Hamas leader pwned

Wooz69 said:
Argh. This last post made me so angry I had to start mine about three times already.

This whole "hamas leader pwned" thing is about as stupid as if I'd start a thread about how cool it is that a bus blew up with Israeli civilians. It really makes me angry. Can't you fucking get that it's precisely this kind of stuff that brings on more violence from *both* sides?

I'm just using the word pwn cuz they overkilled him. It's like using an H-bomb to kill a mosquito. I mean, HELICOPTER BOMBARDMENT against a single man? He was probably important, but he wasn't an X-man. I'm not saying it's cool, I don't agree with the Israelis, especially not the comment they made about it.

But this conflict is getting so old and sometimes childish, that I find it difficult to care anymore. It's just retarded people fighting over retarded principles. It used to be a good cause, but with all this religious crap involved: naaah...
 
That's around what I was saying as well.

I don't care who it is or the politics behind it, but when someone's on the receiving end of an airstrike, whether in car or in a wheelchair with the obligatory flaming wheel leaving the wreckage, it's funny. Hell, for how Bush has been treating the US like his own personal empire, I would heartily give a chuckle if the same happened to him.
 
Jebus said:
So what Israël is doing is better? The foundations of the state of Israël was built in the blood of innocent Palestinians. At the very start, they slaughtered entire villages.

I think you misread Wooz's post.
Wooz69 said:
Both sides are gory to the armpits.
He isn't saying that he supports the Israelis, in fact he does not state which side he supports. He is saying that the tactics used (by both sides) and the reasons/excuses for them are just as disgusting on both sides.

Jebus said:
Palestinian people aren't terrorists. Because they fight for a CAUSE. They fight for freedom. For the respect of their basic human rights. Against opression and cruelty. Terrorist are noting but twisted people who kill innocents out of sheer hatred.
That's one of the most retarded comments i've read in a long while.
Almost all terrorists are fighting for a cause (and any which aren't are mostly lone maniacs), there is no real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. It's all the perspective of the viewer that changes that "status".
What makes a group terrorists are the tactics that they employ. Attacking civilians is a terrorist act, it is an act perpetrated by both sides in this conflict, that makes both participants terrorists.
(BTW, the two participants are Hamas and the Israeli Govt/Military, NOT the palestinian people)
 
Yes, a wheelchair guy getting pwned is hilarious. 9/11 was pretty funny too. I mean, those silly terrorists, when will they learn? Haha, the joke was on us, they actually wanted to commemorate Bush's entry into the White House. Har har. A little late guys, eh? I mean come on, that was almost a year since he was elected. Jeez, it takes you this long to plan a celebration?

And buses exploding in Israel are funny too, and so was the Madrid bombing, and the same with all the stupid earthquakes in Turkey. Come on Turkey, you should have learned to dodge those things by now! Silly people.

And those terrorists, aren't they silly? They make me crack a smile every time I see something get blown up.

-------

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

We have Palestinians and Israelis at each others throats since....forever. The Balkans will never be nice to each other. Their idea of a party is a mass grave. And don't forget to put more landmines in your soil, Afghanistan! I haven't heard anything lately about the IRA, wonder what they are up to lately? And then America, the bastion of freedom, the ultimate core of democracy, the pillar of righteousness, we have 12% of our population below the poverty line, which for the most developed country in the world, the Leader of the Free World, the ... you get my point, 12% is a huge amount.

Yes, and we debate about gay marriage, and how about sports and weather, and up to date traffic reports.

democracy, bureacracy, plutocracy, hypocrisy

/rant

GRRRRRRRAWRR

/frustration

------

If you thought I would do something constructive with this post, you thought wrong.
 
Big_T_UK said:
I think you misread Wooz's post.

I was replying to Blade's post.



Big T UK said:
That's one of the most retarded comments i've read in a long while.

And I just all my respect for you. Since, a while ago, I've decided not to answer to any post that starts with an insulting ad hominem remark - because any debate sprung from that would lead to nothing - I am not going to dignify your post with a reply.

And now go read the forum rules, you fucking dipshit.
 
Heh, I thought we were heading to an *agreement* on the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, not a practical *demonstration* :D

I know I'm no mod whatsoover, but I do feel a bit responsible for the mess, apparently I started the "angry post" avalanche.
How 'bout chilling out and continuing this later?
 
Both sides can be at fault for all the death they have caused to each side. This is just something that won't be stopped until everything is demolished.
 
Daemon Spawn said:
Yes, a wheelchair guy getting pwned is hilarious. 9/11 was pretty funny too..

Flying planes into a building isn't necessarily new or amusing. It never was, as it's really not that difficult if you think about it. However, there is a certain tongue in cheek factor that comes from overkill in the manner of missiles being used to pretty much vaporize the fellow as he comes from a mosque. It's something you'd expect from a Bond flick, not something in life, as the missiles are technically worth more than the average citizen or military grunt, therefore this wouldn't be a normal military practice, a rarity. I'm just appreciating it for that.
 
Jebus said:
He was bombed while rolling his wheelchair. Leaving church. By a helicopter. With THREE missiles.
Killing is killing. If Yassin was some musclebound commando defeated in hand to hand combat, it wouldn't have made it more wrong or right. And yes, half-blind men in wheelchairs can be dangerous when they are surrounded by bodyguards and command an army of militants.
So what Israël is doing is better? The foundations of the state of Israël was built in the blood of innocent Palestinians. At the very start, they slaughtered entire villages.
No, the foundation of the state of Israel had its roots in the League of Nations (precursor to the UN, which you give authority to in the next section) British Mandate of Palestine. As a result of WWI, the British had gained control over the territory formerly under the Ottoman Empire, and decided to use it to help establish a home for the Jews. The way you put it makes it seem like the Jews rolled in like the Mongol horde. I would like to see your sources backing up these assertions.
And then they proceeded to 'expand' Israël. They invaded the neighbouring Palestinian land, and greatly exceeded the territorial boundaries agreed with the UN.
This statement is extremely misleading. The shifts in territory were at first a result of the 1948 Arab Israeli War, which the Arab Nations instigated, and then later, the Six Day War, which again, the Arab nations instigated. The boundaries and the status of the resulting refugees (which neither side wanted to take back) are still under dispute.
And since then, they have done nothing but opress and humiliate the Palistinian people. Decade, after decade, after decade, after decade, ...
The Palestinians indeed were horribly repressed under Israeli military rule (though I'm guessing around 2 decades) which lead to the First Intifada. I'm not absolving the Israelis of blame, as every side has its extremists.
Palestinian people aren't terrorists. Because they fight for a CAUSE. They fight for freedom. For the respect of their basic human rights. Against opression and cruelty. Terrorist are noting but twisted people who kill innocents out of sheer hatred.
Hell, if Arafat would've been sexy, he might've been the next Che Guevara...
This isn't simply a war for freedom. The goal of the Palestinian militant organizations, including the PLO, is the total destruction of Israel. And yes, they are terrorists, as they seek to maximize civilian casualties with their attacks. Furthermore, you are putting all the blame on Israel and none on the Arab nations, who want nothing more than to see this conflict continue. Every side is responsible, from the Israeli government, to the Palestinian terror groups, to the surrounding Arab countries. Try not to see everything in black and white.
 
Revolver said:
No, the foundation of the state of Israel had its roots in the League of Nations (precursor to the UN, which you give authority to in the next section) British Mandate of Palestine. As a result of WWI, the British had gained control over the territory formerly under the Ottoman Empire, and decided to use it to help establish a home for the Jews. The way you put it makes it seem like the Jews rolled in like the Mongol horde. I would like to see your sources backing up these assertions.

A while after the Balfour declaration, around 1920 that is, there were riots by the Arabian inhabitants of the newly formed Israelian state. They were fueled by the fact that their land was taken away from them, and 2) there were rumours the Israelites were planning to build a synagogue near the wailing wall and encroach upon the Muslim rule over the Temple Mount compound, including the Al-aqsa mosque. The British then helped to stop those riots, in which they were succesfull. But then, in a response to those riots, entire Palestinian villages were slaugtered by the Israelites and the Israelites annexed land that wasn't rightfully theirs. The only problem is, that you will find this in extremely little history books. Goes to show history is written by the victors...



Revolver said:
And then they proceeded to 'expand' Israël. They invaded the neighbouring Palestinian land, and greatly exceeded the territorial boundaries agreed with the UN.
This statement is extremely misleading. The shifts in territory were at first a result of the 1948 Arab Israeli War, which the Arab Nations instigated, and then later, the Six Day War, which again, the Arab nations instigated. The boundaries and the status of the resulting refugees (which neither side wanted to take back) are still under dispute.

When England turned Israël over to the UN in 1947, the Israelites immediately started screaming for more land. And, of course, in the momentum they had because of the persecution that happened to Jews in WWII, they were granted that by the UN in UN partition plan 181. The Arab world was infuriated over this. And indeed, after the Jews in Palestine declared their state of Israël on 14 march 1948, INCLUDING the land that had been (unrightfully) given to them by the UN, the surrounding Arab nations declared war upon Israël.

And then Israël had their go. 800 000 Arab Palestinians fled from Israël, and Israël annexed almost all of the Arab territory.


Every side is responsible, from the Israeli government, to the Palestinian terror groups, to the surrounding Arab countries. Try not to see everything in black and white.


I don't see everything in black and white. But the Arab side of this conflict has the most right to their side (sorry, tacky translation of Dutch proverb).

The main problem is, that history has been tainted. You need to have a certain historic criticism when looking at the history of Israël... Just look at the internet, for example: all the sites you find on the History of Israël will all be incredibly biased: the cruelties to the Palestinians will be minimilased or not even mentioned, while the Palestinians will be depicted as violent people who don't want to 'share' their land. It's a joke, really. Revisionism in action.
 
And as proof of the unthurstworthyness of information on the History of Israël, read this page: http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/ .

Most of the information fed to people on this entire conflict, is colored like this. Alright, this is an extreme example, but an example non the less.

The subjectivity of this page is nausiating. In the very first piece, they actually claim Palestinians don't exist. That they're all just a bunch of dirty Arabs who can never get enough land.
Disgusting, really. Zionism in all its glory.

*EDIT* And it gets even better. In this article: http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/koran.html , they actually claim Anti-Semetism is inherent to the Islamic religion. Which is blatantly WRONG, actually, because it is absolutely not anti-semetic, in contrast to historical Christianity, for example - just think of what Martin Luther wrote of Jews...
This kind of indoctrination makes me SICK. It actually makes me ashamed of being part Jew...
 
Jebus said:
But then, in a response to those riots, entire Palestinian villages were slaugtered by the Israelites and the Israelites annexed land that wasn't rightfully theirs. The only problem is, that you will find this in extremely little history books. Goes to show history is written by the victors...
What makes you so confident that this happened? There are huge amounts of revisionism and propaganda on both sides.
They invaded the neighbouring Palestinian land, and greatly exceeded the territorial boundaries agreed with the UN.
Ok, I withdraw my criticism of this line (original post) as I found that this was true. Though, I would like to hear why you think what was outlined in Resolution 181 was grounds for military aggression by the Arab states.
I don't see everything in black and white. But the Arab side of this conflict has the most right to their side (sorry, tacky translation of Dutch proverb).
The problem is that that is a case for the Palestinian people but certainly should not extend to defending Hamas, of which this discussion is about. As I said before, they are not interested in anything other than the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel, so how can you say that they are "freedom fighters" instead of terrorists? No amount of history can be used to justify their actions or intentions.
 
Times like this I think that fighting the battles of history again is not going to bring peace to anyone.

