Death to several soldiers. It depends on the law. In this case, assassinating a known terrorist is perfectly legitimate if it means avoiding the death of several Israeli soldiers. Would you prefer that Yassin continued to assist in killing innocent civilians? I have a feeling that Pakistan does.
Are we talking about soldiers in the occupied territories, or civilians in Israel proper? Please don’t cloud the situation.
Wait, to which statement are you referring? The soldiers at risk are not civilians. The suicide bombings that occur in Tel-Aviv, Ashdod, etc., which Yassin assists, kill civilians in Israel proper.
Yes it is. The mantra of the average commander in most Western armed forces (including France), from the general commanding a theatre of operations to the fire team sergeant commanding three other guys is “Who cares about fighting fair? A fair fight is one in which all my boys come home alive and the objective is completed.”
As far as I can see, the US has not violated any international or American law by eliminating or capturing terrorist leaders and rogue dictators.
I’m not exactly sure how people can justify supporting the war in Iraq as well as condemning Israel at the same time. Israel is involved in a war. Period. Did Sharon have parliament sign a bill declaring so? don’t know, but does it matter? And does it matter that our congress signed a faulty bill of war supporting the attack on Iraq?
The arrest of Yassin would put many lives at risk. Not only in arresting him, but in the terror attacks that would follow his arrest. It is a zero sum game, a catch 22. No matter what Sharon does, there will be detractors and those who disagree-do nothing and let civillians die and he’s weak on terror and defending his people. Pro-actively seek out those who wish to commit or organize or fund terror actions(like Bush), in Israel and he’s a bloodthirsty brute.
THe bottom line is that the groups that wish to harm Israel by killing civillians need to be eliminated. The UN can’t and won’t stop them, Arafat can’t and won’t stop them, the US can’t and won’t stop them. They are the worst of back-seat drivers because the lives of countless thousands over time are at risk. Instead of acting, these governing bodies would rather wait until Israel acts and criticize their actions.
We are fast approaching more religious holidays in which the hate/terror groups seem to commit increasingly ghastly crimes upon the civillian population. Whether or not Yassin was taken out, more civillians would be eliminated via arab teenagers, duped into transporting explosives for a nameless, faceless organization that simply wishes to kill Jews.
How can somebody, looking at the facts as we know them, stand by and say that Sharon is wrong to defend Israel in any way possible? Bush started a pre-emptive war based upon facts he probably knew to be untrue. We’ve removed a dictator and risked tens of thousands of military lives seeking out and bombing for the life of Bin Laden…doesn’t that make us equally as bad? OBL never raised a finger against the US either, just like Yassin, and we would have terminated his ass without a trial or arrest if our intel on his location was better.
Nobody is innocent in this, and Sharon probably should have doen many things differently, but he has to do SOMETHING to try to save the lives of his people.
Sam
I don’t get this. Are not generals combattants? True, they do not actually ‘fire’ the weapons, but it is their orders that cause those weapons to be fired.
I may be wrong but I am under the impression he was not involved in any actual planning or execution but just a respected and venerated religious figure who exhorted hate and resistance. If he was personally and actively involved in the planning and execution of terrorist attacks then no doubt he was a fair target but this is not what I have gathered. Maybe someone can point out some cites pointing out specifics of what the man was responsible for?
If all he was guilty of was preaching fanaticism it seems to me his killing will make things worse. But, hey, it’s not my war. If things get worse, as they probably will, it will be Israelis paying the price so its up to them. Frankly, it seems to me pretty much both sides are in the wrong and the best they can hope for is to argue the other side is more wrong.
Not a rhetorical question: If some one is shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre and it’s probably going to get some one killed, can you put a bullet in him to shut him up?
Well, that’s a sure way to calm people down in the theater. If they didn’t have a reason to panic now they have a really good one. Hey, there’s no fire, just a guy shooting people, don’t panic. Maybe you want to rethink your example. Or maybe not since it is totally irrelevant anyway.
Fair enough.
As the risk of being the odd man out here… I believe the fact that he was a wheelchair bound man isn’t the point. Isn’t it that…if you’re a religious leader in a troubled country, you’ve got a bulls-eye on your forehead?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14558-2004Mar22.html
“I thought it would be a mistake,” said Interior Minister Avraham Poraz, a member of the secular Shinui Party who opposed Sharon during a cabinet meeting several days ago when the decision was made to target Yassin, a quadriplegic. “He’s a crippled person. He’s also a religious leader. . . . He’s a sort of a symbol. The benefits we can get out of this action compared with the damages, I thought we should avoid.”
Hamas has been at the forefront of Palestinian groups conducting suicide bombings and other attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers since the second Palestinian uprising began 31/2 years ago. Yassin, who helped found the organization at the outset of the first uprising in late 1987, was seen by many Palestinians as more of a spiritual leader than a commander of guerrillas, but Israeli officials accused him of having a direct role in planning attacks.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I was wondering if that’s legal or accepted in the US/Western world. It really wasn’t rhetorical.
You’ve also mistaken what side of this whole issue I fall on, I think. I agree entirely with your point. We make exceptions to allowing free speech if it’s dangerous speech, but I don’t think we do/should extend those exceptions to killing the speaker.
Blonde, why are you avoiding the t-word when describing Yassin? Failing to mention that is disingenuous on your part.
Why do people hate Stalin? He’s just a black-haired man. What, do you hate black hair or something?
There are numerous prescription drugs available at your local pharmacy.
So you’re saying that if the Axis powers had the opportunity to bomb the Yalta or Casablanca conferences and kill Churchill, Stalin and FDR, that it wouldn’t have been a fair act of war since FDR was in a wheelchair? Ridiculous.
That’s about like saying targeting Hitler would have been wrong since he was more than likely mentally ill.
Not every combatant is a trigger-puller, you know. Military truck drivers, cooks, etc… are considered legitimate wartime targets by everybody who engages in war. And so is the leadership of the enemy- both military and civilian. It’s always been that way, but only recently has it become a viable option for some warring parties.
Zuh? 
As a general rule…you are 15 years old, and as such shouldn’t be wandering into these threads, hon.
As for the OP’s topic, I find it horrifying that we have to live in world where we hear of death every day on the news. And, no - I don’t have the answer as to how that will ever change.
I started this thread. And my age is irrelevant – why do you feel the need to bring it up?
I know that firsthand, having lived in Israel. But how does that answer the OP? The world is tragic, yes, but that doesn’t mean you should condemn Israel for killing a terrorist.
Your age is relevent. You are at least half the age of everyone you are speaking to; this does not mean, of course, that you’re not entitled to state your opinion. In fact, I think it’s a good thing that you’re interested in political issues. However, I can fuckingguaranteeyou that my 15-yr old son won’t be posting to the SDMB at midnight on a Saturday night.
I haven’t condemned anyone. My only comments have spoken to the sadness of the situation.
Your condescending tone and admitted lack of input as to a feasible solution undermines your credibility much more than his age undermines his.
Alas, in desperation you attempt an ad hominem attack in hopes of hiding the fact that you have in fact been bested by a teenager of uncommon faculties.