Air strike-Hamas Founder dead

I agree with Rick d'Israeli.

Yassin was a terrorist. Hamas has killed more Israeli citizens -in proportion to the population- than Al Qaeda has killed Americans.
No sympathy for him.

But the State of Israel shouldn't act like a terrorist, also. That's what supposedly makes the difference between one side and the other. States are not supposed to be terrorists. More so if they call themselves democratic.
The problem is that the people of Israel have elected a known terrorist as their head of government. Ariel Sharon has always been a racist terrorist, IMHO.

This stupid action will radicalize sides and bring only more bloodshed.
That's precisely what unites Sharon and Yassin: the will of fighting to the very last. A strange love of death.

One thing that strikes me is that, from what I've read, Hamas was actually divided: while they all supported the terrorist tactics, many were for lowering the organization's goals (accepting Israel as a enclosed State surrounded by an Islamic Palestine -Gaza, Cisjordania and Jordan-, and acknowledging they can't "dissapear" it).
With the "martyrdom" of their most radical leader, the "moderates" are lost.
Perhaps this is what Sharon wanted. The Israeli people will feel more threatened and reelect Likud, as the "tough ensurer of security".


I also agree with Walter Hinteler: Welcome back, Frolic. We missed you.
(Would like to see Steissd come back, too).

On our radio this morning, similar remarks were made.
He was a man in a wheelchair. He could have been arrested, and should have been if the state thought he had broken their laws.
To shoot him in such a manner was an inflationary act.

bookmark

So what about the fact that Hamas has now vowed vengeance on America? How does this effect the war on terrorism?

As far as I could read and find out until now.
"Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians thronged the streets of Gaza City for Yassin's funeral procession Monday, and Hamas threatened punishing revenge attacks against Israel. It also hinted that the United States could become a target for backing Israel."

From where did you get the fact that Hamas has now vowed vengeance on America?

Sorry, got my facts wrong. it's Al-Qaeda that is vowing vengeance on America.

"In a chilling escalation of tension the al-Qaeda linked Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade - who claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings - also called for vengeance.

It said: "Yassin's blood was not spilt in vain. We call on Brigades to attack the tyrant of the age, America, and its allies."

I guess that's what happens sometimes when you just look at the headlines, like GWB. :wink:

Could it be it has something to do with the double standard the US uses in the Middle East?

I like the rolling eyes :wink:

I was wrong earlier. Hamas did say they blamed America, and they did call for revenge on America. Front page of the NYPost.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/21609.htm

The question now is: does Hamas have the recourses to really attack America / American targets? I hope not

Yassin was a man who encouraged and extolled suicide bombings that killed innocents. That he was a quad in a wheelchair is totally irrelevant. The disabled cannot be evil? The evil disabled should not be punished?

It is ridiculous that Palestinian apologists are describing this man as a "moderate."

If he was a moderate than the extent of the extremism of Hamas is unimaginable.

The claim that he was somehow merely a symbolic figure is also ludicrous. Those who wish to make it, need to back it up with more proof than the fact of their assertion.

It is, however, questionable as to whether or not his assasination will prove to be of any real benefit to the interests of Israel, but do you leave one criminal alive and unfettered simply because another will take his place?
If Yassin had not been assasinate was there any reason at all to believe that the terrorsit suicide bombings might have ceased? There is absolutely no evidence that Hamas would have been willing to negotiate a peace had Yassmin or any of it's leaders been left alive. Their goal is the eradication of the Jewish State. There can be no compromise for them because these criminals cannot imagine any relevancy for Hamas without continued conflict.

Actually, Hamas is clever enough to have withdrawn its initial hasty threats against the US, but let's suppose they had not. What difference would that or should that have made in our ongoing support of Israel? Are we to cut and run when the enemies of our allies threaten us?

Bull. If one wishes to justify extra judicial assasination you must demonstrate the threat. Without a threat there is not justifiable defense.

He was not involved in the logistics, planning or execution of the attacks. This much is widely known. This is one reason why the US condemned the killing.

If you have any evidence otherwise please provide it. Asking people to prove a negative (that he was not involved in any operational functions) is a bit absurd.

There are still members of the Irgun Zvai Le'umi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael Zionist terrorist groups still alive today. In all fairness and unbiasedness, the US and its coalition should prosecute these individuals to the fullest extent of the law, and Israel should comply completely with these demands, or face retaliatory "assassination strikes."

