 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
Gepap: To be fair Khaled Zahar, Mahmoud Zahar's 20 year old son, was a member of Hamas and an Islamic terrorist. It's right this bastard should be killed. |
Oerdin, thats crap logic and you know it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
heres an interesting commentary in the Jerusalem Post
'So what does this mean? There is no shortcut. Arafat has to go through a period of incremental weakening. The problem for Israel is that we are looking at the situation from a day-to-day perspective. Nobody has the patience to wait for Arafat to get weak enough to give way or allow another leadership. It is an inevitable process, but there is no revolutionary jump where Arafat will become a nobody and a Palestinian government will take over.
Arafat will be weakened over a long time. He is not only getting older and less capable, he is losing power by the very fact that Israel and the United States and the European Union are keeping pressure on him to give away more leadership to others who are capable of cooperating with Israel.
Much of this debate is affected by our over-estimation of the alternative leadership. It is as if once Arafat disappears, the other government will become "lovers of Zion." We forget that we are still dealing with people for whom political survival is highly dependent on legitimacy from their own people won by showing they can't be more flexible than Arafat.
They have no illusions that Israel would give them what they want without exerting pressure, which almost necessarily leads to the use of violence. They see the tensions inside Israeli society with most people wanting separation. But the process of settlement-building and expansion and other projects since 1993 is not something that would encourage them to be firmer against violent organizations unless there will be a new balance.
Even if we want to believe that an alternative to Arafat would be much better for Israel, we have to take into consideration it will never happen unless this leadership obtains substantial rewards from Israel or be able to show their people that it would be worth taking another path.
Any new leadership needs legitimacy and it would need to be supported by the more organized groups, first and foremost, by Fatah. They can't come to Hamas and give them an ultimatum to disarm unless they can show that this armed potential is less necessary [than before].
We have to make clear to the Palestinians that we will not allow terror or violence, but at the same time we have to give them the light at the end of the tunnel and show them there is a reward, otherwise there is nothing but despair and violence.
Dr. Avraham Sela is chairman of the department of international relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and author of Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence. '
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:30
|
|
arrian, watch out for litigation from fox. oh, wait, you support their viepoint, nevermind.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:30
|
|
its their trademark slogan. expect to be served.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000 time: 07:30
|
|
quote: Can somebody explain to me how the first attack was terrorist? All but one of the killed/injured were soldiers, and were legitimate military targets... |
It would be a case of guerilla, if the target was clearly a military base and soldiers.
But Hamas is known to target civilians, and the bus stop is a civilian installation. Yes, it does also service soldiers. But the same logic could be applied to each terract. Gnu has already claimed that targetting cafes and clubs is alright because soldiers probably hang out there.
But unlike the terrorists, Israeli soldiers wear uniforms, have their own bases and installations. So when coming to pick a military non-civilian target, according to rules of war, the palestinains have a wide array of choises.
The fact that they prefer to target clearly civilian servies (cafes, clubs, buses) exposes them as terrorists and not guerilla warriors.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote: Can somebody explain to me how the first attack was terrorist? All but one of the killed/injured were soldiers, and were legitimate military targets... |
It would be a case of guerilla, if the target was clearly a military base and soldiers.
But Hamas is known to target civilians, and the bus stop is a civilian installation. Yes, it does also service soldiers. But the same logic could be applied to each terract. Gnu has already claimed that targetting cafes and clubs is alright because soldiers probably hang out there.
But unlike the terrorists, Israeli soldiers wear uniforms, have their own bases and installations. So when coming to pick a military non-civilian target, according to rules of war, the palestinains have a wide array of choises.
The fact that they prefer to target clearly civilian servies (cafes, clubs, buses) exposes them as terrorists and not guerilla warriors. |
Targetting a group of soldiers in a nightclub is equivalent, in my mind, to targetting a particular vehicle containing militants on a streetcorner. Targetting the club itself just because soldiers occasionally hang out there (but the population is not almost wholly military) is of course, wrong (more wrong than fighting a stupid war is per se).
But your logic falls down in drawing a conclusion wrt a single act based on probabilities from previous acts.
If I am a notable bank robber, and walk into a bank to deposit a cheque then you cannot say I committed another bank robbery.
The organisation utilises terrorist modes of attack without compunction, but this particular attack appears to be non-terrorist. And yes, I wish that the Palestinians would restrict themselves to killing soldiers. It would put them on the moral high ground, which the current strategy does not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000 time: 07:30
|
|
quote: Targetting a group of soldiers in a nightclub is equivalent, in my mind, to targetting a particular vehicle containing militants on a streetcorner. |
I disagree.
IDF has a wide range of facilities and is open to legitimate targetting.
Hamas - are not. Hamas, as an illegal combatant organization, has no specific military only facilities, or recongisable combat gear. As such, when Israel comes to choose Hamas targets, it has not "real" non-dual targets, but only targets that are both civilian (cars, private houses) that double as C&C centers, HQs, laboratories, barracks, transportation vehicles and so on.
quote: But your logic falls down in drawing a conclusion wrt a single act based on probabilities from previous acts. |
It wasn't my point at all. I was using it as a minor point to establish a pattern of behaviour in Hamas, as "character evidence".
My point was, that unlike Hamas, the IDF has recognizable bases, uniforms, centers of comand, barracks and so forth.
And as such, if Hamas are to choose a 'legitimate' (non-civilian) target, they have more than plenty to choose from.
However, they specifically chose a civilian target. A bus stop. It is not a designated military bus or truck, but a civilian utilitiy that soldiers often employ. If they were to seek a military target - they would have to target a military bus or truck. And such exist.
By the same logic, they could have targetted a train station, and claim that many soldiers take the train to their bases (or back home).
However this would be misleading, since the bus stop, like the train station, is not clearly a military installation but is very clearly a designated civilian installation. And military installations are not at all lacking.
Thereby, the Hamas have knowingly targetted a civil installation, ignoring designated military targets.
Soldiers in a civilian bus station, just like soldiers in a train, or on a street or in a club, are a coincidence. They do not make the civilian service they use, a "military target".
This is not true with regards to Hamas though, for the reason I mentioned earlier. They specifically and intentionally lack designated military targets. They intentionally use only double-use facilities. They do this in an attempt to disguise and make their destruction more difficult.
This is against warfare conventions, and according to same conventions, this attempt to duisguise within civilian population, in an exceptional way, makes their immediate sorrounding a legitimate military target.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:30
|
|
I'm sorry if I interrupted the intellectual flow herein, Ned.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:30
|
|
He circumcised too?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:30
|
|
The weekend is going to be interesting.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|