Replies

" 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." I would argue that 9-11 wasn't militarily ineffective. Granted they aren't organized enough to sustain a campaign of this kind of thing. In addition they are camouflaged by looking exactly like the innocents we don't want to harm. I feel like the civilized people of the world have their hands tied by these people, and it's da** frustrating.

"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.

Again, I have to say you're comparing apples and oranges by comparing our terrorism problems to Israel's. We can deport people who we feel are risks to our security (though we haven't availed ourselves of that option yet) because those people are not citizens, and are not entitled to be here, and in fact, many of them don't even have families here, or own land, or have any attachment of any kind to this place. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are inhabitants of the areas under Israeli control, and so, aside from any genuine moral issues that would result from trying to remove them, Israel would be causing a lot of trouble for itself by going that route, for little benefit.

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.

I would agree that these families don't seem to deserve much respect, as I indicated earlier, but it comes back to that "slippery slope" argument that I brought up earlier. Why is terrorism, as opposed to other forms of belligerency, particularly evil? It's because it targets people who are not involved in the fighting, specifically to avoid the consequences of targeting people who are involved in the fighting. Israel is starting down that path. Note that I'm not equating Israel's proposals with the actions of genuine terrorists, but it's clear they're looking down the wrong road, when there's another option available to them.

"take 'em out"? Isn't that what they have been trying to do?

If they wanted Arafat dead, he'd be dead. Ditto for any of the leaders of Hamas, IJLP, PFLP, and whoever would be foolish enough to succeed them. But Israel lacks the political commitment to go through with it.

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.

I fear you might be exaggerating just a little. But I'm sure it's true that in order to do its job completely and effectively, Israel would have to take actions that would probably result in civilian deaths and injuries. That's not the same thing, though, as deliberately going after civilians.