Originally posted by Top Gun
Mc Veigh was tried and found guilty. Even though the evidence is overwhealming evidence for his guilt.
Maybe not but every time there is an attack on Israel, the army goes into Palestinian occupied territory, imposing curfews on the entire population, shooting at anyone who doesn't comply with the martial law and causing damage. The Palestinian authority is now powerless to do anything about terrorism because its efficiency has been eroded. Yet Sharon still blames them every time there is an attack which is used as a justification for further incursions. Not to mention his antics in Beirut, where he was found responsible for thousands of innocent people being killed by Christian Militia. Israel consistently isists that Arafat sould back down because of his record (which may be true) but for things to truely advance Sharon should definately accomany him.
Guess what? Mister Shehadeh was supposed to have been in jail, but Arafat had had him freed. Somehow I doubt he would have been targeted had he still been
in jail! 
And the PA, do something about terrorisim?? Besides support and encourage, you mean?
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Sandwich, you're asking why should Israel be held to stricter standards than the rest of the world. It shouldn't. I just don't think such heavy-handed actions are going to get things anywhere. (Like Venom said, why not a sniper or SWAT team? Or perhaps, as I suggested, a lighter ordnance, that wouldn't have blown up all the nearby houses?)
In the end, civilian casualties are inevitable. I'd just prefer to see as few as possible.
I agree - the one-ton bomb was way out of proportion. That's not the gripe that I have with this situation. My gripe is that when we accidentally - through bad intel or sheer stupidity, I don't know - kill 17 (I think that's what the death toll is up to...
) civillians, we get jumped on. But there wasn't much jumping-on occurring during the American operation in Afghanistan or any of those other places where hundreds of civillians were killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
To put it simply: Civillian casualties, no matter on whose side, are bad. But so is having double standards.
Originally posted by Lonestar
Ok so your saying that attacking a Economic target is a stupid military move? I hope that if i run a whole battalion of troops and your the enemy leader, you attack me first. no doubt you will go after my military before my economy.
Why do you think the US bombs before sending ground troops? To destroy the command centers and ensure they are unable to rebuild. Therefore, if they can attack a target that provides them with money to buy the tanks, the US will bomb this economical target.
You always go for the throat in war, hitting the cash cow is the virtual throat. you can destroy tanks and jets, but what good is that if they can buy more or buy the parts to build more. money is the center of power. You my friend are ridiculous to think economy has nothing to do with war, and to think it is not a viable wartime target. Why do you think they divided Germany's resources after the war? So they cant become a threat due to their economical power.
Osama's attack on WTC was not only to firghten and Kill, it was to "cripple the american economy" in order to stop the US from stepping in on Middle eastern conflicts and back isreal in their "injustice" on the palestinian people. He did it for military reasons, since he declared war on the US before, maybe the US should have taken his words more seriously. His attack on this target was military reasoning, to believe he did it to just kill innocents is ignorant. The man may be insane, but he is not stupid. Im sure his next attack will be the pentagon, whitehouse or possibly a Nuclear power plant, but since that is expected maybe he will go after someone else who aids the US. We will see, he will return. If not him his followers. Its far from over, and its my opinion we do something to stop it now before another WTC MIlitary tragedy happens again.
Dude, the WTC towers were never the backbone of the American economy - most economies have no one specific backbone that can be pointed at with a finger. What they
were was a tall-standing
symbol of the American economic might, and
that's what Bin-Laden was striking against - the symbol. You said it yourself: he "...may be insane, but he's not stupid..." Now tell me that Bin-Laden could have honestly thought that striking the WTC towers would cause the American economy to collapse.
And my reference was not about whether hitting an economic symbol or center was wise strategy in a war. It was that the target was a civillian target, plain and simple. And
that my friend, is the definition of terrorisim.
Originally posted by Pera
Ok, so what Israel is saying, is basically: "Everyone else has killed civilians, why shouldn't we?". That logic is simply amazing.
I've never really liked taking sides in debates like this, but sometimes it can be really hard. What I really would like to know, is that how exactly do you think killing terrorist leaders affects terrorism? You have to understand, that in this case, the reason for terrorism is Israels oppression on palestinians, and I simply can't see how would killing more of them help the matter? In a situation like this, new leaders will rise, always.
The only ones who can stop this crisis, are the Israeli, no doubt about that.
No, that's
not what we're saying. We are saying "We apologize for the innocent blood shed there, but why was there not an equal uproar about innocent blood shed in Croatia, Afghanistan, etc etc?"
And killing terrorist leaders is sort of like chopping off the head of a snake - y'know? Without a head, the rest usually tends to die.
Poll
