The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No topics on this yet? What with all the Iraq and Al-Queda hubub I guess the Israel/Palestine ruckus has died down a bit but this should refresh everyone's memories.
In the long run it probably won't do much to solve anything, perhaps even spur on more suicide bombings in the near future, but despite all that how the UN and various countries, including our own, can denounce the act so vehemently is a bit bewildering really. A man that headed an organization and, if Israel are to believed gave direct orders to not only attack innocent civilians, but do so with suicide bombers, sometimes women, is killed by the military...and this is an atrocity? Are Israel not within their rights to go for a legitimate target, when they allegedly have evidence that they explicitly gave orders of such attacks? More interestingly, why has America not gone with every other country and counsel on the planet, and denounced the attack? Could it be because their foriegn minister was in Israel at the time? Could it be that whenever previous military operations of this type have gone ahead, the Americans have typically given Israel the all-clear?
In the long run it probably won't do much to solve anything, perhaps even spur on more suicide bombings in the near future, but despite all that how the UN and various countries, including our own, can denounce the act so vehemently is a bit bewildering really. A man that headed an organization and, if Israel are to believed gave direct orders to not only attack innocent civilians, but do so with suicide bombers, sometimes women, is killed by the military...and this is an atrocity? Are Israel not within their rights to go for a legitimate target, when they allegedly have evidence that they explicitly gave orders of such attacks? More interestingly, why has America not gone with every other country and counsel on the planet, and denounced the attack? Could it be because their foriegn minister was in Israel at the time? Could it be that whenever previous military operations of this type have gone ahead, the Americans have typically given Israel the all-clear?
Page:
He was a hugely popular and influential figure. From what I saw last night he handles millions and millions of dollars in donations but lived in abject poverty himself, and was responsible for the founding of many schools/hospitals throughout the region. A real Palestinian hero in other words, and I believe the level of devotion to this man was the reason Israel cite him as influencing suicide bombers in the name of Hamas. But killing him will only have turned him into a mega-martyr!
Ahhh, World War 1 started over less than this....
Ahhh, World War 1 started over less than this....
This seems like an odd one.
Was he a legitimate target? Well, if you take an armoured helicopter to a fight against a paraplegic in a wheelchair, you're not going to win any fans.
But if Israeli claims about him are correct, he must be as legitimate a target as Bin Laden or Hussein. Someone (Pro-Palestinian) on the radio yesterday admitted that arguemnt sound but pointed out that Hussein is still alive.
Nobody at the time pointed out the airstrikes which tried to kill Hussein, or that his sons were killed, etc. Or the possibility that he'll get the death penalty...
But more importantly, what was the Israeli gvt thinking?!
The whole Hamas fight is based on honour and revenge, this will inevitably cause a big increase in violence.
I cannot believe that they didn't realise this, nobody can be that dumb.
So why?
The possibilities:
1) Sharon wants to do something big to save losing face when (if?) he pulls out of Palestinian territory.
But, surely this, by increasing hostilities, will counter all benefit achieved by pulling out.
2) Sharon will go on to try to take out all the senior members of Hamas quickly, to obliterate its structure and reduce the enemy to a disorganised crowd.
This would demand other members to be killed soon - if Sharon leaves it long enough for each person's role to be filled, Hamas as an organisation will effectively have 'repaired' itself.
So we shall soon see whether this has been the case.
3) Sharon wants to provoke a response from the Palestinians.
Why?
Maybe to give legitimacy to his border wall, before international law can condemn it.
However, we've seen the Israeli *Government*Footnote take measures which everyone accepts goes beyond tackling terrorism and into unnecessary killing of civilians.
Which suggests that their agenda involves doing as much damage as possible to all the Palestinian people, they want to cripple or obliterate the state of Palestine.
Only, they've been coming under increasing international scrutiny and condemnation for their actions.
So if they want to pursue this agenda they need to give it a new sense of legitimacy.
How better than by provoking a large increase in hostility from the whole Palestinian community?
If the people of Palestine retaliate on anything like the scale they're talking about, Israel will *have* to go into a full-on war against Palestine, right?
And the last one standing gets the land.
Its only speculation, but it would make logical sense to me.
Footnote: I make a point of distinguishing between Israel as a whole and the Israeli government. Many of the problems around this whole issue come from looking at Israel against Palestine, and having to take sides. I figure it helps to remember that in practice a government doesn't always accurately represent their people as a whole. Their mistakes can't truely completely be the responsibility of the Israeli people.
Of course, likewise Palestinian suicide bombers don't act for all of Palestine.
On another note: Jeez, I'm kind of glad they turned me down for that project teaching English in Palestine now. I'd be caught up in a spot of trouble otherwise!
Was he a legitimate target? Well, if you take an armoured helicopter to a fight against a paraplegic in a wheelchair, you're not going to win any fans.
But if Israeli claims about him are correct, he must be as legitimate a target as Bin Laden or Hussein. Someone (Pro-Palestinian) on the radio yesterday admitted that arguemnt sound but pointed out that Hussein is still alive.
Nobody at the time pointed out the airstrikes which tried to kill Hussein, or that his sons were killed, etc. Or the possibility that he'll get the death penalty...
But more importantly, what was the Israeli gvt thinking?!
The whole Hamas fight is based on honour and revenge, this will inevitably cause a big increase in violence.
I cannot believe that they didn't realise this, nobody can be that dumb.
So why?
The possibilities:
1) Sharon wants to do something big to save losing face when (if?) he pulls out of Palestinian territory.
But, surely this, by increasing hostilities, will counter all benefit achieved by pulling out.
2) Sharon will go on to try to take out all the senior members of Hamas quickly, to obliterate its structure and reduce the enemy to a disorganised crowd.
This would demand other members to be killed soon - if Sharon leaves it long enough for each person's role to be filled, Hamas as an organisation will effectively have 'repaired' itself.
So we shall soon see whether this has been the case.
3) Sharon wants to provoke a response from the Palestinians.
Why?
Maybe to give legitimacy to his border wall, before international law can condemn it.
However, we've seen the Israeli *Government*Footnote take measures which everyone accepts goes beyond tackling terrorism and into unnecessary killing of civilians.
Which suggests that their agenda involves doing as much damage as possible to all the Palestinian people, they want to cripple or obliterate the state of Palestine.
Only, they've been coming under increasing international scrutiny and condemnation for their actions.
So if they want to pursue this agenda they need to give it a new sense of legitimacy.
How better than by provoking a large increase in hostility from the whole Palestinian community?
If the people of Palestine retaliate on anything like the scale they're talking about, Israel will *have* to go into a full-on war against Palestine, right?
And the last one standing gets the land.
Its only speculation, but it would make logical sense to me.
Footnote: I make a point of distinguishing between Israel as a whole and the Israeli government. Many of the problems around this whole issue come from looking at Israel against Palestine, and having to take sides. I figure it helps to remember that in practice a government doesn't always accurately represent their people as a whole. Their mistakes can't truely completely be the responsibility of the Israeli people.
Of course, likewise Palestinian suicide bombers don't act for all of Palestine.
On another note: Jeez, I'm kind of glad they turned me down for that project teaching English in Palestine now. I'd be caught up in a spot of trouble otherwise!
Blank wrote:
> An excerpt of what was said on Radio 4, that made me laugh:
>
> "There was a hole in the ground, with bits of broken wheelchair
> and one shoe"
Sky News footage actually showed one Palestinian holding up a rather scorched, but recognisable, piece of wheelchair.
Apparently, if today's reports are to be believed, Israel is going to go after the entire Hamas leadership...
The problem I see is that, whilst Israel has not been attacked back just yet, probably due to the massive security they have put in place, Israel cannot keep security at that level and have it be effective indefinitely. You just cannot keep people on high alert for ages at a time because eventually they get worn down and the bombers will slip through.
> An excerpt of what was said on Radio 4, that made me laugh:
>
> "There was a hole in the ground, with bits of broken wheelchair
> and one shoe"
Sky News footage actually showed one Palestinian holding up a rather scorched, but recognisable, piece of wheelchair.
Apparently, if today's reports are to be believed, Israel is going to go after the entire Hamas leadership...
The problem I see is that, whilst Israel has not been attacked back just yet, probably due to the massive security they have put in place, Israel cannot keep security at that level and have it be effective indefinitely. You just cannot keep people on high alert for ages at a time because eventually they get worn down and the bombers will slip through.
Am I the only one who thinks he looked a little like Saruman?
i'm past caring anymore, it's just never-ending, you kill one of theirs so they kill 10 of yours and so on.
Stuff the lot of them !
Stuff the lot of them !
Well from what i was hearing on CNN he was responsible for many of the suicide bombings in Israel and many innocent people being killed. Yup what a shame such a nice fellow has passed on
I think the condemnation came because it was making the situation worse, rather than better, although it sounds like the guy DID have it coming.
The difference between Israelies actions and our own that when we assassinate someone, their people are rarely in a position to get us back, so there's no problem of backlash (except for the CIA's failed attempt Osama and we all know what THAT lead to!).
The difference between Israelies actions and our own that when we assassinate someone, their people are rarely in a position to get us back, so there's no problem of backlash (except for the CIA's failed attempt Osama and we all know what THAT lead to!).
An excerpt of what was said on Radio 4, that made me laugh:
"There was a hole in the ground, with bits of broken wheelchair and one shoe"
"There was a hole in the ground, with bits of broken wheelchair and one shoe"
America hasn't denounced it because in the aftermath of 9/11 the CIA's charter was revised to allow it to carry out what basically amounts to assassination. America has, and will, continue to take out terrorists when it gets the chance to. They can't condemn this and then announce they have done to same to some Al-Qaeda guy next month, for example.
It's just the media seems to have ignored this point because they have collective short memories.
It's just the media seems to have ignored this point because they have collective short memories.
Paradox: wrote:
> Ahhh anti-American too.
>
> Kudos :-)
>
> I've not heard anything of this issue though - however I feel the
> middle east issues seem to blur into each other.
not really anti-American, their work in all this has been quite good, helping along Sharon to give up all these troublesome settlements. it's jsut a shame they won't come out and admit they're in cahoots with Israel. They don't think twice about invading a country on shaky grounds, but kill a mass murderer terrorist who also happens to be a parapeliegic or however you spell it and mum's the word.
> Ahhh anti-American too.
>
> Kudos :-)
>
> I've not heard anything of this issue though - however I feel the
> middle east issues seem to blur into each other.
not really anti-American, their work in all this has been quite good, helping along Sharon to give up all these troublesome settlements. it's jsut a shame they won't come out and admit they're in cahoots with Israel. They don't think twice about invading a country on shaky grounds, but kill a mass murderer terrorist who also happens to be a parapeliegic or however you spell it and mum's the word.
Page: