I’m pretty pissed off at the UN and anyone else who calls the assassination of a terrorist “murder” (i.e. unlawful and unjust).
What the hell is wrong with them? It may be true that this may lead to further bloodshed, but their objection is that they didn’t hold a fucking trial for this man. It’s not like Yassin is just a random suspect. The UN just isn’t satisfied until more Israeli soldiers lose their lives hunting terrorists down.
Also, how is Yassin’s disability relevant? If Osama Bin Laden were confined to a wheelchair, would we stop bombing places where we think he’s hiding? Would Pakistan condemn the US if we succeeded in killing Bin Laden?
People say Israel isn’t held to a double standard. I say that’s bullshit.
Assassination is a troublesome matter. I’d object to US police officers shooting alleged criminals if they weren’t presenting an imminent threat (i.e. waving around a weapon). If Bin Laden is an imminent threat, I don’t suppose we’d have much of a choice, but does that extend to all members of Al-Qaida? Do we just shoot them on sight with no trial? I have trouble reconciling this.
I am not well informed about this. I know the man was a cripple so I doubt he had personally killed anyone. I understand he just preached encouraging others to do it. Maybe I am mistaken and you can set me right. But assuming I am right, do you think the punishment for him just expressing his ideas should be assasination? Would you accept it if Muslims assasinated anyone who has expressed support for America in the war in Iraq? I am not taking sides (yet), just asking.
If he was so clearly guilty, than what objection could you have to him being put on trial? Or is there some extra-guilty quality that circumvents the conventions of justice?
The thing is, Sailor, you’re thinking in terms of crime and punishment - in legal terms - which is not at all relevent to the case at hand. Yassin was not a criminal being punished, but an enemy being killed, just like any enemy killed by soldiers during war. If you noticed, none of Israel’s targeted killings were carried out by policemen, none of them took place in Israel proper, and none of them were against Israeli citizen’s. That’s because they are all military actions, taken place in times of war. Militaries kill people, they don’t punish them, that’s not their job, it’s not what they’re designed to do.
If muslims assasinated people supporting America, well… if they did it in their own countries, to their own citizens, it would be murder. Otherwise it would be an act of war.
Sorry but I don’t buy that. A man on a wheelchair is not a war combatant who can be killed as an act of war. Not according to the rules of war of civilised nations.
>> The debate is moot, we don’t need a permission slip to asassinate people
And, say, a bunch of women working in a tank-making factory, are? Armies kill whoever they have to in order to win a war - it’s been that way since the beginning of time. Can you tell me of a single war in the history of man where the only people killed were armed warriors?
Besides, the fact that Yassin didn’t wear a uniform doesn’t mean he wasn’t a commander. As for his being handicapped… so was Nelson.
Hard subject. Before 9/11 I always knew cruelty and inhumanity existed on our planet - afterwards, I wonder why I could possibly have brought 2 boys into this world. They are the Last In Line. (See How They Shine).
Would you excise evil dictators from this world at all costs, or stand aside? The U.S. certainly can’t do it alone.
Second time I’ve made the point, slightly more obviously this time:
By describing the Israel/Palestine conflict as war, are you defending the right of armed Palestinians to defend their country from the invasion and occupation by Israelis? If not, it’s the strangest war I’ve ever heard of.
You basically agree with AlQaeda and the terrorists who believe any means are justified in order to achieve victory. I ahppen to disagree.
My point is not that he was handicapped but that AFAIK he was not a combattant except with his words. If you think the way to deal with those who express opinions you disagree with is to kill them then I cannot see how you can condemn any killings. It is pretty much a free for all, everybody against everybody.
I am no expert in the matter but it just seems to me like both sides have decided violence is the way to resolve this and violence is what they are both getting. I can’t see how this assasination makes things any better and yet I can see they will get worse but it seems that is what both sides want so maybe it is best to let them continue until they both realise the foolishness. I just can’t see how this assasination does any good whatsoever.
I’m glad it worked. But I wouldn’t be angry at Bush for blowing the fuck out of that little hole if the soldiers felt they were putting their lives at risk. (And, as far as I know, they didn’t feel like they were seriously putting their lives at risk when they captured him. But I don’t know.)