[mixin visuals]

just heard breakin news on cnn about an attempted hamas leader kill. he wasn't killed supposedly, but many injured reported.

are these strikes against leaders of those that encourage and aid deliberately killing civilians tolerable?

[Logic]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
just heard breakin news on cnn about an attempted hamas leader kill. he wasn't killed supposedly, but many injured reported.

are these strikes against leaders of those that encourage and aid deliberately killing civilians tolerable?

Yes and No. The leaders of Hamas and other terrorist groups should be targeted. I won't blame Israel for trying to get to them. I do though feel that Israel should try to, if possible, to arrest them. It could be tough, but it seems like they already know where they are so it is not a long way to drive Israel should give them a fair trial, again if possible, and not risk civilian lives in these raids. Like I said, I'm OK with targeting leaders of terrorist organisations, but I don't think it should be done with gunships and fighterjets. Too much risk for civilian casualties. I would also prefer if they would use the legal system to get these men, but that could be difficult in many cases.

Oh, and mixin. You should have skipped the "encourage and aid deliberately killing civilians" part since that does only encourage and aid yet another flamewar Otherwise you ask a good question.

Disclaimer: I just woke up so my posts maybe doesn't make much sense

[macvillage.net]

Israel would never put them on trial...

Just like the US doesn't want Bin Laden alive. Would be to much of a media circus. There was even a report the president issued an executive order *not* to take him alive (and nothing more in that order than the statement).

Dead or Dead... no exceptions.


As far as targeting civilians. It's pretty convincing that Israel is intentionally hitting civilians. The target is a militant... but they enjoy doing it in places where others will be hit as well... kind of a "how does it feel" type of thing. Don't think the tactic is working to well.


Funny thing is in 365 days, Sharon and Abbas will be kicked out of respective offices... and so will the unrealistic roadmap.

[Troll]

Heinous as the South African apartheid regime was, at least they had the decency to arrest and try their "terrorists." Savage as the system was, farcical as the application of the laws was during the trials of the anti-apartheid fighters, at least there was a semblance of due process that the judges and lawyers exploited to preserve the lives of people like Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo.

Not so with the Israelis. They simply assassinate the Palestinian leaders. No questions asked, no fair trial, no legal representation. Even apartheid South Africa never stooped so low.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Israel would never put them on trial...

Actually, Israel has held trials for those who have had roles in terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens.

Ironically, Israel released them from prison as a part of peace talk concessions, where they were supposed to be imprisoned in the PLA instead.

As soon as the Intifada started back up in 2000, guess who was let out of prison in the PLA.

As far as targeting civilians. It's pretty convincing that Israel is intentionally hitting civilians. The target is a militant... but they enjoy doing it in places where others will be hit as well... kind of a "how does it feel" type of thing. Don't think the tactic is working to well.

Pure BS, Robert. The target is a militant. You hit the target where the target is. If the target places him or herself in a crowd, it doesn't transform them into something other than a target, it just means they're cowards using otherwise non-violent people as shields.

Assigning "enjoyment" to soldiers carrying out their duties is pretty bold of you, Robert. Let me know when you've served as a soldier with such a mission- somehow I think you're more bloodthirsty than any soldier I know- because the soldiers I know would much prefer to be at home and not have to be out on duty.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Pure BS, Robert. The target is a militant. You hit the target where the target is. If the target places him or herself in a crowd, it doesn't transform them into something other than a target, it just means they're cowards using otherwise non-violent people as shields.

Assigning "enjoyment" to soldiers carrying out their duties is pretty bold of you, Robert. Let me know when you've served as a soldier with such a mission- somehow I think you're more bloodthirsty than any soldier I know- because the soldiers I know would much prefer to be at home and not have to be out on duty.

Israel says they are tracking all these guys... and know where they are at all times.

So why is it done the moment where there is a crowd?

It's always the worst possible moment, with the wrong tools. Considering the resources Israel has at it's disposal (it's not an imature military... there is adequate weapon choice)... it's always the wrong one.

Now you can't be suggesting that someone makes the same stupid mistake dozens of times?

Especially at volitile times like this... KNOWING what the reprocussions of this will be.

And weighing the risks... knowing this guy was a big mouth... not someone who was going to be strapping a bomb to himself in 24 hours. The difference between waiting a few hours or days... would have meant nothing... but lives saved.


From the way the news is displaying it... looks like an attack on Sharon's recent rebirth. An attack from within to derail the peace process.

Looks effective to me.

[vmarks]

Robert, I poke holes in your post, so you run off in another direction.

You really think that the Israeli military knows where these guys are at all times within the PLA? You're kidding. They never said that they did, and to believe such would mean the IDF would be a incredibly larger presence in the PLA than it is. As it is, the IDF goes in and comes back out, not stationed inside for long periods of time tracking/spying/whatever other nonsense you think you recall hearing-

Using helicopters is actually pretty precise. It's much more accurate than carpet bombing, and faster than tanks. You fly the copter over, complete the mission and fly back. Takes about 15-20 minutes of flight time.

This was not intended to de-rail peace talks. Hamas backed out of peace talks stating that they reserved their 'right' to launch terrorist attacks in Israel. The single most important issue in Israel is preventing those attacks. Targetting the leader of a group that stated it's intention to continue attacks until there are no more Israelis is an acceptable military target. An Israeli official said the government will keep fighting terror. "Israel hasn`t changed its policy," the official told Israel Radio. "It will continue to struggle against terrorism, because the PA does not." Don't tell me he didn't know he was putting himself and those around him at risk.

The hardline Rantisi has repeatedly rejected appeals by Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas for an end to armed attacks in the context of the Palestinian uprising. Had he wanted to avoid this, he could have gone along with Abbas' wishes.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:

Assigning "enjoyment" to soldiers carrying out their duties is pretty bold of you, Robert.

Yes, they seem to be horrified by their job:



oh, and this is perhaps proper as well

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
Yes, they seem to be horrified by their job:

oh, and this is perhaps proper as well

do you really want to drag out all the photos that go back and forth? Do you want to bring up the suicide bombers that lace their bombs with rat poison to stop blood clotting so their victims are sure to die, and set off a second bomb to get emergency workers who respond to the first explosion?

IF that's really a picture of Israeli soldeirs and not staged, then sure, it's shameful. IF it's real, It's also not the norm, and don't pretend that it is.

[Troll]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You hit the target where the target is.

Civilised countries neither assign targets nor eliminate them wherever they are. Civilised countries presume people innocent until proven guilty, they capture those they think are guilty of crimes, afford them a fair trial and punish those who are guilty of crimes by imprisoning them. MANY countries have experienced terrorism. The apartheid state you call home is the only one I can remember that openly murders people they accuse of crimes without trying those people and to add insult to injury justifies the killing of people that aren't even accused of crimes during their assassination attempts. There's no difference between this attack and terrorism.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Troll:
Civilised countries neither assign targets nor eliminate them wherever they are. Civilised countries presume people innocent until proven guilty, they capture those they think are guilty of crimes, afford them a fair trial and punish those who are guilty of crimes by imprisoning them. MANY countries have experienced terrorism. The apartheid state you call home is the only one I can remember that openly murders people they accuse of crimes without trying those people and to add insult to injury justifies the killing of people that aren't even accused of crimes during their assassination attempts. There's no difference between this attack and terrorism.

: golf clap :

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Troll:
Civilised countries neither assign targets nor eliminate them wherever they are. Civilised countries presume people innocent until proven guilty, they capture those they think are guilty of crimes, afford them a fair trial and punish those who are guilty of crimes by imprisoning them. MANY countries have experienced terrorism. The apartheid state you call home is the only one I can remember that openly murders people they accuse of crimes without trying those people and to add insult to injury justifies the killing of people that aren't even accused of crimes during their assassination attempts. There's no difference between this attack and terrorism.

Incorrect.

Civilised countries in a state of war do indeed assign and eliminate targets. Militants are acceptable targets, as are military targets. Attacks expressly on citizens who are not militants or military targets is terrorism. Attacks on a militant who leads a group responsible for terrorism is an acceptable target.

There is a clear difference between setting off a bomb in a crowded shopping mall with rat poison so that victims cannot be saved, and then setting off another so that rescue workers are also killed, and firing missiles at a legitimate target and only getting those who are in close proximity. He knew he was a target. He knew he was placing others in harm's way by surrounding himself with them.

[Troll]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Civilised countries in a state of war do indeed assign and eliminate targets.

You're not at war!! These are police actions you're engaging in. Taking out certain specific people at certain times. It's not even comparable to Iraq which is about the closest thing to the concept of a war on terrorism (as if that is even possible).

Spain doesn't declare itself at war with ETA thereby forfeiting ETA members' rights for them. The UK never did that against the IRA. Heck, as I pointed out, not even South Africa acted this way. Israel just says it's "in a state of war" because it allows it to pursue it's racist policies. I could almost see Sharon smiling when Bush declared war on terrorism as he thought, "This one I'm going to run with."

[Nicko]

If carrying out/attempting assasinations isn't terrorist activity, what is?

Most likely there will be another bus bombing, and the cycle of death and revenge will continue.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
do you really want to drag out all the photos that go back and forth? Do you want to bring up the suicide bombers that lace their bombs with rat poison to stop blood clotting so their victims are sure to die, and set off a second bomb to get emergency workers who respond to the first explosion?

IF that's really a picture of Israeli soldeirs and not staged, then sure, it's shameful. IF it's real, It's also not the norm, and don't pretend that it is.

I just wanted to show you that not all IDF members are as respectable as you expect them to be. This is not faked, unfortunatly I can't prove it to you. The suicide bombers aren't any better than these guys but I'm sick and tired of hearing how sacred and good all IDF members are and that they show great respect for the human life. That is a blatant lie. Some are, some are not.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
You're not at war!! These are police actions you're engaging in. Taking out certain specific people at certain times. It's not even comparable to Iraq which is about the closest thing to the concept of a war on terrorism (as if that is even possible).

Spain doesn't declare itself at war with ETA thereby forfeiting ETA members' rights for them. The UK never did that against the IRA. Heck, as I pointed out, not even South Africa acted this way. Israel just says it's "in a state of war" because it allows it to pursue it's racist policies. I could almost see Sharon smiling when Bush declared war on terrorism as he thought, "This one I'm going to run with."

Valid points.

And proof that this is milicous... is look where these attacks have led Israel... the situation gets worse and worse.

Yet somehow... these attacks are all successful.

I think it's obvious at this point... this isn't the solution.

Sharon was pointing in the right direction.

But somebody tore up the roadmap. That idea is now royally flushed down the toilet. Out of sight, out of mind.

Now lets start bombing/blowing things up.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
just heard breakin news on cnn about an attempted hamas leader kill. he wasn't killed supposedly, but many injured reported.

are these strikes against leaders of those that encourage and aid deliberately killing civilians tolerable?

In these attacks, there are always civillian casualties. So in this sense, there is little difference between the `Targeted Killings' by Israel and other terrorist attacks.

Arrest them, grant them a fair trial, I'm all for that. That would minimize civillian casualties as well.

[Spliffdaddy]

No wonder you peacenik dolts aren't leading any countries.

The population would be dead while you seek not to offend the terrorists.

You gotta choose one or the other.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
In these attacks, there are always civillian casualties. So in this sense, there is little difference between the `Targeted Killings' by Israel and other terrorist attacks.

Arrest them, grant them a fair trial, I'm all for that. That would minimize civillian casualties as well.

Except that it doesn't minimize civilian casualties-

Israel did that. Israel arrested, held trials, and sentenced terrorists.

Because the terrorists who weren't arrested didn't like the idea of Israel imprisoning their compatriots, they kept attacking, killing Israeli civilians.

And then as a part of peace concessions, Israel gave these imprisoned attackers to the PLA, to be imprisoned by them. The PLA released them in 2000, and they continue to cause Israeli civilian casualties.

When, exactly were civilian casualties minimized? Or are the only civilian casualties that matter to you are the ones that occur within the PLA?

[Troll]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Except that it doesn't minimize civilian casualties-

Israel did that. Israel arrested, held trials, and sentenced terrorists.

Yeah, you know, here in Paris, the cops have increased the fines for allowing your dog to sh1t on the sidewalk. They've put more poop-cops on the beat, they've prosecuted more people even jailed people. They fined a whole bunch of them and then the mayor pardoned their fines after he was reelected. Despite everything they've done, the amount of doggie-doo on the sidewalks continues to increase. There's about 12 tons of it added to Paris sidewalks per day!

Trying to rid Paris of this problem through just, legal means is clearly not working! Let's get some Israeli style justice in here - screw the law, screw civil liberties and human rights, let's put snipers on the roof and shoot anyone who we think might be planning to let his dog sh1t on our sidewalks and f*ck the poor souls that get shot because they're standing nearby. They can blame the bastard who is hiding himself amongst them.

This is an extreme example that holds for any number of crimes. Murder, rape is on the increase pretty much everywhere in the world today. The fact that your prosecution of the people who commit crimes is not effective is not an excuse for abandoning the law and justice wholesale. It's probably a good indication that you aren't addressing the real problem. In our case, people probably need other places to let their dogs sh1t.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No wonder you peacenik dolts aren't leading any countries.

The population would be dead while you seek not to offend the terrorists.

You gotta choose one or the other.

Well, Germany, Russia, and France are in the hand of peaceniks. And we still have security here. You don't have to choose one or the other, that's BS.

Oh, I hope you didn't miss the obligatory invisible sarcasm tags.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yeah, you know, here in Paris, the cops have increased the fines for allowing your dog to sh1t on the sidewalk. They've put more poop-cops on the beat, they've prosecuted more people even jailed people. They fined a whole bunch of them and then the mayor pardoned their fines after he was reelected. Despite everything they've done, the amount of doggie-doo on the sidewalks continues to increase. There's about 12 tons of it added to Paris sidewalks per day!

Trying to rid Paris of this problem through just, legal means is clearly not working! Let's get some Israeli style justice in here - screw the law, screw civil liberties and human rights, let's put snipers on the roof and shoot anyone who we think might be planning to let his dog sh1t on our sidewalks and f*ck the poor souls that get shot because they're standing nearby. They can blame the bastard who is hiding himself amongst them.

This is an extreme example that holds for any number of crimes. Murder, rape is on the increase pretty much everywhere in the world today. The fact that your prosecution of the people who commit crimes is not effective is not an excuse for abandoning the law and justice wholesale. It's probably a good indication that you aren't addressing the real problem. In our case, people probably need other places to let their dogs sh1t.

I hope the snipers are just shooting the dogs

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Except that it doesn't minimize civilian casualties-

Israel did that. Israel arrested, held trials, and sentenced terrorists.

Because the terrorists who weren't arrested didn't like the idea of Israel imprisoning their compatriots, they kept attacking, killing Israeli civilians.

And then as a part of peace concessions, Israel gave these imprisoned attackers to the PLA, to be imprisoned by them. The PLA released them in 2000, and they continue to cause Israeli civilian casualties.

When, exactly were civilian casualties minimized? Or are the only civilian casualties that matter to you are the ones that occur within the PLA?

It doesn't matter if civillian casualties are minimized or not. They are deliberately hazard the consequences of civillian casualties.

They are not the only ones that matter, they do not matter more or less to me than Israeli civillian casualties.

Just because trials are more lengthy and more complicated, they are the only acceptable way. In another thread, you are arguing that your Constitutional Rights supercede any efforts to ease the search for `terrorists' (PATRIOT 1 and 2). Here, the exact same argument applies. One cannot take these rights from even the guiltiest person (here: the right for a fair trial, due process, etc.).