Hamas leader dead

Hey,

What do you think about the assassination of the new Hamas leader? Was it justified? Are those "politics" correct to affront terrorism?


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040418/325/erd6x.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/28/mideast.conflict/

I do believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So if indeed this person had the capabilities of killing a lot of israelis, than I might agree with the murders.

This however, we did not know. Secondly, the murder was a bad thing to do. The person who will be in command now will probably be a lot more.. active in his terrorist attacks, as everyone feels retribution is in order.

Instead of calming things down they have only thrown a lot of gasoline on the fire, which is a bad idea.

Mr U

I'm very pleased with Rantisi's assasination. I think that the only military method capable of harming terror is assasination of leaders. Only when the infrastructure of terror is broken can the peace talks have any relevance. What's more, this time there have been minimal civilian losses - only Rantisi's driver and bodyguard were killed, which couldn't have been helped anyway you look at it.

Yes I think it's justified. Rantisi is responsible directly and indirectly for hundreds of Israeli deaths. He's a mass murderer that worked to have Israelis killed until the day he died. I don't think it's even a question whether it's justified. The real question is whether this will in the end bring more good or bad. I believe it will bring more good. It's about time.

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
I do believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So if indeed this person had the capabilities of killing a lot of israelis, than I might agree with the murders.

This however, we did not know.
Eh, what did we not know? This person did have the capabilities and used them many times to kill many Israelis. He was the leader of an organisation that kills Israelis as a policy. What don't we know?

Secondly, the murder was a bad thing to do. The person who will be in command now will probably be a lot more.. active in his terrorist attacks, as everyone feels retribution is in order.

Instead of calming things down they have only thrown a lot of gasoline on the fire, which is a bad idea.

Mr U
I doubt that there exist many people more "active" than Rantisi. He was probably the most outspoken about killing Israelis and breaking down peace efforts. Murder was his game.

About retribution, there are always people who feel retribution is in order. There are actually a number of Israelis who feel this too about Palestinians. But how often do you hear of Israeli terrorist attack (and let's not play games about the army being terrorist. It's a legitimate claim but it's irrellevant here)?
They don't happen because there isn't an infrastructure of terror and there is a government that works against it and stops Israeli attempts at terrorism. The Palestinians don't have a govornment opposed to terrorism yet, but I think that we can get there by hurting the infrastructure like what was done with Rantisi.
People get pissed off into terrorism all the time, for many different reasons. But people being pissed off is not what makes the terrorism happen. What makes it happen is the infrastructure. So, again, I believe more good than bad will come from this. Already the Hamas is going underground.

Calming things down by sitting back is not a solution because as long as Hamas exists there will be more attempts at terrorism. And every time a terrorist attack succeeds that also gives people inspiration for attacks.
A lot of factors come into play in this conflict. But putting them all together, I think we can say pretty assuredely that this was a good and long necessary move.

I don't know, I guess the guy deserved what he got, yet the way the Israelis did it smacks a little of cowardice for me. I'm thinking after this, Hamas will rise up, try to kill Arial Sharon, might even suceed, causing a war and in the end, the Americans come in on a 'peace-keeping' mission and basically take over the place.

woohoo another one dead.
all those terrorist groups should be eliminated. capture or kill them all.

and if some guy whants to make a new group again. kill him too

Originally posted by sm4113r
I don't know, I guess the guy deserved what he got, yet the way the Israelis did it smacks a little of cowardice for me. I'm thinking after this, Hamas will rise up, try to kill Arial Sharon, might even suceed, causing a war and in the end, the Americans come in on a 'peace-keeping' mission and basically take over the place.
Cowardly how? I'm actually really pleased with the actual way the mission was done. Really the most minimal collateral damage possible. And no casualties on our side either. Was it cowardly that the planes did it or that the strikes were at leaders?

Hamas has threatened many times to kill Ariel Sharon. If it could it probably would. I don't think that's likely to happen since Israel takes security pretty seriously (the percentages of attacks successful out of all attempts is much smaller than you would imagine) and anyhow if it would, it would unfortunately mean war, but loss is not really a prospect for Israel in war. It would just cost more human lives than we would want but it would bring peace one way or another. But I rather risk full out war now than wait for it to happen when Hamas is stronger. This is all a game of minimal losses.

I don't see the Americans coming here... they don't really have an interest in doing so...

Does anybody here agree with the British condemnation on the basis of the actual murder of Rantisi being illegal? I'm wondering how they see themselves fit to say that having done what they've done in Iraq and especially having not condemned the terrorist attack earlier that same day when an INNOCENT Israeli was killed. Would they rather Israel stops terror by constant occupation? Striking at leaders and infrastructure is the ONLY way to defeat terror.

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Cowardly how? I'm actually really pleased with the actual way the mission was done. Really the most minimal collateral damage possible. And no casualties on our side either. Was it cowardly that the planes did it or that the strikes were at leaders?

Hamas has threatened many times to kill Ariel Sharon. If it could it probably would. I don't think that's likely to happen since Israel takes security pretty seriously (the percentages of attacks successful out of all attempts is much smaller than you would imagine) and anyhow if it would, it would unfortunately mean war, but loss is not really a prospect for Israel in war. It would just cost more human lives than we would want but it would bring peace one way or another. But I rather risk full out war now than wait for it to happen when Hamas is stronger. This is all a game of minimal losses.

I don't see the Americans coming here... they don't really have an interest in doing so...

Does anybody here agree with the British condemnation on the basis of the actual murder of Rantisi being illegal? I'm wondering how they see themselves fit to say that having done what they've done in Iraq and especially having not condemned the terrorist attack earlier that same day when an INNOCENT Israeli was killed. Would they rather Israel stops terror by constant occupation? Striking at leaders and infrastructure is the ONLY way to defeat terror.

bomb them when there all in one building. then they lose a big amount of members

Originally posted by Freddy Krueger
bomb them when there all in one building. then they lose a big amount of members
That was almost done a while ago. But in the end they used too small a bomb (so as not to harm civilians) and they didn't get them. It's complicated...

Grrr, I need to argue with someone about this. :p

Yet striking at terror in such a manner only provokes more terror. Violence does not end violence, it simply enhances it. The hamas leader was a bad person, no doubt about it. Whether he deserved death, I do not know, I will not judge another man by what I hear from the news, but I do believe that killing someone does not solve the problem that Israel is currently facing.

There is a serious conflict going on between the palestinians and the israelis and this conflict will not be resolved by killing off leaders.

That hamas leader might have been malicious, but the next one will only be worse! They have promised to venge themselves upon both the USA and Israel, and if the USA goes into war with palestinia (for harbouring terrorists, and I'm sure they will conveniently find a non-israeli nuke in the vicinity owned by a really evil Palestinian leader) the shit really hits the fan.

The palestinians are a desparate people, fym, even you must acknowledge that. We, the western 'civilisation', we Europe, we the US, we the Jewish people have chased these people out of their homes and have killed their brothers, sons and husbands. We are the ones who drove them to these unspeakable acts of terror and I think we should be the ones thinking real hard the next time we fight a war against a people we abused in such a matter. We are doing it to the palestinians, and we are doing it to Iraq. This is not the way a civilisation should behave towards other countries!

However, what I find hardest to believe is that it is the Jewish people who are unwilling to forgive. For so many centuries have the jewish people been prosecuted, they have been unwanted by other man, and yet now, you refuse to share your streets withe the palestinians, like Ramses refused to share the streets with the jewish slaves?

I will not compair Sharon to Hitler, but I do think that next time israel attacks you should remember Hitler's crimes, and prove all the people in the world and history wrong: Show them and prove them that the Jewish people are compasionate and were wrongly prosecuted.

I know you do not believe in the Testament of Jesus Christ yet even you should too believe in this (apart from that about the prophets :)):

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Mr U

Yet striking at terror in such a manner only provokes more terror. Violence does not end violence, it simply enhances it. The hamas leader was a bad person, no doubt about it. Whether he deserved death, I do not know, I will not judge another man by what I hear from the news, but I do believe that killing someone does not solve the problem that Israel is currently facing.

There is a serious conflict going on between the palestinians and the israelis and this conflict will not be resolved by killing off leaders.
I know I drive people nuts with this quoting of every word but I believe it's the best way to remian thorough so bear with me...
Firstly, I agree completely that killing terrorist leaders alone will not solve this conflict. I never said that. I jus think that this is a step in the right direction with regard to killing terrorists.

This is how I see things: The Palestinian people are living as non Israelis but without a state of their own since some time in the late seventies if I remember correctly. They have a moral and legitimate claim to a state. It is also very possible that Israel did not treat this claim to a state with the seriousness it should have, and that a war for freedom and independence was in order.
But the thing is, the Palestinians are fighting their war for freedom with illegitimate means: murdering of civilans - freedom fighting is always war, by military means or others, against an occupying regime - NOT at its citizens.
Terrorism is not an acceptable way to fight, and as a rule is not a force that you negotiate with - army VS terrorism is not a possible place to start off because the sides aren't even in their standings. A terrorist organisation holds for itself the right to target civilians for its cause while an army doesn't, it only targets the terrorists. On the other hand army VS freedom fighting is acceptable. The moment you give an organisation legitimisation by negotiating with it you give legitimacy to what it does - and making murder of civilians legitimate is inviting more of it. It's something we can never accept.
So, in conclusion, terrorism should be fought rather than negotiated with because negotiating with terrorism (which is, after all, the power of fear) is only inviting more, while negotiating with a proper Palestinian leadership (even if it is fighting the army and the Israeli government in general) is acceptable since it clearly ends somewhere.
That hamas leader might have been malicious, but the next one will only be worse! They have promised to venge themselves upon both the USA and Israel, and if the USA goes into war with palestinia (for harbouring terrorists, and I'm sure they will conveniently find a non-israeli nuke in the vicinity owned by a really evil Palestinian leader) the shit really hits the fan.

Firstly, as I've mentioned before, Rantisi was the worst there was. He never was willing to accept anything less than complete withdrawl of the Jewish people from the land of Israel. I doubt the next one would be worse.
The terrorists have promised a lot of things, and a lot of them have been angry a lot of times. But what actually made the attacks happen had always been the infrastructure backing it, and as I said before, I am aware of the repercussions assasinations like this can have on inspiration for terrorism, but I think that having a terrorist organisation running as freely as Hamas had until now and the consequential success of the attacks would have raised more inspiration. Besides, the danger this raises is short term, while the good it will bring in terms of weakening Hamas is long term.
The USA will not go to war with the Palestinians. There is no need. If a full-scale war is necessary Israel will fight and win it, but the losses would be great. This is what all this conflict's been about for too long a time. How to finish this war with minimal losses. In the end, for all the wondering this crazy terrorist campaign has been going on for 3 and a half years, it's time to stop it. Now the losses would be fewer than when Hamas and the rest of the terrorist organisations are stronger.
The palestinians are a desparate people, fym, even you must acknowledge that. We, the western 'civilisation', we Europe, we the US, we the Jewish people have chased these people out of their homes and have killed their brothers, sons and husbands. We are the ones who drove them to these unspeakable acts of terror and I think we should be the ones thinking real hard the next time we fight a war against a people we abused in such a matter. We are doing it to the palestinians, and we are doing it to Iraq. This is not the way a civilisation should behave towards other countries
The Palestinian people have suffered. That I acknowledge. How desperate they are I don't know, but sad as it is, I'm more interested in people's lives being saved than people's deperation being stopped.

In recent years the Palestinians have suffered more than ever. But this suffering had been a direct consequence of the actions of its leadership. In order to protect itself Israel had had to cause suffering to the Palestinian people, some of it may very had been unjustified, but I seriously doubt that the majority was. I haven't investigated this matter fully but I am sure neither had many people here, so before attaching blame to Israel I think we should learn more about the history and what could and/or should have been done. It's not flat out.

That aside, I have to say what's done is, after all, done. Maybe certain people should be prosecuted, but what we need now is a a solution to the current way of things. I know that every operation the army does inspires terrorism, but the fact is if the operations weren't done many people would have been killed. Most operation are very short term, with the notable exception of ones like this. We could solve this problem by having either a Palestinian or an international force fighting terrorism while Israel negotiated, but the fact is, terrorists are not a part of the negotiations. They have to be out before anything happens.
However, what I find hardest to believe is that it is the Jewish people who are unwilling to forgive. For so many centuries have the jewish people been prosecuted, they have been unwanted by other man, and yet now, you refuse to share your streets withe the palestinians, like Ramses refused to share the streets with the jewish slaves?
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. What sharing? What forgiveness? These things don't come into play anywhere in this story.
What Israel wants is peace. End of story. Most Israelis (me not included) would even be willing to give the Palestinians all of the west bank and gaza strip - if only they believed it would bring peace. Again, terrorism is in the way. When it's gone we can speak of possible peace.
I will not compair Sharon to Hitler, but I do think that next time israel attacks you should remember Hitler's crimes, and prove all the people in the world and history wrong: Show them and prove them that the Jewish people are compasionate and were wrongly prosecuted.
I agree. The Jewish people should be compassionate especially considering what has happened in the holocause. Well then, what do you propose we do different next time we attack? Avoid more civilian casualties? Because that at least was done extremely well in this last attack on Rantisi.
The last person Sharon should be compared to is Hitler. Politics aside, he is a war hero and is one of the reasons why Israel still exists today. I believe his efforts are genuine is often somewhat misguided attempts at making things better. He doesn't want war. That's rediculous. It's not the legacy he'd want to leave after himself.
I know you do not believe in the Testament of Jesus Christ yet even you should too believe in this (apart from that about the prophets ):

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

This is also a Jewish law though appearing in different wording and is actually one of the laws that guide me in seeking a solution to this. I want peace, not war. The military occupation and the fighting doesn't make me any happier than it does the Palestinian people. If it were up to me, the moment I'd see a chance of peace I'd grab it :)

Than I believe that very few Israelis are Jewish. If it is peace you want, you should attempt to make peace, and negotiate. Killing, although often misconcepted amongst 'civilisation', is a bad way to negotiate and will only make it harder.

If Israel want peace, give the palestinians back some of their land.

By the way, what if you integrate with the palestinians? Get all of the palestinians in your country. If they are walking your streets, and sitting in your busses, Hamas won't attack them: Problem solved! :)

Mr U

Nice job killing the hamas leader, the US should do the same with the Al-sadr guy that is hiding in Najaf... Kill them all!(the terrorists) And HU, Hamas will still attack the busses if it is a few palestinians there....Hamas thinks that the palestines then will fly up to "paradise" an meet allah and muhammad and the other guys...

Hmm, perhaps I was unclear. I didn't say I was against negotiating for peace. I said I was against negotiating with terrorism - because I believe that doing that will never be able to bring peace, that it will be a step backwards. If killing one person can save hundreds of innocents then it is more that justified to do so, it is immoral not to.

Yes, maybe killing terrorists will make it harder to negotiate in the short term, but while terrorists exist there is no possibility to negotiate in the first place! What was done to Rantisi will bring good in the end I believe. That's why I support the move. As much as I don't like Rantisi, I wouldn't have supported his assasination if I thought it would make peace harder to reach.

You're not the first person that has thought of exchanging land for peace. It has been tried time and time again in the past, and hasn't worked for many possible reasons, but one of the more obvious ones is Hamas - this organisation has said time and time again that it will only stop its attacks when Jews withdraw from the land of Israel, all the land - from the Mediterranian Sea to the Jordan river. Before ANYTHING is done, they need to be out of the equation.

What do you mean by integrating with Palestinians? Grabbing them out of their houses in Rammalah and Jenin and settling them in Tel Aviv? Besides the fact that people generally don't appreciate being kicked out of their homes, this will make it much easier for terrorists to avoid the army and the roadblocks and manage to attack more - it will be extremely bad for security. And the effect it will have on terrorist organistation's decisions would very limited. They have always claimed that their targets were Jews, but the fact is every fifth Israeli is an Arab. And non Jews have already been killed in this intifada. Sure, this could change if the land is 50% Jewish and 50% Arab, but then we're not talking about Israel anymore - then everything turns into Palestine...

As to "giving the Palestinians back some of their land" - on what do you base the claim that what they're asking for is their land? Israelis (me included) generally accept that painful concessions will have to be made in order to make peace, but it is not so accepted that the Palestinians have a moral claim to the West Bank and Gaza strip areas. These areas were conquered by Israel from Jordan and Egypt respectively after those and other countries launched a war on Israel with the intention of destroying it - Palestinians don't even come into play here, and I don't think that Egypt and Jordan should have been supported even if they had made this claim to land. There are other reasons why the Palestinians might deserve this land, but the term "giving back" is completely out of place here.

Suddenly you make it sound bad that it turns back into palestine. Perhaps I'm not the right person to discuss this, I'm reasonable extreme when it comes to the jewish occupation of palestinian land.

I just believe that there is a reason for people to sacrifice their lives to kill some random israelis, and I think you should not remove the people who are sacrificing themselves, but rather remove the reason.

Mr U

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Suddenly you make it sound bad that it turns back into palestine. Perhaps I'm not the right person to discuss this, I'm reasonable extreme when it comes to the jewish occupation of palestinian land.
This is exactly what you're talking about. You say that Jews living in Palestine (or perhaps the army occupying it) is morally wrong. What I essentially meant in my post was that I would like some specification and reasoning for this :)
I want to know on what basis you decide this is Palestinian land. If it is based on more than what you hear the PA constantly saying - if you have any kind of proof. Because, and I may bery well be wrong, to me it sounds like this is just a wild stab in the dark.

I wasn't saying it's necessarily bad that the land goes back to Palestine. I was saying that the land will not be going "back" to them, but would be going to them the first time....

Btw, I agree that the Palestinians should be given their own country, but something tells me that this is for a different reason than yours...
I just believe that there is a reason for people to sacrifice their lives to kill some random israelis, and I think you should not remove the people who are sacrificing themselves, but rather remove the reason.

Mr U
Okay. Again, I agree completely. I think it's a terrible idea to keep on going with this military occupation of Palestinian areas (that is, where Palestinians live) forever and fighting terrorism by arresting or killing lone terrorists. I repeatedly said in my above posts that it is important to strike at the infrastructure - this is many things, but among them are the leaders - people like Rantisi and Yassin who founded the Hamas and are personally responsible for hundreds of deaths and would have been for more if not stopped.
I think that with this we should find a way to stop the anti-Jewish propoganda, the financing of terror, but above all, it is important to weaken them - and the best possible way to do this is by striking at the leadership. It is illegitimising terrorism again. Putting it back where it belongs. All these things would lead to destruction of terror, and finallly a prospect for peace.

The murder was very unjustified, I mean killing an old man on his way home from the mosque, I wont say anymore to that.
Not to you -free your mind- but I just hate the Islraeli army, goverment or leadership just as much as I do for American goverment ect..
Palestine was a free land, and Israel decided to occupy it, and if thats not enough you expected the palestenians to just agree so we can all live happily togethar.
You were wrong, they cant do that they have to fight back, I dont know what your media shows you of so called ''terrorism'' but just for knowledge flip on an arab channel and watch the vidoes or pictures they show of what your army is doing the palestenian people, destroying their homes, killing children and elderly for no reason, or should I say for more land.

I dont think you have much to say about the fact that everyday 15 palestenians die, thats everyday!! while two Israelis die a month, alright.....now none of the defense acts done by groups like Hamas will stop, not while Israelis continue to occupy their free land, your lucky the palestenians dont have an army, otherwise just like when Israel tried to ocuupy Egypt, 'WE' slaughtered those bastards in three days and sent them back to their cursed land....

I understand that these discussions may become heated, but please refer from trolling (trying to provoke a negative response) and/ oranti-semitism. If you have any questions about this, feel free to PM me.

Mr U

Argh, first of all let's agree that this won't get personal. I was always afraid to speak about this because I know how people can get heated about it. So let's just clarify first off that you and I are not enemies, even if our people are to an extent, k?
Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
The murder was very unjustified, I mean killing an old man on his way home from the mosque, I wont say anymore to that.
I think you're referring to Ahmad Yassin here. This thread is about Rantisi but also in Yassin's case I think the killing was justified. So what if he was an old man? He was also crippled since childhood, but that didn't stop him from orchestrating and inciting to many murders of innocents. The state he was in I think has nothing to do with it.
Not to you -free your mind- but I just hate the Islraeli army, goverment or leadership just as much as I do for American goverment ect..
Palestine was a free land, and Israel decided to occupy it, and if thats not enough you expected the palestenians to just agree so we can all live happily togethar.
Firstly, I'm glad that you're willing to not make this personal. But about Palestine being a free land and all that - it's not entirely accurate... the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt before Israel conquered them, and Israel hadn't just "decided to occupy it" based on nothing - a war was waged on them by both sides. I just think it's important to understand that these areas did not come to Israel under some colonial conquest - it was and is self-defense.
You were wrong, they cant do that they have to fight back, I dont know what your media shows you of so called ''terrorism'' but just for knowledge flip on an arab channel and watch the vidoes or pictures they show of what your army is doing the palestenian people, destroying their homes, killing children and elderly for no reason, or should I say for more land.
I don't have an Arab channel. I'd be thrilled to know more about what the IDF does in Palestinian areas, but I think it's important for both of us to be careful what we believe in, because just as my media might be biased towards the Israeli side, the Arab media might be biased towards the Palestinian side.
All I can tell you is that I know that destroying homes is done for the purpose of deterring people from terrorism (and the fact is it's worked many times already, and what's more important after all, people's houses or people's lives?), and that I have real trouble seeing the Israeli army killing innocents for no reason. Maybe civilians are killed from collateral damage when the army is too negligent, but murderous is really hard for me to picture, especially considering that I know the people who occupy the army (they're 18 year olds who have just finished schoo. They can't all have sadistic inclinations...) and will be going there myself in two years or so. Evil soldiers they're aint. If there's a problem then it's somewhere else...
I dont think you have much to say about the fact that everyday 15 palestenians die, thats everyday!! while two Israelis die a month, alright.....
I'd like to see those statistics since I find it hard to believe that every day there are 15 less Palestinians. However, I am aware of the fact that more Palestinians have died in this war than Israelis. But you have to understand the difference in intent. Hamas have said many times that they attack Israelis so that Jews will be killed. The army is there to fight them back, to stop these killings. Of course there is collateral damage. That's the way it is in every war. The intent is not to kill Palestinians. This is important because it tells you which side has to stop first. If the army stopped the occupation immediately attacks would still be launched on Israeli soil. On the other hand, if all terrorism freezed to a stop, the Israeli army will have no one to fight, will go out, and the war will simply be over. It's just a question of fighting terrorism...
now none of the defense acts done by groups like Hamas will stop, not while Israelis continue to occupy their free land, your lucky the palestenians dont have an army, otherwise just like when Israel tried to ocuupy Egypt, 'WE' slaughtered those bastards in three days and sent them back to their cursed land....
Why are the attacks by Hamas "defense acts" now? Are they not targeting men, women and children? Those are murderous attacks. They have nothing to do with defending the Palestinian people because every time an attack is launched it deterriorates the Palestinians' security... The purpose for these attacks is political, it's an effort to fight war for a supposedly higher cause.
There's a big difference between "defense acts" and terrorism. The Palestinians just have to make their mind up whether they want to make peace or to blackmail Israel. Because right now they're dancing in every

And about Egypt, what are you talking about? When did Israel try to conquer Egypt?

Anyhow, I think we're getting off topic. The question was whether Rantisi's death was justified. I'm guessing you say it wasn't. Now why is that? Because Rantisi didn't deserve to be killed? Are you saying he was a good man?

I'm glad to see you are not making this personal. And to this issue, I have but this to say:

Quote originally by Gandalf, a fictitious person from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them,
Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise
cannot see all ends.

Mr U

Indeed HU. The wise cannot see all ends, but sometimes they have no choice but to try and see most. In this situation it's not a question of doing 'X' or 'Y', it's a question of either doing 'X' or not doing 'X'. There's no way out of it, whatever you do you'd be measuring life. It's a complicated issue, no doubt about it (and I never said I was completely sure of everything I said so far. If I was I wouldn't be bothering to argue ;) ), but sometimes, like this time, you have no choice but to make a decision. Shoving it under the carpet is simply not an option here...

More specifically though, that quote you bring (wherein, btw, you find in yourself the incredible audacity to label the sagely wizard Gandalf "fictitious") speaks of a situation where a person might or might not be killed for the sole purpose of retribution of justice. With Rantisi this is not my reasoning. As much as I dislike the guy (and believe me, I do ;) ), I wouldn't have supported his killing just for revenge - I support it because I think it will in the end make Israel a safer place, that it will bring the peace process closer.
This is where I stand. People just seem to assume all the time I have different reasons...

Ok man I have one question for you how did all this war start??
I know but do you??.....
And Arabs are known to be a people of peace and family and so on.....whatever is happeneing from groups like Hamas and Al Quada is acts that the scared arab leaders are scared to do......100 years ago there would have been a full scale war between arabs vs. America, Israel,Europe and all of you...
However they are all that oppose you and they will not stop until you back off from occupied lands like palestine, Iraq, and like 10 more places......

P.s. Egypt did have war with Israel when they tried to occupy Sinaa.......

FYM, you mean he wasn't killed out of retribution, out of the false of sense of justice for those have died, and for those who are about to die.

What I like especially about that quote is the part only the wise. I'm sure that some people would immediately claim to be this wise, but we both know that this would be someone who can oversee the entire situation, a person who we have discussed before... God.

Only God, or a being above this argument, being able to view it unbiased can decide whether the assasinated was justified. We will never know whether he was about to go to his home and call of the attack on Israel, and promise to personally become the bodyguard of the israeli premier, as he has finally seen the 'error of his killings'.

Although this may sound absurd, it is a possibility. Yet a truce, or a seize fire might not have been so close to absurdness. Perhaps this person was on the edge of declaring a sort of seize fire. However, since he was killed we will never know this.

Perhaps he would have bought a russian nuke and bombed an entire city, killing hundreds of thousands israeli civilians. Sure, that's a possibility too, yet there is no way of knowing what could happen. Only God can know.

This question was never about the Hamas Leader, it was about whether the Israeli can play God.

Mr U

Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
Ok man I have one question for you how did all this war start??
I know but do you??.....
And Arabs are known to be a people of peace and family and so on.....whatever is happeneing from groups like Hamas and Al Quada is acts that the scared arab leaders are scared to do......100 years ago there would have been a full scale war between arabs vs. America, Israel,Europe and all of you...
However they are all that oppose you and they will not stop until you back off from occupied lands like palestine, Iraq, and like 10 more places......

P.s. Egypt did have war with Israel when they tried to occupy Sinaa.......
Hmm, sounds to me like this is getting personal after all... believe it or not I came to this thread to discuss for fun, not to come defend my country against accusations. You're making this argument me VS you when it shouldn't be that way. It should be discussion of a particular event (or maybe, as HU suggested, an ethical question) by two thinking people.

Out of interest I'll continue but if this is going to become a war between us then I'll just stop. I don't need this. This isn't an Israel Vs the Arab world thread. If you want to discuss that you'll have to find somebody else ;) I'm sorry but I'm just not interested.

How did which war start? This intifada? My understanding was that Arafat incited to an uprising after he came back from the failed talks in Camp David with Ehud Barak. Some people say it was because Ariel Sharon walked on the temple mount. Is this what you're talking about?

Yeah, both the Arabs and the Jews have never been known to be particularly agressive, but I think it's undeniable that in recent decades there has been a serious rise in the extremest Islam that is probably more likely to have been the cause of this new agression. I'm not sure what your point is exactly in this but I gather that you support murder of Israelis in terrorist attacks. Why? Do you truly think that killing innocents justified just because they are Israeli?

About the war between the Arab world and the rest. A few people are fearing it might even come to that nowadays. But you sound like you're upset it hasn't. In god's name, why?

When is this war in the Sinai? What year? I don't remember this...

Again, let's please drop the offensive and defensive here. It's not important for the matter at hand that I'm Israeli and you're Liberian. We don't have to prove anything to anyone through this thread. There was a question at hand which you don't seem to have given an answer to yet. Why was Rantisi's murder unjustified? Did his mass-murdering account for nothing? Did it not matter? I don't understand this...

Last point, Groups like Hamas wont stop until militrary occupations stop on occupied lands...

End of Discussion.

*goes to Free your Mind and gives him friendly hug...*.....

Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
Last point, Groups like Hamas wont stop until militrary occupations stop on occupied lands...

End of Discussion.

*goes to Free your Mind and gives him friendly hug...*.....
Gar. Well that's a way to go too... peace man ;) God willing

This is very true i think that we need to stop this war altogether.Peolle in Iraq arnt just people who are out to get us.They have children out there that are getting hert or even killed because of the choices we have made and Iraq has made.We need to stop puting are men in danger and find a better salution to this. With the new leader and a new mind we are all in constint danger whiel this is going on we are trying to find another president to make things right.If i were old enough to vote i would vote for Jhon Kery it seams that he would take way better care of the United States Of America.