Palestinian Terrorist Group says will target Jews worldwide

[plymouthhater]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/706823.html

Palestinian militants threaten to attack Jewish targets abroad

By Reuters

Palestinian militants linked to Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's increasingly fractured Fatah movement threatened on Monday to attack Jews overseas to force Israel to release Palestinian prisoners from its jails.

Islamic Jihad, also said they supported violence to free more than 8,000 prisoners held by Israel, but neither explicitly backed attacks on Jews abroad.

The call by militants of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades could heighten tension between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which has been crippled financially by the loss of Western aid, and of tax and customs revenues frozen by Israel, after Hamas's crushing electoral win over Fatah in January.

"This is an open call to all our fighters in the homeland to focus on kidnapping Israeli soldiers and civilians inside our occupied land. And if the enemy does not release our prisoners, then Zionists outside Palestine will be an easy target for our fighters," the group said in a statement.

The threat was made shortly before a Palestinian suicide bomber killed himself and six other people at a sandwich stand in Tel Aviv, an attack claimed by both Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa.

The call could also sow discord between al-Aqsa militants and more moderate Fatah politicians including Abbas, who has been struggling to control gunmen from his own party.

Senior Fatah official and lawmaker Saeb Erekt declined to comment directly on the threat, but said securing freedom for prisoners was at the top of Abbas's agenda.

Palestinian security sources say al-Aqsa gunmen were behind some of the recent rash of kidnappings of foreigners in the Gaza Strip, which Israel quit last year after 38 years of occupation.

They have also been involved in internal Palestinian clashes.

But gunmen from the group, which has also carried out suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories during the five-year-old uprising, have not previously threatened Jews abroad.

The smaller Islamic Jihad group made a similar call, announcing at a Gaza rally that they might seize Israeli soldiers and settlers unless Palestinian prisoners are released.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, whose party now controls the Palestinian government, said militants had given Israel "a complete chance" to free the prisoners during a de facto truce reached last year.

"Therefore we believe our people have the right to use every possible means, including the use of force, to free prisoners and end their suffering," he said.

Israel freed nearly 400 prisoners in June as part of pledges to secure the ceasefire, but Palestinians said this was not enough. Israel has said it will not release prisoners who have "blood on their hands".


-------------------------------

And before the RFD resident trolls comment that the article says that they will target "Zionists outside of Israel" and not Jews. Since 99% of Jews world wide are Zionists, we all know what they are saying.

Leon Klinghoffer is a fine example of what they really mean:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stands/5008/leon.html

[asim99]

what a troll post

[lip1978]

what a troll post

You really said that? It's from one of your favorite sources! Ha'aretz! That was pretty silly considering your post history. If you're going to start threads accusing Israel of terrorism, then you have a responsability to reply to honest threads like this one with more than a flippant remark.

[asim99]

You really said that? It's from one of your favorite sources! Ha'aretz! That was pretty silly considering your post history. If you're going to start threads accusing Israel of terrorism, then you have a responsability to reply to honest threads like this one with more than a flippant remark.
i was referring to his silly comment:

And before the RFD resident trolls comment that the article says that they will target "Zionists outside of Israel" and not Jews. Since 99% of Jews world wide are Zionists, we all know what they are saying.

as regards the news, does this new declaration by this group make it even more terrorist-y than before?

[poedua]

what a troll post

LOL

pot...kettle ...black ??????????

[poedua]

You really said that? It's from one of your favorite sources! Ha'aretz! That was pretty silly considering your post history. If you're going to start threads accusing Israel of terrorism, then you have a responsability to reply to honest threads like this one with more than a flippant remark.

Well said...the hypocracy of his comment speaks for itself IMO.

[Rehan]

Since 99% of Jews world wide are ZionistsReally? 99% of Jews support Israel? I would never have thought support was that high.

Is that why some Jews accuse all anti-Zionism to be anti-semitism?

[asim99]

Really? 99% of Jews support Israel? I would never have thought support was that high.
Is that why some Jews accuse all anti-Zionism to be anti-semitism?
and they label all the jews that criticise the atrocities of israel as "self-hating jews"

[hagbard]

I'm only surprised its taken them this long. Its pretty clear there's a war going on anyway, its to be expected that at some point, the one side would start to fight back. It would be better if they supported Arab lobby groups in the hope of having the sort of support the pro-Israeli ones do.

[plymouthhater]

Really? 99% of Jews support Israel? I would never have thought support was that high.

Is that why some Jews accuse all anti-Zionism to be anti-semitism?


Exactly...obviously, nobody has polled every Jew in the world, but the only Jewish organization that overtly makes their anti-Israel views known is this one:

Neturei Karta ( Aramaic: "Guardians of the City") is a group of Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews who reject all forms of Zionism and actively oppose the State of Israel. They are concentrated in Jerusalem, with branches in and around New York City. Estimates of their membership range from 5,000 to less than 1,000. Other small groups associated with Neturei Karta but not actual members of the group, can be found in Israel, London, New York City, and other parts of New York state.

Other Orthodox Jewish communities, including some who oppose Zionism, have denounced Neturei Karta's activities; according to The Guardian, "[e]ven among Charedi, or ultra-Orthodox circles, the Neturei Karta are regarded as a wild fringe".[1] Neturei Karta claims that the mass media deliberately downplays their viewpoint and makes them out to be just a few, while there are a large number of Jews with the same or similar beliefs. Their protests are usually attended by just a few dozen people.

The Neturei Karta are often mistakenly confusen with Satmar Hasidim, due to their similar mode of dress, and some similarities in their anti-Zionist ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta
Here's their website:
http://www.nkusa.org/

Their rationalle is the fact that they belive only with the comming of the Messiah can Israel be resurected.

There is also another fringe group the Satmar Hassidim who also share similar beliefs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satmar

Satmar (or Satmar Hasidism or Satmarer Hasidim) is a movement of Orthodox Haredi Jews who adhere to Hasidism originating in the Hungarian town of Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti), originally part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and presently located in Romania. Members are referred to as Satmarer Hasidim.

The largest part of the community lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, followed by Kiryas Joel, New York, Monsey, New York, and Boro Park, Brooklyn, and in other Haredi centers in North America, Europe, Israel and Argentina. The Satmar Rebbe, by tradition, is accepted by Jerusalem's Edah Charedis (a large group among the non-Zionist Haredi population) as its presiding rabbi, though none of the past rebbes have lived permanently in Jerusalem.

Satmar in a broad sense is probably the largest Hasidic dynasty in existence today, but formal demographic comparisons with other Hasidim are not available. It is believed, however, to number close to 100,000 adherents if one includes a number of smaller and related Hungarian Hasidic groups.

-----------------------

IMHO the reason the percentage of support for Israel is so high among Jews in the Diaspora is simple - Jews were without a haven from persecution for so long (approx. 2,000 years) that with the rebirth of the modern state of Israel, it provides a sense of security i.e. had there been a similar safe haven during the 1940's, the Holocaust could not have taken place.

To give you an example of the level of support in the Toronto community - during the 1973 war, one afternoon, a canvasser walked the length of Spadina Ave and collected millions of dollars in emergency aid from the people in the garment trade. (keep in mind the demographics of Spadina Ave have changed since the 70's).

[lip1978]

Really? 99% of Jews support Israel? I would never have thought support was that high.

Is that why some Jews accuse all anti-Zionism to be anti-semitism?

The other part is the uneven level of accusations by certain groups. While certain groups ignore the obvious abuses of the surrounding Muslim states, the Jewish state is constantly brought up as a shining beacon of what is wrong with the world.

It is this uneveness, and the past 100 years, that gives Israelis and Jews around the world some pause when it comes to accepting legitimate criticism. It comes down to - "why are we being targetted more than other countries who also have problems? Is it because we're a Jewish state?"

[Rehan]

The other part is the uneven level of accusations by certain groups. While certain groups ignore the obvious abuses of the surrounding Muslim states, ... But they are certainly not alone in ignoring their own problems. The same thing happens from the other side.

[lip1978]

But they are certainly not alone in ignoring their own problems. The same thing happens from the other side.

Fair enough, but the question still remains - why do certain groups target Israel for criticism, while leaving their neighbours, who have quite a few sins themselves, relatively unscathed?

For instance, you can look at the U.N. Security Council as an example of unfair criticism.

[hagbard]

Fair enough, but the question still remains - why do certain groups target Israel for criticism, while leaving their neighbours, who have quite a few sins themselves, relatively unscathed?

For instance, you can look at the U.N. Security Council as an example of unfair criticism.

Like Hollywood and other media never target Arabs/Muslims with negative caricatures.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-600397827976179049&pl=true

As far as I see it, there is a huge effort made by some to make Arabs and Muslims look as bad as they can. For example, the Asper owned Times-Colonist regularly run editorial page cartoons with Arabs with flies buzzing around their heads, unshaven, little "smell" lines coming off their bodies, etc. If they did this with, say, black people, they'd be shut down for spreading hate propaganda...but since its Arabs, they get a free pass.

As for the UN criticism, its completely fair given the usual knee-jerk pro-Israeli response of the United States.


***

[lip1978]

For example, the Asper owned Times-Colonist regularly run editorial page cartoons with Arabs with flies buzzing around their heads, unshaven, little "smell" lines coming off their bodies, etc.

Source?

