Israeli attempt to assassinate all 3 top Hamas leaders fails due to weak missiles

[axi]

Well, two days have passed since the last post in this thread and the attack on Yassin has cost the Israelis so far 15 dead and 40 wounded in 2 suicide bombings.

Should I repeat that they were asking for it? Should I repeat how sad it is that the Israelis are doing all they can to get more people to want to give their lives for a chance to kill some of them?

About terrorist states: a terrorist state is not a state that is supporting or funding terrorists but one that is using it's own state power to terrorise other people. A state f.e. that has nuclear weapons and threatens to commit a first strike unless it's terms are satisfied.

[Ned]

Originally posted by axi
Well, two days have passed since the last post in this thread and the attack on Yassin has cost the Israelis so far 15 dead and 40 wounded in 2 suicide bombings.

Should I repeat that they were asking for it?

Is that all Hamas now wants, revenge for the killing of its leaders?

[Sirotnikov]

Should I repeat that they were asking for it? Should I repeat how sad it is that the Israelis are doing all they can to get more people to want to give their lives for a chance to kill some of them?

Are you crazy?

Ok let's go over this again.

You tell us NOT to attack Hamas, since attacking it, will bring more death.

If we don't attack Hamas, it will still lead to more death, since no one will be stopping them. (The PA announced it won't do crap).

So in any case, the choise is whether to have them: scared, enraged and vengeful (if we kill them) or relaxed, generally angry and still killing little children in buses (if we don't kill them).

Seems to me, it's likely them being angry and afraid for their lives, will lead them to more mistakes.


You are acting on the basis of thought that if we don't fight terrorism, it will die down, or at least won't increase.

But that is silly. It's in my eyes, exactly the same like Europe thought in the 30s - if you don't provoke the Nazis, you will be able to avoid total war.

I disagree. In any case there will be a total war until one side is destroyed (Israel, or Hamas). And the question is, whether do we use our force now, when we are strong, or do we allow Hamas o grow stronger (by not attacking it) and fight the war from a worse position.


While I appriciate you wish to see less people killed, your advice to us, is knid of like "avoid the bully, and stay alive". That advise is sound for most people. But us and the "bully" are hated enemies, and there's no way we could do that.

You suggest that we do out efforts to keep this conflict low - but we have nothing to gain from it. By keeping this conflict low, we are under-utilizing our abilities, and allowing Hamas to over-utilize theirs.

If we use our forces to the maximum, as we are beginning to do now - we are getting closer to defeating Hamas.

There is no way, keeping the status quo of "only one terract per month" should be Israel's goal.

About terrorist states: a terrorist state is not a state that is supporting or funding terrorists but one that is using it's own state power to terrorise other people. A state f.e. that has nuclear weapons and threatens to commit a first strike unless it's terms are satisfied.

I disagree.

Let's agree that a terrorist state, is one that employs a strategy of targetting or threatening to target civilians, in order to achieve something.

Now the terrorist state can do it directly - like you said - threatening with nuclear weapons.

Or it can do this by proxy - using a 3rd body such as another state, or a terrorist organization, to "take the heat" as the agressor, while covertly supporting and funding them.

This is exactly what the PA is doing with Hamas, Al-Aqsa, and Islamic Jihad. The PA is turning a blind eye to Hamas, and allows it's agents to make propoganda in mosques and schools and universities.

Then, the Hamas acts against Israel, taking the direct responsability, while the PA enjoys the fruits - a break in Israeli public opinion and stamina, and eventually - more concessions.

[Guardian]

You know, I don't always agree with everything the Israeli government does, but as long as the other side keeps targetting civilians, I really can't say I blame the Isarelis for getting pissed off and dropping some bombs on Hamas people every once in a while.

The day Hamas starts blocking buses instead of bombing them, we might have something to talk about. Until then, Hamas is a bunch of murderers and should be dealt with accordingly. Just too bad they're never all in one building...

Sting ones said something about how, in order to win a war, you'd have to convince your enemy that he's wrong, and blowing up his children will only prove him right.

A little cheesy and naive, perhaps... But it is a valid point.

The day the Palestinians stop blowing up children on school buses or just random people in the streets will be the day Israel loses the moral high ground. I must say, I'm a little amazed that the Pals haven't figured that out yet.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by axi

Should I repeat that they were asking for it? Should I repeat how sad it is that the Israelis are doing all they can to get more people to want to give their lives for a chance to kill some of them?

Perhaps the IDF and the Israeli government are asking to get bombed, but your heroes are targeting little girls on school buses.

[Ned]

Siro, I also think that much of the left is opposing Israel simply because they are on the other side in this war.

I think Candidate Dean of the Democrat far left is one of those who is against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians. In a recent debate, he came out against Bush's ME policy, calling it unbalanced in Israel's favor! This tells you where the left is. It opposes Israel.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ned
I think Candidate Dean of the Democrat far left is one of those who is against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians. In a recent debate, he came out against Bush's ME policy, calling it unbalanced in Israel's favor! This tells you where the left is. It opposes Israel.

Ehh. Dean has flipped flopped so many times on a number of issues I don't think anyone can pin down his stances. He's flipflopped on Cuba, the Middle East, Campaign spending, age of retirement, etc, etc. Consistent the man isn't.

Keep in mind that he's met with Sharon. Of course, he also praised the Palestinian Authorities democracy and how women are involved in it's politics, so he's not terribly informed, I think.

(More likely, he just made the recent statements in order to gain support for the primary. I suspect he'd drop them like a hot potato if he were to gain the nomination. Of course, all his flipflopping on th issues will come back to haunt him).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
And another thing, on the basis of what information did you decide it was his house?

So I was wronmg about it being his house. Now we did have an attack on someones House.

Methods of military action does not diminish or hurt a status of democracy in a country.

You could claim Israel is less humane or more agressive. But nowhere is there a requirement for Democracies to be humaine or non-agressive.

No, nowehre does it say that: which is why the refrain that the US should support Israeli simply becuase it is a democracy is false. being a dmeocracy does not make a state more worthy of our support than not being a democracy: what matters is the policies the state uses.

1st - why no answer to the USSR policy? Can't criticise fellow commies?

Does it matter which Police state you want to be like?

Second, I think the rulership bit is irrelevant. The message is and was "Mess with us and you die".

For the last 10 years the Israeli message has been:

"Mess with us, and you might get an autonomy and Israeli and American funds, then some constrained military steps against you which the world will criticize, then European support and funds, and then following public pressure, Israel will unilateraly cave in to your immediate demands".

See my point?

NO, becuase it is wrong. You say your messaeg is mess with us or die: well, given that the Palestinains have been given little hope, if they will die, might as well take as many Israelis out as they can, NO?

Get it throught your head: military victory is impossible, genocide and ethnic cleansing are the only violent victories you could hope for, and in the end, they would only lead to the destruction of Israel as well. So you better start looking at the political solutions, or think of how nice it will be when your grandchild is sent to patrol the occupied territories.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by axi About terrorist states: a terrorist state is not a state that is supporting or funding terrorists but one that is using it's own state power to terrorise other people. A state f.e. that has nuclear weapons and threatens to commit a first strike unless it's terms are satisfied.

Again, what has happened to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? If you don't understand that they have most certainly used state power to terrorize people, you are more naive than I thought.

[Sirotnikov]

So I was wronmg about it being his house. Now we did have an attack on someones House.

Which, due to the fact that the combatants had a planning meeting there - can be considered for military purposes - a command and control HQ.

No, nowehre does it say that: which is why the refrain that the US should support Israeli simply becuase it is a democracy is false. being a dmeocracy does not make a state more worthy of our support than not being a democracy: what matters is the policies the state uses.

Democracy makes states and leaders more accountable and less extreme.

Were Israel not a democracy, instead of a half-working Palestinain autonomy, you'd see abandoned villages, in the west bank.

Does it matter which Police state you want to be like?

this is again moving from the subject in hand, to throwing dirt.

I'm merely interested in an effective way to defeat terrorism.

My examples of Syria and the USSR meant to prove that if you use enough ruthless force, you can defeat and even scare the terrorist.

NO, becuase it is wrong. You say your messaeg is mess with us or die: well, given that the Palestinains have been given little hope, if they will die, might as well take as many Israelis out as they can, NO?

I'm sorry but that is a phalacy.

The Oslo process and the negociations in Camp David have given them more hope than ever. The IDF withdrew step by step, and autonomy was set up and so on.

Still, from 1993, the number of terrorist attacks only increased, and they became more deadly with each passing year.

If that's how they behave when they have hope - I don't want that.

Infact, the only hope they had, was that with enough terrorist pressure exerted at Israel, they can get more of their demands met. And as long as that hope remains, they will keep terrorising us.

So to stop terror - the hope that Israel will be moved an inch because of terror - should be forgotten.

Get it throught your head: military victory is impossible, genocide and ethnic cleansing are the only violent victories you could hope for, and in the end, they would only lead to the destruction of Israel as well.

Foreign Isolation maybe.

And I'm not suggesting ethnic cleansing. I'm suggesting political cleansing. Any person related to a terrorist organization - dead.

So you better start looking at the political solutions, or think of how nice it will be when your grandchild is sent to patrol the occupied territories.

There are no political solutions to terrorism.

Terrorism has it's goal on achieving political concessions. If you grant them those, terror is proven to be a working tactic, and is adopted more often.

The only long term solution to terror is to not budge. Infact, for every terrorist attack, the Palestinian perspective should seem to worsen. After a while, they will regard terrorism as bad for them.

According to public opinion polls, it's already working in the West Bank, following several IDF occupations. Gaza has not enjoyed an IDF occupation yet. Will soon though.

[/q]

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
No, nowehre does it say that: which is why the refrain that the US should support Israeli simply becuase it is a democracy is false. being a dmeocracy does not make a state more worthy of our support than not being a democracy: what matters is the policies the state uses.

This is an example of why the left is so seriously screwed up.

[axi]

The day the Palestinians stop blowing up children on school buses or just random people in the streets will be the day Israel loses the moral high ground. I must say, I'm a little amazed that the Pals haven't figured that out yet.

I totally agree with you. There are militant organisations in Palestine that are doing just that (f.e. the PFLP), but unfortunately, as they are left-wing, they are unable to gain enough support. Islamic fundamentalism is much more trendy than socialism since the collapse of the Socialist Bloc.

Perhaps the IDF and the Israeli government are asking to get bombed, but your heroes are targeting little girls on school buses.

They are not my heroes. You are correct in saying that the military and the government are asking for the suicide bombings. They are the perfect excuse for maintaining the occupation.

I have heard rumors that the turn of Hamas and the other militants towards suicide bombings was originally stimulated by Mossad infiltrators, who were deliberately seeking to manipulate the Palestinians into this dead-end. This is a far-fetched theory, but it's arguable that they only needed to make a start. Once one such attack took place (I don't know when the first one occured), there was no turning back: the militants were bound to revert to such solutions when they were blinded by hatred.

Terrorism recommenced because the Palestinians saw that Oslo was leading nowhere.

[Cruddy]

Re: Israeli attempt to assassinate all 3 top Hamas leaders fails due to weak missiles

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

First, I hope this will mark the last time anyone, ever opens his mouth at Israel, claiming that the IDF uses disproportionate power in the attaks on Hamas leaders.

Either assassination is wrong or it isn't. Even if the IDF uses a plastic knife to kill, it's still killing.

In other words - you'll get criticized no matter what means you do.

People will just hate you more when you use Mavericks in built up areas.

[Spiffor]

For such an operation, a (successful) Russian style attack would have been best: send the sleeping gases, and send in the commandos via helicopter. Kills the bastards and lets the civilians alive while harmless

[Datajack Franit]

I think people of Israel have the right to defend themselves, so let's go for siege and tear gas