I am with Kharn on this one. Both sides had a chance for peace, and blew it. Maybe too much historical animosity, maybe not enough trust, may crooked politicians, or perhaps a little of all of this and more.

The Israeli's have a habit of overkill. This kind of strike, missile fired from far at a target is typical. I heard this on the news as that they killed the target, his sons, guards and numerous "standers-by," means that in Palestine even "standers by are acceptable causalties?" The Israeli's have a theory that if they ratchet up the pain and suffering either the Palestinians will quit or they, the Palestinians, will be exhausted.

Sometimes it has worked in history. By upping the level of violence you convince the other side to quit because they can't handle the violence you can inflict. This is the logic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Palestinians respond by civilian bombings, making the people feel the pain and maybe pushing the government to sue for peace. But those behind a lot of the bombings will probably not settle until peace means all of Israel returns to Palestine. This is about land and history.

But I think the mention of the Balkans above was quite apt and more applicable, and the chances of success as well- unlikely in the long term.

Right now in Palestine/Israel there are those who become or stay powerful through violence. As long as that exists, you will see this continue.

It will probably continue until you have enough people with power who are so interested in peace that they can stop any minority few who would disrupt the peace with violence for that minority few's sake. This means that the peace must be durable. Even if there are violations of that peace, there is enough countervailing pressure to sustain peace so that peace endures. It also means that there must be enough people in power who benefit from peace so that they can say shut down those who would disrupt peace through violence.

The trick is that this must be true from both sides of the conflict because either could disrupt any peace. That's why I am pretty pessimistic. Even if you got one side to want peace and be vested towards peace, you'd have to get both on the table.

And they suffer from historical memories of past grievances. Making peace would require putting those past grievances to rest.
 
Revolver said:
What makes you so confident that this happened? There are huge amounts of revisionism and propaganda on both sides.

Well, after about an hour of searching:
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dycg.htm

There ya go.

*EDIT* I got the dates wrong though, it wasn't around the start of the colonisation of Palestine, but around the foundation of the Israelian state. Oh well, same thing.


Though, I would like to hear why you think what was outlined in Resolution 181 was grounds for military aggression by the Arab states.

Because they didn't follow the Balfour declaration. The declaration stated the Jewish could create a Jewish national home in Palestine, withouut violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. Since the independance of the Israelian state was proclaimed right after massive riots in all of Israël, and even full-scale war between the two, it was quite clear that the Jews weren't about to respect the Palestinian's rights. They had proven that in the past, too.

So, the surrounding Arab nations decided that since Israël had broken the only requirement asked for in the Balfour declaration, the newly proclaimed state of Israël had no reason for existance. That, and the fact that they wanted to 'liberate' the opressed Arabs (ie annex the Palestinian territory. Which wasn't really a bad thing, because most Palestinians would rather be in a state where their own interests and culture is being represented in the governement, then to be ruled over by a governement that has no ties to, or respect for, the majority of the people.)

No amount of history can be used to justify their actions or intentions.

If that is the case for the Palestines, then that is also the case for the Israëlites. No amount of history can be used to justify their opression of the Palestines, their murder of Palestine leaders, or their intentions to keep the land they have conquered.

*EDIT* There is also an enormous amount of hypocrisy on the side of the Israëlites. After all, the nation of Israël could only be founded after they had gotten rid of the British mandate-holders, because the British were trying to make sure the rights of the Palestinians wouldn't be violated, and that they would also be represented in the government.

And how did they get rid of the British? By terrorism. Sheer, simple terrorism. So: the foundation of the entire state of Israël IS terrorism. Israël is a nation founded BY terrorist. Think about that. */EDIT*


The fact is that organisations like Hamas or Al Aqsa are full of people who are absulotely desperate. The Palestinians have tried all other, 'respectable' means to achieve their goal: they have tried to solve it diplomatically (through the UN), by lobbying (in the UN), by war, by protests, and riots. Nothing helped. For eighty years they are now opressed by this regime, and they see absolutely no end to this opression.

So they reach for the only means still available to them: terrorism. Or better, terrorist acts. And while certainly some members of Hamas might be evil and hatefull persons who desire nothing but to 'kill Jews', not all of them can be. Dozens and dozens of people have died trying to make a statement, and they can't all be inherently evil. As I said before: they have been pushed too far.

You live in Taiwan, right? Well, imagine China invading your country. You call for help in the Western world, but noone replies. You start a resistance war, but you lose. You riot, and you are massacred. And that goes on for eighty years...

And now imagine yourself being so thouroughly opressed, humiliated, disrespected and ignored you actually go so far as to strap a bomb around your own body, and to go blow up some of the people who have destroyed your country, humiliated you and stole everything you had. Sure, those people might be innocent, they might just be civilians, but you are destroyed. Doing that might very well be the only way you can make a statement. It is sort of like that student who set himself on fire to protest against the communist regime. He had nothing left. He had no future. Just pain. And humiliation.
 
Jebus said:
I was replying to Blade's post.
Fair enough, I must have got my wires crossed.



Jebus said:
Big T UK said:
That's one of the most retarded comments i've read in a long while.

And I just all my respect for you.
My apologies, I did not mean to be so harsh and insulting. I do not normally start my posts like that, but the tone and content of your comment kinda made me see red, sorry. I explained it a little better after the rude comment, so if you can get past that the point of my post is there. It was an unjust lapse in civility, but they do happen on occaision.
I am not going to dignify your post with a reply.
You kinda just did. :lol:
 
Big_T_UK said:
My apologies, I did not mean to be so harsh and insulting. I do not normally start my posts like that, but the tone and content of your comment kinda made me see red, sorry. I explained it a little better after the rude comment, so if you can get past that the point of my post is there. It was an unjust lapse in civility, but they do happen on occaision.

It's ok then, I guess... Just, don't debate with me that way. The rejection of a view before it has even been explained normally doesn't lead to anything but a flamewar...



Big T UK said:
I am not going to dignify your post with a reply.
You kinda just did. :lol:

Yep, and you can see the things I wrote in my following posts as a reply to yours...
 
Jebus said:
Well, after about an hour of searching:
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dycg.htm
*EDIT* I got the dates wrong though, it wasn't around the start of the colonisation of Palestine, but around the foundation of the Israelian state. Oh well, same thing.
Ok, I have heard of the Deir Yassin massacre, and was thrown off by the 1929 date, which does make a big difference. This incident in no way was part of "foundation of Israel," as you implied. It was a wartime action by two groups that who were considered rogue by the state even before the massacre, as they rejected Resolution 181. The link you gave even refers to them as terrorists.
That, and the fact that they wanted to 'liberate' the opressed Arabs (ie annex the Palestinian territory. Which wasn't really a bad thing, because most Palestinians would rather be in a state where their own interests and culture is being represented in the governement, then to be ruled over by a governement that has no ties to, or respect for, the majority of the people.)
Whether the Palestinians would have been better off under Arab rule makes no difference as they were certainly worse off after the attack, which I doubt was perpetrated with altruistic motives. Especially because those Arab countries also refused to take back the refugees.
If that is the case for the Palestines, then that is also the case for the Israëlites. No amount of history can be used to justify their opression of the Palestines, their murder of Palestine leaders, or their intentions to keep the land they have conquered.
Yes, I never tried to justify the actions of Israeli terrorist groups. But you can't hold the entire nation or race responsible anymore than you can hold the Palestinian population accountable for the actions of Hamas. To the best of my knowledge, the Israeli leaders have done a better job of condemning their own terrorist actions- whether they meant it or not, does not change that their people would be less likely to be influenced by extremist propaganda.
So they reach for the only means still available to them: terrorism. Or better, terrorist acts. And while certainly some members of Hamas might be evil and hatefull persons who desire nothing but to 'kill Jews', not all of them can be. Dozens and dozens of people have died trying to make a statement, and they can't all be inherently evil. As I said before: they have been pushed too far.
I never said they were all 'evil'. But the organization itself, and of course its founder definitely had intents that we can term as evil and uses hateful propaganda, lies, and racism to recruit for its cause. I suggest you read The Charter of The Hamas. Interesting quotes in the Charter include: "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement." and "A society which confronts a vicious, Nazi-like enemy, who does not differentiate between man and woman, elder and young ought to be the first to adorn itself with this Islamic spirit." and "The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone" and "That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs... The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated."
You live in Taiwan, right? Well, imagine China invading your country. You call for help in the Western world, but noone replies. You start a resistance war, but you lose. You riot, and you are massacred. And that goes on for eighty years...

And now imagine yourself being so thouroughly opressed, humiliated, disrespected and ignored you actually go so far as to strap a bomb around your own body, and to go blow up some of the people who have destroyed your country, humiliated you and stole everything you had. Sure, those people might be innocent, they might just be civilians, but you are destroyed. Doing that might very well be the only way you can make a statement. It is sort of like that student who set himself on fire to protest against the communist regime. He had nothing left. He had no future. Just pain. And humiliation.
Nothing will make me sympathize with any extremist organization like this. The people blowing themselves up are hardly old enough to have firsthand knowledge of the past atrocities. They grow up spoon fed hate and exaggerated stories by their schools and leaders. It is these leaders who order and brainwash the younger generation to sacrifice themselves. They target civilians in order to provoke the opposition, and prolong the war. This whole conflict is a testament to the power of terrorism on both sides. The extremist groups do not want peace, and they have always succeeded. Do you think the assassination of Rabin by a right winger reflected the views of the Israeli population? The actions of a few are always attributed to the entire country or race. It is dangerous to forgive the actions of these groups because you feel that one side is more 'right' than the other. I don't see a problem with targetting a terrorist leader, no matter how popular he is (though I fault the Israelis for being too eager to do collateral damage). These groups should be actively hunted by both sides if they ever expect to resolve this.
 
An what does the Economist have to say about this assassination?

Check out the pic on the web page!
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2533990

(don't you just want to pinch that old bastard's cheeks?)

A wave of fury at Yassin’s killing

Mar 24th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda


Israel’s killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, has been met by Palestinian threats of revenge, UN and European condemnation, and American denials of involvement

ISRAEL has been trying for some time to kill Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the elderly and disabled spiritual leader of Hamas, one of the main Palestinian militant groups. Last September, Mr Yassin was slightly hurt when an Israeli bomb blew apart the building he had just left. But at daybreak on Monday March 22nd, Israel finally succeeded in eliminating the man it accused of overseeing attacks that have killed more than 350 Israelis since the start of the Palestinian intifada in 2000. Mr Yassin and seven others were killed by missiles launched from Israeli helicopters, as he and his sons left a mosque after early-morning prayers in Gaza City. The assassination came eight days after Palestinian militants from Gaza had killed 10 Israelis in a suicide bombing in the port of Ashdod, to which Israel responded by stepping up its attacks on militant groups’ leaders.

The killing of Mr Yassin provoked furious denunciations from Muslim countries. The European Union condemned what it called an “extra-judicial killing” and Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, said the attack broke international law. In the hours after the killing, Palestinians poured on to the streets in Gaza and the West Bank to express their anger. More than 200,000 mourners joined the funeral procession that carried his body to a Gaza cemetery, according to the Reuters news agency—many of them armed and masked.

Hamas and other militant groups vowed rapid, and bloody, revenge. On Tuesday, Hamas announced that two hardliners had been chosen to lead the group following Mr Yassin's death: Khaled Meshaal, who is believed to be living in exile in Syria, would be supreme leader; and Abdel-Aziz Rantisi would become Hamas's leader in Gaza, its main power base. Both men have narrowly survived Israeli attempts at assassination. Mr Meshaal said he hoped his militants would kill Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister. On Tuesday, Israeli armoured vehicles entered northern Gaza after militants fired missiles into southern Israel. The next day, Israeli forces entered the Khan Younis refugee camp in southern Gaza and bulldozed homes that overlooked Jewish settlements.

America has denied accusations by some Palestinian groups that it had been involved in, or had advance knowledge of, Mr Yassin's assassination. President George Bush's spokesman said America was “deeply troubled” by it but he stopped short of condemning it. With polls in Tuesday's newspapers showing that around 60% of Israelis support the killing, Mr Sharon's government was unrepentant, saying that all militant leaders were being targeted.

When Mr Yassin co-founded Hamas in 1987, the Islamic group’s aim was not just to end Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip and West Bank (which had both been seized in a war 20 years earlier) but also to destroy Israel itself. In January, he signalled that he was ready in principle for a truce. But Israel dismissed his gesture, doubting its sincerity, and kept his name on its list of targets.

Besides avenging the Ashdod bombing, the assassination of Mr Yassin may have been a show of strength by Israel, ahead of its proposed pull-out from most of the Gaza strip. Last month, Mr Sharon announced some details of his plan to withdraw unilaterally the Jewish settlers—and the large contingent of troops that guard them—from most of the strip. Some Israelis criticised the plan, saying it would encourage Hamas and other militants to conclude that they had succeeded in forcing Israel out of Gaza (in the same way as militants’ attacks had forced Israel to abandon its “security zone” in southern Lebanon in 2000). By showing that Israel is still capable of hitting at the militants’ leaders in Gaza, Mr Sharon may have been sending a message that Israel is not retreating under fire.

Since Mr Sharon first announced his intention to “unilaterally disengage” from most of Gaza last December, his plans have suffered several reworkings, with some in his right-wing coalition refusing to accept a retreat from the settlements and military chiefs questioning the wisdom of a pull-out. Mr Sharon has also been seeking American support for Israel hanging on to several settlements in the West Bank in return for withdrawing from Gaza. Recent weeks have seen intensive shuttling between Washington, Tel Aviv and Cairo, as the Bush administration questioned Israel on the details of the plan, and Egypt tried to draw up a security strategy for the Palestinian Authority (PA) once Israeli troops had left Gaza.

The killing of Mr Yassin is a great gust in the PA’s house of cards. While it nominally governs the Gaza strip and its 1.2m Arab inhabitants, Israeli incursions and checkpoints have weakened the grip of the PA’s security forces on the territory. As the PA has become riven by factional infighting, support for Hamas has steadily grown—in Gaza, its influence now exceeds the PA’s. To try to revive the tattered “road map” peace plan, the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, had been trying to persuade the Palestinian militants to agree to a ceasefire. But the militants had demanded in return that Israel halt its assassinations of their leaders and fighters. Now, with Mr Yassin’s death, Mr Qurei’s hopes of a ceasefire seem dashed. Meanwhile, Hamas seems likely to grow stronger, not weaker, on the wings of its newly martyred leader.
 
It's something you'd expect from a Bond flick, not something in life, as the missiles are technically worth more than the average citizen or military grunt, therefore this wouldn't be a normal military practice, a rarity. I'm just appreciating it for that.

Hey Rosh now imagine the complete weirdness of sending a 1 ton bomb from a F-16 to someones head to blow him up. The israelis actually killed Salam Shehad, also from Hamas (in this case from the Ezzedin Al-Qassam brigades) that way. Literaly felt on top of him, blowing him to smithereens. The only thing one could say afterwards is "fragged!!111!!" :shock:
 
The israelis actually killed Salam Shehad, also from Hamas (in this case from the Ezzedin Al-Qassam brigades) that way. Literaly felt on top of him, blowing him to smithereens. The only thing one could say afterwards is "fragged!!111!!"
All I can see is that scene from Hot Shots!
 
Back
Top