[Happy13178]

I'm only surprised its taken them this long. Its pretty clear there's a war going on anyway, its to be expected that at some point, the one side would start to fight back. It would be better if they supported Arab lobby groups in the hope of having the sort of support the pro-Israeli ones do.

So you support this then? What would your reaction be if Jews started to attack Muslims abroad, I wonder.

[asim99]

So you support this then? What would your reaction be if Jews started to attack Muslims abroad, I wonder.
you don't mean paul wolfowitz and richard perle orchestrating attack on iraq under false pretenses...or do ya?

[Nemodigital]

Like Hollywood and other media never target Arabs/Muslims with negative caricatures.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-600397827976179049&pl=true

As far as I see it, there is a huge effort made by some to make Arabs and Muslims look as bad as they can. For example, the Asper owned Times-Colonist regularly run editorial page cartoons with Arabs with flies buzzing around their heads, unshaven, little "smell" lines coming off their bodies, etc. If they did this with, say, black people, they'd be shut down for spreading hate propaganda...but since its Arabs, they get a free pass.

As for the UN criticism, its completely fair given the usual knee-jerk pro-Israeli response of the United States.


***
Unfortunately there are the germans who are also vilified along with the Russians.... oh and don't forget the Chinese. In the early 20th century it was the Hungarians -> the huns. Oh and also Latinos are also vilified as drug dealers along with southerners for being stupid and being hicks. So I think we should just have generic "terrorists" from now on and nobody will mind :lol:

[Crotchety Old Man]

Interesting to see how these Israeli/Palestinian threads evolve (or don't, if they get too close to the truth).

There's plenty of guilt to go around.

[d_jedi]

as regards the news, does this new declaration by this group make it even more terrorist-y than before?

"This is an open call to all our fighters in the homeland to focus on kidnapping Israeli soldiers and civilians inside our occupied land. And if the enemy does not release our prisoners, then Zionists outside Palestine will be an easy target for our fighters," the group said in a statement.

Yeah, that sounds very "terrorist-y" to me.
I await your justification for this..

[Crotchety Old Man]

Hey! --> "terrorist-y".

Maybe it could be this year's "truthiness".

[asim99]

Yeah, that sounds very "terrorist-y" to me.
I await your justification for this..
isn't that what terrorists do...attack civilians and children?
i don't see much news worthiness in this proclamation of a group that has already been branded terrorist...

its not like the group was a cool and dandy outfit the day before the proclamation, and became angry and terrorist-y the day after

no news, really!

its a 'terrorist' group...what do you expect? greeting cards?

[hagbard]

Source?

Hagbard. I stopped buying the Times-Colonist because such cartoons were becoming a regular feature. And you can't read a news report involving Arabs or Muslims without seeing the word "terrorist" connected to it. The N. American media, such as Asper's papers, are engaged in hate propaganda. Where is the enforcement there? Ooops! Sorry, wrong identifiable group.

[poedua]

Hagbard. I stopped buying the Times-Colonist because such cartoons were becoming a regular feature. And you can't read a news report involving Arabs or Muslims without seeing the word "terrorist" connected to it. The N. American media, such as Asper's papers, are engaged in hate propaganda. Where is the enforcement there? Ooops! Sorry, wrong identifiable group.

LOL

Fodder for another John Irving novel.

[stevethewheel]

no news, really!

its a 'terrorist' group...what do you expect? greeting cards?

Hmm I'm puzzled by this level of logic. Can I quote you in threads started by asim99?

[d_jedi]

isn't that what terrorists do...attack civilians and children?
i don't see much news worthiness in this proclamation of a group that has already been branded terrorist...

its not like the group was a cool and dandy outfit the day before the proclamation, and became angry and terrorist-y the day after

no news, really!

its a 'terrorist' group...what do you expect? greeting cards?
So do you agree that Hamas, Al Aqsa, and Islamic Jihad are terrorist groups?

[asim99]

So do you agree that Hamas, Al Aqsa, and Islamic Jihad are terrorist groups?
i agree united states, israel, hamas, al aqsa, islamic jihad, jewish settlers in west bank...they are all terrorist groups

[d_jedi]

i agree united states, israel, hamas, al aqsa, islamic jihad, jewish settlers in west bank...they are all terrorist groups
Well, we agree on one part...
I think some of the settlers in the West Bank may also be rightly labelled as terrorists.. if the stories of Palestinian children being targetted and shot on their way to school are true..

So, now, the next question.. do you condone the acts of terrorism committed by these groups?

[asim99]

Well, we agree on one part...
I think some of the settlers in the West Bank may also be rightly labelled as terrorists.. if the stories of Palestinian children being targetted and shot on their way to school are true..

So, now, the next question.. do you condone the acts of terrorism committed by these groups?
i do not condone your selective bolding of only the muslim groups in the list i presented...

[Happy13178]

i do not condone your selective bolding of only the muslim groups in the list i presented...

While the US and Israel being terrorist states is open to debate/perception, I don't see how you can call settlers terrorist groups. They're not combatants, they're civilians.

[d_jedi]

i do not condone your selective bolding of only the muslim groups in the list i presented...
Well, in order for me to believe that a state sponsors terrorism, they need to intentionally target non-combatants, and places of no military value.

Has America done this? I think the atomic bombs may very well qualify. But that has to be seen in the context that was WWII - where millions of civilians were murdered.. you'd have to say Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan - at least - were all state sponsors of terrorism if you judge their acts during WWII by today's standards.

Has Israel done this? Possibly - but the events surrounding any alleged act of terrorism committed by Israel are much less obvious than, say, suicide bomber in a coffee shop.

[poedua]

Well, we agree on one part...
I think some of the settlers in the West Bank may also be rightly labelled as terrorists.. if the stories of Palestinian children being targetted and shot on their way to school are true..

So, now, the next question.. do you condone the acts of terrorism committed by these groups?

It is an interesting question. I think a better one is whether asim99 - or anyone on RFD for that matter - CONDEMS terrorism or not.

I for one, think terrorism is immoral and indefensible whether carried out by Jews, Palestinians, Americans, Canadians...whoever. I fact, I think when it comes to any issue...you only have one of 3 choices.......

1. you stand up, support / endorse the issue
2. you have no stand ( pro or con ) on the issue ...you're neutral
3. you stand opposed / condem the issue

...when it comes to the issue of terrorism...I am clearly of the #3 camp.

I would be curious which number asim99 conforms to with to respect to terrorism ...#1...#2...or #3 :)

[poedua]

Well, in order for me to believe that a state sponsors terrorism, they need to intentionally target non-combatants, and places of no military value.

Has America done this? I think the atomic bombs may very well qualify. But that has to be seen in the context that was WWII - where millions of civilians were murdered.. you'd have to say Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan - at least - were all state sponsors of terrorism if you judge their acts during WWII by today's standards.

Has Israel done this? Possibly - but the events surrounding any alleged act of terrorism committed by Israel are much less obvious than, say, suicide bomber in a coffee shop.

Hiroshima and the atomic bombs you cited.

Clearly, the aim of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima/ Nagasaki was to coerce or influence the policy of the Japanese Government into unconditional surrender by attacking and intimidating the civilian population. The message was to provide the Japanese government a very clear public demonstration that any further resistance by them would result in unimaginable levels of civilian (and military) slaughter and destruction. On that basis.....the actions of the US ( by dropping Atomic bombs on civilians ) could very easily be seen to be acts of terror....ditto for the Allied boming of Dresden.

[Mr._Hankey]

Good times are coming.
Gonna start thinking about getting a gun license.

[asim99]

Well, in order for me to believe that a state sponsors terrorism, they need to intentionally target non-combatants, and places of no military value.

Has America done this? I think the atomic bombs may very well qualify. But that has to be seen in the context that was WWII - where millions of civilians were murdered.. you'd have to say Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan - at least - were all state sponsors of terrorism if you judge their acts during WWII by today's standards.

Has Israel done this? Possibly - but the events surrounding any alleged act of terrorism committed by Israel are much less obvious than, say, suicide bomber in a coffee shop.
of course, context is everything
all the names i listed are either terrorist, or defending their freedoms...it's all tainted by one's political bent

[FastFokker]

Good times are coming.
Gonna start thinking about getting a gun license. :lol: Funny enough, I am too!

Never owned a gun before in my life, but I see the time has come.

[hagbard]

Getting a license is a very bad idea.

[Mr._Hankey]

Getting a license is a very bad idea.

Why? It would make the terrorists angry if people try to shoot them down before they set the bombs off? Would it be a non humanitarian thing to do if we interfere with the work of those freedom fighters?
I guess you're right. We shouldn't try to prevent them from establishing their muslim reich and from achieving the final solution for the Jews.

[ronin893]

It is an interesting question. I think a better one is whether asim99 - or anyone on RFD for that matter - CONDEMS terrorism or not.

I for one, think terrorism is immoral and indefensible whether carried out by Jews, Palestinians, Americans, Canadians...whoever. I fact, I think when it comes to any issue...you only have one of 3 choices.......

1. you stand up, support / endorse the issue
2. you have no stand ( pro or con ) on the issue ...you're neutral
3. you stand opposed / condem the issue

...when it comes to the issue of terrorism...I am clearly of the #3 camp.

I would be curious which number asim99 conforms to with to respect to terrorism ...#1...#2...or #3 :)It would be #3 for me. But I disagree with you on who can be considered as terrorists.

[ronin893]

Hiroshima and the atomic bombs you cited.

