f13.net

Except for, like, every other bit of news ever.

Do we still need to provide commentary on links?

If so, does "Shit, now a lot of people are going to die" count?

Can some Zionist explain why the hell this was a smart move?  (I swear to your god if you say "he hit me first" I’m just going to ignore it)  Seriously, the Israeli government has no chance of winning an all out war.  And don’t tell me about their air force with all its smart bombs cause they don’t compare to the stockpiles of "Palestinian smart bombs".  Well, I should restate that, the Israeli government might win but the Israeli people will all be dead.  So why kill the face of the organization.  Fuck, kill everyone but him and take a picture of his face when he calls for jihad and there is no one there to answer.

I came here to post this, actually.

And Drudge has a picture of a giant bloodstain, an arm, and a wheelchair where the spiritual leader to millions used to be.

Gotta love integrity; I'm Jewish, so I have obvious (though not very strong) biases in this one, but posting pictures of his remains is more than a bit past the line, IMO.  It'd be like if we drew and quartered Jerry Falwell on webcam.


Sharon is a fucking moron.

As it stands now, Israel could wipe the floor with the entire region if it wanted to.  I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing, but get one thing straight, Israel isn't going to lose any wars in the near future.

This was, however, a really fucking stupid move on their part.

yea but I consider a militery action a failure if even one busload of civilians die.

So every military action in history was a failure? Interesting view point.

and not a new one.

But my point was, this isn’t a war where some civilian dies because of a stray bullet.  The civilians are the target of the attacks as well as the rounds fired from the chamber.  If there is only one terrorist left alive after the army carpet bombs the entire Middle East (especially if only one is left) they are going to kill 20 or so civilians at the least, or to put it another way a busload. And your military isn’t shit if it can’t protect its people.  With all this in mind I’m simply saying Israel (and the US while were at it) should bitch-slap whatever general still thinks they have the military might to “wipe the floor” with them and remind them why the military exists; to make the lives of the people safer.

Like everyone else, I imagine, I am a little confused by why the Israelis killed this man.

He himself was obviously not a direct threat to the security of Israel: he wouldn't be carrying out any suicide bombings from his wheelchair. Nor does it seem likely that killing him (versus not killing him) will result in fewer Israeli civilian deaths in the future; as Snowspinner pointed out, quite the contrary. Furthermore, the rule of law in Israel is hardly strengthened by an act that is little different from the indiscriminately murderous 'justice' practiced by the terrorists themselves.

It has already been demonstrated numerous times that the Israeli government places no value on the lives of Palestinian civilians--not that Palestinian terrorists place any value on the lives of Israeli civilians, save as targets--but a move like this makes me think that they don't place a hell of a lot of value on the lives of their own. Rather, it seems like this assassination was intended to 'prove a point,' regardless of the repurcussions it will have. Does anyone consider any of them to be positive?

Eventually, of course, one side or the other will tire of the endless strife and bloodshed, or perhaps will be wiped out entirely. Only then will there be any sort of final peace, because neither seems to have any apparent desire to do anything other than trade attack and counterattack ad infinitum. I imagine we'll have to wait for the rise of the next generation of Israeli and Palestinian leaders if we want to see any modicum of change; the powers-that-be seems to be happy in their homicidal rut.

I do not really understand the problem everybody has with this.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Their goal is the destruction of Israel. They use suicide attacks to achieve this goal.

If the palastinians cannot deal with them on their own, Isreal has to do it. They can't really go in with their army and arrest them - that would be total war and cause even more losses.
Under those circumstances, killing every single member of Hamas is perfectly fine with me - do it either until they change their position and negotiate, or until none is left. Starting the killing from the top is a good thing - it punishes those really responsible instead of some stupid followers, it has more chance to disturb their planning, so it will prevent further attacks.
Yes, there are civilian losses caused by this. That's not the fault of the Israelis - its the fault of Hamas and the Palestinian authority for not dealing with them.

Oh, btw - if there really was total war, if Isreal wanted to kill every single palestinian, of course they could, and nobody could stop them.

And nobody knows how to deal with terrorists better than Sharon. (http://www.indictsharon.net/massacres-frame.html)

I don't see the big difference between the two groups.

They both kill each other, they are both entitled to the same piece of land; they both have divine guidance and are infallible before the eyes of their respective gods.

Israel kills Palestinian civilians because they might become suicide bombers.
Palestinians kill Israeli civilians because they either have been or will be in the armed forces.
Actually, that's not quite true - they both target civilians because they can, and because it spreads fear.

Israel uses its army - because they have one. Palestinians don't have an army, and use suicide bombers because it is the most efficient way to get their message across (we're willing to kill ourselves to get the land we're entitled to back and we're unafraid because we have absolutely nothing to lose).

The leaders of both factions are hypocritical lying bastards who thrive on the conflict.

They probably won't wipe each other out - which is why I think someone should take the responsibility and do it for them.

I don't see the big difference between the two, US and Al Queida

They both kill each other, they are both entitled to rule the world; they both have divine guidance and are infallible before the eyes of their respective gods.

The US  kills Afghan and Iraqi civilians because they might become suicide hijackers.
Al Queida kill US civilians because they either have been or will be in the armed forces.
Actually, that's not quite true - they both target civilians because they can, and because it spreads fear.

The US uses its army - because they have one. Al queida don't have an army, and use suicide hijackers because it is the most efficient way to get their message across (we're willing to kill ourselves to get what we want and we're unafraid because we have absolutely nothing to lose).

See? We agree!

You forgot this one though:

The leaders of both factions are hypocritical lying bastards who thrive on the conflict.

Edit: But I didn't know the US had mandatory military service, like Israel.

If you can kill the leaders of your enemy, do it. In this case, martyrdom of the leader shouldn't be a concern since Hamas is already full of fanatics and they treat the suicide bombers as martyrs already. I am not arguing that killing this guy will resolve the conflict, just that it is a logical move.

Why, exactly, is it logical to kill someone when there is no material gain to be had from it?

And when, in fact, there is a material loss, since Hamas is not just a terrorist organization but also a social organization devoted to helping Palestinians out, which is part of why they are so widely popular with the Palestinians? Thus, to many Palestinians, this is not entirely unlike whacking Mother Theresa with a LAW. Admittedly, in this case Mother Theresa blows up people on the side, but that doesn't really hurt her appeal any with the demographic in question.

So, I mean, sure, I can see why Israel isn't fond of the guy, but WHAT THE HELL DO THEY HAVE TO GAIN BY HITTING HIM WITH A FUCKING ROCKET?

"Fuck with us and get a rocket in the ass"?

Make sure to include a Paypal link- I am in for $20.


The instant Yassin planned and/or actively participated in a terrorist act, he lost his untouchable status. While I agree that this is going to cause a backlash, I can't really mourn the loss of a terrorist leader.

Hamas declared open war on Israel within the last year.  Before that time Hamas were content to publically say nasty things while quietly paying other organizations to do the killing.

Not mentioned so far is that Hamas used this opportunity to declare upon the USA.  Up until they were smart enough not to do so.  So already Yassin's assassination is having the desired effect - it is weakening Hamas leadership.  This is a declared war and strategic leaders are always fair game.

I doubt Sharon was in the decision loop on the decision to fire the missile.  But I don't doubt it pleased him greatly - he was under external pressure to put on the appearance of peaceful resolution and in the process was being bled politically.  Now he can go back to doing what he does best, playing the heavy.

It also gives the Palestinian moderates political cover to keep Israeli security in the occupied regions - the prospect of being completely exposed to their internal warlords and mobsters didn't seem to be worth the price of Israeli withdrawal.

I think the bit where they repeatedly bulldozed suicide bombers' homes made that point already.

They were doing him a favor:

Yassin: "The day in which I will die as a shahid [martyr] will be the happiest day of my life."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP0398

A mutually benficial transaction, I'd say.

"Fuck with us and your family will be homeless and on the street" is a different point though.

See, but it's probably the much more effective one. You have to figure that a suicide bomber's first priority is probably not his own well-being. What with the explosives strapped to his chest and all.

Cept for the tiny fact that the US does not intentionaly target civilians and all. Pesky lil detail there but one that needs to be mentioned.

To save time, these were the examples offered last time this claim was made:

Mai Lai
Wounded Knee
Nagasaki
Hiroshima
Dresden
That wedding in Afghanistan

I'll go ahead and add to that any number of times in which we've targeted something knowing that civilian casualties were unavoidable.

The only one on that list that is even close is Mai Lai and that Fuckwad LT got court martialed. I think they should of hung him but that is besides the point. He wasn't acting on orders from up high he just took it on himself to eradicate a village.

Wounded Knee is what 150 years ago. Also how many civilians did the American Indians happen to massacre through out that period. They are not exactly innocent.

Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Dresden were all valid military targets and their destruction saved lives in the end. These were also fought in a time period where it was impossible to hit a single target reliably from the air. So carpet bombing was the only recourse. There is a new book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060006765/qid=1079985269/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-8153719-2015934?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) about Dresden that dispels many of the false accusations that have been made over the years.

The wedding in Afghanistan was more of a friendly fire type of incident. Yes it sucks but the pilots were not trying to kill civilians they thought they were being fired on and had all of about 1/2 a second to make a decision. It was the wrong one but you do not punish those kind of decisions unless they become habitual.

So out of your whole list you get one semi-valid incident

This is a great move by Israel.  It gets the Pals worked up enough to start acting before thinking, which means more suicide bombs, which means more worldly support for that wall they are building to keep those suicide bombers out..
Smart .  Asshole but smart.

First off, from all I know about the grease stain that used to be a cleric, he was a bloody murderer, incited tons of civilians and non-militants to jihad themselves against civilian targets and was indirectly responsible for a shitton of deaths. So I will shed no tears that he is gone.

On the other hand, Hamas has been waging a battle to "win the hearts and minds" of Palestinians everywhere, doing a better job of providing social services than the goddamn official Palestinian government. From a political/diplomatic standpoint, this was fucking stupid as hell, because there's nothing to incite a populace against you than to create a goddamn martyr out of a "defenseless man in a wheelchair."

It also goes to show why Israelis earn the term "hardcore motherfuckers."

EDIT: Snowspinner, you are a dumb motherfucker, but a good troll.

The wedding in Afghanistan was in no way, shape or form "the US DELIBERATELY trying to attack civilian targets" as the original poster was speaking of. Note the word deliberate. It was an accident.

Dresden was also a British operation.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima do sort of validate your point. Of course, they were done before the signing of the Geneva Convention. Not targeting civilians in war is generally a post-WWII concept.

There were valid military targets in all three cities, yes.

The cities at large were not valid military targets. And the scope of all three attacks were such that the city at large was clearly being targetted.

See, here's the thing - at this point, the international community at large is on the side of the Palestinians. Which is why everybody but the US immediately condemned this attack. I mean, nobody outside of the US is really going to fault the Palestinians for blowing the fuck out of Israel now.

Because outside of the US, the international community is of the opinion that Israel is totally in the wrong on this.

I agree totally.
But how long do you think it will take the world to forget about this killing, after being flooded with image after image of people dieing in Israel in the coming month or so.
I mean I can't see any other smart motivation for this knowing the backlash it will cause them.

Your mistake, I think, is assuming a smart motivation.

You assume the vast majority of the world gives a shit about more Jews being torched. In the Muslim world, those images will be cheered. In some of the more facist circles in Europe, of which there are a number, the best it will elict is a le /sigh.

To kill this man in order to kill Hamas is like killing a rattlesnake by stepping on its noisy tail. The snake is just fine, it’s just pissed now.






I should take my own advice and ignore the generals for now and start from [Bitch-Slap="Monika T'Sarn"] the bottom [/bitch-slap]

Snow you are applying the technology of today in fighting a war to the way wars were fought 60 years ago.  It doesn't work that way.  

ANyway back to the topic.  Yeah most of the world has sided with the Palestinians for a number of years no matter how many Jewish civilians are blown up while eating pizza or while they try to overthrow the legitamate governments of neighboring countries, Lebanon and Jordan.  The Holocaust has been greatly forgotten in most of the world and in some circles it is even argued that it never occurred.  Those circles are not even the sole property of the right wing tinfoil hat brigade.  It is a position that is staked out by valid candidates in certian political parties around the world.

Nitpicking, but not true.  They would still use suicide bombers if Israel had an American-style volunteer army.   The point is...eh.. terror.  As in, we can hit you anytime, anywhere, as long as you continue to fuck with us.  Still very analagous to the "lesson" that Israel is trying to teach.  

At any other point in human history, these two sides would have gone at it in all out war, a massive loss of life would have ensued,  someone would have won, someone would have lost.  Then the raping and the pillaging and yes, the massive loss of life would have ensued, again.  But then it would be over.  

Our inability to accept this leads to our "peace efforts," which keep the whole thing right under the boiling point, constantly.  Someone dies today, a kid gets blown up tomorrow, etc.

I don't think international peace efforts can really be blamed for having prolonged the violence. Indeed, I would say that the goal of the Bush administration--the marginalization of the Palestinian radicals--is an admirable one. Unfortunately, the situation is Israel is nowhere near a high priority for the administration, and it seems to have backed away once its initial efforts failed (i.e. broken truces, the brief ministry of Mahmoud Abbas).

Cutting the support for terrorists in Palestine would be accomplished the same way it is throughout the world: by making terror unnecessary. Some may disagree, but I imagine that widespread Palestinian support for groups like Hamas--and there is no doubt it exists--is dependent upon the fact that they're the only groups that seem to have any degree of strength that appear to be acting on behalf of the Palestinian people; the PLO moderates are powerless and the Israeli government is actively hostile.

A concerted effort by concerned outside governments to raise the standard of living of the Palestinian through public works, education and increased employment has never been tried, and might very well be successful. Has there ever been a hopeless, destitute minority that didn't radicalize against the majority, or vice versa? While it would be best if the Israelis could take the moral high road, the above combined with a stated policy on Israel's part of not attacking terrorists if it would lead to civilian casualties would go a long way to ease tensions.

While events up until this point have made it essentially impossible for Israel as presently consituted to continue on as one state, it is entirely possible for the death-to-Israel types to be pushed out of the picture in favor of those who aren't ideological extremists. That isn't going to happen, however, until circumstances are arranged in such a fashion that such individuals would have the opportunity to emerge.

Also, to recap:



1. This man's death will increase, not decrease, the number of attacks against Israelis.
2. This man's death will increase, not decrease, the support received by the death-to-Israel wing of Palestinian terrorists.
3. The indifference of the Israeli government to civilian deaths when assassinating terrorists will do both of the above, in addition to further weakening Israel's reputation abroad.
4. Extralegal murders by governments reduce the degree to which the rule of law is respected by all.

What do you think the UN has been doing for years? The PLA, to my knowledge, has been receiving foreign aid money for years to do this very thing. The problem is that it ISN'T reaching the man in the street, it's gone to fund Yasser Arafat's Benz. Hamas has actually been in the trenches feeding people, providing social services, and oh yeah, a handy-dandy lesson on how the Jews are really Satan's hand puppets and will rip out your eyes and skullfuck you if you don't do your duty to Allah and blow them up first.

Jihad.

That logic has gone so far towards solving the Middle East conflict thus far.

As a general rule, if your logical point for something sounds like a line out of a movie starring Jean Claude Van Damme, there is something wrong.

Is any Hamas member a fair target?  Yes.  However, you really should recognize how completely fucking counterproductive this assassination was.

Imagine that Al-Qaeda assassinated George W Bush.  Would that help them win the war against America?  (Hint:  No.)

I don't agree that it makes any difference.  Hamas has stepped up attacks this year, not lessened them.  Killing off the smarter/influential ones makes it easier to draw the group out and eventually eliminate them.  The main goal is to weaken these sorts of organizations enough that mainstream Palestinians can take control of their own future.

Lets take it as a given that this is going to escalate the conflict which I think is a pretty safe assumption.

So why would Sharon do this?

Well here are two possible reasons:

1) he wants to gain browny points at home by being seen as tough on terrorism etc and he thinks escalating the conflict is worth it if it helps his party's chances of being re-elected in the next election

2) he wants to escalate the conflict, because the more he pushes the palestinians, the more bombs that go off in Israel the more excuse he would have for doing something drastic.

Number 1 doesnt seem likely, because the next election isnt until 2006/7.  

