Interesting scenario

[Red Peasant]

Sorry, English isn't my native language.

What does this expression mean?

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.

[Andres]

Bad boy Tribe

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

[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 .

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 ?

[Redleg]

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....

[Tribesman]

Hey Bubba hows the banjo sounding ?

[Redleg]

Hey Bubba hows the banjo sounding ?

Better then your fishing attempting here

[Andres]

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.

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).

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...

[Tribesman]

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 .