USA against targeted assassinations?

Great Debates
21

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.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

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.

27

By the US’s rationale, yes.

28

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.

29

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.

30

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.

31

That was the point of my entire analogy. The most ironic part, IMO, is that both settlements are made up primarily of sand.

32

actually, no. There are hardly any parallels there.

33

Why do I get the feeling that Kalt thinks that it is Palestinians who are building settlements in Israeli territory?

34
  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

35

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.

36

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?

37

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;"

I had no idea that PM Sharon is a “loser of the war.”

Great. So you disagree with the past Israeli position on the right of return?