Clearly, the aim of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima/ Nagasaki was to coerce or influence the policy of the Japanese Government into unconditional surrender by attacking and intimidating the civilian population. The message was to provide the Japanese government a very clear public demonstration that any further resistance by them would result in unimaginable levels of civilian (and military) slaughter and destruction. On that basis.....the actions of the US ( by dropping Atomic bombs on civilians ) could very easily be seen to be acts of terror....ditto for the Allied boming of Dresden.Is the world really that simple in your view? The dropping of the nukes was a warning to the communists not to f*** with America.

[fakishan]

We shouldn't try to prevent them from establishing their muslim reich and from achieving the final solution for the Jews.
:|
those darn muslims are taking over the world by letting christians and jews take over their countries one after the other. a most impressive plan.

[ronin893]

Well, in order for me to believe that a state sponsors terrorism, they need to intentionally target non-combatants, and places of no military value.

Has Israel done this? Possibly - but the events surrounding any alleged act of terrorism committed by Israel are much less obvious than, say, suicide bomber in a coffee shop.Well, take the example of Israel's policy of bulldozing the homes of the surviving family members of suicide bombers.

intentionally targetted? check
non-combatants? check
places of no military value? check

[Nemodigital]

Well, take the example of Israel's policy of bulldozing the homes of the surviving family members of suicide bombers.

intentionally targetted? check
non-combatants? check
places of no military value? check
Hosting and raising a child to kill and maim as many civilians as possible... check

I think the bulldozing causes more harm then good so if I remember correctly the IDF has put a stop to it. Nevertheless stating it has no military value is false.

[asim99]

Hosting and raising a child to kill and maim as many civilians as possible... check

I think the bulldozing causes more harm then good so if I remember correctly the IDF has put a stop to it. Nevertheless stating it has no military value is false.
you simply justifying the terrorist actions of israel

[Nemodigital]

you simply justifying the terrorist actions of israel
Justifying would be if I said it was OK to randomly bulldoze homes but to bulldoze a home that hosted an armed combattent carried out a suicide is OK by me... hence the building can no longer be used to host suicide bombers. If the family distanced themselves from the suicide bomber then it would be different. At the same time it does provide harships and thats why I think that the IDF has greately reduced demolishing houses belonging to suicide bombers.

[Mr._Hankey]

:|
those darn muslims are taking over the world by letting christians and jews take over their countries one after the other. a most impressive plan.

Isn't this the plan for Israel? Wait for it to destroy itself and then throw all the Jews to the sea? Hasn't this been repeated numerous times by PLO spokemen on live palestinian TV? Sure it has, I used to watch it, how they enthusiastically persuade their viewers to join their Jihad against Israel, until the last of the Jews is thrown out of the land.

[devious9191]

Good times are coming.
Gonna start thinking about getting a gun license.

A gun license for what exactly? Do you think having a shotgun in your house is going to make you feel safer? It seems pretty unlikely that an armed ban of whichever religious extremist group you have concerns with is going to be trying to break into your house..

[Nemodigital]

A gun license for what exactly? Do you think having a shotgun in your house is going to make you feel safer? It seems pretty unlikely that an armed banned of whichever religious extremist group you have concerns with is going to be trying to break into your house..
Yeah more likely you will shot your toe off.. we all get around here in Canada... eh?

[poedua]

Is the world really that simple in your view? The dropping of the nukes was a warning to the communists not to f*** with America.

No. I simply presented an argument to support the contention that the US atomic bombs that were targetted on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are easily defined as examples of US acts of terror.

Do you view the deliberate targetting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians as a legitimate military act within the context of war OR an act of terrorsim ?

I'd argue it was terrorism.

[FastFokker]

Is the world really that simple in your view? The dropping of the nukes was a warning to the communists not to f*** with America.
Seems most logical. The war in Europe was already over, the new conflict with the Russians had already began (the moment Nazi's fell) and Japan was slowly being pushed back into their homeland.

If they only wanted the Japanese to surrender, they could have shown tests of the American nuclear might before actually destroying 2 cities. The act was unnecessary.. but since America won the war, they can choose how history is recorded and perceived.

So we'll just play along that America ONLY did it out of a form of self defense and the killing, maming of hundreds of thousands of civilians along with the destruction of 2 cities was necessary to save the lives of thousands of SOLDIERS. :rolleyes:

[poedua]

Isn't this the plan for Israel? Wait for it to destroy itself and then throw all the Jews to the sea? Hasn't this been repeated numerous times by PLO spokemen on live palestinian TV? Sure it has, I used to watch it, how they enthusiastically persuade their viewers to join their Jihad against Israel, until the last of the Jews is thrown out of the land.

To be technically correct....it isn't just thrown out of the land , or to the sea the Hamas charter calls for the obliteration of Israel as a state and in the process, the mass murder of all Jews ( i.e genocide ).

Hamas may have revised their plans for Israel since being elected ..but this part of the charter has yet to be denounced or eliminated ( despite requests to do so from the international community ) ...so i can only assume it is still in effect as official Hamas policy.

[asim99]

Justifying would be if I said it was OK to randomly bulldoze homes but to bulldoze a home that hosted an armed combattent carried out a suicide is OK by me... hence the building can no longer be used to host suicide bombers. If the family distanced themselves from the suicide bomber then it would be different. At the same time it does provide harships and thats why I think that the IDF has greately reduced demolishing houses belonging to suicide bombers.
by your logic i understand that it may be alright to target israeli civilians/households that house, or support, military personnel of israeli forces (since those forces cause the murder of a great number of palestinian civilians and children)...and since military service is mandatory in israel, that would mean all the civilian population of israel...only the israeli civilian families that distance themselves from the israeli military services would be considered the real innocent one...right?

i think by justifying israel's terrorism, you are justifying the actions of hamas, hezbullah and other similar groups

[devious9191]

Seems most logical. The war in Europe was already over, the new conflict with the Russians had already began (the moment Nazi's fell) and Japan was slowly being pushed back into their homeland.

If they only wanted the Japanese to surrender, they could have shown tests of the American nuclear might before actually destroying 2 cities. The act was unnecessary.. but since America won the war, they can choose how history is recorded and perceived.

So we'll just play along that America ONLY did it out of a form of self defense and the killing, maming of hundreds of thousands of civilians along with the destruction of 2 cities was necessary to save the lives of thousands of SOLDIERS. :rolleyes:

It's obviously a controversial decision.. Realistically, it did end the war sooner than it would have ended otherwise, and it did save the lives of Americans. The US administration asked for Japan's surrender less than two weeks before Hiroshima, and it was rejected.

As another poster mentioned, it did a couple of things. It brought the war with Japan to a pretty abrupt halt, and it put Russia on notice. Maybe the 1-200,000 lives is more than what would have been lost if they hadn't dropped those bombs.. maybe not.

Canada had a fairly significant role in the Manhattan project as well.

[Txiasaeia]

Hagbard. I stopped buying the Times-Colonist because such cartoons were becoming a regular feature. And you can't read a news report involving Arabs or Muslims without seeing the word "terrorist" connected to it. The N. American media, such as Asper's papers, are engaged in hate propaganda. Where is the enforcement there? Ooops! Sorry, wrong identifiable group.

Give me a single day in which one of these cartoons supposedly was printed and I'll post it in this thread.

[batman321123]

They said Zionists, not Jews.

[ronin893]

No. I simply presented an argument to support the contention that the US atomic bombs that were targetted on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are easily defined as examples of US acts of terror.

Do you view the deliberate targetting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians as a legitimate military act within the context of war OR an act of terrorsim ?

I'd argue it was terrorism.I agree with you that it's terrorism. I just wanted to point out what I believe is a more plausible explanation as to why they dropped it.

BTW, history repeated itself during Gulf War 1 and 2. "Look at our fancy schmancy weaponry on CNN. Our enemies should be scared sh*tless of the U S of A! Boom! Headshot. Boom! Headshot."

[ronin893]

by your logic i understand that it may be alright to target israeli civilians/households that house, or support, military personnel of israeli forces (since those forces cause the murder of a great number of palestinian civilians and children)...and since military service is mandatory in israel, that would mean all the civilian population of israel...only the israeli civilian families that distance themselves from the israeli military services would be considered the real innocent one...right?

i think by justifying israel's terrorism, you are justifying the actions of hamas, hezbullah and other similar groupsExactly. I was going to ask Nemodigital if he thought it was acceptable if Canada's enemies targeted the homes of Canadian soldiers. Those Canadian soldiers could have brothers or sisters who might join the fight with their older sibling.

[d_jedi]

Well, take the example of Israel's policy of bulldozing the homes of the surviving family members of suicide bombers.

intentionally targetted? check
non-combatants? check
places of no military value? check
I'll disagree with you on the latter point. I believe they ARE of military value, because they serve as a deterrant to future suicide bombers. Some of them will probably think twice if they know that their home will be destroyed, causing their family to suffer..

It is a form of collective punishment, and that, in and of itself, is enough to oppose it (and I believe Israeli courts have condemned the practice..).. but a terrorist act? I don't think so.

[Crotchety Old Man]

I'll disagree with you on the latter point. I believe they ARE of military value, because they serve as a deterrant to future suicide bombers. Some of them will probably think twice if they know that their home will be destroyed, causing their family to suffer..

It is a form of collective punishment, and that, in and of itself, is enough to oppose it (and I believe Israeli courts have condemned the practice..).. but a terrorist act? I don't think so.
Curious distinction.

