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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

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.

---

So. The whole situation is Israel's fault?

The PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah were/are simply peace-loving organizations who are willing to trade in their arms for ploughshares as soon as the Zionest scum drop their policy of hegemony?

Honestly...

:dizzy2:

The situation is so complicated and convoluted that anybody who believes it can be simplified as you have just tried to do obviously has no understanding of it.

Yes, the Israelis have often overreacted and not chosen the wisest course. No they are not completely innocent.

But they also have their backs against the wall with no real satisfactory choices available to them.

Look at the situation now.

The fighting and terrorist activity by Muslim extremists has been ratcheted up to its highest level in years, directly on the heels (likely even because of) the Israelis having begun to make conciliatory gestures, such as unilaterally disbanding settlements and giving up captured territory.

What can the Israelis do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

So. The whole situation is Israel's fault?
The PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah were/are simply peace-loving organizations who are willing to trade in their arms for ploughshares as soon as the Zionest scum drop their policy of hegemony?

Honestly...
:dizzy2:
The situation is so complicated and convoluted that anybody who believes it can be simplified as you have just tried to do obviously has no understanding of it.

Yes, the Israelis have often overreacted and not chosen the wisest course. No they are not completely innocent.
But they also have their backs against the wall with no real satisfactory choices available to them.
Look at the situation now.

The fighting and terrorist activity by Muslim extremists has been ratcheted up to its highest level in years, directly on the heels (likely even because of) the Israelis having begun to make conciliatory gestures, such as unilaterally disbanding settlements and giving up captured territory.
What can the Israelis do?

---

Oh what is Israel to do? Israel is under attack!! What is Israel to do? What is Israel to do?

Is the situation so ass backwards that the settlements have become a defensive line against terrorism instead of the cause of the terrorism? Can we really expect Israel to suddenly hand over all its ill-gotten gains when Hamas/PLFP/Hezbollah are disarmed? Pulling out from illegal settlements is not an act of goodwill, its simply the right thing to do. And then when the qassams starts falling again, Israel can finally have the moral duty to act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

Oh what is Israel to do? Israel is under attack!! What is Israel to do? What is Israel to do?

---

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel is has been subjected to continuous terrorist attacks against its civilian population?

Really? I am not being facetious here. I am asking you this seriously. Is that your belief?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

Is the situation so ass backwards that the settlements have become a defensive line against terrorism instead of the cause of the terrorism?

---

No, it's so ass backwards that the settlements are both a catalyst for and a defence against terrorism.

It's a lose/lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

Can we really expect Israel to suddenly hand over all its ill-gotten gains when Hamas/PLFP/Hezbollah are disarmed?

---

I can't answer that. As soon as it looked like Israel might be doing just that, the terrorists and the states that sponsored them caused the situation to be untenable as far as a lasting peace was concerned. Now we'll probably never know.

But let me ask you this: do you think there is any chance that Israel will ever make any unilateral gestures while hundreds of rockets per day rain down on their civilian population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

Pulling out from illegal settlements is not an act of goodwill, its simply the right thing to do.

---

Actually, making any act of goodwill is "doing the right thing." Unless, I guess, it happens to be Israelis doing it. Then it's most likely just another Jewish ploy to kill more Arab babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

But let me ask you this: do you think there is any chance that Israel will ever make any unilateral gestures while hundreds of rockets per day rain down on their civilian population?

Actually, making any act of goodwill is "doing the right thing." Unless, I guess, it happens to be Israelis doing it. Then it's most likely just another Jewish ploy to kill more Arab babies.

---

Actually, we need to be aware that the Kadima proposal (initiated by PM Sharon) for unilateral withdrawal was not a goodwill gesture but an act of arrogance. Essentially, Israel was saying 'we will define the borders' regardless of UN resolutions, international will and most importantly, Palestinian agreement.

Both acts of un-negotiated withdrawal (South Lebanon and Gaza) have come back to haunt Ehud Olmert, so much so that not only is unilateral withdrawal off the agenda now, but he is likely to lose his defence minister, Chief of Staff and probably his own job.

You can't solve the palestinian problem by ignoring it, which is what the unilateral withdrawal was hoping to achieve. There has to be a negotiated settlement for everyone's sakes.

There is however, a huge opportunity growing. Israel for all its faults, is still a vibrant democracy and now the war is quiet, serious questions are being asked by the people. Olmert is almost certainly doomed, and Kadima, being a single issue party will die off. The question is: will Netanyahu and the hawks come back on a promise to 'finish the job' or will Labour grow a backbone and present an alternative to the Israeli people that they haven't had since Rabin was shot - time to negotiate for peace, even if it means talking to terrorists?

The Israeli people have a period of introspection before them - they have seen that the IDF is not all powerful, and that it cannot adequately protect them from terror. Many mothers in Israel are mourning brave soldiers, and Lebanon, their best friend in the region is a hollow ruin. And nothing has been gained.

Maybe, just maybe, they will decide they want to try peace and negotiation over endless war and imposition of unilateral solutions.

I would hope that the US administration, whose unflinching, unquestioning support has tended to convince chicken-hawks like Olmert to make the arrogant mistakes we have just seen, might take the opportunity to advise the new PM (even if its Netanyahu, who is a canny operator, and it might just need a hawk to reassure the people) towards staged negotiation, whilst continuing to guarantee Israel's protection (in the strategic not tactical sense).

And I would further hope that the Palestinian authority would make sure not to spit in the face of such negotiations as Arafat fatally did.

Although I expect we'll be back to tit-for-tat hubris for a good while yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Actually, we need to be aware that the Kadima proposal (initiated by PM Sharon) for unilateral withdrawal was not a goodwill gesture but an act of arrogance. Essentially, Israel was saying 'we will define the borders' regardless of UN resolutions, international will and most importantly, Palestinian agreement.

---

In case anyone has missed the point, the failure of the policy and the continuation of conflict lies not in the withdrawals, but their unilateralism. I doubt if the Israelis or their backers will learn that lesson though, preferring to perpetuate the myth of "Israel alone".

Well, no matter how I answer this, Tribesman has some 'stick up your bottom' retort coming my way, including a call of 'chicken' if I don't answer. So, if I'm going to be damned no matter what I say, I may as well say something I'd be proud to be damned over...

Besides, this topic is in grave danger of being diverted into an oft traveled direction (though Banquo, remind me to answer your charge, in another thread, that even a unilateral withdrawal can be seen as an act of agression, so long as it was Israel... is there ANYTHING they can do right in your book?)

IF Turkey has proof that Kurdish seperatists indeed launched a raid on Turkey, out of Iraq into Turkey, then retreated across the border, then they have the right to go into Iraq after them. If the US, acting as the extra govermental authority maintaing the border in Northern Iraq (and I actually don't think we are) refuses to refute the evidence or turn the suspects over, then Turkey would have the right to come into Iraq, even if it means American casualties. Likewise, if Iran can provide irrefutable evidence and the US refuses to act on it (rebut or cooperate) they would have a right to take action. However, prior to acting, Turkey and Iran would be right to present their evidence to UN Security council, and it would certainly help if they had a UN resolution calling for the disarmament of the PKKK to help justify their actions. Oh wait, those pesky UN resolutions aren't supposed to be enforced, sorry... forgot about that part. :oops:

Your protests to the contrary aside, this is not the perfect analogy to the Israel/Lebanon situation you seem to think it is. As far as I know, the Kurds aren't being armed by the US for these cross border raids, and I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years. What's more, the PKKK and PEJAC's goal is an autonomous state of Kurdistan, comprised of parts of Northern Iraq, Turkey and Iran. As far as I know, the Kurds have not called for the anhiliation of every last Turk and Persian on the planet nor have they declared that the establishment of Kurdistan would be the first step towards their ulitimate goal of imposing their will across the globe. Hamas/Hezbollah have stated both, and no, I'm not going to post my links all over again. You've ignored them three times already, Tribey.

Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Israel...

Just look at the case as written by Tribes. He's just being hypothetical and he asksk our opinions about a possible case, not a "real" one.

You're making it too easy for him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Besides, this topic is in grave danger of being diverted into an oft traveled direction (though Banquo, remind me to answer your charge, in another thread, that even a unilateral withdrawal can be seen as an act of agression, so long as it was Israel... is there ANYTHING they can do right in your book?)

---

You're right, the thread was drifting - apologies, Tribesman.

I look forward to our discussion, Don. I'm not sure how you concluded that I charged that unilateral policy by Israel was an act of agression. I noted it was one of arrogance, ie acting as if they are the only players whose actions matter. I understand the frustrations wherein that policy arose, and their ultimate source in Arafat's rejection of a flawed, but marginally acceptable starting point. Nonetheless, peace needs all the parties to be satisfied.

You seem to believe that I am somehow anti-Israel because I criticise their current actions. I am in fact, very pro-Israel, and because of that I want to see them achieve peace and recognition with their neighbours. I have visited there many times, have friends there, and helped a partner with a business development project in Haifa. When that town is rocketed, I see the faces of people I have worked with.

It is my opinion though, that successive administrations since Rabin was assassinated have made huge mistakes in trying to achieve peace through war. It hasn't worked, and won't work. Time to try something else?

I believe in telling friends when they are wrong. Sue me. :shrug:

Just look at the case as written by Tribes. He's just being hypothetical and he asksk our opinions about a possible case, not a "real" one.

No its a real case from last wednesday and thursday , the main point being is it OK to shell civilian areas because there are terrorists there .
I initially omitted the groups involved and the countries to see if people would make a judgement on the actions alone without their predjudices over factions involved coming into play .

I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years.
But they have Don , the Pejac ones not the PKK ones , they started soon after the revolutionary groups split and the Shia gained the ascendancy , same as the Mujahadeen al khalk have been operating from Iraq in the same time frame .
The PKK cross border activity only really started to any extent with the creation of the terrorists safe havens 15 years ago .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years.
But they have Don , the Pejac ones not the PKK ones , they started soon after the revolutionary groups split and the Shia gained the ascendancy , same as the Mujahadeen al khalk have been operating from Iraq in the same time frame .
The PKK cross border activity only really started to any extent with the creation of the terrorists safe havens 15 years ago .

---

I always know I've done a good job tapdancing on the landmine that is discussing current events with Tribesman when he focuses on a minor detail and not the major tenets of my argument. Whew!!! :sweatdrop:

I always know I've done a good job tapdancing on the landmine that is discussing current events with Tribesman when he focuses on a minor detail and not the major tenets of my argument. Whew!!!
That is because you have put forward a good post Don , one minor historical flaw , plus the failure to tackle the thorny issue of shelling civilian areas .
Thanks for you effort and thoughts on the issue .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I always know I've done a good job tapdancing on the landmine that is discussing current events with Tribesman when he focuses on a minor detail and not the major tenets of my argument. Whew!!!
That is because you have put forward a good post Don , one minor historical flaw , plus the failure to tackle the thorny issue of shelling civilian areas .
Thanks for you effort and thoughts on the issue .:2thumbsup:

---

Counter question, Tribes'.

In your opinion, is it ever acceptable for non-involved individuals to become casualties from an act of violence?

No Seamus , it is never acceptable to kill or maim innocent people .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No Seamus , it is never acceptable to kill or maim innocent people .

---

Extending on this question:

Assuming that the "actor" in question is putting considerable effort into avoiding such casualties among the innocent, does the occurrence of such casualties become less of a wrongful act, or should the actor refrain from any and all acts of violence which might produce such casualties because they are never tolerable under any circumstances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel is has been subjected to continuous terrorist attacks against its civilian population?
Really? I am not being facetious here. I am asking you this seriously. Is that your belief?

