# USA against targeted assassinations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 12, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325 "2003-06-12T14:29:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/21 "2003-06-12T21:59:31Z")
Yes, I see what you’re saying. As long as there are “ants”, there will never be peace. The only solution is to kill them all, because force is the only language that these ignorant backward insects understand. Yes, I understand you perfectly. What I don’t understand is how can you sit there and type those words and not feel an iota of shame or remorse. The protests in the streets after the missile attack were not “terrorist gatherings”, they were a group of civilians who were enraged at what had just happened and where quite justifiably voicing their anger. Who’s to say what they were shouting? I don’t believe for a second that you speak Arabic, so you cannot claim to know either. But even if they were calling for the downfall of Israel, doing so does not make them legitimate targets for indiscriminate slaughter. You obviously don’t think that there is any such thing as an innocent Palestinian, and it is evident from your last post that you don’t even see them as human. Shame on you, **Kalt** , shame on you. If you had even a shred of decency, you would admit that what you have said is abhorrent and wrong and you would apologise. But if you honestly believe that Palestinian civilians are legitimate targets, if you believe that a Palestinian life is worth less than an Israeli life, or an American life, or the life of any other human being, then I’m afraid you are beyond redemption. Think long and hard about this before you respond, because what you say next could be far more important than you realise. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/22 "2003-06-12T22:22:43Z")
The point of my analogy wasn’t that the solution is to kill them all. Ants were here before us and they’ll be here after us. We could never kill every ant on the planet even if we wanted to. The point was to show that both sides are not of moral equivalence in their claims. No, I do not think palestinian lives are worth less than anyone else’s. A life is a life. But I DO think palestinians are the guilty party in this whole mess. This fiasco has been going on for half a century, and I have not heard one israeli say anything to the likes of “we will not stop suicide bombings until every last palestinian is dead.” Come to think of it, I can’t recall the last time an israeli has done a suicide bombing. Yes there has been collateral damage when israel has struck terrorists. That happens. It happened in our war with Iraq. It’s unfortunate, but it does happen. You know whose fault that is, though? It’s the fault of the terrorists. Hamas. If you are a terrorist, the least you can do for “your people” is stay out of crowded streets, especially when you know what the retaliations are going to be like. I am of the opinion that these Hamas guys are using the civilians as human shields. At least bin laden had the decency to not say “I DID IT!!!” These Hamas guys know israel knows exactly where they are (in a crowded civilian area) and they always take credit for their murders. Their fault. Every palestinian life taken in collatateral damage is on their hands. I don’t see any indication on the part of the israelis that they will not live in a world with muslims. They just want to be left alone. The same cannot be said of the converse situation. Yeah I don’t speak Arabic, but I still know what they’re saying. “Death to israel, death to america.” Call it superb intuition on my part. No, saying that alone doesn’t make them terrorists. I said in my last post that I spoke harshly and wrongly when I stated all of the people yelling and screaming at israel/america should be legitimate targets. _… what you say next could be far more important than you realise._ Is that a vague threat of some sort? Are you gonna suicide bomb me if you don’t like my response or something? Feel free to flame me all you want, but I’m not quite sure how to take that last line of yours. ---
**Author:** ![Bibliovore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Bibliovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliovore)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/23 "2003-06-12T23:07:38Z")
No it was not a threat, and no, I’m not going to kill you, or even flame you. What I meant was that your next post would represent a metaphorical turning point, that it would determine what type of a person you decided to be from that moment on. With the words you typed you could choose to either see how despicable your previous statements were and apologise for them, or to continue with your current course and keep on wallowing in your hatred. You had a choice of either pulling back from the brink, or willingly stepping off the edge. I see you’ve made your choice. And while you will be faced with other similar opportunities in the future - other turning points, I can only hope that you’ll be wise enough to see them for what they are and take advantage of them when they occur. But for now, you have made your choice, and I have nothing more to say to you except that I wash my hands of you. ---
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/24 "2003-06-13T03:10:12Z")
With all due respect, **Bibliovore** , I don’t think **Kalt** is being unreasonable. We need to keep in mind that Israel is surrounded by enemies and fighting against foes who are willing to give their lives for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of innocent people. When survival is on the line, actions that would normally be morally abhorrent may be justified. The Israeli government believes that removing the leaders of Hamas will save lives. It does not have the ability to arrest them, so assassination is the only option. Missile attacks that can result in the deaths of innocent bystanders may be the only way within their means to accomplish this. This is a horrible situation, but I don’t think it’s right to condemn the leaders of a nation for doing whatever they believe is necessary to protect their people. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/25 "2003-06-13T03:33:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > \*\*The basic difference, Kalt, is that Saddam was also the Supreme Commander of Iraq’s forces, and hence a valid military target. > > \*\* So, would President Bush have been a legitimate target for an assasination attempt by Saddam During Gulf War II, since he’s the “Commander in Chief?” I’m not trying to be argumentative: I’m genuinely curious, as I don’t know what international law or national ethical rules have to say on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/26 "2003-06-13T03:33:50Z")
Bibliovore, it’s clear that you are one of those ever-so-common as of late people who believe the hallmark of having an “open mind” is to presume all sides and situations are comletely equal in all possible respects. They’re not. JasonFin: thank you, and well-said. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/27 "2003-06-13T08:23:08Z")
> [@](#): > > So, would President Bush have been a legitimate target for an assasination attempt by Saddam During Gulf War II, since he’s the “Commander in Chief?” By the US’s rationale, yes. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/28 "2003-06-13T09:19:02Z")
> [@](#): > > **Sure enough, you get up and notice a huge anthill _settlement_ next to the foot of the tree your hammock is attached to.** Ironic that you should use that word in your metaphor. In fact, your entire analogy could be applied to the equally wrong-headed views of Palestinian terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/29 "2003-06-13T11:00:55Z")
I suppose it boils down to the fact that Hamas never signed up to the Roadmap, and the Israeli government did. The fact that they then go ahead and start bombing people, not killing the guy they were after, but killing 5 others, would definitely put the whole peace process in danger, alright. I don’t think they’ll be able to sort it out amongst themselves, there’re too many emotions involved. Unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/30 "2003-06-13T12:05:30Z")
> [@](#): > > So, would President Bush have been a legitimate target for an assasination attempt by Saddam During Gulf War II, since he’s the “Commander in Chief?” > > I’m not trying to be argumentative: I’m genuinely curious, as I don’t know what international law or national ethical rules have to say on the subject. I believe so. At least, that is my current understanding of military law. Come to think of it, it may be that the government in general is a valid target, but I won’t stake my life on that. Osama is legally now a fugitive from justice in more or less any nation in the world. So legally, we can probably ask somebody, swoop down, and kill him if we have to. certainly, he’s wanted and would be swiftly killed if found in Afganistan, and he may be dead already. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/31 "2003-06-13T13:53:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\*Ironic that you should use that word in your metaphor. In fact, your entire analogy could be applied to the equally wrong-headed views of Palestinian terrorists. \*\* That was the point of my entire analogy. The most ironic part, IMO, is that both settlements are made up primarily of sand. ---
**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/32 "2003-06-13T15:06:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > \*\*Here’s the way I see it… Say you are sleeping on your hammock in your backyard and … OUCH! – a fireant bites your foot. You didn’t do anything to it, the ant just doesn’t like the idea of you “occupying” what it wrongly thinks is its territory. You squish it and kill it. It was a suicide biter. > > Sure enough, you get up and notice a huge anthill settlement next to the foot of the tree your hammock is attached to. You worked really hard setting up that nice, expensive hammock, and then these fireants come and build their pile-of-sand settlement next to your tree. That spot was your chosen spot - the perfect place in your yard for a hammock. > \*\*except that in Palestine-Israeli case, the ants were there first. The comes along you, with the hammock, and starts taking up all the land that used to be the ants’. You don’t even ask the ants would they mind you putting up your hammock there. You just did, and then you’re surprised the ants come over and bite you?\*\*You have two choices. You can take a hose and spray water on the anthill until it’s completely destroyed, or you can put standard Home Depot ant poison on it. [I’m sure there are other options such as dousing it with gasoline and burning it, but these are the two least-violent, most civilized methods of getting rid of an anthill I can think of] **here’s the third choice: put your hammock somewhere else. And the fourth: You can apologize to the ants for taking their land, give back a piece, and make a deal that they stay on their patch and you stay on yours.** > > If you put ant poison on it, the entire colony dies. All those “innocent” ants that didn’t sting you, and their completely innocent larvae, all die. It’s a crime against insect-dom, complete genocide. Totally wrong, and after all, the “vast majority” of fireants have never bitten a single person. Sure, you can make the argument that you only _meant_ to kill the queen ant, as that is how ant poison works (the worker ants carry the bait to the queen, which eats it and dies)… and surely the queen is a valid political target, right? The rest of the ant colony was just collateral damage (yes, even the poor, innocent, helpless, precious larvae). > > Or, if you blast it with the hose, the anthill will usually be destroyed, but for the meantime you’ll have tens of thousands of fireants running around, scattered all over the vicinity of the former anthill. Those ants are not exercising free speech to protest your destruction of their anthill, they’re looking to attack. Not a single one of those fireants woudln’t bite you, given the chance (and that’s without the ants consciously being aware of the fact that it was YOU who sprayed the water). You’ll have to stay out of your hammock for at least a couple of days, as the fireants are “protesting” all over it. > \*\* so you get one ant bite, and decide to destroy the whole hill, or take out the most essential part of their nest: the Queen. Even though _you_ were the one that provoked the bite in the first place?