Hamas founder killed...

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:10 am

21 Days

An interesting slideshow/photobook promotion entitled 21 Days from Time Magazine (a generally left-of-center news magazine) which has a slide/narrative (slide #17) that relates one incident about how the American troops were forced to react to two young boys assisting (perhaps involuntarily) the Iraqi Fedayeen. In another slide, btw, it also points out rather matter-of-factly that the battle in Northern Iraq against Ansar al-Islam was a rerun of the battles in Afghanistan in that it was waged between US Special Forces and Ansar, an affiliate of al-Qaeda (for those who dispute that terrorists were present in Iraqi territory prior to the war). Professional photographs, fascinating narratives.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:21 am

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?

You cannot compare the palastinians to the french resistiance or the jewish resistance in Warsaw as neither the french or the Warsaw jews had any other recourse but to fight. The palastinians , on the other hand, have had how many peace plans? The latest "Road Map for Peace" was agreed to and Isreal was implimenting it's side of the bargan (removing settlements) when Hamas decided to help the process by sending in a homocide bomber. Hamas does not want peace any more than the extremist want peace in Iraq.
Perhaps it is time that Isreal eliminates Arafat and all his cronies, bring in the U.N. and set up a palastinian election for new leadership. At this point there can be no nice politically correct way to settle the palastinian issue.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:11 am

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

In my opinion no. You'd still try just to go for the military target, but if it means to kill or be killed then you go straight through the civilian.

I've talked at length to freinds who've been in this situation from both the political left and right, religious and secular, they all said the same thing as above. Like i said before that dosn't mean there arn't wankers in the army.

I'll let you in on a little secret, just as a by the way. All...and i mean all of the people i know that serve in gaza one month every year hate the religious settlers they are there to protect rather than the Palestinian people themselves.

FC

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:14 am

Why is that, FC?

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:27 am

The settlers treat the soldiers like dirt, and the soldiers are expected to lay down their life for them. It's as simple as that.

The ultra-religious don't even recognise the State of Israel, even though they are members of the State, and the State has an obligation to protect them.

It's an "interesting" part of the world.

WarAdvocat · Post by **WarAdvocat** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:53 am

I'm very suprised we haven't had an actual pro-Palestinian moron chime in, given the massive amounts of anti-Israel propoganda floating about in the EU and elsewhere. I'm even more suprised that no anti-American sentiments have been expressed.

Some years back, I was involved with a largely international forum community, and America bashing was prevalent. One Israeli, as a matter of fact, was a leader of that contingent. I had to respect his courage, if not his intelligence, as he took flack on two fronts, from pro-Palestinian liberal Euro pukes AND Americans, and gave as good as he got.

The liberal Euro-pukes were very fond of saying that Israeli and Americans are force-fed propoganda, and thus have no idea of what's going on in the larger world except what the propogandists and spin doctors want us to know. Then they'd go on to defend the violence and hatred of the Palestinians, saying that it's justified by blah blah blah blah. Of course, when called upon to justify their statements, their immediate response was to chant, in unison once again: "Americans are force-fed propoganda, and thus have no idea of what's going on in the larger world except what the propogandists and spin doctors want you to know", followed by chapter-and-verse liberal dogma.

The irony of the situation was that it was quite obvious that they were quoting chapter-and-verse from various liberal Euro-puke media outlets, while accusing others of being force-fed slanted news. Who is more accountable here anyhow? The person being force-fed slanted news, or the person who sucks on the bias teat willingly?

From my viewpoint, the whole situation is a shame. I'm continually amazed by the forebearance of the Israeli government, and their measured response to extreme provocation. They are under the world spotlight any time they take any action, and their motivations are instantly dissected by people with no stake in the outcome other than the ideological they choose to grind. In spite of that, it seems incredible to me that Israel hasn't reacted MUCH more strongly to the extreme provocations which they experience with such frequency, irrespective of the "world opinion". To me, that would mean striking, and striking HARD at military targets, whether or not they were shielded by civilians.

