I see. So because they arrested him before, the thugs that were guarding him 24/7 would have given him up WITHOUT A STRUGGLE. After all, there is historical precedent!
Your pinky must have slipped; this might help you with that.
Please find me a source detailing the circumstances under which Yassin was earlier arrested, and if it shows that Israel could have done the same without instigating an attack, I’ll stop my argument.
“Hey, boss, we got a bead on that Yassin guy. Should we go try to arrest him?”
“Well, let’s see… we can send in three or four dozen men, heavily armed in riot gear, have them get swarmed by an easily-incited mob of several hundred, and probably suffer heavy casualities and fail in the objective…”
“… Or we can send in a gunship, sir.”
“A gunship! What a bright idea! But, no, no… some pussy might get upset. No, no, commander, we have to TRY to do it the nicey-nice way. Even though it’s almost guaranteed failure, we have to TRY.”
“Speaking of which, sir, you got this weeks lotto numbers?”
UK not using assasination is debatable : http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/7/newsid_2516000/2516155.stm
Let’s just say that though UK, Spain, France and Germany have a number of dubious episodes in this regard, they’ve never officially endorsed assasination of enemies of the state. An important distinction to my way of thinking.
What I find disturbing in Israel’s assasination policy is the apparent lack of any due process. An accusation followed by an in absentia trial and death sentence would at least present some kind of forum for the expression of justice. As is, these assasinations appear to be purely political.
Uh, yeah. So, it would be okay to blow umpteen thousands of innocent people to hell in a war situation, but if you were to deliberately target the one guy whose death would stop the war that would be illegal…? Yep, the world is fucked.
Yeah, but who’s that “one guy”? A lot of people think it’s OBL. A lot of people think it’s GWB. Who’s right?
Well, if you are a fan of one it would probably be the other.
I don’t feel any sympathy for these two men - they were responsible for many deaths. But do you really believe their assassinations will stop or even lessen the conflict? Their deaths are justifiable in many ways, and reasonable people can easily take either view. But how did it help?
Maybe the families of the victims who died from what these two did feel better now that they are burning in hell (assuming it exists). Seriously, my issue is with someone saying that because one death was deliberate and one was getting caught in a cross-fire in a war zone is any way different. Is the soldier who deliberately aims at an enemy combatant any more guilty than if he was sent out to take out the enemies leaders? Hell, if I was a sniper I’d shoot the guy with the most stars on his uniform, not the private next to him. Is that then an assasination? What makes the leader of a country immune from targeting? Maybe by specifically targeting leaders in wars less wars would start? Dunno, nothing else seems to work, though.
I think Ogre summed it up pretty nicely.
As if it’s that simple. There is never one guy who’s death or capture will stop a war - behind that one guy will always be umpteen thousand more who willl undoubtably continue the conflict, if only to avenge their leader’s death.
The assassinations of Rantisi and Yassin have not solved and will not solve a thing.
Well this latest strike was pretty pinpoint to me. I’d hate to be the next in line to take over Hamas.
Yeah, and other people in this world are saying “Fuck the Israelis, Fuck the Americans and Fuck GWB. After they have dropped bombs on innocent people, invaded the countries of our brothers, and arranged or condoned the assassinations of our leaders, their deaths can not possibly come soon enough.”
This whole tit for tat thing just escalates the violence and IS counter-productive IMHO. Do you really think that this assassination is going to end the terrorist bombings in Israel? Don’t you think it is more likely going to make it easier for Hamas to recruit some more suicide bombers?
What, you really think this is lawful? You’re kidding right? So in your mind it would be legal for the US to assassinate OBL. Fine. Would it have been lawful for the US to assassinate Timothy McVeigh after the OK city bombing without a trial? What about Bundy or the Unabomber? How about some punk kid in a gang that shoots an innocent bystander? Would assassination be lawful for the government then? Or is it only lawful if the target is not a citizen or resident of the country in question? (As an aside, what citizenship did Rantisi have and what government is the sovereign power there? What would happen if the US started assassinating Iraqi Clerics that were calling for the Iraqi people to oppose the US occupation? Would this be legal? Would this be good idea?)
I really want to understand what it is you think (or if you think). So you are saying that it is lawful for a government (US, Israeli, UK, Iran, China, Pakistan, Syria, North Korea, whatever) to assassinate a person without due process of law that has what? Committed a crime? Been responsible for the death of civilians? Incited rebellion and violence against a soveriegn power? Or is it only legal when it is the US and its allies that do it?
And finally, since this is the pit and I have not used a swear word yet, FUCK YOU agiantdwarf, you are an offensive little twit, and I am done debating with you!
You gotta admit, the dwarf has a point though. If OBL were assassinated tomorrow there would not be one single word of condemnation from any world leader. Why the double standard?
Actually, if OBL was gunned down by the CIA in London tomorrow, and a couple of passersby were hit, there’d be huge diplomatic fall-out.
It seems to me that these kinds of hypothetical comparisons just cloud the real issues, which are sovereignty, due process, and maybe even ethics ?
The obvious difference between Osama and the leaders of Hammas is that the Hammas guys are in Israel’s power. If they know enough about their comings and goings, where they are and when they will be there, to send a chopper out to blow them up then they know enough to send in an appropriate force to grab them, prefer charges, try them in public and administer what ever sanction might be authorized. On the other hand, Osama and the boys are not in our power and I’m not going to assume that the directive that has been put out is to bring him back dead. For any number of reasons it seems to me that it would be preferable to put Osama on public trial before a recognized court for recognized crimes.
I hate to see the one functioning liberal parliamentary democracy in the Middle East reduce itself to the level of its opponents or some Banana Republic where the armed forces double as death squads and hit men.
Israel had got to deal with the Palestinians the same way we have got to deal with the Jahadists - by separating the terrorists and the demagogues from their popular support by doing something constructive about the population’s legitimate grievances and expectations. You don’t do that by strafing the streets on the off chance that you might hit a demagogue.
I don’t understand the idea that these “assassinations” are “counter-productive”. Will the suicide bomings stop if Israel doesn’t kill these leaders? :rolleyes:
Will the bombings stop if they do?
Will they stop if they do? When people are offering themselves up for suicide attaacks, with a certainty of death, how do you imagine that people will stop offering to be leaders with a probability of death? Will it not, necessarily, mean that only the most fanatical and blood-crazed will become leaders?
Every avatar since the found on Ur has told us that vengeance begets only vengeance. And we just refuse to get it. Or we say “After we get our vengeance, then we can make peace, then there will be enough.”
Would we stop the war on terror if a terrorist killed GWB? Or would it galvanize us and strengthen our resolve? Why do you think the palestinians would react differently to the killing of their leaders than we would react to the killing of ours?