Interesting scenario

[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) .
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 .

[Redleg]

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) .

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

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Fragony]

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.

[Andres]

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.

[Red Peasant]

Hmm, a blatant fishing expedition.

[orangat]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[orangat]

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.

[Goofball]

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...



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?

[orangat]

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...

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.

[Goofball]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[orangat]

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'.

[Xiahou]

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?

[Ja'chyra]

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) .
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.