Longest-serving Lebanese prisoner in Israel killed in Syria

[lucky11]

How are these guys allowed to operate Facebook accounts?

Why? what's his brother done?

[Morch]

"The Israeli news website Ynet ran a headline Sunday saying: "The account is now closed."

Kantar and four Hezbollah guerrillas were freed in 2008 in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers"

Again, Israel reneging on a deal. If it considers the "account" was still open after agreeing to a deal. Typical arrogance and deceit.

So, to be clear, your whole argument rests on a quoted a headline from an Israeli news website?

I somehow doubt that the terms of his release included eternal immunity regardless of any actions taken. But if you wish to assume this was the case, would him taking up his old trade (terrorism) would not be enough to invalidate any such (imaginary) terms?

[Jingthing]

Exactly.

[Morch]

Israel let him go EIGHT YEARS AGO as they promised. They never said that he would live forever.

Besides, the guy that you are standing up for was a child murdering Islamic terrorist.

The guy was many things, non of them much good. But "Islamic" would be stretching it some. First, he was a Druze, and second, most interviews were his motivation came up, religion was not a major factor. His association with Hezbollah was more a marriage of convenience, rather than religious identification. Same goes for earlier alliances with Palestinian terrorist organizations.

[Morch]

"The Israeli news website Ynet ran a headline Sunday saying: "The account is now closed."

Kantar and four Hezbollah guerrillas were freed in 2008 in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers"

Again, Israel reneging on a deal. If it considers the "account" was still open after agreeing to a deal. Typical arrogance and deceit.

typical left-liberal antisemitism.

if terrorist took hostages, and government promises to give him 10 million dollars in cash and a helicopter - it does not make it's a deal between the terrorist and the government. it does mean that any normal state will (and ought to) wait for any possibility to save hostages and kill the terrorist without regard to any "deal"

I think you'll find that most antisemitism come from the extreme right, you know, neo-nazis and Ku Klux klan et al and thus typical left-liberals are not antisemitic.

Anyway, you're using the baseless and false diversionary tactic of labeling any criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitism. It's not.

If any government frees a prisoner in a deal, that prisoner is freed. If they later assassinate him for the same crime, then they have reneged. If Israel didn't want to free him, they should have kept him locked up. It shows how unscrupulous Israel can be.

It will also make future deals, when Israel wants something, harder to accomplish. Nobody can trust them.

Your point would have been valid if he was released under normal circumstances. But then again, he wasn't released because his sentenced was served, or because he was found innocent, or because of a general amnesty. His released was secured through a questionable trade - doubt that the same rules apply, Israel did not want to free him, it was forced to, in order to return bodies of fallen soldiers.

Apparently, no issues with this guy turning back to terrorism and violence right after his release. That's acceptable.

[TimmyT]

"The Israeli news website Ynet ran a headline Sunday saying: "The account is now closed."

Kantar and four Hezbollah guerrillas were freed in 2008 in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers"

Again, Israel reneging on a deal. If it considers the "account" was still open after agreeing to a deal. Typical arrogance and deceit.

typical left-liberal antisemitism.

if terrorist took hostages, and government promises to give him 10 million dollars in cash and a helicopter - it does not make it's a deal between the terrorist and the government. it does mean that any normal state will (and ought to) wait for any possibility to save hostages and kill the terrorist without regard to any "deal"

I think you'll find that most antisemitism come from the extreme right, you know, neo-nazis and Ku Klux klan et al and thus typical left-liberals are not antisemitic.

Anyway, you're using the baseless and false diversionary tactic of labeling any criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitism. It's not.

If any government frees a prisoner in a deal, that prisoner is freed. If they later assassinate him for the same crime, then they have reneged. If Israel didn't want to free him, they should have kept him locked up. It shows how unscrupulous Israel can be.

It will also make future deals, when Israel wants something, harder to accomplish. Nobody can trust them.

if the state of Israel freed him in order to get bodies of dead Israeli soldiers - ti does not mean that all charges are dropped. do you understand the difference?

now far leftists are most antisemitic. they take a side of terrorists who kill innocent civilians because they are Jews, but condemn Israeli state when it fights back. left liberalism is the best way to camouflage your antisemitism.

Edited December 21, 2015 by TimmyT

[Seastallion]

"The Israeli news website Ynet ran a headline Sunday saying: "The account is now closed."

Kantar and four Hezbollah guerrillas were freed in 2008 in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers"

Again, Israel reneging on a deal. If it considers the "account" was still open after agreeing to a deal. Typical arrogance and deceit.

typical left-liberal antisemitism.

if terrorist took hostages, and government promises to give him 10 million dollars in cash and a helicopter - it does not make it's a deal between the terrorist and the government. it does mean that any normal state will (and ought to) wait for any possibility to save hostages and kill the terrorist without regard to any "deal"

I think you'll find that most antisemitism come from the extreme right, you know, neo-nazis and Ku Klux klan et al and thus typical left-liberals are not antisemitic.

Anyway, you're using the baseless and false diversionary tactic of labeling any criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitism. It's not.

If any government frees a prisoner in a deal, that prisoner is freed. If they later assassinate him for the same crime, then they have reneged. If Israel didn't want to free him, they should have kept him locked up. It shows how unscrupulous Israel can be.

It will also make future deals, when Israel wants something, harder to accomplish. Nobody can trust them.

if the state of Israel freed him in order to get bodies of dead Israeli soldiers - ti does not mean that all charges are dropped. do you understand the difference?

now far leftists are most antisemitic. they take a side of terrorists who kill innocent civilians because they are Jews, but condemn Israeli state when it fights back. left liberalism is the best way to camouflage your antisemitism.

the state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made. Do you understand that?

If that is your definition of an antisemite, I suggest you get a dictionary and correct yourself.

[Chicog]

As the old saying goes, if you want sympathy, it's between s--- and syphilis in the dictionary.

[TimmyT]

the state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made. Do you understand that?

If that is your definition of an antisemite, I suggest you get a dictionary and correct yourself.

no way. his sentence was not reversed or cut short or something. he was freed - but it does not mean that charges were dropped or his jail term was cancelled - do you understand that?

they freed him not because he served his sentence. Israeli state used him (and had the full moral right to do that) to get back two bodies of Israeli soldiers. as soon as bodies arrived - it became state's obligation to find and execute him.

and for sure Israeli government didn't promise him, that retribution will not come.

sometimes government is forced to make a deal with a terrorist. but it only lasts until the moment when it possible to kill the terrorist. as simple as that.

Edited December 21, 2015 by TimmyT

[Seastallion]

"The Israeli news website Ynet ran a headline Sunday saying: "The account is now closed."

Kantar and four Hezbollah guerrillas were freed in 2008 in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers"

Again, Israel reneging on a deal. If it considers the "account" was still open after agreeing to a deal. Typical arrogance and deceit.

typical left-liberal antisemitism.

if terrorist took hostages, and government promises to give him 10 million dollars in cash and a helicopter - it does not make it's a deal between the terrorist and the government. it does mean that any normal state will (and ought to) wait for any possibility to save hostages and kill the terrorist without regard to any "deal"

I think you'll find that most antisemitism come from the extreme right, you know, neo-nazis and Ku Klux klan et al and thus typical left-liberals are not antisemitic.

Anyway, you're using the baseless and false diversionary tactic of labeling any criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitism. It's not.

If any government frees a prisoner in a deal, that prisoner is freed. If they later assassinate him for the same crime, then they have reneged. If Israel didn't want to free him, they should have kept him locked up. It shows how unscrupulous Israel can be.

It will also make future deals, when Israel wants something, harder to accomplish. Nobody can trust them.

Your point would have been valid if he was released under normal circumstances. But then again, he wasn't released because his sentenced was served, or because he was found innocent, or because of a general amnesty. His released was secured through a questionable trade - doubt that the same rules apply, Israel did not want to free him, it was forced to, in order to return bodies of fallen soldiers.

Apparently, no issues with this guy turning back to terrorism and violence right after his release. That's acceptable.

Israel was not forced to release him any more than I am forced to pay Starbucks prices for their swill when there is no other coffee shop around. It's a conscious choice.

The state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made.

[Jingthing]

"The Israeli news website Ynet ran a headline Sunday saying: "The account is now closed."

Kantar and four Hezbollah guerrillas were freed in 2008 in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers"

Again, Israel reneging on a deal. If it considers the "account" was still open after agreeing to a deal. Typical arrogance and deceit.

typical left-liberal antisemitism.

if terrorist took hostages, and government promises to give him 10 million dollars in cash and a helicopter - it does not make it's a deal between the terrorist and the government. it does mean that any normal state will (and ought to) wait for any possibility to save hostages and kill the terrorist without regard to any "deal"

I think you'll find that most antisemitism come from the extreme right, you know, neo-nazis and Ku Klux klan et al and thus typical left-liberals are not antisemitic.

Anyway, you're using the baseless and false diversionary tactic of labeling any criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitism. It's not.

If any government frees a prisoner in a deal, that prisoner is freed. If they later assassinate him for the same crime, then they have reneged. If Israel didn't want to free him, they should have kept him locked up. It shows how unscrupulous Israel can be.

It will also make future deals, when Israel wants something, harder to accomplish. Nobody can trust them.

if the state of Israel freed him in order to get bodies of dead Israeli soldiers - ti does not mean that all charges are dropped. do you understand the difference?

now far leftists are most antisemitic. they take a side of terrorists who kill innocent civilians because they are Jews, but condemn Israeli state when it fights back. left liberalism is the best way to camouflage your antisemitism.

Not sure it's that kind of competition. Judeophobia occurs on the left, right, and even the middle.

[Morch]

Your point would have been valid if he was released under normal circumstances. But then again, he wasn't released because his sentenced was served, or because he was found innocent, or because of a general amnesty. His released was secured through a questionable trade - doubt that the same rules apply, Israel did not want to free him, it was forced to, in order to return bodies of fallen soldiers.

Apparently, no issues with this guy turning back to terrorism and violence right after his release. That's acceptable.

Israel was not forced to release him any more than I am forced to pay Starbucks prices for their swill when there is no other coffee shop around. It's a conscious choice.

The state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made.

The only place where this "reasoning" exists is in your imagination. Unless you can show (as opposed to assert based on your usual bias) that there was any obligation which amounted to immunity - your argument holds no merit. But again, considering that the late Kuntar did not quite resign himself to the life of quiet retirement, wouldn't he be in breach of this imaginary deal?

His release did not amount to a deceleration that his crimes are forgiven, his dues paid or that bygones be bygones. Seems like the feeling was mutual.

[ggt]

"The account is now closed."

The Israelis really know how to close an account...they may close a few more accounts as time goes on...

The Israelis can not afford to equivocate when it comes to dealing with people who spend their entire lives plotting to exterminate their people...

America's strongest friend in the ME region is waiting patiently for an American leader who does not communicate personal hostility...

[Credo]

Seastallion wrote:

Israel was not forced to release him any more than I am forced to pay Starbucks prices for their swill when there is no other coffee shop around. It's a conscious choice.

The state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made.

So if someone or a group take hostages, anywhere in the world, and there is an exchange made, then the hostage takers should get a free pass because it was a deal, right?

[Jingthing]

Seastallion wrote:

Israel was not forced to release him any more than I am forced to pay Starbucks prices for their swill when there is no other coffee shop around. It's a conscious choice.

The state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made.

So if someone or a group take hostages, anywhere in the world, and there is an exchange made, then the hostage takers should get a free pass because it was a deal, right?

Of course not silly Billy!

That's only if it was the world's ONLY Jewish majority nation that made the exchange.

[Thorgal]

I don't think that he was only killed for whatever he was arrested in Israel.

No, he was actually killed in Syria. And apparently he was still active in a leadership role within Hezbollah who's fighting in the Syrian Civil war nearing and conquering the Syrian side of the Golan heights from ISIL and franchises.

