Hamas founder killed...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:29 pm

breaking news:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/ ... index.html

The founder of Hamas was killed in an Israeli airstrike. Comments?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:52 pm

PWNED!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:54 pm

Yeah, that was my first thought...

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:03 pm

Of course now someone far worse will likely take his place.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:07 pm

Let's see, right about now he's either, living it up with seventeen virgins....bending over for Satan...or just fresh worm food.

Well two out of three ain't bad

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:58 am

Wikipedia has already updated Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's bio with:

--------------
Yassin was killed in another Israeli attack on March 22, 2004 as he was being wheeled to his car in his wheelchair. He was hit by missiles from helicopter gunships as part of an ongoing Israeli retaliation against Hamas-sponsored suicide bombings. The Sheikh was leaving an early morning prayer session when the missiles hit. The Sheikh was instantly killed, and two of his sons were injured. The attack followed Sheikh Yassin's taunt that Israel's response to the Ashdod suicide bombers was weak, and that Hamas will only gain strength on account of Israel's weak response.
--------------

I guess the Sheikh spoke too soon.

The Jerusalum Post writes, "In announcing Yassinâ??s death, Hamas said, â??(Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has opened the gates of hell and nothing will stop us from cutting off his head.â?

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:10 am

I for one one will not be shedding a tear for his loss.

This is seen as a political as well as military move by Sharon. The hard liners within his coalition will now be appeased and will support him (not all) in his plan to pull the settlers out of Gaza. (a long overdue move if you ask me)

Needless to say the country is on high alert now.

FC

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:21 am

I thought Pippin and Merry already took care of this guy in LOTR2. That's ENTertainment!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:05 am

Ye who lives by terrorism shall die by terrorism.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:21 am

While I don't shed a tear for his loss, I fear that this will spark even greater violence toward Israeli civilians. That is a shame.

On NPR this morning, another Hamas member was quoted as saying the Israelis just opened the gates of hell. I guess we shall see.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:53 am

The Palestinian terror groups have already tried everything they are capable of to notch up the violence so there is no longer a credible threat of escalation. I'm sure there will be some desperate acts compressed into a smaller timeframe but it won't be anything Israel hasn't experienced before. The Palestinians are the ones that need to learn the lesson of this incident. As long as they allow men with murder on their minds to speak for them, lead them and send their youth to their death with explosives strapped around them, the Palestinian people can expect no progress toward statehood.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:30 am

bash wrote:The Palestinians are the ones that need to learn the lesson of this incident.

There are lessons to be learned by both sides in this conflict.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:11 am

Frankly, the only lesson for Israel is that each time it takes steps toward a settlement, the terror groups try to portray it as weakness and a win for them. This is a lesson Israel has learned time and again. As a sad result, the Israelis have to do everything heavy-handed so as not to allow for the appearance of vulnerability or capitulation, which often only leads to increased attacks from Palestinian terror groups rather than reciprocal peaceful efforts from the Palestinian leadership. The Gaza withdraw is a classic example. Had Hamas, et al, not grabbed their crotches and claimed this was a sign of Israeli defeat then I doubt yesterday's reprisal would have ever taken place. As far as I can detect, the Palestinians are the dumbest people on earth for not taking meaningful steps to end the cycle of violence they themselves initiate.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:00 am

Either side can end the cycle of violence any time it wants to.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:10 am

Tell me, then, what can Israel do that it hasn't been trying to do? Wouldn't you say returning Gaza was an attempt (a very large attempt) to ease the situation and revive the roadmap? Details, please, not platitudes.

Gammaray · Post by **Gammaray** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:39 am

[NuB] Dedman wrote:Either side can end the cycle of violence any time it wants to.