So your position is that it is perfectly reasonable to simply assert that Yassin was a figurehead? Presumably those who believe he was simply a figurehead reached that conclusion in some informed way and not through personal caprice. Asking them to provide some basis for this assertion (For example, the published analysis of an expert on Middle East terrorist groups) is hardly absurd.

"Yassin is both political and spiritual leader of Hamas. He commands the
respect and recognition of organizations and government officials throughout the Middle East, and abroad. Hamas' political influence includes the construction of schools and hospitals. Hamas is most noted, however, for its military wing, the Izzedin Al-Qassim Brigade, which is responsible for
scores of attacks against Israelis."

http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/aip/fall01/roles01/msg00018.html


"Yassin has been the guiding force and inspiration for the movement. He has never swerved from his demand for an Islamic state in all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, although in recent years he has said Hamas would be willing to settle temporarily for an independent Palestinian state in the formerly occupied territories and leave to the next generation of Palestinians the task of, as he put it, "liberating" the rest of the country.

Despite his physical frailty, Yassin was a charismatic and fiery preacher who attracted a sizeable following to his dark, cramped home in Gaza City. He could vary his language from impassioned rhetoric laced with Koranic sayings to simple, straightforward declarations. His modest house, where he and his wife had raised 11 children, stood in marked contrast to the affluent lifestyles of many PLO leaders."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14444-2004Mar22_2.html

"Yassin attempted to downplay the Hamas-PA rivalry, claiming that his organization had "no plans for a complete security takeover of the Gaza Strip."

http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/04/03/040310_hamas_plan.asp

"Speaking at a "welcome home" rally in Gaza City on October 22, Yassin said: "We have made a covenant with Allah to be holy fighters unto death. Our people must choose the path of holy war because if we do not fight, our people will die. This world only understands the language of force."

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest/novdec97/hamas.html


"Since its creation in 1987, Hamas has been run largely as a collective of senior activists in Gaza and the Arab world, with Yassin in a key role as ideologue, spiritual leader and strategist. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114966,00.html

None of this is absolute proof that Yassin was more than a figurehead, but it is more supportive of my contention than the simple expression of that contention.

Certainly the Israelis believed he was more than a figurehead, but I suppose their intelligence is to be totally discounted.

The Queen of England is a symbolic figurehead. No English youth are strapping explosives around their waists and venturing into Ireland with deadly intent based upon her exhortations.

Jim Jones was a spiritual leader and that hardly made him benign or inconsequential.

Whether or not Yassin participated in the operational details of suicide bombings is not the measure of his threat to Israel.

It is a measure of the urgency with which he needed to be eliminated as a threat.

Israel's extra judicial killings should be reserved for their immediate protection. Assasinations should be used for defense, not vengance and to incite.

Israel deliberately used a provocative measure to eliminate him. This is why there is not a single nation on earth that supports your position other than Israel.

The US rightly condemned it as well.

That the assasination is justified. Not a single nation on earth besides Israel thinks it was.

Interesting. I don't recall taking that position. perhaps you can show me where I did.

Finn,

If you do not take that position I retract it.

So, do you? Was the assasination justified or not by your standards?

Well thanks Craven. Since I didn't take the position in any case the retraction of you assertion that I did is called for regardless.



I have not take any position because I am undecided.

Certainly, the fact that innocent bystanders were killed deprives Israel of any claim to an act of justice. If they had been able to kill Yassin alone, it might, in my mind, be a different story.

If along the way, Israeli agents have assasinated former Nazi officials who, for whatever reason, could not be extradited or kidnapped was justice served. I think so. The fact that such men likely posed no threat at all to Israel doesn't seem factor in the moral calculus.

I can understand the reasoning behind the the notion that assassination is only justified when the target presents a real and present danger to the assassins, but that doesn't mean I accept it. It also doesn't mean that I concede that Yassin did not present a real and present danger to Israel.

If and when bin Laden is assasinated will it be because of past or potential future crimes, and will it make any difference?

I don't have more of a problem with assasination than I do with war. If you are giving the orders that result in your men killing the enemy's men, it seems as though you are fair game for the enemy's bullets. Obviously national leaders and their diplomatic corps have a vested interest in portraying assassination as something more oily and evil than good old fashioned war where only the masses tend to suffer and die.

Whatever argument I have with Yassin's assasination centers more on whether or not it served a useful purpose. I don't see it saving lives or advancing peace, but as I previously indicated, I don't have the responsibility to protect the Israeli people.