No, it's so ass backwards that the settlements are both a catalyst for and a defence against terrorism.
It's a lose/lose.

I can't answer that. As soon as it looked like Israel might be doing just that, the terrorists and the states that sponsored them caused the situation to be untenable as far as a lasting peace was concerned. Now we'll probably never know.

But let me ask you this: do you think there is any chance that Israel will ever make any unilateral gestures while hundreds of rockets per day rain down on their civilian population?

Actually, making any act of goodwill is "doing the right thing." Unless, I guess, it happens to be Israelis doing it. Then it's most likely just another Jewish ploy to kill more Arab babies.

---

If a neighbouring state overran 78% of your country and established over 400,000 illegal settlers in illegal settlements in the remaining 22% while stealing most of the water resources, where does that conquering state get the moral authority to defend itself against its neighbouring country?

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel hasn't always given back as good or almost always better than what it receives?

How has it has become so twisted that pulling out from illegal settlements is treated as a magnanimous gesture instead simply the right thing to do. The establishment of illegal settlements is simply a means to create a foothold for future expansion and to bolster Israeli propaganda that Palestinians are attacking Israeli 'neighbourhoods'.

What would you call considerable effort Seamus given both the power and the often unpredictability of modern weaponry . Not to mention the repeated failures of intelligence over locating targets .

I think you have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, Tribesman. No weapons system is 100% guaranteed to avoid collateral damage. If the rule is 0% collateral damage, a lot of bad men are going to get away with a lot of bad actions, simply by hiding among civilians. Even domestic police forces cannot guarantee no civilian casualties.

The Israelis have done a horrible, woefully inadequate job of target selection. I've said this numerous times, and I do not consider them to be employing reasonable restraint. Their own people don't even seem to think so, and Mr. Olmert has a lot of explaining to do, at home and abroad.

So yes, in response to your 'interesting scenario that in no way mirrors other current event threads', of course Turkey, Iran and Syria would be held accountable if they did not take all rational precautions to limit if not outright avoid civilian casualities.

I think where we all get stuck is what is a rational precaution.... no firing at all if your enemy chooses to hide among civlians? Looks like the enemy automatically wins, no? So, if I want to conquer Mexico, should I just send paramilitary units down there to take over a couple of appartment buildings and fire out of the buildings since I know no action can be taken against me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

If a neighbouring state overran 78% of your country and established over 400,000 illegal settlers in illegal settlements in the remaining 22% while stealing most of the water resources, where does that conquering state get the moral authority to defend itself against its neighbouring country?

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel hasn't always given back as good or almost always better than what it receives?

How has it has become so twisted that pulling out from illegal settlements is treated as a magnanimous gesture instead simply the right thing to do. The establishment of illegal settlements is simply a means to create a foothold for future expansion and to bolster Israeli propaganda that Palestinians are attacking Israeli 'neighbourhoods'.

---

I fear we are diverting Tribesman's thread and taking it in a direction he didn't want it to go, so I'll belay the discussion for now. Meet me in the next Israel/Palestine thread (we usually have one every other day at least, so we won't have to wait long) and I'll be happy to put the gloves on and step in the ring.

:bow:

So, if I want to conquer Mexico, should I just send paramilitary units down there to take over a couple of appartment buildings and fire out of the buildings since I know no action can be taken against me?

Do you recall the Iranian embassy siege in London ? did they take no action , did they bomb the hell out of the neighbournood , did they just blow up the one building , or did they manage to ge rid of the terrorists and release the people by another method .
So was the response rational , proportionate and most importantly effective .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So, if I want to conquer Mexico, should I just send paramilitary units down there to take over a couple of appartment buildings and fire out of the buildings since I know no action can be taken against me?

Do you recall the Iranian embassy siege in London ? did they take no action , did they bomb the hell out of the neighbournood , did they just blow up the one building , or did they manage to ge rid of the terrorists and release the people by another method .
So was the response rational , proportionate and most importantly effective .

---

Aha!!! But if you had asked the SAS commander for a 100% guarantee absolutely no civilians would be harmed before he started, it would still be held by the DRMLA. He couldn't have made that guarantee. Because he took reasonable precautions in planning Operation Nimrod, however, the risk of collateral damage was minimal and in this particular case, none came to pass.

"Rational, proportionate, and most of all effective." -- Tribesy

I concur with 2 of 3.

A response should be rational. With violence, emotion too easily leads to its mis-application. Or, as has been said, revenge is a dish best served cold.

Effective is the sina quae non of the whole thing. I am not yet convinced that the only end result of controlled violence against a terrorist or guerilla organization is improved recruiting and morale for the irregulars ( a theme I get in this forum fairly frequently), but unintended counterproductive consequences are -- or should be -- cautionary. "Effective" should include more than just immediate effects.

Proportionate is my sticking point. Not because I believe that attacks against me and mine justify any and all forms of counter attack -- reducing Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Qum and Kabul to glass on 9/12/01 (as some including my dad suggested) would, for example, have been a bit much.

Nevertheless, too many people view "proportionate" as a synonym for reciprocal. Reciprocal is ...Terror/Guerilla group A kidnaps and kills 2 of my soldiers so my nation identifies a sub-leader and his driver and immolate the pair of them with a Hellfire as they drive to work. Reciprocal is an endless cycle of I can be just as mean as you...Nyah! It solves nothing.

For me, the correct "proportion" is to marshall my intelligence, scope out the threat, and then make concrete steps towards eradicating it. It does not mean wiping out the bystanders or persecuting everyone with moderate amounts of melanin in their skin tone. Some take that stance, and that too is out of "proportion."

Your principle on violence, that no killing of the innocent can be tolerated or accepted and that violence should be withheld if such harm is likely, Tribes', inevitably boils down to:

Violence is only justified in direct personal defense in response to and during a specific instance of aggresssion by another.

While laudable as a principle and in almost full conformity with the dictates of my own church, it is functionally impractical, as Don C. noted above. Such a standard is not even maintained in police work, much less on a formal or informal battlefield.

There is compromise between not taking any action just in case innocent people are killed and acting in a way that doesn't care whether innocent people die. It also might be interesting to have a definition of innocent.

DG, I agree. I said, you have to take all reasonable precautions to prevent collateral damage to innocent civilians. The problems in the world stem from the defintions of the terms reasonable, innocent and civilian.

Right now, as we speak, Saddam Hussein and his generals are defending their gassing of 10s of thousands of Kurds not by denying that they did it, but by saying in light of the dangers they faced from Iranian invaders teamed up with Kurdish insurrectionists (and they agree these rebels were a minority), they essentially had no choice, and that in fact they never actually targeted any civilians.

So, as nobody can prove they actually targeted the civilian Kurdish population, the final outcome will be decided by what the trial court judges decide what were reasonable precautions, who was innocent and who were civilians and what the Baathists should have reasonably decided in light of that.

Similiarly, Israel's recent foray into Lebanon shows what happens when people take the attitude "well, hey, I'm not actually targeting the civilians". Clearly, Israel was acting beyond any reasonable bounds of restraint.

But French (Norman, to be precise) farmers died at Normandy. Heck, French nuns died during Normandy. Does that mean Operation Overlord was immoral? Thousands of innocent German civilians died in Berlin and other German cities in the spring of 1945 (and let's leave Dresden out of this for a moment, because that was a clear case of actually targeting civilians).

At some point, in the face of certain types of evil, inaction is every bit as morally reprehensible as action that allows for the possibility of some innocent civilian casualties. Examples?

Rwanda, Darfur, El Salvador and Nicaragua, Cambodia, Siberia... all the places in the world in histor where we as a global community knew full well evil was happening and we were too cowardly to act. We can console ourselves with the fact that we harmed no innocent civilians by refusing to intervene, but do you think that makes the millions of survivors of these horrors feel any better?

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 ?

---

Hmmm, the the host country to the terrorists is unable or unwilling to do anything about capturing or punishing the terrorists then yes, the offended country is right to attack. However, if they violate the country's borders and kill its civillians then they don't have any grounds to complain if the host country then hands them their ass.

How'd I do?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

At some point, in the face of certain types of evil, inaction is every bit as morally reprehensible as action that allows for the possibility of some innocent civilian casualties. Examples?

Rwanda, Darfur, El Salvador and Nicaragua, Cambodia, Siberia... all the places in the world in histor where we as a global community knew full well evil was happening and we were too cowardly to act. We can console ourselves with the fact that we harmed no innocent civilians by refusing to intervene, but do you think that makes the millions of survivors of these horrors feel any better?

---

This is the central dilemma for those of us who espouse non-violence. I wrestle with this issue many times.

Inaction is not part of non-violent resistance however. Non-violent resisters are not innocents, they seek to place their lives in a place of jeopardy to force combatants or oppressors to think and discover their humanity. But can the inevitable loss of resistance lives at the hands of a truly amoral and evil regime ever overturn that regime?

The belief is of course, that all tyrants die eventually. That people finally tire of war and death. But the time frame is often likely to be longer than a violent confrontation to end evil. In that time, many more innocents may die than would have been the case in war. Or perhaps, the violence of war causes many more deaths, but in a shorter time scale?

My only article of faith in this dilemma is that we try war much too easily and so we have very little empirical evidence to answer these questions. Would that we tried non-violence for a change. I doubt that many more lives would in fact be lost than we have seen in the conflagrations of war. It would need real courage, and by many people who might otherwise be happy to let their armed forces carry the burden. I certainly believe that the Palestinians would have won far more in a non-violent campaign of resistance than they have by violence.

Anyway, I digress from the topic somewhat. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The belief is of course, that all tyrants die eventually. That people finally tire of war and death.

---

As individuals perhaps, as a species I don't think we tire of war at all. Since our first societies piled together more resources than they needed to survive for a few days we have fought one another. I suspect we shall continue to do so until some external enemy (if such exists) forces us to band together to survive their onslaught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As individuals perhaps, as a species I don't think we tire of war at all. Since our first societies piled together more resources than they needed to survive for a few days we have fought one another. I suspect we shall continue to do so until some external enemy (if such exists) forces us to band together to survive their onslaught.

---

You may be right, Seamus. I hope not, and believe not, despite the evidence.

I believe societies are made up of individuals - who can make a difference, and influence others to the same. Europe for example, spent four thousand years fighting amongst itself, but has managed to grow beyond that to a stable peace in most parts - as long as you don't count intellectual wars about banana straightening. It's not a great example, but it shows it can be done (even if we did need a pretty startling catastrophe to bring us to our senses).

We have the capacity to be more than our species' instinctual programming. I don't have to kill anyone today, and neither does anyone else.

Wars recently in last 100 years in Europe:

Two world wars
Spanish Civil War
Russian Civil War
Two Balkan Wars
Recent Yugoslavia Civil War
Russo-polish war
Russo-finnish war

Yeah, really quiet...

~:smoking:

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 ?


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 .

---

Based on this example and not on current goings on.

If I ruled either country whose soldiers had been killed I would first make a formal diplomatic complaint to the country sheltering, either voluntarily or not, the terrorists. If it happened again I would use any measures I saw necessary to protect my citizens up to and including shelling, air strikes and invasion but preferably assisting the country to solve their own problems.

If I ruled the country with the terrorists it is far more complicated, I would only permit it if I supported their cause and methods or was trying to instigate a war with the target country. Of course it may be that the country isn't able to do anything about the terrorists in which case I would negotiate with a trusted ally for assistance, maybe not a neighbouring country but rather one you could trust to leave once the problem was sorted.