I suppose in their common uses, we think of the bulldozer as used for construction, and the bomb for destruction. But any tool can be used for good or evil.

Once you get into justification - it is really no different from saying the suicide bombs serve as a deterrent to future attacks on Palestine. Some of the Israeli citizens will probably think twice if they know that some of their fellow civilians will be blown up, causing their civilian population to suffer. It is a form of collective punishment.

Wouldn't you know it - justification is just another tool that can be used for good or evil.

[Happy13178]

i think by justifying israel's terrorism, you are justifying the actions of hamas, hezbullah and other similar groups

No, that's what you're here for.

[Nemodigital]

News Update:Iranian group seeking U.K. Muslims for attacks in Israel

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/707170.html

Nopefuly won't get knocked for using Haaretz since Asim99 and others have used it as well.

I am certain they will use their "peaceful" nuclear technology only for airconditioning.... :rolleyes:

[Nemodigital]

Exactly. I was going to ask Nemodigital if he thought it was acceptable if Canada's enemies targeted the homes of Canadian soldiers. Those Canadian soldiers could have brothers or sisters who might join the fight with their older sibling.
Great distinction, Canadian soldiers fight using conventional warfare and do not intentionaly target civilians. Thats a great distinction between a professional soldier and a professional suicide bomber. Much like the distinction between a suicide bomber and an IDF soldier.

[Crotchety Old Man]

Thats a great distinction between a professional soldier and a professional suicide bomber. Much like the distinction between a suicide bomber and an IDF soldier.
If I were going to be killed, I would much prefer to be killed by a professional soldier - the killing is so much nicer, cleaner - a blessing really.

[Casanova]

If I were going to be killed, I would much prefer to be killed by a professional soldier - the killing is so much nicer, cleaner - a blessing really.
:cheesygri

[FastFokker]

News Update:Iranian group seeking U.K. Muslims for attacks in Israel

I am certain they will use their "peaceful" nuclear technology only for airconditioning.... :rolleyes:You're blurring reality..

The article specifically says "Iranian GROUP", even in the title... just because America has nuclear weapons, that doesn't mean the KKK (US Group) are going to use them to kill all the blacks throughout Africa.

[poedua]

If I were going to be killed, I would much prefer to be killed by a professional soldier - the killing is so much nicer, cleaner - a blessing really.

I'd prefer that too ! :D

[Crotchety Old Man]

I'd prefer that too ! :D
We'll send someone straight over.

[Happy13178]

You're blurring reality..

The article specifically says "Iranian GROUP", even in the title... just because America has nuclear weapons, that doesn't mean the KKK (US Group) are going to use them to kill all the blacks throughout Africa.

So now you've got the KKK looking for nuclear weapons, eh?

[FastFokker]

So now you've got the KKK looking for nuclear weapons, eh?You missed the point.. :lol:

You can say the Iranian Group "Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign" has no affiliation to the Iranian Government in the same way the "KKK" has no affiliation to the American Government.

[FastFokker]

On a brighter note, Iran is picking up cues from North Korea apparently:

http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy%2Ddirect/
Iran deploys ballistic missiles within range of U.S. bases in Iraq

Iran has quietly deployed its Shihab-2 medium-range ballistic missiles within striking distance of major U.S. military bases in Iraq. The Shihab-2s, with a range of about 700 kilometers, were moved west from bases near Teheran toward the border with Iraq earlier this year. Western intelligence sources said Teheran would use the Shihab-2 in case of any U.S. air strike on Iran.

Good for them! They better stand up for themselves.. these US foreign policies are totally bogus.

[Happy13178]

You missed the point.. :lol:

No, I think you missed the point, if you're comparing the KKK with Islamic groups. America's nukes are extremely heavily controlled, with an absurd amount of security surrounding every aspect of the program. Can you say the same for nuclear material in the Middle East? There's not a snowballs chance in hell that the KKK will ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, while its entirely possible that a terrorist group could buy one on the black market.

[FastFokker]

No, I think you missed the point, if you're comparing the KKK with Islamic groups.I wasn't.
America's nukes are extremely heavily controlled, with an absurd amount of security surrounding every aspect of the program.Says you.. :lol: I have to run to work, but I've read several investigations on missing nuclear weapons from the US Stockpile.. nuclear material vanishing into thin air worries me. I'll try and dig up some facts on that point later.Can you say the same for nuclear material in the Middle East?The Middle East is quite a large, and diverse region.. why lump it together as if it's some Neanderthal Land?
There's not a snowballs chance in hell that the KKK will ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, while its entirely possible that a terrorist group could buy one on the black market.KKK isn't a terrorist group?

KKK couldn't get it off the "black" market in America?

I don't really want to dwell on the KKK specifically, my point was just to pick a random American Group.

[poedua]

So now you've got the KKK looking for nuclear weapons, eh?

Form an argument point of view, fastfokker is clutching at straws now.

Backpeddling again as well .....the KKK is an illogical analogy to this debate.

Given him more line to work with....his argument logic will end up doing to him , what the KKK did to others :)

[Happy13178]

I wasn't.
Says you.. :lol: I have to run to work, but I've read several investigations on missing nuclear weapons from the US Stockpile.. nuclear material vanishing into thin air worries me. I'll try and dig up some facts on that point later.The Middle East is quite a large, and diverse region.. why lump it together as if it's some Neanderthal Land?
KKK isn't a terrorist group? KKK couldn't get it off the "black" market in America? I don't really want to dwell on the KKK specifically, my point was just to pick a random American Group.

Bringing up the KKK in this discussion IS comparing it, and it's a stupid comparison. While the KKK may be a terrorist group, they haven't got any way of obtaining or using a nuclear weapon. Even if they could afford it, which they can't, they have no way of transporting or storing it, and I sincerely doubt they could even figure out how to use it if they had it. They'd more likely blow themselves up trying. If you're going to pick a random American group, pick a valid one. Where are the investigations on missing nuclear weapons?

[d_jedi]

You know, before reading the article.. I was about to defend FastFokker for once, in that this group was about as connected to the Iranian government as the KKK is to the US one..

except, in the second sentence:
According to the report, the group claims to be an independent body which has the backing of the Iranian regime.

Whoops. There goes that argument.

[d_jedi]

On another note, (I think this was from another thread - can't remember which one of the many..) Asim99 asked me who I think a "martyr" is, but my reply was that it really doesn't matter, since I wasn't the one using the term. And that I thought Iran included suicide bombers in their definition of a "martyr".

According to the Gaurdian, Samadi's group took part in a recruitment fair for "martyrdom seekers" in the grounds of the former American embassy in Tehran.
And this just backs up my view.

[Happy13178]

sorry man, you simply refuse to see the logical result of your supporting israeli terrorism....it ends up justifying palestinian response...

Great....that means Palestinian terrorism justifies Israeli response. Now we can do away with these useless threads!

[asim99]

No, that's what you're here for.
sorry man, you simply refuse to see the logical result of your supporting israeli terrorism....it ends up justifying palestinian response...

[asim99]

Great....that means Palestinian terrorism justifies Israeli response. Now we can do away with these useless threads!

well, tell the person who started this useless thread

good to know you realize the weakness of your argument

[asim99]

If I were going to be killed, I would much prefer to be killed by a professional soldier - the killing is so much nicer, cleaner - a blessing really.
yeah...they kill nicely, and they kill more...now that's a good deal...better quality and better quantity...

[asim99]

On a brighter note, Iran is picking up cues from North Korea apparently:

http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy%2Ddirect/

Good for them! They better stand up for themselves.. these US foreign policies are totally bogus.
agreed...it'll be in iran's best interest to acquire the nukes...and some day, for palestine..

no other way to fend off the terrorism of united states and israel

[lip1978]

agreed...it'll be in iran's best interest to acquire the nukes...and some day, for palestine..

no other way to fend off the terrorism of united states and israel

I'm still surprised there are people who would rather live under Sharia law than the current laws of the United States.

[asim99]

I'm still surprised there are people who would rather live under Sharia law than the current laws of the United States.
united states is de-facto under christian sharia...and the christian radical mullahs like robertson and falwell are pretty much as awful as the muslim radical mullahs

personally, i think a secular government is the way to go

[Nemodigital]

united states is de-facto under christian sharia...and the christian radical mullahs like robertson and falwell are pretty much as awful as the muslim radical mullahs

personally, i think a secular government is the way to go
I just don't know what to say... :confused: This is beyond obsurd.

[Nemodigital]

I'm still surprised there are people who would rather live under Sharia law than the current laws of the United States.
I am still surprised that some would like nukes in the hands of those that insist on wipping Israel off the map... next thing you know Spain should also be 'liberated' since it used to be occupied by the Moores (muslims) :confused:

[hagbard]

I am still surprised that some would like nukes in the hands of those that insist on wipping Israel off the map... next thing you know Spain should also be 'liberated' since it used to be occupied by the Moores (muslims) :confused:

Israel seems pretty keen on whiping most Muslim/Arab nations off the map, they are, after all, the only mideastern country with nukes. And they've shown little hesitation to use whatever method 'required' to get their way. I think its the duty of every country under threat of invasion to aquire nuclear weapons. Alternatively, both Israel and the US must start getting rid of theirs.

[FastFokker]

You know, before reading the article.. I was about to defend FastFokker for once, in that this group was about as connected to the Iranian government as the KKK is to the US one..

except, in the second sentence:According to the report, the group claims to be an independent body which has the backing of the Iranian regime.

Whoops. There goes that argument.I think that was a typo?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-04-16T155115Z_01_L16729463_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-BOMBERS.xml&rpc=22
The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, which says it has no affiliation with the government, was formed in 2004.

[FastFokker]

I'd prefer nobody had nukes, but rather than a select group of uncontrollable nations having nukes, I'd prefer a level playing field and everyone have them.

Thinking otherwise is only advantageous to us because of who our nation is and where we're located.

Reconsider the current scenario of nuclear countries, reorganized such that Canada and the United States have no nuclear weapons, and there is a rogue superpower from another continent insistent on spreading Communism through force to all who oppose them.

[batman321123]

I'll disagree with you on the latter point. I believe they ARE of military value, because they serve as a deterrant to future suicide bombers. Some of them will probably think twice if they know that their home will be destroyed, causing their family to suffer..

It is a form of collective punishment, and that, in and of itself, is enough to oppose it (and I believe Israeli courts have condemned the practice..).. but a terrorist act? I don't think so.

Most Israelis over the age of 18 serve in the army. If a suicide bomber hits a bus, the people in the bus will either be family members of people serving in the military or may have served in the military themselves at one point. In this case you probably think it's also a form of collective punishment. But a terrorist act? You don't think so.

[devious9191]

And they've shown little hesitation to use whatever method 'required' to get their way.

That's obviously not true, since they haven't used them yet. Palestine sends over militants to blow up civilians regularly, and Iran's government threatens to 'remove them from the map', while actively researching nuclear technology, yet they've sat back and *tried to allow diplomacy work it out. They could easily just pull the trigger and deal with the consequeneces of erasing Tehran after the fact..

[Nemodigital]

Israel seems pretty keen on whiping most Muslim/Arab nations off the map, they are, after all, the only mideastern country with nukes. And they've shown little hesitation to use whatever method 'required' to get their way. I think its the duty of every country under threat of invasion to aquire nuclear weapons. Alternatively, both Israel and the US must start getting rid of theirs.
Hmmm can't seem to remember that clause in Israel's charter... must be because it doesn't exist. Moreso Israel has exchange territory that was won in battle for peace (Sinia with Egypt just an example).

[FastFokker]

Hmmm can't seem to remember that clause in Israel's charter... must be because it doesn't exist.What charter?

[hagbard]

Hmmm can't seem to remember that clause in Israel's charter... must be because it doesn't exist. Moreso Israel has exchange territory that was won in battle for peace (Sinia with Egypt just an example).

What'z the other?


I'd prefer nobody had nukes, but rather than a select group of uncontrollable nations having nukes, I'd prefer a level playing field and everyone have them.

Thinking otherwise is only advantageous to us because of who our nation is and where we're located.

Reconsider the current scenario of nuclear countries, reorganized such that Canada and the United States have no nuclear weapons, and there is a rogue superpower from another continent insistent on spreading Communism through force to all who oppose them.

Heck with that, I want my own nuke. My neigbour has been looking at me kinda funny lately. :lol:

[lip1978]

What'z the other?
Gaza strip.

[hagbard]

That's obviously not true, since they haven't used them yet. Palestine sends over militants to blow up civilians regularly, and Iran's government threatens to 'remove them from the map', while actively researching nuclear technology, yet they've sat back and *tried to allow diplomacy work it out. They could easily just pull the trigger and deal with the consequeneces of erasing Tehran after the fact..

Lets put it this way, they'll do whatever they can get away with. They can get away with anything if we're talking about the USofA, but there's still the rest of the world, some of which still has a bit of backbone.

[hagbard]

Gaza strip.

That's a good one! You're so funny! :lol:

[lip1978]

Lets put it this way, they'll do whatever they can get away with. They can get away with anything if we're talking about the USofA, but there's still the rest of the world, some of which still has a bit of backbone.

A reprisal of the "Jewish state with no morals" take. Only Israel is not allowed to look out for its own interests. All the others seem to get a pass.

[hagbard]

A reprisal of the "Jewish state with no morals" take. Only Israel is not allowed to look out for its own interests. All the others seem to get a pass.

A "free pass" like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are getting? You're great, keep it up. :lol:

[Nemodigital]

What'z the other?


Parts Syria past the "purple" line. The territory was returned in exchange for prisoners of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

[Rehan]

A "free pass" like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are getting? You're great, keep it up. :lol:I think lip1978 was referring to some of the arguments made here by certain RFD'ers...

[hagbard]

Parts Syria past the "purple" line. The territory was returned in exchange for prisoners of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

That was a trade, not the same thing.

[hagbard]

I think lip1978 was referring to some of the arguments made here by certain RFD'ers...

I find it hard to read it that way.

[lip1978]

I find it hard to read it that way.
Rehan was right. It was pertaining to posts and threads of certain members of this community.
But again, you seem to believe that all I am capable of are certain thoughts.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3155481&postcount=7

Your posts show more than just bias. Even more so lately.

[FastFokker]

Heck with that, I want my own nuke. My neigbour has been looking at me kinda funny lately. :lol:If your neighbour has weapons and is threatening you that they will use their weapons to invade your property.. I feel as crazy as you are, you should be allowed to own weapons as well, especially as the only preventative measure from your neighbour taking over your land.

[d_jedi]

Most Israelis over the age of 18 serve in the army. If a suicide bomber hits a bus, the people in the bus will either be family members of people serving in the military or may have served in the military themselves at one point. In this case you probably think it's also a form of collective punishment. But a terrorist act? You don't think so.
Umm.. no.

[d_jedi]

I think that was a typo?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-04-16T155115Z_01_L16729463_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-BOMBERS.xml&rpc=22
Hmm. As I've never heard of this group before, I'm not sure who to believe.

[d_jedi]

If your neighbour has weapons and is threatening you that they will use their weapons to invade your property.. I feel as crazy as you are, you should be allowed to own weapons as well, especially as the only preventative measure from your neighbour taking over your land.
Seems like the chicken and the egg, doesn't it? The US is threatening Iran because of the weapons their building.. Iran is building the nukes because the US is threatening them..

I think if Iran unequivocally gave up their nuclear ambitions, they would no longer be under any threat from the US..

[asim99]

Umm.. no.
ummm...yea

the logic of those two posts is exactly the same...so either both are wrong, or both are right..no cherry picking!

[asim99]

I think if Iran unequivocally gave up their nuclear ambitions, they would no longer be under any threat from the US..
they would be really stupid to do that...unless they keep doing it covertly, after giving it up...

[hagbard]

Seems like the chicken and the egg, doesn't it? The US is threatening Iran because of the weapons their building.. Iran is building the nukes because the US is threatening them..

I think if Iran unequivocally gave up their nuclear ambitions, they would no longer be under any threat from the US..

Better yet, if Iran has nukes, the US will pretty much bugger off. Now, how to you merit telling Iran it can't build nukes when Israel has a ton of them? They don't even need them, they only have to snap their fingers and the US will do their bidding, as usual.

[Happy13178]

Better yet, if Iran has nukes, the US will pretty much bugger off. Now, how to you merit telling Iran it can't build nukes when Israel has a ton of them? They don't even need them, they only have to snap their fingers and the US will do their bidding, as usual.

Or Iran will threaten to use them and the US will take them seriously enough to turn the Middle East into a really bad vacation spot for the next 10,000 years. Which do you think is more likely to happen?

[FastFokker]

Or Iran will threaten to use them and the US will take them seriously enough to turn the Middle East into a really bad vacation spot for the next 10,000 years. Which do you think is more likely to happen?Look how the cold war turned out for an idea of how things would go if Iran gained nuclear weapons.

[d_jedi]

ummm...yea

the logic of those two posts is exactly the same...so either both are wrong, or both are right..no cherry picking!
No, it's not.. it's really not. Attacks by Palestinian militants are more or less randomly targetted at Israeli civilians.. not any particular person or their relatives who have some connection to IDF soliders who have caused innocent deaths of Palestinian civilians.

I don't see how these suicide bombings would cause Israelis to choose not to join the IDF (isn't there conscription, anyway?). If anything, it would cause them to do exactly the opposite - just like how many people signed up for the US armed forces after 9/11.

[Casanova]

Seems like the chicken and the egg, doesn't it? The US is threatening Iran because of the weapons their building.. Iran is building the nukes because the US is threatening them..

I think if Iran unequivocally gave up their nuclear ambitions, they would no longer be under any threat from the US..

you are so right, US and Iran had been buddies since 1979 :cheesygri

[Happy13178]

Look how the cold war turned out for an idea of how things would go if Iran gained nuclear weapons.

You really have no idea about the history of the Cold War, OR of what's happening in the Middle East, if you think that the Cold War is going to repeat itself between the US and Iran. If you really think Iran developing the bomb is going to put it on military par with the US, which largely spent trillions of dollars and 30 years building its arsenal, then you have no place responding to anything in here.

[hagbard]

Look how the cold war turned out for an idea of how things would go if Iran gained nuclear weapons.

And really, if the US were to do that, no American would be safe because just about everyone will be gunning for them (myself included).

[Happy13178]

And really, if the US were to do that, no American would be safe because just about everyone will be gunning for them (myself included).

If the US was to do what? Start another Cold War?

[fakishan]

If you really think Iran developing the bomb is going to put it on military par with the US, which largely spent trillions of dollars and 30 years building its arsenal, then you have no place responding to anything in here.

:lol: :lol:
that's not what he was saying. he was talking about MAD.

do you even know what happened during the Cold War?

:lol: you have no place responding to anything in here. :lol:

[Happy13178]

:lol: :lol:
that's not what he was saying. he was talking about MAD.
:lol:
you have no place responding to anything in here.

Really? Do you think MAD is even vaguely possible here?

Even with its oil, Iran isn't in any kind of position to bring itself up to that level....not with Israel, and most certainly not with the US. Their missiles can hit enemies within the region, which puts them within striking distance of Israel, but you can bet that Israel would respond in kind. On top of that, the missiles don't have a hope in hell of reaching the continental US. There wouldn't be MAD, it'd just be a big smoking crater where Tehran used to be.

I know exactly what the Cold War was, and in no way is Iran capable of bringing one up with the powers in that region, much less the US. They don't have the money or the resources to build nuclear weapons wholesale, and they're decades behind in refining and testing them. They don't have military alliances with anyone willing to take a shot at either Israel or the US, they don't have the political clout to force any sanctions on the US....economically or otherwise. As much as they may hate the US, they wouldn't stand a chance in a war against them.

[fakishan]

Really? Do you think MAD is even vaguely possible here?

Even with its oil, Iran isn't in any kind of position to bring itself up to that level....not with Israel, and most certainly not with the US. Their missiles can hit enemies within the region, but don't have a hope in hell of reaching the continental US. There wouldn't be MAD, it'd just be a big smoking crater where Tehran used to be.

Forget the US, Iran will be in a MAD scenario with Israel, that is enough to bring peace in the middle east IMO.

Peace will be achieved with a balancing of power.

Your opinion is irrevelant on this, this has already beed proven numerous times. You personal bigot fears of arabs is also irrevelant. We had the same fears about communists, and the communists never fired a nuke on people. Only the US did, and Israel said it is considering a nuke against Iran.

[Happy13178]

Iran can reach the US's allies, and something that's even more important that the US, Israel. Forget the US, Iran will be in a MAD scenario with Israel, that is enough to bring peace in the middle east IMO.

Peace will be achieved with a balancing of power.

If Iran attacks the US's allies, it will start a world war, not avert one. Do they think that Israel wouldn't respond with overwhelming force at the first sign of a serious military action?

[fakishan]

in no way is Iran capable of bringing one up with the powers in that region, much less the US. They don't have the money or the resources to build nuclear weapons wholesale, and they're decades behind in refining and testing them. They don't have military alliances with anyone willing to take a shot at either Israel or the US, they don't have the political clout to force any sanctions on the US....economically or otherwise. As much as they may hate the US, they wouldn't stand a chance in a war against them.

then WTF is your problem with Iran besides them being arabs? :lol: :lol: :lol:

the truth finally shows... :mad:

[fakishan]

If Iran attacks the US's allies, it will start a world war, not avert one. Do they think that Israel wouldn't respond with overwhelming force at the first sign of a serious military action?
I never said otherwise. :confused: :confused:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

that's why Iran wouldn't touch Israel, because Iran would be toast too, even moreso than Israel.

all your fears are based in illogical hate, but you somehow conviced yourself otherwise, and go to great lentghs as to not appear racist towards arabs.

The hate for each other is deep withing both cultures, not just with one. I can quote Israeli prime minsiters if you don't believe me? :lol:

[FastFokker]

No government wants to use nuclear weapons... the only people who do are small groups who have little to nothing to lose.

I agree, the only way to stability and peace is through balancing power. The cold war was rather uneventful (disregarding a couple close calls), but in the end both the Russians and the Americans came out (so far) perfect fine with near MINIMAL loss of life from conflict.

Why you ask? Because the risk was SO great that you are forced to play nice in the sandbox or else...

If Iran had nuclear weapons (which as brought up is unlikely to occur and mostlikely isn't occuring now), the power would be slightly balanced and the impending threat on Iran would be near neutralized.

A cold war isn't that bad of a war... (imo)


Happy13178, why are you so condescending/confrontational to me? I'm not an idiot... I just have my beliefs/views, as you have your own. No need to resort to insults.

[Happy13178]

I never said otherwise. :confused: :confused:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

that's why Iran wouldn't touch Israel, because Iran would be toast too, even moreso than Israel.

all your fears are based in illogical hate, but you somehow conviced yourself otherwise, and go to great lentghs as to not appear racist towards arabs.

The hate for each other is deep withing both cultures, not just with one. I can quote Israeli prime minsiters if you don't believe me? :lol:

Quoting Israeli PMs doesn't mean you're not racist, and a lot of the stuff coming from you guys lately has been pushing closer and closer to the line. I'm asking you simple questions, that most of the time you refuse to answer other than throwing out some cryptic quip, but you think I'm acting through illogical hate? What have I said that isn't logical? You guys defend suicide bombers, and seem to want to convince yourselves that arabs are blameless and everything can be blamed on either the Jews or the US, and you have the nerve to call me racist? Tell you what...if you can't say it to my face, instead of over the internet, then don't bother saying it at all.

[Happy13178]

No government wants to use nuclear weapons... the only people who do are small groups who have little to nothing to lose.

I agree, the only way to stability and peace is through balancing power. The cold war was rather uneventful (disregarding a couple close calls), but in the end both the Russians and the Americans came out (so far) perfect fine with near MINIMAL loss of life from conflict.

Why you ask? Because the risk was SO great that you are forced to play nice in the sandbox or else...

If Iran had nuclear weapons (which as brought up is unlikely to occur and mostlikely isn't occuring now), the power would be slightly balanced and the impending threat on Iran would be near neutralized.

A cold war isn't that bad of a war... (imo)


Happy13178, why are you so condescending/confrontational to me? I'm not an idiot... I just have my beliefs/views, as you have your own. No need to resort to insults.

Nuclear armament leads to more nuclear armament. Iran's actions have contributed to the US restarting its own nuclear program. Iran having nukes won't balance anything, it'll make an already xenophobic American government even more nervous, and more prone to a knee jerk reaction that will cost the lives of millions of people...not to mention Israel and their reaction to a further armament and escalation on a nuclear scale. If I seem condescending to you, its because you don't seem to have any idea as to the consequences of the actions you're suggesting. Another Cold War means a dangerous continuing escalation....because who's to say that the next one will stay cold?

[fakishan]

You guys defend suicide bombers, and seem to want to convince yourselves that arabs are blameless and everything can be blamed on either the Jews or the US, and you have the nerve to call me racist? Tell you what...if you can't say it to my face, instead of over the internet, then don't bother saying it at all.

:lol: :lol: getting angry?

who defends suicide bombers? no me. who solely blames jews and the US ? not me. I'v mainteained that both have commited wrongs (still are), but that israel is the only one that can solve the problem ---> that's a compliment to israel and an insult to palestine if you didn't catch...

oh and the last part? how could you tell anyone here that a forum for discussion shouldn't be used for discusison anymore.? asinine.

[stevethewheel]

Nuclear armament leads to more nuclear armament. Iran's actions have contributed to the US restarting its own nuclear program. Iran having nukes won't balance anything, it'll make an already xenophobic American government even more nervous, and more prone to a knee jerk reaction that will cost the lives of millions of people...not to mention Israel and their reaction to a further armament and escalation on a nuclear scale. If I seem condescending to you, its because you don't seem to have any idea as to the consequences of the actions you're suggesting. Another Cold War means a dangerous continuing escalation....because who's to say that the next one will stay cold?

Yes once Iran gets nukes then who else in the region will be nervous (and seek nuclear capability). It's not just the US and/or Israel. Just think if Iraq had had nukes when giving the evil eye to Kuwait.....

[Happy13178]

:lol: :lol: getting angry?

who defends suicide bombers? no me. who solely blames jews and the US ? not me. I'v mainteained along with peodua that both have commited wrongs, but that isreal is the only one that can solve the problem ---> that's a compliment to israel and an insult to palestine if you didn't catch...

oh and the last part? what are you 12? how could you tell anyone here that a forum for discussion shouldn't be used for discusison anymore.?

asinine.

Asinine is taking an explanation and instead of debating it properly, calling me racist to sidestep the issues. This is the 3rd or 4th time in these types of threads that I've seen it, not only to me, but to other people as well. Would you like me to start going through all the past threads to find examples of this? I notice that yet again you've only quoted part of the post, instead of debating it. More than asinine, ignorant.

[fakishan]

Yes once Iran gets nukes then who else in the region will be nervous (and seek nuclear capability). It's not just the US and/or Israel. Just think if Iraq had had nukes when giving the evil eye to Kuwait.....

yes attack kuwait for it's oil, then nuke the land so you cannot retrieve oil anymore. very logical. 11,000 kuwaity soldiers perished in the iraq invasion, that's much less than the US has caused in Iraq/Afghanistan.

[fakishan]

Asinine is taking an explanation and instead of debating it properly, calling me racist to sidestep the issues. This is the 3rd or 4th time in these types of threads that I've seen it, not only to me, but to other people as well. Would you like me to start going through all the past threads to find examples of this? YES I notice that yet again you've only quoted part of the post, instead of debating it. More than asinine, ignorant. ,,_ doesn't make sense, but sure :)

I guess I shouldn't feed a troll, but whatever, what questions would you like to debate? We never debate anything on RFD. Each sides gives its view and then the thread dies off :lol:

Only those who read the thread and don't respond learn anything meaningfull from our discussion, but sadly only stuff that will reinforce their existing bias. They will ignore the rest.

quoting only part of the post? oh please, everyone does it, sometimes because they don't want to deal with the part that was left-out, and sometimes because it's irrevelant, like in your case.

