May 23, 2006
Israel Captures Hamas Military Leader
Using an army bulldozer to break down the walls of his hideout, the Israelis captured Ibrahim Hamed, the most-wanted Hamas terrorist leader on the West Bank.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
From Haaretz.com:
After an eight-year manhunt, Israeli security forces early Tuesday seized the Ramallah-area commander of Hamas' military wing, Israel's most wanted man in the West Bank.Apparently, Hamed decided to surrender, alone and unarmed, when the walls started collapsing. An Israeli military spokesman stated that the capture will significantly impede Hamas' capabilities since Hamed will be hard to replace. He was known to be a creative bomber who allegedly masterminded attacks resulting in the deaths of scores of people.Sheikh Ibrahim Hamed, 41, has been wanted since 1998 for terror attacks that claimed the lives of 78 of Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Hamed was arrested at a hideout in the al-Balua neighborhood of Ramallah, surrendering to a combined force of Israel Defense Forces Dukefat troops, the Shin Bet security service, and the police anti-terror unit.
From the BBC, check out this astonishing statement.
BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad.Excuse me! I'd suggest that the BBC hire a new correspondent to report from Jerusalem.
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
06:18 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I thought these pali terrorists were ferocious fighters? Hands in the air wearing nothing but underwear and surrendering to Jews - my, my, talk about tarnishing an image. Now why isn't a picture of that being splashed all over the blogsphere? Hey, I'd even pay a couple of bucks to see a picture of that....
Posted by: goesh at May 23, 2006 06:40 AM (1w6Ud)
2
"....it is not clear......" What stupendous ignorance.....
Posted by: n.a. palm at May 23, 2006 07:11 AM (jybaQ)
3
>>>BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad.
Naturally, because since Hamas won the election people like him are no longer "activists" but rather "government officials."
Naturally, because since Hamas won the election people like him are no longer "activists" but rather "government officials."
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 07:14 AM (8e/V4)
4
I like how you can't seem to make any points without being dishonest:
-- snip --
BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad.
Hamas has not carried out any suicide attacks for 15 months and Israeli military operations in the past few months have focused instead on the militant Islamic Jihad group, which has been responsible for most of the recent bombs.
-- snip --
The entire thought, then, makes perfect sense. The military has been focusing on Islamic Jihad because they've been the biggest threat lately, so it's unclear why the military shifted focus back to him all of a sudden. In other words, did they get some new information that he was about to do something, a tip, or did they simply see an opportunity?
It only implies innocence on the part of the terrorist if you don't quote properly.
If you can't make your point without lying, you don't have one.
-- snip --
BBC correspondent Caroline Hawley in Jerusalem says it is not clear why the army moved against Hamad.
Hamas has not carried out any suicide attacks for 15 months and Israeli military operations in the past few months have focused instead on the militant Islamic Jihad group, which has been responsible for most of the recent bombs.
-- snip --
The entire thought, then, makes perfect sense. The military has been focusing on Islamic Jihad because they've been the biggest threat lately, so it's unclear why the military shifted focus back to him all of a sudden. In other words, did they get some new information that he was about to do something, a tip, or did they simply see an opportunity?
It only implies innocence on the part of the terrorist if you don't quote properly.
If you can't make your point without lying, you don't have one.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:37 AM (gOPcw)
5
TxMxP: The statement sounded stupid. Adding that Hamas hasn't claimed responsibility for attacks for 15 months and the Israelis have of late been going after other, more recent, terror groups does not make it sound any smarter.
That would be like saying, Police bulldozed the Zodiac Killer's apartment yesterday and arrested him. It isn't clear why they moved against him. He hasn't committed a murder in years and the police have instead focused on other serial killers since then.
You'll have to do better than that.
That would be like saying, Police bulldozed the Zodiac Killer's apartment yesterday and arrested him. It isn't clear why they moved against him. He hasn't committed a murder in years and the police have instead focused on other serial killers since then.
You'll have to do better than that.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 09:09 AM (nBOAO)
6
TxMxP,
just because Hamas may (or may not) have committed any atrocities LATELY doesn't mean someone (here Sheikh Ibrahim Hamed) who has been on a Most Wanted list simply falls off that most wanted list. So for an MSM to scratch their heads in puzzlement naturally shows they are quite dimwitted or intentionally obtuse about how Israelis view terrorism.
just because Hamas may (or may not) have committed any atrocities LATELY doesn't mean someone (here Sheikh Ibrahim Hamed) who has been on a Most Wanted list simply falls off that most wanted list. So for an MSM to scratch their heads in puzzlement naturally shows they are quite dimwitted or intentionally obtuse about how Israelis view terrorism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:10 AM (8e/V4)
7
p.s., add to that Hamas has not dissavowed terrorism or their intentions to destroy Israel and it makes the BBC reporter sound all that more clueless.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:12 AM (8e/V4)
8
Uh, TexMexP, there is no statute of limitations on murder. Just so you know.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 23, 2006 09:34 AM (rUyw4)
9
All it says when quoted in context is "Some new development must have triggered this shift in focus, but we don't know what that development was".