They can, yes... but they won't. I'm sure most of us know that this conflict has been going on for centuries. It is only a US worry because we forced the palastinians to give back a chunk of land they drove the jews out of way back in the 40's. Try as we may, we cannot stop a blood feud started centuries ago, and it doesn't help that the same blood between two rival nations is taught from childhood.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:40 am

There is no end in site. The cycle will never stop until one side is completely obliterated. Neither side will give in.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:03 pm

I'm sure FC can correct me if this is innaccurate, but Israeli schools teach peaceful coexistence with it's Arab neighbors. The Palestinians, on the other hand, teach their children to hate and to kill not only the Jews but we Americans. Oh yea, let's give these people a homeland where they can actually start buying heavy weapons and forming an army.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:04 pm

Within State schools yes Bash. My daughter starts to learn Arabic next year (she allready knows hebrew, English and Spanish la di da

) Unfortunatly there are people within the country that refuse to send their kids to "mixed" schools, usually the deeply religious within the community, but that is their democratic right though no?

The world seems to have gone a little haywire about this subject, Stockmarkets flutuating and wot not. Condemnations left right and center. Seems to me that we wouldn't have been so uptight about Osama being killed... or a leader of ETA, IRA, ECT, ECT. I'm worried about the future, but i'm happy my country (if adopted) has balls.

And i'm a left wing Israeli, a liberal Bash!!!!.....give us a kiss...

FC

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:24 pm

FC, you were a liberal. Welcome to the dark side.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:45 pm

i'm happy my country (if adopted) has balls

Sounds like they mean business:
---------
â??PA Chairman Yasser Arafat is not immune; no one is immune anymore. We should stop apologizing for defending ourselves,â?

Pugwash · Post by **Pugwash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:50 pm

Here is a brief (but very informative) history of the region in flash form.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,720353,00.html

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:31 pm

On NPR this morning, another Hamas member was quoted as saying the Israelis just opened the gates of hell. I guess we shall see.

Too bad the gates of hell were already opened. 35 or so terrorist attacks on Israel since the start of the year and what did the same liberal commentator say on the same NPR broadcast? Why the Israel's should have let the UN have more time to settle the palastinian issue. sound familiar?

FC, you take care of yourself, ya hear!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:58 pm

To give a image to Bash's quote on teaching 'em young:

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:00 pm

[NuB] Dedman wrote:While I don't shed a tear for his loss, I fear that this will spark even greater violence toward Israeli civilians. That is a shame.

Pretty much that way here, too.

As far as I've understood, Yassin wasn't one of the most radical leading characters of Hamas, yet he was a symbol of the fight for independence to many Paletinians. In other words, it's quite possible that the more radical will now gain even more foothold, partially because Yassin is out of the way and also because enraged people are more likely to support the radicals.

bash wrote:As far as I can detect, the Palestinians are the dumbest people on earth for not taking meaningful steps to end the cycle of violence they themselves initiate.

Considering that it's a cycle of violence, why are you so sure that one side alone initiates it?

Furthermore, it's probably rather easy for you to say that. It's not only the radical Palestinian terrorists bombing the Israeli, it's also the Israeli military killing Palestinians, often including a lot of civilians. The latter, being an official military and all, also has a lot more firepower. Only desperation can get people to such acts like suicide bombings.

[edit]
... in the masses, that is.
[/edit]

It's rather hard for the official Palestinian administration to stop the radical groups either because they don't have enough (police) power, because some (a lot?) of the masses support those organisations, and also because the administration itself probably isn't free of members or supporters of the terrorist groups.

As for dumb, well, the human species could be a bit more far-sighted.

Flabby Chick wrote:Seems to me that we wouldn't have been so uptight about Osama being killed.

Now, I'm not sure how moderate Yassin was, but Osama certainly isn't any. Although even the moderate may not be very good, they're a whole lot better than what might replace them.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:24 pm

Yassin wasn't one of the most radical leading characters of Hamas

"In September, Yassin, who used a wheelchair, was lightly wounded in an Israeli missile strike in Gaza City. At the time he vowed that "jihad will continue.""

it's also the Israeli military killing Palestinians, often including a lot of civilians.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articled ... icleid=439

Check out charts 2.23 and 2.24.

Palestinians are *targetting civilians*. This is very different from what Israel is doing. Civilians get hit, but the Israelis aren't out there bombing civilians at random. That's the difference.

So guys, tell me, what should Israel do differently? I've seen a number of cease-fire agreements broken by Palestinian suicide bombers, and not many by Israelis. Should Israel let the bombings happen and not retaliate, and not target the leaders who are promoting jihad? I have yet to hear anyone from the pro-palestinian side give a reasonable response as to what Israel is doing wrong and how they should respond in such a way that they maintain their own security.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:24 pm

Isnt it obvious to everyone that the only solution that will work is the total extermination of one side or the other? I would suggest the Palestinians because the radicals from there would simply turn on someone else if the Israelies were gone. Every single suicide bombing makes it a little harder to see Palestinians as humans, and not as monsters and anamals.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:03 am

Mmmmm... the final solution.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:07 am

from http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110004855

The Fear Factor
Palestinians want us to forget that they're human.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

JERUSALEM--Are Palestinians weeds? It would seem many people think they are. Following Israel's assassination early yesterday morning of Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader of Hamas,the gist of international reaction was that the strike would bring new converts to the Islamist cause and incite a fresh wave of terrorist violence against Israel. In other words, Palestinians are weeds: Mowing them down, as it were, only has the effect of making them grow back stronger and faster.

There are moments (Monday morning was one of them) when I find myself tempted by the metaphor. As I write, my TV screen is filled with images of Palestinian mourners thronging the streets of Gaza, praising Yassin as a martyr and vowing deadly vengeance. This looks like the reaction of an emboldened people, not a frightened one. So what's the sense, in purely utilitarian terms, of further Israeli attacks? Alternatively, what's the sense of showing any restraint at all? If the weed metaphor is right, either Israel should sue for peace on whatever terms the Palestinians extend or it should resort to extreme measures like population transfer. Anything else just fruitlessly prolongs a cycle of violence.

But of course Palestinians aren't weeds. They're human. They think in terms of costs and benefits, they calculate the odds, they respond more or less rationally to incentives and disincentives. And what makes us afraid can also make them afraid.

This is a trite observation, but it's one Palestinians would rather have us forget. Over 42 months of conflict, their strategy has been to persuade Israelis that they, the Palestinians, are made of different stuff. Why else the suicide bombers? Not because of their proven capacity to kill civilians in greater numbers than any other weapon currently in the Palestinian arsenal. That's only a second-order effect. The deep logic of suicide bombing lies in the act of suicide itself. People who will readily die for their cause are, by definition, beyond deterrence. By showing that Israel's tanks and fighter jets are just so much scrap metal in the face of the Palestinians' superhuman determination, they aim to disarm Israel itself.

How does one respond to such a logic? It helps not to be fooled by it. Again, allow me to make the trite observation that Palestinians love their children too. To date, there has not been a single instance in which a Hamas leader sent one of his own sons or daughters on a suicide mission. I once interviewed a Hamas leader, since deceased, as he bounced his one-year-old girl on his knee. Contrary to myth, this was not a man who was afraid of nothing. Unsparing as he was with the lives of others, he was circumspect when it came to the lives of his own.

Indeed, when one looks closely at just who the suicide bombers are (or were), often they turn out to be society's outcasts. Take Reem Salah al-Rahashi, a mother of two, who in January murdered four Israeli soldiers at the Erez checkpoint on the Gaza-Israel border. In a prerecorded video, Rahashi said becoming a shaheed was her lifelong dream. Later it emerged she'd been caught in an extramarital affair, and that her husband and lover had arranged her "martyrdom operation" as an honorable way to settle the matter. It is with such people, not with themselves, that Palestinian leaders attempt to demonstrate their own fearlessness.

In the early months of the intifada, this macho pretense was sustained by the Israeli government's tacit decision not to target terrorist ringleaders, for fear such attacks would inspire massive retaliation. Yassin and his closest associates considered themselves immune from Israeli reprisals and operated in the open. What followed was the bloodiest terrorist onslaught in Israeli history, climaxing in a massacre at Netanya in March 2002. After that, Israel invaded the West Bank and began to target terrorist leaders more aggressively.

The results, in terms of lives saved, were dramatic. In 2003, the number of Israeli terrorist fatalities declined by more than 50% from the previous year, to 213 from 451. The overall number of attacks also declined, to 3,823 in 2003 from 5,301 in 2002, a drop of 30%. In the spring of 2003, Israel stepped up its campaign of targeted assassinations, including a failed attempt on Yassin's deputy, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Wise heads said Israel had done nothing except incite the Palestinians to greater violence. Instead, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups agreed unilaterally to a cease-fire.

In this context, it bears notice that between 2002 and 2003 the number of Palestinian fatalities also declined significantly, from 1,000 to about 700. The reason here is obvious: As the leaders of Palestinian terror groups were picked off and their operations were disrupted, they were unable to carry out the kind of frequent, large-scale attacks that had provoked Israel's large-scale reprisals. Terrorism is a top-down business, not vice versa. Targeted assassinations not only got rid of the most guilty but diminished the risk of open combat between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian foot soldiers.

Now a few words about Yassin, the international reaction to his killing, and the likely result for Israel. It may be recalled that Israel released the good sheikh in 1997, after having sentenced him to life in prison, with the promise that he would never again promote terrorism. This was during the Oslo years, when serious people actually thought that such conciliatory gestures served the interests of peace. Today, that is beyond comprehension. At any rate, Yassin didn't keep his promise.

Meanwhile, assorted foreign ministers are in full throat against Israel. "All of us understand Israel's need to protect itself--and it is fully entitled to do that--against the terrorism that affects it, within international law," says British Foreign Minister Jack Straw. "But it is not entitled to go in for this kind of unlawful killing."

It would be interesting to know exactly what, according to Mr. Straw, Israel is lawfully allowed to do in self-defense. Perhaps it would be as well if the minister also reminded the Palestinian Authority of its obligations, under the Road Map, to "undertake visible efforts . . . to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning attacks on Israelis." But if Mr. Straw and his colleagues do not do so, it is not from an excess of respect for the Palestinians, but rather its lack. They will, after all, be viewing them merely as weeds, not as humans capable of acting in their own best interests.

Which is a long-winded way of saying what Krom said.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:36 am

lothar i still don't understand how israel can possibly explain it's use of ROCKETS firing into RESIDENTIAL AREAS as anything other than WILLINGLY causing civilian casualties.

in D3 if you fire mortar bombs at an enemy, but your enemy is CLOSELY surrounded by your teammates. it would show you don't have much respect for the lives of your teammates (yeah yeah, i'm saying "lives" even though it's just a game, sue me), coz you would kill a LOT of teamates.

i don't think the israeli government has any respect for palestinians. you can see it in how they treat them at checkpoints. and even WITH the existance of checkpoints.
i mean, checkpoints?! wtf! settlements?! WTF!! (okok this is the wrong thread for discussing this)

it doesn't make it ok just coz you fired the missile AT the enemy. to take it to the stupid extreme to prove the point: if i fired a nuke at the presidentaial palace, and it takes out most of WASHINGTON with it. this is not ok. this is a no no.

assasinations are supposed to be neat, minimum casualties. you are supposed to do everything you can to minimize casualties, hell you are supposed to even think about CAPTURING your enemy before resorting to killing.

you don't use rockets to kill individual people. israel seems to be though. why. don't they care about the innocent deaths they are causing? from how sharon talks, it doesn't look like they do.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:03 am

The Fear Factor
Palestinians want us to forget that they're human.

...
"Terrorism is a top-down business, not vice versa."
...

this is bull****.

the human condition is shared by all of us individually. togetherness brings solace and builds determination, but that's it. and being human is why i can understand the reasons for every SINGLE SEPERATE INDIVIDUAL suicide bombing. and so should all of you, you are all members of the human race arn't you? wouldn't you too consider a suicidal martyr death in the circumstances? i don't condone it, but i can understand it, because if i were forced into teh same situation, i too would lash out at who was keeping me and my family there.

i applaud israel's announcement to withdraw it's settlements. yet the berlin wall they are building behind the international community's back, is the typical 2 faced move.

the "ecoterrorist" who destroys an SUV dealership, who hammers ceramic nails into protected forrest trees (this destorys chainsaws), is it possible that she is working... gasp.... ALONE? oh i think it is.
it's also possible that they are working as part of a greater organization (E.L.F. anyone?). but not nessesary.

the man on a ladder at night with a paintbrush, ironically rewording billboard ads. this man is acting on his own. and anyone can make a bombvest.
i can make a bombvest.
this isn't to say that ALL suicide bombers are acting individually, i'm sure many are organized under HAMAS or other groups. but it's also entirely understandable if ALL of them were individuals acting on their own circumstances, such is the nature of their situation and circumstances.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:23 am

How are Yassin's bodyguards "innocent"? How are most of the people in his car "innocent"?

With respect to firing rockets into residential areas, your "mortars at a guy surrounded by your teammates" analogy just doesn't fly. It's more like firing concussions at a guy with 6 of his teammates and one of your teammates around -- sometimes the splash will hit his teammates and rarely it'll hit yours. More than likely, though, you'll only hit stuff you intended to hit. I again refer you to the charts I linked to above -- notice that the non-combatant Palestinian deaths are almost always males ages 15-30 -- the sort of people who are likely to be hanging around with combatants, and probably know the people they're hanging around with are terrorists. The people being caught in the crossfire aren't little girls sleeping in their bedrooms 3 blocks away, they're people who are standing with the intended targets and probably know exactly who it is they're with.

Remember that assassinations are meant to take the guy out -- there is an objective to be met, and you can't neglect that. Doing that with "minimum force" often means you hit him with a rocket, rather than a barrage of artillery shells or with machine gun fire -- because you want to do it with minimum force, but you want to actually *do* it! (Remember Mr. Yassin himself survived an earlier attack, as my quote above shows -- there, the force was clearly too minimal.) Hitting him with less force than a rocket simply might not be feasible for meeting your objective. So, you weigh the risks, and try to meet your objectives in the most acceptable way (and if no acceptable way exists, sucks to be you.)

I'm pulling numbers out of my butt here for the sake of argument. Imagine:
- shooting the guy's car with a helicopter-fired rocket will kill him and his bodyguards with 99.5% certainty, and will have a 5% chance of hitting a bystander, and gives a 1% chance of you losing your own guy.
- shooting the guy's car with machine-gun fire will kill him with 35% certainty, with a 2% chance of hitting a bystander and a 10% chance of you losing your own guy.
- shooting the guy's car with a small nuke will kill him with 99.9999% certainty, with 99.999% certainty of taking out more than 10 bystanders.

It seems to me that with these numbers, the first choice is the obvious one. Now, I don't know what the actual numbers are -- but I do know that you're treating it as an overly simple decision. Yes, when you fire rockets into civilian areas, there's a risk of civilian casualties -- so you weigh that risk. You weigh it against the chances of hitting the guy, and against the chances of losing your own forces, and against a number of other factors. When all was said and done, in this case, Israel decided the best way to take this guy out was to hit him with a rocket -- and I'm fairly certain they weighed civilian casualties in their decision. You may not like their decision, but it seems clear to me that they made it in a reasonable way, and that their decision was at least not completely deplorable.

Now, shooting a rocket at an enemy leader and being willing to accept the chance of some civilian casualties is a far cry from deciding, as a Palestinian suicide bomber would, to intentionally increase the number of civilian casualties by blowing himself up at a crowded bus stop. Yes, it is still willingly deciding to allow for some civilian casualties -- but that's very different from deciding to intentionally cause the maximum number of civilian casualties possible. Now, perhaps they could have taken stronger measures in order to further reduce civilian casualties, but could they have done so while still meeting their objective of taking this guy out?

I'd imagine this is true in most wars -- armies can choose not to meet their objectives for fear of civilian casualties, or they can choose to target the enemy and meet their objectives and sometimes hit civilians (but attempt to minimize this number), or they can choose to intentionally shoot civilians whenever they have the opportunity. A group that chooses the first route is not an effective army -- and, long-term, it's not doing anyone any good because it's not really protecting the people of its country. A group that chooses the third route is not honorable, it's deplorable -- intentionally causing as many civilian deaths as possible is terrorism. Now, a group that chooses the second route (a route I wouldn't take, as I'm a pacifist) is at least an effective and honorable army.

This seems to be the main distinction people overlook when they make such reuteresque statements as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or "war is terrorism". Terrorism involves making attacks either without regard to civilian lives, or intentionally targetting civilians. Freedom fighters and legitimate armies, on the other hand, target enemy soldiers and enemy military equipment, and try to minimize civilian casualties while doing so. Everything I've looked at with respect to the Israel / Palestine conflict shows that Israel is acting as a legitimate military force -- targeting enemy combatants, with civilian casualties coming almost entirely from civilians who are hanging out with enemy combatants (and probably should know better.) Palestinians are acting as a terrorist force -- civilian casualties are intentionally increased. It's an important distinction, and one you would do well to learn.

[edit: note that it doesn't matter, for these purposes, whether or not a person is quote-"working alone" or part of a larger organization. And it doesn't matter whether or not I can understand why they do what they do. Intentionally targeting civilians is terrorism. Also note that I said quote-"working alone" -- recall that even those who work alone are, at some level, a product of the culture they grew up in. To pin the blame for the Palestinians' plight entirely on Israel is to ignore the reality and the complexity of the situation.]

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:26 am

i still don't understand how israel can possibly explain it's use of ROCKETS firing into RESIDENTIAL AREAS as anything other than WILLINGLY causing civilian casualties.

That's how Hamas operates. They use civilians as shields and hide in residential areas (houses, mosques, etc.). Hamas tries to encourage civilian casualties in order to garner sympathy ... because it often works. Here's a couple of pictures showing how they surround themselves with kids for protection:

Image #1

Image #2

All things considered, Israel has done a remarkable job at pinpointing targets and minimizing civilian casualties.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:51 am

Great pics index. Palestine just lost all my sympathy.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:15 pm

i'm not per-se referring to the method of Yassar's assasination. compared to other assasinations, this one WAS quite neat. i mainly have in mind past confrontations where israeli gunships fired apon (and likewise destroyed) homes in densely populated residential areas. and also bulldoze homes and entire palestinian settlements, while the residents can do nothing but throw stones at the heavily armoured military bulldosers. (interestingly israel is now modifying the bulldosers to operate via remote control (scroll down to "the D9 Bulldoser")).

it makes sense to minimize your own casualties, but there are lines being crossed between the validity of your cause when you are not prepared to risk dying for it yourself, but prefer to fight from afar with "let god sort em out" missiles. and bulldose communitys from the comfort of remote control.

(these lines are shared with certain other countrys in in the validity of fighting wars with hired armys, proxy armys, and eager research into unmanned military offensives eg: bombers. hmm maybe this is suited for a seperate new thread.)

as for those pics index posted, are you planning on providing context? if your game is just pure propeganda image* warfare, i can playball if you really want, but it'l be messy. it's not really my game.
[spoiler]*but i believe the lay of the land is in my favour in this field of battle[/spoiler].

i did think the sex differentiation of palestinian casualties was interesting. but there could be other explanations. but still i see your point and agree that the theory is plausable.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:30 pm

[]
not prepared to risk dying for it yourself, but prefer to fight from afar with "let god sort em out" missiles
[/]

I declare you are the biggest idiot I have seen since: Forever.

Allow me to rephrase you:
[]
not prepared to risk dying for it yourself, but prefer to fight from afar with "let god sort em out" suicide bombers
[/]

When was the last time you saw a top Hamas leader strap a bomb to himself and detonate it in a crowd of Isrealies. These Aholes send suicide bombers and terrorists in to murder for them while they hide a safe comfortible (and large) distance away. The terrorist leaders have absolutely no intention of ever giving up their own lives for the "jihad" or whatever the f$%k they are supposedly fighting for.

You implying that the Isrealies are cowards because they fire rockets from afar has been found to be: TOTAL BS!

-Krom

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:40 pm

as for those pics index posted, are you planning on providing context? if your game is just pure propeganda image* warfare, i can playball if you really want

The caption for the first image reads:
A masked Hamas militant sets up a makeshift mortar launcher against Israeli forces, unseen, as Palestinian youths try to cover him from the sight of the forces during an incursion in a Gaza cityâ??s neighborhood, Wednesday Feb. 11, 2004. Israeli troops moved into a neighborhood at the eastern edge of Gaza City early Wednesday, killing atleast 14 Palestinians and wounding at least 27 others in exchanges of fire, residents said, sparking the bloodiest fighting in Gaza in four months. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)

The caption for the second photo:
Palestinian militants exchange fire with Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip February 11, 2004. In their deadliest strike for months, Israeli troops killed at least 14 Palestinians in gun battles in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, in raids Israel said were to root out militants behind attacks on Jewish settlements. REUTERS/Str

Reuters, of course, doesn't mention the kids or the fact that the "militants" aren't telling them to get out of the area. In a gun battle with military weapons, I'm not sure how much context you need to know that you don't allow kids to hang around and watch.

John Podhoretz of the NY Post put the situation rather succinctly:

-------------
"The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas... Hamas is at war with Israel. But instead of separating themselves from the general population in military camps and wearing uniforms, as required by international law, Hamas members and other Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians -- the "protected persons" mentioned in [The Fourth Geneva Convention] 3:1:28 -- as living camouflage. To prevent such a thing from happening, international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances."
------------
Quoted in this article (original isn't on the Post site anymore): Link

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:51 am

Firing through the legs of childeren is common tactic that the British discovered when they surrounded Basra in the first few weeks of the Iraq conflict.

Roid. The bulldozers are more often than not demolishing the homes of the families of the suicide bombers, it's supposed to be a deterrent, if it works or not is another subject.

Roid. Checkpoints are for checking people. Pregnant women have been strapped with explosives. Last week a ten year old was used as a walking bomb at a check point. I agree with you that somtimes there are wankers that mistreat the people coming through, but we're not talking about the Canadian/USA border here. Tensions are high.

Meanwhile, the kibbutz i live on is on high alert. People are walking around with their M-16's, going about their buisness, as if it's just another day. lol...weired.

FC

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:10 am

hey FC.. wouldn't a palestinian civilian providing cover for a hamas militant be considered not a civilian, but a military target then?

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:23 am

thx flabby i agree.

ferno it's an interesting question. it really is a blurred line between "Combatant" and "Hostile Native".

i mean, nazi civilians believed what they believed. yet after they were defeated, they were re-indoctrinated and were fine with it (although germany still has a lot of self-loathing in the population as a consequence).

and the french resistance, were these soldiers?
i guess the difference between a hero and a soldier is depending on what you consider to be a right and wrong cause. i see the palestinian's plight as an understandable cause, and i'm sure many palestinians do as well (if not all). so i'm sure there are many who are all too eager to assist the rebels/hamas/whatever, much like there are many french who assisted the resistance, they want to improve things for their country/family. but it is hard on your morals. is a collaborator a soldier?

so would you shoot to kill a civ? kids especially are easy to sway. i mean, you can't blame a kid for trying to kill you, if he's been indoctrinated to think you are the devil itself. but you coudl just as easily re-indocrinate the kid. and what if that kid IS comming towards you, with a gun, i think i'd shoot him as well (well i mean, realisticly i'd probabaly hesitate, and re-hesitate for so long that i'd die haha). it's pretty simple, if it's trying to kill you, it's an enemy.
but do you want to (1) kill your enemy, or (2) make your enemy your friend.
i guess on the field you can't make any other desision than 2

but the fact that israel is forced into 2 (which they seem to quite willingly/eagerly carry out), tells me that they havn't put any conviction into into 1.
the rest of the international community seems to agree with this.

Krom i was referring to suicide bombers acting as individuals, in comparison to Israeli soldiers in a gunship. i wasn't refering to religous leaders. i'm not sure what you've been hearing, but a lot of people's situations do NOT need a religous motive to carry out a suicide attack.
you seem to be implying that all palestinians who hate israel, hate israel because their religion tells them to. that's as stupid as saying that america is a terrorist target because terrorists are jealous.