Perhaps, however, Israel has hit upon the best strategy here in their limited reprisals. All I know is that I'm sick and tired of this pointless cycle of slaughter here on Planet Earth, justified or unjustified, be it Muslim terrorists, Palestinian Liberationists, Militant Regimes, Revolutionists, Western Governments, tin-pot dictators or religious fruitcake cultists. Somehow, some way, we need to find a productive, useful outlet for this facet of human nature, before it utterly destroys us.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:08 am

roid wrote: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.

I never said or implied that in my post, read it again.

Also, You cannot compare the terrorists to the French resistance because the French resistance only fought the Nazis that were occupying them, they worked to help other military forces defeat the Nazis, but they did not target civilians like terrorists do.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:00 pm

Now what would happen if that same civ that's providing cover picks up a rifle...

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:39 pm

Therin lies the problem of the IDF Ferno.

As you can see they don't shoot kids left right and center. Have you seen the video footage yet??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 565607.stm

FC

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:12 pm

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.

Pay attention to both sex and age. I'm having trouble thinking of any other explanations, myself. The only one I could think of at first was that maybe certain deaths were being classified as "combatant" in order to make the noncombatant statistics look more realistic... but then, there simply aren't enough combatant deaths to hide all that many noncombatants. I can't come up with any other explanation than that Palestinians target civilians (which we already know) and Israelis target armed combatants.

the french resistance, were these soldiers?

Re-read my post please.

I gave what I think is a fairly good explanation of what's a "soldier" vs what's a "terrorist" -- soldiers target military (armed) targets, while terrorists target civilians. It doesn't matter whether the *cause* is right or wrong, just who you target when trying to support your cause. Whether or not the Palestinians have a good cause, suicide bombing crowded bus stops is terrorism, and terrorism is bad.

you seem to be implying that all palestinians who hate israel, hate israel because their religion tells them to.

Um, no. They hate Israel because everything tells them to -- from their parents to their school to their "religious" leaders.

EDIT: added this quote from opinionjournal.com

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has weighed in on Israel's killing of terrorist Ahmed Yassin. Not surprisingly, CAIR sides against Israel:

We condemn this violation of international law as an act of state terrorism by Ariel Sharon's out-of-control government. Israel's extra-judicial killing of an Islamic religious leader can only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence throughout the region. The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence.

Yassin was a founder and the "spiritual leader" of Hamas. The Covenant of the Hamas, the group's founding document, makes clear that Hamas has no intention of ever stopping the "cycle of violence." Its preamble states: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." Article 7 asserts: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' " And Article 13 says: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. . . . There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad."

Is Islamist terrorism a perversion of a great and peaceful religion? We hope so, but CAIR, by bestowing on Yassin the status of "an Islamic religious leader," seems to reject this view.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:13 pm

roid wrote: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.

And I suppose them (hamas militants) using pregnant women and children as human shields and as mobile bombs is an acceptable tactic?

Ohh, but it must be ok for them to give children M-16's and told to "fight for the cause".... Get real roid. They used rockets to take out that bastard not to kill everyone around him, but to make damn sure the son of a ★■◆● DIED and had ZERO chance of survival. Remember, these cowards hide away in their damn tunnels underground while they send women and children to die for them because they don't have the balls to pull the trigger themselves. Also remember that it isn't like what you see on Happy Days over there. Its a ★■◆●ing WARZONE.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:14 pm

This is just heartbreaking that these mongrels would take advantage of a confused adolescent like this. I'm referring to Flabby's link.

Abdu told soldiers of his dream of receiving 70 virgins in heaven, which his dispatchers had promised him, and said that he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with the virgins. He said that he had been bullied at school for his poor academic performance and that he had wanted "to be a hero."

This goes back also to the editorial Lothar posted indicating that the proud Palestinians are intentionally sending their social misfits and *disposables* to carry our these *noble* acts while it's Reuters-approved, chest-pounding, crotch-grabbers parade about trying to scare the world with their *manliness*. Pfft. Cowards, the lot of them. If I could spit online, I would. I can't conceive of a religion that promises sex in exchange for obedience.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:28 pm

On the rocket issue, for those of you opposed to Isreal using rockets to pinpoint kill terrorist, just remember hamas also uses katyusha and homemade rockets that are not pinpoint weapons and are used with a a high collateral affect in mind.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:26 am

my refering to the french resistance was in reply to ferno's question about "what's a soldier, what's a civilian".
it was ment as an illustration: imagine if you were an occupying nazi and you were faced with the french resistance. do you shoot to kill?
it's a valid comparison i think.

woodchip wrote:
You cannot compare the palastinians to the french resistiance or the jewish resistance in Warsaw as neither the french or the Warsaw jews had any other recourse but to fight. The palastinians , on the other hand, have had how many peace plans? The latest "Road Map for Peace" was agreed to and Isreal was implimenting it's side of the bargan (removing settlements) when Hamas decided to help the process by sending in a homocide bomber. Hamas does not want peace any more than the extremist want peace in Iraq.
Perhaps it is time that Isreal eliminates Arafat and all his cronies, bring in the U.N. and set up a palastinian election for new leadership. At this point there can be no nice politically correct way to settle the palastinian issue.

i see the settlements as israeli occupation of palestinian land, solely to provoke.
i don't see why the palestinians shouldn't be angry about this.

as for hamas, i don't like their methods, i don't like them. but i see israel as holding all the power in this war, they can do anything they want, for goodness sakes they have guarded civilian settlements deep in palestinian land (for what reason?)! that takes power.

so yeah, i don't like hamas, the issue is more complex than HAMAS VS ISRAEL ARMY. there's palestinian civilians, and israeli civilians in the middle. the palestinians have hamas fighting for them as kindof their army. i'm not surprised civilians help them out. hamas sucks but it's all they've got. some israelis have conflicting views on it too, like flabby. on one hand they say "hamas can suck a dick" coz they kill ppl in cold blood, but on the other hand they (israeli civs) feel sorry for the palestinian civilians.

i don't group hamas with palestine, palestine as a whole doesn't want israel to be exterminated (although sometimes i bet they do). hamas does.

when i heard that israel had announced they would remove their settlements, i shouted "ABOUT ★■◆●ing TIME!!!". as far as i was concerned this is the most important first step in the plan (this is why i said earlier in this post that the ball is in israels court).
but then when hamas (i assume) carried out more bombings, i was discusted. they have shown their true colours, they are warmongers (assuming it was them who carried it out).
"★■◆● them!!!" i agree. but don't ★■◆● the palestinian civilians in the process.

i'm a bit outof the loop on the settlements, does the plan to dismantle them still stand? has it started yet?

lothar wrote:The Covenant of the Hamas, the group's founding document, makes clear that Hamas has no intention of ever stopping the "cycle of violence." Its preamble states: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." Article 7 asserts: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' " And Article 13 says: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. . . . There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad."

wow, i didn't know that. hamas is a big problem if this is their goal. too bad the palestinians don't have their own army.

lothar wrote:...Palestinians target civilians (which we already know) and Israelis target armed combatants.

if the CIA commits acts of terrorism. i see it as a seperate entity to America as a whole, and possibly even somewhat seperate to the US military as a whole. although these acts of terrorism may work towards USA's greater interest, i don't blame america as a whole for it. but i don't approve of it either (mainly because i don't think their cause is worth commiting terror acts for). there are political games afoot, nothing is simple.
i think of palestine and israel as similar in this regard, (ie: yarr!! it not be simple, there be political games afoot, hamas /= palestine).

the only time i will say "i hate america!" is when i'm talking to people who think in "black and white: cia = america = goodguys = cookies for all, YAY COOKIES!!!". and i have to oversimplify to them so the ★■◆●ing idiots can comprehend.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:58 am

MD-2389 wrote: And I suppose them (hamas militants) using pregnant women and children as human shields and as mobile bombs is an acceptable tactic?
[MD rolls his eyes at roid...
roid takes 50 rolling eyes damage.
roid is forced outof MD's comicbook store in defeat.]

no.
don't simplify this into hamas vs israeli army.
it is illogical captian. *wiggles eyebrows*

MD-2389 wrote:Ohh, but it must be ok for them to give children M-16's and told to "fight for the cause".... Get real roid.

get real yourself, rolling eyes piss me off. i wish to provokingly poke them with a pokey poker pain proding pencil, PERSISTENTLY!!.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:12 am

imagine if you were an occupying nazi and you were faced with the french resistance. do you shoot to kill? it's a valid comparison i think.

A resistance *fighter* is someone you (as a military force) can shoot to kill. Any armed attacker is fair game -- they're a military target. An unarmed civilian, on the other hand, is someone you should not kill. They're not a military target.

So, if you're the occupying army faced with a resistance that's shooting at you, you can shoot them back. But if you're the occupying army faced with unarmed civilians, you can't go executing them. If you're a Hamas guy, you can go shooting at Israeli army people -- but you can't go suicide-bombing bus stops. Since Hamas makes it a *habit* to *intentionally* kill innocent civilans, they're a terrorist organization. If they occasionally hit a civilian in the crossfire while targeting military targets, they'd be a military force.

i see the settlements as israeli occupation of palestinian land, solely to provoke.
i don't see why the palestinians shouldn't be angry about this.

I don't think it's solely to provoke -- but yes, the Palestinians have every right to be angry about that, just like they have every right to be angry about their fellow Arab Muslims forcing them to remain in refugee camps.

But, here's the important point: being legitimately angry does not give you an excuse to murder innocent civilians.

the issue is more complex than HAMAS VS ISRAEL ARMY.

You're right -- but since this thread is about killing the leader of Hamas... well... *shrug* you can see why I didn't bother trying to deal with the whole complicated situation.

the palestinians have hamas fighting for them as kindof their army.

Not an army. Armies don't bomb bus stops and restaurants. Armies target enemy armies. Hamas is fighting for them as a terrorist organization.

hamas sucks but it's all they've got.

They'd be in much better shape with nothing.

palestine as a whole doesn't want israel to be exterminated

No, but there are a lot who do. And that's where the real problem lies.

when i heard that israel had announced they would remove their settlements, i shouted "ABOUT **** TIME!!!".

Me too. The Arab world has shown it's too immature to take in the Palestinians, so Israel should be the mature and responsible nation and give the Palestinians some level of autonomy. And Palestine should step up and say "we're going to try to live in peace with Israel", and get rid of people like Yasser Arafat and groups like Hamas.

lothar wrote:
...Palestinians target civilians (which we already know) and Israelis target armed combatants.

if the CIA commits acts of terrorism. i see it as a seperate entity to America as a whole, and possibly even somewhat seperate to the US military as a whole.

Yes, you're right -- I should have been more explicit in saying "Palestinian terrorist groups target civilians"... there are lots of Palestinians who don't target anybody. But my point is still coherent -- Israel isn't targeting Palestinian civilians, but Palestinian terrorists are targeting Israeli civilians, and that's not cool.

So, that's leaves us with a question -- what should Israel and Palestine both do here? From the national standpoing, I think Israel is perfectly justified in continuing to go after terrorist leaders and killing them with rockets or whatever. Along with continuing that, Israel should step up and really pull out and give the Palestinians some space they can call their own -- and the Palestinians should step up and elect some leadership that isn't into terrorism. Now, that's going to be hard (especially for the Palestinians!) but it's what needs to be done to move toward peace.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:23 pm

roid wrote:no.
don't simplify this into hamas vs israeli army.
it is illogical captian. *wiggles eyebrows*

Umm....thats exactly what this is.

MD-2389 wrote:get real yourself, rolling eyes piss me off. i wish to provokingly poke them with a pokey poker pain proding pencil, PERSISTENTLY!!.

Heh, nice way of dodging the bullet without debunking me.

Concession accepted.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:37 am

MD-2389 wrote:get real yourself, rolling eyes piss me off. i wish to provokingly poke them with a pokey poker pain proding pencil, PERSISTENTLY!!.

MD=2389 wrote:Heh, nice way of dodging the bullet without debunking me. Concession accepted.

talking to yourself now?

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:43 am

MD this isn't as simple as "Hamas vs Israeli army".

don't say Palestinians when you mean Hamas.
getting them mixed up is no good. it's bad.

i kinda thought the previous post to the one you just quoted in your last post (confusing sentance sorry) already said that. that's why i didn't answer your question, it was stupidly obvious. lothar got it (mind you, lothar seems to get EVERYTHING, you just can't stop, can't stop, can't stop the logic man... yeeeeeah LOGICMAN!

).

i have a habit of assuming useless posts are sarcasm or a joke, so i join in the jokey mood

. sorry if your post wasn't a joke. i felt i had already answered your question.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:16 pm

Fern, that happened because Roid had quoted MD just before. Roid actually did say that line.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:02 am

MD-2389 wrote:
roid wrote: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.
And I suppose them (hamas militants) using pregnant women and children as human shields and as mobile bombs is an acceptable tactic? Ohh, but it must be ok for them to give children M-16's and told to "fight for the cause".... Get real roid. They used rockets to take out that bastard not to kill everyone around him, but to make damn sure the son of a ***** DIED and had ZERO chance of survival. Remember, these cowards hide away in their damn tunnels underground while they send women and children to die for them because they don't have the balls to pull the trigger themselves. Also remember that it isn't like what you see on Happy Days over there. Its a **** WARZONE.

See my original post. Please read it more carefully next time roid. Please note the reference to HAMAS MILITANTS, not palestinians in my post. Just so you won't miss it this time, I made the text really ★■◆●ing large.

roid wrote:don't say Palestinians when you mean Hamas
getting them mixed up is no good. it's bad.

Please point out exactly where in my post where I even MENTIONED palestinians by name.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 2:50 am

in the previous few posts to the one you quoted (and maybe even in that post itself) i was saying how it is more complicated than just Hamas vs Israeli army (i was talking to lothar too, so you'll need to try to see it though his eyes to understand).

in my post you quoted: i am talking about the Israeli army's actions against Palestinians (not Hamas). then in your post you are again inferring that i am talking about Hamas. i'm NOT!! ok? i'm talking about the Palestinians. when i talk about bulldozing entire communitys, i am talking about Palestinians, not Hamas.
you can't tell me that bulldozing a communitiy WEAKENS Hamas. it STRENGTHENS the Palestinians' hatred of Israel, which is another poke in the ribs for every Palestinian who asks himself "is it yet time for ME to join Hamas in their hate?". therefore strengthening Hamas.
knocking down someone's house is prettymuch spitting on a man on the ground.

i keep reminding you that the partys involved are Hamas, Israeli army, Palestinians, Israelis, (and more too of course). it's not just Hamas and Israeli army. everyone has to watch their wording here, to get them mixed up SERIOUSLY changes your message.

i guess i could explain how we came to this misunderstanding until the cows come home for tea and biccies. but i guess if i just REanswer your question, it will save time:

MD wrote:And I suppose them (hamas militants) using pregnant women and children as human shields and as mobile bombs is an acceptable tactic? Ohh, but it must be ok for them to give children M-16's and told to "fight for the cause".

and my answer is: no it's not an acceptable tactic.

i think there is problem piled apon problem in the situation, the mistakes going way back. what do you suggest happen? do you think the UN should send in peacekeeping troops? because i would have suggested that a while ago, maybe somewhere around the time that Israel felt it nessesary to stick it's dick onto Palestinian land, and then keep a constant military presence there to stop it getting chopped off with a kitchen knife (which SHOULD have happened).
i would have suggested the UN come in and force the Settlers out right then and there.

i forget... why were/are the settlers there again?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:33 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_War

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:02 am

right thx.

"Israel sponsored the building of numerous settlements on the territories designed to improve the Israeli foothold in the region"

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:21 pm

Israel is trying to send a clear message to the Palestinians and everyone else; "Join, support or be a member of the terrorists and we will kill you." I have absolutely no problem supporting that.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:39 pm

roid wrote:
MD wrote:And I suppose them (hamas militants) using pregnant women and children as human shields and as mobile bombs is an acceptable tactic? Ohh, but it must be ok for them to give children M-16's and told to "fight for the cause".
and my answer is: no it's not an acceptable tactic.

i think there is problem piled apon problem in the situation, the mistakes going way back. what do you suggest happen? do you think the UN should send in peacekeeping troops? because i would have suggested that a while ago, maybe somewhere around the time that Israel felt it nessesary to stick it's dick onto Palestinian land, and then keep a constant military presence there to stop it getting chopped off with a kitchen knife (which SHOULD have happened).

No, a group of countries tried to force Israel off the map, and they got their asses kicked. What sparked the current "debate" is that the palestenians believe that they own Israel, yet they conveniently forgot that they lost the war and as such have no legitimate claim to any property in Israel. However, Israel tried to appease them by setting aside some land for them to settle on. They pretty much said "up yours" and it went on from there.

I have absolutely ZERO symathy for them. They had the chance to settle peacefully, yet they chose not to, and a group of them decided to form a terrorist organization and...well, you know what happened next.

i would have suggested the UN come in and force the Settlers out right then and there.

See, now that wouldn't do any good. The second the UN forces leave, they'll come right back and start right back up again like they never left.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:13 pm

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:40 pm

MD-2389 wrote: I have absolutely ZERO symathy for them. They had the chance to settle peacefully, yet they chose not to, and a group of them decided to form a terrorist organization and...well, you know what happened next.

see if i were you i would have worded that like this:

I have absolutely ZERO symathy for HAMAS. They had the chance to settle peacefully, yet a group of them chose not to, and instead decided to form a terrorist organization and...well, you know what happened next.

see the difference?

thus my constant "PALESTINIAN PEOPLE /= HAMAS DAMNIT!!" verbal epileptic fits.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:49 pm

Oh, I have no sympathy for the palestinians as a whole, not just for hamas, but all of them. They harbor hamas, hamas could not exist without support from the palestinians. They have had so many chances for peace and every time these orginizations that speak for them choose terrorism instead. I dont lose any sleep over palestinian casualties.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:54 pm

roid wrote: see if i were you i would have worded that like this:

I have absolutely ZERO symathy for HAMAS. They had the chance to settle peacefully, yet a group of them chose not to, and instead decided to form a terrorist organization and...well, you know what happened next.

see the difference?

thus my constant "PALESTINIAN PEOPLE /= HAMAS DAMNIT!!" verbal epileptic fits.

But the palestinians, as a WHOLE, have done pretty much ★■◆● ★■◆● all to actually rein in Hamas.

So, it would be hard to have sympathy for the entire group with that in mind.

I would think the palestinians think the same about Israel, the US, and the rest of the democratic world.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:08 pm

yeah it's complex, i don't think Palestine really has the power to keep control of Hamas. but if they did have control, would they really be keen on stopping it (with no way to assert themselves otherwise, ie: no army)?

it's kinda like reigning in your own government over the Saddam WMD thing. in the longrun what happened is kindof what you wanted anyway (Saddam gone, or for the Palestinians: "Israel retaliated against"), so it's hard to force yourself to punish the people in question, even if you had the power to do so.

this is why i think the UN should be involved. giving the Palestinians a visible sense of "hey someone other than Hamas actually DOES give a damn" and it may stop Palestinians from thinking that Hamas is the only way.
if Hamas starts to attack UN forces (i wouldn't be surprised), then at least the UN (or nato?, or some kindof coalition) would attack Hamas while protecting Palestinians (rather than what Israel seems to be doing).

fliptw wrote:I would think the palestinians think the same about Israel, the US, and the rest of the democratic world.

you may be getting mixed up between Palestine and Al-Quada here (but even that is a stretch).

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:17 pm

The UN is a joke. Look at it's latest lame attempt to censure Israel for the killing of the terrorist *spiritual leader* Yassin while omitting any reference that it was justified payback for several years of Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. roid, you're on the wrong side of history here, brother. Your sort of give-peace-a-chance pablum is wasted on the Palestinians. Until they renounce terror, reject thugs like Arafat/Hamas/Hezbollah and recognize Israel's right to exist, they get what they give.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:35 am

roid wrote:you may be getting mixed up between Palestine and Al-Quada here (but even that is a stretch).

No, thats the pretty much how the middle east sees it. Whats been done to them by the west is largely the result of a small group of people where the rest rarely bat an eyelash at this group do.

Thats how representative democracy works, and thats what they see it do.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:17 pm

roid wrote:see if i were you i would have worded that like this:

I have absolutely ZERO symathy for HAMAS. They had the chance to settle peacefully, yet a group of them chose not to, and instead decided to form a terrorist organization and...well, you know what happened next.

see the difference?

thus my constant "PALESTINIAN PEOPLE /= HAMAS DAMNIT!!" verbal epileptic fits.

Umm...I meant every word of it.