|
How do you feel about the killing of Ahmed Yassin(Hamas leader) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
So the fact that he's in a wheelchair means he's got official license to conduct terrorist activities? |
So fact that Sharon wears a suit and runs Israel means he can conduct terrorist activities too? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
So the fact that he's in a wheelchair means he's got official license to conduct terrorist activities? |
Assassination is an illegal action that is condemed by the UN for obvious reasons. Since Israel is a state with stable institutions it has an obligation to abide by the rules.
He was a spiritual leader. Yes, he condoned suicide bombings, but he was never directly involved in the operations. By same criteria Sharon could also be assassinated, or for that matter many other leaders around the world. Do you want to make up the rules for acceptable assassinations on case-by-case bases? How about leader of South Korea or the leader of China, both responsible for numerous humanitarian violations? That’s why civilized nations live by the rule of law; otherwise we are no better than the terrorist. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
He was a spiritual leader. Yes, he condoned suicide bombings, but he was never directly involved in the operations. By same criteria Sharon could also be assassinated, or for that matter many other leaders around the world. Do you want to make up the rules for acceptable assassinations on case-by-case bases? How about leader of South Korea or the leader of China, both responsible for numerous humanitarian violations? That’s why civilized nations live by the rule of law; otherwise we are no better than the terrorist. |
"Condoning" is understatement. He explicitly called for those massacres and constnly propagated hatred towards the "sons of monkeys and pigs". He brainwashed teenagers and sacrificed them for his "holy war". Even if he didn't directly plan and orchestrate the bombings, he could have stopped each and every one of them had he said a word. Therefore he is directly responsible. And him being a "cripple in a wheelchair" didn't stop him from successfully creating Hamas and making it THE number one obstacle to peace in the middle east. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Assassination is an illegal action that is condemed by the UN for obvious reasons. |
source?
| quote: |
He was a spiritual leader. Yes, he condoned suicide bombings, but he was never directly involved in the operations. |
Israel has evidence directly linking Yassin to terrorist operations. They are reluctant to admit this, have not made this public, or will make it public (for probably another 10+ years), because they will not compromise their sources.
Now, considering this, or considering the absense of evidence what so ever, realizing that this guy founded and started Hamas, which statement would you be more likely to believe?
Yassin had no control over any of the operational apparatus of Hamas what so ever.
Yassin has control over some of the operation apparatus of Hamas.
Hmm?
| quote: | | By same criteria Sharon could also be assassinated, or for that matter many other leaders around the world. |
He could be killed, and he has had attempts on his life too. So its not like they haven't tried. Hamas can 'legitimately' kill Sharon, because they are enemies and aside from that, they don't follow the laws of war.
Why shouldn't Israel than be able to kill Hamas leadership?
| quote: | | why civilized nations live by the rule of law; otherwise we are no better than the terrorist. |
Your under illusion, nations live with in their own rules of law within, no nation however lives under any 'international' rule of law. This is the reality, sorry if it is not what you dream of.
So long as this is the reality, you are shoting yourself in the foot when you face an advesery that does not resepct internationla law or opinion and you chose to.
Israel has tried to walk a fine line between law, and no law in dealing with 'criminal' terrorists. Sometimes, it takes a criminal to catch a criminal. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
"Condoning" is understatement. He explicitly called for those massacres and constnly propagated hatred towards the "sons of monkeys and pigs". He brainwashed teenagers and sacrificed them for his "holy war". Even if he didn't directly plan and orchestrate the bombings, he could have stopped each and every one of them had he said a word. Therefore he is directly responsible. And him being a "cripple in a wheelchair" didn't stop him from successfully creating Hamas and making it THE number one obstacle to peace in the middle east. |
Sounds like you're in favor of dismantling human rights and the rule of law when it serves your purpose? Basically what your saying is if you're a bad guy you have no rights and can be terminated when ever a government sees fit without due process.
Yoepus, let me ask you question do you understand the concept of human rights? If so do you believe all people are entitled to them? The Geneva Convention and the UN have laid out clear rules of war and acceptable behavior of an occupying party (in this case Israel). These rules came directly from WWII and the Holocaust and aren't an idealist notion. If you're Jewish you of all people should know how important they are. If you think you can apply them will nilly to whomever you see fit I think you sadly mistaken. |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| You have to understand that Yoepus is a realist. He sees this world as one dictated by state sovereignty and state power. Realists view international institutions as a threat to state sovereignty. That includes the UN and International Law. |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
no its not!
prove it!:p |
Amnesty International strongly condemns the assassination of Sheikh Yassin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 26 2004 @ 08:04 AM EST
"Amnesty International calls on Israel to put an immediate end to its policy of assassinations. The organization calls on Hamas .."
By Amnesty International
Amnesty International condemns the extrajudicial execution, by the Israeli army, of Hamas' leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin this morning in the Gaza Strip. The attack also resulted in the unlawful killing of seven other Palestinians and the injury of many more.
"Once again Israel has chosen to violate international law instead of using alternative lawful means. Sheikh Yassin could have been arrested and prosecuted. The Israeli army has arrested tens of thousands of Palestinians in frequent raids in refugee camps, towns and villages throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the past two years," Amnesty International said.
"The assassination of Sheikh Yassin is likely to further escalate the spiral of violence which has claimed the lives of some 2,500 Palestinians and 900 Israelis, most of them civilians, in the past three and a half years."
The 66-year-old Sheikh Yassin, who was paralyzed and wheelchair-bound, was assassinated by Israeli army helicopter-launched missiles as he was leaving the mosque after dawn prayers in Gaza City.
Sheikh Yassin was previously arrested in 1989 by the Israeli army and was sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of ordering the killing of Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israeli security and intelligence services.
He was subsequently released by Israel in exchange for two Israeli intelligence agents who had tried to assassinate a Hamas leader in Jordan and who were detained there.
Israel has resorted to extrajudicial executions for several years without offering proof of guilt or right of defence. Some 200 Palestinians have been assassinated by the Israeli army in the past three and a half years. Such attacks have also resulted in the unlawful killing of more than 100 bystanders, including dozens of children. Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned these acts as unlawful.
Amnesty International calls on Israel to put an immediate end to its policy of assassinations. The organization calls on Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups to immediately stop targeting Israeli civilians in indiscriminate suicide bombings and other attacks. The Palestinian Authority must also deploy its utmost efforts to prevent such attacks by Palestinian armed groups. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Yoepus, let me ask you question do you understand the concept of human rights? If so do you believe all people are entitled to them? |
Yes, and yes. I just differ with you on what "human rights" are. If you've ever read the UN Decleration of Human Rights, you all realize we are entitled to 14 days paid vacation right? Damn my human rights are being violated :mad:
| quote: |
The Geneva Convention and the UN have laid out clear rules of war and acceptable behavior of an occupying party (in this case Israel). These rules came directly from WWII and the Holocaust and aren't an idealist notion. |
The UN has defintely NOT made a 'clear' job of laying out any laws for war.
Your wrong Geneva Convetion dates back before WWII. They were revised in 1949 (hmm why would we ever need a revision for the laws of war :conf: ) and initally signed in 1929 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm). Geneva dates back to 1907 as the revised Hague Convention.
Protection of "Civilian Persons in Times of War" was added to the Geneva Convetions (the 4th) in 1949...
Most of the Civilian protections however where not in light of the holocaust, but WWII.
For instances, according to the laws of war as written in the Geneva Convention, Hitler slaughtering the millions of german Jews is, 100% legit. It was kill the Polish, French, Romanian, etc, Jews that was the problem! :whip:
Heres a good reference if you ever want to tout "Laws of War":
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
You'll clearly see the UN has no voice on the matter.
| quote: |
If you're Jewish you of all people should know how important they are. If you think you can apply them will nilly to whomever you see fit I think you sadly mistaken. |
Perhaps, because I am Jewish, I of all people know how important human rights are, and you should listen to what I say with a bit more openess and belief, no?
People have applied the laws of war "will nilly" for their entirety. Even the laws of war say you don't have to apply it for everyone. Look how they are worded:
Thats it as clear as can be, the laws of wars aren't laws!:eek:
They are contracts plain and simple! Made between two contracting parties.
And you know how contracts work? If one violates it, the other doesn't have to abide by it anymore.
Its very simple this realist approach, and very good, look why:
If the Palestinians want the Israelis to respect their "Human rights" they must respect Israeli "human rights" as well.
Unfortunately, because of people who think like you, this is not the case. Because Palestinians have their human rights respected, while Israeli human rights are being violated. Afterall, Israel must abide by this "standard", while the Palestians simply neglect it to no consequence.
The realist approach simply presents the Palestinians with consequence for neglecting human rights, thats all. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Palestinian
Amnesty International strongly condemns the assassination of Sheikh Yassin |
Great in other news Iran and Syria have also condemned the assasination of Yassin as 'unlawful'. :rolleyes:
Oh North Korea too..
Amnesty has no credibility. I've disproved their neutrality in the Israel-Palestian thread months ago, even sent them a letter about it with no reply. :sad:
What lows our 'humanitarian' organizations have gotten to.
| quote: |
"Once again Israel has chosen to violate international law instead of using alternative lawful means. |
I hear this again, and again, and again. But what international law does it violate? And I mean, the name of the law, article and paragraph, because thats what it will take to convience me. I might be mistaken, there might indeed be such a law made by the UN in some unbeknown area of the world but in all my research I have never been able to uncover it.
It is clearly not in the Geneva Conveitons however, the only Laws of War I am fimilar with. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Yes, and yes. I just differ with you on what "human rights" are. If you've ever read the UN Decleration of Human Rights, you all realize we are entitled to 14 days paid vacation right? Damn my human rights are being violated :mad: |
Great so now we have something concrete to discuss that you can't dispute.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html It’s obvious that assassination isn’t acceptable. You might know more about details, but you don’t have a clue when in comes thinking and applying spirit of International Humanitarian law. Btw, international law is not a contract that you can void if the other party violates. If it wasn’t law then how could prosecute people for war crimes. Human rights are something that if you understand and respect them you don’t need a lawyer counsol you how to act. Your attitude typfies those involved in the conflict who look for intellectual loop holes to defend why they don’t need to honor humanitarian rights. Both sides behave like fighting children who claim they're morally right because the other hit first. The conflict has last for over 50 years and will continue for the rest of enternity if either side is unwilling to stop violating each other's rights. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Great so now we have something concrete to discuss that you can't dispute.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html It’s obvious that assassination isn’t acceptable. |
Where does it say that?
The closest it comes to that is Article 9:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
Note however how;
Article 3:
:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Precedes article 9.
Of course, you must realize that the Decleration of Human Rights is meant in the context of how people are treated by their own nations, the own area they live under. Not in cases of war.
Aside from that also realize this is a "Decleration", that means all it says is "this is what we believe in".
Afterall according to Article 16, paragraph 1:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. "
This means the US is in clear violation of the UN Decleration for Human Rights, as a county in Oregon has made it illegal for people to marry. :D
| quote: | | You might know more about details, but you don’t have a clue when in comes thinking and applying spirit of International Humanitarian law. |
How does it go.... The spirit is in the details .. wait, or was that the devil :conf: :disbelief
| quote: | | Btw, international law is not a contract that you can void if the other party violates. If it wasn’t law then how could prosecute people for war crimes. |
What war crimes? The only war crimes people have been prosecuted for is genoicide - and thats not even an explicit war crime!!
I've never heard of a general getting charged with war crimes because his combatants didn't wear uniform, or getting charged with not feeding his prisoners of war enough food. :rolleyes:
Tell me if you really believe it is a law, than tell me who legislated it, who judges it, and who enforces it?
| quote: |
Human rights are something that if you understand and respect them you don’t need a lawyer counsol you how to act. Your attitude typfies those involved in the conflict who look for intellectual loop holes to defend why they don’t need to honor humanitarian rights. |
Nope, I'm just trying to understand how its a violation of Yassin's "HUMAN RIGHTS" for Israel to kill him?
How is it a violation of his human rights?? And how do you justify it as a violation?
He was an enemy, you know what you do to your enemies during war?
You kill them :eek: Thats the object of war.
Unless you are trying to argue with me here that Hamas and Yassin weren't an enemy of the State of Israel?
| quote: |
Both sides behave like fighting children who claim they're morally right because the other hit first. The conflict has last for over 50 years and will continue for the rest of enternity if either side is unwilling to stop violating each other's rights. |
Your right. I don't care who hit first. All I am saying is until Palestinians respect the human rights of the Israelis by not killing them, Israel will respect the human rights of the Palestinians by not occupying them. This was called land for peace, Palestinians refused to stop killing Israelis, so Israel refused to stop occupying.
Brand it as you will, this doesn't change the fact that "assasinations" or "killing your enemy" is against any law.
Of course Yassin is a war criminal because he didn't wear his unform:whip: |
|
|
| igottaknow |
First of all this isn't a war that's why they call it a conflict. You have to have 2 sovereign nations to declare a war. I think you have been listening to politicians for too long. Just like the America's "war on terrorism" isn't a war either. It's silly I need to explain things that are common knowledge to most people.
Second, Article 10 clearly states:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
That means people charged with a crime have the right to a trial and not be assassinate. Here we go again this is a very simple concept that I don't think should be difficult to grasp. So back to my original argument you can't be in favor of assassinations and the Geneva Convention. The two are incompatible.
Btw, Article 19 states right to freedom of speech, which yassin was ultimately killed for:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. |
|
|
|
|