The timing of the killing and the place is too suspicious.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Thorgal

[mcfish]

Israel will hunt you down, history shows you cant run..

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

[Steely Dan]

Even his ex-wife stated he deserved to be killed, I guess her knowledge of the man is somewhat greater than that of some of our esteemed members.

[Seastallion]

Seastallion wrote:

Israel was not forced to release him any more than I am forced to pay Starbucks prices for their swill when there is no other coffee shop around. It's a conscious choice.

The state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made.

So if someone or a group take hostages, anywhere in the world, and there is an exchange made, then the hostage takers should get a free pass because it was a deal, right?

No. False logic and bad analogy I'm surprised you got likes.

HE was the "hostage" so to speak, and what has happened is that the ransom (so to speak) was paid, but then the hostage takers reneged and killed the hostage, while pocketing the ransom.

[Morch]

Seastallion wrote:

Israel was not forced to release him any more than I am forced to pay Starbucks prices for their swill when there is no other coffee shop around. It's a conscious choice.

The state freed him for whatever reasons of their own. Bodies, prisoners, hostages, money, politics, it does not matter.He had been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The state then chose to reverse or cut short that sentence, for a consideration, ie a deal was made.

So if someone or a group take hostages, anywhere in the world, and there is an exchange made, then the hostage takers should get a free pass because it was a deal, right?

No. False logic and bad analogy I'm surprised you got likes.

HE was the "hostage" so to speak, and what has happened is that the ransom (so to speak) was paid, but then the hostage takers reneged and killed the hostage, while pocketing the ransom.

He was not a hostage, but a terrorist who by his own claim carried out an attack aimed at kidnapping hostages.

He was caught, judged and imprisoned. He was not held for ransom.

His release came about when Hezbollah used bodies of Israelis soldiers as "hostages", with the guy included in the trade.

Seeing him as a hostage takes some serious twisting of reality.

You keep repeating, without a shred of corroboration, the assertion that he was given a free pass, or that anyone saw his release as implying his crimes were erased and forgiven. Quite a shaky foundation for a dubious argument.

He was not innocent at the time of his imprisonment. He was not innocent at the time of his release. He did not cease involvement in terrorism aimed against Israel. Not a huge surprise he was taken out, and nothing he did not expect, on some level.

[Saradoc1972]

No. False logic and bad analogy I'm surprised you got likes.

HE was the "hostage" so to speak, and what has happened is that the ransom (so to speak) was paid, but then the hostage takers reneged and killed the hostage, while pocketing the ransom.

He was not a hostage, but a terrorist who by his own claim carried out an attack aimed at kidnapping hostages.

He was caught, judged and imprisoned. He was not held for ransom.

His release came about when Hezbollah used bodies of Israelis soldiers as "hostages", with the guy included in the trade.

Seeing him as a hostage takes some serious twisting of reality.

You keep repeating, without a shred of corroboration, the assertion that he was given a free pass, or that anyone saw his release as implying his crimes were erased and forgiven. Quite a shaky foundation for a dubious argument.

He was not innocent at the time of his imprisonment. He was not innocent at the time of his release. He did not cease involvement in terrorism aimed against Israel. Not a huge surprise he was taken out, and nothing he did not expect, on some level.

The way I see it. He was what??? A hostage?? He was a murderer and kidnapper and convicted in due process by the only functioning democracy in the middle-east (considering the circumstances there, I'm not saying Israel is perfect).

He probably had for 3 decades all the chances in prison to turn his life around, Israel used to let convicts study there, was pressed free by a terrorist group not adhering to the Geneva convention for dead soldiers (those were the "hostages"!) and for the last 8 years had re-joined Hezbollah and very very likely was up to no good during that time.

So Israel did not renege on a deal, they meted out new punishment for new deeds. On the highest level of probability at least, if this sunny-boy had just retired to family life they would not have bothered. It's not like Israel hasn't enough on its plate around this time and in general or has a history of tracking and killing ex-prisoners for no new reason at all.