Actually, there were attempts on his life by Allied covert ops, but that's beside the point. You're comparing apples and oranges - on the one hand, a formidable military force; on the other, a militarily ineffective band of irregulars, whose bark is much worse than its bite. Just take 'em out, that's all. It doesn't require much strategy.
No, we fought the people of Germany (and the people who sided with him).
I'd like to know of any speech by any American or British leader at the time claiming that we were at war with the German "people". One does not make war on peoples, one makes war on armies - or, in cases when there's no actual army, on armed thugs and their leaders. It's about time Israel recognized such an obvious fact.
"One does not make war on peoples, one makes war on armies"
Correction noted. I guess I was thinking "Germany" itself. We went to war with "Germany" and those countries that supported him.
We also dumped on Japan for killing a lot less people at one time, and those people *were* military people, a legitimate target. They did not deliberately target civilians. How much worse is it that these barbarians targeted civilians in their attack, and continue to do so in smaller numbers everywhere?
In return, we seem to be saying that it is bad to deport or otherwise make uncomfortable families of those who are carrying out or supporting these kinds of actions. Something just isn't right there.
When I said "If we say we won't shoot X kind of people" I was speaking in a hypothetical, though according to traditional rules I should have said "If we were to say" (I think that's a nit that most people interested in actually arguing the point would have overlooked). I am also speaking of going on appearances. If children and teenagers are being used to deliver explosive payloads to other innocents, and will not be deterred, (children may be more easily threatened out of their mission because of their lack of comprehension of the consequences), they become targets, tragic and abhorrent as it is. I personally would shoot to disable, not to kill, in that case. That is extremely difficult on a moving target, and I don't know if I could even bring myself to try, which is why I value men's ability to compartmentalize enough to carry out the hard tasks of this world.
"take 'em out"? Isn't that what they have been trying to do? It's hard enough to take out a crafy wild animal, whose intelligence doesn't compare with a wild human! It would be kind of like trying to pick out a specific wildebeest in the middle of a giant herd, and making your way through the herd to that specific one. You can't just wait for any random one that presents a shot, obviously, you have to hit the right one. When you get close enough, the whole herd will take off. And the one you're after is too smart to come close to the edge or let itself be caught without its living shields that you don't want to harm.