Hamas leader is killed

[opebo]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

[opebo]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

[opebo]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

[opebo]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.

[opebo]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.

I'd say genocide would something a little more radical than a few bombs...but did the genocide between Muslims and Christians solve the conflict then?

Spain suffered greatly from their intolerance, as did France later on. In fact, I think these are great examples of how these measured are bad. The success of the US is largely due to the freedom and generousity you've displayed towards other people.

Yeah, those genocides did 'work' in the sense that they represented success as conquerors for the Islamic forces in the Balkans and Spain, and later success in driving them out in those same areas.  The point is you have to fight and be ruthless to keep out the invasion of an aggressive, dangerous culture.

[opebo]

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.

[opebo]

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.

Yes, there is. Ruthlessness towards foreigners carry over to 'subversive elements' internally. And then it all goes down the drain eventually. Besides, such an outlook requires one to be pretty narrow-minded and nationalist, which is never good for freedom in the long run.

I don't think ruthlessness requires narrow-mindedness or nationalism (at least of the jingoistic variety).  I know individually I'm neither of those things - heck I don't even prefer to live in the US.  Its just that I see international relations as sometimes reaching a 'kill or be killed' level of intensity, and that's when resolve and ruthlessness are required.