1
   

Taking out the terrorists

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 11:29 am
Taking out the terrorists[/u]
Linda Chavez
March 24, 2004

Imagine a world in which Osama bin Laden was free not only to order murderous attacks on American civilians and other targets with impunity but to be carried through the streets by adoring crowds and hailed everywhere as a "spiritual leader." Such was Israel's world until Monday, when its soldiers killed Israel's Osama bin Laden: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of the terrorist organization Hamas.

For years, Yassin was able to order young men to murder Jews by blowing themselves up on buses, in crowded restaurants and markets, and most recently, at a port near Gaza, home to Yassin and his homicidal minions. Since September 2000 alone, Hamas has killed 377 Israelis and injured more than 2,000 others. After each attack for which Hamas has claimed responsibility, Yassin could be seen celebrating the deaths as he was paraded through the streets of Gaza aloft in his wheelchair, to which he has been confined since a sporting accident in his youth.

No one -- certainly not his bloodthirsty followers -- doubted Yassin's role in Hamas' campaign of terror. Yet Israel was supposed to sit by and watch its mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, grandparents and grandchildren torn apart by nail-laden explosives detonated by Yassin's troops, while he remained free to incite and order more killings.

World leaders have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of Israel's actions. British foreign secretary Jack Straw said the killing of Yassin was "unacceptable, it's unjustified, and it's very unlikely to achieve its objective."

"Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution," chimed in U.N Secretary General Kofi Annan. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak called the killing "regrettable and cowardly," while Jordan's King Abdullah called it a "criminal act."

Even the White House weighed in with criticism, though mild in comparison to other governments. "We are deeply troubled," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said shortly after the killing.

Instead of criticism, the White House ought to be defending Israel. Why is Israel always held to a higher standard of restraint than any other nation in the world? Would we exercise the same self-control if Osama were in plain view and we could take him out with relatively little collateral loss of life? Exactly how many innocent Israelis must die before Israel is allowed to retaliate against the terrorist perpetrators?

Much of the blame for the decision to go after Yassin has been directed at Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, as if he were some demented outlaw. But Israel's Cabinet approved the decision, and Israelis themselves overwhelmingly support the action. According to a poll published in the daily newspaper Yediot Ahronot, 60 percent of Israelis approved of Yassin's killing. And why not? Yassin was no "spiritual leader," the term almost universally used to describe him in the press worldwide. His spiritual direction amounted to nothing more than promising gullible young Palestinians a place in paradise if they would shed the blood of Jews.

Israel cannot end the terrorism directed at it by killing one man, any more than we can prevent future attacks on the United States by killing Osama bin Laden. But Israel was right to kill Yassin, just as we would be right to kill Osama if we were lucky enough to catch him in our crosshairs. The Israelis have already made clear that Yassin is not their only target.

Palestinian terrorists have launched war against Israel. They have promised to annihilate Israel and drive its people into the sea. Israel has no choice but to take these terrorists at their word and to hunt them down and kill them. To expect anything else of Israel would not only be hypocritical, but would be to condemn its people to certain extinction.

George W. Bush told the world that "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." It's time he took his own advice and stood with Israel in its fight to defeat the terrorists one by one.

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,534 • Replies: 92
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 11:31 am
Linda Chavez wrote:
George W. Bush told the world that "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." It's time he took his own advice and stood with Israel in its fight to defeat the terrorists one by one.


That is just about the most witless recommendation i've read for some time. Miss Chavez needs to buy a vowell.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 11:40 am
Re: Taking out the terrorists
Fedral wrote:

George W. Bush told the world that "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." It's time he took his own advice and stood with Israel in its fight to defeat the terrorists one by one.


Bush, Israel or the terrorists. What a choice.

They are all idiots. I choose none of the above.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:03 pm
It's too bad that's not a choice.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:18 pm
It will be in November.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:21 pm
Do you think the election will mean the end of terrorism? Do you think Kerry is going to somehow end the Isreali-Palestinian conflict? Do you think Osama will just give up if Kerry wins? I sure don't.

The world is a better place without Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in it.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:24 pm
Kerry won't end terrorism by being elected, but I'll bet he makes more of an effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The statement that "Israel has a right to defend iteself" is the current mantra. True, but not helping moves things along...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:29 pm
Greater men have tried and failed.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:31 pm
The last one who tried (I mean really tried, not just paid lip service) was Clinton.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:32 pm
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

To the British, Washington was nothing more than a terrorist. Is it unlawfull or even ethically wrong to fight againt your occupier? Rember Woodrow Wilson and his concept of "self-determination".
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:35 pm
Good point, frolic. As Curtis LeMay said to Robert McNamara, after they coordinated the fire bombing of Japanese cities in WWII, "If we lose this war, we'll be tried as war criminals."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:42 pm
I don't recall Washington attacking British civilians. I don't recall Washington sending kids in to British civilian shopping centers with explosives strapped to their backs.

Fighting against an occupation force and terrorizing a civilian populace are far different causes.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:55 pm
McG, exactly what "choice" are you asking me to make?

I assume that you are saying that I need to *support* one of these three entities. But that is false.

I don't support any of them.

The tactics of Hamas are indefensible and counterproductive. I don't support the use of suicide bombs against civilians and I don't support the goal of the elimination of Israel from the reason.

The tactics of the current government of Israel are indefensible and counterproductive. I don't support the use of helicopter gunships against old men in wheelchairs in civilian areas. I don't suppor the inevitable loss of civilian life that these attacks incur. I don't support the expansion of settlements in civilian areas or the demolition of houses or the creation of a de facto border with the fence.

The tactics of the Bush administration are indefensible and counterproductive. I don't support the invasion of a sovreign country with widescale international reservation. I don't support the reduction of American civil rights or the jailing of American citizens without due process or legal counsel. I don't support the use of the 9/11 tradgedy to justify everything from tax cuts to extrajudicial police powers.

I do support reasonable response to the reality of terrorism. I do support additional funds to police, hospitals and emergency workers. I do support a foreign policy that opposes violence worldwide while working to address the real frustration that some of the world feels towards the US.

The terrorists, the Bush administration and the current government of Israel are basically all saying the same thing.

They all say the justice of their cause, the urgency of their situation and the evilness of their enemies justify the lives they are taking.

I reject this line of thinking.

I choose none of the above.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 12:59 pm
McGentrix wrote:

Fighting against an occupation force and terrorizing a civilian populace are far different causes.


Yes, everywhere.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:13 pm
The Palestinains are using 11 and 14 year old kids to carry explosives accross the border into Israel.

That sickens me beyond belief.

Unlike ebrown_p, I fully support Israel's tactics. I would support a more extreme tactic of martial law, house to house searches, mass arrests and executions of those found guilty of terrorism.

Israeli's should not need to live in continuous fear for their lives from terror. I support the elimination of EVERY terrorist that would use children to do their dirty work, who would target civilians.

old men in wheelchairs that send others to die for them are no less dangerous than the bomber who detonates themselves on a bus full of women and children.

I have a solution to the whole Israeli-Palestinian affair. Have the Palestinains stop attacking the Israeli's. Israel attacks only in response to the terrorism. If it stops, Israel will have no reason to retaliate. Either that or get rid of all the Palestinains all together. Send them to Jordan. Or Syria. Or some other "fellow Arab" nation.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:17 pm
frolic wrote:
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

To the British, Washington was nothing more than a terrorist. Is it unlawfull or even ethically wrong to fight againt your occupier? Rember Woodrow Wilson and his concept of "self-determination".

This is highly defective and truly alarming thinking. People claiming to represent the Palestinians routinely detonate bombs in civilian areas with the specific design of killing civilians. To them, a dead baby is a successful mission. Washington lead an army against an army, and never intentionally murdered non-combatants. Are you truly unable to discern this distinction?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:19 pm
McG,

You are just picking one of two sides. There are people just like you who use the same logic to support Hamas' actions. To those of us who are nonpartisan, you all sound pretty much the same.

People who use this logic who have kept the bloody conflict going for more than 50 years.

The fact that you have advocated ethnic cleansing should at least give you pause...
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:35 pm
I'm a little confused then. Your "reasonable response" to Israel's terrorism problem, if I read you right, is to give more money to hospitals and emergency workers and police. Is that to treat the victims of suicide bombers, clear away the rubble of exploded buildings, and direct traffic around the scene of the devastation. You say you choose none of the above. What is your recommendation to end the conflict? Or are you saying that suicide bombing is okay and Israel should just get used to it?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:49 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
I'm a little confused then. Your "reasonable response" to Israel's terrorism problem, if I read you right, is to give more money to hospitals and emergency workers and police. Is that to treat the victims of suicide bombers, clear away the rubble of exploded buildings, and direct traffic around the scene of the devastation. You say you choose none of the above. What is your recommendation to end the conflict? Or are you saying that suicide bombing is okay and Israel should just get used to it?


Don't you all see how one sided you are. You are focusing on Israel's problem and saying that it justifies Israels brutal response. Unless you are saying that the Israelis are somehow more important that Arabs (which I consider racism) your argument falls apart because the Palestinians can make the same arguments -- i.e. that brutal occupation is okay an the Palestinians should just get used to it.

But to answer your question -- My reasonable response of Israels terrorism problem is to stop using violence and brutality and to work for a just peace. (Incidently this is also my resonable response to the Palestinians brutal occupation problem).

Israel should eschew violence as a political tool. They should quit the illegal settlements in occupied territories and provide a just and viable Palestinian state. Then Israel should work to ensure that moderates can build an economy so that Palestians will have a decent future. The Palestinians should eschew violence as a political tool. They should use their voice to pressure Israel to give them a state and address their problems in a just way.

Of course the other is option is the unreasonable response. Israel can continue brutal military operations that kill civilians. They can continue expanding the settlements and refuse to offer a viable state, and the Palestinians can continue using violence including suicide bombings.

You will undoubtably say that the reasonable response will not work. But in truth it has not been tried. Your unreasonable response has been the principle strategy for the past 50 years, and we all know the results.

Why shouldn't we try reason for a change?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2004 01:53 pm
The best way to reduce terrorism is to kill all the leaders, because most are "followers." Most would be lost without leaders, and they would naturally return their old lifestyle.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Taking out the terrorists
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 02:41:22