[karajorma]

Uchuujinsan (there's a name for you ) and karajorma collectively posed the somewhat-trappish scenario of a similar situation occurring across the border of the US and Mexico.  I feel at least semi-comfortable in stating that, in the limited scenario of a group of American terrorists conducting attacks on Mexican soil, in a case where either the federal or state governments were taking no discernible action to stop them, I would support the right of the Mexican government to defend their sovereignty and respond to the attackers.  (Hope that emphasis manages to cover my ass. ) If said response happened to cause the deaths of innocent American citizens, would I be outraged?  Undoubtedly, but I would also consider whether or not those actions were a result of an act of over-zealousness or tragically mistaken friendly fire.  There's a pointed difference between having no concern for bystanders and having a targeted attack miss its specific target.

Fair enough. I'll tell Cuba to get right on with the invasion of Texas to arrest this guy then.

[NGTM-1R]

Fair enough. I'll tell Cuba to get right on with the invasion of Texas to arrest this guy then.

I would note that very clearly cites an effort by the government to do something just from the link title itself. Are you also implying he is actively crossing and recrossing the border to engage in terrorist operations against Cuban troops and civilians?

This is a case of clear, immediate threat vs. speculative one. Nice straw man.

[Uchuujinsan]

I'm guessing this isn't what you mean.
You have extremist cells (US forces)  attacking one sovereign country (Pakistan)  from another that's doing nothing to stop them themselves... ( Afghanistan)

Yes, because "uniformed, declared troops" totally equates to "guys with rocket launchers hiding in caves."  C'mon, let's not obfuscate the issue here.  We have a scenario where ground troops are being hindered in their ability to protect both themselves and Afghan citizens by a neighboring government that seems unwilling and/or unable to control the insurgent cells active within its borders.  Nuclear power or not, Pakistan has the responsibility of ensuring that criminals

Uchuujinsan (there's a name for you ) and karajorma collectively posed the somewhat-trappish scenario of a similar situation occurring across the border of the US and Mexico.  I feel at least semi-comfortable in stating that, in the limited scenario of a group of American terrorists conducting attacks on Mexican soil, in a case where either the federal or state governments were taking no discernible action to stop them, I would support the right of the Mexican government to defend their sovereignty and respond to the attackers.  (Hope that emphasis manages to cover my ass. ) If said response happened to cause the deaths of innocent American citizens, would I be outraged?  Undoubtedly, but I would also consider whether or not those actions were a result of an act of over-zealousness or tragically mistaken friendly fire.  There's a pointed difference between having no concern for bystanders and having a targeted attack miss its specific target.

(The case of Pancho Villa has a few similarities to this hypothetical, interestingly enough.)

Well, afaik the homes of terrorists themselves were attacked, at least in one case. So that their families died as well, including women and children, and that is something you can think of before the attack - that possibility was/is seemingly accepted.

So, just for my understanding, you say, if you think that in another country are many persons responsible for the death of your people and if that country seems to do nothing about it, then it ist justified to try to kill those people, even if you risk the lives of innocents and people who are only sympathizers but do nothing?

[Mongoose]

I think that the justification depends on the extent of whatever actions you're planning to take against them, but yes, if that group presents an ongoing threat to my my country, I would say that moving to stop them from posing such a threat is fully justified.

Also, what NGTM-1R said.

[karajorma]

Fair enough. I'll tell Cuba to get right on with the invasion of Texas to arrest this guy then.

I would note that very clearly cites an effort by the government to do something just from the link title itself. Are you also implying he is actively crossing and recrossing the border to engage in terrorist operations against Cuban troops and civilians?

This is a case of clear, immediate threat vs. speculative one. Nice straw man.

So you would have supported the invasion of Texas or Florida in 1998 when the government were doing nothing about this guy and he was planting bombs then?

[Uchuujinsan]

I think that the justification depends on the extent of whatever actions you're planning to take against them, but yes, if that group presents an ongoing threat to my my country, I would say that moving to stop them from posing such a threat is fully justified.

So, if you live in say Afghanistan, have only limited information, people around you are starving, dying due to missing medicaments, you see another country supporting attacks against fellow muslims (Israel?), maybe you know someone who was killed there. The threat of a forceful invasion constantly hanging in the air, so that more killing will happen, either in your country or another country.
Wouldn't you like to root out the Problem? Attack the center of the enemy military (Pentagon), the people who cause your friends to die through economical means (WTC) and their leader (White House) to stop this world wide terrorism?
You know, i think that wouldnt be justified. And, I am quite sure you wont think that its justified. But is the difference between those people, who thought they were attacking evil murderers, and someone, who supports attacking some people who are maybe evil murderers really that great?

The difference between the good guy and the bad guy in a fight is that the good guy keeps to rules, even if it is to his disadvantage. How can we tell others about human rights, if we dont care about themselves? (Guantanamo) How can we tell others, to let us live in peace, if we are attacking their homes, their families? How can we tell others not to violate international law, if we dont care about it?