\*\* > > Either way, eventually the ants will come back. Maybe a few days later, maybe a few months later. Using the poison will keep them away longest, but you’ll inevitably have another fire ant settlement next to your hammock-tree, because those ignorant, backwards ants think they are entitled to the land there. It’s YOUR yard. You have legal title to it. You promptly and properly recorded your deed. No matter, the ants just keep coming. > **well, yeah. they were there first. Put yourself in their position. Why would they be the ones that have to move? Why not the hammock guy? After all, he didn’t even ask and just showed up, some day.** > > Is it possible to live peacefully together? You can use your hammock and they can use the land next to the tree, and nobody bothers the other? You don’t destroy their sand-hive and they stay off your hammock and don’t bite you. Wouldn’t that just be wonderful? Everyone could be happy! A seemingly perfectly rational compromise. You’re willing to let them stay there as long as they don’t bite you. You make the offer of this roadmap for peace. \*\* erm, no you didn’t. You were forced into it by your big brother. ANd you’re doing it very reluctantly\*\* > But next time you get on your hammock, guess what happens. Another suicide-biter strikes again. > what’s the bottom line? As long as there are fire ants, you won’t be able to have peace on your hammock. > **it’s not that black and white, but you don’t want to see any of the grey, do you? As far as you’re concerned, there’s only 1 party that carries all the blame.** > > See any parallels here? \*\* actually, no. There are hardly any parallels there. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/33 "2003-06-13T15:37:04Z")
Why do I get the feeling that Kalt thinks that it is Palestinians who are building settlements in Israeli territory? ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/34 "2003-06-13T15:52:47Z")
1. The palestinians may have wandered around there before the establishment of israel, but by no means was a nation called “Palestine” snatched away. It was never “their” land. There was no such thing as a palestinian before Israel was established, and there’s no such thing as one today, either. A “palestinian” is an arab that no other arab country wants, nothing more. Palestine is a region, like the Ozarks. The bottom line is it’s not so much a matter of who pissed there first, it’s a matter of who has legal title. Otherwise we trace ownership of every inch of land back to the neanderthals and it gets ridiculous. Now I know you’re going to say the “occupied territory” is not legal title (because you seem like that type). Taking land in a defensive war (i.e. a war you did not start but a war that you ended up winning) makes it yours. “Occupied territory” is a term the losers of the war use. It’s no more occupied than florida is vis a vis mexico. That policy prevents wars from being started, as aggressors will think twice as they may lose some land. But most importantly, when I put my hammock up, I didn’t oust the ants. There was no reason why they couldn’t stay there. I didn’t destroy their anthill in order to put up my hammock. Not until THEY attacked ME was there a problem. I had no problem sharing MY land with them; they were the ones who decided they would not so much as share the air in my backyard with me. In fact, one of the ants was quoted as saying “we will continue to attack until every last human is dead.” The prospects for peace don’t look too good. 1. I was not the one who provoked the anthill. I sat down on my hammock and didn’t even notice the ants/anthill until I got bitten. Mere presence cannot be a legitimate, recognized form of provocation. It’s bad public/world policy. “I don’t want you here” is not a valid political grievance. We dealt with that here in the 50’s and 60’s. 2. There’s no reason why I should have to move my hammock, as it’s my land, and that place was my “chosen” spot. Those two trees are the only two the proper distance apart to hang a hammock from, and there’s a nice canopy of leaves above it. Any other spot in _my_ yard would be inferior. Don’t forget that the ants turned down my offer to coexist peacefully. I was more than willing to let them stay there and leave them alone and let them live out their lives as they wish, so long as they didn’t attack me. That wasn’t good enough for them. My reasons for making the peace offering are irrelevant, just so long as it’s made with a good faith intention to follow through with the agreement. I wasn’t lying when I said they could stay near the tree if they don’t suicide-bite me. 3. Yes, everything is black and white. The gray is for people who either can’t figure shit out, can’t make up their minds, or are totally clueless. Anyway this has totally gotten off the subject of my OP ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/35 "2003-06-13T16:01:05Z")
Erm, Kalt IN 1946 Palestinian Arabs had legal title to 46% of the land in Mandate Palestine, Jews had purchased 6-8% of the land in mandate Palestine, the rest being owned by the British Government. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/36 "2003-06-14T03:51:04Z")
I don’t get it. How is it that the US and Pakistan manage to arrest high ranking terrorists without bombing a city block and bulldozing houses, while Israel, whose forces if anything are more sophisticated, can’t do the same? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325/37 "2003-06-14T15:10:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > Taking land in a defensive war (i.e. a war you did not start but a war that you ended up winning) makes it yours. I quote from UNSC Resolution 242: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security… 1. [The Security Council] Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" > [@](#): > > “Occupied territory” is a term the losers of the war use. I had no idea that [PM Sharon](http://www.redding.com/news/world/past/20030527world029.shtml) is a “loser of the war.” > [@](#): > > “I don’t want you here” is not a valid political grievance. We dealt with that here in the 50’s and 60’s. Great. So you disagree with the past Israeli position on the [right of return?](http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0103/article/010313c.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-against-targeted-assassinations/181325.md?page=1)