[Happy13178]

I guess I shouldn't feed a troll, but whatever, what questions would you like to debate? We never debate anything on RFD. Each sides gives its view and then the thread dies off :lol:

Only those who read the thread and don't respond learn anything meaningfull from our discussion, but sadly only stuff that will reinforce their existing bias. They will ignore the rest.

quoting only part of the post? oh please, everyone does it, sometimes because they don't want to deal with the part that was left-out, and sometimes because it's irrevelant, like in your case.

OK, since you say I'm a troll, I won't bother with this anymore. You clearly have more interest in tossing around names than in any real discussion, and I honestly think I'm getting dumber reading some of the stuff you post. But since I'm certain enough that some of the things you and a few other people have been posting are little more than hate speech, I took a cue from Rehan.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239850

I'll let them decide. Cheers.

[fakishan]

I'm certain enough that some of the things you and a few other people have been posting are little more than hate speech, I took a cue from Rehan.
I'll let them decide. Cheers.

If only you could have quoted a few of the said "hate speech" posts. I would like to see them.
Somehow, "muslim reich" comes to mind.

Cheers. :)

[FastFokker]

Iran's actions have contributed to the US restarting its own nuclear program.Get real.. Iran hasn't even done anything yet, it's only speculation and "conspiracy theory" that they are plotting something big, although I have my fingers crossed the theories are true.

The US invading non-nuclear nations willy-nilly and/or threatening to invade non-nuclear nations willy-nilly is having the biggest effect in the new arms race.
Another Cold War means a dangerous continuing escalation....because who's to say that the next one will stay cold?No, a cold war means a form of stalemate/deadlock or at most, the step before full scale war... which is better than the current full scale wars we're in now.

I'd rather be on the brink of war than in the Orwellian/never-ending "war on terror"... or whatever the heck the Americans are calling their misadventures these days.

[hagbard]

In all fairness to Happy, I do blame the US and Israel almost exclusively, with dashes of oil interests and the military industrial complex for good measure.

[ronin893]

I'll disagree with you on the latter point. I believe they ARE of military value, because they serve as a deterrant to future suicide bombers. Some of them will probably think twice if they know that their home will be destroyed, causing their family to suffer..That's like saying that if Canada's enemies punished the spouses and children of our soldiers, then more soldiers will be deterred and go AWOL.

[ronin893]

Great distinction, Canadian soldiers fight using conventional warfare and do not intentionaly target civilians. Thats a great distinction between a professional soldier and a professional suicide bomber. Much like the distinction between a suicide bomber and an IDF soldier.We're not talking about the soldiers; we're talking about their families. You seem to think that the families are legitimate targets. Yes or no?

[fakishan]

That's like saying that if Canada's enemies punished the spouses and children of our soldiers, then more soldiers will be deterred and go AWOL.

Maybe that's what he's saying terrorists should do more. Don't even think about attacking our army, attack our women and children and we'll think twice before retaliating.

to criticize a group for one thing and then propose to do the same if it benefits us is "dishonest, and evil". morality is NOT on our side (nor theirs).

[ronin893]

Really? Do you think MAD is even vaguely possible here?

Even with its oil, Iran isn't in any kind of position to bring itself up to that level....not with Israel, and most certainly not with the US. Their missiles can hit enemies within the region, which puts them within striking distance of Israel, but you can bet that Israel would respond in kind. On top of that, the missiles don't have a hope in hell of reaching the continental US. There wouldn't be MAD, it'd just be a big smoking crater where Tehran used to be.

I know exactly what the Cold War was, and in no way is Iran capable of bringing one up with the powers in that region, much less the US. They don't have the money or the resources to build nuclear weapons wholesale, and they're decades behind in refining and testing them. They don't have military alliances with anyone willing to take a shot at either Israel or the US, they don't have the political clout to force any sanctions on the US....economically or otherwise. As much as they may hate the US, they wouldn't stand a chance in a war against them.
Good points. Iran pose no real threat to us. So why is GWB threatening Iran?

[Nemodigital]

We're not talking about the soldiers; we're talking about their families. You seem to think that the families are legitimate targets. Yes or no?
I mentioned that I don't think its an effective deterent in my previous post and also noted that the IDF has stopped the practice (as far as I am aware).

At the same time bulldozing the home of a suicide bomber is mild compared to the acts that the suicide bomber perpetrated against civilians.

[fakishan]

At the same time bulldozing the home of a suicide bomber is mild compared to the acts that the suicide bomber perpetrated against civilians.
I don't condemn that policy, because to my mind that's a good detterent. allegedly, suicide bombers get money so that their family is taken care of right? so destroying the home and arresting the father (bread maker) would essentialy destroy that family. In reality of course, suicide bombings keep happening. :| Why? because they are resolved. and that's an ennemy you cannot defeat.

[Nemodigital]

As far as I'm aware, I also believe that the IDF has stopped executing the male members of the families from where a suicide bomber came from. What I DO know is happening is that the "man" of the family is arrested for harboring a terrorist (his son), and that their homes are demolished.

I don't condemn that policy, because to my mind that's a good detterent. allegedly, suicid ebombers ge tmoney so that their family is taken care of right? so destroying the home and arresting the father (bread maker) would essentialy destroy that family. In practice, of course, suicide bombings keep happening. :| Why? because they are resolved. and that's an ennemy you cannot defeat. only kill or settle in their favor.
Link please about "the executing male members of the families".... pretty obsured statement and would prefer a non-biased link.

[ronin893]

I mentioned that I don't think its an effective deterent in my previous post and also noted that the IDF has stopped the practice (as far as I am aware).

At the same time bulldozing the home of a suicide bomber is mild compared to the acts that the suicide bomber perpetrated against civilians.This is what you said in the previous post.Justifying would be if I said it was OK to randomly bulldoze homes but to bulldoze a home that hosted an armed combattent carried out a suicide is OK by me... hence the building can no longer be used to host suicide bombers. If the family distanced themselves from the suicide bomber then it would be different. At the same time it does provide harships and thats why I think that the IDF has greately reduced demolishing houses belonging to suicide bombers.So your moral code is: it's okay if it's less wrong, but it condemnable if it's more wrong. I condemn it if it's wrong. Period.

[d_jedi]

That's like saying that if Canada's enemies punished the spouses and children of our soldiers, then more soldiers will be deterred and go AWOL.
Our soliders aren't terrorists.

[hagbard]

Our soliders aren't terrorists.

Sometimes they are.

[ronin893]

Our soliders aren't terrorists.
Non sequitur.

Here's the debate to refresh your memory.YOU: I'll disagree with you on the latter point. I believe they ARE of military value, because they serve as a deterrant to future suicide bombers. Some of them will probably think twice if they know that their home will be destroyed, causing their family to suffer..

ME: That's like saying that if Canada's enemies punished the spouses and children of our soldiers, then more soldiers will be deterred and go AWOL.

YOU: Our soliders aren't terrorists.We are debating the deterrance value of punishing family members. Your argument is still weak.

[poedua]

Non sequitur.

Here's the debate to refresh your memory.We are debating the deterrance value of punishing family members. Your argument is still weak.

As an example, let's say suicide bomber "X" succeeds in killing Iraeli civilians.

Israel - either due to someone admitting respsonsibility ( i.e Islamic Jihad / Hamas ) or due their intelligence - is then able to identify the parties associated / assisted ( i.e harbor ) with that specific bomber...including anyone who they think was allegedly inolved in planning, aiding and abetting ( i.e providing sanctuary etc. ) for the alleged terrorists.

What do you think is an appropriate Israeli repsonse - if any - to such a hypothetical terror attack by bomber "x" ? I suppose some options Israel might consider would be.....

- do nothing
- confiscate/ destroy all assets of thát suicide bomber
- confiscate / destroy all assets of those who planned the attack
- confiscate / destroy all assets of those who provided direct support for the attack ( food , housing, etc. )
- seek and arrest ( for trial ) those those who planned the attack
- seek and kill those those who planned the attack

..........I raise only a few of these options, because i wonder if it is fair to say that all of these ( except the first ) could be carried out and and none could inolve any deterrence element in justifying their being carried out. Maybe, maybe not.

Just want to confirm, if your argument is that use of deterrence as a reason for Israeli actions is never a valid reason in the context of the target being randomly selected ..or if deterrance moitivation is only valid if it stems directly from an atttack.

Welcome your thoughts.

[plymouthhater]

As an example, let's say suicide bomber "X" succeeds in killing Iraeli civilians.

Israel - either due to someone admitting respsonsibility ( i.e Islamic Jihad / Hamas ) or due their intelligence - is then able to identify the parties associated / assisted ( i.e harbor ) with that specific bomber...including anyone who they think was allegedly inolved in planning, aiding and abetting ( i.e providing sanctuary etc. ) the alleged terrorists.

What do you think is an appropriate Israeli repsonse - if any - to such a hypothetical terror attack by bomber "x" ? I suppose some options Israel might consider would be.....

- do nothing
- confiscate/ destroy all assets of thát suicide bomber
- confiscate / destroy all assets of those who planned the attack
- confiscate / destroy all assets of those who provided direct support for the attack ( food , housing, etc. )
- seek and arrest ( for trial ) those those who planned the attack
- seek and kill those those who planned the attack

..........I raise only a few of these options, because i wonder if it is fair to say that all of these ( except the first ) could be carried out and and none could inolve any deterrence element in justifying their being carried out. Maybe, maybe not.

Just want to confirm, if your argument is that use of deterrence as a reason for Israeli actions is never a valid reason in the context of the target being randomly selected ..or if deterrance moitivation is only valid if it stems directly from an atttack.

Welcome your thoughts.

Allow me to predict the response(s) of the RFD resident "anti-Zionists"

The answer is "do nothing" - since Israel provoked the suicide bombing by their (insert any combination of the following adjectives - racist, murderous, inhumane, violent, apartheid) activities, the bombing was justified...Consequently, the Zionists got what they deserved and they should thank their lucky stars that the (insert any combination of the following adjectives - heroic, martyr, oppressed, victimized) Palestinians did not succeed in killing more of them. :lol:

[poedua]

Allow me to predict the response(s) of the RFD resident "anti-Zionists"

The answer is "do nothing" - since Israel provoked the suicide bombing by their (insert any combination of the following adjectives - racist, murderous, inhumane, violent, apartheid) activities, the bombing was justified...Consequently, the Zionists got what they deserved and they should thank their lucky stars that the (insert any combination of the following adjectives - heroic, martyr, oppressed, victimized) Palestinians did not succeed in killing more of them. :lol:

I won't get in to the alleged "anti-Zionists" angle of this.

My curiosity is at what point are military acts by Isreal considered above and beyond the realm of being "justified " military action and when do they enter enter the realm of terrorism.

From the example earlier. Suicide bomber "X" attacks. Isreal then retaliates by destorying assets ( i.e homes ) / killing/ arresting ANYONE even remotely invloved or associated ( at least according to Isreal ) with the bombing. The issue then becomes how far do you carry the definition of " even remotely invloved or assocated " for justification.

Compare that , with having a group of Palestinians being woken up at 3: 00 in morning to the sound of bulldozers heading in their direction to demolish their homes.....when there hasn't been a prior Palestinian suicide attack in many weeks. Are bulldozers a justified deterrent action to "prevent "/ "pre -empt " future suicide attacks or are these bulldozers instruments of terror ?

Tough questions - for both sides.

[ronin893]

The last two. - seek and arrest ( for trial ) those those who planned the attack
- seek and kill those those who planned the attackBut for the 'seek and kill', it's only in the context of capital punishment after a fair trial (if that country has capital punishment). I don't believe in political assassinations and there's no such thing as a judicial assassination. In other words, all assassinations are political.

If any property is to be confiscated or destroyed, it should only be those whose primary use/function is to support terrorism (to build bombs, for example). The homes of surviving family members do not fit this criterion.

Besides whether or not deterrence work, one also has to consider if it's right or wrong. Cutting the hands off for stealing a loaf of bread is a great deterrent but it's wrong. Nothing justifies cutting someone's hands off.

[batman321123]

I don't condemn that policy, because to my mind that's a good detterent. allegedly, suicide bombers get money so that their family is taken care of right? so destroying the home and arresting the father (bread maker) would essentialy destroy that family. In reality of course, suicide bombings keep happening. :| Why? because they are resolved. and that's an ennemy you cannot defeat.

By your justification, suicide bombings are also OK if all of the targets are above the age of 18. Since almost all Israelis over 18 serve in the military, suicide bombers can deter them by killing a few of them, thus there will be less Israeli terrorists.

[poedua]

The last two. - seek and arrest ( for trial ) those those who planned the attack
- seek and kill those those who planned the attackBut for the 'seek and kill', it's only in the context of capital punishment after a fair trial (if that country has capital punishment). I don't believe in political assassinations and there's no such thing as a judicial assassination. In other words, all assassinations are political..

Wel said.

However, I could also see the view that anyone who is directly involved in terror IS a legitimate target in the war on terror ( but clearly - those who are indirectly involved in terror are not a legitimate target ).

Such targets then prompt political assassinations. That's why political assassinations are a grey area - at best - IMO. The Israeli policy of targeting political leaders - i.e Hamas - for assassination could easily be seen as a legitmate undertaking. Legitmate because Hamas has declared war against Israel - we need only see the Hamas Charter articles for evidence of that. Given that's the case, you could argue all of Hamas' leaders are legitimate combatants. Whether they wear military uniforms in this " declared war " or not.

The trouble is, is that there isn't a differntiation between the political and military factions of Hamas ( ditto for the political / military arms of al-Qaeda ) The official policy of Hamas, as it is with al Qaeda, is the mass murder of civilians. And, since the decision to employ that policy was made by its so-called "political" leaders, I'd argue that such political leaders are legitmate tagrets for assassination.



If any property is to be confiscated or destroyed, it should only be those whose primary use/function is to support terrorism (to build bombs, for example). The homes of surviving family members do not fit this criterion...

Fair enough. But if family members interacted with that bomber in any way, such that their interaction with the bomber facilitated the planning of the attack ( or the bomber's training ) - in even the most remote way - I would consider them legitimate targets.

Besides whether or not deterrence work, one also has to consider if it's right or wrong. Cutting the hands off for stealing a loaf of bread is a great deterrent but it's wrong. Nothing justifies cutting someone's hands off.

It's the classic dilema .....isn't it...when do the ends jutsify the means ? As with many issues here on RFD..it seems to be a judgement borne in the eye of the beholder. :)

[ronin893]

However, I could also see the view that anyone who is directly involved in terror IS a legitimate target in the war on terror ( but clearly - those who are indirectly involved in terror are not a legitimate target ).

Such targets then prompt political assassinations. That's why political assassinations are a grey area - at best - IMO. The Israeli policy of targeting political leaders - i.e Hamas - for assassination could easily be seen as a legitmate undertaking. Legitmate because Hamas has declared war against Israel - we need only see the Hamas Charter articles for evidence of that. Given that's the case, you could argue all of Hamas' leaders are legitimate combatants. Whether they wear military uniforms in this " declared war " or not.

The trouble is, is that there isn't a differntiation between the political and military factions of Hamas ( ditto for the political / military arms of al-Qaeda ) The official policy of Hamas, as it is with al Qaeda, is the mass murder of civilians. And, since the decision to employ that policy was made by its so-called "political" leaders, I'd argue that such political leaders are legitmate tagrets for assassination. I'm going to avoid the angle about whether the leader of a group deserves to die.

The problem with political assassinations is that you need the leader to call a ceasefire/truce or surrender or otherwise negotiate. Think about WW2. As despicable as Hitler or Mussolini or Hirohito were, they shouldn't be assassinated (and they were not) because they have the power to call off the troops to avoid further casualties on both sides. If you do assassinate a leader, another one will replace him. Killing Hitler would not have stopped the Nazis. Killing a Hamas leader means you get a new leader, probably an even more militant one.

*Yes, I know Hitler committed suicide in the end, but the Allies still needed the German leadership to negotiate the terms of surrender.

[poedua]

I'm going to avoid the angle about whether the leader of a group deserves to die.

The problem with political assassinations is that you need the leader to call a ceasefire/truce or surrender or otherwise negotiate. Think about WW2. As despicable as Hitler or Mussolini or Hirohito were, they shouldn't be assassinated (and they were not) because they have the power to call off the troops to avoid further casualties on both sides. If you do assassinate a leader, another one will replace him. Killing Hitler would not have stopped the Nazis. Killing a Hamas leader means you get a new leader, probably an even more militant one.

*Yes, I know Hitler committed suicide in the end, but the Allies still needed the German leadership to negotiate the terms of surrender.

As you know , after D-Day, the saner heads of the German military formed a plot to assassinate Hitler - it failed of course. D- Day was a motivation for a chance to sue for peace in their view..and perhaps Rommel would have been a moderate replacement - ideal for negotiating a peace.

The bomb was one of many British bombs confiscated by the Abwehr, the German intelligence organization. Stauffenberg had to activate the bomb with tongs. He placed the bomb under the [ Hitler's ] conference table and left.

The failure of the July 20 plot precluded any possibility of Germany negotiating a peace with the Allies. Hitler intended to fight to the death in a struggle that would see the end of National Socialism or the end of Germany’s enemies.

Implicated was Erwin Rommel, who had been approached by the plotters but did not join. Rommel was recovering from wounds at home. For his failure to inform Hitler, he was given a choice: take poison and get a state funeral, or refuse and see your family executed as well. Rommel took poison. The man who had the best ability to change Germany’s fortunes of war was gone.

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/julyplot.htm

...I know you said " If you do assassinate a leader, another one will replace him." - which is true. But the notion that " Killing Hitler would not have stopped the Nazis. " is a matter of debate IMO. I tend to think think that had he died, a new leader would not have had such a genocidal/suicidal goal to fight to the death as Hitler did. ...an new leader would have embraced a surrender.

As for Hamas....assassinations may or not have the same upside as replacing Hitler might have.......but, given Hamas leaders promote terrorism, their assassinations may not be with paving the way for " replacements " in mind ..they simply were symbolic targets for acts of retaliation, regardless of what the political consequences the assassination has on Hamas. I tend to think retaliation triggers most assassinations.....and the assassinations aren't aimed at forcing a new leadershipin Hamas.