March 23, 2004
MEALY-MOUTHED, MORALLY OFFENSIVE
Nine News is reporting that Labor’s Mark Latham has “joined other world leaders” in condemning the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Latham’s comments are yet to hit the wires. Here’s a piece on global reaction to the happiest day in Yassin’s life, which the Bush administration isn't very happy about. NRO’s Joel Rosenberg writes:
Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin was the Osama bin Laden of Palestinian terrorism. By assassinating Yassin, the Israelis just applied the Bush Doctrine to one of the most deadly terrorist leaders on the planet. In the winner-take-all war on terror, countries are either with us or against us. They either take decisive action — even preemptive military action — to bring terrorists to justice, or they are guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.
Israel's side is clear.
You'd think, therefore, that the Bush administration — fresh off of losing Spain as a major ally in the war against radical Islam — would be grateful and publicly praise our only democratic ally in the Middle East as a true partner for peace.
Think again.
The Bush administration's initial reaction to Israel's act of self-defense has been mealy-mouthed, pathetic, and morally offensive.
Agreed. Meanwhile, if you prefer your moral confusion to be pitched at truly ceiling-busting levels, there’s always Yvonne Ridley:
I had the privilege recently of meeting some brothers who fought in Afghanistan against America and Britain. No doubt if the authorities knew their identity they would be wearing orange jump suits by now, squatting in cages in Guantanamo Bay.
One thing that struck me about these brothers was how principled they were ... going on jihad for ideals almost forgotten in a selfish world corrupted by greed and power. The driving force that led them into battle in the mountains and caves of Tora Bora was no different to that which propelled 2800 men AND women from the United States to fight in the Spanish Civil War in 1936.
As far as I’m aware, neither side in the Spanish Civil War was fighting for the right to prevent women living as human beings.
(Via Angela Bell)
Posted by Tim Blair at March 23, 2004 08:17 AMIt raises the question: if Israel's action is legitimate (and I think it is), how come so many countries are condemning it?
Posted by: Andjam at March 23, 2004 at 08:32 AMIt raises the question: if Israel's action is legitimate (and I think it is), how come so many countries are condemning it?
Because they think that sending suicide bombers to murder dozens of Jews doesn't make you a terrorist.
Posted by: Jono at March 23, 2004 at 08:34 AMI'm so sick of the media playing to palestinian sympathies over this.
A terrorist leader was killed, the western world should be relieved. Hamas were the inventors of modern terrorism and the suicide bomber. You have to wonder where Al-Qaeda got their inspiration from, no?
Because of the teachings of sick religious leaders like Sheikh Yassin, it was suddenly permissible to strap on explosives and blow yourself to bits if you killed Israelis.
Sheikh Yassin has been calling for the destruction of Israel for many years now. Not (as the media portray it) just palestinian independence.
Israel - the media's favorite punching bag.
Posted by: Jono at March 23, 2004 at 08:40 AMNine News is reporting that Labor’s Mark Latham has “joined other world leaders” in condemning the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
So Latham doesn't regard Yassin as a "deformed character"?
"world leaders" - I wonder if they include the "world leaders" who support Kerry for president?
Posted by: Andjam at March 23, 2004 at 08:50 AMI think that most people are criticising the assassination because they believe it won't help the situation, rather than because they believe the dead guy was a paragon of virtue.
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 08:56 AMI was always curious how the Sheik lost his shake - now all has been revealed:
atillathepun.blogspot.com
Posted by: atilla at March 23, 2004 at 09:04 AMThey fail to realize what an honor the man had bestowed upon him.
He died in Jihad. He died for his religion. For his beliefs.
To worry that this is wrong misses the point of how right this is, and was, and always will be.
He enjoyed a valiant death. His name shall be remembered as one of the martyrs. May we only be so lucky that more can follow his great and noble steps. Follow his path that brings the greatest of reward in the afterlife.
Stop decrying this noble action and celebrate it for what it is. A noble man getting what he deserves. A fine noble Jihad.
YAY.
May many follow after.
Posted by: IXLNXS at March 23, 2004 at 09:05 AMThe authorities know Yvonne Ridley's identity. Why don't they act?
