Al-Aqsa Brigades leader shot dead

Israeli soldiers have shot dead a Palestinian resistance leader in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin.
Amjad al-Saadi, 28, a leader of Palestinian President Yasir Arafat's Fatah armed faction, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, was killed on Tuesday, our correspondent said.
...
The latest death brings the overall toll since the start of the intifada in September 2000 to 3631, including 2711 Palestinians and 854 Israelis, according to an AFP count.
...
The Israeli army has also searched the houses of relatives of Zakaria al-Zubaidi, a leader of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, our correspondent said.
-------
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1F543F1A-32B8-4062-A956-44AD2CB7F6F3.htm
------
This article reflects the stupididy of using Al-Jazeera as a source. "Palestinian resistance leader" -- he's a terrorist! How can they not realize this!

1. Al-Jazeera is THE source for I/P news;

and

2. You know, the Israelis did not have to shoot him. That's just barbaric.

Isn't this obvious?

Do a search on LEHI.

They have a view different from yours?! The vile fiends! The nerve of those stupid vile scoundrels! :eyes:

Yes, people who have a different view from I are "vile" -- if by "different views" you mean holding the beliefs that...

- you have the sole right to Israel;

- you can take any actions you want, even if they are terroristic in nature;

- the goals of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are true, right, and upstanding.

You know as well as anyone here that the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is a charity group.

An intellectual group which meets regularly to discuss various aspects of modern life under the PA. Matches the spaces for 27 down in the corssword puzzle.

I grew up in Lexington, Massachusetts, the birthplace of American Liberty, and I think I can recognize when indigenous peoples are using justified force to evict an occupying power. You can go on and on with the terrorist/militant wheeze for as long as you like, but you are just convincing NO ONE. The terrorism label is a bogeyman that becomes less and less effective the more often it's used. It's simply a way of saying - you don't play by the rules, so I won't think about the underlying grievance. Meanwhile, according to Ha'Aretz, civilians are killed in Rafah nearly every day, yet because the IDF wears uniforms, they're not terrorists and you couldn't care less.

Unfortunately for you (but fortunately for the rest of us) mankind is moving on. We're not satisfied with labels that conceal the actual facts. We want to move past labels and see if there's something that can be done to remedy the situation, whether it's the Geneva plan, the binational state, or something else completely. Why don't you also try to come up with something constructive, rather than criticizing AlJazeera because its choice of words dissatisfies you ?

...but growing up in Lexington centuries after the American revolution doesn't really make you an expert on resistance movements. It is, perhaps, the most bizarre declaration of authority I have ever witnessed.

<on edit>Everything else you say is completely right, in my opinion</edit>

Wow! Growing up in Lexington! That officially qualifies you as the authoritative source on Israeli-Palestinian issue! Everyone should defer to you for advice on liberty, democracy, and freedom!
---------------------
By the way, members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are terrorists. I note you did not even deny this and say that they are not - you simply refuse to respond to my statement, just saying, "Oh, the IDF are terrorists," and "terrorism label is a bogeyman."

What is a "terrorist", in your view?

Terrorist (n.) -- one that engages in in an act or acts of terrorism.
Terrorism (n.) -- The unlawful or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group aganist people or property with the intention of intimidation or coercion toward a socity or government, often for political, religious, and/or ideological reasons.
Terrorist organization (n.) -- An organization that engages in or supports terrorism.
-----------
See post #33
-----------
(Edited for minor errors in grammar)

It is important to remain consistent with that definition.

thanks.

So how does membership in a terrorist organization make one a terrorist if one did not engage in an act of terrorism?

Membership IS support

Membership in a terrorist organization makes you a terrorist. Membership in the Klan makes you a racist, cross-burning bastard. Same thing.

Either you understand the human urge to be free or you don't. Maybe whatever little hick town you grow up in DIDN'T contribute in any way to our freedom and independence, so you don't understand. I had the advantage of seeing the spot where brave individuals gave their lives for the sake of liberty every day, and therefore I don't have much patience with those who belittle such endeavors through tedious semantic games.

Just curious - what is it about John Locke that you admire so fervently ? Perhaps it would help me to understand your point of view if you could point me at some writing of his that you especially admire. Thanks !

This article reflects the stupididy of using Al-Jazeera as a source. "Palestinian resistance leader" -- he's a terrorist! How can they not realize this!

Even if your statement is correct, how does an extra-judicial assassination help resolve the conflict? Furthermore, resistance to occupation does not inevitably mean that one is a terrorist. I am unfamiliar with this man's past, however, a verdict is better approached via trial and jury rather than the arbitrary targeting and killing of suspected "terrorists."

Actually, the verdict passed on this guy will work pretty well. He won't kill or arrange to have killed any Israeli ever again.

As for al Jazeera, it is the Faux News of the Arab world.

fits that description of Faux just well...

:kick:

I do not see that it is appropriate to assassinate anyone on the hunch that they might kill. That is a recipe for disaster and chaos. This person should have been arrested on probable cause and given a trial before a jury. The verdict is inconsequential to your argument. The verdict has been carried out in an undemocratic fashion. Granted the person is a member of a foreign military body, however, assassinating him without evidence does not solve the conflict as a whole. It, in fact, feeds the anger of the Palestinians to react, which I would assume is the motive of the IDF.

Trials would expose just how many of their "ticking bomb terrorists" are nothing but political opponents.

Some are deemed so dangerous that Israel can't risk them getting away.

And no, they are not members of a foreign military body, they are terrorists.

is a terrorist in your mind Muddle?

if every armed terrorist was actually in your mind, you'd have a much more explosive personality - heh heh heh.

:nuke:

...not to mention the overcrowding...oy!

then they are disenfranchised members of an apartheid state.

You can't have it both ways.

Many would be suicide bombers or shooters are captured. Many members of the various terror bands are captured. Few are sufficiently dangerous that they are targeted.

what was the significance of this

foreign military body

What is the difference there?

Target militaries as their main objective. Terror groups -- like Hamas for instance -- target civilians as their main objective. In the Palestinian terror infrastructure, there is a great deal of the latter.

fits that bill?

Even the majority of them?

through violent means that you do not consider a terrorist? Is there in your view, any armed resistance to the occupation that is not terrorism? Is violence only justified by Israel? Should both sides renounce violence, or only one?

Had the Palestinian terror groups been doing this throughout the Intifada, they would have been much more politically successful.

Can you cite an example of a Palestinian who is resisting Israel through violent means that you do not consider a terrorist?

Is there in your view, any armed resistance to the occupation that is not terrorism? You do seem to have answered this, however, clearly according to your definition: " Attacking only military targets is armed resistance but not terror" both sides are guilty of terrorism.

Is violence only justified by Israel?

Should both sides renounce violence, or only one?

1) No. There are probably some, but if I knew the name of a Palestinian who was planning on killing Israeli soldiers, I'd pass it along to the Israeli Embassy.

2) Yes, in theory. In practice, none that I have seen. There appear to be elements of terror or HUGE elements of terror in each of the Palestinian terror network groups.

3) If the Palestinians terror groups wished to truly be a resistance movement and only targeted the military, then they could claim that is justified.

4) How can Israel renounce violence in the face of terror? And, if you followed the other thread, not just the face of terror, but a guarantee of terror NO MATTER WHAT ISRAEL DOES.

Can you cite an example of a Palestinian who is resisting Israel through violent means that you do not consider a terrorist?
1) No. There are probably some, but if I knew the name of a Palestinian who was planning on killing Israeli soldiers, I'd pass it along to the Israeli Embassy.

Is there in your view, any armed resistance to the occupation that is not terrorism? You do seem to have answered this, however, clearly according to your definition: " Attacking only military targets is armed resistance but not terror" both sides are guilty of terrorism.
2) Yes, in theory. In practice, none that I have seen. There appear to be elements of terror or HUGE elements of terror in each of the Palestinian terror network groups.

Is violence only justified by Israel?
3) If the Palestinians terror groups wished to truly be a resistance movement and only targeted the military, then they could claim that is justified.

Should both sides renounce violence, or only one?
4) How can Israel renounce violence in the face of terror? And, if you followed the other thread, not just the face of terror, but a guarantee of terror NO MATTER WHAT ISRAEL DOES.

The real crux of the issue are the last two questions. You seem to truly believe that anything Israel does is justified because it is a response to 'terror'. However, it could just as easily be argued that anything the Palestinians do is justified as a response to 'terror'. Using the evils committed by one side to justify the evils committed by the other side is the essence of the problem.

This was largely peaceful and when it was armed it was directed at the military. What did the Palestinians get? They received more exproporiation of their land. Anyway you cut it, muddleoftheroad, both sides are in conflict here. Simply saying that one side abides by the rules and the other doesn't, doesn't make it true.

Do you expect Israeli military personnel to ignore attacks? Or do you expect them to fight back. I never said attacking only military people was peaceful, it's just better than terror.

Clearly, the Palestinians need a few books on Gandhi.

And for that I can't help you. I would suggest re-reading the post and get a better understanding.

of Ghandi and MLK. They have been "terrorized", harrassed, and at times killed by the IDF. So what in your eyes constitutes terrorism? Is your definition universal and absolute, MuddleoftheRoad? How are we to know that this particular indiviual is a "terrorist" if he's dead? These are very convenient methods and ploys to further an oppressive occupation. If I was an occupyer, I would easily label everyone in the resistance a terrorist and therefore I would have my justification. This is extremely irresponsible on the part of the Israeli government.

So by your own logic, they are not terrorists. They are a foreign military body. Correct?

I would suspect that you would come back that Al Aqsa targets civilians too. I would further counter that the IDF has had a disregard for Palestinian civilians casualties by bombing crowded population centers. We could dance this tango for years on end. I asked a question, however, how does that solve the conflict as a whole? It makes no sense that if your government is looking for peace, that they would assassinate a member of the Al Aqsa Brigade rather than arrest him and try him. There have been numerous occassions where both sides provoke the other in order to avoid peace. I happen to think this is one of those situations. This is irresponsible government policy on the part of Israel.

One can attck military targets and civilian targets and be a terrorist. They are not mutually exclusive. Understand?

Ah yes, the militaries only hit other military targets. Except, Hiroshima, Dresdon, The Blitz, Nagasaki, Berlin...
Wonder if those were supposed to TERRORIZE the enemy into submission. As for "Main Objective" Armies main objective is to win at all cost.
Only difference between "Military Bodies" and Terrorist groups is "Terrorists" fight in Asynchronus combat and aren't centralized.
What about the Iraqi raids(Or Israeli for that matter) on houses that turn up nothing and scare the inhabitants.

So, whats the difference. Terrorists are resourceful soldiers, a;; be it not law abiding ones.

Side note:I hear a story (On NPR) that said that many times the army in Iraq gets street adresses that don't exsist so they just search house numbers similar to the assigned one. Often ,mostly turning up onthing.

The term "terrorist" is coined in whatever fashion you deem necessary, however, resisting occupation doesn't make one a terrorist. The fact that the IDF shot this man without trial and jury doesn't automatically make him a terrorist either. At this point, he's a dead suspect. How convenient.

Until the Palestinians set aside the pattern of terror, then Israel must defend its citizens and err on the side of caution.

He is not a suspect, but at least he is dead.

That's a recipe to kill anyone and deem them a terrorist. So you view Israeli policy as "terror" free. How convenient.

Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/alaqsa.html
-----------
excerpt:
-------------
...The brigades have claimed responsibility for some of the conflict’s most significant attacks, including:

A pair of January 2003 suicide bombings in downtown Tel Aviv that killed 23 people and injured about 100 more, in one of the bloodiest attacks of the current Palestinian uprising;

A November 2002 shooting spree at a kibbutz in northern Israel that killed five Israelis, including two children, and wounded seven more;

A March 2002 suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed three Israelis, prompting Israel to call off ceasefire talks with Arafat’s Palestinian Authority;

Another March 2002 suicide bombing in a Jerusalem café that killed 11 Israelis and wounded more than 50;

A March 2002 sniper attack on an Israeli army checkpoint in the West Bank in which the gunman methodically killed 10Israelis, including seven Israeli soldiers, before escaping;

A January 2002 suicide attack in Jerusalem by a female terrorist that killed an elderly man and wounded about 40 other people....

The Palsetinians would usually try to escape, and often shoot at the soldiers who try to arrest them. The whole Jenin operation in 2002 was with the purpose of arresting terrorists and members of terroirst groups.

Here is the report in Haaretz on Saadi's death:

Also Tuesday, IDF soldiers killed an armed
member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a
militant group linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah
movement, as he tried to flee in the West Bank
city of Jenin, the army said.

The militant, Amjad Saadi, was involved in the
past in shooting attacks. The army said he was
shot after being warned to stop in accordance
with military procedures, though the army
admitted he was unarmed.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/367546.html

The admittance that he was unarmed is a testimony to honesty.

However, they are informative and offer a different perspectve then most US news sources.

...to be leading such a group. His parents should have grounded him!

I think the term "leader" is applied somewhat liberally to terrorist organizations; either the terrorists are padding their resumes or the IDF is exagerrating their accomplishments.

This sort of thing is a young man's game, though, being rather a strenuous pursuit. "A leader", too, is somewhat different from "the leader", as well. A first lieutenant is a leader.

:kick: