The numbers apparently came from a Unifil (UN international force in Lebanon) daily report, but all I can find on the Unifil site is press releases which seem to be less detailed.
If you were a student of history you would know that Pearl Harbor was accompanied by the Japanese invasion of soveriegn U.S. territory.
I’ll take the high road and wish you the best. Here’s hoping you don’t choke on me tonight at work when I come poking through the little hole in the wall. I’d hate to cost a man his occupation.
That’s not the issue I was addressing. Your point, which goes to the wisdom of retaliation, is a good one. Just because retaliation is justifiable does not mean that it should automatically be applied.
I agree, I think. The double negative, “non-nonsensical”, is throwing me off.
:smack:
Yes, remove one non.
Uh, just because extra-proportional retaliation might be justifiable does not mean that there are no limits to what is appropriate. You’ve attemped to change my position to be one that beleives that maximum retaliation is always justifiable.
You must realize how ridiculous your mischaracterization is. And how disengenuous it appears.
Then remove my qualification. I agree.
Okay, but then, how do we determine those limits? Your earlier specification of “allowing retaliation to be what is necessary to prevent further aggression” seems dangerously open-ended. How do we decide what is “appropriate”, if proportionality is no longer a useful guide?
It’s almost impossible to answer in the abstract. It depends both on the type of aggression, the degree of it, the incidence of past agression, the likelihood of further such instances, and also, the consequences of the retaliation. Just because it is justified doesn’t mean that it will be viewed that way by the agressor. I was addressing the specific question posed in the OP.
Wow, you’re kidding! We’ll have to do something about that. 
I apologize for the unintended whoosh of your sovereign territory.