Posted by: Mike G at March 23, 2004 at 09:07 AM"Other world leaders"? does that make him a world leader?
Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2004 at 09:12 AMActually it's funny to see college kids get excited about the spanish civil war - being a rebellion and all. How many of them know that it was against leftists?
Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2004 at 09:14 AMI doubt we didn't give tacit approval for this one. We have to publically condemn it, sure, but I'm sure folks in the White House -- if not the State Department -- are perfectly content about this one.
Posted by: Andrew at March 23, 2004 at 09:30 AMIf Israel's action is legitimate, why are Israelis questioning it?
"Those who thought that hitting Sheikh Ahmed Yassin will serve as a deterrence are mistaken, Dr. Reuven Paz, research fellow of the National Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism of the Interdisciplinary Institute of Herzliya, told the Jerusalem Post..."
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 09:54 AMSorry, my link attempt didn't work - try this:
http://allisonkaplansommer.blogmosis.com/history/023486.html
Posted by: Doug in VA at March 23, 2004 at 10:04 AMTim, something's seriously wrong with your content screener... I tried to make a post with the words "has" and "its" in it, and the damn thing refused to let me post, supposedly due to "questionable content." WTF?
Posted by: Tatterdemalian at March 23, 2004 at 10:06 AMWhile I welcome the death of this scumbag, I must admit that I can't see the point of the Israeli strategy here. Why does Israel only carry out occasional, apparently random strikes? Why not go in with all guns blazing and take out the entire godamn organisation at once? Why this occasional low-intensity effort rather than an all-out war aimed at exterminating every Palestinian terrorist organisation? Israel seems to be following a Clinton-type strategy in their war against terrorists, not a Bush-type strategy. And that's a good way to lose.
Or is there some deeper strategy here which I'm missing? Or is the IDF simply incapable of making war against Hamas any faster than it already is?
Posted by: Jorge at March 23, 2004 at 10:11 AMBecause every Palestinian is a member of a terrorist organization, and taking them all out would be considered genocide, not only by the Palis, but by most of the Israelis as well.
Or they could have just kept the guy in jail in the first place, instead of letting him go then blowing him up. Score one for consistency...
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 10:18 AMBecause every Palestinian is a member of a terrorist organization
That's a flat-out ridiculous statement, and is repugnant.
Posted by: Andjam at March 23, 2004 at 10:19 AMJohn Kerry would be proud of the Bush administration's "nuanced" response to the situation.
Posted by: Bret at March 23, 2004 at 10:28 AMHe was an *acrobat*. Never did trust carnies, and circus folk are just as bad...
Posted by: atilla at March 23, 2004 at 10:29 AMJono, Yassin has to do more than call for the destruction of Israel for his assassination to be a moral act. Participating in murderous attacks is a better justification for his assassination than mere hate-mongering. Dwelling on the morality of it all is probably misguided though, given the calculated nature of the act.
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 10:44 AMIf Israel's action is legitimate, why are Israelis questioning it?
Because Israel is a democracy. The equivalent to the international reaction would be if 95% of Israelis condemned the strikes on Yassin.
Posted by: Andjam at March 23, 2004 at 10:50 AMAndjam, yeah, I know. It was a rhetorical question really, just trying to undermine this idea of "everyone" beating up on plucky little Israel just trying to defend itself. The government isn't helpless or naive, they chose their policy for their own reasons and I doubt they give a damn who publically condemns or supports it.
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 10:57 AM"Or they could have just kept the guy in jail in the first place, instead of letting him go then blowing him up."
Another example that appeasement doesn't work, don't you think Michael ?.
Posted by: Gary at March 23, 2004 at 11:02 AMHmmm,
"World reaction" will be interesting
if Bin Laden gets whacked.
Gary, exactly! Hopefully the Spanish are smarter than the Israelis and will put their terrorists in jail and *keep* them there.
Although I would characterise Israel's policy more as appeasement-followed-by-bursts-of-irrational-violence-in-a-perpetual-cycle-of-mutual-self-flagellation, although that's not quite as catchy.
(How come only European nations are called appeasers, anyway?)
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 11:05 AMfred, I don't think people will be upset if Bin Laden is assassinated (although a trial would be better) simply because his death cannot undermine a peace process, as there is no such peace process to undermine.
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 11:07 AMThere really isn't a peace process in Israel either, except in the minds of the Western Left
Posted by: Monco at March 23, 2004 at 11:43 AMMichael,
...simply because his death cannot undermine a peace process, as there is no such peace process to undermine.Couldn't one say the same of Yassin? Hadn't Hamas rejected and denounced anything resembling "peace" with Israel? Posted by: Spiny Norman at March 23, 2004 at 11:45 AM
Y'know, assassination really sucks. But so does any form of violent death, especially when the enemy says, "We love death", when life is clearly a better option. So, to me, it's not a morale decision, but a pragmatic one. Fight or die. So, when the issue gets down to choosing between us and them, it's them every time -- hands down.
And since "them" set the rules, the Palestinians have zero room for complaint. It matters not who pulled the trigger. "Morale outrage" in this context is an oxymoron when practiced by the Palestinians. I'll give the Isrealis room for doubt -- I can see why they are sick and tired of the situation.
Ol' Man Yassin is dead, and that's the real story.
Posted by: JeffS at March 23, 2004 at 12:23 PMDoes this mean the Israeli secret service made the wrong call when they assisted Hamas and their 'spiritual adviser' without which neither would have become significant among palestinian muslims?
Posted by: Homer Paxton at March 23, 2004 at 12:29 PM"A terrorist leader was killed, the western world should be relieved...." But if they didn't cry crocodile's tears, terrorist revenge would be taken on them. Now, they believe, only Americans, and Jews would be targeted. As long as they are not killing Euros, these people are not terrorists, and we're supposed to understand them.
Posted by: ic at March 23, 2004 at 12:39 PMMichael:
Yassin has to do more than call for the destruction of Israel for his assassination to be a moral act.
I agree Michael, the large majority of palestinians don't recognise Israel's rigt to exist. This doesn't make them terrorists.
Yassin however was involved in planning several attacks.
For my mind, a religious leader that blesses suicide bombers and inspires madness is a #1 strategic target.
Perhaps he was too old and frail to carry out further attacks, but the guy is a living testament to the fact that palestinians can massacre Israelis AND receive sympathy from world leaders for his cause.
Israel has tried making concessions and negotiating before. That path never worked, because their efforts were not reciprocated. The only thing that has never been tried is to annihilate a terrorist group.
As for the peace process, its a total sham. Over the last few years, there were almost daily attempts at suicide bombings against Israel. Yet the peace process moves on ?
Its not a peace process when only the Israeli side agrees to halt military action.
Posted by: Jono at March 23, 2004 at 12:41 PM"Does this mean the Israeli secret service made the wrong call when they assisted Hamas and their 'spiritual adviser' without which neither would have become significant among palestinian muslims?
Posted by: Homer Paxton at March 23, 2004 at 12:29 PM"
A leading question, Homer. Sneaky! Your question assumes that the Isrealis made an uninformed or spur of the moment decision, or were otherwise immorale. Then we have to guess what they were thinking, and argue on vapors.
Don't ask if they were wrong; ask what was their strategy. Were they playing Hamas against PLO? Or just stupid? I seriously doubt they were trying to buy Palestinian allegiance. Perhaps their strategy was longterm, the old "divide and conquer" approach (in this, mayhaps "divide and defeat"). It works, y'know.
From the Isreali perspective, this is probably not a morale issue -- it's a pragmatic one, what is called a "force multiplier". I suspect that they made the enemy work against each other, and saved themselves some ammunition.
Posted by: JeffS at March 23, 2004 at 01:22 PMJono, true, although I think that argument is somewhat one-sided, given that it is easier for Israel to suspend military actions than for a bunch of separate groups that reject centralised leadership. One nutjob can always derail things.
Posted by: Michael at March 23, 2004 at 01:36 PMI hate to be picky, but morale and moral are not the same word. Morale refers to the level of enthusiasm or willingness to work or serve among the members of a group, such as soldiers. Moral refers to the standards of behavior people should adhere to based on their beliefs about right and wrong.
Yassin spent many years planning, supporting, and commanding the terrorist campaign Hamas is waging against Israel, with the intent of destroying Israel and exterminationg is Jewish inhabitants. To kill him in war was moral, His death will probably cause a morale rise among Israelis and a lowering of morale among Hamas terrorists. Clear now?
Posted by: Michael Lonie at March 23, 2004 at 01:44 PMYassin was, at the very least, an associate before and after the fact in the murder of many Israelis (both Jew and Arab). As such, he was subject to the same penalties as those who actually carry out the crimes he motivated. Fuck him for the evil pissant he was.
Now if only the rest of the free world would start taking out his ideological colleagues. Let's focus these repulsive hatemongers on the real price of the power they seek.
"Moral does not equal Morale" -- yeah, you're right. Guess all that college education was wasted, huh?
Maybe I should start a do-not-repress-dyslexics campaign -- I could blame my spelling errors on something else, and demand equal rights for my problems. It seems to be the in thing these days.
What do you think? "Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!"
Posted by: JeffS at March 23, 2004 at 02:19 PMAssasinations are the great equalizer in war, official or not. It is far more moral, from a leftist point of view, to kill the leaders (burgeois) than the rank-and-file (proletariat). Why should the foot soldiers face all of the dangers? End the wars quicker, and with less blood by going directly to the opposing leader.
In the case of Israel, killing the leader of Hamas is appropriate. Make them face some of the risks. If Hamas wants keep this going, Israel needs to keep killing their leaders. Then we'll see how long they keep it up.
Surely the lefties and media are right :
Yassin and other leaders believe that it is glorious to die fighting Jews and Crusaders.
The suicide bomber is a martyr who will enjoy the fruits of heavens etc etc
What is absolutely taboo is one of the leaders dying because .....um....well it's shit really.
And the groundswill wait .....groundswell know it's shit because if it wasn't why aren't the fucks celebrating this martyr like all of the saps he sent out to die?
These geniuses can never tell me about the glory of their religion because if they do they will have to explain why it is the height of achievement for young boys to blow themselves to bits but a shocking tragedy if this genius gets taken out.
What it says, as any other politics says, is that this is about using people for political gain.
You can blow up one woman or child after another but don't you dare kill one of "us". We are leaders we don't die because when we do other leaders go hysterical in case they are next.
While everyone marvels at the courage of a suicide bomber rather think in these terms :
The people that blow themselves up have been conditioned to die since childhood.
The people that send them to die in the name of religion have been conditioned to govern since childhood. They have no plans to die for any cause other than overeating.
What a crock of shite!!
Posted by: Traps at March 23, 2004 at 03:39 PMJono, true, although I think that argument is somewhat one-sided, given that it is easier for Israel to suspend military actions than for a bunch of separate groups that reject centralised leadership. One nutjob can always derail things.
No kidding! That's what I keep telling them!!
Seriously!
Posted by: Yassir Arafat at March 23, 2004 at 04:15 PMHah Yassir!
But Michael, I'll accept your argument. Its very possible for one nutjob to pull off an attack, and you would hope the victim of the attack wouldn't use it as a pretext for full scale retaliation.
However, unless you work for the ABC, you wouldnt dare imply that all palestinian terrorists were a handful of isolated nutjobs.
They all work together, and Arafat, Iran, Syria backed them all.. at least Saddam isn't around to fire missiles on Israel.
From the offices of the Australian Labor Party:
'Mark Latham, next Prime Minister of Australia, wishes to announce that he has negotiated peace terms with Al Quaeda.
Under the agreement, Australian citizens will only be required to pay a portion of their earnings in Jizya Tax to their nearest Mosque, and to attend an Islamic re-education camp annually. In return, Al Quaeda has agreed to cease plans for a bombing in Australia, though of course there can be no guarantees that one will not occurr, inshallah. It will not be necessary for Australia to disband its armed forces, as these will be useful for supplementing freedom fighters in Islamic struggles around the world. But Australia should now see itself in practical terms as subject to the overlordship of its Islamic neighbours, Indonesia and Malaysia...'
Journalists have applauded the generosity of the Al Quaeda terms and are looking forward to their implementation when the ALP is elected to government. 'Peace in our time!'
Posted by: Latham Wormtongue at March 23, 2004 at 05:40 PMAnd now Mark Latham is promising to pull Aussie troops out of Iraq if he wins the next federal election. What do you expect from a Whitlam Protege who's still living off the myth that Gough pulled the troops out of Vietnam in '72? Never mind that they were almost all gone -- bar a couple hundred. And just like Vietnam, another case of sheer cowardice and abandoning a people to an ever worse fate. I hope you're going to flag this one, Tim, and keep on his case. What cowardice!
She's right about lost ideals.
Israelis and Americans only fight for the sake of self defense. That is SOOOOOOOOO selfish.
If Latham has condemmed the hit and presuming Howard does not then thats it for me and the Labour party. My transformation into a RWDB will be complete.
Posted by: Dead Ed at March 23, 2004 at 06:47 PMHmm, Dead Ed. You've waited a while. The turning point for me was the Keating PMship. A greater exercise in abject cynicism would be hard to find.
After that, the constant refrain of 'we was robbed' during the Beazely years was just icing on the poison cake.
But maybe you're too young to remember.
In fact it was Bob Hawke who got us into the Iraq war thru his 'good friend' Bush senior, in 1991. Talk about 'poodle', Hawkie was the first world leader on the phone to the White House offering troops when it declared war. And now I'm very glad he was, absolutely. But if you want an explanation for us being in Iraq (for 13 years!), you have to start with that phone call.
And if the ALP wants us to believe it has a consistent policy, it has to tell us why it repudiates the Hawke (go Bob!) position.
Otherwise, it's Wormtongue all the way (to surrender?)!
Posted by: populus at March 23, 2004 at 07:37 PMIt would be nice to think that as they closed in to off Saurman the helicopter crew sang the song of the Ents:
"To Isengard with doom we come!"
Posted by: Sue at March 23, 2004 at 09:08 PMI'm assuming Yvonne Ridley is white. Out of curiousity, did she ever call any white guys (atheist, Christian, Jews, whatever) 'brothers'? Is she aware that the "brothers" would hide her under a sheet and beat her just so? Is she aware that she shouldn't be speaking out without the consent of her father/husband/brother/uncle/dog? Is she aware that she shouldn't be driving herself anywhere? Dolt!
Posted by: Helen at March 23, 2004 at 09:40 PMYvonne Ridley??
Who volunteers to help her undergo the complete
transformation.
Now, Yvonne, show us ya clit.
Posted by: fred at March 23, 2004 at 10:19 PM"Hamas were the inventors of modern terrorism and the suicide bomber."
I believe it was the Tamil Tigers that "invented" the suicide bomber.
Posted by: madne0 at March 23, 2004 at 10:22 PMYvonne Ridley:the new Unity Mitford! Only more skanky.
Posted by: Chris Valentine at March 23, 2004 at 11:59 PMmadne0
I think you're getting confused with the Tame Tiger that ate Roy of "Siegfried and Roy".
Dyou remember?
They were busy singing "Hold that tiger.." when Roy discovered there was nobody holding that fucking tiger......before he knew it he had something stuck to his throat...that fucking tiger..
While I'm sure it doesn't qualify, I do understand that Roy will Sue his sidekick and the show bombed.
Just a quick point raised by Tim :
If Lefties are funny then it has all to do with thinking and fuck all to do with humour....Wait!! I may be wrong...try these....
Robert Fisk
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH dear oh fucking dear......
George Monbiot
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no, no more....sniff.....maybe it's the way I tell 'em.
Actually, as is often the case, when Bush himself(not the State Dept., etc.) he made quite a bit of sense and was far from condemning Israel. Also, if you believe Maariv International (linked on my site, don't have here), the Bush Administration may have been in collusion on this or at least had plenty of foreknowledge. I am not positive about this, of course, but as in many cases like this, what we learn first is false (or should I say "false flag"?).
Posted by: Roger L. Simon at March 24, 2004 at 10:06 AMJono said
The only thing that has never been tried is to annihilate a terrorist group.
Wrong, when is the last time you heard of Black September? They were the darling of the left after killing more Jews on German soil at the '72 Munich Olympics, but the evil Jews decided to kill anyone involved with the brave freedom fighters who attacked unarmed athletes.
As a result Black September is no more.
Posted by: Crusader at March 24, 2004 at 10:16 AM