I don't see the problem with the IDF taking out a terrorist target.
I am surprised it took them this long.
I am surprised it took them this long.
Terrorists Are Fair Game
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
I noticed that story glossed over the fact that the Israelis felt it to be necessary to kill an old man in a wheelchair with a helicopter gunship (that also killed 7 other people.)
Nobody in the IDF can shoot a sniper rifle? I'm not worried so much about Yassin (although I do have reservations about the way Israel goes about deciding these things, and I don't think this will do anything but escalate the violence) as I am about the 7 other people.
It's not collateral damage. It's the extended families of 7 more people that hate Israel, and they may have a very good reason for that.
Nobody in the IDF can shoot a sniper rifle? I'm not worried so much about Yassin (although I do have reservations about the way Israel goes about deciding these things, and I don't think this will do anything but escalate the violence) as I am about the 7 other people.
It's not collateral damage. It's the extended families of 7 more people that hate Israel, and they may have a very good reason for that.
he's not a soft target.
recall they failed previously to off him.
uhhh, if this is a military strike (& this is an important premise), then it in fact is. Recall hamas' charter
If a man in a wheelchair isn't a soft target, I don't know what is.
Hamas's charter is irrelevant, unless we know for sure that all 7 of those "other" dead people are Hamas members. Is that the case? I must have missed the trial.
Hamas's charter is irrelevant, unless we know for sure that all 7 of those "other" dead people are Hamas members. Is that the case? I must have missed the trial.
Bummer huh?
Hamas, founded by Yassin in 1987, has killed 377 Israelis and wounded more than 2,000 in hundreds of attacks.
Cry me a river...
not b/c he's wheelchair bound, but rather b/c he's constantly fortified. Think of him as the creamy nougat in a hard candy shell. Or that owl finding out how many licks to the center of a tootsiepop.
again, this is on the premise that hamas members are viable military targets, which i firmly believe. You carry the card, you wear a bullseye. And as such, this military strike resulted in the "bonus" of 7 dead in the kill zone. Ergo, thus, ipso facto: "collateral damage".
LOL!!! I nominate this as Metaphor of the Day.
One of the main problems that most folks have when you compare an organization like Hamas and the Israelis, is who they target.
While the IDF use of a rocket fired from a helicopter is less than subtle, the typical target is not some joe schmoe. They normally go after "legitimate" leadership targets. The collateral damage is just that collateral in nature. Just because some guy is in a wheel chair doesn't make him immune from attack.
Compare that to Hamas droppin' teenager with a bomb vest off into a crowded area. There is no collateral damage with that. Anyone that dies is typically some poor soul that was going from one place to another in many cases fellow Muslims. What I have never understood was the Palestinians unwillinglessness or inability to actual go after leadership or military targets within the Israel and not innocent civilians.
While the IDF use of a rocket fired from a helicopter is less than subtle, the typical target is not some joe schmoe. They normally go after "legitimate" leadership targets. The collateral damage is just that collateral in nature. Just because some guy is in a wheel chair doesn't make him immune from attack.
Compare that to Hamas droppin' teenager with a bomb vest off into a crowded area. There is no collateral damage with that. Anyone that dies is typically some poor soul that was going from one place to another in many cases fellow Muslims. What I have never understood was the Palestinians unwillinglessness or inability to actual go after leadership or military targets within the Israel and not innocent civilians.
Here's my point:
Basically, this does nothing except ensure more violence. If they wanted him dead, they could have done it just as easily with a rifle bullet.
They used the helicopters for a reason. That's why I don't think "collateral damage" is the correct term. And it's going to bite them in the ass, because if every Palestinian is a legitimate target (or enemy combatant, take your pick) then every Israeli is going to be as well.
When does this end? When the last Israeli kills the last Arab?
Basically, this does nothing except ensure more violence. If they wanted him dead, they could have done it just as easily with a rifle bullet.
They used the helicopters for a reason. That's why I don't think "collateral damage" is the correct term. And it's going to bite them in the ass, because if every Palestinian is a legitimate target (or enemy combatant, take your pick) then every Israeli is going to be as well.
When does this end? When the last Israeli kills the last Arab?