It doesn't say anything about him not deserving to be arrested.
It doesn't say anything about some bizarre natural amnesty after so many months.
The only way you can rationally read those things into it is when the first sentence is quoted out of context.
What is your problem with that? Why does it bother you that the BBC doesn't know what the catalyst was for the focus shift?
It doesn't say anything about him not deserving to be arrested.
It doesn't say anything about some bizarre natural amnesty after so many months.
The only way you can rationally read those things into it is when the first sentence is quoted out of context.
What is your problem with that? Why does it bother you that the BBC doesn't know what the catalyst was for the focus shift?
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:47 AM (gOPcw)
10
>>>"Some new development must have triggered this shift in focus, but we don't know what that development was".
TxMxP,
because there was no "new development" and there was no "shift in focus". What's so hard for you (and the BBC) to understand about that? Same ol terrorist, same ol Hamas. End of story.
TxMxP,
because there was no "new development" and there was no "shift in focus". What's so hard for you (and the BBC) to understand about that? Same ol terrorist, same ol Hamas. End of story.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 10:08 AM (8e/V4)
11
I don't believe that's the case. Israel could have rolled in and taken him anytime they wanted if he's just been sitting there for fifteen months.
The long period of inaction coupled with the sudden shift of focus strongly implies that some catalyst caused the raid.
Regardless, it's irrelevant. The point was that the single-line quote was out of context and the correspondent was in no way implying that she didn't know why he deserved to be arrested.
The long period of inaction coupled with the sudden shift of focus strongly implies that some catalyst caused the raid.
Regardless, it's irrelevant. The point was that the single-line quote was out of context and the correspondent was in no way implying that she didn't know why he deserved to be arrested.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 10:16 AM (gOPcw)
12
TxMxP: It doesn't bother me. I just think it sounded stupid. They simply finally found him. That fact doesn't imply a "shift in focus". Unless of course, that is indeed what the writer is implying.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 10:19 AM (nBOAO)
13
No, I mean, this is what the entire relevant portion of that article seems to be communicating, to me:
"The military has been focusing on Jihad because they've been doing all the attacks. It's unclear why after 15 months they shifted their focus back to Hamad, but we think there's some sort of catalyst for the event"
The comment that's quoted sort of comes out of nowhere in the article, but that says more to me about poor editing of that particular section than it does anything else. I think it might be a bit clearer what the intent was if they'd placed in the actual quote rather than just saying "she said this".
I don't disgree that the quote is bizarre, but my point was that the blurb clearly misquotes it and creates an image that just isn't there.
"The military has been focusing on Jihad because they've been doing all the attacks. It's unclear why after 15 months they shifted their focus back to Hamad, but we think there's some sort of catalyst for the event"
The comment that's quoted sort of comes out of nowhere in the article, but that says more to me about poor editing of that particular section than it does anything else. I think it might be a bit clearer what the intent was if they'd placed in the actual quote rather than just saying "she said this".
I don't disgree that the quote is bizarre, but my point was that the blurb clearly misquotes it and creates an image that just isn't there.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 10:28 AM (gOPcw)
14
Why do you bother to list a trackback when it results in:
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 16:29:36 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.34 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.4.1 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_ssl/2.8.25 OpenSSL/0.9.7a
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
194
403 Forbidden
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /cgi/mt-tb.cgi/169228
on this server.
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 16:29:36 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.34 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.4.1 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_ssl/2.8.25 OpenSSL/0.9.7a
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
194
403 Forbidden
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /cgi/mt-tb.cgi/169228
on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found
error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.34 Server at www.blog.mu.nu Port 80
0
blog.mu.nu
/cgi/mt-tb.cgi/169228
Posted by: Don Singleton at May 23, 2006 10:30 AM (+Yrlm)
15
Then you admit it's a matter of interpretation. If one is expecting this blog to be dishonest or to not be in line with one's thoughts, one will easily find any number of ways to interpret every post the way they want. We already have a few people here who do that regularly. Mike interpreted it as an "astonishing statement" then after a number of back and forth comments you finally admit that you "don't disgree that the quote is bizarre", but you continue to berate anyone else who thinks so too.
Allow me to try and make myself clearer even though this may seem petty:
The following statement, "...Israeli military operations in the past few months have focused instead..." seems to be saying to me that the author is implying that they can't or aren't multi-tasking and have had no focus on his capture. What I'm saying is that this is assuming too much. If al Qaeda stops attacks for 15 months and we then capture Osama, have we 'changed focus' because other groups have vied for attention? And how would saying that justify a statement made like the stupid one we're arguing about?
Asserting that we should assume what they said really means a particular thing then why can't we assume that Mike didn't mean anything more than it was a stupid statement without qualifying it with other assumptions?
If they had merely said they don't know what led to his capture we could have avoided all this.
Allow me to try and make myself clearer even though this may seem petty:
The following statement, "...Israeli military operations in the past few months have focused instead..." seems to be saying to me that the author is implying that they can't or aren't multi-tasking and have had no focus on his capture. What I'm saying is that this is assuming too much. If al Qaeda stops attacks for 15 months and we then capture Osama, have we 'changed focus' because other groups have vied for attention? And how would saying that justify a statement made like the stupid one we're arguing about?
Asserting that we should assume what they said really means a particular thing then why can't we assume that Mike didn't mean anything more than it was a stupid statement without qualifying it with other assumptions?
If they had merely said they don't know what led to his capture we could have avoided all this.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:06 AM (nBOAO)
16
My problem is strictly that the individual peice of text quoted is out of context. The entire thought forms the message, but only one small piece of it is conveyed here. Whatever you think the motivation may have been for that piece of text being in the BBC article, it creates the impression that the correspondent is saying "I don't know why they chose to arrest this man", when the entire thought doesn't convey that at all.
Regardless of whether you love or hate the BBC piece, the fact is that here it was quoted out of context.
>>If they had merely said they don't know what led to his capture we could have avoided all this.
I agree, but they didn't, so as far as the article goes the only thing that can be honestly concluded is that it's meaning is unclear due to a poor choice of words.
Regardless of whether you love or hate the BBC piece, the fact is that here it was quoted out of context.
>>If they had merely said they don't know what led to his capture we could have avoided all this.
I agree, but they didn't, so as far as the article goes the only thing that can be honestly concluded is that it's meaning is unclear due to a poor choice of words.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:39 AM (gOPcw)
17
"...it creates the impression that the correspondent is saying "I don't know why they chose to arrest this man","
I didn't get that impression. But hey, it seems you did. Whether or not it was intended is another thing. If you keep looking for a snake, you'll find one. I think you're looking for snakes.
I didn't get that impression. But hey, it seems you did. Whether or not it was intended is another thing. If you keep looking for a snake, you'll find one. I think you're looking for snakes.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:52 AM (nBOAO)
18
Interesting thread and Oyster is exactly right. My point was that the statement is bizarre. As for context, there is none. This comment thread attests to several contextual versions of what is possible. So, in reality, the statement wasn't taken out of context because the context was create-your-own. And, even if you disagree with that, the statement is still astonishing in my opinion.
Personally, I tend to think that TxMxP has a hard spot with me specifically, calling me dishonest and a liar. I have no idea where the ad hominem attack came from. I do know that attacking me won't make the BBC statement any less bizarre.
Personally, I tend to think that TxMxP has a hard spot with me specifically, calling me dishonest and a liar. I have no idea where the ad hominem attack came from. I do know that attacking me won't make the BBC statement any less bizarre.
Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2006 04:47 PM (bRGNw)
19
Anyone who hears something different than the texmexicanpee is a liar. This turkey should apply for a job with the Clintons.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 04:49 PM (BEvWK)
20
>>Personally, I tend to think that TxMxP has a hard spot with me specifically, calling me dishonest and a liar.
Note in general, only as far as this goes. Beyond this, I don't know anything about you. It could have been an honest mistake.
The point remains: the context changes when you only quote that one little piece. The entire thought was contained in two paragraphs, and you should have quoted the entire thought, especially considering what you did quote was a summary of a statement, not an actual piece of speech.
Note in general, only as far as this goes. Beyond this, I don't know anything about you. It could have been an honest mistake.
The point remains: the context changes when you only quote that one little piece. The entire thought was contained in two paragraphs, and you should have quoted the entire thought, especially considering what you did quote was a summary of a statement, not an actual piece of speech.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:53 PM (ZNd6p)
21
Why is it the lefturds are so quick to run their mouths when a terrorist gets killed or captured, but are deafeningly silent when one kills a bunch of innocent people?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:46 AM (0yYS2)
43kb generated in CPU 0.0124, elapsed 0.0788 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0716 seconds, 176 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0716 seconds, 176 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
