Interesting scenario

Say for example a terrorist group does a cross border raid and kills 8 soldiers , is the country whose soldiers they were right to start shelling the terrorists positions even if they are in civilian areas ?
To complicate things slightly the terrorists also do another raid on a different country and kill 15 police , is that country also right to start shelling , and furthermore to cross the border to fight the terrorists ?
Now for the fun , is it the country whose territory the terrorists are based in fault for not controling all of its territory and disarming the terrorists or is it the fault of other forces in the territory who went in to get rid of terrorism and stop threats to the neighbours but havn't ?


So take your positions on who is right or wrong .
Or guess which countries they are (if you want to be biased depending on who is involved) . :2thumbsup:
I would provide a link to this "made up" scenario (and may do in a while ) , but I am interested in seeing if people justify or condemn actions that they have recently justified or condemned involving other countries .

Quote:

---

So take your positions on who is right or wrong .
Or guess which countries they are (if you want to be biased depending on who is involved) . :2thumbsup:

---

Just remember that Tribes will attempt to sharpshoot any answer you give. :dizzy2:

Just remember that Tribes will attempt to sharpshoot any answer you give.
To damn right I will .
I am interested in seeing if people justify or condemn actions that they have recently justified or condemned involving other countries .
I am interested in seeing how hypocritical some people are when the shoe is on the other foot .
But no takers , surely someone out there will support the retaliation , or is it only justified if it is certain countries doing it .

Hmmmm, terrorists aren't part of the country's government so with invading you would be violating it's borders. But if the said country isn't capable of getting the terrorists in check (or just refuses to do so) it would be stupid to do nothing.

Difficult one.

I agree with frag: terrorists are not = country.

Can you invade the country where the terrorists have their HQ? I feel the country on which territory they have their HQ has to deal with them.

If that country isn't ABLE to do it, well maybe then you can look at it this way: the terrorists have taken control over a certain piece of land of a certain existing country.

If I got it right (international law isn't exactly my specialisation), a certain territory that is controlled independently by any form of government (e.g. a group of terrorists) during a continuous period of time, can be called "a country" in terms of international law (e.g. to a group of rebels revolt against their government, they gain a piece of land, the original government isn't able to do something about it, rebels become independent, after a period of time you have 2 countries).

So, if you would consider the terrorists territory a country because they fulfill the conditions described above, then you didn't got attacked by a group of terrorists but by a separate country. Then you can start a war against the aggressor, I guess. The country to whom that particularly territory originally belonged, can join the initially attacked country to reclaim its territory.

On the other hand, if the government of the country on which territory the terrorists have their HQ doesn't WANT to deal with them, you could say they are accomplices and then they have at least a shared responsability for the harm done on the citizens who live in the territory controlled by the terrorists.

Just my humble opinion. Fiction off course. Not related to any of the "real" conflicts of the moment.

Hmm, a blatant fishing expedition. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Hmm, a blatant fishing expedition. :no:

---

Sorry, English isn't my native language. :embarassed:

What does this expression mean?

:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

Sorry, English isn't my native language. :embarassed:

What does this expression mean?

:help:

---

In this case Tribe is fishing for an argument.

He wants to prove what hypocrites we are. Not only that, but he is witholding his ace piece of evidence which he will produce at some stage, like Perry Mason, to prove how wrong and wicked we all really are. Might be fun, if the mods allow it. ~;)

Bad boy Tribe :no:

:2thumbsup:

In terms of right and wrong, countries have a right to self-defence, so if the country where the terrorists seek refuge does not act, then the country which was attacked is entitled to take proportionate action. If they shell civillians, then it is unlikely that the action is proportionate; this action would be wrong. The country where the terrorists hide should prevent them from behaving so, but this is easier said than done.

However, just because something is morally acceptable, it is not necessarily sensible. Any action against a neigbour can be spun to seem like unreasonable aggression. Terrorists thrive on a feeling of injustice and impotence. Actions which increase this are self-defeating. A more sensible approach would be based on diplomacy, espionge and ecconomic measures.

Some interesting responses , thank you .
A distinct absence of those that were supporting the shelling of civilian areas recently , but no surprise there really .

So on to some details .
One of the countries doing the shelling is a member of the "axis of evil" , the other is a member of NATO .
So is the enemy state wrong to do it , is the allied state right to do it or are both right/wrong ?
As for the country itself that is getting shelled , its government does contain terrorists , quite a lot of them in fact , of many different flavours . Is that county doing enough to get rid of the terrorists or are the terrorists within the government doing nothing if their aims are those being persued ?
Now then , since there are other forces in the territory whose supposed reason for being there in the first place was to get rid of terrorists and stop threats to neighbouring states are they doing enough to ..... errrrrr....accomplish their mission ?~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Some interesting responses , thank you .
A distinct absence of those that were supporting the shelling of civilian areas recently , but no surprise there really .

---

Maybe you should try a bigger net....:laugh4:

Hey Bubba hows the banjo sounding ?:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hey Bubba hows the banjo sounding ?:juggle2:

---

Better then your fishing attempting here:oops: :laugh4: :juggle2:

1) It would also depend if going in would create more instability in the country and hence long term create more terrorists.

2) If the countries leadership are using the terrorists as puppets to further their own aims then it would be a different scenario.

I think Iraq and Lebanon are from item number 1. Iran might be proxing terrorist but they are being used from another nation, also it is hard to pin the blame on them. After all selling munitions is hardly the same as pulling the trigger. I would however make it a capital offence to sell WMD to NGO's be they Hezbollah or the Red Cross or Reuters or FOX or anyone else who is not a stable government.

Pape , I think in this case it fits both 1&2 as there are so many groups and governments involved on the ground , and even more in the background .
That's what makes it an interesting scenario , and as Andres said a Difficult one.



Better then your fishing attempting here
Silly boy Red , your comprehension is lacking , you have made a silly assumption .
It is going very well as it happens .
Your problem is that you do not address the post , only the poster .

For clarity's sake, the scenario is about Kurdish seperationists, Turkey and Iran. The description of the situation though is not entirely precise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Better then your fishing attempting here
Silly boy Red , your comprehension is lacking , you have made a silly assumption .
It is going very well as it happens .
Your problem is that you do not address the post , only the poster .

---

Ah me, you protest too much old dear, my observation, which I consider correct, wised everybody up. You should thank me. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Better then your fishing attempting here
Silly boy Red , your comprehension is lacking , you have made a silly assumption .
It is going very well as it happens .

---

I see your still fishing.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Your problem is that you do not address the post , only the poster .

---

Maybe you should pay close attention to your words here tribes you might just learn something for a change.

L'Impresario , what part of the description do you consider to be imprecise ?

Ah me, you protest too much old dear
Nope not you , it was addressed to the poster named .
You were however partially correct , it is a fishing expedition , but I do not expact a bite from those who cannot think about the situation .
That's what makes it an interesting scenario , it is different from last months events when many people took their position purely on Israel good or Israel bad .
And so far there have been some good responses , quality over quantity .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

L'Impresario , what part of the description do you consider to be imprecise ?

---

Well, by using the expression "cross-border raid" for example, one can be led to believe that PKK is based in northern Iraq, while it has independant operational ability in Turkey since ages and other areas as well (with Syria featuring in a few loud incidents). Additionally its actions there cannot be described as lone acts, there's a history of guerrilla warfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

L'Impresario , what part of the description do you consider to be imprecise ?

Ah me, you protest too much old dear
Nope not you , it was addressed to the poster named .
You were however partially correct , it is a fishing expedition , but I do not expact a bite from those who cannot think about the situation .
That's what makes it an interesting scenario , it is different from last months events when many people took their position purely on Israel good or Israel bad .
And so far there have been some good responses , quality over quantity .:2thumbsup:

---

Too many 'Reds' around here, eh?! :laugh4:

Being an Evertonian I should be a 'Royal Blue'.

Well, by using the expression "cross-border raid" for example, one can be led to believe that PKK is based in northern Iraq, while it has independant operational ability in Turkey since ages and other areas as well (with Syria featuring in a few loud incidents). Additionally its actions there cannot be described as lone acts, there's a history of guerrilla warfare.
The PKK are operating out of Northern Iraq ,Turkey says the actions that killed the 15 policemen was launched from Iraq . Likewise their allied group PEJAC is operating out of Northern Iraq , Iran says the Pejac raid that killed the 8 soldiers last week was launched from Iraq . So tha tmakes it cross border , the retaliatory strikes were also cross border .
Now to complicate things further , you mention Syria , would Syria be right to shell Turkey , Iraq or Israel because of the actions of Kurdish groups ?
Though to clarify the last bit since the focus is on shelling civilian areas where terrorists are , Israel is out of the scope as it only supports some of the groups it does not have them based on its territory .
Unless of course you want to widen it to "is it right to bomb countries that support terrorists ?".
But that would get really complicated.~;)

I hate the middle east.

Lets just al agree we should turn the entire place into a glass crater. Plus Iran and Turkey.

Perhaps you should refrain from posting here when intoxicated :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Say for example a terrorist group does a cross border raid and kills 8 soldiers , is the country whose soldiers they were right to start shelling the terrorists positions even if they are in civilian areas ?
To complicate things slightly the terrorists also do another raid on a different country and kill 15 police , is that country also right to start shelling , and furthermore to cross the border to fight the terrorists ?
Now for the fun , is it the country whose territory the terrorists are based in fault for not controling all of its territory and disarming the terrorists or is it the fault of other forces in the territory who went in to get rid of terrorism and stop threats to the neighbours but havn't ?
.............

---

Not alot of information there. And even if there was, there really is no right answer. I would say no, since civilians are being intentionally targetted.
I suppose its weighing the moral cost of taking civilian casualties vs possibly taking hits from the terrorists again in the future.

To put your scenario into the Israeli context, Israel has no moral standing to react to terrorist attacks, since it is the expansionist aggressor with thousands Palestinian/Lebanese political prisoners, most of its used water is stolen from the Arabs and has hundreds of thousands of settlers in hundreds of illegal settlements in the remaining 22% of Palestinian land with designs of taking over that very last bit.

If Mexicans had bulldozed farms and uprooted a million olive trees in Texas (assuming that they grow there) and established hundreds armed settlements there with pillboxes and bunkers and taken over water resources for their own argricultural needs, I doubt a single American would argue about the justness of retaliating with snipers, mortars, rockets and suicide bombers.

there really is no right answer.
Exactly .
To put your scenario into the Israeli context
I was aiming to keep the Israeli context out of it since that was the problem in the other topic , some people said it was right or wrong because they were forming their views on the countries not on the actions .
Though you could apply the context in relation to when the PLO was in Lebanon , or Tunisia , or the recent attacks on the refugee camps where the PFLP-GC are based .

Ok then ignore the countries names but examine the root cause of the conflict to find out if the bombed country is ostensibly 'defending' itself when it is the colonialist aggressor in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So on to some details .
One of the countries doing the shelling is a member of the "axis of evil" , the other is a member of NATO .

---

That doesn't matter I think. You should approach the questions as a judge. Religion, situation, allegiance of the nations involved is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As for the country itself that is getting shelled , its government does contain terrorists , quite a lot of them in fact , of many different flavours . Is that county doing enough to get rid of the terrorists or are the terrorists within the government doing nothing if their aims are those being persued ?

---

Well, I think a terrorist organisation will pick a country that hasn't strong leadership or has some sympathies for their organisation. Terrorists in the government? How can you judge that? Maybe it's better to say that a weak government got infiltrated with terrorists. Should the international community aid the weak govermnent? But how? I personally don't believe in bombarding the country or other methods of "classic" warfare againts terrorists. In my humble opinion, you should use the same methods as used against international crime (for example: cut off their financial resources, send trained agents/assassins after their leaders).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now then , since there are other forces in the territory whose supposed reason for being there in the first place was to get rid of terrorists and stop threats to neighbouring states are they doing enough to ..... errrrrr....accomplish their mission ?~;)

---

Difficult one. You mean forces of the country where the terrorists have their HQ? How to judge this? How can you proove if those forces are there "just for show" of "for real"? I mean, are they send to actually do something about the problem or are they there to make the international community believe they are doing something. It would be useful if the United Nations or another international organisations would have secret agents on the field to judge that. On the other hand, this would be difficult, because those agents and the interpretation of their rapports should not be influenced by any other country.

Or did you mean forces of another country? Then I refer to my post above to judge if they had the right to invade their neighbours to fight the terrorists.

Well, as I said in my first post here: complex and difficult situations you are describing here. There are no simple answers, maybe even no answers at all. But then again, if it were simple, it wouldn't be an interesting scenario anymore...

That doesn't matter I think.
Thats the point , if something is wrong then it is wrong , it cannot become right just because someone likes the people who are doing it .