On the surface there should be no problem with Israel offing guys like that. But the eye for an eye revenge thing will only escalate things. I would say just let them keep killing each other if some of the blame would not fall back on the US. I think that the only solution is what "Bullworth" said in that movie on US race relations. "Fu<k each other out of existence" If you have enough Mohommed Greenburgs and Shlomo Mustafas running around they won't know who to hate anymore. Israel and the Palestinians just need to pour themselves a glass of wine, turn the lights down low, play a little Barry White and get nasty.
Yep.
i disagree.
his daily affairs didn't have him prone to wheeling around the bazaar bickering over fruit & veggie prices in plain view; he was constantly heavily guarded, and as such, any plot to put a bead on him would surely unravel. Hence, a swift surgical (for a helo) response was the (obvious by now) answer.
i fail to understand what you don't agree to. Is it that you don't regard hamas leadership as a viable military target 24/7? Or that we have differing defs of "collateral damage"? Leaning upon my military background, I'll offer mine:
- when an enemy combatant(s) is/are successfully engaged, & unintended targets are also engaged
that would certainly be one solution. However, if it does ever end, it would be the ultimate rochambeau.
Army Chief: Arafat in Israel Crosshairs
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_arafat_2
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_arafat_2
$tinkle,
I tried quoting your last message, but quotes nesting inside of quotes looks...funny, y'know?
I don't disagree that he was a target. All I'm saying is that I'm am 100% sure that the Mossad or certain units of the Israeli army could have handled this a lot better, with a lot less carnage.
Basically, I'm saying that it isn't right to kill 7 innocent people (at this point I'm assuming they are) to get at one enemy combatant. It's going to bite Israel in the ass. Now every single time a bomb goes off, the Palestinian militants are going to use this for justification.
There has to be a better way, short of lobbing an MX missle toward the Eastern Med and solving the problem permanently.
I tried quoting your last message, but quotes nesting inside of quotes looks...funny, y'know?
I don't disagree that he was a target. All I'm saying is that I'm am 100% sure that the Mossad or certain units of the Israeli army could have handled this a lot better, with a lot less carnage.
Basically, I'm saying that it isn't right to kill 7 innocent people (at this point I'm assuming they are) to get at one enemy combatant. It's going to bite Israel in the ass. Now every single time a bomb goes off, the Palestinian militants are going to use this for justification.
There has to be a better way, short of lobbing an MX missle toward the Eastern Med and solving the problem permanently.
Especially since there is no MX missle system.
Did we retire them all? Just Minutemen left now?
Ok fine, N8. A Trident will do just fine.
Ok fine, N8. A Trident will do just fine.
COUNTDOWN TO GAZA FIEND'S DESTRUCTION (Sheik Yassin)
NY Post | March 23, 2004 | By URI DAN
JERUSALEM - At 4:30 a.m. yesterday, Ariel Sharon got the word he had been waiting for in the private "situation room" at his Negev Desert farm: Sheik Ahmed Yassin, surrounded only by loyal Hamas followers, had emerged from his Gaza City home and was nearing a mosque.
That began the final countdown in the long-delayed plan to eliminate the Hamas leader Israel considered "the godfather of suicide bombings."
The clock that measured Yassin's final hours actually began last Tuesday when Sharon's defense Cabinet met to decide how to respond to an attack by two Hamas bombers that left 10 Israelis dead in Ashdod. The members considered destroying nearly all of Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah, leaving him confined to one room and a shower, but military officials objected.
Instead, the Cabinet decided to reconfirm a decision they had actually made 10 months earlier - to mark Yassin for death.
Yassin had escaped one Israeli attack in September. After that, no more attempts were made because of the twists and turns in Mideast politics, pressure from the White House not to escalate matters in an election year, and the reaction if innocent civilians were killed along with the sheik.
Tuesday's Cabinet debate was heated, with opponents, such as minister Avraham Porat, arguing "Israel has enough enemies already."
But a majority of ministers agreed that Yassin had to die - because Hamas had accelerated its attacks even after Sharon said he would pull all Israeli settlements out of the Gaza Strip. They noted that Yassin gave his blessing in January to women serving as homicide bombers.
Yesterday, drone planes flew over Gaza City, waiting for a moment when the wheelchair-bound cleric might emerge to go to prayers as he did each day. The Israelis wanted to catch him when he was surrounded by as few people as possible. That moment occurred before dawn when a drone reported back to Israeli command that Yassin was going to the mosque, accompanied only by two of his sons, his bodyguards and other Hamas members.
Roughly half an hour later, Israeli helicopters fired three missiles. The huge blasts killed the cleric and seven others.
NY Post | March 23, 2004 | By URI DAN
JERUSALEM - At 4:30 a.m. yesterday, Ariel Sharon got the word he had been waiting for in the private "situation room" at his Negev Desert farm: Sheik Ahmed Yassin, surrounded only by loyal Hamas followers, had emerged from his Gaza City home and was nearing a mosque.
That began the final countdown in the long-delayed plan to eliminate the Hamas leader Israel considered "the godfather of suicide bombings."
The clock that measured Yassin's final hours actually began last Tuesday when Sharon's defense Cabinet met to decide how to respond to an attack by two Hamas bombers that left 10 Israelis dead in Ashdod. The members considered destroying nearly all of Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah, leaving him confined to one room and a shower, but military officials objected.
Instead, the Cabinet decided to reconfirm a decision they had actually made 10 months earlier - to mark Yassin for death.
Yassin had escaped one Israeli attack in September. After that, no more attempts were made because of the twists and turns in Mideast politics, pressure from the White House not to escalate matters in an election year, and the reaction if innocent civilians were killed along with the sheik.
Tuesday's Cabinet debate was heated, with opponents, such as minister Avraham Porat, arguing "Israel has enough enemies already."
But a majority of ministers agreed that Yassin had to die - because Hamas had accelerated its attacks even after Sharon said he would pull all Israeli settlements out of the Gaza Strip. They noted that Yassin gave his blessing in January to women serving as homicide bombers.
Yesterday, drone planes flew over Gaza City, waiting for a moment when the wheelchair-bound cleric might emerge to go to prayers as he did each day. The Israelis wanted to catch him when he was surrounded by as few people as possible. That moment occurred before dawn when a drone reported back to Israeli command that Yassin was going to the mosque, accompanied only by two of his sons, his bodyguards and other Hamas members.
Roughly half an hour later, Israeli helicopters fired three missiles. The huge blasts killed the cleric and seven others.
It's safe to say that the only people who get to visit Yassin did support Hamas and were not "innocent." At least Israel killed far less people taking out a bad man than the US did taking out Saddam. But, suppose for arguments sake they were "innocent"... isn't it better to remove someone who's killed or arranged to have killed hundreds of people? And I'm including the suicide bombers that he encourages to die, not just the victims.
good point on iraq, lordopie. for those of you carping about how hamas targets civilians while israel's "defence force" (let's not call it an "army" now, of course 
) shoots missiles at more prominent targets/terrorist group leaders: if you gave palestinians the military equipment of israel i am sure they wouldn't be blowing themselves up in marketplaces but instead firing missiles in turn at the leaders of mossad and the army...
) shoots missiles at more prominent targets/terrorist group leaders: if you gave palestinians the military equipment of israel i am sure they wouldn't be blowing themselves up in marketplaces but instead firing missiles in turn at the leaders of mossad and the army...
interesting article in the nationalreview.com yesterday
couldnt find the link today, but the gist of it was this:
"why didnt the US come right and and support Israel instead of tucking tail and telling everyone that 'cooler heads need to prevail'. Our country has said time and time again since 9/11 that every country has the responsibilty to hunt down and exterminate terrorists. The US recagnizes Hammas as a terrorist organization, so why the pussy footing around the issue?"
i thought this was a VERY good point that the author brought up. did it make it sound like we were only talking out of one side of our mouth...
just some food for thought
couldnt find the link today, but the gist of it was this:
"why didnt the US come right and and support Israel instead of tucking tail and telling everyone that 'cooler heads need to prevail'. Our country has said time and time again since 9/11 that every country has the responsibilty to hunt down and exterminate terrorists. The US recagnizes Hammas as a terrorist organization, so why the pussy footing around the issue?"
i thought this was a VERY good point that the author brought up. did it make it sound like we were only talking out of one side of our mouth...
just some food for thought
interesting to note, that per Israel's population, this would have been like al Qeada killing some 10,000 or more on 9/11 here in the states... pretty chilling when you think about it that way
Not really. On a population basis, 0.0010% of the US population died on 9/11 as a result of a terrorist attack.
Hamas has killed 0.0062% of the Israeli population, but that has been over the course of 17 years.
In 2001, 6071 people died in the United States as pedestrians. 47,288 died as a result of transport accidents.
(I'm not trying to belittle the people who have died at the hands of terrorists. I'm just trying to reassure people who worry about it a lot.)