tell. I can tell you that eliminating Yassin holds the same meaning for Israel as eliminating Bin Laden would for the U.S. The man was a mass murderer, plain and simple.

Anyhow, thanks for listening in a thoughtful manner. It is appreciated! :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I think it is a very complicated issue but that Israel has only made matters worse for itself by this action. I am not saying that Israel should do nothing about the appaling terror attacks on its citizens but this will simply create MORE suicide bombers not less. If this strategy is working so well how come Israelis continue to die. Yet when there was negotion the number of deaths dropped, and moreover the economies of Israel and Palestine did better. Both sides are digging themselves deeper into a hole.

As a state it is very difficult to say that Israel commits terrorist attacks. What is had done is illegal and wrong. That CAN be said. The terrorists will say that this gives them moral justification to continue to attack in the only way they can by suicide bombings.

Someone mentioned Northern Ireland, now the situation is a little different, but we realised after disasters like bloody sunday that there WAS NOT A MILITARY SOLUTION. That didnt mean we pulled out our troops and gave a blank cheque to terrorists. It meant we changed tactic and worked towards negotions. It is a long road and the negotions continue, today in fact. But crucially the violence of the past is now much reduced. At the hight of the troubles the Government would not bomb say Jerry Adams because they knew that would simply inflame the situation - exactly as this has done. Similarly in Iraq we could have shot dead Saddam Hussain - and seen mass riots and destruction.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Here is an interesting aspect. I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday and he was talking about why killing or capturing bin Laden would not stop terrorism. The fact of the matter is that bin Laden is only a voice of Al Quida. If he is taken out, another leader can be put into his place.

Is this not also true of Hamas? Yassin was a disabled man in a wheelchair who was killed for giving orders for suicide bombings. What made him able to do so? It was nothing that had to do with physical prowness, as he was crippled. The things that made him what he was were his mouth, his popularity, and his hatred for Israel. Now, one must ask how many people are in the Middle East that fit these three qualities. It would seem that anybody who has them could easily take over the mantle of Hamas and start sending suicide bombers into Israel. Can Israel retaliate and kill every person who is popular, hates Jews, and has a mouth though?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
Here is an interesting aspect. I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday and he was talking about why killing or capturing bin Laden would not stop terrorism. The fact of the matter is that bin Laden is only a voice of Al Quida. If he is taken out, another leader can be put into his place.


Oh.. it's worse than that future doc:

Kill a leader in Hamas, Al Quieda, or the Hezbollah, and you have made a martyr.

The argument of the jihadist will go somthing like this:

"If someone so grand as *insert leaders name here* then you lowly regular muslims should do no lest to rid the world of *insert group of infidels here* so that the only true form of a muslim nation, a true world caliphate can rise and prove the superiority of ISlam"

Or somthing like that.

I condemn the US for not solving the Palestinian problem when it first recognized Israel

I condemn, those who follow the death cult of modern jihadism.

I commend the Israel government for not taking a couple of choppers with mini chain guns and turning everyone who showed up to Hamas ralley into hamburger.

I commend Israel for continuing a prisoner exchange for dead bodies and not turning the Beruit airport into a charnel house during the exchange.

Being civilized does not mean you allow yourself to be killed on principle. It means you support the existence of your people.

ANOVA

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
doctortobe
Mar 23 2004, 05:08 PM
Here is an interesting aspect. I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday and he was talking about why killing or capturing bin Laden would not stop terrorism. The fact of the matter is that bin Laden is only a voice of Al Quida. If he is taken out, another leader can be put into his place.

Is this not also true of Hamas? Yassin was a disabled man in a wheelchair who was killed for giving orders for suicide bombings. What made him able to do so? It was nothing that had to do with physical prowness, as he was crippled. The things that made him what he was were his mouth, his popularity, and his hatred for Israel. Now, one must ask how many people are in the Middle East that fit these three qualities. It would seem that anybody who has them could easily take over the mantle of Hamas and start sending suicide bombers into Israel. Can Israel retaliate and kill every person who is popular, hates Jews, and has a mouth though?

The pointlessness of the assassination begs to the point of the hatred I mentioned. Did it occur to anyone that Sharon would intentionally do this to enrage the Palestinians? I can see him doing that. I think he has a dark side. I saw a discovery times channel show regarding the relationship and history between Arafat and Sharon, and this was discussed.

Why is it if they are at war, the world would not permit Isreal to spread and conquer the entire disputed areas and expand their borders?
Especialy if no other government wants to act. 38957 may be correct here, sans comet disaster.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
The assasination was many things, but pointless is not one of them. I was reading the Toronto Star today and came across the following article:Assassination a huge gamble for Israeli PM

Quote:
 
Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought as to why Sharon chose to eliminate Yassin in what is by far the most significant assassination in 3 1/2 years of bloody conflict, and why he chose to do so now. These two analyses are, not surprisingly, contradictory.

The more optimistic read of the situation, if one can call it that, comes from those who believe Sharon is dead serious about his plan of "unilateral disengagement." Sharon has come to the historic conclusion, this line of thinking goes, that he has no choice but to voluntarily cede the Gaza Strip to the 1.3 million Palestinians who live there, replete with the complete withdrawal of troops and the estimated 7,000 Jewish settlers who reside in heavily guarded enclaves.

But the retreat will be deliberately bloody, the thinking goes, so that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade militants will be too pulverized to claim victory from the liberation of the coastal territory.

Those who believe this to be Sharon's end-game cite the historic mistake of Israel's May, 2000, strategic withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The bloodless retreat, they say, was a gift to Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and also fostered the delusion that if only the Palestinians were to launch a new intifada, Israel would crumble to their demands. Four months later, the intifada began.

An all-out assault on Hamas, this theory holds, also will clear the Gaza landscape to be more easily controlled by the combination of Palestinian Authority and Egyptian soldiers who would fill the vacuum after Israel's withdrawal. The whole idea is founded on the inverted logic of Mideast violence — only by punching his way to peace can Sharon bring his own hawks along for the ride, and leave Palestinian hardliners so battered they dare not gloat.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
In a similar vein, what about the people who claim that George Bush is not doing enough to combat terror because he hasn't killed bin Laden yet?

Isn't Yassin the OBL of Israel?

I still applaud Israel's actions. I think it was necessary (chop off the head and the body dies... eventually).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
These leaders may be replaced and killing them will not end the Hamas organization. But the leaders must know for certain that if they are going to act in violence against Israel, then there is certainly a missile with their name on it waiting for the right moment. Gives them something to keep them awake nights and see how committed they are to the cause. There must be consequences or they will feel free to do anything.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
The pointlessness of the assassination begs to the point of the hatred I mentioned. Did it occur to anyone that Sharon would intentionally do this to enrage the Palestinians? I can see him doing that. I think he has a dark side. I saw a discovery times channel show regarding the relationship and history between Arafat and Sharon, and this was discussed.



Did this show discuss how Sharon had a chance to assinate Arrafat when Sharon was the defence minister. He did not kill Arafat at the time becuase of the possible fallout.

Sharon must destroy the exestential enemies of Israel if the state is to survive.

Negotiation is not an option. Arafat negotiated while smuggling arms into the Arab occupied terratories of Israel. Egypt negotiated peace and now terrorist tunnels stretch the Sinai.

Quote:
 

I still applaud Israel's actions. I think it was necessary (chop off the head and the body dies... eventually).



We are dealing with the hydra here skipper. It will take more to rattle the belief of the jihadists that theirs is a just and noble cuase.

ANOVA

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Admiralbill_gomec
Mar 23 2004, 07:28 PM
In a similar vein, what about the people who claim that George Bush is not doing enough to combat terror because he hasn't killed bin Laden yet?

Isn't Yassin the OBL of Israel?

I still applaud Israel's actions. I think it was necessary (chop off the head and the body dies... eventually).

The problem with this mindset is that the fanatics don't view bin Laden or any other man as their leader. Their leader is Allah. This creates a problem because:

a. We can't launch a missle strike into heaven and

b. You would have a lot of angry Christians and Jews as well as Muslims if we were successful.

My point is, as long as the hatred exists, there will be people who will stir up Muslim people to do these acts.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
The Hamas leader was Israel's bin laden. No one in the states would be mad if we took him out, and no one would care if al qaeda made threats as a result. For those of you who are mad about this, I hate to be blunt, but YOU'RE COWARDS!

It was a great thing that Israel did by taking this P.O.S. out. They cut off the head of that bunch of terrorists. The War on Terrorism isnt being fought to make things nice for these people. It's being fought to WIPE THEM OUT! Wake up, and realize the mentality of our enemy. They feel it is their right to kill everyone who thinks differently than they do. This 9/11 commision is a joke as well. Trying to pin responsibility for it on everyone BUT the people who did it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
This 9/11 commision is a joke as well. Trying to pin responsibility for it on everyone BUT the people who did it.


Going out on a tangent here.

I think it is both wise and nessecary to investigate what was known and when if only to improve the systems by which we gather and analyze intelligence of this nature.

Since this is an election year, we will see more finger pointing and less useful discourse.

You are right, we know where the finger needs to be pointed and what need to be done with OBL.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus