Who says killing is bad?
 

I tend to restrain from commenting on war against terrorism, as I find both its (ie. war's) supporters and opponents oversimplifying the issue. I am anything but fan of Bush, yet I think overruling Hussein's dictatorship may have been worth the price.

Today, however, I heard a very disturbing piece of news. The U.S. representatives vetoed the planned United Nations' resolution which was to condemn Israeli assault on Ahmed Yassin (the spiritual leader of Hamas). Well, I can't see how that fits into the set of principles that supposedly made America attack Iraq. If there is nothing wrong with a cold-blooded murder (for that what it was, however despicable the victim would be), conducted by the offical country rulers, why couldn't we have sent a commando squad to silently terminate the tyrant and his close collaborators, thus sparing the civilians? And what is the army still doing in defeated country, if, apparently, nobody cares what happens to the natives after the "peace guards" leave Iraq (as nobody seems to care about innocent Jews and Palestinians who get killed every day)? With the majority of public opinion already questioning Bush's and his counterparts' (that would sadly include Poland, or more precisely our government, but that's another story) honesty, this veto is a very strange decision.

By the way, what Israeli government did, is morally wrong, and in addition - plain stupid. The act has already heaten up the hatred among Palestinians. Violence breeds violence. They should have predicted that.

The official stance of many countries is that they condemn the Israeli assault, but don't mourn the loss of a terrorist leader. Kind of a double opinion, if you ask me.

--Erwin

It's not about mourning a loss, it's about regretting complete and utter stupidity.

The US and Israel are interlocked in a continuous group hug. That's how it works. If Bush didn't have public opinion to worry about he'd have greenlighted the mass deportation or assassination of the Palestinian people (whichever works out as most convenient) ages ago, which clearly is really what Sharon and those like him would prefer. I mean, who cares if some potential Al-Qaeda supporters die, right?

The voice of sanity is drowned in the cries for revenge.

You could go all psychological about this and mumble something about projecting past experiences and taking frustrations out on innocent people, but I can't imagine that going anywhere so never mind.

I'm sorry, but what makes the assassination of the leader of Hamas and different from, say, American attempts to kill Bin Laden by airstrike? And don't tell me that a man's disablility makes him any less innocent. Any leader who convinces his followers that sending their teenage children to commit suicide "for the good of the nation" is not serving his own people. If the Palestineans would realize, along with the Israelis, that neither side will achieve their ends through violence, perhaps they would be closer to a solution. But instead, the leaders of Hamas and Fatah have decided that their sole goal is to kill all Israelis and completely rid them from the land, which they will never achieve. If the Palestinean means to their goal is cold blooded murder of innocent civilians, they give the Israelis the carte blanche to kill the leader of an internationally recognized terrorist organization.
And if the United Nations wants to hypocritically deny Israel the right of self protection, then it is the United States' duty to protect its rights.

What makes you think I approve of American airstrikes?


Does anyone remember that Asterix comic with the Corsicans?

Two men from feuding families holding knives at eachother's throats.
"Nobody can remember how it started--

BUT IT WAS REALLY SERIOUS!" *angry look*

That's what this is like. It's not even about the occupation anymore - use euphemisms all you want, but that's what it is - it's about an eye for an eye for that other guy's eye, whose eye was avenged by this other person who lost his eye, but the eye got lost so this kid had to blow himself up in front of their eyes and then more eyes had to be avenged-- and I lost my train of thought.

... or at least it seems the Israeli's and Palestinians did. That train is well derailed and still going, ramming everything in its path. Throwing more logs on the fire aint exactly going to help.

I agree, both sides are probably equally responsible for starting and perpetuating the violence. But my point is that certain sections, which are often representative of Palistinean sentiment, have completely rejected the idea of compromise. And when it is them who perpetuate the violence, and there is not a strong enough effort to stop them, then the fire will just keep burning. Someone has to take the initiative to extinguish the fire. My sentiment is that the Israelis have tried harder than the Palistineans, and the result is that the Israelis have been victims of their own concessions. If they cannot use diplomatic methods to solve the problem, what can they do? Kill the head of a terrorist organization? Build a physical barrier between themselves and the West Bank? Evidently, many Europeans (ie: influential UN members besides the US) do not want to give them that right.

What irritates me the most is that the US has not sent anyone to mitigate the conflict, as it traditionally has done. What may irritate me more is that Europe and the UN have not sent anyone in recent memory.

I mean, the land is Jewish, what is all this hell abuot? The palstinians should jus pick up and go.

He-he.

My sentiment is that they both keep throwing logs at the same rate, but the Israelis have bigger logs.


The US doesn't go in there because Israel doesn't want them to. They don't need their help to bully the Palestinians anyway. The UN doesn't go in there because the US wouldn't let them. *cough*VETO*cough*


I'd ask if you were kidding, but I doubt you are... :frusty:

Unless you count the bible as historic evidence, the Palestinians were there first. They then got kicked out of their homes and watched the Israelis take over their land. Now, of course it's pointless to argue that the Palestinians should get that land back, because that's just not gonna happen, but the fact that the Israelis have since continued to steal land from the Palestinians and are even today building walls and creating illegal settlements outside their borders, taking even more of Palestinian territory and that they are, as we speak, negotiating with Washington (!) about what bits of Palestinian land it would be preferable for them to steal... is an absolutely disgusting crime against humanity.

Just for reference, the act of assassination has been banned in US policy for nearly 30 years, primarily because it is ultimately an ineffective solution and often invites a reciprocal effect. Interpret that as you will...

Ninja, the U.N. doesn't go in because there is not high enough security, which is the same reason they left Iraq a few months ago. And security is not bought by turning the other cheek. :frusty:

You konw, as I see it, UN is a yellow ngo i fthre evre was one, its no good.

No there were not palestinians of today. The palestinians Bible talks about are NO MORE . And it is written there clearly enough. The 'palestinians' of today are just arabs who leave on territories. And no arab press refers to them as 'palestinians' . In fact 20 years ago no press refered to them as 'palestinians'. And thise territory is Israel territory, by the way.

It reminds me of the 17-19th century colonization of America by the 'Americans'.

It's an uphill moral battle... :shifty:

Morals have nothing to do with it.

Indeed they seem to go unused completely.

It has quite a bit to do with it when you're arguing for/against the Palestinian cause. I wasn't intending to imply that the Americans/Israelis faced a moral battle when they 'colonized' said lands.

Jus try to imagine what would happen to the country if you simply eliminate the goverment. Especially if it's country such as Iraq that has no tradition of real and normal governemnt and lies in such conflict sensitive area with all the contradict agendas. First the probable Civil War, then alien agendas and terrorists would devastate and consume the country and condemn its citizens to total chaos.

'To stabilize' is the answer. At least in theory cause in reality the very presence of americans is the bone of contention and the etiology of violence. It is bad with americans but it would be even worse without them.

BTW I'm pretty apolitical so there's no sign of any implied sympathies within my words.

doppelganger rex: I'm not sure whether you claim that morals don't (in practice) or shouldn't matter. If it's the latter, I strongly disagree. If we forget about the morality, there's not much problem left.

Wajus: Both sentences you quoted were written in "So if there's nothing wrong with Israeli assault then..." spirit. I tried to show how I believe US government would conduct the war, had they really approved the type of action performed by Sharon.

And before somebody misinterpret it, the title of this thread is supposed to be sarcastic.

See above. Hamas is not a country with innocent people.