who russ is ready to declare a military target
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
How is Abbas's defense minister a legitimate target? Is Israel at war with the Palestinian Authority (that is the name of the Palestinian Gov.'t, right?)? Isn't there some kind of international accord against assassinating leaders?
That was a hypothetical example - probably a bad choice. I'm not suggesting they SHOULD kill the defense minister, but the defense minister IS a part of the military command structure as is a large majority of *ANY* government. Our efforts in Baghdad were focused largely on government command structure. And yes, I think PA is what it is currently called. Also, no, there isn't an international treaty on assasinating heads of state, but there IS an executive (presidential) order (it only covers heads of state). However, since a presidential order is written by any president about anything, it is essentially meaningless to a new president. Bush isn't bound by it and doesn't even have to recind it if he doesn't want to.
hamas is not the terrorist org. QASSAM is the "terrorist" org and they are a part of hammas and that makes a big difference
Hamaas claims responsibility for terrorist acts. If it is meant as a political organization, they shouldn't taking part in these attacks.
israel did that not abaas...
Abaas has made a number of public statements renouncing terrorism and has made efforts to bring the terrorists to the negotiating table. He risks his life for peace and that makes him an honorable man.
before what happened hammas was going to seise fire and there were no any innocencts killing but when israel knew that she tried to make hammas continue terrorism by what it
Before WHAT happened? I think you are confused about the chronology of events these past two weeks. Hamaas REFUSED to enter cease fire talks and refused to stop their terrorism. Then as a joint act, Hamaas and two other terrorist organizations conducted an attack. Both of these were done while Israel was releasing prisoners and dismantling settlements and Abaas was helping set up peace talks. The joint terrorist act was done by the terrorists specifically to sabbotage efforts at peace by both sides.
AFTER Hamaas conducted their attack, Israel retaliated by attacking the a Hamaas leader responsible. Though justified, it was not politically a smart thing to do.
thats not hammas goal it is all palestinians goal they want their land back and that is them right..
I'm glad you admit that. So you would agree with Hamaas that negotiation is pointless and that the only acceptable solution is forceably driving the Israelis from Israel? Guess what: its not going to happen. So you'd be better off negotiating a compromise. The blood of all killed in this conflict is on the hands of those who refuse to compromise: YOU.
I wouldn't be surprised if elements in the Israeli government who oppose this roadmap -- and there are many -- were behind this ill-timed and ill-fated assassination attempt. Just as the radicals in Hamas et al will do their best to hinder it...
damgo, it sounds like the Israeli attack came from Sharon himself. A bad decision - unless of course he is tyring to sabbotage his own peace talks, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? After the end of the Cold War, is more like it. But given that those wars were all US invasions of small countries, I think it's "bending over backwards" to prevent civilian casualties is damn well America's responsibility, not something we should get extra points for.
It is certainly the responsibility of America as well as EVERY country to minimize civilian casualties. But the US has gone far beyond that responsibility in putting its own soldiers at risk to protect civilians. And currently only westernized nations are even making an effort. Saddam made a serious effort to MAXIMIZE his own civilian casualties in the war we just fought. You must also understand that TECHNOLOGY plays an important role in what determines what reasonable action to avoid civilian casualties consists of. In Iraq this spring, EVERY bomb dropped on Baghdad was guided. That was simply not an option in Vietnam.
Also, your examples are bad ones: Korea and Vietnam were just like Kuait - the US coming to the defense of a country that was invaded by a greedy neighbor. Cambodia and Laos were part of Vietnam, but they are really a different issue from civilian casualties.
I did want to point out that using America as a comparision might not be helpful to your argument as the civilian casuality during American conflicts hovers around 70% in the last century.
Kat, I realize that, but timeframe is important and comparisons to others are important. During WWII EVERYONE attacked civilians (no, that does not make it right). Today, only SOME countries or groups specifically target civilians.
number 1 being that Hama's is part of the Palestinian government, to the tune of 33% I believe
That may be true, but when they claim responsibility for a terrorist act and the focus of their efforts is terrorism, that makes them a terrorist organization.
One point to think about: In America, you can be convicted of murder if you cause the death of another while showing 'depraved indifference'...
I would certainly agree with that Zero, and as I pointed out, the US takes POSITIVE steps to avoid civilian casualties.
). I'm not going to get into that now, as I am in the midst of a deadline but..I did want to point out that using America as a comparision might not be helpful to your argument as the civilian casuality during American conflicts hovers around 70% in the last century.