And Number 2?  I think there is a possible argument that Israel has been following a policy under Sharon which is designed to piss the Palestinians off as much as possible and to actually escalate the conflict.  Why?  Because it gets Israel the justification to do something drastic which it thinks would end the Palestinian problem once and for all.  Sharon knows that most of the world doesnt support Israel but he also knows that the US does and that if he has the backing of the US he can pretty much do whatever the fuck he likes.

Maybe after 9/11 Sharon saw that the US would see an analogy between Israel's and the US's situation and that if he could exploit this by conflating any action against Palestine as analogous to the war against terrorism.  So he's trying to take advantage of this situation, hoping that Palestinians start escalating the conflict big time, giving him the excuse to do something drastic like I dunno, expel all palestinians from their lands and into Arab countries.  His only problem is getting US backing for something like that.  With the election looming he may feel he has to act soon in case Bush loses because Bush is more likely to support him than Kerry.

Just a theory and I'm probably wrong but it seems to fit the facts better than most explanations.  

One thing which I always wonder is, if Israel were at all serious about any form of peace, why do they keep building more and more settlements on Palestinian territory?

Saw a newsfeed of the funeral yesterday. 200000 people were at his funeral. For Israel he was a top terrorist. For the Palestinensians he was an old cripple (sits in the wheelchair since the fifties) and a symbol.

He was let go by Israel 1997 (been imprisoned since 1989) because his health rapidly deteriorated. He was almost deaf and nearly blind. They didn't want him to become a martyr. Because, face it. He is the ideal martyr, and he knew it.

Yes, this move was pure genius. If you want to escalate the conflict and want to whip the Palestinensians in a frenzy and radicalize even more of them.

What this conflict needs are two bullets. One for Arafat, one for Sharon. Fucking crazy old warmongers, both of them.

Fair and balanced!
Let’s do it at the same time, then show it on split screen... no, wait!  lets make up some great Fox News graphic with the live shot from both executions balancing on that justice-is-blind statue's scales with a big ol’ American flag behind it...
And a jet...
Ooh, yea, this is goanna be sweet!

I wonder how many terrorists and/or terrorist supporters would have been killed it Israel carpet-bombed the guy's funeral? Just a thought.

Is it wrong that I had thought about that too when I saw that in the news?

Except that Sharon has had the ability to wipe Palestine off the map this whole time.  Think Arafat would think twice if he was in a similar position?  They're not the same.

[Bitch-slap="Sharon"]damn another one[/Bitch-slap]
[Bitch-slap="ArtificialKid"]you got that cause you with him![/bitch-slap]

Yes. I do think he would think twice. Because, frankly, he's not stupid, and he knows that completely eradicating Israel would actually be bad enough to cost him the international support he's managed to gain over the years, so that his country would be a pariah, and, probably, would get the shit kicked out of it by the US. Repeatedly.

Your faith in Sharon is nice, Artificial Kid. But his history counters your claims.

They are the same, and they are both intelligent enough to know what they can afford to do without pissing off too many people who could hurt their position.

Might have been all the guys ripping off bursts from AKs and wearing fake bomb belts that gaves people that idea.

Had to love that headline from the AP "Mourners set off pipe bombs at funeral."

Nah, he can't even keep his own people in check.  If he were in the position Israel is in today and showed any signs of moderation, he'd be capped quicker than you can say "al-axa".  He's a valid leader only as long as he's an underdog with an active enemy, which is why it's in his best interest to keep the holy war simmering at all times.  Otherwise people start to wonder why they don't have, you know, basic social and health services that aren't Israeli-provided.

From this AP news article (http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040323/D81GA6TO0.html).

Yeah, I'd pretty much say Sharon is tired of pussyfooting around. Looks like 1982 all over again.

More confirmation that Yassin's assassination has destabilized Hamas.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_8

Neither of the two personalities now running the show has a track record of strategic decisioning.

How is this relevent? The international community, at least, is solidly on the side of the Palestinians. If they anihillated Israel, the international community's support would become much less existant.

Don't forget about the schools and charities that Hamas runs.  Puts a new spin on compassionate conservatism.

So? Once upon a time lots of people thought the world was flat. Weight of numbers does not give emperical weight.

Which would all be very relevent if I were making an ethical judgment, instead of a practical observation about world politics.

