quote:

Originally posted by Deejiuana Tranceaholic, it's not Yassin that's gonna come up with a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Hope was killed means Israel's action is just gonna discourage Palestinians to hope for a solution to the crisis - not as in hope died because they killed a man who was gonna solve the issue. If he had died from a heart attack, hope wouldnt have died because he died of a natural cause and the palestinians wouldnt have lost hope since israel wouldnt have had anythin 2 do with the guy's death.... My point is: they didnt lose hope cuz the guy died but cuz Israelis killed him...

How was "hope" killed when this man was killed? He was one of Hamas' founders and a very vocal advocate of killing Israelis. Where was there hope when he was alive? I'm not saying his death makes the situation any better, but it seems more to me like more of the status quo, only Israel is going after bigger, more strategic targets now.

no, no, u dont get it, the hope was that there somehow. They WERE trying to work things out (somehow). And i repeat: when palestinians c a dead man killed on his wheelchair by 3 or 4 or i dunno how many missiles, they lose hope and go like: well, damn, if they killed that guy, why would we have hope? they killed him, they can kill any1 else....no more hope...it's not that guy was givin them any hope, nope, it's just that they were hopin for some resolution, but when they see such incidents, they lose hope...

hmm I thought it was because the Palestinians had no "hope" that they became suicide bombers?

If hope was dead before Yassin, how can you kill it again?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus hmm I thought it was because the Palestinians had no "hope" that they became suicide bombers? If hope was dead before Yassin, how can you kill it again?

No no... You misunderstand... By hope he means "palestinians had hope that they would push Israelis into the sea," now without their spiritual leader they have no hope of that, and will accordingly blow themselves up like lemmings running into the sea...

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 No no... You misunderstand... By hope he means "palestinians had hope that they would push Israelis into the sea," now without their spiritual leader they have no hope of that, and will accordingly blow themselves up like lemmings running into the sea...

But that's not really any different from anything we've seen in the past anyway. If you had said "Hope for peace" that would be one thing, but if it ruined "Hope that Israel would be driven into the sea", isn't that a step in the direction towards mutual peace? (I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I really don't want to get into a big debate over this).

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Just something I've been pondering on: How is it that you all can be so sure that Hamas won't escalate their terrorist activities after Yassin's death? What basis do you have for drawing this conclusion? I'm just curious. A lot of the people in here do not seem to worry about Hamas taking further actions after the murder, yet I've not seen anything posted in here to strengthen the theory that the terrorist activities will remain on the same level (Feel free to provide the links to threads where you have done so earlier though). How can we be so sure about Hamas' terrorist capabilities not being greater than what we've already seen? Is it just because you assume that if they had had terrorist methods with much greater impact they would already have used it by now, or?

Well, they just killed one of the main figureheads behind all the terrorism, so I think common sense dictates that the level of violence would go down if anything.

But I think the point is that the attacks are so routine now that Israel probably wouldn't even notice if they "escalated." Don't forget that Israel has security checkpoints and such, so it's not like they're going to be able to march an army of suicide bombers in to finish off half the Israeli population.

In addition to which, any noticeable retaliation on part of the Palestinian people would be a very stupid move, as it would just be giving Israel more reason to tighten security. I mean, it's like a sleeping bull just woke up and mauled someone, do you really want to throw rocks at it? Now Israel is actually on the offensive, why provoke them further? Just my opinion though.

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer starts up the security company.

"Yeah. You can kill me, but someone will take my place. And if you kill him, then someone will take his place. And if you kill him... well, that's pretty much the end of it. The town will be yours."

Sure, Palestine would like us to believe that they have an unlimited supply of terrorist leaders that can conduct their "rebellion" against Israel, but in reality, it can't go on forever.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian They have opened the gates of Hell. Sharon has cut off all hope for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. When Yassin was killed, HOPE was killed along with him. The only hope left for me is that they cut Sharon's head off.

Funny how Israel didn't react that way when Rabin was killed. Maybe they should have?

Anyway, the sheer inanity of linking the ex-leader of Hamas to any kind of "hope for peace" makes it not even worth discussing. I'm just surprised you'd even try.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi goddamn... how powerful arent the Israelis? They had to launch 4 freakin' missiles into the street to assasinate a man who just came out of his mosque or whatever, after he had been praying to his god, wich in fact IS the SAME god as the Jews believe in. Its basically the same religion, only different is how theythink of the son of God, and who it is, when he will come, and etc.

I thought this thread was about killing of a terrorist leader, not whether Jewish and Islam religion is similar.

It means this part of your post is irrelevant.

quote:

I think this is THE stupidest move they have ever done, since they by doing this will only be hated more and more, and have less and less a chance of living in peace anywhere. Just give it five to ten years keeping up with this terrorism, wich it is, the Israelis terrorize the Palestinians with heavy weaponary, while the Palestinians are not sponsored up theyr asses by the US, so they will have to use crappy bombs theyve made themselves.

Perhaps you'd like to give terrorist leaders all the things they need that they can use to plot more terrorist attacks.
Because they sure won't come nicely to jail for their crimes.

quote:

I think Sharon is a powerabuser, just like Mr George Fucking Bush. I seriously cant find an argument for why I should support the Israelis, when they cant say "thank you for letting us live in your counrty, kind palestinians" and just live in peace and harmony, like they did in hundreds of years before the UN interferred.

Uh... The Brits were primarily responsible for creation of state of Israel, not UN.

It is also very arguable that who has better claim to Palestine. I'd say both has good claims.

quote:

All i have to say is, no wonder why "jew" is considered a swear word!

All I have to say is, no wonder why I should consider 'dj_alfi' should be considered another word for 'moron'.

Edited to add: I really should stop coming in late to threads.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

Last edited by Yohan on Mar-25-2004 at 19:51

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Funny how Israel didn't react that way when Rabin was killed. Maybe they should have?

Yeah, but it's tough to open the gates of hell on your own people. Remember, Rabin was assasinated by a psycho Israeli-Jew.

quote:

Diginut: I'd like to see you address Arbiter's reply to you - you have yet to do that, is there a particular reason you're icing the tunnel-vision cake with sticky stubbornness?

Yes actually. I didn't reply to Arbiter's post because I had already stated that I dont think appeasement is the way to deal with any terrorist situation. Like I said, it was tongue in cheek, or playing devil's advocate if you will. Something for all those who think 'kill enough people and you probably wont win, but hey, we'll feel a hell of a lot better' to think about. However, if you like, I shall address some of his points...

quote:

We need to send a strong and united message that any political group which resorts to terrorism will not have their concerns addressed, regardless of the legitimacy of those concerns, until such a time as they cease to resort to such an illegitimate means of obtaining political redress.

Does that message apply to sovereign states or just those groups that do not belong to the state aparatus?

quote:

Not only that, but as I already stressed, other groups may perceive the success that those groups attained as a product of the terrorist methodology, and begin to employ similar tactics themselves

Look at any point in history and you will see that no matter how violent and ruthless your reactions to terrorists, rebels or revolutionaries are (and trust me, in the old days they were fucking ruthless) terrorism will always remain wherever people feel oppressed or threatened. Appeasment or not, nothing would change that ever.

quote:

However, if we do not wish for it to further perpetuate itself, we cannot, under any circumstances, allow it to appear to be a successful ideology.

Oh but it is. The Russian, French and American revolutions prove this beyond doubt. Add to that the fact that almost all nations have been founded on violence at some stage in history.

quote:

However, I do not believe appeasement can be a valid or useful part of such a strategy.

But if you look through history, if the oppressors stopped oppressing, there would be no need for the oppressed to turn to violence. Now I'm not saying that is the case of al-Qaida (and I dont think it is anyway) but you are talking about terrorism generally, and therefore, appeasment should certainly be considered, not all of the time, but certainly where there are clear cases of oppression of a people (Palestine for example)

And again Diginut, I think appeasement can be a very dangerous school of thought in certain situations, but in others it is not. In al-Qaida's case, yes, I will agree it would be dangerous. But I was talking generally, and in the majority of cases of 'terrorism' through history, popular uprisings have occured because of oppresion, and in those cases (in British America for example) appeasement is a valid school of thought, because using the American example, the Americans were in the right, and nobody will argue against that (?)



Now onto your post (sorry I cant reply to all of it, its not that I agree or disagree, I'm just very very lazy )

quote:

It's interesting how you're suddenly representing this as a battle between a nation (Israel) and a culture/religion (Arabs). Do you see Israel attacking Egypt? Jordan? Any of the other millions of Arabs that surround them? No, it is simply Palestine

Yea meant Palestinians, said Arabs cos someone was telling me they think differently to us.

quote:

the Nazis were committing pure genocide, not just on the Jews but also on (for example) the Poles, and not one of these victim groups ever committed any significant acts of retaliation, let alone terrorism

If they did, what would your views on that be?

quote:

One could say the same thing about your conclusion that Israel is trying to justify some sort of hate toward Arabs.

Actions, not hate. Justify Israeli actions against Arabs (Palestinians)

quote:

And above all else, we are not judging their religion or even their culture, but merely the actions that culture seems to be disposed to carrying out

Of course we are judging their culture and religion. We have accused them of thinking differently to us

quote:

Funny how Israel didn't react that way when Rabin was killed. Maybe they should have?

Overlooking the fact that Rabin was murdered by a Jewish terrorist? A religious fundamentalist one at that...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Does that message apply to sovereign states or just those groups that do not belong to the state aparatus?

I see no reason why it ought not to apply to both. I think I see where this is going - I'll address it below.

quote:

Look at any point in history and you will see that no matter how violent and ruthless your reactions to terrorists, rebels or revolutionaries are (and trust me, in the old days they were fucking ruthless) terrorism will always remain wherever people feel oppressed or threatened. Appeasment or not, nothing would change that ever.

Terrorism has existed in the vast minority of occupied territories through history. There are no documented organized terrorist movements in opposition to the Mongol Empire, Roman Empire, or European Colonial Empire in North America. There have been no documented terrorist activities carried out by any of the indigenous peoples of North America against European imperialism.

quote:

Oh but it is. The Russian, French and American revolutions prove this beyond doubt. Add to that the fact that almost all nations have been founded on violence at some stage in history.

Not all violence can be accurately classified as terrorism. I'm not aware of any tactics used by Russian, French, or American revolutionaries to coerce any political body by systematic attacks directed specifically at unsuspecting civilians. It is these tactics which form the essence of terrorism.

quote:

But if you look through history, if the oppressors stopped oppressing, there would be no need for the oppressed to turn to violence. Now I'm not saying that is the case of al-Qaida (and I dont think it is anyway) but you are talking about terrorism generally, and therefore, appeasment should certainly be considered, not all of the time, but certainly where there are clear cases of oppression of a people (Palestine for example)

Appeasement in one instance has the effect of reinforcing the terrorist mentality among all other groups. You seem to be missing the point that appeasing a particular group will not only have an effect on the behavior of that group, but other groups as well who may or may not have legitimate concerns. Those groups will see your appeasement as a sign that terrorism pays. It will encourage them to commence or expand terrorist activity. I don't know how to simplify this any further.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut ...but really that is one of the most ignorant schools of thought out there. Other parts of the world are not ready for those levels of wealth and science - we all follow a cycle of natural development, and if we try to skip stages - just as if a child tries to "grow up too fast" - things start to go haywire. You are totally, totally confusing cause and effect; the level of wealth and science is a byproduct of the society, not a contributing factor to its development. We should all be like the futuristic sci-fi societies like Star Trek. Remember the Prime Directive:never, ever interfere with the development of another society.

this is an interesting theory.... but after reading it i realy felt i need to ask you if you think the same about USA going into Iraq trying to make it a democracy....
are you against what is being done in iraq now?
or am i missing something in your theory

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian They have opened the gates of Hell. Sharon has cut off all hope for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. When Yassin was killed, HOPE was killed along with him. The only hope left for me is that they cut Sharon's head off.

I've noticed it way before, and now you prove correct all i though about you.

first let me qoute something:

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Do you have any idea who Rabbi Meir Kahane is???? He is a terrorist as labelled by ISRAEL and the UNITED STATES. Kahane Chai has been labelled a TERRORIST organization by the US and ISRAEL ITSELF. Kahane Chai assassinated Yitzak Rabin and massacred the Muslim worshipers in a Hebron mosque in 1994. Kahane Chai has been outlawed by Israel. You are worse than your own state! You make me sick!

"TERRORIST labelled by ISRAEL and the UNITED STATES!!" SHAME ON HIM says Palsetinian...

Hamas under Yassin's rule is directly responsible to the death's of 300 israelis, but hey its ok to kill Israelis
you have no shame to relate Yassin with HOPE, and PEACE????
how hypocrite can you be?
killing Sharon would help right?

___________________

Best Album Ever:
* Infected Mushroom - B.P.Empire

quote:

Not all violence can be accurately classified as terrorism. I'm not aware of any tactics used by Russian, French, or American revolutionaries to coerce any political body by systematic attacks directed specifically at unsuspecting civilians. It is these tactics which form the essence of terrorism.

Of course all violence cannot be defined as 'terrorism'. Terrorism for me merely means terrorising people to obtain a political objective. Fair enough with the Americans, but if you dont think that happened to the French or the Russians then well, what can I say?

quote:

You seem to be missing the point that appeasing a particular group will not only have an effect on the behavior of that group, but other groups as well who may or may not have legitimate concerns

Appeasing or not appeasing has had no effect on terrorism as far as I can see. If there is a cause, just or not, that certain groups of people feel the need to figh tfor then they will, no matter what the consequences are for them or their people.

Answer me this...if you deem a 'terrorists' cause to be just, would you support efforts to give them what they want?




(BTW, my point about America still stands as in a modern context, the British government would have defined them as terrorists)