Here's a thought - why not kill this new guy as well? And then kill the guy that replaces him?
Just a thought. In my non-terrorist mind, an organisation that loses its leader every week isn't going to function as well as one with a stable leadership.
Hamas founder killed in Israeli airstrike
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
after killing a sufficent amount of hamas leaders they´ll evolve into smart hamas leaders and hide.ALI_G wrote:Here's a thought - why not kill this new guy as well? And then kill the guy that replaces him?
Just a thought. In my non-terrorist mind, an organisation that loses its leader every week isn't going to function as well as one with a stable leadership.
i mean, why didn´t the us simply kill saddam. it would have been a helluvalot cheaper. but they couldn´t find him.
Not a good analogy. killing Saddam would have created a power vacuum that could have led to even more trouble. Terrorist organisations and countries aren't really comparable.salm wrote:after killing a sufficent amount of hamas leaders they´ll evolve into smart hamas leaders and hide.ALI_G wrote:Here's a thought - why not kill this new guy as well? And then kill the guy that replaces him?
Just a thought. In my non-terrorist mind, an organisation that loses its leader every week isn't going to function as well as one with a stable leadership.
i mean, why didn´t the us simply kill saddam. it would have been a helluvalot cheaper. but they couldn´t find him.
then take bin laden. the point remains. after enough leaders are assassinated the leaders are going to hide and send out video messages every once in a while.Sharp-kun wrote: Not a good analogy. killing Saddam would have created a power vacuum that could have led to even more trouble. Terrorist organisations and countries aren't really comparable.
if they have to hide they perhaps also turn into a somewhat more "mystical" person, similar to bin laden. religious nuts like his followers tend to like this sort of "mystical" persons.
Boy BomberIsraelis Stop Teen Wearing Bomb Vest
1 hour, 5 minutes ago
By ALI DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer
NABLUS, West Bank - A Palestinian teenager approached a crowded West Bank checkpoint wearing a suicide bomb vest Wednesday in what Israel said was a failed attempt to kill soldiers there.
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Mideast Conflict
In a tense scene captured in exclusive Associated Press Television News footage, soldiers jumped behind concrete barricades and sent a yellow robot to hand scissors to the 16-year-old boy so he could cut off the vest. They then ordered him to strip to his underwear.
Anybody want to justifiy this?????
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
You want to justify why you think anybody who opposes Israel's behaviour must be pro-suicide bombing?theski wrote:Anybody want to justifiy this?????
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Ignoring all reprocussions, collateral damage, etc.; it is a good thing that this guy is dead.
Weighing the collateral damage and reprocussions leads me to the conclusion that this isn't the best way to go about killing the bastard. Personally I think better options exist, particularly if the Mossad gets involved.
However it is a balancing act between protecting civillians and ecouraging their use as human sheilds. Why do Palestinian militants hole up in the Church of the Nativity, make their stands inside dense urban environments, and surround themselves continiously with civillian crowds. Because the bastards are looking for human sheilds. Bluntly I think a large portion of the fault lies with bastards like Yassin who purposefully hide in the midst of civillians.
Artacks in which civillians likely die must weigh the cost in civillian life against the overall gain. If civillian life is anywhere close to being absolutely sacrosanct then it is trivial amount of time before human sheilds lead to either military paralysis or ulitimately more civillian dead. There is an optimal tradeoff between protecting civillian lives as a rule and encouraging the use of human sheilds. Israel has not found that balance.
Withdrawing US aid would remove just about any tangible incentive for Israel to restrain itself. Given the fighting capacity of the IDF and the nuclear option nobody will be willing to pay to invade. Israel might well come out ahead (short term) if the US backs out because Israel can then export a crapload of military technology to places the US would rather they wouldn't.
Sanctioning Israel will down the Israeli economy, more so than it has been, but won't be terribly effective. First sanctions don't effect policy change unless you intend to outright blockade, too many nations are oppurtunistic enough to simply buy from say a German firm and then sell to Israel with a markup or vice versa. And again there is the distinct possibility that Israel will sell things the west would rather not be sold to make up the difference.
I can at least understand what Sharon is trying to accomplish. In a nutshell it is political, he wants to build a wall, pull out of indefensible settlements, and then disengage.
Sharon has to have at least one of the following in the government: Labour, Shinui, or Shas. Labour refused to join the government (and did so in a manner that is not in tune with the majority of the Israeli electorate) and generally opposes Likud. Sharon would dearly love to be the right flank of the government, but the concessions being asked will get him tossed from Likud leadership if he takes them. Shas is essentially a religious bloc that will whore its position, and due to this they are failing in strength. It is doubtful if Shas and lesser parties could form anything resembling a stable government.
This leaves Shinui secularists as the most viable partners in a Likud government. Shinui despises the religious enclave settlements (little piss ant settlements far beyond the green line, often near religious sites) but they do favour integration of the larger settlement blocs into Israel. Integrating the larger bloc pisses of the hard left (like much of the Likud platform) and secularism pisses off most religious parties. This leaves a very small number of Knesset members Sharon can tap to get his plan of pulling out of Gaza through. In order to placate them (as well as the hawks in his own party) he CANNOT be seen as going soft on terrorism; nobody on the Israeli right wants to pull out of Gaza and have it be perceived to be capitulation to terrorists. Killing the head of Hamas (a man who has already been sentenced to life imprisonment) presents a hardline Sharon to the junior partners and gives him some clout when he calls for an unpopular withdrawal.
If Sharon's apparant master plan of cracking down of the terrorists, abandoning the piss ant settlements, and building a big wall work ... then it would be worth dead civillians from both sides. Frankly Sharon is one of the few possible men to make peace. The left is fairing too poorly in the elections, the right makes Shinui and Likud look dovish, and the heir apparant in Likud is "burn down the haystack" Netanyahu. Unfortunately Sharon is the least among evils, if he fails to deliver the most likely alternatives are worse.
Weighing the collateral damage and reprocussions leads me to the conclusion that this isn't the best way to go about killing the bastard. Personally I think better options exist, particularly if the Mossad gets involved.
However it is a balancing act between protecting civillians and ecouraging their use as human sheilds. Why do Palestinian militants hole up in the Church of the Nativity, make their stands inside dense urban environments, and surround themselves continiously with civillian crowds. Because the bastards are looking for human sheilds. Bluntly I think a large portion of the fault lies with bastards like Yassin who purposefully hide in the midst of civillians.
Artacks in which civillians likely die must weigh the cost in civillian life against the overall gain. If civillian life is anywhere close to being absolutely sacrosanct then it is trivial amount of time before human sheilds lead to either military paralysis or ulitimately more civillian dead. There is an optimal tradeoff between protecting civillian lives as a rule and encouraging the use of human sheilds. Israel has not found that balance.
Withdrawing US aid would remove just about any tangible incentive for Israel to restrain itself. Given the fighting capacity of the IDF and the nuclear option nobody will be willing to pay to invade. Israel might well come out ahead (short term) if the US backs out because Israel can then export a crapload of military technology to places the US would rather they wouldn't.
Sanctioning Israel will down the Israeli economy, more so than it has been, but won't be terribly effective. First sanctions don't effect policy change unless you intend to outright blockade, too many nations are oppurtunistic enough to simply buy from say a German firm and then sell to Israel with a markup or vice versa. And again there is the distinct possibility that Israel will sell things the west would rather not be sold to make up the difference.
I can at least understand what Sharon is trying to accomplish. In a nutshell it is political, he wants to build a wall, pull out of indefensible settlements, and then disengage.
Sharon has to have at least one of the following in the government: Labour, Shinui, or Shas. Labour refused to join the government (and did so in a manner that is not in tune with the majority of the Israeli electorate) and generally opposes Likud. Sharon would dearly love to be the right flank of the government, but the concessions being asked will get him tossed from Likud leadership if he takes them. Shas is essentially a religious bloc that will whore its position, and due to this they are failing in strength. It is doubtful if Shas and lesser parties could form anything resembling a stable government.
This leaves Shinui secularists as the most viable partners in a Likud government. Shinui despises the religious enclave settlements (little piss ant settlements far beyond the green line, often near religious sites) but they do favour integration of the larger settlement blocs into Israel. Integrating the larger bloc pisses of the hard left (like much of the Likud platform) and secularism pisses off most religious parties. This leaves a very small number of Knesset members Sharon can tap to get his plan of pulling out of Gaza through. In order to placate them (as well as the hawks in his own party) he CANNOT be seen as going soft on terrorism; nobody on the Israeli right wants to pull out of Gaza and have it be perceived to be capitulation to terrorists. Killing the head of Hamas (a man who has already been sentenced to life imprisonment) presents a hardline Sharon to the junior partners and gives him some clout when he calls for an unpopular withdrawal.
If Sharon's apparant master plan of cracking down of the terrorists, abandoning the piss ant settlements, and building a big wall work ... then it would be worth dead civillians from both sides. Frankly Sharon is one of the few possible men to make peace. The left is fairing too poorly in the elections, the right makes Shinui and Likud look dovish, and the heir apparant in Likud is "burn down the haystack" Netanyahu. Unfortunately Sharon is the least among evils, if he fails to deliver the most likely alternatives are worse.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
Wong wrote
Israel seems to be the lefts whipping boy as of late. And the last time I checked IDF wasn't strapping bombs to kids and sending them into The settlements...You want to justify why you think anybody who opposes Israel's behaviour must be pro-suicide bombing?
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
Nah, they're just lobbing a swarm of anti-tank missiles into crowded areas- so much better. Palestinian militants uses the weapons of the weak- terrorism. Give Palestine a few billion in military aid each year and maybe we'd see the Palestinians lobbing their own Hellfires into crowds.theski wrote:
Israel seems to be the lefts whipping boy as of late. And the last time I checked IDF wasn't strapping bombs to kids and sending them into The settlements...
They're both fuckheads.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
I'm not sure if he really thinks anti-Israel= pro suicide bombing.Darth Wong wrote: You want to justify why you think anybody who opposes Israel's behaviour must be pro-suicide bombing?
That said, I'm inclined to think both sides have done some stupid stuff, the difference is Israel isn't going out of it's way to maximize civilian casulties.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."