I have to say that this (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/23/iraq.main/index.html) is a development that I didn't expect. There was widespread anger and revulsion at the assassination in Iraq, which was to be expected, but what wasn't was that al-Sistani--the man who will quite likely have more influence over the Iraqi government than anyone else come 2005--released a statement expressing solidarity with the Palestinians and offering support 'whether moral or physical.'

It would be a perverse irony if our government overthrew the distasteful but non-threatening regime of Saddam Hussein only to allow into power one that will do everything that it incorrectly accused Saddam of. But we can take heart in the fact that the Shiites will presumably be too preoccupied fighting against the Sunni and the Kurds next year to divert many resources to supporting Palestinian terrorists.

Saw this over at Fark.

Israel says all militant leaders Marked for Death, no one is Above the Law. Israelis are Out For Justice, Militant Leaders are Hard to Kill. Arafat still Under Siege, Palestinians Under Siege 2. All of Middle East is On Deadly Ground.


Anyways, Sharon did it because he's an evil overlord. Evil Overlord's don't need good reasons.

Now if Israel would launch a missile strike against Steven Seagal, all would be right in the world.

You really think the new leadership is a good thing?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9061140%255E2,00.html



Hamas also did a lot of good charity work under Yassin, who else wants to bet that resources are shifted from those projects into killing Israelis instead?

Depends.  As far as Palestinian extremist politics goes it was hugely self-destructive.  On par with declaring war on the USA.  Which Hamas did yesterday.  Since I'm fed up with what passes for Palestinian "leadership" I think it is a wonderful thing.

I hope no one is taken in by Hamas' "charitable efforts".  But then US ex-pats from Ireland still support the IRA so I suppose there is still no bounds to human stupidiocy.

You said Arafat wouldn't wipe out Israel if he had the power.  The fact that he can't keep his pet monsters from blowing up a bus during a cease-fire casts doubts on that claim.  Even if he were as reasonable as you seem to think and not bugshit crazy, he can't unwind his own toy soldiers.

so why do you think its a wonderful thing that more bombs are going to go off, more Israelis and Palestinians are going to die and peace is going to be further away than ever?

re: charity, its not a question of being 'taken in', its a fact that they do do it and my prediction is they are now going to do less of it which can only be a bad thing right?

I assume you think that somehow Hamas is eventually going to be destroyed by this strategy but there are hundreds of people ready to take the place of each leader that dies and I bet Hamas just got a whole bunch of new members in the last few days.

The problem here is that the US is taking part of the blame for this.  This is not good for those of us who enjoy leaving the country on business or pleasure.  Oh yeah, that right.. they can hit us here at home too.

If our country can denounce the acts of the suicide bombers then we can denounce the assassinations as well

While I can't say that I have as benevolent an opinion towards Arafat that Snowspinner does, it has to be pointed out that there is no apparent connection between your two statements. Because Arafat has little control over Hamas and their ilk--though you nevertheless refer to them as 'his' for some ill-defined reason--he desires the complete destruction of Israel?

The reality of the situation is much simpler. As Arafat himself is ostensibly not a part of the death-to-Israel wing of the Palestinian movement, his word carries no weight with the people who are. While he undoubtedly has symbolic value with the man on the street, and he is capable of winning feuds within the Palestinian Authority itself, groups like Hamas are rapidly eclipsing the power of the PA; according to the recent Economist (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2533990) story, it has already done so in Gaza. (Have I mentioned recently how much I love The Economist?)

Arafat's true motivations have always been somewhat hard to fathom. But he can hardly be blamed for not successfully restraining the extremist elements in the movement. The situation being as it is, any apparent willingness to compromise with Israel is immediately taken as a sign of weakness, with a commensurate decrease in respect. His successors, generally less charismatic men with less impressive credentials in the movement, have done even more poorly than he himself has. In the months and years to come, Arafat might seem in retrospect to be a positive dove compared to the Palestinian leaders who may come to win the hearts and minds of the common man in Gaza and on the West Bank.

Did he accidentally receive his diploma ? Does he genuinely love children ? (in the non-Boogish sense of the word, of course) Or was he refused at the Torture tests for too many casualties ?






According to a highly esteemed journalist colleague (in French, sorry), the assassination is part of Sharon's plan to show how fucked-up the [Gaza] Palestinians are, in political/social organization and peace-keeping capabilities (not that Sharon's efforts actually shine in the latter department, either).

Terrorists consider that a victory. This is why your argument leaks water like a fish net.

"His" in the sense of Arafat as the Palestinian leader.  If you want to absolve him of any responsibility when it comes to controlling Hamas, then wouldn't Israel be correct to refuse to negotiate with him?

I think Arafat can be considered a father to Hamas mainly because of all the militant shit he talked back in the 80's to stir up the Palestinians against Israel. Make no mistake, he was in Lebanon talking the same shit Hamas is talking right now back then. I still remember seeing video of him on the news holding up an AK. He wound the Palestinian militants up and only dropped the "Israel must die" schtick when he was given a measure of power by the US/Isreal negotiating team in the 90's. They essentially elected him leader by default.

But he can't control Hamas or the other fanatics, because he wields no real power. Nor do I think he wants them to stop, because Arafat benefits from the chaos.

I'm not sure how his inability to do something is in any way relevent to this. I mean, you're right. He can't calm Hamas et al down. He doesn't have the political credibility or the willin gmanpower to do it.

But this doesn't seem to be in any way a comment on his intent - it seems a comment on the fact that, yeah, he's not actually that powerful.

Perhaps you're meaning to say "won't" instead of "can't"? That's the only interpretation whereby your claim makes any sense...

two things.

First off the guy looks like the 2nd coming of saruman. That alone might justify the assasination.

2ndly dresden was awful, and I disagree with that book mentioned. Someone reviewing it put it in better words then I could.



Dresden = bad

Nagesake = bad

Neither of them were at all necessary, and both were orchestrated to kill further civilians.

The bounds of your stupidity is just amazing. With this statement alone, you've reaffirmed my belief in eugenics. Please report to the sterilizing center before you breed.

Yeah becuase only those that agree with your revisionist history through coke bottle lens can have an opinion.  I statated it badly but the jest of the point was that Wounded Knee was fought in the same manner of battles previous to it for about 8000 years.  You raid our villages (western settlers) and we raid your villages (Indian villages).  Trying to apply modern military doctrine to the way a war was fought over a hundred years in the past is fucking pointless.  

As to Nagasake you do know that the Japanese still were not going to surrender after Hiroshima.  Oh wait no we had to kill japanese civilians that is why we rounded them up by the thousands and gased them after the war.

we did not give them enough time to surrender. The USA dropped nagasaki because the soviets were beginning to advance on japan and we didn't want to share japan like we did germany. And nos, we were wrong for what we did. USA massacred the native americans, and while I don't feel much guilt to current native americans the least we can do is not fucking distort history.

Linkage of facts to back up that assertion would be nice.  I doubt it for the simple fact that military timetables are drawn up weeks in advance.  Here (http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics/03847.jpg) is the document that authorized the droppings of the atomic bombs.  It is dated, July 25, 1945, two full weeks before Russia declared war on Japan, August 8, 1945.  Also the Russians still had to get through Manchuria, they were rolling along nicely but they still had no way to cross the Sea of Japan.  They had no amphibious capability what so ever so I put little stock in your evaluation.

I never argued that the massacres of the Native American populations was not wrong nor did I argue that it never took place.   I just do not see the relevancy of what is basically ancient history when talking about modern warfare.  I also try to see things and understand decisions made in the context of the time not that of modern Western Culture.  Wounded Knee was a massacre however at the time that was the way things were down all over the world.  It was a different time than now.

IIRC, the practice of scalping was something the natives learned from us, not the other way around.

Not to mention smallpox, alcohol and every other initiative taken by white people to decimate the natives.  I guess you could argue that we didn't know smallpox would kill the natives.  I guess you could argue taht it was their own fault for drinking the booze we sold 'em.

Or perhaps it was that whole "manifest destiny" and "white man's burden" mentality.

Scalping was well entrenched in Native American culture long before the Europeans showed up.    This (http://www.dickshovel.com/scalp.html) is a long winded archeological paper on scalping in North America.  

Your veiws on small pox are ignorant since it was still killing Europeans by the thousands.  It was just an unintentional consequence of the meeting of the cultures.  Alcohol wasn't so much used to decimate the populations as it was a way to subdue them once on the reservations.

Please feel free to refer to my earlier post.

Grelf either make relevant points or butt the fuck out.  This is not the Vault.

If it were the Vault he would have said something like "STFU N00b!!!!11!"  Instead he used complete sentences, and words that could be found on the SAT.  Well, maybe the PSAT.

Gladly, I was just busy earlier.



The original discussion was the slaughtering of civilians. Someone mentioned a few places of contention, to which, you replied with the above in regards to Wounded Knee.

Just to nitpick, Wounded Knee occurred 114 years ago, Dec. 28, 1890 to be exact.

All the indians were civilians, there was NO standing amerind militia or army. There never was, since the tribal mindset didn't allow for it.

As for all the poor civilians they murdered, I would think if the Chinese decided to come to your town, kill your men, rape/kill your women, take your land, use up everything there, and basically tell you to go screw, you'd sit there and say "thank you, could I have another.".

And finally, in regards to the Massacre at Wounded Knee, not only did the Seventh Cavalry of the US Army kill men, women and children, at Wounded Knee Creek, but they also slaughtered a number of the surviving prisoners, some miles away from the original scene. And not only did they murder them, and cover up the entire incident, they were given medals of honor, which still have yet to be rescinded. Just business as usual as far as the goverments dealings with the american indians.

This of course is the last of the so called 'indian wars', of which most of them due to either the goverment breaking contracts with the american indians, and backing it up with force, or making sure any land given to the indians were of so poor use, they all wind up starving to death.

I could go on and on and on, but I'm fairly sure I've made my point, about the stupidity of your post regarding Wounded Knee.

Not once did I say that none of that occured.  The date was prefenced with a "what" becuase I wasn't sure of the date and didn't feel like looking it up.

If you are taking up arms against an opponent how are you a civilian again.  At what age did the majority of Native American Males become warriors in their tribes?  I bet it would be of an age we would call children now.  My main point of it although worded poorly the first time was what does bringing up what amounts to ancient history as far as military history is concerned in the discussion of modern military doctrine do.  Things were done differently in the past it was a much different world then.  The life of an opponent was considered cheap by both sides.

Was the treatment of the Native Populations by America deplorable, yes.  That has little to do with the modern world.

Also as I pointed out in the original thread that most of this covers from the original WT I said there were much better incedints to use to argue the point.  Prisoners in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were often executed.  That would not be tolerated in todays military.  It was ignored in times past for a number of reasons.  Inability to move the prisoners, tactical considerations, and a few others.  And yes I can see how a commander would issue such orders in those time periods well all except Vietnam.

I'd have to counter this with, if you're taking up arms to slaughter people wholesale, how are you a civilian? Wounded Knee Creek is just one of the more reprehensible acts committed by the government.  The number of American Indians, slaughtered by non-military settlers is much greater.

I took offense to intimation that the Indians were not a civilian population, and they somehow 'deserved' the treatment they received at Wounded Knee.

And scalping, may or may not be an invention of the Indians, but there is proof that the scalping of ones fallen foes originated in Ancient Iran with the Scythians in 5 BC. Persians, Visigoths, Anglo-Saxons and Francs have also practiced scalping. The long winded paper you referred to isn't incontrovertible proof, just a theory, one based on word of mouth stories.

Either way this is veering greatly from the original post. Simple fact, is none of us know why Sharon and/or Israel allowed the assassination, but I think we can all agree it's going to make for very interesting, if not dangerous times in Israel.

Military attacks on civilian population is nothing new, it's called winning by attrition, and while a deplorable practice, it's been shown to work, and to backfire, in just about equal instances. My personal opinion is Israel is causing more problems for themselves by so publicly and openly killing those people who are the brains behind the fanatics. It seems to me, if Israel was interested removing the 'brains' behind the suicide bombers, they could assassinate them much quieter, without causing these people from becoming martyr’s and fueling their followers even more.

Would have been just as effective to poison the old man, and make his death seem natural, thus neutralizing any chance of him becoming anything more then a garden-variety martyr. IMO, they are looking more to make a statement, then anything else.