Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Run Tisi, Run!

  1. Apr 18, 2004 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 18, 2004 #2
    Yes, the assassination (conventiently not punished by the international community) will increase attacks against Israel. Exactly what Israel wants. It will justify any further expansions and such.
  4. Apr 18, 2004 #3
  5. Apr 18, 2004 #4
    And keeping him alive would have helped Israel? :rolleyes:
  6. Apr 18, 2004 #5
    It wouldn't have hurt them any more than killing him did. And at least they wouldn't have so much blood on their hands.
  7. Apr 18, 2004 #6
    Obviously you have no idea who this person was and what kind of movement he had led. "wouldn't have hurt them"? Rantisis was the mastermind behind dozens of terrorist acts, so what makes him so harmless all of a sudden?
  8. Apr 18, 2004 #7
    The idea that killing a single person will significantly reduce the amount of terrorism is absurd. You could kill everyone in Hamas, and at best you would get a temporary reduction in the amount of terrorism. Pretending that you can eliminate terrorism by killing a few key people is wishful thinking.
  9. Apr 18, 2004 #8
    Good idea, let's let them get away with it.

    Why does the US pursuit Bin Laden so hard then? I mean, it's just one person... it wouldn't stop terrorism, it would only increase it!
  10. Apr 18, 2004 #9
    I see. The only two options are doing nothing and assassinating people.
  11. Apr 18, 2004 #10
    Ok so it's either:
    a) Kill Bin-Laden
    b) Talk to Bin-Laden
    c) Do nothing
    What do you choose?
  12. Apr 18, 2004 #11
    Well, you didn't even point out the very popular idea of capturing him...but I don't think you really understand my point. You seem to be fixated on the idea that attacking specific terrorists is a productive way of fighting terrorism. It isn't.

    Anyone killed is easily replacable, so it doesn't weaken them significantly from a personel point of view. It clearly doesn't act as a deterent.

    So, how do you justify such killings? You can't do it in the name of fighting terrorism...it clearly doesn't reduce terrorism.

    The cycle of retaliations has just gotten a lot of people killed. The terrorists are fools as well...clearly blowing people up has accomplished nothing for them either. Yet both sides continue killing, absolutly certain that if they just keep on killing the enemy they'll eventually win. And we can't try anything else, because these people we're fighting against are murderers and they deserve to die.
  13. Apr 18, 2004 #12
    Isreal seems to like creating martyrs.
  14. Apr 18, 2004 #13
    The vicious cycle will never stop.

    Suicide bombers blew themselves up--->>Israel hunts down leader
    Israel kills leader----->>Suicide bombers blew themselves up again.

    It goes on and on.
  15. Apr 18, 2004 #14


    User Avatar

    Assassinations have actually reduced attacks and the big push at the moment is due to Israels planned pullout. Which is more likely to increase attacks because it will be seen as a significant win for the different palestinian groups. The goal atm is to unbalance Hamas enough to give Arafat's Organization the upper hand in the pull out and attempt to avoid a civil war in the vacum.

    Rantisi was a child preying (palestinian and israeli), hateful murderous scum. The world is a better place without him.
  16. Apr 19, 2004 #15
    How do I justify the killing? Easily - Rantisi is directly responsible for the deaths of dozens of Israelis (if not more), and deserves to be killed. It is a very simple equation.

    Do you honestly believe it will increase terrorism? I agree, in the long run, that killing Rantisi would not stop terrorism. I do believe it will reduce it for a while, however. I don't agree that it will increase terrorism - what do you base this on? The whole argument of "this is like giving them a reason/incentive" is completely invalid. It's not like they didn't already have a reason to attack us, and they have more than enough incentives to do so.

    Suppose we arranged a big operation and captured him (and probably lost a couple of soldiers on the way, but who cares about them right? :rolleyes:)... what difference would it have made? Would it not anger the Palestinians?
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2004
  17. Apr 19, 2004 #16
    This happens to be the exact same equation that the terrorists use. They see their friends and relatives die at the hands of the Israelis, so they respond in kind.

    Both sides see killing as "evening the score". Israeli soldiers aren't really murderers because they're just avenging the deaths of their fellow Israelis and defending their homeland. The terrorists aren't really murderers either, since they're just doing the same thing.

    Both sides have come up with the exact same reason to justify their killings and see themselves as heroes while their enemies are evil murderers. The irony is almost sickening.
  18. Apr 19, 2004 #17
    Not true. Those friends that died, were they killed by civilians? By women? By children and babies? No, so why do the terrorists "return the favor" by murdering innocent Israeli families in the middle of a restaurant or while riding the bus?
  19. Apr 19, 2004 #18
    Oh, I don't disagree that Israel does a much better job of not killing women and children. They certainly have the moral high ground. That doesn't change the fact that Israeli revenge killings are still part of the endless cycle of death. Or the fact that, ultimately, the same emotions and reasoning are what motivate both sides.

    What level of separation does there have to be between a killer and another person for that person to no longer be responsible for the killings? Are you still responsible if you're just involved in the planning? Or what if you only supply the killer with weapons? Or what if you only supply encouragement? How much separation does there have to be to absolve someone of direct responsibility?
  20. Apr 19, 2004 #19
    I don't agree that this cycle of death is endless. I believe it can be ended by a mutual agreement signed by both parties, and I also believe that there are people on the Palestinian side that wish to reach such an agreement. However, these people are not doing enough. Maybe because they are afraid, I don't know. But if the Palestinian government wants peace, it needs to make some sacrifices. For example, fight the terror rather than help the Hamas. Last time we tried to make a temporary truce by both parties for a period of two weeks, it was violated by the Palestinians after a couple of days.

    I know it sounds like a "he started it!" argument. And you are probably going to tell me that "one of you needs to rise above itself and end this fight". But this is not kindergarten, and we are not arguing over pieces of lego. The lives of many people, both Israeli and Palestinian, are hanging on the balance here. We can't just pull our forces out of there, nor can we stop our fight against terror, because Israeli citizens will lose their lives. Israeli fights terrorists to keep its citizens safe, whereas Palestinian terrorists murder people to sabotage any chance of peace.

    I think the only way to end this is by cooperation, both militarily and politically. Israel also has its extremist that try to hurt the Arabs, but when was the last time you heard about an Israeli teenager walking into a Palestinian restaurant carrying a bomb? Over the last 20 years I can count the number of terrorist acts executed by Israeli extremists on just one of my hands. Two will not be enough to count the terrorist acts coming from Palestinian in the last month.

    (By the way, it is nice to have an argument on this subject with intelligent people, for once. On most other forums that try to discuss these issues threads usually end in a flame war.)
  21. Apr 19, 2004 #20
    I think cooperation most certainly is the answer. But this is the problem with the killings, on both sides. On the surface, whenever someone is killed, it seems to "justify" the extremists. The desire for revenge that is generated is most readily satisified by people who advocate immediate retaliation, while cooperation is critisized as having failed.

    While Israeli extremists don't use terrorism, that much is true...but I think that tends to be a matter of circumstance. They can kill the enemy without killing innocents. The terrorists can't. If they want to kill people for their cause, then they have to kill indiscriminatly.

    To be completly honest, I don't really know how this situation is going to work out. Neither side can acheive military victory, at least not without resorting to genocide. Peaceful cooperation is the only real solution in my eyes, but that almost seems like wishful thinking...it only takes one terrorist to ruin it.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook